The Myth of One-Size-Fits-All Education

This is Busted Pencils, Fully Letted Education Talk.

Here are your hosts, Dr. Tim Slecker and Dr. Johnny Lupinacci, Educator's Talking

Education.

Welcome Monday night, Busted Pencils, Fully Letted Education Talk, Educator's Talking

Education.

The number 85575248428557524842 is the number, Johnny Lupinacci, my friend.

How are you doing, buddy?

Doing good.

It's Monday.

You know, it's a great week.

We're starting off.

And so we've got awesome topics all week and amazing guests and you know what, Tim, like

why we say amazing.

Yeah, amazing.

Let's do it.

We'll always say that.

We've got to put out there.

Again, civic media app.

Just in case people are saying, you know, you got to download the civic media app because

with that, even if you're in Finland, which we know people in Finland actually are using

the app to listen to Busted Pencils, that's what's so great about downloading the app.

The other thing wanted to point out there too.

People are following us, you know, following on Twitter.

We have a Busted Pencils blog spot out and you know, put it out there right now.

Hey, if you're listening and you're going, man, I wish I could say something on the

radio.

Hey, volunteer, let us know because if it's about public education and you've got something

important to say, Busted Pencils wants to hear from you.

So let us know, Johnny, so we're out there actively recruiting.

And then the other thing I want to put out there, I am looking for one of our first listeners

to host a Busted Pencils listening party right there, Johnny Busted Pencils listening party.

Little teas are there, not exactly sure where we're going to go with that, but again,

plant the seeds and put it out there.

Our guests tonight though, man, we've been trying for the longest time and Paul had a tough

time when we were only on Tuesdays, now that we're on Wednesday, Tuesday, when we're

on Tuesday.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Five days a week.

Five days a week, which is better for our guests like Paul who said, I can now finally

do the show.

Welcome.

Paul Thomas, how are you?

Our friend.

Wonderful.

Thank you for having me.

Sorry.

It'd be difficult.

No, it's not.

It's not.

It's actually, it was us.

You know, it was only Tuesday nights.

It's, you know, six p.m. central time.

And guests could either make it or not.

And so we are just happy to have you Paul.

Paul Thomas, he is.

Oh, the blogger at a.

Paul, give, give me your blog again.

It's not as radical scholarship.com.

Yeah.

That's it.

Right.

For some reason, the radical had stopped in my head radical scholarship.com.

Check it out.

Paul is out there.

He is one of the most prolific scholar bloggers.

I, I could see out there.

And again, just really roots everything he puts down in there.

So, Paul, get a great piece out there.

The science of, and I just want to read from it.

It's not a little bit further, but quote,

spurred in early 2018 with the rise of the science of reading.

The science of movement appears to be in full swing with the addition of the science of learning,

the science of writing, the science of math.

Mostly following frantic claims of crisis based on test scores usually nape data.

Paul, what is all this science of crap going on out there?

Everything is the science of, I think that's your point here, right?

Right.

It was kind of weird.

I was shocked when the science of reading took off.

But here lately, it's just, it's kind of gone ballistic.

And the science of learning, I think, is the weird one.

It's really all over kind of social media.

And it's just become the shorthand.

I think we're just, it's just branding and marketing.

I think for most of us, most people, this is just another cycle of common core.

When common core came out, everything was common core, right?

I mean, we've labeled everything all the textbooks,

everything was common core, the standards were common core,

the textbooks were common core, the testing was common core.

So I think science of is just our newest round of education branding.

So it's, it's a marketing ploy you put out there, you just say, you know,

concerned about that, but what about people though, Paul,

it's just giving you a one moment here to go, people come, but, but,

but the science of reading, let's hit this one because I know this one is,

it's close to you.

But Paul, the science of reading is different this time.

We have really figured it out.

And we are really now pushing forward all of the evidence that is out there

that says, if you're going to teach reading,

this is what you have to do.

The science, Paul, it's the science.

How could you argue with science?

Are you saying climate change?

Are you a climate change denier, Paul Thomas?

Yeah, that's good enough.

I think that's really the lever.

I think that's really, and people have done that repeatedly.

What's really interesting to me is Lou LeBrant, 1947.

There's a considerable gap between research and practice.

1960s, Jean Chal.

And I think that's where you can really find the roots of the science,

science of reading movement is Jean Chal 1960s.

And, you know, I've been teaching since the early 1980s.

And I have never seen a program or anything in education that didn't claim

to be evidence-based, research-based, science-based.

So, this is not anything new.

And the most frustrating thing is,

no child left behind mandated, scientifically-based,

everything had to be scientifically-based.

Anything that you adopted, anything that you did.

So, over 20 years ago, we established that everything had to be scientific.

So, this isn't new, and nothing is settled, especially on reading.

That's the most misleading thing.

Because even the cognitive scientists themselves have admitted

that, you know, brain research has not found anything that can guide practice.

And even cognitive scientists don't agree with each other.

Some people aren't so sure all this brain imaging really proves anything.

So, again, it's kind of a simplistic, journalistic view.

And then the marketing is what grabbed it.

I mean, if we can get all these programs banned,

then schools have to buy new programs.

And if you look up the chain, what's really interesting is the same people own the companies,

the same people own the companies of the banned programs,

as the new mandated ones.

So, they're thrilled.

It's, you know, it's commercial churn.

And so, a lot of this is just bait and switch.

Johnny, but this is what I was going to ask Paul,

you know, like you brought such light to this.

And, you know, you just alluded to it.

But I was going to say so, like, where, like, what's the thing?

Like, where is this getting purported?

Like, how do we get from like, oh, there's the science of this to it being like,

hey, here's, this is banned and here's the new thing.

Like, where is this mostly occurring?

What's this information, you know, going awry?

Well, I mean, it really started with, you know, Emily Hanford

and American public media, she had a couple articles of,

a lot of people ignore, she had a dyslexia article in 2017.

And then the big one was hard words in 2018.

But I'm really been fascinated how her podcast has permeated the entire country.

People find sold a story very compelling.

There's a lot of dramatic music.

There's a lot of personal stories, which are very compelling.

And many scholars, people, you know, publishing in reading research quarterly and stuff,

have pointed out that it's this bait and switch.

You say science, and then you give an anecdote.

You say science, and you give an anecdote.

And the anecdotes are compelling.

So I think that's the, that's the, that's the dynamic media and marketing working together.

When you, when you say though, let's put that pull that out though,

because there is something to you, you say there's media, there's marketing,

because using that science of that's trying to communicate to,

as Johnny always went out to the show, to my neighbor, who's over there listening,

going like, that's good stuff then, because it's science,

or what they're also trying to say, it's proven to work, right?

It starts sounding like this, it's proven.

It's research fact, it's science.

We guarantee this. And if you're not doing science,

and as you said, Paul, like with the science of reading,

the soul, the story, they've also really created a very compelling narrative

of a boogie man out there that needs to be slain,

because now that we have finally seen the light of science,

we can go out and kill the bad reading, the bad reading teacher monster.

Right. And I think, and I was just thinking,

a real good comparison here is,

there's the American Medical Association version of science,

and there's the supplement version of science.

And as we know, the supplement version of science is completely fraud.

And I don't want to get too academic, but there's a good piece by Edling

from 2015, and it's international.

Talking about how once you say science,

you've created this veneer that if you contest it,

you just said a minute ago, so you're against science.

So it's really a very powerful, and what's interesting to me is,

if you look like several governors have picked that up,

where they say, you know, we've adopted the science of reading,

you know, phonics.

And it's, so it, I mean, those three things work together,

media, marketing, and politics.

You know, Howard Gardner did great work on this,

for political messaging, black and white language works.

And the bad thing is, most things aren't black and white,

but the science, non-science binary is very powerful,

which is weird because during COVID that didn't work.

Right.

Yeah, Johnny, go ahead.

Well, no, I think this is really great,

because you know, it's getting into, we often talk on this show about

democracy is messing, getting into the weeds and the complexities

of it's not just an either or, you know, like there,

if we talk a lot about, we're so pro-public education,

that doesn't mean that there aren't things about public education

that we think ought to change.

So like getting into the weeds around this,

I love Paul, where you've taken us, and if our listeners, too,

that there are some complexities to the sciences, right?

And so we're not just creating the science or not science.

Right.

If you think about medicine, I use this example all the time.

If you read the fine print, that medicine you're taking,

some people die, right?

And some people it doesn't work for.

So science means that most people under very narrow circumstances

will have, so X people will have Y outcome under these circumstances.

But there's two outliers.

There's people for whom the thing is dangerous,

and there are people for whom the thing will not work at all.

I am weirdly allergic to Tylenol.

And the first time I took it, I nearly died.

But they still sell Tylenol, right?

Like they know that.

They know there's a percentage of people.

So in the classroom, you do not have a general population.

So anything that is proven by science,

does it mean it's going to work for all your students?

And it actually may be harmful for some of your students.

The way you just put that, too,

it may not work for all.

I think that's where we really want to dig into that,

because yeah, using these kind of blanket,

we need to do this, we must do this,

and if we don't do anything,

we're going to be in trouble because this is the solution

to our problem.

Boy, Paul Thomas, check it out.

You know, radical scholarship is his blog.

We're talking about the science of movement.

It's busted pencils.

It's fully letted education talk.

The number two, if you want to jump in,

it's 855-7524-842.

855-7524-842.

More with Paul Thomas, let me get back.

I hope you took on everything.

We will not witness this anymore.

Ah, welcome back.

Busted pencils fully letted education talk.

Educated educators talking education.

855-7524-842 is the number,

the science of, yeah, our guest Paul Thomas,

radical scholarship, check out his blog.

So all of this confusion around science of the,

you left us at the point where we're talking about,

you know, however, even recognize that when science says

that for a lot of people this will work,

science also tells you that for certain people,

things don't work, and in fact, not only don't work,

sometimes might be incredibly harmful.

And so pointing that out is,

how do we help people understand that what you're pointing out,

so is that you're not making an argument

to not use research to drive policy practice in teaching.

Help us make sense of that argument.

Right, when I did, I'm going to plug myself here.

When I did a policy brief for any PC in 2022,

we decided that the key thing was,

our kind of focal point was arguing against one size fits all.

And I think that's the huge mistake we've made

is I don't think there's anybody out there

saying that the only thing that you have to do

to teach reading Hispanics, right?

That's a, that's a straw man.

Nobody thinks that exists.

There's also nobody saying don't teach any phonics.

But the science of reading movement is saying

systematic phonics for all students.

And that's completely wrong.

There are children who come to school who don't need systematic phonics.

Also, you know, Stephen Crashin, who is wonderful.

He's one of the smartest people on literacy in the world,

not just the country.

He argues that we learn a great nilophonics by reading.

So I think that's where the rub comes is a teacher.

Again, we don't want to get too, you know,

too specific about teaching here,

but there's a lot of different kinds of evidence when you teach.

I happen to argue the very first and most important are your students.

So you start with the evidence of your students.

Every teacher should know what the research says.

Of course.

But then you're applying the research based on the needs of your students.

And I think this is really where the harm is.

We are seeing students harmed.

And I hear the science of reading people.

This doesn't hurt anybody.

You know, it doesn't hurt anybody.

Well, I disagree.

If any student is doing something in class that they don't need.

And could be doing something different.

You're hurting them.

And that's, I mean, that's the simple version.

Well, you think I've tried that, you know,

and again, I'm not a literacy person.

So I get yelled at by literacy people, you know, being just a weird,

a weird social studies guy.

But it's just like, but my,

okay, my anecdotal evidence that I'm going to use is that my kids,

my daughter,

who got dibbled to the point that she almost started to hate reads.

And the reason why Paul is because her,

her speed of pronouncing nonsense words wasn't fast enough.

And I kept going, but she doesn't know,

need to know nonsense words.

She's already reading.

And why are you yelling at her for her speed?

Her fluency.

They were using the word her fluency of nonsense words to him.

It's a real frightening statistic you should be really made aware of.

And I said,

but she's reading prior to have before she found out that she had a

problem reading nonsense words quickly.

She was reading.

Right.

So I think the key word there is nonsense, right?

Having, having students pronounce nonsense words to prove that they know

a phonics rule is putting the wrong thing is your goal.

Our goal is not that kids acquire phonics rules.

Our goal is that kids become eager and independent readers.

Right.

And we have evidence.

Yellen has a piece,

Y-E-L-L-L-A-N-D in the Teachers College record that students who are already

reading at comprehension have varied low nonsense words, test scores.

The cause they slow down to make meaning.

And the slowing down to make meaning means they score worse.

So these nonsense tests like like doubles, there's many of them now,

is really harmful.

And it's really misrepresenting.

It's very easy to raise beginning reader scores, own things like

nonsense, a word test,

but it doesn't prove anything.

That's not our goal is comprehension.

And if we're not actually measuring comprehension,

we shouldn't even be able to say that it's reading.

But you put that there and this moves into this.

And because, though, of quote, some of the science of the banning,

you talk about this poem, the science of, you know.

So what ends up happening is a movement of banning.

And that is where you say, hold on a minute.

Let's talk about what banning might imply, might mean.

Or again, the, the effects, talk about what it means when,

what happens when Paul Thomas hears somebody say, we need to ban.

Well, this is where the cherry picking and the ideology,

but comes into it.

So you've got states banning three queuing,

which is we won't talk about that.

It's very misleading.

But at the same time, they're mandating or allowing decodable text,

OG phonics, letters training, and guess what?

None of those have scientific support.

So if states are banning based on no science,

and then mandating things that are not supported by science,

that's the proof.

This is purely ideological.

This is purely marketing.

And I think the big one, the most offensive one is the OG training.

There's no research.

There's two fairly recent studies out that say that,

that Orton Gillingham methods, which is called multi-sensory approaches,

are no more effective than other approaches.

I mean, there's multiple studies out.

There's meta-analyses out.

But OG phonics is very popular with the dyslexia community,

and it's very aggressive.

It's also extremely expensive.

And that's the program that's been adopted by New York City.

So, for example, New York City is banning units of study

by Lucy Calkins, but implementing OG phonics programs.

I mean, technically, you could say both are not supported by science,

which I think is silly.

They are both perfectly legitimate.

I have no problems with them being implemented.

I'm sure there are people being successful with units of study.

I am certain people are being successful with OG phonics.

The problem is picking and choosing what you ban,

picking and choosing what you mandate,

and pretending you're using an objective scientific measure

to make that decision.

That's Johnny.

And it totally, we got a text in from an unnamed texture.

It said, as a child, I hated phonics.

It made no sense and was frustrating.

Right?

So, for that learner out there, probably totally true.

It was like not, it was, well, science backed it.

It was not good science for, for he, her, they, them,

whoever it was who texted that, you know,

and that kind of reiterates Paul's experience with Tylenol.

For a whole lot of generalized population Tylenol,

I'm sure Tylenol does what it needs to do.

But there's alternatives that for those folks who,

for whom Tylenol is deadly, that they have some pain relief.

Right?

So, I love what you're saying here, Paul.

It's like, we don't have a one-size-fits-all,

even when there's evidence that it can work with some folks.

Right?

I got to do a Dick and Jane readers.

I've never had phonics.

I literally had Dick and Jane, right?

It's whole word.

Yeah.

And Paul, we got into this in the show last couple of weeks.

You know, we've been tearing up the nape scores

and we've been talking a little bit about the political agenda

here.

So, when we come back from the break, Tim,

when we come back from the break,

I've got to ask you some questions about big lies of education.

And that's coming from Paul Hump's blog.

I love it.

I'll talk about it again.

Do it.

More when we get back.

So, Paul, the question is,

it's you now.

How?

The memo says we've got to want to make the facts

because the false charges move a whole lot of the odds

and the filthy nonsense that people in the back...

Ah, yeah.

That's it.

That's what we do all the time.

And we've got the answers fully-ledged education talk,

educated educators talking,

education, it is Monday night, man.

Just blowing up our guest, Paul Thomas,

radical scholarship, check out his blog,

Science of Movement.

We've kind of gotten into the little bit of a science of reading

and we knew we were going to go there.

But Paul, you know, one of the things that gets us into this,

though, is in Johnny was pointing this out,

is this nape, nape scores,

the national assessment of educational progress,

seems to be that any time those tests are taken

and those scores are released,

we can almost always count on something being mandated

to help the scores and something being banned

to also help the scores.

Are we off base here?

Or, I mean, help us.

Yeah, I would say that, you know, in the,

I would say in the last 20 years,

it's been nape and it was, you know, in my teaching career,

in the 80s and 90s, it was the SAT,

which is completely misusing that information.

But every time the SAT was released,

we just went ballistic.

At least Nate gives us like two and four-year cycles,

so it's not every year.

But most people don't realize,

Nate was created to hold the states accountable.

That's why it was created, to give us standard.

And it's, it is only a random sampling of students.

So not every student takes it.

It's just a random sampling of every state.

Math and reading have two-year cycles

and writing in other areas are longer cycles.

But what's really upsetting is the proficiency level,

the measure called proficiency.

It's set at the 70th percentile.

It is designed for only 30% of students to meet it.

And we use the word proficiency rhetorically.

I wouldn't say we.

The media and politicians use the word proficiency interchangeably

with grade level.

And so you would assume that grade level would mean most students.

Although what's really frustrating is there's no norm in this country.

We have no normative definition for grade level.

We have no normative definition proficiency.

And we don't have like a national agenda.

Like how many students in third grade?

How many students in eighth grade should be at this level?

These things are never discussed.

They're never laid out.

So proficiency is used to me as weaponized.

It's a way to keep the country thinking that we're in constant crisis.

And again, that started with the nation at risk.

So for at least 40 years, we've been in a constant state of educational crisis.

Hold on Tim, let me just get to this.

You know, we went, you and I did like a whole kind of opinion based.

I said researchers and educators like, you know, our whole beef with nape and everything.

And it's a line with Paul.

But Paul offers some really clear analysis here.

And Paul, I want to back up to that when you said proficiency is set at 70%.

That means only 30% receive proficient or above.

So, but what is that?

Can you characterize?

What does that mean for like for people who are below 70%?

I mean, like they are, they're, they're not only like are we to be worried about, you know, this, this majority of children.

Absolutely not.

So I'm, you know, Tom loveless.

Tom loveless, who I would say is a pretty traditional, relatively conservative.

You know, personal education.

He's got a 2016.

I think a 2023 piece on nape.

And honestly, you know, I think the short version is that there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

And basic in nape means at grade level approximately.

So while people like Nicholas Kristoff actually had a headline in New York Times that two thirds of students aren't proficient at reading in the United States.

Well, technically that's true.

It doesn't mean anything because the truth is, according to nape, about two thirds of students are at grade level or above, which to me doesn't really sound that bad.

I don't know.

Right.

Are we happy if 70% of kids are at grade level?

Do we want it to be more?

And there is a 90 and 95% movement out there, but it's complete ho come.

This 90, 95% role movement.

If you look it up, there's a there's a link in the in the latest nctq report.

There's a footnote.

And I thought, well, finally, because I did a review of this, I said, like, finally, you know, we'll find out it's a link to a blog.

The 95% role is a link to a blog.

And I went to the blog.

And it's this guy going, where did this come from?

And there's like two or three really weak studies from 2004, where a researcher speculates that 90% of kids can read at grade level.

I don't even know what that means.

Does he mean at third grade, eventually?

We don't know.

So we just don't really, I would say the honest thing to say is we don't know how well students are reading or at math, we don't know.

Right.

This is so helpful because, you know, Tim and I were like, yeah, this is ridiculous because we are actually a whole show we were talking about that, that sort of scare headline.

Two thirds of the world, you know, the nations, you know, eighth graders and fourth graders are here.

And that means they're below proficiency.

And when you see that, you immediately, if you're just like even myself an educator, I've learned to question that.

But if I just read that alone, I don't read against the text or to have that background.

I think, oh, no, that means two thirds of, you know, of this of this young doom.

They can't read their, they're not, they're completely off track, they're below.

And that's sort of the whole, like sort of political media hype around learning loss, you know, and like we said, it does two things.

I mean, I think Paul, you were written about this too.

It does one.

It's always followed up by so stop paying for what you're currently paying for and, and buy this new thing.

You know, there's always a, there's always a solution right at hand, ready to be sold.

And, and that you've written about this, that is often expensive.

And, you know, it excludes children and, and schools and in districts that, that we could categorize as experiencing poverty or underfunding.

But it also blames individuals.

It really uniquely puts the blame on these young people saying that that two thirds is off track.

And there's something wrong here.

Or there, it blames again, a form of individuals, the schools and teachers that they're in are families and communities that they're come from.

Either way, it doesn't hold systems accountable.

So you've written about both those things.

So just for our listeners, Tim and Johnny aren't just on one here.

You know, like here we've got studies this and teaches it.

But you're kind of, you know, you're doing a little bit of validating.

We didn't stack this, but it's an exciting convergence for our listeners to hear.

Okay, well, now it makes more sense.

That two thirds isn't doomed.

They're not lost.

In fact, you know, how their categorizes not proficient doesn't even mean that they're not at grade level.

Right.

And I think what's really important for people is just like a thought experiment.

These night scores have been flat since 1992.

30 years.

Look for 30 years.

Two thirds of students aren't reading proficiently had any sort of negative outcome.

Wouldn't we have seen it?

Where is it?

Like what happened?

And I think again,

Loveless has a blog that literally walks you through that.

This is not an original idea to me.

He does it very well.

And the doom and gloom has a different agenda.

The doom and gloom has nothing to do with literacy or math or science or civics.

If you remember, everybody flipped out about the civics make tests.

Nothing.

This is pure market and politics.

Every politician since the 1980s and 90s has said schools are bad.

I can fix them, right?

That's what George W. Bush did in Texas.

And it got him in the White House.

He did it in Florida and it didn't get him to the White House.

But I mean, this is the, you know, the cycle is we can fix it.

If there's not a, if there's not a crisis,

there's nothing for the politicians to do.

If there's not a crisis, there's no reason to buy new material for the schools.

There you go.

I would say this.

Yeah, absolutely, Paul.

But the other part of that, though, too,

is that it actually does, though,

I understand, some of the legal issues about high education.

That because they think that they're in a crisis,

but that

are limited to a hook.

They don't have work at financial enterprise.

And most of it is because there's obviously

no rules, but it has to be actual.

People take it always and well.

I don't think about it.

And one more example,

I'd say that passion too.

I agree with you,

today, I wanted to ask you once again,

If you agree,

what are the reasons they're telling us about?

Right.

The thing I've been playing with is,

and I think this is going to be the title of something here,

is education reform is industry.

And the industry is,

and I just worked on several pieces this weekend.

It is distraction.

Decade after decade after decade,

at least 60% of student measurable achievement

is causally connected to out of school factors.

If we really wanted to raise reading and math scores,

we would get rid of food deserts.

We would have universal health care.

Every parent would have stable work or universal income,

universal basic income.

All of those things would actually raise test scores.

I am convinced 100% of it.

As a good example,

Department of Defense Schools,

DODA Schools,

they have the highest-naked scores in the country.

And guess what?

Every one of those children have.

Yep.

Health care.

They have,

they have secure homes.

Their parents have work.

And they have food every day.

They don't have the science of reading or the science of math

or the science of learning.

They have stability.

And also,

this is the other kicker.

They pay their teachers way more.

People,

people quit traditional teaching jobs to go teach at the DODA schools.

And I found one media article on that.

And just look up naked scores.

They're above,

they're above New Hampshire.

They're above New Jersey.

Way above.

DODA Schools in fourth grade and eighth grade reading

have like 80 and 90%

of basic and proficiency in above.

It's amazing.

And we don't talk about that.

It's the proof right there.

We don't talk about that.

And I'm just thinking about how many of the,

you know,

Johnny,

now think about this.

Right.

Kevin Kumashero,

Julian Vazquez,

he like Paul Thomas.

Guess what?

All of this is saying,

and if we really wanted to do what worked,

we could do things to actually really help.

So even if your limited attention span is only towards raising test scores,

we can do it.

And we could do it pretty substantially.

If we truly looked away from the crisis,

they're telling us to look at,

and really dug deep into the realities of what are the things that help people,

quote, learn.

Well,

guess what?

It comes back to those basic needs, safety, food, health care, shelter.

You know,

again,

away from churn,

all of these things.

But boy,

we are for some reason.

As soon as one of us,

the three of us,

and I can see right now people listening,

I can't see people listening right now.

I can, I can just hear it right now.

People out there going,

there they are again,

blaming poverty for their inadequacies,

blaming social circumstances for the fact that teachers are just lazy.

Well,

that's an American ideology, right?

Like,

the reason we don't do anything is because we're committed to rugged individualism,

you know,

bootstrapping.

And that's ideology.

There's no evidence that's true, right?

I mean,

one of mine,

it's not funny,

but one of my jokes is a rising tide, you know,

lifts all boats,

but the people without boats drown.

And that's American,

that's America, right?

America is actually social Darwinism.

Like,

we really,

we really don't care.

We want these kids to, you know,

we don't,

we don't want to stop,

we don't want to stop suffering.

We want to see which kids can overcome suffering.

Yeah,

and occasionally there's a kid who swims,

swims against current and against all odds, climbs up onto the boat,

and then we say,

exactly.

Exactly.

And let's,

and that could be you,

but meanwhile,

two-thirds of the kids,

they don't have,

quote unquote,

we get into this,

and we've gotten in another show,

they don't have the grit,

you know,

to overcome that tide

and get into a boat or find a boat.

That's just how it works.

And it's perfect.

It's,

it's pertaining an outlier

is a generalization, right?

That's,

that's anti-science.

That's the opposite,

opposite of science.

Oh,

man,

our guest Paul Thomas,

the blog radical scholarship.

Check it out.

Oh, man,

check it out.

We appreciate your time tonight,

man,

and check it out out there.

And again,

Paul, if,

if I'm a teacher out there,

I know right now they're going to thank you.

At least somebody finally can point out the fact that

I don't need to just buy the right stuff.

Somebody needs to take care of me,

take care of my kids.

More Tim and Johnny,

we'll break it down.

When we get back.

All right.

Yeah.

Uh, yeah.

That's me playing the Eric guitar,

Johnny Lupinoti.

Bust happens,

Ole lead led education talk,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

quindi I have to,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate,

educate and education.

side and education.

Hey, there's still time,

855-752.

Fix it for you to do a better job.

Eric Allied just said that.

What's your call?

Where's Johnny?

Some Jewish man.

Oh, man,

I mean, I just,

Great guest.

Dr. Paul Thomas,

Love is blog.

You know, and you just go on there

for listeners,

if you're vibein' with,

you know, what Todd'm sayin'...

He says,

much more eloquently

on the blog,

you know, his site says,

you know,

be brave, be kind.

He's democracy in action.

What a beauty.

Great to have him on.

And also, you know,

like, I'm glowing

because I love when I'm right.

You know, I knew,

we know this

because we've been immersed

in it for so long, Tim.

Like, you know, like,

our, both of our entire

teaching career has been

in the midst and the wake

of this, you know,

status quo,

Dr. Kevin Kimashiro talked about,

like, you know,

public schools do a lot

of continuing status quo.

And, you know,

we've been in that dominant.

So everyone listening,

most likely,

has experienced school

in this particular iteration

of, you know,

you know,

all the headlines

and the dominant discourse

on what's wrong in education,

really being aimed at,

blaming individuals,

you know,

really putting the screws

to kids these days.

They're just not doing enough.

And, you know,

and, you know,

and, you know,

and, and uniquely

has the solution

that's to buy something.

And, and, and,

and I love Paul St.

he's going here

with this in his writing.

So we'll follow it on his blog.

Listeners,

check it out.

You know, big,

he has a great series,

big lives of education,

you know,

in his radical scholarship.com.

But one of the things

that I think is so cool

about this,

he was calling it the noise

around this industry.

That really,

all these test scores

and all these headlines are,

are marketing for industry.

And that's,

that's kind of a scary

and sad thing

when we've commodified

decisions about

what needs to be

best practices

or how we need to fund

schooling.

We've commodified it.

We said, well,

well, actually,

let's put information out there

in a way

that makes the most money

for these big companies

that are creating this curriculum

or these special interest groups

that have vested interest in.

And I took it last week

to, like,

to, like, level 10.

I was saying, like,

you know,

all these decisions.

Some of this is,

you know,

marketing ideology

as Paul brought up

for, you know,

ensuring

beds in prison,

right,

which is not,

not,

not a sign of a democracy.

And we've been really hammering away

on,

on Tim,

we've been saying,

these are core democratic values.

Public education is the

better rock of democracy.

Let's break down democracy.

But, you know,

I've been,

with listeners,

you know,

and I've been having this conversation

in Social Studies Classrooms

and with teachers.

And one of the things

we're kind of

scratching our head

about as we're saying,

like,

so,

do we have a democracy?

Yes.

Experience democracy.

Like,

this is a great,

this is a great set

of core values.

This is an awesome mission,

like,

is school really for everybody?

Doesn't it,

has it ever?

Has it ever been?

Okay,

and Tim,

this is why Wednesday nights

are so special.

Tuesday this week,

educators amplified

to come on,

and they bring us back

to that,

but it could be different,

and lots of teachers

out there

are not only advocating

for it to be different,

but they're making it

different,

because you can

write this.

We can,

and maybe think about this too,

all of this rhetoric

about failing schools,

but then at the same time,

the public schools

being mandated

to buy all of this curriculum

that actually,

in once,

it's again,

it doesn't work for all kids,

and, you know,

at a minimum,

we'll keep the status quo

in place,

and you say,

you're creating

the illusion

of continued failure