An Apology

John Merrow Uncategorized

I want to apologize for not responding personally to those who shared their views on last week’s blog post, my analysis of why the Democrats lost.  I’ve been busy, keeping a close eye on the bizarre and frightening rush of zealots, sycophants, and the power-hungry to join the clown show 490 miles south of where I live. 

I’m also busy dealing with mountains of paperwork-–Who knew applying for Scottish citizenship was so complicated!

With this apology comes a request.  Whenever you circulate what I have written, please send the link instead of the text.  

And while you are at it, please ask all your friends and acquaintances to subscribe.

Why? Because I need subscribers.  My LQ and my MSR have both gone in the tank recently, and, as a consequence, my blog has lost almost all its advertisers.   I could, of course, just sign up for “Subscribers ’R Us,” the company that uses AI to create faux subscribers, but, frankly, it’s expensive and Madison Avenue has caught onto it. 

Oh, and it’s dishonest too.

I understand the decline in my “Likeability Quotient” (LQ) because I have written some nasty things about the greedy folks who support Trump just because he’s going to keep their taxes low, but I truly believed that what I’ve been writing would score well on the “Measure of Social Relevance” (MSR).

Because of the decline in my ratings, the ONLY advertiser still doing business with The Merrow Report falls into what Madison Avenue calls the “End of Life” category:  DTGH, the nation-wide service that transports the remains of travelers who die on the road back to their home. I think of it as “MedJet for the Dead,” although that might not be a great slogan, certainly not as catchy as “Dying to Get Home.” DTGH is a good company, and I am proud that it wants to be associated with my blog.  By the way, their clever slogan, “Dying to Get Home,” is also the origin of the company name. 

Whenever readers click on their ad on my blog, I receive MSR and LQ points and a small payment. If a reader asks for more information, that’s more for me. 

And when a reader actually signs up for the service (which is very reasonable), bingo!  That’s what pays the bills around here.

(Unless, however, it can be shown that a reader died while reading the blog. If that happens, it creates serious liability issues for me personally.  But so far no DTGH reader has died while reading my blog, at least as far as I know.)

When my blog attracts more subscribers, it will move out of the “End of Life” category up to the “Mature Audience” category. Once there, it will attract advertisers seeking to reach a younger audience.   Products like Preparation H, La-Z Boy Recliners, Fixodent, MedAlert, and Depends. Maybe even Viagra!

It’s up to you, friends.  Thanks in advance for your support….

Democrats Didn’t Lose the November Election in November…..

John Merrow Uncategorized , , , ,

Some pundits are blaming Kamala Harris for not doing this or that, and others are blaming Joe Biden for not dropping out earlier, but I am convinced that Democrats lost the Presidential election long before November 5, 2024.  Here are three possible dates that help explain Trump’s victory:  August 24, 2022; December 22, 2020; and July 24, 2009. They represent bad policies and missed opportunities, all of which came back to hurt Kamala Harris.

August 24, 2022 is the day Biden announced that his Administration intended to forgive the debts that hundreds of thousands of (mostly) young people owed to the federal government, loans they had taken out to pay for their college education.  Low income debtors could have as much as $20,000 forgiven; others, $10,000.  The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his original plan, but he persisted. And as Election Day neared, he and Vice President Kamala Harris took pains to remind everyone that his Administration had forgiven about $175 Billion in government loans for about 5 million people. 

But I want to go back to that day in August, 2022.  When we heard the news that morning, my wife’s immediate reaction was ‘Bad move.’  Why, I asked?  Because, she said, this is going anger the millions of people who worked hard to pay off their loans, and it’s also going to alienate people who never got the chance to go to college.  

I think she was correct.  I’m guessing the vast majority of those 5 million who benefited from Biden’s move would have voted for a Democrat anyway. He didn’t need to give them preferential treatment, but what about the nearly 40 million adults under the age of 65 who have some college credits but no degree?  And the millions more who borrowed money and paid it back–or who may still be paying those loans off?   Or voters whose gut instinct is to treat everyone fairly?

It’s bad politics to clinch the votes of 5 million people while alienating 50 million or more voters. And it’s also bad public policy to divide an already divided nation.

But Democrats may have lost the 2024 election even earlier, on December 22, 2020 even before Joe Biden was sworn in: That’s the day that President-elect Biden announced his selection of 45-year-old Miguel Cardona to be his Secretary of Education.  On paper, Dr. Cardona sounded perfect, with his inspiring rags-to-riches, “up from bootstraps” story. Dr. Cardona, who was raised in a housing project in Meriden, Connecticut, entered kindergarten speaking only Spanish.  He went through the city’s public schools and earned a college degree before returning to work as a fourth-grade teacher in the district in 1998, rising to principal, then assistant district superintendent and State Superintendent.   Along the way he earned his doctorate, as well as praise for handling the Covid pandemic.  This was, it seemed, The American Dream of social mobility writ large, but it turned out instead to be a missed opportunity to chart a new course for public education to recognize the gifts and interests of all children (and not just their test scores).

The central point of Dr. Cardona’s story is not his remarkable rise but its exceptionality, because, unfortunately, most of our public schools have become rubber stamps for the social, educational, and financial status of the parents.  Schools are much more likely to be barriers, not gateways.  Sure, most schools do a decent job of educating most children, but it’s as rare as snow in July for a child to do what Dr. Cardona did: climb the ladder.  

Social mobility–the idea that anyone who is willing to work can make it–is central to the American story. If social mobility is just a myth,  if children are born into what amounts to a caste system, then the American experiment is doomed.  

Assuming he’s aware of the petrification of the public schools, Dr. Cardona had the opportunity to tell us how embarrassingly and tragically infrequent it is for someone to do what he had done. He could have used the Bully Pulpit of his office to lobby for policies and programs to bring about change.  Unfortunately, he did none of these things.

Which meant that the rigidity and calcification remained, perhaps increased, on his watch.  And the palpable resentment of so many ‘forgotten Americans’ increased, making it more likely that they would vote the incumbents out, first chance they got.

Which they did on November 5th.

Now let’s go back to July 24, 2009.  How can anything that happened more than 15 years before an election determine its outcome, you may be wondering.  Well, that’s when Education Secretary Arne Duncan, armed with $4.35 billion, came to a fork in the road–and quite deliberately took the one that led to more frequent high stakes multiple choice testing, more (largely unregulated) charter schools, the fiasco known as The Common Core, and–eventually–an exodus of teachers, parents, and children from the public schools, as well as a significant backlash against any and all federal involvement in public schools.  

But just as significant–just as tragic–is what the Obama Administration could have done with that unprecedented opportunity.  America was in the throes of ‘The Great Recession,’ the hangover from the Administration of George W. Bush, and Congress had given Secretary Duncan more discretionary money than all previous Education Secretaries combined!  

School districts, desperate for dollars, were willing to do whatever Duncan wanted. He could have “encouraged” (i.e., mandated) 1) all-day kindergarten and pre-school; 2) more art, music and physical education (slashed during Bush’s “No Child Left Behind”); 3) more apprenticeships and vocational-technical education for the roughly 50% of students not interested in attending college; and 4) more opportunities for ambitious high school students to take college classes .  

Instead, he sided with the technocrats and embraced test-based accountability, making it harder for good teachers to do their jobs, and making schools less interesting places for children and adults.

Good public policy ought to bring us together, not just right wrongs or settle grievances.  If Democrats want to win more elections in the future, they must figure out how to welcome disaffected and angry voters into their tent. Unfortunately, too often public policies are treated as a ‘zero sum game’ with winners and losers–like the inmates and guards in a federal prison in Virginia, where I taught English in the late 1960’s. 

What I remember most vividly about teaching in prison are intelligent students, determined to keep their minds active, and angry guards, who were furious that ‘common criminals’ were getting the chance to go to college, while they were being left behind.  A few guards did their best to sabotage the program, with some success.  

At the time it didn’t occur to me that my class could have easily been open to guards and inmates. However, years later, when I learned that the Ford Foundation was funding 30 or 40 prison education programs, I urged the program officer, whom I knew personally, to see that at least a few of these experiments were equal opportunity ‘dual enrollment’ programs for inmates and guards alike.  Why not see if that approach–studying together–could bridge the divide between inmates and correctional officers, since nothing else seemed to be working?

My plea was ignored, but I would bet you just about anything that these programs, however deserving they are for giving some people a second or third chance, also created lots of resentment. Resentment  may be an unintended consequence, but it is  also predictable…and avoidable.  In other words, inmate-only prison education as currently practiced is arguably dubious and perhaps even bad public policy, the equivalent of Biden’s loan forgiveness programs.  Both exacerbate the divide, even as they help a chosen few.  

That approach loses elections.

Many Americans know that something’s not working the way it’s supposed to.  Some citizens are losing faith in public schools (and in other public institutions as well). Today’s Republicans act as though education does not have a public purpose. However, it most certainly does, because some of the kids in middle schools anywhere in the United States now may one day be the physician’s assistant monitoring your IV drip, the EMT trying to resuscitate your spouse, the mechanic maintaining the jet you’re flying on, or the fuel company worker seeking to contain that gas leak in your neighborhood.  In other words, it’s in your interest to see that as many children as possible reach their potential.

The new Trump administration seems to be intent on burning bridges. This will create opportunities for Democrats to build bridges.  It’s not ‘us versus them,’ because quite a few of those ‘them’ folks are a lot like us.  

Enough of the hand-wringing about Harris’s campaign, or Biden’s late withdrawal.  That’s not why she lost.  Think about the policies (and attitudes) that need to change, in order to bring us together.  Perhaps it’s national service, more civic education, more apprenticeship opportunities, or fairer tax policies.  Let’s figure out how to work together.

“Project 1897”

John Merrow Uncategorized , , , ,

Much has been written about “Project 2025,” supposedly a blueprint for a second Trump Presidency.  I have learned that candidate Trump had nothing to do with “Project 2025.”  However, he has been personally involved in another less complex but more ambitious project, named by Trump himself as “Project 1897,” a reference to William McKinley, Trump’s second favorite former president (after himself, doh).  

“Project 1897” has just three major points:

  1. Tariffs (and no income tax)
  2. 2G, with implications for relations between the sexes, and voting privileges
  3. Natural American Zones of Interest, his trade policies

“Project 1897” is written in the first person, although it is not clear whether Mr. Trump actually wrote it, dictated it, or had aides do the writing.

TARIFFS:   “Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 grants me broad power (including the imposition of tariffs) to adjust imports whenever I find them to be a threat to U.S. national security. As your President the first time, I imposed a 45% tariff on Chinese goods, and this time I will immediately impose a 60% tariff on all goods coming to us from China. This will make all of us richer.  And to those doubters who say tariffs cause inflation, believe me when I tell you that the higher the tariff, the more likely it is that foreign companies will come into the United States, and build their factories here so they don’t have to pay the tariffs.  These countries and foreign companies only understand strength, and we are strong. I will make the tariffs so high, so horrible, so obnoxious–maybe 100% or even 200%–that those companies will come here right away. They will build here and hire American workers. 

What’s more, the prosperity tariffs will bring to our great country will allow me to eliminate the federal income tax!  I will abolish the IRS, and put the 90,000 IRS bureaucrats out on the street, just like that.  That’s a savings of $16 billion, just like that. And no more April 15th confusion for millions of Americans.

2G:  “Telephone companies like Verizon and T-Mobile keep trying to confuse us by talking about ‘5G’ and ‘4G,’ which is about how fast the phones work. Don’t be fooled or confused. There’s only TWO G, by which I mean GENDER. There’s men and there’s women, and that’s it.  There’s no ‘3G, or ‘4G’ or ‘5G’ and however many more the left can come up with. I promise to bring back respect for the two genders God made, with separate bathrooms and just two athletic groups.  No more ‘gender transition craziness.’

As for these people who call themselves ‘trans,’ they will find themselves ‘transported’ to the Siberian desert or maybe the moon!  

The Bible, my favorite book, makes it very clear that God intended husbands to lead, and their wives to follow. We will go back to 1897 and return the responsibility for voting to men, as God intended.  As men, we will safeguard our women and protect them from the indignities of the workplace. I will protect women, whether they want me to or not.” 

3: Natural American Zones of Interest: “For too long other countries have taken advantage of American business, enacting laws that limit our investments. No more!  Capitalism is the wave of the future, and as your President, I will designate certain areas of the world ‘Natural American Zones of Interest” (NAZI) and I will use all the powers granted to me by our beautiful Constitution and our amazing Supreme Court to make sure that American corporations to dominate those regions economically.  

In the next four years (and probably eight), I will expand these ‘Natural American Zones of Interest’ so that, eventually, the entire world is NAZI.”

“Make America HATE Again”

John Merrow Uncategorized , , , ,

The best lack all conviction, while the worst   

Are full of passionate intensity

W. B. Yeats, “The Second Coming”

Are ‘the best’ and ‘the worst’ of Yeats’s poem groups of people, or is he referring to the human condition, the internal struggle that each of us wages daily between our better angels and our lesser impulses and temptations, between good and evil? The latter reading fits the current presidential race: Democrat Kamala Harris’s platform stresses joy and positivity, while Republican Donald J. Trump has been stirring up negative passions among his supporters. And while those red hats do not say “Make America Hate Again,” they might as well, because the former president and his enablers have made it perfectly acceptable to wallow in bigotry, hatred, threats of violence, and–far too often–violence.

Don’t dismiss Trump as a clown, riffing and rambling and ranting in his interminably long rallies.  His off-the-cuff references to sharks, windmills, and Arnold Palmer’s genitalia may amuse his passionate followers, but this ‘bread and circuses’ approach should not be allowed to obscure what’s really going on, “laughing into fascism.”

November 5th–the most significant election of our lifetimes and perhaps in our nation’s history–is around the corner, and one candidate represents a clear and present danger to America and the world.

Early in October the New York Times printed a special section, “30 Days Until the Election,” to contrast and compare the views of Harris and Trump on major issues.  “Here’s what you need to know,” the Times’s subhead declared. Because I spent 41 years reporting on public education, I was disappointed to find not one word about education or schools. 

In fact, the two platforms’ positions on education could not be more different.  Project 2025, the real GOP platform, calls for the virtual abolition of public education.  Schooling becomes a private family matter, flipping centuries of tradition out the window.  More precisely, that would mean vouchers and what are known as ‘Education Savings Accounts.’  An ESA means that parents can direct their share of education funding to a private school or whatever entity the family is using to educate their children–including themselves.  Homeschooling your children?  Keep the money and spend it as you see fit to ‘educate’ your children, including trips to Disneyland and athletic equipment!  

The Democratic party still believes in what the former Republican party once believed in: Free public education with a common purpose:  to give all children the opportunity to acquire the knowledge, skills,  and tools they need to thrive as individuals and as citizens of our democracy. In short, Democrats believe in the importance of community.   Project 2025 would abolish the U.S. Department of Education completely, while the Democrats would emphasize the federal responsibility for ensuring that all children–particularly those from low income families, those with handicapping conditions, the homeless, and those whose first language is not English–are treated equitably.  Basically, Democrats believe that all kids should have access to the resources they need, regardless of which state they live in and their family, racial, or religious status.   Project 2025 would end any federal oversight and protection.  

I don’t mean to whitewash the record here, because Democrats in Washington have done as much damage to public schools as Republicans in recent years.  Barack Obama’s “Race to the Top” was just as destructive as George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind.”  But it seems likely that having a former high school teacher as Vice President will bring some common sense to Washington and end the federal overreach that characterized those two Administrations.

W. B. Yeats’s magnificent poem, “The Second Coming,” is painfully relevant today, because our center has not been holding, and that rough beast slouching toward Bethlehem is an unqualified, self-absorbed would-be dictator and convicted felon with clearly diminished capabilities.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

When Yeats composed ‘The Second Coming,’ the world was in turmoil, ravaged by World War I and a flu pandemic that killed 18,000,000 people. Does that sound eerily familiar?  When we cast our ballots, will our ‘better angels’ win out over our selfish and negative impulses? Do the best of us lack all conviction, while the worst of us are full of passionate intensity?  

We will find out on November 5th.

BEWARE ‘THE SCIENCE OF READING’

John Merrow Uncategorized , , , ,

“The Science of Reading” is a real thing, so real that it’s required by law in schools in 40 states and the District of Columbia.  They have been ordered by politicians to adopt what is known as the “Science of Reading,” which mandates ‘evidence-based’ reading instruction, often in the hopes that test scores will improve. (The three states I have lived in in recent years–Massachusetts, New York, and California–have resisted the pressure to jump on this bandwagon, I’m happy to say.)

While this bandwagon has been picking up steam, something unfortunate has been happening: Our kids are reading for pleasure less and less.  For example, only 17 percent of 13-year-olds say they read almost daily for fun, compared to 27 percent in 2012 and 35 percent in 1984. That’s a huge dropoff. 

While we know that correlation is not necessarily causation, could those two developments be connected?  

Let’s start with ‘The Science of Reading.”  Here’s how the newspaper Education Week explains it (with my emphasis added to some words I want you to pay special attention to):  “In a science of reading framework, teachers start by teaching beginning readers the foundations of language in a structured progression—like how individual letters represent sounds, and how those sounds combine to make words. 

That’s Phonics, sounding out words.  In other words, schools and teachers are required by law to teach kids that letters make sounds and, by implication, that they can trust those sounds….

Makes sense, if reading is in fact a science…..

Hold on for a minute, please!  Very often we cannot trust the sounds,  because our language, English, is about as unreliable and unpredictable as possible.  It breaks its own rules willy-nilly.  

My personal favorite example is these three words, which I ask you to say out loud:  Anger, Danger, Hanger.  By the rules of Phonics and the ‘science of reading,’ those three words should rhyme……

Here’s another demonstration of our English language’s weirdness and irregularity, based on a comic routine I found on YouTube a few days ago.

Say this word aloud: EAR

By the rules of Phonics, this word, BEAR, should rhyme with EAR….but it doesn’t

Now that you have learned to pronounce BEAR, it stands to reason that adding a D, making BEARD, will produce a word that is pronounced BARED.  But it’s not; it’s pronounced BEERD.

Back to the rules: EAR and HEAR rhyme, as they should, but HEARD isn’t pronounced HERE-D; instead, it’s pronounced HERD.

And if we add a T to HEAR to make HEART, we don’t get HERE-T.  No, it’s HART.

Back to hard core phonics:  By its rules,  DEAR, FEAR, HEAR, GEAR, and PEAR should rhyme….and they do, with one important exception. Let’s talk about the exception.  What if we add an L to PEAR, to make PEARL.  It should be pronounced PAIR-L, but of course it’s not.  It’s PURR-L.

I wrote about two competing approaches to teaching reading, Phonics and Whole Language (which includes teaching students to recognize some words, not just sound them out), back in January.  You can find that piece here, but below you will find my description of  how one first grade teacher gets her students interested in reading:  

That First Grade teacher often takes pages out of the Whole Language playbook to talk about words that don’t follow the rules of Phonics.  

One day she writes these sentences on the blackboard: COME HERE!  WHERE ARE THE MACHINES?

“OK, kids. On your toes now, because only one of these words follows the rules.”

She asks them to pronounce each word according to the rules they have learned. They do, pronouncing COME with a long O, WHERE with a long E, ARE with a long A, and MACHINES with a long I.  Then she pronounces them correctly, cracking up the children.

“I told you English was tricky and sneaky, but we won’t let it beat us!”

To finish the lesson, she writes HERE on the blackboard and asks the children to sound it out, which they do with ease.  Then she puts a W in front of HERE and challenges them to sound it out.  They rhyme it with HERE.  She replaces the W with T, making THERE, and again asks her students to sound it out.  WHERE and THERE, she explains, break the rules. They will have to learn to recognize them. 

My point then–and now–is that ‘The Science of Reading’ is wildly over-hyped and arguably even dangerous when reading is reduced to drilling in Phonics.  

Never forget these two truths: 1) Every child wants to be able to read because reading gives them both pleasure and power over their environment, and 2) The teaching of reading is both an ART and a SCIENCE.  That is, Phonics is necessary but not sufficient!

I worry that the fervent acolytes for “The Science of Reading” may be taking the joy out of reading, and I know that hucksters are asking school boards to buy their expensive ‘evidence-based’ blah blah blah reading programs. I fear that the focus on “The Science of Reading” may, inadvertently, be producing children who can read but do not and will not, because what they endured to achieve the status of “reader” (by passing state tests) was painful.

“Necessary But Not Sufficient”

John Merrow Uncategorized , , , ,

Many schools, both public and private, are banning cellphones. Is this a good idea? Let me present three connected points and a (seemingly) logical conclusion:

  1. Nearly all teenagers–95%–are on social media like TikTok, WhatsApp and their counterparts.  One-third of teens admit to using social media “almost constantly.” 
  1. Social media is damaging our kids, according to the U.S. Surgeon General: “The types of use and content children and adolescents are exposed to pose mental health concerns. Children and adolescents who spend more than 3 hours a day on social media face double the risk of mental health problems including experiencing symptoms of depression and anxiety. This is concerning as a recent survey showed that teenagers spend an average of 3.5 hours a day on social media. And when asked about the impact of social media on their body image, 46% of adolescents aged 13-17 said social media makes them feel worse.”  A ‘national mental health emergency’ for children and adolescents was declared by the American Academy of Pediatrics back in 2021. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that “In 2021 and 2022, 21% of adolescents reported experiencing symptoms of anxiety in the past two weeks and 17% reported experiencing symptoms of depression.”  Undoubtedly, matters have only gotten worse, as teens’ use of social media has increased.

How does it hurt our kids? Let me count the ways:

  • Social media exposes young people to “extreme, inappropriate content.” 
  • Social media makes them–especially adolescent girls–feel bad about their bodies.  
  • Social media is a haven for predators. Nearly 6 in 10 girls say they’ve been contacted by strangers online “in ways that make them feel uncomfortable.”
  • Social media can overstimulate the brains in ways similar to addiction, leading to problems sleeping and difficulty paying attention.
  • Time on social media is time that is NOT spent with peers, developing relationships, learning about life’s give-and-take, what Erik Erikson calls ‘identity formation.’
  1. Teenagers access social media on their cellphones, and 95% of teenagers have their own cellphone.  These ubiquitous devices are their portal, their entry point, their lifeline to social media.  Without cellphones, teenagers have extremely limited access to social media.   Cellphones, which are ubiquitous, are the lifeline and portal to social media.

(It’s not just teens, of course.  According to the National Institutes of Health, “Mobile phone adoption in the United States is starting in late childhood and early adolescence; currently, 53% of children have a smartphone by age 11.”)

Ergo: Without cellphones, teenagers won’t be on social media, so cellphones should be banned. Without cellphones, teenagers won’t be taking 100 or more selfies to get the ‘perfect’ photo to post. They won’t be making 10-second videos for TikTok or spending hours watching cats being cute.  If they aren’t on social media, the thinking goes, they will be more social. If they aren’t communicating with a machine, they will engage in genuine personal communication.  

In fact, a growing number of public school districts and private schools have come to that conclusion. They have banned cellphones or developed policies designed to severely limit their use. 

The Washington Post reported in depth on this issue in late August, just as schools were opening.  According to the Post, at least seven of the nation’s 20 largest school districts have banned or severely restricted cell phone use. It’s not just large districts, of course.  The school district on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, where I live, requires students to put their phones into pouches when they enter the school building, and they can retrieve them at day’s end.  

Banning phones may be necessary (I think it is), but it is not sufficient, not even close.  What are adults offering in exchange? What’s the rest of this bargain?  Without some other steps, some quid pro quo, this will be perceived by most teens as heavy-handed and punitive, something being done to them against their will, something that makes school even less appealing.

Of course many kids see the ban as punitive, and why wouldn’t they?  When adults try to reassure them by saying, “Trust us. This is for your own good,” that only confirms their suspicions.  This is being done to them–and so they are going to devote a lot of energy to beating the ban.

Unfortunately, schools and the adults who run them are too often reactive, when thoughtful proactive behavior is called for. Instead of simply banning phones, the adults ought to be trying to get young people to want to come to school regularly, not simply ‘to attend school.’  To do that, schools (with or without cellphones) need to be interesting, challenging, and safe. 

Let me suggest four specific steps that should, I believe, accompany the cellphone ban:  

1) Restore the full range of extra-curricular opportunities–because most kids come to school so they can do interesting stuff with their friends!  

2) Homeroom should become an extended period, not just a quick five minutes when attendance is taken. Make daily homeroom a pressure-free time when students–without phones to distract them–can catch up with friends, forge new relationships, finish homework, or even take naps.  “Home” is the operative word here.  For most high school and middle school students, “Homeroom” is the equivalent of the starting blocks in a track meet. They touch base, listen to (or maybe ignore) morning announcements, and, when the bell sounds, dash off to class. In truth, “Homeroom” matters to school administrators only because it gives them a head count, but it’s a meaningless perfunctory exercise for kids.  For them, “Homeroom” is just a room, about as far from actually being a home as one can imagine.

That could change. America’s teenagers desperately need more “Home” in their lives, more opportunities to connect with others, more moments that tell them they matter. The rigidity of today’s high-pressure school schedules makes matters worse, not better. 

The simple—not easy, but simple–fix is to make “Homeroom” more of a HOME, not just another room.  Some teachers will have to be convinced that this new time period is an opportunity for them to expand their own professional repertoire of skills to include their students’ social and emotional growth. The challenge may be to train teachers to listen and not react, in order to allow young people to identify and share their feelings. NewsWeek magazine reports that Tacoma, Washington, schools are doing this, training not only teachers but also parents and school bus drivers.

In each of these new extended Homerooms,  teachers and their students will have to work together to figure out how they want to use this time. Some students may want to finish homework, or sleep, but the teacher could steer the conversation in the direction of “team building.”  

Perhaps one day a week could be set aside for discussion of some interesting questions (“If you could meet one figure from history, who would it be, and why?”), even trivial ones (“What questions would you like to ask Taylor Swift?”). 

Ideally “Homeroom” will turn into a safe space where students can learn to share and will agree that what’s shared there stays there. No bullying allowed.  

3) Expand course offerings to include some college classes and vocational training opportunities. Meet kids where they are, not where you think they should be.  

4) Work harder to make schools safe in three vital ways: physically, emotionally, and intellectually.  Emotional safety means that bullying and cyber-bullying are not tolerated.  Intellectually safe schools celebrate curiosity.  In these schools, adults encourage students to admit when they do not understand or are confused, often by modeling that behavior. Intellectually safe schools don’t treat kids as numbers but as growing and changing individuals.  (And young people who are treated with respect are unlikely to bring their dad’s AK-47 to school.)

Without cellphones as a crutch and given a more stimulating environment, most young people will be inclined to engage with each other. With adult guidance, they can explore new ideas, share curiosities, make plans, and so forth.  They can learn that there is life without cellphones.  

Removing cellphones creates new opportunities and challenges, but that won’t happen if adults simply enforce the ban. That is, banning cellphone in school is NECESSARY but not SUFFICIENT.

It’s time for the grownups to grow up and step up!

Education and the November Election

John Merrow Uncategorized

If Kamala Harris wins the Presidency, public education isn’t likely to be shaken up as much as it needs to be. If Donald Trump is elected and has his way, public education will be turned upside down. But no matter who wins, American higher education is in big trouble….although, as you will see, every crisis is also an opportunity.

If Trump wins in November, the world of education faces rough seas.  His “Project 2025” pledges to abolish the federal Department of Education, without specifying what agencies would be responsible for what the Department now does, such as enforcing civil rights laws in education.  “Project 2025” pledges to abolish Head Start, the preschool program that now serves about 833,000 low income children, send Title One money directly to states (while phasing it out over a 10-year period), and turn over Pell Grant administration to the Treasury Department.   While many in education want the Pell Grant cap of $7,395 per year to be raised (given the cost of a college education), “Project 2025” does not address this.

President Biden has made forgiving student debt a goal, but most of his efforts have been stymied by the courts. “Project 2025” would end the practice completely.

Trump and his team promise to advance “education freedom” by vigorously promoting “school choice.”  In practice, this would provide parents with cash vouchers that can be spent at private and religious schools, as well as federal tax credits for money spent on private school tuition. In simplest terms, Trump and his team want as much of the money that now goes to public schools to go to parents instead, and they want it to be tax-deductible, as it now is in Arizona. 

“Project 2025” calls for restricting free breakfast and lunch to low income students. Doing that would probably bring back separate lines and separate entrances for those paying and those eating ‘for free.’  That practice led some poor kids to skip meals entirely, to avoid humiliation, which is why many school districts have opted to feed all kids. (There’s some evidence that feeding everyone is actually cheaper, because it eliminates the need for special passes, separate accounting, and so forth. Ask Tim Walz about it.)

A significant change that I experienced as a reporter was the treatment of children with handicapping conditions.  Prior to 1975, many of those children were institutionalized or kept at home. “The Education of All Handicapped Children Act” (PL 94-142) moved the revolution that had begun in Massachusetts and Minnesota to the national level. While it’s not perfect today, the federal government contributes more than $14 Billion to pay for services for those youngsters.  “Project 2025” would distribute the money to states directly with few if any strings attached and would ask Congress to rewrite the law so that some money could go directly to parents. That doesn’t seem to me to be a step in the right direction.

All of these provisos and directives seem likely to do major damage to public education, as well as to the life chances of low income students.

Charter schools, which are publicly funded but privately run schools, seem unlikely to fare well no matter who wins. They aren’t private enough for most Republicans, and they are too private for most Democrats.

What lies in store for education if Harris wins in November?  The Biden-Harris Administration promised far more than it delivered, particularly in higher education, and its Secretary of Education has been largely missing in action, as far as I could tell. The party’s platform calls for free pre-school, free public college for families earning under $125,000 per year, making college tuition tax-deductible, smaller classes, and more ‘character education,’ whatever that is.

My own wish list would be for an energetic Secretary of Education who would encourage and lead conversations about the purposes of education, and the roles that schools play.  Too often today public schools are merely rubber-stamping the status children arrive with; but schools are supposed to be ladders of opportunity, there to be climbed by anyone and everyone with ambition.

The federal government cannot change how schools operate, but its leadership could and should shine a bright light on what schools could be….and how they could get there.

If I am allowed one wish, it’s that President Harris and Vice President Walz propose National Service, a 2-year commitment for all, in return for two years of tuition/training.  It’s long past time to put the ‘me-me-me’ self-absorption of the Ronald Reagan era in our rear view mirror. Our young people need to be reminded that they live in a great country and ought to show their appreciation by serving it in some capacity.

Whoever wins, Harris or Trump, American higher education’s rough years will continue, because a growing number of young people are questioning the value of, and necessity for, a college education.  This is a genuine crisis, and American higher education is in the fight of its life: Last year nearly 100 colleges shut down, roughly two per week.  While we still have more than 4,000 higher education institutions, many of those may not make it to 2030.  The rising cost of college defies common sense, the rise of Artificial Intelligence threatens some professions that now require a college degree, and many young people seem inclined to opt out of the high-speed, high stakes chase for a credential.  How many of the 31,000,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 will continue to enroll in college this year and next is an open question.  

Of course, colleges aren’t standing pat. For example,  Community Colleges are reaching down into high schools to keep their enrollment up; about one-fifth of all current Community College students are also enrolled in high school. Those institutions also enroll lots of older students–the average age of a Community College student is 28.

Four-year colleges and universities are fighting to enroll the 40,000,000 Americans who have some college credits but not enough for a degree.  They are also doing their best to attract on-line learners of all ages, and the most ambitious institutions are working hard to enroll (full paying) students from all over the world.  

If Trump wins, his immigration policies might shut the door on foreign students, a cash cow for a large number of institutions.  If Harris wins, federal aid probably won’t be slashed, but that won’t stop the questioning.

Questioning is long overdue. For too long elitists in the Democratic and Republican parties have looked down their noses at those not going to college, ignoring the wisdom of the great John Gardner:  “An excellent plumber is infinitely more admirable than an incompetent philosopher. The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.”

Every crisis is also an opportunity: Some of those shuttered college campuses might be repurposed for housing for senior citizens, or veterans.  Some of those facilities could become Head Start centers, hubs for small businesses, community hospitals, and so forth. I’d like to see a Harris-Walz Administration embrace the possiblities, with energy and imagination.

So please pay attention. Vote intelligently, and urge your friends and neighbors to vote.

The First Day of School

John Merrow Uncategorized

(It’s my hope that my grandchildren’s teachers, and lots of other teachers as well, will say something like this on the first day of school.)

“Good morning, everyone.  Welcome back to school.  I hope every one of us will have the best year yet.  And I want this classroom to be a warm and welcoming space for everyone.  

During the year I will occasionally ask you “How are you feeling today?”  And, while I do care about your answers, let me tell you now, on Day One, that I’m going to ask only one vitally important question about each of you.  

But before I ask my question, let’s think about how schools operate.  Basically, today’s schools want to know one thing about every one of their students. About every one of you!  Directly and indirectly, they look at you and ask How Smart Are You?  Then they make you take all sorts of tests. When the machine sends back the results, the system relies heavily on those test scores for their answer.  They rank you.  In short, you’re a number. 

But never forget that a test score is just a number, and you are much more than a number. That number reveals how you did on that test on that particular day, but not much more. That number doesn’t make allowances for headaches or hunger pains, or for difficulties at home, or for the argument you might have that morning with a best friend or a girl or boy friend. 

The question that I am going to ask you changes the order of the words, just slightly but in a way that makes a world of difference.  My question is not ‘How Smart Are You?’ but HOW ARE YOU SMART?  Not ‘whether’ you are smart, because you are.  I want to know–and it’s even more important that you know–the different ways that you are smart.  

Because each and every one of you is smart in different ways.  ‘How are you smart?’ can be phrased differently: 

What are you curious about?  

What do you wish you were better at?  

What do you think about becoming?

What’s the fire inside you that is waiting to be ignited?

Perhaps you’re interested in fashion, marine biology, or farming.  Maybe you’d like to know more about how houses are designed and built. Or how your own body works. Or what different religions have in common, or the history of your family and community.  

Or all of those things!

I’d like you to spend some time thinking about what you dream about knowing, or becoming. What you would like to explore.  There’s no right or wrong answer here, just pathways to wander down.  You might want to keep a journal about your own explorations, something you can look back on as the year progresses and as you change.  

And, of course, you are free to change your mind. In fact, I hope you will.

My job, and the challenge for all of your teachers, is to make sure that you become competent writers, that you can work with numbers and with other people, and that your curiosity increases as we fan the flames of your desire to know.  You’re still going to read good books and study algebra and geography and all the other stuff, but, as much as possible,  through the lens of the ideas and subjects that turn you on.

If you’re interested in airplanes or auto mechanics or veterinary medicine, let’s figure out why mathematics matters.  And why writing and speaking clearly matter. Because they do….

This isn’t that dreaded “extra homework.” It’s my way of reminding you that you are unique, not a number in somebody’s ranking.  

What you are actually  doing in school, although we never say this, is ‘Building a Self,” and the self that you build will be your constant companion–for the rest of your life.  And whatever you learn, whatever you put into your head, that’s who you are. No one can take that away from you.

Any questions?

A Modest Proposal (that shouldn’t be read aloud around children)

John Merrow Uncategorized

Juliet’s question to Romeo, “What’s in a name?” is intended to be rhetorical because, as she notes, “That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.”

But what does the name Republican convey ?  What on earth does “Republican” even mean in the time of Trump?  Perhaps “Trump Republican” is an oxymoron, given that he and his party are both rife with contradictions and also very far removed from the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower. Republicans once supported free trade; under Trump, they’re pro-tariff. Republicans once were fiercely anti-communist; under Trump, they’re good buddies with Putin and Xi and Kim Jong-un. And so on….

I suggest it’s time to rename Republican politicians like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jim Jordan, Marsha Blackburn, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Josh Hawley.  They are no longer Republicans. Instead think of them as “Formerly Known as Republican, or “FKRs.” 

Other FKRs include Mitch McConnell, Lauren Boebert, Mike Johnson, and–of course–the shape-shifting JD Vance.  

I almost forgot Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson and Representative Matt Gaetz, both FKRs of the first order.

You can make your own list of FKRs.

Former President Donald J. Trump is in a special category.  He is certainly a FKR, but because he was once Formerly Known as a Democrat, he’s FKD. And because he also is ‘The Felon Known as Donald,’ also FKD,  one could conclude that the FKR is double-FKD.  

Or that he’s the mother of all FKRs.

A reminder: please don’t read this aloud in the presence of children.

(This piece may remind you of the joke about the Swedish war hero who shot down dozens of Nazi planes during WWII. In a talk to the ladies of the Garden Society of Greenwich, he was telling the audience about shooting down “one fokker after another.”  The hostess interrupted to assure the shocked ladies that Fokker was the name of a German airplane.  To which he responded, “No, ma’am, those fokkers were Messerschmitts.”)

Dear Mr. President

John Merrow Uncategorized , , , ,

July 11, 2024

Dear President Biden,

You have been the most consequential and effective American president since FDR, and I believe that you will eventually be ranked among the three or four greatest US Presidents ever.

However, I also believe that your continuing to seek re-election this fall not only threatens your legacy but also virtually guarantees a Trump victory.  Given the recent Supreme Court decision regarding Presidential immunity, an unfettered Trump will put the USA on a downward path into fascism. Should we also lose the House and Senate, Project 2025 will be put in place, probably ending the American experiment for all time.

Former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg provides a cautionary tale. If she had stepped aside gracefully and allowed the Obama/Biden Administration to choose her replacement, her reputation and legacy would be unblemished, and she would be ranked among the most consequential Justices in our history.  However, she stubbornly hung on and, when she died, was replaced by a right-wing Justice, Amy Coney Barrett.  Despite RBG’s accomplishments, she will be remembered as “the Justice whose refusal to accept reality gave us an activist hard-right Supreme Court”

Age is not just a number, and I know whereof I speak. I recently turned 83, and, although I have managed to ‘bike my age’ on my birthday for the past 14 years, this year’s 83-mile ride took much longer and also required about two days of recovery time.   Next year will be even more difficult, but I can take my time.  As President, however, you have the weight of the world on your shoulders, 24/7.  Although you’ve surrounded yourself with extremely competent people and clearly have the support of a loving family, that is not sufficient reason for many Americans (including me) to pull the lever for you in November.  We want and need strong, vigorous, effective leadership, the kind you have provided for years.  

If you choose to step aside, you won’t be ‘quitting.’  Instead, you will be putting the United States of America ahead of your own strong desires to stay in office and  ‘finish the job.’  

I, my wife, and dozens of  our friends hope you will recognize the reality of aging and step aside gracefully so that Vice President Harris (or some other Democrat) can ‘finish the job’ that you have provided a blueprint for. 

With great admiration, gratitude, and respect,

John Merrow

Edgartown, Massachusetts 

(SENT ELECTRONICALLY AND BY U.S. MAIL TO THE WHITE HOUSE JULY 11TH)