October 15, 2021

A Cautionary Tale & A Follow-Up

72 hours ago everyone was pretty convinced they knew the deal in Loudoun County Schools. Maybe not?  It’s worth watching what’s happening there. Today the superintendent is apologizing for apparently seriously mishandling a sexual assault and a school board member is resigning. Loudoun County is the kind of place the Democrats need a strong showing in Virginia to hold the governor’s mansion.

The other day I noted that Eric Adams isn’t on board with the current push to reform gifted programs in New York and, “Hopefully the incoming mayor can craft a more robust plan to address multiple issues at once.”

Scant details, but apparently that’s his plan. Here are three unremarkable ways to do that. “Gifted” education doesn’t have to be as scarce a good as we make it.

Education’s Gig Economy…Can You Put A Price On Teaching?

Here’s an interesting one.

Outschool (live online classes for up to 18 learners) just announced a series D at a valuation of $3b. That’s a lot of Outschool. And it’s the third round of funding in the past year.

A friend observed this morning that with 7,000 teachers that’s a value of about $428k per teacher – organizations can join, too, but for argument’s sake 7k freelance teachers. Assume that there is some multiplier in there based on future value and perhaps it’s maybe $140k per teacher if it’s 3x, more or less depending on the assumption.

Is that a lot? Depends how you think about it. In some communities, ranging from Washington, D.C. to tony suburbs teachers make six figures annually. On the other hand Outschool offers value for teachers as well as students – flexible schedule, audience, payment processing, lower barriers to entry, and opportunity for creativity for instance. Outschool is pretty cool.

And despite the occasional headline, $140k is far more than the median teacher is seeing on any of the peer to peer teacher sites where teachers can sell their wares. So’s even a fraction of that.

But that’s not what Outschool teachers make. Outschool says the “average” teacher makes $50/hr. It’s a 70-30 split. Traditional teachers are not making $50/hour, but they do have guaranteed hours and employment for a set period of time. They also get benefits, sometimes really good packages.

An obvious question is, is this a good deal for teachers? For some teachers? Is this a better deal than unionized teachers are getting from their unions? Is a teacher gig economy desirable for some teachers? Should teachers see more upside with Outschool? You can argue those questions both ways – especially depending on what you value most. The New York Times op-eds write themselves, “I was a teacher unionist, then I discovered Outschool” or “I was an Outschool teacher, now I’m a building rep.”

For my part, I like Outschool* and think it fills an important and interesting place on the landscape – and is just one part of the a la carte or unbundled approach to schooling that is coming. Interestingly Outschool wants to work with employers. This was all coming before the pandemic, but that experience created more appetite. It’s not a substitute for trad school, but it’s a derivation that right now is offering real value.

Homeschooling has grown during the pandemic and an outstanding question is whether this will increase the demand for more a la carte services from schools by homeschoolers. Schools have traditionally resisted this although some states let homeschoolers take classes a la carte now. It might be a great time to build some bridges if broad support for publicly funded education and some sort of mass customization is the goal rather than pointless turf fights.

But what does it mean for teachers and how should Outschool teachers feel about this new deal and where it places them? I don’t know.** But it does signal change and probably more aggregated opportunities outside of traditional teaching roles in the future.


*No formal relationship, the co-founder and head of school spoke to a class I taught last year.

**Sorry Ned, two days in a row!

October 14, 2021

NAEP Craters, Vax Questions…

If you want to get Eduwonk by email the new supported email function is via Substack. It’s the same content as here, different format. Here’s yesterday’s for example.

The NAEP data out today isn’t very good! The 74 here. Culprits include too much testing, not enough money, Common Core, or the abandonment of NCLB style accountability pressure on states and schools. Not a culprit? Covid. These are late 2019 or early 2020 results.

It’s pretty easy to dismiss the testing and money gripes, not a lot of correlation there over time and some negative correlation. But because the test wasn’t given in 2016 it’s harder to parse out the other two.

And to add another level of questions, if the culprit is Common Core, is it the standards themselves or poor implementation?

On all this, views vary! In other words, as with every NAEP release, plenty to argue about. But this seems like a problem the sector should focus on. It’s a noteworthy outcome. I don’t say that every time!

I’m pro vax. I was vaxed in January, my wife is a teacher and was vaxed early in the year as well, and my kids are. If you want my view, I’d suggest getting a Covid vaccination, it could save your life and is generally the safe choice based on all the available evidence. And I’ve seen Covid close up, you don’t want it. All that said, the issue that is bubbling around with adolescent males seems like something to keep an eye on and not without some risk for school districts that are mandating the vaccine. There’s a big what if here. If the guidance on this changes at some point- and we should always remember they call it a *novel* coronavirus for a reason – the downstream costs in terms of trust and vaccine policy would be real and consequential. From a Politico look at a Hopkins doctor with some questions:

He isn’t entirely alone in his thinking. Health officials in Hong Kong, Britain, Norway and other countries have recommended a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for children 12 and older. Health officials in these countries have become increasingly worried about new data suggesting myocarditis may be more common among this group than they originally had thought.

But other U.S. public health experts, like Mark R. Schleiss, a pediatric infectious disease doctor at the University of Minnesota Medical School, told Nightly today that the vaccine is still the lowest-risk option.

Downbound Train.

October 13, 2021

Boundaries, Degrees, And…No Kids, Everyone Wasn’t Doing It…Plus Loudoun’s Gonna Be A Tell…

At Bellwether we released an analysis last week looking at school boundaries and educational access.

The analysis looks at the relationship between rental housing access, per-pupil funding, and school district boundaries in the 200 largest metropolitan areas. In particular, we look at three questions, access for low-income families, relationship between rental housing and PPE, and how district boundaries affect access to public school options.

Elsewhere, as a parting gift New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is tanking the city’s gifted programs. Unfortunately his preferred solution, relying on teachers, could be rife with bias, too. It’s, you know, complicated.

Couple of things happening here. First the likely incoming mayor, Eric Adams, is a pragmatic sort and he’s not on board with this. So there’s an element of theater here. Second, the city’s gifted program does seem inequitable! Solving that isn’t straightforward though. And clumsy solutions, especially combined with the current chokehold on charter schools, could have the effect of driving more parents out of the city’s public schools, which in the end isn’t good for anyone at least insofar as anyone wants a broadly supported system of public education. And more generally, third, gifted programs are at once strategies that have provided a more high quality and customized education to some students and also sometimes a strategy that’s been used to segregate schools. Not sure why this is another thing where everyone has to pick a side when it’s a both?

But like the idea that you can reduce police presence and not fuel a spate of gun buying, the idea that you can get rid of programs like gifted in a place like New York and at the same time have robust economically integrated public schools seems underpowered. Hopefully the incoming mayor can craft a more robust plan to address multiple issues at once.

Check out this new analysis from G’Town’s Center on Education and the Workforce, it is really interesting. The subhead is “More Education Doesn’t Always Mean More Earnings.” This is true! Especially true if you do something stupid like rack up a quarter million in debt to study film at a fancy school and have few prospects as a filmmaker…But the inverse is also true, sometimes more education does mean more money. It depends! And the report has some interesting data on how.

The key money issue is what you study and the key life issue is what you want to do. I have friends who do a variety of things that don’t involve a college education, are lucrative, and they enjoy. I also have friends who went to college and are glad they did. And a lot of successful people from all walks of life, when they’re being honest, acknowledge how they sort of fell into things either way. I’m not going to start extrapolating from anecdote here, and I will note that some of my friends who are happiest now do jobs, for instance surface transportation, that might be automated in a decade or two. The point is that both choosing – which requires a degree of empowerment and a high functioning school system – and information to make good choices are key. We don’t do a great job with either one for kids.

About a decade ago when the “is college worth it” debate was getting going in earnest I wrote that if you are sure you’re going to be the next Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg then sure, bail on college. But in general, playing the odds isn’t a bad strategy. That still seems generally true. Play the odds and do what you enjoy. And if you are first generation or low-income, pay extra attention to what the data show about college and social mobility.

This new report from Brookings, here’s an overview from IHE, is important in the same vein.

Our findings, however, suggest that community colleges do have control over important factors that can improve students’ economic circumstances. For example, community colleges and state higher education leaders have some control over the types and mixture of programs they offer (or encourage students to enroll in), the mix of full-time/adjunct faculty they hire, spending on instruction and student services, and, at the state-level, the amount and structure of community college funding. As we demonstrate, these factors are correlated with student outcomes.

Social issues…man. Back in April I caught some grief for writing that the Dems were playing with fire on social issues in Virginia. It seemed combustible. Seems like that might be blowing up before November, which is really bad timing for the Dem ticket. Keep an eye on this Loudoun County sexual assault issue – whichever version of the facts turns out to be right it’s going to be really illustrative about the politics here.

There is a cancel campaign happening at Michigan right now. Here’s a short summary,

What was Sheng’s transgression? He screened the 1965 version of Shakespeare’s Othello in class as part of a lesson about how the play was adapted for the opera. This version stars Laurence Olivier, a white actor, who wore blackface to portray the protagonist Othello, a Moor. The choice was controversial even at the time, and today, the portrayal is considered by many to be akin to a racial caricature.

I don’t have a fancy film degree that cost $250k or a film degree at all, though I did take an amazing and eye opening film history class in college that I doubt you could teach today. But my point isn’t about the substance here. Instead, what caught my eye was the “even at the time.” Whether in public debates, DEI workshops, and too many classrooms we’ve rhetorically slipped into a really deterministic view of history that seems to overlook how at every juncture there were dissenters.

We now argue about the American Revolution from perspectives of whether the founders were sympathetic to slavery, actively pro-slavery, or actually opposed when the answer is all of the above (and some of them changed their views a few times in all directions, they were politicians). Daniel Boone was courtmartialed for being too friendly to Native Americans. Not everyone thought Japanese Internment was a good idea or legal. Acceptance and celebration of LGBT people is not something just discovered this century, there were people a lot time ago who dissented from the prevailing view. There was literally a dissent in Plessy, which in makes the decision that much more egregious.

Anyway, I’m not trying to make a point about agency or even criticize Marxist views of history that are now in remarkably casual use (ironically, especially among the well heeled educated professional class). That’s a different issue. The point is that on a lot of these issues both “sides” argue this or that was “just the times.” One side in order to indict everyone, the other as exculpatory. But in general, even “at the time” there was dissent about various issues. And as we think about how to teach history to students, better than we do today, that seems like a place where the action really is in terms of curriculum and pedagogy. Because it’s at once more complicated and honest, and also more damning for those who didn’t dissent than the “everyone was doing it” ethos that seems increasingly common.

And more American, because dissent is American.


October 5, 2021

Today In Targets…Letters…And Ozy’s Edu Audience. Plus Learning Loss Pragmatism…

Bellwether’s Brian Robinson on learning loss:

It’s time to move beyond the semantics of what to call the problem and instead figure out what we’re going to do about it.

Yesterday Merrick Garland announced that DOJ would take a look at what’s happening with regard to school board meeting protests and parents threatening school officials.

This after an NSBA letter asking for federal help.

One way to read the letter he sent is that it’s a big nothing. Basically, ‘we’re going to have some meetings.’ It’s flag showing or bone throwing and little more. Another is that it’s an example of government overreach, chilling dissent. (A third is that the calvary is coming, but c’mon.). DOJ says more measures coming.

In any event, there are three risks here. One is just engaging the prosecutorial mechanisms of the federal government in what is largely a debate about curriculum. There already are federal, state, and local tools to prosecute those threatening or planning violence against school officials – and they should be used, this is unacceptable.

The second is the backfire potential. As everyone knows a fire needs oxygen and fuel to keep burning. This Merrick Garland action seems like it might be oxygen and fuel with regard to the CRT debate. Movements need signals, either as rallying points or targets,, Garland just hung up a big one.

Third, obviously, keeping public officials safe or more precisely failing to do that.

A few other things here worth noting. It’s weird how last summer the big push was for everyone to get on board with “defund the police.” Now the pressure is to fall into line over getting the FBI involved…the FBI!

I don’t really see a conflict of interest because AG Merrick Garland’s son-in-law works for Panorama, an education climate company. But it’s the kind of thing people will spin up about now.

Meanwhile, sexuality seems like more of a flashpoint here than people realize and more consensus than people realize.

Anyway, with these various protests there has been conduct that crosses legal lines. The question remains it seems, are things happening that local and state authorities can’t handle on their own? In other words, can they keep people safe without federal intervention. If not, this is warranted. If so, it’s politics.

At some level the whole school board contretemps is about power – who has it, who wants it, who gets to make decisions about what kids learn. It’s an old story that way.

I remember a conversation once with some very wealthy people about philanthropy. And it became clear that the wealthy people they knew all engaged in philanthropy, as a matter of course. There was a time in the 90s and 00s that if you were real wealthy and not doing ed reform or some other high profile philanthropy it was seen as pretty gauche.

But these wealthy benefactors of a variety of causes didn’t seem to know a lot of people who spent their money golfing, boating, and/or swirling in the bottom of a glass. They were modest not ostentatious about wealth. Despite the fetishization of billionaires where a lot of money and a lot of power resides is with those folks who are fantastically wealthy but not billionaires or anywhere near that. And they’re not doing “philanthropy” as we think about it in this sector.

That all occurred to me reading this interesting Joan Coaston essay in The Times. If you don’t follow her writing, recommend. In a lot of situations we should think about who has power in more sophisticated ways than we often do.

A few education implications from the Ozy meltdown, but here’s a graf from Ben Smith’s after-action:

What that left, said a former employee with knowledge of the company’s analytic data, was a real, if tiny, fan base — just not the one Ozy liked to talk about. “The classic demographic for Ozy was a retired female white teacher who used Ozy to stay young and stay woke and loved learning about the world from it,” the former employee said. Samir Rao, the company’s co-founder and chief operating officer, would sometimes joke about bringing in the AARP as an advertiser, the former employee added.

Via Freddie deBoer:

What remains of that radicalism is the critical race theory fight, and as I have argued, it’s fundamentally a consolation prize – CRT is rhetorically extreme in many of its manifestations, but it makes nothing happen directly, has given conservatives a big meaty target to attack, and any progress that might stem from it depends on teachers being willing to teach it and students not just listening to but accepting what they hear, which is, it’s fair to say, not how it always works in the classroom. I’ll ask again: when you marched last summer, did you march for minor curricular changes in some public K-12 schools? Or did you march to change the world?

Billy Strings.

October 4, 2021

Will The NSBA Letter Backfire?

A lot of chatter – and here’s a 74 article – about the NSBA open letter to the President asking for help combating domestic terrorism at school board meetings. Yes you read that right. Happy 2021!

A few things going on here at once.

First, of late there have been threats of violence, and actual violence, against school officials and teachers. And then also some disrupted meetings. It’s still thankfully quite rare (click fueled media and social media distorts your sense of prevalence*) but it’s not trivial, enough to be concerning, and it only takes one.

It’s completely unacceptable and anyone engaging in real or threatened violence against school officials should be held accountable. Period. And left unchecked this can get out of hand. There is some history here. The anniversary of Marcus Foster’s death, who was killed over absolute idiocy, is next month. Everyone should tone it down.

Second, as the NSBA letter basically notes, there are existing tools to deal with this. There are laws against threatening public officials, laws against using mail or electronic means to do it, and law’s against domestic terrorism and agencies tasked with addressing it. At the school level,  assaulting a teacher is just that, an assault and should be treated accordingly. The law should be aggressively enforced where applicable. It seems so obvious it shouldn’t bear mentioning, we can have no tolerance for violence or the threat of it to coerce school officials.

At the same time, we should be cautious about broad strokes here. There is a complicated, at times politically toxic, conversation happening about schools right now. The issues range from masks and vaccinations to how and what to teach about American history and longstanding debates about sexuality and curriculum. There are those – on the left and right – who would rather shut those debates down than engage them.

It’s not hard to see how the invocation of “domestic terrorism” will fuel the impulse to shut down rather than work through. Protecting your members is one thing, but this is playing with matches and open letters released to the media are not the only way to engage government officials.

People who have concerns and want to be heard by public officials will feel they are being labeled as a means to shut them out. If Biden wants to cede the suburbs and their political power back to Republicans here’s a way to do it. Meanwhile, people who don’t want debates about these issues will feel emboldened – by definition no one needs to engage a domestic terrorist in debate anyway – to just ignore dissent.

If we’re being honest, many school boards trumpet their publicness while doing whatever possible to avoid the grubby work of actually engaging with the public – especially the public that doesn’t agree with them. That hypocrisy always lurks here. In our system of government it’s a mistake to assume that your “side” is ascendent and various powers won’t be used against you at some point.

All this is to say that without a careful parsing of the dangerous from the dissenting the NSBA letter, rather than a warning or a clarion call for help, may end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. And peril that way lies.

*Also, there is a fair amount of agreement about a lot of these issues, that gets distorted by the loud poles, too.

Update: Attorney General Merrick Garland responds.

Posted on Oct 4, 2021 @ 10:23am

October 1, 2021

You Rubes Owe Betsy DeVos An Apology! Plus, The Teacher Pension Problem Is One Of Design More Than Finance…Janice Jackson’s New Gig…

They say you should not publish late on a Friday if it’s not bad news, but it was a busy week, so here are a few quick things.

This new place-based initiative Janice Jackson is leading looks fantastic. But what does it mean when an accomplished school system executive who wants to send more kids to college decides the leverage point to do it is outside the system? Discuss!

The teacher pension debate can be pretty tendentious. Most reformers don’t want to take retirement away from people and most pension experts acknowledge publicly or privately that the vesting rules and other provisions are untenable for a modern labor market. 5, 7, or even 10 years in almost a third of states to even get any pension at all is not acceptable. Most teacher pensions are not gold plated. I don’t want to start throwing a lot of technical terms around, especially late in the day, but there is a lot of what the experts refer to as bullshit.

Anyway, that’s why I was glad to get a chance to talk about the broader issues in this article about the recent pension rankings that Bellwether put out. One of the things you’ll notice about our rankings is that the top performing states take different structural approaches. That hasn’t stopped some advocates from saying the report is all about 401(k)s but you can look at the results and see that’s not an honest take. Ideology obscures pragmatism in this conversation too much, and the conversation matters to people’s lives. Yes, states have to service their debt responsibly and legacy pension costs crowding out school spending is a real issue in some places. But the core issue is one of design, not finance:

Rotherham argued that education policymakers should not focus exclusively on plan type in debates over how to improve their systems. Defined benefit packages — often caricatured as “gold-plated” vestiges of the mid-20th century, when many employees could expect to retire early with enviable financial security — are not necessarily financially irresponsible for states, he said, and alternative systems can sometimes fail the test of adequacy for the retirees who depend on them.

“This debate has often become very reductionist, and it’s become a debate over what should be the form of the plan — is it defined benefit or defined contribution? — rather than which elements would make it good or bad,” Rotherham said. “And that’s what we need to be talking about because for the plan participants, it’s those elements that affect their lives, not these ideological debates between 401(k)s and pensions.”

Whatever specific structure a state commits to, he said, leaders can no longer condition their retirement benefits on career-long tenures within a given system; any expectation that employees will stay in place for decades is “not a match for our labor market,” Rotherham added.

“If you know you’re going to teach in one place for 30 years, the pension plan works for you, and you should do that. The problem is that people decide they don’t like teaching. They get sick, they have to move, they fall in love with someone whose job requires relocation, they need to be a caregiver. Life happens, people make plans that don’t work out, so these structures have to have some flexibility.

And once again, it seems that some of you all owe Betsy DeVos an apology. h/t John Bailey.

September 28, 2021

Odds & Ends: Bellwether On Overlooked Kids Falling Through The Cracks, MN Reads, Hite Exits, Busy SCOTUS, Space Face…

Reminder, you can get Eduwonk content emailed to you via Substack. Sign up here.

If there is a theme to recent Bellwether field facing work it’s “overlooked.” We released a publication estimating the number of students overlooked by school systems right now. Our new 50 state pension ranking looks at a really overlooked issue – teacher retirement.

And now, today, we’re releasing a new website on students who are lost because of systems fragmentation. Check out Lost By Design here. And here’s a tool kit with ways we can do better.

Look, none of this is causing people to pack school board meeting. But issues like this matter to how people live their lives.

Speaking of places we can do better and look closer, high achieving low-income students often fall through the cracks. This report from Fordham is important and seems structural, systemic, or whatever you want to call it.

Elsewhere, Bill Hite had a great run in Philadelphia. Urban sup’ts don’t have to be two or three and out. Thoughtful school leader.

Here’s a good overview of education aspects of the Supreme Court docket.

And here are some parents protesting reading, it’s not a trend but not a one-off either.

There is an almost total lunar eclipse coming up this fall. Get up, out, and see it, and in the meantime listen here. 

September 27, 2021

NWEA Has The Market Cornered On…Nice! Are Edujedis Problematic? Someone Is Watching The Kids…

Some education stakes in the Washington debate this week.

Surprised this kind of thing has not attracted more attention. There are less intrusive and privacy threatening ways to accomplish the same goal.

For the record, let me say how much I like and respect Chris Minnich, who has done important work at NWEA and before. So this isn’t about him.

But this NWEA announcement of what’s essentially the acquisition of an assessment tool from one provider to another seems sorta interesting. It has a white hat quality to it and was circulated around in a “isn’t this great” way. You have to wonder if some for-profit testing company did the same thing would it be treated the same way? I don’t think I ever received an excited note from someone about Scantron…You hear bouquets about NWEA all the time.

It’s also a good reminder that for all the hysterics about Pearson, a lot of assessment companies are, like NWEA, non-profit and that seems to allow them to fly under the radar. NWEA, ETS, the former Measured Progress now Cognia, for instance. Until recently AIR was a big player in statewide assessment. Some non-profits own for-profit assessment companies. It’s a mixed up world!

From where I sit the problems with assessment fall into a few broad buckets, structural issues like capital markets and support for real R & D, the marketplace itself (states), and then politics. The non-profit for profit status seems secondary. And it seems pretty clear that a firm can do good or not so good work on large scale assessment with either tax status.

In any event, my point, obviously, is that whomever does PR or marketing for NWEA ought to get a raise. They’ve cornered the market on being the “nice” testing company. And also maybe we all might think about the kaleidoscope way the assessment world is generally approached?

Elsewhere, there is a podcast in eduction about “Edujedis” and a whole society of them who do various things. And then there is this. The woke conversation, confused it is.

Posted on Sep 27, 2021 @ 2:57pm

September 22, 2021

Charter Randomness, Five Year Plans, School A Pied? And Where Are Families Going And What Do They Want From School? More…

Light housekeeping: The blog will continue to offer the Google Feedburner as a way to read Eduwonk, but because Google is no longer supporting the tool the supported email will be via Substack going forward.

Bellwether’s Hailly Korman in NASBE’s Standard on supporting students furthest from opportunity. 

People are talking about…Woke Urban Institute. Here’s Liam Bright’s take.

Paul Hill on one aspect of the “no argument” problem, how teaching and learning become a casualty.

On Twitter a big part of the charter debate is over whether charters just want to take some of the easiest to educate kids or all of them. In real life on the ground, a lot of charter operators are concerned about gentrification and maintaining a focus on persistently underserved students. Random admission rules, which are important to address potential skimming, can have the adverse affect of making it harder to have diverse schools.

That’s why this policy change in DC is interesting, because the idea that charters should have totally random admit bumps up against problems caused by changing community demographics and scarcity of good public options. I’ve never had an issue with weighted charter lotteries if the weights are toward underserved students or other narrowly tailored goals (and like all choice options the choices should be in the context of a genuine set of choices for families), but some charter advocates understandably worry that it opens the door for trouble.

California wants to have all 3rd-graders reading by 2026. That’s really great. Until you remember that it’s 2021 and that’s 3rd grade…

In unrelated news, parents are bailing from traditional public schools. But, two things to keep in mind in all the fuss. First, a lot of this is driven by virtual. Unclear how sticky that will be over time as pandemic risk ebbs. Second, the evidence is clear there is a huge disaffected cohort of parents out there right now. But I’ve only heard one major foundation talking seriously about how to protect their interests (eg pods) or advance them (eg choice). It’s just not where the philanthropic world is right now. And as we have discussed here, diffuse interests generally lose to organized interests in a liberal political system and the producer interests in this sector aren’t that interested in accommodating disaffected consumers. Absent a concerted effort this moment will pass and we’ll still be arguing about whether objectivity and rigor are at odds with social justice.

Here, from 74 earlier this week, is Bellwether’s Alex Spurier on homeschooling and what it portends.

The other day we talked about school transportation and the bus driver shortage. Earlier this week the 74’s Mahnken looked at childhood obesity. My probably unpopular take is that more kids should walk to school. Yes in some communities that’s not an option, I live half time in a very rural area so I get that, and yes special needs students need accommodations, I did a book about that with Checker Finn and Charles Hoakason about twenty years ago, get that, too*. Other issues can be safety and availability of appropriate sidewalks. And weather. That’s a lot! But, all that notwithstanding it sure does seem like more kids could walk to school than to today, especially in the suburbs and more built environments – and it’s another way to keep young people moving. Also better for the air.

Did you see that really compelling cover of “Creep” in an early episode of Apple TV’s “The Morning Show?” That was Rozzi Crane. She’s doing a sort of pop-up tour this fall if you want to get out and see / support some live music.

*Although a big focus of our project was about how the stereotypes about most special education students are mostly wrong. In this case, most can walk to school.