As a school psychologist, I think I can provide a perspective that was missing from your callers and the subjects of your wonderful four-part series. One caller, a mother with several kids who mentioned possible connections between the children of Merrick Garland's kids and educational policy, had a terrific narrative but it missed the real history of what got us here. She mentioned Trump's statement of local control in education. That is an easy thing to say when one's frame of reference is less than forty years, but the system we have in place is well over forty years old. Most of the challenges we face with social justice do stem with disabilities laws. Students, and adults, with disabilities are historically marginalized populations. When we created laws that address providing support for adults, and later students, with disabilities, those laws were so generalized to be used by other populations that were never the intended focuses of the laws themselves. We created a model intended to distinguish individuals with special challenges, and intended to focus that model on specific disabilities. That model required qualified practitioners of psychological and other assessments, what I do for a living, to assess individuals sufficiently to identify or rule out if an individual meets the description. It was so significant with blindness, for instance, that visually impaired individuals had specific stipulations of the 1040 tax forms as a deduction, a stipulation missing for every other disability. Again, that was over 40 years ago, at a time where being disabled really meant the student had a handicap and not a harder to identify disability that can be interpreted only, but not seen. Today, the incentive is in BEING DISABLED. The most obvious example of that is with the autism community. In 1980, statistics of the prevalence of autism indicated prevalence in over 1:20,000. In the last month, the CDC identified the prevalence as 1:44 children with an autism-spectrum disorder. Genetics did not change significantly in just over two generations, but what did change was lifestyles and a failure to deal with the challenges of keeping up. We recognized that disabilities law could be justified to provide supports for individuals to keep ahead, and sold the notion that medications (Adderall, Abilify, et.al.) could play a part in that model. We did not sell the notion of working any harder than necessary so not to be disabled. We sold the notion that with medications, legal ones, we would limit the responsibility of working with our kids. That notion also led to the secondary effect of expecting medications would be used in the same way that we EXPECT cell phones and updated technology to be used, screw the potential problems. This model contributed to the present financial divide: bright, educated persons with kids knew not to buy into what was being sold. Suggestible individuals bought into the model hook, line, and sinker, and so did the social justice population. Similar to accommodating for blindness and giving tax breaks, social justice advocates saw the disabilities model to benefit themselves. Since a federal law was passed and signed by President Ford in 1975, PL 94-142, we followed with policies that expanded that laws reach. Back to the caller with five kids, I get her perspective, and she is very bright, but that world view is limited. Now, as other callers and maybe she said, I cannot remember if she did at the moment, should we "blow up" the whole model? Clearly, it depends on what we are blowing up. It also depends on what we need to do to make up for lost services that are expected. Finally, you cannot blow up a model that has so much support in the courts. There were opportunities where we could have redefined what this model looks like (America 2000, in 1990; Goals 2000, in 1993; IDEA 1997; No Child Left Behind; IDEiA, 2004; Race to the Top), but all of those changes built the model to be stronger, not weaker, and not even close to blowing it up. Last, and maybe most importantly, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation created huge problems with their education policies. They weren't just wrong with their focuses on education, going back to 1995, at least, they were MONUMENTALLY WRONG. They sold the point of view that gave us ego maniacs like Michelle Rhee and other "Waiting for Superman" fans who promised to show the way, which they never could and never did. The Gates Foundation threw Gates Grants at schools with the goal of increasing test scores, and they offered, from what I could tell, no original ideas. Education is too complicated a model just to throw money at it, and being a state's rights model cannot be magically changed based on test scores. To change education, we have to change our attitudes toward education, and that includes the attitude that there is an absolute best school and school system such as the Loudoun County Schools. But when parent want the best for their kids, and have only eighteen years to secure what they want for them, the expectation is to get what they want for their kids, NOW. Were we to focus on education as the best we can provide our kids, rather than the best that can be sold to parents for our kids, we will be better off.
There are still many of us who do not or cannot use mobile. It is a disturbing trend to see that mobile is being required to exist in society these days. I am EM sensitive and haven't been able to safely use a mobile phone since the early 2000s. Please halt this becoming a mandatory technology (with QR codes). This WILL displace a significant number of people outside of society. Are we disposable?
Don't worry folks you are not alone. Even with an iPhone and the app I refused to register with all my details so no live podcast for me. Hopefully Matt will post the podcast after the fact.
Matt/Emily: Can you publish the Substack link to John's Blog (ThomasPayne or Pains?) on how media outlets use Emojis to create emotional profiles? I searched the blog by name & the article unsuccessfully. Fascinating. This was a great podcast thanks for sharing it https://www.callin.com/show/tk-live-VOaYFhTeLH
This was the first one of these I listened to and I enjoyed it. You should stress that people can listen after the fact with a web browser. I don't think people know (I didn't) that an iPhone is only needed if a person wishes to ask a question and/or listen live.
I smiled when a caller mentioned the $75 submission fee for the Pulitzer nomination because I too had researched what was involved. I also have $75 burning a hole in my pocket. I think all of us really just want to know for certain that your Loudoun series is submitted. (If multiple submissions help, or are even allowed, that would be worth knowing, too.)
You laughed at your chances, but a couple of things... They announce three finalists (I told you I read their website!) so that's something. Also, if they bypass you, we'd know three works they judged as being superior to your Loudoun series. Which would be its own source of fun.
Your series is great in and of itself. Period. But, coming in this media environment, it sticks out like a sore thumb for being an honest and serious piece of work.
I'm not as outraged as some about the limited availability here (or outraged at all, in fact - Boston, where I live, just announced vaccine mandates for 5 year olds, so my outrage tank is pretty empty), but if these shows could get pushed to a subscriber RSS feed at some point, I'd love to listen after the fact.
For everyone who is wondering about the Apple-only thing, the company claims that an Android app is coming soon: https://www.callin.com/faqs “Callin is currently only available on iOS, but we will support Android soon!” For what it’s worth…
Well, the Apple-only app, CallIn, appears to be the new company of an interesting cat. Crony of Peter Thiel, former McKinsey employee, angel investor, plausible billionaire--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_O._Sacks Maybe he, or his image consultant, is a platinum sponsor of TK News, and got favored nation status for this gig?
As a school psychologist, I think I can provide a perspective that was missing from your callers and the subjects of your wonderful four-part series. One caller, a mother with several kids who mentioned possible connections between the children of Merrick Garland's kids and educational policy, had a terrific narrative but it missed the real history of what got us here. She mentioned Trump's statement of local control in education. That is an easy thing to say when one's frame of reference is less than forty years, but the system we have in place is well over forty years old. Most of the challenges we face with social justice do stem with disabilities laws. Students, and adults, with disabilities are historically marginalized populations. When we created laws that address providing support for adults, and later students, with disabilities, those laws were so generalized to be used by other populations that were never the intended focuses of the laws themselves. We created a model intended to distinguish individuals with special challenges, and intended to focus that model on specific disabilities. That model required qualified practitioners of psychological and other assessments, what I do for a living, to assess individuals sufficiently to identify or rule out if an individual meets the description. It was so significant with blindness, for instance, that visually impaired individuals had specific stipulations of the 1040 tax forms as a deduction, a stipulation missing for every other disability. Again, that was over 40 years ago, at a time where being disabled really meant the student had a handicap and not a harder to identify disability that can be interpreted only, but not seen. Today, the incentive is in BEING DISABLED. The most obvious example of that is with the autism community. In 1980, statistics of the prevalence of autism indicated prevalence in over 1:20,000. In the last month, the CDC identified the prevalence as 1:44 children with an autism-spectrum disorder. Genetics did not change significantly in just over two generations, but what did change was lifestyles and a failure to deal with the challenges of keeping up. We recognized that disabilities law could be justified to provide supports for individuals to keep ahead, and sold the notion that medications (Adderall, Abilify, et.al.) could play a part in that model. We did not sell the notion of working any harder than necessary so not to be disabled. We sold the notion that with medications, legal ones, we would limit the responsibility of working with our kids. That notion also led to the secondary effect of expecting medications would be used in the same way that we EXPECT cell phones and updated technology to be used, screw the potential problems. This model contributed to the present financial divide: bright, educated persons with kids knew not to buy into what was being sold. Suggestible individuals bought into the model hook, line, and sinker, and so did the social justice population. Similar to accommodating for blindness and giving tax breaks, social justice advocates saw the disabilities model to benefit themselves. Since a federal law was passed and signed by President Ford in 1975, PL 94-142, we followed with policies that expanded that laws reach. Back to the caller with five kids, I get her perspective, and she is very bright, but that world view is limited. Now, as other callers and maybe she said, I cannot remember if she did at the moment, should we "blow up" the whole model? Clearly, it depends on what we are blowing up. It also depends on what we need to do to make up for lost services that are expected. Finally, you cannot blow up a model that has so much support in the courts. There were opportunities where we could have redefined what this model looks like (America 2000, in 1990; Goals 2000, in 1993; IDEA 1997; No Child Left Behind; IDEiA, 2004; Race to the Top), but all of those changes built the model to be stronger, not weaker, and not even close to blowing it up. Last, and maybe most importantly, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation created huge problems with their education policies. They weren't just wrong with their focuses on education, going back to 1995, at least, they were MONUMENTALLY WRONG. They sold the point of view that gave us ego maniacs like Michelle Rhee and other "Waiting for Superman" fans who promised to show the way, which they never could and never did. The Gates Foundation threw Gates Grants at schools with the goal of increasing test scores, and they offered, from what I could tell, no original ideas. Education is too complicated a model just to throw money at it, and being a state's rights model cannot be magically changed based on test scores. To change education, we have to change our attitudes toward education, and that includes the attitude that there is an absolute best school and school system such as the Loudoun County Schools. But when parent want the best for their kids, and have only eighteen years to secure what they want for them, the expectation is to get what they want for their kids, NOW. Were we to focus on education as the best we can provide our kids, rather than the best that can be sold to parents for our kids, we will be better off.
I was able to listen to this episode (and others) here:
https://www.callin.com/show/tk-live-VOaYFhTeLH
There are still many of us who do not or cannot use mobile. It is a disturbing trend to see that mobile is being required to exist in society these days. I am EM sensitive and haven't been able to safely use a mobile phone since the early 2000s. Please halt this becoming a mandatory technology (with QR codes). This WILL displace a significant number of people outside of society. Are we disposable?
Don't worry folks you are not alone. Even with an iPhone and the app I refused to register with all my details so no live podcast for me. Hopefully Matt will post the podcast after the fact.
Yeah, we're out also. No iPhone. Read the articles and loved them. Had looked forward to the discussion. Maybe do these on Zoom in the future?
No iPhone, so I guess I'm out.
Yes, it does seem only posh Apple people are welcome.
Matt/Emily: Can you publish the Substack link to John's Blog (ThomasPayne or Pains?) on how media outlets use Emojis to create emotional profiles? I searched the blog by name & the article unsuccessfully. Fascinating. This was a great podcast thanks for sharing it https://www.callin.com/show/tk-live-VOaYFhTeLH
Callin requires 13.0 iOS. My iPhone 6 iOS is insufficient. How many like me, who want to join but cannot?
Matt/Emily, if you see this...
This was the first one of these I listened to and I enjoyed it. You should stress that people can listen after the fact with a web browser. I don't think people know (I didn't) that an iPhone is only needed if a person wishes to ask a question and/or listen live.
I smiled when a caller mentioned the $75 submission fee for the Pulitzer nomination because I too had researched what was involved. I also have $75 burning a hole in my pocket. I think all of us really just want to know for certain that your Loudoun series is submitted. (If multiple submissions help, or are even allowed, that would be worth knowing, too.)
You laughed at your chances, but a couple of things... They announce three finalists (I told you I read their website!) so that's something. Also, if they bypass you, we'd know three works they judged as being superior to your Loudoun series. Which would be its own source of fun.
Your series is great in and of itself. Period. But, coming in this media environment, it sticks out like a sore thumb for being an honest and serious piece of work.
I'm not as outraged as some about the limited availability here (or outraged at all, in fact - Boston, where I live, just announced vaccine mandates for 5 year olds, so my outrage tank is pretty empty), but if these shows could get pushed to a subscriber RSS feed at some point, I'd love to listen after the fact.
For everyone who is wondering about the Apple-only thing, the company claims that an Android app is coming soon: https://www.callin.com/faqs “Callin is currently only available on iOS, but we will support Android soon!” For what it’s worth…
no iPhone. Any other way to listen in? will it be recorded for audio accessible later with a laptop?
Well, the Apple-only app, CallIn, appears to be the new company of an interesting cat. Crony of Peter Thiel, former McKinsey employee, angel investor, plausible billionaire--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_O._Sacks Maybe he, or his image consultant, is a platinum sponsor of TK News, and got favored nation status for this gig?
We Android people are beneath contempt apparently.
"What I object to is you automatically treatin'
me like an inferior." - Dennis the Constitutional Peasant, Holy Grail
Is it truly possible to only login through an Apple product?