A voucher by any other name

 ...still doesn't smell sweet, with all apologies to Shakespeare.

You may have noticed a recent flood of reporting around the--let's call them what they are!--vouchers that are a creation of the OB3 bill. This is due to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy Kevin Salinger having delivered remarks in a closed-door session earlier this week which were subsequently released. The provision of the bill goes into effect in January; guidance was expected, well, now, but now we are told is coming the end of September. I think that this this summary from Education Counsel out of D.C., is also useful, as is this resource guide from In the Public Interest.

You might remember that this is a pass through: those able can donate to an organization that then provides scholarships from those funds to those eligible, in any state in which the governor has opted into the program, who are from a household with income no greater than 300% of the area’s median gross income. The voucher piece of this is a redirection of what would be federal tax dollars instead to, through the pass-through, private education; per K-12 Dive: 

Starting in 2027, taxpayers will be able to donate up to $1,700 annually to a scholarship-granting 501(c)(3) organization. They then would be eligible for a 100% federal income tax credit for their contributions.

You get a federal tax break if you do this. 

You might remember from the write-up I did of the first round of the Massachusetts push about this the rosy picture of what this can be spent on doesn't bear out. Josh Cowen, whose work on vouchers I appreciate a great deal, came out with what I'd characterize as a "get that money" post this week. As he outlines: 

Yes. Even under the most narrow interpretation of the law, school districts can provide services that students may purchase in addition to their state-funded base funding that comes with enrollment.

The key words there are "may purchase." This is not funding that flows to schools from the public education they, by law, already provide. This for additional programs that families can CHOOSE TO BUY from the school district, that the district creates (or I suppose already has, if a school already charges for some sort of bonus services). The problem, and I again think Peter Greene has outlined this well, is that this has nothing to do with the provision of public education to all students: 

...schools could be explicitly offering a Basic Minimum track. That Basic Minimum could be funded by local taxpayers, and everything offered in the Premium track would be funded with federal dollars, leaving the “extra” offerings at the mercy of donor generosity and federal rule-making. Instead of moving closer to fully funding public schools, federal vouchers will provide excuses to fund them less.

Again, these are not dollars that are going to flow into public schools to "support" programs we already are required to have. The only way this will go to public schools is if they are for shiny special programs that cost more and are outside of the requirements of the school. Anyone who argues otherwise hasn't done the reading. 

Cowen's main point (I think it is fair to say) is that these dollars are going to be coming from every state, and so every state should be sure that they can also receive them. I will say that this "money only flows out" argument doesn't hold a lot of water with me, as I am familiar with the way the federal revenue and expenses work with relationship to my state. 

I also don't buy the idea--agreeing with Joshua Weishart, who outlines it well in this thread--that there isn't a real cost to public education in this system. First, we have ongoing concerns over if federal education funding is going to continue and continue to serve those most in need. I do think this gives fodder to those looking for cuts, if what they see are 50 states opting into systems that remove dollars from federal public coffers and redirect them to private (or privately directed) education. We don't need Title I any more then, right? Or IDEA?

There is a basic question here: Do we believe in public education of all at the public expense or not? It thus isn't entirely a surprise at who we see, even here in Massachusetts, coming out in favor of such a program; this is another round of neo-liberal education reform, which was unfortunately popular on both sides of the aisle. To again quote Peter Greene: 

But what is not being discussed is the effect that such a system could have on the public school mission. From “we are going to try to give your child the best possible education we can afford” to “we are going to give your child the bare minimum and if you want more than that, you’ll have to either pay for it yourself or go shopping for a voucher.” From a system funded and controlled locally with assistance from the state to a system that depends on donations funneled through the federal government.

I will again say that I am concerned that this may have popularity near the Governor's office. We need to be clear: this is not money that can support the programs we need to provide in public schools. 

Here comes Alpha Schools in Massachusetts

 The Boston School Committee this week approved the opening of an Alpha School in Boston. I think those comments quoted are of note: 

The approval was largely a formality. Under state law, the committee had to evaluate whether Alpha met the basic requirements for a school in Massachusetts, though the board has no supervisory role over private schools.

Superintendent Mary Skipper called those state requirements “fundamentals” that don’t guarantee that a proposed private school will succeed.

“I can say that what lies on paper, and what actually it takes [to] make it successful, are very different things,” Skipper said.

Board members also criticized the state evaluation process because it takes resources from Boston’s public school system.

“We are basically approving competitors at a time when resources are short and parents have needs and the needs are great,” said Jeri Robinson, the committee’s chairperson.

Don't think Boston will be the end of it; my understanding is that they have also applied to open in at least Lexington.  

How subcommittees work

 In which John Adams recounts talking Thomas Jefferson into writing the draft of the Declaration of Independence: 

Yesterday was the anniversary of this historic subcommittee meeting. This is, of course, the account Adams gave, which is why you should also take good minutes, lest only one person's version of the meeting persist! 

"Turtles all the way down": Rhode Island looks at how they fund schools

 Our neighbors to the south here in Massachusetts are sending their school finance study to a study: 

At Tuesday’s finance hearing, Sen. Jonathon Acosta, a Central Falls Democrat, expressed his ire that another commission was needed to study the findings of a different commission. He noted the Blue Ribbon panel had itself spun off in part from a previous Senate commission which also studied the funding formula and wrapped up its final report in 2020.

“In so many ways, just turtles all the way down,” Acosta said.

Nevertheless, Acosta deemed Gallo’s new proposal “a significant step forward” and “a signal that the State House is willing to do something,” although any rollout of Blue Ribbon recommendations would likely would not begin until 2028.

As every state's finance system for schools is different, I found this bit about Rhode Island's of interest: 

 Key to the Blue Ribbon recommendations is expanding state funding beyond what the panel saw as a somewhat myopic focus on direct instructional costs, which comprise the bulk of current state aid to schools. The Blue Ribboners concluded that the state should pursue what the report called “full funding” for municipal school districts — a model which would fold costs such as transportation and teacher pensions into the state’s obligations.

Inside Google's AI academy report

 We know from leaked documents that Google considers schools “pipeline of future users,” as leaked documents have shown, and it appears that being "Google trained," as the AI bubble continues onwards, isn't sufficient, as Google is now training Google Gemini evangelists, as NBC news reports.  

I recommend reading it, though I'll also note that Peter Greene does quite a nice job of channeling some of the rage I feel reading it, as well. The observation I'll make is that the notion that those objecting to or opposing the use might have any valid points is of course waved away. 

One must convert or one is not worthy of consideration. 

Screen audit in Cambridge

 The Globe writes today about the work the Cambridge Public Schools has done on auditing their screen use. You might remember my writing about this  back in February, when the Crimson wrote about it. You can find the May 19 report to the Cambridge School Committee online here. Their main takeaway:

Again, note that the district has taken the concerns of families seriously, has done real work on it, and the district is changing policy and procedure as a result. 

Watch those school bus camera contracts

 Because we cannot have nice things, it appears, 404 Media reports that BusPatrol, the school bus stop arm cameras purveyor, that many of us have worked so hard to get legalized are now sharing data directly with police departments well outside of the context of illegally passing stopped school buses: 

BusPatrol has already taken steps to share the collected data with law enforcement contracting giant Axon, according to leaked BusPatrol documents and a source with knowledge of the plans. Internally, BusPatrol has acknowledged how controversial its plan to collect and share this data is pointing specifically to concerns about ICE using license plate data, but emphasizes the likely success of selling the angle of protecting children.

Second verse, same as the verse

Because the old chestnut--claims that the Worcester Public Schools spends wildly too much money on administration, and more than their peer communities--appears to making an appearance again this year, I will again note that such comparisons are done by the state annually, when districts report their district spending.

On the FY27 Worcester Public Schools budget

This is--mostly--my testimony from tonight's budget hearing. They were sticking to two minutes per person, so I did some condensing on the fly. Full video of the hearing is now posted here; you can watch my testimony at this point.

I have three points for you this evening:

1. This budget is balanced on our most needy students. The program closures proposed--and they are proposed, only--for your consideration serve the students we bear the most responsibility to serve and serve well. The budget document itself notes it, as the executive summary lists these program closures, and only these, as how the budget has been balanced.

Weaponizing what's left of the Department of Education

 

trans colored heart on a sidewalk at Smith College
photo by Kate Hobbs

If you follow me on any social media platform other than this one, you've probably caught my ire that the U.S. Department of Education has now started a (well-publicized) investigation into my alma mater, Smith College for, they say, admitting men. Smith is the largest historically women's college in the country; the college started admitting women who are trans in 2015 (after an uproar over not doing so). The admission policy specifically says Smith:

considers for admission any applicants who self-identify as women; cis, trans, and nonbinary women are eligible to apply to Smith.

Batchelor et. al v. DESE et. al

You've no doubt seen that students in Boston, Brockton, Lawrence, Springfield, and Worcester along with four community organizations have filed suit against the MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Board, Chair Craven, the Commissioner, and the Secretary on the segregation of our school districts. This is filed in state court under the state's Constitutional guarantee of a public education in particular. 

I've read the coverage and just read the complaint filed in state superior court, and I guess I have three thoughts:

1. Yes, Massachusetts absolutely has among the most segregated school systems in the country by district. This is a direct result of our having--unusually for the U.S.--school districts that not only are originally formed by our cities and in towns, but largely have not changed. Those lines are heavily segregated for the same reasons our housing is: historic redlining, discrimination in lending for housing, and the resulting disparities in capital by race. You know this if you've read The Color of Law, or so many other things. It's also extensively covered by Matthew DiCarlo and Bruce Baker in their recent book Segregation and School Funding.
   Regionalization efforts since the 1950's still put the authority and responsibility on the towns to ensure there are public schools; it is towns and cities that are parties to the regional agreements that form regional districts. It is up to municipalities to provide public schools.
   As sort of a side note, but which matters in this context: while most regional districts are groups of towns, but not cities, this is not true of the regional vocational districts, in which Boston, Springfield, and Worcester are outliers in having vocational schools internally rather than being part of a "Greater [city]" vocational district, as Lowell, Lawrence, Fall River, Brockton, and others are. Thus there are regional districts that include cities. They do operate under the "students by community" entrance system, though, and you may remember this coming up in the arguments around moving to a lottery admission for the regional vocational schools, as seats by town, rather than by total population, won’t give a group reflective of the entire student demographic. 
   
   
2. I was confused on reading initially about the lawsuit as to why DESE would be sued, as DESE has authority over none of this at all. 
   I am even more confused after reading the lawsuit, because both the complaint--the lines of school districts and the impact that then has on students--and the parts that suggest remedies-more on that below--are not within the authority of the Department to provide. The lawsuit is against state laws, which are executed by, but cannot be changed by the Department. The Governor is not named here, ‘though the Secretary is. And the argument within the filing is a series of assertions of…things DESE just cannot actually do. 
   
   
3. I'm told there's more coming, but the remedies led towards are so far doing more of the same, only more so.
   METCO covers something like 2000 statewide students; expanding it to other districts (that still can choose to participate or not) does not desegregate the state (not to mention the buses still only go one way).
   More regional vocation districts? schools? does not change that those are either internal to our heavily segregated districts, or are agreements among towns that are heavily segregated and would have seats allotted within the parties. Anything else would require a change in state law.
   Increasing magnet programs within districts doesn't desegregate districts; if you want to do inter-district magnets, you need to change state law.
   Even supporting more transportation between districts is a budgetary authority of the Legislature, not something that is at all done by the Department. 

Look, this is absolutely the right point: We have a very segregated system of school districts.

I cannot understand why one would sue DESE on things DESE can't do, arguing for things that wouldn't fix the underlying issue. 

I'll be watching with interest.

Tech and AI roundup recently

1. I'm going to suggest that districts insisting that children must use technology in schools when parents don't want them to--and when teachers and students are also objecting--is not going to go well for the districts.

2.  Rarely do I agree with Andy Smarick on anything, but when he's right, he's right, and he has nailed it on AI in the classroom in his piece for the National Review entitled "AI in the Classroom Is Our Most Senseless Education Experiment Yet"
   

   Learning is seldom about swiftly generating a final product. It’s about the slow, arduous work necessary for getting to a final product. From a great teacher’s perspective, what a student wrote in her final paper is less important than the weeks of researching relevant sources, assembling evidence, and outlining an argument. That great teacher doesn’t want a student to just write the correct answers on the exam; he wants the student to spend hours and hours reading texts closely, figuring out why that formula works, or trying different approaches until landing on the right method.

    Along similar lines is this opinion piece in The New York Times this week by  David Wallace-Wells (whose level-headedness on cell phones in schools I also appreciate).

3. The chorus of boos from graduates responding to A.I. boosters at their graduates has only grown this week (my count is up to five, if we include the graduation at which the A.I. announcement of graduates' names went haywire), and Marisa Kabas of The Handbasket starts there in her recent "Hating AI is good, actually."

4. And I'll be interested to see what Pope Leo has to say in his encyclical Magnifica humanitas ("Magnificent humanity") being released next week. Encyclicals, which is a letter of Catholic teaching, take their titles from their first few words, so we have a hint of his opening with that. Unusually, the Pope will be releasing the encyclical himself, speaking, it is thought, to how important it is to him.

Board of Ed for May: budget update

 memo here, though there is also a presentation

Hills: not the Board purview for how the resources are allocated (except in some ways it is, which is why the submit a budget request)

Bell: Senate Ways and Means has released its version of the FY27 budget; in formal session now deliberating
continues many of same themes of earlier drafts
committed to working with everyone on issues facing rural districts of which they are aware

happy to entertain questions

Martinez asks steps in the budget process, as it is his first time through
Bell: have seen some headlines on Legislature being committed to earlier process
once through Senate, conference committee formed, deliberates, releases budget that is then passed by both chambers
Smidy asks about how advocating works from Board members
Hills directs to Secretary and Commissioner
Zrike: "we think we do that together in tandem"
would love to talk to Board members about that
met with collaborative members in Northampton: hearing concerns from across the state
"coming on later in the budget process"
"data and information to bring back to the budget process"
"learning this process now"
"very productive conversations with the Legislature"

Board goes into executive session for  Doe et al. v. Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education and Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Mass. Superior Court, C.A. No. 2481-CV-00994. State House News has this as to why: 

 The case, filed in Middlesex Superior Court in 2024, is a class action suit alleging that the department fails to fulfill its statutory duty to provide special education services to incarcerated students with disabilities. Mass. Lawyers Weekly reported last month that the class action survived a motion to dismiss it in Superior Court, with a judge ruling DESE has a non-delegable duty to provide special education in jails

They will not return to open session 

Board of Ed for May: Research and evaluation

 memo is here

Craven has left; Hills now chairing

speaking on this, per the memo: Rob Curtin, Deputy Commissioner, Matt Deninger, Associate Commissioner of Planning and Research, and Kendra Winner, Research and Evaluation Coordinator

Deninger: as a former high school English teacher, it is always good to be back in a high school

Board of Ed for May: Opening comments

 The Board today is meeting at Hudson High School, the school of student member Isabella Chamberlain. The agenda is here; the livestream will go up here. 

chalking outside of Hudson High School today

There is a good chance this will start late. 

Hey a new Burncoat is happening

 ...and while it sorta felt like things were dormant there for awhile--why can't we announce building committees?--there are updates, and, more importantly, places to weigh in. 
Burncoat High School page has an offshoot on the building project which notes that the building committee met for the first time last week* and there was a visioning session last night. 
But there are more: 

• On Tuesday, May 19, from 3:00-6:00 PM, the Burncoat School Building Project will host Educational Visioning Workshop #1 at Burncoat High School, 179 Burncoat Street, Worcester, in the cafeteria.
  
  
• On Tuesday, May 26, from 4:00-7:30 PM (dinner will be provided), the Burncoat School Building Project will host Educational Visioning Workshop #2 at Burncoat High School, 179 Burncoat Street, Worcester, in the cafeteria.
  
  
• On Wednesday, June 10, from 3:00-6:00 PM, the Burncoat School Building Project will host Educational Visioning Workshop #3 at Burncoat High School, 179 Burncoat Street, Worcester, in the cafeteria.

Good luck if you can only make something after 5, I guess, because only last night's did. 

I really, really urge you to attend this, because Worcester, while it is speedy at getting schools through, in part does that by having one of the least public building processes around. They'll have only the building committee meetings that they are required by MSBA to have. The School Committee in Worcester has very, very limited involvement, so you also won't see updates there.

This is it. Weigh in now. 

__________________
*which also does not say who is on it. Sigh.

not reading the room

 The thing is: having more people trained by a corporation in using that corporation's product is not actually a thing to brag about.

And a cheer for Shawnee Mission School District in Kansas

 ...which has not only refused to sign an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education regarding their "investigation" into the district's inclusion of trans students, they also extensively questioned the grounds of the investigation, and concluded with this: 

“Finally, the resolution agreement you have provided contains provisions that are inconsistent with the values that inform our work of supporting all children in our communities. We will never issue a policy that devalues certain members of our diverse community.”

May we all be so bold in defending our students.*

_____________________
*I wish my alma mater were being so public and bold.

To read this week

•  Don't miss the Wall Street Journal's coverage of the crazy world of high school sports in Florida, which lifted bans on student transfers. Education figures nowhere in that at all. (That's a gift link.)
  
  

• I love a good "isn't this neat?" story, and that UMass Med brought in Worcester high school students for a science fair in which the high school students were the judges is very fun! 

• NPR had a piece this morning on a team of three teenaged boys in the "World Series of Birding" which was a nice look at teenaged enthusiasm in a wonderful way.

• A growing number of school districts are opening parking lots for families who are unhoused to stay in.
  Best summary? 
  

  “Parking lots are a terrible option, but there are options that are worse,” said Jennifer Erb-Downward, director of housing stability programs and policy initiatives for Poverty Solutions, a University of Michigan project to promote economic mobility.

These are on the way to South Station in Boston. Aren't they nice?

Tech backlash is big

For the past two weeks, nearly every day brings at least one, if not more, article about the tech backlash in schools. An attempt at a roundup: 

• If you did not see the graduates of the University of Central Florida's College of Communications and Arts boo their graduation speaker's lauding of AI as the future, please watch (that link is for when it happens, but stay to watch their faces).
  If by chance you're going to be in front of graduates this spring, learn from her (negative) example).
  
  
• NBC News shared an extensive piece on the backlash specifically about iReady, the math and reading assessment program that's now being sued for stealing student data. The reach is huge: 
  

  Nearly one-third of students from kindergarten to 12th grade nationwide use i-Ready, including in nine of the 10 largest school districts.

  And the impact on student learning is not nearly as clear as one might like. I really recommend reading, especially if you're in a district that uses it.
  

• A New York City specific parallel to the excellent piece I linked to last month by Jessica Winter in the New Yorker, New York Intelligencer's "Help! My Kindergarten Is All In on AI. “Are they taking over? Yeah, they’re taking over.”" which speaks not only to the depersonalization of apps teaching kids to read and practice math, but notes the "vast amount of data" that STMath*, for example, is collecting from every child. Never forget what it is actually about for the companies: 
  

   “These companies are literally mandated by their corporate charters to maximize profits in any way possible,” said Bridget Kessler, a mom of elementary-school-age children in Flatlands who also serves on her local community-education council. “So how can I trust that they have the best interests of my kids in mind?”

  Earlier in the piece, by the way, is something I have found particularly insidious: the use of so-called "fellowships" to infiltrate school administrations: 
  

  Three years ago, Google partnered with the AI-focused investment firm Global Silicon Valley Ventures to “advance technology” in education — through programs like Amira, which GSV Ventures has a stake in. Top education administrators have joined the Google GSV Education Innovation Fellowship, including superintendent of Manhattan high schools Gary Beidleman and chief academic officer Miatheresa Pate, who is responsible for the city’s AI guidelines. In a policy document from the fellowship, Beidleman advises educators on how to get parents and teachers to accept AI: Find “early adopters and key messengers” to convert skeptics and achieve a “cultural shift” from within. 

  Such programs are not approved by school committees, despite being a commitment of time, and often no one checks if they align with the goals, policies, and values of the district.
  
  
• Government Technology reports that three-quarters of those surveyed by PA Unplugged think students are spending too much time on screens in schools. The article looks at some specific responses in Pennsylvania. 

• Speaking of making money off of all of this, 404 Media reported that the OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft are all supporting the federal Literacy in Future Technologies Artificial Intelligence, or LIFT AI Act. They aren't doing that out of the best interest of students.

• In terms specifically on AI, I thought this piece in Vanity Fair in which AI is appearing in TV shows and it is always a bad guy was really telling:
  

  The Hacks team also explores the real-life messaging that the tech community has been using—that “AI is coming whether you like it or not,” a catchphrase that is heard around Hollywood on a near-daily basis. Ava (Hannah Einbinder) pushes back on that idea, criticizing this “forced inevitability.” “People like you are always saying that it’s happening whether you like it or not, but you are the ones making it happen,” she says. “You could easily stop it if people could say that they don’t want it—but you don’t give people a choice.”

  Statsky says that aggressiveness from the tech community about AI’s inevitability is a red flag for her as a writer. “Sometimes, when something is being forced so hard, you can smell behind it that it’s not organic and it’s not natural,” she says. “If this was really the dream technology that they were pushing, well, then why are you needing to force it down our throats?”

• The family of one of the victims of last year's shooting at Florida State University is suing OpenAI, which the shooter used in planning the attack. 

“OpenAI knew this would happen. It’s happened before and it was only a matter of time before it happened again,” Joshi said in a Monday statement. “But they chose to put their profits over our safety and it killed my husband. They need to be responsible before another family has to go through this.” 

Attorneys for Joshi also reiterated that “ChatGPT inflamed and encouraged Ikner’s delusions; endorsed his view that he was a sane and rational individual; helped convince him that violent acts can be required to bring about change,” adding that the software provided what he viewed as encouragement to “carry out a massacre, down to the detail of what time would be best to encounter the most traffic on campus.”

• And don't miss John Oliver:
  

where's the plan for FY28 and beyond?

 I broke with my usual tradition of turning first to the net school spending page* when cracking open** the FY27 Worcester Public Schools recommended budget, because, as I've been noting, the looming end of the Student Opportunity Act implementation is high on my concerns. Worcester, as part of adhering to the requirements of the Meritorious Budget Award, does a projection of three years forward. That's on page 32 of the PDF, and it looks like this: 

That's a $7.9M gap next year, rising to $20.2M in FY30.

This problem is not the Worcester Public Schools' nor the city of Worcester's to solve. The requirement to ensure children have a public education belongs to the Commonwealth.

_______________________________________________

*Net school spending is on page 386 of the PDF and, I am somewhat stunned to find that the city is projected to meet required spending. That's at least in part because cityside claims for school services continue to rise (it's over $10M just for administration for FY27) and because WPS transportation is holding down non-net school spending costs.

Nonetheless, that's a positive number at bottom right.

**metaphorically; one does not crack open a PDF.

I literally have done nothing else with this book other than check those two pages, but the flip through shows another year of a tour de force, so congratulations to Sara Consalvo on heading up what I know to be a massive effort for her first time! 

Recess for all

 New this morning, the American Academy of Pediatrics has issued today their first updated guidance on recess, and they're doubling down on its importance. From the AP's coverage: 

The group “has always supported play – free play for kids – but it’s been increasingly threatened over time,” partly by the drive for higher test scores, said Dr. Robert Murray, a lead author. “It has a very powerful benefit if it’s used to the fullest.”

The new guidance, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, is similar to the previous policy statement but cites the latest research on why these breaks are essential for kids’ academic success and mental, physical, social and emotional growth.

You can read their full publication, which includes links to relevant research, here.  

I will opine only as I have before that there is a solid argument for Massachusetts counting recess as instructional time, which is the main holdup on increasing such time. That would take the Board of Ed passing a change to the time on learning regulations, 603 CMR 27.04.

Watching the upcoming Worcester budget: early announcement

 If my calendar does not deceive me, the Worcester Public Schools will release their proposed FY27 budget on Friday, but we're getting an early warning via press release of something of what's in it. The Patch does their best with it here.

The Academic Center for Transition (ACT), which serves 59 elementary students in grades K-6 with individualized education plans (IEPs), will close in June. Students will be referred to the Central Massachusetts Collaborative’s Hartwell Learning Center, located in the same building at 14 New Bond St. District officials said the Collaborative has agreed to accept all ACT students and keep them in their current classroom spaces.

The Worcester Alternative School, a therapeutic program for 36 high school students with IEPs, will also close at the end of the school year. Those students will be referred to the Central Massachusetts Academy, also operated by the Collaborative at the New Bond Street location. Some students may also be placed in other district programs.

The New Citizens Center Secondary Program, which serves 37 English learner students ages 12 to 17 with limited or interrupted formal education, will not close but will move out of its standalone building at 1407A Main St. Students and staff will transition into Worcester middle and high schools.

We then get some paragraphs about increased opportunities and etc, but it's also clear that this is a budgetary decision.

Once we've waded through the spin*, to make clear what's happening here: that's the district closing two in-district special education programs, and moving those students out of district to the Collaborative. I do not know if that will actually better serve the students; that is not something I could know. I do think it for sure should raise least restrictive environment flags, as well as always the question of who we're saving our money on.

The students at New Citizens--properly, Caradonio New Citizens Center, as it was named after the former superintendent in tribute to his experience with and attention to students for whom English was a second or later language--being moved into their home (one assumes?) middle and high schools raises both the question as to how the program isn't then closing, and also if the building is remaining open and used as a school. Historically, the way in which Worcester treated with particular care their students with interrupted formal education was one of the prides of the district.

We'll be able, one assumes, to see the money saved--which I would also assume is being reallocated--in the budget this weekend. 

This goat's "what's happening here?" is my question as well.

*the degree with which every piece of information from WPS in recent months has a lot of words to try to impress us with how this is a great, amazing decision, rather than just telling us what is happening has me at the end of my patience, even more so when I reflect that we are paying for that

Things to read this week: happy May

Every decision about a school is one that *someone* cared enough to make.
I am always grateful for those who chose to ensure there are springtime flowers.
I took a second outside of a policy meeting in Millis this week to enjoy this tree,
which also smelled amazing.

I have a load of tabs open of things I'd suggest you read--so many are technology in schools, that I will work to give that its own post here!--so here's a round-up:

April 2026 Board of Ed: Safe Schools for LGBTQ+ students

 There is a document here; you can find their things here

it feels not great that this got bumped to the end

Rachelle Engler Bennett, Associate Commissioner of Student and Family Commissioner
joint effort of Department and MA Commission of LGBTQ Youth
part of DESE's Student and Family Support office
advance educational vision for all students

April 2026 Board of Ed: Teacher licensure regulations

 Proposed final regulations are here

Martinez: recommends adoption of alternative pathway; three year implementation and evaluation
"BOLD five year plan" for diversification of pipeline
Abbott, Associate Commissioner of Educator Effectiveness
maintaining teacher quality: diverse, culturally responsive, well-prepared, and committed to continuous improvement 
working to expand the pipeline; effectively prepare and license; and sustain and retain
alternative licensure pathway waiving communication and literacy skills test
available for three years as Department studies impact and student outcome

four options to fulfill requirement:

1. completion of a Massachusetts-approved Educator Preparation Program
2. License from another state;
3. Master's/Doctorate from an accredited degree program;
4. 2 years of field-based experience and attestation from school or district leader

three implementation period and annual reporting to the Board on impact and progress
will come at no cost to candidates; will be able to take applications in a couple of weeks
first report to Board next spring; spring of 2028 (licensure and employment rates); early 2029 (success in classrooms) then Board will have to consider renewal
one piece of a larger set of initiatives

also technical amendments 

West: if we adopt this, who will still take the exam?
Anyone pursuing provisional licensure who don't have any of the other characteristics above

41% of educators on a waiver would theoretically be eligible

April 2026 Board of Ed: 9/11 resources

 new 9/11 education resources in partnership with the Mass 9/11 Fund; speaker is from WGBH
WGBH works with PBS Learning Media
videos produced as part of the U.S. history collection 
series of three videos: actions on the day, short and long term impacts, memorials and remembrances, along with an interactive lesson

April 2026 Board of Ed: House Ways and Means budget update

 Look, there is a document on this! There is also a PowerPoint, which NEVER happens
This is also being taken out of order on the agenda

Martinez notes the literacy grant wasn't in the House Ways & Means budget, nor were the literacy institutes, nor reimagining high school grant (pay for AP exams) and support early college and MyCap

April 2026 Board of Ed: opening comments and Miliken Award

The Board of Ed has their regular April meeting today beginning at 9 AM. The agenda is here; the livestream will come up on their channel over here. 

flowers in downtown Boston yesterday

Today is the first meeting at which the new Secretary, Steve Zrike, will be present in that capacity. As a reminder, Zrike was Salem superintendent, though most of his appearances at the Board of Ed previously were in his prior-to-that position as Holyoke receiver. As an offhand observation, today is the eleventh anniversary of the Board voting the Holyoke Public Schools into receivership; I don't know if there's a balance to that or not. 

Also as a reminder, the Secretary is a single member and a single vote on the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (as well as the two other education boards, Early Ed and Care, and Higher Ed), serving at the pleasure of the Governor, who appoints him*

I will update this post as we go

The debate on technology on schools is ongoing

...and that means that we are due for the backlash. 

Some of us would say: overdue. As the Boston Globe wrote last week: 

Across the state people are rallying to address it — from Fall River to Winchester, Northampton to Cambridge. And pressure is coming from every direction: parents in Scituate, the teachers union in Melrose, cost-conscious administrators in Arlington.

The list of concerns is long. Young children, glued to screens, miss out on needed play and socialization; older students, glued to screens, use them to bully each other. High schoolers rely on AI to cheat. School-issued laptops, taken home, keep sleep-deprived youngsters up past their bedtimes.

Above all, critics worry that the hypnotic flicker of screens is coming between students and learning.

The 74 wrote of this as a parental backlash, but I think that's probably oversimplified. The New York Times article from last month looked specifically at a middle school in Kansas that had deliberately gone limited tech, an effort that came from educators. 

One issue not mentioned above in the Globe's list is that of student privacy; Curriculum Associates, which owns iReady, is currently being sued (for one):

In the original complaint the plaintiffs allege the company “creates and extracts reams of personal information from K–12 students.”

“Using that data, Curriculum Associates creates detailed data profiles of students that are used to predict and influence their behavior and guide decision-making about them. It further uses that information for commercial purposes, including developing, marketing, and delivering its own products,” the complaint said. “Curriculum Associates also allows numerous third parties to access the information it obtains from K–12 students for the commercial benefit of both Curriculum Associates and those parties.”

One of the issues at hand, according to the complaint, is that students in schools that use i-Ready are required to be in school, where they are required to use the software during the school day with no alternative, and without giving their consent about the use of their data.

And: 

 According to the complaint, the data in question may include basic information like a student’s first and last name, birthday and gender, as well as things like their race, first language, grade level, school of enrollment, their teacher, data from their responses to questions in i-Ready assessments and lessons, and data collected about the student when the i-Ready profile is set up. The complaint alleges it could also include data about the specific device students used to complete the lesson on i-Ready.

“The data Curriculum Associates generates and extracts from students who use its Products, including Plaintiffs, far exceeds what could be legally or traditionally characterized as “education Records,” said the complaint. “Even if certain data could be characterized as education records, Plaintiffs — like all students — retain significant rights over the personal information contained in such records, which are protected by state and federal law.”

Makes one long for the days of filing cabinets and manila folders.

All of that, of course, is without the looming insistence that AI be part of all of this. I cannot recommend highly enough this piece by Massachusetts writer and parent Jessica Winter in The New Yorker, "What will it take to get AI out of schools." She starts with her own family's experience: 

I don’t like A.I., and I am raising my children not to like it. I’ve been telling them for years now that chatbots are manipulative and dangerous, that A.I. image generators are loosening our collective grip on reality, that large language models are built atop industrial-scale intellectual-property theft. At times, I find myself speaking with my kids about A.I. in the same terms that we might discuss a creepy neighbor who lives down the block: avoid eye contact, cross the street when you walk past his house, and, when in doubt, call on a trusted adult. Yes, I, too, have suspected that the creepy neighbor walks on cloven hooves inside his Yeezy Boosts, but he probably isn’t going anywhere—in fact, he keeps buying up properties around town—so just try your best not to engage.

Somehow, I was not prepared for the creepy neighbor to start hanging around my kids’ schools; somehow, I thought we had until high school. In February, my son, who is in third grade at a public K-5 in Massachusetts, came home with a piece of paper in his backpack that read “Certificate of Completion,” for “demonstrating an understanding of the basic concepts of Artificial Intelligence.” He and his classmates had earned this honor, I learned, by playing a computer game produced by the nonprofit Code.org in partnership with Amazon Future Engineer, called Mix & Move with AI, in which the student “designs” a cartoon dancer and “remixes” a popular song—available, needless to say, on Amazon Music. The game is an inane drag-and-drop affair that has little to do with A.I.; the certificate, it turned out, was merely a memento of a pointless and deceptive branding exercise.

Then, in March, students at my eleven-year-old daughter’s public middle school began receiving new Google Chromebooks, and that is when I heard the tap-tap of the cloven hooves approaching our doorstep. The Chromebooks, which the students use in every class and for homework, came pre-installed with an all-ages version of Gemini, a suite of A.I. tools. When my daughter, who is in sixth grade, begins writing an essay, she gets a prompt: “Help me write.” If she is starting work on a slide-show presentation, the prompt is “Help me visualize.” She shoos away these interruptions, but they persist: “Help me edit.” “Beautify this slide.” The image generator is there, if she’d ever wish to pull the plug on her imagination. The Gemini chatbot is there, if she ever wants to talk to no one.

So many times, so many times, I warned her about the creepy neighbor. Now he reads her poems and knows her passwords. He’s always watching through the screen.

We cannot be passive. Our kids deserve better than this. 

kids.
Get it?

Bailing twine and bubble gum: school funding in the House Ways and Means proposal

 The House Committee on Ways & Means released their FY27 budget last Wednesday, and they're currently taking amendments before the House debate on the budget starts next week. 

I've been considering what to say about it since then (sorry if you've been waiting for me to post on it), and the refrain I kept coming back to is what state law says is the intent of the Legislature when it comes to school funding: 

The full section reads: 

It is the intention of the general court, subject to appropriation, to assure fair and adequate minimum per student funding for public schools in the commonwealth by defining a foundation budget and a standard of local funding effort applicable to every city and town in the commonwealth.

Ludlow case leaves in place First Circuit ruling for the district

Screenshot of Monday's orders, highlighting the relevant line
Yes, that is all that they send out!

Unless you were watching for it, you may have missed it, but on Monday, the Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari (or "denied cert") in the Foote v. Ludlow case. That means the First Circuit decision from last February, which found in favor of the district, which I noted here, stays in place.

To quote again what I quoted from that then: 

As  this  opinion  has endeavored to illuminate,  we acknowledge the fundamental importance of the rights asserted by the Parents to be informed of, and to direct, significant aspects of their child's life--including their socialization, education, and health.  Be that as it may--as this opinion has also made effort to explicate --parental rights are not unlimited.  Parents may  not  invoke  the  Due  Process  Clause  to  create  a  preferred educational experience for their child in public school.  As per our  understanding  of  Supreme  Court  precedent,  our  pluralistic society assigns those curricular and administrative decisions to the expertise of school officials, charged with the responsibility of educating children. And the Protocol of nondisclosure as to a student's at-school  gender expression without  the  student's consent does not restrict parental rights in a way courts have recognized  as  a  violation  of  the  guarantees  of  substantive  due process. All told, the Parents have failed to state a claim that Ludlow's  Protocol  as  applied  to  their  family  violated  their constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their child.

GLAD Law, which filed a friend-of-court brief, noted the decision here. Note that among the other briefs filed was one from the Massachusetts Attorney General, along with 15 others.

No, I don't know how this aligns with the recent shadow docket decision from California, save maybe it wasn't a state law, but I don't know that we should be looking for consistency among the majority. 
UPDATE: Looks like I'm not alone in being confused.

 

good Globe follow-up on the House social media bill

I'm impressed by the follow-up article from the Boston Globe on the House's disaster of a bill passed last week.*

Civil liberties groups and organizations in favor of tech privacy — including some that are backing the bills — warn the proposals could backfire and make online activity even less private by requiring users to submit personal information to verify their ages or parental status.

Some restrictions, experts argue, would also face First Amendment challenges by limiting young people’s speech and vulnerable groups’ abilities to find community online. 

They also note that this means we're not fulfilling our responsibility to students:

 “Children need to learn how to use social media so they aren’t using it irresponsibly, and we need to learn how to use our phones,” said Max Nash, a junior at Mashpee High School who formed the Coalition for Student Mental Health to lobby for alternative tech policies. “But that requires education and not a ban.”

I appreciate Rep. Gordon in general, but this is such an odd thing to own up to: 

Representative Kenneth Gordon, who chairs the education committee, said lawmakers shaped the bill to closely follow a similar law in Florida, whose under-14 social media ban has faced court challenges for two years. 

Florida + court challenges seemed like a good path to follow?

And all of this here:

 Both the Healey and House proposals would require age verification measures that civil liberties groups and privacy experts say are excessive. All users — not just minors — could be required to give tech companies more personal information, such as photos of government IDs, to prove their age, they warned.

Healey’s proposal, for instance, would require social media companies to provide a host of age-specific data that could require checking users’ ages.

People who don’t have such IDs, or might be hesitant to provide them, could then be unable to access a wide range of online content. The bill includes a broad definition of social media sites, including nearly any platform with personal accounts and user-generated content, which opponents argue could encompass sites such as the popular information forum Wikipedia.

That ID hurdle has formed the basis of First Amendment challenges in many states, according to Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, a tech industry-funded group that has successfully sued to have the law set aside in several cases.

“Ultimately, the laws suffer from the same core constitutional infirmity: They block or restrict access for users, particularly minors, but also adults when it comes to speech that is lawful for everyone,” Taske said.

Cybersecurity experts warn that children could bypass the checks, and hackers could seek to steal data collected. Parental consent requirements could present further security issues, with little way for parents to reliably prove their relation to a user, opening the door for nefarious actors who abuse online reporting systems.

More than 400 cybersecurity experts, including from MIT, Tufts University, and Boston University, issued a public letter last month calling for a moratorium on online age verification laws they said “might cause more harm than good.”

“This policy will inevitably massively reduce privacy online by forcing users to reveal more information to service providers than they do nowadays,” the group wrote.

The age verification measures could also run counter to the goals of a separate date privacy bill the state Senate passed last fall and is backed by the ACLU of Massachusetts and other groups. That legislation would allow companies to collect only “reasonably necessary” personal data and permit consumers to opt out of data collection. Companies would also be barred from selling children’s data.

Plus, of course, there are those who have positive uses for social media that would be barred by this bill: 

Advocacy organizations also raised concerns about other First Amendment violations, including for users who might face the most repercussions from verification measures and social media restrictions.

Such a law, some argue, could limit teenagers’ abilities to organize political activity, hear the latest news, express themselves creatively, or find community online.

Teddy Walker, a 21-year-old Bostonian who is trans and a leader of a group organized to protect trans rights, said he was isolated and depressed as a teenager until he found solace in Instagram and YouTube trans communities.

“It really helped give me the language and understanding for who I am,” Walker said. The proposed parental restrictions could “lead to trans youth and trans kids being less safe, being less able to access that content online that was so life-saving and life-affirming for me.”

Sing it with Noah Kahan, all: 

you're a mess, you're a mess, good God, you're a mess!

__________________________________________________________________

*And how often do I say that? 

Here comes the MA voucher push

 Because OB3, Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" has a provision for vouchers by state in the language, you knew that others would join the Boston Globe's editorial board in pushing for them in Massachusetts. Thanks to Yawu Miller's coverage of a recent panel at the JFK Presidential Library*, we now know not only that this is happening, but who the players are and what their talking points are going to be:

“Covid relief money is gone, inflation is bad, buses are expensive, special education is expensive,” former Massachusetts Education Commissioner Jeff Riley told an audience of about 200 that filled an auditorium at the museum last Wednesday. “We have an opportunity for this new pot of money to help us with things like expanded learning time, high dosage tutoring, special education services. This seems like a time when people should get together.”

Yes, taking time away from his fulltime job of trying to get schools on the AI bandwagon, our former Commissioner is all in our vouchers, but we're going to frame it as public school assistance. Also involved: 

The National Parents Union is spearheading the local coalition which aims to pressure Gov. Maura Healey to adopt the tax credit program. So far, the group counts 124 organizations in support, including The Pioneer Institute, The Boston Foundation, the Lynch Foundation, 45 individual Catholic Schools, 18 Montessori Schools, 13 Jewish day schools, the umbrella organizations supporting those types of schools and dozens of YMCAs and Boys and Girls Clubs.

NPU will surprise no one, nor will the private schools, but the outside of school organizations no doubt have this sold to them as after school dollars that could be coming their way.

Miller does---as always--an excellent job of framing the issues with the push, very much including that they don't actually work. But he also notes that Governor Healey, whose decision this is, so far has been silent on this issue. That is very concerning. There will be an effort to frame this as a "ed reform" issue, and she has some close to her that are in on that.

Oh, and incidentally: the list of things that Riley includes largely are not things on which the vouchers could be used: 

Despite promises that the scholarships could cover special education services, among other school-related expenses, Fliter said that wouldn’t be true for public schools. The way qualified education expenses are defined by the federal government only includes things for which schools bill parents.

“Unfortunately, when you dig into the text of the statute and what the regulations are from the IRS and from others, it becomes very clear that a qualified education expense, as it’s referenced in the Internal Revenue Code and by the Coverdell Education Savings Account, does not include anything like special education expenses,” Fliter said.

Read Miller's coverage, and then keep an eye out on this one.  

*who maybe don't exercise a say over this, but one does question the venue choice

A collection of things to read and review

•  The back-and-forth in last month's House hearing on undocumented students' right to a public education revealed their using stats on English learners, which is not the same group at all
  
  
• The Wall Street Journal takes up the topic facing many Massachusetts towns this spring with a look at South Hadley's tax override (that's a gift link).
  
  
• I thought Jacobin's angle on the LA teachers strike (that didn't happen) being connected directly to the resistance to AI was interesting. This would of course be very much in line with the actual Luddites.
  
  
• I recommend subscribing to Benjamin Riley, but if you don't, please have handy his Illustrated Guide Resisting to "AI Is Inevitable in Education"
  Also, he was kind enough of share his family's really disturbing experience with his late father's resisting treatment because of what he received from AI; here's a gift link to The New York Times piece. 
  
  
• Speaking of AI, analysis finds that Google's AI overview is providing misinformation "on a scale unprecedented in human civilization"

daffodils, even

Keeping an eye on federal grants

 DESE sent this update out late last week:

DESE has received some additional projected figures from the federal government that have allowed us to refine the Title I projections we shared last month; we’re also able to anticipate statewide totals from other major ESSA programs (Title II-A, Title III-A, and Title IV-A), as well as from Perkins. Again, these numbers are still preliminary. DESE receives final awards from the federal government on July 1st. 

Title I – Updated figures from the federal government show that MA will experience about a 7% reduction overall, not a 10% reduction overall as we projected last month. DESE has revised the FY27 Title I Warning Chart accordingly. These district-level projections are likely more accurate than last month’s projections, but it bears repeating that they are subject to change. Districts will receive final numbers in July. 

Title II-A – Similar to Title I, preliminary figures from the federal government show that MA overall will likely experience about a 7% overall reduction from last year. We do not have district-level projections for Title II-A, which could vary greatly, so we encourage districts to budget conservatively. 

Title III-A – Preliminary figures from the federal government show that MA overall will likely be level-funded for Title III-A. DESE will provide district-level projections for Title III-A in several weeks when we issue the Title III-A Intent to Participate application in GEM$. Until then, we encourage districts to budget conservatively. 

Title IV – Preliminary figures from the federal government show that MA overall will likely see about a 6% increase in Title IV-A. We do not have district-level projections for Title IV-A, which could vary greatly, so we encourage districts to budget conservatively. 

Perkins – Preliminary figures from the federal government show that MA overall will likely be level-funded for Perkins. 

can we stop considering Sal Khan an expert now?

 I very much appreciate Matt Barnum's piece this week on how it turns out---color me shocked--that Sal Khan's whole forecast on how AI in education was going to work out is not. 

Three years ago, as Khan Academy founder Sal Khan rolled out an AI-powered tutoring chatbot, he predicted a revolution in learning.

So far, the revolution hasn’t happened, he acknowledges.

“For a lot of students, it was a non-event,” Khan told me recently about his eponymous chatbot, Khanmigo. “They just didn’t use it much.”

Khan gives this analogy: Imagine he walked into a class, sat in the back of the room, and waited for students to seek out help. “Some will; most won’t,” he said. That’s been the experience with AI tutoring, he said. It doesn’t necessarily make students motivated to learn or fill in gaps in knowledge needed to ask questions.

And in a particularly "we could have told you that" bit: 

 Kristen DiCerbo, the organization’s chief learning officer, said AI can only respond to students based on what they ask. And it turns out, she said, “Students aren’t great at asking questions well.”

Right, because asking good questions is part of learning which is a thing that has to be taught.

I really can't do better than Audrey Watters on this: 

 It's a change from the sweeping rhetoric of Khan's 2023 TED Talk in which he proclaimed that, "We’re at the cusp of using AI for probably the biggest positive transformation that education has ever seen." Invoking the highly questionable (that is to say utterly un-replicated) findings from the classic "2 Sigma Problem" paper by Benjamin Bloom – a paper first published in 1984 and invoked now by decades of ed-tech evangelists – Khan claimed that “the way we’re going to do that is by giving every student on the planet an artificially intelligent but amazing personal tutor.”

Amazing. Or ... not.

She observes that inevitably, the response of the rejection is to then given students (and teachers, often) no choice but to use whatever the new hip tech thing is that is around, which is, of course, just what Khan Academy has done; from Chalkbeat:

Now Khanmigo is incorporated directly as a way students can get advice as they’re working through specific problems. A spokesperson said the organization made this change because “students were not seeking out Khanmigo’s help as much as we had hoped.”

Four things I would have preferred the House do this week

1.  Move forward the bar on religious exemptions for vaccinations. Just this week, the West Virginia bar withstood a federal appeals challenge. Just today, the AP is noting that babies too young for the MMR vaccine become "sitting ducks" in an outbreak. Given the anti-vaccine push by the federal government (as much as the courts are doing what they can), we cannot afford cracks in our community immunity. 
   
   
2. Do literally anything at all about Massachusetts being the only state in the country that has Democrats in charge of both chambers and the Governor's office and has a 287(g) contract with ICE. 
   Seriously. Anything at all. You could even pass a bill to make it illegal, like Maryland or Virginia, as that's the whole reason we have a legislature: making laws. 
   
   
3. Pass legislation protecting our immigrant neighbors from being preyed upon by the federal government, like the PROTECT Act, which passed out of committee two weeks ago, yet somehow was not seen as being as urgent as that bill on cell phones. I have been told they passed this? That missed my radar. One hopes it receives half the urgency from the rest of the process that this appears to have
    
4. Move forward the legislation that updates how inflation is calculated in the foundation budget, and make it effective for FY27, better aligning the foundation budget with district costs (and perhaps keeping us from the mistake of digging even bigger hold harmless aid holes).
   
   

please enjoy these pansies from my walk to work in Boston

The House passed the most draconian social media ban in the country

From State House News Service this evening:  

The House on Wednesday put Massachusetts on track to join a handful of other states in placing restrictions on children’s social media use – an issue that is playing out in courts across the country. The House passed legislation on a 129-25 vote, largely along party lines, prohibiting social media use for children under 14 and requiring that social media platforms obtain parental consent for users aged 14 and 15. Representatives said the legislation closely follows a similar law in Florida, which is still being challenged in court two years after it was passed. The legislation leaves many of the regulatory decisions surrounding how to enforce the policy amid an ever-evolving online landscape up to Attorney General Andrea Campbell. Reps added language to the bill that limits some parental monitoring of social media usage "to protect certain vulnerable populations," Rep. Peisch said on the floor, and adds further protections for 14- and 15-year-olds related to the "addictive nature" of some platforms. The bill also bans students from using their cellphones throughout the school day. The House dispensed with almost all of the 29 amendments filed on the legislation through two consolidated amendments.

"on party lines" means it was Democrats who voted to violate young people's privacy, Democrats who voted to make them less safe in school, Democrats who voted to require that we all turn our information over to social media companies.  

I cannot even.

Update: here’s the vote:

"risk eroding the very human capabilities they are meant to support"

Is there bad AI news this week?
Friends, there is ALWAYS bad AI news!

Two things to review: 

• A paper released by Cornell University looking at the "consequences of AI assistance" using mathematic reasoning and reading comprehension (that is, two of the core competencies of education!). They found: 
  

  AI assistance reduces persistence and impairs independent performance: After brief AI-assisted sessions (~10 minutes), participants were significantly more likely to give up on problems and performed significantly worse once the AI was removed, compared to participants who never had AI assistance.
  Effects are concentrated among users who seek direct solutions: Persistence costs were concentrated among participants who prompted AI to solve tasks for them directly. Using AI for hints or clarifications did not produce significant impairments.
  Effects generalize across domains: Effects replicated across fraction arithmetic and reading comprehension, suggesting it is a general consequence of AI-assisted problem solving, not specific to any particular task.

  Their conclusion?
  

  These findings raise urgent questions about the cumulative effects of daily AI use on human persistence and reasoning. We caution that if such effects accumulate with sustained AI use, current AI systems — optimized only for short-term helpfulness — risk eroding the very human capabilities they are meant to support.

  I found this page which gives visuals for their findings very accessible; I include one below. 

  
  

• Sam Altman, the head of OpenAI, is the subject of an in-depth profile in The New Yorker . It reads almost as a parable of hubris: you can trace the loss over time within the company of values expressed early on.
  That he has as much power as he does is horrifying.

Visual from "AI Assistance Reduces Persistence and Hurts Independent Performance"