Wednesday, October 5, 2016

If I Were Secretary of Education – A Classroom Teacher’s Fantasy

By:  Steven Singer, Director BATs Research/Blogging

Originally posted on his blog https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/if-i-were-secretary-of-education-a-classroom-teachers-fantasy/
thumbnail_fullsizerender
I will never be Secretary of Education.
Frankly, I’m just not qualified.
I’m only a classroom teacher. The powers that be don’t trust someone like me with that kind of responsibility. It’s okay to give me a roomful of impressionable children everyday, but there’s no confidence I can make sound policy decisions. For that we need someone with experience in management – not schools, pedagogy, children or psychology.
The presiding incumbent in this prestigious position, John King, somehow overcame that handicap. He had taught for three whole years at a charter school, but the bulk of his experience is in administration – administrating a Boston charter school withhigh suspension and attrition rates. He also was New York State Education Commissioner, where he single-handedly dismantled the state system of education and sparked one of the largest parental revolts in the nation in the state’s opt out movement.
The previous Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, was much more qualified, having never taught a day in his life. Before getting Congressional approval, he was appointed to run a charter school and later was entrusted as CEO of Chicago City Schools where he likewise blundered his way to the top with policy decisions that devastated a great system of public education.
What do I have to offer compared to all that? I only have more than a decade’s worth of experience helping kids learn. I’m only one of 3% of teachers nationwide who areNationally Board Certified. I’ve only earned a Masters degree in Education. I onlyhelp run a more than 56,000 member national education advocacy group, the Badass Teachers Association, and write a popular blog dedicated to education and civil rights.

I’ve never sunk a major metropolitan school. I’ve never been run out of a populous state chased by citizens armed with torches and pitchforks.
But let’s close our eyes and imagine that somehow through the magic of education bloggery I was whisked into office at the U.S. Department of Education.
What would a person like me do as Secretary?

1) Respect the Limits of the Job

Though George W. Bush and Barack Obama come from opposite ends of the political spectrum, these two Presidents did more to increase the powers of the Department of Education than any chief executives before them. They turned it into – as former Education Secretary Lamar Alexander puts it – a national school board with the Secretary was the national superintendent.
The department forced test and punishment policies on the states, cudgeled and bribed state officials to enact lousy Common Core Standards, and held federal grants hostage unless states accepted every corporate education reform scheme big business could think up.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a New Deal Franklin D. Roosevelt Democrat, but even I think these two administrations blatantly abused their power and overstepped their Constitutional authority.
So the first thing I would do is take a step back and follow the law. The recently enacted Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) sets explicit limits on federal power over education policy returning much of it to the states. As Education Secretary, I would respect the power of the states to control public education. It is the state’s job to set policy. It is the federal government’s job to provide support, encouragement and oversight.
Therefore, the role of the Department of Education is to ensure public schools are being properly funded, civil rights are not being violated and to be a repository for national data and research. I’d dedicate myself to that – not some corporate fueled power trip that both parties condemn except when they’re practicing it.

2) Push for More Federal Funding for Public Schools

Therefore, the first thing I would do is use the full power of the office to ensure the federal government is giving its utmost to help state public schools. I would use whatever grants were available to increase federal funding to the most impoverished schools. I would fully fund Title I. I would increase the federal share of Special Education – (Under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) the federal government is supposed to fund 40% of the per pupil cost of all special education students but has never met this obligation. I would seek to rectify that if possible.) I would enact a national after school tutoring initiative. I would provide funding to hire additional teachers to reduce class size.  And as far as is possible, I would forgive college students loan debt so they can begin their lives with a clean slate.
This is something that those who seek to disband the U.S. Department of Education never seem to understand. The federal government has an important role to play in our school systems. It’s not the unfounded power grab of the last few decades, but we need another robust player on the field to help the states achieve their goals and also to keep the states honest.
If we disbanded the Department of Education, as some conservatives from Reagan to Paul to Cruz to Trump suggest, what would happen to Pell Grants, for instance? What would happen to the bundles of federal money that boost our public schools? Who would make sure states are doing their jobs? Where could we go to find accurate data about how our schools are doing nationally and not just state-by-state?
If we got rid of the department, at best these jobs would fall back on other government agencies that haven’t the funding, staff or ability to accomplish them. More likely, it would result in the elimination of billions of education dollars that the states simply couldn’t (or wouldn’t) replace. Abuses against students on the grounds of civil rights, gender, special education, etc. would skyrocket with little to no recourse. And we would be in the dark about how well we were educating our nation’s children.

3) Encourage States to Enact Accountability Measures that Don’t Include Standardized Testing

Accountability has become a dirty word in many education circles because of the way the Bush and Obama administrations have perverted it to mean test and punish. It has become a boondoggle for the standardized testing industry, an excuse to close poorly funded and often urban public schools to be replaced by unaccountable charter schools. While this is a terrible misuse of federal power, states must be responsible for the education they provide their children. And contrary to popular belief, this can be accomplished without resorting to the usual corporate reform measures.
As Secretary, I would put an immediate stop to the era of test and punish at the federal level. As it stands, the ESSA allows states to determine what they will use to demonstrate their educational progress for students. This is a state decision, but I would encourage states not to use standardized testing. I would offer to help any state interested to find new ways to show accountability. For instance, districts could submit to a simple audit showing student-teacher ratios, per pupil funding, discipline data broken out by race, degree of segregation, richness of the curriculum, etc.
Let me be clear: it is up to states to make these decisions. As Secretary, I would have no power to force legislatures or departments of education to do any of this. However, I’m willing to bet that many states would be excited by these possibilities and jump at the opportunity. Helping them achieve this would be my job.

4) Stop Federal Funding to Charter Schools, Teach for America and Common Core

Speaking of encouragement, I would stop all federal help for corporate education reform policies. That means turning off the money faucet for programs that enrich corporations and big business at the expense of school children.
This means not one more federal dollar to help private companies open new charter schools. Teach for America would have to rely on its corporate donors, not the taxpayers. And the Common Core gravy train would come to a screeching halt. No more money to help states enact the standards, no more bags of cash for book publishers and test manufacturers.
If states that had enacted the Core wanted to keep it, fine. If not, fine. But they would be on their own.
(In a sad aside, opposition to Common Core is most virulent from conservatives, yet there are an awful lot of state legislatures completely in GOP control that could get rid of Common Core tomorrow but which have done – and continue to do – nothing about it. No matter who the next Education Secretary is, the fate of Common Core is in the hands of state legislatures across the country – not the President, not Congress and not the Education Secretary. There’s far too much rhetoric and not nearly enough action.)

5) Do Everything I Can to Increase Teacher Autonomy, Respect, Pay and Training

Finally, I would use my position as Education Secretary to boost the greatest resource we have to help students learn – teachers. I would speak out on the need for educators to have autonomy in the classroom so they are empowered to meet student needs. I would work to increase public perception and respect for the profession. We simply can’t afford teacher bashing, because when you disrespect educators, you reduce their power to help kids. I would boost teachers pay through matching state grants. If you want the best possible teachers, you have to pay for them. If you want to attract the best people to the field, you need to ensure they will have a reliable middle class income and not have to work a second job or use their own money to buy school supplies. I would invest federal funds in training programs so the newest crop of teachers are up to date with the latest pedagogy and techniques. I would encourage more people of color to enter the field. And I would partner with teachers unions to strengthen protections for teachers while educating the public on the meaning of due process and the reality that strong unions mean fewer bad teachers in the classroom.


Are there more things we need to do to help improve our national system of public education? Certainly.

We need to start integrating schools again and stop the constant push to segregate through charter schools and white flight. We need to ensure every student receives adequate, equitable, sustainable funding. We need to change charter school laws so that they can’t cherry pick students and are as transparent and accountable as traditional public schools. We need to stop closing struggling schools and address root causes. We need to stop state takeovers except under the most dire of circumstances and set limits on how long states can stay in control. And we need to pass strong student privacy laws – even updating the Family Education Privacy Act(FERPA) to protect our children from predatory ed-tech companies that constantly data mine students and sell millions of data points on our children to the highest bidder.
There are a whole host of things needing done. However, most of these things go beyond the powers of the Department of Education and its cabinet level Secretary. They can only be addressed by the President, Congress, state legislatures and/or the court system. The Education Department can help steer that agenda, it can be an ally to real positive change, but it can’t go it alone.
Unfortunately, no matter who wins the Presidency in November – Clinton or Trump – neither seems likely to nominate an Education Secretary who would do any of the things I’ve outlined.

For all his talk of reducing the size of the government, Trump proposes increasing the federal footprint with school choice initiatives turning the Department of Education into a wheelbarrow marked “free money” for big business and parochial schools while forcing states to accept his school policies. Meanwhile, Clinton is likely to continue the course set by Bush and Obama of embracing every corporate school reform package from which Wall Street benefits.
It’s a crazy time full of crazy candidates and crazy solutions, but of this we can be sure – no one is crazy enough to let a teacher make decisions about public education policy.

47 Reasons I Can’t Find A Teaching Job

By: Undercover BAT

Originally posted on https://undercoverbat.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/47-reasons-i-cant-find-a-teaching-job/
47-reasons-i-cant-find-a-teaching-job
Summer is over, which means kids are back to school (and parents are rejoicing).
I’m still at home.
I’ve completed paperwork in several districts. I’ve applied for teaching positions. I’ve emailed principals and called them on the phone. I’ve reached out to friends who have suggested jobs and let me know of openings in their orbit.
Nothing.
I filed for unemployment the other day. I’m going to try to get a teaching job for another few weeks and then…
I’m trying not to think about the rest of that sentence.
I’ve done a lot of soul searching as I’ve contemplated if I’m a good teacher and if I even want to continue teaching.  And along the way–as schools continue to ignore me, as my friends go back to school without me–I’ve made a list.

47 Reasons I Can’t Find A Teaching Job
I haven’t been hired because…
My classroom has never been Pinterest-worthy.
I don’t fit the prototype of size 2 perky blonde girl that some principals want for their schools (the kind where everyone on their website looks the same).
My years of experience mean I’m more costly than other (coughyoungercough) teachers.
My multiple degrees mean the same thing. Double whammy.
I consider data to be a four letter word. Figuratively as well as literally.
So are words like grit and rigor. I don’t think a word that is normally used in conjunction with the word “mortis” should be used to describe lively, inquisitive children.
I don’t hang up a data wall.
I think it’s wrong to stress kids out about what reading level they’re not on or how many letters they don’t know yet.
I consider growth of any kind to be important, even if the benchmark isn’t reached.
I know the stages of language acquisition for my ELL kids, and I know that what they need most of all is time.
I know they all need time, regardless of artificial testing deadlines.
I have yet to see the importance of littering my walls or white boards with “I can” statements–especially when young students can’t even read them.
Because I don’t see the value, I’ve been known to leave the same “I can” statements up for days at a time. (And by “days” I mean “weeks.”)
I think that time putting on coats and gloves and time walking in the hallway should not count as recess time.
And bathroom breaks should not be called a loss of instructional time. (Last time I checked, adults get bathroom breaks. Why can’t kids?)
I consider play to be important. All day long.
I read to my kids. A lot.
I read to them so much that I can recite some books from memory.
The workbooks we get at the beginning of the year often sit on the shelf all year long.
I give my kids time to read every day. I’ve been told it’s a waste of time. I disagree.
I love the sound of them groaning when it is time to put their books away.
I don’t think the world will end if kids get to play games and use manipulatives to learn instead of having to write down an explanation for every math problem.
I care about who my kids are as people.
Sometimes you need to deviate from the lesson plan, and that’s okay.
Believe it or not, I like field trips.
And I find them valuable.
I love teaching science.
And social studies. (Even if it won’t be on a test.)
I don’t consider an iPad a teacher.
Sometimes the low-tech version is just fine.
I’m not the kind of teacher who is valued these days.
I’m an active union member in a right to work state.
I attend school board meetings.
I read.
I ask questions.
I think for myself.
Because of BATs and Diane Ravitch, I know what’s happening to education across the nation.
I know the problems are bigger than my school, my district, my state.
I know the game.
I don’t want to play the game.
And I don’t play the game.
If you tell me about mandate XYZ in a meeting, I’m going to need to know why it is so important.
And then I’m going to need to believe mandate XYZ is really important.
But usually I will stay quiet in the meeting and go back to my room and close my door, ignoring mandate XYZ.
I often have a target on my back.
It’s easier to silence teachers like me rather than stand up for what’s right for our children.
….But really, it boils down to this:

Because sometimes the bullies win.

.

Sunday, October 2, 2016

#Solidarity with APSCUF

BATs, we have been asked for assistance from a member of our BAT Quality of Worklife Team for assistance.

The Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties could use some support. They have been working without a contract for the past 16 months and have been under attack from our Chancellor’s office and our state legislators for the past 6 years.   After, enduring a great deal of frustration over the bargaining tactics and lack of good faith bargaining on the part of the Chancellor's office of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PSSHE), members overwhelmingly voted to provide our negotiation committee with strike authorization earlier in September and union leadership has set a strike date of October 19th.  They have been working without a contract for over 450 days. The State System waited almost until one year after the expiration of the last contract to present a comprehensive proposal that included clauses that the faculty knows will be extremely detrimental to the state university system. 
As per APSCUF’s press release, some of these concerns are as follows: 
APSCUF objects to State System proposals that would affect the quality of education faculty members could provide to their students. Such proposals would, among other issues:
  • Increase the number of temporary faculty and lead to reductions in permanent faculty who are devoted to their students.
  • Allow students to be taught by new graduate students — new college graduates — instead of faculty with advanced degrees.
  • Cut funding for faculty scholarship and professional development that allows faculty to bring current knowledge to students.
  • Give university presidents unilateral authority to transfer faculty members to other departments
The Chancellor would like to change our university system into a diploma mill to generate revenue to support his exorbitant salary and the exorbitant salaries of our University Presidents and administrators.  He has failed to bargain in good faith.  His current proposals:
1.        Require that over 40% of the courses on our campuses are taught by part-time temporary (adjunct faculty).
2.       Require students to take courses on-line.
3.       Allow courses to be taught by students barely out of their undergraduate education, who are working on Masters degrees in their field – replacing full time, faculty who have terminal degrees in their fields.  
4.       Allow administrators to reassign faculty to any department at their will. 
5.       Require the lowest paid faculty in our system to increase their teaching load by 25% for the same pay they receive today.  
These changes will destroy the state system of higher education that serves the working and middle class families of our state.   The students in this system deserve the high quality education we have been able to provide since the Commonwealth created the state system.  These changes to our system would result in the children of working families in our state receiving a second class education.
None of the faculty want to see the students’ education interrupted.  They want to avert a stoppage and want the state system to work with them to reach an agreement that preserves the quality of their higher education system.  
You can show your support and help to preserve the system by:
1.       Sending an email to the chancellor, Frank Brogan @ chancellor@passhe.edu
2.       Signing their petition @  https://actionsprout.io/722096/initial
3.       Share this information with all of your friends, family and colleagues
To learn more about the contract negotiations, their issues and their drive to save the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education you can also visit the union web-site www.apscuf.org.



You Can't be Anti-Opt Out and Pro Democracy

 By Steven Singer, Director BATs Blogging/Research Originally posted on his blog https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/02/you-cant-be-anti-opt-out-and-pro-democracy/
 Our lawmakers have a problem.
This summer they doubled down on one of the most anti-democratic mandates in the federal repertoire yet they claim they did so to protect states rights.
Here’s the problem.
But Congress voted to keep mandating that 95% of students take the tests.
It all happened with the much celebrated bipartisan passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the federal law that governs K-12 schools.
While lawmakers made changes here and there to let the states decide various education issues, they kept the mandate that students participate in annual testing.
They didn’t leave that to the states. Whether they were Republican or Democrat, almost all lawmakers thought it was just fine for the federal government to force our children to take standardized tests at least every year in 3-8th grades and once in high school.
If any school district, has more than 5% of students that don’t take the tests – for whatever reason – the federal government can deny that district funding.
Think about that for a moment.
Our lawmakers are supposedly acting in our interests. They’re our representatives. We’re their constituents. They get their power to pass laws because of our consent as the governed. Yet in this instance they chose to put their own judgement ahead of ours.
They could have made an exception for parents refusing the tests on behalf of their children. They just didn’t see the need to do so.
Why? Because they were worried about minority students.
It’s a laughable claim in so many ways.
Let’s say for a moment that this were true. In that case, we can expect no parent of color would ever refuse standardized testing for his/her child.
First, this is demonstrably untrue. Black and brown parents may not be the most numerous in the opt out movement, but they do take part in it.
Second, in the majority of cases where white parents refuse testing, that would have no bearing on whether testing helps or hurts students of color. If the point is the data testing gives us on black kids, what white kids do on the test is irrelevant.
Third, even if opting out hurt students of color, one would assume that it is the parents prerogative whether they want to take part. If a black parent doesn’t want her black son to take a multiple choice exam, she should have the right to waive that exam and the responsibility would be on her head.
So there is absolutely no reason why lawmakers should have overstepped their bounds in this way and blocked all parents rights about what the schools do to their children.
It is a clear case of governmental overreach. And there are plenty of parents just waiting to bring it to the U.S. Supreme Court for the ultimate Constitutional test.
However, that probably won’t happen for the same reason it never happened through the 15 years of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) which also contained the annual testing rule.
The federal government has never withheld tax dollars based on students not taking standardized tests. officials at the U.S. Department of Education have made threats, but they have never devolved into action.
The bottom line is this: they know how Unconstitutional this mandate is, and they aren’t itching to have it tested in the highest court in the land.
It would open a whole can of worms about standardized testing. What is the federal government allowed to do and not allowed to do about education policy?
The ESSA is an attempt to reduce the federal role, but keeping the annual testing mandate was either a grievous mistake or the last vestiges of federal hubris.
But let’s return to the reasoning behind it – so-called civil rights fears.
Various groups including the NAACP asked for it to be included to protect minority students. Annual testing is the only way, they claimed, to make sure schools are teaching students of color.
There are plenty of ways to determine if schools are meeting the needs of minority students – especially since most students of color go to segregated schools.
Even after Brown v. Board, we have schools that cater to black kids and schools that cater to white kids. We have schools for poor kids and rich kids.
It is obvious which schools get the most resources. Why isn’t that part of this “accountability” scheme? We can audit districts to see how much is spent per pupil on poor black kids vs rich white kids. We can determine which groups go to schools with larger class sizes, which groups have more access to tutoring and social services, which groups have expanded or narrowed curriculums, which groups have access to robust extra-curricular activities, which groups have the most highly trained and experienced teachers, etc.
In fact, THAT would tell us much more about how these two groups are being served by our public schools than standardized test scores. We’ve known for almost a century that these test scores are more highly correlated with parental income than academic knowledge. They’re culturally biased, subjectively scored and poorly put together. But they support a multibillion dollar industry. If we allow a back door for all that money to dry up, it will hurt lawmakers REAL constituents – big business.
So why were civil rights groups asking the testing mandate be kept in the bill? Because the testing industry is comprised of big donors.
Only a few months before passage of the ESSA, many of these same civil rights groups had signed declarations against standardized testing. Then suddenly they saw the light as their biggest donors threatened to drop out.
Make no mistake. Standardized testing doesn’t help poor minority children. It does them real harm. But the testing industry wrapped themselves up in this convenient excuse to give lawmakers a reason to stomp all over parental rights.
The conflict wasn’t between civil rights and parental rights. It was between parental rights and corporate rights. And our lawmakers sided with the corporations.
Let me be clear: legislators cannot be against opt out and in favor of individual rights.
The two are intimately connected.
Our schools have no business telling parents how to raise their kids. But our parentsDO have a right to do the opposite. In fact, that’s how the system is supposed to work.
We, parents and citizens, control our schools – not you, our representatives. The principal can’t say you haven’t a right to opt out your kid. He’s just your representative. So is the teacher.
Everyone who works in the school is there to do what you want them to do for your child. Yes, they are well trained and have a world of knowledge and experience that we should draw on. And in most cases, they’re being forced to confront us by lawmakers who are tying their hands and directing them to do the dirty work.
We have common cause. We need to stand with our teachers and principals, our school boards and education professors. We need to stand together against lawmakers who think they know better.
In short, we don’t need lawmakers consent to opt out. They need our consent to stop us.
They get their power from us. They work for us.
And it’s time they get to work and rescind the annual testing mandate.

Pennsylvania legislators just flunked civics – big time.


Once again, instead of offering real solutions to eradicate the ignorance of the coming generation, they clothed themselves in their own.
A bi-partisan group of 47 state lawmakers is proposing forcing all public school students to pass a test on citizenship in order to qualify for a diploma.
House Bill 1858 would require all K-12 schools receiving tax dollars — including charters schools and cybercharters — to give their students the same 100-question test that immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship will have to pass starting in 2020. Any student who doesn’t get a sufficient score will not receive a diploma or GED equivalency.
While it is admirable that legislators are concerned that high school students don’t know enough about civics, it’s unfortunate that they think the solution is another standardized test.
After all, what does being a good citizen have to do with a multiple choice exam?
Citizenship is about political independence. It’s about exercising your rights, not memorizing them. It’s about engaging in the political process, not spitting back facts about what kind of tree George Washington chopped down. It’s about using the principals of self-determination to rise up to the level of personal and community involvement, of individual sovereignty and home rule.
This involves actually teaching civics, a subject that has been cut to the quick in our schools to make room for an increasing amount of test-prep in math and reading. It used to be common for American high schools to offer three civics and government courses. Two of them – “Civics” and “Problems of Democracy” – defined the role of a citizen in relation to current events and issues. However, in most districts now these have been condensed into one “American Government” course that spends hardly any time on how students can and should participate in their government. Moreover, this course isn’t even offered until junior or senior year – far too late to make much of a difference.
Maybe instead of putting a metaphorical gun to kids heads and demanding they care about civics, you could actually provide some resources so teachers could… I don’t know… teach it!
How about actually funding our public schools? You well-meaning dunderheads slashed school budgets by almost $1 billion a year for the last six years, and your only solution to helping kids learn has been to put more hurdles in their way without offering anything to help them achieve.
That is a losing strategy. If you want to have a winning race horse, at some point you have to feed the freakin’ horse!
If lawmakers really want kids in the Keystone state to know something about civics, why not start by making it easier for schools to broaden the curriculum to include robust civics courses?
This means REDUCING the number of standardized tests, not increasing them. Inject some money into the system so schools can hire back some of the 25,000 teachers who have been furloughed. You want kids to learn how to be citizens? Provide them with excellent teachers who actually get to experience some meaningful professional development, teachers not overburdened with meaningless paperwork to justify their jobs at every turn, teachers encouraged with rewards for seeking National Board Certification, etc. And let’s reduce class size so kids actually have the chance to be heard by their teachers and might actually learn something.
Moreover, if you really want to assess if these lessons have been learned, assess whether students are actually participating in their Democracy.
That’s the thing about citizenship. It looks like a noun, but it’s really a verb. It only has meaning if you do it.
Have high school kids registered to vote? Have they volunteered to take part in the political process, to canvass or phone bank for a candidate they believe in? Have they attended a session of the state House or Senate? (Have you provided the funding for appropriate field trips?) Have they attended a rally or protest for a cause close to their hearts?
THESE are the measures of true citizenship. And there are things you can do to make it easier for students to take part.
But no one really wants that. Come on. This is still essentially the same legislature that passed a Voter ID bill a few years back to make it harder for people to participate in our Democracy. And it would still be on the books if the state Supreme Court hadn’t struck it down as Unconstitutional.
You know why children don’t know more about civics? Because they’re so disgusted and demoralized by the example you’ve shown them. When politics is nothing but a show, when hardly anything ever changes or actually gets accomplished in Harrisburg, you expect kids to get excited by citizenship!? HA!
All you know how to do is pretend. That’s what this is. Just throw another standardized test on the fire of our children’s education and you can act like you’ve done something.
May I remind you we’re still dealing with the last smoldering exit exam disaster you fostered on us – the Keystone Exams?
You spent $1.1 billion on these tests since 2008, and they’re a statewide joke! You required all students to pass these assessments in Literature, Algebra and Biology, but they’re so poorly constructed and confusing that only half of our students can pass all three. So you put them on hold for two years until you could decide what to do.
And before you even fix that mess, you actually have the gall to say, “Hey! Let’s make kids take ANOTHER test!?”
I know some of you mean well, but this suggestion is a disgrace.
It’s style over substance.
This isn’t a measure to reduce ignorance. It’s a measure conceived in ignorance that’s guaranteed to proliferate it.