Texas school board election proves there is no such thing as non-partisan elections

On Tuesday, I drove out to the Bee Cave City Hall for the last day of early voting. I have voted early multiple times at that location over the past seven years for a variety of races up to congressional and presidential, but I’ve never shown up for a local election with what might seem to be of such little political consequence, on paper. The only options on my ballot were for two seats on the Eanes ISD Board of Trustees (the school board of one of the most affluent, suburban school districts in Texas). Yet the line snaked around the large room where the voting took place, out the door, down a staircase, and from door to door of city hall.

The reporting in Austin argues that much of the large turnout is a response to Proposition B, which aims to re-criminalize the houseless, giving the Austin Police Department greater flexibility to harass, ticket, and arrest houseless individuals in order to erase them from the view of businesses, homeowners, and commuters. But I think that reporting comes up short. There may have been a couple of Austin voters who could chime in on Proposition B (given the sprawling, high property value grabbing boundaries of the city) at Bee Cave City Hall, but most would be those voting on the Eanes School Board races, or for Lakeway City Council and Lake Travis School Board races.

The reality is that turnout for this May election is high because there is an ongoing ideological struggle that has come to the fore about what this country should look like, and the politics of that struggle are now overtly involved in local school board elections, and people are turning out for it. This is not to suggest that the struggle has never been part of non-partisan local elections, or that we have moved beyond a mythical democratic state where the interests of all people were advanced through elections. The difference is that in the aftermath of the Trump years, and the 2020 presidential election in particular, there is a powerful political movement that feels that they need to take back a country that has been ‘stolen’ from them, and that they should not feel embarrassed to publicly embrace and extoll positions that explicitly serve whiteness and privilege, or that tear down those who do not.

Public schools have always been political tools that have served the status quo, even in their most progressive iterations. Even if one wants to waive off a history of schooling that includes participation in genocidal aims (i.e., residential schools), the erasure of culture (e.g., assimilation of immigrants), and the denial of equal opportunity (e.g., racial segregation of schools); they cannot in good faith ignore how schooling continues to sort children based on socio-economic status; funneling more affluent students into top ranked colleges and universities; while poor and BIPOC children are disproportionately left to try to survive on low wage work, or are fed into the machinery of the military or the prison-industrial complex. The sorting mechanism does not only work within the schools, but among school communities, as well. Eanes ISD, for example, is considered an excellent school in part because of the ways that affluence and whiteness allow it to serve as a feeder school for top colleges while avoiding the abusive and overly punitive behavior focused practices that less affluent and more diverse schools feel pressured to engage in.

Nonetheless, the circumstances of the past year have led too many to believe that their local schools are not doing enough to reinforce and amplify disparities in society. They don’t just want the schools to quietly serve the status quo, they want them to lead the charge. In the Eanes School District, the fight has revolved around three issues: Covid-19, trans inclusion, and racism. The incumbents Jennifer Champagne and James Spradley have taken moderate to progressive positions on each, while the challengers Jen Stevens and Nigel Stout have taken conservative to reactionary positions. I will briefly touch upon each of them here.

Covid-19
When the pandemic hit, many followed the lead of then President Trump and dismissed it as “no worse than the flu,” a Democratic hoax, a pharmaceutical scam, or a biological warfare weapon deployed by China against the United States. And they tended to jump from one argument to the next and back and forth as new facts emerged that poked holes in each of their talking points. While not all people who dismissed the pandemic were dyed-in-the-wool Trump supporters, they all tended to agree with him that the so-called lockdowns were an overreaction that would lead to the cure being worse than the disease. With regard to schools, this led to demands that they reopen immediately for the sake of student mental health, even though the advocates seemed to have never noticed the school-associated mental health problems that youth faced prior to the pandemic, and without any recognition that maybe any mental health struggles some children were facing might have more to do with a disease that has killed over 575,000 in the United States than it does with missing class time. The demands to reopen schools were also often coupled with a sudden concern for the welfare of poor or BIPOC children who would be ‘left behind’ academically, even though that is what schools have always done, and even though poor and BIPOC communities would bear the brunt of the pandemic in terms of hospitalizations and deaths.

In the Eanes School District, candidate Jen Stevens led the fight against a phased in reopening that required three weeks of virtual learning to start the year, and would allow every student who wanted to return back to school to be able to do so by mid-October. She and the organization she started, Eanes Kids First, however, demanded that all kids be allowed to return immediately, with many members demanding that they do so unmasked, “No waivers. No excuses.” The Eanes Kids First Facebook page, meanwhile, has become a platform for Jen Stevens’ school board run, while also supporting Nigel Stout’s run. Relatedly, just up the road at Lake Travis ISD, the primary rival school district of Eanes, Kara Bell is a candidate for school board. Bell is so firmly in the anti-masking camp that she was willing to get arrested exercising her so-called right to ignore the requests of a private business that people mask up or leave.

Trans inclusion
Even though I live in the Eanes School District, I had no idea that trans inclusion has become such politically charged school issue over the past year. Apparently, a teacher had the audacity to read to their 4th grade class Call Me Max, a picture book about a trans boy educating his teacher and classmates about his identity. In the attached video of a candidate forum hosted by Eanes Chinese Parents, both Stevens and Stout make clear their opposition to the book being read. Stevens claims that reading the book violates the parent-adult relationship, while Stout claims that the book undermines parents’ rights and that “[trans] kids should not have extra rights.” Related to the issue of trans inclusion, Stevens went on to say that there should “absolutely not” be any unisex bathrooms made available to trans kids, with Stout also opposing them. The incumbents, meanwhile, highlighted that the reason they brought in a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) consultant was so that they could support students and teachers in finding ways to support everyone.

Racism
The third issue is related to the second, in that both can be slotted into a diversity controversy, but it deserves to be more narrowly labeled as racism (or white supremacy). In the aftermath of the George Floyd killing and the uprising that followed, many schools were forced to reflect on racism within their communities. Many students from affluent schools across the country created social media accounts to document racist experiences at their school, to include Racism at Westlake which focused on the high school in Eanes ISD. The school district, ostensibly in response to the events of the summer, hired a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion consultant to “enhance community, staff and racial awareness — in addition to guiding the district in addressing social justice and racism.” That was apparently too much for many of the conservative white families to handle.

Stevens and Stout were unsurprisingly opposed to the current diversity initiatives, imaginary and real. Both objected to hiring the DEI consultant. And even though it does not appear that Eanes has seriously considered bringing Critical Race Theory into the curriculum, both complained about it (in the YouTube video previously highlighted) with the standard conservative claim that it is racist, which is not in any way an objective take. Stevens said that CRT “ruins excellence, it ruins children, it ruins communities, and it divides under the guise of claiming teaching unity.”

Maybe the board isn’t white enough?

Incumbent candidate Jennifer Champagne argued that she made DEI a priority at the board level because of the racism that students and families have experienced at Eanes. Stevens responded that she was more concerned about the diversity initiatives alienating the part of the community that feels “very pushed aside, very discounted, very disregarded,” which just happens to map really well onto the part of the community that feels as though their country has been ‘stolen’ from them.

If anyone may have been left thinking that perhaps race does not really matter in the school board race, the candidate forum asked Stevens to clarify the intention behind her social media claim that Covid-19 was a “stupid China made virus.” She said that the “virus did come from China” but dismissed it by saying that “if it offends anyone I wouldn’t want to say something like that.” Well, I guess intention trumps impact. Meanwhile, Stout defended his claim that he does not “subscribe to the fact that EISD is systemically racist.” I guess if you don’t see the problem it is not a problem.

Amplifying disparities
I previously mentioned Proposition B, the effort to re-criminalize houselessness in Austin. It seems far removed from the school board election, but it points to the real reason turnout is so high, and the disparate responses between the school board incumbents and challengers regarding Covid-19, trans inclusion, and racism. There is a desire by many to return to a society where the benefits accrue to those with the most power, even though that is the society we already live in. They imagine that engaging in collective social action such as masking and staying at home when possible during a global pandemic is a violation of their individual rights, and that the elevated death rates of front line workers and communities of color is just the cost of freedom. They imagine that acknowledging the humanity of trans kids and making space for them somehow threatens parental rights. They believe that addressing racism is the real racism, and that systemic racism can be waived off as just an endless stream of individual acts of racism that can be addressed through school suspensions, so we should ignore systemic effects. To have institutions work toward ending systemic racism is apparently an infringement on the right of individuals to ignore it. And in a similar vein, not harassing, ticketing, and arresting the houseless for existing within the city limits is somehow a great burden on those who do not suffer from houselessness. It’s not enough for the houseless to suffer from their material condition, they must be made to suffer more at the hands of the criminal justice system.

Save Austin Now donors

Many of those who benefit the most from systems of dispossession feel called to step up and take back their country in elections large and small, or to run for office. And the dehumanization of the poor, BIPOC communities, trans kids, and the houseless in the effort to take their country back is the necessary cost of doing business. Who do you think they’re taking the country back from?

Even though most of the people living in the Eanes School District are not residents of Austin and cannot vote on Proposition B, some of the strongest support for criminalizing the houseless in the City of Austin comes from people in the Eanes School District. In the attached map representing the donors to Save Austin Now (the group that has been pushing Proposition B) the people who live in Eanes (largely consisting of West Lake Hills and the two dark areas to the left/west of it) have contributed an outsized proportion of money that has been used to convince the public that houselessness needs to be re-criminalized. It’s quite remarkable that folks who do not even live in Austin are so invested in disappearing the houseless (not helping them) in Austin.

When you dig into the list of donors, you will come across multiple educators on the list, highlighting that it is not a rarity that an educator could support the dehumanization of marginalized people. But beyond that observation, one name stands out: Michael Ajouz. He is so invested in criminalizing the houseless that he donated $10,000 of his personal money to the cause. That is far less than some others donated, so why am I focused on him? Well he also donated $25,000 to Jen Stevens, for a school board race. What is the common thread? It’s not a stretch to figure it out.

It should be obvious that I voted for Champagne and Spradley for school board. Not because I think that they are fighting for the liberation of children while working to undo systems of oppression. Not even close. I do not believe that schooling can be used as a vehicle to undo the harm of schooling. But I do appreciate that they are attempting to limit harm, or maybe they feel pressured to speak that language because of Stevens and Stout. On the other hand, I see Stevens and Stout as wanting to double down on the harm, to amplify disparities, to maintain the status quo, or maybe to Make America Great Again.

People who oppose candidates such as Jen Stevens and Nigel Stout can still benefit tremendously from systems of oppression. They can still be wedded to a defense of the status quo, and they need not be allies of children or other marginalized groups. But I hope that enough people recognize, at the very least, that in this very partisan school board election, and in partisan local elections across the nation, that they can choose to be in opposition to a political movement that wants to actively harm those with the least power.

Day 65 of AY20-21: no big deal, just an attempted coup

I entered into Wednesday with much disappointment about the state of American society. Wednesday was not necessarily unique in that regard, as it has been a sense that I’ve had many times over during the past eight years, and a sense that has slowly escalated. On Tuesday, during our end of the day review, one of the Facilitators informed us that the District Attorney in Kenosha, Wisconsin, had just announced that the police officer who shot Jacob Blake in the back this summer would not be charged, a day after an Austin Police Officer killed someone in a road rage incident. Since mid-2012 I’ve understood that police are rarely held accountable for their crimes, and that policing is not an issue of bad apples going rogue. That it is an institution designed to oppress, marginalize, and control the populace in service of systems of power including white supremacy and economic hierarchy. The police killing of George Floyd last spring and the resulting uprising led to a hopeful moment of increased chatter about exploring abolitionist efforts to finally address the issue of policing seriously as a nation, but that was quickly shut down by both the political right and left as “too radical.”

In addition to the issue of policing, I remain frustrated by the situation with the pandemic. Central Texas is now unquestionably in the worst stage of the pandemic, and it seems as though most of the people and institutions have given up trying to seriously stop the spread of the disease. People continue to leave home to congregate with others indoors, restaurants and bars remain open, and schools remain open. And while local government has little authority to prevent irresponsible behavior by people and institutions, even when Austin does the bare minimum to limit potential superspreader events from taking place, the state comes in and undermines such efforts.

Still remote due to Central Texas’ unwillingness to stop the spread

Because the county is in risk stage level five, Abrome is fully remote. It would be irresponsible for us to bring Learners and Facilitators together during this period of uncontrolled community spread of the disease, even though we had been meeting entirely outdoors this pandacademic year. Being remote is an insufficient substitute for in-person Self-Directed Education (whereas it is often a godsend for students stuck in conventional schools), but we are focused on preventing spread within and beyond the Abrome community. All institutions should be asking themselves what they can do to contribute to stopping the spread. And it looks like we will be remote for a while, as people continue to fail to mask up, to congregate indoors, and to not stay home whenever possible; and much more significantly, because businesses and public institutions (including schools) have abdicated any sense of social responsibility by not voluntarily altering their own operations in ways that could influence people to engage in safer practices, or at least by refusing to serve as convenient sites of infection

Morning meeting time

Nonetheless, I tried to roll into the day at Abrome with as much joy and positivity as I could muster. I opened the morning meeting with a request that people please mute when they were not talking, to please not talk over each other, and to hold off conversations until the end of the meeting. That initial statement did a lot to make the meeting run much more smoothly. Trying to get folks excited about their lives and about the lives of each other I asked, “what is the most exciting thing in your life, or what are you most excited about right now?” There were a lot of really great answers: anticipating the Lego Skywalker Saga game being released in the spring, playing Among Us, getting out of bed to play COD with the boys, staying home (because of allergies), getting my driver’s license permit on the 20th, being able to play Among Us, Biden being elected and the vaccine being rolled out, getting a Nintendo Switch, ordering a book written by an Abrome Learner as well as two books recommended by Facilitator Lauren, organizing with a local racial justice collective, having set goals and plans for the year, and learning.

After the morning meeting I had a one-on-one check-in with a Learner who had just enrolled. Some new Learners are quite skeptical of the claims that we make about honoring their autonomy and supporting children’s rights. Some expect that we will eventually try to manipulate them, control their time and bodies, and employ more authoritarian practices to get them to do what we want them to do instead of supporting them on their unique journeys. New Learners are deep in the process of deschooling and the way Facilitators interact with them should not undermine that. We need to build trust before we can do anything else. So my meeting with the new Learner was one of just asking questions about how he was doing, what he was interested in, and what he was looking forward to. We talked mostly about getting other Learners to join him for online gaming.

Immediately after the check-in, I hosted the daily 7-minute workout offering that two other adult Learners opted into, and then I moved into my free write offering. Fortunately, another Learner decided to join me for free write, although unfortunately we could not actually communicate with each other. The meet up location for free write was on Discord and the Learner could not hear what I was saying and I could not hear what she was saying. I spent so much time trying to troubleshoot the problem (that remains unresolved) that I did not get to write during the session. The Learner said she would consult with her tech-savvy dad to see if they could fix the problem on their end.

After free write a Learner had organized a gaming offering and was trying to recruit people to play with him. I said that I was not able to join today, and that I was planning to join every other day (so Thursday). Instead, I called a prospective family that is looking at schooling options as they prepare to move to Austin this summer. The prospective Learner would be in Kindergarten and her mom told me that we had actually met through mutual friends when I was a graduate student at Harvard seven years ago. We had a really nice call about the education landscape in Austin, and I encouraged her to read Raising Free People, Free to Learn, and The Book of Learning and Forgetting, after which she would know pretty well whether Abrome would be a good fit or not.

Yoga time

Next up was Facilitator Lauren’s yoga offering which I dropped in on, as did an older Learner. In addition to the 7-minute workout I did earlier in the day, I had just finished a brisk walk before the yoga session, so I was feeling pretty good about continuing to move my body in healthy ways while staying remote. Yoga, as always for me, was a struggle as I was forced to move in ways that I am not used to. But it was much needed. After yoga, Facilitator Ariel hosted an online gaming offering while I had a support call with one of the Abrome families whose just enrolled Learner is not eager to participate in remote offerings or calls. He told me about how the Learner’s previous teacher in a nearby conventional school would ridicule students during remote learning, and how that may be contributing to his apprehension to jumping online with Abrome. We both agreed that the most important thing to do was to not force the Learner online, and to have plenty of patience. Trust is much more important than attendance.

I then had about 45 minutes until the afternoon meeting so I checked my phone and saw a bunch of notifications. Apparently an attempted coup was underway at the US Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., and of course I got sucked in. Having been privy to a good amount of information about the growing white nationalism movement in the US over the past six or seven years, in part because of my unfortunate run-ins with white supremacists who were helping to fuel the movement, I was left shaking my head at the scenes playing out that so many talking heads and West Point and Stanford people that I knew insisted “could never happen in America.”

I then noticed the language that the media and their guests were using during the attempted takeover of the Capitol. They were calling the Trump supporters, who were willing to use violence to subvert an election in order to keep Trump in power, “protesters.” Just protesters. My mind began to race as I tried to recall the much harsher language that was used by these same folks to describe the people who were protesting racial injustice and extrajudicial killings by the police in the streets this past summer, and ever since I really tuned into the struggle against the same eight years ago. Then I heard the media call them “anarchists.” Not once, but multiple times over. I was floored that these media outlets could see fascism playing out in front of their eyes yet they insisted on labeling it anarchism.

I had to pry myself away from what was happening for the afternoon roundup that Facilitator Lauren was leading. It was clear as people joined the meeting that some were quite aware of what was going on. Facilitator Lauren asked everyone if they were able to go outside during the day, and what they did if they happened to venture outdoors. Multiple Learners gave their response and then added that they had been watching the US Capitol Building get stormed. But there was not much of a desire to discuss it beyond that, and we were not going to force the conversation on the Learners. I made a note to myself that it would probably be a good idea to plan something for tomorrow for those who wanted to process it after more information came in that evening. After the meeting the Facilitators met briefly and called it a day.

After the Abrome day was finished I debated to what degree I needed to keep getting updates on what was happening. I considered that it might be best to unplug and check in later, so that I could take care of myself, or at least take care of work that needed to get done. It seemed that most all of the “protesters” were allowed to walk out of the Capitol Building after overrunning it, assaulting police officers, and ransacking offices. Many of the politicians who had been stoking the anger of those who overran the Capitol were suddenly denouncing what happened, and were now committing to support a peaceful transition of presidential power. So I figured that it probably was not going to escalate again in the coming hours and unplugged to get some work done.

But as I worked I kept analyzing what had happened in the back of my mind. There was a picture the media circulated of a Trump supporter walking through the Capitol with a lectern that he swiped. The media did not call him a looter. There was a video of a police officer fleeing from the mob. The media did not suggest that the officer should have opened fire because he “feared for his life.” There was video of members of the mob posing with police officers for photos as they left the Capitol. They reminded me of so many similar photos from protests all around the country this past year where Proud Boys and other white nationalists posed with cops after those same cops had assaulted people protesting police brutality and racial injustice. And I kept coming back to politicians and the media refusing to call the mob a bunch of fascists, and instead branding them anarchists.

They said that the attack was an attack on democracy and our way of life. That it was an attack on America. That it did not represent America.

And then I was taken back to the incessant demands of conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike that Colin Kaepernick and other athletes find more appropriate ways to protest, and then the great offense those same groups took to the notion of defunding the police. How they demanded that Black Lives Matter should spend their time lobbying politicians to end injustice in the most polite and non-disruptive ways possible, as opposed to being in the streets. How they could not endorse police killing people, but how they could no longer engage with the issue because a Target got looted. How they said they disapproved of white nationalists rallying in the streets, but how they were more disturbed by the antifascists who went in to protect the streets from being taken over by white nationalists.

I just reflected on the peculiar state of the society we live in. A society where fighting against injustice is seen as more disturbing than ignoring injustice. A society that criminalizes those with mental illness but makes excuses for the scores of millions of people who supported the delusions of a billionaire politician. A society that would rather fight for the freedom to put others at risk of contracting Covid-19 than committing to collective action to end the pandemic. The society we see before us is America.

And we won’t change America by trying to go back to the conditions that allowed us to get to where we are today. Instead, we need to recognize the humanity of all people, especially those who do not hold the reins of power. Especially those who have been most marginalized and oppressed. We need to recognize that oppressive institutions and social hierarchies exist, and we must work against them. We should not conveniently ignore them, and we should never support them just because they may not be directly harming us as individuals, or because they benefit us at the expense of others. Instead of working against those who are working for more liberatory and justice-oriented futures, we should invest our time and energy into doing the same. We should walk away from oppression and toward liberation.

And then I committed to going to sleep so that I could be present for the Abrome community the next day. I unplugged and was asleep by 9:30 p.m.

——

Cover photo: Elvert Barnes from Silver Spring MD, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Donald Trump Cannot Read? The Profound Dangers of a Fixed Mindset

This past fall, I bought copies of Carol Dweck’s Mindset for two of our new Learners.[1] Each of them, who spent most of their school-aged years in traditional schooling environments, demonstrated proclivities for what Dweck calls a “fixed mindset.” This mindset was holding them back from taking risks that would allow them to grow intellectually and emotionally. Specifically, they would avoid engaging in learning experiences they did not feel they already had mastery over, they would shut down the moment someone else realized they did not understand something, and they would place immense value on whether others thought they were smart, popular, or attractive.

Dweck states that a fixed mindset is a fundamental belief that qualities, traits, and talents are largely unchangeable. That they are inherent, or inborn. The opposite of a fixed mindset is a "growth mindset" which is a belief in the ability to change and cultivate qualities, traits, and talents through deliberate effort and experience. And while people are not completely fixed or growth mindset oriented in every facet of life, some people tend to stand out as one or the other significantly more often than the rest. As I revisited Mindset for the benefit of our two Learners, I could not help but notice that then presidential candidate Donald Trump was a perfect fixed mindset case study.[2] 

The mindset of a king

In 2015, Trump himself laid out a compelling argument for his fixed mindset orientation in an interview with Michael D’Antonio of the Los Angeles Times.[3] “I’m a big believer in natural ability,” Trump said. The belief in natural ability is a cornerstone of fixed mindset thinking, and it also defies what we know about human development. He later added, “the most important thing is an innate ability.” In Trump’s eyes, innate ability, which one cannot control, is more important than what one has significant control over such as effort, education, and experience. It was once accepted that the best people to rule nations were royalty, the people who were preordained to lead. Befittingly, the LA Times piece was titled, “Donald Trump believes he was born to be king.”

As the campaign season wore on, Trump became notorious for attacking those who questioned him, no matter who they were or how insignificant their opinion was. Trump would go on public campaigns attacking and attributing negative characteristics to the members of the news media, politicians, and celebrities who dared to critique him. Rarely did he address their arguments; he just attacked. But he also made time to attack random Twitter users who had little to no audience, calling them losers, dumb, and failures. While politicians are not necessarily known for their incredibly thick skin, the ability of people to (often gleefully) so easily get on the nerves of the future leader of the free world was remarkable. It was as if he could not possibly stand being critiqued.

Growth mindset oriented people are more willing to hear critiques; they seek them out. They more often value diversity and feel more comfortable populating their teams with contrarians who will challenge their positions. Growth mindset people facilitate and improve communications within their teams, as they see everyone, including those they disagree with, being a part of their learning process. Fixed mindset people, on the other hand, tend to surround themselves with yes men who will always agree with them. They view critiques of their beliefs or actions as attacks on their ability, competence, and intellect. And unlike growth mindset people who will try to understand the critiques of outsiders, fixed mindset people immediately label those outsiders as the enemy who must be dealt with swiftly.

We did not have to wait until the campaign season shined a light on some of Trump’s more impertinent social behaviors to find evidence of a fixed mindset—the evidence was there all along. As much as Trump talked about The Art of the Deal, it seemed much of his financial success came after deals were made by way of broken contracts and non-payments to contractors for services received.[4] He has also demonstrated an eagerness to threaten lawsuits against people who upset him or get in his way, and a willingness to follow through on many of those threats.[5] Additionally, he has been accused of assaulting women multiple times, and has been caught on audio joking about assaulting women.[6]

While all of these actions should be seen as troublesome, unsavory, or unethical on a one-off basis, that Trump keeps revisiting them is what screams fixed mindset. As Jamie Loftus writes, “Throughout [Trump’s] life, there are examples of his making the same mistakes, ignoring criticism, being threatened by others, and not accepting the challenge of self-examination.”[7] In other words, he does not learn from experience because he does not see any value in the introspection that growth minded people use to try to improve their behavior or performance. 

Fake it ‘til you make it           

A fixed mindset does not necessarily preclude one from success, riches, positions of influence, or fame, as Trump rising to the most powerful political position in the world shows. Already having power and privilege, as Trump did growing up, can certainly help one overcome shortcomings they are unwilling to address. What a fixed mindset does, however, is limit opportunities for success, place successes on a weak foundation that can be exposed at a later date, and it can lead fixed mindset people to engage in dangerously self-defeating behaviors.[8] By virtue of Trump being a billionaire and president of the United States, let’s accept that he has had his share of successes. But now he is in the precarious position of taking on more complex challenges without the support systems that he has benefited from and grown used to.

People have often built their successes on false foundations. Success is everything in our society and it is dictated by the perception of others: getting into Harvard or Stanford, working for the right consulting or law firm, buying the right house in the right neighborhood, getting your children into Harvard or Stanford. My list starts and ends with school for a reason. School is where society is best conditioned to focus on attaining arbitrary measures of success and avoiding failure at all costs. Schools drive this lesson home early and often with gold stars, report cards, and class rankings. By the time students arrive in high school, they know that their success requires them to be perfect in class; there will be no time for experimenting and growth because a perfect GPA does not allow for it. This is why so many students cheat, and why so few students are genuinely excited to learn.

Apropos of the previous point, there is a persistent rumor that highlights how Trump the fixed mindset president may have built a false foundation and positioned himself for an inglorious downfall in a way that a growth mindset president would likely avoid. Can Trump read? David Pakman recently produced a 12-minute video laying out compelling evidence that Trump may not be able to read, and has since followed up with another video really pushing the issue.[9] 

Trump not being able to read, or only being able to read at a fourth grade level, raises some serious concerns about his ability to serve as president. And not for the reasons that everyone else might suggest. Yes, reading sharpens mental acuity and provides one with the factual knowledge necessary to engage in higher order thinking.[10] And yes, not being able to read may increase the chances of someone signing off on orders they do not understand, such as when Trump appointed Steve Bannon to a seat on the National Security Council.[11] But people can still be great leaders even if they are not great readers. As an explanation for Trump’s apparent difficulty reading, Kristine Moore suggests that Trump may have dyslexia or Irlen Syndrome.[12] The ranks of the most successful entrepreneurs, artists, and scientists are littered with dyslexics and people with other learning disabilities. And Winston Churchill, who had Irlen Syndrome, became a great reader, writer, and leader. But the difference between Trump and Churchill is that the former is fixed mindset oriented, and the latter was growth mindset oriented.

Because Trump places so much value on inherent abilities and talents, he does not see the need to focus on developing them. And because Trump places so much value on what others think of him, he does not want anyone to recognize that he is flawed in any way. And he likely views his inability to read as a glaring flaw that he cannot psychologically afford being exposed to the wider public. Or he convinces himself that he is too important to waste his time reading.[13] In order to overcome this deficit, Trump goes out of his way to beat his chest about how smart, intelligent, and educated he is.[14] He loves to boast about his attendance at the Wharton School, and about the education pedigrees of those in his family.[15] He wants to believe, and wants you to believe, that degrees, even those earned by family members, are a better measure of his intellectual capabilities and curiosity than the ability to read is. But he cannot afford for you to believe that he cannot read. So he fakes it.

The danger of insecurity 

Insecurity in oneself is a natural outcropping of a fixed mindset, whether or not the fixed mindset people realize it. Trump comes across as excessively confident in his ability to produce great outcomes in whatever endeavors he chooses to engage in. For example, he constantly reminds people that he will “make America great again,” and that only he can make America great again, despite having never served in public office before. But because he is so resistant to learn from his mistakes, or admit that he is not talented in every possible way, he fails to benefit from the tremendous growth that is available to a man with his power and privilege. This leaves him quite insecure, in spite of his seeming confidence. This is visibly apparent when he tries to read in front of others, or discusses the topic of reading.[16]

The danger of insecurity lies in the potential response to insecurity. We have already highlighted how Trump responds to criticism; he evades and attacks. He evades by denial and attempts to change the subject. Historically, he has attacked through threats, lawsuits, and public beratings. However, now he has the tools of the presidency at his disposal. And for someone who feels it is more important to fake being able to read than actually learning how to read, this is worrisome. How does someone who is not fully capable of being president on day one, as nobody is, fake competence? Trump gave us insight into how he may try in his first ten days in office. Trump’s appeal to many of his supporters was that he would make America great again, whereas Obama was a failure and Clinton could only offer them more failures. In his eagerness to prove himself superior to Obama, who he called the worst president in history, he allowed his staff to convince him to approve a risky military operation in Yemen by suggesting that Obama would never be so bold.[17] That raid was a disaster, leaving both an 8-year-old child and a Navy SEAL dead.

Trump’s inability to handle criticism coupled with the stresses of being president is likely to take a tremendous toll on him. Given Trump’s fixed mindset, as people continue to question Trump’s actions and positions, and as he fixates on their opinions through social media and cable news, his attempts to convince people of his competence and intelligence may become more and more desperate. He has already publicly questioned the integrity of the judges who presided over lawsuits against him and who blocked his executive orders, and he has threatened to destroy the career of a Texas politician who opposes asset forfeiture.[18] Would he be willing to direct federal agencies to go after political enemies? Would he be willing to punish corporations that do not show allegiance to his administration or refuse to do business with any of the Trump organizations? Would he be willing to engage in trade wars with countries that do not fall in line? Would he be willing to escalate international disagreements into military conflicts for the sake of rallying the American people around his presidency? 

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
~ Hermann Göring

Trump’s fixed mindset orientation is a significant barrier to his growth. Such a mindset has left him unwilling to learn from his mistakes, and unable or unwilling to read. There is no such thing as an average person, much less someone who excels in all aspects of life.[19] Many people have weaknesses, and many people have overcome challenges, just as people with dyslexia or Irlen Syndrome can and do lead remarkable lives.[20] But in order to do so, they have to be willing to seek out the resources and tools that will help them thrive, and they need to recognize that learning differences or disorders, or one’s station in life, are not badges of shame. This is a hurdle Trump cannot get over. But as dangerous as his fixed mindset is to his growth, it is far more dangerous to society.

Graphic: From Carol Dweck’s book Mindset: The New Psychology of Success.

1.     Carol Dweck, Mindset

2.     I am not unique in noticing Trump’s fixed mindset. “The Mindset That Leads People to Be Dangerously Overconfident,” Harvard Business Review; “Trump and Hillary Show Totally Opposite Success Mind-sets,” New York Magazine; “This Election Comes Down to Who Has the Better Mindset,” Inverse

3.     “Donald Trump believes he was born to be king,” Los Angeles Times

4.     “Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesn’t pay his bills,” USA Today

5.     “Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a presidential nominee,” USA Today; “The ~20 Times Trump Has Threatened To Sue Someone During This Campaign,” FiveThirtyEight 

6.     “An Exhaustive List of the Allegations Women Have Made Against Donald Trump,” New York Magazine

7.     “This Election Comes Down to Who Has the Better Mindset,” Inverse

8.     In Mindset, Dweck highlights the ignominious fall from grace of multiple individuals, including Lee Iacocca, Al Dunlap, Kenneth Lay, and Jeffrey Skilling. She could have easily provided profiles of politicians whose fixed mindsets led to their downfall, as well.  

9.     “Uh-Oh: Does Donald Trump Know How to Read?,” The David Pakman Show; “WOW: Trump Fails Basic Literacy Test,” The David Pakman Show

10.  “Schools Focus on Teaching Shallow Knowledge, But Fail,” Abrome

11.  “Trump and Staff Rethink Tactics After Stumbles”, New York Times

12.  “Can Donald Trump Read Beyond a Fourth Grade Level? [Opinion]”, The Inquisitr News

13.  “Donald Trump doesn’t read much. Being president probably wouldn’t change that,” The Washington Post

14.  “Donald Trump's myths about himself,” Chicago Tribune; “'I'm, like, a really smart person': Donald Trump exults in outsider status,” The Guardian

15.  Trump’s repeated references to his attendance at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, which he transferred to after two years at Fordham University, are well documented. For examples, see the sources in the prior note and in the article, “Trump flaunts Wharton degree, but his college years remain a mystery,” The Daily Pennsylvanian. Trump has also been documented focusing on the intelligence of family members to suggest that he is intellectually gifted, particularly a well-respected uncle who taught at MIT. “Donald Trump’s Nuclear Uncle,” The New Yorker

16.  “WOW: Trump Fails Basic Literacy Test,” The David Pakman Show

17.  “Donald Trump's staff get him to agree to policies by saying ‘Obama wouldn't have done it’,” The Independent

18.  “Trump Says Judge’s Mexican Heritage Presents ‘Absolute Conflict,’” Wall Street Journal; “Trump lashes out at ‘so-called judge’ who temporarily blocked travel ban,” The Washington Post; “Donald Trump Threatens to ‘Destroy’ Texas Senator,” The Daily Beast

19.  “Any System Designed Around the Average Person is Doomed to Fail,” Abrome

20.  Richard Branson has dyslexia, Temple Grandin is autistic, Mark Zuckerberg had social anxiety. The list of people who have overcome hurdles in their lives to achieve extraordinary levels of success is far too long to list out. 

Election 2016: Democracy and Education

It is Election Day 2016, and as I look around at Abrome, I recognize that the people in our community who will be most impacted by this election are the ones who are too young to vote. Our Learning Coaches (the adults) each voted early, although I would be willing to bet that none of them did so enthusiastically. No matter what your political affiliation or orientation, I think most of us can agree that the 2016 election has brought out the worst in many, and that it highlights some glaring flaws in the American political system.

First and foremost, the political system is not democratic by any means. As I previously alluded to, not everyone has a say in who is elected. Children, high numbers of the infirm or mentally disabled, many homeless, most incarcerated felons, many ex-felons, residents of US territories, and foreign nationals are locked out of the process, even though they most often feel the brunt of public policy decisions.

Among those who can vote, the process is still not truly democratic. Voter turnout issues aside, a vote in New Hampshire carries more weight than a vote in Wisconsin, which carries more weight than a vote in California. This is a function of the Electoral College, and clearly violates the notion of “one person, one vote.” And even if all votes were equal, those who directly and heavily contribute to candidates have an outsized influence on the policy positions that those candidates take once in office.

Add on top of the undemocratic nature of these elections from the people’s perspective, the two-party system that has a tight grip on the electoral process makes the notion of democracy in politics a laughable one. The parties are semi-private organizations that cater to a tiny number of powerful constituencies that are out of step with the majority of Americans, but the overwhelming majority of voters believe that they must fall in line behind one of the main party candidates on Election Day.

So what does this have to do with education? Considering that schools are a key tool used to prepare young people for engagement in society, a considerable amount. Unfortunately, the roles current students are being trained to hold in society are not nearly as idealistic as we have been led to believe. Fundamental to the purpose of schooling was a sorting function to create different classes of people, most of which were to serve at the convenience of those who controlled society. While the makeup of the people who control society has evolved, and while there is a greater possibility for mobility from the lowest classes to the controlling classes today than when the schools were created, from a functional perspective modern day schools further entrench disparities instead of serving as a great equalizer. And as noted before, inequality is incompatible with true democracy.

There is a nation-wide collection of “Democratic Schools” that argues that by creating democratic settings in the schoolhouse, where every child has as much of a say as every adult, that we can create a democratic society where the people take control of the political machine. Although we love Democratic Schools, we disagree with this hypothesis.

Democracy is not a silver bullet solution to our problems, as any black man in East Texas or any homeless man in the streets of San Francisco might be able to attest to. Democracy in its worst form allows for the minority to be abused by the majority. It is essential that an enlightened society respect the rights of all people, in spite of biases and privilege. While we agree that there is tremendous value to be gained by giving young people as much of a voice as adults in schools—promoting democracy in education does not solve the problems of the status quo, and in many ways it serves as a distraction.

So how can education get us to a better future? Three powerful ways it can move us there are (1) by promoting empathy within the populace, (2) by creating an informed, thoughtful populace that is not easily moved by false promises or dogmatic rhetoric, and (3) by allowing all members of society to believe they can improve the human condition.

First, many of the problems of our political system revolve around a fear or hatred of the other. These manifest themselves most powerfully in an anti- stance against entire communities such as black people, immigrants, Muslims, Jewish people, people with mental illness, the homeless, drug users, and people who identify as LGBTQ, among others. Politicians recognize this fear and often times play on it, promising policies that will directly harm these groups so that the bulk of voters can feel safer in the status quo.

An Emancipated Learning environment that embraces diversity of people, ages, and ideologies would directly undermine the divisions that require a lack of empathy to sustain. When people are introduced to those they are told to be scared of, they quickly recognize that we are all far more alike than we are different. Diversity brings tremendous value to our lives in terms of enrichment, creativity, and connection. The age diversity component of empathy building cannot be emphasized enough. In most schools we segregate children by age, taking away a critical opportunity for them to develop empathy by way of caring for those who are younger than them.

Second, our current political system requires a largely uniformed or apathetic populace. This may sound pessimistic, but it is easily affirmed by looking at what politicians promise and what their donors advocate, and comparing them with the decisions politicians make once in office. While society is much better off now than it was a century ago, there are still large swaths of the American populace that are marginalized or oppressed by the political and private institutions that most accept as necessary. An informed populace that also has empathy for marginalized and oppressed communities would not tolerate the current structure of society.

An Emancipated Learning environment, free of a status quo promoting standardized curriculum, and free of hierarchical structures that demand subservience, allows Learners to seek truth in their world. It allows them to question narratives that are presented to them, and to have the courage to seek out alternative explanations, or novel solutions. These people are far less likely to be moved by empty promises or exaggerated threats.

Third, our political system is tailored to appeal to the belief that we cannot improve the world around us. We are left to look for saviors who will come in and manipulate the political institutions to organize society in a way that benefits us, most often at the expense of others. It is not a system that encourages people to try to create a better society for themselves. It tells people that a vote every several years is how one performs their civic duty, while suggesting that how they spend the rest of their lives is irrelevant (except when politicians decide to alter their daily behavior for the benefit of others). 

An Emancipated Learning environment would reject the notion that our value can be captured in a vote. Instead, it would remind us that we can all lead remarkable lives—lives in which we have a positive impact on the communities around us. It allows us to realize that we can be happy, healthy, and serve others so that we can all be better off. And these people are the ones who do not need to rely on the established institutions that have left them virtually powerless.

On Election Day 2016, our Learners are unable to vote on the person who is going to have an outsized impact on their lives over the next decade, for better or worse. But far more importantly, they are in an educational environment that allows them to recognize that they can transcend the limitations of electoral politics. These Learners know that they can purposefully and directly improve the human condition.

Photo: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Republican and Democratic presidential nominees (Wikipedia)