I ain’t mad one bit at Lonnie Bunch. In fact, I totally get it.

“And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet.”
—Matthew 10:14

I probably should play it safe, stay with educational topics, and leave romantic-relationship advice to those who are far more capable and knowledgeable about the subject. But I do believe this much about romantic relationships is true: When someone emphatically and clearly chooses someone else over you, let it go—and move on. It took me a while to learn that “moving-on” lesson: sometimes the best move is simply to move on.

So, Dr. Bunch, take your intellectual gifts, vast store of wisdom and knowledge, leadership skills, and historical expertise, and share those gifts somewhere else; somewhere where you are appreciated and can receive the honor you deserve.

Museums are powerful learning vehicles that strengthen the informal educational system and, in turn, wonderfully complement the formal PreK–12 education system.

The political conflict surrounding Bunch’s departure is real. The Trump administration has sharply criticized the Smithsonian’s presentation of American history, accusing the Institution of emphasizing oppression and promoting what it considers an anti-American historical narrative. The administration has also threatened federal support and pressed for changes in how the Smithsonian presents the nation’s history. Dr. Bunch, meanwhile, has defended the importance of presenting an accurate, inclusive, and complex American story.

And I can’t help seeing all of this through an educational lens.

History, after all, is supposed to teach us something. When citizens encounter political movements that draw upon exclusionary nationalism or authoritarian ideas, one of the most important educational questions they can ask is: What happened the last time a nation traveled down a similar road? That is why serious historiographical studies matters. History should not merely make us feel good about ourselves; it should help us recognize dangers, understand consequences, and avoid repeating catastrophic mistakes.

That brings me back to Dr. Bunch and the Smithsonian.

Perhaps the most important contribution of Bunch’s leadership has been his insistence that America is strong enough to confront the complexity of its own history. He spent nearly four decades at the Smithsonian, became its first African American Secretary and first historian to hold that position, and, most significantly, transformed the National Museum of African American History and Culture from an idea—with essentially no collection, building, or substantial institutional infrastructure—into one of the nation’s major historical institutions.

That kind of historical truth-telling is not an argument against America. It is an argument that America can become better by understanding America more honestly.
A museum should never become a monument to comforting falsehoods. Nor should it become an instrument for excluding some Americans from the national story while artificially exalting others.

At its best, a national museum system should invite us into deep, sometimes uncomfortable, but ultimately constructive reflection about who we have been, who we are, and who we still have the capacity to become.

That means recognizing both the profound beauty of the American experiment and the ugly historical wounds that remain part of our national inheritance. It means acknowledging extraordinary achievements while also confronting slavery, racial discrimination, dispossession, exclusion, and other injustices that shaped the nation. And it means recognizing the contributions of people who, despite suffering those injustices, nevertheless helped build America into the economically, culturally, scientifically, and politically consequential nation it became.
That is not a denunciation of America.

That is historical honesty and societal maturity.

And perhaps that was the larger significance of Lonnie Bunch’s work: presenting America not as a finished masterpiece without blemishes, nor as a hopelessly irredeemable nation, but as a still-evolving national project—possessing both ugly warts that must be confronted and profound beauty that deserves recognition.
Museums can help a nation engage in that kind of honest reflection. And honest reflection can lead to corrective national action.

Because there is something deeply ungrateful about enjoying the greatness of a nation while refusing to acknowledge all of the people—especially those historically excluded from its promises—whose labor, sacrifice, creativity, courage, intellect, and perseverance helped make that greatness possible.

Or, to put it in the theological language I grew up understanding:

God don’t like ugly.

And ungratefulness is ugly.

The Cost of Uncivil Meanness: Why NYC Pre-K Must Be Truly “For All” Children

Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani got it right in insisting that Pre-K for all NYC children means all NYC children, regardless of the child’s family citizenship or immigration status. Also, I am not trying to convince my past and present public-education colleagues that the Mayor is absolutely aligned with our longstanding professional ethical standards and practices of seeking to educate every child without exception who crosses the threshold of our schoolhouse door.

People who don’t now, or who never have, worked in public education may not realize that we professional educators have never, regardless of who the mayor, governor, or president is, refused learning access to any Pre-K–12 child based on their family’s citizenship or immigration status.

It is neither morally defensible nor professionally ethical to deny a child an education. It also violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: “Education must be provided without discrimination and with respect for the child’s dignity.” And NYC definitely does not want to end up on the International Criminal Court (ICC) conviction-and-warrant-for-arrest list with the likes of Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin for human rights violations against children. Further, denying an innocent child an education should violate any religious or moral principles one claims to believe in.

I am also convinced that I will not change the thinking of those Americans who, as we see especially in places like Minnesota, view practicing moral meanness as being part of their spiritual constitution. Instead, I am seeking to reach those basically decent human beings who may be innocently confused by the shortsighted and cruel right-wing talking points about “our spending tax money to educate foreigners.”

I could explain in complex pedagogical, historiographical, macro-economic, and sociological terms why not educating significant segments of a city, state, or national population will, in the long run, cost far more in tax money and human pain and suffering for those presently documented citizen members of that society. For example, let’s see how the strategy of not educating the majority (girls) of the youth population works out developmentally for places like Afghanistan in the present or very near future.

But a good short example, closer to home, is our own collective and equally wrong decision to underspend (on the front end) on public education by not providing, yes, diversity access, equity, and equality of opportunity, meaning providing high-quality teaching and learning spaces, to large (Black and Latino) segments of our US youth population. We therefore end up spending multiple times more tax dollars (on the back end) to fund a vast enforcement, court-system, incarceration, and probation criminal-justice civil-service industry. And included in that cost is the price a society pays individually and collectively when large numbers of the population are without hope or the skills to become highly productive members of that society.

I don’t buy the jingoistic and racist-inspired “China is our greatest enemy!” slogan. But what we should be competitively concerned about is that China has arrived at the smart conclusion that they must, and they are, actively working hard to close the quality teaching-and-learning gaps between their urban and rural schools; while our fallback-failing public-education plan is incarceration for those very capable but undereducated children of our nation.

What is painfully clear historically, regardless of geography, is that educational exclusionary tactics do not build better schools, cities, societies, or national futures.
America’s present (Trump-accelerating) race to second-class world status is ironically fueled by the US not exercising its greatest strength and superpower advantage: its cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity that could drive a powerful intellectual and creative national development engine. Sure, we have the military might to bomb a lot of middle-level countries when they don’t do what we say; and we could even kidnap or kill a smaller nation’s president from time to time. But that won’t change the end-of-empire trajectory we are presently on, for it is time—not developing countries—that is our greatest enemy.

No child’s access to a quality learning experience should hinge on citizenship, race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or social status, because childhood dignity, personhood respect, and humanity should not be conditional.

We need pedagogical, civic-religious, and political leaders who operate with courageous conviction and moral clarity. And even if your motivation is based on practicality: for those of us who hope that there is still an America after Trump and the present GOP hegemonic reign ends. Know that presently, those children for whom their families or themselves are undocumented and who can escape ICE’s current brutal racial roundup will be in our nation for the remainder of their educational lives. Which means (and all superintendents know this budgetary reality) that punitively excluding these children from the Universal Pre-K initiative will seriously undercut their early childhood learning capacity, which in turn will negatively impact their elementary school prerequisite readiness skills, which will force taxpayers to spend more—and spend more expensively—on the corrective-remedial programs they will need over a twelve-year schooling period.

At the end of the day, the argument is neither complicated nor abstract. A civilized and self-respecting society does not punish children for the politics of adults. It does not weaponize early childhood learning. It does not make dignity conditional. The future of the nation is not secured or enhanced by denying four-year-olds the right to learn; it is secured by expanding the human capacity, creative power, and civic promise of all the children who will soon inherit it. Let the children learn. All of them.

Michael A. Johnson has served as a NYC public school teacher, an award-winning principal, and a school district superintendent. A former adjunct professor of science education and the author of two books on school-building leadership, he writes about educational equity, policy, and the ethical and moral obligations that come with safeguarding the educational lives and promising futures of all children. Inspired by ancestral heroes such as Dr. Gerald Deas, John Lewis, and W.E.B. Du Bois, he strives to make as much “good trouble” as possible before closing his eyes for the final time.

Cell Phones in Schools Operational Follow-up: As a profession, how many bad policy historical experiences do we need?

Gallery

Yes, there have been many instances where some student somewhere, in some classroom, has used a pencil, pen or a computer in an unintended, not so good, and perhaps, even in a dangerous way, should we then ban those writing and educational instruments from schools? Continue reading →