Ballotpedia's Hall Pass: On the Issues

Stay up to date on school board politics!

Email *

First Name

Hall Pass is a newsletter designed to keep you plugged into the conversations driving school board politics and education policy. Each edition brings you a roundup of the sharpest commentary and research from across the political spectrum on education and the latest on school board elections and recall efforts.

This page serves as a repository for the newsletter's debate section, called "On the Issues," where we contrast and explore expert commentary from across the political spectrum on the biggest topics of conversation in education policy. Here, you'll find a full list of every debate we've covered.

Click here to access the Hall Pass archive, where you can find every edition we've sent out since February 9, 2022.

2025

May 7: The debate over Mahmoud v. Taylor

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Mahmoud v. Taylor case April 22. The case is about whether public schools can require elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality without giving parents the ability to opt-out their kids. Read our earlier in-depth coverage of the case here.

A decision is expected in June.

Outside perspectives on the case

Alleigh Marré writes that parents should be able to opt their children out of gender and sexuality instruction that conflicts with their religious beliefs. Marré says such instruction is too ideological, and parents have the best interests of their children in mind.

Schuyler Mitchell writes that parents should not be able to opt their children out of gender and sexuality instruction. Mitchell says people who claim to support parents’ rights want to increase government control over education and only support the rights of parents who share their political views.

Read on

Parental Rights Are Not Optional | Alleigh Marré, RealClearEducation

“

Parental rights do not end the moment a child walks onto the school bus or through the classroom doors. … Policies that undermine parents’ rights to know what their child is learning have no place in the American education system. Parents are fed up with political activists whose top priority is to overwhelm classrooms with radical gender ideology and deny parents' consent regarding sensitive details of their children’s lives. The clear message from parents is that it should be up to a parent to decide what content their children are subjected to, and that children should not be subjected to radical ideology at the hands of the state. … Parents everywhere should have a right to opt their children out of any kind of classroom instruction but especially material that pushes specific ideologies on children. These fundamental parental rights should be a priority for schools, educators, and our institutions. The U.S. Supreme Court has immense power to restore parental rights to parents who desire nothing but the very best education for their children.^[1]

”

The “Parental Rights” Movement Takes Its Anti-LGBTQ Agenda to SCOTUS | Schuyler Mitchell, Truthout

“

[T]he case would notch a major win for the so-called ‘parental rights’ movement — a pernicious right-wing crusade to undermine public education, church-state separation and children’s autonomy under the guise of fighting for individual civil liberties. … While these groups decry government intervention on the level of public health, they simultaneously advocate for increased state control over education — banning books, cracking down on inclusive teachers and lesson plans, and pushing to undo diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Because, of course, Moms for Liberty and its allies are not fighting for the rights of parents who wish to support their children’s access to gender-affirming care. Nor are they supporting parents who help their children obtain abortions. And the parental rights movement makes no mention of the rights of parents whose children are forcibly taken away from them by the state, in a family policing system that disproportionately targets low-income families and Black mothers. Instead, the parental rights movement is focused on expanding conservative parents’ control in the public sphere and suppressing the representation of any ideologies or identities with which they personally disagree.^[1]

”

April 30: The debate over teacher union partisanship

American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten published a "Where We Stand" column in the March 2025 publication of American Educator, the AFT’s quarterly magazine. The column made statements about Donald Trump, the COVID-19 recovery, book bans, and other partisan issues.

Robert Pondiscio wrote a response in opposition to the column in an April 4 piece published in his newsletter. Weingarten replied to Pondiscio on April 17.

Today, we’re looking at the arguments about AFT and its role in education.

What are the arguments?

Pondiscio writes that AFT has deemphasized its function as an instructive and helpful resource for teachers. He says the AFT’s political stances and the opinions expressed in Weingarten’s piece do not provide value to teachers and distract from more substantive, apolitical conversations.

A Missed Opportunity: How the AFT Could Have Changed Teaching and Learning (and maybe still can) | Robert Pondiscio, Substack

“

It’s fashionable in education reform and political circles to blame the unions for all of education’s ills, but I’ve never faulted them for looking out for their members’ interests. The greater sin of the AFT, at least in the decades since Al Shanker’s retirement, has been its failure to lead on curriculum and instruction—or even give it much oxygen at all. Worse, AFT President Randi Weingarten routinely takes to the pages of American Educator to unburden herself of predictable political rants, complaining about the Trump administration’s “chaos, confusion, corruption, and cronyism” in the current issue, for example. Such partisan tub-thumping does little for teachers more eager to learn about cognitive load theory than how “the Biden-Harris administration guided the country to the strongest post-COVID economy in the world.^[1]

”

Meeting the moment: A response to Robert Pondiscio’s essay on AFT’s "American Educator" | Meeting the moment: A response to Robert Pondiscio’s essay on AFT’s "American Educator" |, Thomas B. Fordham Institute

“

While I’m glad he values our articles on curriculum and instruction, I find it odd that he singles out my one-page “Where We Stand” column as detracting from a union-sponsored magazine. This one-page space is where I speak directly to our members about contemporary issues most affecting them and their students. To suggest that this somehow undermines our commitment to instruction misses the moment we are living in—and frankly not just the threats, but the core purposes of public education. … So, yes, I use my column to speak plainly about what’s at stake—not just in our classrooms but in our democracy. The real missed opportunity here isn’t a column. It’s the refusal to recognize that defending public education means defending the conditions that allow it to thrive—including democracy itself.^[1]

”

April 23: The debate over Kentucky HB 622

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) vetoed a provision in House Bill 622 this month that would have provided up to $5 million annually to help private schools hire school resource officers. Because the legislature had already adjourned, lawmakers could not override the veto, allowing it to stand. Kentucky is one of six states that require a majority vote to override gubernatorial vetoes.

Should public money fund police officers in private schools?

What are the arguments?

Governor Beshear writes in his veto message that publicly funding officers in private schools is unconstitutional. He said courts ruled similar laws unconstitutional in 2021 and 2022 and voters rejected a constitutional amendment in 2024 that would have allowed private schools to receive public money.

Senate Majority Leader Max Wise (R) writes in a response to the veto that the decision punishes private school families and endangers kids. He said private school parents still pay property taxes that fund public school operations and law enforcement, so their children should be eligible for publicly funded school protection.

Read on

Veto Message from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Regarding House Bill 622 of the 2025 Regular Session | Gov. Andy Beshear (D), Commonwealth of Kentucky Office of the Governor

“

All Kentucky children deserve to be safe in their schools, but the Kentucky Constitution requires public funds be used only for public schools. In multiple rulings, the Supreme Court of Kentucky has upheld the constitutional mandate that only public schools receive public funds, most recently by striking down two bills passed in 2021 and 2022. Last year, voters in every one of Kentucky’s 120 counties rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have allowed their taxpayer dollars to be spent on nonpublic schools. Because it is unconstitutional, I am vetoing this part.^[1]

”

Senator Max Wise Rips Governor’s Veto of School Safety Provision | Sen. Max Wise (R), Kentucky Senate Republican Majority Caucus

“

Governor Beshear’s line-item veto sends an unmistakable and deeply disturbing message to families across the commonwealth: If your child attends a private school, their safety matters less. … The Governor’s decision doesn’t just fly in the face of a bipartisan mission—it politicizes it. With the stroke of a pen, the Governor has chosen to punish Kentucky families for making a decision that was right for them. Mind you, these are parents who pay local taxes for services like public school operations, fire protection, and law enforcement.^[1]

”

April 16: The debate over AI in K-12 schools

What are the arguments? Loni Mahanta writes that U.S. schools need to teach AI literacy and readiness to ensure students remain competitive with children in China and elsewhere. Mahanta says prioritizing effective AI use and innovation in classrooms will help keep America at the forefront of the global economy.

Joseph R. Murray writes that schools should avoid incorporating AI. Murray says it prevents students from developing critical thinking skills and building real knowledge and character. He says previous efforts to push new technologies in classrooms, such as iPads, have been more likely to distract students than enable learning.

Read on

AI Education Is the New Space Race. Here’s How America Must Respond | Loni Mahanta, The 74 Million

“

Countries that lead in AI education will subsequently lead in AI-driven economic growth and military advancement. If the U.S. doesn’t prioritize AI literacy and readiness, it isn’t just setting students up for failure — it’s undermining its own economic and national security. By 2030, artificial intelligence will contribute nearly $20 trillion to the global economy. America must stay at the forefront. This means AI literacy — the fundamental understanding of these technological tools — isn’t optional. Neither is AI readiness, the ability to leverage those tools to the nation’s advantage. Instilling both concepts in America’s schools will set the foundation for the future. … America must rise to the moment. … The new technological developments and educational investments in places like China require a similar response. America must push forward to implement AI education that will help the nation prosper and compete in the years ahead.^[1]

”

Think our education system is bad now? Wait ’til AI takes over. | Joseph R. Murray, The Hill

“

Nobody likes doing grunt work. It is hard, tedious and time-consuming. But it is also a process that builds character and knowledge. It is the process by which students become critical thinkers who have built a strong foundation on which they can tackle the problems that, most assuredly, will come before them. Public education, however, has become a go-with-the-flow enterprise — and in an age where students see a social media platform where you can obtain fame without hard work, why shouldn’t they be able to receive the ‘A’ without doing the study? That is exactly what AI provides: a short cut. … The usual retort [i]s that we need to teach students how to use AI. But this is a cop-out. When school districts rushed laptops and iPads into classrooms, they said they would teach students how to use them. Fifteen years later, can we say students use these devices for academic pursuits? Or do they use them to play games in class without detection?^[1]

”

April 9: The debate over summer vacation

Should schools move away from the traditional calendar in favor of year-round models with shorter breaks and more instructional days?

What are the arguments?

Richard Boyum writes that public schools should implement year-round school schedules with more days and short breaks. He says it would prevent learning loss, help retain teachers, avoid wasting vacant school space, and reduce the need for working parents to find other childcare arrangements.

Rick Hess writes schools shouldn't replace the traditional summer break with a year-round schedule. Hess says the current calendar works well for many families and that kids shouldn't be forced into classrooms during summer. He says optional summer programs would provide flexibility without mandating year-round attendance.

Read on

An argument for year-round schools | Richard Boyum, Mountain Xpress

“

For numerous reasons, this is a model that should be followed by public schools in the United States. First and foremost is the increased quality and quantity of learning that would take place among American students. Second, because most public school students have working parents, it reduces the amount of time that parents need to find alternative supervision for their children. Third, the physical facilities, primarily in the form of classrooms, would be better utilized, as opposed to long periods of dormancy. Fourth, it would make the teaching profession a 12-month rather than a nine-month job and therefore significantly increase the remuneration rate for educators. … Our local public schools in Asheville and Buncombe County need to be at the front of the pack when it comes to best practices. Providing a new model of year-round schooling with more days of education and shorter breaks is a good place to start.^[1]

”

Don’t Bewail Summer Vacation for Students, Rethink It | Rick Hess, EducationWeek

“

As I suggest in The Great School Rethink, our approach should be to rethink summer in response to those diverse needs—rather than to swap out our current one-size-fits-all model for a new one. Summer vacations work well for many families, especially those with adequate child care, in which the parents have flexible jobs, or those of means. These families may find much value in a summer break that allows for camps, travel, and family time. And that’s a good thing. Attacks on summer vacation which dismiss that fact are misguided and tone-deaf. But there are also many families for whom the traditional summer is a poor fit, especially that lack resources or child care, have no parent at home during the day, or live in chaotic or unsafe neighborhoods. For these families, summer can be a time when kids are adrift, vulnerable, and restless. … But none of this should serve as an excuse to box a single child up for additional weeks of uninspired schoolwork. No one should imagine that locking kids in chaotic classrooms or lifeless schools during bright summer days is doing them any favors^[1]

”

April 2: The debate over Trump’s K-12 schooling order

What’s the background? President Donald Trump (R) signed the executive order titled "Ending Radical Indoctrination in K–12 Schooling" on Jan. 29. The order, one of 109 Trump has issued so far in his second term, directs federal agencies to cut off funding for schools that promote what the Administration considers "anti-American, subversive, harmful, and false ideologies,” including “discriminatory equity ideology” and “gender ideology.” The order also calls for prohibiting federal funding from going to schools that conceal student gender transitions from their parents. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the federal government provided about 11% of overall K-12 public education funding during the 2020-21 school year.

Today, we’re going to look at responses supporting and opposing the order.

What are the arguments? Stephanie Lundquist-Arora writes the order will prevent tax dollars from funding politics in K-12 classrooms. She says the order will redirect spending to improve learning in subjects like reading and math.

James Zogby writes the executive order will undo progress in making history and other curricula more inclusive and accurate. He says the policy will promote indoctrination and suppress teachings that might show America from negative perspectives.

Throwing Money at America’s K–12 Public Education Catastrophe Is Not Helping | Stephanie Lundquist-Arora, National Review

“

President Donald J. Trump’s executive order titled ‘Ending Radical Indoctrination in K–12 Schooling’ is both necessary and timely. … In addition to the provable and obscene abuse of taxpayer dollars going toward a politicized public education, children can barely read and do math. … In districts such as Fairfax County Public Schools that prioritize the political indoctrination of students, including un-American equity lectures and unconstitutionally mandated pronoun usage, more funding is arguably counterproductive. Rather, such districts need an external budget audit and to be forced to abide by Trump’s executive orders to end political indoctrination and DEI initiatives. Perhaps states’ departments of education could be helpful to this end. We are at a crossroads in the public education system at which 69 percent of fourth-grade students read below proficiency. This is a problem that has a few clear solutions and requires all hands on deck.^[1]

”

Trump’s War on History Is Another Slouch Toward Authoritarianism | James Zogby, Common Dreams

“

Buried in the flurry of President Trump’s Executive Orders is one that has been largely ignored, despite being potentially the most far-reaching of these presidential acts. Titled ‘Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,’ this diktat lays bare Trump’s intention to roll back the gains that have been made over the last half century by historians working to present a more accurate portrait of American and world history. Trump calls these efforts ‘anti-American, subversive, harmful, and false,’ and demands instead that schools devote themselves to ‘patriotic education’ that will ‘instill a patriotic admiration for our incredible Nation’—in other words, to teach the kind of history we learned three generations ago. None of this is benign. One of the hallmarks of fascist authoritarian rule is the indoctrination of the public to believe in the ‘glorification of the nation.’ The celebrated American author Sinclair Lewis once predicted that ‘fascism would come to America wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross.^[1]

”

March 26: The debate over microschools

Should microschools be eligible for state funding or school choice programs?

Here’s the background

Microschools are small, independent learning pods that typically have a limited number of students. They often emphasize personalized instruction, alternative teaching methods, and close-knit communities of like-minded families.

Here are the arguments

Dorene Ross and Elizabeth Bondy write that microschools should not be eligible for public funds. They say microschools mostly benefit wealthy students and create political divisions as students only learn one perspective aligned with the views of the pod’s parents.

R. Craig Wood and Keith Birkett write that microschools should be eligible for public funds. They say pods reduce the influence of politically biased school boards, help students learn, and efficiently spend taxpayer money.

Micro schools are a questionable option for public education | Dorene Ross and Elizabeth Bondy, The Gainesville Sun

“

First, public education is a government service designed to improve society and contribute to the common good. It is important to ask how the microschools model accomplishes these aims. How does this model contribute to equity, unity and civility in the broader community? In fact, the model has the potential to greatly exacerbate existing divisions as children become educated in pods of like-minded families. If public funds are given to individual families to educate their children, what is the meaning of ‘public’ in public education? Second, significant inequities in access to high-quality education have been repeatedly documented in Gainesville and across the U.S. Although, theoretically, micro school charter applications and grants would be available to all parents, in fact, the resources needed to develop successful applications are not equitably distributed in the community.^[1]

”

Micro schools: The coming educational revolution | R. Craig Wood and Keith Birkett, The Gainesville Sun

“

When one objectively examines the concept, it is one of the few educational reforms with much potential for success and little downside. … To date, parents are in complete control, the students show very strong achievement scores, the state-mandated curricular standards are fully accomplished and individual needs of students are met. In fact, research shows that very small learning groups make significant gains on nationalized test scores. … National teacher unions are terrified of such arrangements as the micro school teachers are not covered by binding union contracts. School districts are removed from this arrangement, only to the extent that state statutes require school district involvement with charter schools. School board members who have very specific agendas are removed as the actual parents are making the decisions as to what is best for their children.^[1]

”

March 19: The debate over Louisiana’s academic improvement

What’s the background?

Louisiana's reading scores are improving. Policymakers wonder if it's sustainable.

The National Center for Education Statistics, part of the U.S. Department of Education, released the latest results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) on Jan. 29. The test, commonly referred to as the nation’s report card, is administered to fourth- and eighth-grade students in all 50 states every two years on math and reading. The test was administered in 2024.

The results showed students in almost all states performing worse in both subjects compared to students in 2019, before the pandemic. Louisiana was an outlier in reading, however, with its fourth-grade students being the only cohort in the country to exceed pre-pandemic scores. Since 2019, Louisiana has gone from 50th to 16th in fourth-grade reading and from 45th to 29th in eighth-grade reading.

Louisiana Superintendent of Education Cade Brumley called the results “historic progress,” attributing the gains to policy changes that included a teacher training requirement in the science of reading (see our four-part exploration of the debate around the science of reading here, here, here, and here).

What are the arguments?

Jim Anderson writes that the state’s plans to update the content standards will not make a lasting difference in students' success. Anderson says legislation boosting public school funding, K-3 tutoring programs, and pre-K support are necessary for long-term improvements.

Phillip Rozeman writes that Louisiana has invested heavily into early childhood education but that money alone isn’t the reason for the state’s success. Rozeman attributes NAEP gains to high standards and strong leadership, and writes that performance improvements can last with continued dedication from the state, school boards, and educators.

Academic excellence not a priority in Louisiana | Jim Anderson, The Daily Star

“

The present governor’s education agenda, just passed in the most recent legislative session and which he routinely touted as his ‘Dream Package of Educational Reform,’ basically consisted of allowing school boards to hire chaplains, requiring public schools to post a copy of the Ten Commandments in each classroom, clarifying how parents can avoid getting their children vaccinated for school, establishing Educational Savings Accounts to financially bail out private schools with tax payers’ money, allowing home schooled children to participate in public schools’ extracurricular activities and specifying the pronoun a child can be referred to in school. And let’s not forget specifying which bathroom a child can use and the elimination of some requirements to become a teacher.^[1]

”

Louisiana's education improvements are a bright spot | Phillip Rozeman, The Advocate

“

Louisiana has invested in improving access in early childhood education for our youngest citizens. Having more children ready to succeed in reading in pre-K is a reason for improvement and will require continued investment. Louisiana has a new accountability system that rewards both school performance and school growth and will redefine the importance of career education. Louisiana has spent time, talent and treasure in school districts and statewide on individualized academic attention through tutoring and developing individual plans for students. Teachers talk about the use of testing data to make a plan that meets the need of each student. … One of the main reasons we are making progress in education in Louisiana is that we have leadership that has established priorities, set goals and worked diligently to achieve those goals. With that approach, we achieve successes in other areas as well.^[1]

”

March 12: The debate over Trump’s authority to close the Department of Education

On March 11, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) announced it was cutting roughly 1,300 employees—nearly half the workforce. This comes on the heels of a proposed executive order that directs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to take all steps within the boundaries of the law to close the U.S. Department of Education. As of this writing, President Donald Trump (R) had not signed that order.

Does President Trump have the authority to close the agency through an executive order?

Justin Haskins argues that the DOE and many of its functions are unconstitutional, so Trump’s executive order could close it without congressional approval. Haskins says the Constitution does not give Congress power over state and local education programs, so Trump is obligated to close it.

Parisa Akbarpour argues the Constitution doesn’t give the president authority to unilaterally close federal agencies. Akbarpour said the order could propose a reorganization plan suggesting the relocation of the department’s functions to other agencies but said it would require congressional approval.

Trump has a constitutional obligation to eliminate the Department of Education | Justin Haskins, The Hill

“

Ordinarily, the president does not have the authority to close parts of the federal government that have been established by Congress. But in the case of the Department of Education, Trump has every right to act, because Congress had no authority in the first place to empower the department with most of its current programs…if Trump believes the department’s activities are in violation of the Constitution, then he is obligated to shut them down.^[1]

”

Can Trump abolish the Department of Education? We VERIFY. | Parisa Akbarpour, WTSP

“

[T]he president does not have unilateral power to abolish a federal agency. Only Congress can do so through legislation. … The executive order could direct the Department of Education to create a reorganization plan that would suggest how it could pass off operations to other agencies, effectively resulting in its abolishment. That plan would be forwarded to Congress, which could decide on whether to vote on its passage.^[1]

”

March 5: The debate over Indiana’s House Bill 1136

What’s the background?

Indiana Rep. Jake Teshka (R) introduced Indiana HB 1136 on Jan. 8. The bill was referred to the Education Committee, but has not been acted on since. The bill proposes that if more than 50% of students residing within a school district's boundaries are enrolled in schools not operated by the district as of Oct. 1 of the previous year, the district must be dissolved and converted into charter schools.

Under that criteria, five districts, including Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS), would be dissolved and converted to charter schools.

What are the arguments?

Reid Litwack writes that Indianapolis Public Schools and other big city school districts are failing to educate students. Litwack says large school district governance structures are ineffective and that converting the public schools in districts to charter schools would improve accountability.

Michael Shaffer writes that converting public schools into charters would steal resources from the community and reduce local control. Shaffer says the elimination of elected local school boards will reduce public accountability and push out underperforming and underserved students.

Let Indianapolis Public Schools die | Reid Litwack, IndyStar

“

Charter schools are now the majority of public schools within the Indianapolis Public Schools boundaries. Stanford University’s research is very clear: Black and brown students (especially boys) learn significantly more in charter schools. House Bill 1136 completes this transition by making all IPS schools charters. I believe it’s time to openly declare what most of us have known for the last 60 years: IPS does a terrible job educating the vast majority of its students (especially Black and brown students). There are many factors contributing to this, including poverty and housing instability; no one doubts it’s a hard job. But no big-city school district in the U.S. is good. None. Zero. The old governance model of a large central office trying to run 50 to 100 schools simply does not work. It’s time to declare the emperor has no clothes and move to a fully autonomous and highly accountable system.^[1]

”

The grandest of larcenies: HB 1136 would seize public property for charter schools | Michael Shaffer, The Journal Gazette

“

For as long as these individual schools and districts have existed, the communities in which they reside have fully funded and paid the costs of securing properties on which the building is located, paying the mortgages, budgeting to pay for not only the original construction but all improvements to each building, and maintaining the buildings to meet the needs of the community in which they are located. In one fell swoop, the state will take those buildings and give them to charter school organizations, and all local control disappears. Our communities have spent and are spending millions to provide the safest and best school buildings in which students will be educated. All the buildings owned locally by the citizens of that school district will become the property of the charter schools that take over.^[1]

”

February 26: The debate over school discipline

Should schools use discipline practices focused on conflict resolution, social skill development, and community building (also called restorative discipline)? Or should they use more traditional practices like suspension and detention?

Elizabeth Grace Matthew writes that restorative discipline allows students to misbehave without consequences. Matthew says suspensions and expulsion are sometimes necessary to protect well-behaved children from distraction and deter bad behavior.

Larry Ferlazzo writes that bad behavior should be viewed as a missing skill and not an intentional choice by children. Ferlazzo says punitive approaches like suspension and expulsion harm students. He says restorative justice promotes relationships and student autonomy and prepares children for future success.

The predictable failure of ‘restorative justice’ in schools | Elizabeth Grace Matthew, The Hill

“

It should have been obvious that academic outcomes would get worse if students could misbehave with impunity. Anyone who has ever managed a classroom knows that when students who are attempting to stay on task are distracted by other students who are constantly disrupting, learning suffers. While suspensions and expulsions are extreme measures (the efficacy of which can be justly called into question with respect to misbehaving students themselves), they do provide well-behaved students relief from disruption and/or victimization; they also act as deterrents to those who might be inclined to misbehave. It is no surprise that, without these disciplinary measures, teachers’ time is more consistently wasted on classroom management, students are more consistently disrupted and chaos reigns. And chaotic environments are not ideal for academic learning.^[1]

”

What Do Restorative Practices Look Like in Schools? | Larry Ferlazzo, Education Week

“

We need to practice and advocate a mind shift where ‘bad behavior’ is viewed as a missing skill (skills-based deficit) that needs to be learned rather than a deliberate choice of the individual. … Expulsion and suspension interfere with young scholars’ academic progress and damages their sense of belonging at school. Restorative practice is humanistic. Intentional, inclusive, and respectful ways of thinking about, communicating about, and handling behavioral challenges are made available to students and caring adults through restorative practices. Restorative practices, when used in a school environment, support relationship development and repair, highlight student autonomy, and downplay harsh punishment in favor of dialogue to resolve conflicts. This growth and development will serve the young scholar beyond their K-12 educational career.^[1]

”

February 19: The debate over the sick-out protest of Houston schools

Here is the background

On Feb. 5, an estimated 3,000 Houston Independent School District (HISD) students stayed home from classes as part of an organized sick-out to protest the Texas Education Agency’s (TEA) takeover of the district. Community Voices for Public Education, a nonprofit that describes its mission as “uniting parents, educators, students, and community members to advocate for strong, equitable public schools,” helped organize the sick-out.

The TEA assumed control of HISD in June 2023, citing persistent academic underperformance and district governance concerns. In the transition, the state replaced the elected school board and superintendent with a state-appointed board of managers and a new superintendent—Mike Miles.

Among other changes, Miles implemented a mandatory curriculum at more than 50 campuses, placed more emphasis on testing, and cut central office staff. Miles also converted some school libraries into multi-purpose spaces for disciplining misbehaving students and tutoring high-achieving ones.

Here are the arguments

Alexandra Elizondo, a representative for the district, wrote the calls to keep kids home were irresponsible and harmful for students. Elizondo says the district has made significant progress since the takeover and better serves the needs of more students and schools.

The Houston Chronicle Editorial Board wrote that parents and students have concerns about stressful environments, teacher retention, and repetitive testing requirements. The Board said although the protest cost students a school day, the sick-out legitimately voiced those worries.

HISD's response to Community Voices for Public Education's irresponsible call to protest. | Alexandra Elizondo, X

“

Encouraging students to skip school only hurts students. Every data point—STAAR, NAEP, School Accountability Ratings, College-Credit Course Access—shows that HISD’s students and schools, especially those neglected by previous administrations, are making significant progress. What bad old days do they want the district’s most marginalized students to be dragged back to now? Do they want to go back to the time when only 17% of graduates earned a living wage, when the schools serving our poorest students graduated students with empty diplomas, or when students with special needs were so chronically underserved that the state had to step in? And are they really willing to encourage children to skip school to make their point? The old HISD may have worked wonderfully for a few students, but it didn’t work for most students. The systemic transformation underway at HISD is the best shot to ensure that all of Houston’s students have a fair shot at the education and life they deserve. Unfortunately, a small group of adults continues to put their interests ahead of students.^[1]

”

HISD students in 'sickout' are protesting Mike Miles. He should listen | Editorial Board, Houston Chronicle

“

It’s been nearly two years since the State of Texas announced its takeover of Houston Independent School District, thanks to long-struggling campuses and school board dysfunction. And in that time, many here have wondered … Is anyone listening to us? … Members of the editorial board talked to 11 students and parents from campuses across the district, including NES and non-NES schools, about their decision to participate in Wednesday’s community-organized sick-out. … All the students spoke of more stressful environments, teacher turnover and the encroachment of repetitive, test-oriented curriculum. … The sickout might look like an excuse to skip. But the students we spoke with felt that missing even one day could put them behind, especially those at NES campuses. Daily attendance is also a critical part of the funding formula for campuses. We share their concerns: This protest comes at a cost to both the schools and the student protesters. But we don't quite agree with the district's public affairs and communications chief Alexandra Elizondo that, ‘Encouraging students to skip school only hurts students.’ Not when they have some legitimate grievances.^[1]

”

February 12: The debate over NAEP scores

What’s the background?

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—also called the Nation’s Report Card—is a nationwide, standardized test that measures student achievement in reading and math for fourth and eighth graders. The assessment is conducted every two years and helps track long-term educational trends.

The 2024 results, released last month, show reading scores declined for fourth and eighth graders since 2022. Eighth-grade math scores remained steady, with top students improving while lower-performing students fell further behind. Fourth-grade math scores rose, but only for those at and above the 50th percentile.

For more perspectives on what the NAEP scores mean, see here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Share your perspective on the NAEP scores in our survey, here. We may share your response with fellow subscribers in an upcoming newsletter.

What are the arguments?

Tommy Schultz writes that changes are needed to reverse falling standardized test scores and growing achievement gaps. Schultz says school choice and competition are necessary to spur improvement.

Alison Baulos and James Heckman write that policymakers and educators shouldn’t focus on falling NAEP test scores. Baulos and Heckman say standardized test results don’t give a full picture and distract from more important issues like developing socioemotional skills that help students succeed in adulthood.

American education facing an undeclared emergency with some scores reaching 30-year lows — school choice now a moral imperative | Tommy Schultz, New York Post

“

For K-12 students, America is in an undeclared state of emergency. And learning loss compounds over time, as students struggle to catch up while lacking foundational skills. Put simply, this will not be the last time we see devastating NAEP scores. It should be the last time we accept them. This week’s scores are another reminder of why so many states have passed or expanded school choice in the last few years — and why bringing real competition in education nationwide is a moral imperative. The data on school choice outcomes is clear: It not only leads to dramatically better results for beneficiaries — who are likelier to graduate high school, go to college, and participate in civic life, while being less likely to commit crimes — it also improves public schools by injecting sorely needed accountability and competition. For families whose schools do not improve — or simply don’t meet their unique needs — school choice offers a chance to find a better fit, such as in the nation’s high-quality Catholic schools, where the pandemic learning loss did not happen. … There is a desperate need to right the ship, but the system has no incentive to fix itself. Expanding school choice — at scale, and across every state — is a critical solution going forward.^[1]

”

Instead of panicking over test scores, let’s rethink how we measure learning and student success | Alison Baulos and James Heckman, Hechinger Report

“

Last week’s reaction to the dismal scores on the nation’s report card, also known as NAEP, was familiar: panic and calls for reform. Here’s an alternative response: Just say nope to NAEP. For decades, education policy has lurched from one test score panic to the next, diverting resources from what we know matters — building students’ socioemotional skills, fostering strong relationships with teachers and peers and supporting enriched home environments that drive long-term success. Rather than obsessing over fluctuating scores, we should focus on unlocking the full potential of our students. … Beyond financial costs and declining motivation, standardized testing also leads to other negative consequences. In the pursuit of higher scores, many schools have cut recess to increase instructional time, contributing to rising obesity rates and behavioral challenges. Subjects not covered by standardized tests — such as music, art and dance, which promote learning and creativity — are often marginalized or eliminated entirely. And yet, current education policy treats test scores as both the problem and the solution, using them to justify top-down curriculum reforms that crowd out curiosity, engagement and socioemotional development. This focus on standardized testing reduces education to a technocratic exercise, overlooking the complexity of how students truly learn and grow.^[1]

”

February 5: The debate over homework

Should schools assign homework?

Elizabeth Grace Matthew writes that eliminating homework assignments would reduce academic performance and take away incentives for high-performing students. Matthew says requiring after-school study halls would be a better way to reduce achievement gaps and create opportunities for low-performing students.

Chris McNutt says homework is inequitable. McNutt says not all students and families have the time, money, and energy to dedicate to rigorous homework assignments. He says homework mainly disadvantages poorer students, making it harder for them to compete with wealthier students, get into good colleges, and learn effectively.

Perspective: In defense of homework | Elizabeth Grace Matthew, Deseret News

“

[E]liminating homework, as many school districts around the country are doing, is unconscionably counterproductive. The poisonous logic of equity is to pursue equality of outcome between groups at the expense of individuals. As we demand less from students across the board, we lower the ceiling without raising the floor. So, yes, it’s true that the gap between higher-achieving and lower-achieving students may shrink when we cease to offer students the incentive to improve their academic performance through the repetition and reinforcement of assigned homework. But, as plunging test scores across the country suggest, shrinking achievement gaps in response to equity measures are mostly the result of higher-achieving students doing worse, not of lower-achieving ones doing better. … Closing academic and professional achievement gaps should entail measures like mandating an after-school study hall with academic attention available for those who are not getting their work done at home, not eliminating the work itself. Sacrificing the pursuit of academic and professional excellence on the altar of ideology is unparalleled in its perverse capacity to foster both educational mediocrity and personal fragility.^[1]

”

This is why we should stop giving homework | Chris McNutt, Human Restoration Project

“

Homework is an inequitable practice that harms certain individuals more than others, to the detriment of those with less resources and to minor, if any, improvement for those with resources. … Many justify the practice of assigning homework with the well-intentioned belief that we’ll make a more equitable society through high standards. However, it seems to be that these practices actually add to inequity. ‘Rigorous’ private and preparatory schools – whether they be ‘no excuses’ charters in marginalized communities or ‘college ready’ elite suburban institutions, are notorious for extreme levels of homework assignment. Yet, many progressive schools who focus on holistic learning and self-actualization assign no homework and achieve the same levels of college and career success. … When assigning homework, it is common practice to recommend that families provide a quiet, well-lit place for the child to study. After all, it’s often difficult to complete assignments after a long day. Having this space, time, and energy must always be considered in the context of the family’s education, income, available time, and job security.^[1]

”

January 29: The debate over policy responses to school shootings

What’s the background?

Today, we’ll look at perspectives on possible policy responses to the Jan. 22 school shooting at Antioch High School in Nashville, Tennessee. The shooter, a 17-year-old, killed one student and injured another. The shooter died from a self-inflicted gunshot.

What are the arguments?

Andrea Williams writes that gun control measures wouldn’t solve the underlying problem of mentally unstable kids. Williams says students who want to kill will find a way with or without guns. She says measures should focus on supporting students’ mental health and catching potentially violent students before they can act.

Jerry O’Connor writes that guns are too accessible for kids. O’Connor says gun control measures reducing the number of guns and making it harder for kids to access them are necessary to prevent future shootings. He also says schools should implement additional security measures (like metal detectors).

Read on

The Antioch High shooting is awful. Why can't we find the root of this violence? | Andrea Williams, The Tennessean

“

As of this writing, there is no clear motive for the 17-year-old student who killed one female student and injured another before fatally turning the gun on himself. There is, of course, no justification in this case; there is no explanation that will explain the taking of a life. And yet, as we consider the violence that had been ripping apart schools across this country − far too often and for far too long − we must remember: We are rearing children in an incubator of violence, wherein conflict resolution is seen as a weakness and there are few, if any, limits to how low one will go to defend their position. This is a matter bigger and deeper than firearms. Guns may provide a quicker, cleaner way to kill. But those who want to kill will find a way, with or without them. The question we should be asking is: Why do these kids want to kill at all? And why aren’t we stopping them before they do?^[1]

”

Tennessee should tackle gun violence after Antioch High shooting, but we won't | Jerry O'Connor, The Tennessean

“

And while I won't criticize postmortem counseling, anti-violence education efforts, and community vigils and healing events, we need to be honest: they are insufficient in affecting future outcomes. It's the guns, folks. The guns. … Once a teen has the gun it's just a matter of time until some perceived slight or personal crisis tempts him or her into using it for protection, to extract revenge, or simply to prove something to the world. … It does seem strange, though, that I can't enter a heavily policed concert venue or board a plane with 300 passengers without being scanned or patted down, but a daily gathering of 2,000 teenagers features no such requirement. Fresh from their recent nationwide ‘49% landslide’ election victory I guarantee that the Republican super majority in Tennessee will give no more than lip service to any serious gun legislation^[1]

”

January 22: The debate over New Jersey’s elimination of teacher tests

What’s the background?

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) signed a law in June 2024 eliminating the requirement for teachers to pass the Praxis basic skills test before receiving their educator’s license. The test measured proficiency in reading, writing, and mathematics. Several other states have eliminated or relaxed teacher certification requirements in recent years. Illinois, for example, stopped requiring teacher candidates to pass a basic skills test in 2019. In 2021, California passed a law providing teacher candidates with alternatives to basic skills tests.

The New Jersey bill took effect on Jan. 1, 2025.

Today, we’ll look at arguments supporting and opposing the elimination of the requirement.

What are the arguments?

Cal Thomas writes that eliminating the testing requirement will result in the hiring of less-qualified teachers. Thomas says more school choice options would bring more teachers into the profession without lowering standards.

The Chicago Tribune Editorial Board writes that teachers don’t need basic reading and math tests since they have four-year degrees. The paper says prospective teachers face barriers and fees that deter some from entering the profession.

Read on

Dumbing Down New Jersey Schools | Cal Thomas, Townhall

“

“The rationale, if one can call it rational, is that New Jersey is not attracting enough teachers to the profession and so standards must be lowered so more will apply. This reminds me of what the Army has done for physical fitness requirements. In 2022, the Army lowered the physical fitness standards for women and older troops in its annual physical fitness exam to attract more enlistees. Where did the idea come from that lowering standards might produce higher achievement? … New Jersey has partial school choice options, but only for public schools that include charter and magnet schools. It also allows for parents who wish to instruct their children at home. But parents who want their children to have an education with the moral values that a religious foundation brings are out of luck. They must pay twice - their high New Jersey taxes and private school tuition. Many can't afford it and so especially poor and even middle-class students are trapped in a system that will now include teachers who wouldn't qualify to teach under the previous standard.”.^[1]

”

Editorial: It’s the kids who can’t read, not the teachers | The Editorial Board, Chicago Tribune

“

“It’s fair to point out that addressing a national early childhood literacy crisis requires ensuring that our teachers are properly equipped to do their jobs. We have to make sure our schools are staffed with effective, competent teachers, and we’ve got to make sure we don’t let standards slip. But get serious: A one-off standardized test isn’t the answer. Does anyone think teachers who graduate with a four-year bachelor’s degree won’t be able to read or do very basic math? Fees to take the Praxis Core Skills test cost as much as $150, which isn’t an insignificant amount of money for a recent college graduate, or someone who’s trying to break into a new field or someone who finds themself in-between jobs. … Many would-be educators think twice, or not at all, about pursuing the profession because of the daunting amount of obstacles in their way: The prospect of acquiring another degree, plus navigating the licensure process, is a lot to tackle on top of other obligations such as family and putting food on the table.”^[1]

”

January 15: The debate over Bible references in Texas’ elementary curriculum

The background

On Nov. 22, 2024, the Texas State Board of Education voted 8-7 to approve the Bluebonnet Learning curriculum for K–5 reading and language arts and K–8 mathematics. Three Republicans joined the board’s four Democrats in voting against the curriculum. The curriculum’s reading and language arts components incorporate biblical references and excerpts.

Adoption of the materials is optional for school districts, but schools that implement Bluebonnet Learning will receive an additional $60 per student from the state starting in the 2025–26 school year.

Today, we’ll look at arguments for and against the curriculum.

The arguments

Caryn Tamber-Rosenau writes that the biblical references in the curriculum reflect what she calls primarily inaccurate Protestant Christian interpretations, rather than a holistic understanding, of the Bible. Tamber-Rosenau says the materials fail to communicate adequate historical, political, and cultural context and argues they promote biblical illiteracy and are misleading.

Bonnie Kristian writes that students benefit from a basic understanding of the Bible and its influence on Western literature, law, and language. Kristian says the curriculum’s biblical references regarding the golden rule, common sayings, and other historical and cultural influences are important for future learning and don’t promote specific religious beliefs.

Read on

As a Jewish biblical scholar in Houston, I’m enraged that Texas is adopting this biblically illiterate new curriculum | Caryn Tamber-Rosenau, Forward

“

“I believe that learning about the content of the Bible is important for understanding not only religion, but also world history, politics, art and literature. But not like this. The Bluebonnet curriculum about to become part of classroom instruction in some Texas public schools is a travesty. … The creators of the curriculum have defended its biblical content on the grounds that the Bible is a foundational document of our civilization, so students must understand it to be well-educated citizens. But if an understanding of the Bible — and not indoctrination with a Protestant Christian view of the Bible — is the main goal here, then why does the curriculum show so many signs of biblical illiteracy? … If students are taught in kindergarten that King Solomon built a Temple that functioned much like a contemporary Protestant church, or in second grade that Queen Esther was a nonviolent activist for religious freedom, they do not have to do any hard work to understand the Hebrew Bible in its ancient context, not to mention its contemporary Jewish context. The Bluebonnet curriculum takes a rich collection of texts that are sacred for multiple religions and reads them in ways that are inaccurate, misleading and offensive — and that will produce biblically illiterate Texans.”^[1]

”

You don’t need to panic about Bibles in public schools | Bonnie Kristian, MSNBC

“

“[A]s an educational objective, giving students basic familiarity with the Bible is eminently defensible. Its long historical influence on the literature, law and language of the Western and the Western-colonized world (which is to say, almost all of the world) is undeniable, and students should be able to recognize that influence when they encounter it. … Schools that leave their students ignorant of the single most important influence on the English language are doing a disservice to the next generation of thinkers, readers and writers of every religion and none at all. That’s certainly true at the level of high school literature, but I think there’s a reasonable — if debatable — case for starting younger. Elementary schoolers are old enough to learn about (and practice) the golden rule. They can benefit from understanding biblically inspired idioms like “richer than Solomon,” “my cup runneth over” or “the patience of Job.” They’ll be better prepared to learn history like the Scopes Monkey Trial if they already understand the gist of that era’s debate over the origin of life. That’s not exactly the stuff of a big tent revival, and the mere presence of Bibles in public schools does not portend the end of the rightful separation of church and state. If this Texas reading curriculum is what reverses dechurching in America, it will only be through divine intervention.”^[1]

”

January 8: The debate over eighth-grade algebra

Should schools teach algebra in eighth grade by default?

Steven Yoder writes that after Minnesota adopted a 2006 law requiring algebra in eighth grade, overall math achievement scores in the state fell. Yoder says such requirements make students feel negatively about math and don’t boost enrollment in advanced math courses like calculus in high school.

Liza Bondurant writes that the Dallas Independent School District’s policy of teaching Algebra 1 in eighth grade didn’t hurt math scores and helped triple the number of students in accelerated programs. She says teaching advanced courses in middle school was especially helpful for Black and Latino students who faced disadvantages in opt-in programs which require a parent or teacher recommendation for students to enroll.

One state tried algebra for all eighth graders. It hasn’t gone well | Steven Yoder, Hechinger Report

“

“Minnesota went the opposite route, effectively giving students the same opportunities by placing everyone on an accelerated track. Its experience suggests early universal algebra isn’t a cure-all for boosting the share of students in advanced math. 'That replicates what most of the studies have found,' said Scott Peters, senior research scientist at educational assessment organization NWEA.* Early algebra does appear to slightly boost enrollment in advanced math courses in the short term — for example, more 10th graders taking Algebra II — but the effect fades as students get older, he said. And there could be a downside. A 2015 study found that a brief experiment by California to enroll all eighth graders in algebra backfired, lowering test scores in large districts, though it had little effect on small and mid-sized ones. 'If you push a kid too far, too fast, they might be either less interested or feel defeated or it hurts their self-efficacy and confidence in math,' study co-author Andrew McEachin said.”^[1]

”

Why expanding access to algebra is a matter of civil rights | Liza Bondurant, The Conversation

“

“Under an opt-in policy, students need a parent or teacher recommendation to take honors math in middle school and Algebra 1 in eighth grade. That policy led both to low enrollment and very little diversity in honors math. Some parents, especially those who are Black or Latino, were not aware how to enroll their students in advanced classes due to a lack of communication in many districts. … Dallas ISD’s policy overhaul aimed to foster inclusivity and bridge educational gaps among students. Through this initiative, every middle school student, regardless of background, was enrolled in honors math, the pathway that leads to taking Algebra 1 in eighth grade, unless they opted out. Flipping the switch from opt-in to opt-out led to a dramatic increase in the number of Black and Latino learners, who constitute the majority of Dallas students. And the district’s overall math scores remained steady. About 60% of Dallas ISD eighth graders are now taking Algebra 1, triple the prior level. Moreover, more than 90% are passing the state exam.”^[1]

”

2024

December 18: The debate over the effect school choice has on rural students

Do private school choice policies help rural students take advantage of alternatives to the public school system? Or do they primarily benefit wealthier urban and suburban students while siphoning money away from rural public schools?

Jason Bedrick and Matthew Ladner write that school choice is good for rural students and allows them to find options that best meet their needs. They also say school choice policies already exist in rural districts and have helped improve public schools.

Brayden Love writes that school choice policies like vouchers take money away from rural public schools that provide essential services like transportation. He says weakening public schools hurts rural areas since schools are often one of the most important economic and community centers.

Rustic Renaissance: Education Choice in Rural America | Jason Bedrick and Matthew Ladner, The Heritage Foundation

“

“No one school can meet the needs of all children who just happen to live nearby. Families in rural areas deserve more education options. By embracing education choice policies, state lawmakers can deliver on the promise of America’s education system and ensure that all children have access to the learning environment that best meets their individual needs. Policymakers who want to increase education options for rural families should enact education choice policies, such as K–12 education savings accounts, and broaden charter school laws to make it easier to open them in rural areas. … Rural areas have far more education options than education choice critics claim—from private schools and charter schools to microschools and virtual learning. … States with robust education choice policies have seen a significant increase in education options in rural areas. … Expanding education choice does not harm rural school districts. Indeed, the best evidence suggests education choice policies spur rural schools to improve.”.^[1]

”

Public school vouchers are bad for rural schools, and bad for Oklahoma | Brayden Love, The Oklahoman

“

“Make no mistake, school vouchers would disproportionately affect rural schools like the one from which I graduated, as well as negatively affect Oklahoma’s public education system as a whole. For a $3,600 voucher, will private schools provide bus routes miles into the countryside? Will they provide free and reduced meals for students who might very well be receiving their only meals of the day at their school? Since they accept public tax dollars, will they ensure accommodation to students with disabilities or those that require individual education plans? … While proponents might have genuine intentions, in actuality, this is a reverse Robin Hood bill that will cut off millions of dollars from public schools while leaving rural Oklahomans with little to no alternative options. Put simply, it would erase the progress that Oklahoma public education has made in previous years. …Rural schools are economic engines for sparsely populated areas and serve to unite the community behind a common good. Why are we willing to let policy being pushed by Washington, D.C., billionaires like those funding attack ads against opponents of SB 1647 dictate policy in rural Oklahoma?”^[1]

”

December 11: The debate over teachers unions

The first teachers unions formed in Chicago in the late 19th century. Since then, they have been a prominent part of the conversation around K-12 public education. Proponents say unions provide teachers with higher pay and better working conditions, allowing them to focus on educating students. Critics, on the other hand, say unions too often advance members' interests over students.

Michael Petrilli argues unions represent the interests of teachers and not students. Petrilli says unions create unnecessary barriers to becoming teachers, negotiate pay packages that deter new teachers, and fail to support rookies. He also says they often encourage less rigorous grading and disciplinary practices.

Glenn Sacks says unions support new teachers with policies that limit their workloads and responsibilities in their first year. He says school board members and administrators (not unions) tend to overburden new teachers and enact requirements—such as those related to discipline and grading—that tie teachers’ hands.

How much blame does the federal government deserve for America’s mediocre schools? | Michael J. Petrilli, Thompson Institute

“

Elected school boards that are easily captured by the teachers unions and other adult interests. The teachers unions themselves. The education schools that train our teachers, principals, and other administrators. … [T]hat’s why we see such homogenization—and mediocrity—across the land. Perhaps it’s not quite so bad in red America because the unions are weaker there. But even where there are teacher ‘associations’ instead of ‘unions,’ we see human capital policies that no organization in its right mind would embrace voluntarily. These include barriers to entry that are weakly related to on-the-job performance; ineffective supports for new teachers and principals; lifelong tenure after just a few years in the profession; pay systems that pretend that every school and subject area demands the same salary; and compensation systems heavily weighted toward health care and retiree benefits instead of starting salaries—in other words, what veteran and retired teachers value, instead of what potential rookie teachers might want. And we see bad ideas flowing through our schools, like recent efforts to “reform grading” by never giving kids a zero, to ‘reform discipline’ by, well, not disciplining students, to teach reading by not explicitly teaching reading, to teach American history as a story of the oppressors versus the oppressed, and on and on ad nauseam.”^[1]

”

Don’t Blame Teachers Unions for Our Schools’ Problems | Glenn Sacks, RealClearEducation

“

“Hoover Institution research fellow Michael Petrilli adeptly identifies many of the problems afflicting American schools. In identifying the causes of these problems, he is...less adept. … Teachers unions are not the driving force behind these policies, and teachers generally have mixed emotions about them. … Petrilli is correct that the supports for novice teachers are inadequate. Too often rookies are thrown into a situation that requires an enormous amount of work and it is either sink or swim. Yet it is the teachers unions who fight for the supports these teachers need, and administrators and district leaders who often undermine them. … Petrilli criticizes schools for “not disciplining students” but this is simplistic. For one, there are often restrictions on transferring out students with special needs. Emotionally Disturbed students, for example, often can only be transferred if the incoming school has the same support available for the student as the school the student is leaving does. … Tenure is not the lifetime job guarantee critics like Petrilli imagine it to be. What it really means is teachers cannot be terminated without a legitimate reason and without due process.”^[1]

”

December 4: Perspectives on how Linda McMahon could shape the Department of Education

On Nov. 19, President-elect Donald Trump (R) announced that he intended to nominate Linda McMahon as Secretary of Education. McMahon served as the 25th Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) from 2017 to 2019, during Trump's first term. Before that, she was the president and CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE).

Jeremiah Poff writes McMahon can reverse liberal priorities and promote a new agenda focused on parents’ rights. Poff says McMahon needs to balance reducing bureaucratic burdens imposed on K-12 schools through grants, supporting school choice programs, and setting curriculum standards that prohibit politically driven instruction. Poff says McMahon could be the most effective secretary in the department’s history if she accomplishes those goals.

Jonathan Zimmerman writes McMahon’s department will have to contend with a contradictory policy platform, which will limit her effectiveness. Zimmerman says the goal of giving power back to local governments and parents is incompatible with removing certain books from classrooms and creating curricular requirements around the teaching of race and gender. He says McMahon’s agenda will be unpopular and unsuccessful.

Linda McMahon has a big job ahead of her | Jeremiah Poff, Washington Examiner

“

In her new position, McMahon will be charged with undoing four years of reckless liberal policymaking and advancing a new policymaking agenda that prioritizes student success and parental rights, while freeing the nation’s education system from the boot of a liberal bureaucracy intent on imposing its will. It’s a gargantuan task. The Education Department’s budget exceeds $200 billion, a large portion of which is disbursed to state and local education agencies through grants. … The McMahon-led Trump Education Department should not forget that local control of education must be the goal of any policymaking, but the steely resolve that the leaders in these states displayed as they embraced groundbreaking reforms is one that she must emulate with bold conviction. Doing so will change public and private education from preschool to postgraduate school for the better, and set the Education Department on a needed path of reform that will not be easily reversed.^[1]

”

Will Trump’s Education Department pick empower schools — while placing more controls on them? | Jonathan Zimmerman, Chicago Tribune

“

All of these tensions will come crashing down on McMahon, if she’s confirmed. Eliminating the Department of Education is a nonstarter; unless the Republicans eliminate the filibuster, they will never be able to get the 60 Senate votes they would need to get rid of the department. Nor is it clear whether the Trump administration could take federal money away from schools that don’t follow its dictates. It will almost surely revoke the Biden administration’s interpretation of Title IX, which barred discrimination based on gender identity. That could lead the Department of Education to sue school districts that allowed trans women to compete on women’s teams, for example. But surely she learned enough to know that Americans are a freedom-loving people. Most of them don’t support book bans, and I doubt they’re going to like it if the federal government tells them how to teach about race or gender. You can’t proclaim your fealty to state control and parents rights with one hand, then force the hand of states and parents with the other. If McMahon is confirmed, she should get ready for a big-time smackdown.^[1]

”

November 20: The debate over providing public education for students residing in the U.S. without legal permission

Although there are no exact figures on the number of minors residing in the U.S. without legal permission, estimates put the number at more than 850,000. In many cases, those children enroll in and receive education services from public schools. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Plyler v. Doe that public schools cannot use immigration status as a basis for denying enrollment.

Districts in New York City, Boston, Denver, and elsewhere have seen an increase in recent years in the number of noncitizen students, prompting school leaders to seek more funding from state and federal lawmakers and adding to a broader debate about the immigration system. Some localities allow noncitizens to vote in school board elections.

Tara Sonenshine writes that children who immigrate illegally tend to work hard and enrich classroom cultures. Sonenshine says educating immigrant children sets them up to benefit America in the long run, helping them become effective producers and consumers capable of supporting the country’s economic growth.

Madison Doan, Matthew Kuckelman, Lindsey Burke, and Lora Ries write that providing education for students who immigrated illegally creates a harmful financial strain for schools and states. They also say practical difficulties, such as accommodating non-English-speaking children, negatively affect teachers and classrooms.

When it comes to educating immigrant children, the benefits outweigh the cost | Tara D. Sonenshine, The Hill

“

[S]tudies show immigrant students to be highly motivated and well behaved when teachers are prepared and trained to receive them. And there are numerous success stories of immigrant children enriching classrooms and bringing cultural awareness that benefits everyone. Immigrant children also become part of a cycle that benefits both the host country and the sending nation. … Young immigrant students grow up to contribute to America’s economic growth in two ways: by working and by spending. Their presence in unexpectedly high numbers ‘explains some of the surprising strength in consumer spending and overall economic growth since 2022,’ according to the New Yorker. ‘Without positive net migration, the U.S. population is projected to begin shrinking by about 2040.’ … We are a nation of immigrants. We made a promise to educate every child. Let’s keep it.^[1]

”

The Consequences of Unchecked Illegal Immigration on America’s Public Schools | Madison Marino Doan, Matthew Kuckelman, Lindsey Burke, and Lora Ries, The Heritage Foundation

“

Nationwide, the CBP encountered 145,474 accompanied and unaccompanied minors in FY 2023. Based on the national average spending of $16,345 per student, if each such child enrolled in public school in FY 2023, it would increase national education spending by more than $2 billion for one year. … [T]here are also concerns of misuse of school property, classroom management, and English proficiency. Each of these affect learning and academic performance. … At two Texas high schools in the Austin Independent School District, teachers were forced to instruct students in hallways and conference rooms to accommodate the 400-plus migrant children who were recently enrolled. New York Public Schools have had to absorb some 20,000 migrant children for the 2023–2024 school year. … Unaccompanied children arriving in the U.S. typically do not speak English. This poses additional challenges for teachers, who must then navigate classroom instruction and classroom management issues with children who may not understand content or instructions.^[1]

”

November 13: The debate over phonics instruction

Phonics is an element of reading instruction that teaches children how to sound out words, allowing them to form connections to words they may already know.

David Reinking, Peter Smagorinsky, and David Yaden write that efforts to promote phonics in reading instruction have overemphasized it at the expense of other components. They say phonics are already widely taught, that current reading achievement is sufficient, and that more phonics won’t raise achievement further.

Natalie Wexler writes that phonics instruction is insufficient in many schools. Wexler says many teachers still use ineffective strategies to teach reading, such as prompting students to guess words based on context instead of sounding them out. She says achievement levels justify curriculum changes focusing on making existing phonics instruction more effective, not taking time or focus away from other reading skills.

On the latest obsession with phonics | David Reinking, Peter Smagorinsky, and David B. Yaden, Washington Post

“

We believe phonics plays an important role in teaching children to read. But, we see no justifiable support for its overwhelming dominance within the current narrative, nor reason to regard phonics as a panacea for improving reading achievement. Specifically, we do not see convincing evidence for a reading crisis, and certainly none that points to phonics as the single cause or a solution. We are skeptical of any narrowly defined science that authoritatively dictates exactly how reading should be taught in every case. Most of all, we are concerned that ill-advised legislation will unnecessarily constrain teachers’ options for effective reading instruction. … But crisis or not, is there evidence that more phonics instruction is the elixir guaranteed to induce higher reading achievement? The answer isn’t just no. There are decades of empirical evidence that it hasn’t and won’t.^[1]

”

Clearing Up Misconceptions About The ‘Science Of Reading’ | Natalie Wexler, Forbes

“

They may feel phonics instruction is best done as an issue arises—for example, if a child is having trouble reading a particular word. At the same time, teachers routinely ask kids to read books with a lot of phonics patterns they haven’t yet learned, requiring them to guess at words they don’t know. And teachers have been trained to encourage kids to guess, using pictures or context. In the survey, 75% of teachers say they use that approach, often called ‘three-cueing.’ … SoR advocates aren’t necessarily asking for “more” phonics, but they are asking for more effective phonics instruction. They argue it should proceed systematically, ideally in a sequence determined by a curriculum. Children who are still learning phonics patterns should be asked to read books that consist mostly of words whose patterns they’ve already been taught.^[1]

”

October 30: The debate over Florida Amendment 1

Florida is one of 41 states where school board candidates run in nonpartisan races. That could change come Nov. 5, when Florida voters will decide on Amendment 1. The amendment would make school board elections partisan beginning in 2026. Florida school board candidates ran in partisan elections until 1998, when voters approved Amendment 11 64-36%.

We did a deep-dive into Amendment 1 earlier this year in this newsletter.

Florida state Rep. Spencer Roach (R) writes that partisan school board elections give voters more information on candidates’ beliefs. Roach says all candidates have ideologies and political affiliations, and nonpartisan elections allow them to hide their beliefs from voters. He says there are major differences between party school board platforms.

The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board writes that school boards are already too divided, and making elections partisan will stop board members from cooperating to solve practical problems facing districts. The board says partisan campaign financing could also create conflicts of interest between the preferences of political donors and parents and educators.

Florida Amendment 1 would implement partisan elections for district school boards | Florida state Rep. Spencer Roach (R), Reason Foundation

“

I simply think as policymakers, we have an obligation to provide voters with as much information as possible about candidates to include party affiliation, and let the voters make their decisions based on that information. So I don’t think you should ever be allowed to use the power of the law to hide your ideology or to hide your affiliations, whether it’s with a political party or otherwise. I think it’s really a legal fiction that these races are nonpartisan, the candidates are nonpartisan actors. And I think there are real differences in the party platform. So I think that every race, including judicial races, should be partisan.^[1]

”

Endorsements: Vote 'no' on partisan school boards races and public right to hunt and fish | The Editorial Board, Palm Beach Post

“

But the last thing Florida's 67 school boards need is an extra dose of partisanship, which left unchecked could wreak havoc in both school board campaigns and educational policies. … Florida's public schools have enough challenges. Whether it's aging infrastructure, declining enrollment, underpaid staff or undue state interference, the pressure on local school board members is intense and is growing. Political hacks hostile to public education need not apply. Partisan politics, including campaign contributions from corporations and political action committees that may be more interested in contracts and educational policies, fly in the face of what most parents, students and educators see as necessary for quality schools.^[1]

”

October 23: The debate over Kentucky Amendment 2

Kentucky voters will decide on Amendment 2 in the Nov. 5 general election. The amendment would permit state funding for non-public education. The measure would add language to the state Constitution saying that "the General Assembly may provide financial support for the education of students outside the system of common schools." In the Kentucky Constitution, K-12 public schools are referred to as “common schools.”

We covered Amendment 2 in an earlier edition of this newsletter. Learn more about Amendment 2 here. This year, voters in 10 states will decide on 10 education-related measures.

Tom Shelton writes that legislators would use the amendment to enact voucher programs and divert funding away from public schools. Shelton says the amendment doesn’t limit how much money the state can spend on private education or who would be eligible to receive public education dollars.

Jim Waters writes Amendment 2 wouldn’t establish a school choice program directly. Waters says the measure’s opponents cite low-quality research and exaggerate claims about the amendment’s potential effect on the state’s budget. Waters says school choice programs are popular and beneficial for families and academic achievement.

Amendment 2 advocates can’t win on facts. So now they’re making things up. | Opinion | Tom Shelton, Lexington Herald Leader

“

An obvious falsehood is that the amendment won’t lead to major public dollars being diverted to private school vouchers. That’s like ordering an elaborate restaurant dinner and saying you don’t plan to eat it. The whole purpose of Amendment 2 is to allow what’s now unconstitutional: ‘provide financial support for the education of students outside the system of common (public) schools.’ The amendment would overturn seven sections of the constitution to make the widest use of vouchers possible. And it’s deliberately written with no guardrails on who benefits and how much is spent. … Vouchers are the priority, and don’t be fooled by state workarounds like running them through the tax code, putting voucher money into an account or obscuring them with a new name. All these programs are vouchers because they use public dollars for private education. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you know what it is. … It’s important that Kentuckians be clear about the choice in front of them this November. Amendment 2 will completely overturn Kentucky’s longstanding constitutional commitment to public education. And it will divert dollars all communities now depend on to unaccountable private education for the few.^[1]

”

Opinion: Ignore the fearmongering. Here's what Amendment 2 does and doesn't do | Jim Waters, Courier Journal

“

Even though Amendment 2 doesn’t set up any school choice program, opponents call it “the voucher amendment.” They use shoddy research, exaggerated claims and pure fearmongering by the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy to support their claims that school-choice programs will damage the commonwealth’s budget and public education system. … Passing Amendment 2 doesn’t set up any school choice policy. It simply clarifies that Kentucky’s Constitution doesn’t prohibit lawmakers from funding school choice programs in the future. … Even the KYCEP report acknowledges ‘rapidly growing programs in Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin,’ which begs the question: Why are such alternatives growing in popularity if such options aren’t welcomed by parents, needed by families and setting kids up for success? Recent studies show the positive impact of school choice policies on students’ learning in traditional public schools. For instance, in the 1990s, Florida’s public schools scored lower than the national average – and below or near Kentucky – on the ‘Nation’s Report Card,’ but now has become a leader in academic results. This is all happening with public schools in a state where nearly 500,000 students participate in funded school choice programs that offer them a better education and a brighter future.^[1]

”

October 16: The debate over achievement gaps

Achievement gaps refer to differences in academic performance between racial, socio-economic, and other groups. For example, Black students tend to underperform white students on average, and poorer students tend to underperform wealthier students.

Goldy Brown III writes that time spent on homework and other educational activities directly affects student outcomes. Brown says students from two-parent families tend to spend more time on school-related activities. He says discussions about achievement gaps should recognize that schools are not enough to fix the problem and focus on providing more resources to disadvantaged families.

Bettina Love writes that discussions about achievement gaps distract from racism and other issues in school funding and power dynamics. Love says Black students and majority-Black schools are systemically underfunded. She says closing gaps requires deeper redistribution of resources and performance gap discussions distract from that need.

Closing Educational Gaps: It May Be Just a Matter of Time | Goldy Brown III, RealClearEducation

“

Addressing these issues effectively has proven difficult because many policymakers and scholars have argued discussion of persistent achievement gaps perpetuates harm. Rather than casting blame, we have the tools and data to take an empirical approach to understanding the factors that statistically explain these disparities among different groups of students. One critical factor that has been overlooked for years is how children allocate their time from birth to age 18. Economists, such as Michael Keane and Kenneth Wolpin, have long argued that this factor is the most important determinant of career outcomes. … The home environment a child lives in from birth to 18 directly correlates to the amount of quality adult time they receive and the educational activities they get exposed to based on the resources their parents have. … When we look at the data, 88% of Asian American children are raised in a two-parent home, compared to 77% among White Americans, 62% among Hispanic Americans, and 38% among African Americans. Compare these numbers with time on homework and this ironically correlates to educational outcomes from each group on national assessments. Based on this reality, we need to ask the following: Are schools alone able to address the time gap? Are we targeting our education policy in the right areas? What additional things are necessary to solve these gaps?^[1]

”

Stop Talking About ‘Gaps’ in Education—Talk About Harm | Bettina L. Love, EducationWeek

“

When I started writing for publication lest I perish, I followed right along placing that blame for the failures of our education system on the faceless, unindictable but infamous arbitrator of educational injustice: the ‘gap.’ However, over the years, I have learned that the word obscures the harm of racism and anti-Blackness, which are the root causes of the so-called ‘gap.’ To use ‘gap’ implies that white students ‘outperforming’ Black students on standardized tests just somehow happened or is the failure of Black children and their families themselves`. Invoking the word ‘gap’ when discussing racial inequality in our education system makes racism illegible. Calling this nation’s failure to adequately and equitably fund Black students’ education a “funding gap” removes the intent of white supremacy to remain in power by underfunding students of color. The word ‘gap’ also fails to acknowledge the power dynamic that is maintained by withholding and hoarding resources from Black and brown students. It would be easy to think, then, that ‘gaps’ could be closed without any fundamental redistribution of power and resources. But working on eliminating these differences without an anti-racist aim perpetuates racism by pretending it doesn’t exist.^[1]

”

October 9: The debate over year-round school schedules

Traditional school schedules typically have 175 to 180 days of instruction and a nine to 11 week summer break. Year-round schedules vary, but typically still contain about 180 instruction days with shorter breaks throughout the year. For example, the 45/15 calendar cycles through four, 45-day instruction periods with 15-day breaks (usually with a longer six-week break in the summer).

Paul T. von Hippel and Jennifer Graves say year-round schedules make it harder to retain teachers and create childcare difficulties for working mothers. They also claim evidence shows no difference in student learning between year-round and traditional schedules, as the total number of school days remains about the same."

Jordan McGillis argues that year-round schedules with shorter breaks boost learning retention and reduce learning loss. He also says long summer breaks make childcare difficult for working families and that year-round schedules reduce those problems.

Busting the Myths About Year-Round School Calendars | Paul T. von Hippel and Jennifer Graves, Education Next

“

Remember that balanced year-round calendars have no more than the usual 175 or 180 school days, so while they do include more school days during the summer, they also have fewer school days and more vacation days during the fall, winter, and spring. That being the case, one might expect that children on year-round calendars learn more during the summer, but less during the rest of the year. And that’s exactly what we’ve found. … Research confirms some of the challenges that year-round calendars pose for parents and teachers. Jennifer Graves has found that, in counties where many schools adopted year-round calendars, mothers were less likely to enter the workforce when their children reached school age. In addition, schools struggled to attract and retain experienced teachers, who were often working mothers themselves, after adopting year-round calendars.^[1]

”

Why Do American Schools Have Such Long Summer Breaks? | Jordan McGillis, RealClear Education

“

Considering the education system’s core purpose of transmitting knowledge and skills, the chief argument against summer is that it yields learning loss. Academics have regularly confirmed what any teacher or parent could tell you: kids forget quite a bit over the summer. Brookings Institution Megan Kuhfeld and Karyn Lewis analyzed summer slide research in 2023, finding that ‘a long line of research on learning and cognition has shown that procedural skills and those that involve a number of steps tend to rapidly deteriorate in the absence of practice or other reinforcement.’ … The ancillary, often-unspoken, role that school plays is childcare. During the large portion of the year it isn’t there, parents are more likely to be stressing over day camp pickup than decompressing on the beach. By adopting a year-round school calendar, we resolve each of these issues: kids can enjoy air conditioning during the months when it’s most needed, lessons can be better retained, and families can be better served.^[1]

”

October 2: The debate over Confucius Classrooms

Confucius Classrooms are part of a Chinese government education initiative that funds teaching the country’s language and culture in K-12 schools worldwide. Confucius Classrooms are affiliated with university-based Confucius Institutes. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) funds the programs and picks teachers to send to schools. In 2020, the State Department designated the Confucius Institute U.S. Center as a foreign mission of China, citing the “opacity of this organization and its state-directed nature.”

There are at least 164 Confucius Classrooms in the U.S., and 79% of those operate out of a public school district, according to a July 2024 National Association of Scholars (NAS) report. The NAS says that it “upholds the standards of a liberal arts education that fosters intellectual freedom, searches for the truth, and promotes virtuous citizenship.”

Maggie McKneely writes Confucius Classroom programs aim to promote socialism and influence young Americans with pro-China propaganda. McKneely says foreign influence in education is a national security threat that Congress should address.

Naima Green-Riley writes Confucius Classrooms did not significantly influence the opinions of students in a survey she conducted. Green-Riley says the classes focus on culture and language and are not overtly political. She says students are capable of discerning truth and aren’t easily indoctrinated.

Is China teaching your child in public school? | Maggie McKneely, The Hill

“

The Confucius Classrooms programs primarily teach Chinese language to students, but often they also include courses in history or economics. That may sound benign, but each Confucius Classrooms teacher is hired and approved by the Chinese Communist Party and is expected to promote China and socialism to students. These classes are a subtle way for the Chinese government to influence young Americans and make them more sympathetic to socialist ideology and China’s global aims. … The American education system has plenty of problems without the outside influence of hostile nations. Yet countries like China are using our K-12 schools as just one more way to influence American society. A foreign-linked curriculum designed to teach the next generation to appreciate socialism and to empathize with America’s greatest competitor is a national security threat, and Congress has a responsibility to address it.^[1]

”

The State Department labeled China’s Confucius programs a bad influence on U.S. students. What’s the story? | Naima Green-Riley, he Washington Post

“

Regardless of whether students at these schools were taking Confucius Classroom classes, on average, they developed less favorable views of China over the academic year. … Even though the content of their Chinese classes was not overtly political, students at the schools in my study learned about current events in other classes or by following the news. One student told me that if he could go to any place in the world, he would travel to Hong Kong, adding that the protests there had piqued his interest. Another student — an avid National Basketball Association fan — learned about Chinese government politics after the Houston Rockets’ general manager was chastised by the Chinese government for a tweet in October 2019. … My findings suggest that American students — even young high-schoolers — are discerning and able to process conflicting signals in the learning environment. … For this reason, it is unlikely that they are being indoctrinated by the Chinese Communist Party.^[1]

”

September 25: The debate over the benefits of private school choice

Since the pandemic, an increasing number of states have enacted policies that offer families taxpayer funding for various education options outside the public school system. While proponents claim those policies allow for innovation in education, critics say they undermine public schools and make our society less democratic.

Doug Tuthill writes that decentralization is good for education and allows greater customization to meet students’ needs, especially with help from technology. Tuthill says the government has a monopoly on education, one that fails to provide the best options for children. He hopes government control continues weakening over the coming decades, allowing for different educational approaches and more experimentation.

Anya Kamenetz writes that centralized approaches that promote public school education are better for society. Kanenetz says public schools allow diverse students to find common ground and practice cooperating. She says options like private schools that cater to less diverse groups of people create division and hurt democracy.

Public education is transitioning from its second to third paradigm | Doug Tuthill, Next Steps

“

Just as public education’s transition from its first to second paradigm was driven by changes in transportation, communications, and manufacturing innovations in the 1800s, the rise of digital networks, mobile computing, and artificial intelligence in the 21st century is generating changes that are causing discontent with public education’s second paradigm. Decentralization and customization are becoming core societal values that are transforming all aspects of people’s lives, including how we work, communicate, and consume media and entertainment. Consequently, decentralization and customization will be at the core of public education’s third paradigm. … Currently, government has a monopoly in the public education market, which undermines the market’s effectiveness and efficiency primarily because it underutilizes the market’s human capital. In this emerging third paradigm, government will regulate the public education market but will no longer be a monopoly provider. … Apparently, U.S. public education is more fiercely resistant to change than the scientific communities Kuhn studied, but I am hopeful public education’s current paradigm shift will be completed within the next 30 to 40 years.^[1]

”

School Is for Everyone | Anya Kamenetz, New York Times

“

School closures threw our country back into the educational atomization that characterized the pre-Mann era. Wealthy parents hired tutors for their children; others opted for private and religious schools that reopened sooner; some had no choice but to leave their children alone in the house all day or send them to work for wages while the schoolhouse doors were closed. Students left public schools at a record rate and are still leaving, particularly in the blue states and cities that kept schools closed longer. … Meanwhile, a well-funded, decades-old movement that wants to do away with public school as we know it is in ascendance. This movement rejects Mann’s vision that schools should be the common ground where a diverse society discovers how to live together. Instead, it believes families should educate their children however they wish, or however they can. It sees no problem with Republican schools for Republican students, Black schools for Black students, Christian schools for Christian students and so on, as long as those schools are freely chosen. … Our democracy sprouts in the nursery of public schools — where students grapple together with our messy history and learn to negotiate differences of race, class, gender and sexual orientation.^[1]

”

September 18: The debate over school metal detectors

Should schools install metal detectors to prevent gun violence?

We previously looked at the debate over requiring armed guards in schools.

Jason Turner argues that schools should have security measures comparable to courthouses and other public buildings. Turner says metal detectors would help protect students, deter potential shooters, and make schools more affordably safer. He also says all schools should have at least two police officers on duty.

Erika Felix writes that security measures like metal detectors and armed staff hurt mental health and increase the risk of violence. Felix says schools should focus on offering mental health resources and building stronger relationships with students and the community.

Put Metal Detectors In Schools | Jason Turner, The Chattanoogan

“

[W]e should have metal detectors in schools. We’ve seen sufficient reason as to why. We can afford it. Not as glamorous as a new baseball stadium but way more valuable to the residents of Hamilton county. If we guarded schools like we guard courthouses, banks and casinos, they wouldn’t be such easy targets. I also believe we should have two officers at every school. It should be a rotation. Seasoned street officers assigned one day a week at a school. These officers have split second reaction time. They would appreciate the break, I would imagine.^[1]

”

We cannot sacrifice normalcy in the effort to prevent school shootings | Erika Felix, The Hill

“

As a psychologist who has responded to mass shootings and researched their effects, there are mental health consequences to some of our efforts at school security. For example, installing metal detectors in schools was largely ineffective for safety and made students feel less safe at their schools. This kind of overreach can produce dystopian environments and arguably increases the risk of violence for some people. … We all want to prevent rather than react to school shootings. The best options are supporting students’ mental health, creating healthy relationships and building the bonds of community.^[1]

”

September 11: The debate over Bible teaching requirements in Oklahoma

Oklahoma Superintendent Ryan Walters (R) issued a memo June 27 requiring teachers to reference the Bible as a contextual source in lessons on history, law, western civilization, and comparative religion. The order is effective for the 2024-2025 school year.

Jacob Randolph, Assistant Professor of History of Christianity at the Saint Paul School of Theology in Oklahoma City, writes that Superintendent Walters’ policy is based on the religious assumption that the Bible promotes liberty, democracy, and justice. Randolph says the Bible has been used to support conflicting positions throughout American history. He says Walters’ claims aren’t historical and that schools shouldn’t promote theological claims.

Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel for First Liberty Institute, writes the policy aligns with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and statements from U.S. presidents of both parties that did not generate controversy. Sasser says the Bible is important for understanding subjects like American history and Western Civilization and is appropriate to reference in those contexts.

‘Every teacher’ in Oklahoma must teach the Bible? That’ll keep them from leaving. | Kathy A. Megyeri, The Washington Post

“

Ryan Walters made the rounds defending his policy mandating that Oklahoma public schools teach the Bible, including the Ten Commandments, because it is a ‘necessary historical document’ as he said at a State Board of Education meeting last month. In his announcement, he said his team found ‘major points in history that refer to the Bible.’ … Mr. Walters shows his hand when he leapfrogs history. He shows it further when he marries his educational policy to his rhetoric, in which he often promotes Judeo-Christian values. For him, the values of America are synonymous with a particular theological understanding of Christianity, and the country’s ethical identity is instantiated in the message of the Bible. … The issue is that his demands infer particular theological judgments about both the Bible and the United States. It also prioritizes a moral vision of the Bible that, as I pointed out above, is anything but self-evident. To assert that America is good because of the Bible, or that the Bible unambiguously points in a morally unified direction — toward liberty, toward democracy or toward a more just society — is to make a theological declaration, not a historical one.^[1]

”

Superintendent Walters is following a well-worn path forged by the U.S. Supreme Court | Hiram Sasser, The Oklahoman

“

Superintendent Walters is simply following in the footsteps of many elected officials from the left and right who promoted the same thing using very similar language. … [R]ead Walters’ memo carefully. He clearly indicates the Ten Commandments should be ‘referenced as an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like.’ Though not cited in his memo, Walters is directly quoting Stone v. Graham, which states that it is entirely appropriate to educate students about the Ten Commandments for such purposes. If any critic has a problem with this reasoning, their issue is with the version of the Supreme Court that struck down displaying the Ten Commandments in the classroom. Walters is merely following the favorite case of the critics. … His memo simply calls upon the schools to enrich the education and cultural currency of the students of Oklahoma in accordance with Supreme Court precedent. As the Supreme Court reiterated in Van Orden v. Perry in 2005, ‘[t]here is an unbroken history of official acknowledgement by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789.’ There is nothing wrong with continuing that history and tradition in Oklahoma.^[1]

”

September 4: The debate over high school grow-your-own teacher programs

High school grow-your-own (GYO) teacher programs are collaborations between school districts, colleges, and educator training providers. These programs offer mentorship to high school students interested in becoming teachers. They often include opportunities for high school students to mentor elementary students. The program may also allow students to earn college degrees and teaching licenses at reduced or no cost.

Rick Hess writes that GYO programs prioritize the needs of school systems over the needs of high school students. Hess says the programs lock high school students into teaching professions before they have the chance to experience or explore other paths.

Lennon Audrain writes that GYO programs are generally effective and help students become teachers. Audrain says when properly run, the programs provide benefits to both schools and students.

‘Grow Your Own’ Teacher Programs Are Misguided | Rick Hess, EducationWeek

“

After all, I think very few people really know what they want to do when they’re 17 or 18. Indeed, part of the rationale for students going to college is that it’s an opportunity to see the world in new ways, discover new passions, and explore new avenues. Asking college-goers who’ve spent the lion’s share of their young lives in a schoolhouse to commit to a profession before receiving their high school diploma seems ... well, it seems very much at odds with the notion of education as a formative, evolutionary endeavor. … Again, I get the argument. It’s logical enough. And yet, it strikes me as profoundly problematic. This seems like the apotheosis of putting the needs of ‘the system’ over those of the kid. I don’t think it’s healthy or appropriate for school districts to be in the business of ‘convincing’ students to pursue a given career. And I’m especially leery of schools trying to use their special relationship with students to ‘convince them that education is a great life’ because it makes staffing a school district more manageable.^[1]

”

Grow-Your-Own-Teacher Programs Could Use a Redesign | Lennon Audrain, EducationWeek

“

I disagree, however, with your [Rick Hess’] view that the programs are misguided. While you argued that GYO programs put the needs of the system before those of the kids, I see it differently. I think many school districts see the program as a way to introduce teaching in the same way that they do the crafts, trades, and other professions through career and technical education—and it just so happens that this program also benefits the system. … Now, what about the outcomes? In your post, you mention that the jury is still out on the effectiveness of GYO programs. Well, the jury’s back with some strong evidence that GYO programs work—at least to a degree. A recent study found that Teacher Academy of Maryland completers enter teaching at significantly higher rates than those who did not go through the program. This is good. … [W]e need to reframe the purpose of GYO programs and broaden their scope. They should be an opportunity for service learning rather than simply a program to create future teachers. That way, we can execute a program to serve all students—not just the 10 percent who become teachers after college.^[1]

”

August 28: The debate over the U.S. Department of Education

The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) began operations in May 1980, after Congress passed the Department of Education Organization Act in October of the previous year. Is the DOE good or bad for schools and students?

Brandy Shufutinsky writes that federal oversight from the DOE is good for students. Shufutinsky says the department helps limit negative influences from activists, unions, and policymakers and can help poorer students through national curriculum standards.

Robert Holland writes that the DOE cannot efficiently run 100,000 schools across the country. Holland says schools and students have diverse needs that a centralized agency cannot help fill. He also says the federal government’s influence on education is unconstitutional.

Dismantling the Department of Education Would Be a Gift to Critical Social Justice Activists | Brandy Shufutinsky, Newsweek

“

The status quo is indeed unsustainable, and will only ensure the continuing decline in academic achievement, and yet, eliminating the DOE will see students at the mercy of their local and state education leaders, many of whom fully embrace programs that are actively fueling our educational decline. What our children deserve is a Department of Education that serves students by actually being committed to its mission of promoting ‘student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.’ Currently, the DOE is falling far short of its stated goal. … If we dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, we leave more children vulnerable to the influence of activist teachers, unions, and policy makers. We are experiencing civic illiteracy. In order for our democratic republic to survive, we must find a solution. We need reform and oversight. Dismantling the DOE will only make things worse.^[1]

”

Should we shutter the Department of Education? | Robert Holland, Washington Examiner

“

‘Complex and persistent’ is how Congress’ spending watchdog, the Government Accountability Office, described the agency’s mismanagement of data, oversight, and evaluation. It’s not surprising a colossal central bureaucracy cannot efficiently run 100,000 schools attended by 50 million children in 50 gloriously variegated states. The U.S. is a richly diverse country, and its families have widely different educational interests and needs. The founders of our constitutional republic anticipated the pitfalls posed by big, intrusive government. They did not include education among the powers granted to the federal government. In fact, under the Bill of Rights (the often-overlooked 10th Amendment), they left authority over matters such as education expressly with the states and the people — where it rightfully belongs.^[1]

”

August 21: The debate over standardized testing

Is standardized testing helpful for measuring school performance?

Holly Spinelli writes that standardized test scores are an outdated way of measuring school performance and student success. Spinelli says schools have many roles in communities and should be assessed based on the relationships they foster, the quality of the mental health services they provide, and their commitment to social and racial inclusion

Victoria McDougald writes that standardized tests are important for gaining a full, unbiased view of student learning. McDougald says tests help policymakers keep schools accountable and ensure students are given sufficient instruction. She says they can help prevent inequality in education.

How Can You Measure a School’s Success? It’s Not Just Through Test Scores: ‘One-Size-Fits-All’ Doesn’t Work | Holly Spinelli, EducationWeek

“

Evaluation is nothing new in the educational realm. Schools are anything but standard, yet most evaluation systems treat them as such. Unfortunately, the nuance required to properly assess schools’ effectiveness is plagued by excessive reliance upon students’ standardized-test scores. This method of evaluation is an outdated tool that fails to properly assess the various roles schools serve in the 21st-century. A balanced, holistic evaluation system to determine schools’ effectiveness should address a variety of factors including, but not limited to:

Schools’ curricula and relationships with the communities in which they reside
The effectiveness of the academic, professional, mental, and emotional support for students and staff alike
Their commitments and actions to being and creating racially, culturally, socially, and professionally inclusive spaces”.^[1]

”

The case for standardized testing | Victoria McDougald, Thomas B. Fordham Institute

“

QUOTE^[1]

”

August 14: The debate over cellphones in schools

Should schools ban cellphones?

Liz Kolb writes cellphone bans hurt poor and underprivileged groups of students—especially those who don’t have desktop computers. Kolb says teachers should help students use phones as an educational tool. She also says disciplinary issues rise following cellphone bans and that some parents prefer their children to have cellphone access in case of emergencies.

John Thompson writes that cellphones contribute to disengagement, academic underperformance, mental health problems, and bullying. Thompson says poorer and underserved students benefit most when schools ban cellphones. He also says digital literacy can be effectively taught in schools that ban phones.

Is It Time to Ban Cell Phones in Schools? | Liz Kolb, Clinical Professor of Teacher Education and Learning Technologies at the University of Michigan, Oklahoma Education Journal

“

The most accessible digital device for historically marginalized youth and their families is a cell phone. Allowing cell phones in school is the equitable and just thing to do for students of color, students from lower-income families, and students with exceptionalities. … When schools ban cell phones, it is harder for teachers to prepare students from less affluent families to use their phones as learning and productivity tools. … School disciplinary incidents also tend to rise when cell phones are banned. Even more concerning is the students who receive the most disciplinary infractions in such cases are less affluent students. … For parents, cell phones can give them peace of mind when it comes to safety, and safety is something that should not be dismissed or taken lightly In an era of rising school shootings.^[1]

”

Is It Time to Ban Cell Phones in Schools? | John Thompson, historian and retired Oklahoma City Public Schools teacher, Oklahoma Education Journal

“

Removing students’ cell phones from schools is long overdue. As a 20-year classroom teacher, I can attest that the problems associated with cell phone use are far more significant than the public realizes. Students simply cannot function at optimal levels when they are constantly distracted by their phones. But don’t take my word for it. Researchers continue to find that cell phone use is damaging the mental and physical health of young people; producing distractions and disorder in schools; contributing to bullying and glorification of violence; undermining school cultures; ‘exhausting’ teachers; and reducing academic performance. Research has further demonstrated that it is low-achieving and low-income students who benefit most when cell phones are removed from classrooms. [W]e can still cultivate digital ethics and literacy with cell phone bans in place as many schools already do. We stand a better chance of fostering digital literacy without all of the distractions from cell phones in our classrooms.^[1]

”

August 7: The debate over AI tutors

Should schools and teachers use AI tools (artificial intelligence) to supplement instruction and tutor students?

Thomas Howell writes that AI tutors are not effective because learning is primarily social, not mechanical. Howell says students’ psychological needs are not being sufficiently met and AI cannot help with that problem.

Peter Coy writes that AI tutors can help customize lessons for students based on their abilities and interests, improving education. Coy says AI can also provide data for parents and teachers to better help students learn.

AI will never substitute teachers. This failed experiment shows why | Thomas Howell, Fast Company

“

[T]he vision riding on AI’s potential is not new but rather the latest in a long line of ideas of how to ‘scale’ the scarce resource that is the attention of an expert educator. Especially here in the United States. The history of the American educational system is the history of industrialization, increasing leverage, and lowering the cost per student—from tutoring to small classrooms to large classrooms to online courses. And with AI tutors, potentially replacing the human outright. … So might an AI tutor produce the same positive psychological changes in its students that effective human teachers do? Early evidence is far from promising. … Against the backdrop of an unassailable mission, millions in funding, and near-complete business collapse, there are essentially no signs that the AI chatbot came close to supporting students’ psychological needs in their schooling.^[1]

”

Yes, A.I. Can Be Really Dumb. But It’s Still a Good Tutor. | Peter Coy, New York Times

“

I’m optimistic, though, that artificial intelligence will turn (some) haters into fans. A.I. can custom-make lessons based on each student’s ability, learning style and even outside interests. For example, imagine teaching ratios by showing a Yankees fan how to update Aaron Judge’s batting average. A.I. can also give teachers and parents the detailed information they need to help their young charges more effectively. As I wrote last month, there’s a risk that A.I. will substitute for human labor and eventually render us all superfluous. How much better it would be for us to have A.I. teach us, developing our strengths so that A.I. becomes a complement rather than a substitute for human labor. … My bottom line for it … is that the use of devices and apps in school ‘should be driven by educators, not tech companies.^[1]

”

July 31: The debate over closing underperforming schools

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), districts closed 755 schools—or about .77% of all K-12 public schools—during the 2021-22 school year, the most recent year for which data are available. Districts close schools for a variety of reasons, including declining enrollment or academic underperformance.

Mary Ellen Flannery writes that school closures harm students, families, and communities—especially those with fewer economic resources. Flannery says school closures make transportation issues worse, harm students’ attendance and performance, and hurt local economies (especially in rural districts where schools are large employers). She says it’s better to expand support and funding for struggling schools.

Michael J. Petrilli writes that school closures are not always bad for students and are sometimes necessary to promote equitable education. Petrilli says closures can benefit poorer students and reduce achievement gaps if they are relocated to better schools. He says helping disadvantaged students move from underperforming schools to higher-performing schools should be a focus of educational policy.

How Educators Are Stopping School Closures | Mary Ellen Flannery, NEA Today

“

In both places, board members said they were trying to save money. But at what cost to Black and brown students, educators and parents asked. The efforts to close their schools have been traumatizing to students, and they mask the solutions that educators know would really help their schools and students. … When neighborhood schools close, whether it’s in urban or rural communities, students are forced to attend schools farther from their homes. The new distance—plus the trauma of displacement—can affect student attendance and performance. … Parents, especially from lower-income families without reliable transportation, also face challenges in getting to their children's schools. This curtails their opportunities to volunteer in classrooms or attend after-school plays or sporting events—or even parent-teacher conferences. Closures also affect the health of communities. In rural areas, they may be the biggest employer. … Instead of closing schools, educators say school boards should invest in community schools that focus on what students in the community truly need to succeed, such as free meals, after-school, mental-health supports, etc.^[1]

”

The case for closing underenrolled, low-performing schools | Michael J. Petrilli, Thomas B. Fordham Institute

“

Do students suffer when their schools are closed—either for low performance, as occasionally happened in the No Child Left Behind era, or for underenrollment? … [I]t depends on whether the affected students land in higher-performing schools. If so, they tend to do better, at least in the long run. If not, they do worse. … So what should the equity-minded school board member or superintendent do, in the face of this challenging and fraught situation? Rather than promise that school closures won’t disproportionately affect low-income communities or communities of color, promise that all affected students will have access to higher-performing schools. In other words, promise that, by closing schools, students will be better off than they are now, especially low-income students and students of color. … Closing schools is a wrenching process, but ensuring that our most disadvantaged students land in more effective environments than they attend today is more than a silver lining. It should be the overriding goal, one that can narrow achievement gaps if done right. That’s real equity.^[1]

”

July 24: The debate over school chaplains—part 2

A previous edition of this newsletter covered debates over public school chaplains and whether they benefit students. In this edition, we will look at contrasting perspectives on whether school chaplains are constitutional.

Zeeshan Aleem writes that laws allowing districts to recruit volunteer chaplains for student counseling would create opportunities for preaching, violating the First Amendment. He says the Establishment Clause requires a wall between church and state and that parental consent requirements for students interacting with chaplains are insufficient safeguards.

Jorge Gomez writes that the First Amendment does not prohibit all religious expression in the public sphere. Gomez says chaplaincy laws don’t coerce or seek to persuade students to participate in religious practices and so do not violate the Establishment Clause.

The Republican agenda to install religious chaplains in schools is appalling | Zeeshan Aleem, MSNBC

“

Public schools inviting chaplains onto campus raises obvious First Amendment questions. School districts will be picking and choosing religious figures to come onto campus to provide children with services that would typically be carried out by a school counselor — guidance on issues such as academics, relationships, mental health, trouble at home, bullying and future career ideas. But instead of drawing from education and training specific to counseling young people, chaplains would be drawing from their spiritual beliefs. At the bare minimum, this means schools would be priming students to think of specific religions as an educational resource. And it would effectively provide cover for chaplains to evangelize on behalf of their faith and indoctrinate young, impressionable children seeking help. Chaplains infiltrating public schools would constitute state-sponsored promotion of religion, in violation of the First Amendment’s commitments to a secular state. … [E]ven parental consent is an inadequate safeguard, in part because the scarcity of school counselors and their simultaneous replacement with chaplains could compel parents to allow their children to see chaplains out of lack of a practical alternative. Activists from dozens of civil rights organizations and faith groups, as well as individual chaplains, have rallied against these bills in a number of states out of concern that they violate the First Amendment.^[1]

”

Volunteer Chaplains in Public Schools Are Constitutional—and Beneficial for Students | Jorge Gomez, First Liberty

“

[C]ourts have upheld many kinds of government chaplaincies in a wide variety of circumstances, including the military, prisons, hospitals and legislative bodies. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause does not ‘compel the government to purge from the public sphere’ anything an objective observer could reasonably infer endorses or ‘partakes of the religious.’ Last year, in our case, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court overruled a 50-year precedent known as Lemon v. Kurtzman, which wrongly held that government action that lacks a secular purpose, advances religion, or entangles the government with religion violated the Establishment Clause. Cases grounded in Lemon’s framework may no longer be controlling, as the Supreme Court overturned Lemon and with it, decades of subsequent precedents that came from that decision. … [W]e need to be crystal clear: schools may not coerce students to engage in religious exercise. Therefore, chaplain services should be strictly voluntary for students to use. We should, however, point out that in Kennedy, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that the mere presence of religious activity is somehow coercive. Instead, the Court found no coercion ‘where there is no evidence anyone sought to persuade or force students to participate.^[1]

”

July 17: The debate over mandatory book lists

In the workshop model of reading instruction, teachers demonstrate good reading practices to students and then encourage them to choose the material they want to read at their skill level. It contrasts with approaches that require all students to read the same books together, such as lists of classic works.

Daniel Buck writes that the workshop model isn't evidence-based. Buck says allowing students to choose the books they read will not necessarily make them passionate readers. He says an engaging and passionate teacher walking them through engaging discussions is a better way to help students enjoy reading through shared experiences.

Paul Emerich France writes that requiring students to read the same books reduces engagement and stunts independent learning. France says teachers should guide students, helping them find and understand books and topics that interest them. France says curated book lists make teachers into lecturers and reduce student engagement and interest.

Everything I learned about how to teach reading turned out to be wrong | Daniel Buck, Hechinger Report

“

My research confirmed what I had concluded from my classroom experiences: The workshop model’s text-leveling and independent reading have a weak evidence base. Rather than obsessing over the difficulty of texts, educators would better serve students by asking themselves other questions, such as: Does our curriculum expose children to topics they might not encounter outside of school? Does it offer opportunities to discuss related historical events? Does it include significant works of literature or nonfiction that are important for understanding modern society? … Proponents of the workshop model claim that letting students choose the books they read will make them more motivated readers, increase the amount of time they spend reading and improve their literacy. The claim is widely believed. However, it’s unclear to me why choice would necessarily foster a love of reading. To me, it seems more likely that a shared reading of a classic work with an impassioned teacher, engaged classmates and a thoughtfully designed final project are more motivating than reading a self-selected book in a lonely corner. That was certainly my experience.^[1]

”

Using the Workshop Model to Foster Independence | Paul Emerich France, Edutopia

“

By leveraging the workshop model, we can teach with student independence as an input to educational equity and student liberation. This necessitates more than a change in pedagogy—it requires teachers to reposition themselves in their classrooms as guides for students, as opposed to lecturers. … Good teaching entails helping our students learn how to learn, building their stamina for their own independence, and otherwise humanizing the experience of learning—putting their humanity front and center. Ironically, in some ways it seems that we should always be teaching from a reasonable distance: Whether in person or through digital means, we should be far enough away to build independence in our students but within arm’s reach when they need a helping hand. The workshop model, in my opinion, is one way to teach from a healthy distance while building students’ independence. It can help make teaching more sustainable by eliminating the materials and energy required to micromanage classrooms of 20 or more students.^[1]

”

July 10: The debate over teacher autonomy

How much latitude should teachers have to customize classroom instruction?

Robert Pondiscio writes that teachers have too much autonomy and should follow curricula more closely. Pondiscio says the flexibility teachers have to customize lessons without oversight or approval allows them to teach political and ideological topics. He says the lack of teacher accountability increases the risk that interest groups will influence what students learn.

Glenn Sacks writes that teachers should remain autonomous and use their freedom to customize lessons for their students. Sacks says teachers know best how to keep their students engaged. He says that even if teachers aren’t perfect in tailoring their lessons, they do a better job overall holding students’ interest than a canned curriculum.

How Public Schools Became Ideological Boot Camps | Robert Pondiscio, The Free Press

“

[H]ow can public schools at once be hotbeds of radicalism and ‘woke’ indoctrination, yet produce students who are so poorly informed about the radical causes they ostensibly espouse? The answer has a lot to do with one of American education’s dirty little secrets: on any given school day in nearly every public school in the country, curriculum materials are put in front of children that have no official oversight or approval. It’s true that schools might have a state- or district-adopted curriculum, but that doesn’t mean it’s getting taught. Nearly no category of public employee has the degree of autonomy of the average public school teacher—even the least experienced ones. Teachers routinely create or cobble together their own lesson plans on the widely accepted theory that they know better than textbook publishers what books kids will enjoy reading and which topics might spark lively class discussions. … But putting teachers in charge of creating their own lesson plans or scouring the internet for curriculum materials creates an irresistible opportunity for every imaginable interest group that perceives—not incorrectly—that overworked teachers and a captive young audience equal a rich target for selling products and pushing ideologies. This ungoverned mess is how the majority of high-profile curriculum controversies happen.^[1]

”

Yes, Teachers Have Extraordinary Autonomy. And That's a Good Thing. | Glenn Sacks, RealClear Education

“

[T]eacher autonomy is both good and necessary. I value the freedom to do what I know will work best for the students I have in front of me. I don't always get it right, of course, but I get it right vastly more than I would if I had to follow prescribed lessons. … I mentor young teachers and often explain to them the importance of doing exactly what Pondiscio opposes–crafting lessons that will work for their students, as opposed to following the canned lessons we are given. I often tell them: ‘Never go into a class with a lesson that you don't believe in, even if it was recommended to you by an administrator or your department chair told you to use it. Remember, you’re the one who needs to be in front of those kids every day, and above all, you need to maintain their respect. None of these other people and none of the education experts at a university who developed the lesson are going to be in front of that class with their reputations on the line. The lesson they've given you or recommended may well be an excellent lesson, but for it to work you need to make it your own first. And if you can't make the lesson they've given you your own, then make up your own.’ The necessity of coming up with your own lessons and of reworking the canned lessons to make them your own is a major reason why teaching is so labor-intensive.^[1]

”

July 3: The debate over religious charter schools

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled 6-2 (with one judge recusing) on June 25 that public funding for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School—which would have been the nation’s first religious charter school—was unconstitutional. The Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board voted 3-2 in June 2023 to approve the school.

Today, we’re featuring excerpts from the majority opinion and a dissent.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court is the state's court of last resort for civil matters, while the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals is the court of last resort for criminal matters. Only Oklahoma and Texas have two courts of last resort. The governor appoints justices with the assistance of a nonpartisan commission, whose members are selected by the governor, the Oklahoma Bar Association, and state legislative leaders.

Democratic governors appointed four current justices, while Republican governors appointed five.

The court’s majority wrote that religious charter schools violate the state’s constitution, which prohibits state funding for the “use, benefit or support of a sect or system of religion.” The opinion said approving St. Isidore’s charter would damage protections against religious discrimination. The justices also said religious charter schools would violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Dana Kuehn wrote that St. Isidore’s charter did not violate the state’s constitution because it did not extend special treatment to the religious school—it only offered the school the same government assistance available to secular charter schools. Kuehn wrote that denying a charter "based solely on [its] religious character or affiliation" violated the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act.

DRUMMOND v. OKLAHOMA STATEWIDE VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD (Majority opinion) | Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices Douglas Combs, Richard Darby, James Edmondson, Noma Gurich, Yvonne Kauger, James Winchester, Oklahoma State Courts Network

“

The framers’ intent is clear: the State is prohibited from using public money for the ‘use, benefit or support of a sect or system of religion.’ Although a public charter school, St. Isidore is an instrument of the Catholic church, operated by the Catholic church, and will further the evangelizing mission of the Catholic church in its educational programs. The expenditure of state funds for St. Isidore’s operations constitutes the use of state funds for the benefit and support of the Catholic church. It also constitutes the use of state funds for ‘the use, benefit, or support of . . . a sectarian institution.’ The St. Isidore Contract violates the plain terms of Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Enforcing the St. Isidore Contract would create a slippery slope and what the framers’ warned against—the destruction of Oklahomans’ freedom to practice religion without fear of governmental intervention. … While we have already found the St. Isidore Contract to violate two provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution, which affords bona fide, separate, adequate, and independent grounds upon which today’s opinion is rested, the St. Isidore Contract also violates the federal Establishment Clause.^[1]

”

DRUMMOND v. OKLAHOMA STATEWIDE VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD (Dissent) | Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Dana Kuehn, Oklahoma State Courts Network

“

The funds are not a donation, but compensation for services rendered. Whether payment goes to the student/parent, or the school directly, is of no practical difference under this scheme; if a student does not enroll, the school does not receive funds related to that additional student. … [E]nrollment in a charter school is fundamentally a choice for parents to make. St. Isidore would not be ‘taking over’ any function that is traditionally the exclusive realm of the State. It would exist alongside state-mandated secular options. … The Act's requirement that charter schools be nonsectarian (70 O.S. § 3-136(A)(2)) also violates the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act (OFRA), which mandates that the State shall not ‘substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion’ -- even if the law or rule in question is one of general applicability. 51 O.S. § 253(A). As amended in November 2023, this statute specifies that the State may not exclude any entity from participating in a government program ‘based solely on [its] religious character or affiliation." 51 O.S. § 253(D). Aside from the fact that the Act's ‘nonsectarian’ requirement violates the Free Exercise Clause, it is also a dead letter under Oklahoma law, as the ORFA is the more recent expression of legislative intent.^[1]

”

June 26: The debate over student free speech

On June 10, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit Judge David Barron ruled that school administrators may prohibit a student from wearing a shirt that said “There Are Only Two Genders,” holding the shirt wasn’t protected under the First Amendment. Today, we will look at opinions supporting and opposing the ban.

Jeff Jacoby writes the T-shirt was not harmful or violent and should qualify as protected free speech. Jacoby says even if the school disagreed with the opinion expressed or feared angry reactions from those who disagreed with it, administrators did not have the authority to ban the expression.

Karl Kuban writes that the First Amendment does not guarantee equal free speech protections when human rights are at issue. Kuban says statements like “Black lives don’t matter” and “I stand for anti-semitism” should not receive the same free speech protections as the opposite statements. He says the T-shirt similarly dehumanized people who didn’t identify as male or female.

The seventh-grader and the First Amendment | Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe

“

Morrison attacked no one, nor implied that anyone should be attacked. His first T-shirt merely conveyed his general view that gender is binary. His second T-shirt didn’t even do that — it noted only that his view on the subject had been censored. … His plea is like that of Mary Beth Tinker in the 1960s: Under the Constitution, even a middle school student may peacefully express an opinion. … School administrators cannot have it both ways, allowing students to express the popular side of a debatable issue but silencing those who disagree because their opinion might provoke an angry reaction. The First Amendment does not bow to the heckler’s veto. The expression of a disfavored opinion “may start an argument or cause a disturbance,” the Supreme Court observed in Tinker, “but our Constitution says we must take this risk.” The bottom line is clear. Liam Morrison’s school doesn’t have to agree with his opinion. But it cannot punish him for expressing it.^[1]

”

When a T-shirt morphs from free speech to personal attack | Karl Kuban, The Boston Globe

“

In considering whether it is acceptable to wear a T-shirt to public school espousing the message that there are only two genders, Jeff Jacoby believes that free speech dictates equal treatment for both sides of political issues and that, consequently, schools ought to allow such a shirt (‘The seventh-grader and the First Amendment,’ Opinion, Feb. 14). The fallacy of Jacoby’s argument arises when a political position overlaps human rights issues, as it does in this case. A shirt inscription such as Black Lives Matter is not equivalent to one that might say ‘Black lives don’t matter,’ a statement that dehumanizes Black people; a shirt with the inscription ‘I stand against antisemitism’ is not equivalent to a shirt that says, ‘I stand for antisemitism,’ a statement that dehumanizes Jews; and a shirt that inscribes support for gender fluidity is not equivalent to the one in the case of a Middleborough middle-school student that says, ‘There are only two genders,’ a statement that dehumanizes those who don’t align with a single sex.^[1]

”

June 19: The debate over arming teachers

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) signed a law in April 2024 allowing teachers to carry concealed firearms in schools.

Thirty-three other states have enacted similar laws.

Kara Birch writes that arming teachers would create more dangerous situations and worsen gun violence in schools. Birch says teachers might practice poor firearm safety or behave aggressively. She also says schools should focus on giving teachers and parents resources to identify and help children that need support.

Nikki Goeser writes that gun-free zones make schools soft targets for shooters. Goesser says allowing licensed and firearm-educated teachers to carry concealed firearms in schools would deter shooters and make schools safer. She also says that while armed school resource officers may help prevent school shootings, multiple armed and responsible adults would offer a better defense.

I'm a Tennessee parent and educator. The heroic teacher with a gun ideal is a myth | Kara Birch, The Tennessean

“

As an educator, parent, and mental health clinician, I have seen a bit of everything and know that human impulses often get the best of us. Now, imagine with me for a moment a gun at a teacher's side loaded with bullets that can’t be taken back. With the No. 1 cause of childhood death in Tennessee being gun violence, we have to take a step back and consider: What is best for the child? … Picture a curious 5 year old or a couple of knuckleheaded teenagers at your local school. What would have been a little kid's curiosity at something else is now a gun that someone accidentally forgot to lock, leading to a life altering mistake. … Perfect emotional and psychological calm and clarity in a room of thirty 13 year olds is impossible to maintain every day of the year (those of you with just one teenager know this well). Instead, could we consider creating a community of support and safety where youth that are struggling are noticed and supported before they even consider purchasing a weapon?.^[1]

”

My husband was killed in a 'gun free zone.' Arm teachers for safety and to save lives | Nikki Goeser, The Tennesseean

“

Clearly, these evil people aren’t looking for a fair fight. They want full control and no opposition along the way. That’s why ‘Gun Free Zones’ continue to be their No. 1 destination for a massacre. At school, our children and grandchildren are vulnerable to harm. Allowing teachers and administrators to carry concealed firearms on campus will only make our schools safer. While school resource officers (SROs) can provide an important layer of protection and support in our schools, employing – and arming - one person to safeguard an entire campus is simply inadequate. … While this legislation is far from perfect, it is an extra layer of security and a huge step in the right direction. Senate Bill 1325 does not solve all of the ills that plague our community, state, or country, but allowing highly competent and approved educators to carry concealed firearms will undoubtedly save lives.^[1]

”

June 12: The debate over accelerated math curricula

Should schools teach algebra in middle school?

Brent Staples writes that more states should create programs that allow students to enter accelerated algebra programs in middle school. Staples says accelerated math tracks can better address COVID learning losses than traditional remediation approaches.

David Scarlett Wakelyn writes that accelerated algebra programs are not sufficient to address COVID learning losses because students are too far behind. Wakelyn says schools should give students more time to fully master topics like fractions and decimals in middle school so they have the tools to approach algebra in high school.

Fixing the Calamity in U.S. Math Knowledge Starts With Algebra | Brent Staples, New York Times

“

Only about a quarter of American students study algebra in eighth grade. That proportion needs to grow. Fortunately a few states, including North Carolina and Texas, are adopting systems under which children who meet specified performance levels on state exams are automatically channeled into advanced math classes. In Dallas there are no hoops to jump through. As The Dallas Morning News reported last year, young people no longer have to wait for counselors to recommend them or for parents who know little about how schools operate to sign them up. Students who were unaware that honors courses even existed are now being enrolled. The gravest challenge facing the country today is redressing the devastating learning losses that children suffered during the Covid pandemic. Among other things, solving this problem will mean equipping teachers to manage classrooms that include students of different preparation levels. … [S]tudents who would ordinarily be tracked into remedial work can perform well in algebra classes that include higher-performing peers.^[1]

”

Middle school math is a unique problem that needs more attention | David Scarlett Wakelyn, Hechinger Report

“

The rhetoric and policy of ‘accelerate, don’t remediate’ makes sense when students are a year to a year and a half below grade level. But even the best guides on how to help students complete unfinished learning don’t have advice on how to help math students who are three years behind. … In the best of circumstances, middle school math is uniquely difficult. These are the years when students must master fractions and division and decimals; the degree to which they do so predicts their math achievement for the rest of their education. If elementary and middle school students don’t learn these subjects well, the steady ramp up from arithmetic to algebra becomes a ninety-degree wall, according to Hung-Hsi Wu, emeritus professor of mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley. Poor knowledge of fractions may lead students to give up trying to make sense of math altogether. … [S]chool leaders need to take incremental steps toward providing ‘mastery learning,’ in which learning expectations remain fixed but the time to meet them is flexible. Students who need more time get it^[1]

”

June 5: The debate over Ten Commandments in schools

Louisiana passed a bill on May 28 that would require all schools receiving state funding to display the Ten Commandments. If Gov. Jeff Landry (R) signs it, Louisiana would be the first state with this requirement. In 2023, the Texas State Senate approved a similar bill 17-12 but it never received a vote in the House before the legislature adjourned for the year

Jeff Charles writes that it is not the government’s job to offer religious or moral instruction in schools and is the parents' responsibility. Charles says requiring Ten Commandment displays in schools would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. He says public funds would be wasted defending such a law.

Matt Krause writes that the Ten Commandments are important to America’s moral, historical, and legal foundation. Krause says the Supreme Court’s decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District paved the way for a legal framework that would allow states to require certain types of historical and traditional religious displays in schools.

Louisiana Could Require Classrooms to Display the 10 Commandments. It's a Horrible Idea | Jeff Charles, Newsweek

“

Proponents of the measure argue that the Ten Commandments carry historical significance, given its role in the nation's founding. But in reality, this endeavor is little more than a virtue signal that will likely not stand up to legal scrutiny. … [T]here are several issues here that cannot be ignored. For starters, House Bill 71 runs afoul of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which bars the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." By requiring every classroom to feature the Ten Commandments, a religious text, the state appears to endorse a specific religious doctrine. This is quite troubling when it involves government institutions students are compelled to attend. Moreover, it is not the role of government to teach people about morality through state-run schools. It is the job of parents to shape their children's moral development. Folks on the right can't complain about progressive efforts to indoctrinate children in K-12 classrooms while supporting a measure that could result in a different type of indoctrination. … [T]he inevitable legal challenges that will crop up as soon as the bill passes will cost taxpayers copious sums of money as the state tries to fend off lawsuits.^[1]

”

We should display Ten Commandments in Texas schools. New court ruling means we can | Matt Krause, Fort Worth Star-Telegram

“

We need the Ten Commandments restored to our school’s classrooms perhaps now more than ever. Our youth need clarity on the historical and moral foundation of our country and its freedoms. Our history and tradition recognize the central importance the Ten Commandments have played in the foundation of Western civilization. … Among other concerns, some have argued that this proposal might violate the First Amendment. But the bill is good policy — constitutionally and morally. Were this bill proposed before 2022, opponents would be right that it would probably not pass constitutional muster. … [T]he sole basis for the ruling in Stone v. Graham has been rendered moot and meritless. The Court replaced the Lemon test with a standard of looking at ‘history and tradition’ to determine whether a religious display is valid. Under the history and tradition standard, the commandments bill passes constitutional muster. The bill easily passes the history and tradition test because the Decalogue is the foundation of our legal system. In fact, the Ten Commandments serve as the basis for all of western civilization. The commandments were a prominent part of American education for almost three centuries before the Court’s 1980 decision.^[1]

”

May 29: The debate over segregation and school choice

Scholars, activists, and educators have differed on the effect school choice policies—including education savings accounts (ESA) and vouchers—have on racial segregation in schools. Today, we look at essays by two historians who differ on school choice and racial segregation.

Nancy MacLean writes that school choice was first developed to promote segregation and help white families move their children out of integrating schools. MacLean says voucher and ESA programs have a similar effect today of hurting equality, taking resources from poorer and majority-minority schools, and reallocating them to wealthier and predominantly white schools.

Phillip W. Magness writes that segregationists opposed programs like vouchers because they created funding problems for white-only schools. Magness says programs that fund individual students create competition between schools that discourages racial discrimination and gives disadvantaged students options for leaving low-performing schools.

‘School choice’ developed as a way to protect segregation and abolish public schools | Nancy MacLean, Washington Post

“

White Southerners first fought for ‘freedom of choice’ in the mid-1950s as a means of defying the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, which mandated the desegregation of public schools. Their goal was to create pathways for White families to remove their children from classrooms facing integration. … School choice had its roots in a crucial detail of the Brown decision: The ruling only applied to public schools. White Southerners viewed this as a loophole for evading desegregated schools. … Today, the ultrawealthy backers of school choice are cagey about this long-term goal, knowing that care is required to win the support of parents who want the best for their children. … But the history behind vouchers reveals that the rhetoric of ‘choice’ and ‘freedom’ stands in stark contrast to the real goals sought by conservative and libertarian advocates. The system they dream of would produce staggering inequalities, far more severe than the disparities that already exist today.^[1]

”

School Choice’s Antiracist History | Phillip W. Magness, Wall Street Journal

“

These critics have their history backward. As early as 1955, economists such as Friedman began touting vouchers as a strategy to expedite integration. Virginia’s segregationist hard-liners recognized the likely outcomes and began attacking school choice as an existential threat to their white-supremacist order. … Friedman celebrated integration. As he wrote in his 1962 book ‘Capitalism and Freedom,’ de facto segregation persisted even in nominally integrated cities like Chicago. By contrast, vouchers lead to ‘an appreciable decrease in segregation and a great widening in the opportunities available to the ablest and most ambitious Negro youth.’ … He recognized educational competition as a powerful tool to break down segregationist institutions. Under school choice, mixed schools will grow at the expense of the nonmixed,’ he wrote. That is, of course, if the teacher’s unions didn’t obstruct the equalizing pressures of competition.^[1]

”

May 22: The debate over ethnic studies curricula and anti-semitism

In 2021, California became the first state to enact a law requiring ethnic studies curricula in high schools. The model curriculum went through four drafts and received around 100,000 comments in the four years before its enactment. California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D) said the curricula will “provide an honest accounting of the experiences of people of color and – more importantly – it will inspire action in countless young scholars who will see their stories represented in the classroom.”

Some Jewish groups were critical of the curricula, including the American Jewish Committee, which wrote, “Revisions of curriculum were a salve but ultimately not curative of the fundamental flaws at the heart of the original curriculum, much of which represented a rigid ideological (but sharply contested) world view.”

Recently, the war between Israel and Hamas has led to a renewed debate over whether ethnic studies requirements promote or reduce anti-semitism in public schools.

Richard Goldberg writes that states should block ethnic studies courses. Goldberg says California’s ethnic studies curriculum standards promote anti-semitism and cast Jews as privileged white oppressors. He also says ethnic studies curricula tend to regard the state of Israel as an example of settler colonialism that oppresses indigenous people.

Mark Powell writes that ethnic studies curricula could reduce anti-semitism in K-12 schools and create more opportunities to educate students on historical discrimination against Jews. Powell says the California Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum allows teachers to offer multiple perspectives on the history of Palestine and guide students through complex issues.

Crack Down on Anti-Semitic K–12 Curricula | Richard Goldberg, City Journal

“

Anti-Semitism is spreading in K–12 school districts. Even in primary and secondary education, Jews are often viewed as privileged whites and oppressors, with Israel branded as an egregious example of ‘settler colonialism’ and oppression of ‘indigenous people.’ ‘Liberated ethnic studies’ curricula, like the one mandated by California, have created a distinct variant of critical theory aimed at Jews for being Zionist colonial oppressors. … Tools to fight back, however, are available. Governors and state legislatures can begin by blocking ‘ethnic studies’ from the K–12 curriculum and by imposing new teacher-certification requirements. … Local, state, and federal officials have played meaningful roles in fighting back against critical race theory in the classroom. They need to fight equally hard to stop anti-Semitism masquerading as Middle East or ethnic studies.^[1]

”

San Diego Schools Must Do More to Curb Growing Antisemitism | Mark Powell, Times of San Diego

“

Teaching an in-depth history of the establishment of Israel through the newly adopted California Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum can offer students multiple perspectives on the history of Palestine and provide a deeper understanding of the Jewish people to help put an end to antisemitism in our public schools and college campuses. This is not merely an act of historical preservation; it is an investment in our students’ future. … To effectively implement this curriculum, it is essential that all public school teachers possess a comprehensive understanding of the diverse historical experiences of various ethnic groups and be mindful of the potential consequences when addressing systems of oppression. In particular, teachers should be well-versed in the rich history of the Jewish people, a community that has endured centuries of persecution and discrimination. This knowledge will enable them to effectively guide students in exploring the complexities of antisemitism and its impact on Jewish students.^[1]

”

May 22: The debate over ethnic studies curricula and anti-semitism

In 2021, California became the first state to enact a law requiring ethnic studies curricula in high schools. The model curriculum went through four drafts and received around 100,000 comments in the four years before its enactment. California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D) said the curricula will “provide an honest accounting of the experiences of people of color and – more importantly – it will inspire action in countless young scholars who will see their stories represented in the classroom.”

Some Jewish groups were critical of the curricula, including the American Jewish Committee, which wrote, “Revisions of curriculum were a salve but ultimately not curative of the fundamental flaws at the heart of the original curriculum, much of which represented a rigid ideological (but sharply contested) world view.”

Recently, the war between Israel and Hamas has led to a renewed debate over whether ethnic studies requirements promote or reduce anti-semitism in public schools.

Richard Goldberg writes that states should block ethnic studies courses. Goldberg says California’s ethnic studies curriculum standards promote anti-semitism and cast Jews as privileged white oppressors. He also says ethnic studies curricula tend to regard the state of Israel as an example of settler colonialism that oppresses indigenous people.

Mark Powell writes that ethnic studies curricula could reduce anti-semitism in K-12 schools and create more opportunities to educate students on historical discrimination against Jews. Powell says the California Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum allows teachers to offer multiple perspectives on the history of Palestine and guide students through complex issues.

Crack Down on Anti-Semitic K–12 Curricula | Richard Goldberg, City Journal

“

Anti-Semitism is spreading in K–12 school districts. Even in primary and secondary education, Jews are often viewed as privileged whites and oppressors, with Israel branded as an egregious example of ‘settler colonialism’ and oppression of ‘indigenous people.’ ‘Liberated ethnic studies’ curricula, like the one mandated by California, have created a distinct variant of critical theory aimed at Jews for being Zionist colonial oppressors. … Tools to fight back, however, are available. Governors and state legislatures can begin by blocking ‘ethnic studies’ from the K–12 curriculum and by imposing new teacher-certification requirements. … Local, state, and federal officials have played meaningful roles in fighting back against critical race theory in the classroom. They need to fight equally hard to stop anti-Semitism masquerading as Middle East or ethnic studies.^[1]

”

San Diego Schools Must Do More to Curb Growing Antisemitism | Mark Powell, Times of San Diego

“

Teaching an in-depth history of the establishment of Israel through the newly adopted California Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum can offer students multiple perspectives on the history of Palestine and provide a deeper understanding of the Jewish people to help put an end to antisemitism in our public schools and college campuses. This is not merely an act of historical preservation; it is an investment in our students’ future. … To effectively implement this curriculum, it is essential that all public school teachers possess a comprehensive understanding of the diverse historical experiences of various ethnic groups and be mindful of the potential consequences when addressing systems of oppression. In particular, teachers should be well-versed in the rich history of the Jewish people, a community that has endured centuries of persecution and discrimination. This knowledge will enable them to effectively guide students in exploring the complexities of antisemitism and its impact on Jewish students.^[1]

”

May 15: The debate over new federal Title IX regulations

On April 19, the U.S. Department of Education announced an update to Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 that expands bans on sex-based discrimination in schools to include gender identity and sexual orientation. The regulations include requirements that schools use students’ preferred pronouns and allow students to use bathrooms aligned with their gender identity instead of their biological sex.

When first enacted, Title IX stated: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Since April 19, attorneys general in over 20 states—all with [State government trifectas|Republican governors]—have sued the Biden administration, arguing the U.S. Department of Education exceeded its authority under the Constitution. Governors in some states, including Arkansas’ Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R), have signed orders prohibiting public school districts from enforcing the new rule, which takes effect in August.

Teresa Manning writes that the Title IX rules will allow biological males claiming to be women to use girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms and play women’s sports. Manning says the rule prioritizes LGBTQ activism over the comfort and safety of young girls. She says the rule completely changes the intended meaning and effect of Title IX and exceeds the Department of Education’s authority.

The Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board writes that the Title IX expansion is necessary to protect LGBTQ students against discrimination from conservative states and school boards. The board says sex-based discrimination definitions should include protections based on gender identity and sexual orientation. The board also says conservative policies like sex-restricted bathrooms hurt vulnerable students.

We’ll be back next week for a deep dive into the U.S. Department of Education’s Title IX update and the political response.

Biden Admin Is Weaponizing Title IX To Promote Fringe Sexual Politics | Teresa Manning, Newsweek

“

Most controversial, the redefinition of sex to include "gender identity" means that males claiming to be female and wanting to use women's locker rooms, or play on women's sports teams, can now claim that Title IX gives them that right. Ironically, women's athletics only exist in their present form, especially at the college level, because Title IX was interpreted decades ago to mandate not just equal athletic opportunity but equal funding for female sports programs. All this must now yield, however, to the yet more transgressive phenomenon of sex identity politics. Girls uncomfortable with guys watching them undress? Parents angry? Biden says: Get over it! The Biden rule represents the administrative state run amok: Activist agencies get an inch, then take a mile to make novel policy.^[1]

”

New Title IX rule will help trans students | The Editorial Board, Bay Area Reporter

“

Key to the new rule is the Biden administration's view that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on gender identity as well as sexual orientation. This, of course, is opposed by conservatives, many of whom have continued pushing to ban LGBTQ-themed books from schools and forcing students to use facilities based on their sex assigned at birth, rather than their current identity. Conservative school board members in many parts of the country, including California, have forged ahead with policies that compel school personnel to out trans students to their parents without their consent. It is in this context that the new final rule will help LGBTQ students. … Overall the new rule should be welcomed by students and educators alike.^[1]

”

May 8: The debate over anti-communist public school instruction

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed Senate Bill 1264 on April 17. The law will require public schools to teach the history of communism, including “atrocities committed in foreign countries under the guidance of communism and the “increasing threat of communism in the United States and to our allies.”

Florida Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. writes that communism remains a threat to the U.S., including from China, North Korea, and nearby Cuba. Diaz says curriculum opposing communism is necessary to prevent history from repeating itself. He also says the instruction will be age-appropriate and not aim to scare children.

The South Florida Sun Sentinel and The Orlando Sentinel editorial boards write that politicians should not decide what and how schools teach. They say communism is not a threat to the U.S. and that schools should focus on teaching the virtues of democracy instead of unsettling students with biased instruction on irrelevant political ideologies.

Florida education commissioner: Why we must teach true history of communism in schools | Manny Diaz, Jr., The Miami Herald

“

It is widely understood that those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it, and that is exactly why the true history of communism should be taught in public schools. In Florida, we are taking the lead. Beginning in the 2026-2027 school year, public school students will learn that 110 million people died under communist rule from 1900 to 1987, and that this horribly flawed political and economic philosophy has spawned misery and despair across the globe. Sadly, even today, communist rule subjugates millions of innocent people. Whether it’s North Korea, Venezuela, China, the former Soviet Union or any other communist regime, their fabled utopia is always around the next corner — but never comes. Instead, populations are stripped of human rights and forced to suffer through poverty, starvation, suppression of speech and systemic lethal violence. … We cannot look past this historical nightmare. It is our moral duty to educate students about the history of communism, just as we educate them about the Holocaust and the hideous evil of Nazi Germany, the history of Japanese internment camps in the U.S. during World War II, the history of African Americans, including slavery, abolition, racism, segregation, and more. … All of this groundbreaking instruction will be taught in an age and developmentally appropriate manner, and with the highest standards of professionalism and accuracy.^[1]

”

The Florida Legislature’s obsession with communism is so 1952 | The Editorial Board, The South Florida Sun Sentinel and The Orlando Sentinel

“

The issue isn’t how old kids should be when the state scares them with political bogeymen. It’s about the bill itself. No legislature ever should command any subject to be taught in the slanted way these bills prescribe. Politicians are the last people who should be dictating classroom content. … They’re also fighting the wrong battle, as politicians often do. It’s another diversion — some would say a cynical one — from the real dangers to democracy in the United States.

Communism faded away in the 1940s as a political influence anywhere in the U.S., despite Joseph McCarthy’s overblown and highly destructive anti-Communist crusade in the early 1950s. It is no threat to our politics or economy, even if some young people have unquestioningly embraced communism’s hammer-and-sickle symbol. … The new threats to freedom are personified by authoritarians like Vladimir Putin in Russia, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey and by a deadly serious antidemocratic movement here at home. … The Legislature should be ensuring that schools teach the positive values of democracy, rather than beating a dead horse.^[1]

”

May 1: The debate over AI in school

How should schools respond to advances in artificial intelligence (AI)?

Noor Akbari writes that AI applications should be mostly prohibited in schools and only allowed in specific circumstances where children are taught to use generative AI models with limited capabilities. Akbari says children still need to learn subjects like math, reading, and writing and that AI could undermine that instruction. He also says if AI tools are allowed in schools, it will create inequality between wealthier schools that can afford to develop curricula and strategies that prevent cheating and those that cannot.

Evan Nierman writes that students will use AI to complete school work regardless of whether it’s permitted. Nierman says schools should update their curricula to better accommodate AI and focus on assignments that require critical thinking and hinder cheating. He says schools should teach and encourage the ethical use of AI tools as aids in completing more complicated tasks efficiently.

The AI Cheating Crisis: Education Needs Its Anti-Doping Movement | Noor Akbari, Education Week

“

If the point of education is merely to get a diploma, then who cares if a student or AI does the work? The true point of an education, however, is to train a person’s mind and character. Claiming that students no longer need to learn skills like writing—because AI does it—is like arguing that no one should strength train because carts and forklifts move heavy stuff for us. This conflates means and ends. People lift weights for the inherent benefits to their mind and body. Likewise, we learn to write for the inherent benefits to our cognition and communication skills. … K-12 schools will [experience inequities], particularly between expensive private schools and crowded public schools. Schools with lower student-teacher ratios are better positioned to design assignments that limit students’ reliance on AI than schools with more limited staff and resources. … Forget watermarking AI-generated text and AI detectors—they’re easily duped. And forget academic ‘honor codes.’ … Exams, whether in person or online, must be proctored such that no one can cheat using AI. That said, to prepare students for the working world, schools should teach generative AI in classrooms using versions with limited capabilities..^[1]

”

Why educators should embrace artificial intelligence | Evan Nierman, The Hill

“

The message is clear: Schools should not seek to ban AI. Instead, educators should teach students how to adapt to this new reality, instructing them on how to use AI responsibly and helping them discern ethical and unethical uses. … In the past, much education was based on rote memorization. Today we know that isn’t necessary because we can search facts online and get answers in a fraction of the time without having to commit the information to our own fallible memories. … Schools must get on board with AI and start figuring out how to utilize this new technology to increase productivity and efficiency. Educators must figure out what students should be taught, because ignoring this innovation is folly. Set up guardrails now. Teach students how to use AI responsibly because they are going to be using it anyway. Failure to do so puts the most powerful new technology in decades into the hands of children without proper preparation or guidance. And isn’t that exactly what education is designed to prevent? There is nothing artificial about the intelligence that American schools must demonstrate by properly preparing the next generation for the world and workplace to come.^[1]

”

April 24: The debate over partisan school board elections

More than 90% of school board elections are nonpartisan, but not everyone agrees they should be.

Bonnie Jean Feldkamp writes that partisan school board elections politicize district policies and prevent collaborative, open-minded decision-making. Feldkamp says requiring candidates to run with partisan affiliations boxes them into party-line positions and prevents them from focusing on the needs of schools and students.

Eric Bledsoe writes that it is difficult for voters to find information about school board candidates and that partisan affiliations help voters make more informed decisions. Bledsoe says the lack of information makes it easier for engaged groups like teachers’ unions to elect their preferred candidates, even if they don’t align with voters’ preferences.

New bill says school board candidates must pick a political party. Is that legal? | Bonnie Jean Feldkamp, Louisville Courier Journal

“

[I]f we are going to have productive conversations with the intent of educating and preparing students for their life ahead, attaching political identity to school board elections is not the way to do it. … Declaring a party affiliation can make difficult school board conversations even harder. It's true that regardless of declared political leanings that school board members still bring their ideologies and value sets to meetings. But just because a person votes a certain way does not mean they are incapable of open-minded discourse regarding the issues at hand. However, when school board candidates do run with political designations displayed, some constituents could hitch partisan agendas to board member expectations in hopes that their candidate will stay inside a preconceived box. And those assumptions add partisan pressure that should not exist in a school board. When we identify people in terms of party-lines we place people into camps and create an us-versus-them atmosphere that only works to dismantle vigorous discussions about our children's education. … Every stakeholder's highest purpose should be to make sure every child in the school district reaches their fullest potential.^[1]

”

Why We Should Make School-Board Elections More Political | Eric Bledsoe, National Review

“

Public education is one of America’s hottest political flashpoints, yet, counterintuitively, making it more political will help lower the temperature. Public schools have declined in large part because teachers’ unions have taken advantage of the unique election system that’s used for most of the country’s school boards. Those races should be aligned with the elections that Americans know best, increasing voter knowledge, turnout, and the likelihood that winners reflect local families’ priorities. … Only nine states require school-board candidates to declare their party affiliation or give them the option, depending on the district. This allows teachers’ unions to run candidates who may otherwise lose if their party affiliation were more obvious. In North Carolina, for instance, 14 counties voted for Republican candidates in federal Senate and House races in 2022 yet also elected registered Democrats to school boards. Democrats are far more likely to support teachers’-union demands once in office, which voters could better predict if party affiliation were mandatory. Even if they run in nonpartisan races, candidates don’t ignore their own politics once elected.^[1]

”

April 17: The debate over smartphones in school

Today, we’re looking at arguments for and against proposals to ban smartphones in schools.

Anthony Vaccaro writes that such efforts distract from more important issues. Vaccaro says smartphone bans would be difficult to enforce, cause anxiety for students, and reduce their feelings of independence. He also says schools should prepare students to responsibly use smartphones outside of classroom contexts.

The Washington Post Editorial Board writes that smartphones have almost completely negative effects on students and very few benefits. The Board says banning smartphones in schools would reduce distractions that prevent learning, would promote meaningful, in-person interactions, and reduce cyberbullying.

Banning cellphones in schools is not so simple | Anthony Vaccaro, Washington Post

“

Though a smartphone ban in educational settings might seem like a solution, it is a distraction. … Enforcing bans would be burdensome. These policies increase negative sentiments and tensions between teachers and students. Student-teacher connection is an important factor in predicting engagement and educational success. Also, decreasing confidence in self-independence is a major factor in increasing rates of adolescent anxiety. Banning smartphones reinforces this lack of a sense of independence in educational settings, and could lead to parents feeling less confident in giving independence to adolescents. … Do we want to prepare students for the world, or for the confines of the classroom? A world without smartphones, and their facilitation of both on-demand information and their distraction, is not a world our children will live in. A nuanced approach to facilitating and managing smartphone use in educational settings might be difficult to figure out, but it does not pretend that we can simply close the Pandora’s box of technology in our daily lives.^[1]

”

Schools should ban smartphones. Parents should help. | The Editorial Board, Washington Post

“

In 2024, these efforts should go even further: Impose an outright ban on bringing cellphones to school, which parents should welcome and support. In educational settings, smartphones have an almost entirely negative impact: Educators and students alike note they can fuel cyberbullying and stifle meaningful in-person interaction. A 14-country study cited by UNESCO found that the mere presence of a mobile phone nearby was enough to distract students from learning. It can take up to 20 minutes for students to refocus. … Cellphones are a technology that seemed benign, if not marvelous, when first popularized in educational settings — one more tool with which to navigate an increasingly digital world. But new information has since emerged, and the earlier assumptions are crumbling under the weight of experience. ... In the face of today’s evidence, one could plausibly argue that children shouldn’t have access to smartphones at all. But at least keeping the devices out of schools? It’s an idea whose time has come.^[1]

”

April 10 : The debate over attendance- or enrollment-based funding for schools

Today, we look at arguments for and against two school funding approaches. Enrollment-based funding formulas give schools money based on the number of enrolled students, regardless of student attendance. Attendance-based funding formulas give more money to schools with higher attendance rates and reduce funding for schools with lower attendance.

Six states, including Texas and California, currently use an attendance-based formula for funding schools and 44 use an enrollment-based formula.

Glenn Sacks writes that enrollment-based funding is more equitable than attendance-based approaches. Sacks says lower-income schools tend to have more truancy due to the challenges poor families face. He says taking resources away from schools that serve poorer students and experience greater challenges is unfair.

Frederick Hess writes that attendance-based funding is fairer and rewards schools that do a good job and earn higher attendance rates. Hess says many schools could do more to boost student attendance but aren’t incentivized to make changes under enrollment-based funding structures.

Helping Our Most Challenged Schools | Glenn Sacks, RealClearEducation

“

Why would funding based on enrollment be more equitable? Because students of low socioeconomic status face many extra challenges, challenges that reduce attendance rates. When students are absent, their schools and districts lose funding for them, however, their costs remain almost the same, regardless of daily attendance. … Hess argues that moving away from an attendance-based funding system is like ‘throwing up your hands and telling me no one ought to be held responsible.’ The student body at the high school where I’ve taught for the past 10 years has one of the lowest socioeconomic levels in the entire US, and also has significant attendance problems--exactly the type of school that Hess and other critics believe would be unjustly rewarded by this funding shift. Should my colleagues and I be ‘held responsible?’ Are our alleged failings a tangible cause of our attendance problems? I see no evidence that they are.^[1]

”

Should Schools Be Rewarded for Absenteeism? | Frederick Hess, Education Next

“

You want schools where students show up to get less funding so schools with empty seats can get more? That rewards schools which aren’t doing their job! How on earth is that equitable? … Some kids face more challenges than others. Absolutely. But I don’t buy that schools are helpless. They can ensure they’re worth attending and have staff talk to families or knock on doors. They need to rethink transportation, educate parents, and set expectations. It takes work but it’s doable. Sounds like you’re throwing up your hands and telling me no one ought to be held responsible. … You’re saying that a school where only a handful of students show up should get funded as if everyone was there—with a little extra on top—because there’s nothing the school can do? … Now, under the sway of a truly perverse notion of ‘equity,’ sophisticates have refashioned low expectations as a sign of compassion and moral superiority.^[1]

”

April 3: The debate over school chaplains

The Florida Legislature passed a bill in early March 2024 that would allow public schools to use volunteer chaplains to “provide support, services, and programs to students as assigned by the district school board.” Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has not yet acted on the bill.

Texas enacted a similar law last year. So far in 2024, at least 13 other states are considering similar measures. Today, we’re going to look at arguments on whether school chaplains are good for students.

In a future edition of Hall Pass, we’ll examine arguments about whether school chaplains are constitutional.

Heather L. Weaver writes that allowing chaplains in public schools is inherently coercive and harmful to students. Weaver says chaplains do not always receive the same training as counselors and that many proposed bills would allow them to function in similar guidance roles. She writes that allowing chaplains in schools would promote inadequate mental health support for students and could be especially harmful to LQBTQ and other vulnerable children.

Jorge Gomez writes that allowing chaplains in schools would give students more support options and would not take away other resources like guidance counselors or force religious instruction. Gomez says chaplains are well-equipped to support students and that religious guidance is an effective method for improving children’s well-being for students who want it.

Why Allowing Chaplains in Public Schools Harms Students | Heather L. Weaver, ACLU

“

Allowing chaplains in public schools violates students’ and families’ right to religious freedom. And, because chaplains are typically not trained or certified to provide educational or counseling services to youth, students are likely to receive inadequate mental health support that, in some cases, may be harmful. … Authorizing untrained and uncertified chaplains to engage in the same duties as school counselors will result in inadequate mental health support for students. In some cases, chaplains may provide inappropriate responses or interventions that could gravely harm students, including those experiencing mental health crises, LGBTQ students, and other vulnerable individuals. When a student seeks mental health care at school, that care should be provided by a qualified professional..^[1]

”

Volunteer Chaplains in Public Schools Are Constitutional—and Beneficial for Students | Jorge Gomez, First Liberty

“

Critics also say allowing chaplains in public schools ‘endangers students’ well-being’ or is somehow ‘harmful.’ They claim chaplains are not equipped to give students adequate support, or that religious guidance isn’t effective. That’s also not true. Research widely supports the idea that religious guidance and support can have a positive impact for school-age children. It can be a huge boost to their overall well-being. … If a chaplain can help them in their education or home life, why limit their choices? Again, this is all about offering students another line of support if they choose to use it. It’s not about taking away other types of counseling or support services. To say that public school chaplains are ‘harmful’ to students is just flat out wrong. Data and research do not support that claim^[1]

”

March 27: The debate over four-day school weeks

Today, we’ll look at a pair of opinions on a proposed New Mexico Public Education Department (PED) issued in late 2023 that would have required schools to use a five-day school week. The PED published the final rule—which allows four-day calendars if schools meet certain proficiency data standards—in the New Mexico Register on March 14, 2024.

Rebecca Biage wrote the proposal was an ineffective one-size-fits-all approach. Biage said the quality of instructional days in her school district outweighed the potential benefits of more school days. She also said the rule overlooked family involvement as an important contributor to educational success.

Paul Bates wrote in response to Biage’s article that four-day school weeks reduce educational achievement. Bates says parents are not sufficiently involved in education. Bates says that’s why schools need to take a larger, not smaller, role in engaging students in the absence of parental support. He also says four-day school weeks create unnecessary childcare burdens.

We take a closer look at the four-day school week further down in this edition.

OPINION: PED has tunnel vision on 5-day school weeks | Rebecca Biage, Albuquerque Journal

“

While PED is disappointed with certain numerical results from their studies, there is no guarantee that implementing a five-day week to those 39 districts will move New Mexico’s overall education status to a higher level. The high school in my [four-day school week] district has a graduation rate of 82%, one that surpasses the current state high school graduation rate of 76%. As an educator it’s left me wondering if PED has sufficiently analyzed how their own revamping of the state standards has contributed to those numerical results. Their cookie-cutter approach of prioritizing quantity over quality is not always the best solution. … The education department can lead with the perspective that by adding more days, shaking up state standards or by increasing professional development for teachers that those items combined are the remedy for our state’s education issues. However, there are other items missing from the mix, one in particular — emphasizing the important role of family, or guardian, involvement in a child’s education.^[1]

”

OPINION: 4-day school weeks won't improve education | Paul Bates, Albuquerque Journal

“

In response to Rebecca Biage’s column of Dec. 17 titled ‘PED has tunnel vision on five-day school weeks,’ the one thing she seems to have left out is any data at all that indicates that her four-day school plan has any chance of improving education in New Mexico. Part of what we are seeing — I am a retired APS teacher — is a lack of parental involvement in children’s education. Biage acknowledges this. What in the world would make us think that these children who stay up late playing their electronic games, will actually take on the responsibility to complete their homework assignments on their new day off? Teachers have trouble getting back overnight assignments — what would make us think it will be different with this change? … That extra day off could also cause some real child care issues for parents who work at businesses that cannot afford to reduce their availability to the public consumer. In a state troubled by its education statistics, I don’t think this is the time to (change) school weeks.^[1]

”

March 20: The debate over Indiana’s Eyes on Education portal

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita’s (R) office launched the Eyes on Education portal on Feb. 6. The portal allows parents to submit curricular materials they believe are inappropriate, political, or illegal for review.

Rokita writes that the Eyes on Education portal helps prevent political indoctrination in schools and boosts curriculum transparency. He also says the portal provides a platform for teacher complaints about inappropriate curriculum content or political instructional practices.

Jacob Garrett writes that the portal constitutes government overreach and creates opportunities for spiteful or biased parents to use the power of government to publicly shame teachers they dislike or disagree with. Garrett says most submissions to the portal are based purely on political disagreements—not factual inaccuracies or bad instruction.

Attorney General Todd Rokita launches ‘Eyes on Education’ portal to further empower parents | Todd Rokita, Office of the Indiana Attorney General

“

As I travel the state, I regularly hear from students, parents and teachers about destructive curricula, policies or programs in our schools. … Our kids need to focus on fundamental educational building blocks, NOT ideology that divides kids from their parents and normal society. The media and schools themselves have continued to deny that this indoctrination is happening here in Indiana, so my office is launching Eyes on Education — a platform for students and parents to submit and view real examples of socialist indoctrination from classrooms across the state. … We not only want to help empower parents … [w]e also want to help empower excellent educators. In some cases, district bureaucrats suppress the conscientious efforts of caring and well-qualified teachers. Our portal is a place where educators, too, can submit examples of materials they find objectionable.^[1]

”

Todd Rokita's 'Eyes on Education' is assault on public schools | Jacob Garrett, Indianapolis Star

“

With the launch of the Eyes on Education portal, Attorney General Todd Rokita continues the governmental assault on public education in Indiana. Taking submissions from the public about content they find objectionable in school curricula and publishing these directly to the government’s website is not only an absurd overreach of the state, but an invitation for spiteful individuals to wield government power to publicly shame and humiliate teachers for their own personal validation. Much of the published material has nothing to do with inaccurate or incorrect information. In fact, upon actually reading submissions, it would appear that not only do those who reported this material do so purely out of political disagreement, but that they do not even seem to understand why the material is being used or in what context^[1]

”

March 13: The debate over sex education curriculum

Today, we’re going to look at arguments about the sex education curriculum that Fort Worth Independent School District (FWISD) adopted at the end of February. The FWISD said Choosing the Best curriculum aligns with state law and highlights abstinence in sexual health.

The Texas State Board of Education updated the state’s sex education curriculum standards in 2022.

The FWISD is the seventh largest district in Texas, with around 75,000 students.

Nicole Russell writes that Choosing the Best curriculum offers a reasonably comprehensive and wise approach for Texas schools. Russell says teaching abstinence and self-restraint is important for students who otherwise hear messages of excess and immediate gratification. She says parents should generally have a more significant role in their child’s sex education.

Maureen Downey writes that Choosing the Best curriculum teaches damaging attitudes about sex and calls it an abstinence-only program. Downey says abstinence-only programs don’t delay sexual activity or reduce risky behaviors. She says the curriculum is especially damaging for victims of sexual assault or LGBTQ students.

FWISD has new abstinence-based sex ed. Parents should be teaching their kids, too | Opinion | Nicole Russell, Fort Worth Star-Telegram

“

In several sessions, the new curriculum teaches young people about teen pregnancy and STD risks and avoiding unhealthy relationships. For middle schoolers, it emphasizes ‘the risks of sexual activity while also emphasizing the positive benefits of sexual delay.’ In high school, kids learn about ‘the negative emotional effects of casual sex and how sexual delay provides freedom: freedom from physical and emotional risks and the freedom to pursue dreams and personal goals.’ This sounds not only fairly comprehensive, but also wise. … Even still, it’s actually surprising that choosing this curriculum would be controversial. It’s painfully obvious that abstaining from sex is the only sure way not to worry about not getting pregnant — or contracting an STI that could have a range of mild to dire consequences. The difficulty is that it takes discipline and willpower and we live in a world of excess, not moderation, and certainly not abstinence. Teaching today’s youth to reign in their desires and passions seems like a valuable tool for any part of life, including sex. … But the importance of sex is also why sex education shouldn’t just be left up to schools. Perhaps if schools knew parents were more involved in discussing this topic with their kids, there wouldn’t be such controversy about what to teach and why.^[1]

”

Opinion: Sex education should not spread shame and stigma | Maureen Downey, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

“

Choosing The Best,’ a curriculum commonly used in Georgia, teaches that people who have sex before marriage – 95 percent of U.S. adults – are not ‘pure.’ Some activities suggest that sex before marriage renders people tainted, worthless, and unwanted. Imagine how these messages are received by students who have experienced sexual assault. Such damaging messages can prevent individuals from reporting abuse and have lasting consequences. Many abstinence-only programs reinforce harmful gender stereotypes and give females responsibility for male sexual feelings – potentially blaming sexual assault victims and excusing perpetrators. They do not even acknowledge that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth exist, let alone that they experience high levels of violence, trauma, and discrimination. … An abundance of evidence supports parents’ and students’ calls to stop teaching abstinence-only sex ed. They often contain scientifically inaccurate information and undermine confidence in birth control and condoms. Fear tactics do not work. Abstinence-only programs do not delay initiation of sexual activity or reduce sexual risk behavior. In fact, they may discourage sexually active adolescents from using contraceptives, increasing their risk of sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy.^[1]

”

March 6: The debate over reading instruction in California

Last October, we ran a four-part series exploring the science of reading: one, two, three, and four.

California legislators introduced Assembly Bill 2222 on Feb. 7, requiring the science of reading approach to instruction, which it defines as “explicit and systematic instruction in phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing.”

The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board writes that the science of reading instruction—which they say includes formal teaching on sounding out words (phonics) and vocabulary—is common sense. The Editorial Board says California should require more phonics-focused technical instruction in teacher training and student curricula.

Allison Briceño writes that the science of reading approach is poorly defined and tends to oversimplify the learning process. Briceño says science of reading curricula tend to focus too much on foundational skills like phonics and less on other related skills like writing and language development. She says teachers should have the flexibility to choose what reading curriculum to use.

Editorial: The science of reading works. California should require it | The Editorial Board, Los Angeles Times

“

It’s an impressive-sounding moniker, the science of reading. But many successful teachers call it common sense and have been using it informally for years. It involves more direct instruction by the teacher, a significant dose of phonics, or sounding out words from letters, as well as building vocabulary, encouraging students to read aloud and helping them comprehend what they’re reading. In contrast, the two other principal methods of literacy education followed the theory that reading comes naturally to children, who just need to be exposed to engaging literature and figure out words by guessing them from the pictures and other context. While this actually does work for 30% of students, it leaves the futures of the other 70% in peril. Opponents of science of reading complain that phonics is too mechanical. But it doesn’t have to be if combined with vocabulary and enjoyable literature. Besides, what’s worse, a couple of years of sounding out words to build fluency and comprehension, or a lifetime of illiteracy? … Schools need a sense of urgency to ensure that California students are improving academically right now, especially those in marginalized groups and from low-income families.^[1]

”

Opinion: Should California schools stick to phonics-based reading ‘science’? It’s not so simple | Allison Briceño, Los Angeles Times

“

In fact, the term ‘science of reading’ lacks a clear definition. It’s more a misleading marketing ploy and ideological catchphrase than a subset of research or teaching methodology. … Researchers agree that learning to read is a complex process. But curricula that claim to be aligned with the science of reading tend to oversimplify the process, overemphasize and isolate foundational skills such as phonics (the correlation between letters and sounds), overlook oral language as a foundation for reading and ignore the importance of writing. In other words, they misrepresent the “science” part of the ‘science of reading.’ Learning to read in this way would be like learning to pedal on a stationary bicycle and then being expected to ride a bike through L.A. traffic without understanding balance, steering, speed and the rules of the road. … Overemphasizing foundational skills can take classroom time away from writing, language development, science and social studies. Foundational skills are extremely important for young students, but they are insufficient for developing critical thinking, reading and writing.^[1]

”

February 28: The debate over open enrollment in Missouri

Open enrollment policies allow students to transfer to other public schools within or outside of their home districts. Missouri House Bill 1989, which crossed over to the Senate on Jan. 31, proposes a limited open enrollment policy allowing up to 3% of a district’s students to transfer outside their districts each year.

Merlyn Johnson writes that open enrollment would remove resources from poorer schools, hurting disadvantaged students. Johnson says only wealthier school districts will have the ability to spend money to compete to attract students and the state money that would follow them.

Susan Pendergrass writes that many students are stuck in low-performing school districts and open enrollment would allow them to move to better schools. Pendergrass says data shows historically disadvantaged students are the most likely to take advantage of open enrollment policies to get a better education.

Merlyn Johnson: Another open enrollment movement | Merlyn Johnson, The Cassville Democrat

“

It is likely that lower-income districts would lose students to higher-income districts because of their amenities, thereby losing crucial state funding and further struggling to provide competitive teacher salaries. Rural Southwest Missouri districts simply do not have the resources to build the facilities and build the buildings and provide the things that are newer and shinier when compared to higher income communities like Republic, Joplin, and Neosho. Many feel that financial inequality could lead to educational inequality for the students left behind. The haves will get more, the have-nots will get less. And, in general, all districts in Barry County are have-not districts. There is no way to make this process equitable. By the very nature of an open enrollment system, not every child will have the means to leave a school.^[1]

”

Opinion: Open enrollment is a desperate measure for desperate times | Susan Pendergrass, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

“

Not for the first time, some Missouri legislators are trying to give Missouri families what they want and deserve: school choice and not school assignment. … [I]t still could provide a lifeline for Missouri families stuck in our lowest-performing districts or children who are struggling. … So, who uses open enrollment? Early studies of Minnesota’s program found that, not surprisingly, students were more likely to transfer from urban or low-income districts to suburban or higher-income districts. More recent studies of Michigan’s and Wisconsin’s programs have found that historically disadvantaged students, in this case low-income and African American students, were the most likely to request a transfer. So open enrollment wasn’t skimming the white student cream off the top, but quite the opposite — providing an alternative for disadvantaged families stuck with no other options.^[1]

”

February 21: The debate over AI in schools

How should schools respond to generative artificial intelligence (AI)? Should teachers allow students to use AI as a learning tool?

Julie Hessler writes that AI is a shortcut that causes academic disengagement among its users. Hessler says real learning only occurs when students read good books and wrestle with words to best express their ideas. She says schools should not allow AI usage because it replaces genuine thought and interaction with curricular materials.

Kevin Roose writes that most students are already using AI in their school work, so teachers should try to help students use the technology most effectively. Roose says efforts to ban AI or discourage its use have only caused teachers to fall behind students in understanding its applications instead of leading the way.

A.I. in the Classroom: What Should Teachers Do? | Julie Hessler, The New York Times

“

Mr. Roose’s suggestion that educators embrace generative A.I. and view it as an ‘opportunity’ or ‘classroom collaborator,’ not as an ‘enemy,’ seems typical of a tech enthusiast. … What I want, most of all, is for students to read books that help them appreciate the complexity of the past, to digest factual information and to think deeply about the subject. Struggling to find the words and structure to express one’s ideas is a catalyst for thought, as any writer knows. … Shortcuts, whether traditional plagiarism or this new form of plagiarism, contribute to an atmosphere of intellectual disengagement.^[1]

”

How Schools Can Survive (and Maybe Even Thrive) With A.I. This Fall | Kevin Roose, The New York Times

“

[T]eachers should focus less on warning students about the shortcomings of generative A.I. than on figuring out what the technology does well. … [C]lever students are figuring out how to get better results by giving the models more sophisticated prompts. As a result, students at many schools are racing ahead of their instructors when it comes to understanding what generative A.I. can do, if used correctly. … But students need guidance when it comes to generative A.I., and schools that treat it as a passing fad — or an enemy to be vanquished — will miss an opportunity to help them.^[1]

”

February 14: The debate over school discipline

How should schools discipline?

Naomi Schaefer Riley writes that rising behavioral problems in schools are mainly due to a failure to punish minor rule violations. Riley says most schools have stopped punishing minor infractions, encouraging more serious or violent offenses. She says more punishment—even for minor violations—is necessary to promote order.

Claudia Rowe writes that punitive discipline doesn’t work at schools and tends to increase the risk of students dropping out. Rowe says focusing on repairing relationships—such as through counseling and mental health resources—is a better option. She says schools need more funding and new tools to make non-punitive discipline options available.

It’s time for a ‘broken windows’ policy for schools | Naomi Schaefer Riley, New York Post

“

In the 1990s we learned the benefits of broken-windows policing — prosecuting low-level crimes so that New York’s potential scofflaws would know the authorities were serious about law enforcement and would think twice about escalating to higher level offenses. Now it’s time to do the same thing in our schools. … Many school leaders blame COVID, but fail to understand what specifically about the pandemic made things worse. Kids were at home and basic social skills were not being taught and low-level discipline was not being enforced. How did we get here? Daniel Buck, a former teacher and author of “What Is Wrong With Our Schools?” tells me that even schools that used to be strict about dress codes or tardiness have now let those rules go by the wayside. … To the extent there are any consequences for these annoying — though not violent — behaviors, they involve yet another chat with a social worker. But what about the offender — what about actual punishment?^[1]

”

Student discipline: Are schools equipped to handle behavioral extremes? | Claudia Rowe, The Seattle Times

“

Does punitive discipline work? If it did, two young men might be alive, and a dedicated teacher would not be thinking about leaving the profession. … School discipline was always a loaded topic. The vast majority of suspended kids are low-income youth of color, and a data analysis I did in 2015 showed that certain students were disciplined again and again, suggesting that the intervention does little to change their behavior. It is associated primarily with an increased risk for dropping out. At the time, many teachers felt that restorative justice — which focuses on repairing relationships — was a worthy response to kids in crisis. But that was pre-pandemic. As with everything else, COVID-19 changed the game. … Even educators who proudly describe themselves as social justice warriors say the restorative approach sounds naive today, considering the relentless pressure to catch kids up academically. … But schools are confronting this reality with the same tools they’ve been using for years.^[1]

”

February 7: The debate over what to do about bias in the selection of school library books

School libraries have limited resources. For these reasons, school boards and librarians must make choices about the books they add to libraries—choices that could reflect political, religious, or other forms of bias.

How should communities address selection bias in school library books? We look at two perspectives that agree bias is inevitable but disagree on the implications.

Paul Best writes that the initial selection process is often biased in favor of progressive reading materials and authors and tends to leave out conservative alternatives. Best says even neutrality can be a biased goal depending on who decides what’s neutral. He says the school system is too centralized and that families need more flexibility to judge the best materials for their children and select schools that reflect their values.

Nicole A. Cooke, Renate Chancellor, Yasmeen Shorish, Sarah Park Dahlen, and Amelia Gibson write that libraries cannot be neutral and should unapologetically seek to advance the values of equity, diversity, and inclusion. The authors write that while libraries should provide books and materials that showcase different beliefs and values, the goal should be creating an inclusive space for everyone, especially those from historically marginalized communities.

How to Combat the Biased School Library Book Selection Process | Paul Best, Real Clear Education

“

But amid the furious townhall debates over ‘banning’ books that are already in libraries, some observers note that the initial selection process – how and why libraries are stocked with certain materials – may be just as prone to bias and even more important to the question of how to rear the next generation of inquisitive, well-informed Americans. … A search of library collections in 200 randomly selected public school districts found that nearly half (44 percent) of students have access to progressive books by Ibram X. Kendi and Ta-Nehisi Coates, each of which argues America is plagued by systemic racism. In contrast, less than 1 percent of students had access to books by John McWhorter, Helen Pluckrose, and James Lindsay that offer counterarguments to that progressive perspective. … But bias might be inescapable for even the most well-intentioned librarians, and the embrace of neutrality is itself a value judgment. … The root cause of the uproar over book ‘bans’ might therefore lie in our top-down approach to education, which attaches tax dollars to school districts instead of students, arbitrarily forcing Americans – along with their rich diversity of culture, religions, and ideologies – into a single one-size-fits-all system.^[1]

”

Once More for Those in the Back: Libraries Are Not Neutral | Nicole A. Cooke, Renate Chancellor, Yasmeen Shorish, Sarah Park Dahlen, and Amelia Gibson, Publishers Weekly

“

Certainly we can all agree that libraries should provide materials with different perspectives, especially in times of growing political polarization. But we must recognize too that there is a difference between providing multiple perspectives and providing a platform for hateful, intimidating, dangerous, or dehumanizing speech that targets a specific community. To serve our communities, libraries must be safe spaces where all people can come together, see themselves represented, and discover and share different points of view. And because of the historic inequities and discrimination against people of color and the LGBTQ community, for example, the library profession’s commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusion is not only warranted, it is imperative.^[1]

”

January 31: The debate over the effect of school choice policies on Black students

School choice refers to programs offering alternatives to assigned local public school options, including open enrollment policies, school vouchers, scholarship tax credits, and education savings accounts (ESAs). Today, we’re going to examine arguments about whether these programs hurt or help Black students.

Daniel Buck writes that school choice promotes equal educational opportunities for poor students and students of color. Buck says most wealthy families have the means to choose private schools or move school districts to send their children to better public schools. He says many poor and minority families are legally stuck in failing schools and that school choice policies could help them pursue better opportunities.

Raymond Pierce writes that school choice promotes racial segregation and hurts Black students. Pierce says most Black students attend public schools, while private schools have majority-white attendance. He says school choice takes money away from public schools and redirects it to private schools, taking resources away from Black students.

School Choice: For All but the Poor | Daniel Buck, FEE Stories

“

Opponents of school choice argue, perhaps above all else, that school choice will benefit the rich and hurt the poor; in reality, in our current system, suburban districts compete for students, and the poor are trapped by the law. They have no choice. … Affluent families are able to move districts and pay higher property taxes to fund better education, while the poor are stuck by law in failing neighborhood schools. … School choice would remove the necessity to move districts in order to change schools—and thereby the financial barrier—so that it is easier for any student to seek out the best education regardless of socioeconomic status. These barriers have become a felt injustice, and school choice, a potential solution, has earned the support of the African-American community.^[1]

”

The Racist History Of “School Choice” | Raymond Pierce, Forbes

“

What we should not do is take money from those troubled schools and put it into private schools, a too frequent practice often referred to as “school choice,” that has historically racist foundations. … Most of these [school choice] bills promote tax credits, school vouchers, or ‘education savings accounts.’ All of them drain money from underfunded, under-resourced public schools into private schools. And while some proponents of these bills say that they will improve education opportunities for Black and Brown students and students from low-income families, the truth is that they do not. … The truth is that voucher and tax credit programs structure choices to promote de facto segregation, contravene constitutional considerations, and threaten to dismantle hard-fought and socially beneficial historical progress. They represent a serious setback for universal free public education and the equality and equity goals it promotes^[1]

”

January 24: The debate over standardized testing

A decline in student test scores since 2020 has reignited debates over the value of standardized testing. Students in K-12 public schools take a variety of state-administered and national tests, like the SAT or the National Assessment of Educational Progress. These standardized tests are summative, meaning they evaluate students’ knowledge about a subject at the end of a period of instruction and allow for comparisons between examinees in different districts and states.

These tests are just one method educators and policymakers have to evaluate student proficiency. Alternatives include through-year assessments, which test students at multiple points throughout the school year.

Jessica Grose writes that standardized testing should be improved but not abolished. Grose says standardized testing helps parents, teachers, and administrators understand where their students struggle the most. Grose says administrators need to know which students struggle in schools and on what topics so they can direct resources toward solving learning problems.

Tom Vander Ark writes that many schools already have specific and more useful data on student performance than standardized tests provide. Vander Ark says the move to digital learning allows students to receive instant feedback on their mistakes and receive adaptive questions and quizzes to help them improve on their weaker topics. He says with the availability of modern data, standardized tests just interrupt learning and create unnecessary pressure on students and teachers.

Don’t Ditch Standardized Tests. Fix Them. | Jessica Grose, The New York Times

“

But after the major disruptions of 2020-22, I figured that even test-skeptical parents might reconsider the value of getting a straightforward accounting of learning loss that compared the progress of kids across schools and districts — to know whether their children are still playing catch-up post-pandemic. … Having quality information about how America’s children are learning is critical, particularly since the educational gaps between the haves and the have-nots were exacerbated by the pandemic. … Without standardized testing, we won’t know where to put the most resources, or what the contours of the problems students face even look like. Getting rid of widespread assessments won’t help the most vulnerable children, it will only leave us without knowledge about how best to support them.^[1]

”

A Proposal For The End Of Standardized Testing | Tom Vander Ark, Forbes

“

Good schools know how every student is doing in every subject every day. They don’t need a week of testing in the spring to tell them what they already know. For 25 years, states have imposed standardized tests on schools as an external check on student progress. … One problem with state-mandated tests is that they don’t take advantage of everything teachers know about their students. With the shift to digital learning, many students have experienced a big increase in formative feedback from adaptive assessments, embedded quizzes, and online resources like Khan Academy. … With that much information, you have a pretty good idea of what they know and you don’t need to start from scratch with 50 new questions—but that’s what exactly what standardized tests do.^[1]

”

January 17: The debate over student absenteeism

The share of public school students who miss more than 10% of school days—classified as chronically absent—increased by an estimated 91% (or 6.5 million students) between the 2018-19 and 2021-22 school years, when schools closed to in-person instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the 2018-19 school year, more than 7 million students were estimated to have been chronically absent from classrooms.

Nick Morrison writes that for many students, especially those who aren’t planning to attend college, skipping school and avoiding exams can seem rational. Morrison says schools should examine ways to add value for students who want to enter a trade or vocation immediately after high school. He says schools need to stop making academic students winners and setting all other students up as losers.

Antonette Bowman writes that student absence results from fear and distrust between parents and teachers. Bowman says schools must reach out to and build stronger relationships with parents to reduce student absences. She also says schools need to be better maintained and more inviting to attract students back.

We Need To Stop Seeing Skipping School As A Problem, And Recognize That For Some It’s A Rational Choice | Nick Morrison, Forbes

“

[Student absence] is the result of a high stakes school system that is predicated on winners and losers, that values the academic route and devalues the vocational, and where it is not enough for some to succeed, others must fail. For some students, the prospect of staying at school only to fail exams is, entirely understandably, less than appealing. … The principal argument in aiming to reduce student absence is that high levels of absence lead to poorer grades, but perhaps it also works the other way around: the prospect of poor grades leads to high levels of absence. If a student is expecting to fail, they have little incentive to go to school. And for some students, perhaps we shouldn't be asking why they skip school. Instead, we should be asking how schools can change to give them a reason to go.^[1]

”

Why American Students Are Skipping School | Antonette Bowman, RealClearEducation

“

[P]arents and teachers should meet together – in person – several times a year for meaningful conversation where they can ask questions and demonstrate genuine support for one another. … Ideally, schools and families could also find ways to share a meal or two together during the year. Sharing meals unifies in a uniquely human way and builds social and emotional connection. … In addition, communities must work together to create the safe and beautiful learning environments our children deserve. Too many schools in our country are poorly maintained, unsafe, and ugly. … Taking essential steps to heal the cornerstone relationships between parents and schools can help alleviate fear and distrust – inspiring students to come back to class.^[1]

”

January 10: The debate over Los Angeles’ Black Student Achievement Plan

The Los Angeles Board of Education approved the Black Student Achievement Plan (BSAP) in February 2021. The Los Angeles Unified School District website said: “Funding allocations have been earmarked to address the longstanding disparities in educational outcomes between Black students and their non-Black peers.” The plan’s budget funds counselors, social workers, and other support staff for Black students. The LAUSD in 2023 approved a $26 million budget increase for the plan.

Glenn Sacks writes the BSAP and the employees hired because of it are necessary to support Black students and their teachers. Sacks says teachers cannot always offer the oversight and mentoring that disadvantaged Black students need, so social workers and counselors are important for keeping the children on track.

Heather MacDonald writes that the BSAP wastes money on functions that aren’t the district’s responsibility. She says that without parental or community support, no amount of spending can improve disadvantaged students' achievement. MacDonald says schools should not use race as a basis for awarding resources and assistance and should focus on establishing one standard of achievement and behavior for all students.

Conservative Attack on Program to Help Black Students Is Misguided | Glenn Sacks, RealClearEducation

“

Those who are not in the education field may read some of these job titles and think the district is squandering tax dollars by hiring people for jobs that are ill-defined or of limited utility. In fact, BSAP helps fill a gaping need. … With students in group homes, a teacher’s or a school’s efforts to hold the students accountable are often frustrated by some foster care agencies’ attitudes that any school-related issues are the school’s problem, not theirs. Sometimes these students do something thoughtlessly stupid – ‘knuckleheaded’ in our lingo – and get in trouble for it, disrupting the academic continuity already so elusive for them. Many of these students face weighty family issues. Some take these problems to their teachers, but we are not trained in psychology or social work, and sometimes don’t know how to get these students and their families access to the resources they need. What these kids need is oversight. They need counselors and social workers who can build relationships with them, help them stay on track, and talk and walk them out of trouble. Much of BSAP’s funding is devoted to hiring the personnel to provide these crucial services.^[1]

”

Funding for Failure | Heather Mac Donald, City Journal

“

Funding such offices requires princely sums; the BSAP just received an additional $26 million in 2023, on top of its existing budget. The BSAP bankrolls counselors, climate advocates, and psychiatric social workers to work with black students in ‘high priority’ schools. It doles out ‘Innovation Capacity-Building’ grants of up to $100,000 to entities that promise to improve black achievement. Any school system that can afford climate advocates (as part of a black uplift plan, no less) is not hurting for taxpayer dollars. Any school system that runs a massive system of subcontracting for ‘psychiatric social workers’ and ‘counselors’ is not hurting for taxpayer dollars. Such a system has more money than it knows what to do with. … It’s up to parents to make sure that their children are not running the streets. Parents have to cultivate in their offspring a commitment to hard work and self-discipline. Schools can jumpstart those traits by upholding a single standard of achievement, a single standard of behavior, and an unrelenting focus on basic skills. Moreover, celebrating one racial group at the expense of others is a lawsuit waiting to happen.^[1]

”

January 3: The debate over partisan school board elections

Over 90% of school board elections are nonpartisan—but should that change?

The Treasure Coast Palm Editorial Board writes that many school board responsibilities are complex, administrative, and non-political. It believes making school board elections partisan is unnecessary and will increase political polarization.

George Korda writes that underlying political philosophies can influence how school board members approach even administrative challenges. Korda says voters have a right to know the partisan leanings of school board members so they can make fully informed decisions.

Don't bring 'dangerous vice' of partisanship back to Florida's school board elections | The Editorial Board, Treasure Coast Palm

“

Overall, our founders seemed to view political parties as vestiges of the government they were seeking to replace. So, if we're interested in following the founders' advice about the best way to run a government, we should be looking at ways to make our political system less partisan, not more. … There's a better way to find out where candidates stand on those and other topics: Just ask them. After all, declaring oneself a Democrat or a Republican is no guarantee a candidate is going to fall in lockstep with his or her party platform on every issue, anyway. Or it shouldn't. It's lazy thinking to assume all candidates will. And it also leads to a more serious problem with further politicizing school boards: Just as there is no Republican or Democratic way to pave a pothole, the two parties' platforms don't cover all of the numerous and complex issues involved in educating our children.^[1]

”

Voters have right to know candidates’ political party philosophy | George Korda, Knox News

“

It’s argued that there’s no Republican or Democratic way to teach math, conduct a science experiment, learn to read, pave a road or build a bridge, so partisanship is unnecessary. If so, then there’s also no partisan way at the federal government level to collect taxes, manage the park system or defend the nation’s borders. The fact is that there are differing philosophies of government, and voters for school board, city council, etc., have a right to know the governing philosophy of people running for important offices. That’s because there are differences in how the left and right view substantive issues affecting peoples’ lives. … If a candidate for school board, city council or any office is going to vote in a Republican or Democratic primary, or has allegiance or is in concert with the philosophy of either party, then there’s no reason why those allegiances and philosophies shouldn’t be known by voters.^[1]

”

2023

December 20: The debate over curating school libraries

What books should be in school libraries? And how much say should parents have?

Peter DeWitt writes that the movement to remove certain books from school libraries is discriminatory and suppresses student access to diverse perspectives. DeWitt says leaders use inflammatory language to describe books whose messages they disagree with, riling up parents and other community members. He also says parents who want to remove books should read them first.

Frances Floresca writes that some books contain obscene images and descriptions and that efforts to remove them are not necessarily an attack on diverse perspectives. Floresca says parents and taxpayers have a right to know what materials children can access in school libraries and call for their removal. She also says children can still access sensitive materials outside the classroom with their parents’ consent.

Banning Books Is Not About Protecting Children. It’s About Discrimination Against Others | Peter DeWitt, Education Week

“

The dumbing down of America isn’t due to watered-down curriculum as much as it is the direct result of parents, leaders, and teachers who choose to ban books because, somehow, they don’t agree with what is written within those books. In an effort to undermine the quality of the books, governors like Greg Abbot of Texas calls them pornographic. Although I would love to say that Abbott chose his words incorrectly, the reality is that he intentionally chose that word to get parents in his state up in arms. I wonder how many of the books being banned have actually been read by the parents trying to ban them. Sure, they can read a passage at a board meeting, but have they actually read the whole book?^[1]

”

Frances Floresca: Removing material with sexual content is not ‘book banning’ | Frances Floresca, Salt Lake Tribune

“

[V]irtually nobody is in favor of books being banned. Banning books such as ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ and ‘The Hunger Games’ is different from having content in schools with ‘sensitive materials,’ such as ‘Fun Home’ and ‘Gender Queer,’ which have clear obscene and pornographic images. It is clear virtually nobody wants books banned from schools, and no one is being stopped from reading ‘sensitive materials’ outside the classroom. It should be up to the parents to decide whether or not they want their children to read these materials. … People’s taxpayer dollars are going to these schools, so it is vital for them to be as transparent as possible. It is the people’s right to know if there is obscene and pornographic content in the classrooms, and it is their right to ask them to be removed.^[1]

”

December 13: The debate over the use of affinity groups in schools

In the context of public education, affinity groups refer to small cohorts or classes designed for students—and in some cases teachers and staff—of similar social or racial backgrounds. For example, some school districts have established affinity groups for Black students to share their experiences with other Black students.

Tammy Hodo writes that affinity groups offer Black students safe spaces to share their experiences and discuss racism. Hodo says people of color should have a place where they can receive support without having to justify their experiences and feelings to white peers.

David Bernstein, Ye Zhang Pogue, and Brandy Shufutinsky write that affinity groups harmfully divide students. They say such groups promote race as fundamental to students’ identities and institutionalize segregation. They also say it is not the role of schools to promote race-based ideologies or facilitate conversations about race, oppression, or student identity.

Affinity groups facilitate difficult conversations | Tammy Hodo, Florida Times-Union

“

As a social scientist and subject matter expert in diversity, equity, and inclusion, I know affinity groups are standard practice and create a safe space.… It is not the job of Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC), particularly teens, to educate their peers about the emotional toll of racism. … Reality is that if we have not learned anything in the last few years it is that America has not gone through racial reconciliation. We must begin to have these uncomfortable conversations as this younger generation is demanding it and rightfully so. They will be heard, and ideally, we want to create a productive safe space for them to share their truths.^[1]

”

Stop Dividing Children By Race. It's Harmful and Divisive | David Bernstein, Ye Zhang Pogue, and Brandy Shufutinsky, Newsweek

“

[T]he majority of segregated affinity groups are exercises in indoctrination. Racial affinity groups may differ, but the majority of them task kids with ‘owning’ their level of ‘privilege’ or ‘complicity,’ based on where they fall on a hierarchy of racial privilege. … [T]hese exercises force children to identify in ways that may be uncomfortable and inconsistent with their personal identities. What if a child chooses not to identify as a specific race? Who is the school to say that a child needs to be racialized at all? … Finally, these affinity group exercises are manifestly bad for race relations. They reinforce a racially essentialist vision of American society and foment division through institutionalized segregation.^[1]

”

December 6: The debate over the U.S. Department of Education

President Jimmy Carter (D) signed legislation creating the U.S. Department of Education (DoE) in 1979, and it began operating the following year. Previously, federal education services had been run out of the Health, Education, and Welfare Department (renamed the Department of Health and Human Services).

Among other things, the DoE administers grants to states for programs, such as the No Child Left Behind Act, Race to the Top and Title One School Improvement Grants, and enforces laws that Congress passes.

The existence and role of the DoE have been topics of debate since its inception (223 members of Congress voted against legislation in 1979 that would create the department). That debate has continued through to today. Recently, several Republican presidential candidates, including former President Donald Trump (R), and various members of Congress, said they would support abolishing the department.

Bruce Meredith and Mark Paige write that the DoE has become divisive and partisan. They say many of its responsibilities could be handled at the state and local levels and that other federal departments would more efficiently handle national activities (like awarding scholarships and enforcing anti-discrimination laws).

J. Luke Wood writes that abolishing the DoE would make education less equitable and reduce equal access to learning resources. Wood says without the department, there would not be sufficient accountability motivating states to improve learning conditions for underprivileged students or preventing discrimination.

For better schools, abolish the politicized Department of Education and give local districts more control | Bruce Meredith and Mark Paige, Los Angeles Times

“

Republicans opposed the Department of Education from its beginning and regularly threaten to abolish it now, arguing that educational policy should be reserved to the states. Two respected Democrats also objected to the department’s creation almost 40 years ago. New York Sen. Daniel Moynihan warned that it would become a partisan sword. New York Rep. Shirley Chisholm worried about divorcing education from other policy areas vital to student success, such as making sure they had decent housing and enough to eat. History has proved the critics right. It’s time for the department to be dismantled. It has done some good, especially in pointing out education inequity. But more often it has served political, not educational, interests. … Washington has a role to play in education. The federal government alone is positioned to prevent “local control” from becoming a pretext for discrimination. It also must maintain funding to schools and colleges. But a separate executive branch department isn’t necessary to those functions. The essential tasks can be shifted to Health and Human Services and the Justice Department.^[1]

”

Three reasons why the effort to end the U.S. Department of Education is racist | J. Luke Wood, The San Diego Union-Tribune

“

Rep. Massie and other lawmakers have signaled they are simply advocating for state and local control; however, the reality is dimmer. Their efforts advance the current attack on diversity in the curriculum and efforts of the U.S. Department of Education to hold state and local officials’ accountability for issues of discrimination. … For these authorities (e.g., governors and school boards), shaping curricula means teaching a fairy-tale version of U.S. history and one that ignores the ills of the enslavement of Africans, genocide against Native Americans, and numerous other wrongs (e.g., Jim Crow, miscegenation laws, redlining). Interestingly, these wrongs were also advanced under the guise of state rights and sovereignty. … The department’s mission is to foster “equal access” to education by “prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.” This mission is supported by numerous offices, programs and White House initiatives designed to advance diversity, equity and inclusion. … Without these efforts, states and districts that are turning back the clock on school curricula will be empowered to also turn back the clock on the treatment and dignity of diverse students.^[1]

”

November 29: The debate over grade inflation

Grade inflation refers to an upward trend in average grades students receive without a corresponding rise in the quality of the work or other metrics of academic performance. As an example, imagine a student submits an assignment and receives a “B” one year. Then, the following year, a different student submits the same level of work and gets an “A.”

On average, grades https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/2022/R2134-Grade-Inflation-Continues-to-Grow-in-the-Past-Decade-Final-Accessible.pdf increased] over the last decade—but standardized test scores (like the SAT and ACT) fell.

Tim Donahue writes that teachers should commit to reducing student’s grades. Donahue says lower grades can motivate students to review and incorporate feedback. He says rigorous grading creates and communicates opportunities for improvement.

Jack Schneider and Ethan Hutt write that reducing grades could create unanticipated problems. Schneider and Hutt say lower grades can damage future opportunities and reduce student's motivation to improve. They say policy approaches like those allowing students to redo work are necessary to address grade inflation.

If Everyone Gets an A, No One Gets an A | Tim Donahue, New York Times

“

How might grade inflation’s roiling cloud now be pierced? … For now, a modest proposal: Consider the essay that comes in with a promising central idea but lacks support from a few critical moments of the text. It makes a smart but abrupt transition and closes with an interesting connection, a trifle undercooked. With another assiduous go-round, it might become something amazing. But please don’t give this draft an A-minus, the grade that puts so much potential to an early, convenient death. Instead, think of the produce of this student’s deletions and insertions, the music as he riffles through those pages he’ll annotate better next time, the reflective potential of a revision. Grading offers a singular place to teach such lessons of resilience. Instead, consider the B-plus. This means nothing if done alone. But if we’re really going to be teachers, it’s high time to tighten the belt.^[1]

”

Is the new handwringing over grade inflation inflated? | Jack Schneider and Ethan Hutt, Washington Post

“

As it turns out, however, merely ‘tightening the belt’ will actually create more problems than it solves. That’s because grades serve several purposes in our educational system. … These different functions — motivation, short-distance communication, long-distance communication and synchronization — evolved separately, meeting the various needs of our growing system. … [I]nstead of simply seeking to wrench grade distributions back into the shape of a bell curve, we need to think about smarter policy solutions that consider the various functions grades actually play in our system. … [A]ny realistic and enduring solution will have to do more than encourage educators to ‘get tough.’ Instead, policy leaders will have to account for the multiple, interacting roles that grades play in our system.^[1]

”

November 15: The debate over requiring armed guards in schools

On Oct. 24, the Pennsylvania Senate's Education Committee voted 6-4 in favor of SB 907, which would require all schools to post security guards during regular school hours.

State Sen. Mike Regan (R) writes that armed security should be a top spending priority for schools. Regan says the state’s 2023-2024 budget makes more funding available for school safety programs to reduce the financial burden on districts.

The Pittsburgh Tribune Review editorial board writes that most school districts can't afford security guards. The editorial board says the requirement could remove funding from educational priorities and worsen staff retention problems.

Armed school security a must for protecting students (opinion) | Mike Regan, Reading Eagle

“

[T]he hiring of trained and vetted armed officers should be every school’s first step when implementing security measures. But many have not. As we review the governor’s proposed 2023-2024 budget, I am cognizant that funding is always an issue for our schools, especially when another mandate is proposed in Harrisburg. Thanks to the School Safety and Security Grant Program, money has been available to schools to hire armed officers and to harden points of entry. And I remain committed to ensuring the continuation of that funding source. Every year since the program’s creation, my top budgetary ask has been the maintenance and increase of that line item, which began at $60 million. Last year’s budget saw a record $95 million for physical school safety and another $95 million for school-based mental health services, also crucial in addressing the safety of students.^[1]

”

Editorial: Should Pennsylvania require schools to have armed security? | The Editorial Board, Pittsburgh Tribune Review

“

The real issue is the logistics. Not every district has that kind of room in the budget. In fact, few do, making this yet another unfunded state mandate. It’s easy to demand action when you aren’t paying the bill. Making this a requirement could force districts to pull the money from elsewhere, possibly affecting education. Then there is the fact schools already are having trouble finding people for other jobs like substitutes and bus drivers. For that matter, so are police departments and prisons, other government agencies that would pull from the same pool. … No solution will be perfect, and we should never let striving for perfection stand in the way of just doing better. But it is important to consider whether all 500 Pennsylvania school districts could provide what would be required — especially as more police departments are closing for lack of funds and personnel.^[1]

”

November 8: The debate over notifying parents about student gender transitions

State and local policies differ on whether school officials and teachers should notify parents if their child is socially transitioning their gender identity (such as using different pronouns or names) in the classroom.

Leor Sapir writes that schools should notify parents if their child starts socially transitioning and should not assume parents will abuse their children. Sapir says the scientific research indicates that parental skepticism of transitioning children may help protect children from adverse physical and mental health effects. He also says it is not abuse for parents to object to a child’s gender transition.

Anushay Hossain writes that schools should not have to report gender transitions in schools to parents. Hossain says teachers have a moral right to protect students from harm and that it is reasonable for school staff to keep transitions from parents to prevent even a slight chance of abuse or neglect. He also says children have a right to privacy that schools and teachers should respect and protect.

A Vote for Parental Notification | Leor Sapir, City Journal

“

To be sure, some kids may experience abuse by their parents if they tell them that they wish to be treated as something other than their sex. It is far from clear, however, that this is the norm, and regardless, activists are defining parental refusal to “affirm” their child’s self-asserted “gender identity” as “abuse.” Given the existing research on desistance rates, mental-health outcomes from social transition, and the likelihood that for many teens, adopting a trans identity may be a maladaptive coping mechanism for ongoing mental-health problems or internalized homophobia, it’s reasonable for parents to be skeptical that instantaneous affirmation is the right way to go. If this counts as “abuse,” then the term has been stretched beyond its reasonable limits.^[1]

”

Demanding Schools Notify Parents If Their Kids Are Trans Endangers Children | Anushay Hossain, Newsweek

“

Of course, in theory, it is the joint responsibility of educators and parents to keep their children safe. But where does the right to privacy of the individual fall in all of this? And what happens to those kids whose gender identity differs from how their parents see them? For a lot of LGBTQ children, this privacy may be essential to their physical safety. If teachers have a moral responsibility to protect their students from harm, surely this doesn't mean outing a child to a family which may have dangerous consequences for the student? … The real question is whether teachers should be mandated to disclose information if there's even a remote possibility that in response, the reported student will be subjected to abuse or neglect or get kicked out of the house.^[1]

”

November 1: The debate over education savings accounts proposals in Texas

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) called the legislature into a special session on Oct. 9 to consider legislation he said would give students more schooling options. Both Senate Bill 1 and House Bill 1 would provide funding for education savings accounts (ESAs). Parents could use the accounts to pay for books, private school tuition, and other education-related expenses.

Tiffany Barfield writes that the ESAs would give families more educational options that would fit their needs better than traditional public schools. Barfield says ESA funding would not take money away from public schools and that the $500 million proposed for the program would represent less than 1% of the state’s total education budget.

Lance Barasch writes that ESA programs encourage students to leave public schools, which can reduce public educational resources because funding is tied to student numbers and attendance. Barasch says the program would harm rural school districts most because they already tend to have smaller budgets.

This special session, the TxLege should pass school choice | Tiffany Barfield, Express-News

“

Many will claim that ESAs harm funding for public schools, but that is a common scare tactic used by special interest groups. Texas spends approximately $85 billion every year on K-12 public education. The Legislature is discussing $500 million going toward an ESA program. That’s less than 1% of the K-12 public education budget. Allocating a portion of funding toward educational choice will make an enormous impact in providing kids in Texas access to a best-fit education while also continuing to fund our public schools. The one-size-fits-all model is not flexible enough to accommodate each kid’s individual way of learning, and not all families have the financial resources to provide their kids with an alternative option.^[1]

”

Texas teachers need courageous legislators to do the right thing | Lance Barasch, Dallas Morning News

“

[V]ouchers negatively impact far more students than they help. We have access to even more proof from other states (such as Arizona and Wisconsin) showing how vouchers don’t work for our neediest students. The data clearly indicates that these systems are especially disastrous on rural public schools, which in many Texas regions are the center of the community or even the town’s biggest employer. Systematically removing their public funding would dramatically hamper student performance, while not actually providing more or better educational opportunities in these schools’ communities.^[1]

”

October 25: Deep Dive Part 4 | The science of reading debate

Part four of our deep dive into the debate over the science of reading

Welcome to the final edition of our four-part series on the science of reading.

In parts one through three of our series on the science of reading, we analyzed:

Differing perspectives on the application of the science of reading through varying degrees of phonics instruction. Click here for part one of this series.
Competing views about whether the scientific studies cited to support a phonics-based approach to reading instruction are conclusive. Click here for part two.
Arguments about whether government mandates are the best way to promote phonics-focused reading instruction in classrooms. Click here for part three.

Today, we’ll be covering the following question:

Have state-level reading instruction requirements been successful?

We wrap up our deep dive with an examination of arguments about whether state policies that support phonics instruction have improved reading outcomes for students.

Just Adding More Phonics Yields Only Short-Term Gains On Reading Tests | Natalie Wexler, Forbes

“

Wexler writes that state phonics instruction standards have generated mixed outcomes. She cites a study that examined data from 42 states that implemented policies aimed at teaching children to decode words. Wexler says that while such policies have been associated with short-term improvements in reading test scores in earlier grades, students typically lose the gains by middle school. Wexler says phonics standards are not sufficient and often crowd out other knowledge-based learning activities and topics that students need to succeed long-term in the states where they’ve been tried. Wexler says, “The bottom line is that policies focused on improving kids’ decoding skills seem to have only short-term effects.”^[1]

”

America Has a Reading Problem. Mississippi Has a Solution. | Nicholas Kristoff, The New York Times

“

Kristoff writes policymakers should enact curriculum requirements or teacher training standards that focus on phonics instruction through third grade. He argues additional testing requirements create accountability to ensure teachers and schools adhere to government standards. Kristoff cites data from Mississippi, which enacted phonics requirements in 2013, as an example of how a mandated phonics curriculum boosting reading scores in the state. He says, “To put it really bluntly, if Mississippi can do this and enjoy that kind of progress, there should be hope for all the rest of us.”^[1]

”

The social science of reading isn't so clear | Matthew Yglesias, Slow Boring

“

Yglesias writes that it's unclear whether governments should require schools to adopt certain curricula or training. Yglesias says such changes are difficult to implement and enforce unless school administrators agree with the changes. He also says inflexible requirements frustrate teachers and result in ineffective instruction. Yglesias cites a study from the U.K. indicating its phonics instruction requirement set students back, and took time away from teaching vocabulary and other reading comprehension skills. He says the U.K. “should be a red flag not so much about the merits of phonics but about the risks of overstating the case or over-relying on phonics as a silver bullet.”^[1]

”

October 11: Deep Dive Part 2 | The science of reading debate

Part two of our deep dive into the debate over the science of reading

Click here for part one of this series.

Is the science of reading settled science?

This week, we examine the following views on the science behind the science of reading:

The studies phonics advocates cite to support an evidence-based approach to reading instruction, emphasizing decoding and sounding out words.
Arguments about whether studies point to the effectiveness of one type of reading instruction over another. Has the debate been settled?

What is the science behind the science of reading?

Scientists focused on literacy research have conducted thousands of studies seeking to understand the science of reading. The selected studies below are frequently cited by phonics proponents to support their approach to reading instruction:

Project Follow Through (PFT) was a government-funded study of about 700,000 students from 1968 to 1977 on the effectiveness of reading instruction programs. A 2018 meta-analysis of PFT and more than 300 other studies found the direct instruction approach to teaching reading (which focuses on phonics instruction) “was the only intervention that had significantly positive impacts on all of the outcome measures.” The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s National Reading Panel published a meta-analysis in 2000 assessing the results of 38 studies conducted between the 1970s and 2000. The studies indicated that a strong awareness in early grades of how words are made up of smaller sounds (a skill known as phonemic awareness) predicted greater reading success in higher grade levels. The National Early Literacy Panel government meta-analysis published in 2008 found children who received instruction on how to sound out or decode words scored better (equal to a 50th percentile to 79th percentile improvement) on phonemic awareness assessments.

The debate: Is the science of reading settled?

The arguments below demonstrate differing views on whether research points to the effectiveness of any specific type of reading instruction:

Decoding “The Simple View of Reading” | Mark Seidenberg, Reading Matters

“

Seidenberg writes that although scientific studies offer insights into how children learn to read, claims that “we know how to teach kids to read are inaccurate. He argues the simple view of reading (SVR)—a term he uses to describe the belief that children “learn to read by learning how the written code represents spoken language they already know”—is accurate, but doesn’t necessarily support a particular instruction program or amount of phonics instruction. Seidenberg says, scientific studies “have magnified the expectation that the SVR should also have further implications for instruction. It doesn’t.”^[1]

”

John McWhorter | The New York Times, The New York Times

“

McWhorter writes that scientific data proves reading instruction focused on phonics is the most effective for teaching young students to read. He specifically argues that the phonics-focused direct instruction model is an evidence-based program with scientifically proven results. The direct instruction model focuses on teaching children to sound out or decode words so they can connect them to words they already know from spoken language. McWhorter says, “Scientific investigators of how children learn to read have proved repeatedly that phonics works better for more children.”^[1]

”

Next week, we’ll look at the debate over whether the science of reading should influence policymakers.

October 4: Deep Dive | The science of reading debate

Recent reading test score declines in the wake of COVID shutdowns have raised concerns about the quality of reading instruction in public schools and have elevated debate around the most effective approaches to teaching children how to read.

Week 1: What is the science of reading?

While the science of reading doesn’t have a single definition, it broadly refers to the body of cross-disciplinary research into how the brain learns to read and the instructional approaches supported by those findings. Reading instruction based on the science of reading is generally rooted in phonics—an approach to reading instruction that teaches children how to sound out or decode words, allowing them to connect them to words they may already know.

The debate: Applying the science of reading in the classroom

While evidence from scientific studies shows at least some phonics are important for teaching reading, fierce debate persists on what level of phonics instruction best applies the science of reading in the classroom.

This week we start the deep dive by examining arguments about instructional approaches to the science of reading. Is a greater emphasis on phonics sufficient to improve reading outcomes? Or should phonics be taught alongside other instructional methods? Let’s dive in:

Sold a Story E2: The Idea | Emily Hanford, APM Reports

“

Emily Hanford argues that scientific research into how the brain stores the written forms of words demonstrates the importance of emphasizing phonics instruction in reading education. Hanford says focusing on phonics instruction allows children to connect spoken language, which she says children learn naturally, to written language, which she says is not intuitive. Hanford states, “Once a typically developing reader has looked carefully at a word a few times and sounded it out and identified or figured out what the word means, the written form of that word gets mapped into their memory,” When children connect the words they read to the words they speak, according to Hanford, they can quickly recognize and comprehend them.^[1]

”

Leadership Brief: Children Experiencing Reading Difficulties | The International Literacy Association’s Literacy Research Panel

...writes that an emphasis on phonics instruction alone is not sufficient for teaching reading. Citing the RAND report Reading for Understanding, the panel argues that “students who learn to decode words accurately and quickly may, nevertheless, have comprehension difficulties.” The panel instead argues in favor of an instructional approach that “also involves oral language development, writing and spelling, and a focus on comprehension.”

Stay tuned next week for part two as we continue to explore this topic further.

September 27: The debate over what counts as school library censorship

Does limiting access to certain books in school libraries qualify as a form of censorship?

The staff at Pen America write that book bans occur when school administrators, under pressure from, say, government officials, parents, or community members, limit or remove access to books because of concerns about content. They argue that librarians and educators should curate the selection of library books on the basis of best practices and in ways that are content-neutral.

Max Eden and Jay P. Greene write that many examples of diminished school library material access do not amount to censorship since the books are often still available with restrictions. They also say that in cases where books are fully removed from library shelves, the materials are often not appropriate for school-aged children.

Book Bans: Frequently Asked Questions | Staff, Pen America

“

Today, books are under profound attack in the U.S. … And everywhere, it is the books that have long fought for a place on the shelf that are being targeted. Books by authors of color, by LGBTQ+ authors, by women. Books about racism, sexuality, gender, history. … PEN America defines a school book ban as any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a previously accessible book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished. Diminished access is a form of censorship and has educational implications that extend beyond a title’s removal. It is important to recognize that books available in schools, whether in a school or classroom library, or as part of a curriculum, were selected by librarians and educators as part of the educational offerings to students. Book bans occur when those choices are overridden by school boards, administrators, teachers, or politicians, on the basis of a particular book’s content.^[1]

”

Don’t Worry About ‘Book Bans’ | Max Eden and Jay P. Greene, Education Week

“

But if you take a close look, you might come to the same conclusions we did: that this divisive debate has been manufactured for partisan purpose—both on the part of those pushing free expression and those pushing parents’ rights—that most ‘banned’ books aren’t really banned, and that when they are, it’s mostly reasonable. The media keep on using the word ‘banned.’ But that word doesn’t mean what you think it means. In common usage, banned means ‘made unavailable.’ But in this debate, a book can be both ‘banned’ and available to students. How? PEN America, the nonprofit whose data have formed a prominent basis of this public controversy, defines ‘ban’ quite expansively. If a book has been temporarily removed from shelves for review and then deemed acceptable and put back, it has been ‘banned.’ If a book is moved from a school library to a guidance counselor’s office, it has been ‘banned.’ If parent permission is required, it has been ‘banned.’ If a book is moved from one section of a school library to a section for older students, it has been ‘banned.’ … There’s plenty to get worked up about and plenty that divides us. But so-called “book bans” shouldn’t make the list.^[1]

”

September 20: The debate over the Department of Education

The existence and role of the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) have been topics of debate since Congress created the department in 1980. Recently, several Republican presidential candidates, including former President Donald Trump (R), said they would support abolishing the department. This week, we’ll look at arguments for and against keeping the DOE.

Jacqueline Elliott writes that efforts to abolish the DOE are misguided. Elliot says the department has an important role in advancing equal opportunities in education, promoting programs that make American students more competitive internationally, and supporting state and local government educational initiatives.

Roger Simon writes that the DOE is unnecessary and should be eliminated. Simon says education should be handled as locally as possible and should not be subject to federal government control through regulations and conditional grants. He says federal education standards have harmed student learning.

Efforts to eliminate the Education Department are misguided | Jacqueline Elliott, The Daily Press

“

There are multiple scholarly goals that easily fit into two categories. The first seeks to strengthen the federal commitment to equal educational opportunity for every individual. The second enables student achievement to prepare them for global competitiveness. It is crucial to understand that the agency supports our state and local educational initiatives. This includes public and private nonprofit research organizations and community-based agencies. … It is time to seriously consider the drastic results of ill-meaning and power-hungry legislators. … Our elected leaders need to understand that codification or elimination of a federal department that directly affects a majority of citizens within a district is not the last word regarding something as important as educating future generations.^[1]

”

For the Sake of Our Children, Abolish the Department of Education | Roger L. Simon, The Epoch Times

“

I don’t know if there’s a more reactionary, superfluous arm of the U.S. government than the Department of Education. … Education should always be done locally, as far from Washington bureaucrats as humanly possible. This local control should avail itself of charter schools and school choice (obviously), homeschooling, and every other form of education that people—largely parents—can devise for the better education of their children to prepare them and the country for the future. … Money becomes an instrument of control, with the government withholding it if you don’t go along with their diktats. … The results of federal control of our children’s education, any federal control—including the egregious Common Core—have been nothing short of horrendous.^[1]

”

September 13: The debate over whether schools need more male teachers

According to the most recent data from the National Center on Education Statistics (NCES), the percentage of male teachers in U.S. public schools dropped from 33% in 1980 to 23% in the 2020-2021 school year.

Today, we’ll examine arguments about whether the trend is cause for concern.

Richard Reeves writes that fewer male teachers is a problem and that positive male role models are important for children’s academic achievement, especially for boys. Reeves says male teachers are more likely to serve as mentors and lead after-school programs and extracurricular activities.

Ryan Fan writes that male teachers should not be expected to serve as mentors or father-like figures for their students and that both men and women can be positive role models. Fan says there is no evidence suggesting teachers’ gender affects education outcomes. He says the problems facing education are systemic and not tied to teacher demographics.

Head of the Class | Richard Reeves, No Mercy / No Malice

“

I do think it is a problem and a policy concern. The emptying out of men from our schools is bad news for at least three reasons. First, having a male teacher improves educational outcomes, especially in certain subjects like English (where boys are lagging furthest behind girls). One study suggests that If half the English teachers in middle schools were men the achievement gap in reading between girls and boys would fall by approximately a third — a massive effect. … Second, male teachers are much more likely to take on after-school activities, especially coaching sports teams. A recent Brookings study finds a gender pay gap among K-12 teachers of about $2,200 a year in favor of men. The difference in base pay is just $700 a year. Most of the gap, about $1,200 a year, is explained by the extra pay men get from doing extracurricular work. … Third, the men in our schools are mentors to both male and female students. A recent study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that having an informal mentor in high school improved educational performance across a range of measures; most impressive was a 9% increase in college attendance.^[1]

”

Do We Really Need More Male Teachers? | Ryan Fan, Medium

“

The stereotype is ‘these kids don’t have positive male figures in their lives,’ which is true in some cases but not necessarily true in every case, and I find it a logical fallacy to conclude that because some students don’t have positive male role models in their lives, a male teacher is supposed to fill that role. I saw a colleague and good friend, who my supervisors didn’t think was doing what he was supposed to do, once get told ‘you could be a positive Black male figure in these kids’ lives, but you’re not!’ That’s just way too much of a gap and too much pressure to put on someone. We’re just teachers. The sudden need to become a positive father-like figure is a bit too much, and I don’t think it’s very fair either. And research from the Economics of Education Review found there is no empirical evidence to support teacher gender having an impact on student academic performance across 15 OECD countries. The bigger role models for children are peers or relatives over teachers. … More male teachers is not a band-aid for education’s problems. These problems are all very systemic, but when I think back to my teachers it wasn’t the gender of the teacher that ever made me connect with them at a deeper level.^[1]

”

September 6: The debate over notifying parents about social transitions in schools

State and local policies differ on whether school officials and teachers must notify parents if their child is socially transitioning their gender identity (such as using different pronouns or names) in the classroom.

Connie Walden writes that gender transitioning is a gradual process of experimentation and self-discovery. Walden says students should be able to tell their parents about their gender identities when they feel comfortable.

Robert Pondiscio writes that schools do not have the right to keep knowledge, especially information related to a child’s health and well-being, from parents—and that schools will undermine institutional trust if they remove parents from gender decisions.

Should Schools Tell Parents Their Child Identifies as Transgender? | Connie Walden, New York Times

“

Trans youth often wait to come out to their parents simply for need of space and time to understand their identities. Transition isn’t a flick of a switch; it’s a complex, gradual, weaving journey of identity. My own transition started in high school. At what stage between my experimenting with makeup now and then to asking specific friends to call me Connie would I have officially, suddenly, socially transitioned? When should I have been robbed of the right to come out to my own family, to decide when to include them in my own process? I recognize the pain of well-meaning parents who feel that their child kept such a large “secret” from them. Yet with transition being a gradual process of experimentation, there is no big secret. There’s only kids slowly figuring out who they are, like all other kids. Maybe the demand of these parents, that their children must treat them as “safe spaces” to be told all, is itself what makes these kids feel unsafe.^[1]

”

The hill that public education dies on: Transgender policies’ utter contempt for parents | Robert Pondiscio, Fordham Institute

“

It will be argued that these policies are rarely enacted, but that’s beside the point. A government-run institution granting itself permission to withhold life-changing information from parents about their own children is both profoundly alarming and a massive overreach. These policies effectively demolish parental authority and allow the state to assume a role for which it has no rightful or reasonable claim. There is simply no credible evidence to support the belief that parents do not have in mind the best interest of their transgender children. … Indeed, there are no words adequate to capture this level of institutional hubris. If teachers in our nation’s public schools wish to restore and maintain Americans’ trust in education, they must be willing to acknowledge a simple fact about their profession: They’re not free agents, not activists or ideologues, but government employees with no reason or right to usurp parental authority. A public education system that ignores or overrules the fundamental role of parents, placing the state in a position of superior authority over children will not be accepted for long. If this is the hill public education chooses to die on, don’t be surprised if it gets its wish.

^[1]

”

August 30: The debate over universal government-funded school meals

Eligibility for government-funded free or reduced-price school meals is typically tied to family income, with students from low-income families receiving the most generous subsidies. But should all students have access to government-funded meals?

Allison Pfaff Harris writes in the affirmative. Harris says expanding eligibility would reduce administrative costs associated with processing applications from families seeking school meal assistance. She also says applications create barriers that prevent some children from receiving needed food.

Max Eden writes that government-funded lunches should not be universally available. Eden says it is better for parents to feed their children if they are able and that universal school meals would stigmatize the practice of packing lunch. He also says government-funded meals train children to rely on the government.

Barrier to free school meals hurts students | Allison Pfaff Harris, The Cap Times

“

A requirement for participation is providing all households the opportunity to fill out a free and reduced price meal application. Students from households with incomes below certain thresholds receive school meals either for free or at a reduced price. This requires school nutrition professionals to prioritize the free and reduced meal application to first ensure all students have access to meals, in itself a time-consuming and emotionally draining task. From addressing questions and comprehension barriers to convincing a household that their income information would remain confidential because the household was too proud or concerned that others in their community would know they were struggling financially — a storyline I heard all too often throughout the state — the application creates a barrier for students in achieving their full potential. And not simply their academic potential while in K-12 school, but throughout life. Access to nourishing school meals during the school day means improved focus in the classroom, opening the door for future employment, educational, and professional opportunities, and nurturing healthy family, social and community relationships.^[1]

”

The Case Against Universal Free Lunch | Max Eden, American Enterprise Institute

“

There is a strong case for governmental provision of food to children whose parents can’t—or won’t—feed them. But that’s not the question at hand. The question is whether the government should feed children whose parents can provide them with the food they need. … Parents have a primal drive to provide food for their children. But parents are also sensitive and responsive to the social pressures their children face. Kids apply stigma to behaviors that go against norms. Universal free lunch would all but certainly engender a stigma against kids bringing brown lunch bags, crowding out parental food preparation. Would this really be good for parents? Or for children? … Any child naturally inclined to gratitude in the act of eating would not be reflecting on how the love and labor of their parents, working as units within society, brought that food to their plate. Rather, they must contemplate the state as provider. Such reflection must necessarily inform and transform a child’s moral worldview, with human consequences that will evade econometric analysis. … Beyond the taxpayer sticker shock, we should far more carefully consider the moral, social, and potentially biological costs of universal free school lunch.^[1]

”

August 23: The debate over transportation delays in Jefferson County school district

Jefferson County Public Schools (JCPS), the largest district in Kentucky, canceled school Aug. 10-17 following school bus transportation delays on Aug. 9—the first day of school in the district. The final students were not dropped off at home until about 10 p.m that day. The delays were related to driver shortages and the school’s routing software.

Twelve state legislators from Jefferson County write that structural changes are needed to prevent similar problems in the future. Their proposed changes include splitting JCPS into multiple smaller districts and allowing parents greater choice in deciding where their kids go to school. They also suggested changes to JCPS leadership might be necessary.

Brooklyn Smith writes that JCPS should not be blamed for the transportation delays and school cancellations. Smith says splitting the district, encouraging families to switch to private schools, and other structural changes would hurt employees and students. She says instead JCPS needs support to promote public education, pay bus drivers more, and respond to community input.

An Open Letter to JCPS Parents, Teachers, Students, and Taxpayers | Rep. Jared Bauman, Sen. Matt Deneen, Rep. Kevin Bratcher, Sen. Julie Raque Adams, Rep. Emily Callaway, Sen. Mike Nemes, Rep. John Hodgson, Sen. Lindsey Tichenor, Rep. Ken Fleming, Sen. Adrienne Southworth, Rep. Jason Nemes, Rep. Susan Witten, Twitter

“

Yesterday, JCPS failed in its most fundamental obligation, which is to keep our kids safe. To begin with, this epic failure did not come out of the blue, as warnings were echoed across the county throughout the summer. This is the last straw. This community has talked for years about the need for structural changes, but nothing has really changed. Sadly, it is undeniable that the priorities of this school board are not the safety and academic excellence of our students. So here is our plan, and we welcome ideas from all of you. First, Rep. Bratcher will re-file his bill where all students by law will have the right to attend their neighborhood schools. … Second, we will call for a commission to evaluate splitting up JCPS. … Third, we will call for extensive changes to our school board. … Fourth … we support putting a school choice amendment on the 2024 ballot for the voters to decide. … Finally, we call on the Governor to call the General Assembly into special session for the purpose of immediately enacting the above policies and to take other steps to protect students and support parents in Jefferson County. In sum, yesterday's debacle must be the catalyst for change. Our school district has failed for far too long. For the good of our community and, most importantly, for the future of our children, we must act boldly. And we must act now.^[1]

”

Letters: Anger at JCPS is justified, yet misplaced. We must work together as a community | Brooklyn Smith, The Courier-Journal

“

JCPS employees and the community must work together as a united front to protect Kentucky public education. The justified, yet displaced anger toward and among JCPS employees concerning transportation is fueling Kentucky anti-public school legislation. This makes the largest district in Kentucky vulnerable to division, charter schools and privatized education, which will actively disempower employees and deprive underserved students of the equitable education they deserve. The recent failure to safely implement new start times and keep students in school proves that elected officials are passing legislation without our children, JCPS employees, or community in mind. As a united front, we will demand that JCPS employees and the community have direct input in district wide transportation decisions, and that bus drivers are given the livable wages and safe working conditions they deserve. Together we will protect and ensure the right of all children in JCPS and Kentucky to a free, high quality public education and safe transportation to the school of their choice regardless of their race, gender or socioeconomic status.^[1]

”

August 16: The debate over American history curriculum

Today's topic is K-12 curriculum. In particular, we'll explore different viewpoints about model curricula from Hillsdale College, a private liberal arts college in Southern Michigan.

Phillip Schwenk writes that Hillsdale College’s 1776 model curriculum is sufficient for teaching a complete story of American history. Schwenk says the curriculum discusses slavery and civil rights in-depth without focusing on race as the primary factor in the country’s history. He says curricula should focus on the ideals of equality and inalienable rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

Erskine White writes that Hillsdale’s model curriculum is insufficient and ignores primary source evidence that undercuts the ideas of equality and inalienable rights in America’s founding. White says American history is complex and that more context is necessary to make history curricula more inclusive and honest.

I am a Black principal. Here's why I defend Hillsdale College’s 1776 Curriculum. | Opinion | Phillip Schwenk, The Tennessean

“

There’s a difference between a curriculum that's singularly focused on the issue of race and a curriculum that seeks to understand the whole, complete story of American history including the evils of slavery and racism. This curriculum doesn’t try to avoid such topics — indeed, it mentions slavery more than 3,300 times across grades K-12. But the topics of slavery and race shouldn't be the fundamental and sole elements guiding the teaching of American history. We teach that slavery was an evil practice in America and that the Civil War was fought over the issue. We teach the ensuing civil rights battles that continued long after African Americans were freed from slavery. Yet we also teach about the founding principles of America’s government — that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights — which provided the critical basis for the abolition of slavery and paved the way for the successes of the civil rights movement. As a Black man and educator, that last point speaks to the heart of the matter. And it’s an ultimately uplifting, joyful and wonderful message that I look forward to sharing with the students we intend to serve.^[1]

”

What principal and Hillsdale College 1776 Curriculum defender gets wrong | Letters | Erskine White, The Tennessean

“

[Schwenk’s] opening statement, for example, says that the Hillsdale 1776 curriculum does not believe the United States was founded ‘to defend the heinous institution of slavery.’ Yet we know that defending slavery was one factor among others in creating the United States because the Declaration of Independence says it was. After the magnificent ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident…’ credo which everyone reads is the rest of the document which no one reads. There we see 27 specific ‘abuses’ committed by England which justify American independence. The 27th such justification said England had encouraged slave rebellions. This referred to Lord Dunmore’s Decree a year earlier in 1775, which promised freedom to enslaved people who escaped and served the British cause. Tens of thousands did just that, and indeed, there were numerous slave rebellions in America before 1776 as well. It makes sense when you think about it: White Americans were fighting for their freedom; why wouldn’t Black Americans do the same? Primary source evidence for all this and more has been available for centuries, but only in recent years have large numbers of historians dug into those sources to tell a more honest, inclusive and complex national story.^[1]

”

August 9: The debate over religious charter schools

The Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board voted 5-3 in June to approve an application for the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School—the nation’s first religious charter school.

Rachel Laser writes that religious charter schools are unconstitutional and contradict the idea of the separation of church and state. Laser says taxpayers should not have to fund religious instruction they may disagree with.

Hudson Crozier writes that ideologically neutral education doesn’t exist. Crozier says that since conservatives and the religious have to pay for instruction they disagree with, there should be competing public options.

Christian Nationalists Can’t Wait for This School in Oklahoma to Open | Rachel Laser, New York Times

“

The establishment of a school that claims to be simultaneously public and religious — what has been a legal oxymoron in the United States since its founding — violates one of the foundational principles of American constitutional tradition: the separation of church and state. It also threatens religious freedom and undermines public education. … Indeed, it’s hard to think of a clearer violation of the religious freedom of Oklahoma taxpayers and public-school families than the state establishing a supposedly public school that is run as a religious school. Forcing taxpayers to fund religion, let alone a religion not their own, violates the Oklahoma Constitution’s explicit command that no public money or property “shall ever” be used to benefit or support religion. It’s exactly what Thomas Jefferson labeled “sinful and tyrannical.” … A public school that is subsumed in any one church’s dogma is no longer a public school. Yet Oklahoma taxpayers will be on the hook to pay for it.^[1]

”

The hypocrisy of the Left’s secular education demands | Hudson Crozier, Washington Examiner

“

The argument for not forcing taxpayers to support what they disagree with morally is understandable. But if liberals really believed in this principle, they would despise what is already happening in public education nationwide. Schools are constantly exposed for advancing controversial ideas about race and LGBT identities onto children. Conservative and religious taxpayers are “on the hook” for this “dogma” as well. Sometimes, it involves schools paying outside organizations such as an activist group or children’s hospital. Under President Joe Biden, the Department of Education has paid groups that encourage teachers to hide students’ gender transitions from parents. … The argument is ironic on two fronts. First, it is marketed as pro-neutrality when it obviously is not. Second, like the New York Times article, supporters often invoke the Founding Fathers. These men wrote a founding document declaring that laws ought to reflect God-given rights. No matter what it claims, the Left is not pursuing value-neutral education. Since there is no such thing, neither should conservatives. May the best values win.^[1]

”

August 2: The debate over Florida’s Black history curriculum standards

The Florida Board of Education on July 19 passed updated curriculum standards. Debate over the standards has centered on language in the Black history component that says schools should teach “how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”

Jamelle Bouie writes that the phrasing of the curricular standards suggests that Black people benefited from slavery. Bouie says few slaves learned useful skills during their enslavement and says the portions of the Florida standards related to the development of skills deemphasizes the experiences of the majority who were not fortunate enough to gain useful experience.

Rich Lowry writes that the Florida standards do not say that slaves benefited from slavery. Instead, Lowry says the standards related to slaves who developed skills emphasize the resilience and strength of slaves despite their oppression.

Ron DeSantis and the State Where History Goes to Die | Jamelle Bouie, New York Times

“

The good-faith explanation for this language, if you’re inclined to be generous, is that the authors wanted to emphasize the agency and skill of the enslaved, whose labor fueled large parts of the American economy in the decades before Emancipation. It’s an important point that you can also find in the College Board’s Advanced Placement class in African American studies. ‘In addition to agricultural work, enslaved people learned specialized trades and worked as painters, carpenters, tailors, musicians and healers in the North and South,’ the A.P. guidelines state. ‘Once free, African Americans used these skills to provide for themselves and others.’ Similar points, yes, but the language isn’t quite the same. In addition to using the term ‘enslaved’ rather than ‘slave’ — a linguistic shift that continues to be a subject of real debate — the language for the A.P. curriculum emphasizes that Black Americans could use these skills only after Emancipation. This is key. Slaves were owned as chattel by other human beings who stole their freedom, labor and bodily autonomy. To say that any more than a fortunate few could ‘parlay’ their skills into anything that might improve their lives is to spin a fiction.^[1]

”

The Left Will Say Anything about Florida | Rich Lowry, National Review

“

This is not the first or second thing, or even the 19th, that you’d want students to learn about slavery, but it is also indisputably true and part of the record. No one is saying the enslaved “benefited” from slavery. It’s not an endorsement of slavery to point out that slaves looked for every crack in the system to try to improve themselves and gain some autonomy — rather, it’s an endorsement of the pluck, initiative, and resilience of an oppressed people operating in the worst of circumstances. We are supposed to believe that enslaved African Americans strained against their awful condition in every way (as they actually did) — learning to read, protecting their family life, worshipping on their own, defying their masters when they could, creating an elaborate system of escape — but they never, ever learned a skill to their own benefit. This is, of course, nonsense. Learning skills was another aspect of African-American agency, which was never wiped out no matter how much their oppressors tried to make it so. … Was slavery good for these men? Absolutely not. The point is what they accomplished despite slavery, not because of it.^[1]

”

July 19: The debate over Lifeline Scholarships in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) announced July 5 that he would issue a line-item veto to remove a new program called Lifeline Scholarships from the state’s budget. The scholarship program would direct funding to students living in the lowest-performing public schools in the state and allow them to spend the money on private school tuition and other education costs. Shapiro previously stated his support for the program but said the measure did not have enough support in the Democratic-controlled state House to pass.

Charles Mitchell writes that the Lifeline Scholarship program would give students in low-performing schools chances to receive a high-quality education. Mitchell says Shapiro should pressure House Democrats to pass the plan.

Beth Reeves writes that public schools are underfunded, outdated, and—in some cases—unsafe. Reeves says public officials should oppose the Lifeline Scholarship money until public schools receive more funding. She says the program would divert money from the public schools that need it most.

Josh Shapiro Chooses Teachers Unions Over Students | Charles Mitchell, Wall Street Journal

“

This gave Mr. Shapiro his first real test of leadership. He could use his political capital to force his own party to rescue kids trapped in failing schools, thereby risking an extended budget impasse and union ire, or he could go back on his word. Mr. Shapiro failed the test this week. He said he would use his line-item veto to strike funding for Lifeline Scholarships from the budget. … Absent scholarship funding, students will remain trapped in schools that aren’t serving their needs. These students are disproportionately low-income and members of minority groups. Among the lowest-performing high schools, 33 have zero students doing math at grade level, and six have zero students reading at grade level. Families that can’t afford private school on their own—who can’t afford to move and can’t afford to hire Harrisburg lobbyists—still deserve a chance. … The voices of the teachers-union executives will continue to be loud. The voices of the students, parents and education leaders who depend on all these programs must be louder. Republicans have given Mr. Shapiro one last opportunity to establish himself as a true leader. If he has aspirations to transcend partisan politics and burnish his presidential ambitions—not to mention help students he knows are in need—he should jump at the chance.^[1]

”

Reject vouchers, fairly fund schools [letter] | Beth Reeves, Lancaster Online

“

This gave Mr. Shapiro his first real test of leadership. He could use his political capital to force his own party to rescue kids trapped in failing schools, thereby risking an extended budget impasse and union ire, or he could go back on his word. Mr. Shapiro failed the test this week. He said he would use his line-item veto to strike funding for Lifeline Scholarships from the budget. … Absent scholarship funding, students will remain trapped in schools that aren’t serving their needs. These students are disproportionately low-income and members of minority groups. Among the lowest-performing high schools, 33 have zero students doing math at grade level, and six have zero students reading at grade level. Families that can’t afford private school on their own—who can’t afford to move and can’t afford to hire Harrisburg lobbyists—still deserve a chance. … The voices of the teachers-union executives will continue to be loud. The voices of the students, parents and education leaders who depend on all these programs must be louder. Republicans have given Mr. Shapiro one last opportunity to establish himself as a true leader. If he has aspirations to transcend partisan politics and burnish his presidential ambitions—not to mention help students he knows are in need—he should jump at the chance.^[1]

”

July 12: The debate over classical education

Do classical education curricula and approaches to learning—which tend to emphasize ancient Greek and Roman materials—benefit students, especially in public schools? We featured a different set of perspectives on this debate in an earlier edition.

Rich Lowry writes that the study of classical materials benefits students and teaches critical thinking skills and self-criticism. Lowry says classical materials have contributed significantly to modern culture, politics, and laws in ways other ancient materials have not. He says it is a mistake to reject the positive contributions of classical materials based on the repressive and non-inclusionary natures of their authors or Greek and Roman societies broadly.

Dani Bostic writes that classical curricula place too much emphasis on the positive influences of ancient Greek and Roman thought on modern culture and ignore negative influences. Bostic also says that classical materials focus too heavily on ancient European contributions to civilization and ignore the cultural, scientific, and political developments of other cultures. Bostic says that Western focus promotes white supremacy.

Are the Classics Racist? | Rich Lowry, National Review

“

There’s quite a simple reason, though, that Greece and Rome have been subjects of study and fascination for so long — their cultural, political, and legal contributions are so vast and enduring. The Greeks gave us the example — flawed and incomplete to be sure — of democracy, and the Roman stamp is still discernible on our legal system and institutions. Western thought and literature have proceeded throughout their history in dialogue with the classics, constantly interacting with the arguments, themes, and characters of those long-ago forebears. This isn’t true of other ancient societies. Of course, the Greeks and Romans were blinkered, exclusionary, repressive, and violent, but who wasn’t? Where in the ancient world did slavery not exist? What society afforded women equal status with men? Where did any ruler respect the dignity of all people? A key difference between the Greeks and Romans and the rest was that their writers critiqued and lampooned their own societies. This willingness to engage in self-criticism became one of the hallmarks, and strengths, of Western culture. The critics give the Greeks and the Romans the same treatment as the American project, ignoring what was exceptional about them for a monomaniacal focus on their failings, even if the failings were commonplace everywhere else.^[1]

”

The Classical Roots of White Supremacy | Dani Bostic, Learning for Justice

“

Ancient Greece and Rome were not monolithic in terms of culture, and their geography extended outside of Europe. Students benefit from a broader conception of classics that challenges assumptions about Eurocentrism. … But educators can’t just rethink content. We also need to teach students to be critical consumers of what they’re learning beyond our classes, where students often learn about the influence of Greco-Roman antiquity on the United States as indisputably and exclusively positive. … So students learn about the classical roots of American government without learning about the use of classics to justify the institution of slavery. They learn about democracy in Athens but nothing of how the founders’ specious establishment of ancient Greece and Rome as the cultural forebears of American identity worked to erase the Indigenous nations already established on this land. Students deserve to know that the version of classics too often taught in today’s schools is essentially the same as the one crafted by white Americans over centuries to justify racist claims of cultural and intellectual superiority. Educators cannot convey this representation as neutral. … This involves recognizing the ways Greco-Roman antiquity has been exploited to establish and maintain white supremacy, naming that exploitation and interrupting it.^[1]

”

June 28: The debate over religious charter schools

We reported two weeks ago that the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board voted 5-3 to approve an application for the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School—the nation’s first religious charter school. This week, we’re going to look at some of the arguments for and against the decision.

David French writes that religious charter schools violate the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. French says Oklahoma’s arrangement both unconstitutionally favors religious institutions and also subjects the same institutions to state control, violating the barrier between church and state.

Jeff Jacoby writes that since charter schools are not publicly operated—only publicly funded—they do not unconstitutionally establish a religion using the state’s authority. Jacoby says state-subsidized religious schools are not substantially different from other types of religious organizations like food pantries and homeless shelters that also receive government funding.

Oklahoma Breaches the Wall Between Church and State | David French, New York Times

“

We don’t yet know if the Supreme Court will act, but the very idea that a religious institution should be either clothed with state authority or subject to state control — let alone both — is antithetical to the constitutional balance struck by the First Amendment’s establishment clause and free exercise clause. At their philosophical core, the two clauses work together to pre-empt the kinds of religious conflicts that have ripped apart so many nations and cultures. The establishment clause declares that no church can control the state (nor can the state control the church), thus lowering the stakes of political conflict so that politicians have minimal influence over religious doctrine. … Both religious liberty and religious disestablishment are vital elements of American pluralism. Oklahoma shouldn’t discriminate against religious expression, but it must not create state religious schools. Clothing any church institution with state power is bad for the church and bad for the state. Oklahoma conservatives can and should advance their values through the exercise of liberty, not by breaching the barrier between church and state.^[1]

”

Oklahoma says yes to a religious charter school. So does the First Amendment. | Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe

“

Clearly, a standard public school — one operated by government employees under the supervision of a political school board — cannot be a religious enterprise. But charter schools, though publicly funded, are not publicly operated. They are organized and run by private groups and individuals; their whole raison d’être is to offer education unavailable in government schools. States provide money and enforce basic legal standards, but otherwise charter schools are autonomous. That’s a key reason for their popularity. … The only real distinction between charter schools and school vouchers is that charters are new schools created by private educators, whereas vouchers subsidize tuition at existing private schools. But if public dollars can underwrite a religious education via vouchers, they ought to be able to do so via charter schools. In both cases, the state’s goal is to promote educational diversity and parental empowerment, not to promote religion. Many critical public services — from health care and homeless shelters to foster care and food pantries — are supplied by faith-based groups that receive government subsidies.^[1]

”

June 21: The debate over book restrictions in school libraries

How should school libraries curate their collections? Should they restrict access to certain materials based on age?

Ingrid Jacques writes that school libraries should be able to curate materials and prevent students from accessing materials that might not be age-appropriate. Jacques says library curation and age restrictions do not amount to book bans and suggests that accusations of book banning are inaccurate and designed to generate pushback.

Jonathan Friedman writes that the term book ban accurately describes instances where schools restrict access to certain materials—even temporarily for students like elementary schoolers. Friedman says public institutions should not be able to reduce access to certain ideas and that content restrictions violate students’ First Amendment rights.

Book ban debate plays into deepening divides. Are we either 'fascists' or 'groomers'? | Ingrid Jacques, USA Today

“

I realize it’s a lot to ask, but it would be nice if accurate language were applied to these “book banning” disputes. Because let’s be clear: What’s happening at school libraries are not book bans. All the books up for debate are all very much available to anyone who wants them. No one is saying stop publishing them altogether. Rather, the questions revolve around what’s appropriate for elementary or middle school children and whether a book deserves a place on a classroom or school library shelf. If the definition of a book ban were that a library didn’t have the book in its catalog, then 99.9% of all books would effectively be banned. Libraries and bookstores curate what they want to highlight, so it only makes sense that parents would be involved in making selections that reflect their school communities’ values. … Unfortunately, the word ‘ban’ is thrown around to elicit outrage when it’s not justified. That’s what happened recently when a Florida school allegedly ‘banned’ poet Amanda Gorman’s poem ‘The Hill We Climb,’ which has been published as a short book. When the facts came out, however, the story was much less sensational. The book was always still available to middle school students, just with some limits to elementary students. The school has stated that the book remains widely accessible. In other words, much ado about nothing. … This kind of inflated rhetoric ironically does a disservice to the ones this debate is supposed to be about: your kids.^[1]

”

DeSantis is wrong. Book bans in Florida schools and in other states aren't a 'hoax.' | Jonathan Friedman, USA Today

“

Some may not like the potency of the phrase "book ban" and its negative connotations with authoritarian tactics − particularly if books end up only temporarily restricted and are then returned to shelves. But the force of new laws and political pressure from the state is clearly creating a chilled climate for public education. And alarm over threats to free speech is, rightly, sounded not only at the most severe prohibitions, but also at infringements that might have a broader chilling effect on open inquiry and democratic culture: such as the cancellation of a campus speaker or the circulation of a list of prohibited words. The point is not whether one can get a book that has been prohibited in a school at the local library or purchase it on Amazon; it’s about whether someone’s ready access to ideas has been denied or diminished in a public institution and why. As the court noted in Counts v. Cedarville, ‘The loss of First Amendment rights, even minimally, is injurious.’ In a democracy, liberty and free speech require robust protection in the face of cultural and political censors. Protecting students’ freedom to read must be no different. In the face of a growing movement to censor public education, it’s essential that we sound the alarm over book banning in its most insidious forms, especially those propelled by hate and ignorance. If people don’t want to be known as book banners, there’s a simple solution: Stop trying to ban books.^[1]

”

June 14: The debate over expanding Opportunity Scholarships in North Carolina

The North Carolina House of Representatives passed House Bill 823 on May 17, proposing to eliminate the income restrictions—which are based on the federal government’s free and reduced-price lunch program—for qualifying for Opportunity Scholarship funds. The program, known as an education savings account (ESA) program, allows students to receive up to $6,492 for the 2023-2024 school year to spend on private school tuition and other educational expenses. In response, Gov. Roy Cooper (D) said, “It’s clear that the Republican legislature is aiming to choke the life out of public education … I am declaring this state of emergency because you need to know what’s happening.”

Since the start of the year, governors in [Hall Pass - March 29, 2023 Arkansas, Iowa, Utah, and Florida] have signed legislation expanding ESA programs to cover all or most students.

The state Senate is expected to pass the bill, Cooper is expected to veto it, and legislative supporters are planning to override.

Christopher Talgo writes that expanding the Opportunity Scholarship program would give families more choices and create competition between schools. Talgo says more competition would create incentives for public and private schools to better serve students. Talgo says Cooper’s opposition to the bill is misguided because school choice is a win-win for schools and students.

The Charlotte Observer Editorial Board writes that the Opportunity Scholarship program hurts public schools. The Board says schools face problems like insufficient funding and underpaid teachers and staff and argues that expanding the program would make matters worse. The Board also writes that Cooper is right to declare a state of emergency to amplify his opposition to the legislation.

North Carolina Governor Declares ‘State of Emergency’ Over School Choice Bill | Christopher Talgo, The Heartland Institute

“

In reality, school choice would not necessarily harm the existing public school system in North Carolina. If anything, injecting school choice into the Tar Heel State would likely result in public schools bettering themselves due to increased competition. … For several decades, North Carolina’s public schools have had little competition while automatically receiving large sums of money directly from the state government. This has led to a sclerotic state, in which North Carolina’s public schools lack basic accountability for the quality of education (or lack thereof) that they are providing. … Cooper’s opposition is predicated on the myth that school choice is a zero-sum game whereby public schools will be harmed by the “inevitable” drop in attendance. This is not necessarily “inevitable,” because if public schools were sufficiently educating students, parents would not have to seek other options. Such is why school choice is a win-win for both the schools themselves and the children who attend them. However, school choice is not a win for public teacher unions and education bureaucrats, who have not been held accountable. For far too long, public school teachers and education professionals have become complacent and comfortable under the status quo system, which lacks incentives for education innovation and serves as a job protection racket.^[1]

”

NC gov declares an education ‘state of emergency.’ Where has he been?| The Editorial Board, The Charlotte Observer

“

Way back in 2013, when Republicans were pushing in earnest for school vouchers for low-income families, our Editorial Board wondered aloud if lawmakers wouldn’t stop there. The Opportunity Scholarship Act, we said, was a ‘small but clear step toward de-emphasizing public education and, perhaps ultimately, dismantling public schools.’ Such an outcome, we said, would be fine with NC Republicans, who didn’t and still don’t want to pay what is necessary for public education to succeed in our state. And here we are. … Here’s another thing we said, way back in 2016, the day after Cooper became governor: ‘What Cooper does have is a bully pulpit. He can make a case to North Carolinians — and perhaps to moderate state lawmakers — that North Carolina needs to steer itself in a different direction. He should make that case whenever possible. Be loud, Governor.’ … But some progressives across the state have long wished their governor would more forcefully fight for them. After all, our schools still aren’t properly funded. Our teachers still aren’t getting paid what they should. Neither is Cooper’s fault, but if he had toured the state talking about emergencies, say, two years ago instead of now, maybe North Carolinians would have been provided clarity earlier to the dangers facing our schools and our state.^[1]

”

June 7: The debate over classical education

Classical education typically emphasizes philosophical, scientific, and literary texts beginning in Ancient Greece and Rome and continuing through the Medieval and Renaissance periods (though classical curriculum can include more recent texts). Authors often include Aristotle and Homer, as well as Shakespeare and Jane Austen. Recently, public charter schools in Florida, Texas, New York, Michigan, and elsewhere have offered curricula built around classical education.

The South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Board writes that classical learning is too Eurocentric, religious, and lacking in diverse perspectives. The Board says public schools should teach with more contemporary materials that contain diverse perspectives relevant to students’ experiences.

Cornel West and Jeremy Wayne Tate argue that classical educational materials convey timeless truths that spur and direct positive social changes. West and Tate also say that classical materials help students reason better and understand the world without referring to contemporary issues that can be political.

DeSantis embraces ‘classical education,’ but what is it? | The Editorial Board, South Florida Sun Sentinel

“

[Classical learning] leads students to views that are out-of-date and Eurocentric. Since many of those great texts were crafted in theocratic societies, they tend to be more overtly religious, and the religion is almost exclusively Christianity, which is generally portrayed as tantamount to virtue. The roles of women and ethnic minorities are less likely to be included in lessons, and there’s little mention of marginalized communities. Students are rarely exposed to the perspective of someone ‘other’ through ethnicity or sexuality. There are certainly ways to adapt classical learning models to avoid these pitfalls. But DeSantis’ version of classical education is far more rigid than those idealistic models — and his apparent allergy to diversity, equality and inclusion plays into that. External reviews of common, contemporary classical curriculum show that they downplay the contributions of women and minorities — lessons that many classical educators describe as a ‘focus on victimhood,’ but are really a welcome dose of reality that matches well in a world where women are more likely than men to attend college and are moving closer to parity in formerly male-dominated professions like medicine and law. Many of the classical texts were originally written by and for the elite class in Eurocentric cultures and downplay the reality of poverty and racial discrimination.^[1]

”

DeSantis’s Revolutionary Defense of the Classics | Cornel West and Jeremy Wayne Tate, Wall Street Journal

“

But the greatest works of civilization have always been about spurring—not preventing—radical change. They teach us about the revolutionary ideas of the past and help us better understand the present. The richest ideas of what it means to be human are those that have stood the test of time. … Revolutionary figures of the past give us insight into the present and allow for reflection on the consequences of their choices. Julius Caesar, one of antiquity’s most recognizable leaders, teaches us the cost of revolution through his histories. By crossing into Rome with his armies, he ended the republic and created the Roman Empire, a crime for which he paid with his life. But in his firsthand descriptions of the often-brutal tactics he employed to achieve political transformation, he left behind deep insight. Caesar’s direct and simple prose conveys the reality of going to war—all without reference to contemporary conflicts. … That’s one of the virtues of the classics: They are a means of considering what is true without invoking the blind partisanship that encourages thoughtless action. There is nothing we need more today than the cultivation of reason and understanding. That’s why Mr. DeSantis’s support of classic education has universal merit that transcends partisanship. Education based on values, logic and discipline isn’t Republican—it’s timeless.^[1]

”

May 31: The debate over automatic deductions for teacher’s union dues

Whether unions should be able to automatically deduct dues from teacher paychecks has been a recent topic of debate. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a bill May 9 increasing regulations on teacher's unions and prohibiting automatic dues deductions.

Bonita Osowsky writes that unions were already weak in Florida and the new law further impedes the ability of unions to negotiate and bargain with the state. Osowsky says unions are stronger when they are less regulated and can automatically deduct dues. She also says strong unions improve teacher quality and retention.

Skylar Zander writes that teacher’s unions are not as important today as they were 100 years ago but still have many of the same powers and privileges that make it hard for teachers to leave the union. Zander says the increased regulation and the end of automatic paycheck deductions will increase transparency and allow teachers to decide whether union membership and regular payments make sense for them.

Florida teachers are not ‘shackled’ to unions | Bonita Osowsky, South Florida Sun Sentinel

“

It was appalling to read Skylar Zander’s disgusting opinion piece (Feb. 27) pretending to support teachers. Nothing could be further from the truth. … The last thing teachers need is the death of unions, which are notoriously weak in this “right to work” state. I was a member of four teacher associations in New Jersey. I began in 1968 earning $6,100 a year and retired in 2004 at nearly six figures. Our union got us full family insurance coverage, eyeglass and dental benefits, longevity, protected us from unfair allegations and provided legal services when needed. It negotiated fair compensation for extra duties and payment for class coverage. In 1977, I was turned down for a sabbatical and the union secured my leave the following year to complete the requirements for my certification as a school psychologist. I always had dues deducted from my salary. Zander wants to disallow automatic deductions to discourage union membership to bust unions. I’ve read of a shortage of 10,000 teachers in Florida. It will get worse if teachers can’t join unions, with our governor interfering with what can be taught in schools.^[1]

”

Give Florida teachers the freedom to not assemble | Skylar Zander, South Florida Sun Sentinel

“

But more recently, a growing number of workers have found themselves shackled to labor unions, seeing money yanked out of their paychecks for membership in unions they want nothing to do with. That’s why Gov. Ron DeSantis is exactly on target with his proposed Teacher’s Bill of Rights, an unprecedented legislative proposal to establish greater accountability for teachers’ unions and other public sector unions. [T]eachers unions in Florida will no longer enjoy the privilege of automatically deducting dues from paychecks and would need to obtain specific permission from teachers each year to keep them on their membership roster. The unions would have to be the choice of at least 60% of employees eligible for representation, rather than the current 50% requirement, and would be subject to stricter scrutiny to prevent fraud, waste and abuse. For too long, teachers’ unions have held too much sway over the education of Florida’s children, gradually but unmistakably supplanting the role of parents and dedicated educators. The governor’s proposal would return a proper balance to the equation.^[1]

”

May 24: The debate over social and emotional learning in public schools

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), social-emotional learning “refers to a wide range of skills, attitudes, and behaviors that can affect student success in school and life,” including “critical thinking, emotion management, conflict resolution, decision making, teamwork.” How SEL is used varies. Over the last few years, legislatures have considered bills that would prohibit or restrict SEL in schools.

Natalia Mehlman Petrzela writes that the goal of SEL is helping students learn how to manage their moods and emotions, be happy, and become socially and academically self-sufficient. Petrelza says SEL shouldn’t be controversial and it could “be the beginning of an era of repair, in which children learn the critical thinking skills integral to understanding themselves and the world – and engage each other on the thornier curricular questions of race and sex that adults keep failing to figure out.”

Daniel Buck writes that SEL involves more than teaching children strategies for emotional regulation and managing their moods and social interactions. Buck says SEL demands student involvement with progressive advocacy and that the term has become a euphemism justifying progressive educational policies. Buck writes that conservatives were not the first to politicize SEL in education and says progressives made the topic one of debate and controversy by injecting ideology into the approach.

SEL doesn’t have to be a classroom culture war | Natalia Mehlman Petrzela, CNN

“

To understand why these fights are so intense, it is crucial to grasp a longer, messier history of progressive efforts to educate ‘the whole child’ and of conservative resistance to these programs that explicitly address children’s emotions, attitudes and values – especially when they challenge dominant ideas about power and identity. … As long as such programs have existed, the right has consistently attacked them, especially when they openly acknowledge the aim of addressing the needs of minority children ill served by public schools and society. … As a parent, a teacher, a scholar and a citizen, I am confident that most educators, parents and children agree that children deserve to be academically competent, kind, happy and self-sufficient and that the school should play a role in achieving those goals. Given our lamentably acrimonious environment, SEL could very well be our next educational classroom war, but it need not be. It could be the beginning of an era of repair, in which children learn the critical thinking skills integral to understanding themselves and the world – and engage each other on the thornier curricular questions of race and sex that adults keep failing to figure out.^[1]

”

Conservatives Are Right to Be Skeptical of SEL | Daniel Buck, National Review

“

In reality, SEL was once a questionably effective — albeit rather benign — educational fad, a sort of secular character education, but it has since become another means of injecting progressive politics into the classroom. And as always, it’s conservatives’ fault for noticing. … In short, this new iteration of SEL extends beyond mere emotional regulation into encouraging activism in the classroom. “Action research,” wherein students research social issues and advocate for change, is one recommended practical approach. All of this talk of community change and collective projects hearkens to a radical theory of education called critical pedagogy, first proposed by Brazilian Marxist Paulo Freire. Within this theory, schools become not institutions of academic learning but of advocacy. And lest you think “action research” just means building a community garden, a set of webinar slides confirms that an “antiracist” mindset in both teachers and students is essential. Everything from mathematics to SEL becomes another means to leverage collective progressive social action. … In other words, SEL becomes a feel-good term that applies a stamp of approval to a host of progressive wish-list items. … And I return to my original question: How did SEL become controversial? Progressives made it so.^[1]

”

May 17: The debate over the Biden administration’s transgender school sports rule

On April 6, the U.S. Department of Education released a proposed update to https://www.epa.gov/external-civil-rights/title-ix-education-amendments-act-1972#:~:text=Title%20IX%20provides%3A,activity%20receiving%20Federal%20financial%20assistance. Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972] regulating when schools may or may not ban transgender athletes from participating on sports teams that do not align with their sex. Title IX says: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The Education Department’s proposed rule would prohibit schools from imposing outright bans on transgender students wanting to compete in sports consistent with their gender identity but allow for some exceptions to achieve educational objectives or minimize harm to students.

Rich Lowry writes that the proposed rule is too vague and broadly redefines Title IX. Lowry says Title IX was enacted to promote women’s sports and that the proposed rule will promote competition between biological men identifying as women and biological females. He says regulators should not be able to change the intent of laws and argues Congress should have to draft new legislation to implement the Biden administration’s proposed changes.

Doriane Coleman writes that Biden’s proposed rule properly balances the interests of both women and transgender people who identify as women. Coleman says the rule is specific enough to provide sufficient guidance for governments and school leaders on both sides of the issue, protect transgender individuals from discrimination, and protect girls and women from physical harm.

Biden trans-sports rule reverses the intent of the law it ‘enforces’ | Rich Lowry, New York Post

“

If justice demands that Title IX encompass gender identity, then the solution is very simple — Congress should amend the statute. Why bother with such Schoolhouse Rock notions, though, when Title IX can be rendered infinitely malleable? First, the Biden administration last year redefined the law, without any warrant, so that ‘sex’ includes ‘stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.’ And now there’s going to be an entire new regulatory regime devoted to ensuring the participation of trans athletes in sports meets the Biden administration’s standards. Congress passes a law protecting and encouraging women’s sports, and lo and behold, 50 years later the law is being used to ensure as many males as possible are competing against females. Here the road to hell isn’t even paved with good intentions, but bad-faith interpretations of the law imposed by people who know they can’t win democratic assent for their cultural agenda. … The draft rule is an affront to Congress, an affront to federalism (it clearly targets the roughly 20 states that have bans on males competing against females) and an affront to girls and women who simply want to compete against one another when they play sports.^[1]

”

Why Biden’s New School-Sports Rule Matters | Doriane Coleman, The Atlantic

“

The loudest voices in the debate often seek either to ban transgender women and girls from participating on female teams altogether or, on the other side, to make sports blind to sex differences. This is a complicated issue, one that requires compassion for all the athletes involved, as well as precision, not broad strokes. The administration’s proposal is a welcome response to the partisan rancor and a sophisticated approach that mostly meets the challenge at hand. … If you understand that both sex and gender matter; if you care about the integrity of girls’ and women’s sports; and if you want schools to take care of all kids, including trans kids, this is a good proposal. … The administration’s rule doesn’t just address the practical question of how to accommodate transgender athletes; it also addresses a political question—how to negotiate the space between those on the left who deny the existence of sex or the relevance of sex differences to law and policy, and those on the right who deny the existence of transgender people and insist that their advocates are selling a dangerous ideology. President Joe Biden clearly cares about trans rights. He also cares about women’s rights.^[1]

”

May 10: The debate over religious charter schools

The Oklahoma Catholic Conference (OCC) applied in February 2023 for permission to start a religious online charter school. The Statewide Virtual Charter School Board rejected the application on April 11, saying it did not meet the state’s standards for approval and giving the OCC 30 days to fix the identified problems.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial Board writes that religious charter schools, since they would receive public funding, would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Board says taxpayers should not have to fund religious charters and that the policy would violate the principle of church-state separation.

Andy Smarick writes that Supreme Court precedent since 2017, in its ruling in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, supports the idea that states cannot exclude certain schools from participating in government programs solely based on their religious nature. Smarick says religious charters would be beneficial for creating more options in the public school system.

Editorial: Taxpayers have no business funding religious instruction in public schools | The Editorial Board, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

“

But this isn’t just any ol’ charter school application. It proposes to cross the long-respected dividing line between church and state outlined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Religious conservatives insist the clause has been misinterpreted and that the Founding Fathers always intended America to be a Christian nation. … Regardless of the outcome in Oklahoma, it almost certainly won’t be the final attempt to impose Christian doctrine on public schools while demanding that taxpayers fund it. Other nations have tried state sponsorship of religion, and it doesn’t tend to go well. Once religion becomes interwoven in government, it becomes almost impossible to unweave it. And since the Constitution requires equal treatment, state funding would also have to extend to other religions, meaning taxpayers could be on the hook to pay for public schools teaching, say, Islamist doctrine. Oklahoma’s current charter regulations require schools to be nonsectarian in all instruction, admissions policies and operations — as it should be. Feeding souls are what churches, synagogues and mosques are all about. Public schools are for feeding brains, free of faith indoctrination. And they must stay that way.^[1]

”

The extended case for faith-based charter schools | Andy Smarick, The Thomas Fordham Institute

“

Addressing those charging that the Court was forcing states to fund religious groups, Chief Justice Roberts’s Espinoza decision explained that Montana didn’t have to create a program that funded nongovernmental organizations. But once the state did so, it couldn’t single out faith-based groups for exclusion. The same logic applies in Trinity Lutheran and Carson: States don’t have to create programs for nonprofits to resurface playgrounds or for students to attend out-of-district high schools, but once they do, they can’t single out faith-based groups for exclusion. We should expect a Roberts opinion ruling that states aren’t obligated to allow charter schools, but once they do, they can’t single out faith-based groups for exclusion. … The left’s strategy could be to simply vote “no” as this wave swells. An alternative is to support more school options and increased parental power inside a public system of transparency and accountability. That would mean sitting down at—not walking away from—the negotiating table on the issue of faith-based charters. When the Supreme Court eventually rules that states with charter school laws must permit faith-based charters, the left will be glad that they had a hand in crafting those programs instead of standing on the sidelines.^[1]

”

May 3: The debate over notifying parents about social transitions in schools

State and local policies differ on whether school officials and teachers should notify parents if their child is socially transitioning their gender identity (such as using different pronouns or names) in the classroom.

Jill Filipovic writes that schools should not disclose social transitions to parents. Filipovic says schools should be places where children can safely experiment with their beliefs and establish independence from their parents. Filipovic says a child should be able to socially transition in the same way a child with atheist parents should be able to attend a Christian after-school club.

Luke Berg and Max Eden write that hiding social transitions from parents is both harmful and illegal. Berg and Eden say that affirming a student who identifies with a gender that differs from their biological sex constitutes a psychosocial medical treatment. They say parents understand their children's best interests and have a legal right to know about medical treatments, including social transitions.

Opinion: The right-wing approach to ‘parents’ rights’ puts kids at risk | Jill Filipovic, CNN

“

[I]t is wholly unreasonable to demand that a teenager’s experimentation with identity and belief, so long as that experimentation is not physically dangerous, be disclosed to parents. We shouldn’t make laws – or education policy – with only functional, supportive families in mind. It’s tempting to do that, but life experience tells us that not all kids have the families they deserve and research tells us that trans kids without parental support face a host of mental health risks and other challenges. That combination should give anyone pause before deciding what’s reasonable. … Consider this. Teenagers aren’t yet grownups, but they are in the crucial stages of establishing some independence from their parents, asserting their own identities, forming their own opinions and trying new things. In the hours they are at school, they should find a safe place to do just that, whether that’s the teenager of vegan parents choosing to sample a chicken nugget in the cafeteria or the child of atheists trying out the Christian after-school club or, yes, a teenager who thinks they may be trans trying on a new name and putting on a different wardrobe.^[1]

”

Schools Must Stop Keeping Trans-Secrets From Parents | Opinion | Luke Berg and Max Eden, Newsweek

“

But circumventing parents is neither moral nor legal. ‘Social affirmation’ is not simply ‘being nice.’ When children are involved, it is effectively a medical intervention. Dr. Kenneth Zucker, who for decades led one of the world's top clinics for gender dysphoria, has written that ‘parents who support, implement, or encourage a gender social transition (and clinicians who recommend one) are implementing a psychosocial treatment that will increase the odds of long-term persistence.’ It's not hard to see how daily ‘affirmation’ by authority figures that a child is ‘really’ the opposite sex reinforces that belief. Long-term persistence of that belief leads children down a path toward puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, increasing the odds that the child will be sterilized. It is beyond strange, to say the least, that schools send home permission slips to take children to art museums but refuse to notify parents about a de facto medical intervention. … The dramatic shift away from this traditional moral and constitutional precedent has nothing to do with a dispassionate or scientific analysis of the human good. It is rather the product of a mass propaganda campaign that threatens to label any parent concerned for the mental health of their child a ‘transphobe.’^[1]

”

April 26: The debate over whether school reform can improve educational and social outcomes

Today, we look at a recent conversation on how much schools can improve student outcomes. Are students inherently destined for success or failure regardless of educational resources? Can any reforms change academic outcomes?

Freddie DeBoer writes that most proposals for improving schools cannot improve student outcomes. DeBoer says the evidence supports the idea that students have their own natural or intrinsic level of academic potential, which we have no reason to believe we can dramatically change.

Auguste Meyrat writes that some reformers are too optimistic about student potential and the effectiveness of certain reforms. But Meyrat says DeBoer is too pessimistic and suggests that certain changes could still improve the educational system and create opportunities for success for more students.

Education Commentary is Dominated by Optimism Bias | Freddie DeBoer, Substack

“

There’s a bias that runs throughout our educational discourse, coming from our media, academia, and the think tanks and foundations that have such sway in education policy. It’s a bias that exists both because of a natural human desire to see every child succeed and because the structural incentives in the field make rejecting that bias professionally risky. The bias I’m talking about is optimism bias, the insistence that all problems in education are solvable and that we can fix them if only we want to badly enough. At least a half-century of research, spending, policy experimentation, and dogged effort has utterly failed to close the gaps that so vex our political class. But still we hear the same old song about how we could close those gaps tomorrow if we really wanted to, an attitude that has distorted education policy and analysis for decades. … This implies that common sense is correct and that individual students have their own natural or intrinsic level of academic potential, which we have no reason to believe we can dramatically change.^[1]

”

More Money And Gimmicks Won’t Improve Public Schools, But Competition From Charters Will | Auguste Meyrat, The Federalist

“

I think most of us would welcome more realism in considering what’s possible in education and what is not, but deBoer’s brand of pessimism is utterly misguided. It mistakes the forest for the trees, casting ineffective educational gimmicks and failed programs as proof that the overall quality of one’s schooling has no effect on an individual’s success. Worse still, by tying academic achievement to inherent ability (nature over nurture), his argument implies the only real way to make a population smarter is through eugenic methods. And no, recommending that the government cut more checks to the poor doesn’t make this argument any less racist or classist. Rather than succumb to despair, we should redouble our efforts in reforming our country’s education system, which obviously stands in great need of it. Although it may not be feasible to cultivate a nation of hyper-intelligent intellectuals or to create a system of perfect academic parity between each and every subgroup in the population, there are many ways to go about improving the system.^[1]

”

April 19: The debate over Satanist after-school clubs

After-school clubs have been at the center of recent conversations about public schools and the First Amendment. In February, the Saucon Valley School District, in Pennsylvania, initially approved but then later denied the After School Satan Club’s request to use school facilities for meetings. The American Civil Liberties Union sued the district on March 30, 2023, alleging the ban on the Satan club violated the First Amendment because the district permitted a Christian club to use the school's facilities.

Students have started After School Satan Clubs in schools in several states, including Ohio, Illinois, and Colorado.

Garion Frankel writes that school facilities should remain open to all religious groups. Frankel says schools must allow Satanist clubs if they allow Christian clubs because “atheists are still protected by the Free Exercise Clause.”

Frank DeVito writes that an originalist reading of the First Amendment supports the idea that schools should not have to allow both Christian clubs and Satanist clubs to use their facilities. DeVito says Satanism is not a religion in the sense that the founders would have understood the word and therefore should not benefit from the same constitutional protections.

Satan Clubs Should Be Allowed in Schools | Garion Frankel, Reason

“

A defense of American pluralism requires a defense of, or at least apathy toward, Satanism. … In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in Good News Club vs. Milford Central School that public schools, acting as a ‘limited public forum[s]’ outside of school hours, cannot discriminate on the basis of religion. Religion, in this context, applies not only to belief, but to non-belief as well. The Supreme Court has repeatedly treated atheism as a religion for legal purposes, meaning that atheists are still protected by the Free Exercise Clause. In other words, public schools can't approve a Christian organization without approving a Satan club too. … In any case, the American pluralist tradition has always left the door open for dissidents and provocateurs, provided that they do not violate any constitutional laws or cause great harm. If we value pluralism at all, we cannot simply throw organizations that merely offend us out of the public square—even if we consider them the personification of evil itself. … Instead of trying to throw Satan clubs off campus, and therefore falling into a legal trap, school districts should leave the Satan clubs alone and defend their right to exist when offended parties demand their removal.^[1]

”

There Is No Constitutional Right to Satanism | Frank DeVito, The American Conservative

“

[A]nti-blasphemy laws were consistently upheld as compatible with free exercise of religion: According to the Harvard Law Review, “the blackletter rule was clear. Constitutional liberty entailed a right to articulate views on religion, but not a right to commit blasphemy — the offense of ‘maliciously reviling God,’ which encompassed ‘profane ridicule of Christ.’” Throughout the nation’s history and even into the twentieth century, the federal courts have consistently upheld state anti-blasphemy laws as constitutional. There is no binding precedent stating that anti-blasphemy laws violate the First Amendment. This is where the actual content of religious claims matters. A simple look at the Church of Satan website or its Wikipedia page (for both of which I intentionally choose not to provide a link) clearly show that the views of the Satanic sect revile God and ridicule Christ. Thus, the practice of “Satanism” is itself blasphemous. … If we twist the Constitution and the concept of religious liberty so far that it considers in any way protecting such horrendous and evil things as Satanic cults in publicly funded schools, the Constitution of the Founders is broken beyond recognition.^[1]

”

April 12: The debate over middle school algebra

During the 2014-2015 school year, the San Francisco Unified School District enacted a policy that prevents advanced students from taking Algebra 1 classes in eighth grade. Instead, the district requires all students to take the same classes, regardless of ability, through 10th grade (at which point advanced students can try to accelerate into harder classes like calculus and trigonometry). On March 22, a group of parents sued the district, saying Algebra I should once again be on offer for middle school students with the requisite mathematical knowledge.

Stephen Sawchuk writes that eliminating advanced (also called tracked) courses from middle school curricula promotes equity between students of different races and economic backgrounds. Sawchuck says wealthier parents use advanced classes to help their children gain an unfair academic advantage over poorer students. He says the data shows that the policy has helped close that gap and improve algebra outcomes for more students.

Rex Ridgeway and David Margulies write that the San Francisco policy limits student advancement and removes opportunities from students who are proficient at math and would benefit from advanced instruction. They say wealthier families can work around the policy and pay for higher-level classes and tutoring, while high-performing poorer students have no way of accessing more difficult classes and getting a head start on college prerequisites.

A Bold Effort to End Algebra Tracking Shows Promise | Stephen Sawchuk, Education Week

“

Part of an ambitious project to end the relentless assignment of underserved students into lower-level math, the city now requires all students to take math courses of equal rigor through geometry, in classrooms that are no longer segregated by ability. That means no ‘honors’ classes. No gifted track. No weighted GPAs until later in high school. No 8th grade Algebra 1. … In effect, by de-tracking math classes, San Francisco has done away with one of the key avenues that the well-connected use to give their children an academic advantage. … This year, San Francisco got something of an ace in its back pocket to show skeptics of the plan: Data shows better math outcomes for students who took the de-tracked courses compared with the cohort before them. The number of students repeating algebra has fallen among all ethnic and racial groups, and fewer are receiving D’s and F’s in Algebra 1. About a third more students are ready for calculus, and that pool is more diverse than it’s ever been. While it’s not proof-positive that the new course sequence has caused the better outcomes, leaders say, it’s a hopeful sign.^[1]

”

SFUSD's delay of algebra 1 has created a nightmare of workarounds | Rex Ridgeway and David Margulies, San Francisco Examiner

“

All parents want opportunities for their children to excel academically. However, reaching the top in math at San Francisco Unified School District, is like climbing a cactus tree. It’s going to hurt. At SFUSD, a math curriculum limiting student advancement currently exists; especially hindering socio-economically disadvantaged students from advancing in math. This is counter to what parents expect from a school district. … A lack of transparency, and manipulating data to justify policies, demonstrates how SFUSD operates. The benefits of eighth-grade algebra 1 are clearly explained in an open letter signed by nearly 1,800 science, technology, engineering and math professionals. This course initiates a five-year pathway to STEM readiness culminating in AP calculus in 12th grade. In practice, SFUSD’s delay of algebra 1 has created a nightmare of workarounds. Families with resources turn to fee-required online algebra 1 courses in eighth grade, outside the public school system, or enroll their kids in private schools.^[1]

”

April 5: Reactions to the Houston school takeover

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) announced on March 15 that the state would take over the Houston Independent School District (HISD). The district’s current school board and superintendent will be replaced with new state appointees. States typically take over school districts when schools repeatedly fail to meet certain performance standards (like average standardized test scores).

Michael J. Williams writes that the TEA is justified in taking over the HISD. Williams say the schools are not meeting the needs of students and are failing to improve campuses that persistently fail to meet standards. He says the HISD had the chance to make improvements and that now the district needs a new superintendent and board of managers to offer and implement a clearer plan for improvement.

Domingo Morel writes that the TEA’s takeover of the HISD is unjustified because the district has made sufficient progress in meeting standards and resolving problems. Morel says the takeover is politically and racially motivated. He says Houston’s school board offers a political platform to Democrats and people of color and that Republican state officials would rather remove their political opponents and appoint their own managers.

[Houston ISD’s takeover was a hard, but necessary decision | Michael J. Williams, The Dallas Morning News]

“

I wholeheartedly support [Education Commissioner Mike Morath’s] decision, and I believe he will act in the best interest of Houston ISD’s students and families and appoint a local board and a best-in-class superintendent who will give the state’s largest district the kind of jump-start it needs to finally meet the needs of all of Houston’s citizens. The law is clear. The Texas Supreme Court has ruled. Houston ISD voted to lay down in its lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency. Houston ISD failed to improve its most persistently failing campuses for years, and so the TEA is legally obligated to intervene. Houston ISD could have made decisions at any stage of this process that could have resolved this issue, but they chose not to bring in a partner to improve their failing campus. This situation is unfortunate, but it should not be surprising to the district, and it certainly was not unavoidable. Change always comes hard to the most entrenched interests when changes like this are made. I believe the best thing that can happen for Houston ISD now is a clear path forward.^[1]

”

The state takeover of Houston public schools is about more than school improvement | Domingo Morel, The Conversation

“

Although the state has given the Houston Independent School District a B rating, it plans to take over the Houston schools because one school, Wheatley High School, has not made sufficient progress since 2017. According to state law, the state can take over a school district or close a school if it fails to meet standards for five years. … So why would a state take over a school district that has earned a B rating from the state? And why base the takeover on the performance of one school that represents fewer than 1% of the district’s student and teaching population? … Houston, as the largest urban center in Texas, is at the forefront of this challenge to the Republican grip on state power. The Houston schools, in particular, are representative of the state’s demographic and political future. The nine-member Houston school board is reflective of the community it serves. It has three Latinos, four African Americans and two white school board members. This, in my view, is what has put the Houston public school system and school board at the forefront of a battle that is really about race and political power.^[1]

”

March 29: The debate over Los Angeles school union strikes

Members of Service Employees International Union Local 99 (SEIU)—a union representing about 30,000 Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) maintenance staff, bus drivers, and other support employees—went on strike between Mar. 21-24. The union said the school district treated its workers unfairly and violated California labor laws. United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA)—the primary public teachers union in the LAUSD—joined SEIU in the strike, shutting down schools on the strike days.

Glenn Sacks writes that both unions were justified in striking and that the non-teaching staff was treated unfairly under California’s labor laws. Sacks says both students and workers will be better off if LAUSD meets the SEIU's demands. He also says that the support of the teachers union was not unusual and that the strike was necessary to avoid undermining what Sacks says are positive changes in the district.

The Washington Examiner Editorial Board writes that public sector unions in LAUSD have too much power to disrupt the lives of families and set back public education. The Editorial Board says the strikes caused hardships for the district's low-income families, who had to arrange child care for students. The Board also blamed public school unions for long-term school closures during COVID.

I was on the Los Angeles picket line. Here’s why our strike will benefit students and workers | Glenn Sacks, Fox News

“

SEIU announced a three-day "Unfair Practice Charge" strike based on its well-founded accusations that LAUSD's mistreatment of SEIU workers violates California labor law. LAUSD probably expected that with teachers coming in to work, along with personnel brought in from LAUSD headquarters on an emergency basis, they could roll right over SEIU, as school districts often do to campus workers in similar situations. Except this week, Los Angeles teachers said ‘No.’ Over half of LAUSD’s SEIU workers have children in LAUSD. Many of our students have aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins and older siblings who work at LAUSD. There is only one way UTLA educators could keep faith with our students, their families and the workers whose labor enables us to educate our students — by honoring SEIU’s picket lines. Our sympathy strike (aka "solidarity strike") is very much in line with the traditions of American labor. American labor unions were built through labor solidarity, and in recent decades, unions have been undermined because union leaders have abjured sympathy strikes.^[1]

”

Los Angeles school unions are COVIDing children all over again | Editorial Board, The Washington Examiner

“

As they showed throughout the coronavirus pandemic by pressing school districts to stay closed, teachers unions have no solidarity with the children they are supposed to educate. The core mission is once again being shoved aside. Many low-income parents may have to skip work and lose pay to supervise their children while unions strike. … California's public sector labor unions, which were at the forefront in demanding unjustifiable long-term school closures during the pandemic, have permanently set back the education and lives of children in the last few years. Now, they are back to remind Californians of the stranglehold they have over the state. In Los Angeles, they get whatever special exemptions they want from whatever laws they want. Teachers and educators who don't want to stunt children's development and ruin their prospects should take advantage of their rights under the Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision and stop paying for union representation. Unfortunately, California will not ban public sector collective bargaining, but that will have to happen before normal government services are restored to the state's residents.^[1]

”

March 22: The debate over Florida’s education savings account bill

On March 17, the Florida House of Representatives passed House Bill 1, which would expand Florida’s education savings accounts (ESAs). The bill would allow all students eligible for public school enrollment to receive up to $8,000 for education-related expenses outside the public school system. The funds can be used for curricular materials for homeschooling, tutoring services, private school tuition, and certain other education-related expenses.

Juan Martinez writes that HB1 would allow greater schooling flexibility and customization, especially for lower-income families. Marinez says the option for parents to tailor their children's education would create more opportunities for students. Martinez also says taxpayers should fund students instead of “a one size fits all system.”

Sally Butzin writes that parents, lower-income families, and taxpayers in general should trust the government to hold public schools accountable and expand public school services and funding. Butzin says HB1 does not establish sufficient accountability around ESA spending. She also says ESAs harm public schools in favor of private schools, which Butzin says reduces equality.

Education savings accounts offer flexibility to build children’s best future | Juan Martinez, Orlando Sentinel

“

The recently introduced HB1 will expand the ability for parents to make personalized decisions for their children’s education by establishing educational savings accounts (ESAs) that would allow families to utilize their child’s share of public schooling funds to pay for customized education options. Rather than being limited by what school district one lives in, families would be able to use these funds for a variety of options that allow them to customize their children’s education in ways that best suit their unique gifts, talents, and needs. … [T]he purpose of state education policy is to best educate students, not to maintain a status quo educational system that’s outdated and doesn’t serve learners. The world has changed from when mass schooling was first instituted, and it continues to change to this day. Public education must continue to evolve along with it. Funding students, rather than a one size fits all system, will allow for the children of Florida to get an education that will best prepare them for their own unique future. … At the end of the day, the reality is that traditional model has failed to meet the needs of so many students, especially Hispanic ones.^[1]

”

Private education at public expense: From bad to worse | Sally Butzin, Tallahassee Democrat

“

Since the 19th century, American citizens have trusted in the covenant made between taxpayers and their government to use their money to benefit the welfare of the citizens, including maintaining an equitable system of free public education. Taxpayers have trusted that the government would provide oversight and accountability for the education of its youth. Now for the first time in history we see taxpayer money being diverted to individual persons through a private organization called Step Up for Students (stepupforstudents.org) with little or no transparency or accountability. We also see that voucher language has been manipulated to fool citizens. … Education “Savings” Accounts should be called Education “Spending” Accounts. An ESA is essentially a debit card for many non-vetted purchases including home schooling. … This bill fundamentally transforms our public education system, which has always been the great equalizer. Despite dwindling funds and over-regulations, public schools continue to educate most of Florida’s children. Rather than working to improve public schools, the goal is to dismantle them brick by brick.^[1]

”

March 15: Is America in an educational revolution?

In this section, we typically explore the debate around one narrow topic in education. Today, however, we’re zooming out to consider two big-picture reflections on the state of innovation in America’s K-12 education system.

David Brooks writes that not enough is being done to meaningfully improve that system. Brooks says many popular reform ideas, like school voucher programs and charter schooling, do not get at the heart of what is holding back progress in education. Instead, he says political leaders should be driving policy discussions to rethink traditional models of classroom education, including experiments with class schedules and creating more personalized learning experiences.

Max Eden writes that education policy discussions, especially in Republican-controlled states, are leading to policies that improve schools. Eden says mainstream school policy conversations have generally moved past the topics that Brooks believes are unproductive. Eden says Education Savings Account (ESA) programs are giving parents the flexibility to personalize their children’s education. He also writes that the push for phonics-focused reading instruction will meaningfully improve learning outcomes.

America Should Be in the Middle of a Schools Revolution | David Brooks, The New York Times

“

[Y]ou would think that education would be one of the most talked about subjects in America right now. You would think that President Biden would be offering comprehensive plans to reform American schooling. You would think efforts by governors and mayors to address these problems would be leading newscasts and emblazoned across magazine covers on a weekly basis. But this is not happening. In his State of the Union address, Biden offered no ambitious plans to fix America’s ailing schools. The Republican Party can’t utter a complete sentence on the subject of school reform that doesn’t contain the initials C.R.T. What we’re seeing here is a complete absence of leadership — even in the midst of a crisis that will literally bend the arc of American history. This moment of disruption should be a moment of reinvention. It should be a moment when leaders rise up and say: Let’s get beyond stale debates over charters, vouchers, gender neutral bathrooms and the like. We’re going to rethink the nuts and bolts of how we teach in America. … The pandemic reminded us how much we lose when teachers can’t do their jobs in the way they want to do them. But there now has to be political leadership to shake up a calcified system, and hurry the reinvention that has to happen.^[1]

”

The Red-State Education Revolution | Max Eden, American Enterprise Institute

“

Brooks clearly did not do his homework. At least in red states, legislative action on education has been astonishing in both speed and scope. … Brooks wishes that we could ‘get beyond the stale debate over charters [and] vouchers.’ Well, we are. The main school choice debate is no longer over those structurally limited programs that serve a limited number of students but rather over universal programs that place full purchasing power in the hands of parents. Unlike a voucher, which can only be applied toward an accredited private school, education savings accounts place state funding into a flexible spending account that could be put toward private school tuition, tutoring, homeschool expenses, or a ‘learning pod’ or ‘micro-school.’ … The school choice movement is poised to make more progress in the first half of 2023 than it made in the preceding 23 years. … Beyond that, there is a quieter but potentially more consequential revolution afoot: a reading revolution. … Thanks in part to the excellent journalistic work of Emily Hanford’s Sold a Story podcast series, red states are taking aim at three-cueing and throwing more resources behind phonics. … Between completely changing the paradigm of school finance to allow a thousand flowers to bloom and homing in like a laser on proper reading instruction, it’s hard to imagine a greater revolution in a shorter time.^[1]

”

March 8: The debate over education savings accounts (ESAs)

A number of state legislatures are considering bills to create or expand education savings accounts (ESAs). ESAs provide eligible students taxpayer dollars for private school, homeschooling, tutoring, and other education-related expenses.

Robert Pondiscio writes that ESAs are not a new way to fund education. Instead, Pondiscio says ESAs create a new system of accountability for schools and educators that allows parents to direct and oversee their child’s education instead of trusting school districts and administrators.

Chester E. Finn, Jr. writes that ESAs offer too many choices and says that the government should not necessarily trust that parents will make the best decisions for their children. Finn says some charter and private schools perform poorly even though families choose them and says that the overabundance of money will cause more bad schools to open.

On ESAs’ popularity and coming challenges: A letter to Checker Finn | Robert Pondiscio, Fordham Institute

“

A common talking point among proponents is that ESAs give parents control of their money to customize their child’s education, spending it on private school tuition, tutoring, and other educational products and services. But it’s not “their” money. It’s our money that’s being put under parental control. This is not mere pedantry or a difference of semantics. The cost of education is socialized; we have a shared stake in the education given every child in America and pay school taxes whether or not we have kids in our local school or have kids at all. This distinction—“their” money versus “our” money—holds the key to thinking about ESAs that may assuage your misgivings, Checker. To my way of thinking, an ESA is not a new form of education funding, it’s a different form of education accountability. States like Arizona, Iowa, West Virginia, and Utah that have enacted universal ESAs aren’t giving parents money heedlessly. They’re making a public policy wager to put accountability into the hands of those who “nurture and direct” the child. They’re betting that parents will discharge their “high duty” with more attentiveness, care, and diligence than the state can possibly provide through its districts and schools. It’s a reasonable wager.^[1]

”

Why I’m wary of universal education savings accounts | Chester E. Finn, Jr., Fordham Institute

“

Consider me wary, particularly of the free-swinging, almost-anything-goes version of universal ESAs. … Start with the fact that even good parents often make dubious education choices, choices that ill-serve their kids in the long run. Instead of seeking out schools that maximize children’s future prospects by equipping them with solid skills, knowledge, and (one can hope!) values and behavior patterns, some parents settle for convenient locations or are beguiled by the claims and advertisements of shoddy schools in search of pupils. … Too many of today’s “schools of choice”—charter, private, and district-operated—have mediocre-to-awful outcomes and aren’t racking up solid gains, either, yet they’re full of kids whose parents selected them. No public policy can stop parents from making bad decisions—and a surfeit of policy is paternalistic—but those writing ESA laws (and charter laws, voucher laws, etc.) can boost the odds of good decisions by ensuring that parents regularly receive clear, accurate information on the educational progress of their kids and the performance of their schools, whether those schools are public, private, or some sort of hybrid.^[1]

”

March 1: The debate over homework

How beneficial is homework?

Jay Caspian Kang writes that homework teaches students how to practice and master concepts and activities. Kang also says homework can help prepare children for tasks they might face in their careers.

Elissa Strauss writes that homework creates stress for students and families and makes kids unhappy. Strauss says income inequality makes homework too competitive and that homework contributes to unhealthy feelings of inadequacy.

The Movement to End Homework Is Wrong | Jay Caspian Kang, The New York Times

“

As a parent, I would rather my daughter not get stuck doing the sort of pointless homework I would occasionally assign, but I also think there’s a lot of value in saying, ‘Hey, a lot of work you’re going to end up doing in your life is pointless, so why not just get used to it?’ … When you break it all down, the amount of class mobility our education system can grind out each year falls well short of what most people expect. … But there’s a defense of homework that doesn’t really have much to do with class mobility, equality or any sense of reinforcing the notion of meritocracy. It’s one that became quite clear to me when I was a teacher: Kids need to learn how to practice things. Homework, in many cases, is the only ritualized thing they have to do every day. Even if we could perfectly equalize opportunity in school and empower all students not to be encumbered by the weight of their socioeconomic status or ethnicity, I’m not sure what good it would do if the kids didn’t know how to do something relentlessly, over and over again, until they perfected it.^[1]

”

Your kid is right, homework is pointless. Here’s what you should do instead. | Elissa Strauss, CNN

“

Feeling overwhelmed is a defining trait of today’s parents and caregivers. We have too much to do, our kids have too much to do, and leisure and happiness are the prices we pay for it. … It can feel scary to slow down. Rising income inequality has turned parenting into a competitive sport. It’s a winner-takes-all world and we want our kids to be the winners — unhappy, stressed-out winners. There is so much out there telling your children they need to do more and be more, and that whatever they think is enough is most definitely not enough. This means that parents and caregivers provide what is likely kids’ only shot at learning about leisure and togetherness. The overwhelming message from decades of research has found these are the main ingredients to happiness and well-being. Getting rid of homework is a relatively simple way to combat this high-stakes problem. It gives parents and caregivers the opportunity to teach their children these essential – albeit systematically ignored and undervalued – skills.^[1]

”

February 22: The debate over the whole language and phonics-based approaches to reading instruction

How should schools teach reading? Two methods include the whole language and phonics approaches.

Phonics teaches students to decipher words exclusively based on letter-sound correspondences. Whole language teaches students to look at other cues—such as other words in a sentence or page illustrations—to help them work out meanings.

Nicholas Kristof writes that the whole language approach is ineffective and distracts from the development of a strong foundation of phonemic awareness. Kristof says the lax focus on phonics in schools explains why two-thirds of fourth graders are not proficient readers. Kristoff says evidence and studies support phonics over whole language.

Katina Zammit writes that the whole language can make reading easier, more enjoyable, and more natural for children. Zammit says that while phonics-based decoding is a good starting point, it is natural for readers of all ages to look at context clues to help discern the meanings (and even the pronunciations) of certain words or phrases.

Two-Thirds of Kids Struggle to Read, and We Know How to Fix It | Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times

“

One explanation gaining ground is that, with the best of intentions, we grown-ups have bungled the task of teaching kids to read. There is growing evidence from neuroscience and careful experiments that the United States has adopted reading strategies that just don’t work very well and that we haven’t relied enough on a simple starting point — helping kids learn to sound out words with phonics. … I spent much of the 1980s and 1990s as a New York Times correspondent in East Asia, and children there (including mine) learned to read through phonics and phonetic alphabets: hiragana in Japan, bopomofo in Taiwan, pinyin in China and hangul in South Korea. Then I returned with my family to the United States in 1999, and I found that even reading was political: Republicans endorsed phonics, so I was expected as a good liberal to roll my eyes. … I became intrigued by the failures in reading after listening to a riveting six-part podcast, “Sold a Story,” that argues passionately that the education establishment ignored empirical evidence and unintentionally harmed children. … What’s clear is that when two-thirds of American kids are not proficient at reading, we’re failing the next generation. We can fix this, imperfectly, if we’re relentlessly empirical and focus on the evidence.^[1]

”

Reading is more than sounding out words and decoding. That’s why we use the whole language approach to teaching it | Katina Zammit, The Conversation

“

The whole language approach provides children learning to read with more than one way to work out unfamiliar words. They can begin with decoding—breaking the word into its parts and trying to sound them out and then blend them together. This may or may not work. They can also look at where the word is in the sentence and consider what word most likely would come next based on what they have read so far. They can look beyond the word to see if the rest of the sentence can assist to decode the word and pronounce it. We do not read texts one word at a time. We make best guesses as we read and learn to read. We learn from our errors. Sometimes these errors are not that significant—does it matter if I read Sydenham as "SID-EN-HAM" or "SID-N-AM"? Perhaps not. Does it matter that I can decode the word "wind" but don't pronounce the two differently in "the wind was too strong to wind the sail"? Yes, it probably does. Teaching children to read or to see reading with a focus on phonics and phonemic awareness gives them the illusion "proper" reading is mere decoding and blending. In fact, it has been argued this can put children off reading when entering school.^[1]

”

February 15: The debate over notifying parents about gender transitions in schools

State and local policies differ on whether school officials and teachers should notify parents if their child is socially transitioning their gender identity (such as using different pronouns or names) in the classroom.

The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board writes that parents have a right to know if their child is socially transitioning at school. The Board says teachers and administrators should contact child welfare officials if they suspect child abuse related to gender transitions but that risks of abuse do not justify schools keeping information about children from parents.

Michelle Goldberg writes transgender students need privacy and autonomy to discern their gender identities and schools should be safe places for children and teens to experiment. Goldberg says policies requiring schools to inform parents of social transitions can harm transgender students who do not have supportive families.

Parents of trans kids have a right to know | The Editorial Board, The Dallas Morning News

“

Sadly, there are cases in which students may face the threat of abuse at home for disclosing their gender identity. If there is a fear a child could come to harm over information provided to a parent, the school should involve child welfare authorities. That should not stand as a reason to avoid parental disclosure as a matter of policy or practice. It is not abuse for parents to decide to call a child by the name they gave her, or use pronouns that align with her biological sex. … But it is chilling to think that a school would lock a parent out of crucial knowledge about his or her own child. The issue of parental communication is just common sense: Parents have the right to know everything the school knows about their child, from grades to health.^[1]

”

Trans Kids Deserve Private Lives, Too | Michelle Goldberg, The New York Times

“

Teenagers deserve a measure of privacy and autonomy to work out their identities, gender or otherwise, even if some of their choices and decisions seem like bad ideas to the adults in their lives. Right now, through both lawsuits and state laws, so-called parents’ rights advocates are trying to ensure that schools inform families about changes to their children’s gender identities. The most immediate victims of such policies are trans kids who lack supportive families, and who stand to lose a place where they can safely be themselves outside of their homes. But all adolescents should have space, independent of their parents, to experiment with identity in reversible, nonmedical ways. Such policies can also put absurd burdens on school officials.^[1]

”

February 8: The debate over teaching gun safety in schools

On Jan. 6, 2023, a six-year-old brought a gun to school in Newport News, Va., and shot a teacher. The incident has engendered discussion and debate over the usefulness of school gun safety classes. Last year, the Arizona House passed a bill that would have required a gun safety course for children between grades 6-12. That bill died in the state Senate.

Lindsay Karp writes that gun safety courses in school could better prepare children to handle situations in which they accidentally find a firearm. Karp says she would prefer to live in a world with no guns but that children should learn to protect themselves and live safely in a world with guns.

Laurie Roberts writes that gun safety education is an ineffective way to keep kids safe. She says children should not have to learn to protect themselves and that such courses could make guns seem more appealing to young kids. Roberts also says she thinks such proposals distract from legislation proposing stricter requirements for securing guns at home.

I was against gun safety classes in schools. Newport News, Va., shooting changed my mind. | Lindsay Karp, USA Today

“

[W]hile we hope our children won’t use drugs or have sex at a young age, we still provide them with the knowledge needed to make these safe decisions – in fact, we educate them in hopes they’ll reach an understanding on their own. Why should gun safety be any different? … A bill requiring gun safety education in schools will educate children, like the 6-year-old in Newport News, living with loaded guns – those who might not be receiving the necessary information at home. This education may help to decrease accidental injuries and death by household firearms, and it could prepare children to better handle the emergency of a gun finding its way into the classroom. … If we won’t put our children first, we need to teach them to put themselves first.^[1]

”

Republicans want to mandate that the NRA teach your kids about gun safety | Laurie Roberts, Arizona Republic

“

You know what might actually help keep kids safe? A law that makes it a crime to leave your loaded gun lying around so that your child or the neighbor’s child can pick it up and shoot themselves or someone else. … Instead, we have Nguyen's bill that does nothing but add NRA marketing material to the state school curriculum under the guise of gun safety. I particularly like the student reward stickers, with a picture of Eddie and his "Wing Team" just above that all-important NRA. In fact, the Eddie Eagle program was created in the late 1980s by an NRA lobbyist who was looking to stymie child safety legislation. The best way to keep kids safe, apparently, is not to require adults to act responsibly but to put the onus on kids to protect themselves.^[1]

”

February 1: The debate over Florida’s decision to ban an AP African American studies course

On Jan. 12, the Florida Department of Education rejected an AP African American studies course from being taught in its current form in K-12 schools. You can read our coverage of that story here.

Rich Lowry writes that schools should teach about the Middle Passage, slavery, abolition, segregation, and discrimination against Black people but says the AP course is ideologically one-sided. Lowry cites a section of the course that covers Black queer studies and “shifts sexuality studies towards racial analysis,” according to the curriculum. He says students should not be exposed to what he says is explicitly ideological material in grades K-12.

Renée Graham writes that Florida's rejection of the AP African American studies course is motivated by racism. Graham says the decision promotes white supremacy by deemphasizing the importance of Black experiences, oppression, and accomplishments in the teaching of American history. She says the decision amounts to a “Don’t Say Black” rule, referring to the "Stop the Sexualization of Children Act" that Florida passed in 2022 and which some called the “Don’t Say Gay” bill.

DeSantis is right to reject the woke AP African-American studies curriculum | Rich Lowry, New York Post

“

No reasonable person opposes teaching American history fully and truthfully. (In Florida, the controversial Stop WOKE Act itself stipulates that instructors should teach the history of African peoples, the Middle Passage, the experience of slavery, abolition and the effects of segregation and other forms of discrimination.) The problem is when the curriculum is used as an ideological weapon to inculcate a distorted, one-sided worldview, and here, Florida has the College Board dead to rights. The College Board hasn’t released the pilot curriculum publicly, but, as conservative writer Stanley Kurtz and a publication called The Florida Standard have documented, it really goes off the rails when it addresses contemporary issues. The curriculum presents Black Lives Matter and the reparations movement favorably and recommends the writings of a clutch of writers on the left, from Robin D. G. Kelley to Michelle Alexander, without rejoinder. Bias aside, with the state of American historical and civic knowledge in near-collapse, who thinks high-school students need to be brushing up on “Black Queer Studies”? The curriculum explains that this topic “explores the concept of queer color critique, grounded in Black feminism and intersectionality, as a Black studies lens that shifts sexuality studies towards racial analysis.” Surely, if anyone wants to marinate in this dreck, he or she can wait to do it in college, which specializes in wasting students’ time and spreading ridiculous cant and lies.^[1]

”

Ron DeSantis’s fear of American history | Renée Graham, The Boston Globe

“

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s decision to ban an African American studies course from Florida schools carries the stench of white slaveowners who fought to keep those they enslaved from learning to read and write English. … Those protesting loudest against indoctrination are usually the ones actively promoting it through their own divisive agendas. DeSantis refashioned “woke,” a decades-old Black term for staying vigilant and conscious of racial injustice and inequality, into a coded slur for anything or anyone he doesn’t like, including all things connected to the LGBTQ community. … Crucial to sustaining white supremacy is the erasure not only of Black trauma inflicted by systemic and institutional racism but Black accomplishment, triumph, and contributions. Although it shouldn’t be, “patriotism” has become shorthand for edifying whiteness as this nation’s one true compass. In rejecting the AP course, a college-level class for high school students, the DeSantis administration claimed it “significantly lacks educational value.” A ban wasn’t enough. He had to denigrate the course’s value because it centers Blackness in this nation’s history. It’s not just that DeSantis and other Republican legislators want to keep Black children from seeing their reflection in history. They also want white students force-fed a diet of supremacist propaganda, not unlike those pushed on earlier generations by textbook authors, the media, and popular culture.^[1]

”

January 25: The debate over ChatGPT in schools

ChatGPT is an online artificial intelligence program, released to the public in November 2022, that can respond to questions and requests in a smooth and often convincingly human manner. It can quickly write essays, code, and solve difficult math problems. Media outlets across the world have covered ChatGPT, highlighting the discussions and debates over the use of artificial intelligence programs in business, education, and beyond.

Educators have responded to ChatGPT in varying ways. Districts in Los Angeles and New York City have already banned the service out of a concern that it could assist students in cheating. Other districts, like Chicago Public Schools, have not banned ChatGPT.

Angela Duckworth and Lyle Ungar write that schools should not rush to ban ChatGPT in classrooms. They say such bans are impossible to enforce and students will still find ways to use the program if schools try to prohibit it. Duckworth and Unger say schools and teachers should instead work with students to develop assignments that incorporate ChatGPT but still require deeper critical thinking from students.

The Chicago Tribune Editorial Board writes that schools should act quickly to ban ChatGPT in classrooms until educators develop a clear idea of how it might be incorporated into lessons without hurting students. The Editorial Board says allowing artificial intelligence programs in schools could tempt students to cheat since ChatGPT responses can sometimes pass plagiarism checks and teacher scrutiny.

Op-Ed: Don’t ban chatbots in classrooms — use them to change how we teach | Angela Duckworth and Lyle Ungar, Los Angeles Times

“

Banning such use of artificial intelligence from the classroom is an understandable but nearsighted response. Instead, we must find a way forward in which such technologies complement, rather than substitute for, student thinking. One day soon, GPT and similar AI models could be to essay writing what calculators are to calculus. … Banning ChatGPT is like prohibiting students from using Wikipedia or spell-checkers. Even if it were the “right” thing to do in principle, it is impossible in practice. Students will find ways around the ban, which of course will necessitate a further defensive response from teachers and administrators, and so on. It’s hard to believe that an escalating arms race between digitally fluent teenagers and their educators will end in a decisive victory for the latter. … [W]e must also figure out how to do something new: How to use tools like GPT to catalyze, not cannibalize, deeper thinking. Just like a Google search, GPT often generates text that is fluent and plausible — but wrong. So using it requires the same cognitive heavy lifting that writing does: deciding what questions to ask, formulating a thesis, asking more questions, generating an outline, picking which points to elaborate and which to drop, looking for facts to support the arguments, finding appropriate references to back them up and polishing the text.^[1]

”

Editorial: Did your kid write that essay? Or did ChatGPT? | The Editorial Board, Chicago Tribune

“

CPS is right to review the merits of student and teacher use of ChatGPT, but it’s wrong in not taking the same route as New York and Los Angeles. Cheating is as synonymous with classrooms as chalk and erasers. Yesteryear techniques ranged from crib sheets cupped in a student’s palms to a simple peek over the shoulder of a classmate. Today’s digital age takes the potential for cheating to new levels, and ChatGPT makes it far too easy for struggling students to lean on AI-generated writing in place of what comes out of their own heads. What’s especially worrisome is that ChatGPT’s syntax appears to be polished and natural enough to elude not just anti-plagiarism software but even the most seasoned educator’s scrutiny. We’re not Luddites, and we believe that technology must always be given space to advance the educational experience at every level, from preschool to university. ChatGPT may well have undeniable utility in a variety of classroom circumstances. First, however, school districts must determine how to best use ChatGPT without allowing its exploitation of student learning. Only then should it make its way into classrooms. … ChatGPT, and the myriad other manifestations of AI, should be welcomed for what they are — game-changers that help us live better lives. But in classrooms, care must always be taken to ensure that a new means of educating helps rather than harms.^[1]

”

January 18: The debate over using school suspensions to discipline students

Should schools suspend students for misbehavior?

Max Eden writes that suspensions protect other students and ensure a focused learning environment. He says trying to reduce racial disparities through non-suspension policies can result in exposing students to more violence. Eden also says that while suspensions can harm students, disruptive peers who are not removed from classrooms can harm other students and their ability to focus and learn.

Linda Stamato and Sandy Jaffee write that suspensions harm students and disproportionately affect children of color and children from lower-income families. Stamato and Jaffee say suspensions do not reduce bad behavior and that most behavioral problems are best dealt with at school. Stamato and Jaffee say that most disputes are resolvable and that faculty should try to help students better process their feelings. They call the in-school mediation process restorative justice and say it can reduce suspensions and promote racial equity.

In Defense of Suspensions | Max Eden, Education Week

“

[I]f we pursue wholesale policy changes on the assumption racial bias is solely responsible for the disparity (the assumption behind the Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” guidance on discipline) then we run a strong risk of overcorrecting. Rapid overhauls of the entire system might well breed rampant disorder in schools—and in places where that approach has been taken, the results aren’t looking pretty. … [W]hile claims of the benefits of not suspending disruptive students are likely oversold, the harm done to students by disruptive peers is certainly underappreciated. … It’s fair to question whether suspensions are truly the best tool to maintain classroom order. But it’s important to recognize that any major policy change is likely to have tradeoffs, harming some students even as it helps others. … We simply don’t have enough data to evaluate the effects of discipline changes in most American school districts. That means that the policymakers pushing suspension-reduction reforms are doing so quite literally ignorant of the consequences of their actions for poor and minority students who are just trying to behave, learn, and have a fair opportunity at life.^[1]

”

Suspending students isn’t the answer. Restorative justice programs in schools are a better solution. | Opinion | Linda Stamato and Sandy Jaffee, NJ.com

“

Suspensions raise a number of issues, not least how to deal with disruptive behavior, equitably and effectively, to understand its causes, and to identify and address conditions that may be contributing factors. The critical question is this: Does removing students from school reduce the incidence of aberrant behavior? The short answer is no. Suspended students are more likely to be suspended more than once, to drop out of school, moreover, and to end up in court accused of crimes. And yet, schools have relied on suspension as the primary means of dealing with discipline problems. … Restorative justice attempts to reach beyond punitive measures to solve problems before they escalate and threaten the fabric of the school community. … Critical in these efforts is the recognition that students with behavioral problems are unlikely to be helped by removing them from school and providing no support services or establishing any conditions to be met before they return to classes. Conflict, after all, involves bullying, disrespect, harassment and fights often mask prejudice, attitudes, hurts and fears that contribute to tensions that clearly require attention. While conflict may be natural, schools need to provide constructive avenues for students’ expression and management.^[1]

”

January 11: The debate over four-day school weeks

On Dec. 13, 2022, the Independence School District in Missouri became the largest district in the state (with about 14,000 students) to adopt a four-day school week for all grade levels. Independence School District is the 557th largest district by enrollment in the country. Officials in the nearby St. Joseph School District (with more than 10,000 students) are reportedly considering the change as well.

Paul Hill writes that four-day school weeks do not save money because teachers, administrators, and most professional staff receive the same annual pay. Hill says teachers and students are more likely to lose focus in longer school days and that four-day school weeks worsen learning losses from sick days and other absences. He also says four-day weeks disproportionately harm lower-income and minority students with fewer resources at home and hurt the rural school districts that have tried the policy.

Lucy Rycroft-Smith writes about Colorado school districts that had statistically significant improvements in math scores after switching to a four-day school week. Rycroft-Smith says four-day weeks reduce stress for students and give them more time for play, extracurricular learning, and daytime appointments (like doctor’s visits) that would normally cause absences from school. She also says the policy gives teachers more time to plan lessons, collaborate, and seek professional development.

Beware the Four-Day School-Week Trap | Paul Hill, Education Week

“

All teachers and most professional staff get the same annual pay for the four longer days, with the savings coming only from that fifth day of busing costs, utility bills, and wages of some support staff, such as those in custodial or food services. … Supporters of the four-day week assert that the longer days make up for the missed fifth day. But teachers and students, especially the younger children, may not work as effectively at the end of such long days, thus reducing overall learning. Low-income and minority students, who generally have fewer learning resources at home, stand to lose disproportionately from the loss of a day in school. High school students assigned homework every school day will have one less evening of preparation per week. And days lost to illness or weather will have a greater impact on learning time. Nobody seriously argues that less time in school will increase student learning. And here’s the rub: The hundreds of four-day-week districts in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oklahoma, and Oregon are overwhelmingly rural districts, which, on average, fall below state means on student achievement, graduation rates, and college attendance. A policy that just holds student results to previous levels will not expand students’ college options or help communities attract new businesses and jobs.^[1]

”

What a difference a day makes: the argument for a four-day school week | Lucy Rycroft-Smith, The Guardian

“

The four-day school week for students in Colorado was introduced as a cost-saving measure, and the improvements in academic results were the opposite of what had been anticipated, Walker explains. … But the results show that, even for these young students, a four-day school week had a statistically significant positive impact on maths scores (around 7% extra on average), and a possible positive impact on reading scores (although this was not deemed statistically significant by the study’s testing standards). … [A]s someone who taught for 10 years, I can certainly see the potential benefits. It would give young people some much-needed breathing space and, in schools where the fifth day was used for extracurricular activities, students wouldn’t have to choose between academic study and other pursuits. … The benefits for teachers should not be overlooked either. Those who took part in the study reported greater efficiency and better collaboration when they used the fifth day to plan together, with some schools even finding that staff turnover was reduced. … Perhaps most exciting is the potential to use the fifth day to provide good-quality continued professional development and support for teachers where it is (sometimes desperately) needed.^[1]

”

January 4: The debate over retesting

Should teachers allow students to retake tests? Today, we’ll look at perspectives on both sides of that question.

Anthony Palm writes that policies allowing students to take tests one time and that penalize late work are best for student learning. He says these policies motivate students, prevent student procrastination, and give teachers more time to plan lessons.

Thomas R. Guskey writes that retesting should be a standard process of assessment, correction, and reassessment. Guskey says retesting motivates students to improve with a second chance at success and helps to prevent struggling students from falling behind.

The Case for Not Allowing Test Retakes | Anthony Palma, Edutopia

“

Deadlines and consequences for late work provide scaffolding for students to learn self-control. These policies provide the extrinsic motivation students need to build study habits and time management skills. In my experience, reform policies rely too heavily on students already having strong self-control and intrinsic motivation. … Retake policies also allow students to dig themselves into “late holes” that cause preventable stress and anxiety. My math class builds sequentially: Mastery in early units helps students be successful in the following units. In my experience, traditional policies motivate students to maximize their learning in the first unit, which helps them on every later unit. … Reform policies can be effective if the teacher has time to implement them well. However, every minute writing and grading retakes or grading long-overdue work is a minute that I’m not planning effective and creative instruction, grading current work so students receive timely feedback, or communicating with parents.^[1]

”

Why Should We Allow Students to Retake Assessments? | Thomas R. Guskey, Education Week

“

But assessments alone do little to improve student learning or teaching quality. What counts is what happens after the assessments. Just as regularly checking your weight or blood pressure does little to improve your health if you do nothing with the information, what matters most with formative assessments is what students and teachers do with the results… To bring improvement, Bloom stressed formative assessments must be followed by high-quality, corrective instruction designed to remedy whatever learning errors the assessments identified. … When the correctives are completed after a class period or two, Bloom recommended students who engaged in correctives be given a second, parallel formative assessment for two reasons. First, the second assessment helps teachers determine if the correctives were effective in helping students remedy their learning difficulties. Second, and perhaps more important, it gives students a second chance at success and, hence, has great motivational value.^[1]

”

2022

December 21: The debate over school vouchers and whether they hurt or help rural communities

School vouchers and education savings accounts give parents money to spend on education at public schools, tuition at private schools, tutors, homeschooling curricula, and other educational materials. Today, we’ll look at discussions about whether the policy would help or hurt students in rural school districts.

Corey DeAngelis writes that school voucher and education savings account programs work well in rural areas. DeAngelis says competition between schools benefits students and families and does not reduce the quantity or quality of educational resources. He also says teachers unions are more powerful in rural areas relative to other political organizations and says they are responsible for arguments against vouchers in those areas.

Jill Long Thompson writes that school voucher and education savings account programs are bad for students and hurt rural schools more than urban schools. Thompson says such programs divert resources away from public schools that already lack the resources needed to provide quality education. Instead, these programs lead to the creation of a variety of low-quality private schools. She says rural public schools need more funding, not more competition.

The Little Red Schoolhouse Could Do With a Little Competition | Corey DeAngelis, Wall Street Journal

“

Teachers unions and their allies are arguing that giving families choices in education would devastate their state’s rural public schools. This claim is neither new nor persuasive. … These same politicians also claim that rural constituents wouldn’t benefit from school choice because the local public school is their only option. These arguments can’t both be true. If rural families didn’t have any other options, public schools wouldn’t suffer. And if rural public schools are as great as the teachers unions say they are, they would have no need to worry about a little competition. The truth is that rural families benefit from school choice as much as any others do. More options are better than none, and supply isn’t fixed. If you put taxpayer-funded education dollars in the hands of parents, new private education providers will sprout up to meet demand. … Despite a growth in private options, the mass exodus from rural public schools that many have warned about hasn’t happened. In fact, 25 of the 28 studies on the topic find that private-school choice leads to better outcomes in public schools, from increased test scores to reduced absenteeism and suspensions. Competition is a rising tide that lifts all boats. … [G]iving families more options doesn’t result in a net loss of jobs; school choice simply allows families to determine where those jobs are concentrated.^[1]

”

Vouchers can't make rural schools great again | Jill Long Thompson, The Journal Gazette

“

For rural communities, in particular, voucher programs create a business model that simply will not work. Running a rural school is very challenging because the resources are always limited, and oftentimes scarce. Vouchers encourage the creation of small private schools. But, we don't need more schools in rural communities; we need more resources to strengthen the schools we have. Increasing the number of schools means increasing the overhead, which is why vouchers dilute resources even further. A school voucher program is the education policy equivalent of a county highway program that would give residents money to build little private roads anywhere they want. That would not only be costly and inefficient; it would not serve the community's transportation needs. One must look no further than our own state, with its aggressive voucher program, to see the problems it causes for small rural school systems. Since 2011, Indiana has shifted $520 million into the state voucher program. Unfortunately, many of the schools receiving the vouchers have not performed as well as the public schools that lost funding because of the vouchers. A voucher program is not the solution to the challenges facing public education.^[1]

”

December 14: The debate over teachers’ union leadership

In a recent interview with Semafor, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo criticized the leadership of teachers’ unions and said, “The most dangerous person in the world is Randi Weingarten. It’s not a close call.” Weingarten is the president of the American Federation of Teachers, the second-largest teachers’ union in America. This week, we’ll look at responses to Pompeo’s statement.

Ira Stoll writes that Weingarten and other teachers’ union leaders are not as powerful or influential as Pompeo says. Stoll says that union leadership represents members and cannot force union policies top-down. He also says responsibility for building curriculum in many states and localities falls to state officials and school board members, not teachers’ unions.

Natalya Murakhver writes that teachers’ union leaders, including Weingarten, opposed the interests of parents and students and played a large role in lobbying for policies that kept schools closed and students masked during the coronavirus pandemic. Murakhver says such policies contributed to lower math and reading achievement.

Is Randi Weingarten Really “The Most Dangerous Person in the World”? | Ira Stoll, Education Next

“

On the substance, Pompeo is off base in a lot of important ways. He singles out Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, by name without mentioning the president of the larger National Education Association. He doesn’t mention that rather than imposing her own views, top-down, on the union, Weingarten is elected to represent union members, some of whom are far to her left, and most of whom may be more invested in pay and pension issues than the substance of the social studies curriculum. Weingarten didn’t invent the 1619 Project; Nikole Hannah-Jones did. Of all the factors influencing education outcomes in America, teacher-union political power is only one among many. Plenty of jurisdictions with strong unions also have strong math and reading test scores. And in plenty of other places, decisions about textbooks and curriculum are made largely not by the unions but by Republican state and local elected officials. The governments that collapsed most dramatically in recent memory were Communist ones, such as Poland and the Soviet Union, where workers were forbidden from organizing labor unions that were independent of government control.^[1]

”

Mike Pompeo is right: Randi Weingarten IS a danger to our children | Natalya Murakhver, The New York Post

“

The pandemic lockdowns pulled back the curtain and exposed us to the harsh truth. Suddenly, as parents found themselves fighting on the frontlines to reopen our nation’s schools, we were faced with an unfamiliar — and to many of my fellow liberal Democrats unexpected — adversary. While we may have previously believed we share the same values — commitment to diversity, freedom of choice and all basic civil liberties — it turned out the fake values the unions espoused were not what we thought. Furthermore, they held all the cards while parents were left holding their inconsolable children. … So you’ll understand why Mike Pompeo’s comment that Randi is the most dangerous person in the world resonated with me. Randi and her fellow union leaders are the ones who kept our schools closed, our children masked and our communities divided during the darkest times of our lives. They had countless opportunities to lead, to help to unite. But they chose to destroy instead. The result? Math tests scores decreased by the largest amount ever. Decades were taken off reading scores. The union, meanwhile, wants fewer tests, less accountability, and an overall lowering of academic standards.^[1]

”

December 7: The debate over homework

Does homework help?

Geoff Johnson writes that homework is ineffective. Johnson says homework is not equitable because only some students can work in positive learning environments. He also says homework often causes students to practice problems incorrectly and can cause students to become overworked, unhealthy, and stressed.

Eva Moskowitz writes that homework can reduce educational inequity and help students understand that they don’t need an adult to help them learn. Moskovitz says homework assignments communicate to students that they should be learning outside of school and are capable of learning independently.

Geoff Johnson: Piling homework on kids is a mistake that undermines work/life balance | Geoff Johnson, Times Columnist

“

Even before I realized years ago that my students were not deriving much, if anything, of educational value from homework, I could never grade homework assignments equitably, because each student’s homework was being attempted in home environments that could be vastly different. As we discovered during the pandemic shutdowns, and the subsequent reliance on online lessons, education at home is not conducted on an even playing field. Some parents simply did not have space available at home to set up quiet spaces where students could focus on their work uninterrupted by the distractions common to every household. Even if that was possible, homework that was intended to facilitate practice, such as working on solutions to math problems or reviewing a poem or prose piece, could result in a student simply practising mistakes over and over again. In other words, class work being extended into a non-learning environment with no support from the teacher who assigned the work was defeating the gains accomplished in class that day. Then class time needs to be devoted to correcting individual homework mistakes before progress can be made on that day’s lesson. If work/life balance is important for adults, it’s just as important for kids from kindergarten to Grade 12.^[1]

”

Why homework matters | Eva Moskowitz, The Fordham Institute

“

It is important to remember that kids only spend a fraction of their time in school. The learning that does or does not take place in the many hours outside of school has a monumental effect on children’s academic success and is a root cause of educational inequity. The pandemic gave us a stark demonstration of this reality. Achievement gaps widened between affluent and low-income children not only because low-income students received less in-person or high-quality online instruction during the years of disrupted school, but also because children of college-educated and affluent parents were already less dependent on schools for learning. Affluent children are far more likely to have the privilege of tutors or other types of supplementary instruction, as well as a family culture of reading, and opportunities to travel, visit museums, and more. Homework is a powerful tool to help narrow these inequities, giving children from all backgrounds the opportunity to keep learning when they are not in school. … Homework cultivates these mindsets and habits. Indeed, when teachers don’t assign homework, it reflects an unconscious conviction that kids can’t learn without adults. Kids internalize this message and come to believe they need their teacher to gain knowledge. In reality, they are more than capable of learning all sorts of things on their own. Discovering this fact can be both incredibly exciting and deeply empowering for them.^[1]

”

November 30: The debate over cellphones in classrooms

Student cellphone policies in schools vary across the country. In states like California, Maine, and Virginia, districts have banned most student cellphone use during class.

Erica Berry writes that schools should try to teach students how to use their cellphones effectively and self-regulate their cellphone use. Berry says teaching such skills will better equip students for the adult world than a blanket cellphone ban.

Steve Koppman writes that cellphones reduce concentration and impede students’ abilities to learn. Koppman says banning cellphone use in schools will help students learn how to function without digital media, and practice direct in-person communication.

Banning Phones in Class? Not So Fast | Erica Berry, Wired

“

[T]he case for eliminating devices to create safe learning spaces can seem like a no-brainer. But if we’re trying to prepare students for the messy, wider world, administrators need to put less energy into figuring out how to implement bans, and more into helping teenagers learn how to foster balance and focus while surrounded by the siren call of their devices. Popular discourse holds students responsible for their tech addictions, and if not them, then their parents and teachers for failing to enforce better rules. But these are systemic problems, and they demand systemic solutions. It’s time to shift our collective gaze of accountability outward—not with a one-size-fits-all device ban, but with a renewed investment in digital literacy, ethics, and well-being. … A full-out device ban suggests the cat can be put back in the bag, but to imagine a future of unmonitored adulthood for my high schoolers is to realize that I’d do them a bigger favor by teaching them ways to train the cat. … Students should enter the adult world understanding not only how their devices are addictive but their own addictive tendencies.^[1]

”

Opinion: Why we should ban kids’ smartphone use in school | Steve Koppman, Mercury News

“

We have enough research data to know young people’s development benefits from time away from an all-consuming internet, which absorbs attention and obstructs learning. Smartphones impede students’ concentration and engagement with people in their presence — arguably schools’ key purposes. … Learning to get along without digital media, to depend directly on themselves and each other without electronic distraction several uninterrupted hours a day, could be the most important training we can give our young people before sending them into an uncharted and potentially uncontrollable technological future. Banning smartphones in schools is NOT a Luddite plot to outlaw the devices or quash technology but a way to immerse young students, for a big chunk of their early lives, in the world of direct communication and physical reality. To benefit from what is inarguably great about technology — potentials to improve health, increase longevity and alleviate disability, for example — we need some control over it, including: Stop letting it bring up our kids.^[1]

”

November 23: The debate over government-funded school lunches

Colorado passed a ballot measure—discussed in our review of education-related measures below—on Nov. 8 to expand government-funded lunches to all public school students. President Joe Biden (D) also proposed expanding funding for school lunches in his National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health on Sept. 28.

Baylen Linnekin writes that children from poorer families already receive discounted or free school meals. He says expanding government-funded school meals would not reduce food insecurity because it would mainly offer food to children from wealthier families. Linnekin also says the National School Lunch Program provides substandard food that even food insecure children will throw out, wasting money and food.

William Lambers writes that expanding the National School Lunch and Breakfast programs to make school lunches free for all children would reduce food insecurity and help families. Lambers says universal school lunches would save governments time and money that are spent determining which children are eligible for free or discounted school meals and prevent low-income students from falling through cracks in the bureaucratic eligibility determination process.

There's No Good Reason To Expand Government-Funded School Lunches | Baylen Linnekin, Reason

“

During most of the Covid pandemic, the USDA made universal free lunches available to public school systems around the country. Even after that lapsed, many if not most kids in Colorado (and every other state) whose families can't afford to provide them with lunches or lunch money were already eligible to receive free- or reduced-price school lunches under the federal government's National School Lunch Program. … I have difficulty understanding how giving free food to kids whose parents are millionaires helps students facing real food insecurity. And I'm not alone. Earlier this year, a longtime school lunchroom worker in Michigan called universal school meals "a 'waste' because, too often, students whose parents could afford to pay for their meals would throw it in the trash." But even hungry kids toss their government-funded school lunches in the rubbish bin. … Indeed, the National School Lunch Program is a disaster. It wastes untold quantities of money and food.^[1]

”

William Lambers: We need to be passionate about free school meals | William Lambers, The Hartford Courant

“

We need to be passionate about free school meals for every child, instead of just accepting the status quo of underfunded and incomplete school meal programs. … At home in America we should make the National School Lunch and Breakfast programs free to all children. This would eliminate the costly and time consuming administrative work of determining who is eligible for the free or reduced price meals. Providing free meals to all would prevent any needy children potentially falling through the crack of bureaucracy and not receiving meals. Providing free meals for all school children would give America’s families a big boost. We give corporations plenty of perks, why not families too. … If every child were to receive free meals, we would improve the health of the country and reduce poverty.^[1]

”

November 16: The debate over declining National Assessment of Educational Progress scores

On Oct. 24, the National Center for Education Statistics released scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The assessment, which is congressionally mandated, is often referred to as the Nation’s Report Card. The assessment documented a decline in both reading and math scores among fourth and eighth graders in most states. The national reading proficiency average came in at 31% for eighth graders and 33% for fourth graders. In math, 36% of fourth graders and 26% of eighth graders had proficient scores. All of the national scores were down from the previous report in 2019.

U.S. Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) writes that school closures because of COVID-19 caused many students, especially lower-income students and students of color, to fall behind academically between 2019 and 2022. Banks says teacher’s unions continued lobbying for school closures even after the CDC released guidance on remote learning risks. He also says the Biden administration, other Democrats, and teacher’s unions need to be held accountable for learning loss before progress will be possible.

The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board writes that the COVID pandemic disrupted learning and caused some predictable learning losses, but says underinvestment in schools also contributed to declining NAEP scores. The Editorial Board says the NAEP data suggests schools need more resources to provide extended instruction time and offer tutoring programs for struggling students. The Editorial Board also says California, which kept schools closed longer than most states, experienced smaller NAEP declines than the national average.

Blame Democrats and union bosses for failing school report card | Jim Banks, Fox News

“

We know how we got here: Students in public K-12 schools in the United States have had to learn remotely in some form or another for nearly three years. Forcing kids to sit at home in front of a computer screen has been disastrous because kids and teens require the ability to watch, listen, explore, experiment and ask questions in order to learn. This requires their physical presence in classroom with a teacher, surrounded by peers. For those of us who were sounding the alarm from the beginning about remote learning, these results, while not surprising, are no less alarming. The CDC, long an avid proponent of forcing insane COVID-19 restrictions and mandates on Americans even when they’d been proven ineffective, to their credit admitted last spring "[virtual learning] might present more risks than in-person instruction related to child and parental mental and emotional health and some health-supporting behaviors." … Powerful teachers’ unions like the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) continued lobbying the Biden administration and Democrats to keep remote learning in place. In blue cities like Chicago, New York and Milwaukee for example, union efforts to keep remote learning in place were particularly forceful.^[1]

”

Learning loss is bad everywhere, and demands immediate action | The Editorial Board, The Los Angeles Times

“

The results are hardly surprising given the unprecedented disruption in schooling caused by the pandemic, but they offer concrete proof that K-12 students need more focused attention and resources in the form of tutoring or extended instruction time, depending on specific circumstances. More than just a snapshot in time of how students are faring, the results offer clues for educators, policymakers and parents of how we can better help students. The larger declines in math could mean that students need more support, perhaps one-on-one tutoring or more teacher instruction. … U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said the poor performance isn’t just the result of school closures during the pandemic but also a reflection of “decades of underinvestment in our students.” … It’s clear that a multi-pronged approach to boosting student performance will be necessary, but state and local educators and policymakers should ensure that decisions about how to allocate resources are driven by data and other evidence. … The data released this week show the urgency of remediating the learning loss exacerbated by the pandemic. Now that educators have the funds and the data to help guide them, they should use that money wisely. Our children’s future depends on it^[1]

”

November 2: The debate over community schools

The Biden Administration’s 2023 budget proposal included a plan to spend $468 million on the Full-Service Community Schools program. In 2022, the administration spent $68 million on the program. During the Obama and Trump administrations, the federal government spent between $5 million and $17 million on the program annually. The spending increases have been a topic of debate in recent years.

Full-service community schools offer many types of services to students, such as health care, mental health counseling, nutrition assistance, and programs that involve students in their communities.

Stanley Kurtz writes that community schools promote critical race theory and leftist political activism. He also says they are an attempt by progressives to block conservative efforts to promote school choice.

Raymond Pierce writes that community schools are good public investments that help promote what he calls “education equity.” He says students can only reach their peak potential when their physical, mental, and emotional needs are met, and that community schools meet those needs in poorer school districts.

Stealth CRT in Biden’s Budget | Stanley Kurtz, National Review

“

Few Americans know what community schools are. When first explained, the idea may even sound harmless. In reality, unfortunately, more community schools will mean a whole lot more critical race theory — not to mention more school-sponsored leftist political activism. … Progressives hope to convert as many low-performing public schools as possible into community schools. They see this as a way to block conservative attempts to create alternatives to poorly performing public schools via charters, choice, and competition for enrollment based on a school’s academic performance as measured by tests. Unions especially love community schools because they prevent teachers at low-performing public schools from experiencing consequences for meager academic results. Conservatives, on the other hand, are suspicious of community schools precisely because they de-emphasize academics in favor of social services. At their worst, as we’ll see below, community schools substitute progressive political indoctrination for academics. Teachers give up on excellence, and progressives get an army of student converts to boot.^[1]

”

Community Schools: A Game Changer For Public Education? | Raymond Pierce, Forbes

“

While they may appear new to some, community schools have been a part of the American education system for more than 100 years. Almost since their inception, they have been a central strategy in establishing education equity. As we approach a post-COVID reset of our public education system, community schools must be one of the models we expand. They serve not only as hubs for high-quality education, but also places that support communities. They meet local community needs and help to ensure that the whole child is addressed in education by providing what are known as “wrap-around services,” such as health care, afterschool tutoring, school meals, and more. … Many people may not understand why a school should also function as a health center. The answer is not complicated – a student is better able to receive a high-quality education and the opportunities that go with it, if they are ready and able to learn. That means having enough to eat, a safe place to live, and a healthy body and mind. … Clearly, this is an approach that requires significant resources, but studies show that community schools are a good investment and an effective school improvement strategy.^[1]

”

October 26: The debate over critical race theory and whether it makes white students feel guilty about their skin color

A recent subtopic of the debate over critical race theory about whether the ideas of critical race theory cause children in schools to feel guilt over the color of their skin.

Jonathan Butcher and Mike Gonzalez write that when CRT is used to develop K-12 curricula it can teach white children that they contribute to white supremacy because of their skin color, even if their actions are not racist. The authors say ideas of systemic oppression that separate children into categories of oppressed people and oppressors based on skin color violate federal law and hurt white and non-white students.

Christie Nold and Ursula Wolfe-Rocca write that some history is ugly and can naturally cause some white children to feel guilty about their skin color. The authors say such lessons are not inherently discriminatory and should still be taught. They say teachers can help students work through complex feelings of guilt and help them channel their feelings into supporting what the authors call racial justice.

Keep Racist Critical Race Theory Ideology Out of K-12 Classrooms | Jonathan Butcher and Mike Gonzalez, The Heritage Foundation

“

How would you feel if your child came home from school and said her teacher had told her that everything that happens in the world is “racist” and that she’s part of the problem because of the color of her skin? … Examples such as these are common in K-12 schools today. When educators treat students differently because of their skin color or say children are guilty of oppression because of their race, it violates existing law. It should go without saying, but such dogma is also dispiriting for all children, white or non-white. … State officials, local school board members, and educators have the power—and the right—to prevent this new material from telling students that there is no America, only tribes competing for power. Anyone living in a nation alongside people from different ethnic backgrounds should take seriously the issues of race and equality under the law, but Americans also need to recognize the difference between separate racist acts and a legal system stacked against individuals from certain ethnicities. … Racist acts are deplorable and should be condemned. Yet, declaring Americans to be systemically racist today is a sign of disrespect to those brave souls who marched in civil rights demonstrations in the 1960s, fought to defend our way of life overseas, or are protecting our streets and communities now.^[1]

”

Why the narrative that critical race theory ‘makes white kids feel guilty’ is a lie | Christie Nold and Ursula Wolfe-Rocca, The Hechinger Report

“

To avoid confronting this lie, the narrative of history lessons making white kids feel guilty has taken hold. Many of the recent “anti-CRT” bills ban any curricula that could lead an individual to “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex.” A Heritage Foundation commentary endorsing the laws asked, “How would you feel if your child came home from school and said her teacher had told her that everything that happens in the world is ‘racist’ and that she’s part of the problem because of the color of her skin?” The universal language here only thinly veils the assumed white subject for whom this concern is whipped up. …[F]or those of us who are white, we need to know that when we emphatically reject the narrative of the guilty white child by telling our stories, the right’s lie will be obvious: Their concern is not that children will feel bad when learning about the fight for racial justice, but that children will feel good. Young white people with the capacity to act in solidarity with movements for justice are dangerous to white supremacy and its guardians. Those are the real stakes — not white children feeling guilty, but white children armed with truth, history and a righteous desire to work with others to change the world.^[1]

”

October 19: The debate over who should decide which books should be available in schools

What books students should be able to access in school libraries has long been a topic of debate. One important question in that debate is who should be able to make such decisions.

Hayes Brown says parental campaigns against books and school board decisions to remove material from school libraries are harmful, limiting, and insulting to children and teens. He also says school boards should be more resistant to calls from parents to remove books from school libraries because it is healthy for students to have access to new and challenging ideas.

Suzanne Bates writes that challenges to school library books and course materials have come from parents on the left and the right and are not necessarily bad. Bates says it is the job of parents to make sure schools stay on what she calls the right track and are not teaching concepts or offering students materials that alienate large portions of the population. She says all material in schools is curated, so it is not unreasonable for parents to question the curation and advance accountability.

School board book bans on LGBTQ issues and race are hurting, not helping, students | Hayes Brown, MSNBC

“

I understand it must be terrifying for parents to send their children off to school, where they’re outside their control for the majority of the day. That fear is part of why Republicans have been so successful in recent campaigns against “critical race theory” and transgender youth in sports. However, the truth is the books under examination are rarely too difficult for students to handle — it’s their parents who struggle. … What’s often lost in this discussion … is that many of the maligned books are there for high school students to read and digest. These parents’ attempts to block access to these works is as limiting as it is insulting to the teenagers they’re supposedly protecting. And even if younger children have access to these books, I can’t imagine being a parent upset that my child is reading more advanced material. … The most fear is directed at challenging, complicated books that deal with the exact sort of struggles and themes that many parents would prefer their children never face in real life. But the students who most need to read many of these books are the ones who are struggling with these issues in real life.^[1]

”

Perspective: Parents are right to be concerned about what kids read | Suzanne Bates, Deseret News

“

[N]o matter what public perception is, public schools are already places where library books and course materials are curated. This is true whether the curation is because of cultural insensitivity or sexually explicit material, or just plain old personal taste. You cannot fit every book into a school library, or on a high school class book list, so choices are made about what makes it in and what doesn’t. … As parents, it’s our responsibility to keep an eye on what our children are learning, and to ask whether what they are taught helps them become better educated, better prepared for meaningful citizenship and better humans. We will all have different answers on what content accomplishes these goals, but when ‘public’ school materials become so politicized that they are alienating a large swath of the population, chances are we are not on the right track. … [O]ne can celebrate free speech and still believe that not every book belongs in a K-12 public school library. We’ve often differentiated what is appropriate for children versus what is appropriate for adults. When public school librarians celebrate a “banned” book that contains graphic illustrations of sex between a minor and an adult, and parents are labeled “far-right” or “bigots” for objecting, that feels like gaslighting.^[1]

”

October 12: The debate over school board partisanship

Last week, with the Nov. 8 general election approaching, we dug into our research on where state law provides for partisan school board elections. This week, we’re featuring some new perspectives on the debate between those who support partisan school board elections and those who believe school board elections should remain nonpartisan.

Education journalist Tony Kinnett writes that education is an inherently political issue and has been for all of America’s history. Kinnett says progressives have traditionally dominated school politics and have only recently met resistance from parents. He says school board candidates should be allowed to affiliate with political parties because such affiliations could help voters choose candidates who best align with their values.

The Citrus County Chronicle Editorial Board writes that partisan elections in which candidates could align with Republicans, Democrats, or other parties would divide school boards and further divide the country and communities politically. The Editorial Board says school boards are inherently administrative in their function and non-political, so the increased polarization would reduce their basic effectiveness.

School Board Elections Are Political, So Stop Calling Parents ‘Domestic Terrorists’ And Make Candidates Self-Identify | Tony Kinnett, The Daily Wire

“

There is nothing inherently wrong with politicizing school board elections. In fact, there are very few decent arguments against school board candidates placing a political party indicator next to their name in elections. … None of the state bills planned for future legislative sessions or those already on the books would force a candidate to choose between “Republican” or “Democrat” for their campaigns. Candidates are welcome to select (or make up their own) parties—or choose “nonaligned.” There is no reason a candidate should be forbidden to align their campaign with Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green Party ideals if they so choose. … The progressive argument also assumes that, until now, education has never been politicized in the United States. This is, of course, laughable and deserves every ounce of scorn one could throw at such an elementary sentiment.^[1]

”

School board elections do not need partisan labels | The Editorial Board, The Citrus County Chronicle

“

Florida school board and judicial elections are non-partisan. Presumably for the same reason. Justice and education are not and should not be partisan political issues. … We should be clear. Partisan political elections for local office may be justified on the grounds that local officials are exercising political power in carrying out their duties.The same cannot be said for local school boards. Their mission is adoption of policies and hiring staff to educate the young people in our society. Like judges, their mission should be non-partisan.Making school board elections partisan would only serve to widen cultural divides and exacerbate political tensions by introducing partisan politics into the mix. We have plenty of political divisions in our country today. We do not need another. Let school boards focus on educating, not on partisan politics.^[1]

”

October 5: The debate over sex and gender education and whether it is related to sexual abuse in schools

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed House Bill 1557 into law on March 28, 2022. The law prohibits discussions of gender identity and sexual orientation between teachers and students in grades K-3. Critics of the legislation have said Republican supporters are using unfounded fears of child sexualization to discriminate against LGBTQ students. Some supporters of such bills have said that school employee discussions with children about sexuality and gender identity can constitute sexual misconduct and create greater physical risks for students.

Michelle Goldberg writes that discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools are normal and do not seek to sexualize children or increase sexual harassment or abuse risks. She says efforts to ban such conversations discriminate against LGBTQ students.

Christopher Rufo writes that sexual harassment and abuse are not uncommon in schools and says Goldberg and other writers dismissed legitimate concerns related to the protection of children. Rufo says conversations related to gender and sexuality should only occur with parental approval to prevent predatory behavior.

The Right’s Disney Freakout | Michelle Goldberg, The New York Times

“

The most notorious of these new laws is Florida’s H.B. 1557, the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law, which prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity for kids below fourth grade, and any such instruction that is not ‘age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate’ for older students. … To justify the law, the right has taken to accusing anyone who opposes it of wanting to expose young kids to explicit material in order to prime them for abuse. … This is, of course, not the first time that gay and gender-nonconforming people have been framed as a moral threat to children. In 1977, Anita Bryant, a former beauty queen and spokeswoman for the Florida Citrus Commission, started the anti-gay Save Our Children campaign. ‘Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so they must recruit,’ she said. ‘And to freshen their ranks, they must recruit the youth of America.’ In recent years, the Republican Party has largely eschewed such language, appearing to make their peace with the presence of gays, lesbians and transgender people in public life. Now such rhetoric is back, and it’s potentially explosive.^[1]

”

No Conspiracy Theory | Christopher Rufo, The City Journal

“

The New York Times, for example, accused conservatives of having a “freakout” about imaginary “grooming” in public schools, and the Washington Post dismissed concerns about sexual abuse by teachers as a “QAnon conspiracy.” … Today, if the Department of Education statistics stayed constant, one could estimate that 5 million students are currently being sexually harassed, manipulated, and abused in America’s public school system. Parents have good reason, therefore, to fear “grooming” in public schools. … The parents’ movement, which has recently mobilized against critical race theory, should not hesitate to add this issue to its list of concerns. Families should be skeptical of introducing sexuality into the classroom at young ages, especially if teachers are permitted to keep those conversations a secret. A better policy would be to mandate total transparency and require that teachers notify and gain the approval of parents before engaging in any sexual conversation with children. Additionally, families should have better tools to report abuse and public schools should have mandatory screening, training, and reporting requirements for all staff.^[1]

”

September 28: The debate over Virginia’s transgender school guidance

Virginia Gov. Glenn Younkin (R) released guidance Sept. 16 related to public school transgender policies. The guidance does the following:

Limits participation in boys' and girls' school sports to a student’s biological sex.
Permits teachers to use pronouns that do not align with a student’s biological sex when parents approve the usage.
School districts cannot “compel … personnel or other students to address or refer to students in any manner that would violate their constitutionally protected rights.”

The Virginian-Pilot & Daily Press Editorial Board writes that the guidance will encourage discrimination and bullying against transgender students. The Editorial Board also says Youngkin’s administration is unlikely to enforce the guidance or prosecute schools, districts, or teachers who do not comply, so it created needless divisions.

Mary Vought writes that the guidance protects parental decision-making rights and makes it clear that schoolchildren do not belong to the government. Vought says prior Democratic administrations tried to take rights away from parents, and Youngkin’s guidance sets a better balance that respects families and prioritizes family choices over bureaucratic interference. She says the guidance is common sense.

Editorial: Youngkin’s harmful policy proposal targets transgender children | The Virginian-Pilot & Daily Press Editorial Board, The Virginian Pilot & Daily Press

“

Without an enforcement mechanism, however, school districts that refused to adopt these protections have faced no penalty. So far. It’s possible they might face lawsuits from students and families, but nobody expects the Youngkin administration to pressure them. The governor made that abundantly clear with the release of this new policy model which cynically begins by declaring that schools should be ‘free [f]rom discrimination, harassment or bullying’ — and proceeds to ensure transgender kids will face those very things simply because they are who they are. How is it dignified to use the ‘dead name’ of a child in transition or insist on using the wrong pronouns? How is it respectful to force children to use a bathroom that doesn’t align with their identity? Perhaps the governor can provide some explanation. … But the real issue is this: Given the choice between compassion and cruelty, the Youngkin administration embraced the latter and is advancing an effort that will make life even more miserable for kids just trying to figure out who they are in the world. The governor says he wants ‘divisive concepts’ out of schools. He’s got a funny way of showing it.^[1]

”

Opinion | Virginia’s new school guidance protects parental rights | Mary Vought, The Washington Post

“

To the left, children exist primarily as wards of the state — ones that government officials can teach, or indoctrinate, as they wish — rather than the responsibility of the parents who brought them into the world and in almost all cases care more for them than anyone else, bureaucrats included. The Youngkin guidance correctly overturns this woke ideology and restores parental rights to their proper place. Principles such as ‘schools shall defer to parents to make the best decisions with respect to their children’ and ‘schools shall keep parents informed about their children’s well-being’ make perfect sense to the vast majority of Virginians. Rather than allowing students to ‘change’ genders behind their parents’ backs, the guidance places those household conversations where they belong: at home, within a family unit. … Prior administrations acted in ways that undermined parental rights, constitutional protections and the conscience beliefs of others. In issuing its new guidance, the Youngkin administration has restored the proper balance where it belongs. I applaud him for his actions, and other Virginia parents should do so as well.^[1]

”

September 21: The debate over Ohio’s law that makes it easier for teachers to carry firearms in classrooms

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) signed legislation June 13 making it easier for teachers to carry firearms in school safety zones. The law took effect Sept. 12. This section examine the debate over the law and its effects.

Washington Post opinion columnist Christine Emba writes that the Ohio bill will not effectively reduce or deter gun violence in schools. Emba says the legislature neglected its duty to enact stricter gun regulations and instead used the teacher gun law to distract from what she says are legitimate solutions.

Ohio state Sen. Jerry Cirino (R) writes that tight gun regulations do not work in places they are tried. Cirino says armed teachers would effectively stop school shooters. He also says children have a right to be defended with firearms and that Emba would sacrifice children for politics.

Opinion | Ohio Republicans’ proposal to arm teachers is an act of cowardice | Christine Emba, The Washington Post

“

[T]he Ohio GOP would rather create an ouroboros of guns — mass shooters faced by teacher shooters who themselves shoot back, everyone armed to the hilt — than entertain the obvious and less convoluted solution: gun regulation that would keep deadly firearms out of the hands of potential killers, and out of our classrooms, in the first place. That such suggestions are coming to the table at all tells us something significant about the state of our politics — and many of our politicians. As with so many national problems that need collective solutions, the GOP would prefer to shift the burden to individuals. … Proposing that we arm teachers to prevent school shootings is an abdication of common sense and legislative duty.^[1]

”

Opinion | When teachers are the ones with guns in classrooms | Jerry Cirino, The Washington Post

“

“Ms. Emba apparently doesn’t think children are worth protecting with guns. She prefers more gun regulation. How are strict gun regulations working out in Chicago? How did relying on 911 work out in Uvalde, Tex.? Ms. Emba suggested armed teachers wouldn’t stop shooters. But the Crime Prevention Research Center has documented 43 incidents since 2014 when a citizen with a gun stopped a likely mass shooting. Not one innocent bystander was shot. Ms. Emba called the people behind this bill spineless cowards for choosing to protect our children with trained armed guards. That makes no sense. Unless she doesn’t care about our children. Just a radical agenda to strip our right to self-defense. She would sacrifice our children for politics. That is worse than cowardice.^[1]

”

September 14: The debate over Pennsylvania’s proposed Lifeline Scholarship Program

Pennsylvania HB 2169 aims to establish a scholarship program that would give the parents of some children, including the parents of children in the lowest-performing 15% of school districts, around $6,800 to spend on education-related expenses. The state Senate is considering the bill, which the state House passed 104-98 on April 27, 2022. State Rep. Clint Owlett (R) introduced HB 2169. Republicans hold a 113-89 majority in the House.

Jackie Huff writes that HB 2169 would exacerbate problems facing underperforming schools by reducing their funding and redirecting it to private schools if students spend their Lifeline Scholarship funds outside the public school system. Huff says public schools are underfunded and would be worse for the 90% of students who attend public schools if the bill passes.

Laurie Todd-Smith writes that HB 2169 would largely benefit minority students and poorer students and families. Todd-Smith says students should not be trapped in the lowest-performing 15% of public schools in the state and says HB 2169 and the Lifeline Scholarship Program would give families the ability to choose a better education.

Op-Ed: Voucher Bill Has Dire Consequences for Pennsylvania Public Schools | Jackie Huff, StateCollege.com

“

[T]hese Lifeline Scholarships will rob resources from districts that need them the most. If a student elects to leave public school X and uses a Lifeline Scholarship to attend a private school, the funds given to the parents of the student to spend on “qualified education expenses” will come out of the budget for the public school X. Pennsylvania has been chronically underfunding school districts for decades—so taking additional funds away from districts that are being underfunded already is only going to exacerbate the problem. In recent polling, nearly two-thirds of Pennsylvania parents with children in K-12 schools supported providing struggling schools with additional resources and supports. The voucher bill would do the opposite and continue to squeeze districts that are fighting to make ends meet and get the services that their students deserve. … We should focus taxpayer money on public schools, where over 90% of Commonwealth students go. Private schools can pick the students they want and reject the ones they don’t want. Public schools accept every child.^[1]

”

Pennsylvania’s legislature should throw a lifeline to low-income students in failing school districts | Opinion | Laurie Todd-Smith, PennLive

“

“For many families with at-risk children stuck in low-performing schools, school choice offers what may be the only avenue to a high-quality education. Fortunately for Pennsylvania families, the state legislature has introduced House Bill (HB) 2169 amending the Public-School Code of 1949 to establish a Lifeline Scholarship Program. Lifeline Scholarships help children in the bottom 15% of performing school districts in the state. As a result, low-income students trapped in the worst-performing schools will have access to better educational opportunities and a real chance at a prosperous future. … Eighty percent of students who attend Pennsylvania’s bottom 15% of public district schools are students of color and low-income children. Furthermore, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, minority students suffered the greatest during the pandemic. As a result, neighboring districts have radically different levels of academic achievement. These drastic achievement gaps must be closed by empowering families to make the best decision for their children. As we emerge from the pandemic, we must protect the future of our communities, our children, and their pathway to prosperity.^[1]

”

September 7: The debate over student discipline and restorative justice

One topic of debate is how schools should approach student discipline. Proponents of what is called restorative justice say discussions, mediation, and other non-adversarial methods of conflict resolution can address the root of school community problems. They argue traditional methods of punishment such as suspension can make behavioral problems worse and disadvantage minority students. Proponents of traditional discipline methods are necessary to maintain order in schools and that restorative justice practices do not sufficiently restrict bad behavior.

Joe Herring writes that restorative justice and the movement away from traditional discipline have caused increased violence and criminality in schools. Herring says restorative justice advocates deemphasize and redefine infractions to support the idea that restorative practices lead to better outcomes. He also says restorative justice supporters often encourage school crime victims not to file police reports, creating an environment of unaccountability.

Linda Stamato and Sandy Jaffee write that traditional methods of discipline, like suspensions, are inequitable, fail to address root causes of bad behavior, and can cause problems to escalate. Stamato and Jaffee write that restorative justice practices help students learn negotiation and problem-solving and teach them how to resolve disputes positively and creatively.

From the penitentiary to the public school: Restorative Justice warps discipline | Joe Herring, The Lion

“

Restorative justice programs have been adopted across the country by school systems struggling to maintain order following the expulsion of School Resource Officers (SRO) in the wake of the George Floyd riots and related protests. When students returned to in-person schooling after the COVID lockdowns, many found hallways unmonitored with the SRO gone. The spike in violence and other criminality has been stunning. … Wokeism is indeed evident in many education decisions, specifically regarding the intersections of race, violence, criminality and poor achievement. Circumstances that indicate the failure of restorative justice are glossed over by the redefining of offenses – deemphasizing many of the unlawful behaviors by encouraging victims to refrain from filing police reports, opting instead to engage in restorative practices with their tormentors, facilitated by a restorative coordinator. … Consequences are muted to provide a favorable look, but the underlying behaviors remain unaffected, at the expense of the safety of students and society both.^[1]

”

Suspending students isn’t the answer. Restorative justice programs in schools are a better solution. | Opinion | Linda Stamato and Sandy Jaffee, NJ.com

“

Suspensions raise a number of issues, not least how to deal with disruptive behavior, equitably and effectively, to understand its causes, and to identify and address conditions that may be contributing factors. … There is hope for change on the horizon, though, as more schools experiment with variations on the theme of “restorative justice.” This concept refers to a range of dispute resolution programs that include student-run courts, group sessions, restorative circles (in which all those involved in a dispute participate in discussions about the harm done and devise steps to deter future harm), and, mediation. Restorative justice attempts to reach beyond punitive measures to solve problems before they escalate and threaten the fabric of the school community. … Educational programs that expose students to negotiation and conflict-resolution processes, and teach them problem-solving skills, help to reduce reliance on formal and adversarial processes to deal with disputes and disruptive behavior; they place more emphasis on positive, creative ways to handle conflict.^[1]

”

August 31: The debate over Minneapolis’ collective bargaining agreement

Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) struck a collective bargaining agreement with the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers (MFT) on March 25, 2022. The agreement requires the school district to base any financially motivated layoffs on teacher seniority, with newer teachers getting laid off first. The provision included an exemption from the seniority layoff rule for what the agreement called underrepresented teachers.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board writes that the layoff policy discriminates based on race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Editorial Board says all hiring and firing decisions should be based on performance and job qualifications and not on race or seniority.

Michael Harriot, a writer and cultural critic, writes that MPS’ hiring policy historically favored white teachers and that a policy firing teachers based on seniority would cause more minority teachers to lose their jobs before white teachers. Harriot says the white teachers in the district are not equipped to assist minority students, so they would also be fired first in a merit-based system.

Minneapolis Schools Discriminate by Race | The Editorial Board, The Wall Street Journal

“

School districts ought to hire and fire based on job qualifications and performance, which would prevent an unintended disparate impact on minorities. But unions oppose personnel decisions based on merit because this could undermine labor solidarity. Minneapolis is instead discriminating by race. … [The agreement] states that the exception to the senior layoff rule is intended to ‘remedy the continuing effects of past discrimination’ and that ‘past discrimination by the district disproportionately impacted the hiring of underrepresented teachers.’ If the district is sued, it will have to substantiate this claim. It may also be hoping to dodge strict scrutiny legal review by not explicitly referring to racial classifications. The undefined term “underrepresented” could be interpreted to include low-income teachers. But what matters is how the rule is applied. … When institutions favor certain racial groups, they discriminate against individuals of other groups. … The Minneapolis teachers contract underscores why the [U.S. Supreme Court] Justices need to state clearly that racial preferences are always constitutionally forbidden.^[1]

”

The whitelash behind Minneapolis’ plan to fire white teachers, explained | Michael Harriot, TheGrio

“

Somehow people who lack critical thinking skills and seasoning [sic] experience can be beguiled into believing a contract that was collectively bargained by a majority-white coalition is ‘anti-white.’ Perhaps they are willing to ignore the ‘past discrimination’ part of the story. … For most of its existence, the district’s hiring policy not only favored white teachers, but it did so to the detriment of its non-white students. But, for some reason, Fox News pundits and right-wing propagandists don’t seem interested in this part of the story. … Most of MPS’s students are non-white. Most of its teachers are white. According to the district’s own data, most of the non-white students are lagging behind white students. And, according to people who know things, students of color do better when they are taught by educators of color. So, I’m not assuming that the white teachers are the worst teachers; I am assuming that most of the teachers are less equipped to teach most of the students. … To become more equitable for its students, the cohort of teachers must be more diverse. To become financially solvent, the district must cut staff. The only path to better schools, more educated children and a financially stable district is to fire white teachers.^[1]

”

August 24: The debate over literacy and how to teach reading

How educators teach children to read, especially in lower grades, is a topic of debate in the education community. Phonics-based teaching helps students learn to sound out and decode words. Whole-language instruction, on the other hand, suggests students can naturally learn to read through exposure to books with pictures and context that facilitate a memorization process. Some educators say they use both teaching methods to create a hybrid curriculum.

Emily Hanford writes that teachers who use hybrid models often believe learning to read is a natural process children pick up from engaging books that spark visual memorization. Hanford says guiding students through books with unfamiliar letter patterns and having students try to guess words based on pictures and context is ineffective for teaching reading. She says teachers should focus on teaching the sounds letters represent.

Kathleen Mikulka writes that phonics should be one part of a hybrid reading curriculum that also includes guided reading and other techniques from whole-language teaching. Mikulka says that phonics alone can be boring and unengaging for students and what she calls a middle way can give teachers more flexibility to work with students and personalize their instruction.

Why Are We Still Teaching Reading the Wrong Way? | Emily Hanford, The New York Times

“

It may seem as if kids are learning to read when they’re exposed to books, and some kids do pick up sound-letter correspondences quickly and easily. But the science shows clearly that to become a good reader, you must learn to decode words. Many whole-language proponents added some phonics to their approach and rebranded it ‘balanced literacy.’ But they did not give up their core belief that learning to read is a natural process that occurs when parents and teachers expose children to good books. So, while you’re likely to find some phonics lessons in a balanced-literacy classroom, you’re also likely to find a lot of other practices rooted in the idea that children learn to read by reading rather than by direct instruction in the relationship between sounds and letters. For example, teachers will give young children books that contain words with letter patterns the children haven’t yet been taught. You’ll see alphabetical ‘word walls’ that rest on the idea that learning to read is a visual memory process rather than a process of understanding how letters represent sounds. You’ll hear teachers telling kids to guess at words they don’t know based on context and pictures rather than systematically teaching children how to decode.^[1]

”

TEACHER VOICE: We need phonics, along with other supports, for reading | Kathleen Mikulka, The Hechinger Report

“

On the importance of explicit, systematic phonics instruction, I agree with Emily Hanford’s arguments in her recent article. I also believe that part of the reason we are still having this debate of phonics versus whole language versus balanced literacy is a matter of definitions. Phonics instruction that is all worksheets all the time and those little decodable books is boring. All picture books all the time is great fun, but students are being shortchanged without the phonics piece. … Since balanced literacy means different things to different people, we need to come up with an alternative name that encompasses the best of both worlds. This new program should be reading instruction, including systematic and explicit phonics, read aloud, guided reading, and free-choice reading. As I moved from teaching kindergarten to first and then second grade, as well as a curriculum coordinator and “response to intervention” teacher and coach, I have found this to be a powerful program for all students. … We have work to do. We must define and name this new middle way. We must keep the good parts of whole language and keep the pendulum from swinging all the way back to all phonics all the time.^[1]

”

August 17: The debate over training and licensing K-12 teachers

At a private event with Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R), Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn said, “Teachers are trained in the dumbest parts of the dumbest colleges in the country.” In response, discussions arose related to teacher licensing and training requirements and how they affect K-12 education.

JC Bowman writes that Tennessee’s existing licensing system works well to make sure teachers are qualified. Bowman says parents rely on the state to make sure educators are sufficiently prepared to teach their children. He says states can trust established colleges of education to train teachers and prepare them for licensing and classroom instruction, making them an important partner in the qualification process.

Larry Arnn writes that existing colleges of education do not adequately prepare educators for classroom instruction and promote bureaucratic control over K-12 education. Arnn says colleges of education promote instruction methods over content and reduce teaching to the level of technical science. He says parents would rather have the flexibility to pick schools and teachers than rely on the state to tell them who can teach their children.

Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn disparaged teachers. Bill Lee should not tolerate that. | Opinion | JC Bowman, The Tennessean

“

Teaching is a science, an art, and a craft. It is not for everyone. Most people do not want the responsibility, stress, low salary, or long hours. Parents do not just want anyone instructing their child. … Colleges of education are vital for teacher preparation, so every child has an effective teacher in the classroom. They are key partners in developing and strengthening K–12 education. They must identify and recruit future teachers and graduate them as certified teachers to meet the licensure requirements set by the state. We need them now more than ever because veteran teachers are quitting the profession. Teachers must pass an entrance requirement, maintain a certain GPA, and pass an exit exam to become certified. Licensure is the function of the state and the gatekeeper to employment. … Educators or colleges of education are not the problems. They certainly are not ‘dumb.’ Teachers contend with an array of student challenges — substandard housing, homelessness, inadequate nutrition and food insecurity, lack of access to health care, unsafe neighborhoods, and schools with limited resources.^[1]

”

Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn: Why I defend education schools criticism | Opinion | Larry Arnn, The Tennessean

“

I’ve made similar critiques of the education bureaucracy my entire career. This does not contradict my deep and abiding affection for teachers. … Dumb can mean ‘unintelligent,’ which I did not mean. Dumb also means ‘ill-conceived’ or ‘misdirected,’ which is, sadly, a fitting description for many education schools today. Professors of college and graduate education programs primarily teach methods. To be sure, methods are important in almost any human activity, but they are seldom the chief object. … Many education schools elevate methods over content as a way for a few to control many. They believe they can engineer society by ‘scientific’ criteria, thereby effectively reducing children to mere subjects of ongoing social experiments. More importantly, the education bureaucracy has controlled America’s schools for too long. Consider the current attack to deprive parents of charter school options — depriving them of the educational opportunities they desire and need for their children. … The solution is clear: recognize that the sovereign location in education is the local school, parents, and teachers, and not the district or the state. Give parents and teachers a choice.^[1]

”

August 10: The debate over critical race theory and its effect on students

The definition of critical race theory (CRT), CRT’s place in K-12 public schools, and the existence of CRT in K-12 public schools have been subjects of debate in recent years. This section features two perspectives on the CRT conversation in California. For more perspectives, check out our article on the main areas of inquiry and disagreement related to CRT, where we’ve curated 16 arguments and 46 separate claims related to CRT’s history, theory, and practice.

Jill Kerper Mora writes that CRT helps explain how laws and policies can promote racial inequalities. Mora says CRT in schools can help students think critically about civics and society and can help them meet California state education standards. She also says arguments opposing CRT concepts misconstrue the theory to make it sound unreasonable.

Mark Powell says CRT is an idea that suggests American laws and institutions are inherently racist and designed by white people to promote their interests and subjugate people of color. Powell says the theory puts people into oppressed and oppressor groups based on the color of their skin, which he says is divisive and damaging to kids under 16.

‘Critical Race Theory’ Is Now a Dangerously Divisive Straw Man in Our Schools | Jill Kerper Mora, Times of San Diego

“

As its name suggests, CRT is a theory — a system of ideas and general principles that is intended to explain how some laws and public policies perpetuate racial inequality and discrimination. The purpose of CRT is to promote critical thinking and rigorous analysis to overcome and rectify injustices that can occur in a racially, culturally and linguistically diverse society. These academic objectives are aligned with the learning outcomes articulated in the state-adopted curriculum standards approved by the Legislature and the State Board of Education for the core content of American history and ethnic studies courses. Unfortunately, critical race theory is being used as a straw man by opportunistic politicians and others who want to promote, rather than resolve, conflict to further their own dubious agendas. … The controversy generated by the opponents of critical race theory is especially problematic since public school teachers have a responsibility to ensure that their students meet the state curriculum standards. Teachers design courses that conform to the requirements in the authorizing statute and other legal requirements for curriculum in California. … Teachers need to be supported in creating opportunities in their classrooms for students to examine the role of racism as a divisive force throughout history and in the modern world.^[1]

”

The Risks of Teaching History Through the Lens of Critical Race Theory | Mark Powell, Times of San Diego

“

Critical race theory, as the 40-year-old thesis is popularly understood, suggests that institutions and laws are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of color. This controversial theory should not be taught in public schools, especially to students between 6 and 16 — a time when children are establishing their sense of identity. During these years, children make strides toward adulthood by developing a sense of self-esteem and individuality. … Critical race theory suggests that American institutions, laws, and history are inherently racist. It argues that white people have put up social, economic, and legal barriers between the races in order to maintain their elite status, both economically and politically. The result is not equality or justice. Instead, people are categorized. One’s gender, race, or sexual orientation makes you either the “oppressed” or an “oppressor,” a status from which you are freed only when existing societal structures are overthrown. Supporters of critical race theory suggest those who don’t subscribe to it are enemies in the fight to defeat racism. … But critical race theory is not history; it is an arcane academic concept and should be treated as such. To teach it would be a divisive prescription for addressing racial issues.^[1]

”

August 3: The debate over grouping higher-performing students into separate classes

Educators and policymakers have long debated whether grouping higher-performing students into separate, more challenging classes (also known as tracking) is a good policy. For example, in 2014, the San Francisco Unified School District implemented a detracking policy that eliminated accelerated math classes in middle school, prompting concern from some parents. In 2021, the California Department of Education proposed a similar change in a draft of non-binding math guidelines. Those guidelines are still being debated today.

In this section, we’ll look at two perspectives on the issue.

Frederick Hess writes that higher-performing students should have opportunities to take more challenging courses. Hess says eliminating gifted programs from public schools would hold back students who master content and would reduce opportunities for low-income students to excel since they would not have the financial resources to switch to a more challenging private school.

Jo Boaler writes that school districts like San Francisco Unified that eliminated or partially eliminated gifted programs experienced improvements in achievement. Boaler says separating students into different classes teaches them that they have fixed abilities and are not capable of excelling in a subject.

Gifted Education Is Under Attack | Frederick Hess, Forbes

“

Of course, gifted programs should be inclusive and should be reformed as necessary to ensure that they are. At the same time, Nobel laureate David Card has concluded that ‘a separate classroom environment is more effective for’ gifted learners—especially those who are disadvantaged. … It’s useful to ground this discussion by asking two straightforward questions. First, when it comes to chess, soccer, trumpet, singing, or dance, do some children have exceptional gifts and stand to benefit from exceptionally challenging instruction? Second, does this also apply to endeavors like writing, algebra, and biology? If one accepts that people are born with an array of talents, and that students and society benefit when schools cultivate those talents, the conversation about gifted education should be how to do it fairly, responsibly, and effectively. Unfortunately, de Blasio-style attacks on gifted education are likely to disappoint on all of those grounds. After all, when schools abandon gifted learners, affluent families have options: They’ll move their kids to private schools or pony up for tutors, enrichment programs, and online courses. It’s low-income students who will get lost along the way.^[1]

”

OPINION: Separating ‘gifted’ children hasn’t led to better achievement | Jo Boaler, The Hechinger Report

“

Many believe that children learn more effectively in schools or classes with similar learners, but are they right? … [A]fter San Francisco Unified de-tracked math, the proportion of students failing algebra fell from 40 percent to 8 percent and the proportion of students taking advanced classes rose to a third, the highest percentage in district history. … Eight Bay Area school districts found similar results when they de-tracked middle-school mathematics and provided professional development to teachers. In 2014, 63 percent of students were in advanced classes, whereas in 2015 only 12 percent were in advanced classes and everyone else was taking Math 8. … Why do these results arise? It seems to make sense that learners who are ready for different content are grouped together, and students who are high-achieving push ahead and take advanced classes, but there’s a problem with such an approach. We are at a point where the negative impacts of fixed-ability thinking are undeniable. And when we separate students into different classes, the message we send them is that their ability is fixed. When students, instead, embrace the knowledge that there are no limits to their learning, outcomes improve.^[1]

”

July 27: The debate over Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program expansion

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) signed House Bill 2853 into law on July 7 allowing K-12 students to use taxpayer-funded Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs) to attend schools or pay for curriculum or tutoring outside the public school system.

Vince Roig and Paul Luna with the Helios Education Foundation write that Arizona’s ESAs will only benefit the children of rich families who can afford home and private schooling options without the savings accounts. They say the law does not hold parents accountable for ESA expenditures. Roig and Luna say the funds should be directed to public schools, which can be held accountable through standardized testing, to benefit less wealthy families.

Arizona House Majority Leader Benjamin Toma writes that the ESA program will not hurt public schools or poorer students who attend them. Toma says the state increased public school funding. He says the ESAs will give all families greater flexibility, and improve academic performance. Toma also compared the ESA program to Arizona’s unlimited public school open enrollment and charter school policies, which he says improved educational outcomes in the state.

Arizona students are getting a raw deal with massive voucher expansion | Vince Roig and Paul Luna, USA Today

“

Make no mistake: Only an elite few will benefit from an unprecedented and unpopular expansion of education savings accounts (ESAs), while more than one million Arizona public school students will continue to attend some of the lowest-funded schools in the country. … Right now, the state should be focused on access, accountability and attainment. … Instead, the majority of legislators chose to greatly expand education savings accounts that will help wealthy parents pay for tuition at expensive private schools and other extravagances that Arizona’s neediest children will never be able to afford. … This new law does not hold parents accountable for how they spend their ESA withdrawals. The state will never know if $300 million or more spent on ESAs will yield improved learning. By contrast, public school students will continue to take annual assessments, and their schools will be graded on those results.^[1]

”

Arizona school choice law sets new standard for nation | Benjamin Toma, Fox News

“

The truth is ESAs won't cripple public schools. But we think it will make them better. After years of unlimited district open enrollment and the highest percentage of students in charter schools in the nation, choosing your child's school – instead of being directed by the government – is the norm here. The results: Arizona schools lead the nation in academic growth for both poor and nonpoor students per the Stanford Opportunity Project. We invested more than $1 billion in our school finance formula this year, most of which was to show holdouts that we weren't giving up on our public schools and were willing to deal. … School choice opponents have been wrong for decades. Each advance is doggedly opposed because they know parents won't easily relinquish freedom once enjoyed.^[1]

”

July 20: The debate over which books to include in school libraries

Whether certain books addressing topics related to sex and gender are age-appropriate and ought to be included in school libraries has been a topic of debate in recent months. Debate at school board meetings has often centered on a handful of books, such as Gender Queer: A Memoir.

The Chicago Tribune Editorial Board writes that parents and school boards should not seek the removal of books discussing sex and gender, such as Gender Queer: A Memoir and Lawn Boy, from school libraries. The Editorial Board says removing such books would be harmful to students and prevent them from exploring different perspectives and expanding their knowledge. The Board also says the books are not pornographic, so parents do not need to protect their children from the material.

Katelynn Richardson writes that Gender Queer: A Memoir contains sexually explicit material that is not age-appropriate for minors and promotes progressive ideas over educational value. Richardson says removing explicit content from school libraries is not the same as book banning or censorship. She says it is the job of parents to control the books their kids read in the same way they control what movies they watch and what video games they play.

Editorial: Book banning at school libraries blinkers children in the worst way | The Editorial Board, The Chicago Tribune

“

It’s too bad proponents of book banning can’t step off their soapboxes long enough to see the matter through the eyes of students — and their own children. School libraries add a unique element to the educational experience. They invite students to an expanse of knowledge, perspective and exploration beyond the bounds of what their district’s coursework offers. … Parents and community members hopping on board the book-banning bandwagon may think they’re safeguarding children — but they’re hurting them. A book that is actually pornographic should never find its way to a school district library shelf, or any public library shelf. But that’s not the case with the books being targeted. Both “Gender Queer” and “Lawn Boy” have received the American Library Association’s Alex Award that annually recognizes 10 books written for adults that have special appeal to youths ages 12 through 18. By calling for their removal — or incineration — conservatives are blinkering kids in the worst way.^[1]

”

Removing explicit content from school libraries is not 'book banning' | Katelynn Richardson, The Washington Examiner

“

People are sensitive to book banning. That’s a good thing. But special considerations apply to the catalogs in school libraries. It’s foolish to pretend, like the librarians featured in today’s New York Times story, that removing books like Gender Queer: A Memoir from schools due to sexually explicit material is a slippery slope to censorship. … Librarians would be in the spotlight less if they did their job and selected age-appropriate books that provide educational value, rather than ones that promote a progressive social agenda. I have no sympathy for anyone who loses her job because she wanted to put pornographic material within the reach of minors. While not a license for harassment, it’s absolutely fair for parents to question decisions, speak out at school board meetings, and publicly push back. This is not about viewpoint diversity. It’s about protecting children. Parents have always had the responsibility for overseeing what their children are exposed to: in movies, video games, activities, social life, and yes, books.^[1]

”

July 13: The debate over whether teachers unions affect school boards and classrooms

In our June 1 edition, we reported on 141 school districts that held April elections in which incumbents lost to challengers at a rate nearly twice the historical average.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board cited this data to argue that incumbent losses demonstrate parents' desire to challenge the control of teachers unions in classrooms. The Editorial Board argued that unions exercise significant control over school boards, allowing unions to push for progressive policies in classrooms and dismiss parent concerns.

In a Washington Post op-ed responding to the Journal, Jay Mathews writes that teachers unions do not exercise significant control over classroom issues, teaching approaches, or curriculum. Matthews says unions typically focus on securing teacher salaries and pensions, while most changes to teaching and learning come from teachers. Mathews says principals and school district administrators are often to blame for problems with schools, teaching, and curriculum.

The Parental School-Board Revolt Continues | The Editorial Board, The Wall Street Journal

“

[T]he root problem with public schools has long been traceable to failed monopoly governance. School boards are dominated by teacher’s unions, which have an intense interest in the outcome. Parents who have day jobs and lack the time to monitor school instruction are at a disadvantage, and school board elections typically take place on primary or other days when turnout is low. … The pandemic shutdowns gave parents more incentive and opportunity to pay attention and, when they did, many school boards dismissed their concerns. Teachers union leaders these days, even at the local level, aren’t focused on student performance as they once were. They’re part of an increasingly ideological vanguard that follows progressive national dictates no matter what parents might prefer. … But parents who are taking on the burden and risk of challenging entrenched boards are acting in the best tradition of American self-government.^[1]

”

Don’t blame teachers unions for bad schools. Worry instead about inertia. | Jay Mathews, The Washington Post

“

So, unions, like most of us, can be helpful or hurtful. But are they quashing attempts to make our schools better, as the Journal suggests? My reporting on the most productive school reforms indicates they are not doing that. For several decades, I have been asking teachers who have successfully raised achievement whether unions got in their way. In every case, the answer has been no. The real villain is the administrative inertia found in nearly all human organizations, including school systems. Innovative teachers discover their best ideas look too risky to principals or too expensive to district administrators. School boards have never spent much time on what happens inside classrooms and thus rarely engage with such reforms. The same is true of teachers unions. … Union emphasis has always been on salaries, pensions and security. Those issues are unrelated to the most effective advances in teaching.^[1]

”

July 6: The debate over prayer for school employees

In last week’s edition, we discussed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton. The majority held 6-3 that the Bremerton County School Board could not prevent a school football coach from praying on a football field following a game under the First Amendment’s protections for free religious exercise.

This week, we look at arguments related to the case.

Erwin Chemerinsky writes that any prayer in public schools is inherently coercive and violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Chemerinsky says public schools should be completely secular and the court’s ruling could allow teachers to lead students in prayer during breaks or during lunch hours.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board writes that the court’s decision properly protected the football coach’s prayer First Amendment rights. The Board says the Founders intended to allow people to express their religious views and that the prayer was private and did not amount to a public establishment of religion.

Op-Ed: The Supreme Court demolishes another precedent separating church and state | Erwin Chemerinsky, The Los Angeles Times

“

n the early 1960s, the Supreme Court ruled that prayer in public schools, even voluntary prayer, violates the 1st Amendment’s prohibition against the establishment of religion. The court said that when teachers lead prayers, there is inherent coercion. Students of different faiths and of no faith feel pressure to participate. The core of the Establishment Clause is that the government, especially in its public schools, should be secular; the place for prayer is in people’s homes and places of worship. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing the majority opinion, declared: ‘Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic — whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head.’ This approach has no stopping point. It would seem now that any public school teacher would have the right to lead students in prayer so long as it was before school, during breaks or at lunch rather than at formal school activities. Any restriction beyond that would be considered by this court to be an unconstitutional limit on the teacher’s speech and free exercise of religion.^[1]

”

A Football Coach’s Prayer Is Constitutional | The Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal

“

Mr. Kennedy’s prayer was private conduct. It took place after the game, when staff were free to check their phones or chat up spectators. If Mr. Kennedy’s action is considered government speech, Justice Gorsuch writes, then “a school could fire a Muslim teacher for wearing a headscarf in the classroom or prohibit a Christian aide from praying quietly over her lunch in the cafeteria. … Justice Gorsuch’s opinion is carefully narrow and excludes coercion. On the law, Justice Sotomayor says the majority fails to respect the tension between the Constitution’s ban on religious establishment and its guarantee of religious free exercise. Justice Gorsuch replies that the First Amendment makes both promises in a single sentence. … The Supreme Court is gradually restoring a proper constitutional understanding of the relationship between religion and the state. The Court in the 20th century began to use the Establishment Clause to let government restrict religious behavior and speech that is protected by the Free Exercise Clause. The Roberts Court’s religious liberty rulings don’t risk any state establishment of religion. But they do let Americans of faith express their views—as the Founders intended.^[1]

”

June 29: The debate over public funding for private religious schools

In last week’s edition, we reported on the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) ruling in Carson v. Makin on June 21. The 6-3 majority ruled that Maine could not deny school tuition assistance to students attending private religious schools if the state provided tuition benefits to students attending secular private schools.

This week, we look at arguments about public funding for private religious schools.

Erwin Chemerinsky writes that state tuition assistance should not pay for private religious schools because it would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Chemerinsky said Thomas Jefferson and James Madison thought public money should only be used for secular purposes and the Supreme Court’s decision reduced the separation between the church and state.

Lea Patterson writes that allowing families to use state tuition assistance to pay for private religious schools does not violate the Establishment Clause because it only gives parents the freedom to choose between many different schooling options. Patterson says since parents make the decisions, the state is not establishing a religion. She said preventing families from using school vouchers at religious schools (but not at other private schools) is discriminatory.

Op-Ed: A ruinous Supreme Court decision to dismantle the wall between church and state | Erwin Chemerinsky, The Los Angeles Times

“

The 1st Amendment says that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ In 1947, the Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition against the establishment of religion applied to the actions of state and local governments. All nine justices in that case agreed that this provision is best understood through the words of Thomas Jefferson, that there should be a wall separating church and state. For decades, the court applied this principle in limiting the ability of the government to provide financial support for religious activities, including for religious schools. … The court now blows apart the wall of separation — already damaged by the Trinity Lutheran case — by declaring that any time the government subsidizes private education it is constitutionally required to pay for religious education.^[1]

”

Supreme Court strikes a blow for religious freedom in education | Lea Patterson, Fox News

“

In fact, the Establishment Clause poses no obstacle to school choice programs including religious schools. The reason is simple—when a state empowers parents to choose a school, the funding goes to the school as a result of the parents' free choice. No one can argue that a state is establishing a religion where the parents independently choose from a wide variety of options. … Writing for a 6-3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the Maine ‘effectively penalizes the free exercise of religion’ when it prohibits parents from choosing religious educational options in a school choice program. … No one should have to bear a higher financial burden than their neighbors because they take their faith seriously by choosing a religious education for their children. With the victory in Carson, students and families in Maine and across the nation face a brighter day.^[1]

”

June 22: The debate over allowing teachers to carry firearms

Following the school shooting at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 students and two teachers were shot and killed, politicians and commentators have proposed policies intended to make schools safer.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) signed legislation June 13 to make it easier for teachers to carry firearms in school safety zones. This section will examine the debate over arming teachers and whether it would make schools safer.

The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board writes that armed teachers would be ineffective against school shooters and training would prove impractical. The Editorial Board also says keeping guns in schools could create dangerous situations and add daily stress to teachers trying to keep classroom guns out of students’ hands.

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker compares current school shooting procedures to Cold War nuclear drills where students were made to hide under their desks. Parker writes that it's better to allow teachers to arm themselves than be at the mercy of a school shooter.

Editorial: Don’t expect teachers to be substitute police officers when the shooting starts | The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board, The Los Angeles Times

“

Fans of arming teachers are ignoring the teachers themselves, who for the most part don’t want anything to do with guns in the classroom. Several states, including Texas, already allow individual school districts to permit teachers to carry guns. Only 300 teachers in Texas have done so — less than one in a thousand. … Most teachers believed the situation would make schools more dangerous. … Let’s not forget that police have bulletproof vests to protect them when encountering people with guns. Teachers, unless they are remarkably quick, agile and terrific shots, would be vulnerable to the first bullet fired as well as the daily stress of trying to ensure that students don’t have access to the classroom gun.^[1]

”

Opinion | Yes, it has come to this. It’s time to arm teachers. | Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post

“

I’m not inclined to hide under a desk waiting for the Soviets to launch a nuke, as schoolchildren were made to do in the ‘60s — or today, hoping the bullets from an AR-15 won’t find my quivering hide. I’d rather take my chances defending myself — and any children in my care — than die watching my babies being mowed down by a homicidal maniac. … I’m not a teacher, but if I were, I’d want to have ready access to a gun. Some teachers, God bless them, aren’t up to such a challenge and shouldn’t be asked to be. Others are willing and able. In the absence of anyone else, why not allow them to defend our children? None of these policies should be necessary, but, clearly, we’re not doing enough. Until we can figure out broad, societal remedies short of cloning my father — a dicey proposition, I’ll admit — I’d feel better knowing my grandchildren were in a school where someone knows how to stop a killer.^[1]

”

June 15: The debate over school funding and the purpose of public schools

Arguments about public school funding and vouchers often come down to beliefs about the purpose of schools. Below, two authors provide competing points on this topic.

Adam Byrn Tritt writes that public funding of schools primarily exists to create good citizens who can participate in democratic processes. Tritt says education is a collective benefit, which is why people without children pay taxes that fund public schools, why parents should not be able to control curriculum, and why public funding should not follow children who leave public schools.

Jason Peirce writes that public education funding exists primarily for the benefit of individuals, especially parents and students. Peirce says taxpayers should not have to support schools that perform poorly on tests and other metrics. He says public funding should follow students to protect individual liberty, promote decentralization, and promote parental oversight of public schools and curricula.

Public schools aren't for just children or parents, but for society as a whole | Opinion | Adam Byrn Tritt, Florida Today

“

I asked, why is it that folks without kids still pay for schools for you guys? Why did Jefferson want free education? … Why is it that curriculum isn't up to parents? Why are school boards not elected by just parents? Because schools aren't for their benefit. They aren't for your benefit, either. They are for the collective benefit. Collective. The benefit of our society as a whole, not the individual. The purpose of public education is to ensure the citizens, the voters, have the ability to look critically at facts, and tell fact from fiction, fact from opinion. So voters can make smart decisions based on facts and then become smart officials, and officeholders who make decisions based on what's best for the country and its people.. … Thus, our public schools are not for the children. They are not for the parents. They are for the country and our democracy. A curriculum, based on literacy, numeracy, critical thinking, and rhetorical skill is necessary for the protection of our republic. If such a curriculum is not to the liking of a parent, there are private schools. If a parent does not like the secular nature of public education, there are religious schools. If there is a book a parent wishes a child not read, they may forbid their child to read it. But they must understand the public school is not made for the good of the individual student, and the parent is not the “customer.^[1]

”

Students, not failing schools, should be the ones receiving funding | Opinion | Jason Pierce, Florida Today

“

Recent guest columnist Adam Bryn Tritt’s use of Thomas Jefferson to make his case that public schools and the education system exist for ‘the collective benefit’ of our ‘country and democracy,’ and ‘not for the children’ and their parents, is wrong-headedly backwards. Fact is, Jefferson and his fellow Founding Fathers founded the United States on the idea of individual liberty. Logically therefore, this country exists to uphold the individual liberty of the individuals comprising it, not any other way around, and certainly not the way Tritt would have it, which assumes we the people exist for the country, and government. … Jefferson held the complete opposite view. He believed school management by ‘any authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward … is a belief against all experiences.’ … Indeed, parents should be allowed to seek whatever education options they deem best for their children. And for starters, they should be able to take all public education dollars available with them, to whatever school they choose. This is school choice, what many now call the “civil rights issue of our time.” School choice would fund students, not failing systems, while breeding competition in education, bringing quality up, and costs down. It would also provide a boon to the education job market.^[1]

”

June 8: The debate over armed safety officers in schools

Following the school shooting at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 students and two teachers were shot and killed, politicians and commentators have proposed policies they say would make schools safer. Today, we look at the debate over proposals to post police or safety officers on school campuses at all times.

David Feliciano writes trained law enforcement officers could have prevented the Sandy Hook and Robb Elementary shootings if they had been stationed at the schools. Feliciano says Democrats and Republicans are unlikely to agree on legislation restricting gun purchases but they might agree to federally fund armed safety officers for all schools.

Daniel Siegel writes additional security would not reduce school shootings. Siegel says posting police officers at schools would make schools feel like prisons and are insufficient substitutes for gun purchasing restrictions and additional funding for school counselors to meet mental health needs.

Opinion: As a superintendent and father, I believe there’s a simple solution to improve school safety | David Feliciano, The San Diego Union Tribune

“

The best and simplest response [to school shootings], it seems to me, is to federally fund and deploy a school safety law enforcement officer to every public school in the U.S. An armed police officer is the one thing that could have made a tangible difference and possibly prevented the shootings at Sandy Hook and Robb elementary schools. The delayed police response at Robb Elementary only reinforces this point. More children may have died because law enforcement failed to engage the attacker in time. The attack ended when the police took action. When your house is on fire, you don’t set out to buy smoke detectors and upgrade your electrical systems. Rather, you get a fire hose and extinguish the flames. … A thoughtful and fully funded partnership with law enforcement is our best defense against the next school shooting. This, it seems to me, is something Democrats and Republicans could get behind.^[1]

”

Opinion: 'Hardening' elementary schools isn't the solution | Daniel Siegel, Detroit Free Press

“

This time, rather than urging inaction in the wake of the senseless murders of 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary School, it seems Second Amendment absolutists would prefer actions that would make our schools look even more like prisons, with more cops, more rules and more guns. … Instead of passing sensible gun reforms, these elected officials would prefer to further militarize our schools. … More police officers, armed teachers and prison-inspired reforms are not effective protection against outside intruders. After all, the officers who fired their weapons at the 18-year-old suspect before he entered Robb Elementary School on Tuesday failed to stop him. How many more good guys with guns would we need to protect every public school in Texas? We need more school counselors to help meet mental health needs, more training for school teachers and staff on how to spot red flags, and better lockdown drills and procedures to keep students safe.^[1]

”

June 1: The debate over transgender athletes in school sports

According to the New York Times, since 2019, 18 states have passed bills regulating the participation of transgender students in school sports.

South Carolina is the latest state to pass legislation requiring transgender students to compete in sports consistent with the sex specified on their birth certificates.

Below, Win Hammond writes South Carolina’s transgender sports law is discriminatory and unfair to transgender athletes. Hammond says there is no evidence that transgender students who identify as female have an unfair advantage over females who meet the birth certificate requirement under South Carolina law.

McGee Moody writes that male puberty hormones like testosterone create lasting physiological differences that give transgender athletes who identify as female an athletic advantage in women’s sports. Moody says allowing students who identify as female to compete in women’s sports undermines equal opportunity in female competitions.

SC's anti-trans athletes bill is bad for students, based in bigotry | Win Hammond, The Daily Gamecock

“

Trans athletes have the potential to beat cisgender kids, just like any other child does. However, their success is sometimes unfairly seen as invalid due to the trans athlete’s identity. Trans women are not endangering women’s sports — after all, they are women. Women, no matter their identity, can compete fairly against one another; it is more of an issue of athleticism than hormones. … The bill aims to segregate competitions based on sex, but there is no conclusive evidence suggesting this segregation's necessity. In fact, the more these arguments are investigated, the more they seem like simple attacks on transgender people's identity. The entire debate surrounding the presence of trans athletes ignores data and operates purely off of lies and bigotry, with the smallest concern for the future of S.C. students.^[1]

”

South Carolina must protect our female athletes | McGee Moody, The Post and Courier

“

In swimming, the concept of time is represented by speed, power and force applied upon the water, all of which are affected by physiological traits such as height, weight, muscle growth, hand size and foot size. In all of these areas, males have an athletic advantage as a result of testosterone production during puberty. … As a coach, I worked very hard to be a voice for my female athletes and to protect their right to fair competition. As a father, I will never tell my daughters they are unable to be successful on any level. However, I will not stand idly by and let the deck be stacked against these women and girls. We cannot let the hard-fought work of so many to ensure equal opportunities for female athletes be reversed by allowing men to compete in women’s sports. When we ignore biological reality, female athletes lose medals, public recognition and opportunities to compete.^[1]

”

May 25: The debate over Tennessee's education savings account program and the effect it would have on public schools

On May 18, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that a 2019 law providing eligible low and middle-income students in underperforming school districts with education savings accounts worth up to $7,300 per year was constitutional.

We go into more detail about the Tennessee law and education savings accounts later in this newsletter. Below, you can read two authors making a case for and against education savings accounts in Tennessee.

Satya Marar, a policy analyst with the Reason Foundation, writes that money from Tennessee’s educational savings accounts program would help families tailor an education to their child's needs. Marar also says the program would not reallocate money from public schools to private schools or exacerbate public school funding issues.

David Kidd, a representative for Pastors for Tennessee Children, writes that education savings accounts and similar programs, which he calls voucher programs, do not benefit the students who receive them. Kidd says students who use education savings accounts to move from public to private schools perform worse than students who stay in public schools. He says voucher programs take money from underfunded public schools and exacerbate performance and funding issues.

More school choice will benefit all Tennesseans | Opinion | Satya Marar, The Tennessean

“

For one, ESAs amount to nothing more than a transfer of a portion of the funds earmarked for a student’s education from public schools to their families, who can then take these dollars to schools of their choice. Schools exist to serve students, not the other way around. … Fears about harm to public schools are also likely to be overstated. Tennessee’s government has promised to maintain current levels of public school funding despite the COVID-19 budget crisis, and has even pledged a relief package, subject to state appropriation, for schools that lose students to the ESA program. One must also consider the fact that schools that lose students could well end up with more funding on average for every child they retain than before.^[1]

”

Vouchers will harm Tennessee public schools and students, so lawmakers should reject them — again | Opinion | David Kidd, The Tennessean

“

[V]ouchers often fail to improve outcomes for the students. Rigorous studies in three different states, Louisiana, Indiana and Ohio, (as well as the District of Columbia, the only federally funded voucher program), have shown that students who use vouchers to attend private schools fare worse academically than their closely matched peers attending public schools. …[V]ouchers, in whatever repackaged forms they are proposed — ‘education savings accounts,’ ‘individualized education accounts,’ ‘opportunity scholarships,’ ‘tuition tax credits,’ whatever they are called, and however they are advocated, — will unavoidably wreak havoc on public education in Tennessee. Our public schools are already starving for funds and parental support.^[1]

”

May 18: The debate over high school grade inflation and its effect on students

Grade inflation refers to an upward trend in average grades students receive for a particular level of work. For example, if a student submitted an assignment and received a “B” one year, and the next year another student submitted the same level of work and received an “A,” grade inflation would have occurred.

Below, Zachary Bleemer writes that grade inflation could benefit students and encourage them to graduate. Bleemer also says higher grades could give students the confidence to pursue what he considers more difficult subjects like science and math.

Brandon L. White says grade inflation is particularly harmful to students who are most likely to fail a class or drop out of school entirely. White says the lowered expectations harm all students and do not prepare them for careers or college.

Grade inflation is just plain bad. Right? Maybe not. | Zachary Bleemer, The Washington Post

“

A series of recent studies by several independent teams of economists, though, have advanced a surprising hypothesis: that in many circumstances, grade inflation may be providing important benefits to many of today’s students. Everyone agrees that kids should learn more in school. Grade inflation may weaken some students’ incentive to study and could frustrate colleges’ ability to identify well-prepared applicants — but higher grades may also bolster some students’ confidence and encourage them into rigorous disciplines where they might succeed. …STEM courses tend to award lower average grades than other fields, and female students are more likely than male students to switch their fields of study if they earn low grades in introductory courses. As a result, inflating grades in STEM courses might increase the share of female students earning STEM degrees, narrowing the worrisome gender gap in those majors. … All of these studies focus on college grades, but the same arguments hold for high schools. Higher grades could mean less discouragement from challenging subjects and maybe even greater confidence and persistence to graduation.^[1]

”

Rampant grade inflation is harming vulnerable high schoolers | Brandon L. Wright, Thomas Fordham Institute

“

Pressure to boost those [graduation] rates, often due to school accountability policies, plays a role [in grade inflation]—but so do complex motivations like empathy and concern for kids’ future well-being. It’s these latter impulses that lead folks to believe that easing expectations, at least for disadvantaged and struggling students, is a victimless, thoughtful, and maybe even noble act. Though it does young people no real good to be awarded unearned diplomas. The harm done by lowered expectations doesn’t just befall the kids who are barely making it through high school. As illustrated by those profiled in the Globe, a disservice is being done to their high-achieving peers—not young people at risk of not graduating at all, but those who leave high school at the top of their class and under the impression that they’re fully ready for college, including elite schools like Bryn Mawr, B.U., and B.C. They discover—with surprise, pain, angst, embarrassment—that they’re nowhere near ready. The culprit is grade inflation, which occurs when subjective course grades exceed objective measures of performance.^[1]

”

May 11: The debate over American principles and laws governing instruction on race in schools

Ballotpedia is tracking race-related laws in school curricula and classrooms. Governors in states like Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and Virginia have signed legislation or issued executive orders limiting how such topics can be taught in public schools.

Below, Kmele Foster, David French, Jason Stanley, and Thomas Chatterton Williams write that such laws make it difficult for teachers to accurately educate students on American history, the end result of which is to create an ignorant populace. The authors also say such laws undermine due process and the free expression of ideas.

Joy Pullmann writes that teachings related to systemic racism, equity (which she contrasts with equality), and white privilege stem from critical race theory. Pullmann says such teachings are anti-American and that critical race theory is incompatible with free speech, freedom of association, and equal justice. Pullman says taxpayers should not have to support anti-American teachings in classrooms.

We Disagree on a Lot of Things. Except the Danger of Anti-Critical-Race-Theory Laws. | Kmele Foster, David French, Jason Stanley, and Thomas Chatterton Williams, The New York Times

“

Indeed, the very act of learning history in a free and multiethnic society is inescapably fraught. Any accurate teaching of any country’s history could make some of its citizens feel uncomfortable (or even guilty) about the past. To deny this necessary consequence of education is, to quote W.E.B. Du Bois, to transform ‘history into propaganda.’ What’s more, these laws even make it difficult to teach U.S. history in a way that would reveal well-documented ways in which past policy decisions, like redlining, have contributed to present-day racial wealth gaps. An education of this sort would be negligent, creating ignorant citizens who are unable to understand, for instance, the case for reparations — or the case against them. Because these laws often aim to protect the feelings of hypothetical children, they are dangerously imprecise. State governments exercise a high degree of lawful control over K-12 curriculum. But broad, vague laws violate due process and fundamental fairness because they don’t give the teachers fair warning of what’s prohibited. … Let’s not mince words about these laws. They are speech codes. They seek to change public education by banning the expression of ideas. Even if this censorship is legal in the narrow context of public primary and secondary education, it is antithetical to educating students in the culture of American free expression.^[1]

”

It’s Critical Race Theory That Is Un-American, Not Laws Banning It | Joy Pullmann, The Federalist

“

Without breaking a sweat, the New York Times has gone from insisting critical race theory doesn’t exist to arguing state legislatures must let public schools inflict it on kids. Kmele Foster, David French, Jason Stanley, and Thomas Chatterton Williams claim in the Times that ‘Anti-Critical Race Theory Laws Are Un-American.’ This is exactly backwards. It’s teaching critical race theory that is un-American. … Critical theorists oppose free speech, the consent of the governed, freedom of association, and equal justice under the law. This is not about banning them from speaking, but in using representative government to deny them the privilege of taxpayer sinecures to help them foment America’s subversion and collapse. CRT teaches not only that people are defined by their skin color but also that paler skin is inherently evil. So this theory is used to justify the insistence that the United States is inherently evil, which is also patently anti-American. The concepts of ‘systemic racism,’ ‘white privilege,’ ‘anti-racism,’ and ‘equity [as opposed to equality]’ all stem from critical theory. Since this ideology is obviously false and toxic, state legislatures have moved to protect children from being taught it as gospel in the public education systems they directly oversee.^[1]

”

May 4: The debate over social-emotional learning in public schools

Social-emotional learning (SEL) refers to an educational method that promotes the development of social and emotional skills through school curricula. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), social-emotional learning “refers to a wide range of skills, attitudes, and behaviors that can affect student success in school and life,” including “critical thinking, emotion management, conflict resolution, decision making, teamwork.” How SEL is used varies.

Below, Jane Robbins at The Federalist writes that SEL deemphasizes the cultivation of knowledge and allows teachers to influence students to adopt attitudes and beliefs that are consistent with political correctness. Robbins says SEL promotes the idea that equality is racist and forces students to adopt anti-racist ideology, which she says identifies white children as oppressors.

Sandra Washburn with the Center on Education and Lifelong Learning at Indiana University writes that SEL can help equip students with social and emotional skills that improve educational, relational, and mental health outcomes. Washburn says SEL promotes equity, which she says is a goal of education generally.

How ‘Socio-Emotional Learning’ Became Another Vehicle For Anti-White Racism In Schools | Jane Robbins, The Federalist

“

Parents normally send their children to school (or park them at the computer for pretend school) to learn academic disciplines, including English, math, science, and history. But in most public and some private schools, more and more time is being redirected from academic instruction to ‘social-emotional learning’ (SEL)—the cultivation not of knowledge but of the ‘correct’ attitudes, beliefs, opinions, and behaviors. … To some extent, socio-emotional learning has always been a vehicle for introducing leftist propaganda in the classroom. … Until now, CASEL downplayed the leftist slant of socio-emotional learning, presenting schools and parents instead with a sanitized picture of teaching children compassion and responsibility. But in the era of Black Lives Matter, the mask is off.^[1]

”

Op-Ed: SEL offers academic and emotional gains. Banning it is about politics not education | Sandra Washburn, Indy Star

“

SEL is the process though which individuals develop knowledge and utilize skills in order to: establish a positive identity; manage emotions; understand and emphasize [sic] with others; create and maintain healthy relationships; set and achieve goals; and make just and caring decisions. … The main objection to CASEL appears to be their vision that SEL is a tool to leverage equity, as if leveraging equity is a dastardly deed. Isn’t education itself a lever for equity? … Attending to the emotional well-being of our young people is imperative for schools as well as for families. It is not an either/or proposition, but a collective responsibility. Social Emotional Learning is our best primary prevention for suicide and mental health struggles.^[1]

”

April 27: The debate over the need for a state takeover of Boston Public Schools

In Massachusetts, the state may place a district in receivership (the term for when someone else is made responsible for an entity) if the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education classifies a district as chronically underperforming. Chronically underperforming districts rank in the bottom 10% in the state based on standardized test scores and do not show signs of improvement. The state also considers factors like graduation and dropout rates before classifying eligible districts as chronically underperforming. For more information on chronically underperforming school district classifications, click here.

Leaders in Massachusetts are debating whether the state should place the Boston Public School District in the chronically underperforming category and under state receivership.

Below, Dan French, president of the board of Citizens for Public Schools, writes that even though Boston public schools do not perform well, state receivership would make the situation worse. French says the district is not failing as badly as critics claim, and he says leadership is moving in the right direction.

Jim Stergios, executive director for the Pioneer Institute, and Charles Chieppo, a senior fellow at the same organization, write that the Boston Public School District is failing students and is incapable of reversing course on its own. They say the state needs to appoint a receiver-superintendent who can quickly make significant changes to improve the public school system.

State receivership wrong step for Boston schools | Dan French, Commonwealth Magazine

“

Boston Public Schools are doing better than critics claim. Steady progress has been made on several fronts. Since a low of 58 percent in 2007, the graduation rate has steadily increased to 79 percent in 2021. The percent of 9th graders passing all courses, correlated to on-time graduation and college enrollment, has steadily increased to 81.5 percent in 2020. While MCAS scores are lower than desired, student growth percentiles in English language arts and math hover around the state average. These gains have occurred while the district has become more diverse with students who need more resources to learn successfully. Since 2008, English learners have grown by 60 percent. Since 2015, high needs students have increased by 13 percent and economically disadvantaged students have increased by 44 percent. Just under half (48 percent) of all students speak a first language other than English.^[1]

”

Time for the State to Take Over Boston Public Schools | Jim Stergios and Charles Chieppo, Real Clear Policy

“

A 2020 state review of BPS understandably gained little traction, as it was released on a Friday afternoon in March amid the initial wave of COVID-19 lockdowns. But it merits close attention in the wake of recent developments. The report is devastating. The size of the achievement gap between Black and White students widened and the performance of Latinos trails even further behind. More than 30 percent of the system’s students attend schools ranked in the bottom 10 percent statewide, and the state found no clear, consistent strategy for improving those schools. All this despite the fact that the district spends approximately $22,000 per student annually, according to data from the Boston Municipal Research Bureau. … Sadly, all this is nothing new for longtime observers of the BPS. In 2004-05, the state Office of Educational Quality and Accountability (EQA) published a highly critical 200-page report on BPS that identified many of the same systemic failures outlined in the 2020 report.^[1]

”

April 20: What rule changes is the federal government proposing for charter schools?

On March 14, the U.S. Department of Education (DoE) released proposed changes to the federal Charter School Programs (CSP), which provides grants to charter schools. Among other things, the proposed changes would prohibit federal grants from going to charter school organizations that rely on for-profit companies to run their schools. Federal grants are currently restricted to nonprofit charter school organizations.

Below, Jeff Bryant, lead fellow of The Progressive Magazine's Public Schools Advocate project, writes that President Joe Biden’s (D) proposed changes to federal charter school funding regulations would improve the program’s efficiency. Bryant says conservatives who oppose the regulations are carrying water for charter school lobbyists, who haven’t demonstrated the proposed regulations will negatively affect growth.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote that the Biden Administration’s proposed charter school regulations would benefit teachers' unions at the expense of students. The board says the new restrictions would discourage charter schools from applying for federal grants and limit school choice.

Biden Takes Aim at Wasteful Spending on Charter Schools | Jeff Bryant, The Progressive Magazine

“

President Joe Biden is taking steps to ensure that federal education funding will not be squandered on unneeded, mismanaged schools and the operators wanting to profit off of taxpayers. But these efforts are being opposed by the powerful charter school lobby, which has enjoyed a privileged status in the U.S. Department of Education, granting charter operators exclusive access to an annually renewable grant program established under the government’s Charter School Program, or CSP. … Given that the number-one reason charters close is due to financial problems—typically caused by a school’s inability to enroll enough students—it makes sense that any effort to grow charters should be based on some analysis that shows the school will be viable. Because poor management is the second-most frequent cause of charter school closures, partnering charters with the expertise of local educators can provide helpful oversight. … Charter school industry lobbyists have responded to these proposals with a campaign of hyperbolic misinformation.^[1]

”

A Case of Charter School Sabotage | The Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal

“

The Biden Administration is deep in the tank for the teachers unions, and it is proving it again by imposing new rules to sabotage a modest $440 million grant program for charter schools.

The 28-year-old federal Charter Schools Program helps pay for charter start-up expenses such as technology and staff. The funds go chiefly to state agencies, which award the money to charters, and to nonprofit charter management organizations. The federal Department of Education recently proposed new rules that would discourage charters from even applying for grants—which may be the goal. … States and local school districts are the main regulators and funders of charters, which are public schools. But the Administration is trying to leverage federal dollars to limit school choice and prop up failing union-run schools that received an incredible $200 billion in Covid relief since 2020. After unions spent two pandemic years keeping public schools closed, while many charters and most private schools stayed open, this is an educational and moral disgrace.^[1]

”

April 13: The debate over government-funded lunches in public schools

On March 31, Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Lisa Murkowski (R–Alaska) introduced the Support Kids Not Red Tape Act of 2022. The bill would extend for one year U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) waivers issued during the pandemic allowing public schools to provide free meals to all children. Congress did not extend the waivers in the most recent budget bill.

Below, Richard E. Besser, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), and Jamie Bussel, a senior program officer, write that universal school lunches would improve the health of children, reduce food insecurity, and undo the effects of systematic racism.

Max Eden, research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, writes that the expanded school lunch program could affect children's perception of the family as their primary provider. Eden also says agriculture lobbyists influence school lunch menus, so the food is not as healthy as proponents think.

School meals should remain free for all children — today and always | Richard E. Besser and Jamie Bussel, The Hill

“

But the value of good nutrition to children, families and schools is long-term and profound. Universal school meals should be permanent. Our nation has a history of addressing shortfalls during periods of crisis, only to let them reaccumulate once the dust has settled. If we take that path with universal school meals, we will be repeating that predictable cycle. Ending this support would say a lot — none of it favorable — about how we prioritize the needs of children and families in America, and in particular, our commitment to undoing the damage caused by structural racism and discrimination against children and families of color. … [T]oday, universal school meals are merely a temporary band-aid on a gaping wound. Whether they become a permanent fixture of our nation’s efforts to end childhood poverty and hunger, improve children’s health and help children reach their full potential and thrive is up to us. There is no better or more important time to make the right choice.^[1]

”

There's No Free Lunch | Max Eden, AEI

“

There is a strong case for having the government provide food to children whose parents can’t afford to feed them adequately, but that’s not the question at hand. The question is whether the government should feed children whose parents can afford it. … The children [who received free lunches in Ohio] had to contemplate the state as provider, rather than reflecting on how the love and labor of parents brought food to their plate. That experience shapes a child’s moral worldview, with human consequences that evade econometric analysis. Since the government, not the family, is already providing the education, the food may seem like a minor detail. But as the religions recognize, it carries significant meaning. … Progressives eager to expand school lunches, breakfasts, and dinners may be disappointed to discover that even after all the heavily touted efforts to make school lunches more local and nutritious, what gets served in school cafeterias remains heavily influenced by Big Agriculture and its lobbyists.^[1]

”

April 6: The debate over which books to include in school libraries

One topic of debate in recent months has been over the types of books schools should include in their libraries and curricula.

Below, Suzanne Nossel, chief executive of PEN America, wrote that recent state legislation to remove books from school libraries and curricula was part of a larger push to uproot American institutions and norms. Nossel compared the movement to book burnings and bans in other countries. Nossel said parents should trust the judgment of teachers and librarians.

Nicole Russell, an opinion contributor for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, wrote that removing books from school libraries and curricula was not the same as book banning or censorship. Russell said parents should have input on what materials their children can access in schools but should accept that other parents in the community—as well as educators, and community members—do not all share the same values. Russell cautioned that parents who want certain books removed from libraries should not be surprised when opposing sides take similar actions.

Op-Ed: The recent onslaught of book bans is a strategic part of wider attacks on our democracy | Suzanne Nossel, Los Angeles Times

“

Book bans and curriculum debates in the United States have flared up episodically over time, as rattled communities have sought to pump the brakes on social change in areas including evolutionary science, sexuality and the embrace of ethnic differences. Although some of the arguments being made today — about protecting innocent students from corrupting ideas — echo traditional motives for book banning, the current crusade has a more sinister cast. … The blitz on books and curricula is one flank in a wider onslaught on institutions and norms, aligned with part of our country’s resistance to the political and social implications that come with demographic and ideological shifts. Holding fast to democracy means holding fast to books, defending the judgment of teachers and librarians and vigorously upholding the rights to read and learn.^[1]

”

School book wars aren’t about ‘censorship.’ The fight is over whose values will prevail | Nicole Russell, Fort Worth Star-Telegram

“

True censorship would make the novels in question unavailable, out of print. Now, when a book is tossed from a school library, it skyrockets to the top of the Amazon bestseller list. … If the book is available elsewhere, that is not censorship or even really book banning. The heart of the issue is: Who gets to tell kids what to learn? Librarians? Teachers? Parents? Many public school administrators and teachers believe that they know better than parents — sometimes they’ll even admit it. Public school administrators, board members and staff shouldn’t pretend to be daft: When parents speak up about library or syllabus content, they aren’t suggesting they know a thing about senior-level chemistry. But they do care about the ethical or moral nature of the content to which their child is exposed. Public schools are taxpayer-subsidized, and 91 percent of America’s kids go to public schools. Of course parents should have a voice in what their children learn.^[1]

”

March 30: The debate over teaching gender identity in schools

On March 28, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed House Bill 1557 into law. Among other things, the bill says that classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through third grade.

So, what does it mean to teach gender identity—and should schools teach it in the first place?

Below, Keri D. Ingraham, a fellow at the Discovery Institute, writes that teaching about gender identity confuses students, conflicts with what she calls the “reality of biological sex,” can encourage treatments like gender reassignment surgery that can cause physical damage, and can drive a wedge between students and parents. Ingraham also says bathroom and locker room selection policies can endanger female students.

Timothy Dale Williams II, a U.S. history teacher for Prince George’s County Public Schools, writes that teachers need to be active in teaching students, other teachers, and parents about gender identity. Williams says teaching about gender issues is beneficial for all students and helps create a more accepting environment for transgender students. Williams also says opposing gender theory is a form of white supremacy.

How Replacing Biological Sex with Gender Identity Harms Children | Keri D. Ingraham, National Review

“

This preoccupation with gender-identity indoctrination is, moreover, at odds with the reality of biological sex, and has several harmful long-term effects on children. … First, the crowding out of academic learning, which is already deficient, by inappropriate sexual classroom content is educational malpractice. … Second, this indoctrination fuels identity confusion in students, as it conflicts with their biological reality (think of the Gender Unicorn and Genderbread Person). Third, bathroom self-selection, non-binary cabin counselors, and males in female locker rooms and on sports teams are not only violating the privacy of girls but also placing their safety at risk. Fourth, promoting or providing access to gender-blocking hormones and body-change surgeries to children and teenagers adds irreversible damage, including sterilization, to the psychological and emotional abuse of children. Finally, those states and districts that forbid the disclosure of gender-ideology discussions and that conduct a gender-'transition' plan without parent consent nor communication are not only damaging children but also driving a wedge between parents/legal guardians and their children.^[1]

”

Opinion: We Should Never Stop Learning About Gender Identity | Timothy Dale Williams II, Maryland Matters

“

As I studied and grew in knowledge, I realized that I had to take a stance on LGBTQIA issues to nurture the growth of all of my students. Long before our mandatory training, I realized that the fight to respect trans-gendered students in the classroom was an essential civil rights issue of our time. I am directly in the middle of one of the most important justice issues of our time every day as a public-school teacher. I understand now why it’s important that I do more than just use the preferred pronouns of students in the classroom. I must be intentional about teaching students, colleagues, and parents to respect the identity of trans-gendered students. I plan on doing this by being intentional about highlighting the stories of LGBTQIA individuals throughout history in my class. The concept of white supremacy has several branches that are still alive today. Being against gender and sexuality comes from the same tree that discriminates against me because I am a Black man. White Europeans in the 19th century labeled practices such as the ancient Hawaiian Hula dance evil because they didn’t understand it. Colonialism around the world involved labeling people, traditions, and beliefs white Europeans didn’t understand as evil or uncivilized.^[1]

”

March 23: The debate over parental access to teaching materials

One debate currently playing out in legislatures and school districts is whether schools should have to post curriculum and teacher training materials online. For example, on March 14, the Arizona State Senate passed SB 1211, a bill that would require schools to post curriculum and classroom activities online. The bill now goes to the House for consideration.

Below, Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and director of the Institute’s initiative on critical race theory, writes that parents should be able to see what public schools teach their children. Rufo says parental access to curricular materials is especially important on issues like race, gender and sex, and political ideology.

Natalie Wexler, a senior contributor at Forbes, writes that the lack of published curriculum online does not indicate schools and school districts are hiding politically charged teaching materials. Wexler says teachers rarely rely on a set curriculum, so it is difficult to share their materials with parents. Wexler says greater reliance on curriculum could improve learning outcomes, but transparency bills on controversial topics could disincentivize the use of curriculum.

The Fight for Curriculum Transparency | Christopher Rufo, City Journal

“

The case for curriculum transparency rests on an irrefutable moral argument: parents have the right to know what the government is teaching their children. Parents are not only taxpayers but also the primary stakeholders in the public education system. Approximately 90 percent of American families entrust their children’s education to public schools. That system’s minimum responsibility is to provide accurate, timely, and comprehensive information about the curriculum—especially as it relates to sensitive and controversial topics such as race, gender, identity, and political ideology. The recent parent backlash underscores the importance of transparency. Millions of American families feel that the public schools are working against their values. Transparency legislation is the bare minimum for public schools to start rebuilding trust with these families.^[1]

”

We Need ‘Curriculum Transparency,’ But Not The Kind Some State Bills Would Require | Natalie Wexler, Forbes

“

[M]ost state education officials are clueless about what materials are actually being used in school districts. Local district officials often don’t know what materials are being used in school buildings. Even principals may be unclear about what teachers are using in the classroom down the hall. And teachers themselves may not know what materials they’ll be using in class until the night before. Clearly that would make it difficult, if not impossible, to post ‘curriculum’ online. … If curriculum transparency is reduced to a vehicle for challenges to supposedly offensive or divisive texts, schools may shy away from including any content in their curricula. They’ll stick with or return to an ELA [English language arts] curriculum that consists of the usual round of ‘comprehension skills’ and doesn’t specify any content whatsoever.^[1]

”

March 16: The debate over school discipline policies

In recent years, debate has taken place among school board members, scholars, and advocacy groups about school discipline policies.

Below, Heather Cunningham, an Assistant Professor of Education at Chatham University, writes that schools should move away from systems of discipline that tend to punish students for mistakes. Cunningham says systems that often suspend or expel students for misbehavior are systemically racist. She says new systems of discipline should pull students closer to helpful resources instead of pushing them out of schools.

Max Eden, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, writes that more attention should be paid to student experiences under less-punitive discipline systems. Eden says less-punitive discipline systems in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, did not reduce student arrests and contributed to lower math achievement in middle schools and predominantly Black schools.

Restorative Discipline: Classroom Management for Equity and Justice | Heather Cunningham, Green Schools National Network

“

Educators who want to work against the systemic racism found in their school’s punitive discipline system can consider a different framework for classroom management and building school culture. Using practices rooted in restorative discipline is a promising way to do this. Restorative discipline is an approach to classroom management rooted in restorative justice philosophy. This philosophy advocates that schools should be places where young people are able to make mistakes, reflect upon and learn from these mistakes, and correct them as they continue to learn and grow. In terms of academics, U.S. schools have embraced this growth mindset idea. Students are expected to make mistakes on assignments, receive feedback from their teachers, learn from their errors, and continue to grow.^[1]

”

Restorative justice isn't working, but that's not what the media is reporting | Max Eden, The Thomas Fordham Institute

“

Last week, the first randomized control trial study of ‘restorative justice’ in a major urban district, Pittsburgh Public Schools, was published by the RAND Corporation.

The results were curiously mixed. Suspensions went down in elementary but not middle schools. Teachers reported improved school safety, professional environment, and classroom management ability. But students disagreed. They thought their teachers’ classroom management deteriorated, and that students in class were less respectful and supportive of each other; at a lower confidence interval, they reported bullying and more instructional time lost to disruption. And although restorative justice is billed as a way to fight the ‘school-to-prison pipeline,’ it had no impact on student arrests. The most troubling thing: There were significant and substantial negative effects on math achievement for middle school students, black students, and students in schools that are predominantly black^[1]

”

March 9: The debate over how teachers unions affect schools and policies

School districts throughout the country negotiate contracts with teachers unions. Debates about the impact of unions in school districts are a perennial feature of the policy landscape surrounding school governance.

Below, Glenn Sacks, a social studies teacher at a Los Angeles Unified School District high school, writes that public teachers unions advocate for policies that protect teachers’ time from activities like yard duty and supervising school events. Sacks says this gives teachers more time to focus on students.

Edward Ring, a contributing editor and senior fellow with the California Policy Center, writes that public teachers unions tend to advocate for inefficient work rules, negotiate unsustainable pay and benefits with politicians they help elect, and protect bad teachers. Ring also says unions protect what he calls a left-wing agenda in classrooms. The California Policy Center describes itself as “an educational non-profit working for the prosperity of all Californians by eliminating public-sector barriers to freedom.”

Why teachers unions are good for your children | Glenn Sacks, Los Angeles Daily News

“

The one group that is aware of and fights to defend teachers’ ability to provide students with a good education is teachers’ unions. Teachers’ unions help children’s education because they protect a precious resource — teachers’ time. At nonunion schools teachers are often weighed down with unnecessary labor such as yard duty and supervising school events. These duties reduce teachers’ ability to spend time helping students and preparing for classes.^[1]

”

Why teachers unions are the worst of the worst | Edward Ring, California Policy Center

“

The teachers unions are guilty of all the problems common to all public sector unions. They, too, have negotiated unsustainable rates of pay and benefits. They, too, elect their own bosses, negotiate inefficient work rules, have an insatiable need for more public funds, and protect incompetent members. But the teachers union is worse than all other public sector unions for one reason that eclipses all others: Their agenda is negatively affecting how we socialize and educate our children, the next generation of Americans.^[1]

”

March 2: The debate over Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill

The Florida House of Representatives approved HB 1557, the Parental Rights in Education bill, on Feb. 24, 2022. As of March 1, the bill is before the state Senate.

Below, Amit Paley, CEO and executive director of the Trevor Project, and Joe Saunders, senior political director for Equality Florida, write that Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill is too vague and would harm LGBTQ students and students with LGBTQ parents. The Trevor Project says its mission is “[t]o end suicide among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer & questioning young people.” Equality Florida says it is “the largest civil rights organization dedicated to securing full equality for Florida's lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community.”

Jay Richards and Jared Echkert with the Heritage Foundation write that media outlets are mischaracterizing Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill. They say it would create greater transparency and protect children from material and topics that are not age appropriate. The Heritage Foundation says its mission is to “formulate and promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”

Florida's 'don't say gay' bill is cruel and dangerous | Amit Paley and Joe Saunders, CNN

“

One of the most extreme examples [of anti-LGBTQ legislation] is a piece of legislation in Florida known as the 'Don't Say Gay' bill. It states school districts 'may not encourage discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.' The language, which is vague and could apply to K-12 classrooms across Florida, could be used to prohibit open discussions of LGBTQ people and issues. If passed, it would effectively erase entire chapters of history, literature, and critical health information in schools -- and silence LGBTQ students and those with LGBTQ parents or family members. It's just one of several divisive and dehumanizing bills in Florida that use LGBTQ youth as political pawns to limit conversations about gender and sexual identity. Let's be clear: The 'Don't Say Gay' bill will do real and lasting harm.^[1]

”

Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Bill Hits Target: Gender Ideology Harms Kids | Jay Richards and Jared Eckert, The Heritage Foundation

“

Lawmakers in the Sunshine State have introduced a new bill, Parental Rights in Education. If the name doesn’t ring a bell, that may be because big media have mislabeled it as the 'Don’t Say Gay' Bill. The bill would not ban the word 'gay.' Rather, it would protect children from teachers and other school officials who seek to sexualize and bombard them with gender ideology. In particular, it would require schools to be transparent with and get permission from parents for any health services students receive. It would also prohibit elementary school teachers from pushing classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity. Liberal activists are claiming that the parental rights bill would harm kids. Nonsense. It would protect young kids from what is, in effect, sexual grooming—whether in the classroom or the nurse’s office. The fact that this has become a partisan issue is a sign of how bizarre our culture and politics have become.^[1]

”

February 23: The debate over partisan and nonpartisan school board elections

Below, Aaron Churchill, a research director for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, writes that partisan school board elections would allow voters to make more informed decisions. Churchill says adding party affiliations to ballots for school board candidates would allow voters to easily identify the candidate who aligns with their beliefs, hold school board members accountable, and disrupt the status quo. The Thomas B. Fordman Institute says its mission is to "promote educational excellence for every child in America via quality research, analysis, and commentary, as well as advocacy and exemplary charter school authorizing in Ohio."

Michael Ford, an associate professor of public administration at the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, writes in Governing that while school board members have ideological preferences, school board elections should remain nonpartisan. Ford says partisan elections would nationalize elections that should focus on local issues. He also says partisan elections create unnecessary political tensions that impede school boards from doing their normal jobs, which don’t typically involve hot-button partisan issues.

The case for partisan school board elections | Aaron Churchill, The Thomas Fordham Institute

“

Moreover, school board elections are also an important form of local accountability and oversight. When citizens are unhappy with the district, they can always voice their dissatisfaction at the ballot box. Yet nonpartisan elections likely weaken accountability because voters don’t know which party is in power and who deserves the boot for acting contrary to their interests. As political scientist Charles Adrian theorized many years ago, nonpartisan elections ‘tend to frustrate protest voting’ as people cannot easily identify which candidates belong to the ‘in’ or ‘out’ group. In other words, it’s hard to shake up the status quo when you can’t figure out who’s part of it. Including party labels in school board elections seems like a commonsense reform that would give voters more information, while also potentially increasing participation and enhancing local accountability.^[1]

”

Why School Board Elections Should Stay Nonpartisan | Michael Ford, Governing

“

So if school board members do have ideological preferences, why keep up the ruse? Well, I think the arguments for reform are missing the point. This issue is not whether a democratic governing body will reflect the political diversity of the electorate — it most certainly will — but whether the structures of our governing institutions impact their performance. The goal of having nonpartisan elections is not to remove all politics from governing, but rather to remove a conflict point that keeps the school board from doing its job. … The work of governing, which includes budgeting, planning, internal policymaking, managing the executive, communicating with the public, etc., is not as exciting as the hot-button partisan issues of the day. But it is the work that ultimately impacts organizational outcomes. That is not to say school boards can or should avoid all hot-button issues, but I fear explicitly partisan elections invite state and federal battles into a local governing context at the expense of truly local issues. To be more blunt, I do not want school boards to become just another venue for nakedly partisan conflict.^[1]

”

February 16: The debate over masking in classrooms

CNN opinion columnist Jill Filipovic writes that the CDC needs to stop promoting the generalized recommendation for continued mask-wearing in schools. Instead, the CDC should offer a clear formula based on case, hospitalization, and vaccination rates for when school mask mandates should be lifted or reinstated.

Kylee Zempel, an editor at The Federalist, says that scientific data on the effectiveness of masks in schools has not changed in recent months. She says leaders ignored the data and silenced conservative views. Zempel says recent changes to school mask policies have been politically, not scientifically, motivated.

In some blue states, masks are coming off -- but not everyone is ready | Jill Filipovic, CNN

“

What we need is not just clear guidance for the here and now, but a clear formula for when mask mandates should lift, where they should lift, and when they may need to be reinstated. Covid-19 is not a static disease, and public health guidance should evolve as the disease does…

But when case rates are significantly down, hospitals aren't overwhelmed and community vaccination rates are high, it's time for a reprieve. Students and staff should be able to unmask in these conditions.

Whether that moment is now is above my pay grade. It shouldn't be on lay people, from CNN columnists to state governors to Twitter warriors, to be making these imperfect calculations. We need the CDC to step up and offer a clear and sensible formula instead of generalized guidance. And we need to start thinking about Covid-19 the way we do about other threats to our lives and health: focus on risk-reduction measures that are specific and targeted, and aimed at allowing us to live our lives balancing, as best we can, public health, pleasure and freedom.^[1]

”

Science On Covid And Kids Hasn’t Changed, Only The Politics Has | Kylee Zempel, The Federalist

“

None of the recent goalpost-shifting has been the result of some huge scientific breakthrough.

You also knew based on elementary-level reasoning that if a certain mask affords any protection from an airborne virus, it must logically protect the wearer, not merely the bystanders. Not to mention, you did your homework and knew those flimsy cloth masks required by petty government and school diktats were not stopping the spread. Both opinions were scoffed out of polite society but are now acknowledged as true because circumstances, they are a-changin’.^[1]

”

February 9: The debate over who gets to decide what’s age-appropriate and what’s necessary in classrooms

Below, Margaret Renkl, a New York Times opinion columnist, writes that the McGinn County, Tennessee, school board's decision to remove the book Maus from its eighth-grade curriculum is a form of book banning. She says this indicates a nationwide effort to undercut local school board power and threatens public education.

Mark Hemmingway, a Senior Writer at RealClearInvestigations, writes communities should have the ability to decide what meets their standards of acceptability. Hemingway says the national media’s coverage of McMinn County’s removal of Maus has politicized the issue and is taking power away from local school boards.

In Tennessee, the ‘Maus’ Controversy Is the Least of Our Worries | Margaret Renkl, New York Times

“

Still, it is possible to trust that the parents in McMinn County are acting in what they believe is the best interest of their children, and also to recognize that these parents are being manipulated by toxic and dangerous political forces operating at the state and national levels. Here in Tennessee, book bans are just a small but highly visible part of a much larger effort to privatize public schools and turn them into conservative propaganda centers. This crusade is playing out in ways that transcend local school board decisions, and in fact are designed to wrest control away from them altogether.^[1]

”

Parental Input on Education Is Not ‘Book Banning’ | Mark Hemmingway, Real Clear Politics

“

I don’t take concerns about book banning lightly. … However, I’ve also spent more than a decade on the board of a private school, and decisions about what’s taught in K-12 classrooms and what ends up on school library shelves isn’t a tidy free speech issue. When the national media suggest that parents, administrators, and teachers are censors – or, worse, are “banning” books – by making necessary decisions about what reading material is age-appropriate or meets community standards, more often than not these news outlets are the ones politicizing education.^[1]

”

External links

National Center for Education Statistics

Footnotes

↑ ^1.000 ^1.001 ^1.002 ^1.003 ^1.004 ^1.005 ^1.006 ^1.007 ^1.008 ^1.009 ^1.010 ^1.011 ^1.012 ^1.013 ^1.014 ^1.015 ^1.016 ^1.017 ^1.018 ^1.019 ^1.020 ^1.021 ^1.022 ^1.023 ^1.024 ^1.025 ^1.026 ^1.027 ^1.028 ^1.029 ^1.030 ^1.031 ^1.032 ^1.033 ^1.034 ^1.035 ^1.036 ^1.037 ^1.038 ^1.039 ^1.040 ^1.041 ^1.042 ^1.043 ^1.044 ^1.045 ^1.046 ^1.047 ^1.048 ^1.049 ^1.050 ^1.051 ^1.052 ^1.053 ^1.054 ^1.055 ^1.056 ^1.057 ^1.058 ^1.059 ^1.060 ^1.061 ^1.062 ^1.063 ^1.064 ^1.065 ^1.066 ^1.067 ^1.068 ^1.069 ^1.070 ^1.071 ^1.072 ^1.073 ^1.074 ^1.075 ^1.076 ^1.077 ^1.078 ^1.079 ^1.080 ^1.081 ^1.082 ^1.083 ^1.084 ^1.085 ^1.086 ^1.087 ^1.088 ^1.089 ^1.090 ^1.091 ^1.092 ^1.093 ^1.094 ^1.095 ^1.096 ^1.097 ^1.098 ^1.099 ^1.100 ^1.101 ^1.102 ^1.103 ^1.104 ^1.105 ^1.106 ^1.107 ^1.108 ^1.109 ^1.110 ^1.111 ^1.112 ^1.113 ^1.114 ^1.115 ^1.116 ^1.117 ^1.118 ^1.119 ^1.120 ^1.121 ^1.122 ^1.123 ^1.124 ^1.125 ^1.126 ^1.127 ^1.128 ^1.129 ^1.130 ^1.131 ^1.132 ^1.133 ^1.134 ^1.135 ^1.136 ^1.137 ^1.138 ^1.139 ^1.140 ^1.141 ^1.142 ^1.143 ^1.144 ^1.145 ^1.146 ^1.147 ^1.148 ^1.149 ^1.150 ^1.151 ^1.152 ^1.153 ^1.154 ^1.155 ^1.156 ^1.157 ^1.158 ^1.159 ^1.160 ^1.161 ^1.162 ^1.163 ^1.164 ^1.165 ^1.166 ^1.167 ^1.168 ^1.169 ^1.170 ^1.171 ^1.172 ^1.173 ^1.174 ^1.175 ^1.176 ^1.177 ^1.178 ^1.179 ^1.180 ^1.181 ^1.182 ^1.183 ^1.184 ^1.185 ^1.186 ^1.187 ^1.188 ^1.189 ^1.190 ^1.191 ^1.192 ^1.193 ^1.194 ^1.195 ^1.196 ^1.197 ^1.198 ^1.199 ^1.200 ^1.201 ^1.202 ^1.203 ^1.204 ^1.205 ^1.206 ^1.207 ^1.208 ^1.209 ^1.210 ^1.211 ^1.212 ^1.213 ^1.214 ^1.215 ^1.216 ^1.217 ^1.218 ^1.219 ^1.220 ^1.221 ^1.222 ^1.223 ^1.224 ^1.225 ^1.226 ^1.227 ^1.228 ^1.229 ^1.230 ^1.231 ^1.232 ^1.233 ^1.234 ^1.235 ^1.236 ^1.237 ^1.238 ^1.239 ^1.240 ^1.241 ^1.242 ^1.243 ^1.244 ^1.245 ^1.246 ^1.247 ^1.248 ^1.249 ^1.250 ^1.251 ^1.252 ^1.253 ^1.254 ^1.255 ^1.256 ^1.257 ^1.258 ^1.259 ^1.260 ^1.261 ^1.262 ^1.263 ^1.264 ^1.265 ^1.266 ^1.267 ^1.268 ^1.269 ^1.270 ^1.271 ^1.272 ^1.273 ^1.274 ^1.275 ^1.276 ^1.277 ^1.278 ^1.279 ^1.280 ^1.281 ^1.282 ^1.283 ^1.284 ^1.285 ^1.286 ^1.287 ^1.288 ^1.289 ^1.290 ^1.291 ^1.292 ^1.293 ^1.294 ^1.295 ^1.296 ^1.297 ^1.298 ^1.299 ^1.300 ^1.301 ^1.302 ^1.303 ^1.304 ^1.305 ^1.306 ^1.307 ^1.308 ^1.309 ^1.310 ^1.311 ^1.312 ^1.313 ^1.314 ^1.315 ^1.316 ^1.317 ^1.318 ^1.319 ^1.320 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

[quotedisclaimer-1] 1.000 ^1.001 ^1.002 ^1.003 ^1.004 ^1.005 ^1.006 ^1.007 ^1.008 ^1.009 ^1.010 ^1.011 ^1.012 ^1.013 ^1.014 ^1.015 ^1.016 ^1.017 ^1.018 ^1.019 ^1.020 ^1.021 ^1.022 ^1.023 ^1.024 ^1.025 ^1.026 ^1.027 ^1.028 ^1.029 ^1.030 ^1.031 ^1.032 ^1.033 ^1.034 ^1.035 ^1.036 ^1.037 ^1.038 ^1.039 ^1.040 ^1.041 ^1.042 ^1.043 ^1.044 ^1.045 ^1.046 ^1.047 ^1.048 ^1.049 ^1.050 ^1.051 ^1.052 ^1.053 ^1.054 ^1.055 ^1.056 ^1.057 ^1.058 ^1.059 ^1.060 ^1.061 ^1.062 ^1.063 ^1.064 ^1.065 ^1.066 ^1.067 ^1.068 ^1.069 ^1.070 ^1.071 ^1.072 ^1.073 ^1.074 ^1.075 ^1.076 ^1.077 ^1.078 ^1.079 ^1.080 ^1.081 ^1.082 ^1.083 ^1.084 ^1.085 ^1.086 ^1.087 ^1.088 ^1.089 ^1.090 ^1.091 ^1.092 ^1.093 ^1.094 ^1.095 ^1.096 ^1.097 ^1.098 ^1.099 ^1.100 ^1.101 ^1.102 ^1.103 ^1.104 ^1.105 ^1.106 ^1.107 ^1.108 ^1.109 ^1.110 ^1.111 ^1.112 ^1.113 ^1.114 ^1.115 ^1.116 ^1.117 ^1.118 ^1.119 ^1.120 ^1.121 ^1.122 ^1.123 ^1.124 ^1.125 ^1.126 ^1.127 ^1.128 ^1.129 ^1.130 ^1.131 ^1.132 ^1.133 ^1.134 ^1.135 ^1.136 ^1.137 ^1.138 ^1.139 ^1.140 ^1.141 ^1.142 ^1.143 ^1.144 ^1.145 ^1.146 ^1.147 ^1.148 ^1.149 ^1.150 ^1.151 ^1.152 ^1.153 ^1.154 ^1.155 ^1.156 ^1.157 ^1.158 ^1.159 ^1.160 ^1.161 ^1.162 ^1.163 ^1.164 ^1.165 ^1.166 ^1.167 ^1.168 ^1.169 ^1.170 ^1.171 ^1.172 ^1.173 ^1.174 ^1.175 ^1.176 ^1.177 ^1.178 ^1.179 ^1.180 ^1.181 ^1.182 ^1.183 ^1.184 ^1.185 ^1.186 ^1.187 ^1.188 ^1.189 ^1.190 ^1.191 ^1.192 ^1.193 ^1.194 ^1.195 ^1.196 ^1.197 ^1.198 ^1.199 ^1.200 ^1.201 ^1.202 ^1.203 ^1.204 ^1.205 ^1.206 ^1.207 ^1.208 ^1.209 ^1.210 ^1.211 ^1.212 ^1.213 ^1.214 ^1.215 ^1.216 ^1.217 ^1.218 ^1.219 ^1.220 ^1.221 ^1.222 ^1.223 ^1.224 ^1.225 ^1.226 ^1.227 ^1.228 ^1.229 ^1.230 ^1.231 ^1.232 ^1.233 ^1.234 ^1.235 ^1.236 ^1.237 ^1.238 ^1.239 ^1.240 ^1.241 ^1.242 ^1.243 ^1.244 ^1.245 ^1.246 ^1.247 ^1.248 ^1.249 ^1.250 ^1.251 ^1.252 ^1.253 ^1.254 ^1.255 ^1.256 ^1.257 ^1.258 ^1.259 ^1.260 ^1.261 ^1.262 ^1.263 ^1.264 ^1.265 ^1.266 ^1.267 ^1.268 ^1.269 ^1.270 ^1.271 ^1.272 ^1.273 ^1.274 ^1.275 ^1.276 ^1.277 ^1.278 ^1.279 ^1.280 ^1.281 ^1.282 ^1.283 ^1.284 ^1.285 ^1.286 ^1.287 ^1.288 ^1.289 ^1.290 ^1.291 ^1.292 ^1.293 ^1.294 ^1.295 ^1.296 ^1.297 ^1.298 ^1.299 ^1.300 ^1.301 ^1.302 ^1.303 ^1.304 ^1.305 ^1.306 ^1.307 ^1.308 ^1.309 ^1.310 ^1.311 ^1.312 ^1.313 ^1.314 ^1.315 ^1.316 ^1.317 ^1.318 ^1.319 ^1.320 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

[1]

Local Politics	2023 Election Analysis

Municipal government Local courts School boards Local ballot measures Local recalls	Municipal elections, 2023 Mayoral elections, 2023 Local court elections, 2023 School board elections, 2023 Local ballot measure elections, 2023 Political recall efforts, 2023