NEPC - Blog Post of the Day

Gary Rubinstein's Blog: By One Dishonest Measure

elaine — Fri, 04 Sep 2026 12:27:02 +0000

Gary Rubinstein's Blog: By One Dishonest Measure

A loaded question that education reformers like to ponder is: Exactly how many students in the boroughs of New York City are trapped in failing schools?

In November 2014 there was a report put out by Families For Excellent Schools called ‘The Forgotten Fourth’ in which they put the number at 143,000 which is about 15%. This 143,000 number was quoted for months on the news and was featured in a New York Post op-ed by Eva Moskowitz, founder and CEO of the Success Academy charter school network.

Two weeks ago, July 2026 The New York Post had an article about a new report with an updated number of how many NYC students are trapped in failing schools. The new number is 409,379 or 43%. This is based on a newly released report called ‘By Any Honest Measure’ and written by, of all places, Success Academy.

So how, exactly, did the number of students trapped in failing schools triple in the last twelve years? It all depends on how the word ‘failing’ is defined.

But defining what is and what is not a ‘failing’ school is a very subjective thing and I’m going to examine in this post how ‘By Any Honest Measure’ defines it to arrive at the 409,379 number and how slight adjustments to their metric would result in a very different number.

In the 2014 paper, the measure of a failing school was a school in which fewer than 10% of the students passed the math state test and fewer than 10% of the students passed the ELA state test. Just looking at pass rates can be misleading because you could have a school, for example, in which 90% of the students get a 2.9 and the rest get over a 3.0 and that would be 10% ‘passing’ while you could have another school where everyone gets exactly a 3.1 and they have 100% passing even though the two schools are basically the same in terms of their test scores. So just looking at percent passing can give a misleading picture, it is the most crude way of measuring school quality. More sophisticated ‘growth’ measures at least try to capture the idea that a school can be doing a good job even though the students haven’t gotten to a certain level yet. But for that ‘The Forgotten Fourth’ that was they way they defined ‘failing’ despite the flaws in that simplified metric.

But this new report from Success Academy has concluded that the number of students in ‘failing’ schools has tripled in the past 12 years. So how is ‘failure’ defined in ‘By Any Honest Measure’? For this study, a failing school is one where under 50% of the students have passed either the math or the ELA state tests. So to compare the two ways: ‘The Forgotten Fourth’ needed both math and ELA to be under 10%. ‘By Any Honest Measure’ needed either math or ELA to be under 50%. So right there, we should expect the number of students in failing schools to skyrocket. Well I downloaded the report and had to do some number crunching from the New York Department Of Education database so I can look at the numbers more closely.

The first thing that came to mind for me was, why is the bar for ‘failing’ now under 50% passing when it used to be under 10% passing. The Success Academy report says that there has been grade inflation as the average state test scores have been increasing while the NAEP scores have been stagnant. This is actually a valid point (one of the few they make) but it still isn’t detailed enough to raise the failure bar from 10% to 50%. As an experiment, I recalculated these numbers to see what if the rule was to find schools where students got less than 40% on at least one of the two measures. Just changing that one number from 50% to 40% lowered the number of students attending ‘failing’ schools 242,822 (if you notice that my 50% on the chart is a little off from the Success Academy calculation, there are some very small differences in the counting but the difference is negligible). And if we lower to 10% like in ‘The Forgotten Fourth’ now it is just 14,000 students instead of the 143,000. But I will acknowledge that cut off scores and what qualifies as getting a 3 on a test is its own political issue so it is hard to know what is considered an alarming number of students not reaching an arbitrary cutoff. This is more the reason to use a more sophisticated way of trying to measure school quality and not just saying 50% is the ideal threshold to measure whether a school is failing. Here is a chart showing how the Success Academy numbers would change had they used a different threshold.

The next big difference between the new ‘By Any Honest Measure’ report and ‘The Forgotten Fourth’ report is that for the older one, for a school to be failing, it had to be less than 10% for both measures while for this newer report, for a school to be failing, it had to be less than 50% for either measure.

So this means that if an elementary school had 49% of their students get a 3 on the math state test and 100% of their students get a 3 on the ELA state test, by the methodology in this report, that would be a failing school. That school would be failing while a school that got 51% on both tests would not be failing. This is really the critical flaw in this report so I decided to crunch the numbers to see how this one thing, the AND vs OR decision, affected the numbers.

First I wanted to check to see if this was a common thing, a school having fewer than 50% on one test and much greater than 50% on the other test. So I went to the Success Academy report where they showed the numbers they used and I found something very interesting.

So in their list of failing schools, they only report the number for the one that is under 50%. So what I did was download the entire NY State database and fill in every missing value. So, for instance, that first school on the list there, PS 165, I found that their ELA score was 57% So they had 48% Math and 57% ELA but because one of those numbers was less than 50% all 459 students in that school, including all the K-2 who didn’t take the test are part of the 408,000 students ‘trapped’ in the ‘failing’ school. Had a few more students in 3-6 gotten one or two more questions right on that math test, 459 students would have been spared from this trapping. Well, I ran two calculations. First I looked at all 905 schools on the failing list to see if there were a lot of schools like this. I found that about half the schools had gotten under 50% on just one test. So I added together the two numbers and found 173 that had a combined sum of over 100, like a school that had 48% on one and 57% on the other, PS 165. Here are some of those results:

Like Brooklyn Bridge academy, that ‘failing’ school that had 48.5% passing math and 97% passing ELA. Above I listed the the top 25 schools, but for the 173 schools that had a combined over 100, their total enrollment 117,385. This, right there, the unfair labelling of a school as failing despite having an average of 50% or higher comprises about 1/3 of the students the report contends are trapped in a failing school.

I think that even if a school had 35% math and 60% ELA so it doesn’t add up to over 100 but I still think it is unfair to label that school as a failure. If you only count schools where both scores are under 50%, the number of students enrolled in failing schools drops from 400,000 to 180,000. That’s how much can change when you change an ‘OR’ into an ‘AND.’ Whether Success Academy purposely left off the relevant other numbers from their spreadsheets so nobody would question if a school with 48.5% math and 97% ELA is truly ‘failing’ I don’t know, but I was glad that I have the technical know-how to fill in those missing numbers.

Looking at the chart published in The New York Post, one thing that jumped out at me was that they claim that 62% of high school students attend ‘failing’ schools while just 34% of elementary schools do. So even though high school is just four grades, 9, 10, 11, 12, they comprise almost 40% of the total students in the ‘failing’ schools.

So elementary schools have grades 3-6 state tests in math and ELA but high schools don’t. High schools, however, take a bunch of standardized state final exams called The Regents. One of those Regents is Algebra I and another one is ELA. Many students take Algebra I in 8th grade so only the lower performing students take the Algebra I Regents in high school and those scores are skewed. For elementary schools where four different grades are used to make their math score, trying to capture the quality of a high school by just looking at the Algebra I scores for students who came in not already having taken Algebra I in 8th grade is not going to be a fair way to judge the school, especially since getting less than 50% on Algebra I, regardless of how the school did on ELA Regents, dooms the school as failing and the entire enrollment to be trapped in it.

And since a school is counted as failing if fewer than 50% pass either the Algebra I or the ELA Regents, the entire high school is labelled failing based on this one test. So the first analysis I did on the high schools was to look at the 297 schools and see how many had gotten less than 50% on both which ended up as 74 schools. Of the rest, 210 had gotten under 50% on Algebra I but more than 50% on ELA while only 9 had gotten under 50% on ELA but over 50% on Algebra I.

One of the 9 entries in the category of over 50% Algebra 1 Regents and under 50% ELA regents is the ‘English Language Learners – Inter Supp’ isn’t actually a school with 276 students trapped but a category that happened to be in the database and which Success Academy included as 276 students to add to their list.

As a last irony, I looked at Success Academy’s Algebra I Regents scores. To someone who doesn’t know about the infamous ‘curve’ on this test, the 94% pass rate might seem fine. But only 52% of their students got a level 4 or level 5. The other 48% of their students got either levels 2 or 3. To get a level 4, you have to get 51 points out of 82, which is a 62% (which gets ‘curved’ to a 75). Level 2, though technically passing, is curved up from as low as 35% correct to 51% correct. So 48% of Success Academy, had New York State not done this generous curve, would have gotten less than a 62% on the Regents which would be failing. And, based on a bell curve, it is likely that a few of their level 4 students would have gotten under a 65. So by a pretty reasonable alternative way of scaling the Algebra I Regents, fewer than 50% of Success Academy students would have passed it and, by their way of measuring high schools, Success Academy Harlem I would be a failing school in which all the students there are trapped.

OK, I think you get the point. ‘By Any Honest Measure’ is anything but. It is really kind of embarrassing that a company with tens of millions of dollars would probably pay about 50 grand to create this slop. Sadly, this report has been picked up by the media and it will surely be quoted for years to come.

elaine September 4, 2026

Source

Gary Rubinstein's Blog

Nancy Bailey's Education Website: Science of Reading Mandates: Who’s Listening to The Experts?

elaine — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 17:16:06 +0000

Nancy Bailey's Education Website: Science of Reading Mandates: Who’s Listening to The Experts?

Forty states are mandating the Science of Reading (SoR), promoting what they call evidence-based learning. Sadly, for years, thought-provoking arguments by accomplished reading and educational experts, based on serious research, have described complications surrounding the SoR. They seem all but ignored.

Problems with this paradigm seem unnoticed by policymakers in favor of a few neuroscientists, journalists, nonprofits and foundations, politicians, and professors, often with a vested interest in expensive SoR programs, many unproven and online.

The federal government is also pushing the bipartisan READ Act sponsored by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who has a charter school for students with dyslexia, and others, raising additional concerns.

In a recent Education Week report, Federal ‘Science of Reading’ Bill Advances, many promoting this Bill are corporate school reformers, who support school choice! Although one choice proponent, Michael Petrilli from the Fordham Foundation, raises questions likening SoR to NCLB’s Reading First. I agree.

There’s also mention of a new National Reading Panel; however, there is fear that the panel chosen today would be as biased and political as the last panel. Consider the disregard for one of the panel’s members, Joanne Yatvin, the only teacher-turned-principal, who recused herself due to the panel’s problems. (See I Told You So! The Misinterpretation and Misuse of The National Reading Panel Report) or My Experiences in Teaching Reading and Being a Member of the National Reading Panel).

Here are a few of the many critical voices that policymakers should be listening to when it comes to literacy.

Dr. Elena (Helen) Aydarova

Aydarova’s publication record as a professor is long and impressive. As associate professor in educational policy studies at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, her work has appeared in journals, and she has won numerous awards for her research. She has analyzed the Science of Reading and raised serious questions. In What You See Is Not What You Get: Science of Reading Reforms as a Guise for Standardization, Centralization, and Privatization, published by the University of Chicago Press, she connects the SoR to standardization, centralization, and expansion of the private sector in education services. It’s hard to see here where the focus is on teaching children good reading practices.

In “Whatever You Want to Call It”: Science of Reading Mythologies in the Education Reform Movement, published by The Harvard Review, she exposes myths surrounding the SoR as it advances the agendas of the private sector, not creating useful change but maintaining the status quo.

Dr. Nancy Carlsson-Paige and Dr. Diane Levin

Carlsson-Paige taught children for years and later became a professor at Lesley University, where she prepared teachers to work with early learners. In 2012, she co-founded, along with Levin, a professor of applied developmental psychology at Wheelock College, Defending the Early Years. DEY’s steering committee of great educators sought a just, equitable, and quality early childhood education and care for every young child.

DEY understood the danger of pushing down academics and replacing play with heavy reading instruction and questionable Common Core State Standards. They advocated for active, playful, experiential approaches supported by child development theory and evidence-based research. Carlsson-Paige’s book Taking Back Childhood: A Proven Road Map for Raising Confident, Creative, Compassionate Kids was a testament to this. As a sidenote, Carlsson-Paige is the mother of Matt Damon.

Regarding SoR, in 2025, Carlsson-Paige and Julie Hackett, Superintendent of Lexington public schools, wrote The fallacy of settled science in literacy published in The Boston Globe.

Carlsson-Paige, Levin, and the voices involved with DEY should be front and center when it comes to reading and early childhood; instead, sadly, the nonprofit will be shutting down.

Dr. Rachael Gabriel

As Professor of Literacy Education at the University of Connecticut, Gabriel is seen as a prolific researcher and writer about SoR and literacy in general. She is the editor of The Reading Teacher. You can catch her blogging on Substack under the Rachael Reading Policy, and she can be found in a variety of elite platforms like The Progressive, where she recently penned What’s Behind the Push to Make Schools Adopt the Science of Reading?

Dr. Andrew (Andy) Johnson

Johnson is professor emeritus of literacy instruction and a distinguished scholar from Minnesota State University, Mankato. He authored Designing Meaning-Based Interventions for Struggling Readers and his new book, Making Sense of the Science of Reading: Context Matters, is due out August 31. Johnson is a larger-than-life-blogger with The Reading Instruction Show on Substack, about reading and having been a classroom teacher for many years. He is especially knowledgeable on critical reading practices.

Dr. Stephen Krashen

Krashen has been described as one of the most influential figures in modern language learning theory. His research and work in second languages and reading are well known. He has advocated for access to great school libraries and children’s reading. Krashen’s reports and books are many and still relevant. All should be considered, including his well-researched report in Phi Delta Kappan, Whole Language and the Great Plummet of 1987-92: AN URBAN LEGEND FROM CALIFORNIA.

Dr. Diane Ravitch

Ravitch, a historian and well-regarded guru of education policy, has written many books and papers about public schools, and she is the go-to person for her laser-focused understanding of assessment and the harm of high-stakes standards. She has spoken warmly of her friendship with the well-respected reading expert Jeanne Chall. Ravitch has always understood the importance of phonics and repeatedly claims that there is no Science of Reading. Here she points to additional experts, David Reinking, Peter Smagorinsky, and David B. Yaden, and their report about SoR, and she continues to remind us of the history of reading and school reform.

Dr. Paul (P.L.) Thomas

Thomas, longtime professor at Furman University, is one of the most consistent writers about the SoR, and has repeatedly pointed to the ills surrounding third grade retention. Thomas has raised serious questions about the so-called success of Mississippi. His book How to End the Reading War and Serve the Literacy Needs of All Students: A Primer for Parents, Policy Makers, and People Who Care is a must read. Find Thomas on Substack and the National Education Policy Center.

Dr. Robert J. Tierney and Dr. P. David Pearson

Tierney is Dean Emeritus of Education, University of British Columbia and Professor Emeritus of Language and Literacy Education. He has an honorary professorship at the University of Sydney. Pearson is professor emeritus in the School of Education at the University of California, Berkeley. He served as Dean and was elected to National Academy of Education in 2003 and received the Alan Purves Award from the National Council of Teachers of English. In 2026, Pearson was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

They wrote Fact Checking the Science of Reading, Opening Up the Conversation.

As you can see, the individuals noted above are well-established in literacy education and education policy, with serious research surrounding the SoR. There are many others whom I have left off. My point is that if we are going to legitimately address literacy concerns in America, all expert voices should be heard.

At this time, only the voices of a few are being considered based on biased, questionable research.

Americans are being deceived and are footing the bill for high-priced reading programs for students and teachers that are questionable, many of which have been around long enough that if they were going to make a difference, they already would have.

The time is now to include and listen to America’s experts when it comes to literacy!

elaine September 3, 2026

Source

Nancy Bailey's Education Website

Daily Kos: Teaching the 25th Anniversary of 9/11

elaine — Tue, 01 Sep 2026 16:49:34 +0000

Daily Kos: Teaching the 25th Anniversary of 9/11

The September 11, 2001 attacks on the WorldTrade Center towers in New York City. Internet

Friday, September 11, 2026 is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the aerial attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. By law, New York State public schools must observe a brief period of silent reflection at the start of the school day. The State Education Department and the 9/11 Memorial & Museum provide multi-grade teaching resources but specific lesson plans are up to local school districts. The New York State teachers union developed a series of lessons for the tenth anniversary of 9/11.

For many teachers, the attacks on 9/11 and the aftermath were major events in their lives. However, for today’s students, the attacks on 9/11 have been relegated to the past along with the bombing of Fort Sumter in April 1861 and the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, what President Franklin D. Roosevelt called a “day that will live in infamy.” Memories fade and impact wanes, the question becomes what should be the focus of instruction on the anniversary of 9/11?

Social studies teachers have an especially crucial role to play because of our skill in addressing sensitive and controversial issues in the classroom. In 2007, I conducted a workshop on the significance of 9/11 for ninth graders who were nine years old at the time of the attacks. None of them remembered the events that day although they later learned about them. In 2025, other than children whose families suffered personal loss at the time and have discussed it with them, 9/11, if remembered at all, is only a historic event.

We live a politically contentious time. For younger students, lessons can focus on how following the attacks on 9/11, the people across the United States rallied and stood together. They can also learn how people risked and sacrificed their own lives to help rescue others. A very compelling story is the man in the red bandana. Welles Crowther of Nyack, New York worked in an office on the 104th floor of the South Tower of the World Trade Center. After rescuing two groups of survivors, Crowthers went back upstairs to help others and did not make it out. He personally saved eighteen people. One of the survivors, Judy Wein, in a New York Times interview, told about being rescued by a “mysterious man” whose “mouth and nose” were “covered with a red handkerchief” – Welles Crowther, the man in a red bandana. There is a children’s picture book and 56-minutes long documentary about 9/11 and Welles Crowder.

For a stand-alone middle and high school lesson, students can read and discuss documents 1 and 2 with supportive video. Document 1 is a news report from the New York Times. Document 2 is an excerpt from an article that includes interviews with survivors.

In eleventh grade, as part of the end of the year curriculum, teachers can engage students in an evaluation of U.S. foreign and military policy. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or Afghanistan and the invasion and military occupation did not lead to creation of stable democratic governments. In Iraqi, civilians derisively demanded to know “Maki Kahraba,” “Where is the electricity?” The War on Terrorism, a war without end undermined the United States’ international stature and produced more terrorists than it eliminated. This is an especially important topic because the United States is now involved in another prolonged war in the region that undermines stability there, has weakened the American military, and threatens the global economy.

Few high school students are ever exposed to critical analyses of United States foreign policy, which leaves them completely unable to evaluate the standard narrative presented in school and the media that somehow the United States is different from other nations, a shining democratic “city on the hill” for others to emulate and the defender of freedom around the world.

Document 1. Hijacked Jets Destroy Twin Towers and Hit Pentagon

Source: Serge Schmemann, New York Times, September 12, 2001, pg 1

A. Hijackers rammed jetliners into each of New York’s World Trade Center towers yesterday, toppling both in a hellish storm of ash, glass, smoke and leaping victims, while a third jetliner crashed into the Pentagon in Virginia. There was no official count, but President Bush said thousands had perished, and in the immediate aftermath the calamity was already being ranked the worst and most audacious terror attack in American history. The attacks seemed carefully coordinated. The hijacked planes were all en route to California, and therefore gorged with fuel, and their departures were spaced within an hour and 40 minutes.

B. In all, 266 people perished in the four planes and several score more were known dead elsewhere. Numerous firefighters, police officers and other rescue workers who responded to the initial disaster in Lower Manhattan were killed or injured when the buildings collapsed. Hundreds were treated for cuts, broken bones, burns and smoke inhalation. But the real carnage was concealed for now by the twisted, smoking, ash-choked carcasses of the twin towers, in which thousands of people used to work on a weekday. The collapse of the towers caused another World Trade Center building to fall 10 hours later, and several other buildings in the area were damaged or aflame. C. For hours after the attacks, rescuers were stymied by other buildings that threatened to topple. But by 11 p.m., rescuers had been able to begin serious efforts to locate and remove survivors. Mr. Giuliani [New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani] said two Port Authority police officers had been pulled from the ruins, and he said hope existed that more people could be saved. Earlier, police officer volunteers using dogs had found four bodies in the smoldering, stories-high pile of rubble where the towers had once stood and had taken them to a makeshift morgue in the lobby of an office building at Vesey and West Streets.

D. Within an hour of the attacks, the United States was on a war footing. The military was put on the highest state of alert, National Guard units were called out in Washington and New York and two aircraft carriers were dispatched to New York harbor. President Bush remained aloft in Air Force One, following a secretive route and making only brief stopovers at Air Force bases in Louisiana and Nebraska before finally setting down in Washington at 7 p.m. His wife and daughters were evacuated to a secure, unidentified location. The White House, the Pentagon and the Capitol were evacuated, except for the Situation Room in the White House where Vice President Cheney remained in charge, giving the eerie impression of a national capital virtually stripped of its key institutions.

Questions

1. What happened to the World Trade Center in New York City?

2. Why was it difficult to assess the amount of damage and the number of people injured or dead?

3. In your opinion, why was the United States put on an immediate war footing?

Document 2. Fighting to Live as the Towers Died

These are excerpts from an article reported on and written by Jim Dwyer, Eric Lipton, Kevin Flynn, James Glanz and Ford Fessenden, New York Times, May 26, 2002. In the interviews we learn about the man in the red bandana. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/nyregion/fighting-to-live-as-the-tow…

Even though the buildings survived the initial impacts, the twisting and bending of the towers caused fatal havoc. Stairwells were plugged by broken wallboard. Doors were jammed in twisted frames. With more time and simple tools like crowbars, rescue workers might have freed people who simply could not get to stairways. In the north tower, at least 28 people were freed on the 86th and 89th floors by a small group of Port Authority office workers who pried open jammed doors. Those self-assigned rescuers died. In both towers, scores of people lost chances to escape. Some paused to make one more phone call; others, to pick up a forgotten purse; still others, to perform tasks like freeing people from elevators, tending the injured or comforting the distraught.

Both towers had similar volumes of smoke and heat, but in the north tower, about three times as many people were trapped in roughly half the space. Scores were driven to the windows of the north tower in search of relief. In the south tower, people had more opportunities to move between floors. In all, about 600 civilians died in the south tower at or above the plane’s impact. In the north tower, every person believed to be above the 91st floor died: 1,344.

The farther from the impact, the more calls people made. In the north tower, pockets of near-silence extended four floors above and one floor below the impact zone. Yet remarkably, in both towers, even on floors squarely hit by the jets, a few people lived long enough to make calls. For a few, survival came from having leaned into an alcove. Death could come from having stepped back from a crowded elevator door.

As Ms. Wein came to, she had her own battered body to deal with: her right arm was broken, three ribs were cracked and her right lung had been punctured. In other words, she was lucky. All around her were people with horrific injuries, dead or close to it. Ms. Wein yelled out for her boss, Mr. Kestenbaum. When she found him, she said, he was expressionless, motionless, silent. And Richard Gabrielle, another Aon colleague, was pinned to the ground, his legs apparently broken by marble that had fallen on them. Ms. Wein tried to move the stone. Mr. Gabrielle cried out from pain, she said, and told her to stop.

A mysterious man appeared at one point, his mouth and nose covered with a red handkerchief. He was looking for a fire extinguisher. As Judy Wein recalls, he pointed to the stairs and made an announcement that saved lives: Anyone who can walk, get up and walk now. Anyone who can perhaps help others, find someone who needs help and then head down. In groups of two and three, the survivors struggled to the stairs. A few flights down, they propped up debris blocking their way, leaving a small passageway to slip through.

A few minutes behind this group was Ling Young, who also survived the impact in the sky lobby. She, too, said she had been steered by the man in the red bandanna, hearing him call out: “This way to the stairs.” He trailed her down the stairs. Ms. Young said she soon noticed that he was carrying a woman on his back. Once they reached clearer air, he put her down and went back up. Of the dozens of people waiting in the sky lobby when the second plane struck, 12 are known to have made it out alive.

Questions

1. Why were some people able to survive the impact of the planes on the two towers of the World Trade Center?

2. How did the man in the red bandana help people survive?

3. If you were there, would you have been able to do what he did? Explain.

Document 3. President George W. Bush Addresses the Nation, September 11, 2001

Source: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbush911addresstothenation.htm

A. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes or in their offices: secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers, moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge – huge structures collapsing have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong.

B. A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining. Today, our nation saw evil – the very worst of human nature – and we responded with the best of America. With the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could.

C. Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government’s emergency response plans. Our military is powerful, and it’s prepared. Our emergency teams are working in New York City and Washington D.C. to help with local rescue efforts. Our first priority is to get help to those who have been injured, and to take every precaution to protect our citizens at home and around the world from further attacks. The functions of our government continue without interruption. Federal agencies in Washington which had to be evacuated today are reopening for essential personnel tonight and will be open for business tomorrow. Our financial institutions remain strong, and the American economy will be open for business as well.

D. The search is underway for those who were behind these evil acts. I have directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them. I appreciate so very much the members of Congress who have joined me in strongly condemning these attacks. And on behalf of the American people, I thank the many world leaders who have called to offer their condolences and assistance. America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism. Tonight, I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve, for the children whose worlds have been shattered, for all whose sense of safety and security has been threatened.

E. This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time. None of us will ever forget this day, yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.

Questions

1. Why does President Bush believe the attacks on the United States will fail?

2. What did President Bush do to secure the safety of the American people?

3. According to President Bush, what are the goals of the United States following the attack?

Document 4. New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani Addresses the United Nations, October 1, 2001

Source: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/rudygiuliani911unitednations.h…

A. On September 11th 2001, New York City — the most diverse City in the world — was viciously attacked in an unprovoked act of war. More than five thousand innocent men, women, and children of every race, religion, and ethnicity are lost. Among these were people from 80 different nations. To their representatives here today, I offer my condolences to you as well on behalf of all New Yorkers who share this loss with you. This was the deadliest attack — terrorist attack in history. It claimed more lives than Pearl Harbor or D-Day.

B. This was not just an attack on the City of New York or on the United States of America. It was an attack on the very idea of a free, inclusive, and civil society. It was a direct assault on the founding principles of the United Nations itself . . . Indeed this vicious attack places in jeopardy the whole purpose of the United Nations.

C. Terrorism is based on the persistent and deliberate violation of fundamental human rights. With bullets and bombs, and now with hijacked airplanes, terrorists deny the dignity of human life. Terrorism preys particularly on cultures and communities that practice openness and tolerance. Their targeting of innocent civilians mocks the efforts of those who seek to live together in peace as neighbors. It defies the very notion of being a neighbor. This massive attack was intended to break our spirit. It has not done that. It’s made us stronger, more determined, and more resolved.

D. The strength of America’s response . . . flows from the principles upon which we stand. Americans are not a single ethnic group. Americans are not of one race or one religion. Americans emerged from all of your nations. We’re defined as Americans by our beliefs, not by our ethnic origins, our race or our religion. Our belief in religious freedom, political freedom, economic freedom — that’s what makes an American. Our belief in democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human life — that’s how you become an American. It’s these very principles and the opportunities these principles give to so many to create a better life for themselves and their families that make America and New York a shining city on a hill. There’s no nation in the history of the world and no city that has seen more immigrants in less time than America. And people continue to come here in large, large numbers to seek freedom, opportunity, decency, [and] civility.

E. It’s tragic and perverse that it’s because of these very principles, particularly our religious, political, and economic freedoms, that we find ourselves under attack by terrorists. Our freedom threatens them, because they know if our ideas of freedom gain a foothold among their people, it will destroy their power. So they strike out against us to keep those ideas from reaching their people. The best long-term deterrent and approach to terrorism, obviously, is the spread of the principles of freedom and democracy and the rule of law and respect for human life.

Questions

1. Why does Mayor Rudolph Giuliani consider 9/11 an attack on the principle of freedom?

2. According to Giuliani, what are the great strengths of the United States as it confronts this crisis?

3. In your opinion, why did Giuliani make this address at the United Nations?

Document 5. President George W. Bush’s “Afghanistan Speech”, October 7, 2001

Source: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbush911intialafghanistanops…

A. On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime. We are supported by the collective will of the world.

B. More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: Close terrorist training camps. Hand over leaders of the al-Qaeda network, and return all foreign nationals, including American citizens unjustly detained in your country. None of these demands were met. And now, the Taliban will pay a price.

C. By destroying camps and disrupting communications, we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans. Initially, the terrorists may burrow deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places. Our military action is also designed to clear the way for sustained, comprehensive and relentless operations to drive them out and bring them to justice. At the same time, the oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan.

D. The United States of America is a friend to the Afghan people, and we are the friends of almost a billion worldwide who practice the Islamic faith. The United States of America is an enemy of those who aid terrorists and of the barbaric criminals who profane a great religion by committing murder in its name. This military action is a part of our campaign against terrorism, another front in a war that has already been joined through diplomacy, intelligence, the freezing of financial assets and the arrests of known terrorists by law enforcement agents in 38 countries. Given the nature and reach of our enemies, we will win this conflict by the patient accumulation of successes, by meeting a series of challenges with determination and will and purpose.

E. Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader. Every nation has a choice to make. In this conflict, there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocence, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril.

F. We’re a peaceful nation. Yet, as we have learned, so suddenly and so tragically, there can be no peace in a world of sudden terror. In the face of today’s new threat, the only way to pursue peace is to pursue those who threaten it. We did not ask for this mission, but we will fulfill it. The name of today’s military operation is Enduring Freedom. We defend not only our precious freedoms, but also the freedom of people everywhere to live and raise their children free from fear.

Questions

1. What military actions were ordered by President Bush?

2. Why did the United States and its allies take these actions?

3. What is the broader struggle identified by President Bush?

4. In your opinion, what did President Bush mean when he stated: “In this conflict, there is no neutral ground.” Do you agree or disagree? Explain.

Document 6. Senator Robert Byrd Fears for the Future, February 12, 2003

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0212-07.htm

A. To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war. Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent – ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war. And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

B. This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption – the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future – is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our – or some other nation’s – hit list.

C. High-level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

D. One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one’s frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

E. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq a – population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 – this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare – this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate. We are truly “sleepwalking through history.” In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

Questions

1. Why is Senator Byrd concerned about the “doctrine of preemption”?

2. Why does Senator Byrd believe going to war with Iraq is a mistake?

3. In your opinion, why does Senator Byrd accuse the Senate and the American people of “sleepwalking through history”?

Document 7. Representative Barbara Lee of California, September 14, 2001 (Source: Congressional Record)

I rise today with a heavy heart, one that is filled with sorrow for the families and loved ones who were killed and injured in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Only the most foolish or the most callous would not understand the grief that has gripped the American people and millions across the world. This unspeakable attack on the United States has forced me to rely on my moral compass, my conscience, and my God for direction. … September 11 changed the world. Our deepest fears now haunt us. Yet I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States. I know that this use-of-force resolution will pass although we all know that the President can wage a war even without this resolution. However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint.

Questions

1. How does Representative Lee open her speech?

2. Why does Representative Lee decide to oppose the authorization for war?

Document 8. Orlando and Phyllis Rodriguez “Not in Our Son’s Name” (Source: Zinn Education Project)

The Rodriguez’s son, Gregory, died when hijackers flew two planes into the World Trade Center. Gregory was thirty-one years old and working on the 103rd floor of one World Trade Center. The Rodriguez family sent this open letter to the New York Times and other papers after the attack.

Our son Greg is among the many missing from the World Trade Center attack. Since we first heard the news, we have shared moments of grief, comfort, hope, despair, fond memories with his wife, the two families, our friends and neighbors, his loving colleagues at Cantor Fitzgerald/ESpeed, and all the grieving families that daily meet at the Pierre Hotel. We see our hurt and anger reflected among everybody we meet. We cannot pay attention to the daily flow of news about this disaster. But we read enough of the news to sense that our government is heading in the direction of violent revenge, with the prospect of sons, daughters, parents, friends in distant lands, dying, suffering, and nursing further grievances against us. It is not the way to go. It will not avenge our son’s death. Not in our son’s name. Our son died a victim of an inhuman ideology. Our actions should not serve the same purpose. Let us grieve. Let us reflect and pray. Let us think about a rational response that brings real peace and justice to our world. But let us not as a nation add to the inhumanity of our times.

Questions

1. Who are Orlando and Phyllis Rodriguez?

2. Why did they write this letter to the New York Times?

3. What is their plea to the United States government?

Document 9. American Civil Liberties Union Criticizes the USA Patriot Act, April 3, 2003

Source: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-usa-patriot-act

A. Just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, a panicked Congress passed the “USA/Patriot Act,” an overnight revision of the nation’s surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government’s authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court. Most of the changes to surveillance law made by the Patriot Act were part of a longstanding law enforcement wish list that had been previously rejected by Congress, in some cases repeatedly. Congress reversed course because it was bullied into it by the Bush Administration in the frightening weeks after the September 11 attack.

B. The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas:

Records searches. It expands the government’s ability to look at records on an individual’s activity being held by a third parties.
Secret searches. It expands the government’s ability to search private property without notice to the owner.
Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information.
“Trap and trace” searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects “addressing” information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content.

C. One of the most significant provisions of the Patriot Act makes it far easier for the authorities to gain access to records of citizens’ activities being held by a third party. At a time when computerization is leading to the creation of more and more such records, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all – including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers – to turn over records on their clients or customers . . . The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals’ financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record . . . The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an “agent of a foreign power,” a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority. The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for “probable cause” that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.

D. For centuries, common law has required that the government can’t go into your property without telling you, and must therefore give you notice before it executes a search. That “knock and announce” principle has long been recognized as a part of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The Patriot Act, however, unconstitutionally amends the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow the government to conduct searches without notifying the subjects, at least until long after the search has been executed. This means that the government can enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupants are away, search through their property, take photographs, and in some cases even seize property – and not tell them until later . . . Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can secretly conduct a physical search or wiretap on American citizens to obtain evidence of crime without proving probable cause, as the Fourth Amendment explicitly requires.

E. The Patriot Act gives the attorney general unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants. The attorney general can order detention based on a certification that he or she has “reasonable grounds to believe” a non-citizen endangers national security. Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial.

Questions

1. What was the purpose of the USA/Patriot Act?

2. How did the USA/Patriot Act change government surveillance policies and practices?

3. Why is the ACLU critical of the USA/Patriot Act?

Document 10. Chalmers Johnson Sees Blowback

Source: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/160594/

Chalmers Johnson (1931-2010) was a professor of Asian Studies at the University of California, San Diego. From 1968 until 1972 he was a consultant to the Office of National Estimates of the Central Intelligence Agency on Asian Affairs. He is the author of a number of books on U.S. military and foreign policy.

A. I had set out to explain how exactly our government came to be so hated around the world. As a CIA term of tradecraft, “blowback” does not just mean retaliation for things our government has done to, and in, foreign countries. It refers specifically to retaliation for illegal operations carried out abroad that were kept totally secret from the American public. These operations have included the clandestine overthrow of governments various administrations did not like, the training of foreign militaries in the techniques of state terrorism, the rigging of elections in foreign countries, interference with the economic viability of countries that seemed to threaten the interests of influential American corporations, as well as the torture or assassination of selected foreigners. The fact that these actions were, at least originally, secret meant that when retaliation does come — as it did so spectacularly on September 11, 2001 — the American public is incapable of putting the events in context. Not surprisingly, then, Americans tend to support speedy acts of revenge intended to punish the actual, or alleged, perpetrators. These moments of lashing out, of course, only prepare the ground for yet another cycle of blowback.

B. I then began doing research on the network of 737 American military bases we maintained around the world (according to the Pentagon’s own 2005 official inventory). Not including the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, we now station over half a million U.S. troops, spies, contractors, dependents, and others on military bases located in more than 130 countries, many of them presided over by dictatorial regimes that have given their citizens no say in the decision to let us in.

C. As our occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq turned into major fiascoes, discrediting our military leadership, ruining our public finances, and bringing death and destruction to hundreds of thousands of civilians in those countries, I continued to ponder the issue of empire. In these years, it became ever clearer that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their supporters were claiming, and actively assuming, powers specifically denied to a president by our Constitution. It became no less clear that Congress had almost completely abdicated its responsibilities to balance the power of the executive branch. Despite the Democratic sweep in the 2006 election, it remains to be seen whether these tendencies can, in the long run, be controlled, let alone reversed.

D. Whether Americans intended it or not, we are now seen around the world as approving the torture of captives at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, at Bagram Air Base in Kabul, at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and at a global network of secret CIA prisons, as well as having endorsed Bush’s claim that, as commander-in-chief in “wartime,” he is beyond all constraints of the Constitution or international law. We are now saddled with a rigged economy based on record-setting trade and fiscal deficits, the most secretive and intrusive government in our country’s memory, and the pursuit of “preventive” war as a basis for foreign policy.

E. If we choose to keep our empire, as the Roman republic did, we will certainly lose our democracy and grimly await the eventual blowback that imperialism generates. There is an alternative, however. We could, like the British Empire after World War II, keep our democracy by giving up our empire . . . [T]he overall thrust of postwar British history is clear: the people of the British Isles chose democracy over imperialism.

Questions

1. According to Chalmers Johnson, why is the United States “hated around the world”?

2. What is “blowback”?

3. Why does Chalmers Johnson believe democracy in the United States is at risk?

4. In your opinion, does Chalmers Johnson support the United States response to 9/11? Explain.

elaine September 1, 2026

Source

Daily Kos

Cloaking Inequity: The Education Hunger Games: Who Survives?

elaine — Mon, 31 Aug 2026 17:05:01 +0000

Cloaking Inequity: The Education Hunger Games: Who Survives?

The warning signs are no longer theoretical. Schools are closing. Colleges are preparing layoffs. Faculty buyouts are spreading. Academic programs are disappearing. Dorm beds are sitting empty. Classrooms are thinning out. Tax revenue is weakening. State appropriations are uncertain. Consultants are being hired and paid millions to identify “efficiencies.” Boards are quietly discussing mergers and closures. American education is entering a period of deep instability.

This is not only a crisis for presidents and superintendents. It is a crisis for communities. When a school closes, a neighborhood loses more than a building. When a college cuts faculty and staff, a region loses jobs and opportunity. When families question whether education is worth the price, the consequences ripple through local economies and democracy itself.

In this article, I first define the problem. Enrollment pressure, funding instability, demographic change, and political attacks are converging across K-12 and higher education. These pressures are already producing closures and painful restructuring. But this is not only a warning. At the end, I turn to what communities can do through politics, public pressure, local organizing, accountability, and leadership selection before the choices become narrower.

The Warning Signs Are Already Here

At my own institution, public projections suggest new student enrollment could decline somewhere between 3 and 5 percent this year. If those projections hold, that would mark a return to consecutive enrollment declines after the gains achieved during my years as provost. During that period, we reversed an almost decade-long enrollment slide.

That is alarming because this moment was supposed to be the “high water mark” before the demographic cliff. WICHE projects that the total number of high school graduates will peak around 2026 and then decline steadily through 2041. Universities were supposed to be maximizing enrollment now. Instead, some are struggling while the student pool remains historically large.

In many ways, education is being pushed into an arena where resources are shrinking and the odds are being rewritten before many institutions understand the rules.

The Old Survival Strategies Are Running Out

Much of higher education survived the past several years through strategies that are becoming unsustainable. Institutions poured millions into financial aid discounting. They leaned harder into full-pay families. They expanded retention offices and predictive analytics systems. They built student success centers and advising infrastructure. They spent heavily on marketing and enrollment staff.

Ironically, retention and enrollment strategy helped save some institutions from earlier financial pressure. During my time in executive leadership, we understood that higher education had entered a new era of competition. Universities were no longer competing only over prestige. They were competing over affordability and survival.

Financial aid, student success infrastructure, and community partnerships became essential tools. Institutions that moved aggressively like Arizona State and Georgia State often stabilized themselves. Institutions that remained complacent fell further behind.

But even enrollment growth stories now face new threats. Federal research funding is unstable. State appropriations remain uncertain. Inflation is pressuring budgets. Some states like Michigan have seen stronger FAFSA activity. Yet many families are questioning the value of higher education. Political attacks have also weakened public trust while threatening research capacity and institutional autonomy.

Temple and Syracuse Are Warnings

This is not just a problem for small or obscure institutions. The warning signs are visible at major universities with name recognition and alumni networks.

Temple University offers one of the clearest examples. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Temple lost 27 percent of its U.S. enrollment over eight years. It fell from more than 40,000 students in 2017 to fewer than 30,000 in 2025. The same reporting noted more than $200 million in lost annual revenue. Temple later projected a $60 million structural deficit for fiscal year 2026.

Syracuse University is another warning. Its chancellor acknowledged that the university would not meet its undergraduate enrollment target. Higher Ed Dive reported that Syracuse enrollment had fallen about 3.5 percent year over year. International undergraduates fell from 12 percent of the entering class to 5 percent in just two years. Syracuse also announced plans to eliminate 93 academic programs with low or no enrollment.

Temple and Syracuse are not marginal institutions. If visible universities face enrollment shortfalls and program eliminations, the warning for less-resourced institutions is unmistakable.

The K-12 Pipeline Is Shrinking Too

The crisis is not limited to higher education. In many places, kindergarten cohorts are much smaller than graduating senior classes. That means major shocks are coming for school personnel and district budgets.

A California K-12 leader told me that LA County schools lost around 33,000 students in one year. They also noted that Long Beach is losing about 1,250 students per year. Every lost student takes funding with them. Their warning was blunt: higher education loses if colleges only fight over a declining pool of students.

That is not a minor adjustment. It is a structural shock. When districts lose students, they lose funding and staffing stability. Buildings do not shrink because enrollment declines. Transportation costs do not disappear. Special education responsibilities do not vanish.

Higher education leaders should pay attention. Today’s smaller kindergarten cohorts become tomorrow’s smaller college applicant pools. The education pipeline is one interconnected public ecosystem under stress.

The Crisis Will Not Be Evenly Distributed

These trends are already known behind closed doors. Consultants are being paid millions to assess efficiencies. Boards are discussing restructuring. Senior teams are running budget cut models. Buyouts are becoming part of the conversation.

At my own institution, discussions about retirement incentives for faculty with ten years of service and age sixty or older signal that leaders are preparing for hard choices. Universities do not explore large-scale buyouts unless substantial pressure is approaching.

Faculty at Michigan State University have privately described budget cuts approaching ten percent in some areas. This is one of the most recognizable public research universities in the country. When institutions with billion-dollar endowments are cutting, smaller institutions should be deeply concerned.

At the same time, the strongest institutions are consolidating their dominance. The University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor campus received more than 115,000 undergraduate applications for fall 2026. The University of Texas at Austin received a record 90,690 freshman applications for fall 2025. Michigan also approved the $60 million purchase of Concordia University’s Ann Arbor campus.

In Hunger Games terms, some institutions enter the arena with sponsors and weapons. Others enter with mission and community trust. The coming crisis will not hurt every institution equally.

The Trap: Fighting Over Scraps

The usual response will be to compete harder over a shrinking pool of traditional students. Colleges will increase marketing. They will expand merit aid. They will chase the same applicants. They will try to out-discount one another.

That may help some institutions temporarily make a class. But it does not solve the structural problem. It is the educational version of rushing the Cornucopia. Everyone charges toward the same limited pile of students and aid dollars while larger opportunities remain underdeveloped.

The better strategy is to reach students higher education has failed to serve. NCES data show that in 2022 about 45 percent of high school completers immediately enrolled in four-year institutions. Another 17 percent enrolled in two-year institutions. That means roughly 38 percent did not immediately enroll in either.

Those students are not abstractions. They are working students and first-generation students. They are rural students and urban students. They are young parents and adult learners. They need affordable pathways and institutions that meet them with urgency.

That was the logic behind the work I advanced at WMU. I insisted we treat enrollment as an institutional strategy. It was connected to affordability, advising, student success, transfer pathways, belonging, workforce relevance, community engagement, and public mission.

What Communities Can Do Now

This moment cannot be left only to administrators and consultants. Communities have power if they choose to use it. Parents, students, alumni, faculty, staff, unions, business leaders, clergy, philanthropies, and elected officials all have a stake.

Communities should demand transparency before the crisis becomes irreversible. What are the enrollment projections? What programs are at risk? What buildings may close? What students are being lost? What is the plan beyond cuts?

Communities should also use politics differently. School boards, county commissions, state legislatures, governors, and Congress shape funding formulas and public trust. Communities that want strong schools and colleges must vote like education is infrastructure. Because it is. Education is the infrastructure of democracy.

But the goal cannot be nostalgia. Communities should push institutions to build new pathways for students who have been left out. That means dual enrollment, transfer guarantees, apprenticeships, adult degree completion, childcare supports, transportation solutions, and emergency aid.

Choosing Leaders for the Era Ahead

The coming years will test whether communities choose leaders who understand this moment. Many educational leaders were selected for a different era. That world is gone.

The next era requires leaders who can tell the truth to stakeholders and build new, creative models. Communities must choose leaders with imagination and courage. They must choose leaders who can redesign programs around real student needs and invest in student success as a survival strategy.

Education is entering a Hunger Games survival era. But communities are not powerless. They can organize before the closures. They can demand transparency before the cuts. They can vote before the damage is irreversible. The leaders who matter now are those who can help communities build institutions worthy of the future.

Please share.

NEW: If you’d like to hear me read the post, you can find the audio version on my Substack here.

elaine August 31, 2026

Source

Cloaking Inequity

ZNetwork: The Conservative ‘Plan’ to Dismantle Public Schools is Entering the Home Stretch

elaine — Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:38:34 +0000

ZNetwork: The Conservative ‘Plan’ to Dismantle Public Schools is Entering the Home Stretch

In what is being touted as the “Golden Age of School Choice,” the option that is most popular with American families—to fund and attend their local public schools—is gradually being made less viable.

Take North Carolina, for instance. For years, the Republican-dominated state legislature has chosen to cut the state’s funding for public schools, resulting in a decline in inflation-adjusted per-student funding of about 13 percent since 2003, according to the NC Budget and Tax Center. The Education Law Center’s (ELC) 2025 national ranking of state education funding, “Making the Grade,” report shows that the Tar Heel State is dead last out of 51 states in school funding effort—a measure of PK–12 public education funding as a percentage of the state’s overall economic capacity (its GDP). “North Carolina spent $12,193 per student during the 2022–23 school year. That’s $5,660 less than the national average,” states WRAL News, citing the report. The state also ranks 46th in teacher pay.

A decades-long legal struggle to bring North Carolina’s school funding levels in line with its constitutional requirement, resulting from a state Supreme Court ruling in the Leandro v. State of North Carolina case in 1994, culminated in a decision by the current court. The state’s Supreme Court was “taken over” by a Republican majority and dismissed the Leandro ruling on procedural grounds with no possible recourse. “The court held that the trial court lacked the authority, or subject matter jurisdiction, to rule on this much more expansive case,” according to EdNC.

North Carolina lawmakers have also ramped up efforts to redirect taxpayer dollars for education to private operators through charter schools and private schools that opt into the state’s school voucher program.

Thanks to the legislature’s efforts to ease the process for opening and expanding charter schools, the percentage of students enrolled in charters has steadily increased, surpassing 10 percent since 2022–2023, raising the state’s rank for charter school growth to fourth in the nation, according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 2025 Enrollment Brief.

And since the state opened its school voucher program to all families in 2023, North Carolina ranks seventh in voucher usage, with 3.4 percent of the state’s public K–12 expenditures going to vouchers, an annual expenditure of $624 million, based on 2026 rankings by EDChoice. “[T]he program represents cost increases and relatively little savings, given the price tag of more than half a billion dollars,” WRAL News reports.

Not satisfied with these efforts to defund public schools, North Carolina lawmakers are now considering legislation to cap local property taxes—an important source for funding public schools in the state.

“Property taxes provide revenue for critical local services like public schools,” Joanna LeFebvre, a policy analyst for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), tells Our Schools in an email. “Property taxes are one of the most stable sources of revenue because they are insulated from economic downturns.”

In North Carolina, state funding accounts for 60 percent of school resources, while local funding, mostly from property taxes, contributes 23 percent (the federal government chips in only 17 percent).

Despite the importance of property taxes as a revenue source for public schools, Republican lawmakers passed a bill to place a constitutional amendment on the November 2026 ballot that would give the state legislature the power to limit property tax increases.

Proponents for the amendment say it’s “a result of constituent complaints about rising property taxes,” according to NC Newsline. Various news stories from around the state, however, point to another cause for the increases—the state’s inadequate funding for essential infrastructure like schools.

Border Belt reports that in many rural counties where property taxes are spiking, county officials are raising taxes as an “[attempt] to punch above their weight in ‘funding effort.’” Because the Republican dominated state legislature has been lagging in its effort to address increased costs for local services, “[t]he poorest counties in our state tax themselves at greater rates,” explains Public School Forum senior researcher Elizabeth Paul.

Larger, more urban school districts are also feeling the squeeze. As Indy Week explains, Wake County, the state’s largest school district that includes Raleigh, is looking at raising property taxes to balance its budget in the fiscal year 2027. “[I]t’s another example of the state legislature and Congress falling short of their fiscal responsibilities and passing the buck to us,” the county manager, David Ellis, says.

In Mecklenburg County, the state’s second most populous county, which includes Charlotte, state assembly member Brandon Lofton tells NC Newsline that “the county has spent about $2.9 billion on items that are the state’s responsibility,” resulting in 700 teaching positions being funded completely by the county.

In Orange County, one of North Carolina’s wealthiest counties, the county budget for the fiscal year 2027 is being hit with a barrage of higher costs, including increased expenses for debt service, gas prices, health insurance, and the federal government’s decision to slash reimbursements for food benefits for low-income families (known as SNAP). County officials blame state and federal funding cuts and persistent inflation for these increases.

If these efforts to defund public schools seem like a coordinated campaign, that’s because it is. And North Carolina is not the only state where this campaign is rolling out.

Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education, a nonprofit that advocates for public schools, points to “a common project” among many states, mostly governed by Republican majorities, that are seeking to “end democratically governed public education,” she writes in an email to Our Schools.

“Under the guise of school choice,” Burris says, “they will eventually narrow choice for the majority of American families. The agenda was never hidden: create a school marketplace, then shift the burden from the public to families.”

This “plan,” according to Burris, drew its initial inspiration from the writings of the late economist Milton Friedman, who argued that education and other public services should be purchased as consumer goods in a commercial marketplace rather than provided as a taxpayer-supported service, which is publicly governed as an essential infrastructure accessible to everyone.

It’s easy to see how Friedman’s doctrine would be hugely popular with the wealthy who resent paying taxes for services other people use. Over the years, donations by the rich have lifted up Friedman’s pronouncements and funded the dissemination of these viewpoints through numerous conservative and libertarian organizations pressing for a smaller and less democratic government presence in society.

Now, under the federal ascendancy of the Trump administration and state legislatures that are gerrymandered to ensure decades-long conservative rule, the campaign to dismantle public schools appears to be entering its home stretch.

Property Tax Cuts and Caps Have Devastating Impacts

In February 2026, Fox Business reported that five states—North Dakota, Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Indiana—were considering repeals of property taxes that generate 90 percent of school funding for local districts in those states.

Some of these efforts have died in committee or failed during a floor vote, according to an April 2026 report by Realtor.com, but a few have moved forward and have since been joined by newer efforts in other states to either curtail or end property taxes, including Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. In Oklahoma, the measure is more targeted, confining tax relief to homeowners 65 and older who own their homes outright, while Indiana is offering a replacement source of revenue by substituting property taxes with expanded sales taxes.

Neither of these news reports mentions what’s going on in North Carolina, but regardless of the details, the goal is to end or severely limit one of the primary funding sources for public schools.

The goal has been long in the making. As the Institute on Tax and Economic Policy (ITEP) explains in a 2025 report, a once-popular “tax revolt” in the 1970s and 1980s resulted in “over a dozen states” enacting measures that limited local governments’ “ability to tax property fairly and accurately.”

These property tax cuts and caps have devastating impacts on school funding, CBPP’s LeFebvre explains, citing California’s property tax cap policy known as Proposition 13. That measure, passed in 1978, resulted in per-pupil funding declining from 18 percent above the national average to below average, according to her. Funding levels didn’t recover until 2017. Consequently, “[a]cademic achievement declined and continues to lag national averages, and the state has one of the highest student-teacher ratios in the country, thanks to the policy, which is still in place,” she says.

LeFebvre continues, “Research suggests that property tax cuts and caps lead to increased student-teacher ratios, reductions in new teacher qualifications, and declines in students’ reading and math test scores.”

While Republicans in North Carolina, and elsewhere, claim reining in property taxes is an “affordability issue,” LeFebvre argues there are other ways to address the impact of rising costs on low-income families, including “property tax circuit breakers that trigger tax refunds when a family’s tax liability rises above a certain percentage of their income, and renters credits that put money back in the pockets of low-income renters.”

“Instead of hamstringing local governments’ ability to raise revenue through property tax cuts and caps,” LeFebvre says, “states should support localities’ flexibility to raise sufficient revenue to invest in excellent public schools.”

A Constitutional Amendment in Ohio

In Ohio, also ruled by a Republican majority, state lawmakers have dramatically reduced state funding for schools while rolling out privatization efforts, such as charter schools and vouchers.

While the state’s effort to adequately fund its schools is not rock bottom, according to the ELC report, it barely clears the level, earning a C-rating. In 2025, state lawmakers passed a flat income tax and abandoned their previously adopted plan to bring funding levels for high-poverty school districts more in line with wealthier districts. As a result, the state’s contribution to funding public education will decline from 47 percent in 2019 to just 32 percent in 2027, according to public school advocacy coalition Honesty for Ohio Education. And “Ohio has fallen from 35th nationally in the state share of K–12 revenue in 2002 to 45th in 2023,” according to a 2025 report by the Ohio Education Policy Institute.

On the privatization front, Ohio is somewhat ahead of North Carolina, with 4.2 percent of the state’s students receiving some kind of voucher to attend a private school or homeschool. There are also a larger number of charter schools in Ohio, with 318 in 2020–2021 compared to 202 in North Carolina for the same period. Both states enrolled about the same number of students in charter schools in 2020–2021—119,100 in Ohio, compared to 125,913 in North Carolina. But Ohio’s privately operated school sector may have an even more negative impact on school funding, especially in the state’s largest districts.

According to a 2026 analysis by former Ohio state legislator Stephen Dyer, in eight major urban districts, 80 percent of state education funding goes to privately run schools.

These efforts by Ohio lawmakers to undermine the state’s funding for public schools have put pressure on local governments to steeply raise property taxes, resulting in Ohio having the eighth-highest property tax rate in the U.S., Statehouse News Bureau reports.

Understandably, there is now growing evidence of a popular uprising among Ohio voters to repeal property taxes through a ballot initiative, and Republican lawmakers are responding to voter unhappiness, not by reversing state funding austerity and growth in privatization, but by proposing a bill that would amend the state constitution to exempt owner-occupied residences from property taxes.

Swapping Property Taxes for Sales Taxes in Indiana

Indiana is another Midwestern state where a combination of state funding cuts and school privatization efforts is putting more pressure on local governments to raise property taxes, which has, in turn, prompted calls for property tax repeals.

The state earned a D-rating on ELC’s funding effort report card. Indiana does not have a large number of charter schools, except in Indianapolis, where 62 percent of students are enrolled in charters. It, however, has a slightly higher percentage of students accepting school voucher money than North Carolina.

Indiana’s property tax burden is not among the highest, ranking 29th overall in 2024 according to the Tax Foundation. Nevertheless, state lawmakers are considering legislation to completely phase out property taxes in 2027 and raise sales taxes and user fees to help replace the lost revenue.

The idea that revenue lost by capping or eliminating property taxes can be simply swapped out for sales tax increases is an especially “unfair” tax policy, according to an analysis by CBPP.

That analysis found property taxes are especially important for funding public services because they are “the most stable of the three major taxes (income, sales, and property) even in the face of economic downturns.” Also, property taxes are “less regressive than sales taxes, which require a greater share of income from people with less financial means and a lower share from people who are well off.” And “[p]roposals to substitute sales tax revenue for property tax revenue also ignore an important fact: most people already pay more in sales tax than they do in property tax.”

Regardless of these realities, Republican leadership in Indiana’s state capital is proceeding full steam ahead in its efforts to champion tax cuts as a hallmark of good governance.

The ‘Long Game’ by Conservatives in Florida

Florida is the poster child of the conservative movement’s “long game” to end public education. The Sunshine State ranked 47th in ELC’s funding effort analysis for 2023. It had the third-highest number of students enrolled in charter schools in 2022–2023 and the fourth-highest percentage of students in these schools among all states. Meanwhile, it is number one in terms of the percentage of students using school vouchers.

Florida state law already limits the annual increase in the assessed value, not market value, of homesteaded property to 3 percent or the consumer price index (CPI), whichever is less. And polling data has shown that home insurance rates, not property taxes, are a bigger concern for homeowners.

Nevertheless, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is leading an effort to “eliminate property taxes ‘completely’ for homesteaded residents,” Fox Business reports, “a move that, if adopted, would make Florida the first state in the nation to eliminate property taxes on primary residences while also having no state income tax.”

Taking their cues from DeSantis, Republican lawmakers in the Florida legislature are moving with a bill that would place a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2028, ending all property taxes.

A 2025 study by the Florida Policy Institute found that should the ballot referendum succeed, Florida school districts will lose $7.7 billion. In districts that are already fiscally constrained, like Highlands County, eliminating all property taxes would cost $60 million or “about 25 percent of all revenue.”

The Trump Administration Does Its Part

The federal government, under the leadership of President Trump, is doing its part in the conservative campaign to dismantle public education.

Trump’s proposed FY 2027 budget would slash $8.5 billion in federal funding for certain K-12 programs, and his administration is blocking $2 billion in congressionally approved grants for public schools in 2026.

His Department of Education, under the leadership of Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, has withheld millions in federal funds for its Full-Service Community Schools program, as well as grants for special education, while expanding $60 million in grants to charter schools.

And in 2027, a nationwide federal school voucher program, which Trump pushed for and was approved by a Republican majority in Congress, will divert billions in funding from the U.S. Treasury to school vouchers while harming funding for public schools.

What Friedman Wanted

Proponents seeking to end or limit property taxes try to make their proposals seem reasonable, arguing that property tax increases are examples of “runaway spending at the local level,” while ignoring the funding cuts at higher levels of government trickling down into dire financial consequences at local levels.

“Now more than ever,” CBPP’s LeFebvre says, “state and local revenue will be the backstop for funding public services. Instead of hamstringing local governments’ ability to raise revenue through property tax cuts and caps, states should support localities’ flexibility to raise sufficient revenue.”

She suggests lawmakers consider raising revenue from wealthy households and corporations. “Since 2021,” she notes, “11 states and the District of Columbia have meaningfully raised revenue to invest in services like public schools. Momentum for these kinds of policies is building in 2026, with Washington State and Maine approving tax increases on households with high incomes.”

However, often lost in the discussion is the fact that limiting or ending property taxes doesn’t eliminate the cost of educating the nation’s school children. It just shifts the costs onto working people who end up paying for schools through higher sales taxes and user fees, or paying private corporations for education services. Which is exactly what Network for Public Education’s Burris argues Friedman and his acolytes have wanted all along.

elaine August 28, 2026

Source

ZNetwork

Curmudgucation: Growth or Proficiency

elaine — Thu, 27 Aug 2026 16:12:49 +0000

Curmudgucation: Growth or Proficiency

Some of us are apparently still having this debate.

Jill Barshay wrote a piece for Hechinger Report about the DC school district, which is apparently awesome at growth but not so great at actual achievement levels. The piece does a good job of revisiting the debates about these two sorts of measures; I'd just like to add a point or three.

First, let me point out for the gazillionth time that we are not talking about student achievement and we are certainly not (as Barshay unfortunately does) talking about years of learning. A "year of learning" or "month of learning" or "fortnight of learning" or an "afternoon of learning" is just a journalist-friendly way of packaging test results.

We are talking about scores on a Big Standardized Test. That's it.

Barshay notes that "A school system can improve rapidly and still leave most children behind." Well, yes. Which students have more room for improvement-- those who are already at the top of their game, or those who are scoring in the basement?

Students who are bringing up the rear academically can be given more test prep, instruction that goes straight to what the test covers as well as instruction on how to take the test itself (Here's how to avoid being tricked by distractors in multiple choice questions). Students at the top of the game may well be growing and developing, but the BS Test measures such a sliver of skills (and no knowledge at all) that their growth doesn't register (You've been developing insights into quantum theory? That's will not raise your test score).

This was always part of the debate over tying teacher evaluation to student scores. Focus on growth, and teachers of honors classes are in trouble, because a student who's already at the 98th percentile isn't going to grow at all. Focus on proficiency scores, and the teachers who are assigned the low-achieving students are in trouble, because no matter how well they teach those students, they will still lag (no, Virginia, there is no magical technique for "catching up" students quickly-- if there was, teachers would use it all the time).

Worse, when policy bases teacher or school evaluation on proficiency, it turns the lowest achievers into hot potatoes. We've seen this in action where charter and voucher schools work hard to avoid those low-scoring students who would mess up their numbers. When Steven Wilson is cited in the article pointing to charter schools with low-income students and high levels of proficiency, he's simply pointing to the effects of creaming, where schools do their best to avoid having their numbers damaged by low-scoring students. There is no magic trick there that can be applied "at scale" for the public system.

Ultimately, schools can not win playing the growth measurement game because schools cannot raise student scores every year forever, as if somehow each cohort of students was smarter than their older siblings. Test scores are not a stock market ticker.

But schools also cannot win the proficiency game. BS Test scores and "grade levels" are scaled and normed (curved). If the BS Test were truly standards based, students taking the test could be scored instantly after they clicked the last answer. But the scores have to be computed and compared and scaled and then some state bureau sets the cut scores. But curves have to have a bottom. If, after years of intensive effort, every child tested above grade level for reading, we would not conclude that a reading education moonshot had occurred-- we would conclude that "grade level" had been set too low. If every child was rated "proficient," we would conclude that the requirements for "proficient" had been made too easy (just check every piece complaining about grade inflation).

Does test score growth tell us something? Absolutely. Does it tell us everything, or even most of the things? Absolutely not.

Do test score levels tell us something? Absolutely. Do they tell us everything, or even most of the things? Absolutely not.

The growth vs. proficiency debate is in many ways a debate about how to make the best use of a tiny, noisy slice of data. Instead, I wish we were talking about what we really should be measuring, how we can measure it, and how we are going to deal with the fact that there is much about educational quality that cannot be measured in any way that will satisfy our data overlords. Some days we are wasting way too much energy arguing about whether we should cut baloney into slices or cubes when we'd be better off figuring out how make a healthier meal.

elaine August 27, 2026

Source

Curmudgucation

Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice: Students Are Skipping the Hardest Part of Growing Up (Clay Shirky)

elaine — Wed, 26 Aug 2026 16:58:33 +0000

Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice: Students Are Skipping the Hardest Part of Growing Up (Clay Shirky)

Clay Shirky is a vice provost at New York University. Since 2015, he has helped faculty members and students adapt to digital tools. This op-ed appeared in The New York Times, February 1, 2026.

Back in 2023, when ChatGPT was still new, a professor friend had a colleague observe her class. Afterward, he complimented her on her teaching but asked if she knew her students were typing her questions into ChatGPT and reading its output aloud as their replies.

At the time, I chalked this up to cognitive offloading, the use of artificial intelligence to reduce the amount of thinking required to complete a task. Looking back, though, I think it was an early case of emotional offloading, the use of A.I. to reduce the energy required to navigate human interaction.

You’ve probably heard of extreme cases in which people treat bots as lovers, therapists or friends. But many more have them intervene in their social lives in subtler ways. On dating apps, people are leaning on A.I. to help them seem more educated or confident; one app, Hinge, reports that many younger users “vibe check” messages with A.I. before sending them. (Young men, especially, lean on it to help them initiate conversations.)

In the classroom, the domain I know best, some students are using the tools not just to reduce effort on homework but also to avoid the stress of an unscripted conversation with a professor — the possibility of making a mistake, drawing a blank or looking dumb — even when their interactions are not graded.

Last fall, The Times reported on students at the University of Illinois Urbana, Champaign, who cheated in their course, then wrote their apologies using A.I. In a situation where unforged communication to their professors might have made a difference, they still wouldn’t (or couldn’t) forgo A.I. as a social prosthetic.

As an academic administrator, I’m paid to worry about students’ use of A.I. to do their critical thinking. Universities have whole frameworks and apparatuses for academic integrity. A.I. has been a meteor strike on those frameworks, for obvious reasons.

But as educators, we have to do more than ensure that students learn things; we have to help them become new people, too. From that perspective, emotional offloading worries me more than the cognitive kind, because farming out your social intuitions could hurt young people more than opting out of writing their own history papers.

Just as overreliance on calculators can weaken our arithmetic abilities and overreliance on GPS can weaken our sense of direction, overreliance on A.I. may weaken our ability to deal with the give and take of ordinary human interaction.

A generation gap has formed around A.I. use. One study found that 18-to-25-year-olds alone accounted for 46 percent of ChatGPT use. And this analysis didn’t even include users 17 and under.

Teenagers and young adults, stuck in the gradual transition from managed childhoods to adult freedoms, are both eager to make human connection and exquisitely alert to the possibility of embarrassment. (You remember.) A.I. offers them a way to manage some of that anxiety of presenting themselves in new roles when they don’t have a lot of experience to go on. In 2022, 41 percent of young adults reported feelings of anxiety most days.

Even informal social settings require participants to develop and then act within appropriate roles, a phenomenon best described by the sociologist Erving Goffman. There are ways people are expected to behave on a date or in a grocery store or at a restaurant and different ways in different kinds of restaurants. But in certain situations, like starting at a new job and meeting a romantic partner’s family, the rules aren’t immediately clear. In his book “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,” Dr. Goffman writes:

When the individual does move into a new position in society and obtains a new part to perform, he is not likely to be told in full detail how to conduct himself, nor will the facts of his new situation press sufficiently on him from the start to determine his conduct without his further giving thought to it.

When we take on new roles — which we do all our lives, but especially as we figure out how to become adults — we learn by doing and often by doing badly: being too formal or informal with new colleagues, too strait-laced or casual in new situations. (I still remember the shock on learning, years later, that because of my odd dress and awkward demeanor, my friends’ nickname for me freshman year was “the horror child.”)

Dr. Goffman was writing in the mid-1950s, when more socializing happened face-to-face. At the time, writing was relatively formal, whether for public consumption, as with literature or journalism, or for particular audiences, as with memos and contracts. Even letters and telegrams often involved real compositional thought; the postcard was as informal as it got.

That started to change in the 1990s, when the inrush of digital communications — emails, instant messages, texting, Facebook, WhatsApp — made writing essential to much of human interaction and socializing much easier to script. The words you send other people are a big part of your presentation of self in everyday life. And every place where writing has become a social interface is now ripe for an injection of A.I., adding an automated editor into every conversation, draining some of the personal from interpersonal interaction.

At a recent panel about student A.I. use hosted by high school educators, I heard several teens describe using A.I. to puzzle through past human interactions and rehearse upcoming ones. One talked about needing to have a tough conversation — “I want to say this to my friend, but I don’t want to sound rude” — so she asked A.I. to help her rehearse the conversation. Another said she had grown up hating to make phone calls (a common dislike among young people), which meant that most of her interaction at a distance was done via text, with time to compose and edit replies, which was time that could now include instant vibe checks.

These teens were adamant that they did not want to go directly to their parents or friends with these issues and that the steady availability of A.I. was a relief to them. They also rejected the idea of A.I. therapists; they weren’t treating A.I. as a replacement for another person but instead were using it to second-guess their developing sense of how to treat other people.

A.I. has been trained to give us answers we like, rather than the ones we may need to hear. The resulting stream of praise — constantly hearing some version of “You’re absolutely right!” — risks eroding our ability to deal with the messiness of human relationships. Sociologists call this social deskilling.

Even casual A.I. use exposes users to a level of praise humans rarely experience from one another, which is not great for any of us but is especially risky for young people still working on their social skills.

In a recent study (still in preprint) with the evocative title “Sycophantic A.I. Decreases Prosocial Intentions and Promotes Dependence,” six researchers from Stanford and Carnegie Mellon describe some of their conclusions:

Interaction with sycophantic A.I. models significantly reduced participants’ willingness to take actions to repair interpersonal conflict, while increasing their conviction of being in the right. However, participants rated sycophantic responses as higher quality, trusted the sycophantic A.I. model more and were more willing to use it again.

In other words, talking to a fawning bot reduces our willingness to try to fix strained or broken relationships in the real world while making the bot seem more trustworthy. Like cigarettes, those conversations are both corrosive and addictive.

More of this is coming. Most every place where humans are offered mediated communication, some company is going to offer an A.I. as a counselor, sidekick or wingman, there to gas you up, monitor the conversation or push certain responses while warning you away from others.

In the business world, it might be presented as an automated coach, in day-to-day interactions it may be a digital friend, and in dating it will be Cyrano as a service. Because user loyalty is good for business, companies will nudge us toward rehearsed interactions and self-righteousness when interacting with real people and nudging them to reply to us in kind.

We need good social judgment to get along with one another. Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment. It sounds odd to say that we have to preserve space for humans to screw up socially, but it’s true.

The generation gap means the people in charge, mostly born in the past century, are likely to underestimate the risks from A.I. as a social prosthetic. We didn’t have A.I. as an option in our adulthood, save for the past three years. For a 20-year-old, however, the past three years is their adulthood.

One possible response to sycophantic A.I. is simply to shift back to a more oral culture. Higher education is already shifting to oral exams. You can imagine adapting that strategy to interviews; new hires and potential roommates could be certified as comfortable communicating without A.I. (a new role for notaries public). Offices could shift to more live communication to reduce workslop. Dating sites could do the same to reduce flirtslop.

A.I. misuse cannot be addressed solely through individuals opting out. Although some young people have started intentionally avoiding A.I. use, this is more likely to create a counterculture than to affect broad adoption. There are already signs that “I don’t use A.I.” is becoming this century’s “I don’t even own a TV” — a sanctimonious signal that had no appreciable effect on TV watching.

We do have a contemporary example of taking social dilemmas caused by technology seriously: the smartphone. Smartphones have good uses and have been widely adopted by choice, like A.I. But after almost two decades of treating overuse as a question of individual willpower, we are finally experimenting with collective action, as with bans on phones in the classroom and real age limits on social media.

It took us nearly two decades from the arrival of the smartphone to start instituting collective responses. If we move at the same rate here, we will start treating A.I.’s threat to human relationships as a collective issue in the late 2030s. We can already see the outlines of emotional offloading; it would be good if we didn’t wait that long to react.

elaine August 26, 2026

Source

Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice

The Digital Delusion: Researchers Say Phone Bans Don’t Improve Learning — But They Didn’t Study Bans

elaine — Tue, 25 Aug 2026 17:47:46 +0000

The Digital Delusion: Researchers Say Phone Bans Don’t Improve Learning — But They Didn’t Study Bans

How a Crucial Distinction Continues to be Blurred in the Debate Around Phones in Schools

NOTE: I am currently on holiday, so this will be short and sweet.

One year ago, a paper was published arguing that school phone policies do not improve student learning.

This finding was not particularly surprising, as most school ‘phone policies’ are not genuine bans. Most policies prohibit students from using phones during class-time, but allow device access between classes, during breaks, at lunch, or while traveling to and from school.

Unfortunately, the negative impact of digital technology on learning does not begin and end in the classroom. Rather, the biological and cognitive mechanisms linked to disrupted learning - including craving, fragmented consolidation, and energetic depletion - continue throughout the day (explored in depth in this video here).

Long story short: if you want to test the effect of a true phone ban on learning, phones likely need to be genuinely removed from the school environment bell-to-bell.

Importantly, the researchers in this paper never claimed to study ‘bans.’ They were careful to state they examined phone ‘policies.’

Needless to say, though, the popular press was quick to confuse these two and begin talking about the irrelevance of bans in the classroom.

NEW RESEARCH

Last month, a new working paper from researchers at Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania (amongst others) was released.

This paper again reports no improvement in learning outcomes from phone policies - but this time the paper itself uses the term ‘School Phone Bans.’

The problem is that the intervention examined was not actually a ban in any meaningful sense. The researchers studied Yondr pouches (lockable sleeves students keep on their person and place their phones into during parts of the school day).

Unfortunately, a phone stored in a pouch a student continues carrying is not equivalent to a phone removed from campus.

So what did the researchers actually find?

First, this is still a working paper - it has not yet been peer reviewed. As such, all conclusions should be interpreted cautiously.

Second, the study did not directly measure total phone use; rather, it inferred phone activity from location-based behavioral data during school hours.

The reported reduction in phone activity was surprisingly small. In fact, the paper states that Yondr pouch adoption reduced net phone visits by ‘approximately 0.19 [natural] log points across the pooled sample.’

Translated into English, that corresponds to roughly a 17% reduction in measured phone activity.

If we extrapolated this into everyday behaviour, that would be consistent with:

Students who checked their phones 100 times during the school day now checking them roughly 83 times.
Students who spent 6 hours on their phones now spending closer to 5.
Students who previously ignored 10 peer interactions in order to scroll social media now ignoring 8.

That’s nowhere near a bell-to-bell ban.

SO NOW THEN…

A year ago, the press blurred the distinction between a ‘policy’ and a ‘ban.’ Today, researchers themselves appear to have blurred that distinction as well.

This paper does not show that genuine bans fail to improve learning outcomes. In fact, it does not even examine bans in any meaningful sense.

What it appears to show is that Yondr pouches produce a partial reduction in observable phone activity during the school day.

That’s it.

Drawing stronger conclusions than that would be incredibly difficult to justify.

NOTE: The paper does report one additional finding worth mentioning: teachers reported that the share of students visibly using phones during class for personal reasons fell substantially following Yondr adoption. Although important, suppressed overt classroom use is not equivalent to eliminating broader device presence, craving, anticipation, or cognitive fragmentation across the entire school day (which are the mechanisms advocates of genuine bell-to-bell bans are primarily concerned with).

elaine August 25, 2026

Source

The Digital Delusion

First Fish Chronicles: What We Need to Know About EdTech, Data, and Privacy

elaine — Mon, 24 Aug 2026 17:05:21 +0000

First Fish Chronicles: What We Need to Know About EdTech, Data, and Privacy

An FAQ about why EdTech companies need, want, and collect your child's data and what you can do about it

Note from Emily: This essay was originally posted on my website in April 2025. I have lightly edited it to reflect changes over the past year and to add new information. One important note on terminology: I do not call them EdTech “tools” because if the business model of the curricula or app or diagnostic “tool” being used is one that profits from data (and 96% do), then it is not a tool, it is a product whose determinants for success are fundamentally out of alignment with healthy child development.

EdTech, like Big Tech, is an industry.

EdTech, like Big Tech, is in this for profit, not children.

EdTech is just Big Tech in a sweater vest.

Photo by Holly Landkammer on Unsplash

The question I hear all the time—

When it comes to data and privacy issues around EdTech, I am regularly asked: “So what? Why does it matter? Why should we care?”

The very short and very important initial response to this question is because the erosion of privacy rights is the first step in the erosion of other rights. EVEN IF we as adults are knowingly consenting to all the data collection going on in our digital lives (and trust me, we do not have a full grasp on that reality), children are minors who cannot legally consent and who often have no idea that their data is being collected, shared, sold, or used in ways that benefit corporations, not families or schools.

That response alone should be reason enough to care. But if you want to learn more, here are some common questions that will provide more information:

Q: How are children using “EdTech” products at school?

A: “EdTech” or “educational technology” can mean anything from 1:1 district-issued Chromebooks, online curricula, games or apps used for “learning,” “learning management systems” (like Schoology), online grading portals, diagnostic and assessment products (like iReady), digital surveillance or “safety” products (like Securly or GoGuardian), online mental health assessments, online state testing, and more.

Broadly speaking, the digital products children use at or for school are owned by any number of technology companies, not the schools themselves. It’s also not just a few platforms or products per school; it’s hundreds or even thousands. Per district. There is often a wide range in how different schools, grades, subjects, and teachers use such products. Some teachers use it at the bare minimum; other classes are using them every period, every day. Some districts mandate use of products like iReady, whether teachers like them or not. With other products, even within the same grade or same subject at the same school, usage rates can vary wildly.

Second-graders in an Oregon school, during “reading” time.

Q: What should I worry about as a parent when it comes to EdTech products?

A: This is deserving of its own essay (and I’ve written many on this publication), but there are (at least) two big concerns:

First, such products rarely, if ever, are better than an analog or teacher-based approach when it comes to efficacy (in other words, “Does this product work?”) See the UNESCO GEM Report for more on that. It is also difficult to find independently-funded research on EdTech– most is funded by the companies who benefit from the use of such products. Internet Safety Labs is one good source for independent research on EdTech platforms and tools. Obviously, Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath is another. Or read any number of excellent essays about iReady as it not only siphons data but erodes and impedes actual learning: here and here and here are a few good examples.

But secondly, and arguably more importantly, even if these products and tools were “beneficial” to learning and teaching (and how to measure “benefit” and “success” is in and of itself a debate), nearly all these EdTech companies collect data about the children using the products and share or sell it to third parties for profit. In fact, Internet Safety Labs found that 96% of EdTech tools share children’s personal information with third parties.

Q: Wait. Why would an EdTech company want to collect my child’s data?

A: In the digital age gold rush, data is gold. This is how “free” social media apps work– we aren’t paying to use the service, we are giving Meta and Snap information about us as consumers that they collect and repackage to target us with advertisements (you’ve probably noticed how an innocent Amazon search on your phone ends up in similarly-themed ads in your Instagram feed.)

The same thing is happening with EdTech products. Because the apps, digital curricula, and learning management systems used by children at or for school are owned by for-profit technology companies, “time on device” is the measure by which such companies determine product success. These are private companies with shareholders who want to see profits (many are connected to venture capital, like PowerSchool, which is owned by Bain Capital.) The profits come from licensing agreements with school districts (often in the millions of dollars) and from the data they collect about their customers– in this case, our children. Sometimes districts are offered a low-cost or free first-year license by EdTech company salespeople, only to find that rates start to climb in subsequent, but after schools are already deeply enmeshed in the product and extrication will be messy and complicated. (One large school district IT director I spoke to expressed surprise that the rates on the district’s licensing costs were rising 3-5% a year. Of course, making up those costs mean cuts are going to have to come from somewhere else.)

Children’s data is also extremely valuable. The United States Department of Education found that one student data record is worth between $250 and $350 on the black market. There are nearly 50 million school-aged children in the United States, which is why the EdTech industry is a huge and lucrative market, projected to be worth over $800 billion in the next decade (aggregate amount of spending over hardware, software, and cloud services globally.) Today, some estimates place its value at $205 billion.

If you take 50 million children and multiple that by ~$300 per student record, that totals $15 billion dollars worth of data. It’s no wonder hackers find children’s data such an appealing target.

Q: What kind of data do EdTech companies collect?

A: Here is a non-exhaustive list of what EdTech companies may collect about our children, from one sample privacy policy:

Enrollment data
Course schedule data
Student identifiers
Academic program membership
Extracurricular program membership
Transcript data
Student-submitted materials within a course
Student grades
Student assessments
Student address
Student email address
Phone numbers
Student name
Student date of birth
Parent or guardian name
Student conduct data
Student behavior data
Student social-emotional learning indicators and inputs
Student evaluation and management data
Physical and mental disabilities
Immunization records
Treatment providers
Allergies
Email delivery preferences
Communications with stakeholders, such as parents
Usage data
Browser data
Device-specific data, including:
- Data security
- Cloud hosting
- Information technology
- Customer support
- Usage and analytics
- Application performance monitoring
- User identity
- User authentication
- Feature integration with third-party products or companies

At a bare minimum, districts should publicly post on their website a list of all EdTech products used and link to their unique privacy polices. Northampton Public Schools in Massachusetts is one rare example of a district that does this (if you know of more, please let me know). They also provide access to a spreadsheet that show apps and data agreements by grade level, but the person who shared it with me notes that it is in need of updating. Even if your child’s district doesn’t use same apps or products from this list, these links are extremely interesting to look at. The fact that the list of “approved” apps alone numbers 373 unique products is shocking.

Screenshot of Northampton Public Schools spreadsheet of Privacy and Data Agreements— this page is just products used in Kindergarten

Screenshot of Northampton Public Schools “Digital Resources" Database. Worth noting both the total number of entries (373) and that “GoGuardian” is listed as “not approved” because they will “not be moving forward with the Data Privacy Agreements with the Massachusetts Alliance.” Many schools use surveillance products like GoGuardian to monitor student devices.

Q: But isn’t all of this personal information anonymous?

A: Unfortunately, no. Schools may tell parents data it is, but that is because they are told by EdTech companies that the data is “anonymized.” Given how much data is collected, however, it is not difficult to reverse-engineer data to identify students individually. There are even companies who perform “identity-resolution” — taking anonymized data collected about users, re-identifying that data, and selling it.

Q: I know I signed a User Agreement or agreed to some Terms and Conditions when the school gave my child a laptop. If I checked that box or signed that agreement, doesn’t that mean I consented to all of this?

A: No. First, many of those “User Agreements” that schools require parents to sign at the start of the school year say nothing about the school’s responsibility to protect student data and focus almost entirely on “student use” of the school-issued EdTech products (“Students will use it responsibly/for educational purposes only”) and that it is a family’s responsibility to replace damaged or lost laptops. If the document doesn’t say anything about what happens when your child is harmed on a school-issued device, then the “agreement” is not there to protect your child; it’s there to (ostensibly) protect the school from liability if or when harm occurs (and it does, often).

Screenshot of Seattle Public Schools Network Use Agreement that students are expected to sign at the start of each school year. This is only the first portion. It is entirely about [sic]

It is extremely unlikely you have been fully informed of potential risks to your child’s information being collected or about the various ways in which these companies might use your child’s data, and you certainly did not receive detailed specifics about each individual app or product (which can, as I note above, run into the hundreds). Most schools are not even fully informed of the risks, and that’s not surprising given that there are only a handful of IT administrators responsible for overseeing hundreds of unique products. And those are just the ones that are vetted through proper channels. Many EdTech salespeople approach teachers and principals directly, bypassing any public curriculum adoption process or formal vetting process.1

EdTech companies would like parents to think that they have consented; but legally-speaking, these blanket “User Agreements” are not “informed consent” and would not hold up in court. If you have any concerns, please contact Andrew and Julie Liddell of the EdTech Law Center. They are a consumer protection firm that will speak to you free of charge to help you understand your rights.2

Q: What are some consequences of these companies having my child’s data? How do they use this data in ways that might harm children?

A: The erosion of privacy rights is dangerous because worse civil rights violations can follow. Aside from the fact that a vast trove of your child’s personal information is now on the internet, there are numerous ways this can harm a child.

Children using school-issued devices to do web searches about controversial topics, even if simply researching them for a school assignment, can flag a student as interested in extremist behavior, conspiracy theories, and more.
The information students search, send, or type on digital platforms can later be used against them in college admissions or job applications.
Law enforcement agencies have used student data to flag “at-risk” children. There are huge implications for police departments having access to this type of data. As one example, law enforcement agencies can use student data behavioral records to predict future criminal behavior.
The data collected about children can also be used to deliver targeted ads that can contain dangerous messaging about self-harm, health misinformation, or extremist behaviors.
Data breaches are also common. Powerschool, Inc., a $5 billion EdTech company (owned by Bain Capital), was the recent target of a massive data breach in which over forty years of data on over 70 million people were leaked. More recently, Instructure, parent company of Canvas, used by 8,000 institutions, according to their website, were targets of a student data breach.
EdTech companies also market their “cradle to career” unified data systems as tools for state and local governments to use to support workforce planning and juvenile justice and law enforcement.
AI models are trained on data. When teachers and students use AI products in education, they are helping train datasets.

Q: My school is telling me they can consent on my behalf. Is this true?

A: No, but they may not know this.

An amicus brief filed by the FTC in September of 2025 is the FTC’s most definitive statement yet on what COPPA (the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act) does and does not allow, and the brief has enormous implications for schools and EdTech companies. Until this filing, many EdTech companies sought permission only from schools–and not from parents, as COPPA requires–as to what information is collected about students and how that information may be commercialized. However, this was based on, at best, a misunderstanding, and at worst, a willful misreading of the law. In a nutshell, this amicus brief establishes that schools can no longer stand in the shoes of parents for the purpose of consenting to data collection.

I wrote a longer piece about this amicus brief here, and created a letter template for parents to use to send to their schools to inform them about this.

Q: So what can parents do?

A: The first thing parents can do is understand that this is a problem. Many schools and parents are just now coming around to the fact that student personal devices (like phones and smartwatches) should not be available to students during class time. This is absolutely the right thing to do in terms of what is best for children and learning.

However, if all personal phones and watches are banned, but schools still provide internet-connected iPads or Chromebooks to students, students are still engaging with harmful, manipulative, and addictive tools and platforms whose business model is entirely dependent on “time on device” and “user engagement.” Children are clever– they may no longer have their smartphones, but they can still chat within Google docs, watch TikTok videos on Pinterest, download VPNs to bypass school filters, and watch YouTube videos (often unblocked and available to students in the Google Classroom suite of products– Google owns YouTube.)

The second thing parents can do is to share this information with other parents. Print off or email this FAQ to your parenting peers. There is a clear need for collective action with pushing back on EdTech, and while these tools and products are harmful to learning and teaching, the privacy and data security issues are far more impactful and far less understood.

Q: So it’s not just about whether or not these EdTech products “work”? I should also be concerned about data and privacy? Anything else?

A: There are four questions we must insist schools answer before providing children access to EdTech products:

Is this effective?
Is this safe?
Is this legal?
Is this superior to a human teacher?

Until and unless the answer to all four questions must be a resounding Yes. Currently, it is a terrifying No.

Q: Can I refuse? Opt out of EdTech?

A: Short answer, yes. Is it always easy to do this? No. Schools will say that it is not possible, that children will fall behind, that they cannot accommodate, that you cannot opt out of curriculum, etc. Schools saying that it is not allowed or not possible to refuse or opt out are essentially asking families to choose between their child’s education or protecting their child’s privacy and data. You may have to reach out to the EdTech Law Center for support.

Q: How do I opt out?

A: I have created an UnPlug EdTech Toolkit that contains much of the above information, plus a series of letter templates and resources on Substack that will support you in this process. I also recently recorded an in-depth webinar about how parents can opt out, including different opt out pathways and how to continue to support teachers, as opting out disproportionately burdens them. You can view that webinar here.

Q: Have you (Emily) opted out of EdTech? How is that going?

A: Yes. My daughter is an 8th grader this year, and this is the second year she has declined the 1:1 Chromebook. We are fortunate to have the support of an excellent principal. We started the conversation with her the spring before 7th grade started and focused on building a good working relationship with school leadership. When my daughter does need to use a computer for typing an essay, for example, her English teacher has a spare one she can use. We have also opted her out of all standardized tests and online mental health assessments. (I go through all of this in the webinar).

This is far from ideal, however. We realize she still has an online presence in the learning management system, some of her assigned curriculum is still all-digital and has resulted in her using the loaner computer more than I would like, and we recently learned that the district is advising writing teachers to use AI to assess student papers.3 She will be entering high school in the fall and I have already communicated with the school counselor there about our plans to decline the 1:1. We received a supportive message back.

It should be noted that my daughter is thriving without the 1:1. She has very good grades, she is an active class participant, and she seems mostly unbothered by the fact that she is the only student without a laptop.

Concluding Thoughts:

I am not anti-technology; I am tech-intentional. I see a desperate need for technology education in schools (and at home), to teach children skills like typing (shockingly, many students with 1:1s don’t know how to type); media literacy; the ability to identify mis- and dis-information; to understand what AI is and why it is still so risky.

But “EdTech” is not “Tech Ed.” What is currently happening in K-12 schools is mostly EdTech (or the “Tech Ed” provided is curricula delivered by the same companies who benefit from kids’ using it or which take a foregone conclusion approach— “Kids will be online so we should teach them to use social media safer.” I reject this premise— there is no such thing as a “safe cigarette”).

We have a lot of work to do, but I believe that the future of schools is tech-intentional, and there are things we can do to get there. In fact, I have an entire talk on this very topic, which I delivered in Louisville, KY, at the Filson Historical Society in March 2025. You can view the talk here. More recently, I delivered another keynote for the Tikvah Marom conference in Miami in March of 2026 called The Pen(cil) is Mightier Than the Sword: The Case for the Analog Classroom.4

For more on this topic, also be sure to check out these essays I’ve written:

1 As one example, I had no idea that Seattle Schools, my home district, used iReady, because I couldn’t find anything on the school website about the contract or adoption of the product. But when I asked in a Seattle Schools Facebook group about it, parents and teachers from at least four different schools in the district said they use it. I have no idea how it came to be used in Seattle Schools.

2 They recently told me they are averaging 100 inquiries per week right now. They only opened two years ago.

3 When I followed up with the district about this, they stated that “teachers are not being instructed to use AI to assess student writing.” It was my daughter’s teacher who conveyed to me the district instruction to use AI. Make of that what you will.

4 It was this essay in which I ventured a hope that we could protect childhood a bit more by returning to pencils and paper in classrooms that led to me receiving my first death threat on this very platform. (I did report it to Substack and to law enforcement).

elaine August 24, 2026

Source

First Fish Chronicles

Curmudgucation: Cashing in on Federal Vouchers

elaine — Fri, 21 Aug 2026 17:41:21 +0000

Curmudgucation: Cashing in on Federal Vouchers

The federal voucher program birthed by the Big Beautiful Boondoggle Bill aims to spread a lot of money around, and folks are already getting ready to hoover up a share of the taxpayer-funded largesse. The tricks is to set up a Scholarship Granting Organization.

What's an SGO again?

Tax Credit Scholarships are a way to launder taxpayer dollars before funneling them to private, often religious, schools. To hand the money taxpayer to government to private school would be illegal, so instead, the money goes from taxpayer to SGO (instead of the government) to private school. That shifting of the taxpayer's liability from government to private school is totes legal (except in Kentucky, where the courts are smarter than that).

So the SGO collects the money and hands out the vouchers, and in between, it collects a handling fee, typically between 5% and 10%.

SGOs can make some money on the state level, though in many cases they exist just to funnel taxpayer dollars to a particular private school. But the idea of a federal voucher system creates some big possibilities.

There's a wild range of estimates for how much money will be involved in federal vouchers, from $51 billion down to $3 billion. But no matter who turns out to be correct, a 10% will be mean there's a hefty stack of money in play for SGOs on the national level. All the more motivation for voucherphiles to get in on the financial harvest.

American Federation for Children

As we have noted before, the DeVosian national-level privatization advocacy group is already setting up their own national SGO and teaming up with Odyssey, an outfit that promises "an automated, end-to-end school choice platform. AFC's announced plans that involve serving as an SGO for SGOs-- a national feedline for ambitious state-level SGOs. And look-- nobody yet knows what the actual rules and regulations are going to look like. Will this kind of SGO-to-SGO pipeline be legal? Better question-- will SGOs get to skim off a fee at every level, so that the piece of pie is whittled away as it moves down through the privatization funnel?

But AFC plans give you an idea of how much money is in play-- they are spending $10 million just to publicize and prepare the ground for the launch of federal vouchers. When you can spare a cool ten mill just to launch your new program, you know you're expecting some hefty ROI.

Center for Christian Virtue

State players are also planning to upsize. The Center for Christian Virtue has been active in Ohio since the days of 1983 when it was the more for Citizens for Community Values. Back in 2024 they won an award from the Heritage Foundation that they planned to use "to support its Education Restoration Initiative, addressing Ohio's academically broken and morally corrupt government-run education system."

They've been quite plain about being on a mission to replace public schools with private Christian schools, including helping churches set up such schools. But with the federal voucher program, they have announced their intent to go national by taking its state-level SGO, the Christian Education Network, and sending it out into other states.

“Families are searching for both excellence and biblical values in education, so this program creates a critical pathway forward,” said Troy McIntosh, Executive Director of CEN. “It gives parents and grandparents a choice they may not have thought possible, and provides Christ-centered schools with new financial resources."

And for just 10% of the take, they will provide that.

MyChurchSGO

Even if you aren't a state or national player, you can still play along! Meet Richard Poljan and MyChurchSGO. In fact, I'll let him introduce himself, because otherwise you might think this is a parody video.

[Watch video here.]

Yup. God's new gold mine.

Poljan has put up several of these videos, and they aren't exactly pulling in the big views. He's a hard man to track down, but he appears to be working in Fowler, Michigan, a small town NW of Lansing (be sure to visit Chester's Chicken while you're there). Richard "Buddy" Poljan appears to have no actual education background; his LinkedIn says he put in a couple of years at Hillsdale, then got a degree at Michigan Technological University before embarking on a career as an industrial engineer, currently with EFI Global, the "fire, environmental, and engineering experts." Looks like he played some college football. And he's served on some GOP local leadership groups.

MyChurchSGO has a website up, though it doesn't seem to be quite finished. Poljan does get the basic pitch here-- you can give $1,700 to the government or to your favorite church school. Also, don't have too many rules or parents will go to some other SGO. Also, to churches he says, "Get free money from the Government and bring in lots more revenue for your Church." Finally, "Get your SGO up and running," Poljan urges, "so that you can help kids make it to heaven."

But it's been six months, and Poljan's operation doesn't seem to be exactly taking off, and it does seem that bush-league start-ups like his will mostly get swamped by the big state and national SGO operations. Still, expect plenty of similar small time pop-ups to try to get a piece of that God's big new gold mine.

elaine August 21, 2026

Source

Curmudgucation