Trump Okays More Charter Waste

At this point, we have more than a few examples of how President Musk's DOGEry is most certainly not about reducing federal waste and fraud. But if you would like a very clear, specific example, let's take a look at the latest decree about charter schools.

The federal Charter School Program has been shelling out grants to launch and expand charter schools since 1994. Analysis of the program by the Network for Public Education shows that one out of every four taxpayer dollars handed out by CSP has been wasted on fraud and/or failure. That means of the roughly 4 Billion-with-a-B dollars handed out by the feds, roughly 1 Billion-with-a-B dollars have gone to charters that closed swiftly, or never even opened in the first place.

The Biden administration (with no small amount of prodding) eventually put some additional rules in place for CSP-- crazy stuff like "find out whether there's any need or desire for the charter school before you open it up"-- and that was followed by howls of outrage from folks in the charter biz. The rules were modest and sensible, but still could have saved a bit of taxpayer money from a program that was wasting a huge pile of money.

So, the current administration could have said, "Cool! You got some fraud and waste spotted and targeted before we even got here. Excellent. Thanks for the help in fighting federal fraud and waste."

That is not what happened.

Instead, yesterday the Department of Education issued an edict saying that the "unnecessary conditions and overly bureaucratic requests for information" would be stopped and that CPS would start handing out money more easily. 

It is certainly within the scope of an administration to "adjust" the rules for CSP-- they've been doing that for thirty years. There's just an extra level of irony from an administration whose signature claim is that they are going to protect taxpayer dollars from being wasted, As far as charter schools go, the Trusk administration declares Christmas every day. Take all the taxpayer dollars you want! Some waste is bad, but other waste is fully approved. 

IN: Governor Says No To Dolly Parton's Book Program

Here at the Institute, we love Dolly Parton's Imagination Library very much. It is one of the best, most effective philanthropic and educational programs in the country. And Governor Mike Braun of Indiana has decided the children of his state can just do without it.

This program started with the simplest idea in the world-- putting books in the homes of small children. It began, once again, in her home county, and her proposal was simple-- sign your newborn child up, and once a month from birth through Kindergarten, the child will receive a book. On the program's website, Parton writes

When I was growing up in the hills of East Tennessee, I knew my dreams would come true. I know there are children in your community with their own dreams. They dream of becoming a doctor or an inventor or a minister. Who knows, maybe there is a little girl whose dream is to be a writer and singer. The seeds of these dreams are often found in books and the seeds you help plant in your community can grow across the world.

The program launched in 1995 in Sevier County (Parton's home), and it grew quickly. By 2006, when the Washington Post wrote about it, the program had spread to 471 communities in 41 states. In 2011 it launched in Scotland, and it can now be found in the UK, Australia, and Canada. In February of 2018, the Imagination Library presented its 100 millionth book to the Library of Congress. There are currently more than 3.1 million children registered under the program, and the foundation has gifted over 270 million books.

Indiana came late to the party, with the Previous Governor Holcomb announcing a statewide expansion in 2023, committing $6 million over two years. Is that a bunch of money? Sure, but it got every child age 0-5 and under a brand new book of their own every single month. And now that budget item stands at $0.00. 

Let me tell you first hand that these books have an impact. The Board of Directors got a book every month, and it was always a point of excitement. The books were well curated, an awesome collection of old classics and modern books, beautiful and diverse (so of course politicians occasionally tried to push the culture panic button). Even the very last book felt like a personal message to the young readers in my house. 

Neither Braun nor the lawmakers who actually drafted the proposed budget have explained their reasoning behind zeroing out the state contribution, nor have they responded to requests for comment. Braun made some noises about "efficiencies" and the budget. Meanwhile, the United Way and other charitable groups may scrape up the money needed.

Braun ran last fall on culture panic and parental rights (for some), along with a call to increase academic standards and prepare students for success. You know what helps with academic success? Exposing children to reading early and often-- so early and often that they think of reading as a natural and normal and desirable part of life.

I am stumped. Dolly Parton and her people say, "Look, we'll carry half the cost and all of the legwork for putting books in the hands of every pre-school kid in your state every month from ages 0-5" and your reaction to that is "No, thanks"??!! Sorry, Indiana-- apparently your leaders are not all that interested in either children or reading. They can pass a snazzy "science of reading" law, but they can't get behind the idea of giving children actual books to read. 

“We are hopeful that Governor Braun and the Indiana Legislature will continue this vital investment by restoring the state’s funding match for local Imagination Library programs,“ Parton’s rep said in a statement.

”The beauty of the Imagination Library is that it unites us all—regardless of politics—because every child deserves the chance to dream big and succeed."

The arrival of those books each month, addressed directly to the child, delivers two messages to that child-- reading is important, and you are important. Indiana's governor and lawmakers would apparently like to deliver another message entirely. 

FL: The Cost of Choice

Paul Cottle is a professor of physics at Florida State University (who looks, swear to God, a lot like pulp hero Doc Savage). Cottle blogs at Bridge To Tomorrow where, in a recent post, he looks at how Florida has set some priorities that are bad news for education.

 

Cottle sees real trouble in the state's math scores, particularly because math is necessary for careers like engineering and analytical business careers, and even degrees like construction management and nursing. (Sure enough-- Florida ranks at the absolute bottom of the barrel for the percentage of nursing school grads who pass their professional exam, with grads of private programs worst of all). 

Cottle thinks back to a moment that captures the policy shift that has marked a significant chunk of the school choice crowd:

A conversation I had about a dozen years ago with a staff member at one of Tallahassee’s right-leaning think tanks provided a possible answer. I had asked for the meeting to discuss the ways that Florida might provide more of its high school students access to careers in engineering, science and health fields. I started the meeting by summarizing my concerns about what was happening in the state’s classrooms and suggesting some fixes. The staff member waved all of that off and responded with a question that I remember as, “How can we use this situation to strengthen the argument for school choice?” Prior to that meeting, I had adopted the point of view that school choice should primarily be a tool for providing high quality instruction to students who wouldn’t otherwise have access to it. That is, school choice was a means to the end of improving instruction. But the think tanker’s argument was something completely different: School choice WAS the end, not the means. Instructional quality was at best incidental to the whole effort.

Yes, you might be old enough to remember when the argument for choice was that it would improve education. Access to better school for students "trapped" in "failing" public schools. Competition would make everyone better. 

Then, as Cottle discovered, it turned out that all that mattered was choice; specifically, policy mechanisms for directing public money to private school operators.

Cottle also wants to point out another factor. Florida used to run a huge budget surplus, but now it's running a deficit. Cottle and others are trying to raise an alarm about math instruction and the need to improve math instruction, particularly by recruiting and retaining high quality teachers. But the "still-growing budget for school choice vouchers is surely competing for money with ideas for initiatives to improve student learning, and the voucher budget is winning."

A state that only has so much money to go around (or less) may have to decide between pumping up vouchers or trying to improve education, and in Florida, Cottle concludes, "Florida’s leaders have bet the entire education funding farm on school choice."

The "rescue" narrative was always a lie, proposing as it did that choice would "rescue" only a small number of students, leaving the rest to cool heels in their "failing" public school. Nor do the voucher schools do a better job of educating. Nor does competition raise all boats. 

Florida, always out ahead of the privatizing agenda for schools, has reached the point at which there's no longer any pretense that "choice" is about education and that, in fact, a better education for students in the state is part of the cost of school choice. As Cottle summarizes:

If a universal school choice voucher program somehow improves student learning in math and other subjects, well that is lovely. But at this point school choice is the primary goal, not improving student learning. So we should not be surprised if future Florida SAT and NAEP results continue to be disappointing.

One of the most transparent falsehoods of the choice movement has been the assumption that a state can run multiple school systems for the same money it spent on just one. And when money gets tight, states have to decide whether they want to focus on improving education for all students, or for financing their web of privatized education. It's not hard to predict which was Florida would go, but perhaps other states can be better.  

Improve Teaching With This One Trick

We talk a fair amount about improving instruction in the classroom and providing students with high quality instruction. For a long time, reformsters focused on the notion that we could identify bad teachers and fire our way to excellence. I know one quick trick that can improve the quality of teaching without new trainings and without finding a magical tree that grows super teachers. My trick can be performed with the teaching force that we have right now.

Ready? Here it is.

Put better administration in place. 

The job of school and district administrators is to provide the environment, support, and resources need in order to do their best possible work. That's it. That's the whole job. 

But talk to many teachers and you can become rapidly discouraged by the vast number of school and district administrators who have lost the plot. There are a wide variety of bad administrators out there-- power-hungry, in over their head, focused on the wrong targets, etc-- and their ways of being bad are likewise varied-- shmoozy liars, blustering bullies, disconnected and disengaged-- but the bad administrators all have the effect of making their schools worse than they could be. The difference between a good teaching job and a bad one is very often the boss you have to work for.

Lack of useful support for dealing with student behavior? Administration. No chance to build and improve instructional content and strategies? Administration. Blocked on your pursuit of professional growth? Administration. Too much work and too little time? Administration. Feeling isolated and unrecognized (or even punished) for your professional achievements? Administration. Facing challenges and have no place to get help? Administration. Just plain tired of a daily flow of petty bullshit? Administration.

Can teachers deal with all of their professional issues on their own, using their own initiative and resources? Sure, and many teachers do, because they know they have to, and any teacher should be able to put on her big girl pants and Do The Work-- but why shouldn't they do it with administration support rather than in spite of administrative interference? Why should they have to fight upstream just to do the work?

Identifying problem administrators is actually pretty simple. Just ask staff one question--

Do you trust your administrators?

It is not a radical concept; renowned business leader W. Edwards Deming wrote extensively about the importance of creating an atmosphere of trust for running an effective organization. If you want to see those ideas applied specifically to schools, check out Andrea Gabor's After the Education Wars. 

Does your administration foster trust? Can a teacher believe that they will get the support and resources they need to do the best job they can? Can a teacher be certain that administration will deal with them honestly, with integrity, and holding to the words they say?

Trust does not require admins to be warm and fuzzy or mushy. It does not mean that admins won't call a Come To Jesus meeting with teachers who need it. It does not mean that the admins need to be masters of every aspect of teaching. It doesn't even mean that all of the staff needs to like them.

It does mean that they prioritize the work of teaching (it is amazing how many administrators think the main work of the district is what happens in their offices). It does mean that they are straight and honest and not given to bullshitting their staff. It does mean they have processes in place for finding, implementing, and supporting the best in instructional materials. It does mean that they find are always working to improve the environment, support, and resources for excellent teaching in the building.

The beauty of this is that it scales up really quickly. When one teacher gets better, that's one better teacher. When an administrator gets better, every teacher in the building improves. 

Are there bad teachers that may be hard to bring along? Sure, but I always go back to the Deming comment about deadwood. If there is deadwood in your organization, there are only two explanations-- either it was dead when you hired it, or once you hired it, you killed it. Either way, deadwood is a sign of a management problem.

Look, there's no question principal and superintendent jobs are rough-- long hours and, in some districts, a terrible power-to-responsibility ratio. Promoting from within can seem attractive, except in some districts (like my old one) moving from teacher at Assistant Principal can actually involve a pay cut. 

So the fix is not necessarily simple, but in terms of upgrades that can have a far-reaching effect on an entire system or building, improving your administration team yields plenty of broad improvement. Before you start trying to play whack-a-mole with a bunch of individual teachers, try looking at the bigger picture. 

Diversity Opposition On The Local Level

The Valentine's Day letter from the Department of Education that warns schools to avoid "discrimination" or face loss of federal funding (you know--the federal funds that Dear Leader is already planning to cut off) makes a cursory attempt to pretend that is actually concerned with discrimination rather than soliciting more of it. 

"We're just taking a stand against discrimination based on race and creed," say the MAGAvites. "You know-- like Black History Month and LGBTQ pride events and handicapped ramps and recognition for Women in STEM and other stuff that discriminates against straight white guys." 

We are seeing very quickly how this plays out-- the federal directive doesn't have to be blunt and direct, because these debates will be waged on the local level.

We've already seen it play out in the Department of Defense schools, where officials are scrambling to remove any trace of diversity from libraries and classrooms. Because the VD letter combines threats with vagueness, it's up to local authorities to decide how far they should go to avoid retribution from feds.

But that same vague threat means local MAGA are free to jump in with both feet. Here's a post lifted from a Moms for Liberty Facebook group in El Paso County in Colorado, and if the VD letter leaves room for interpretation, this guy is crystal clear:

The post says "Remember, if you see any DEI in D38 they can be reported and lose funding. This is how we make sure it never appears in this school district. There better not be anyone promoting 'Black History Month'. Or any LGBTQ nonsense. We finally have a way to make sure it is gone forever, Students should keep their cameras handy to catch them in the act."

No mystery there. Look for anti-diversity activists in your neighborhood to feel emboldened to try to stamp out any diversity, equity or inclusion measures in your area, arguing that they can now be punished by the federal government. It's going to get ugly, and it's going to be hashed out on the local level as the Party of Local Control and its MAGA ground troops try to tell your local schools what they are not allowed to recognize or celebrate. 

Does Trump Want To Dismantle The Best US Schools?

Well, yes. And that tells us something about his education goals.

Disclaimer up front: I'm not a fan of school ratings based on scores on the Big Standardized Test. If I had my way, those scores would be a teeny tiny part of how we di8scuss school quality. But I don't always get to have my way, and policy makers want to toss such scores around-- especially when privateers want to "prove" that public schools are "failing."

And so we are subjected to a whole lot of chicken littling about how the latest NAEP scores show that it's time for vouchers and charters and microschools. "Stop doing wokey things, and get back to basics so scores will go up!" is the cry. 

If that's your measure, then surely we should be talking about the top-ranked United States schools-- the schools run by the Department of Defense.

Year after year, they come in at the top of the educational mountain, even in those ugly moments right after the pandemic, they were coming in 15 to 23 percentage points higher than the national average. In 2024, they were still out in front by similar margins. 

So, if education-minded politicians are really worried about NAEP scores, they should be looking at what the DOD does and calling for that to be replicated, right? Well, of course not.

Instead, the Trump administration has decreed that the Secretary of Defense must "submit a plan to the President for how military families can use Department of Defense funds to send their children to the school of their choice." Now, given the apparent excellence of DOD schools, one might think that military families will mostly use their vouchers to stay right where they are, but MAGA is working on that.

On February 6, the DOD education wing sent out a directive to all 161 schools telling them to scrub all "DEI" stuff, whatever that may be exactly, Fort Campbell schools was just one of the schools scrubbing all sorts of books about civil rights and slavery, as well as pulling down bulletin boards that made references to Black History Month and Black leaders. The anti-diversity, equity and inclusion directive also requires certain student groups to be shut down; in Wiesbaden, the Women in STEM group is done, and the portrait of Michele Obama has been taken down. An ever growing list of resources that are now forbidden has also been sent out, like a lesson entitled "How Does Immigration Affect the U.S.?" and an AP Psychology unit on sex and gender. 

The irony of this "wokiness" purge, as Jennifer Berkshire has pointed out, is that DOD schools achieve their tops-in-US results by actually being extra woke themselves. 

A New York Times piece by Sarah Mervosh dug into the question of how DOD schools get their high-scoring results. 

The secrets are not very mysterious. The Department pays teachers very well, and it fully funds its schools, both of which help retain top educators, providing both high quality instruction and institutional stability. The families that the schools serve all have secure housing and healthcare; students come to school with basic needs met and no threat of disruptive hardship hanging over them. Imagine if that were a public policy goal for the whole country.

The military base schools are also among the integrated schools in the US system, both in terms of race and socioeconomic status. And a strong central administrative structure works to insure that all schools get the same level of resources, rather than segregating resources between wealthy and poor schools. 

In short, the Department of Defense gets its education results by doing all the woke diversity equity and integration stuff (along with adequate funding) that the MAGA crowd is determined to stamp out.

The attack on the DOD schools is a clear statement of Trumpian priorities-- the administration has literally been given a choice between supporting schools that get the kind of results they want or pursing a culture panic and privatization agenda at the expense of those results. They are choosing panic and privateering, and military families will pay the price. 

If only a reporter would ask the question-- if the DOD schools are getting the results you want, why are you stripping them of the tools they use to get those results? But as the zone is flooded, this is just one small story. But it matters. The administration is able to impose on DOD schools they policies they want to impose on all schools, and they are showing that panic and privateering are the real priorities-- not education. Buckle up. 

Ed Discrimination Threats

On Valentine's Day, the Department of Education sent out a "Dear Colleague" letter on the subject of discrimination, a strongly-worded reminder that when the Musktrump  administration says they want to "send education back the states," they mean "the states that don't do things that they object to," and what they object to most of all is the giant wave of discrimination against white guys.

"Discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin is illegal and morally reprehensible," is the lead line from Craig Trainor, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. Trainor was a special council for the House Committee on the Judiciary under Jim Jordan, and Senior Litigation Counsel with the America First Policy Institute under former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Of Counsel with The Fairness Center. And it's possible that his opening sentence might not mean what you think it means, as witnessed by the next paragraph:

In recent years, American educational institutions have discriminated against students on the basis of race, including white and Asian students, many of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds and low-income families. These institutions’ embrace of pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences and other forms of racial discrimination have emanated throughout every facet of academia. For example, colleges, universities, and K-12 schools have routinely used race as a factor in admissions, financial aid, hiring, training, and other institutional programming. In a shameful echo of a darker period in this country’s history, many American schools and universities even encourage segregation by race at graduation ceremonies and in dormitories and other facilities.

Trainor is only clearing his throat. "Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students" with the "false premise" that the US is built upon systemic and structural racism. "Discriminatory practices" have been justified "under the banner of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion.'" In DEI is used to discriminate against white guys, and that's just going too far. 

Trainor spends a paragraph on the Students for Fair Admissions, the 2023 case that struck down affirmative action college admissions. The court determined that such action is only justified when remediating a specific case of discrimination or avoiding an imminent threat (like a prison race riot). "Nebulous concepts" like diversity and racial balancing are not an excuse. 

Trainor would like to take this decision and run with it--and run really far. To Trainor it's simple-- "if an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it treats another person because of that person's race, that educational institution violates the law." 

Using any kind of information, from personal essays to extracurricular activities to try to figure out the student's race and act on that conclusion is illegal. "Relying on non-racial information as a proxy for race" is illegal. And this definition is also mind-blowingly broad--

It would, for instance, be unlawful for an educational institution to eliminate standardized testing to achieve a desired racial balance or to increase racial diversity.

Because, I guess, diversity is illegal.

And he's just seeing the threats everywhere, transposing old talking points about CRT into the newest Big Scary Thing. 

DEI programs, for example, frequently preference certain racial groups and teach students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not.

"Frequently"? I'm thinking "never" might be the correct term here.  

The Department will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this Nation’s educational institutions. The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent.

The remainder of the letter is the Vague Threats portion. If your educational institution is caught doing Bad Things, "appropriate measures" will be taken. That means a loss of federal funding.

The loss of federal funding threat takes us back to the central problem of Musktrump policy-- if, as Project 2025 promised, the major hunks of federal funding are first turned into no-strings-attached block grants for the states to use as they wish (cough--vouchers--cough) and then zeroed out in a decade, then the feds will have no way to deny any school federal funding. 

The proper response to all of this is for schools to stay the course and let the Department come after them. But some districts will fold quickly, and we will continue to see stories like the one out of Fort Campbell schools where Black History Month is off and librarians are scrambling to get books that say much of anything about race are yanked off the shelves. Some districts are going to fold because they're scared, and some administrators will fold because they have permission to be just as racist as they want to be. 

PEN America released a response:

The administration’s outrageous “Dear Colleague” letter seeks to declare it a civil rights violation for educational institutions to engage in any diversity-related programming or to promote any diversity-related ideas – potentially including everything from a panel on the Civil Rights Movement to a Lunar New Year celebration. This declaration has no basis in law and is an affront to the freedom of speech and ideas in educational settings. It represents yet another twisting of civil rights law in an effort to demand ideological conformity by schools and universities and to do away with critical inquiry about race and identity.

Or even to just allow students to know the various points of view exist. 

I get the average person's discomfort with DEI programs, particularly those whose experience is with the many poorly conceived terribly run DEI programs out there. Too many organizations ran a DEI something-or-other because they had heard it was the flavor of the month, ort a necessary CYA checklist to work through.

But the BLM/CRT/DEI manufactured panics have thrived on harvesting racism. roles, whether in corporations or movies or narratives, were always supposed to be white guys by default, and you were only supposed to change that default white guy to something else if there was a good reason for it, and just "because this would work better and be a better reflection of actual society if it wasn't all white guys" did not strike a lot of white guys as a good enough reason. And certainly, "Well, let's just start with the idea that the default is a blank to fill in with any version of human expression and experience" felt like something was being taken away from Default White Guys.

Likewise, the whole idea that there were some parties that white guys couldn't automatically get into--that stung, too. Of course, there were always barriers for white guys to get into lady parties, but we dealt with that by making those women-dominated spaces as less valid, less important-- what kind of girly man would want to get in there anyway. But when various other cultural subgroups started in--that stung, too (best captured by complaints about not being "allowed" to use the N word). Why isn't the Super Bowl Halftime show for us? Everything ought to be for us white guys.

None of which is to say that sorting out and dealing with the legacy of hundreds of years of racial issues in this country is a simple fix with a single answer and that we won't continue to have disagreements between reasonable people and a full range of responses including responses that are extreme in either direction. 

But this disingenuous MAGA baloney is not part of an attempt to sort out the issues. It's zero sum thinking (if that group is getting something, it must have to be taken away from my group). It's a twisted catch-22; we shouldn't celebrate things like the Civil Rights Movement just because they were important to Black People (but only Black people needed the movement). It's an act that reveals all the talk of local control and small government to be a lie, because this is the work of greatr big hamfisted government. It's a grotesque editing of history to excise all the stories in which we were not the heroes-- and to choke off the very nature of history, which is a conversation and not a single answer set in stone. It's not an attempt to seek understanding, but to force a single understanding on others. And in too many cases, it's a five-year-olds taunt--"See, you made me stop saying things I liked to say, so I'm going to pretend to use the same rules to stop you from saying what you want to say. Neener neener! I know you are, but what am I?" And in its haste to settle some scores with a broad brush, it's also swiping away at LGBTQ persons, women, persons with disabilities, every kind of minority group they can imagine. 

DEI at its root, done right, is simply a call to be decent. To set aside assumptions that merit comes in only certain external packaging, and to recognize that if your organization looks radically different from the country as a whole, you're missing something. It's a willingness to hear all the threads of history, and really listen without interrupting to say, "Well, but MY story--"

With all due respect to Alicia Keys, DEI is not a gift. Yes, "the more voices, the more powerful the sound" is dead on. But that's not a gift-- it's the bare minimum that we owe each others as fellow humans on this planet. It's the bare minimum required to keep our country strong. 

The MAGA pretzel version of freedom means "I am free to promote the ideas I want to promote, and I am free to silence those that I wish to suppress." So we get the new notion of religious freedom, which simultaneously means that your religious school should be able to exercise its freedom to discriminate against people it chooses to target, but it also be free from regulation of its discriminatory behavior. When Aryan Academy isn't given public tax dollars to fund its discrimination against students it wants to reject, that's discrimination, but when they discriminate against those students, that's freedom.    (all of which is exactly the sort of thing you can expect from Musktrump's Federal Department of Religious Bias).

In the new Department of Education, "discrimination" means "any time the white (or Asian) straight male kids don't get something that other kids get." And the resolution is to the problem is to take away that something from the other kids. 

A "dear colleague" letter carries no particular weight. They are used to show folks which way the federal wind is blowing and thereby serve as a threat. Sowing fear is of course a major technique of this crowd, a design for getting as much prior compliance as they can with enough vagueness to scare the folks out there doing the actual work. The correct response is to throw sand in the machines and make these thugs work for every inch of compliance they get.

Easy for me to say, I know, but here's the thing-- these folks are never satisfied. The idea that you can buy peace with compliance is a fool's game, and "Now that we've done what they want, they'll leave us alone" is a naive delusion. The wholesale erasure of Verboten Words from websites, the elimination of books that so much as mention forbidden topics-- it's just book burning for the digital age. And there will never come a point when they sit back and say, "Okay, that's enough." And they will always keep coming for the schools.