OK: More Woke Panic (Less Food)

Oklahoma's Edubro-in-Chief may not be able (or willing) to explain what exactly "woke" means, but he has announced his intention to by damn keep teachers from smuggling it into his state. Also, he's found another way to defund public schools.

Walters is a serious Trump fanboy, and that seems to include an interest in exerting powers he doesn't necessarily have. Take his new idea to "reform" the school meal system and "end bureaucratic bloat." The problem, apparently, is that taxpayers paid money for students to eat food last year. And somehow this is related to administrative bureaucracy? Here's part of his explanation:

Last year, Oklahoma families were slapped with a staggering $42 million bill for school meals—on top of their taxes—while administrators pocketed a 14% salary hike. This isn’t just incompetence; it’s a betrayal of our kids and communities. “Oklahoma taxpayers are being triple-taxed to cover lunches while bureaucrats fatten their wallets,” said State Superintendent Ryan Walters. “We need less administrators in our schools. We need to get taxpayers dollars to the students, not to grow bureaucracy.”

Yes, that should be "fewer" bureaucrats. But I have to say, his "solution" to this "problem" is very "creative." Walters has directed school districts to fully fund school lunches with their own money (which is somehow different from taxpayer money because reasons?) and if they can't submit a plan to do so, then "the OSDE will suggest cost-cutting measures and request that the budget be re-submitted." Because that will force them to cut spending on other stuff. And if the district is not compliant, Walters will cut off state funding (because that will really help solve the problem punish the disobedient). Also, he's going to implement a new rule to require "all meals/snacks served in Oklahoma’s schools are free of seed oils, artificial food dyes, ultra-processed foods, pesticide laden foods, and junk food vending machines to name a few." Because that kind of nanny state overreach is really bad when Michelle Obama tries to implement it, but totally okay when God-fearing MAGAbros do it. And there's even a petition to sig, because he's not trying to cut school funding-- he's trying to save the children. Come one! Think of the children!

But Walters already moved on to his next batshit crazy idea, which is to get PragerU to screen teachers coming from "woke" states so that none of their wokitude gets spread to Oklahoma's young humans. 

If you are somehow unaware of Prager University (God bless you), it's a propaganda operation founded in 2009 by far right wingnut Dennis Prager and producer Allen Estrin. It is, if you can imagine such a thing, even less of an actual university than Trump University. They're a far right, low accuracy, christianist nationalist baloney farm that specializes in short, cute, full-of-baloney videos. PragerU is to education what McRibs are to pigs. 

But Walters wants to make sure that anyone who tries to bring their teaching certificate from naughty states like New York or California (you know-- the wokey ones) aligns with Walter's commitment to an education "rooted in truth, patriotism and core values," and aimed to instill "pride" in the nation's history among students.

"We’re sending a clear message: Oklahoma’s schools will not be a haven for woke agendas pushed in places like California and New York," said Superintendent Ryan Walters. "If you want to teach here, you’d better know the Constitution, respect what makes America great, and understand basic biology. We’re raising a generation of patriots, not activists, and I’ll fight tooth and nail to keep leftist propaganda out of our classrooms." A PR release from the department said the test would evaluate teachers on, among other things, Constitutional knowledge, American exceptionalism, and "their grasp of fundamental biological differences between boys and girls."

"We’re thrilled to join Oklahoma in answering parents’ urgent call against senseless woke indoctrination," said PragerU CEO Marissa Streit. "This assessment will stop extreme leftist ideologues from harming children and ensure teachers champion America’s greatness and future potential."

News4, which has covered Walters shenanigans pretty thoroughly, submitted some questions to his office, such as was there a competitive bidding process for creating this test, how much will Prager be paid, and who will oversee this? They got no answers to those questions, nor to one of the best ones they asked--

Exactly what statute does Walters think gives him the authority for any of this?

Longtime Walters critic State Rep. Forrest Bennett (D-Oklahoma City) has pointed out that Oklahoma has a teacher shortage already and this is unlikely to help. And all of Walters actions in office happen against the backdrop of Oklahoma's almost-bottom-of-the-national-barrel rankings for education. 

"It's a grift," says Bennett, who argues that treating all of Walters edicts as if they are legitimate and deserve to be taken seriously simply elevates them. Bennett points out that Walters notified Fox News before he notified the people of Oklahoma. 

It's a fair point, but I think Walters deserves a little attention because he is the answer to the question, "How bad can these back-bench MAGA grifters get, and how badly can they screw things up on the state level?" Walters may not be able to, in the words of Captain Steven Hiller, "do all that bullshit you just said." But these various MAGAfied edicts can sow uncertainty and fear. They certainly aren't actual solutions to the real problems of education in Oklahoma, but they're a fine example of how a hustler can raise his profile by standing on the backs of children. 

The Problem With Parent Power

The voucher crowd is crowning about "parent power." 

The folks at Jeanne Allen's Center for Education Reform have been emailing about how the new federal vouchers buried in the Big Baloney Bill will boost parent power. They even run a webiste that tracks the "Parent Power Index."

Politicians and policy folks want to talk about giving parentsn more power in education. "Let's return the power over education to the parents," the pitch goes.

But there's a huge problem with that.

Let's consider two sets of parents. The Gotrox family of four includes two children, one parent who can afford to staya at home, and one parent with e high-end six figure income. They have two cars, a beautiful home, and plenty of resources. The Dodger family of four includes two parents who both work, one car, an apartment that is always waiting for one kind of repair or another, and at least one family member struggling with health issues.

So here's my question. Do these parents have the same amount of power?

CER argues we need parent power "because no family's income level, zip code, or child's level of academic achievement should dictate education opportunity." 

But choice policies do not fix any of these limits on parent power. In fact, the choice policies reformsters pursue make things worse.

"Parent power" means "parent responsibioity." It's a system that tells parents, "The responsibility is nyours. We're throwing it back on parent power, by which we mean just and only your parent power. The power of community and government will not be involved."

Choic e programs have been sold on the notion that only choice can fix the power imbalance between certain parents, but in practice, that's not how it works. Vouchers are used mostly by the Gotrux famnilies to keep sending their children to exclusive private schools. For the masssive power imbalance between the Gotrux and Dodger families, choice policies offer pretty much nothing.

There are ways that a choice system could address the power imbalance. They could, for instance, index vouchers so that the more your familiy needs, the more you get. But that would involve a fairly large transfer of wealth from the rich to the not-so-rich, and that's what many folk$ dislike about the current public system-- paying tax dollars to educate Those People's Children. 

The choice system could require private schools that accept taxpayer-funded vouchers to drop all of their discriminatory practices. But that would involve letting Those Peoples' Children into exclsive shiny schools part of whose appeal is that Those Peoples' Children can't get in.

Or, you know, we could try to provide schools with the resources they need to thrive and succeed, all of them connected to a networked system that guarantees every child in the country a shot at a decent education. We could call it a shared community and society responsibility. But again, that would involve wealthy people paying taxes that would be used to benefit Those Peoples' Chidren.

But that's not what these folks are aiming for . When Trump announces that Fed Gov has been running our Ed System into the ground, but we are going to turn it all around by giving the Power back to the PEOPLE,” what that means is that every person, every parent has to rely on the power they themselves have, however mnore or less that may be than the power other possess.

Mind you, these folks know all this. These are the folks that believe that in society, some people are just better than others, and it is not ust okay, but desireable for society to be sorted into different levels and statuses. Schools should not equalize, but sort. Parents with less power should not get to enjoy the same privileges as parents with more power. Ditto their kids. 

Parents have different amounts of power, and valorizing parent power is valorizing those power differences. It is valorizing inequity, an unsurprising stance in a country where praising equity is against Dear Leader's decree. 

So when you hear praise of "parent power," ask which parents, and what kind of power, and how much of that power, and do you rightly understand that the idea is for some parents to have more power than others. Are we talking about giving wealthy parents the power to tell poor parents, "Your kids are your responsibility, not mine, so go away and do it on your own."

This is a bad idea, not juts because it is so deeply committed to inequity and self-centeredness, but because, like so many other policies under this regime, it is shortsighted, as if chasing away scientists and chasing away immigrants and only providing the very best education to those who can afford it on their own--as if all of that won't lead to a future lacking the kind of people we need make this country work. Education for everyone is not just a service to parents, but a service to the entire country. 

ICYMI: Scopes Centennial Edition (7/13)

Last week we sailed past the 100-year anniversary of the Scopes trial, arguably the grand kick-off for a century of culture panic in this country. There were a couple good pieces about the event (here and here) that, if nothing else, taught some folks that they could use one issue to harness christiniast discontent with many issues and tied to a massive persecution complex. 

Still stuff to read this week. Let's see what we've got in the bin.

"South Carolina Partners with PragerU" (Updates)

Steve Nuzum has been following the attempts of South Carolina to use fake PragerU as an education partner. Yuck.

NH's Latest School Funding Case

Andru Volinsky updates us on the latest chapter in the long-running attempt to get New Hampshire to fully and fairly fund its schools.

Read Receipt

Doing your brainstorming with a chatbot? Audrey Watters would rather read or, you know, think.

The ‘big, beautiful’ fight over school choice ends with escape clause for blue states

Lexi Lonas Coch at The Hill looks at the escape clause in the federal voucher bill. Will states avoid the whole business, or will it be hard to resist free federal money?

How the Supreme Court Is Making Public Education Itself Unconstitutional

At EdWeek, Johann Neem provides the most depressing take on the recent SCOTUS allowing parents a religious opt-out for any lessons they don't care for.

Survey: 60% of Teachers Used AI This Year and Saved up to 6 Hours of Work a Week

Speaking of lousy news, here are some depressing stats reported by The74..

A District-by-District Accounting of the $6.2 Billion the U.S. Department of Education Has Held Back from Schools

I've linked to this piece from New America in two pieces this week, but I'm going to put the link here because it's an extraordinary resource for breaking down the damage from the regimes withholding of funding from schools across the country.

Education Policy Harmed Sacramento

Thomas Ultican takes a look at Sacramento, where Kevin Johnson and Michelle Rhee have been busy folks.

The Real Reason Churches Advocate for Vouchers

Robert Repino writes at The Progressive about one of the big unanswered questions of vouchers. Churches want them and have pushed hard for them, but what do they do with the money?

Indiana Vouchers: Private School Coupons for Wealthy Families

Andy Spears breaks down yet another state voucher program that is all about taxpayers funding wealthy families and private schools.

Most U.S. adults say child care costs are a ‘major problem,’ a new AP-NORC poll finds

Yeah, you already knew this, but child care is crazy expensive-- so much so that folks aren't working because it would cost too much to have child care. 

MAGA’s Ugly Budget at Odds with Its Creepy Pronatalism

Jennifer Rubin joins the crowd pointing out that if the far right wants more (white) babies, maybe don't make life miserable for young parents.

La. Teachers: State Raise Funding Is on the 2026 Ballot

The indispensable Mercedes Schneider updates us with a picture of the kind of mess teachers have to go through in a state where the legislature decides if they can have a raise or not.

The resistance to “School choice” isn’t psychological—it’s principled.

Patty Levesque has enjoyed a full career as a serial reform grifter, and she recently published a piece arguing about the psychology of school choice resisters. Sue Kingery Woltanski explains why Levesque's argument is bunk.

When The U.S. Government Tried To Replace Migrant Farmworkers With High Schoolers

This is an NPR story from 2018 (reported by Gustavo Arellano). While we're hearing noise about making able-bodied people work in the fields to earn their Medicaid, it's worth looking back to 1965, when the feds decided high school jocks could replace those damned migrant farm workers. There's a reason that the program wasn't around in 1966. 

I include the music clips these days because when the news is lousy, it's good to remember what is beautiful about being human in the world. 

Sign up for my newsletter. It's free and you get all the stuff I crank out. 

DFER Pushes The Same Old Baloney

Whenever you encounter Democrats for Education Reform, it's important to remember that they are not meant to be actual Democrats. As explained by their founder Whitney Tilson (the guy who just got smoked in his run for NYC mayor), reminiscing about the days he was trying to help a reformy anti-public ed group--

The real problem, politically, was not the Republican party, it was the Democratic party. So it dawned on us, over the course of six months or a year, that it had to be an inside job. The main obstacle to education reform was moving the Democratic party, and it had to be Democrats who did it, it had to be an inside job. So that was the thesis behind the organization. And the name – and the name was critical – we get a lot of flack for the name. You know, “Why are you Democrats for education reform? That’s very exclusionary. I mean, certainly there are Republicans in favor of education reform.” And we said, “We agree.” In fact, our natural allies, in many cases, are Republicans on this crusade, but the problem is not Republicans. We don’t need to convert the Republican party to our point of view…

And that has been DFER's function ever since. Take right wing talking points, polish them up a bit, and insist to Democratic politicians, "This is what Democrats really believe and need to do to win." 

Their "new path for education reform," floated back in May, is more of the same. Jorge Elorza, former Providence mayor and current DFER chief, issued a white paper (a "white paper" is a blog post on good stationary) entitled A Democratic Framework for An Abundance Education Agenda, and it's the same old same old. 

The attempt here is to tap into the abundance movement, and if you're wondering what that is, join the club. Maybe it's about redirecting philanthropy, or maybe it's about getting Democrats out of the red tape business and into the teaming up with private business business, and if you're thinking, "Hey, I smell neo-liberalism," you're not alone, though there's also a valid point in there about how some Democratics are lousy managers of whatever they've been put in charge of.  Fortunately for our purposes, it doesn't matter, because Elorza is just waving at "abundance" (Abundance is about outcomes, not ideology—Abundance is about Getting Big Things Done) while he does the same old DFER dance.

Elorza says that abundance can help the party that turned out to be broken in 2024. 

Abundance offers a home for those of us who share broadly progressive aims, who not only want to enhance government’s capacity to deliver but also believe market-based solutions should be enlisted in the effort, who believe in the power of innovation and in technology’s ability to accelerate progress, and who, ultimately, want our policies to lead to real, material improvements in people’s lives.

Yeah, neo-liberal techbro stuff here. All throat clearing to get ready for a swing at education.

Dems used to be viewed positively on education, and now they're not. Elorza will not connect this to Dems themselves deserting public education and teachers through support for Common Core, Race to the Top, and varieties of school choice, all buttressed with the argument that schools are failing and teachers suck. Elorza says "Americans are not buying what we're selling" and then recaps the Clinton and Obama education years as if they were education wins, so I'm not sure which salespersons he's dissing here. No, he's pointing fingers elsewhere--

Many Americans believe Democrats kept schools closed too long during the pandemic, that we have focused too much on ideological battles, and have focused too little on classroom success. Meanwhile, too many Democratically-run cities and states are home to failing schools, sluggish Covid recovery, widening achievement gaps, and students who are unprepared for the future.

All false, but I'm not taking the time to debunk here. I'll just note that here he is simply amplifying right wing talking points. 

He wants Dems to know that the GOP has been wining in education by "championing school choice and making education a centerpiece of their national and state-level platforms" except that of course what they've made a centerpiece is a bunch of culture panic noise, not education at all. He gets one thing right-- he says that Dems have no clear national education vision.

On he rolls with more right wing talking points. We spend so much money on education, but our test scores are low! Gaps! 

And then we give more funding to failing schools, he gasps. Dems have "abandoned the spirit of innovation that gave birth to new school models and changed lives at scale in New Orleans, Camden, Washington, D.C., and many other places" he says, citing several locations where ed reform failed to achieve anything that it promised. 

Remember the old right wing reformy complaint about looking at inputs instead of deliverables? He's dusted that one off too. Did you miss someone claiming that schools look exactly as they did 100 years ago? He's got that, too (also, cars and houses look a lot like they did 100 years ago, unless you give them more than a superficial glance).

But he's got three pillars to guide us in this attempt to get behind that same reformy apple cart from 25 years ago. 

Pillar #1-- Innovation

We need a "start-up style ecosystem," because it is cool to run experiments on children. He cites charter schools, learning pods, microschools, hybrid education, and unbundled learning as "new school models," which they absolutely are not. 

Also, get rid of barriers to innovation by scrapping regulations and "reforming restrictive teacher contracts," because the visionary CEO model of schools just hates it when the help gets uppity. "Break the culture of compliance" is one I'll go along with, except of course that the whole point of reforming restrictive teacher contracts has always been to have power to force teachers to be more compliant. 

Create systems that adapt? Again, if you don't think schools have been adapting like crazy for the last century, you haven't spent any time inside them.

Treat and pay teachers like high skill professionals, not assembly line workers. Everyone says this. Nobody wants to foot the bill.

There's a paragraph that pretends to connect all this to abundance, but it doesn't. 

Pillar #2-- Accountability

Man, these corporate guys love their deliverables. 

At a systems level, accountability doesn’t necessarily mean testing regimes or micromanagement—it means focusing on continuous improvement and student-centered results. Politically, it is about having a sense of urgency, it is about shifting our focus from inputs to outcomes, and it is about refusing to write a blank check for things that are not working.

Except that for several decades now, accountability has meant exactly testing regimes and micro-management. You can't just breeze past the "measuring" part of accountability, because it's really, really hard to even agree on what should be measured, let alone how to measure, and no politicians, least of all Democrats, have shown an inclination to delve into that hard stuff.

He's very hung up on giving funding to failing schools, because if a school doesn't have the resources for success, then don't give them more resources until they... what? This was another great old failed policy-- failing schools would be taken over by turn around experts, and it virtually never, ever worked.

He wants to get rid of tenure, of course, because we can fire our way to excellence. Oh, and stop social promotion of students. 

Abundance? Well, the test score gap is large and we need to Try New Things (though all his suggestions are Old Things). "Our North Star should be outcomes for kids, period" is a great line, until we have to decide which outcomes and how and when we'll measure them, and policy makers never want to deal with this difficult nitty gritty by which their policies live or die. What does this have to do with abundance? No idea.

Pillar #3-- Choice

DFER wouldn't be DFER if they weren't arguing for choice policies (just like the GOP). Charter school, vouchers, vouchers with other names that test better with voters-- Elorza is for all of it. Dems can shape these "tools to align with Democratic values" by putting most needy families first, protecting civil rights, public accountability-- three examples of policies that choice fans have consistently rejected. 

Abundance message? There's no one size fits all education solution. Yeah, nobody ever thought of that before abundance was a thing. Elorza envisions a national system in which schools are really, really different from each other, rather than, I guess, community based schools. One thing that always burns my toast about ed policy discussion--why is it that these folks always talk as if every student in America lives in a population-dense cityscape. 

Frameworks and champions

Elorza thinks this all makes a nice broad framework on which to campaign and govern on. Sure, for campaign. Govern on this? That's a joke. Every one of his ideas depends entirely on the specifics and nuts and bolts (e.g. all your schools are really different, so how does transportation work). 

Because "disrupting the status quo is almost certain to incur the wrath of powerful stakeholders—teachers’ unions, bureaucrats, community activists, and local political leaders" (because DFER agrees that teachers are the enemy of reform), Elorza thinks that governors are best positioned to lead, because if there's anything that works great in education, it's top-down policy edicts that roll over local control. 

DFER deserves to die

This white paper has nothing to offer that is either A) new or B) not GOP-lite. If you believe all the stuff he's laying out here and you're picking the governor you'd like to live under, why would you pick Josh Shapiro over Ron DeSantis? 

DFER was always an attempt to get right-tilted conservative policies into power when the actual right-tilted conservative politicians were not in power. But the political calculus in this country has changed. There is nothing new in this pitch except the attempt to throw "abundance" into the rhetoric, and no audience for this tired reformster dance.

Sal Khan Flunks Lit Class

Sal Khan has established himself as one of the big names in the world of Tech Overlords Who Want To Reshape Education Even Though They Don't Know Jack About How It Works.  

These days Khan is pimping for AI, including publication of a terrible book about AI and education, and John Warner's review of that book ("An Unserious Book") pretty well captures the silly infomercial of that work. You should read the whole thing, but let me share this quick clip:

Khan is in the business of solving the problems he perceives rather than truly engaging with and collaborating with teachers on the actual work of teaching. He turns teaching into an abstract problem, one that just so happens to align with the capabilities of his Khanmigo tutor-bot.

More than fair. 

Khan's book touches on his love for Ender's Game, a book whose main point appears to have sailed far over Khan's head. The book series is about children who are tricked into running a genocidal space war by being hooked up to a gamified simulation. Khan thinks the book is about "how humans can transcend what we think of traditionally as being human."

That's not a one off. Khan put his reading skills on display a few months ago in a Khan Academy blog post in which this "avid reader" offers five recommendations, complete with summaries, sort of.

Khan likes to say that Khan Academy was inspired by Isaac Asimov's Foundation series: "The concept of collecting and spreading knowledge for the benefit of humanity deeply resonated with me." Asimov's future history (now at about 18 books) is about many things, including human society being manipulated and directed by a robot with some mild psychic powers, but okay. Let's look at his five recommendations.

A Little History of the World

E. M. Gombrich covers history from cave dweller says to just after WWI. Khan appears to know what he's talking about here, saying that it "reads like a magical adventure that inspires true wonder as the reader journeys through our shared story on this planet." Though I'm not sure Khan caught the very humanist tones of the book. "In many ways, Gombrich has the same approach to education as Khan Academy does—showing that learning is best when paired with accessibility, joy, and wonder." Khan Academy videos are about joy and wonder? 

The Art of Living

Epictetus, a Greek stoic philosopher, was a sort of classical Ben Franklin, and this book collects a whole bunch of his observations about Living a Good Life under headings like Your Will Is Always Within Your Power, Create Your Own Merit, and Events Are Impersonal and Indifferent. What Khan gets from it is some sweet, sweet marketing copy:"

This quote resonates with me: “The key is to keep company only with people who uplift you, whose presence calls forth your best.” The sentence perfectly captures the spirit of Khan Academy. By surrounding ourselves with passionate, supportive learners like you, we can create an environment where everyone can thrive.

Three Body Problem

Cixin Liu's trilogy is a huge nut to crack, but Khan reads it as "a skilled blend of both scientific and philosophical speculation that challenges our assumptions about who we are and what our place is in the universe." And, okay--there's a lot to discuss and argue about the work, but our place in the universe appears to be painfully small and the work is arguably a huge FAFO novel about humanity biting off way more than it can chew. Khan thinks it fits in an age of AI. when we should "double down on its positive uses while placing reasonable guardrails to mitigate the negative." I am pretty sure any number of SF novels could have been plugged in here.

Great Expectations

I taught this Charles Dickens classic innumerable times, and his summary would shame the dimmest freshman. 

The novel follows Pip, a young man whose life is shaped by opportunity, wealth, and societal expectations. Throughout history, these forces have dictated access to education and determined a person’s future. Pip’s journey highlights the inherent unfairness of this system.

Well, that's not what "expectations" means in this novel. And that's not exactly what shapes Pips life. There's also sheer happenstance (because Dickens) and love and the social status strictures of Victorian England. Most of all, it's about Pip coming to terms with himself and his goals in life in a story of moral regeneration. I confess to loving the richness and depth of this novel, far deeper and human that a complaint about fairness, and it is painful to see Khan reduce it to those few sentences.

A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court

Hoo boy, does Khan miss the boat on this one. 

In this book, Hank Morgan, a knowledgeable American engineer from the late 1800s, finds himself magically transported to King Arthur’s England in the 500s, a far more backward and ignorant time than the fanciful tales of legend. He also discovers that his knowledge of science and engineering is nothing short of magic to the people of Camelot. Through his experiences, he realizes that the best way to “liberate” people is to educate them in science, critical thinking, and humanist ideals.

Connecticut Yankee is one of Mark Twain's darkest works. It starts as a simple lampoon of the romanticized view of medieval times, but Morgan's "upgrades" to the past include the creation of firearms and other modern weaponry. Morgan wins a duel by shooting a bunch of knights with a pistol, and then in the climactic battle, uses modern technology to slaughter 30,000 cavalrymen (sent by the Catholic Church, which is a major antagonist in the novel). Thus, science "liberates" a whole bunch of people from breathing. If I wanted to pick a novel that demonstrates the corrupting dangers of technology, I could do worse than this one.

I would guess that Khan had ChatGPT write the list for him, except that I'm not sure that a bot wouldn't do a better job. I know it's just a little fluff piece for his company's blog, but damn-- someone who wants to commandeer the shape and direction of education out to be better than this. This is a guy who sees what he wants to see and not what is actually there, a serious absence of critical thinking skills for someone working in education.

ID: Fake Superintendent To Launch Christian Charter School

Brandon Durst is back, and he has a new plan. He's starting a new charter school in Idaho. It might be a school of sport, or maybe it will be a Christian charter. 

We've seen Durst at work. He's not a big time grifter, but he is certainly emblematic of a certain type of pseudo-conservative right-wing "my only qualification is Jesus" actor that is feeling empowered these days.

A quick Durst review

The broad outlines of his career are pretty simple. Born in Boise. Attended Pacific Lutheran University (BA in poli sci with communication minor), grad school at Kent State and Claremont Graduate University (public policy, international political economy), then Boise State University (Master of Public Administration). In 2022, he went back to BSU for a degree in Executive Educational Leadership.

His LinkedIn account lists 20 "experience" items since 2000, and Durst seems to have bounced quickly from job to job until 2006, when he was elected as an Idaho State Representative for four years. Then in 2012 he was elected to the state senate, a job that he held for one year. He did all that as Democrat; in 2016, he switched his party to the GOP.

Then independent consultant, a mediator for a "child custody and Christian mediation" outfit. Then an Idaho Family Policy Center senior policy fellow. IFPC advocates for the usual religious right causes, but they have a broader focus as well: "To advance the cultural commission." They see the Great Commission in a dominionist light-- the church is to teach "nations to obey everything Jesus has commanded." And they suggest you get your kid out of public school.

Durst's had a   recent gig with the Idaho Freedom Foundation, a right tilted thinky tank that wants to "make Idaho into a Laboratory of Liberty by exposing, defeating, and replacing the state's socialist public policies." They run a Center for American Education which, among other things, maintains a map so you can see where schools are "indoctrinating students with leftist nonsense." They also recommend you get your child out of public school.

Durst carries some baggage. That one year tenure in the Senate? Durst resigned because the press got ahold of the fact that he was actually living in Idaho only part time; his wife was working as a teacher near Seattle and he was living there at least part of the time with his family. KTVB, the station that followed the story, "observed his home looked empty of furniture when stopping by to knock on the door last week." Durst insisted that his bed and clothes were there. And he blamed the split living arrangement on Idaho schools:

There's a big difference between living out of your district for an entire year, and having a family member who is a teacher that doesn't get treated well because they live in Idaho and have to find employment someplace else. I think there's a big difference, Durst said.

For a while, it looked like he would fight the charge. But in the end he resigned his seat.

2022 was not a great year for Durst. After the Idaho Senate failed to advance the parental rights bill that he was promoting, Durst confronted Senator Jim Woodward with enough aggressiveness that Woodward called the cops on him. After blowing off a meeting with GOP leadership, Durst blasted senators on social media. The Senate GOP majority wrote a letter condemning Durst for "spurious attacks against members of the Senate, meant to coerce votes and influence elections." In a press release, GOP leaders condemned Durst and said his actions "demonstrate egregious conduct unbecoming of anyone, especially a former legislator and current statewide political candidate."

The "candidate" part refers to Durst's run for the office of state superintendent. He told East Idaho News, “Parents are tired. They don’t feel respected or trusted and they want some real change in their school superintendent. They’re all talking about the same things. They want to stop the indoctrination that’s happening in their schools, they want to (be able) to make decisions for their kids." He ran on three priorities-- end common core, stop critical race theory, and school choice ("fund students, not systems"). He came in second in the GOP primary, losing to Debbie Critchfield by about 25,000 votes. Remember that name.

Durst had remarried in 2016 (in Washington state), and in 2022, his wife and ex-wife got into a scuffle that almost blew up into abuse allegations against Durst and his wife over a whack with a wooden spoon on a 14-year-old child. He explained later, “The child wasn’t being respectful, wasn’t obeying … It wasn’t even very hard, but things can happen in the political world where things get taken out of proportion, and that’s what happened here." Certainly his candidacy made the story bigger than it might otherwise have been.

In 2023, the West Bonner district was desperate enough to hire Durst as superintendent (they had gone through three superintendents in one year). The contract was a bizarre one, with numerous unusual benefits and a super-majority required to oust him. Durst lacked even the tiniest hint of a qualification for the job, and the state wouldn't issue him any kind of certificate. Durst took all of this with the quiet grace and dignity for which he is known. On his blue-checked Twitter account, he complained that something smells. "...this was a discriminatory act by a board run by those with a political axe to grind. They will be held accountable for their discriminatory actions." That despite the extreme far-rightness of Idaho's leaders.

He sort of quit and the board sort of accepted his resignation, and then he sued for breach of contract because he didn't really quit (God bless Idaho Ed News for its coverage of this saga). His tenure lasted basically the summer of 2023--three months, without the schools even open.

Bryan Clark at The Idaho Statesman wrote the political obit on Durst, who they called a "serial political entrepreneur" in June when he was trying to establish his "own little kingdom."

The unifying thread is overwhelming personal ambition. The causes change, but what’s been constant is Durst’s belief that he should be given the power to implement his ideas, whatever they are that week.

There has been a second constant as well: failure

So now what is he up to?

Kaeden Lincoln has just reported the newest chapter in the Durst Saga. 

Durst and a couple of failed school board candidates (who ran for the West Ada board, the district where everyone is famously not welcome) want to launch the Brabeion Academy, "Idaho's 1st Public School of Sport" (motto "Victory Through Excellence"). The K-8 school promises to open in Fall of 2026. "Brabeion" is a Greek term that turns up in Paul's Letter to the Philippians and means "prize." The school's mailing address is in a small office strip mall in Garden City. 

The board includes President Miguel DeLuna has 35 years in California law enforcement, starting out as a deputy sheriff and including 11 years as with Oakland Unified School District Police Services "at a high school with prevalent gang activity." He ran unsuccessfully for the West Ada board in 2023. Treasurer Tom Moore ran alongside DeLuna and failed. He's a retired Navy aviator. The board secretary is Jullie Dillehay, Durst's mother. Laura Warden is "a veteran homeschooler with over fifteen years of experience" and a "devoted follower of Jesus and is passionate about preserving freedom like America’s Founding Fathers and freedom in Christ Jesus." Durst is the chair, and lists superintendent of West Bonner as one of his qualifications.

The school doesn't have a physical location yet. They plan on using Hillsdale's christianist nationalist 1776 curriculum, supplemented with PragerU's whackadoo materials. 

Durst called the school a "Christian public charter school" on Twitter, arguing

Here is the bottom line: the state of Idaho provides a public benefit (a charter, aka a license) to private nonsectarian organizations, but openly discriminates against private sectarian organizations, solely due to their religious nature. SCOTUS has been clear, doing so is a violation of Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Durst told Lincoln, "Given the way the Supreme Court ruled on the case from Oklahoma, it’s still our opinion that it is constitutional to have religious charter schools. And so all of our board members are open to that potential move, but we’re taking it one step at a time.”

The way the Supreme Court ruled on Oklahoma's christian charter school was they let the lower court ruling stand-- the one that said it violated the state constitution. I share Durst's feeling that it's only a matter of time before SCOTUS okays religious charters-- but it hasn't happened yet.

When and if it does happen, though, Brandon Durst will be right there with the army of folks who have no educational qualifications other than their ideological bent. 

PA: How Badly Are Districts Hurt By Feds Holding Back Funds

On Juily 1, the federal government was scheduled to distribute federal education grants. Instead, the Department of Education sent an unsigned e-mail saying, "Yeah, we're just going to sit and think about that." It's a technique known to every parent who ever responded to a child's unwelcome request with, "We'll see." Except that in this case, the states are not unruly toddlers, but folks who expected that since Congress had duly appropriated the funds, there was no reason to think the funding wasn't going to happen. 

Even Betsy DeVos, who hated the idea of forgiving student loans, signed off on documents (reluctantly) because it was the law. But Trump 2.0 is not so interested in the laws.

Here are the programs for which the feds have decided to withhold funding.

Title I-C for migrant education ($375 million)
Title II-A for professional development ($2.2 billion)
Title III-A for English-learner services ($890 million)
Title IV-A for academic enrichment ($1.3 billion)
Title IV-B for before- and after-school programs ($1.4 billion)
Plus a last-minute addition of adult basic and literacy education

The six programs add up to $6.8 billion, and that adds up to some real money for school districts. 

At New America, Zahava Stadler and Jordan Abbott have collected and crunched some numbers that provide a more detailed picture of the damage, and I've taken a look at the bigger picture over at Forbes.com. 

But since I'm in Pennsylvania, I'm going to pull out part of a list that deals with our state. What I'm going to do here, you can do (with even more detail) with the information they have posted. One table they provide breaks down how much money the feds are threatening to take from districts, broken down by the Congressional district for each member of the House (aka "that bunch of spineless weasels who have decided not to do their jobs"). I recommend you look up your rep and call them, encouraging them to look into the extra-legal impounding of funds that they duly authorized.

Here's the Pennsylvania breakdown with the grand total of the dollars at risk.

District 1    Brian Fitzpatrick (R)     $6,693,000

District 2    Brendan Boyle (D)         $28,416,000

District 3    Dwight Evand (D)          $28,416,000

District 4    Madeleine Dean (D)       $7,670,000

District 5    Mary Gay Scanlon (D)   $36,333,000

District 6    Chrissy Houlahan (D)     $7,209,000

District 7    Ryan Mackenzie (R)        $11,402,000

District 8    Robert Bresnahan (R)      $8,734,000

District 9    Daniel Meuser (R)           $11,736,000

District 10    Scott Perry (R)               $6,989,000

District 11    Lloyd Smucker (R)         $5,959,000

District 12    Summer Lee (D)             $7,398,000

District 13    John Joyce (R)                $8,140,000

District 14    Guy Reschenthaler (R)    $6,243,000

District 15    Glenn Thompson (R)       $8,504,000

District 16    Mike Kelly (T)                 $6,667,000

District 17    Christopher Deluzio (D)  $4,902,000

I recommend you reach out to your Congressperson and ask them why the heck this money, duly okayed by Congress, should not be going out to the school districts. Ask why local taxpayers should shoulder the burden of either making up for the shortfall or doing without the services that will be cut because, even though Congress duly authorized this spending, the administration just doesn't feel like it.

Again, you can do for your state just what I've done here for PA (the tables are here). Yes, the department plans to zero these programs out in next year's budget, but that doesn't mean they get to ignore this year's budget.