Department of Redundency Department

Teachers ought to know. Marketers certainly know. Politicians ignore it at their peril.

Repetition works.

There is a tendency among certain brands of humans (I am one of them) to believe that one shouldn't have to explain oneself over and over and over again. One clear and cogent explanation of the point, and that should do the trick. To keep hammering on it is boring, inefficient, and unnecessary. Redundancy is self-evidently Not Good.

But that's not how humans generally work.

Marketers understand this. You boil your campaign down to one simple message, and then you hammer that message over and over and over again until people can't have even a passing thought about thirst without an image of Coke popping into their brain. 

It's understandable that some teachers are resistant to this idea-- explaining this idea over and over "wastes" the valuable and scarce commodity of class time. There are many textbooks that are built entirely around the "explain it once then move on" principle of instruction. But it's repetition that gets things to stick. If you're trying to drive a nail into a block of wood (I would tell my student teachers), does it work better to try to drive it all the way on with one mighty thwack, or a whole series of moderate taps? 

We know that repetition is effective even in the absence of actual explanation. Does Coke pop into our head based on the extensive evidence the Coca-Cola company has published on the bubbly sugar water's thirst-quenching qualities? 

How did "America's schools are failing" become conventional wisdom? Not through any credible evidence. Some folks have just been repeating it for forty years, accompanied by simple illustrations that don't rise to the level of credible evidence but make the statement feel more true. We're far from the top of international test results, they warn, ignoring that we're right where we've already been and Estonia hasn't conquered us yet. SAT scores! NAEP scores! I found this one teacher who said something stupid! Arguing with these is fruitless, because they aren't actual evidence-- they're just illustrations to underline the point, and the point is hammered home by a steady top-tap-tap of repetition.

I don't pay a lot of attention to "science of learning" arguments, which often have as much real-world salience as would an argument about the "science of marriage." But the idea of repetition has recently been bandied about as if it's a hot new idea (these days we're attaching to "cognitive load theory" stuff), and even if someone is announcing they've just invented the wheel, that doesn't mean that wheels don't work. Repetition and redundancy in the classroom absolutely work, even spaced out over considerable time.

I've known people in the education blogoverse who worry about redundancy. "I don't want to write about that because this other person already did" or "I already wrote about this once." Even I, with my noted lack of writing restraint, will sometimes contemplate someone else's piece and think, "Well, I don't really have anything to add to that." I'd argue that this is a mistake, that anything worth saying is worth saying a few hundred times. 

There are, for instance, multiple pieces noting that school vouchers went down to defeat in three states even in the midst of a red wave. There should be a million of them. It's an opportunity to connect a clear message ("Voters don't like vouchers and always vote them down") with a clear illustration ("In the 2024 election, three states with strong MAGA support still voted vouchers down"). It's true, and it's important, first, because legislators are repeatedly conned into supporting vouchers because "they're so popular" and second, because the Trump administration is signaling that it wants to impose school vouchers on the entire country.  

Defenders of public education should be saying it over and over again-- vouchers are not popular with United States taxpayers and voters. It's not just that they're a bad idea (they are, and should be fought on that basis), but they are an unpopular idea. We have the receipts. 

NH: Defunding Special Ed

Is educating students with special needs getting expensive for your district? If you're in New Hampshire, Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut has a message for you-- "Too bad, Sucks to be you."

Frank Edelblut was a businessman, venture capitalist, and one-term NH state representative before he decided to run for the governor's seat. He was beaten in the primary by Chris Sununu, son of former NH governor and Bush I White House Chief of Staff John Sununu. Edelblut gracefully conceded and publicly supported Sununu, who then appointed Edelblut to the top education job, despite Edelblut's complete lack of anything remotely resembling education experience.

All of Edelblut's children were home schooled. As a legislator, he backed vouchers and as a candidate he backed personalized [sic] learning. As education high mucky muck, he has continued to back all manner of ed reformster nonsense, including the ramming through of vouchers over the objections of actual taxpayers. 

So it was on brand this week when Edelblut told districts that they would be getting even less support from the state for special ed students.

Several factors are in play here, including increased costs for special services and an increased number of students requiring those services-- all mandated and beyond the control of the districts. But the other huge factor is that the state budget for special ed hasn't been boosted since 2021. So the states special ed pie has stayed the same, meaning that school districts get smaller and smaller slices.

You'd think that the state education chief's response would be to ask for a bigger pie, but Edelblut says he just did that in 2017 and 2018. Sure, once a decade or so seems like plenty.

Edelblut does have other ideas, though. 

Instead, Edelblut wants the state to consider whether it can provide special education services more effectively and for less money. He said parents and educators frequently tell him they are unhappy with the services provided.

Yes, they would undoubtedly be happier is the district spent less money to educate their child. This is the undying reformster notion that education is somehow riddled with inefficient spending and surely there's a cheaper, better way to do things, as if the system isn't already depending on teachers donating their own money and contributing unpaid hours just to keep their schools afloat. 

Edelblut syas he doesn't have a solution (because he's physically unable to ask for more funding?) but he does believe that school vouchers could be the answer, which is just silly. A school voucher does not cover special ed kinds of costs, and it does not mean that the private school of your choice is going to choose to admit your high needs student. Of all the problems that vouchers don't solve, meeting needs of special ed students is one of the problems it doesn't solve the most.

I'm convinced this is the new privatizer game-- instead of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, you have to take any topic or problem and connect it to school vouchers. You don't have to connect it in a way that makes sense or offers evidence. Just tack "but this would be solved by school vouchers" on the end of whatever you're saying. It may be fun for guys like Edelblut to play, but it's the students and taxpayers who lose, every time.

So Linda McMahon Is New Ed Secretary

It's Linda McMahon, wife of Vince McMahon, co-founded WWE (the wrestling show biz outfit). 

She was head of the Small Business Administration in Trump's first go-round, has a failed Senate campaign behind her (2010), and has previously headed up the America First Policy Institute, a right wing thinky tank for Trump/MAGA policy to percolate while its members waited for the day that has now arrived. They were, of course, part of the Project 2025 team.

Yeah, she looks nice

She was supposed to be a leading contender for the top Department of Commerce spot, but she didn't get that one, so here she is leading the Department of Education.

Course, since few had her on their cabinet bingo cards for education, we're now all scrambling to figure out what this might mean. Here are some quick initial thoughts.

Unlike former secretary Betsy DeVos or some of the contenders like Tiffany Justice and Erika Donalds, McMahon has not spent most of her adult life trying to devise and implement ways to dismantle and privatize public education. (And at age 76,  she is a decade older than DeVos--one more aging boomer in this administration). I'm not saying that won't be part of her policy objectives. It's just that she won't enter office with a whole suitcase of explosives already packed.

However, that doesn't change the fact that she is completely and utterly unqualified to run the department. She may actually have an edge on DeVos, who had never worked at an actual job, led a large organization, or sold an idea with any technique other than throwing money at people. She spent some time on the Connecticut State Board of Education, so she knows a bit about the bureaucratic ins and outs. 

She may represent a hint about which way Trump will jump when it comes to choosing between his goals. He can pursue either 1) the culture panic goal of using federal funds as leverage to force schools to follow culture war edicts or 2) dismantling the department and sending the federal funds out to states as no-strings block grants. Well, #2 was always the less likely (it requires Congress to go along), and McMahon seems like a better fit for #1, though of course her long-time minimal interest in education may mean it's easier for her to walk away from the ruins of the department.

The fact that Trump gave her this position as a sort of consolation prize suggests that, as with his first go-round, he's not all the interested in education nor is it on the top of his to-do list. So McMahon may signal a sort of ill-intentioned neglect, like a toxin in the bloodstream that will get around to fatally poisoning you sometime soon, just as soon as it wraps up a few other things.

No, I don't see any way that this is not terrible. If you squint real hard through your rose colored glasses you might convince yourself that this isn't going to be quite as terrible as some of the alternate realities we can contemplate-- but it's still terrible. Like the rest of his cabinet picks, she will be there to make sure that her department of the government doesn't work and collapses into some configuration of smoking rubble. 

Though unlike other cabinet picks, she does not have an actual criminal background [Update--okay, maybe not actual criminal conviction, but some very shady and abusey stuff], an observation that reminds us that Trump has not just lowered the bar to the floor, but has dug a deep hole so that the bar can be buried. It also means she should have a less strenuous confirmation hearing than some of her fellow picks.

Now brace for a few days of wild speculation and bad professional wrestling gags. 

OK: More Mandatory State Religion

Education Dudebro-in-Chief Ryan Walters continues to test the line between church and state, as well as testing the line between fulfilling a state job and auditioning for a federal one. No sooner had Dear Leader cemented his return to the power, then Oklahoma's leading pick-me boy was in the news again, for yet another attempt to ram his version of Christianity into classrooms and homes.

First, he announced the formation of the Office of Religious Liberty and Patriotism (which, if you stop to think for even a second, makes as much sense as the Department of Bicycles and Vests With No Sleeves) which he promises will align with incoming President Donald Trump’s aim of protecting prayer in schools. They'll be going after anyone who dares to interpret the First Amendment to mean that a public school shouldn't be endorsing any particular religion. Like this example:

Walters cited a September 2023 incident in which a Skiatook school removed Bible verses from a classroom at the urging of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which contended it was unconstitutional for a public school to allow religious displays. At the time, Walters said the removal was “unacceptable.”

Note the term "unacceptable," as if Walters is saying the fault is not that they broke some law, but that they personally displeased him. That's the language you use when you want people to understand that we're not talking about the Rule of Law, but the Rule of You.

“It is no coincidence that the dismantling of faith and family values in public schools directly correlates with declining academic outcomes in our public schools,” Walters said in a statement Tuesday. “In Oklahoma, we are reversing this negative trend and, working with the incoming Trump Administration, we are going to aggressively pursue education policies that will improve academic outcomes and give our children a better future.”

Walters taught AP History; he knows this is ahistoric bunk. But it fits in with his other activities; calling church-state separation a “myth,” ordering Oklahoma districts to teach from the Bible, buying Bibles with taxpayer funds and trying to open a Catholic charter school. Those Bibles they bought-- 500 Lee Greenwood "God Bless The USA" bibles, endorsed by Dear Leader. 

Walters followed that up with a mandatory watch party, demanding that all schools show all students a 90 second video, in which Walters announces the new department, complain about the radical left, say they "will not tolerate" the erosion of religious liberty. Also, "we've seen patriotism mocked and a hatred for this country pushed by woke teachers unions." I guess he cut out the part where he says "like the teacher standing next to this screen, who is evil and woke and out to get you, so don't pay too much attention to her today." Again with the "we will not tolerate that," which I guess is the royal "we." No mention of actual laws so far, just the royal preferences. He wants everyone to be patriotic and their religious practices to be protected. 

Then comes the prayer. He says students don't have to join, but he's going to go ahead. He folds his hands and bows his head. 

Dear God, thank you for all the blessings you've given our country. I pray for our leaders to make the right decisions, I pray in particular for President Donald Trump and his team as they continue to bring about change to the country. I pray for our parents, teachers and kids that they get the best education possible and live high quality lives. I also pray that we continue to teach love of country to our young people, and that our students understand what makes America great and that they continue to love this country. Amen.

And cut. Also, Walters wants districts to send the video to all parents. 

Many districts have indicated they will not be showing the video, and state Attorney General Gentner Drummond says Walters has no authority for any such demand.

"Not only is this edict unenforceable, it is contrary to parents' rights, local control and individual free-exercise rights," said the attorney general's office spokesperson Phil Bacharach.

Not the first time Drummond has told Walters to back it up a step. But history suggests that Walters will just ignore and end up in court over it, which won't really matter, because he's already made his points-- people in positions of authority can too lead prayer in school, teachers are terrible commies, that it is people in power and not laws that rule the land, and he's just the kind of guy that Dear Leader should want with him in DC. Undoing the edict doesn't really unring any of those bells, and the fight looks great on the audition reel for the Presidential transition team. 

ICYMI: Blue Skies Edition (11/17)

Roughly thirty years ago you could have found me logging onto my Compuserve dial-up pay-by-the-minute service to spend some time on the Prodigy BBS (bulletin board system). Soon the isp's started offering all-you-can-eat pricing. "Well," muttered the old timers, "There goes the neighborhood. We'll be crowded out by basement-dwellers who will just never log off." 

Then came faster connection speeds that allowed loading images that looked better than an 8-bit character at a thousand yards. I gravitated to ICQ (an instant messenger program) and the chat rooms (channels, some folks called them back in the day) and made some actual friends (Hey there, #hatrack). Because my daughter was at Penn State, I was an early adopter of Facebook (I skipped MySpace). Found other social havens, like Cafe Utne. Sometimes I would set up an account at a site and it would sit until I could figure out what to do with it (still haven't figured out Pinterest). 

Social sites online come and go. There are problems that nobody has fully solved, like how to deal with people who simply want to kick things over and be an asshat, and yet still respect that whole freedom thing. There also seems to be a bit of an attention span thing; after a while, what seemed interesting and new in a site or online person gets old and predictable. I've watched my audience turn over fairly regularly. I don't think I'm pissing anyone off; it's just that if you've been reading me for ten years, I probably won't surprise you any time soon.

The old conventional wisdom was that a social site burns out in about two years. Facebook beat the odds by turning into something else, and Twitter... well, I'm not sure what it's done. I've been telling you for weeks that I've been warming up my Bluesky account, and this week, a whole lot of people made that jump. Millions of people, though still a drop in a Twitter-sized bucket. But my followers there have gone from about 100 to closing-in-on-700 in a week. Meanwhile, my Twitter numbers have been slowly dropping as many people leave completely.

There are lots of reasons to abandon Twitter, including its conversion as of 11/15 to an AI training source. I'm not leaving entirely (there's too much that I still want to see, and I don't deal with the level of abuse and crappery that some do) but I think it's fine and natural that folks do. Meanwhile, Bluesky has drawn enough people to become interesting, unlike certain failed attempts of the past (looking at you, Google+). Hard to know what comes next; the only thing I'm certain of is that it will be something different.

Sorry--that was a lot. Here's some reading from the week.

Can Trump Force Schools to Change Their Curricula?

There were a zillion takes on Trump and the education department this week. Alyson Klein at EdWeek had a good look at one particular aspect of this looming question-- how does he enforce a woke prohibition?

Closing the U.S. Department of Education: A LOSS for Children with Disabilities

Nancy Bailey looks at how Trumpy education policy may affect students with special needs.

The trans school sports rule the Democrats didn’t talk about

The GOP hammered on trans athletes, and Democrats let them do it. Rachel Cohen digs into the issue, and the Democratic middle-ground proposal that everyone just sort of forgot about. At Vox.

Scam Education Study from Denver

A new study says that choice really helped education in Denver. Not so fast, says Thomas Ultican.

How Do German Schools Teach Their Political History?

Nancy Flanagan suggests that Germany might have a thing or two to teach us about dealing with a problematic past.

Will Trump’s Education Policies Accelerate Support for School Privatization?

Jan Resseger is asking the question and is, as usual, doing all her homework to come up with answers.

Trump and Education

The indispensable Mercedes Schneider also consults the Trump tilted crystal ball.

Will Florida Preempt Local Zoning Laws and Fund Expansion of Near Capacity Private Jewish Schools?

More Florida shenanigans, explained by Sue Kingery Woltanski.

Ohio passes sweeping college trans bathroom ban, first in nation after election

Come on, Ohio. Be better. Everyone else? Pay attention. 

One Alabama school system responds to rise in immigration: ‘What they deserve’

Rebecca Griesbach reporting for AL.com tells the story of how one school district rises to meet the challenge of immigrant children in schools. 

At Forbes.com this week, I also did a Trump take, pointing out that a contradiction in his plan means that he will not be able to do all the awful things he wants to. Also, Adam Laats has written a fabulous book about the first failed con-man driven education reform in this country. 

I've been reviving my participation at Bluesky. If you're over there, look me up at @palan57.bsky.social

As always, I invite you to subscribe on substack. It will always be free and it makes it easy to get all my stuff in your inbox.

November 14, 1960

Things got busy here at the Institute this week, so I missed posting about this anniversary on Thursday. But I don't want to overlook it for another year.

On November 14, Ruby Bridges was six years old, three months younger than the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education. Six years old.

She had attended a segregated kindergarten in New Orleans. The district gave Black children a test to see if they would be allowed to attend the all-white William Frantz Elementary School. Six passed. Two decided not to go through with it. The three other girls were sent to a different all-white school; Ruby Bridges would be the only Black student desegregating William Frantz.

Her father was not sure he wanted to put her through that. Her mother argued it had to be done for her daughter and "for all African-American children."

This was three years after the Little Rock Nine were escorted into school by the National Guard. Conditions in the South had not improved. A crowd came out to hurl insults and threaten a six year old child. 

"What really protected me is the innocence of a child," Bridges said at an event last Thursday. "Because even though you all saw that and I saw what you saw, my 6-year-old mind didn't tell me that I needed to be afraid. Like why would I be afraid of a crowd? I see that all the time."

But it is still shocking to see pictures of the protests. They made a picture of a coffin, with a Black baby in it, and paraded it around the school. Along with a cross. Bridges was the only child in her class-- white parents pulled their children out, and many teachers refused to teach. The boycott was eventually broken by a Methodist minister, but Bridges still was shunned, her father fired, her family barred from some local businesses. 

It's Ruby Bridges portrayed in the Norman Rockwell painting "The Problem We All Live With." one of his first works after he left The Saturday Evening Post. It earned him sackfulls of angry mail, calling him, among other things, a "race traitor."

This week, many schools celebrated a Ruby Bridges Walk To School Day in schools all around the country.  

There is a common narrative, that in the sixties we pretty much settled all the racial issues in this country and that demands for equity ever since have just been a political ploy to grab undeserved goodies. "We fixed that stuff," the argument goes, "so we shouldn't need to be talking about it now. You sure you don't have some other reason for bringing it up?" It's the narrative that brings us to a President-elect who claims that since we fixed racism in the sixties, it's white folks who have been the victims, and who need reparations.

But here's what I want to underline-- Ruby Bridges is alive. Not even old lady alive, but just 70. Presumably most of the children gathered around that coffin and cross are also alive, probably a few of those adults as well (Bridges's mother died in 2020). 

This is not some episode from the distant past. It's not about some form of schooling that belongs to some dead-and-gone generation. The anniversary is a reminder to do better, to be better, a reminder that it really wasn't very long ago that a whole lot of people thought it was okay to threaten a six year old child with abuse and violence. White folks don't need to hang their heads in shame and embarrassment, but neither should they say, "That was people from another time, long ago and far away," as a way to feel better about the whole business. It can happen here. It just happened here. Pay attention and do the work to make sure it isn't happening tomorrow.

Heritage: How To Make More Babies

I'm not sure where to start--this is the most mind-blowingly boneheaded "report" I have ever seen come out of a reformster activist group in maybe ever. This is not off the rails or in the weeds. It has left both rails and the weeds far behind, careening into some parched plain where the blazing light of political desire has dried up every drop of sense. Let the record show that I am perfectly capable of engaging in serious discussion with serious making serious ed reform arguments, but this is spectacularly unserious.

The title of the blog post masquerading as a report is "Education Policy Reforms Are Key Strategies for Increasing the Married Birth Rate" produced by Jay Greene and Lindsey Burke for the Heritage Society, and it needs a "Not The Onion" label, but I suppose it signals yet another tack for the culture panic crowd. Heritage made this point with a little less verve just last year, and it was bunk then, too. I've read it so you don't have to. Let's dive in.

The Problem We're Trying To Solve

The United States fertility rate has dropped below the replacement rate, and that is Very Bad. Fertility rates are dropping all over the planet, and resist policy efforts. 

While no silver bullet can increase the married birth rate, developing pro-family policies is essential if Americans want to maintain their political and cultural traditions, avoid economic decline, and strengthen national defense.

Spoiler alert: by "pro-family policies," they do not mean what you think that means. This will not be a discussion of how to provide support for young families, nor will we talk about how the US trails the rest of the industrialized world when it comes to family leave. We just love to talk about supporting families in this country as long as it doesn't inconvenience employers or involve spending taxpayer dollars. 

Sure, some governments try financial incentives and subsidized services. But that, they argue, doesn't work all that much. Besides, raising kids has always been expensive. So with a quick wave of their hands, they dismiss any economic concerns that might be holding young folks back.

No, they argue, "the decline in the number of children is driven primarily by values and priorities." Kids These Days lack the moral fiber to have kids these days. Why, back in 1970s (when, they remind us, that birth control pill was first legalized) the standard of living was lower, the GDP was lower, but people were popping out babies left and right. Now people have more wealth and less inclination to spend it on children.

Now, there's a ton of research out there about this very question, but Greene and Burke aren't going to bring any of that up. Some of it actually offers some support for their idea that we're seeing a slightly selfish values shift (and some of it says "Shut up, Boomer-- you're the selfish ones"), but it also brings up a host of other concerns, including economic worries, the environment, the general state of the world. But never mind any of that. They have a different thought.

"The general standard of living and overall societal wealth" are up compared to 100 years ago, they point out, and at this point I, a non-academic non-sociologist, would question how those "general" terms break down. Averages hide a lot of highs and lows, and lots of folks don't get to participate in "overall societal wealth." But never mind. People are getting married later than they used to. If you know actual young people, a hundred possible explanations may spring to mind, but we aren't looking at any of that, because Greene and Buke have a different culprit in mind.

College. Specifically, college financial aid.

People are spending more time in college. "Much of the trend can be explained" by the "subsidy-induced explosion" of college enrollment, and college campuses don't include many young student parents. 

Put plainly, massive and unnecessary education subsidies are artificially steering people into delaying or even foregoing marriage and children.

Has college enrollment exploded? Has college financial aid exploded? How "non-existent" are married parent students? These all seem like points for which actual data exist, but none will be mentioned here.

And if you were getting to make the excuse that the job market demands increased skills and education, Burke and Greene say no, it doesn't. Only a third of secretaries have degrees, compared to 9% in 1990, which proves... something? There are too many "excess" credential requirements, and too many subsidies keeping too many people in college for too many years, postponing markers of adulthood. 

I have more questions. Like, if college is the culprit, what part of the population does that affect? About five seconds of research reveals that roughly a third of the adult population had a bachelors degree. So what about everyone else? Are they slacking off, too, or is the college crowd just dragging the numbers down all by themselves? 

Finally, a Heritage post about education wouldn't be complete with a demand for privatization:

Finally, to reverse the tide of declining fertility rates, it is necessary to consider barriers to parents educating their own children in ways that increase the likelihood that those children will have pro-fertility values.

They call this "universal education choice," but it is clearly meant to be one particular education choice. They want it for "all families" which of course means "wealthy families already using private schools." 

Let's Drag Religion Into It

Here comes the Institute for Family Studies, another Bradley and Koch funded right wing outfit creating a basis for policies right-tilted folks want--in this case, traditional straight parents raising children with mom at home. IFS has connected the lower birth rate with a decline in religious connection. Church attenders make more babies, and fewer people attend church so the decline accounts for “virtually 100% of the decline in fertility in the United States from 2012 to 2019.”

Now, other countries with higher religious observance don't have higher fertility, admit the authors, but that's because the politics, economics, and culture are different. There's a lot implied and suggested by that observation; the authors will not be examining any of it. We're just going to leave it at the idea that religiosity differences affect fertility differences with countries, but not between them. Because, I guess, there's no such thing as meaningful political, economic, or cultural differences within a country. It sure would have been interesting to examine, say, fertility differences between the different sub-cultures and regions of the US, but we're not going to do that.

Anyway, religious people put more value on children, making parents "more greatly appreciate the personal, societal, and even eternal benefits of having more babies" and therefor not mind the cost.

Now we get to some big time baloney.

When the government compels parents to enroll their children in school and then provides secular, public schools as the only tax-supported option, it is erecting a significant barrier to parents giving children a religious education.

This is simply not true. I've made the long argument before, but this time, let me offer a simple observation. If we're looking for data, let's consider that the decrease in religiosity in this country has occurred at the same time as the rise in school choice. Most of the religious people making this argument themselves came through public school with their religious devotion entirely intact. That's because not telling you what to believe is not the same as telling you what not to believe. Public education leaves the religion spot in a student's life wide open for the family to fill in as they like. 

Conservatives like to argue that they don't co-parent with the government, but this complaint amounts to a demand that the government should co-parent with them, to back them up on a faith that apparently they can't inculcate and grow in their children without someone else's help. 

Then there's this:

Families must be able to afford to pay twice—once in taxes supporting the district public school, and a second time for private school tuition—to be able to access instruction that matches their faith and values.

No. Families don't even pay for tuition the first time. That's the beauty of the system--nobody pays all of the tuition ever. This is especially true for some quiverfull family with multiple children. Do they also suggest that it is unjust for folks with no children at all to pay taxes? (They do not). But the unspoken premise of modern choice is that education is a service provided to families; it ignores the notion that public education is there not to serve only families, but to serve the public as a whole. 

Nor do religious private schools serve even a large number of families. The authors argue that vouchers put religious private schools on a level playing field with public schools. They do not, at least not as long as private religious schools retain the right to reject and expel students for any and all reasons. And not only do they pick and choose which families to serve, but they frequently fail to serve society by failed and unaccountable teaching.

Greene and Burke argue that religious private schools make children more likely to grow up religious, and gee, that's a pretty thought, but it also shows for the gazillionth time that this is not about actual school choice at all--it's about replacing a public system with a particular, limited set of values. It's about taxpayer subsidies for private religious schools. "Parents should have a choice of schools--as long as they choose a properly religious school."

Education savings accounts, tax-credit-supported private school scholarships, and vouchers should be viewed as key pro-fertility policies. Lowering barriers to families selecting a school of their choice, including religious education for their children, increases the odds that parents will have children and that a larger share of those children will retain religious beliefs and practices that boost marriage and fertility.

"You know, Ethel, I wasn't really planning on having children, but now that our state offers school vouchers, let's go ahead and pop out a bunch."

Early family formation and damn that college racket

Greene and Burke lead with a bunch of stats showing that the median age for getting married and for having children are higher than they used to be, and pair that with the assertion that "fertility is significantly reduced for people who delay" those activities. 

Now for some research slight-of-hand. The next paragraph will start by saying that while "many factors" contribute to the late start, "one of the most important is the longer period of time that people spend in school." This is followed by a lot of stats showing that people spend a lot of time in school. Is there anything to connect the cause and effect, other than putting sentences together in one paragraph? There is not. Data about what percentage of late starters are college-educated? Nope. 

They note that grad student population increased from 2.9 million to 3.2 million from 2010 to 2021. So... those 300,000 grad students are the cause of the nation's fertility drop? They blame that hop on the Grad PLUS loan program. That has "likely" played a key role, they argue (without data). Some number of people are spending 6 to 10 years in higher education. What number? "Most of them" put off marriage. How many?

We do finally at some data. 43% of women with degrees wait till 30 to have children; of high school diploma women, the figure is 8.5%. Of degreed women, 22% will never have children; for diplomas, it's 11.5%. How do men figure in this? 

The authors decry businesses that "chase degrees," which they do in part because those damn "overzealous" enforcers of civil rights have "made it exceedingly difficult for businesses to administer job-related pre-employment tests, and I would love to learn more about this thing that I've never, ever heard of before, but there is no source cited for this widespread practice. But you know-- emphasis on degrees over merit has tricked people into pursuing credentials that they don't need, but which keep them from taking advantage of their peak baby-making years. It's that damned government "free" money in the form of loans (which are kind of the opposite of free money, but if they want to argue that 19-year-olds don't fully grasp that, I won't disagree) and those loans create a huge debt load that further delays baby-making.

Here follows an assortment of data to support the notion that college is expensive and doesn't pay off for lots of folks. Again, I won't argue this. 

Now, you might think that a logical conclusion here might be to argue that the government could hand out more grants instead of loans, or that colleges should be restructured to be less money-grubbing, or that government needs to address the economic weaknesses that result in so many people stuck in so many crappy jobs that pay subsistence wages while still allowing employers to demand credentials just because they can further fueling the notion that a college education is important for involving life in the bottom of America's economic barrel.

But this is the Heritage Foundation, so no. Instead, the proposal is for the government to stop helping people go to college and just start working at a young age so that they get straight on to that baby-making. I am sure that everyone at Heritage, and their many fine rich donors stand behind this and refuse to put any of their children through college, insisting that they get out there and get a job. But I get the feeling this is aimed at the poors.

Proposals to cut subsidized student loan programs should therefore be seen as key pro-fertility policies.

The actual agenda here--  "An Education Reform Agenda to Increase the Married Birth Rate and Support Families"

Here's what Burke and Greene say the states should do.

Adopt Universal School Choice.

Well, not choice exactly. But if taxpayers would fund religious private schools so that more students would attend them, more students would grow up religious and go through the "success sequence" by graduating high school, getting married, getting a job, and then having kids, just like Jesus wanted them to. 

Eliminate Teacher Certification Requirements

Speaking of too much emphasis on college, how about teachers? Why get certification? Just let school leaders hire folks "whom they deem to have sufficient subject-matter expertise to teach in K–12 classrooms" so that teachers can get straight to baby-making (though I'm not aware of certification lengthening teacher college time). They cite some research from reformsters that I am not going to take time to chase here to argue that certification doesn't make teachers any better. 

Eliminate Bachelor’s Degree Requirements for State Government Work.

Eliminate degree requirements for government work, because surely a high school diploma is enough. Hell, over the next four years, we may find that a high school diploma is too much. 

Eliminate PLUS loan programs

Both Grad and Parent loan programs should be tanked. Go get a private loan, or a job. 

So, to summarize our argument so far, in K-12, lack of resources should not deprive families of educational choices, but after high school, if you are too poor for college, tough noogies. Also, if government aid causes tuition inflation in colleges, will it do the same in K-12 (spoiler alert: yes).

End Student Loan Cancellation

This seems backwards--after all, if you want young adults to stop worrying about their debt and start making the babies, making the debt go away seems like a productive choice. But the authors are afraid that such largesse encourages more debt. Better to make sure that young men and women understand right up front that college will mean crippling debt, and maybe they should just not bother with such aspirations beyond their class and get on with the job and the baby making.

Revive Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs (IRAPs) to Expand Apprenticeships.

Also an excellent path to getting to work and making babies sooner without wasting time at college.

Good Lord in Heaven 

So many questions, and so little curiosity. Why are young adults putting off family stuff? What are the economic and cultural factors? Are there any patterns surrounding where, and among whom, this does or doesn't happen? Are there other policies that could support family formation, like doing something about the world's worst family leave, plus other measures that would make it possible for women to have a family and a job (maybe even make it as easy as it is for men)? What about minimum wage? Are there any possible solutions that fall outside the preferred social engineering policies of right wingers? How effective are religious schools at creating religious adults? Are there any actual data connecting college and late-starting families? If college is an issue, are there other policy solutions to the weight of extra years and financial burdens? What does the data tell us about who does and doesn't follow the "success sequence" and why? What does the data tell us about people who follow the sequence and end up with a crappy job and a family they can't support (and is that related to a reliable supply of meat widgets who can't afford to leave no matter how poorly their employers treat them)? What is really behind the drop in church attendance in this country (hint: there are whole books about this)? How do schools add religion without needing a government bureau of religion approval? Wouldn’t increased immigration be a possible help here? Oh, and do private voucher systems produce good educational results that benefit society as a whole?

There is a whole lot of territory to cover in questions about national birth rates, national religiosity, college and university policies, changes in family structure, and credentialling for various professions. But Greene and Burke show no interest in actually examining these areas--they are simply intent on hewing out a path that leads to their pre-selected conclusions. 

Do they hit on some worthy points along the way, like the effects of over-selling college to a generation? Sure. But mostly they craft an incurious case to support the policies they want to support. This "report" is just a blog post in a tux.

One thing to note--this adds to the list of items revealing some sort of baby panic on the right, an apparent fear that they will somehow run out of pliable meat widgets. It lurks around forced birth policies, the end of child labor laws, the attempts to create parallel education system (one for the haves and one for the have-nots), as well as the concern that a social safety net makes it too easy for the poors to walk away from crappy jobs. The hum and buzz suggest that a certain sector of the country is really worried that they're going to run out of cheap laborers, that our meat widget supply is in trouble. Whether Greene and Burke share that fear or are simply playing on it to sell taxpayer subsidies for religious schools is up for debate