Petrilli: Can Conservatives Back Both Public And Choice Schools

In the National Review, Michael Petrilli, Thomas Fordham Institute honcho and long-time reformster, poses the argument that folks on the right don't need to choose "between expanding parental options and improving traditional public schools." Instead, he asserts, they "can and should do both."

On the one hand, it's a welcome argument these days when the culture panic crowd has settled on a scorched earth option for public schools. As Kevin Roberts, Heritage Foundation president, put it in his now-delayed-until-after-it-can't-hurt-Trump-election-prospects book, "We don’t merely seek an exit from the system; we are coming for the curriculums and classrooms of the remaining public schools, too." For many on the right, the education policy goal is to obliterate public schools and/or force them to closely resemble the private christianist schools that culture panickers favor. 

Pertrilli is sympathetic to the "let's just give parents the money and be done with it" crowd. 

We’ve inherited a “system” that is 150 years old and is saddled with layers upon layers of previous reforms, regulations, overlapping and calcified bureaucracies, and a massive power imbalance between employees and constituents, thanks to the almighty teachers unions.

Sigh. Reforms and regulations, sure, though it would be nice for Petrilli to acknowledge that for the last forty-ish years, those have mostly come from his own reformster crowd. And I am deeply tired of the old "almighty teachers unions" trope, which is some serious baloney. But his audience thinks it's true, so let's move on. 

Petrilli's point is that conservatives should not be focusing on "school choice" alone, but should embrace an "all of the above" approach. Petrilli dismisses Democrats as "none of the above" because of their "fealty to the unions," which is, again, baloney. Democrats have spent a couple of decades as willing collaborators with the GOP ; if they are "none of the above" it's because they've lost both the ability and authority to pretend to be public education supporters. The nomination of Tim Walz has given them a chance to get on the public education team, but let's wait and see--there's no ball that the Democratic Party can't drop.

Petrilli sits on a practical point here (one that Robert Pondiscio has made repeatedly over the years)-- public schools are a) beloved by many voters, b) not going away, and c) still educate the vast, vast majority of U.S. students. Therefore, folks should care about the quality of public education.

Petrilli then floats some ideas, all while missing the major obstacle to his idea. There are, he claims, many reforms that haven't been tried yet, "including in red states where the teachers unions don't have veto power." I believe the actual number of states where the union doesn't have veto power is fifty. But I do appreciate his backhanded acknowledgement that many states have dis-empowered their teachers unions and still haven't accomplished diddly or squat. It's almost as if the unions are not the real obstacle to progress.

His ideas? Well, there's ending teacher tenure, a dog that will neither hunt nor lie down and die. First of all, there is no teacher tenure. What there is is policy that requires school districts to follow a procedure to get rid of bad teachers. Behind every teacher who shouldn't still have a job is an administrator who isn't doing theirs. 

Tenure and LIFO (Last In First Out) interfere with the reformster model of Genius CEO school management, in which the Genius CEO should be able to fire anyone he wants to for any reason he conceives of, including having become too expensive or so experienced they start getting uppity. 

The theory behind much of education reform has been that all educational shortfalls have been caused by Bad Teachers, and so the focus has been on catching them (with value-added processing of Big Standardized Test scores), firing them, and replacing them with super-duper teachers from the magical super-duper teacher tree. Meanwhile, other teachers would find this new threatening environment inspirational, and they would suddenly unleash the secrets of student achievement that they always had tucked away in their file cabinet, but simply hadn't implemented.

This is a bad model, a non-sensical model, a model that has had a few decades to prove itself, and has not. Nor has Petrilli's other idea-- merit pay has been tried, and there are few signs that it even sort of works, particularly since schools can't do a true merit pay system and also it's often meant as a cost-saving technique (Let's lower base pay and let teachers battle each other to win "merit" bonuses that will make up the difference).

Petrilli also argues against increased pay for teacher masters degrees because those degrees "add no value in terms of quality of teaching and learning" aka they don't make BS Test scores go up. He suggests moving that extra money to create incentives for teachers to move to the toughest schools. 

Petrilli gets well into weeds in his big finish, in which he cites the "wisdom of former Florida governor Jeb Bush" and the golden of state of Florida as if it's a model for all-of-the-above reform and not a state that has steadily degraded and undercut public schools in order to boost charter and private operations, with results that only look great if you squint hard and ignore certain parts (Look at 4th grade scores, but be sure to ignore 8th and 12th grade results). And if you believe that test results are the only true measure of educational excellence.

So, in sum, Petrilli's notion that GOP state leaders should support public education is a good point. What is working against it?

One is that his list is lacking. Part of the reform movement's trouble at this point is that many of its original ideas were aimed primarily at discrediting public education. The remaining core-- use standardized tests to identify and remove bad teachers-- is weak sauce. Even if you believe (wrongly) that the core problem of public education is bad teaching, this is no way to address that issue. 

Beyond bad teachers, the modern reform movement hasn't had a new idea to offer for a couple of decades. 

Petrilli also overlooks a major challenge in the "all of the above approach," a challenge that reformsters and choicers have steadfastly ignored for decades.

You cannot run multiple parallel school systems for the same cost as a single system. 

If you want to pay for public schools and charter schools and vouchers, it is going to cost more money. "School choice" is a misnomer, because school choice has always been available. Choicers are not arguing for school choice--they're arguing for taxpayer funded school choice. That will require more taxpayer funds. 

You can't have six school systems for the price of one. So legislators have been left with a choice. On the one hand, they can tell taxpayers "We think school choice is so important that we are going to raise your taxes to pay for it." On the other hand, they can drain money from the public system to pay for charters and vouchers all while making noises about how the public system is totes overfunded and can spare the money easy peasy. 

I can offer a suggestion for conservatives who want to help public schools improve.

Get over your anti-union selves.

I have a close friend who worked in management in the manufacturing sector for his whole adult life. He liked the union, because he found they made excellent partners in solving problems in the business. They brought a perspective to the problems that was helpful, and while it was sometimes still a challenge to hammer out agreements, the resulting policies were solid and useful. 

Union leaders can be excellent points of contact for management looking to communicate with the staff and coming up with a meaningful list of problems and actionable solutions. School districts can work like that, too. I know that places like New York City and Chicago are tangled political messes, but there are over 13,000 school districts in the country. I often suspect that much over-heated rhetoric about schools and unions is the direct result of most pundits being located in New York and DC. 

It's baffling that so much rhetoric about teachers and unions seems based on the assumption that teachers and their union leaders got into education because they hate children and want to ruin their lives. Conservatives sincerely interested in making schools work a little better in this country would do well to assume that teachers are there on the ground in classrooms because they are committed to education. Conservatives interested in using schools as political fodder are never going to be "all of the above."

Let's Ban Cellphones (But...)

Getting cellphones under control in the classroom is a fabulous idea. But there are a few real obstacles to overcome on that path.

First and foremost will be parental objections. Nobody likes having students carry cellphones more than their parents.

For parents who balk at ever letting their children out of their sight or touch or control, cellphones are just the thing to make sure that contact is maintained and that you can check up in at any moment. In all fairness, it's not just the helicopter parents. Families with three jobs and one car, families with big logistical challenges, families dealing with emergent situations--they all benefit from having the child just a click away.

And nowadays, the specter of various school crises are part of the picture. What if there's a school shooter and my child doesn't have a phone? What if Something Is Going On and the school doesn't contact me quickly enough?

Parents are likely to push back hard--harder than the students--against cellphone restrictions.

At the other end of the issue is the actual specific issue of implementing the policy in the classroom.

There are lots of great ideas out there for collecting and managing all the cellphones, but there is still going to come that moment--

You are teaching class. You see that a student still has their phone. You ask them to hand it in (put it in the box, whatever). They say no. Now what do you do?

Stop class to have a battle of wills? Shrug and let it go? Send the student out of the room? Call the office? Call home later? This is different from a simple classroom management issue of focus, of trying to get the student attention directed at what they are supposed to do rather than what they are not. It's not simply a behavior thing--it's a moment in which you are trying to confiscate (not just put away) an object (a very expensive object) that they have in their possession.

Like so many other policies, this one dies the moment building administration says "Well, what do you want us to do about it?"

There is a huge amount of room, a Grand Canyon's amount, to argue about just how dangerous or destabilizing cellphones actually are for the mental health of young people. But I think you'd find general agreement that teaching would be a bit easier if students were not attached to their phones all day.

But cellphone bans run the risk of being one more of those moments when leaders say, "Well, we will solve this social issue by passing a law or policy and then just let teachers take care of it." Done poorly, it's one more unfunded mandate for education, except instead of sucking up money, it will suck up time and attention. 

Can it be done? Sure. Should it be done? I say yes. By all means, pass the policies/laws/rules/edicts. Just stick around long enough to help the people who are going to have to implement. It's a benefit to teachers to have cellphone restrictions as an institutional policy instead of their own personal preference ("This is not just my rule; this is the school's rule"), but only if the institution caries the weight of making the policy. Otherwise it's just one more damn thing that teachers have to take care of.

How To Help Students Write About Theme

In high school ELA class, the theme essay remains one of the great staples of the field. And yet, students are too often so bad at it. They're supposed to be exercises in analysis and critical thinking, and yet they often turn out to be mind-numbingly dull. Let me share one simple shift in approach that helped me help students be better.

Tell them that a theme is a statement, not a word. 

Here's the problem with one-word "themes." Let's say Pat decides to write about the theme of death in Hamlet. Pat then collects a list of quotes that mention or allude to death. Then Pat turns that list into an essay, but it's an essay that is a walking tour of the play. "Over here, we see the word 'death,' and on your left, you'll see 'shuffle off this mortal coil' which is also a reference to death."

The one word theme essay too easily descends into a sentence-ified list, a catalog of references that does not actually say anything other than "here's that word." 

This kind of essay can pretend to be about something by offering some analysis in the listing, such as pointing out that when Hamlet accuses his friends of trying to play him like a pipe, he is really talking about death, a point that would require enough pretzel logic that it would give the appearance of the student author really Doing Something. 

But a list is not an analysis of a theme in a literary work. And, "In Hamlet, William Shakespeare talks a whole lot about death" is not a useful thesis statement for a student essay. In other words, do not mistake a topic for a theme.

In my class, a theme requires a sentence. Lord knows, there's a still a wide range of possible quality. A Hamlet theme paper could be built around "In the course of Shakespeare's Hamlet, the main character moves from anger and fear of death to acceptance" or "Death sucks." A legit theme can talk about the writer's technique or it can talk about the idea embedded in the work or it can wrestle with an observation about how the world works.

But what a theme gives the writer that a topic does not is something to prove, an idea for which one must marshal evidence beyond simply "proving" that the topic is included in the work. So many "theme" papers turn into aimless slogs because the student has centered on a topic rather than a theme. While my explanation of theme is very reductive, it also was a big help in giving my students a quick, simple way to determine whether or not they were on the right track or to diagnose why their essay felt boring and pointless to write.

DeVos Gets Over Trump Disapproval

What a difference a few years can make. From Betsy DeVos's letter of resignation on January 7, 2021, where she says they ought to be highlighting the administration's super-duper achievements:

Instead, we are left to clean up the mess caused by violent protesters overring the U. S. Capitol in an attempt to undermine the people's business. The behavior was unconscionable for our country. There is no mistaking the impact your rhetoric had on the situation, and it is the inflection point for me.

Impressionable children were watching all of this, and they are learning from us. I believe we each have a moral obligation to exercise good judgement and model the behavior we hope they would emulate. They must know from us that America is greater than what transpired yesterday. To that end, today I resign from my position, effective Friday, January 8, in support of the oath I took to our Constitution, our people, and our freedoms.

It was a decent position to take; she could have just sat on her hands and run out the clock, and there was nothing much for her to gain by her open, public disapproval--she was not just one more craven politician trying to get on the right side of history. 

But that was then. DeVos has gotten over her outrage. In an interview with the Detroit News (paywalled), she indicated that she would sign on for another stint as Trump Education Secretary--under certain conditions.

One was that the administration embrace the goal of phasing out the Department of Education, a goal that is included in Project 2025, Agenda 47, and the rhetoric of many GOP pols. It also appears on the list of things that Trump said he would do when he was the actual President, and did not. DeVos alludes to a plan to starve the department by cutting off funding, a thing that really didn't happen beyond the administration submitting symbolic cuts which Congress promptly ignored (c.f. the annual flap over Special Olympics funding).

The other was that the administration try to sell her Education Freedom Scholarships, a federal voucher program that she tried really hard to sell last time, even getting Ted Cruz to throw his charisma behind it despite its many problems. It went nowhere.

So she'd come back if it meant the chance to fail at two pet projects all over again.

She also acknowledged that another condition would be Trump asking her to come back, which she allows is not terribly likely. She does not indicate how accepting an invitation from Trump would be meeting her moral obligation to model good judgment for the youngs. But I reckon if there are goals you really, really want to pursue, it's okay to shave a few principles here and there. 

OK: House GOP Coming For Ryan Walters

Tonight Spencer Humphrey, reporter for KFOR, is reporting that at least 22 House Republicans have signed a letter calling for an impeachment investigation into Oklahoma's education dudebro-in-chief, Ryan Walters. That's 22 signatures so far; speculation is that they might get 51 before they're done.

Walters, as we've noted sooooo many times, does not play well with others. The letter is a recap of some of his greatest hits (complete with citations). 

The letter, written by Mark McBride, is addressed to Speaker McCall about "concerns" and the "current actions" of Superintendent Walters. 

Since Superintendent Walters took office 18 months ago, I have grown increasingly concerned about the budget performance, spending priorities, and transparency surrounding the Department. Conditions at the Department, the manner in which the Superintendent and the Board of Education have treated members of the Legislature from both parties and from both the House of Representatives and the State Senate has been, to say the least, unprofessional, beneath the dignity of a statewide elected official, and most importantly, contrary to the best interest of the taxpayers and students of the State of Oklahoma.

Then follows a "non-exhaustive" list of Walters various acts of misbehavior.

* Denied entry to execut8ive sessions to legislators. 

* Refused or delayed inquiries from Appropriations and Budget Committee, to the point of requiring two subpoenas from the committee to get him to respond.

* Failed to comply with legislative budget directives regarding dispersal of School Security Dollars. This is the one where Walters decided on his own that the law didn't say what it actually said, and he wouldn't let funds for school security roll over. 

* Failed to turn over travel expenditure information. This is the one where Walters spent a bunch of taxpayer money for travel and wouldn't tell the legislators where, when or how much.

* Failed to turn over records requested under the open records act until the Attorney General had to threaten him with civil or criminal action. 

* Defied legislature's authority by refusing to execute required funding for asthma inhalers. 

And that's not even getting into issues like being a four star jerk over pushback for his new unconstitutional Bible requirement and just generally being contentious and very bad at his actual job. 

There's that time that he fumbled grant money and his general attempts to make up his own rules about all sorts of things, as the latter says,

promulgating administrative rules absent explicit statutory authority. The latter resulted in a unanimous opinion by the State Supreme Court, finding that Superintendent Walters and the State Board of Education “is attempting to exercise unauthorized quasi-judicial authority in enforcement proceedings before the Board that involve the Edmond School District …”. The High Court’s ruling resulted in administrative actions of the Board of Education being invalidated.

Citing a "pattern  of overreach, disregard for legislative oversight and policy making, and lack of concern for student safety and budgetary stability," the letter asks the legislature to "investigate any possible willful neglect of duty or incompetency on the part of Superintendent Walters as described in Article 8 Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution."

McBride doesn't sound happy about going after a fellow Republican, but he pretty much sums up the dysfunctional situation (well, I've skipped over the attacks on teachers and books and his personal national PR drive):

I have repeatedly met one-on-one with the Superintendent, where I pled with him to please focus on the responsibilities and duties of his office, and work with the Legislature to improve and advance the cause of Public Education in Oklahoma. These pleas have fallen on deaf ears and the Superintendent has chosen to pursue an aggressively opposite path, one filled with name-calling, obstruction, defiance, and secrecy.

Walters, for his part, has struck the same aggressive and combative attitude as always. He told KOCO News:

If they decide to move forward with that, it would be the most unprecedented move in state history to undermine the will of the Oklahoman voters. We're going to continue to put parents and grandparents in charge of their kids' education. We're going to continue to put Oklahoma on a path to be successful in education. So, I will never back down to moderate Republicans partnering with Democrats to try to overturn the will of the people. We're not going to allow it.

That's Walters. He doesn't answer to any legislators, and he will personally decree what will or will not be the education law of Oklahoma. Maybe he's high on his national big time political contacts. Maybe he thinks God has his back. Maybe he's just one more MAGA dudebro who thinks he can just throw his alpha male authoritarian weight around. Watch to see how many signatures end up on the latter, whether or not the legislators have the spine to actually impeach him, and how many more reasons he can give them to want to in the meantime. Stay tuned!

ICYMI: Teacher VP Edition (8/11)

We are still in the woods of Maine (returning home shortly), but even here we've got enough bandwidth to hear that Harris picked former teacher Tim Walz as her VP, which seems like good news. My sense of optimism is always tempered, and I am not excited about some of the arguments being made ("we have big rallies so clearly we should win" is a Trump talking point, and pep rallies don't vote), but I am unreasonably pleased that my generation (that's Generation Jones, not the Baby Boomers) is represented.  And "former teacher" is no automatic qualification (edu-disaster Ryan Walters is a former teacher), but it's still nice to see the Walz teaching couple in this spot. Yeah, I'm feeling positive about all of this week's news.

Most of all, it's important to remember that the Trump team's strategy for taking the White House is not entirely based on getting the most votes. I suppose there' a world in which Harris wins by so many votes that attempts to overturn the results can't get enough steam, but I'm going to count on it. 

But like many people, I find that Walz reminds me of a few people I have known and worked with, in a good way. And I like a campaign that has some positivity to it. And personally, I would vote for my dog before I voted for Trump (and my dog passed away over a year ago). 

Depths of Maine aside, I still have reading for you. Enjoy.

Bixby Superintendent Responds To Ryan Walters

There has been a great deal of pushback against Oklahoma's education dudebro-in-chief and his Bible edict, but one of the most vocal has been Rob Miller, Bixby superintendent, who doesn't much like being called a liar.

FFRF urging Tenn. school district to stop promoting religion at mandatory teacher event

Freedom From Religion Foundation issues a statement about a school that holds mandatory Christian teacher in-service sessions. 

A superintendent made big gains with English learners. His success may have been his downfall

Kavitha Cardoza at Hechinger with a depressing story from Alabama, where a superintendent has huge success with teaching immigrant children and part of the community sees that as making Those People too comfortable and welcome here where they're not wanted. A reminder that sometimes local control leads to bad stuff.

The Freshman: How Tim Walz Went From the Classroom to Congress

You've read a few hundred pieces mining the same pile of information, but do check out this archival piece from Ed Week. Way back in 2007, they interviewed a small town teacher who ran for political office and won. 

Tim Walz helps Democrats make the ‘prairie populist’ case for public schools

Also recommend this Erica Meltzer piece at Chalkbeat looking at Walz and educxation.

In now-delayed book, Heritage president details MAGA plans to remake education: “America's teachers have gone insane"

If you thought Project 2025 was harsh, wait till you get a look at what Heritage honcho Kevin Roberts has to say about education.

Moms for Liberty’s Plan to “Light up” School Board Fizzles Out

Yeah, Alaska deals with this stuff, too. Matthew Beck of The Blue Alaskan reports on a not-so-successful attempt by M4L to throw their weight around.

Should Religious Schools Be Publicly Funded? Issues of Religion, Discrimination, and Equity

Academic wonkiness from Taylor and Francis, but still worth a look at positions on these policy questions.

Keri Rodrigues and Walton Allies Join to Solve a Biiiiig Problem

Maurice Cunningham looks at who the National Parents Union proposes should look at the BIG problems of education at SXSWED.

The Educators

PopSugar, the lifestyle media thingy, is running a set of 24 profiles of teachers, and it's a pleasantly positive reminder of the kinds of folks out there in the trenches. Heavy on the warm fuzzies, light on the academics, but still an encouraging batch of profiles.

"Universal" School Vouchers Cost States Billions

Steve Nuzum has written a pretty good explainer of universal vouchers, looking at the South Carolina shenanigans that have come along with them.

“Vouchers Hurt Ohio” Lawsuit Tests Constitutional Protection of Equal Access to Public Schooling

Ohio is getting sued over its problematic school choice program. Jan Resseger can explain what's going on for you.

Join me on substack! It's free!

Teaching the Bible Badly

Ryan Walters may have finally arrived at his "Have you no sense of decency" moment over his Bible directive, with several superintendents stating that there will be no classroom Bible instruction in their district in widespread pushback. (Walters, for his part, has offered no argument other than Eric Cartmanesque declarations that schools "will comply" or else.)

It seems entirely probable that it will all end up in court where, unfortunately, it's at least even odds that the court will decide that to scratch the rule would infringe on Ryan Walters' First Amendment Free Exercise rights (I'm only sort of kidding). 

But in the meantime, it's worth noticing just how bad the OSDE guidelines for teaching the Bible are, not just from a Violating The First Amendment standpoint, but from a Being a Fan of Holy Scripture standpoint as well as an Actual Education standpoint.

You can find a copy of the guidelines here.

The guidelines kick off with more chest thumping about how the "superintendent's directive" is absolutely "mandatory for the holistic education of students." The directive includes providing a copy of the guidelines and a physical copy of the Bible, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Ten Commandments (but no indication that the state will be helping pay for all that). Also no discussion of adding a unit about how Republicans were once the party of small government and local control. 

Then the guidelines offer some helpful tips on how to incorporate the Scriptures into lessons.

Influence on Western Civilization. The Bible, says Walters, has been a "key cornerstone" in the development of Western thought, "influencing legal systems, ethical frameworks, and cultural norms" along "the concepts of justice, human rights, and the rule of law."  While the Bible has a slice of involvement, this also points to one of the odd contradictions in Walters' decree and the whole classical education movement.  

Because the roots of classical Western civilization are in ancient Greece and Rome and the great thinkers like Aristotle and Socrates-- all well before Jesus ever set foot on the planet. In fact, if we want to talk about Western civilization and the Bible, we should talk about how Paul clearly has taken pieces of his Greek education and grafted them onto the work of Jesus. Like many conservative christianists, Walters sems way more attached to the Old Testament than the new one.

As for the notion that it was the Bible that laid the foundation for ideas such as the rule of law, that's just silly. Many, many civilizations planted these ideas without any help from the Bible at all. It would make far more religious sense to suppose that God somehow worked a similar message through many channels, but that's the other thing about Walters' policy and others like it-- it's not nearly as expressive of devotion to God as it is a fetishizing of the Bible. 

Impact on American History. In much of American history, leaders have quoted and alluded to the Bible. Also, Shakespeare, pop music lyrics, and racist literature. The attempt to prioritize the Bible is weak sauce. I can, however, imagine an interesting unit studying paces where the Bible is NOT quoted or mentioned (like, say, the Constitution).

But where Walters really gets in the weeds with the topic of Literary Significance.

Canonical Literature. Yes, the Bible gets quoted and alluded to a bunch. Fine. Probably already done in plenty of English classes. Not sure how to just drop this into First Grade spelling or a phys ed class.

Literary Techniques. This is where things really head into the weeds. 

The Bible uses numerous and various literary techniques, including allegory, metaphor, and parable. Teachers can use biblical texts to illustrate these techniques, enhancing students’ literary analysis skills. This approach allows students to appreciate the Bible’s literary craftsmanship without delving into religious doctrine,

First, this depends a great deal on the translation being used. 

But more to the point, this invites students to treat the Bible as if it were just a work of literature, a piece of writing that some human just made up. If you were raised to believe that the Bible is the actual Word of God, divinely inspired, ten what exactly are we doing here? Critiquing the Almighty's writing skills? Suggesting that the Word of God belongs on a shelf next to Huckleberry Finn and Rome and Juliet and other works of fiction? And how exactly does one consider literary craftsmanship without considering the purpose for which it was crafted--and again--who is the teacher supposed to say did the crafting? 

Artistic and Musical Influences. Maybe you could trot out some pieces of art and music that are about Bible things?

Walters offers some "implementation strategies" which are, again, in the weeds. Do some textual analysis, in which you "analyze biblical texts as they would any other historical or literary document." Yes, I'm sure devoutly Christian parents will be happy to have their children taught that the Bible is a book just like any other book.

Or maybe compare the Bible to other works, like, say, Greek myths. Because, again, families of faith will really dig the idea of treating the Bible like it's a work of mythology. Walters also endorses encouraging "critical thinking" and respectful dialog, which is a great thing that he should consider modeling in his work as education dudebro-in-chief.

There are also grade-specific guidelines which are pretty vague but which definitely double down on the whole "treat the Bible like it's a storybook or a myth" aspect, which one could fully expect to clash horribly with families who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. 

Walters has come up with an edict sure to make absolutely nobody happy except for christianist nationalist policy pushers, who will not have to deal with how this plays out on the ground. It's a policy that violates the First Amendment not just because it puts one religious text in the public classroom, but because it will inevitably require classroom teachers to explicitly or implicitly answer the question, "So, is this stuff real or not?" 

Here's hoping that the courts do everyone a favor and strike down this unconstitutional policy edict