Archives for category: Education Reform

Nancy Bailey taught for many years. She writes a blog that is a source of wisdom, gleaned from experience and love of children.

She wrote recently that the debate about retention should be a dead issue. We know that it hurts the kids who are flunked. We know there are better alternatives.

She wrote:

The permanency of retention and the message it sends students may have long-term effects on self-esteem and school attachment that may override even short-term academic benefits (1995).

~Melissa Roderick, the Hermon Dunlap Smith Professor at the Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice, the University of Chicago

Sometimes failing at a task or endeavor might be instructive. Most of us will experience failure, maybe often, and learning to be resilient in the face of it can create stamina and character. But being retained in school is a failure that many students may never overcome. It’s time to end retention and focus on solutions that work, that lift children!

There has been much debate about this over the years, yet it seems increasingly unnecessary, as there are enough child-friendly alternatives that render retention outdated and ill-informed. Retention simply isn’t necessary!

Many alternatives exist to support students without failing them. Summer school, smaller class sizes, small group instruction, looping two classes with the same teacher, a mixed-grade class, tutoring, and assistance with resource classes can help children catch up.

That hasn’t stopped some educators and non-educators from promoting third-grade retention as a major reform since 2003. It has persisted despite extensive research showing it doesn’t work.

Sadly, as of 2025, 17 states and the District of Columbia require third graders to repeat a year if they fail tests. English language learners and students who use alternative assessments may be exempt.

Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have always been retained at higher rates.

Middle School Hell

Melissa Roderick, a well-regarded expert on this issue, whose bio is linked above, has numerous studies and a book on retention, its effects on retained students, and the dropout effect.

Roderick points out that retention becomes a major issue in middle school because retained students are overage. This leads children to become disengaged, and that stigma they’ve carried since being retained may push them to drop out (1994).

Imagine middle school students who tower over their peers and who have already developed into students who look like they should be in high school.

If you still aren’t convinced, Matt Barnum of Chalkbeat reports on a new and unique study, Early Grade Retention Harms Adult Earnings, by economist Jiee Zhong of Miami University, which demonstrates that children who are retained might show initial progress but will eventually face significant employability problems, including lower earnings as adults.

The study  should be taken seriously and aligns with many studies, like Roderick’s, that have been considered for decades, showing that children are more likely to drop out of school after being retained. Research has consistently and strongly shown this connection over the years.

The author of the new study found that third-grade retention deepened existing inequality.

She states:

Third graders who had to repeat a grade in Texas were far less likely to graduate from high school or earn a good living as young adults, nearly two decades later. The harmful effects were quite large and came despite initial improvements in test scores.

Mississippi Deception

Mississippi has been given accolades for student improvement, with students making early test gains, partly credited to retention, although there’s controversy over this and concern about comprehension and the later decline in 8th-grade scores.

Carey Wright, the state superintendent behind the changes to Mississippi’s schools, which included retention, claims in Barnum’s Chalkbeat report that students there received small-group instruction and they never focused on retention

But they did retain students. The New York Times presented a flattering report about the Mississippi gains, How Mississippi Transformed Its Schools From Worst to Best, reporting that they hold back 6 to 9 percent of third graders each year (2026). Students take the test the following year after intense reading instruction. This has been controversial as well.

Also, Mississippi’s children may have been held back earlier. Oklahoma Watch found in 2024-25, Mississippi held back 8.2% of kindergarteners, 7.8% of first-graders, fewer than 5% of second graders and 6% of third graders, according to the latest report on the state’s Literacy Based Promotion Act. It’s unclear how many children, if any, have been retained twice.

Retention always raises questions about whether children may need more time between kindergarten and third grade to learn, perhaps being pushed to read too soon. What if they hadn’t been retained and had received intensive reading instruction throughout? Fourth grade is not an insignificant year for learning to read better.

While reading success is noteworthy by third grade, it doesn’t have to be the pressured year for students to prove their reading skills; that’s another issue.

Focus on Support

Wright is right that small groups might help children who are behind, but why do children need to be retained to make that happen?

Retention believers often argue that it’s wrong to simply promote students. They’re also right. The learning difficulties students bring to school should never be ignored. Students are entitled to critical assistance when they aren’t making progress in school.

But Shane Jimerson from the University of California, Santa Barbara showed in a Meta-analysis of Grade Retention Research: Implications for Practice in the 21st Century that children who are promoted, without extra help, still do better than those who are retained. Jimerson called for an end to the debate and stressed that neither retention nor social promotion of a student with difficulties was good. Children need help with their school difficulties.

As I pointed out earlier, there are various solutions to retention. Children don’t have to leave school with such a stigma. My favorite is looping. I’ve seen it work wonderfully!

Looping two years with one teacher is one great solution. Teachers get to know students for two years, understand their progress in reading and math, and bring them up to speed. Unlike retention, which funds another school year for a child, there’s no extra cost to this. The child would be in the next grade anyway and is never made to feel like a failure! A well-qualified teacher, in tune with this process, is critical for this class.

Scores of research studies show that retention harms students in the long term, and no child deserves to be demeaned because they have learning difficulties.

The retention debate is old and stodgy, perpetuated over the years by those doing studies to try to prove it works, who refuse to think outside of the box for better alternatives.

We should know better now! There’s no need to retain children and undermine their self-belief. It’s time to focus on solutions that lift students, like looping, rather than leaving children feeling like they’ve failed.

References

Roderick, M. (1994). Grade Retention and School Dropout: Investigating the Association. American Educational Research Journal31(4), 729–759. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031004729

Mervosh, S. (2026, January 11). How Mississippi Transformed Its Schools From Worst to Best. The New York Times. Retrieved at: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/11/us/mississippi-schools-transformation.html

Jimerson, S. R. (2001). Meta-analysis of Grade Retention Research: Implications for Practice in the 21st Century. School Psychology Review30(3), 420–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2001.12086124

Addendum

I have written about this topic many times. It’s disappointing to see there have been few, if any, changes concerning this serious issue. Here are a few other posts.

13 Reasons Why Grade Retention is Terrible, and 12 Better Solutions

Why Do Science of Reading Advocates Accept Unscientific Third-Grade Retention?

Michigan fortunately no longer retains third graders but the points in this post are important.

For You Michigan!—You Are WRONG about Retention!

FORCE & FLUNK: Destroying a Child’s Love of Reading—and Their Life

Comment

Governor Ron DeSantis and the Florida legislature have zealously imposed censorship of race, gender, sexuality, and other topics they consider unmentionable.

The Guardian reports that professors of sociology are ignoring the state mandates or openly opposing state censorship. It is impossible, they say, to teach sociology while ignoring that the censored topics are the center of their field.

Brianna Holt of The Guardian reported:

Across Florida universities, some sociology professors are quietly choosing not to alter their courses in response to new state guidelines restricting how topics like racegender and sexuality can be discussed. Rather than rewriting syllabi or removing foundational material, as the new demands would call for, they say they are continuing to teach their classes as designed. The professors view the preservation of their curricula not as an act of defiance, but as a professional responsibility to provide students with a full and rigorous education.

In late January, Florida’s department of education introduced what many professors are calling a censored sociology textbook for use in the state’s public colleges and universities, along with a list of proposed guidelines at state schools, restricting various discussions related to systemic discrimination, gender and sexual identity, race-conscious remedies, and the structural causes of inequality. Faculty members say this move reflects a broader effort to narrow academic freedom in higher education and follows several years of legislation aimed at reshaping public university curricula under the banner of combating “woke ideology”.

“This is part of a coordinated assault on civil rights in the state, in the country, including censoring the nation’s history,” said Zachary Levenson, an associate professor of sociology at FloridaInternational University. “The warning is clear to professors: shut up or lose your job….”

Levenson pointed to a list of prohibited topics outlined in the proposed guidelines document, which bars course content that frames systemic or institutional discrimination as a driving cause of present-day inequality, suggests that bias is inherent among Americans or describes institutions as intentionally oppressive. The guidelines also restrict discussions that argue that most gender differences are socially constructed, that propose race-conscious remedies to address historical discrimination or that assert a causal relationship between institutional sexism and unequal outcomes. Even course material explaining how individuals understand or determine their sexual orientation or gender identity falls within the scope of what instructors are instructed to avoid. For sociologists, whose field often analyzes structural inequality through those very lenses, the language is unsettling.

Ethics? Government ethics officers? What an obsolete concept! In the Trump era, we trust government officials to tell us if there is any ethics problems. Self-reporting always works! Or does it?

The ever-valuable ProPublica documented conflicts of interest among Trump’s Cabinet members and the industries they are supposed to oversee. In some cases, ProPublica found examples of suspicious buying and selling of stocks, with Cabinet members making large sums by investing or selling stocks and cryptocurrency at exactly the right moment.

ProPublica is releasing a trove of disclosure records that detail the finances of more than 1,500 Trump appointees, including former lobbyists, industry executives and at least a dozen officials who declined to identify former clients. Read the story.

ProPublica wrote:

Thousands of companies are jockeying for billions of dollars in Defense Department contracts to build a shield designed to intercept and destroy missiles launched against the United States.

But amid the intense competition, a handful of firms have an important inside connection.

At least four of the companies awarded contracts so far are owned by Cerberus Capital Management, a private equity firm founded by billionaire Steve Feinberg, who until last year ran the company and is now the deputy secretary of defense — the second-highest-ranking official in the Pentagon.

Feinberg oversees the office in charge of the Golden Dome for America project, which is modeled on Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system.

Feinberg filed paperwork saying he divested from Cerberus and its related businesses. But his government ethics records contain an unusual clause: He is allowed to continue contracting with the company for tax compliance and accounting services as well as health care coverage, a financial relationship that documents show could continue indefinitely.

Feinberg’s financial statements and ethics agreement are part of a trove of nearly 3,200 disclosure records that ProPublica is making public today. The disclosures, which can be viewed in a searchable online tool, detail the finances of more than 1,500 federal officials appointed by President Donald Trump. Records for Trump and Vice President JD Vance are also included.

The documents reveal a web of financial ties between senior government officials and the industries they help regulate — relationships that have drawn scrutiny as Trump has dismantled ethics safeguards designed to prevent conflicts of interest.

On his first day back in office, Trump rescinded an executive order signed by President Joe Biden that required his appointees to comply with an ethics pledge. The pledge barred them from working on issues related to their former lobbying topics or clients for two years. Weeks later, Trump fired 17 inspectors general charged with investigating fraud, corruption and conflicts of interest across the federal government. Around the same time, he removed the head of the Office of Government Ethics, the agency that oversees ethics compliance throughout the executive branch. The office is currently without a head or a chief of staff.

ProPublica also posted a searchable database of self-reported assets of 1,500 Trump appointees. The number posted is the low end of a range. Quite a large number of billionaires, multimillionaires, and plain vanilla millionaires.

The Boston Globe reported that a federal judge in Boston blocked Robert F. Kennedy Jr.”s plan to reduce the number of vaccines required for children.

MAHA indeed!

Some people still believe in science.

A federal judge in Boston has temporarily blocked federal health officials from cutting the number of vaccines recommended for every child, and says US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. likely violated federal procedures in revamping a key vaccine advisory committee.

The decision Monday halts an order by Kennedy — announced in January — to end broad recommendations for all children to be vaccinated against flu, rotavirus, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, some forms of meningitis and RSV.

Leading medical groups voiced alarm at the changes. The American Academy of Pediatrics and some other groups amended a lawsuit filed in July, asking the judge to stop the government from scaling back the nation’s childhood vaccination schedule.

The judge also says Kennedy’s reconstitution of the vaccine advisory panel likely violated federal law. He ordered the appointments — and all decisions made by the reformed committee — put on hold.

Anne Applebaum, brilliant writer on foreign affairs, wrote the article that I wish I could have written. It appears online in The Atlantic. This is a gift article. From the moment I heard about the bombing, I realized that Trump had no plan, none, to help the Iranian people.

When the bombing ends, the mullah’s troops have the guns, the people have none.

Khomeini is dead. There are dozens of mullahs hoping to replace him.

Trump could have intervened when Khomeini was slaughtering the protestors like cattle. He said he would. He raised their hopes. But he didn’t. Thousands of Iran’s bravest were killed.

Now he says it’s up to the people to take over their institutions. How?

He says the Revolutionary Guards should surrender their weapons. To whom?

This bombing campaign will leave the status quo in place.

Applebaum wrote:

The American bombardment of Iran has been launched without explanation, without Congress, without even an attempt to build public support. Above all, it has been launched without a coherent strategy for the Iranian people, and without a plan to let them decide how to build a legitimate Iranian state.

This lack of coherence has plagued the Trump administration’s policy for many weeks. On at least eight occasions during Iran’s nationwide uprising in early January, President Trump encouraged Iranians to “take over their institutions” and promised that American help was “on its way.” But just last month, days after the Iranian regime massacred thousands of its own citizens, Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, sent out the opposite message. He described Iran as “a deal that ought to happen” and said that the country could be welcomed into “the league of nations.” Vice President Vance has also said that America’s interests in Iran are limited. “If the Iranian people want to overthrow the regime, that’s up to the Iranian people,” Vance recently told reporters. “What we’re focused on right now is the fact that Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon.”

The absence of a broader strategy fits a pattern. For decades, American presidents from both parties have oscillated between coercion and engagement with Iran, sometimes offering diplomacy, sometimes sanctions. Doves and hawks both sought to manage the tactics of the Islamic Republic—its nuclear ambitions, its ballistic missiles, its network of proxy militias throughout the Middle East—without ever coming up with a meaningful strategy to combat the root problem: the ideology of the regime itself.

The Islamic Republic is a theocracy founded explicitly to oppose the deepest principles of liberal democracy and the rule of law. During its 47-year reign, this theocratic state underwent no meaningful political reform, made no improvement to its human-rights record, and never stopped trying to export its radicalism abroad. To maintain control, the regime has used mass violence, intimidation, and surveillance. In recent years, the regime has also sought, successfully, to use online smear campaigns to divide and denigrate the Iranian opposition. Nevertheless, as the scholar and activist Ladan Boroumand has written, Western liberal democracies have long preferred to engage the Islamic Republic “almost solely through the paradigm of Realpolitik,” to engage in negotiations that never seem to work.

There were plenty of opportunities to try something different. In 2009, at the time of mass protests in Iran, the Obama administration could have put a human-rights campaign at the heart of its Iran policy, promoting the people, ideas, education, and media that might have helped change Iran from within. In 2019, after the cancellation of Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, the first Trump administration could have done the same. But it did not.

The second Trump administration has gone much further in the opposite direction, actually dismantling tools that could have helped promote civic engagement and build a united opposition in Iran. The administration has taken money away from Iranian-human-rights-monitoring groups and defunded media projects. Under the leadership of the former Arizona political candidate Kari Lake, the U.S. Agency for Global Media has prevented Radio Farda, the Farsi-language channel of the U.S. broadcaster Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, from using American transmission equipment.

Voice of America, the U.S. government’s other Persian-language channel, cut back coverage and lost credibility by producing partisan broadcasts. The channel’s leadership has actually banned any mention of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late shah of Iran, who commands a substantial following both inside and outside the country. As a result, VOA lost ground to the Saudi-funded channel Iran International. Lake also cut funding for another agency, the Open Technology Fund, dedicated to providing virtual private networks and satellite access to Iranians, among others. That decision might also help keep Iranians inside the country isolated from the large dissident movement in the diaspora.

The administration’s apparent lack of interest in the Iranian opposition adds a layer of surreality to the video that Trump posted early this morning. He called on the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Iranian Armed Forces, and the police to “lay down your weapons.” But to whom should they surrender? He almost taunted the Iranian people to take charge. “Let’s see how you respond,” he said. “America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force.”

But who is “you”? The civil-society and women’s-rights activists who want to build a rule-of-law society, with transparency, accountability, and independent courts? The ethnic minorities—Kurdish, Baluchi, Azerbaijani, and others—who want a decentralized state and more autonomy? The sometimes-fanatical supporters of a new monarchy, who have tried in recent months to push others to the sidelines? Breakaway groups inside the IRGC who might be interested in creating a military dictatorship?

The answer matters. As one opposition insider told me at the time of the previous American attack, the mere act of bombing Iran will not by itself create a stable regime. “If there was ever a fantasy that a leader would fly in under the wings of foreign aviators,” he told me, “that is definitely not going to happen.” Another Iranian activist texted me this morning: “This is one of the best days of my life, Anne; also I am very worried about what comes next.” (Both the opposition insider and the activist requested anonymity for fear of retaliation.)

The point is not that the U.S. should promote democracy for its own sake. The goal, rather, must be to help Iranians achieve normalcy. For the region to be at peace, Tehran must transform itself from the headquarters of an insurgency back into the capital of a country seeking to build peace and prosperity for its own citizens. A stable, law-abiding Iran will help build a stable, law-abiding Middle East. But in order to achieve that, Iran needs not a new dictatorship but self-determination and a pluralist government that respects basic rights. Right now, the Trump administration is not trying to build one.

Whatever westerners think about the bombing of Iran and the death of its leader, people in Teheran were dancing in the streets, according to The New York Times. Please open the link to see video of joyous crowds.

The Times reported:

Large crowds of Iranians poured into the streets of Tehran and other cities across Iran overnight, celebrating the news that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had been killed during a day of coordinated U.S. and Israeli attacks.

The ayatollah’s death, after nearly 40 years of authoritarian rule, represented a historic shift for Iran’s theocratic regime. Many Iranians, inside and outside the country, rejoiced, even as the threat of more attacks by U.S. and Israeli forces cast a pall over some celebrations.

Landlines and cellphone service were down across Iran, making it difficult to gauge public sentiment in the nation of more than 90 million people as U.S. and Israeli forces struck targets for a second day. Early reports of the death toll in Iran suggested that more than 100 people had been killed in the first wave of strikes.

But in neighborhoods across Tehran, the capital, pockets of exuberance emerged. In video calls with The New York Times, three residents of Tehran showed the scenes unfolding in their neighborhoods: Large crowds of men and women dancing and cheering, shouting, “Woohoo, hurrah.” Drivers passing by honked their car horns. Fireworks lit up the sky and loud Persian dance music filled the streets. Many residents, from their windows and balconies, joined in a chant of “freedom, freedom.”

Sara, a 53-year-old resident of Tehran, who like others interviewed asked that her last name not be used for fear of retaliation, said in a phone call that when she heard on the news that Ayatollah Khamenei had been killed, she let out a scream and jumped up and down. Her husband started pacing and they hugged, she said.

“Then we bolted outside and shouted from the top of our lungs and laughed and danced with our neighbors,” Sara said. Just a month ago, she, her husband and daughter were among protesters who took to the streets in an uprising against the government. Security forces beat her and her husband with batons and sprayed tear gas in their eyes, she said.

For Iranian supporters of Ayatollah Khamenei who considered him a revered religious figure, watching the celebrations was difficult, they said on social media. But they were noticeably absent from the streets.

Ayatollah Khamenei, who had the final say in all government decisions in Iran, personally ordered security forces to use lethal force against protesters in January, leading to a massacre that rights groups say killed at least 7,000 people, with numbers expected to rise.

“Khamenei went to hell,” one man shouted from his rooftop on Saturday, according to a video posted on BBC Persian.

For families whose loved ones were killed or jailed under Ayatollah Khamenei, the news felt cathartic, many said. Dr. Mohsen Assadi Lari, a former senior official in the Iranian Ministry of Health, lost his son and daughter, both in their early 20s, when Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps shot down a Ukrainian Airlines passenger plane in 2020. On Saturday, he posted photographs of his children on his social media page with a message about freedom: “We will endure the winter, spring is near.”

In Abdanan, a Kurdish city in western Iran where the crackdown on protests was intense, young men and women cruised the streets after the announcement of the supreme leader’s death. They hung out of their car windows, showing victory signs and cheering.

“Tonight, Feb. 28, congratulations for our freedom,” said a voice narrating a video of the celebrations, which was verified by The Times. Parts of the video were already blurred.

“Am I dreaming?” screamed a man in another video, also verified by The Times. “Ah! Hello to the new world. Ah!” The footage shows people tearing down a monument bearing a man’s silhouette, possibly Ayatollah Khamenei’s, at a roundabout in Galleh Dar, in Fars Province, as fires burned around them.

People in Shiraz, a major Iranian city, were abandoning their cars for an impromptu dance party, whistling, cheering, clapping and screaming with joy. In many videos, celebrants joined together in a cheer that is typically reserved for weddings, symbolizing pure joy.

video from Isfahan, another major city, in the south of Iran, shows at least a hundred people celebrating, many with their arms raised and waving white cloths. Cars can be heard honking their horns amid loud, jubilant cheering.

Iranians living abroad joined their families back home through video calls. Many sobbed from relief and happiness. Homayoun, an Iranian living in Paris, popped a bottle of champagne. Shadi, in Los Angeles, did shots with friends. Shirin, in Maryland, danced wildly at home to loud music.

“I am so happy,” Shirin said. “I don’t know what to do with myself. Is this real? Thank God I am alive to see this day.”

It remained unclear what would come next after Ayatollah Khamenei’s nearly four decades in power, whether a new system of government would take over or power would be transferred to successors as he had instructed before his death.

Timothy Snyder spoke briefly on Instagram. In sum, he said the war has no purpose.

It does distract attention from the Epstein Files.

Trump said on Twitter in 2012 that Obama would start a war to divert attention from his sagging poll numbers.

Will this war help Trump’s numbers?

I am a proud alumnae of Wellesley College, class of 1960. Wellesley literally changed my life. My best friends today are classmates; we meet monthly on Zoom to compare notes. We confess our deepest hopes and fears and stand by one another. I have returned for Reunion every five years since graduation. I love the campus and the memories.

I have supported an annual lecture series at Wellesley that has brought terrific thinkers to the campus.

Not long ago, my sons endowed a Professorship in my name, the first endowed chair in the education department. It is called The Diane Silvers Ravitch ’60 Chair in Public Education and the Common Good. The first person to hold the chair is a brilliant young scholar named Soo Hong.

Last night, after midnight, one of my dear classmates sent this review, just published. It made me very happy.

About-Face

Books and media by the Wellesley community

Image credit: Agata Nowicka

AUTHOR Catherine O’Neill Grace

PUBLISHED ON February 24, 2026

ISSUE WINTER 2026

“I was wrong” is one of the most difficult things for a human being to say. Imagine saying it when you have been a conservative public intellectual and expert on public education for decades. Yet that is exactly what Diane Silvers Ravitch ’60 does in her engaging new memoir, An Education: How I Changed My Mind About Schools and Almost Everything Else.

The author of numerous books about the history of American education and education policy, Ravitch turns to the personal in this volume, describing in depth her childhood in Houston, her experience at a segregated public high school, and her journey to Wellesley College in the fall of 1956.

At Wellesley, Ravitch learned not what to think, but how. She arrived on campus feeling, by her own account, like a “fish out of water.” But the College provided her with brilliant peers, gifted teachers, lively debate, and enriching friendships—including with “Maddy,” Madeleine Korbel Albright ’59. She recounts the hilarity of writing the junior show, Call It Red, and the excitement of seeing Fidel Castro speak at Harvard while she was working as a reporter for the Wellesley News.

A political science major at Wellesley, Ravitch went on to earn a Ph.D. in history from Columbia. As her memoir unfolds, she writes openly of loss—the anguish of the death of her 2-year-old son from leukemia, the painful dissolution of her first marriage. And she writes of love—at an education conference in 1984, she met teacher Mary Butz, who became her wife.

She also writes about intellectual transformation. As an education reformer, Ravitch believed deeply in standards, accountability, high-stakes testing, and school choice. Woven through the book is an account of her transition from outspoken supporter of conservative, market-driven policies in public education to one of their most forceful critics. Like many policymakers of the late 20th century, she saw competition, data, and pressure as levers that could fix public education. Serving in senior government roles, including assistant secretary of education during the George H. W. Bush administration, she helped advance reforms rooted in these assumptions, convinced they would raise achievement and close gaps.

But watching these policies unfold in real schools forced her to confront their consequences. High-stakes testing narrowed curricula and hamstrung teachers. Charter expansion and privatization failed to deliver promised gains while draining critical resources from public systems. Most troubling, education reformers increasingly blamed educators for failures that Ravitch now sees as driven by poverty and inequality. Children—especially poor children—were being left behind.

By the end of An Education, Ravitch emerges as a committed advocate for public schools, professional teachers, and democratic accountability. She followed the facts where they led and changed her mind. In this open-hearted, expansive memoir, she explains why.

A former classroom teacher, Grace is senior associate editor of this magazine

Diane Silvers Ravitch ’60
An Education: How I Changed My Mind About Schools and Almost Everything Else
Columbia University Press, 248 pages, $24.95


President Trump sends out statenff ed bts on Truth Social, his personal social media site, that are sometimes odd. Someone in the White House should fact-check them before he posts and embarrasses himself.

Over the weekend, he posted this:

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Working with the fantastic Governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, we are going to send a great hospital boat to Greenland to take care of the many people who are sick, and not being taken care of there. It’s on the way!!!

President DJT

Trump’s tweet (or whatever it’s called on Truth Social) led to head-scratching on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Washington Post reported the response from Greenland:

Officials on the island, a semiautonomous territory of Denmark, did not ask for such a ship, and Greenland’s prime minister said it will not be welcoming it, as its citizens are guaranteed free health care.

“It’s a no thank you from here,” Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said in a statement Sunday.

“President Trump’s idea of sending an American hospital ship here to Greenland has been noted. But we have a public healthcare system where treatment is free for citizens. That is a deliberate choice — and a fundamental part of our society. That is not how it works in the USA.”

Trump’s announcement came shortly after news that a member of the crew on an American submarine had a medical emergency and was airlifted by a Danish helicopter to Nuuk.

Trump’s promise to send a hospital ship to Greenland was equally bizarre because both of the Navy’s hospital ships are in dry dock undergoing repairs.

I first learned about this imaginary crisis this morning when I read Jeff Tiedrich’s hilarious post. I considered reposting it here because it was both newsworthy and hilarious, but decided against doing so because it is so scatological.

Consider the title:

batshit fuckwit vows to fix imaginary Greenland health crisis

perfectly normal stuff

JEFF TIEDRICH

folks, it is a bad thing when the president of the United States is so utterly detached from reality that when he announces a great humanitarian relief effort, no one has any fucking clue what he’s gibbering about?

And that’s just the beginning!

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today, by a vote of 6-3, to overturn Trump’s unilateral tariffs on other nations. Three Republican-appointed justices–Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett–voted with the Court’s three liberal justices.

Trump responded with fury. He believed that his appointees owed him their loyalty and their votes. He accused them of a lack of patriotism and even insinuated that they were advancing the interests of a foreign power.

He wrote on his social media site Truth Social that the decision was wrong, and he insulted those Republican justices who voted against his tariffs. He must have been especially angry at Justice Gorsuch and Justice Barret, whom he appointed.

Trump made clear that he intended to circumvent the Court’s decision by relying on other laws. As Trump often says, “Trump was right about everthing.”

He wrote:

The Supreme Court’s Ruling on TARIFFS is deeply disappointing! I am ashamed of certain Members of the Court for not having the Courage to do what is right for our Country. I would like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh for your Strength, Wisdom, and Love of our Country, which is right now very proud of you. When you read the dissenting opinions, there is no way that anyone can argue against them. Foreign Countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic, and dancing in the streets — But they won’t be dancing for long! The Democrats on the Court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote “NO” against ANYTHING that makes America Strong and Healthy Again. They, also, are a Disgrace to our Nation. Others think they’re being “politically correct,” which has happened before, far too often, with certain Members of this Court when, in fact, they’re just FOOLS and “LAPDOGS” for the RINOS and Radical Left Democrats and, not that this should have anything to do with it, very unpatriotic, and disloyal to the Constitution. It is my opinion that the Court has been swayed by Foreign Interests, and a Political Movement that is far smaller than people would think — But obnoxious, ignorant, and loud!

This was an important case to me, more as a symbol of Economic and National Security, than anything else. The Good News is that there are methods, practices, Statutes, and other Authorities, as recognized by the entire Court and Congress, that are even stronger than the IEEPA TARIFFS, available to me as President of the United States of America and, in actuality, I was very modest in my “ask” of other Countries and Businesses because I wanted to do nothing that could sway the decision that has been rendered by the Court.

I have very effectively utilized TARIFFS over the past year to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Our Stock Market has just recently broken the 50,000 mark on the DOW and, simultaneously, 7,000 on the S&P, two numbers that everybody thought, upon our Landslide Election Victory, could not be attained until the very end of my Administration — Four years! TARIFFS have, likewise, been used to end five of the eight Wars that I settled, have given us Great National Security and, together with our Strong Border, reduced Fentanyl coming into our Country by 30%, when I use them as a penalty against Countries illegally sending this poison to us. All of those TARIFFS remain, but other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the Court incorrectly rejected.

To show you how ridiculous the opinion is, the Court said that I’m not allowed to charge even $1 DOLLAR to any Country under IEEPA, I assume to protect other Countries, not the United States which they should be interested in protecting — But I am allowed to cut off any and all Trade or Business with that same Country, even imposing a Foreign Country destroying embargo, and do anything else I want to do to them — How nonsensical is that? They are saying that I have the absolute right to license, but not the right to charge a license fee. What license has ever been issued without the right to charge a fee? But now the Court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sorts of things from coming into our Country, a much more powerful Right than many people thought we had.

Our Country is the “HOTTEST” anywhere in the World, but now, I am going in a different direction, which is even stronger than our original choice. As Justice Kavanaugh wrote in his Dissent:

“Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs issued in this case…Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338).”

Thank you Justice Kavanaugh!

In actuality, while I am sure they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court’s decision today made a President’s ability to both regulate Trade, and impose TARIFFS, more powerful and crystal clear, rather than less. There will no longer be any doubt, and the Income coming in, and the protection of our Companies and Country, will actually increase because of this decision. Based on longstanding Law and Hundreds of Victories to the contrary, the Supreme Court did not overrule TARIFFS, they merely overruled a particular use of IEEPA TARIFFS. The ability to block, embargo, restrict, license, or impose any other condition on a Foreign Country’s ability to conduct Trade with the United States under IEEPA, has been fully confirmed by this decision. In order to protect our Country, a President can actually charge more TARIFFS than I was charging in the past under the various other TARIFF authorities, which have also been confirmed, and fully allowed.

Therefore, effective immediately, all National Security TARIFFS, Section 232 and existing Section 301 TARIFFS, remain in place, and in full force and effect. Today I will sign an Order to impose a 10% GLOBAL TARIFF, under Section 122, over and above our normal TARIFFS already being charged, and we are also initiating several Section 301 and other Investigations to protect our Country from unfair Trading practices. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP