Archives for the month of: June, 2025
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

The American Bar Association Sues Trump for Intimidating Law Firms

By dianeravitch
June 23, 2025 //
5

The American Bar Association has filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration’s policy of intimidating lawyers and law firms. The article was written by Mimi Rocah, former District Attorney, former prosecutor, and currently law professor. It was posted at Cafe, a blog for legal issues.

She wrote:

Last week, the American Bar Association (“ABA”) filed what can fairly be described as  a bombshell lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C. The suit asks the court to declare unconstitutional and stop the Trump administration’s “ongoing unlawful policy of intimidation against lawyers and law firms.” The ABA, a non-partisan non-profit organization founded in 1878, is the nation’s largest voluntary association of legal professionals. It is represented in this case by powerhouse law firm Sussman Godfrey (one of the firms targeted by an executive orderearlier this year). This isn’t just any lawsuit. The complaint names the Office of the President and—in light of the Trump administration’s proclivity to dodge the “who’s responsible” question—every high level government department, along with every cabinet official (the caption goes on for eight pages). The normally staid organization has found its voice on this issue over the past few months, issuing several statements and launching a rule of law initiative, and it does not mince words in this lawsuit, stating, “Today,…the American legal profession faces a challenge that is different from all that has come before. It is unprecedented and uniquely dangerous to the rule of law.”

The complaint explains the administration’s strategy to essentially weaken the legal profession that it sees as a threat to its agenda: “Since taking office earlier this year, President Trump has used the vast powers of the Executive Branch to coerce lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions the President does not like.” It has done so “through a series of materially identical executive orders designed to severely damage particular law firms and intimidate other firms and lawyers…; a series of similar ‘deals’ or ‘settlements’ between the Administration and certain law firms in order to avoid such Orders or have them rescinded; other related executive orders, letters, and memoranda. . . and public statements by the President and his Administration publicizing the objectives of the Law Firm Intimidation Policy.” The “attacks on law firms…are thus not isolated events, but one component of a broader, deliberate policy designed to intimidate and coerce law firms and lawyers to refrain from challenging the President or his Administration in court, or from even speaking publicly in support of policies or causes that the President does not like.” Finally, the ABA explains that despite four different district court judges finding the orders blatantly unconstitutional and illegal, the administration’s strategy is ongoing. It cites reporting as recent as June 1st indicating Trump and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller’s interest in keeping threats of more “executive orders on the table because they think it dissuades the best lawyers from representing critics of the administration.” 

Why is the “Law Firm Intimidation Policy” (as dubbed in the lawsuit) so insidious? In a nutshell, it “is uniquely destructive because of the critical role that its targets—lawyers—fulfill in our constitutional system. Without skilled lawyers to bring and argue cases—and to do so by advancing the interests of their clients without fear of reprisal from the government—the judiciary cannot function as a meaningful check on executive overreach.” Even worse, the ABA documents the administration’s strategy having the desired impact. “Even as federal judges have ruled over and over that the Law Firm Orders are plainly unconstitutional, law firms that once proudly contributed thousands of hours of pro bono work to a host of causes—including causes championed by the ABA—have withdrawn from such work because it is disfavored by the Administration, particularly work that would require law firms to litigate against the federal government.” Many law firms are laying low, and “organizations (including the ABA) that have historically relied heavily on top law firms to bring pro bono cases—particularly against the federal government to challenge unlawful executive action—face serious and sometimes existential crises, as those same law firms are declining to represent these organizations.” The complaint cites examples of such instances from particular law firms and, chillingly, does so anonymously in ways reminiscent of a prosecutor’s charging documents against mob families out of real fear of retaliation. As the complaint states, “This threat has a deliberately powerful chilling effect. Already, many firms are declining to take on cases that challenge the administration’s policies. That’s not a side effect of the crackdown. It was the purpose all along.”

The federal judiciary, especially at the district court level, has been the sand in the gears to this administration’s unlawful orders and unconstitutional agenda, which has cast aside due process and the First Amendment in ways never seen before. In May alone, the White House lost 96 percent of its cases before federal district courts, with appointees of both Democrat and Republican presidents curbing the excesses of the Trump regime. As one expert explained, that the “rulings are coming from a stunningly broad array of jurists and many aren’t even being challenged on appeal” is an indication of both the continued need for these legal challenges and also the flimsy legal ground on which the administration stands. But courts cannot adjudicate cases that aren’t brought—and that requires lawyers willing to challenge a retributive and vengeful administration. Our legal system, and the rights of so many individuals and perhaps even our democracy, depend on it. If lawyers are afraid of what will happen to them if they stand up and oppose the government, then the whole system collapses. As the ABA emphasizes in its lawsuit, the judiciary needs to be strong and independent referees, but it needs lawyers willing to play the field.

We will see how this important lawsuit plays out. The case is assigned to Judge Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali who has already drawn the ire of Trump loyalists for daring to rule against the executive order cutting funding for foreign assistance programs administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Inevitably, this will likely end up before the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts has talked a good game about judicial independence. Hopefully he and the other justices recognize that such an ideal cannot exist without lawyers able to act free from coercive intimidation by the full force of the presidency. 

Stay Informed, 

Mimi
 

CAFE Contributor Mimi Rocah is the former District Attorney for Westchester County, and previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and Division Chief for the Southern District of New York. She is currently an adjunct professor at Fordham School of Law.

Categories Accountability, Democracy, Ethics, Justice, Resistance, Trump

The Battle Over the Ten Commandments in the Classroom

By dianeravitch
June 23, 2025 //
24

On Friday June 20, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Louisiana’s law requiring that schools post the Ten Commandments in every classroom.

On Saturday June 21, Governor Greg Abbot of Texas announced that he had signed a law requiring that the Ten Commandments be posted in every classroom in the state.

The goal of plastering the Ten Commandments in every schoolroom is promoted by Christian nationalists who want to see an official declaration that the U.S. is a Christian nation.

The Founding Fathers would be stunned to hear the assertion that the Constitution they wrote was influenced by the Ten Commandments. The First Amendment very clearly states the importance of freedom of religion, meaning that anyone could practice any religion or none at all. It also declares that government should not “establish” any religion, meaning that government should not sponsor or endorse or favor any religion.

CNN reported:

Texas’ law requires public schools to post in classrooms a 16-by-20-inch (41-by-51-centimeter) poster or framed copy of a specific English version of the commandments, even though translations and interpretations vary across denominations, faiths and languages and may differ in homes and houses of worship.

Supporters say the Ten Commandments are part of the foundation of the United States’ judicial and educational systems and should be displayed.

NPR reported on the decision striking down the Louisiana law.

Its supporters said that the Ten Commandments were the foundation of the American legal system. The state of Louisiana intends to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court’s ruling stems from a lawsuit filed last year by parents of Louisiana school children from various religious backgrounds, who said the law violates First Amendment language guaranteeing religious liberty and forbidding government establishment of religion.

The ruling also backs an order issued last fall by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles, who declared the mandate unconstitutional and ordered state education officials not to enforce it and to notify all local school boards in the state of his decision.

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry signed the mandate into law last June.

Landry said in a statement Friday that he supports the attorney general’s plans to appeal.

“The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our laws — serving both an educational and historical purpose in our classrooms,” Landry said.

The Founding Fathers would laugh at Governor Abbot and Landry. And Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who shepherded a similar law in Arkansas. It’s especially funny that the leader of their party has broken almost every one of the Ten Commandments. Perhaps the place to start posting them is in the Oval Office.

Categories Education Reform, Extremism, Louisiana, Religion, Separation of church and state, Texas

Taxing the Endowments of Colleges and Universities Is Grossly Unfair!

By dianeravitch
June 23, 2025 //
9

In 2017, when Trump passed his first budget bill, his allies inserted into it an unprecedented tax on institutions of higher education that have large endowments. The tax was 1.4%. But that 1.4%, though it seemed small, was money that would not be available for low-income students at expensive colleges and universities. The next logical step–once the government starts taxing nonprofits– would have been to tax megachurches but that didn’t happen.

This year, the Trump administration has included in its “One Big Ugly Budget Bill” a dramatic increase in the tax on higher education endowments.

Instead of 1.4%, the highest rate would climb to 21%.

This onerous tax would limit colleges’ ability to cover the tuition of students who are fully qualified but lack the financial resources to pay. The inevitable result of this tax will be to restrict the number and size of scholarships.

I received this letter from President Paula A. Johnson of Wellesley College, my alma mater. Dr. Johnson grew up in Brooklyn, where she graduated from a large public high school (Samuel J. Tilden), then to Radcliffe and to Harvard Medical School. She was a cardiologist before she was chosen as Wellesley’s president almost a decade ago. She is dedicated to providing scholarships for students who need them.

She wrote to all alumnae:

It is hard to overstate the importance of this moment for higher education. We are being threatened in previously unimaginable ways that cut to the core of our values and endanger a large proportion of our students. At Wellesley, we are deeply concerned about changes that could affect academic freedom, our need-blind status, and our ability to build a diverse community, one made richer by our international students.  

One of the most significant threats comes from the likelihood of a major increase to the tax on college endowments. Last month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget bill that would raise the tax from 1.4% to as much as 21%. Under this proposal, Wellesley would be taxed at 14%, which means our liability under the tax would increase from $3 million, where it is currently, to $30 million per year—an amount equal to fully funding financial aid for 325 students. 

When you consider that more than two-thirds of the $82 million Wellesley spent last year to support financial aid came from our endowment, the disastrous impact of this tax becomes clear. This is a punitive tax on students and families who need financial aid.

The tax would also have a disproportionate impact on small colleges like Wellesley that, without other revenue streams such as graduate programs or large research budgets, rely on endowments to support their mission.

At Wellesley, 43% of our operating budget comes from the endowment, making it our largest source of revenue. A tax increase would have a severe impact on our academic program and our ability to meet students’ financial needs. In addition, the tax would override the intent of generations of alumnae who have given to the endowment to support financial aid and our academic mission. 

That is why Wellesley has joined a coalition of more than two dozen small colleges and universities from 17 states across the country that together serve more than 50,000 students. The coalition’s core argument, which we are sharing with members of Congress, is that endowments are not a luxury for small colleges; they are essential to continuing our commitments to access, opportunity, and educational excellence for students. 

If this totally unwarranted tax is passed, the number of meritorious students from low-income, even middle-income families would shrink dramatically.

This is wrong.

Raise taxes on corporations and billionaires.

Tax megachurches.

Raise the taxes and tariffs on super yachts.

Don’t tax the endowments of institutions of higher education.

Categories Academic Freedom, Cruelty, Disruption, Equity, Ethics, Extremism, Freedom to Learn, Freedom to Read, Higher Education, Trump

Trump Tax Bill Harms Public Schools by Funding Private Choices

By dianeravitch
June 23, 2025 //
9

Matt Barnum and Richard Rubin of The Wall Street Journal describe the harm that Trump’s One Big Ugly Budget Bill will do to public schools.

They wrote:

Republicans’ tax-and-spending megabill would give the school-choice movement a major, long-sought victory—and deliver an unusually generous tax break to wealthy taxpayers.

The bill includes a new way for taxpayers—whether they are parents or not—to direct tax dollars to private-school scholarships instead of the Treasury. There is an extra twist: It could deliver virtually risk-free profits to some savvy investors.

The proposal has excited school-choice advocates, infuriated public school leaders and stunned tax experts.

“Overnight, this would give millions of students access to the school of their choice,” said Tommy Schultz, CEO of the American Federation for Children, an advocacy group pushing the provision. “This is a revolution within the tax code.”

The American Federation for Children is the far-right wing group created by Betsy DeVos to promote charter schools and vouchers.

The incentive is structured as a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit. Give to a charity known as a scholarship-granting organization and you would get the same amount subtracted from your federal tax bill. 

It is equivalent to redirecting your taxes to a scholarship-granting organization (SGO), with the benefit capped at 10% of adjusted gross income or $5,000, whichever is greater. That is a far better deal than what is offered by normal charitable donations, which generally just reduce your taxable income and only if you itemize deductions….

For people with appreciated stock, the proposal could be even more attractive than a dollar-for-dollar credit, potentially creating net profits. 

Consider someone who bought a stock for $100 that is now worth $1,100. Selling that stock would trigger capital-gains taxes of up to $238. But under the bill, he could donate the $1,100 stock to an SGO. The government would give $1,100 back and he wouldn’t pay capital-gains taxes. 

He could then buy the same $1,100 stock on the open market. The result? He’s better off than when he started, spending nothing to erase a potential capital-gains tax liability. 

“In terms of something that is deeply offensive to basic tax logic, it’s hard to beat this,” said Lawrence Zelenak, a law professor at Duke University who expects donors to line up every Jan. 1 to take advantage. “Unless you actively hate the charity, you would want to do it…”

A federal program would expand private-school tuition subsidies into states such as New York and California that have resisted school choice programs….

The House bill caps credits at $5 billion annually, which would climb by 5% in subsequent years if the program is heavily used. That bill would run from 2026 through 2029. The Senate version released Monday includes $4 billion annually, starting in 2027 but without an expiration date. 

The credit would mark a significant injection of resources to private education as the Trump administration separately seeks to cut federal grants for public schools. Still, it would pale in comparison to funding for public schools, which receive several hundred billion dollars annually, mostly from state and local governments. 

Democrats hope the breadth of the policy changes will prompt the Senate parliamentarian to determine that it’s out of bounds for the budgetary fast-track process Republicans are using.

Public school advocates say the program would benefit better-off families at religious private schools. “The federal government needs to fund the neighborhood school that serves children from every walk of life,” said Sasha Pudelski, a lobbyist with the school superintendents’ association.

Opponents also say the idea has been rejected by voters. In November, three states voted down school-choice ballot measures.

Note: not only were vouchers defeated in three states last November, voters have rejected vouchers in every state referendum since 1967.

The new tax credit could become a model for Congress to direct money to other causes through the tax code, said Carl Davis, research director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a progressive group that criticizes the plan.

Civil rights laws prohibit certain forms of discrimination in schools that receive federal funding, but it isn’t likely this would apply to private schools that benefit from the proposed tax credit, said Kevin Welner, a research professor at the University of Colorado Boulder. The House bill includes a provision barring discrimination against students with disabilities in school admissions; the Senate version doesn’t. 

State voucher plans do not bar discrimination in voucher-receiving schools. They can and do discriminate at will. Some require that families are members of their faith. Some bar LGBT students and families. Some bar students with disabilities. Some bar students with low test scores.

Trump’s funding of school choice is the fever dream of Christian nationalists. With one blow, they eliminate the separation of church and state, they get funding for religious schools, and they gut civil rights laws that barred discrimination.

It also permits the revival of school segregation, under the once-discredited banner of school choice. White Southerners who don’t like “race mixing” have dreamed of this day since May 17, 1954.

Categories Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Disruption, Education Industry, Ethics, Extremism, Funding, Privatization, Trump, US Education, Vouchers

Donald Trump: “I Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize”

By dianeravitch
June 21, 2025 //
14

Political cartoonist Ann Telnaes recently won the Pulitzer Prize, specifically for a cartoon that depicted plutocrats prostrating themselves at the feet of Trump. One of them was Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, who was her boss. Her editor refused to post her cartoon, and she resigned.

open.substack.com/pub/anntelnaes/p/most-deserving

This is her latest.

Categories Humor, Trump

Trump Slashes Staff at Voice of America

By dianeravitch
June 20, 2025 //
28

Voice of America is known worldwide for its straightforward, unbiased presentation of world news. Trump placed MAGA enthusiast Keri Lake in charge. At his behest, she just laid off most of the VOA staff. Remember when America was great? We thought we had a message for the world and that the truth would set us free.

But Trump doesn’t want to “Make America great Again.” He wants to make America a land of bitter divisions, where the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer and sicker, unable to get health insurance, medical care, good schools, or any opportunity to rise into the middle class. For that, you need unions and good jobs.

The New York Times just reported:

The Trump administration sent layoff notices on Friday to more than 600 employees at Voice of America, a federally funded news organization that provides independent reporting to countries with limited press freedom.

The layoffs, known as reductions in force, will shrink the staff count at the news organization to less than 200, around one-seventh of its head count at the beginning of 2025. They put Voice of America journalists and support staff on paid leave until they are let go on Sept. 1.

The termination notices are the latest round of the Trump administration’s attack on federally funded news networks, including Voice of America.

In March, President Trump accused the news group of spreading “anti-American” and partisan “propaganda,” calling it “the voice of radical America.” He then signed an executive order that effectively called for dismantling of the news agency and put nearly all Voice of America reporters on paid leave, ceasing its news operations for the first time since its founding in 1942.

Kari Lake, a fierce Trump ally and a senior adviser at the news organization’s oversight agency, U.S. Agency for Global Media, notified Congress earlier this month that her agency intended to eliminate most positions at Voice of America. Her letter identified fewer than 20 employees who must remain at the media organization, according to laws passed by Congress to establish and fund it. Friday’s termination notices leave around 200 employees.

Ms. Lake’s decision “spells the death of 83 years of independent journalism that upholds U.S. ideals of democracy and freedom around the world,” Patsy Widakuswara, a former Voice of America White House bureau chief who was placed on leave and is leading a lawsuit against Ms. Lake and the U.S. Agency for Global Media, said in a statement.

She encouraged Congress to intervene and to signal support for Voice of America, which was founded to combat Nazi propaganda and reported in countries that suppress independent reporting and free speech.

“Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and extremist groups are flooding the global information space with anti-America propaganda,” Ms. Widakuswara said. “Do not cede this ground by silencing America’s voice.”

Categories Cruelty, Democracy, Disruption, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Learn, Freedom to Read, Funding, Media, Trump

A New Statue On the DC Mall Mocks Dictators, One in Particular

By dianeravitch
June 20, 2025 //
5

Joe Heim of The Washington Post wrote this story about the arrival of a new and temporary sculpture on the National Mall. It has approval to remain until June 22.

An anti-Trump statue has popped up on the National Mall in Washington. (Maxine Wallace/The Washington Post)


Remember the poop statue? The curly-swirly pile of doo that sat atop a replica of former House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-California) desk? The work of protest art placed on the National Mall last October in mock tribute to the Jan. 6 rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn the 2020 election?

Well, the artists responsible for the political poo plop appear to have struck again. This time with a work called “Dictator Approved,” an 8-foot-tall sculpture showing a gold-painted hand with a distinctive thumbs-up quashing the sea foam green crown of the Statue of Liberty. It sits at the same location on the Mall near Third Street NW as the poop statue did last fall.

The artwork’s creators intended “Dictator Approved” as a rejoinder to the June 14 military parade and authoritarianism, according to a permit issued by the National Park Service. The parade, the creators wrote in the application, “Will feature imagery similar to autocratic, oppressive regime, i.e. N. Korea, Russia, and China, marching through DC.” The purpose of the statue, they continued, is to call attention to “the praising these types of oppressive leaders have given Donald Trump.”

Plaques on the four sides of the artwork’s base include quotes from world leaders including Russian President Vladimir Putin (“President Trump is a very bright and talented man.”), Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (“The most respected, the most feared person is Donald Trump.”), former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro (“We do have a great deal of shared values. I admire President Trump.”) and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un (“Your Excellency.” A “special” relationship. “The extraordinary courage of President Trump.”).

“If these Democrat activists were living in a dictatorship, their eye-sore of a sculpture wouldn’t be sitting on the National Mall right now,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, wrote in an emailed statement. “In the United States of America you have the freedom to display your so-called ‘art,’ no matter how ugly it is.”

Mary Harris is listed as the applicant for the permit but no contact information for her was provided. The permit allows the statue to be in place from 7 a.m. June 16 until 5 p.m. June 22.
The “Dictator Approved” statue is very similar in style and materials to the poop statue and several protest artworks placed in the District, Philadelphia and Portland, Oregon, last fall.

However, no individual or group has publicly claimed responsibility for those pieces. An unidentified caller and emailer told a Washington Post reporter last year that he was part of the group that worked on the sculptures and provided information about them that only someone who had installed the projects would know, such as when the statues would appear.

His identity remains a mystery. On Wednesday he replied to a Washington Post email asking if he was involved with the new statue. “I have heard about it but not me,” he wrote. He did not respond to additional questions or a request to meet in an Arlington parking garage.

Some of the tourists and locals who stopped by the statue between downpours Wednesday afternoon expressed surprise that it was allowed to be placed where it was. And they expressed reservations about weighing in on it publicly.

“I’m amazed that whoever dreamed this up could put this here,” said Kuresa, an 80-year-old from Australia who declined to give his last name because he said as an international visitor he didn’t feel comfortable expressing his views. “It reminds me of ‘Animal Farm.’”

Plaques on the sculpture’s base include quotes from Russian President Vladimir Putin, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. (Maxine Wallace/The Washington Post)


District resident and retired federal employee Yvette Hatfield stopped by with her dog Max, wearing an adorable raincoat and rain hat, to get a selfie of both of them in front of the statue. Asked why she wanted a photo, Hatfield laughed. “Because of my political views and that’s all I’m going to say.”


“I actually love it,” said another District resident. He declined to give his name because he said his parents and grandparents often told him “Fools’ names, like their faces, are always seen in public places.” He wished the reporter good luck with the story.


Francesca Carlo, 20, and Abigail Martin, 21, visiting from Cleveland, happened on the statue just before it started to pour.


“At first I was confused,” Martin said, “but then I figured it out. I think it’s beautiful.”


Carlo agreed. She thought the quotes on the plaques could send a message.


“If all these authoritarian politicians approve of our president then maybe people will see a pattern recognition and see where democracy is headed,” she said.

Categories Art, Humor, Resistance, Trump

DANGER! Trump’s “One Big Ugly Bill” Protects AI for a Decade

By dianeravitch
June 20, 2025 //
1

We don’t yet know the rewards and risks of artificial intelligence or its uses in the schools. Yet Trump’s “Big Ugly Budget Bill” creates a special status for AI in the schools and beyond, fending off regulation by states. Lobbyists at work.

There are many damaging aspects of the U.S. House budget bill just passed, but one that has received inadequate attention is a provision imposing a 10-year ban on states or localities from limiting or regulating the use of the artificial intelligence in the classroom and beyond. 

This provision is a naked giveaway to the tech billionaires who want unfettered control and even higher profits for their products. According to some reports, the Senate has now tweaked the language of the House bill, but still proposes punishing any state that attempts to control the use of AI by cutting its funding. 

The unregulated use of AI in the classroom is a profound threat to student privacy, as these programs collect and commercialize students’ personal data. It is also a threat to the personal connection, feedback and engagement central to a quality education. AI is one of the few technologies whose inventors have warned that it poses a serious risk to humanity itself, including Nobel Prize winner Geoffrey Hinton, often called the godfather of AI.

In a joint letter, more than 200 state legislators expressed their “strong opposition” to any ban on regulating AI, joining a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general who expressed similar concerns. 

Please write to your U.S. Senators today, to demand that they eliminate any language from the budget bill that would prevent or dissuade states and localities from passing laws on AI to protect the safety, education and the well-being of our children.  And please share this email with others who care.  Thank you!

Leonie Haimson & Cassie Creswell, co-chairs
Parent Coalition for Student Privacy
124 Waverly Pl.
New York, NY 10011
info@studentprivacymatters.org
www.studentprivacymatters.org
Follow @parents4privacy
Subscribe to Parent Coalition for Student Privacy newsletter at https://www.studentprivacymatters.org/join-us

Categories Disruption, Technology, Trump

Tom Ultican: Don’t Revive Failed Policies

By dianeravitch
June 20, 2025 //
2

Tom Ultican, retired teacher of high school physics and advanced mathematics in California, has been keeping close watch on the billionaire-funded efforts to promote privatization and demean teachers. In this post, he reviews an opinion piece that advocates the resuscitation of failed policies of the past.

As I wrote in my 2013 book Reign of Error, merit pay has been tried again and again, and it has never worked. There and in my last book, Slaying Goliath (pp. 244-245), I cited powerful evidence that paying teachers based on the rise or fall of their students’ test scores was a disaster: The Gates Foundation awarded $575 million to three school districts and four charter chains to evaluate teachers by test scores and peer evaluators, in hopes of getting the best teachers to transfer into the neediest schools. Gates hired top firms Rand and AIR to evaluate the program over six years. They concluded that it wasted resources that might have been better spent on reducing class sizes or raising teachers’ salaries. The program did not raise test scores, did not affect graduation rates or dropout rates, andddid not change the quality of teachers. Yet Hanushek and Macke advocate for the revival of this failed practice.

Ultican writes

It was “déjà vu all over again” when Eric Hanushek and his wife Macke Raymond shared their views in the Washington Post. They cited Michelle Rhee and Mike Miles as exemplary education leaders, merit pay as good education policy and turned to A Nation at Risk for support. Governor Abbott took over Houston’s schools and installed Miles as superintendent but here Hanushek and Raymond were referencing his long ago stint in Dallas.

I am no longer a reader of the Washington Post. When Bezos decided his newspaper would not endorse a candidate for president, I cancelled my subscription. However, a friend felt I needed to see this article and sent me a copy.

Billionaires like Bezos are destroying America and all of its venerable institutions. Hanushek and Raymond are Stanford based billionaire tools.

While working on her PhD in Political Science at the University of Rochester, Macky fell in love with her much older professor, Eric Hanushek, and eventually married him.

Today, Raymond is the director of CREEDO. Her 2015 Hoover Institute Fellow’s profile says in part, “In partnership with the Walton Family Foundation and Pearson Learning Systems, Raymond is leading a national study of the effectiveness of public charter schools.” Are the billionaires guarding the hen house?

Rhee and Miles

The Hanushek and Raymond opinion piece states:

“In 2009, under the leadership of then-Chancellor Michelle Rhee, Washington implemented the IMPACT program — a revamped teacher evaluation system that is linked directly to classroom effectiveness and that provides large increases in base salaries for the most effective teachers and dismissal for the least effective. This program has shown that focusing on student learning is rewarded with improved student performance, and that student-focused incentives work.”

This is a totally bunkum statement and is followed by another world of bunkum claim:

“Under the leadership of then-Superintendent Mike Miles, Dallas in 2015 switched to a salary system based on a sophisticated evaluation of teacher effectiveness. It then used this system to provide performance-based bonuses to teachers who would agree to go to the lowest-performing schools in the district. Two things happened: First, the best teachers responded to the incentives and were willing to move to the poorest-performing schools. Second, within two years, these schools jumped up to the district average.”

The linked evidence in the Dallas claim is to an Education Next article written by Hanushek and friends. In it, he claimed, “In the four years after Dallas adopted new performance-based teacher evaluation and compensation systems, student performance on standardized tests improved by 16 percent of a standard deviation in math and 6 percent in reading, while scores for a comparison group of similar Texas schools remained flat.”

Sixteen percent of a standard deviation of growth in math after 4 years sounds weak and 6% of a standard deviation growth in reading does not seem much more than noise in the data.

Hanushek gained notoriety with his 1981 paper, claiming “there is no relationship between expenditures and the achievement of students and that such traditional remedies as reducing class sizes or hiring better trained teachers are unlikely to improve matters.” This played well with billionaires from the Walton family but had no relationship with reality. The history of crazy pants unsupported statements like this have long caused me to seek verification for whatever he says.

Hanushek and Raymond claim that both Dallas and Washington DC saw comparatively superior testing outcomes than other urban areas in the US. The evidence they provide is a link to the NAEP Trial Urban District Assessment (tuda). I graphed 4th and 8th grade math tuda data between 2009 and 2024 for the Large City composite, Dallas, DC, Baltimore and San Diego. Nothing substantive popped out in my graphs.

I decided to subtract the 4th grade scores from the 8th grade scores to get a sense of how the students were progressing. The results graphed below stunned me with their clarity. Baltimore, which traditionally has low scores, San Diego, which traditionally scores well and the Large City composite had fairly consistent increases of about 40 points. Dallas and DC both fell below a 30 points increase.

Billionaires Take Over

Michelle Rhee came out of Teach for America (TFA) where she taught for three years in a Baltimore elementary school. She returned to New York, TFA and Wendy Kopp to help found the New Teachers Project which is now known as TNTP. New York Chancellor of Public Schools, Joel Klein, who worked for multi-billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg, recommended the 37-year-old Rhee to be Washington DC’s new superintendent.

During Rhee’s three year reign of terror, she replaced half of DC’s teachers and a third of its principals. She was consumed with raising test scores and scorned those who did not share her devotion to standardized testing. Her relentless pressure to raise test scores brought some early gains and produced a major cheating scandal.

DC principal, Adell Cothorne, lost her job for insisting upon increased test security when she learned that teachers were violating testing protocols. I had lunch with Adell at the 2015 NPE conference in Chicago. She struck me as a proud Black woman with poise, immense courage and profound character.

After Rhee left DC schools, she started StudentsFirst and led a national crusade to abolish teacher tenure and promote school choice. Billionaires and their friends provided her organization with millions of dollars. (Reign of Error, Pages 145-155)

Before 2012, Dallas school board elections were very low key affairs. Two of the three incumbent school board trustees up for reelection ran unopposed in 2011.

Writing for In These Times, George Joseph explained the political change, “But since the beginning of 2012, hundreds of thousands of Super PAC dollars from Dallas’ richest neighborhoods began flowing into nearly all of the district’s school board elections.” 

The billionaires contributing included Ross Perot, Ray Hunt and Justice Thomas’s buddy Harlan Crow.

Once the new 2012 board was seated, it fired Superintendent Michael Hinojosa and replaced him with Mike Miles, a graduate of billionaire Eli Broad’s Superintendents Academy. 

The article “Dallas Chamber of Commerce Disrupts Dallas Schools” summarized Miles three year tenure:

“Miles’s reforms included a new principal evaluation process which led to large turnover. He also instituted a merit pay system for teachers and hired Charles Glover a 29-year-old administrator of the Dallas TFA branch to be Chief Talent Officer in DISD. After just under three years, he had managed to alienate the black and Hispanic communities as well as many experienced teachers and principals.”

Like Michelle Rhee, he also believed in standardized test based accountability and merit pay.

Concluding Information

Reporting for NPR’s 35 anniversary of A Nation at Risk, Ana Kamenetz discovered, “They started out already alarmed by what they believed was a decline in education, and looked for facts to fit that narrative.”

A decade before Ana’s report, Florida education professor, James Guthrie, noted, “They cooked the books to get what they wanted.”

In 1990, Sandia engineers set out to add weight to A Nation at Risk. They disaggregated the data by race and sex and were surprise to find that every group advanced during the 1963 to 1980 period. The growing numbers of SAT test takers was driven by poor, minority and female students, causing the test averages to drop.

A Nation at Risk was a fraudulent paper and America’s students were actually healthy and doing well, which means public schools were healthy and doing well.

Merit pay is a Taylorist scheme that appeals to many American business leaders, but has a long history of employee dissatisfaction and output quality issues. Researchers at Vanderbilt University studied merit pay for teachers and found no significant gains in testing data and in New York researchers documented negative results.

Unfortunately, billionaires own the media and publish opinion pieces by hired frauds like Hanushek and Raymond.

Categories Billionaires, Charter Schools, Disruption, Education Reform

Trump’s “One Big Ugly Bill” Will Devastate Rural Hospitals

By dianeravitch
June 20, 2025 //
7

Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthiest will be funded in large part by draconian cuts to Medicare, which provides insurance to poor people. The massive cuts to Medicaid will lead to closure of many rural hospitals, which rely on Medicaid payments. The Senate knows this, and so-called “moderates” are working on adding a fund for rural hospitals. The bill, which Trump insists must pass by July 4, will add trillions to the nation’s debt.

So for all the cuts and firings imposed by Elon Musk and his DOGS, the federal deficit will grow under Trump.

David Dayen of The American Prospect reports:

As we at the Prospect have reported, while the Senate’s version of the Republican budget reconciliation bill was widely expected to be more moderate than the House one, when it comes to health care it is more extreme. This came as a surprise to many Republicans, some of whom now want changes. And they all are highlighting the same area of concern. It would be “potentially really bad for rural hospitals,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told The Wall Street Journal. It’s “going to hurt our rural hospitals and hurt them in a big way,” said Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV). Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) expressed “concerns about the effect on rural hospitals in her state.”

This is all certainly true. Senate cuts to the provider tax, a way for states to get more federal funding for their Medicaid programs, along with the House cuts that have been analyzed as leading to at least 11 million fewer people on the Medicaid rolls, will deeply harm the 700-plus rural hospitals already at risk of closure.

But that’s too narrow a frame. The entire health care provider network would come under heavy strain, and possibly collapse.

That’s because each node of the system is interdependent. If the 190 rural hospitals estimated in a recent Center for American Progress report as collateral damage of the Republican cuts close, all of their patients must find treatment at the remaining health care providers. Many of these new-arrival patients are likely to be uninsured (many thrown off Medicaid or Obamacare by Republicans), crushing hospital finances and potentially adding more closures on top.

This means overcrowded hospitals and overburdened staff, in addition to the serious hardships for patients traveling long distances for care. “The Republican Senate budget accelerates the rural hospital collapse that is under way, like jet fuel on a fire,” said Alex Lawson of Social Security Works, who works directly on health care issues in Washington. “Hospitals that don’t close will be the ones people drive four hours to access. The quality of everybody’s health care in this country will plummet.”

HOSPITALS HAVE LURCHED FROM ONE CRISIS to the next for years. Between the 2020 COVID pandemic and 2024, 36 rural hospitals closed, on the heels of 136 closures in the previous decade. Another 16 have closed this year, suggesting an acceleration of the trend, and hundreds more are at risk.

If the entire hospital doesn’t close, unprofitable business lines are often shuttered first. “I’ve talked to a lot of hospitals worried about having to close maternity wards,” said Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, who ran the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in the Biden administration. In California alone, 56 hospitals have ended maternity care since 2012, and the crisis of maternity deserts is acute.

The situation is worse, Brooks-LaSure said, in states that haven’t expanded Medicaid, suggesting that the program is a lifeline for hospitals, supplying a steady stream of paid claims for insured patients. Indeed, Medicaid is often the biggest line item in the accounts receivable budgets for nursing homes, rural hospitals, and maternity wards, as Families USA’s Anthony Wright pointed out to The Bulwark. A letter to the Republican leadership citing data from the Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina notes that 213 rural hospitals serve a disproportionately high share of Medicaid patients.

While hospitals sometimes complain about low Medicaid reimbursement rates, the government has in the past compensated for that with “state-directed payment” arrangements that boost levels to what commercial insurance pays. That is being attacked in the Senate Finance Committee version of the bill, cutting those reimbursement top-ups to Medicare levels.

Hospitals are legally required to take care of patients in an emergency, regardless of their ability to pay. And more emergencies occur when more people are uninsured and put off care until they absolutely need it, which are made worse still if patients have to travel for hours to get care. Uncompensated care builds up in states with larger proportions of their populations who are uninsured, severely damaging hospital budgets.

Taking nearly $1 trillion out of the health system will magnify that problem across the country. And Medicaid cuts that create more uninsured patients, along with the creation of potentially millions of uninsured through Affordable Care Act changes, are terrible for hospitals. According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, uncompensated care would increase by $204 billion over the next decade if the House version of the bill passed; remember, the Senate bill is even worse. Much of that burden would be thrown onto already shaky hospitals.

To those who argue that the cuts are really to state Medicaid programs and not hospitals, the ways states will deal with those cuts is not likely to be through simply providing more money that they don’t have. They will either change enrollment rules, so fewer people stay on the program, or cut reimbursement payments to hospitals and other providers. Both of these options would directly harm hospital finances.

“These cuts will strain emergency departments as they become the family doctor to millions of newly uninsured people,” said Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association, in a statement, adding that “the proposal will force hospitals to reconsider services or potentially close, particularly in rural areas.”

Please open the link to see the full scope of the threat this Big Ugly Bill poses to rural Americans, most of whom voted for Trump.

Categories Budget Cuts, Cruelty, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Funding, Health, Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »