Archives for category: Censorship
« Older Entries

Nick Covington: The Battle for Public Schools and the Freedom to Learn and Teach in Iowa

By dianeravitch
September 16, 2026 //
1

Nick Covington writes: “The War on WOKE was always a war on American values.”

Nick taught social studies in Iowa. He interviewed me on his podcast about my memoir, An Education.

Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C (Wikimedia Commons)
Books on brown wooden shelf. (Photo by Susan Q Yin on Unsplash)


Nick Covington is an Iowa parent who taught high school social studies for ten years.

The culture war battles we fight over our public schools are fundamentally disagreements about American values: what does it mean to be an American, and in whose image do we build our public schools?

“When Americans start fighting over their schools, you can be fairly sure of one thing: it probably isn’t really about school.”

— Jennifer Berkshire & Jack Schneider,

The Education Wars: A Citizen’s Guide and Defense Manual

From working as Assistant Secretary of Education in the George H.W. Bush administration to laying the foundation of the modern conservative education reform movement, Diane Ravitch—a one-time champion of No Child Left Behind—spent most of her life as a Republican with conservative values. The story of her life, as told in her 2025 memoir, is the story of the American Century. As today’s culture war on “wokeness” and “leftist indoctrination” targets diversity, equity, and inclusion in schools, Ravitch’s memoir makes a powerful case study for teaching these core American values.

Born in Houston in 1938, Diane recounts celebrating VJ Day with her family as a young child, surrounded by returning sailors and the pop of firecrackers. She learned to write with a quill pen and attended a segregated high school when the Supreme Court declared that unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education. The descendant of Polish Jews who came to America in the 1850s, Diane experienced a level of antisemitism and misogyny in her personal and professional life that by today’s standards would be galling (and illegal). She learned as an adult that the entire Jewish community where her grandfather was born was murdered in the Holocaust.

Ravitch’s interest in education didn’t begin until she began attending community meetings as the only white person in the room with parents in Harlem, New York who had felt shut out of the school district’s planning process. As a member of the Silent Generation, she made explicit demands of American wealth and greatness:

“Why shouldn’t all people in our rich society—regardless of their wealth or class or race or personal attributes—have a decent life, meaning health care, decent housing, good schools, food security, and physical safety?…I think these are preconditions for a good society.”

If Diane’s values were informed by a life lived in the greatness of the American Century, what made America great was the steady—and always imperfect—realization of those values in action. The New Deal aligned our immense national resources toward popular economic recovery from the depths of the Great Depression, even as jobs and housing programs discriminated against Black Americans. The GI Bill helped create a thriving post-war middle class by providing housing to millions of veterans and their families and sending millions more to college, even as Black veterans were segregated out of the nation’s suburbs and universities. 

As we underwent a decades-long civil rights revolution at home, the postwar world we rebuilt in our image was of an idealized United States that overcame a violent and prejudicial past to renew itself as a more diverse, pluralistic, multicultural, democratic, and egalitarian nation. 

E Pluribus Unum. Out of Many, One.

Uneven and flawed as it was, American prosperity did grow in proportion to our inclusivity: by expanding citizenship and voting rights, integrating and publicly supporting schools and universities, asserting our obligations to the elderly and those in poverty, and protecting the rights of marginalized groups. The American Dream became a shorthand for people who came here to start their lives over, even from countries victimized by U.S. foreign policy, knowing their best days were ahead of them. And as Americans watched the Times Square ball drop on the eve of Y2K, they were standing in the most powerful, prosperous, innovative, and culturally dominant nation in the history of the world.

Now, at age 87, Ravitch reflects on how conservative politics abandoned these core values and caused her to leave the Republican Party in the early 2000s, as they became increasingly dominated by self-serving corporations, wealthy donors, and religious interests. “To use current parlance, I went from being a staunch conservative to being ‘woke,’” she writes, adding, “I wear the label with pride. To me, it means that I awakened to the inequity and injustice that deprives millions of people of a good life, the life that everyone wants and deserves.”

In other words, by taking seriously the charge of our founding documents to become “a more perfect union”, taking up “the unfinished work” of the American experiment, and bending the moral arc of the universe toward justice over the course of the 20th century, Diane Ravitch—like America itself—became woke.

Our fights about schools are really battles over American values and what it means to be an American, and the War on Woke has always been a war on American values.

At the start of this midterm election year, Moms For Liberty hosted Iowa Republican gubernatorial candidates in a debate that focused largely on education. Candidates spent their time hammering“leftist indoctrination” in teacher education and classroom teaching, with one complaining about “downright evil” ideology pushed on students in reference to a book about a boy wearing a dress to school. Another called for the installation of the Ten Commandments as a way to put the “concept of God” back in schools. Zach Lahn, founder of the unaccredited private Wonder School and current Republican nominee for governor, offered the closest thing to a positive vision with a partisan twist arguing, “Public school is to promote civic virtue, to understand the principles of faith in our country and our culture.”

The trouble comes in whose answer we enshrine in law, turn into policy, and live in the public sphere through our public education system:

  • What kind of nation are we?
  • What is the role of public education—that is, the system of tuition-free common schools mandated in our state constitution, accessible to all students, and maintained by taxpayer dollars—in a nation like ours?
  • What subjects and practices will inform such a system?
  • Whose values will we train in the adults who teach our children?

Today’s Republican Party demands that we forget the hard-fought lessons of history and remove challenging perspectives, making easier for children to believe in nationalist mythology than the imperfect lived reality of people like Diane Ravitch. A closer look at their changing values and legislative agenda tells us exactly what today’s Republican Party means when they appeal to “civic virtue” and “principles of faith in our country and our culture” in education: in the guise of a war on “woke” diversity, equity, and inclusion, Republican policies are at war with the very materials that made America great.

In Iowa, this has manifested as de-facto book bans and banning so-called “specific defined concepts” from public school curriculum. In response to Iowa’s vague and punitive “age appropriate” school materials law in 2023, schools immediately removed more than 3,000 books. The most removed literary classics included Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award winners written by Nobel Prize laureates: The Handmaid’s Tale, The Bluest Eye, Beloved, I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings, Brave New World, and Slaughterhouse-Five among them.

These are perspectives that speak honestly about racial, sexual, and gendered abuse and violence, sometimes all at once, and inform a shared past that tolerated and protected it. They’re also some of the most acclaimed and influential works in American and English literature. It’s no accident that most of them are either written by Black authors, by women, or center the experiences of Black people in America.

Iowa Republicans have also banned so-called “specific defined concepts” from mandatory staff or student training. House File 802, in effect since July 2021, makes it a violation to conduct training that the United States and Iowa “are fundamentally or systemically racist or sexist,” that anyone “bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex,” or that “meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist.” One banned concept forbids including in mandatory training that any student “should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of that individual’s race or sex.”

Although the law states that it does not “Prohibit the use of curriculum that teaches the topics of sexism, slavery, racial oppression, racial segregation, or racial discrimination,” and does not “Prohibit discussing specific defined concepts as part of a larger course of academic instruction,” it was widely misunderstood to prohibit classroom teaching about those topics.

The impact of House File 802 has been a documented chilling effect and over-compliance owing to the vagueness of the law as written and interpreted. In one interview-based study, Iowa educators described themselves as surveilled, isolated, and self-censoring. The researchers reported that “the perceived lack of clarity and guidance on this law fueled concerns about their ability to be effective justice-oriented administrators and classroom teachers,” and that teacher candidates are afraid of unintentional violations of the law. 

These explicit bans on books and the implicit self-censoring of difficult curriculum leave our kids less prepared for the world outside of school, and outside of Iowa, and create a gap in our children’s public education that is ready to be filled by social media influencers, misinformation, and propaganda.

Public schools are the institution where American values are practiced and lived, not just taught, and where we build shared American identity. All of our fights about books, curriculum, and school choice programs are really arguments over whose answers to these questions we write into law and into the lives of children where the stakes become very real. Through intention or its absence, built by us or built for us, the very real and shared world we inhabit is built bit by bit each day.

The question isn’t whether we teach values in public schools—we always have and we always will. The question is whether we teach the values that actually made this country great: pluralism, inclusion, democratic participation, honest history, and the belief that every child deserves a free and appropriate public education.

“I was a patriot who never questioned my country and its leaders. My complacency was a reflection of my comfort and affluence; radicalism had no appeal to me. If I were to meet that version of myself today, we would have a vigorous argument over everything related to education, race, and politics, although I still abhor violence. Today I want change, demonstrable change that narrows the gap between rich and poor; that provides equal opportunity to all; and that ensures health care and good education as a matter of right, not income. I am still not a radical. I don’t want to overthrow the government. I want it to work on behalf of its ideals to benefit everyone.”

— Diane Ravitch,

An Education: How I Changed My Mind About Schools and Almost Everything Else

Tags: 2026 elections, Commentary, diversity, Education, IA-Gov, IA-Gov 2026, Iowa GOP, Iowa Politics, Zach Lahn

About the Author(s)

Nick Covington

Categories Academic Freedom, Censorship, Civil Rights, Democracy, Education Industry, Ethics, Extremism, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Learn, Freedom to Read, Iowa

Scott Dworkin: Drag Queen Beats Texas and Gov. Abbott

By dianeravitch
September 1, 2026 //
2

Scott Dworkin has a terrific blog on Substack, where he often has news that you can’t find anywhere else. The following is one of those wonderful stories:

The Drag Queen Who Beat the Texas Government

The state of Texas spent three years trying to turn drag performer Brigitte Bandit into a criminal. Senate Bill 12 threatened any bar that booked performers like Bandit with a $10,000 fine, with performers possibly facing a year in jail.

In March of 2023 Bandit testified against that bill inside the state’s Capitol, wearing a dress that listed names of children killed in the Uvalde mass shooting. Lawmakers were arguing about drag queens, she said later, while kids were being killed in Texas schools.

After her testimony, Bandit sued—along with other Pride groups and businesses—Ken Paxton, three cities, and three district attorneys. A few months later, the whole thing went to trial in a Houston federal courtroom. For three years, Texas had said this law was about protecting children. Now it had to prove a child had been harmed.

It couldn’t. Attorney General Ken Paxton called an expert witness, a doctor brought in to talk about what explicit material does to kids. Under oath, that doctor said he had never seen anyone seriously hurt by a drag show. Not one of the seven government offices that were sued over this law offered any other evidence.

That December, Bandit was sent a package from Nashville, Tennessee—a gift from the one and only Dolly Parton. It was a custom guitar covered in rhinestones, signed by Dolly to Brigitte.

Texas appealed and won, and this spring the ban came back to life. Bandit was right back where she started.

But on Tuesday, Judge David Hittner struck the law down again and barred Paxton from enforcing it. A judge put on the bench by Ronald Reagan.

This Saturday night in Austin, Bandit brings out the guitar.

This story appeared last week, so Brigitte Bandit has already performed.

A few words about Reagan-appointed Judge David Hittner, as reported by The Texas Tribune.

In his ruling striking down the 2023 law for the second time, Judge Hittner said that the ban was overly broad and clearly unconstitutional:

The ruling described SB 12 as overly broad in its definitions of performance and nudity, stating that provocative cosplay at conventions, swimming athletes or Dolly Parton and Elvis impersonators could potentially be penalized under the law.

“The vast majority of the law’s numerous applications violate the First Amendment because all the performances that it has an actual impact on are constitutionally protected and are targeted for prohibition based on content and viewpoint,” Hittner wrote…

“Finally, for those who find such activities as described in this case offensive, the solution is relatively simple … just don’t go,” he wrote.

It’s reassuring to know that Texas has some rational Republican justices. Hurrah for Judge David Hittner!

SB 12 as adopted in law contains no language explicitly referencing drag performances, however a previous version while in the Legislature specifically included references to drag. Hittner noted in today’s ruling that opponents of drag performances are not obligated to attend them.

If you don’t like drag shows, just don’t go.

If you don’t like certain books, don’t read them.

If you object to abortions, don’t have one.

Categories Texas, Accountability, Evil, Censorship, Extremism

Pentagon Fires Leadership of “Stars and Stripes” for Exercising Freedom of the Press

By dianeravitch
August 24, 2026 //
3

Pete Hegseth has made clear his determination to control press coverage of his actions. He decided which media would get space in the press rooms of the Pentagon, kicking out some established journalists to make room for right-wing journalists. He tried to monitor all information coming from the Pentagon.

This week, he fired the leadership of the military’s “Stars and Stripes,” which has always enjoyed editorial independence. Hegseth can’t tolerate that. He wants total control.

Although he was a talking head on FOX, he has no respect for freedom of the press.

The New York Times reported:

The Defense Department on Friday fired the publisher and the editor in chief of Stars and Stripes, a government-funded news outlet that reports on the U.S. military, according to a senior Pentagon official and the dismissed journalists.

The firings raised questions about the Pentagon’s willingness to ensure the editorial integrity of the publication that has reported extensively on difficulties faced by military communities as the war in Iran has dragged on. The terminations came about 10 days after Stars and Stripes journalists reported on hardships that Navy sailors were facing on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier whose deployment was extended to nine months amid the war.

On Friday, the Pentagon sent termination notices to Erik Slavin, the editor in chief, and Max Lederer, the publisher, who had announced his retirement earlier this week, citing conflict with the Pentagon leadership on the paper’s direction. Lara Korte, a Middle East correspondent at the news outlet, was also fired on Friday, according to the official and a post she made on social media.

The Defense Department declined to comment. Capt. William Urban, the military deputy to the publisher who was brought to the role earlier this month, said in a letter published on Friday that his priority was to ensure “the highest quality of editorially independent reporting” at Stars and Stripes. Captain Urban’s previous role was as a senior spokesman for the Pentagon….

Why it matters:

“Stars and Stripes” is supposed to be an independent news organization for the military, not a propaganda mouthpiece for the Pentagon.

The ouster of the leadership of “Stars and Stripes” is a plain effort to muzzle the publication and turn it into a lapdog for Pete Hegseth.

This is a brief overview of how “Stars and Stripes” won its editorial independence, as told by blogger TCinLA:

In 1944, General George S. Patton Jr. was very upset with a 22-year old Sergeant who drew cartoons for “Stars and Stripes”. The Sergeant was Bill Mauldin, creator of two cartoon characters, Willie and Joe, who were considered to be the voice of American GIs on the front lines. Willie and Joe were always tired, needed a shave, were wearing the filthy fatigues they lived in on the front lines in Italy, and viewed the U.S. Army as a more threatening personal enemy than the Wehrmacht. The GIs agreed with everything they said. By 1945, the war in Europe was a slog through the coldest European winter in a century. In March 1945, General Patton summoned Mauldin to his Luxembourg headquarters, where over 45 minutes he accused Sgt. Mauldin of inciting mutiny and destroying military discipline through his unkempt character portrayals. Mauldin defended his work as a “safety valve” for combat infantrymen, resulting in a tense 45-minute standoff that ended in a stalemate.

It took an intervention by Supreme Allied Commander Dwight Eisenhower to protect Mauldin and preserve the editorial independence of “Stars and Stripes,” preventing Patton from banning the paper or jailing the cartoonist. Eisenhower fiercely believed that “Stars and Stripes” should belong entirely to the front-line troops, famously declaring: “This newspaper should be the equivalent of a soldier’s hometown newspaper, with no censorship of its contents, other than for security.” Ike recognized that Willie and Joe served as a vital, non-destructive psychological safety valve. He knew that letting G.I.s laugh at their miserable conditions and blow off steam about overbearing officers actually preserved army morale. Too bad the current dildo running the Pentagon and his short-fingered thin-skinned felonious boss are too fucking stupid to understand that Eisenhower was smarter than all ten of them combined.

Originally when it was created by Congress in 1942, Start and Stripes occupied a unique place in American journalism: funded by the government, read by the military, but mandated by law to report the news independently, without editorial interference. This was because the America that could actually win wars believed US servicemen deserved real news, not Pentagon horseshit. (That happens to still be the law, should any congressional moron care to see it enforced.)

Cartoonist Bill Mauldin won a Pulitzer Prize for his work in “Stars and Stripes.”

You should read the full post by TCinLA, which reports on the recent episodes of censorship by the Trump administration, some of which have succeeded, others that have not.

Categories Censorship, Ethics, Freedom of the Press

Florida: Voters Oust Key Right-Wing School Board

By dianeravitch
August 21, 2026 //
4

If there was one school board in Florida that was the beachhead for Moms for Liberty’s efforts to push their agenda of censorship and right-wing ideology, it was the school board of Sarasota County. Last Tuesday, voters replaced the Moms for Liberty majority with moderates who want to make their public schools better, rather than a battleground for culture war issues.

The right-wing culture warriors won school board elections in other counties in the state, but Sarasota County is where their organization was born and gained national notoriety.

Lauren Lumpkin of The Washington Post reported:

A Florida school board that was at the epicenter of national debates over covid mask mandates and book bans lost its conservative majority this week, a change that some say signals a priority shift among voters.

Two Democratic-backed candidates beat out conservatives in Tuesday’s school board election in Sarasota, Florida, flipping the board’s majority. Helmed for the past year by a co-founder of Moms for Liberty — a conservative group that gained a national following with its parents’ rights messaging — the board is moving in a new direction, the winners said. A third Democratic-backed candidate will head to a runoff election against a contender endorsed by Republicans in November.

“I really think at the end of the day, regardless of political affiliation, our community was just tired of the culture wars, the political theater and being the center of national attention for all the wrong reasons,” said Megan Tennimon, a former teacher who won election to the board on Tuesday.


While Democrats say the flip indicates voters want to move on from fights over social issues, Moms for Liberty points to conservatives’ wins in other parts of Florida.


“Every couple of years someone in the media writes our obituary, and every couple of years parents show up and prove them wrong,” Tina Descovich, Moms for Liberty co-founder and chief executive, said Wednesday. “School boards are ground zero in the fight for parental rights, and last night Florida parents made that clear.”

During covid, the Sarasota County school district was among those that saw heated board meetings and headline grabbing debates over parents’ rights. High-profile conservative leaders with documented ties to the county include former national security adviser Michael Flynn, and Charlie Kirk, the head of a pro-Trump youth group Turning Point USA who was killed last year.

The Sarasota County School Board had been controlled by conservatives since 2022, on the heels of the pandemic. As school board meetings and elections, typically quiet and uncontroversial, became partisan battlegrounds, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) got involved around that time by endorsing candidates, something governors have rarely done.
His involvement in the local races came as he pushed an education agenda that included a ban on teaching young students — and later all students — about sexual orientation and gender identity.

Among those who won DeSantis’s support was Sarasota County School Board Chair Bridget Ziegler, first elected in 2014.

Ziegler, who was embroiled in a sex scandal in 2023 and refused to step down when her husband was accused of sexual assault, did not run for reelection this year. Ziegler’s husband was cleared of the sexual assault charge in 2024. She did not immediately return requests for comment.

Elsewhere in the state on Tuesday, a Democratic-backed school board candidate flipped a conservative seat in Orange County, one of the largest school districts in the country. On the same ballot, a democratic socialist won an upset primary victory in the U.S. Senate race.

“I think that they realized how destructive those divisive policies really were,” Beth Mayberry, another Democratic-backed winner in the Sarasota County School Board race, said about voters. A retired educator, Mayberry’s campaign focused on school funding and mental health.

“What they’ve seen in the last four years, with basically the tabloid happenings on the school board and a lot of the policies and resolutions that were being made, our general community did not agree with,” Mayberry said.

Another candidate endorsed by the local Democratic Party, Jimmy Glover, won the most votes in his race against two Republican opponents, but failed to capture more than 50 percent of the votes. This will trigger a runoff election in November.

If Glover wins, the board will be completely Democratic-backed — and he will be the first person of color to serve on the Sarasota County School Board, said David Dean, chair of the county’s Democratic Party.

Two other members, who were also supported by Democrats and have previously opposed conservative members, round out the five-member board.

While school board elections are nonpartisan, political parties typically endorse candidates they believe will support their priorities. Dean echoed sentiments that residents are fed up with the culture wars and instead want their school board to focus on teachers and students.
“School board meetings should be boring. They shouldn’t make the national news,” Dean said. “There’s certainly a shift in attitudes toward the MAGA agenda, even here.”

Led by conservatives, the Sarasota County School Board voted last year to remove references to race, sexuality and disability from its anti-bullying rules. In January, it reaffirmed the district’s stance to cooperate with law enforcement, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Ziegler, at the time, said it was a safety measure. “Our School District cannot provide safe harbor to criminals, including those who violate our immigration laws,” she wrote on social media.
However, the measure did not change anything because the district had already agreed to work with authorities, Tennimon said. “That resolution was designed to do nothing but instill fear in our community.”


Sarasota is still deep red — many voters support voucher programs and religion in schools.
Moms for Liberty rose to prominence during the pandemic, when conservative parents demanded more say over what their children learned in school — particularly around topics including race, sexuality and gender.


The group has expanded to about 130,000 members in 48 states since its founding in 2021, according to its website, hosting Donald Trump and DeSantis at its summit in 2023 in a run-up to the presidential election. It has since accrued influence in the GOP, in school board elections nationwide, and was called upon by the Trump administration to help shape national education programming.

The group has regularly attacked the LGBTQ+ community and spread “messages of anti-inclusion and hate” while aligning itself with extremist groups, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But organization leaders are pushing back against reports that their influence on school board elections in their home state of Florida has waned. Moms for Liberty officials said 11 of the 15 school board candidates it endorsed in other races across the state won or advanced on Tuesday.

Heidi Brandt, a conservative who will face Glover in the runoff in November, said she was disappointed with the school board election outcome, but hopes the newcomers will concentrate on schools. Like the Democratic-backed candidates, she said she wants to remove political fights from the board.

“This is about our students and our teachers and our families, it’s not about a conservative or liberal majority or minority,” Brandt said. “I understand the celebrations and the turning of the tables, but I’m just truly praying that it’s not going to be about politics.”

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Censorship, Education Reform

Vasquez-Heilig: Real Republicans Don’t Impose Their Views on Others

By dianeravitch
August 5, 2026 //
5

I remember, a time long ago, when Republicans believed in small government. Except for public health, they believed in allowing localities and states to make their own decisions.

Trump Republicans, however, believe in imposing their beliefs on everyone else . They use the power of the federal government to enforce their views.

We have seen this with the executive orders that Trump has signed, making programs in “diversity,equity, and inclusion” a reason to defund research grants at institutions of higher education. I can’t imagine President Eisenhower or President Bush (either of them) wielding that stick. And I haven’t forgotten that President Nixon initiated affirmative action, which the Trump administration considers illegal and “racist.”

Similarly, we have seen the Trump administration demanding tribute from law firms, major media, and universities, in exchange for freedom from federal harassment. It vigorously fought the right of women to control their own bodies. It demanded that transgender members of the military be fired, without regard to their years of service or commendations from superior officers.

Julian Vasquez examines the latest Trump administration effort to coerce universities to accept the Trump agenda.

He writes:

When the Trump administration issued its February 2025 Dear Colleague letter attacking diversity, equity, and inclusion in education, I responded nationally on Democracy Now! I warned that higher education had not faced political interference this serious since McCarthyism and asked whether universities would “surrender or resist.”

That Dear Colleague letter went down in flames. Federal courts blocked the directive, finding serious constitutional and procedural problems. In August 2025, a federal court vacated both the letter and its associated certification requirement. The administration eventually abandoned its appeal. Now the Trump administration is trying again.

On August 3, 2026, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon issued “A National Call to Action to University Presidents and Governing Boards.” It calls on every college and university to publish a statement by the end of 2026 explaining how it will address admissions, faculty hiring, academic viewpoints, grading, artificial intelligence, foreign influence, research, affordability, and national priorities.

This letter is more carefully written than its failed Dear Colleague predecessor. It does not explicitly threaten universities with the loss of federal funding. It presents itself as an invitation to restore public trust and even acknowledges that there is “no single template for academic excellence.”

But universities should recognize the pattern. When the courts stop one attempt at political control, the administration repackages the same objective and returns through another channel. Expect more legal battles. If the administration tries to transform this ostensibly voluntary letter into funding conditions, investigations, accreditation pressure, or binding institutional obligations, expect it to lose again.

Red States Will Likely Embrace the Letter

In Republican-controlled states, many governing boards and university presidents will likely treat McMahon’s letter as federal permission to intensify attacks on faculty work, tenure, diversity programs, student expression, and academic freedom.

The letter gives presidents and boards a ready-made list of questions. Are academic departments sufficiently “pluralistic”? Are faculty hiring and evaluation practices considering the “right” perspectives? Is research sufficiently aligned with the “national interest”? Are universities placing American priorities ahead of global commitments? These questions sound reasonable until politicians begin supplying the answers.

A board, president, provost, or dean that wants to target a professor, academic department, research center, or student organization can now point to the secretary of education and claim that Washington has demanded action. The letter could become a pretext for investigations, curriculum reviews, program closures, hiring interference, and ideological screening. It does not create those powers. But it may embolden political officials to exercise powers they do not legally possess.

In blue states, many university presidents and boards will probably roll their eyes. They will recognize the document as political theater written by officials with limited understanding of university teaching, research, and shared governance. But they cannot safely dismiss it. The Trump administration has already demonstrated its willingness to use federal funding to reward allies and punish perceived opponents.

Political Retaliation Is Not Hypothetical

The administration acknowledged in court that it canceled approximately $7.6 billion in grants based on whether the affected states voted for Donald Trump in 2024. The canceled projects were concentrated in 16 states that supported Kamala Harris. A federal judge concluded that the politically selective cancellations violated constitutional equal-protection requirements. The Associated Press reported on the ruling.

That episode should concern every university president. If an administration will cancel billions of dollars in congressionally authorized grants based on how a state voted, universities must consider whether this new letter identifies the new political tests that could later determine which institutions receive grants, face investigations, or become targets of federal enforcement.

This is more of the same. Political loyalty is being substituted for neutral governance for all. Red-state institutions may be rewarded for adopting the administration’s agenda. Blue-state institutions may be punished for resisting it. In both cases, federal power becomes an illegal tool for encouraging political conformity.

Please open the link, which shows that Secretary of Education Linda McMahon may well be the least qualified person to serve as Secretary of Education.

Yet, here they are, Trump and McMahon, trying to use their political leverage to reshape higher education.

They are not Republicans. They are not libertarians. They are authoritarians.

Categories Academic Freedom, Bigotry, Censorship, Extremism, Higher Education, Trump

Trump Lashes Out at Smithsonian Museum for Refusing His Censorship

By dianeravitch
July 25, 2026 //
10

For more than a year, Trump has pestered the Smithsonian Museum to remove exhibits that shine attention on despicable episodes and phenomena in American history. Trump wants a patriotic version of American history.

The Smithsonian has rejected his bullying, so Trump ordered the National Park Service to place signs around the Smithsonian museums warning visitors about their bias in favor of accurate history.

The Guardian reported:

Donald Trump on Friday ordered the interior department to display signs in front of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History that accuse the institution of inaccuracy.

The order escalates the Trump’s attacks against the Smithsonian, which he and his allies accuse of politicizing the institution by focusing too much on injustices in American history, instead of more triumphant moments such as the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

The order directs interior secretary Doug Burgum to huddle with the National Park Service and assistant to the president for domestic policy Vince Haley to come up with some temporary signs to install along the National Parks Service-maintained sidewalks and walkways leading into the museum.

Advertisement

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for more details about what these signs would say.

The order says the signs “shall notify visitors that the museum exhibits should be renovated consistent with the findings in the report”. The signs should direct the public to other places where they can get better American history information, the order says.

The same group will also have to produce signs for the public criticizing the Smithsonian for not commemorating sufficiently the Declaration of Independence during the 250th anniversary of its adoption.

The American Historical Association, a group composed of professional historians, praised the Smithsonian Institution’s “commitment to scholarship and accuracy” in a statement earlier this month.

“Historians practice our craft with scholarly integrity according to established standards of evidence, historical inquiry, and professional practice,” the AHA statement reads. “Political interference in professional museum work threatens the accuracy of historical interpretation and erodes public trust in one of our nation’s most important institutions.”

The National Museum of American History declined to comment.

Categories Bias, Bigotry, Censorship, Democracy, Ethics, Extremism, History, Propaganda, Trump

Texas: 350 Teachers Were Investigated for Comments They Made After Charlie Kirk’s Death

By dianeravitch
July 23, 2026 //
5

The Texas Monthly reported on the aftermath of the murder of Charlie Kirk. Texas legislators wanted to punish public employees that posted “inappropriate” responses to his death. Their scrutiny ensnared 350 teachers who had not responded in a way that expressed sympathy. Eventually almost all the teachers were cleared of wrongdoing, but in the near term, they lived under a cloud of fear, fear that they would be fired, fear that they would lose their license. The hero in this story was the Texas AFT, the union, which stepped in to defend the teachers, few of whom could afford to pay for legal defense.

Naina Srivastava of The Texas Monthly wrote:

In her 28 years as a teacher working at schools in the Harris County area, Jennifer Courtemanche felt most at home at Lee High School. That changed for the 54-year-old English teacher on September 10. Hours after conservative influencer Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Courtemanche made a series of posts on Facebook about the right-wing influencer’s death and was met with dozens of comments, texts, and voicemails from strangers attacking her positions. Someone—it’s unclear who—reported her to the Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District, while others attacked her directly. “I hope you’re next,” one read. “I hope you die by violence in front of your family,” said another. “Kill yourself,” said a third. 

Courtemanche, who was born in Dallas and has lived in Texas for her whole life, had made four posts about Kirk that day. The first, in response to Utah Governor Spencer Cox’s statement that Kirk’s assassination was a tragedy, read, “I’ll bet if the victim had been Black or Brown or a Democrat influencer he’d have been singing a different tune. Could Kirk have baited just ONE too many people? Could this have been the consequences of his actions catching up with him?” The second was a repost of a friend’s post, containing a list of controversial statements on civil rights, the LGBTQ community, and gun deaths that Kirk had made throughout the years. The third was another repost, this time from Occupy Democrats, a progressive advocacy group, that quoted Kirk— “I can’t stand the word empathy, actually,”—with the caption “#karma.” And the last was another Occupy Democrats repost about President Donald Trump and other Republicans’ silence after Melissa Hortman, a former speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated in her home last June. 

At some point, Courtemanche’s posts reached the attention of Texas State Representative Briscoe Cain, a Republican from Deer Park who represents her district. On X, he called for her immediate termination for “celebrating the news of Kirk’s assasination.” That post now has over 550,000 views. 

That night, Courtemanche recalls furiously searching for the settings to make her account private. A half hour before midnight, she received another voicemail. “I found your address. Someone is going to come to your house and f— you up, bitch,” an anonymous caller said. As messages continued to pour in, she worried about how people in the community might react. Courtemanche said she and her husband didn’t even go to church that Sunday, despite being regulars. Scared, Courtemanche reached out to her school principal, asking what she should do. He told her to call her local police department and to contact the district’s Human Resources. She did. 

The next morning, the HR department rang her back. The district told her not to come in and that she was being put on administrative leave. By the next Monday, Courtemanche received an email from the district notifying her that it had reported her to the Texas Education Agency.

In the wake of Kirk’s assassination, there was a wide push by the Texas GOP to discipline teachers who’d made posts about his passing that it deemed offensive. Two days after Kirk died, TEA Commissioner Mike Morath instructed ISDs to report instances of educators sharing inappropriate content online to his agency. In total, 350 complaints were levied, including those against Courtemanche. According to documents obtained by Texas Monthly via public-records requests, some school districts, like Goose Creek, chose to terminate employees after conducting investigations. Others simply reported the complaint for a state investigation into the matter. But more than six months after Kirk’s death, it appears the discipline Texas politicians promised hasn’t gone very far. All but two of the 350 complaints against teachers had been dismissed as of April, according to the testimony of Keith Ingram, an attorney with the Office of the Attorney General.  

Courtemanche’s case is an instructive one outlining how the state attempted to crack down on anti-Kirk speech. On September 22, less than two weeks after her original posts, the Goose Creek school board voted to terminate her contract by a vote of 2–0 with four abstentions. Mercedes Renteria III, one of the two members who voted for Courtemanche’s termination, gave an interview with the town’s local paper, TheBaytown Sun. “[S]he is an incompetent teacher, and she shouldn’t have crossed the line and spoken publicly on social media and every other venue to say bad things about Charlie Kirk,” he said. “I think she should be fired, and karma’s a bitch. How about that?”

Courtemanche immediately sought legal representation via the Texas American Federation of Teachers, a statewide labor union. By November, she had reached a settlement with the school that cleared her of wrongdoing. She chose to retire, but per the settlement, she waited until December 31 to resign, giving her an additional year’s worth of credit—worth $200 each month—under the teacher-retirement system.

Courtemanche was not alone. In January, the Texas AFT,  which has more than 66,000 members, filed a lawsuit against the TEA, arguing Morath’s instructions for districts to report teachers violated teachers’ First Amendment right to speech and “unleashed a wave of retaliation and disciplinary actions against teachers.” The AFT contends that simply being placed under investigation—even if the probe leads nowhere—negatively impacts an educator’s reputation. When the state opens an investigation, it places a flag on the educator’s certification and can even include them on the agency’s public registry listing employees “Not Eligible For Hire,” according to the TEA’s website. Such investigations can result in the sanction or revocation of their teaching certificate.

AFT President Zeph Capo estimates that thirty to forty educators reached out to the AFT regarding discipline about Kirk posts. Some ended up being part of the litigation, while the AFT offered verbal counseling and individual representation to others. Capo said the organization’s biggest concern was for educators who were unable to renew their certificates while under investigation. If an educator’s certificate lapses, the school district could fire him or her automatically, he said. 

“Just imagine you’ve went to school, you’ve paid a lot of money, you are now at risk of not being able to renew your certification to keep your job, all because of something you said on a Facebook post that had nothing to do with kids or anyone else,” Capo said. “That has an absolute chilling effect on those individuals.”

The Texas AFT’s lawsuit is supported by six anonymous teachers’ experiences, though filed on behalf of all its members. One teacher was placed on the “do not hire” registry for three months, preventing them from finding work, according to the lawsuit. Another was unable to renew her certification because she was under investigation and may lose her job this month as a result. 

Texas Monthly’s investigation found that some teachers were reported for fairly tame posts, including reposts of popular progressive infographics regarding Kirk’s statements and gun violence. An educator who wrote, “He was ok with children dying in schools. I am not saying he should have been shot. He defended guns above all else,” received a complaint. Another educator posted a screenshot of a Newsweek article with the headline, “Charlie Kirk Says Gun Deaths ‘Unfortunately’ Worth It To Keep 2nd Amendment,” with the caption, “First Amendment meets Second Amendment.” That educator also received a complaint. To some observers, these posts, in particular, seem to squarely fall under the protection of the First Amendment.  

Because teachers are public employees, however, their free speech rights are limited in some contexts. There have not been any notable Supreme Court rulings that directly address teachers and students’ social media usage, but the landmark 1969 Supreme Court ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines established that if speech outside the classroom “materially and substantially disrupt(s) the work and discipline of the school,” it can be restricted. 

Daxton “Chip” Stewart, a Texas Christian University professor and First Amendment expert, said that the question at the heart of the Kirk cases is whether speech outside of the classroom may have affected lessons within it. “Posts about Charlie Kirk are undoubtedly a matter of public concern,” Stewart said. “That’s core First Amendment-protected speech. People should be able to comment about that kind of thing. So really, it comes down to, does that speech interfere with teachers’ [abilities] to do their jobs.”

This question has come up repeatedly in the complaints to the TEA obtained via records request. For example, in an email to an educator with the district who received a complaint for her posts, the Eagle Mountain–Saginaw ISD superintendent wrote, “You do not get to stop being a teacher off contract hours. You continue to be seen as a public service provider that is entrusted to take care of a vulnerable, impressionable community of children. It is expected that you conduct yourself in a manner at all times that is conducive to earning and maintaining the trust of the community, parents, students and coworkers.” 

Stewart believes this standard is unfair. If a teacher spoke about Charlie Kirk in the classroom, it would be a different story, a “no-brainer,” he said. But in teachers’ private time, the state must prove that the speech is something outrageous for it to be punishable. (Ultimately, both Eagle Mountain–Saginaw and the TEA declined to take action against the educator.) 

In the past, the TEA has protected teachers’ right to speech that is controversial. In 2019, a Fort Worth English teacher asked president Trump for help removing the “illegals” from Fort Worth’s school system. She was fired. Morath said that her tweet was protected by the First Amendment, that the school district had overstepped, and that she should be reinstated. Later, courts upheld her firing.

That Morath is now taking a different stance strikes Capo, who agreed the Fort Worth teacher should not have been fired, as evidence of viewpoint discrimination in the TEA when it comes to free speech. “At least be consistent,” he said. “If you’re going to fire people for speech, then fire them for speech no matter which political direction it runs, and if you’re not going to fire them for speech, then you should be doing the same regardless of [the] political direction it comes from.”

The case between the TEA and Texas AFT hinges on the interpretation of Morath’s directive: whether it constituted a policy that school districts were required to follow. The letter sent to superintendents noted that if superintendents were made aware of “additional instances of inappropriate content being shared,” they should report it to the agency. In a September media statement, Morath said, “While all educators are held to a high standard of professionalism, there is a difference between comments made in poor taste and those that call for and incite further violence — the latter of which is clearly unacceptable.”

Capo said Morath has failed to define what would be considered “poor taste” or “inciting violence,” leading many districts to report teachers improperly out of caution. Indeed, some districts, like Cypress-Fairbanks ISD, reported they were influenced to submit complaints to the TEA because of the letter, even though they believed their employees’ speech fell within their rights. In an email to the TEA, the general counsel for Cy-Fair ISD, for one, wrote, “The District reviewed each instance of reported misconduct related to the death of Charlie Kirk individually and in light of the legal standards applicable to the specific situations. Because none of the posted comments were determined to violate District policies and to fall within the First Amendment rights of each employee, the complaints do not fall within the reporting requirements of Chapter 22A of the Texas Education Code.” However, the district still chose to report the complaint, it said, because of the notice letter. 

So far, the courts have sided with the TEA. At an April preliminary injunction hearing in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Alan Albright, appointed by Donald Trump in 2018, said he failed to see how Morath’s letter infringed upon the First Amendment. “He’s not recommending punishment here,” Albright said. “He’s recommending that if the superintendents determine that inappropriate statements, in their view, were made, that there might be, you know, one of these investigations. I don’t understand how that’s chilling.” 

The Texas AFT now has the option to appeal the ruling, but Capo said it likely will not, owing to the dismissal of most of the complaints against teachers. He said every AFT member who was terminated has now reached a favorable settlement or returned to work without disciplinary action. “Ultimately, what I was really looking for, it has been accomplished,” Capo said. He told me the union now believes that its other members won’t have to worry about state sanctions or issues that could impact their teaching certifications.

For Courtemanche, however, even reaching a settlement felt like a bittersweet resolution. She told me she’s just starting to heal from what happened. Some people she went to church with unfriended her, she said. “And so I guess if they weren’t friends to begin with, I could still go and worship with them. But if they pass judgment on me, that’s on them,” she told me.

Initially, when the social media firestorm started, Courtemanche feared she’d be pushed out of the classroom before she was ready to stop teaching. But after the investigation, she was eager to retire. She’s eligible to find work at a different school next year, but she told me it’s unlikely she’ll go back.She said the environment for educators has gotten worse in Texas, and she doesn’t want to subject herself to further difficulties. 

Categories Censorship, Freedom of Speech, Texas

Texas Tech Professors’ Group Sues to Overturn Restrictions on Academic Freedom

By dianeravitch
July 14, 2026 //
1

Federal courts are overturning bans that tell college professors what they are not allowed to teach. And more campuses are taking a stand.

At the Texas Tech University system, the American Association of University Professors and its Texas affiliate are the latest to do so.

The Dallas Morning News reported:

Two faculty groups filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday to block the Texas Tech University System from implementing its policies on how professors can discuss race, gender and sexual orientation in the classroom.

The suit, which marks a major legal challenge against a Texas university system over increased restrictions on what can be taught, focuses on two memos issued by Texas Tech Chancellor Brandon Creighton in the last academic year.

One memo, sent in December, banned content that advocates for one race or sex as “inherently superior to another” and prohibited faculty from teaching that there are more than two sexes. The second memo, sent in April, ordered universities to cut all academic degrees “centered on” sexual orientation and gender identity.

The two groups, the national American Association of University Professors and its Texas chapter, argue Creighton’s policies violate their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Who is named 

The lawsuit names Creighton, a former Republican lawmaker, as a defendant, as well as the nine members of the system’s Board of Regents. Representatives from the Texas Tech University System did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This case presents an extraordinary system of censorship in higher education,” the suit reads, “in which professors in the Texas Tech University System are prohibited from teaching the most basic scholarship, while at the same time not fully comprehending the contours of prohibitions that place them under threat of losing their employment and livelihood.”

The groups in the lawsuit say the system’s policies “suppress” professors’ constitutionally protected speech and “obscure documented history, facts and theories.”

In one instance, a law professor was blocked from teaching information about race related to the landmark Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sandford, which ruled that Black people were not U.S. citizens, according to the filing. The lawsuit against Texas Tech also says that medical faculty have been instructed to remove content about treating transgender patients and racial minorities. Professors are not named in the filing.

Allegations 

The lawsuit argues that Creighton’s policies violate professors’ Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process because its language is “so vague and ambiguous” that they are “unable to discern what is, and is not, permissible.” That ambiguity, the filing says, has led to a chilling of speech.

Categories Academic Freedom, Bigotry, Censorship, Ethics, Extremism, Higher Education, Texas

Trump Department of Justice Issues Subpoenas to NY Times Reporters

By dianeravitch
July 12, 2026 //
5

The Trump administration claims to be transparent, but it is quick to harass reporters if they discover and reveal information that the administration wants to hide. The New York Times recently explained that Trump had to use his old Presidential airplane to return from the NATO meeting in Ankara, Turkey, because his huge airplane–the Qatari gift– didn’t have the required security enhancements. The reporters credited with the story received subpoenas, and the government will try to compel them to testify before a grand jury and reveal their sources.

The New York Times reported:

The Trump administration issued subpoenas on Friday to several journalists for The New York Times, after the news outlet reported this week on security concerns involving President Trump’s new Qatari-donated Air Force One.

The subpoenas — which seek to force the reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan on Wednesday — were an extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations.

In some cases, the subpoenas were delivered by federal agents who showed up at reporters’ homes.

The Times denounced the administration’s actions.

“The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects,” said David McCraw, The Times’s top newsroom lawyer, in a statement on Friday evening.

“Our journalists report the facts and advance the American public’s right to know how their government is operating and their taxpayer dollars are being used,” Mr. McCraw wrote. “This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs.”

The subpoenas contain few specifics, asking only that the journalists testify “in regard to an alleged violation of federal criminal law.” They were issued by Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan. Mr. Clayton, who leads one of the country’s most prominent law enforcement offices, was recently nominated by Mr. Trump to serve as director of national intelligence.

Representatives for the White House did not respond to inquiries on Friday evening.

In a statement on Saturday, a Justice Department spokeswoman said that “reporters are not the targets, those leaking classified information are.”

“We value and appreciate the important role that the press plays in this country, but D.O.J. also plays an important role to make sure that the people entrusted with our nation’s secrets do what they’re supposed to do with that information,” said the spokeswoman, Emily Covington. She added, “We recognize there may always be natural tension there, but we are not going to ignore the law.”

The Times journalists who received subpoenas included Julian E. Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager and Eric Schmitt, who reported on Wednesday that Mr. Trump had departed Turkey on the old Air Force One as a security precaution at the urging of the Secret Service. On Thursday, The Times reported that the new Air Force One, a Qatari-donated Boeing 747-8, lacked some of the advanced security features of the older aircraft, including antimissile capabilities. Both articles cited sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive security issues.

Before the Wednesday article was published, a senior official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation contacted a reporter and a senior editor at The Times to ask that the article be held, calling it an issue of national security, according to a person familiar with the conversation. The F.B.I. official declined to explain the security issue. The official also asked The Times to disclose its sources for the article; the newspaper refused to do so. (A spokesman for The Times, Charlie Stadtlander, confirmed the account.)

Mr. Trump has long been a harsh critic of the news media. But in his second term in office, he has moved aggressively to use the immense powers of the federal government in his efforts to attack the press.

Earlier this year, the Justice Department sought to compel testimony from journalists at The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. The Justice Department withdrew the subpoenas after both news organizations fought back in sealed filings.

Both Democratic and Republican administrations have initiated leak investigations into the disclosure of classified information. But subpoenas aimed at journalists are not common, and First Amendment advocates say they can chill the work of news gathering.

In January, F.B.I. agents took the rare step of searching the home of a Washington Post reporter, Hannah Natanson, as part of an investigation into a government contractor’s handling of classified material. The agents seized phones, laptops and a smartwatch after executing a search warrant. Ms. Natanson had spent months speaking with government employees while reporting on the Trump administration’s efforts to shrink the federal work force.

The Times is a party to several lawsuits involving Mr. Trump and his administration.

The president sued The Times last year, accusing it of defaming him, disparaging his reputation and seeking to undermine his 2024 candidacy.

In December, The Times sued the Defense Department after it imposed restrictions on reporters who cover the military. The company sued again after the agency reduced reporters’ physical access to the Pentagon.

In May, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued The Times, accusing it of employment discrimination. On Friday, The Times filed a counterclaim, saying the lawsuit was an act of retaliation for its coverage of the Trump presidency and a violation of its First Amendment rights.

Categories Censorship, Freedom of the Press, Trump

Florida Scores Dead Last in Supporting Its Public Schools

By dianeravitch
July 9, 2026 //
6

When it comes to supporting its public schools, Florida ranks dead last in the nation. Not only was it dead last of all states, it was at the very bottom in 2024 and 2025.

Florida betrays its state constitution, which contains a clear mandate to create and protect strong public schools.

Article IX, Section 1(a) states:

“The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision for the education of all children residing within its borders. Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education…”

Under the misleadership of Republican politicians like Jeb Bush and Ron DeSantis, Florida has diverted billions of dollars to privately governed charter schools and unaccountable vouchers for private and religious schools and home schooling. Bush and DeSantis have ignored and abandoned Florida’s state constitution.

And among all the states, Florida’s school rank dead last.

Based on the NPE report Public Schooling in America 2026, Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for public Education, wrote:

This is the third consecutive year that Florida’s statehouse has earned last place when it comes to supporting public schools. Florida’s lawmakers don’t merely encourage privatization through charters, vouchers, and homeschools; they actively engineer conditions that undermine public schools and worsen the environment for teaching and learning.

The damage from Florida’s universal voucher program is staggering. Close to four billion dollars in state education funding now flows annually to voucher programs — nearly one in four state education dollars diverted away from public schools, including to families whose children never set foot in a public school. And the funding mechanism puts the burden directly on school districts, which must absorb the loss.

Meanwhile, Florida continuously revises its school rating standards to ensure more public schools are labeled as failing, while simultaneously incentivizing and subsidizing charter expansion. Its Schools of Hope program even allows charters to colonize unused space inside public school buildings. Success Academy’s Eva Moskowitz teamed up with a Florida billionaire to help draft the enabling legislation, then used it to muscle her chain into the Miami charter market with generous public funding in tow.

Fifty percent of Florida’s charter sector is run by for-profit operators — one of the highest shares in the nation. Only Michigan has more. Florida is home to Academica, the largest for-profit charter chain in the country, and to Charter Schools USA. Both profit from the real estate they build and lease back to their own branded schools.

Charter schools claim to be equally open to all students. That is not the case in Florida, which lost points for the numerous enrollment privileges its laws permit. Florida is one of a small number of states that allow company-based charter schools. The Villages, the largest retirement community in the country, has its own charter school, and it functions less like a school of choice than a company store. The school was created by the community’s developer, and at least one parent must be employed by The Villages or a company that services it. If that parent quits or is fired, the child must leave immediately. For a low-wage service worker who might want to change jobs, the school becomes a trap — a reason to stay put rather than pursue something better.

Florida sinks to the bottom not only because of its weak charter and voucher laws and the financial incentives it offers to expand privatization, but because it actively undermines its public schools through policy and funding decisions at every turn. Florida lost every possible point on school funding — whether measured by cost-of-living-adjusted teacher salaries, equitable funding distribution, or funding based on capacity to pay. It has low teacher satisfaction, high student-to-teacher and student-to-counselor ratios, weak anti-bullying laws, and it still permits corporal punishment.

Of 102 possible points, Florida disgracefully earned only 14. You can read our full NPE 2026 report card here.

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Censorship, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Equity, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Federal Waiver, Florida, For-Profit, History
« Older Entries