Archives for category: Education Industry

Jeff Yass is one of the richest people in the world. He is the richest person in Pennsylvania. He is #25 or #27 on Bloomberg’s Billionaires’ Index, depending on which day you check. His net worth is about $65 billion. He co-founded the Susquehanna International Group, which is based in Pennsylvania. He is also a major investor in TikTok and is widely believed to have persuaded Trump not to ban it. In the last decade, he has given hundreds of millions to political campaigns, including the 2024 Trump campaign.

Yass was recently interviewed by The Washington Post, where he talked about his passion: Vouchers. The writers of the article were Laura Meckler, Beth Reinhard, and Clara Ence Morse.

Yass thinks the public should pay for students to go wherever their parents want them to go: to private schools, religious schools, charter schools, any kind of school, including public schools. He thinks all students should get vouchers, regardless of family income.

He believes the public schools are failing and that universal vouchers will turn American education into a great success.

Yass provided $6 million to Texas Governor Greg Abbott to run pro-voucher Republicans against moderate Republicans who supported public schools. Abbott ran a campaign of lies against the moderate Republicans, asserting that they opposed more funding for public schools and that they supported open borders.

With Yass’s money and Abbott’s lies, they managed to knock off enough moderate Republicans to finally pass a voucher bill. The voucher program is currently costing nearly $1 billion, and most of the voucher money pays the tuition of students previously enrolled in private and religious schools.

The strange part of Yass’s devotion to charter schools and vouchers for religious and private schools is that Jeff is a graduate of the New York City public schools. He graduated from Bayside High School in Queens. He then attended Binghamton University in New York, where he spent most of his time playing poker, betting on horse races, and honing a keen ability to calculate the odds and winning.

As a young man, he read Milton Friedan’s Capitalism and Freedom and became a Friedman devotee. He met Friedman several times; when he asked the great conservative economist which philanthropy he should support, Friedman said “school vouchers.”

Yass jumped in to support school choice. His ideological commitment to them is so strong that he ignores that show that most vouchers are taken by kids already enrolled in non-public schools. He thinks all students should get vouchers, including those whose families are wealthy.

Yass confidently told The Post that studies of voucher programs show “overwhelmingly” positive results. Several early studies of targeted voucher programs have indeed shown positive results on standardized tests, and some research shows positive impacts on other metrics such as college enrollment.

But most research over the past decade or so shows either no effect or a negative impact on test scores for larger-scale programs. Some charter schools struggle with low test scores just like traditional public schools do. That’s at least partly because educating children with many needs and few advantages is a challenging task

Yass maintains that these programs help children. But he also says he doesn’t really care what the studies say or how children perform on tests. He takes the libertarian point of view that all parents should be empowered to choose the school — public or private — that they want for their children, no matter what.

“If the mother or the parent wants the kid to go from one school to another, who the hell is anyone to tell them not to?” he told The Post. “I don’t care what the studies say.”

Yass has spent many millions in his home state of Pennsylvania, but thus far has failed to get sweeping voucher legislation passed.

He has a a starry-eyed and warped view of the U.S. economy.

In a 2021 conversation sponsored by the Adam Smith Society, part of a free-market think tank, he said that the U.S. is almost to the point where “no one” is hungry, cold or lacks basic health insurance.

“What’s the difference between a billionaire and a guy who’s making $100,000 a year? They’re both at home watching Netflix. And they’re both on their iPhones,” he said then. “The disparity between how rich people live and how poor people live in America has never been smaller.”

Government data shows that in 2024, there were 27 million uninsured Americans and in 2023, 18 million households were uncertain if they would have enough food. Wealth inequality has been rising for decades, with the richest families increasing their wealth at a faster rate than everyone else.

Despite Yass’s multi-million dollar contributions to candidates in Pennsylvania, his candidates have frequently lost. Yass has been singled out by protest groups who resent his efforts to buy elections and determine the future of the state.

Critics say his giving represents an absurd amount of influence for one person, who can press his political agenda simply because he is rich….

“Hey hey! Ho ho! Billionaires have got to go!” chanted about 50 protesters marching to Susquehanna’s front door. The group outside Yass’s office in late September wasn’t an unusual sight. All Eyes on Yass, a coalition of education, labor and civil rights groups, has worked to turn Yass into the state’s prime villain, creating an online “Yass tracker” that allows voters to look up whether their state elected officials have received money from Yass-funded PACs.

The protestors organized in response to Yass’s efforts to change the composition of the State Supreme Court.

In the last election, he supported three Republican candidates trying to defeat three Democratic judges on the State Supreme Court. All three of his candidates lost.

It was the 12th demonstration since 2022 organized by All Eyes on Yass. In a year when Musk’s role at the White House prompted intense criticism of billionaires in politics, this group stands out in its singular and persistent focus on Pennsylvania’s richest man.


“We’re here with a simple message: Billionaires like Jeff Yass can’t steal our elections,” said Raquel Jackson-Stone, 32, who works for a civil rights group called One Pennsylvania. “They don’t care about the same things we care about, like housing affordability and making our public schools better…”

Yass rarely if ever interacts with people he disagrees with on this subject. He volunteered to The Post that in business, he advises his employees to seek out alternative points of view. “I always say, ‘Go find the smartest person who disagrees with you,’” he said.

But he said he has never had a personal conversation with a public education advocate to try to understand their point of view. “I would love to do that,” he said….

In the interview with The Post, Yass stood by his comments. He said the divide in America is not about money but about how much satisfaction people get from their work. “That’s the inequality. Wealthy, educated people enjoy their jobs. Lower-income people don’t enjoy their jobs.”

His confidence feeds his opponents but also his conviction to keep spending. If the criticism bothers him, he doesn’t let it show. He sees no problem with one man using money made on Wall Street to press a personal agenda. And he compares his influence not against that of other individuals but to teachers unions and other large interest groups that represent thousands of people each.

As Yass sees it, he’s the one fighting for the underdog — a billionaire speaking up for those who don’t have billions.

“It’s David versus Goliath,” he said. “I represent David.”

So Jeff Yass has never talked to a public education advocate to test his views. I volunteer.

The Network for Public Education sponsored a conversation between me and Carol Burris about my new book: AN EDUCATION: HOW I CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT SCHOOLS AND ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE.

I think you will enjoy it!

https://vimeo.com/1137499967

https://share.google/OUhluBgNodmED08UF

Garry Rayno of InDepthNH keeps a close watch over the legislature in New Hampshire. He is particularly interested in the state’s relatively new voucher plan. It was sold, as usual, as a plan to help poor kids “escape failing schools.”

That wasn’t what happened.

Predictably, the legislature removed income limits and the program now subsidizes affluent families whose children never went to public school.

The program this year will cost $51.6 million. Almost $50 million goes to students already enrolled in private or religious schools.

Meanwhile, the funding for vouchers is drawn from the state’s Education Trust Fund, which was intended for public schools. That means the subsidy for nonpublic schools comes right out of the public schools’ budget, with no tax increases to compensate public schools. The vast majority of New Hampshire’s students are now subsidizing the nonpublic schools.

There is a new regime at the Department of Education that has released more than the most basic information about the Education Freedom Account program.

For the program’s first four years, the department released spreadsheets detailing the numbers of students, where they live and how much each student received in grants with a total cost of the program and the quarterly state distributions to cover those grants.

The money does not really go to the parents, its goes to the Children’s Scholarship Fund NH, which takes its cut and sends the rest in the child’s name to ClassWallet, a company that received early stage investments twice from the Chinese-based venture capital firm Sinovation Ventures.

A 2018 Defense Department report flagged the company as participating in China’s “technology transfer strategy,” a state initiative to acquire foreign innovation.

Several states that also use ClassWallet for voucher money distribution have raised concerns about data security and foreign influence like Arizona and Missouri, but not New Hampshire, although Gov. Kelly Ayotte issued Executive Order 2025-04 which would appear to prohibit doing  business with a company with investors like ClassWallet.

ClassWallet does not technically work for the state, but it was hired by a state contractor, Children’s Scholarship Fund of NH, which administers the EFA program.

How many parents of EFA students would want their education spending data potentially accessed by a foreign country like China?

That information is not what was released late last month by the Department of Education, but is easily found with a Google Search, which ironically also brings up that Sinovation Ventures was co-founded by former China Google President Kai-Fu Lee.

The information released last month provides far greater detail than released under former DOE Commissioner Frank Edelblut, who kept the program’s details out of the public’s eye, such as where the money went and if the children’s foundation was carefully vetting income levels and other requirements to access additional grant money.

A small sample compliance report by the now long gone DOE overseer of the EFA program, indicated it was not following guidelines.

The 100 applications sampled for the report over the first two years of the program had a 25 percent error rate that resulted in a rebate to the state for only those applications improperly approved not for 25 percent of the program’s costs.

One of the biggest criticisms of the program is that very few of the students using the state’s money are actually leaving public schools to join the program. Instead the vast majority of the students using EFAs were already in religious or private schools or homeschooled when their parents applied to participate in the state-funded program that draws its funding from the Education Trust Fund, which also pays for the bulk of state aid to public schools, no matter how meager compared to every other state in the country.

This year the program is projected to cost $51.6 million and will cost an additional $61.9 million next year, totaling $113.5 million for biennium, which makes it $26.7 million over budget.

And if you read the fine print of the data released last month, only $1.68 million on the low end, to $4.42 million on the high end for this school year, and $2.52 million if you use the four-year average is going to kids who were not in public schools when they joined the program out of the $51.6 million for this school year.

The data from the DOE notes that for the current school year only 343 students left public schools to join the program whose enrollment is now 10,510 students, which is nearly double what it was last year before the Republican-controlled legislature removed any earnings cap for the program.

That 3.26 percent of the students is the low end of the estimate above, and if you use the number of new students this year compared to last school year, which is 4,745, the new students from public schools is 7 percent and the high figure.

If you add the kids leaving public schools for the last four years, the number is 1,162 which compared to enrollment over those four years of 23,937 and the number is the four-year average.

That means state taxpayer money going to support students who were not in public schools when they joined the EFA program for this school year would be between $49.92 million and $47.18 million.

That is money the state was not paying to educate these kids because they were in religious or private schools or homeschooled and not supported by state dollars.

In essence that is a new education cost for the state, but no new taxes, or fees or anything was created to pay for it.

Instead, it is money drawn from the Education Trust Fund which was established after the Claremont education decisions to support public education.

As Rayno writes: For those receiving the money on the upper end of the income scale, the little less than $5,000 grant average is a subsidy that allows another ski trip to Aspen or Tahoe this winter.

So when lawmakers say the state doesn’t have the money to increase its share of public education costs, it really means “we do not want to increase the state’s share, but we are OK subsidizing religious and private schools and homeschooling.”

For those receiving the money on the upper end of the income scale, the little less than $5,000 grant average is a subsidy that allows another ski trip to Aspen or Tahoe this winter.

But the above figures are probably a little generous because they do not account for the kids who joined the EFA program from public schools and then returned to public schools either before or after one year.

Data released by the department indicates that last school year, 101 of the former public school students who switched to the EFA program, re-enrolled in public schools.

For the 2023-2024 school year, 75 EFA students returned to public schools, and for the 2022-2023 school year, 38 re-enrolled in public schools.

But those are not the only ones leaving the EFA program every year.

It also does not include EFA students who either graduated or completed their course of instruction that school year or left for unexplained reasons.

For the 2024-2025 school year, 151 EFA students left the EFA program because they graduated or completed their course of study along with the 101 who returned to public schools, and the 887 who left for unexplained reasons.

The total number of students leaving the program that school year was 1,139 or 21 percent of the total EFA enrollment for the year. 

For the 2023-2024 school year, 108 students either graduated or completed their course of study, with the 75 who returned to public schools, and 525 who left for unexplained reasons.

The total number of students leaving the EFA program that school year were 708, or 19 percent of the total EFA enrollment.

For the 2022-2023 school year, 76 students graduated or completed their course of studies, along with the 38 who re-enrolled in public schools and the 344 who left for unexplained reasons.

The total number of students leaving the program was 458 students or 15 percent of the enrollment that year.

Total students leaving over the three-year period was 2,305 from a total three-year enrollment of 12,557 or 18.4 percent.

What would we say about a dropout rate of nearly 20 percent if it were a public school? 

This is not the widely successful program its advocates tout on the floor of the House and Senate and does not save school districts the amount of money Edelblut used to claim because more than 90 percent of the students in the program were not in public schools, but he counted them as savings to school districts.

This program is not serving the children of low-income parents who want an alternative to public schools, but those parents who can already afford to pay for their children to attend those alternatives without the state’s taxpayers’ help.

That is not government helping the most vulnerable, it is Robin Hood in reverse, a system New Hampshire knows very well.

Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.

I was present in the very beginnings of the charter school movement. I advocated on their behalf. I and many others said that charter schools would be better than public schools because they would be more successful (because they would be free of bureaucracy), they would be more accountable (because their charter would be revoked if they weren’t successful), they would “save” the neediest students, and they would save money (because they wouldn’t have all that administrative bloat).

That was the mid-1980s. Now, more than 35 years later, we know that none of those promises were kept. The charter lobby has fought to avoid accountability; charters pay their administrators more than public schools; charters demand the same funding as public schools; the most successful charters avoid the neediest students; and–aside from charters that choose their students with care–charters are not more successful than public schools, and many are far worse. Charters open and close like day lilies.

This week, the National Center of Charter School Accountability, a project of NPE, published Charter School Reckoning: Part II Disillusionment, written by Carol Burris. This is the second part in a three-part comprehensive report on charter schools entitled Charter School Reckoning: Decline, Dissolution, and Cost.

Its central argument is that a once-promising idea—charter schools as laboratories of innovation—has been steadily weakened by state laws that prioritize rapid expansion and less regulation over school quality and necessary oversight. Those policy and legislative shifts have produced predictable results: fraud, mismanagement, profiteering, abrupt closures, and significant charter churn. The report connects the above instances with the weaknesses in state charter laws and regulations that enable both bad practices and criminal activity. 

As part of the investigation, the NPE team scanned news reports and government investigative audits published between September 2023 and September 2025 and identified $858,000,000 in tax dollars lost due to theft, fraud, and/or gross mismanagement.

The report contrasts the original aspirations of the charter movement with today’s reality, shaped in large part by the intense lobbying of powerful corporate charter chains and trade organizations. It also examines areas that have received far too little attention, including the role of authorizers and the structure and accountability of charter-school governing boards.

It concludes with ten recommendations that, taken together, would bring democratic governance to the schools, open schools based on need and community input, and restore the founding vision of charter schools as nimble, community-driven, teacher-led laboratories grounded in equity and public purpose.

This new report can be found here.

Part I of Charter Reckoning: Decline can be found here.

 

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2025/12/04/florida-education-commissioner-booed-at-tampa-school-board-conference/

Florida Education Commissioner Anastasios Kamoutsas told school board members and superintendents from around the state on Thursday to get over their complaints about Schools of Hope seeking to co-locate in underused district buildings.

Then he suggested the state could look at shutting down “failing” school districts.

That’s when the boos started flying.

Kamoutsas’ lunchtime remarks riled attendees of the Florida School Boards Association’s winter conference in Tampa, the latest escalation of tension between the state’s top education official and local district leaders.

Kamoutsas — who had been invited to the conference but not confirmed as a speaker until Thursday — touted the strong student results of New York-based Success Academy, Florida’s latest Schools of Hope-approved charter school operator, and argued that local districts should want the same kind of outcome.

“That proven success is why Florida has committed to expanding the Schools of Hope model,” Kamoutsas said. “Let’s not forget Schools of Hope are subject to the same assessment program and grading system as the traditional public school. But these schools operate under a performance-based agreement with their sponsor, so if they fail to meet standards, they will be closed.”

Then came the boo line: “There’s not a school district in this state that could be shut down for failing to meet performance standards, though maybe we can talk about that with the Legislature this session.”

The crowd — who had previously heard the commissioner say some of them lacked leadership and conviction — erupted in anger, leaving the commissioner to repeatedly ask them to let him finish. A couple of attendees walked out of the Grand Hyatt Tampa Bay ballroom where the meal was taking place.

After about 20 seconds, the group quieted down. Then Kamoutsas doubled down, telling them that he was not asking, but rather expecting them to innovate in any way possible to make the model succeed. Florida’s students don’t deserve failing public schools, he said.

“This is not the moment to protect the way things work,” Kamoutsas said. “This is the moment to put students first. We have a responsibility, a moral obligation to ensure that every child in Florida has access to a world-class education, not someday, not when it’s convenient, not after the funding gets negotiated. Now.”

I was interviewed by Brian Lehrer of WNYC, public radio about my latest book, probably my last. He is a great interviewer. He asks good questions, followed by people who called in to disagree with me.

It’s an excellent interview.

I apologize if I’m browbeating you with stuff about my book, but the book is really good; I worked on it for two years; the mainstream media has ignored it; and I think you will enjoy reading it.

In case you haven’t noticed, the title is:

An Education: How I Changed My Mind About Schools And Almost Everything Else (Columbia University Press). You can buy it from Columbia University Press, your local independent bookstore, or Amazon.

The mainstream media typically ignores charter school scandals, but CBS picked up on this one. Erika Donalds is building a for-profit charter school chain. She is the wife of Byron Donalds, who is running for Governor of Florida with Donald Trump’s blessing.

Byron Donalds has been a staunch supporter of Trump. Donalds is African American. Frankly, I don’t understand how he can be part of a political movement that seeks to eliminate Black history, dismantle studies of race and gender, and disparage any efforts to rectify historic racial injustices. I hope reporters ask him about these questions on the campaign trail.

Peter Greene saw the segment on CBS and posted the video. In his piece, he refers to Erika Donalds as “Florida’s leading school choice grifter.”

CBS reporters wrote:

Kathleen Cetola believed she had found the perfect fit for her 9-year-old grandson Landon when Optima Classical Academy broke ground in 2023 near her home in Fort Myers, Florida. As the primary caregiver for Landon, Cetola was drawn to the smaller class sizes and more traditional curriculum, which she felt would be “less woke” than the public school he was currently attending.

“Regarding gender and race, I want him to be able to make up his own mind,” Cetola told CBS News. “They were selling the fact that they were focused on the education and the classical type of teaching. I thought that was going to be a great opportunity for Landon.”

The Optima school in Fort Myers was founded by Erika Donalds, a leading voice in the school choice movement and the wife of Congressman Byron Donalds, the Republican frontrunner in next year’s Florida governor’s race. It was poised to be Erika Donalds’ fifth classical charter school and part of a flourishing trend.

Photo of Erika Donalds.
Erika Donalds speaks on stage during day one of the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit on Friday, July 11, 2025, in Tampa. Luis Santana / Tampa Bay Times via AP

Classical charter schools offer a curriculum with a Eurocentric focus that stresses traditional values and introduces primary source documents like the U.S. Constitution at an early age. In the last five years, more than 250 classical schools have opened across the country. Many conservative politicians argue these schools are needed to reject what they see as a pervasive woke agenda in American public education.

Donalds has been a face of the classical charter movement, touring the country to tout their value. In an October speech to a group of conservative college women, she spoke about her decision to start her own schools. She said it was born out of her own experience trying to educate her children.

“I knew there were so many families out there that were desperate for this option,” she said.

Yet, after enrolling hundreds of students and hiring teachers, the Fort Myers school failed to open, leaving parents scrambling to find a school for their children.

“I feel cheated,” said Cetola, who was one of a half dozen parents who told CBS News they had signed up their kids to attend. “These kids were cheated, and it’s heartbreaking….”

The confusion the parents faced, according to experts, is not unique within a charter school industry that often operates with less transparency than traditional public schools.

Donalds declined to be interviewed for this story. In a statement, her spokesperson said she is “an accomplished businesswoman with a strong record of starting successful charter schools and providing thousands of students with an excellent education.”

Taxpayer-funded charter schools paid outside firms

Classical schools are one slice of a charter industry that GOP leaders have tapped to remake America’s public education system. Recent moves by both the federal government and local officials in Florida have freed up hundreds of millions of dollars in new funding. In September, the Trump administration announced it was investing half a billion dollars in grant programs that support charter schools.

The announcement came as Florida passed a law — at the urging of hedge fund manager and Republican megadonor Ken Griffin — to allow charter schools to operate inside traditional public school buildings.

CBS News reviewed state education data, financial documents, independent audits and faculty comments at four schools Donalds had helped launch. State data shows when it came to academic performance, one of the schools quickly excelled. But the records also raise questions about how public money was being spent by the schools.

Tax filings reviewed by CBS News show, between 2020 and 2023, the schools spent roughly 30% of the government funding they received — totaling about $35 million — on outside firms with ties to Erika Donalds. A source familiar with these arrangements said they landed the schools a good price on payroll expenses, IT and other back-office services.

In August, Byron Donalds filed an amended House financial disclosure for 2023, reporting that Erika Donalds held a stake in two of those firms each worth between $1 million and $5 million. His most recent disclosure, for 2024, again listed her stakes in those companies.

The amended disclosure was first reported by the Florida Bulldog

Of course, parents in Fort Meyers who signed up for Donalds’ school were disappointed when it didn’t open as promised.

They had been promised that the school would open in the fall of 2024. Erika Donalds told them that financial challenges and the lingering effects of Hurricane Ian required her to delay the opening. Parents eagerly anticipated the opening in the fall of 2025, but it was again announced that the opening would be delayed, this time to 2026.

Prior to the school in Fort Myers, Donalds helped launch four other classical charter schools operated by Optima across Florida: two in Jacksonville, one in Stuart and one in Naples.https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/y9D5j/

Baker, the charter school expert at the University of Miami, said the practice reflected in Optima’s tax filings — of non-profit schools paying money to for-profit companies with overlapping stakeholders — occurs across the charter school industry. He said in the absence of meaningful governmental regulation, accountability comes from “how well they do for students.”

On that measure, students at those four Optima schools performed below average, according to Baker, who looked at math and reading test scores.

“Florida’s charter sector is not strong, and Optima schools, at least the four schools that seem to be in that affiliated mix, perform even less well,” Baker said.

The learning curve when it comes to implementing the classical curriculum can be steep, according to Janine Swearingin, who served as Treasure Coast Classical’s first principal from 2019 to 2022 and would later go on to work directly with Donalds at Optima. She praised Donalds and the company’s role in launching the school, which she said consistently earned top marks from the state when it came to academic performance when she was there.

In January 2023, after Swearingin left the school, the board of Treasure Coast Classical Academy commissioned an independent “performance audit” which was intended to draw attention to areas of concern. The resulting report said that while there were “commendable” aspects of the school’s performance, it also raised questions. Class sizes were so large, it said, that they appeared to violate state law and it noted a lack of structure in the classroom, all findings that Optima disputed.

The auditor praised Treasure Coast Classical’s “outstanding” financial health. But, some faculty complained Optima operated more like a “franchising corporation” and was “dedicated to profit sometimes to the detriment of the school itself.”

“It’s quite an undertaking since teachers don’t generally receive an education in teaching a classical curriculum,” said Swearingin, who noted that in a classical curriculum, first graders are studying the American Revolution at a time when their public school counterparts are learning about community helpers and basic geography. “The training is vastly different.”

As part of its response, Optima said it was working with the auditor “to build trust, address remaining concerns, and correct misinformation or misunderstandings.” A month later, the school’s board moved to terminate its contract with Optima. Treasure Coast Classical later sued Optima, alleging numerous instances of breach of its contract with the school. A county judge dismissed the lawsuit ruling because it had been filed in the wrong venue, and Treasure Coast Classical has appealed.

According to meeting minutes of the schools’ boards as well as county officials and school administrators contacted by CBS News, all four schools that had opened have since cut ties with Optima. The schools still offer a classical curriculum, but under different management. A source close to Donalds told CBS News that Optima’s plan all along was to assist with the start-up and then move on, once the schools reached “full stability.”

Donalds’ spokesperson noted that the schools’ academic performance eventually improved. “These schools show how a supportive environment, committed teachers, and high expectations can help children thrive,” she said.

The school in Fort Myers that had planned to open as Optima Academy is no longer associated with Donalds or her company. According to county records obtained by CBS News, Donalds in August sought to transfer ownership of the building to another charter operator. In October, the county school board approved the transfer and the new operator plans to open the school next fall.

“They just dropped the ball and ran,” Cetola said. “How can you do something like this and sell this to parents who really want to stay involved with their children and then just walk away?”

This story has been updated.

Credits

Reporting by Michael KaplanMark Strassman and Emma Nicholson. Production by Michael KaplanEmma Nicholson and Alyssa Spady. Photos and videography by Ryan Jackson. Video editing by Greg Hotsenpiller. Graphics, design and development by Taylor Johnston. Editing by Ellen Uchimiya and Matthew Mosk.

Republicans opposed the creation of the U.S. Department of Education. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter promised the NEA that he would push it through. Republicans fought it but he had the votes, and it was created. While NEA wanted the Department, Albert Shanker of the AFT was against it. He feared that the federal government would exert too much control over schools and that education might be politicized, with each party pushing its agenda. He preferred a department of education, labor, and social services.

Now, the Trump administration is dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. They have not sought Congressional approval, which is necessary to eliminate an authorized Department. Instead, they are eliminating it by layoffs and shifting programs to other departments. There may be a “Departnent of Education,” but the building will be empty. No one will be enforcing laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities. The Office of Civil Rights will likely go to the Justice Departnent, where it will not enforce the civil rights of women and racial minorities, but will make sure that schools stamp out DEI and deny any protections to transgender students.

Peter Greene writes:

The continued dismantling of the federal Department of Education is both a con and a lie, one more piece of a quilt of patchwork policies all built around a simple idea– some people are better than others, and the uppity lessers really ought to learn their place. And the rhetoric being used to sell the dismantling is a lie.

The over-simplified version of the department’s origin comes in two parts. First, Congress created some major funding streams meant to level the playing field for students and families, and with those funding streams, some civil rights laws to make sure states leveled their own playing fields for schooling and education. Second, Jimmy Carter, who had promised a cabinet-level ed department (and who wanted to be re-elected) proposed the department as a way to collect, organize, and administer the various policies.

The department’s job was never supposed to be to determine what an excellent education should be. It was supposed to make sure that whatever a good education was presumed to be in your state, everybody got one. So even if a child was presumed to be a poor Lesser, a future meat widget, a child whose special needs made them harder to educate– no matter what, the district and state were supposed to have the resources to meet the challenge. The quality of a child’s education was not supposed to depend on their zip code. 

This does not fit well with the current regime’s conception of civil rights, a conception rooted in the notion that the only oppressed group in this country is white guys, or their conception of democracy, a conception rooted in the notion that some people really are better than others and therefor deserve more power and privilege. (Nor does the regime love the idea of loaning people money for college and not collecting it).

So they’ve undone the second step of the department’s creation, and parceled out a bunch of programs to other departments, a move that philosophically advances the idea that education has no point or purpose in and of itself, but exists only to serve other interests.

For example, as Jennifer Berkshire points out, now that the Department of Labor exists to serve the interests of bosses, its interest in education centers on producing more compliant meat widgets to serve boss’s interests. Meanwhile, the ed programs now farmed over to the Department of Health and Human Services can be reorganized around RFK Jr.’s interest in eugenics and identifying those lessers whose proper place in society is, apparently, on a slab. 

That unbundling of education programs from the department only undoes the second phase of the department’s origin. But Secretary Linda McMahon’s assertion that these interagency agreement will “cut through layers of red tape” or “return education to the states” is thinly sliced baloney. It’s a lie.

“Instead of dealing with this government department, you will deal with this other government department” does not even remotely equal “You will now have less red tape.” In fact, given that you may have to track down the correct department and then deal with people who don’t have actual expertise and knowledge in education may spell even more red tape.

“We moved this from one government department to another government department” is definitely not the same as “we sent this back to the states.” 

Some programs may be sent back to the states in the sense that the feds would like to zero out the budget entirely which means the states that want to continue those programs will have to create and fund the programns on their own. If you tell your kids, “I’m not making you supper tonight,” I guess that’s kind of like saying “I’m sending the supper program to you.”

But the big ticket items, like IDEA and Title I will still be operating out of DC until such day as Congress decides to rewrite them. And given Dear Leader’s shrinking political capitol, I’m not sure that gutting IDEA is high on his To Do list right now. 

Matt Barnum suggests that gutting the department is largely symbolic and that actual schools won’t feel that much of a difference. On the one hand, that’s true-ish. “What is less clear,” Barnum writes, “is the Trump administration’s longer-term ambitions.” I’m not sure that’s all that mysterious. The far right’s goal, often in tandem with the modernn ed reform movement, is to get government entirely out of the education business while turning education into a get-it-yourself commodity. If government is involved in education at all, it would be 1) to provide a school-shaped holding tank for the difficult students that private schools don’t want and 2) to provide taxpayer funding for schools that deliver the “correct” ideological indoctrination. 

The parcelling-out of the department may only be a small step in that direction, but its long-seething right wing critics can see it as a means of shushing those annoying voices that keep bringing up rules and civil rights and stuff.

The best hope at this point is for a chance to build a new version of the department under a new administration (in an imaginary world in which the Democrats don’t face plant in 2028). But one of the worst things about the department has been the irresistable urge to use those massive grants to force DC-based education ideas on states, and this attack on the department doesn’t really address that problem at all. 

What this latest move clearly does not do is send education back to the states, which is, after all, where education responsibility already rested. The regime may be trying to hamstring and privatize education, but they aren’t sending it anywhere. It’s an unserious lie from unserious people. Stay tuned. 

Gary Rubinstein is a teacher of mathematics at Stuyvesant High School in NYC and a prominent critic of corporate reform. He started his career as one of the first corps members of Teach for America. After many years inside the reform world, he saw its flaws and became an apostate. Like me. With his superb mathematical skills, he has debunked charter school “miracles,” TFA data, the Tennessee Achievement School District, which did a lot of boasting but failed.

His review is a delight to read.

He writes:

Fifty years after the publication of her first book, ‘The Great School Wars’, author and historian Diane Ravitch has released her long awaited memoirs.  In ‘An Education: How I Changed My Mind About Schools and Almost Everything Else’ Ravitch takes us through her life from her childhood in Houston through the ups and downs of a long and productive life driven by truth and integrity.

What makes this book a ‘must read’ is that it has the three elements that a great autobiography should.  First, her life story is interesting on an objective level.  Anyone picking up the book and reading over the book jacket will know that Ravtich is someone who achieved fame and notoriety through the unlikely passion of the history of Education in America.  But in this book we learn about the sorrow she had to endure between her great triumphs.  So her story, even if it weren’t so well written, would make a very good book.  A second component of a great autobiography is the author’s ability to reflect on 80 plus years of life and find the pivotal moments that changed the course of her life.  But for an autobiography to be ‘great’ it must be infused and brought to life with excellent precise writing.  As ‘An Education’ has all three aspects, this is a book you are going to want to read and then keep to re-read over the years when you are in need of inspiration.

If you have read any of Ravitch’s education books, you know that she is a master of absorbing decades of events and processing them and creating an insightful, and incredibly efficient, thesis which she develops over the course of a book.  As she explains in this book, she learned her craft while writing as a journalist for The Wellesley News and then for The New Leader magazine.  In all her books she exhibits this efficient technique that would make Strunk and White beam.  But, by design, Ravtich’s books on Education are stripped of emotional language.  Those books educate you through a series of well chosen facts that lead you to understand the implications and big moments without having to spell out every detail.  The big question, which this new book answers with an emphatic ‘Yes’ is whether or not her kind of writing can be used to evoke the joy and the sorrow she experienced through her full 87 years of living.

When I started reading this book, I would bookmark interesting passages that show her talent for memoir.  Eventually I realized that I was bookmarking almost every page.  So after the first 50 of so pages, I had to slow down on the bookmarking.  Here are some of my favorite moments (I will try not to give away too much).

Since Ravitch can write a full tale in the span of five or six lines, there are so many interesting stories in this book.  As a writer she reminds me of one of those painters, I don’t know so much about painting to know what this is called – maybe impressionistic? – who, rather than producing a full photographic quality image, instead just does the minimal with the paint and brush to convey the emotion and ideas.  This is something that is very difficult to do yet she makes it look easy.

A few pages later, Ravitch relays an amusing story about how as a teen she found a pearl in an oyster and ended up in the newspaper for it and also got food poisoning from eating the oyster:  “The next day, after the newspaper appeared with a  photograph of me in short shorts, identified by name, strange men began calling the house, asking for me and saying impudent things.  That went on for days, along with the vomiting.  My mother was not amused.”  This is so efficient, not a word wasted and it does convey the absurdity and the humor with a minimal delivery reminiscent of maybe Bob Newhart.

Here’s one I liked:  “The only Sunday school teacher I remember was a strapping guy who discussed Bible stories and the Jewish religion with us.  He told us that when he was our age he had run away with the circus.”  Ah, see how great this is?  In the first sentence she sets up the scene.  And then in just a few words tells us the perfect thing to understand this guy.  No more is needed and no more is said.

Throughout the book, Ravitch takes stories and moments that could easily fill several pages and finds a way to convey them in a few words.  For the reader, this has the effect of injecting all the humor and sometimes the sorrow of these moments directly into our brains without it having to be processed and translated in our minds.

Though these two examples are fun and convey the innocence of childhood, Ravitch is similarly terse in her telling of some of the deepest tragic moments of her life.  When these happen in the book, the descriptions are so efficiently written that, like sometimes when bad things happen in life unexpectedly, we find ourselves pausing and wondering if that really just happened.  The matter of fact telling of memorable moments of life, both big and small, happy and tragic, has a powerful effect on the reader.

The book really gets rolling when Ravitch enters college in 1956 at Wellesley.  In one sense she is a fish out of water and then she eventually completely at home with the lifelong friends she made there.  This was a really fun chapter to read as Ravitch has the first of her many brushes with fame, like her friend Maddy – eventually Madeleine Albright.  Just as always, Ravitch perfectly sets up the matter of fact description of her friend’s background and then, in an instant it is revealed who she became known as. The Madeleine Albright story was less than one page long.

One of my favorite parts was the description about a satirical musical Ravitch and her friends wrote for the Wellesley Junior Show.  It was hilarious.  I kind of want to see the full script but her description of it, as all her descriptions, gave us just enough that we feel like we saw the whole show but forgot some of the missing details.

After college, Ravitch starts domestic life but isn’t quite content.  She then goes on a lifelong quest for love and for purpose.  As she goes through different eras in her life, she meets a new cast of colorful characters, some famous, some not, but always relevant to her story.

In this book we learn how she went from being the wife of an influential New York City figure to the influential Dr. Ravitch the Education guru of this country.  As she rises in the ranks, she finds herself in the company of so many famous people — even several presidents, yet she conveys in her telling of these encounters that, to her, it wasn’t such a big deal.  They are all just people.  Anyone who has gotten the chance to meet her in person and see her interact with so many people who are not famous will see that she treats non famous people like they are special and is always asking them questions rather than talking about herself.

One of the funniest anecdotes in the book is when she inadvertently got Isaac Asimov angry with her over small talk related to word processors.  Again, this is only a few lines, but another interesting adventure in Ravitch’s full life that put her often in the room with all kinds of famous people.

While married to her husband, Diane unexpectedly meets her soulmate who happens to be a woman. In the chapter about the genesis and growth of her relationship, they have now been together for almost 40 years, she is able to convey what it means to finally experience the joy of true love.

In the last chapters of the book we learn about the Washington years in the Department of Education and how that came about and what she tried to accomplish there.  We also learn about what it took to renounce much of her work and to follow the evidence into a more evolved system of beliefs about what can improve education in this country.  She lost a lot of friends and titles in the process but she kept her personal integrity and commitment to the truth.

Throughout the book, the theme is that Ravitch is never just one thing or the other.  Is she a education conservative or an education liberal?  Is she straight or gay?  Is she a southerner or a north easterner?  Is she an introvert or an extrovert?  Is she a socialite or a homebody?  And throughout her life she is sometimes one and sometimes the other.  She is someone who defies categorization.  And though in the subtitle she says she ‘changed her mind about schools and almost everything else’ she never changed her core belief that you don’t just stay in the same place just because you are comfortable there.

And like with her, this book is a lot of different things.  On one level it is an amusing and interesting read about someone whose choices led her on an unlikely adventure ending with her being, in some circles, a huge celebrity.  But it is also an inspirational tale of how having values and staying true to them can help you overcome some of the unfortunate obstacles you have to deal with in life.  And though I doubt it was intended to accomplish something else, I think that for many readers they will want to write down their own memoirs after reading this.  Ravitch makes it look so easy to analyze your life, find the key moments in it and write some succinct prose – though of course it isn’t so easy but still a worthwhile task.

After finishing this book, I had an experience that only a few people were also able to have.  In the acknowledgements in the ‘friends’ section, among sixteen other names, there was my own.  I got a chill seeing this, never expecting it.  But this made me think something else, also a lesson, though maybe unintended from this great book.  This book reminds us of the importance of relationships.  Everyone you know has a story to tell.  Some people’s lives may not have the highs and lows of Diane Ravitch’s but for each person, their joys and sorrows are meaningful to them.  And even if they don’t have the capability to write the way Ravitch can, if they could, you might find yourselves in the acknowledgement page for that friend or family member.  So enjoy the relationships you have while you can and remember that you are an important person in many people’s lives.

So pick up a copy today and take a ride through the ups and downs of a well lived life.  Though she has made a career of writing about education and teaching, through this book she educates and teaches us that if you keep an open mind and are committed to learning and following the facts, you might end up in a comfortable home a long way from where you started.

Dr. Edward Johnson is a brilliant systems analyst in Atlanta. He has been a close observer of the Atlanta public schools and their misgovernment as the Board of Education has latched onto the latest reform fad.

He points out that the public school system of the past no longer exists. Some people think that’s a food thing. He does not.

He wrote this observation.

By leading with his “One District …” slogan, and with Atlanta Board of Education meekly following along, APS Superintendent Dr. Johnson contends it is in the best interests of APS to be fragmented, to lack full transparency, to lack efficient and effective accountability, and to disparage the democratic principle that public education should be a public good.

 

In Georgia, we often hear the terms “school district” and “school system” used interchangeably.

 

But in the age of charter schools, this linguistic shortcut obscures a deeper truth: the public school system as a public good is no longer a unified system at all.

 

Before the proliferation of charter schools, an entity like Atlanta Public Schools (APS) governed all public-serving schools within its geographic boundaries.  The terms “APS district” and “APS system” used interchangeably made sense—each described the same coherent, interrelated network of schools sharing the same governance, policy, administration, and purpose.  Today, that coherence does not exist—it has been fragmented.

 

For example, by choice of Atlanta Board of Education, APS is now a “Charter System,” operating under a performance contract with the state that explicitly excludes independent charter schools.  These schools, though publicly funded, are governed separately and are not subject to APS’s policies, leadership, administration, or community-based governance structures.  They are public in funding, but private in autonomy.

 

This shift has compressed the expanse of APS as a public school system and as a public good.  APS no longer encompasses all public-serving schools in Atlanta.  And yet, we continue to refer to APS as both a “district” and a “system,” as if nothing has changed.  Well, something has changed.

 

A system, by definition, implies interrelated parts.  For public school systems, it implies shared accountability, common purpose, and public stewardship.  When schools within a geographic area operate independently—without shared governance or policy—they are not part of the same system.  They may be public-serving, but they are not part of the public school system.

 

This distinction matters. It matters for transparency, for accountability, and for the democratic principle that public education should be a public good—not a fragmented marketplace of loosely affiliated or wholly independent entities.

 

Yet, by going along with APS Superintendent Dr. Bryan Johnson’s “One District, with One Goal, for All Students,” board members violate the Oath of Office each of them swore—”In all things pertaining to my said office, I will be governed by the public good and the interests of said [APS] school system.”

 

By leading with his “One District …” slogan, and with Atlanta Board of Education meekly following along, APS Superintendent Dr. Johnson contends it is in the best interests of APS to be fragmented, to lack full transparency, to lack efficient and effective accountability, and to disparage the democratic principle that public education should be a public good.

 

Certainly, clearly, it is reasonable to recognize it is not in APS’s best interests that Dr. Bryan Johnson should be its Superintendent.

 

The Superintendent’s Comprehensive Long Range Facilities Master Plan, given the glossy name APS Forward 2040, Reshaping the Future of Education, will, short-range, compress the expanse of APS even more so, from its current 68 percent being a public school system to about 60 percent.

 

Then, compounding that long-range, the Superintendent’s Strategic Plan will efficiently and effectively turn APS into a workforce development entity to the exclusion of virtually all possibilities of APS ever becoming a high-quality public school system, where high-quality teaching and learning that readies children for professions and careers from A to Z happens, especially for “Black” children.

 

Georgia’s legal framework treats each local- and state-authorized charter school as its own “school system.” This semantic sleight of hand allows policymakers to claim that public education is expanding, even as its coherence erodes. But the public deserves clarity. We must stop conflating geographic proximity with systemic unity.

 

If we are to preserve the integrity of public education, we must reclaim the meaning of “system.” A public school system should be more than a collection of facilities—it should be a community of schools, governed together, accountable together, and committed together to the public good.

 

Ed Johnson

Advocate for Quality in Public Education

Atlanta GA | (404) 505-8176 | edwjohnson@aol.com