Archives for category: Education Reform

The Network for Public Education is the largest organization of parents, activists, educators and students that works to preserve and improve public education. Now in its 11th year, NPE works with organizations in every state to oppose privatization of our public schools, to promote full funding of them, and to support the professionals whose work is crucial to their success.

NPE issued this statement about today’s election

Our endorsement was as much a rejection of Donald J. Trump as it was an embrace of the Harris/Walz pro-public education ticket. There can be no romanticization of the Trump years. His choice of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education, a zealot for private school vouchers, damaged the public’s faith and allegiance to public schools. They sought to slash federal education funding in every budget proposal.  Ms. DeVos has made it clear she would be eager to return to the job to dismantle the Department of Education and public education itself.

Earlier this year, the Board of Directors of the Network for Public Education Action endorsed Kamala Harris for President and Tim Walz for Vice President of the United States. 

We respect that public school advocates may or may not agree with our endorsements, and we know those who support public schools disagree on other issues. 

This year, however, we must speak again, urging all, whether progressive, moderate, or conservative in political beliefs, to support the Harris/Walz ticket. The very well-being of our children is at stake.

We have all heard the vitriol directed at immigrants at rallies and even the Presidential debate. Regardless of varying positions on immigration policy, this campaign of hatred and contempt will accelerate and inevitably permeate our schools, which millions of children who come from immigrant households attend. The rhetoric of hate not only affects how children view themselves and their classmates, but it sends the message that hate speech is allowed.

We also know that Trump’s false claims that children are receiving gender transition surgery at school and that public school teachers are “grooming” students are part of a broader anti-public school campaign. But the consequences go beyond the politics of school choice. For some parents, these lies evoke anger and fear. They undermine parents’ trust in teachers and schools. They send a message to children that adults can repeatedly lie without personal consequence and that the liar can even be rewarded with the Presidency.

Some believe the lies, hate speech, and personal attacks are just a part of the campaign. We believe that the election of Donald Trump will not end hateful misinformation and personal attacks, but rather, they will become an integral part of American life. We cannot let that happen. We can return to civil discourse and disagreement.

The stakes are greater than program funding and support. Our children are watching. Our children are learning. They deserve to grow up in a country in which tolerance and respect are the norm, not the demonization of those who are culurally or racially different or who hold a differing point of view.  For the sake of their emotional well-being and the development of their character, Trumpism must end.  We urge you to vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz on November 5.

It’s hard to notice something that is invisible, but it is indeed obvious that there has been no discussion of education in the Presidential campaign.

It’s not as if education is unimportant: education is a path to a better life and to a better society. It is the road to progress.

The differences between the two candidates are like night and day. Trump supports dismantling public education and giving out vouchers. Harris is committed to funding schools and universities.

Project 2025 displays Trump’s goals: to eliminate the Department of Education, to turn the programs it funds (Title 1, IDEA for students with disabilities) and turn them into unrestricted block grants to states, which allows states to siphon off their funding for other purposes. At the same time that the Trump apparat wants to kill the Ed Department, it wants (contradictorily) to impose mandates on schools to stop the teaching of so-called critical race theory, to censor books, and to impose rightwing ideology on the nation’s schools.

It’s too bad that the future of education never came up in either of the high-profile debates. The American people should know that Kamala Harris wants to strengthen America’s schools, colleges, and universities, and that Donald Trump wants to destroy them.

Randi Weingarten wrote an excellent article in Newsweek about the plans of each candidate.

If you can’t open it, try this link.

The legendary Jackie Goldberg is retiring from the Los Angeles school board, which means there is an open seat. Carl J. Petersen, an LAUSD parent, sent questions to both candidates for the seat, but only one answered.

Petersen writes:

Karla Griego

LAUSD Board District 5 covers Northeast Los Angeles from East Hollywood to Eagle Rock and extends through Koreatown and Pico-Union to include much of Southeast L.A. (“SELA”) from Vernon to South Gate and also part of South LA. With its representative, Jackie Goldberg, taking a well-deserved retirement, a rare open-seat election is occurring in November.

As voters begin receiving their ballots, the two remaining candidates, Karla Griego and Graciela Ortiz, have been given one last opportunity to answer questions about issues facing the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Throughout the campaign, Ortiz has failed to answer questions sent to her as part of the LAUSD Candidate Forum series and this last set of questions were no different. Griego continued to participate and her answers to the first half of the questions can be found below:

  • According to the District, charter schools currently owe $3,003,768 in delinquent overallocation fees, some of this debt is several years old. How would you force the District to ensure that these debts are paid?

Charter Corporations should not be allowed to continue expanding while carrying outstanding debt to our district and our students. I would propose specific limits to their expansion and contract renewals until such debts are paid off.

  • After telling the LAUSD School Board for years that state law required the District to classify classrooms used to provide Special Education services as “empty” and are, therefore, available to be given away when providing space under PROP-39, the Director of the Charter School Division admitted this year that it was, instead, the policy of the district. As a result, some of our most vulnerable children were receiving these services in closets and stairwells. How should Jose Cole-Guitierez, Director of the Charter School Division, be held accountable for misleading the Board?

It is unconscionable that Charter corporations have deceived our districts’ decision-makers and that LAUSD has not yet held Charter companies accountable. In conjunction with the community schools model, schools should have the decision-making power to use their facilities to best benefit their students, and not be at risk of space being taken to expand or co-locate charters.

  • The LAUSD is required to have a Homeless Liaison for each school per the McKinney Vento Homeless Assistance Act. What are the candidate’s positions on LAUSD partnering with the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment Homelessness Liaisons in Neighborhood Councils to notify our constituents about homeless services for students and their parents at their schools?

LAUSD should at the very least have a homeless liaison in each school, and be in communication with existing partners so that our students and their families are aware of homeless services available to them. But we need to do more. With rising housing costs in Los Angeles, LAUSD has the responsibility– and the ability–to address homelessness in creative ways that offer vital services to our students. This includes using vacant lots to build housing for our students and their families and partnering with community based organizations, city and county offices to address the homelessness crisis.

  • What statement(s) from the opposing campaign team would like to address?

My opponent claims that it is not her place to evaluate the Superintendent, her boss. I disagree. I believe that as an educator, and as a School Board member, it will be my responsibility to hold the Superintendent accountable to the students we serve and to the many qualified employees of the District. We need to focus on funding services for our students, not new digital platforms that no one asked for. We need to focus on serving our special education population, not overtesting our kids. We need to focus on providing enrichment, arts education, and mental health services to our students, not selling our kids out to more privately-run charters. We need to evaluate his decisions every step of the way, and demand better.

  • Given the rhetoric around cutting wasteful spending, please provide one specific part of the budget where you believe waste exists and how would you make cuts that would not affect the classroom?

It seems that there are too many high paid administrators at the District and Local District levels as well as contracts with outside consultants, marketing and testing companies. One of those contracts, the recent AI Bot named Ed, whose company filed for bankruptcy, is an example of expenditures that were made at the top level without stakeholder input.

  • One of the basic jobs of a School Board Member is to hire and fire the Superintendent. How should a Superintendent be evaluated?

Evaluation should be based on progress towards goals which are predetermined by the school board. These goals should be informed by stakeholder input and priorities. Beyond progress toward academic achievement, graduation and attendance, goals should include school climate and culture, safety, wellness and progress toward improving the overall educational experience of all of our students. Data toward these goals should be collected throughout the Superintendent’s tenure, to provide guidance and opportunities to make changes and improvements on actions designated to achieve these goals.

  • Nurses need equipment and the proper size office to care for students. Have all school Administrators established a HIPAA compliant Health Office where the nurse has confidential work space to talk with students, parents, staff members, and doctors regarding students health needs, reporting abuse or neglect? Do they have a private area to do procedures, other than in a bathroom which is not appropriate to do give a Insulin Injection, or to do a Gastronomy Tube feeding or to put the tube back into a student in a space large enough and as sterile or clean as possible?

I support equipping our nurses with the resources and facilities necessary at all schools to provide safe and secure health services to our students.

  • Do Special Education Centers and special day classes have a place in the District’s continuum of services. If not, why? If yes, what will you do to ensure that families have an ability to choose them during the IEP process?

Special Ed Centers and Special Day Classes should have a place in the District’s continuum of services. Although it is part of the IEP meeting discussion, it is not necessarily one that is delved into deeply. Sometimes parents do not understand the difference between programs and placements. An action step toward making this conversation meaningful and collaborative with the whole IEP team, is to provide information to help parents be aware of their rights. They must also be encouraged and empowered to participate in the meetings. An accountability piece is adding space in the IEP document that records the conversation; holding local regional meetings at least 4 times a year that informs and supports parents’/caregivers’ understanding of the IEP process, their rights and engagement in the process. Furthermore, this meeting would also inform families and students what various Special Education Programs are offered in the LAUSD.

  • There is a wide consensus that the IEP process has become increasingly adversarial. How will you ensure that parents are equal partners in guiding special education services?

Some of the first steps of action to remedy this, is to ensure that case carriers/teachers’ caseloads/class size is honored and respected. This way, teachers and case carriers can meet with family members to review the IEP process and meeting. Building relationships and respecting families/caregivers and approaching the IEP meeting from a place of compassion and understanding while centering the child’s needs, is critical to build trust. Meetings should include norms of collaboration that are agreed upon by the IEP team, which explicitly states that everyone on the team is an equal partner (although these norms exist, they are not always reviewed at IEP meetings.)

Additional responses from either candidate will be published as they are received. Griego’s previous participation in the LAUSD Candidate Forum Series can be found in the following articles: Special EducationPROP-39 Co-LocationsStudent SafetyThe BudgetInclusion and Diversity, and Charter School Accountability.

Peter Greene provides an overview of the three states that will be voting on vouchers on November 5. Vouchers have been on state ballots nearly two dozen times. They have never won. They are usually defeated overwhelmingly. Voucher advocates know this, and they usually try to kill state referenda because they know they will lose.

Of the three states that will conduct voucher referenda, Colorado has the trickiest ballot. It currently has charter schools but voucher advocates want the state constitution to go further. They are using bland, deceptive language to make vouchers legal, without actually using the word “vouchers.”

In a few weeks, Colorado, Kentucky, and Nebraska are giving voters a chance to vote on taxpayer-funded school vouchers.

Colorado

Colorado voters will have the chance to amend the state constitution to enshrine school choice. The proposed amendment is short and sweet, asserting that “parents have the right to direct the education of the children” and “each K-12 child has the right to school choice.”

Colorado is no stranger to school choice. Students can travel across district boundaries to other school districts, and in 1993, Colorado became the third state to pass a charter school law.

Advance Colorado, a conservative anti-tax group, pushed the amendment. Supporters insist that the intention is simply to preserve the thirty-year-old charter program. But the wide-open language of the proposal, which specifies that ”school choice includes neighborhood, charter, private, and home schools, open enrollment options, and future innovations in education,” clearly covers more than just the charter school program.

In fact, in addition to opening the door to school vouchers, the proposal seems to open up some other possibilities. If a student is denied admission to a private school for any reason, can the student’s family demand their constitutional right to school choice? If a parent disagrees with any element of a school’s curriculum, can the parent demand their constitutional right to “direct the education” of their child? Kevin Welner of the Colorado-based National Education Policy Center calls the proposal “a ‘full employment for lawyers'” act.

Kentucky

In 2022, Kentucky voucher supporters suffered a major setback when the state supreme court ruled the voucher funding mechanism violated the state constitution. Supporters had set up a tax credit scholarship program in which folks could donate to a voucher scholarship program and get a dollar for dollar tax credit.

Proponents argue (as Betsy DeVos did when she proposed a federal version of this system) that this does not constitute spending taxpayer funds on private or religious schools because the money is never actually in the government’s hands, despite the fact that the government will then face a revenue shortfall.

Section 184 of the Kentucky constitution has some straightforward language about funding education, including:

No sum shall be raised or collected for education other than in common schools until the question of taxation is submitted to the legal voters, and the majority of the votes cast at said election shall be in favor of such taxation.

Kentucky’s Attorney General, arguing for the voucher plan, tried to assert a reading of the law that allowed for tax credit scholarships. The court replied, “We respectfully decline to construe the Constitution in a way that would avoid its plain meaning.”

Then in 2023, Franklin County Circuit Court Judge Phillip Shepherd ruled against the law set up to fund charter schools in the state.

So in January of this year, HB 2 was proposed, a constitutional amendment that would expand all that restrictive public school language and free lawmakers to fund charter schools and vouchers. With one sentence, vouchers would become constitutional in Kentucky:

The General Assembly may provide financial support for the education of students outside the system of common schools.

Nebraska

In May of 2023, Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen signed into law LB 753, creating tax credit vouchers for subsidizing private schools, called “Opportunity Scholarships.”. Opponents circulated a petition to challenge the law by putting it on the ballot. They needed 60,000 signatures to force the issue onto the ballot. At the end of August, 2023, they had 117,000, and the measure was headed for the November 2024 ballot.

In April of 2024, voucher supporters tried an end run around the petition. LB 1402 repealed the Opportunity Scholarship Act and launched a new school voucher program. The new bill came from Senator Lou Ann Linehan, who also authored the Opportunity Scholarships Act. Governor Jim Pillen approved the bill on April 25.

Arguing that the repeal of Opportunity Scholarships rendered the November vote on the program pointless, Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evman pulled the ballot issue. Voters can’t repeal a law that has already been repealed.

In 67 days, the coalition of opponents gathered the necessary signatures—again. A lawsuit and a threat by Evman to pull the measure from the ballot were struck down by the Nebraska Supreme Court in a 7-0 decision. Nebraskans will vote on vouchers for their state.

These are three different approaches to the question of taxpayer-funded school vouchers, but they share the unusual feature of putting voucher programs to a public vote. All school voucher programs in the U. S. were passed into law by legislatures, sometimes over strong objections of the taxpayers. No taxpayer-funded school voucher program has ever survived a public vote.

Bill Lueders wrote this article at the Never-Trump site called “The Bulwark.” He asked the question that is the title of this post. Lueders is editor-army-large for The Progressive. He says that Eric Hovde, who is challenging Senator Tammy Baldwin, has “high hopes and low scruples.”

He writes:

ERIC HOVDE’S CAMPAIGN IS “running out of money.” He told me so the other day. He’s worth hundreds of millions of dollars. But apparently he can’t afford to keep up with the cost of his own attack ads.

“Fellow Conservative,” began his recent email, addressed to me. “I need your immediate help to keep this ad running 24/7 online in Wisconsin through Election Day!” He said it was very important that this particular ad continue to run, as it represents “our best opportunity to expose undecided Wisconsin voters who will decide this TOSS-UP election to Tammy Baldwin’s willingness to line her own pockets at the expense of Wisconsin voters.” 

I don’t know if Hovde’s campaign scared up the $50,000 that he said was needed within 48 hours in order for the ad to keep running, but the ad was definitely not pulled. You can watch it here. It pictures Baldwin, the first openly lesbian (or gay) senator in U.S. history, alongside her partner, Maria Brisbane, who is described in a voiceover as “a Wall Street exec who makes millions advising the super-rich how to make money off of industries Tammy regulates.” 

A still from Hovde’s ad.

The ad, part of a tsunami of political spending on the race that has been going on for months, says Baldwin often doesn’t make it home to Wisconsin on weekends because “she’d rather be in New York at Maria’s $7 million condo.” For this reason, the narrator intones, “New Yorkers have given Tammy more than $1.3 million. Tammy Baldwin is not Wisconsin’s senator anymore, she’s the third senator from New York.”

As he heads into what is seen as one of the most competitive and potentially pivotal races for the U.S. Senate on the November 5 ballot, Hovde is doing his darnedest to shake off the image some people have of him as an elite outsider and somewhat of a jerk. He insists this is a false impression. 

Just because he is a California banker with listed assets of between $195 million and $563 million, lives mostly in a $7 million oceanview mansion in Laguna Beach, was for three straight years named one of Orange County’s most influential people by a local business journal, and has frequently not even bothered to vote in Wisconsin elections, doesn’t mean Hovde is not intimately connected to the state’s working stiffs. In February, he even jumped into the icy waters of Lake Mendota in Madison to prove it.

Hovde in a still from his video from Lake Mendota.

“So the Dems and Senator Baldwin keep saying I’m not from Wisconsin,” he says in the video while shirtless in the freezing lake. “Which is a complete joke. All right, Sen. Baldwin, why don’t you get out here in this frozen lake and let’s really see who’s from Wisconsin.” Like most sensible Wisconsinites, the senator stayed out of the frigid water.

Baldwin keeps most of her relatively meager assets, reportedly worth around $1.2 million, in a blind trust. Hovde has not committed to doing so, although he has vowed to “step out of any management role” at the Utah-based bank where he now serves as chairman of board. (The bank, ingeniously named Sunwest Bank, has branchesin five states, not including Wisconsin, and some $3.4 billion in assets.)

And so even though his own financial conflicts are much greater and less well safeguarded, Hovde is going after Baldwin on this score, claiming she’s somehow helping the super-rich “make money off of industries Tammy regulates.” Hovde groused to the Wisconsin State Journalthat Baldwin “doesn’t report what her partner is doing. If she was married, they’d have to report that, right? So she’s, again, trying to confuse people.”

But who is trying to confuse whom? Baldwin and Brisbane are not married, so under the law, neither has to report Brisbane’s assets. Hovde, in contrast, has potential conflicts that are genuinely concerning, including his bank’s decision to accept money from a Mexican bank that has been tied to drug traffickers.….


Hovde, meanwhile, has tried to paint Baldwin as a dangerous radical. In a pair of similar ads that began airing last week, the ominous voiceover accuses Baldwin and Vice President Kamala Harris of being birds of a feather in, as one of these ads puts it, “allowing men to compete in girls’ sports, funding a clinic that offers transgender therapy to minors without parents’ consent, giving stimulus checks to illegals while Wisconsin families struggle.”

A still from one of Hovde’s attack ads.

To finish reading, open the link.


Mercedes Schneider writes in her blog that Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson is in hot water because of a CNN exposé of his lewd and unhinged posts on porn sites. CNN admitted that some of his posts were so XXXX-rated that it would neither post them nor even link to them.

Mercedes, no less fastidious than CNN, decided that the public should know why this man is morally and ethically unfit to be the Governor of North Carolina.

She posted the links to posts by Robinson that demonstrate his lack of character, decency, and morality.

A reader of the blog, who shall remain nameless, sends comments repeatedly to justify or minimize the massacre of Israeli civilians by Hamas terrorists. Her comments are so offensive to me that they are in moderation, meaning I read them before approving or deleting them.

The reader believes that the terrorists intended to attack only military targets and kill only soldiers. She suggests that Israel overstated the number of civilian deaths to win sympathy. She argues that only “one baby” was killed. She also has claimed that most civilian deaths were caused by Israeli fire. She has also written, in comments I did not publish, that women were not raped by the terrorists: anyone who says so is lying. Even the hundreds of young people gunned down at the Rave, the all-night dance party, were killed by IDF helicopter fire, not Hamas.

Her “evidence” is found in an article that makes most of these assertions. Her reading seems to be confined to sources that hate Israel’s very existence and look forward to it being eliminated or dissolved, as Israelis “go back where they came from.” How will that work for the millions who were born in Israel or were expelled by Arab nations?

The article was written by a British journalist, Robert Inlakesh, who loathes Israel. He has written many anti-Israel articles. Here is a quote from one of them:

Whether we look at the Israeli political elite, military, police, intelligence, society or media, we see genocidal mania. This is because their narcissistic supremacist ideology is collapsing before their very eyes, they are beginning to realize that maintaining apartheid is no longer viable.

The opportunity for the Israelis to implement the only solution that would have enabled them to continue their existence has passed. If the Zionist regime was actually serious about the Oslo Accords and simply accepted international law as the consensus for a so-called two-state solution, they could have perhaps proceeded and actually maintained their regime. However, allowing the Palestinian people to gain access to basic human rights in only 22% of historic Palestine was not possible for them under their racist expansionist ideology.

We are now reaching the final phase of this settler colonial project and the Israelis have come to the realization that maintaining their ethno-supremacist regime of absolute privilege will mean exterminating and ethnically cleansing everyone in their way. They are so immersed in their own collective form of narcissism, in which they view themselves as both the victim and hero of the story, that stopping now is impossible. This is also why Israeli society is split down the middle on the question of what kind of ethno-supremacist regime they seek: whether that will be a secular or religious regime going forward.

Therefore, with full US backing they are slowly committing national suicide. This may be a process that is somewhat delayed if a ceasefire is reached in Gaza that prevents the immediate end of the regime by military means, but the war will continue in other ways. The West Bank will likely end up becoming their punching bag until they can again escalate elsewhere and the only promise that can be made to their own people is a future of perpetual war.

In reading his articles, I can’t find anywhere that he calls Arab nations “ethnostates,” although by his definition they are.

I have been clear on this blog about my desire for a ceasefire, for peace, and for a two-state solution. I have strongly condemned Benjamin Netanyahu for his unwillingness to seeek peace. But I have also condemned Hamas, not only for the October 7 attack, but for their unwillingness to seek peace and for hiding their quarters under the cover of schools, hospitals, and other civilian facilities. It’s not as if my opinion matters to world leaders. It doesn’t.

Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, in full knowledge that their attack would trigger an overwhelming Israeli military response. They were willing to sacrifice Gazan civilians because Hamas had secure underground hiding places for themselves

How do I know about the brutality of Hamas on October 7? I watched the videotapes made by the terrorists. I watched them murder people in their homes, their cars, their gardens, their bomb shelters. How do I know women were raped? Not only eyewitness testimony, but an indelible memory of a young Israeli woman lying in the back of a pickup truck, the bottom of her pants stained with blood, as terrorists sat around her, smiling broadly.

One house, to my knowledge, was hit by fire from an Israeli tank, and 13-14 Israelis who were sheltering there died.

Most of the carnage happened before the IDF arrived. The attack began about 6:30 am, and the Israeli forces did not get there until 3-4 pm. Why the long delay? An official inquiry will one day explain but Netanyahu won’t allow the inquiry until the fighting is over. Another despicable, self-serving action on his part. An impartial inquiry will surely fault him for failing to protect the peaceable kibbutzim that bordered Gaza, as well as the inexplicably slow response by the IDF to stop the attack.

As far as the number of children killed, UN sources say it was 29, not 1. At least 3,000 children in Gaza have died, but the number has doubtless multiplied since the story was written last November.

A site called Factcheck.org reported:

At least 29 children were killed when Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. In addition, about 30 children were taken hostage by Hamas, the Associated Press reported…

There has been extensive news coverage of the Oct. 7 attack and the war, including stories on video footage from that day showing “Hamas gunmen cheering with apparent joy as they shot civilians on the road, and later stalking the pathways of kibbutzim and killing parents and children in their homes,” as BBC reported

As we have written, Israel’s National Center of Forensic Medicine has been working to identify the remains of those killed on Oct. 7. Forensic pathologist Chen Kugel, the head of the center, said the ages of those killed ranged from 3 months to 80 or 90 years, according to The Media Line, an American news outlet that covers the Middle East.

Kugel also told the Los Angeles Times that initially most of the bodies could be identified through DNA. Now, the staff’s work involves “reassembling and reconnecting pieces” of remains found in the landscapes where the killings occurred.

For example, what initially appeared to be a piece of charcoal was examined through a CT scan, Kugel said. The scan revealed, “These were people who were hugging one another and burned while they were tied together. It might be a parent and a child.”

Who is Factcheck.org?

Prior to fiscal 2010, we were supported entirely by three sources: funds from the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s own resources (specifically an endowment created in 1993 by the Annenberg Foundation at the direction of the late Walter Annenberg, and a 1995 grant by the Annenberg Foundation to fund APPC’s Washington, D.C., base); additional funds from the Annenberg Foundation; and grants from the Flora Family Foundation.

We currently receive support from the APPC endowment, which includes funding from the Annenberg Foundation and from the Annenberg School for Communication Trust at the University of Pennsylvania.

See its website for other funders.

Massachusetts voters will have a chance to vote on whether the state academic test–MCAS–should continue to be a high school graduation requirement.

The Boston Globe reports:

Roughly 58 percent of Massachusetts voters said they would support eliminating a requirement that students pass the MCAS examination to graduate high school, far outpacing the 37 percent who said they would vote to keep the mandate in place.

The measure, known as Question 2, is one of the most consequential on the ballot in Massachusetts, which by some measures boasts the best public school systems in the country. Despite that success, the Massachusetts Teachers Association and its leaders are leading the biggest revolt over testing in two decades, arguing the mandate puts too much focus on subjects tested by MCAS and creates too much anxiety and retesting of students.

The question speaks to the frustrations of many parents, including Felicia Torres, a 39-year-old Haverhill resident and mother of three. Her 9-year-old is smart, loves hockey, and enjoys math, but he “dreads and hates school” because he chafes at being taught “whatever they’re forced to learn,” she said.

“I honestly don’t think that a standardized test depicts how well a child will do,” said Torres, a nurse. “I just don’t think it’s accurate.”

The bid to eliminate the MCAS graduation requirement is riding huge advantages among female voters, with 64 percent saying they plan to vote “yes.” Perhaps most notably, 60 percent of independent voters also say they want to eliminate the mandate.

“That tells me it has an excellent chance of passing,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.

Typically, he said, those who are undecided about a ballot question ultimately vote against it if they are confused by it or are unsure about its impact, effectively siding with the status quo. In the case of Question 2, only about 4 percent of voters said they were undecided.

The question has split Democratic leaders, with Governor Maura Healey, House Speaker Ron Mariano, and Senate President Karen E. Spilka each opposed to eliminating the requirement while some members of Congress and state lawmakers joined the Massachusetts Teachers Union. But its support isn’t universal among teachers, either.

“You need some sort of tool and measurement stick in terms of how the school is performing,” said Luke, a 37-year-old Wakefield resident and eighth-grade social studies teacher who told pollsters he is voting against the question. He spoke to the Globe on the condition his full name not be used. “If you’re going to still carry out the MCAS, how do you think students are going to take it seriously when you’re saying it doesn’t need to be a requirement?”


Rick Hess is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in D.C. that is underwritten in part by the billionaire DeVos family. I have always had very pleasant and rewarding exchanges with Rick, who is a very amiable guy. He often tries to stake out a middle ground on controversial issues, as he does here. He argues that he doesn’t know what Trump will do on education, if re-elected, and neither does anyone else. But he concludes that Trump is unikely to do anything radical in the way of defunding education programs or dismantling the Department. So, don’t believe what he says and disregard Project 2025.

Somehow I’m not assuaged.

Hess writes in Education Next:

This summer, musing on the Republican National Convention, I noted that the GOP has been fundamentally remade since 2016—a point deemed self-evident by right-leaning pundits (MAGA and Never-Trump alike) but that seems insufficiently appreciated by a whole lot of other observers.

This has yielded a lot of certainty in education circles as to what would happen under a Trump 2.0, much of which I find pretty dubious. I’ve done interviews with reporters who seem to take it as given that Trump would slash Title I, IDEA, and Pell Grants. One write-up after another has emphatically declared that the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 playbook is the blueprint for Trump 2.0. There’s a remarkable confidence that Trump’s administration would embrace budget-cutting, small-government, Mike Pence–Betsy DeVos conservatism, only far more aggressively than the last go-round.

Now, might they be right? Sure. But it’s not the way to bet. I want to take a moment to explain why.

For starters, keep in mind that Trump has never been a conservative in any traditional sense. He’s a showman, reality TV star, and longtime Democrat who stumbled into the presidency. In 2016, as the newbie in a party dominated by Tea Party and Reaganite conservatives, he was obligated to name Mike Pence VP and issue a list of Federalist Society–vetted Supreme Court nominees. Today, Trump is no longer so constrained: he is the Republican Party. Traditional conservatives—from Dick Cheney to Mitt Romney to Paul Ryan—have been purged. Trump’s VP pick is now J.D. Vance, a former Never-Trumper who subsequently bent the knee. Trump has thrown the pro-life wing of the GOP coalition under the bus, torn up a half-century of Republican foreign policy, and dumped those who advised him on judges last time.

The shift is only partly about Trump being unfettered. It’s also about the remaking of the Republican coalition. Republicans have bled socially moderate, fiscally conservative college grads while gaining working-class voters who kind of like New Deal/Great Society-type spending. Pence was a Reaganite, a small-government conservative who wanted to cut programs and reduce spending. Vance is a NatCon, an economic populist who greeted the news that Liz Cheney would be voting for Harris by denouncing the former member of the House Republican leadership as someone who gets “rich when America’s sons and daughters go off to die.” Where Reaganite conservatives talked about the need to reform Social Security and Medicare, Trump has promised he won’t touch them. This is decidedly not the Romney-Ryan Republican Party.

So, while it seems to elude much of the education commentariat, it should be regarded as an open question as to whether Trump 2.0 would actually commit to much budget-cutting or shrinking of the bureaucracy when it comes to education. Indeed, when asked about child care, Trump recently offered a word salad suggesting that his proposed tariffs would help fund a major expansion of federal programs. Last year, he pitched a federally-funded “American Academy,” which would open new vistas for Washington’s role in providing higher education. Trump has obviously promised aggressive action on key cultural hot points—from defunding anti-Semitic colleges to busting the higher-ed accreditation cartel—and such moves, while obviously right-leaning, imply a need for a robust federal presence.

As National Review’s Andy McCarthy observed in his debate postmortem last week, “Because he’s an opportunist with some conservative leanings, rather than a conservative in search of opportunities to advance the cause, Trump often can’t decide whether to deride Harris’s cynical policy shifts or try to get to her left.” Even in Trump’s first term, when he had an experienced team of small-government true believers, there was little cutting and a whole lot of deficit spending. Recall that it was Trump who supported the first big tranche of unconditional pandemic aid for schools, initiated the hugely expensive student loan pause, and spent his first term watching spending climb on programs he’d promised to cut.

Now, some readers may protest: “Yeah, but Trump told Elon Musk we should abolish the Department of Education, and Heritage’s Project 2025 calls for cutting education spending!” Fair points. Trump has made a slew of contradictory promises, and neither the GOP platform nor his track record offer much clarity as to what should be believed. After all, even as Trump was saying he’d like to abolish the Department, he was emphatically denouncing Project 2025 (written by first-term staff who may not be welcome back in a Trump 2.0) and insisting he hasn’t read it.


What’s the bottom line? The truth is that no one really knows how a Trump 2.0 would go. I’ll keep this simple: anyone who claims to know . . . doesn’t. It’s not clear who is advising Trump on education, who (other than his kids) would inhabit his inner circle, how much sway Vance will have, or who would make key calls on staffing. That said, it seems to me that there are three scenarios for a Trump 2.0 when it comes to education. Here they are, from least likely to most likely.

Trump Drains the Swamp. Trump governs as a Beltway-draining, government-cutting conservative, even after aggressively disavowing Heritage’s Project 2025, promising not to touch entitlements, and failing to downsize the federal education footprint in his first term. He goes after Title I, IDEA, and Pell, and he leans on Congress to dismantle the Department of Education. It’s doubtful he could convince centrist GOP senators like Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski to go along with it, though, meaning Republicans would need a stunningly good election night in the Senate contests to put any of this in play.

Trump Seeks Retribution. Trump devotes his energy to waging his war of “retribution” on his “enemies”—going after the press, Democrats, and any RINOs who’ve earned his ire. His White House spends its time seeking to pull the U.S. out of our international commitments and launching a federally organized deportation effort as part of an aggressive immigration strategy. Amidst the maelstrom, education gets left to the White House’s domestic policy team and whoever winds up staffing the Department of Education—but little happens because of the energy consumed by the tumult and its aftermath.

Trump Puts Trump First. Trump approaches education through the same Trump-first lens as most issues. Because Trump likes things that are popular, he’ll slam colleges, gesture towards school choice, and bark at wokeness but won’t put any meaningful effort into cutting education spending or downsizing the Department. In fact, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he emulates Biden-Harris by treating education as a pandering piñata. Rather than tough-minded budget cuts, I think he’s more likely to endorse universalizing free school lunch, tripling federal spending on IDEA (for “our very beautiful children with special needs”), or making college loans interest-free à la Sen. Rubio’s new bill.

Look, I’ll be the first to concede I could well be wrong. Trump’s an impulsive creature and, should he win, it’s a guessing game who’d wind up calling the shots on education in Trump 2.0. But if I had to bet, given what we know today, I strongly suspect the feverish talk of defunding and dismantling federal education will prove little more than a fever dream.

If you are within driving distance of Salisbury, Maryland, please come to hear me talk on Tuesday at 7 pm.

I will be speaking in a lecture series endowed by veteran educator E. Pauline Riall.