Mike Simpson, known on Twitter as “Big Education Ape,” is known for his brilliant memes and editorial cartoons. Typically, they expose the latest fads and lies that defame teachers and public schools. Every once in a while, he publishes a great post, like this one.
I’M SHOCKED, SHOCKED — HOW 30 YEARS OF BILLIONAIRE-FUNDED “REFORM” MANUFACTURED THE EDUCATION CRISIS IT PROMISED TO FIX
There’s a famous scene in Casablanca where Captain Renault declares he is “shocked, shocked” to find gambling going on — right before a croupier hands him his winnings. That’s essentially the posture of the billionaire reform industrial complex today, clutching its pearls over a Gallup poll showing public satisfaction with American schools has cratered to 32% — an 11-point nosedive in just two years — while quietly pocketing the profits of the crisis they spent three decades engineering.
Shocked. Absolutely shocked.
The Architecture of a Manufactured Crisis
Let’s be precise about the timeline, because precision matters when someone is picking your pocket.
For roughly 30 years, a well-funded constellation of think tanks, philanthropic foundations, hedge fund managers, and tech oligarchs pumped billions of dollars into a single, relentless narrative: public schools are failing. Not “underfunded.” Not “systematically neglected.” Failing — as in, inherently broken, irredeemably incompetent, populated by bad teachers protected by evil unions, and salvageable only by the heroic intervention of the private market.
The messaging was surgical. The money was real. And — surprise! — it worked.
Starve public schools of adequate funding. Declare them “failing.” Ride in on a white charter bus to “rescue” the children.
The chronic underfunding wasn’t fiscal negligence. In many states, it was a feature, not a bug. Squeeze hard enough, the theory went, and disruption would force innovation. What it actually forced was deferred maintenance, teacher shortages, and a generation of kids learning to read in buildings where the roof leaks and the textbooks predate the iPhone.
Now the poll numbers confirm the narrative took hold — and the reformers are citing those same poll numbers as proof they were right all along. The audacity is, genuinely, breathtaking.
The Numbers That Tell Two Very Different Stories
Here’s what the data actually shows — and what it doesn’t show:
Metric: The Headline. What It Actually Means Gallup Public Satisfaction 32% — record low 30 years of “failing schools” messaging worked exactly as intended.
Parent Satisfaction with Their Own School Historically ~2x the national figure People trust what they experience; they fear what they’re told
Math & Reading Scores Declining, especially bottom quartile Tracks directly with funding inequity and screen-time explosion
Top-tier U.S. Student Performance Still globally competitive. The “crisis” is concentrated where disinvestment is concentrated
The gap between how Americans rate schools in general versus their own child’s school is the smoking gun. It has always been the smoking gun. People who actually walk into a public school building — who meet the teachers, see the classrooms, watch their kids come home — consistently rate those schools dramatically higher than the national “failing” narrative suggests.
That gap is the manufactured crisis. It lives entirely in the space between lived experience and media-amplified fear.
$1.8 Billion Worth of Snake Oil, Served Fresh
And just when you thought the reform carousel might slow down, along comes the Science of Reading — the latest Next Big Thing™ in a long line of Next Big Things™ that have collectively cost American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and produced reading scores that went, as the Big Education Ape’s withering analysis puts it, precisely nowhere.
Remember Common Core? $15.8 billion. A decade of standardized testing theater. Reading scores: unmoved.
Now we have the Science of Reading, $1.8 billion deep and climbing, with the same cast of vendors, the same philanthropic networks, and the same conspicuous absence of a money-back guarantee.
To be scrupulously fair: phonics works. Explicit decoding instruction works. The underlying research on structured literacy is legitimate. But here’s the thing about legitimate research — it doesn’t require a $1.8 billion vendor ecosystem, mandatory state legislation in 40+ states, and the systematic deskilling of teachers who are told to stop thinking and start following the script. When real science gets packaged into proprietary curricula, sold to districts under legislative mandate, and deployed without the trained human educators needed to implement it well, you don’t get science. You get very expensive phonics worksheets.
The question nobody in the reform complex wants to answer remains the same one it’s always been: Where is the money-back guarantee?
The Other Hand: How Tech Bros Broke Kids’ Brains While Selling the Cure
Here is the part of the story that deserves its own criminal investigation — or at minimum, a very uncomfortable congressional hearing.
The same Silicon Valley billionaires who spent decades pushing EdTech into classrooms as the revolutionary equalizer — screens for every student! –are the identical billionaires whose social media platforms have:
Collapsed long-form reading among adolescents at a rate researchers describe as one of the steepest drops in PISA history
Engineered algorithmic doom-scrolling that neurologically rewires 15-year-olds away from the sustained attention that math and reading comprehension require
Distracted over a quarter of students internationally during core academic instruction, by their own PISA survey data
They sold the disease and the cure. They pushed the screens that fragmented attention spans, then sold the adaptive software to remediate the fragmented attention spans, then pointed at the test scores and said: See? Public schools are failing.
None of this is inevitable. None of this is permanent. The No Kings Coalition — the sprawling, nonpartisan civic movement that flooded the streets in March — is now flooding the polls, with a Vote Early Day of Action on October 17 aimed squarely at the November 3, 2026 midterms.
The math is straightforward, even if the billionaires prefer we can’t do it:
Elect candidates who will defend public education funding, not divert it into voucher schemes that enrich private operators at public expense
Overturn the Supreme Court rulings — from Citizens United forward — that transformed American democracy into a billionaire auction
Restore the principle that public money follows public children into public schools, not into the portfolios of private equity firms with a “reform” logo.
The manufactured crisis has a manufactured solution: more billionaire intervention, more privatization, more EdTech, more testing, more disruption. The actual solution is considerably less glamorous and considerably more effective — fund schools equitably, pay teachers competitively, put phones away, and stop letting people who profit from public school failure write public school policy.
The Bottom Line
The 32% satisfaction number is not evidence that public schools have failed. It is evidence that a 30-year, billion-dollar propaganda campaign succeeded. The same people who manufactured the crisis are now selling the cure — at $1.8 billion a pop, no refunds, no guarantees, no accountability.
Meanwhile, the teachers who showed up every day through a pandemic, through chronic underfunding, through a staffing crisis, through the algorithmic dismantling of their students’ attention spans — those people are still in the classroom at 7 AM, doing the work that no EdTech platform, no voucher program, and no think tank white paper has ever actually replaced.
The casino is rigged. Captain Renault is shocked. And the November ballot is the one lever the house can’t control.
Vote like a public school depends on it. Because one does.
All links verified active as of September 9, 2026. Primary polling data sourced from Gallup/Walton Family Foundation. PISA data sourced from NCES/OECD 2025 release.
Or we can say, “Don’t worry, we have the concept of a plan.”
Or we can say, “We’re going to get every penny of it by raising tax rates on corporations and billionaires and by closing tax loopholes that only benefit the rich.” (Which would be the only defensible way to get it.)
Or we can say, “Look. Obviously, we’re no more serious about this than Trump is. He just dangles it out there as a bribe, as he dangled giving everyone “terrific health care at a tiny fraction of the cost.” Or dangled “lower prices on Day One.” Or promised to cherish his first wife “until death did them part.” And his second. And his third.
Once he gets what he wants, what does he care? He breaks his promises on virtually everything, every time. (He did close the border; but is he really deporting just the worst of the worst?)
On the remote chance he’s serious about the $5,000, where would he get it?
Clearly not from taxing billionaires or corporations.
He’d just add it to the National Debt. Because if Republicans have proved anything since Reagan began ballooning it, it’s that they are the “borrow and spend”party.Forty trillion? Fifty trillion? Who cares, so long as they can cut taxes on the wealthy donors who keep them in power.
His other reason for dangling this phony bribe is to deflect attention.
From the Epstein files. From groceries and gas. From the millions about to lose health insurance. From the rural hospitals soon to close. From his staggering corruption. From his disastrous war.
Tobias also noted that the Democrat running for Senate in Kansas was endorsed not only by its Democratic governor but by a former Republican governor.
Kansas’s two-term Democratic governor has endorsed Hamilton — obviously — but get this: Former two-term Republican Governor Bill Graves just endorsed him, too.
For the last six years, Sen. Roger Marshall has turned his back on Kansas. In contrast, Adam Hamilton stands as a bulwark of kindness, humility and service to others. It is for those reasons, and many more, that I believe Kansas should send Adam Hamilton to the U.S. Senate, and I am proud to endorse him. . . .
Trump is obsessed with stopping mail-in Voting, although he votes by mail. He has spent his time in office sowing doubt in our elections, which are the basis of our democracy. The very fact that this crooked con man was returned to the Presidency makes me doubt the security of our elections.
Nonetheless, a whistleblower at the United States Postal Service leaked a complaint claiming that the USPS is planning to take measures that will throw the midterms into chaos, thus giving Trump a reason to discredit the expected Blue Wave, which will sweep away Republican majorities in the House and possibly the Senate. In brief, Trump intends to use the USPS to determine which votes count. Bear in mind that the Cinstututuin explicitly assigns responsibility to the states, not the federal government.
The actions Trump is taking to discredit the midterm elections are unprecedented. But then so was his demolition of the East Wing of the White House, so are his efforts to control the media, universities, and law firms. So are his efforts to overturn civil rights laws. So is his defunding of medical and scientific research. So are his attacks on freedom of the press. So are his efforts to control the curriculum of the nation’s schools.
Yesterday, by a vote of 5–4, the United States Supreme Court allowed Trump to continue to build his ballroom. The five right-wing justices concluded that the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which had sued to stop the construction of the ballroom, did not have legal standing to sue and that national security considerations came down on the side of construction.
The majority said it was not resolving the issue of whether the project is legal.
It was Chief Justice John Roberts who covered that aspect of the controversy. He wrote in dissent that the project is “likely unlawful.” “The White House is an iconic American building whose symbolism and history are wrapped up in its architecture,” Roberts wrote. He wrote that it is critical to “ensure that those responsible follow the rules in deciding what to tear down and what to build up at the People’s House.”
Nonetheless, as Josh Gerstein of Politico reported, the project will likely be completed before the question of its legality is resolved.
Trump’s behavior in his second term is a logical outcome of the theory of the “unitary executive.” Under President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, those eager to stop Congress from passing legislation that benefited the American people at the expense of businessmen began to argue for the idea that because the president was the head of one of the three branches of the U.S. government, he could not be checked by either of the other two branches: the legislative branch (Congress) or the judicial branch (the courts).
On July 1, 2024, the United States Supreme Court, stacked with Trump’s appointees, took this theory to a conclusion that overturned the central premise of American democracy: that no one is above the law.
It decided that the president of the United States has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for crimes committed as part of the official acts at the core of presidential powers. The court also said it should be presumed that the president also has immunity for other official acts as well, unless that prosecution would not intrude on the authority of the executive branch.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said that a president needs such immunity to make sure the president is willing to take “bold and unhesitating action” and make unpopular decisions, although no previous president ever asserted that he was above the law or that he needed such immunity to fulfill his role. Roberts’s decision didn’t focus at all on the interest of the American people in guaranteeing that presidents carry out their duties within the guardrails of the law.
This permission structure appears to have convinced Trump he can do whatever he wishes, including rigging elections so he cannot lose.
Yesterday Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, who is the top-ranking Democrat on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, exposed what appears to be a plot to steal the 2026 midterm elections.
Blumenthal released a letter he had written to Postmaster General David Steiner calling attention to an official whistleblower report, which he attached to the letter.
It’s eye-popping.
The whistleblower warns that there are “potentially catastrophic problems in the development of the United States Postal Service’s…new system for handling federal election ballot mail.” According to the whistleblower, the “process for the creation and implementation of an entirely new and untested set of IT systems” for delivering ballots to voters for the midterm election has been “secretive, rushed, chaotic, and fundamentally flawed.”
The whistleblower says “the administration has hidden the high likelihood that the new ballot mail verification processes will result in major disruptions in mail ballots ever getting delivered to voters. As presently designed, if even one bar code on one single ballot in a bulk-mailing of 10,000 ballots fails to properly scan during the verification process, the entire batch is rejected and sent back to the state—effectively stopping the ballots from being mailed to voters.”
The complaint continues: “Even under ordinary circumstances this would be problematic because of predictable errors in any barcode scanning process.” But the rushed IT development of the new system means it “will almost certainly have significant operating problems when released to the public.” The whistleblower notes that multiple officials from the USPS have described the development process for the system as “a sh*t show.”
The whistleblower said that work on the “USPS election ballot mail IT project” began in June 2026 and has continued despite an injunction from a federal court ordering work on it to stop. Normally, it would take “nine months to a year or more” to roll out a project “of this complexity, magnitude, and importance.” Considering the rush and the consequences, the whistleblower wondered “whether catastrophic failure would be a feature rather than a bug.”
The complaint says: “The apparently sloppy and rushed manner in which the Federal Ballot Mail Portal and supporting IT systems are being built poses significant risk. Potentially millions of American voters may not receive their mail-in ballot this election cycle in a timely manner, or at all.”
Blumenthal noted that the USPS has a restrained role as a mail carrier. It has never before played a gatekeeping function and yet is now building an entirely new system to put itself “in a position to refuse to mail ballots that state election officials have determined should be sent out.” He called for Postmaster General Steiner to “to abandon this ill-conceived, unconscionable plan and ensure that all Americans can exercise their constitutional right to vote, including by mail, without interference by USPS.”
Blumenthal demanded Steiner answer no later than Friday whether the USPS has stopped work on the project as ordered by the courts, as well as provide the names of those who worked on the project and the dates they were active. By September 8, he wants to see all records about the project.
Blumenthal told reporters: “The main takeaway for me is that the Postal Service has designed a system to disenfranchise millions of Americans. One third of all Americans cast their ballots by mail, and the USPS puts all of their votes at risk.”
The administration’s attack on elections is especially concerning considering the recent suggestions that Trump is spending most of his time on his legacy projects like the ballroom, leaving him largely unaware of what is going on in the administration. Nancy A. Youssef, Missy Ryan, and Michael Scherer of The Atlantic reported yesterday that when Army Secretary Dan Driscoll went directly to Trump with his concerns about what Hegseth is doing to the Army, Trump was surprised to learn “how many generals and other top officers had been fired, pushed out, or passed over for promotion under Hegseth” and “expressed concern about the deep cuts to the Army’s senior leadership.”
Driscoll resigned yesterday.
As for the plan to sabotage mail-in voting? Representative Joe Morelle (D-NY), the top-ranking Democrat on the House Committee on House Administration, which oversees the administration of federal elections, posted: “These whistleblower allegations are extraordinary. If Trump Administration officials knowingly built a system designed to prevent Americans from receiving their ballots, that is not election security. It is a betrayal of our Constitution and the American people.”
I spend some time every day reading the discussions on Twitter and BlueSky. Given the perilous state of America’s role in the world–our failed war on Iran, our abandonment of Ukraine, the absurd trade war with Canada, Trump’s insults to our European allies, his admiration for Russia and North Korea, the cost of fuel–I am curious about how his supporters defend him.
No matter what happens, his most loyal fans believe he is wise and all-knowing. When anyone complains about the cost of gasoline, which affects everyone, they have a new answer. Trump just made a deal to get billions of gallons of oil from Venezuela! In a matter of days or weeks, the price of oil will plummet, not only to $3 a gallon but maybe lower. Take that, libtards!
If only they would read what Paul Krugman wrote about that deal! But I know they won’t.
The deal that Trump made will take years, even decades, to have any effect on the price of oil. American firms have to invest billions to develop the infrastructure needed to pump oil from the ground. And in the meanwhile, the Venezuelan government must be willing to honor the deal, which is deeply unpopular in that country. There are many “ifs” in the deal, and it will have no impact on the price of oil in the near future.
The United States has an ugly reputation in Latin America — a reputation that, I’m sorry to say, is mostly well deserved. Our government has a long track record of supporting dictators, assisting in the overthrow of democratic governments, and sometimes even sending in the Marines, often on behalf of American corporations trying to pillage other nations’ natural resources.
Excluding the Trump II presidency, we have, I think, behaved better in the recent past. And this was largely due to the role of enlightened self-interest.
The fact is that old-fashioned, extractive imperialism doesn’t pay. In fact, it hasn’t paid for well over a century. In the modern world nations grow rich through innovation and productivity, not conquest. In 1909 Norman Angell’s book The Great Illusion argued that even victorious wars cost far more than they can possibly yield in tribute, documenting his case with what was already extensive historical evidence. His argument has even more force now.
Let me give you a recent historical example. Portugal was the last European nation to maintain a large overseas empire. As late as 1973 Lisbon still ruled vast African territories — some of them rich in natural resources — with many times the home country’s population. It was also the poorest nation in Western Europe, its resources drained by the endless wars it fought in an attempt to keep its colonies subjugated.
Finally, in 1974, junior officers in the Portuguese military, fed up with the fighting and dying, rose up in the Carnation Revolution and overthrew the fascist government. A newly democratic Portugal quickly abandoned its empire, eventually joining the European Union — and while it’s still poorer than some of its peers, it is far closer than before to the standard of living in, say, France.
In short, at this point only someone deeply ignorant of both the realities of modern economies and of the lessons of history can believe that there are big payoffs to seizing other nations’ natural resources. In other words:
For those who need a refresher, in January U.S. forces raided Venezuela and kidnapped Nicolas Maduro, the nation’s brutal, corrupt dictator. Maduro surely deserved his fate. But the Trump administration made no move to help Venezuela’s democratic opposition. Instead, it made a deal with former members of the Maduro cabal,effectively installing a new regime that may well be even more brutal and corrupt than its predecessor. (There’s widespread suspicion that the kidnapping of Maduro was in part an inside job, engineered by his fellow cabalistas.)
In return, Trump got an agreement — details are scarce — that apparently will allow U.S. oil companies to extract and sell large quantities of Venezuelan oil but only if they put tens of billions of dollars into investments in Venezuela’s decrepit oil infrastructure.
So the Venezuela venture had nothing to do with democracy or freedom. It seems safe to say that it had nothing to do with crime or terrorism, which were the other excuses the administration offered. What happened in Venezuela was simply an old-fashioned, 19th-century-style resource grab, a sort of Caribbean version of the Belgian Congo.
In one stroke, Trump has just validated everything the Latin American left has ever said about U.S. imperialism. And we’ll be paying for that, diplomatically and strategically, for decades to come.
Now, it’s highly unlikely that this deal will hold. By all accounts, just about every faction in Venezuelan politics except the current ruling clique hates the deal. Since it will take years, maybe even decades, to realize the putative benefits of oil-company investments in Venezuela, how likely is it that whoever is running that country in the future will want to honor Trump’s terms? What are the odds that Venezuela will eventually expropriate U.S. oil-company investments? Or do we imagine a future in which the U.S. military maintains a permanent occupation of Venezuela, using force to prop up a puppet government the nation’s citizens hate?
Even if the deal holds, oil experts are extremely doubtful that Venezuela can significantly increase its oil production soon, if ever. It would take years to rebuild the oil infrastructure even if corporations are willing to sink in the necessary billions of dollars. There are also issues with the quality of Venezuelan oil. Venezuela appears on paper to have huge oil reserves. But much of these reserves are what I called a “black, sticky fantasy,” created by Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chavez, when he reclassified oil in the OrinocoBasin that will be difficult if not impossible to recover as “proved” reserves.
But let’s suppose for the sake of argument that Trump really does manage to seize 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan oil. That sounds like a big number. Is it?
Venezuelan oil currently sells for around $70 a barrel on world markets. But as I said, getting that oil out will require huge investments in infrastructure. Nor does Venezuela oil come gushing out when you drill a well: As one expertput it, “it comes out of the ground with the consistency of cold peanut butter.”
So the profit margin on Venezuelan oil will be at most a small fraction of its market price. Surely $20 a barrel would be a highly generous estimate. So let’s go with that, in which case Trump’s deal might be worth $20*65 billion barrels = $1.3 trillion, a sum extracted over many years.
How big a deal would that be for the United States? Since this would be a many-year process if it happens at all, you want to compare it with U.S. wealth, not GDP (which is only the value created in a single year.) And total U.S. wealth is about $167 trillion.
So the chart at the top of this post shows how Trump’s triumphant Venezuela deal stacks up for the U.S. economy. Even if we make the most favorable assumptions — above all the assumption that the Venezuelan regime, unlike the Trump administration, can be trusted to honor its promises — the value of this deal to the United States is, to a first approximation … nothing.
Oh, and what about Trump’s claim that this will “substantially lower Gas Prices for all Americans”? Since any significant rise in Venezuelan production would take a long time, even crude oil prices won’t show any effects from this deal for years at best. And in any case the prices of gasoline and diesel — which are what people actually burn — have become increasingly disconnected from the price of crude.
So Trump’s Venezuela deal will do nothing for ordinary Americans, while solidifying our reputation for rapacious, short-sighted imperialism.
Thank you for wasting your attention on this matter.
Paul Krugman is the Nobel-Prize winning economist who was a columnist for The New York Times for many years. He here captures brilliantly the MAGA refusal to accept reality and evidence. How was the mainstream of the Republican Party either captured or cowed by this delusional mindset?
Climate change is a hoax. Wind power caused a massive TV blackout during the Trump-Biden debate. Solar power is useless because the sun doesn’t shine at night, and batteries don’t exist. Smoke blanketed North America, not because of climate change, but because Canada didn’t rakeits 2 million square miles of boreal forest.
We’ve destroyed Iran’s military, and the Iranian regime is begging for a deal. Also, the U.S. isn’t running out of precision weapons as a result of the Iran war, and furthermore the shortage is Joe Biden’s fault.
The modern American right is very good at hating. MAGA hates immigrants (unless they’re white South Africans); it hates liberals; it hates scientists.
What the ongoing show trial of Fauci — which motivated this post — has really driven home, however, is that what Trump and his supporters hate most of all is reality. They know what they want to believe. They fly into paroxysms of rage whenever someone points out that the world isn’t what they want it to be. And they always want to shoot the messenger.
Of course, motivated reasoning isn’t confined to the right. Some people on the left insist that zoning restrictions have no role in causing high housing prices, that it’s all about Wall Street greed. Many centrists insist that being in the middle on a left-right scale — which isn’t even how most voters think about politics — is the secret to electoral victory. And so on.
I’m not immune to the temptation to believe what I want to be true. I try to fight it, but don’t always succeed. Still, I try to acknowledge and admit it when I have let wishful thinking warp my judgement.
But what we’re seeing now isn’t run-of-the-mill motivated reasoning. It’s something far more extreme.
If believing something suits MAGA’s prejudices and interests, they don’t hesitate: they simply insist that it’s true. They routinely dismiss scientific and statistical evidence, but they don’t stop there. They’re perfectly willing to deny reality even if the truth is staring them in the face.
Thus, Trump urged Americans to remember that 2024 TV blackout, which nobody remembers because it didn’t happen. He insists that California has “blackouts and brownouts every weekend,” when the state’s 39 million residents can tell you it doesn’t. He says that you must show ID to buy groceries, which everyone who buys their own food knows isn’t so.
Do Trump and his followers actually believe these things? As I see it, that’s a category error, starting from the presumption that they even accept that objective facts exist. All the evidence (Hah! “Evidence!”) says that they don’t.
George Orwell, whose work seems more relevant by the day, knew all about this mindset. In his essay “Looking back on the Spanish war” he wrote about how the rise of totalitarianism had changed the rules:
In the past people deliberately lied, or they unconsciously coloured what they wrote, or they struggled after the truth, well knowing that they must make many mistakes; but in each case they believed that ‘the facts’ existed and were more or less discoverable. And in practice there was always a considerable body of fact which would have been agreed to by almost everyone.
Totalitarians, however, denied that objective facts existed. Furthermore, reality is mutable, changing with the leader’s whims:
If the Leader says of such and such an event, ‘It never happened’ – well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five – well, two and two are five.
If you find the assertion that MAGA has a totalitarian mindset over the top, all I can ask is, have you been following the news?
What’s remarkable is the extent to which Republican politicians act as if they are living in a totalitarian state, when they aren’t — not yet, anyway. ICE would clearly like to be an American Stasi, policing any deviation from the party line, but it’s not able, so far, to arrest members of Congress who express skepticism about the president’s claims. And many Republican politicians still, I believe, know the difference between fantasy and reality.
But they behave as if they were courtiers to Kim Jong Un. Trump speeches are sometimes followed by “endless applause moments,” because none of Trump’s loyalists wants to be seen as the first person to stop clapping.
The susceptibility of the GOP to this totalitarian mindset has come as a surprise even to cynics. I have some idea of how this happened: It involves a confluence of big-money corruption, crony capitalism, religious fanaticism, and the ever-present forces of racism and sexism. But that’s a subject to be delved into another day.
What’s clear is that the war on reality is exacting a high price on America as a whole.
Remember, 1.2 million Americans died from Covid — a number that would have been much lower if MAGA misinformation hadn’t caused so many people to refuse vaccination. Now we’re seeing a frightening rise in measles and other infectious diseases, and God help us if another pandemic strikes with Trump or his successor still in charge.
Climate denial and hostility to renewable energy will mean more pollution even as it consigns the U.S. to energy and economic backwardness.
And the Iran war — which Trump started and now refuses to end because he won’t accept reality — has destroyed America’s credibility and depleted our weapon stocks with stunning speed.
But anyone pointing out the obvious is, of course, a Communist.
The biggest lie about American school kids is that most are “below grade level.” This lie is repeated so often by prominent figures that it is widely believed. But it’s not true. Those who believe it are wrong. Those who repeat it, knowing it’s not true, are liars.
The source of the lie and the confusion is clear: the achievement levels in which NAEP scores are reported. The levels are “advanced,” “proficient,” “basic,” and “below basic.” When the media write about the latest release of NAEP scores, they frequently treat “proficient” as “grade level.”
But “proficient” is NOT “grade level.” It represents solid achievement, a rigorous aspirational goal. “Proficient” is equivalent to a solid A.
Every NAEP report on test scores says clearly in a footnote that “proficiency” is not the same as grade level. For example: “NAEP Proficient does not signify meeting grade-level expectations.” Yet the media and prominent commentators who should know better repeat the lie that most students are below grade level. The fact is that most students will never reach the high bar of “proficient.”
In 2023, as Bruce Lesley points out, Biden’s Secretary of Education–Miguel Cardona–testified to a Congressional committee that only one-third of American students were reading “at grade level.” I was flabbergasted. I couldn’t believe he said something so outrageous. I called Dr. Peggy Carr, who at that time was the Commissioner of Education Statistics. She was as surprised as I was that Secretary Cardona repeated the erroneous statistic. I asked Dr. Carr whether she had ever briefed him on understanding NAEP results; she had not.
I gave her an idea. Propose a change in name for “proficiency.” Change the name to “mastery.” No one would claim that “mastery” was the same as “grade level.” She liked the idea and promised to take it to the board. Whether she did, I don’t know. But nothing changed.
Bruce Lesley wrote this open letter to the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees NAEP testing. Lesley is president of First Focus on Children and its partner organization First Focus Campaign for Children, bipartisan advocacy organizations dedicated to making children a priority in federal, state, and international policy. He has led both organizations since 2006 and 2009, respectively, building them into recognized national voices on child health, education, early childhood, economic security, budget and tax policy, immigration, children’s rights, and more recently, international child policy.
He wrote:
To the National Assessment Governing Board, the National Center for Education Statistics, and the leadership of the National Assessment of Educational Progress:
Every institution whose work affects children should begin with one question: “Is this good for children?”
By that standard, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has some important issues that deserve to be resolved. First and foremost, your achievement-level labels — “Basic,” “Proficient,” and “Advanced” — are being weaponized against the very children NAEP exists to serve, and you know it, because your own staff has been saying so for twenty-five years.
To be clear, this open letter is not a claim that NAEP’s underlying data is necessarily wrong, and it is not an argument against NAEP. The argument and request is narrower: you have a real and critically important ethical responsibility to correct the public misuse of your own data. NAEP should defend its credibility against those currently diminishing it.
This Week’s House Mark-Up Provides Another Example
On July 15, 2026, the House Education and Workforce Committee marked up a ten-bill package to facilitate the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education.
In his opening statement, Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI) argued that “too many children can’t read or do math at grade level,” and used that claim as a central justification for several of the bills. That claim is false.
Chairman Walberg was drawing on NAEP data — the statistic that roughly two-thirds of American fourth-graders do not score “Proficient” in reading, which is wrongly cited as evidence of failing to meet grade-level reading levels. For some, this is done out of confusion and, for others, to promote a political agenda to undermine public schools. In reality, NAEP proficient is aspirational and reflects a standard that is well above grade level.
Unfortunately, during the markup, multiple members of Congress repeated the same error. But again, NAEP Proficient is not grade level. It has never been grade level.
When the public, the press, the administration, and Congress repeatedly miscite this fact, the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) must do much more to clarify and correct misstatements about what it means.
The problem is two fold. One part of the problem is that “proficient” is used on many state and local assessments to mean “at grade level,” or what once upon a time would have been called a gentleman’s C; this leads to some honest confusion for some folks. The other part of the problem is folks who are invested in the narrative that public schools are failing and who benefit from the confusion surrounding the term.
Greene adds:
And every time NAEP scores are released, education journalists write piece after piece explaining “proficient” all over again, usually in the wake of some prominent person decrying the large number of students not “at grade level.”
That confusion is NAGB’s responsibility to address, and it has deserved attention for years, but all the more NOW.
This Is Not a Partisan Problem
Chairman Walberg and his colleagues’ misstatements are only the most recent officials to make this mistake (whether unintentionally out of confusion or internationally), and the pattern runs through both political parties.
Secretary Miguel Cardona, testifying before Congress in April 2023 under the Biden Administration, told lawmakers directly that only one-third of students were reading “on Grade level,” treating a NAEP proficiency figure as if it were a grade-level statistic, in nearly identical language.
And Secretary Linda McMahon, in the current Trump Administration, has used more careful wording — noting that nearly 70% of eighth graders are “not proficient” in reading — but has paired that technically accurate phrase with language implying total system failure. A Snopes piece by Rae Deng described this claim as lacking its own level of reading comprehension because, again, it completely mischaracterizes what NAEP’s “proficient” standard means.
Outside advocacy groups have been considerably less careful than any of them.
Corey DeAngelis, a leading advocate for school privatization, vouchers, and against public education, has cited NAEP proficiency figures directly, without qualification, as evidence that public schools are a system-wide “disgrace.”
Greene captures these types of political misuse of NAEP data in this Substack post.
This confusion is intentional by people arguing for both the dismantling of public education and federal investments in children.
Unfortunately, NAGB’s silence has allowed that rhetorical usefulness to go unchecked under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, and it is being used right now, this week, on Capitol Hill to justify eliminating the very agency that funds and safeguards the data NAGB produces.
NAGB’s Own Experts Have Been Saying This for Years
In 2001, Mary Lynne Bourque and Susan Loomis — a staff member and a board member of the National Assessment Governing Board itself — wrote plainly that the Proficient achievement level “does not refer to ‘at grade’ performance,” and that performance at Proficient is not the same as being “proficient” in a subject as any ordinary person would use that word.
Chester “Checker” Finn, Jr., who chaired the panel that adopted the achievement levels in 1992, has been candid that the levels were designed to be aspirational — a description of where students should ideally arrive, not a diagnosis of where most currently stand.
NCES itself has attached a caution to NAEP score reports for years: the Proficient level “does not represent grade level proficiency as determined by other assessment standards.”
If NAEP’s own architects and NAGB’s own website already say this, it is past time to be diligent in correcting the record when people misuse and misstate what it means. It is also on NAGB to stop publishing results in a format that predictably, foreseeably, and repeatedly gets misread as a verdict on grade-level performance, especially when you can see exactly how that misreading gets used again and again.
The clearest confirmation of all of this comes from NCES’s own data. Researchers Gina Cervetti and Kathleen Hinchman mapped every state’s definition of fourth-grade “grade-level” reading proficiency directly onto the NAEP scale and found that, as of the most recent analysis, nearly every state’s own standard for grade-level reading lines up with NAEP’s Basic level, not NAEP’s Proficient level. That means the honest translation of the data runs the opposite direction from how Chairman Walberg and others use it: by the states’ own definitions of grade level, roughly two-thirds of American fourth graders are reading at or above grade level, not below it.
Cervetti and Hinchman are also blunt about what actually is a crisis in the data: not a reading crisis, but an equity crisis. In 2022, only 48% of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch scored at or above NAEP Basic, compared with 76% of students who were not eligible — a 28-point gap that has persisted, largely unchanged, for decades.
That is a story about generational wealth and unequal access to housing, healthcare, and school resources, not a story about failing classrooms, and NAEP’s own framing continues to let people tell the wrong story with your numbers.
What Education Writers and Researchers Have Been Saying
Diane Ravitch, who served seven years on the National Assessment Governing Board under President Clinton, has called out the confusion between NAEP Proficient and grade level as one of the most damaging and persistent falsehoods in American education discourse, noting that NAEP itself explicitly warns against the equivalence you continue to permit others to make.
Greene has argued that cut scores like “Proficient” function as scaled, curved judgments dressed up as fixed standards — noting that if every child scored above a cut, the establishment reaction would be to declare the cut too easy, not to celebrate the achievement. That is not how a genuine, fixed criterion is supposed to behave, and it is worth NAGB’s honest reckoning.
Mark Weber, a New Jersey teacher and education researcher, has done careful public work mapping state proficiency standards onto the NAEP scale, and his conclusion undercuts a favorite talking point of your critics-turned-allies in this fight: there is no empirical evidence that closing the so-called “honesty gap” between state and NAEP proficiency rates does anything to improve student achievement. If setting state cut scores to match yours were actually the lever for better outcomes, we would expect to see it in the data. We do not. That matters because it means the standard is being imported into state accountability systems on faith, not evidence — exactly the kind of unsupported claim NAGB should be correcting rather than allowing to spread.
The Brookings Institution’s Brown Center on Education Policy has been making this same case for nearly two decades. Tom Loveless, the Brown Center’s longtime director, authored a 2007 report concluding bluntly that NAEP’s cut scores were set too high.
His 2016 Brookings piece, “The NAEP Proficiency Myth,” went further, noting that the achievement levels came under critical review from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Academy of Education shortly after they were adopted — with the National Academy of Sciences review concluding the achievement levels were fundamentally flawed.
Loveless adds:
Advocates of the NAEP proficient standard want it to be for all students. That is ridiculous. Another way to think about it: proficient for today’s eighth graders reflects approximately what the average twelfth grader knew in mathematics in 1990. Someday the average eighth grader may be able to do that level of mathematics. But it won’t be soon, and it won’t be every student.
That is not a stray outside critique. That is respectable experts in the field, writing for decades, about the very categories NASB is still using today without correction.
One Point Should Not Separate “Failing” from “Successful”
NAGB also owes the public an honest accounting of what a cut score actually is. A cut score is a single point on a continuous scale, chosen somewhat arbitrarily by a panel, above which a child is declared “Proficient” and below which the same child, one point lower, is declared “Basic,” which is actually grade level.
Two children who are functionally indistinguishable in what they know and can do are sorted into entirely different public categories — one used as evidence that a school, a state, or a federal agency is failing, the other treated as evidence of success — because of a single point set by a committee, not because of any meaningful difference in the children themselves.
That is not a rounding error. It is the mechanism by which your data gets converted into political ammunition.
If NAGB cannot explain, in terms parents can understand, why the child who scores one point below the line is a different kind of learner than the child one point above it, then the line is doing rhetorical work the data was never built to support.
As the psychiatrist and educator William Glasser warned schools decades ago, chasing a point or two of movement on a test score is precisely the wrong institutional goal — and yet that is the goal NAEP’s cut scores hand every state, district, and school in the country by default.
Researcher Andrew Ho makes a similar point. He has identified proficiency cut scores as arbitrary markers, set through what he calls an “overwrought, judgmental, and ultimately political process,” not derived from any fixed line in human learning.
Ho has also documented a specific illusion that follows from that arbitrariness: because a large cluster of students always sits near the middle of the score distribution, a cut score placed close to that cluster will make small, ordinary shifts in performance look like dramatic gains or losses, purely as an artifact of how many students happen to sit right at the line — not because anything real changed in how much they learned. A researcher with no stake in the politics of this issue is describing the identical mechanism that turns your data into a rhetorical weapon: the closer the line sits to where children actually cluster, the more your data will appear to swing wildly for reasons that have nothing to do with children’s learning.
Criterion-Referenced in Name, Arbitrary in Practice
NAEP describes itself as a criterion-referenced assessment, distinct from norm-referenced tests like the SAT that simply rank students against one another. That distinction matters, and I want to represent it accurately rather than overstate it — NAEP does not “grade on a curve” in the way the SAT’s percentile scoring does.
However, the practical effect on families is not so different as the label suggests. NAEP’s cut scores were set by hand-picked panels making judgment calls about what students “should” know, not derived from an external, agreed-upon standard of competence, and independent evaluators — including a National Academies review in 2017 — have called for stronger evidence connecting NAEP performance levels to any real-world outcome at all.
A test that is criterion-referenced in name but whose criteria were set arbitrarily, and whose results still track family income and race as tightly as any norm-referenced test on the market, produces the same practical harm as the norming bias critics have long raised: it tells us more about a child’s zip code than about a fixed, meaningful standard of what that child knows.
Notably, NAGB has conceded the point this year. The 2026 NAEP reading framework — administered to students for the first time this spring — now explicitly disaggregates racial and ethnic subgroup results by socioeconomic status, on the premise, well documented for decades, that apparent racial differences in test scores largely track socioeconomic differences. That is a welcome and overdue acknowledgment.
But it is also, in effect, NAGB admitting in 2026 what critics have argued for years: that the results have been measuring wealth and family circumstance as much as they measure “proficiency,” all along. If that acknowledgment is real, it should extend backward, to how NAGB talks about every score ever published, not just forward, to a single new breakdown in the data tables.
The Test Itself Is Not Neutral
Even setting the cut scores aside, the content of the test carries its own bias, and NAEP’s own commissioned reviewers have said so. The NAEP Validity Studies Panel — a technical review body NCES itself created and funds — published an analysis by Gerunda Hughes in 2023 documenting that the statistical methods used to build NAEP-style test items can systematically disadvantage the very students the test is supposed to serve fairly.
When an item is answered correctly by nearly every student, it gets treated as a poor “discriminator” between high and low performers and is typically cut from the test in favor of harder items, even though that easy item may represent exactly the content that should be mastered.
In his book, Au cites researchers Kidder and Rosner, who examined more than 300,000 SAT test-takers and the pool of trial questions used to build future exams and found that some trial questions were answered correctly by Black students, or by Latino students, more often than by White students. Those questions were then discarded — not because they were poor measures of the content, but because they failed to reproduce the racial score gap the rest of the test already produced. A question only “counted” as valid if high-scoring test-takers, who are disproportionately White, tended to get it right in pretesting.
My mother has verified the same process when she was asked to be on a panel to evaluate whether the item questions were “fair”. The publishers of the Texas State assessment at the time ran through the questions and kept throwing out questions as biased toward Black or Hispanic children if they scored the same or close to the scores of White children.
In contrast, questions in which there was a substantial gap in favor of White students were not flagged – thus, “norming” the disparity in test score outcomes into subsequent tests. Although my mother repeatedly objected, she was overruled throughout the day and, not surprisingly, never asked back to be a reviewer.
The result, as Au describes it, is a self-reinforcing loop: item selection is calibrated to match existing racial score gaps, which locks those same gaps into every future version of the test, all without anyone ever explicitly considering race in the selection criteria.
NAEP is a different test administered by a different organization, and I am not asserting that NAEP’s item-selection process has been documented to work in the same way. But NAEP uses the same category of item statistics that made this outcome possible on the SAT, and NAGB’s own validity panel has already flagged the risk. Given what is now documented on a test as consequential as the SAT, NAGB owes the public a direct, public answer to a direct question: has anyone checked whether NAEP’s item-selection process does the same thing?
There is also cultural and geographic bias. As the son of an English teacher and a math teacher, it should be no surprise that I did fairly well on standardized tests throughout my life. But I vividly recall a reading passage from the PSAT that focused on nautical issues and the definition of a “flotilla.”
Having grown up in El Paso, Texas, a city located hundreds of miles from any coastline, the passage and vocabulary word were unfamiliar to any of us taking the test in the desert borderlands. On the other hand, we would crush a passage referring to “tortillas.” NAEP’s own reviewers have a name for this: cultural validity, the idea that a test cannot cleanly separate what a child knows from what a child has been exposed to.
Research that NAEP’s own validity panel cites has found that when students are allowed to choose among reading passages on different topics, rather than being assigned a single passage that may be unfamiliar or uninteresting to them, some groups of students — including Black eighth graders and Hispanic twelfth graders in the panel’s own cited study — score much higher. That is evidence that some of what NAEP currently measures is exposure and familiarity, not just reading ability, and it argues for reform in how passages and vocabulary are chosen, not just in how results are labeled.
Again, the validity panel’s report contains proof that this is a design choice, not a fact of nature. In 1972, the psychologist Robert Williams built a test called the Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Hegemony, using vocabulary and content drawn from Black American culture instead of the dominant culture’s frame of reference. When Black and White teenagers took it, Black students substantially outscored White students by substantial margins.
Nothing about the underlying children changed between that test and the SAT. What changed was whose knowledge and cultural fluency the test happened to be built around.
That single fact should end, permanently, any claim that a test’s outcomes reveal some fixed truth about which children “can” or “cannot” read, think, or reason. What these tests reliably measure is often which cultural and economic frame of reference a child was raised in, and how well that frame matches the one test-makers chose to build around — which is another way of describing accumulated wealth, school funding, and generational inequity, not a verdict on a child’s mind.
That is real, and policies that address school finance inequity, child poverty, childhood hunger, and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) deserve real policy attention. These issues would undoubtedly do more to improve educational outcomes in this country rather than privatization of public schools or the elimination of the Department of Education.
Claims that two-thirds of American children cannot read at grade level are simply false, and their interpretation by policymakers and advocates is harming children. There is an old warning that was popularized by author Mark Twain but attributable to British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli about three kinds of falsehood — “lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
In this case, even a true number, presented without its context, can mislead more effectively than an outright fabrication. NAEP’s “proficiency” level is an aspirational one, but the grade-level story built on top of it is doing real harm. NAGB is a position to explain the difference, and the public is not, until you tell them.
The Damage Is Not Abstract: What Gets Tested Is What Gets Taught
This is not a technical quibble.
Every time “below Proficient” gets reported to the public as “can’t read” or “can’t do math,” it becomes ammunition for defunding public schools and for portraying millions of children — disproportionately low-income children and children of color — as failures because of a label your board itself has said should not be read that way.
It also reshapes what happens inside the classroom. When reading and math scores on tests built around NAEP cut points become the metric by which schools, teachers, and even state superintendents are judged, instructional time follows the incentive:
Short, decontextualized passages crowd out real books — my children were taught how to write a brief constructive response (BCR) before they were even taught what a paragraph was.
Science, government, history, the arts, and physical education are pushed to the margins of the elementary school day because they are not tested and therefore not rewarded.
Children end up narrower, not better educated, in the very subjects that make them informed citizens — and NAEP’s own cut-score architecture is a direct contributor to that narrowing, whether or not that was your intent.
NAGB tried a partial fix in 2018, adding the word “NAEP” before each level — “NAEP Proficient” rather than “Proficient” — so people would stop equating your terms with generic ones.
James Harvey, executive director of the National Superintendents Roundtable, was right to call that gesture insufficient at the time. Harvey said:
…the American people should understand that the misleading term “proficient” sets a performance benchmark beyond the reach of most students in the world.
Harvey argued “proficient” should be changed to something like “high” to avoid being “fooled.”
His point has been proven many times, including this week when a sitting congressional committee chairman, citing NAEP-adjacent data to justify eliminating a federal agency, still used the word “grade level” as if it meant what NAEP’s Proficient level does not mean.
The Perverse Incentive NAEP Has Inspired: Grade Retention As Score Manipulation
The clearest evidence that NAEP’s cut scores create perverse incentives and “manufactured” crises, rather than honest information, is what states have started doing in response to them: holding back third-graders who miss an early-literacy cut score, in order to produce a fourth-grade NAEP cohort that looks better on paper.
Education professor and researcher Paul Thomas has documented this closely in states such as Mississippi, where fourth-grade reading gains celebrated as a “Mississippi miracle” tracked closely with a mandatory third-grade retention policy.
A child who is nine years old competing against classmates who are eight will predictably score higher on a test built around the same content; that is a fact about test administration, not about literacy. Furthermore, those same “gains” have been shown to fade by eighth grade, once the retained cohort catches up in age to its peers without having genuinely caught up in learning.
This is worth NAGB’s own honest reckoning, not because the research on retention is unanimous — reasonable analysts, including some closely tied to NAEP’s own governing board, dispute how much of Mississippi’s gain is genuine instructional improvement versus retention’s effect on cohort composition — but because NAEP’s achievement levels are the mechanism creating the incentive either way.
States are not retaining eight-year-olds because it is good for those children. They are retaining them because a single cut score on a single test has been elevated to a measure of whether a state’s education policy is working. The cost of that incentive falls on children: retained students who show a short-term score bump can, over time, experience the opposite of what was intended — greater disengagement, higher rates of dropping out before graduation, and the well-documented psychological toll of being told, at eight or nine years old, that they failed.
William Glasser spent much of his career, in Schools Without Failure, and later in The Quality School, explaining exactly why this backfires. He argued that standardized testing reduces learning to disconnected, memorized facts at the expense of critical thinking and real application — and that the “right answer, wrong answer” format of a multiple-choice test teaches children that education is a hunt for a single predetermined answer rather than a process of genuine understanding.
In the schools Glasser held up as models, closed-book tests were replaced with open-book, collaborative assessments that actually resembled the problems students would face outside school. His deeper claim, grounded in what he called Choice Theory, is that people — including children — are driven by needs for freedom, power, and simple enjoyment in their work, and that using test scores to rank, shame, or coerce students destroys the very motivation that produces quality work in the first place.
Labels matter. When children repeatedly hear that two-thirds of them “cannot read at grade level,” many internalize failure that is not supported by the evidence. Parents lose confidence in neighborhood schools. Teachers become demoralized. Policymakers propose increasingly radical structural changes to fix a crisis that has been inaccurately described.
Glasser also warned explicitly against making small, arbitrary numerical gains — his example was raising a test score by a point or two — the primary institutional goal of a school, insisting instead on building a genuine culture of quality. That is precisely the trap a single-point NAEP cut score sets for states, and it is the trap third-grade retention policies walk students directly into.
That is the opposite of what an assessment meant to serve children should produce, and it deserves your acknowledgment, not your silence.
What We Are Asking You To Do, Now
Issue a direct, public correction each time a federal official misstates NAEP Proficient as “grade level,” the way you would correct any other material misuse of your data. Silence is not neutrality; it is acquiescence in the misuse.
Publish, prominently and alongside every score release, the state-by-state mapping showing that “grade level” as states themselves define it corresponds to NAEP Basic, not NAEP Proficient — the analysis your own data already supports and that outside researchers have had to do on your behalf.
Publish a plain-language document — “What NAEP Proficient Does, and Does Not, Mean” — and require it alongside every score release, every webpage, every press briefing, and every congressional testimony that cites NAEP data. Most of this letter’s argument could be prevented by a single page NAGB.
Stop using “Basic,” “Proficient,” and “Advanced” as headline labels without their NAEP qualifier in every release, chart, and public statement — not as a footnote, but as a mandatory part of the label itself, displayed with the same prominence as the number.
Retire “Basic,” “Proficient,” and “Advanced” altogether in favor of terms that do not already carry a plain-English meaning your data does not support. If the words themselves are the problem, changing a modifier in front of them has not been enough.
Extend the honesty of the 2026 reading framework’s socioeconomic disaggregation backward, not just forward. If you now accept that racial gaps in your data are substantially explained by family socioeconomic status, say so plainly every time a racial achievement gap is reported, and stop letting that gap be cited as evidence of school failure without that context.
Commission and publish the external validity evidence the National Academies asked for in 2017 — a transparent accounting of what your cut scores do and do not predict, so the public can evaluate the standard rather than take your word for its meaning.
Publicly acknowledge the perverse incentive your cut scores have created for third-grade retention policies, and commission independent, longitudinal research — tracking students well past eighth grade, through high school graduation — before any state is permitted to point to NAEP gains as proof that retaining eight-year-olds is good policy.
Act on your own validity panel’s 2023 findings, and answer the question the SAT evidence now raises. Publicly disclose whether NAEP’s item-selection process has ever been audited for the same self-reinforcing bias documented on the SAT — where trial questions that marginalized students answered correctly were discarded for failing to reproduce the existing score gap — and commit to an independent audit if it has not. Explain how tests are “normed” from one year to the next and made comparable in a manner that is understandable to the public.
Kids can’t wait for another year of this same correction being offered and ignored, or for another cohort of eight-year-olds to be held back so a state’s chart can look better. NAGB has the power to end the confusion your own board identified more than two decades ago. Please do so. Kids deserve it.
This past week, Trump nominees appeared before Senate committees seeking their approval. when Senators ask direct questions, the nominees lied to avoid offending Donald Trump.
Mary Trump observes that the Big Question predictably elicits the Big Lie.
The Big Question is: Who won the 2020 election? Trump nominees dare not say, truthfully, Joe Biden. They have to find a way to pretend they didn’t hear the question or to duck answering.
Donald’s nominees continue to struggle with the most basic facts. They reject any history that does not fit the mythology he has created, and they seem far more concerned with demonstrating personal loyalty to Donald than with telling the truth to the American people.
Over the past several days, that pattern played out repeatedly during confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill.
Donald’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence refused to acknowledge who won the 2020 presidential election. Another nominee claimed ignorance about Tulsi Gabbard’s role in the FBI raid on Fulton County’s election office in Georgia, despite the fact that it happened only months ago. Donald’s nominee to lead the Centers for Disease Control could not even commit to refusing an illegal order from the President. And Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche once again tied himself into knots attempting to defend the indefensible while continuing to shield Donald from accountability over the Epstein files.
Taken individually, each exchange was disturbing. Taken together, they reveal something much more dangerous. Donald is not selecting public servants. He is selecting people willing to deny objective reality if doing so pleases him.
Donald’s nominee’s are lying through their teeth because they desperately want to continue working for, or begin working for, a pathetic little man they are apparently terrified of offending.
The Senate Intelligence Committee held this confirmation hearing for Jay Clayton, Donald’s nominee to replace Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. It is difficult to overstate how important this position is. The Director of National Intelligence oversees the nation’s intelligence agencies, including the CIA, the NSA, and works closely with the FBI and countless other intelligence organizations. The entire purpose of the position is to provide the President with accurate intelligence, even when that intelligence is inconvenient or politically damaging.
The job is not to protect the President’s feelings. The job is to tell the truth. Does anybody honestly believe somebody unwilling to acknowledge who won an election four years ago would tell Donald something he does not want to hear today?
Not if he wants to keep his job.
Jon Ossoff, Democratic Senator from Georgia recognized exactly what was happening and continued pressing Clayton during the hearing.
This is the exchange:
Ossoff: It’s a simple question, Mr. Clayton.
Clayton: I’ve answered it.
Ossoff: Who won the 2020 presidential election?
Clayton: I’ve answered it.
Ossoff: You are here asking for the support of senators to lead America’s intelligence community. We’ve established that you have an obligation to be honest and forthright with this committee and with the American public, but you refuse to answer a simple matter of fact about the 2020 election. Is that right?
Clayton: No, that’s not right.
Ossoff: Then answer the question. Who won the 2020 election?
Clayton: I have answered the question.
Ossoff: Answer it. What is your answer?
Clayton: I’ve given you my answer.
Ossoff: What is your answer? You refuse to answer a basic question about who won a presidential election, but you ask to lead America’s intelligence community. Isn’t it humiliating to be unable to answer this question, to have to indulge the president’s delusions? We know you know. Everybody in this room knows the truthful answer to that question. Why can you not give it?
Clayton: I think I gave you the answer.
No.
He could not given the answer because he knows exactly what would happen if he did.
If he simply stated the obvious fact that Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump in the 2020 election by nearly eight million votes, Donald would immediately withdraw his nomination.
Clayton understands that. Every nominee understands that. Their confirmations are contingent upon demonstrating absolute loyalty, not competence. That is why they continue speaking in this absurd coded language about certifications, procedures, and Electoral College votes while refusing to utter one simple sentence.
Joe Biden won. Donald Trump lost. Those facts remain intolerable inside the Trump regime because Donald himself cannot tolerate them.
If I had been asking questions during that hearing, I would have taken a different approach. I would have asked who won the 2016 election. Then I would have asked who won the 2012 election. Then 2008. Then 2004.
I suspect they would answer every single one correctly. Only one election has become unspeakable. Only one historical fact has been erased from acceptable Republican discourse. That tells you everything you need to know.
The hearing became even more disturbing when Clayton was questioned about Tulsi Gabbard’s involvement in the FBI raid on Fulton County’s election offices in Georgia earlier this year.
This was not an obscure historical event. It happened only six months ago. It involved the very office Clayton hopes to lead. And yet he suddenly developed an astonishing case of selective amnesia.
This is what Senator Jon Ossoff asked.
Ossoff: Are you aware that Director Gabbard was present at the Fulton County raid in Georgia earlier this year?
Clayton: You discussed that with me yesterday in your office.
Ossoff: Are you aware that Director Gabbard was present at the Fulton County raid earlier this year?
Clayton: You brought it to my attention yesterday.
Ossoff: What is going on here? You’ve said at the beginning of this you have an obligation to be honest and forthright with the committee. I’m asking a very simple question. Are you aware that Director Gabbard was present at the Fulton County raid earlier this year? Yes or no?
Clayton: I was…
Ossoff: You won’t answer that question either.
Clayton: I just said I was made aware of it by you yesterday.
Ossoff: The first time you learned that Director Gabbard was present at that raid was in my office yesterday?
Clayton: It was the first time that, in my recollection, I’ve thought about it recently. Now, was I aware of it before? You brought it to my attention yesterday. I had not thought…
Ossoff: So you had not known until…
Clayton: I had not thought about it until you brought it to my attention yesterday.
Ossoff: Your answers lack credibility. Your testimony lacks credibility. You’re being evasive and you’re not being candid or forthright. Everybody across the country is going to watch this and know that.
Ossoff: Are you aware that former Director Gabbard testified that her presence at the raid was requested by the president?
Clayton: I’m not aware of that until now.
What?
How could he possibly not know? This is a man seeking confirmation to oversee the nation’s intelligence apparatus. He either knew and lied about it, or he truly did not know one of the most controversial actions taken by the office he hopes to inherit. Neither possibility inspires confidence.
As Senator Ossoff pointed out, these confirmation hearings are job interviews. The nominees are expected to answer questions honestly, demonstrate competence, and reassure senators that they can be trusted with enormous responsibility.
Donald Trump’s nominees do exactly the opposite. They evade. They deflect. They pretend not to remember. They refuse to acknowledge reality when reality happens to inconvenience Donald Trump. And somehow they expect the American people to forget everything we have watched unfold over the last several years.
That is not intelligence. It is obedience. And that increasingly appears to be the only qualification Donald requires.
The same pattern continued when the Senate Health Committee held a confirmation hearing for Dr. Erica Schwartz, Donald’s nominee to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. During the hearing, Senator Maggie Hassan asked Schwartz a direct and entirely reasonable question: if Donald instructed her to take an action that violated the law, would she follow the law or obey him? For anybody seeking to lead one of the most important public health agencies in the world, the answer should have been immediate and unequivocal.
This is what Senator Maggie Hassan asked Dr. Erica Schwartz:
Hassan: Dr. Schwartz, just a few minutes ago, you said in response to a question from Senator Kaine, you will always follow the law. So just to be clear, if the President of the United States instructs you to take an action that would break the law, will you follow the law or follow the President’s instruction, Dr. Schwartz?
This is what Dr. Erica Schwartz said:
Schwartz: The President would never ask me not to follow the law, but I will always follow the law.
Senator Hassan responded:
Dr. Schwartz, there are multiple examples of the President actively instructing people to break the law over and over again. So I hope you will update yourself on that because it’s not a satisfactory response to say he would never do that.
Yes, Donald would never do the thing he does on a regular basis. That is like saying Donald never lies. Give me a break. This is the quality of nominee we are getting from the Republican Party: people who cannot answer basic questions because the truthful answer might offend Donald. Schwartz could have simply said she would obey the law under all circumstances. Instead, she began by protecting Donald from a hypothetical that is barely hypothetical, given the number of times he has pressured officials to ignore legal limits or bend institutions to serve his personal interests.
Then, of course, there is the execrable Todd Blanche, Donald’s former personal attorney, although he still behaves very much like Donald’s personal attorney, who is also serving as Acting Attorney General. This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee opened a two day confirmation hearing on whether to give Blanche the position permanently. Doing so would inflict untold damage on a Department of Justice that has already been profoundly compromised.
Blanche is the person Donald can rely upon to help with his Epstein problem, and he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is willing to bend over backwards to do exactly that. He is also the Justice Department official who personally met twice with Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s convicted co conspirator in the rape and sex trafficking of girls and young women. Blanche was instrumental in Maxwell’s transfer to a minimum security facility, where she now enjoys privileges unavailable to most inmates convicted of comparable crimes.
Blanche is despicable, and yet he is poised to assume the most powerful law enforcement position in the country. During the hearing, Senator Dick Durbin asked whether Blanche would extend to Epstein’s survivors the same personal attention he extended to Maxwell. Ten survivors were sitting in the room. According to Durbin, none of them had been given an opportunity to speak with Blanche or anyone else at the Department of Justice or FBI, despite repeatedly asking to do so.
This is what Senator Dick Durbin asked Todd Blanche:
Let me talk to you for a moment about the survivors who are in the room. There are ten individuals who were exploited and abused by Mr. Epstein. They are here today. None of them have had a chance to speak to anyone in the department or FBI, though they’ve asked repeatedly. So can I get your word under oath that within the next thirty days you will personally sit down with these ten victims and hear their case in terms of what needs to be done by the Department of Justice?
This is what Todd Blanche said:
Chairman, I appreciate them being here today. I also have somebody from my office who’s spent her entire career working on cases like Mr. Epstein’s. She’s in charge of our task force investigating human trafficking. She’s available to talk to them.
Senator Durbin pressed him:
She can sit right next to you. She can sit right next to you when you meet with these survivors.
Blanche responded:
I have never said I will not meet with survivors.
Senator Durbin asked again:
Will you meet with these ten survivors? I’m asking you on the record.
Blanche replied:
If they have lawyers, as you know, I’m prohibited from meeting directly with them.
Blanche does not care about the survivors. He cares only about doing Donald’s bidding. Blanche had no difficulty personally meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted sex trafficker and Epstein’s co conspirator, but when ten survivors ask him to sit down and hear them, he suddenly discovers procedural complications and delegates the responsibility to somebody else.
This is not Blanche’s first time obfuscating about Epstein and the Epstein files. During a Senate hearing in May on the Justice Department’s budget, Senator Jeff Merkley asked Blanche whether the Epstein investigation remained open. Blanche, who now leads the Department of Justice, suddenly appeared unsure what the term “Epstein investigation” even meant.
This is what Senator Jeff Merkley asked Todd Blanche:
I want to go on to the Epstein investigation. Is it closed or open?
Blanche responded:
When you say the Epstein investigation, what are you referring to, Senator?
Senator Merkley clarified:
Well, the FBI said last year in July that it had closed the Epstein investigation. So I’m just using their words. Is it open or closed?
Blanche replied:
I don’t believe the FBI said that. I mean, if you’re referring to…
Senator Merkley interrupted:
Well, you’re head of the Department of Justice. Is the Epstein investigation open or closed?
Blanche answered:
I guess I don’t understand what Epstein investigation means. The investigation of Jeffrey Epstein himself?
These people are liars, but it is so much worse than that. They are seeking positions from which they can destroy the rule of law in this country. Blanche, in particular, has demonstrated that he is absolutely and utterly willing to do so in order to protect one of the most prolific and recidivist criminals in American history, Donald Trump.
The evasions in these hearings are not isolated incidents. They are part of a pattern. Jay Clayton refuses to say who won the 2020 presidential election because Donald cannot tolerate the truth. Clayton claims ignorance about Tulsi Gabbard’s involvement in a federal raid he should understand if he wants to run the intelligence community. Erica Schwartz cannot simply say she would reject an unlawful order because even acknowledging that Donald might issue one is apparently unacceptable. Todd Blanche will meet personally with Ghislaine Maxwell but will not commit to meeting with Epstein’s survivors. He then pretends not to understand what senators mean when they ask about the Epstein investigation.
They all know what they are doing. They are denying reality, evading basic questions, and humiliating themselves because protecting Donald is more important to them than telling the truth. That is not public service. It is submission to a criminal boss.
The danger is not merely that these people lie. The danger is that they are being placed in charge of institutions whose legitimacy depends upon truth, independence, and fidelity to the law. The Director of National Intelligence must tell the president facts he does not want to hear. The head of the CDC must follow science and the law, even when the president objects. The Attorney General must serve the United States, not the person occupying the Oval Office.
Donald does not want any of that. He wants officials who will indulge his delusions, erase inconvenient facts, and protect him from accountability. He wants people who understand that their positions depend entirely upon refusing to acknowledge reality whenever reality threatens him.
That is why they are lying. They are not confused. They are not forgetful. They are not struggling to understand the questions. They know the truthful answers, and they know that giving them could cost them Donald’s approval and, therefore, their jobs.
Every one of these hearings is exposing the same thing. Donald is not building a government of qualified public servants. He is assembling a collection of loyalists willing to discredit themselves, corrupt the institutions they lead, and deny what everybody knows to be true in order to protect their criminal boss.
Dan Froomkin writes a blog called “Press Watch,” where he keeps tabs on journalism.
In today’s post, he chastises the media for reporting uncritically Trump’s claim that he would impose a 20% toll on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
Both JD Vance and Marco Rubio had previously said that any attempt to put tolls on an international waterway was a violation of international law.
The headline, Froomkin wrote, should have been: “Trump Makes Crackpot Iran Announcement.”
Trump’s claim was ridiculous from the start, but everyone reported it as fact. True, he made the claim, but what he claimed would never happen.
So once again, TACO: Trump Chickened Out!
He wrote:
Well, it’s moot now, with Donald Trump this morning suddenly reversing his big announcement yesterday morning that the U.S. military would be taking over the Strait of Hormuz and demanding a 20 percent toll from ships that pass through it.
As it happens, I was just finishing up a post about how credulous the first-day coverage of his crackpot plan was. And now that I’ve been proven right, I still feel there’s some value in sharing what I found.
In a nutshell, my argument was that everyone – including American political journalists — knew that Trump’s “plan” was never going to happen.
It was a bluff from a mentally unstable man desperate to put the war he started behind him. It was completely unworkable and illegal. It would have put American servicemembers in harm’s way. No one would ever pay it.
It’s wasn’t going anywhere.
But you wouldn’t have known that from the coverage it got from our major news organizations. They treated it like a serious proposal. They gave it big headlines. They engaged in a lot of stenography.
Many news organizations paired the toll threat with Trump’s announcement ordering the resumption of the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports – an actual command that Centcom quickly acknowledged. (Centcom, notably, hasn’t said a peep about any further orders – because there aren’t any.)
One was real, the other was fantasy.
Now that said, if you pored through a number of different news sources yesterday, you could see hints of the real story. That’s because the reporters aren’t stupid. They knew the toll plan was bullshit, they were just too cowardly or lazy to tell you straight up.
If you add them all up, as I will below, you will see how clear it was that the plan was doomed – even though none of the stories, individually, reached that conclusion.
“How would a U.S. toll work?” she asked. “This isn’t exactly clear,” she wrote. “Mr. Trump did not elaborate on how the 20 percent fee would be calculated or how it would be collected.”
In fact, there was no evidence that anyone else in his administration knew anything about it.
“How would a toll affect shipping and markets?” she asked.
For a large tanker carrying two million barrels of oil, for example, the fee could add over $30 million in costs. Consumers would likely face higher prices as a result.
Because of the high cost, some analysts said they doubted whether the fee would come into force.
In a CNN explainer, Elisabeth Buchwald also asked and answered question about the plan, including “Who would foot the bill?”
She spoke to John McCown, a senior fellow at the Center for Maritime Strategy, who told her that the fee will likely be high enough that no party is willing to pay it:
As a general rule of thumb, shippers pay carriers 2%-3% of the value of their goods in fees, according to McCown, former CEO of shipping logistics company Trailer Bridge. A fee around 10 times the size would likely be entirely unaffordable to shippers, he said.
The Associated Press article by Ben Finley, Farnoush Amier, and Konstantin Toropin headlined “Why it’s so difficult for the US to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz” described a number of serious problems with the plan. Notably, the authors wrote that “restoring oil tanker traffic in the vital Middle East shipping corridor to prewar flows likely will require a much bigger armada of U.S. warships if not tens of thousands of American troops on Iranian soil, experts say.”
Jason H. Campbell, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and a former Pentagon official, told the reporters: “It’s very difficult to envision any scenario where you could satisfactorily secure the Strait of Hormuz absent ground forces.” Campbell said that would require tens of thousands of troops who would likely face insurgent attacks.
Relying on warships instead would require “a very large chunk of the U.S. fleet being dedicated to this on an open-ended basis,” Michael Eisenstadt, a former U.S. military analyst, told them.
In fact, Trump abandoned an earlier promise to protect the strait, Clayton Seigle, a nonresident scholar in energy security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told them. “Those naval escorts, U.S. warships, larger commitments like boots on the ground never came because I think that the rhetoric got a little ahead of our risk tolerance,” he said. “And when push came to shove, the United States was not ready to deploy its Navy, to deploy its other military forces in the capacity that would be needed to even have a shot at neutralizing those threats.”
Buried in a Wall Street Journal story that was mostly about the blockade being reinstated, Benoit Faucon, Rebecca Feng, and Jared Malsinnoted the Iranian resistance to U.S. control of the strait. They quoted a spokesman for Iran’s armed forces, who said, “We will under no circumstances allow the United States to interfere in the management of the Strait of Hormuz.” The journalists conveyed “the likelihood of a continued standoff over control of the strait.”
Like I said, it’s all moot now. It took Trump all of 25 hours to chicken out — to go from posting this….
The U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as “THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT,” but as such, and as a matter of FAIRNESS, will be reimbursed, at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped, for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the World. The process and formation will begin immediately
Based on highly productive conversations with Middle East leadership, I have decided to replace the 20% United States Reimbursement Fee with Trade and Investment Deals that the various Gulf States will be making into the United States.
American journalists would have done everyone a favor – including their own news organizations – if they had said what they knew to be true instead of quoting Trump saying things they knew to be bullshit.
But because of their cowardice and laziness, we had another insane 24-hour news cycle of everyone chasing after whatever Trump said last, no matter how absurd it was. As I wrote in June they should “Stop putting whatever Trump says about Iran in the headlines.”
Will they ever learn?
In the meantime, I urge the journalists who wrote about this yesterday to write something for tomorrow about how Trump cooked up this ridiculous idea and blurted it out, and why, and why he changed his mind so quickly.
They should use this sequence of events to tell the American public the other thing they all know to be true, but are too cowardly and lazy to write about: That Trump is deranged; that he is mentally unfit for duty.
As for why he changed his mind, presumably, someone he trusts told him his plan was crazy and unworkable. Too bad journalists hadn’t done the same.
When Governor Greg Abbott sold his voucher program, he talked about helping the poorest kids escape public schools and choose better private schools; he talked about enabling those with disabilities go to private schools. He talked about spreading opportunity through school choice.
Some moderate Republicans and rural Republicans supported their community public schools, and they repeatedly voted down Abbott’s vouchers. So Abbott used the millions of dollars contributed by Pennsylvania billionaire to replace them with conservatives who backed vouchers.
But now the data are in on which students are getting vouchers. Three-quarters of them are private school students. This is similar to what happened in other states. Vouchers are not about helping public school students; the reality is that they subsidize kids who never attended public schools.
Maryam Ahmed of The Dallas Morning News reported:
As Texas’ $1 billion school choice program approaches rollout this fall, preliminary data shows most of the program’s applicants were already enrolled in private schools, fewer applications came from families in poorer districts, and less that 30 students with special needs got the top award amount of $30,000.
The Dallas Morning News analyzed data from the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, which runs the Texas Education Freedom Account program.
The first year of TEFA has exposed key challenges voucher programs have faced nationwide: insufficient funding for some families to make the move to expensive private schools, difficulties for special education students finding private schools that can support their needs, and minimal benefits for lower-income and rural families.
Since similar data are reported in every state that has no income limits, it’s reasonable to conclude that the transfer of public money to kids in religious and private schools is a feature of school choice, not a bug.
Out of 5.4 million students enrolled in Texas public schools, 275,000 applied for vouchers. The legislation, passed last year, offers students $10,474 while disabled students can receive up to $30,000. Homeschooled students can get $2,000. Median private school tuition is about $9,400, not including books and transportation. Elite private schools charge much more.
Now we learn that the purpose of the voucher program was to “ease the burden” on families already paying for private school, not to help kids in public school:
TEFA spokesperson Travis Pillow said the program’s goal is not to “lure away” public school students but make private school affordable across the board. Many families with children in private school make major sacrifices to keep them there, Pillow said, and TEFA eases that burden….
Out of 5.45 million public school students in Texas, only about 68,000 even applied for TEFA — barely one percent. Half of those students were awarded funds, as of June 16 records provided to The Dallas Morning News, but more could drop out of the program if they can’t find a school to fit their needs.
But even a small drop in public school enrollment leads to budget cuts.
In Texas, public school districts receive a $6,215 allotment per student from the state, meaning fewer public school students directly translates to less funding…
About one in four of the voucher awards went to students with disabilities but only 20 in the entire state received the top award of $25,000-$30,000. However, private schools are not bound by federal law and may deny admission to students with disabilities. It is anticipated that many who received vouchers may return to their public school, where they are guaranteed admission and services.
If the state’s public education budget becomes strained, said Daniel DeMatthews, an educational policy professor at the University of Texas at Austin, lower-income and rural districts would likely be hit hardest.
The assumption behind these questions is test scores are precise indicators of reading ability, like scientific laboratory measurements. But like blood pressure levels — in which there is agreement about what’s being measured — they are variable and open to interpretation.
Despite the subjectivity and lack of agreement in defining reading, grade level and ability, grade-level reading ability is often mistakenly viewed as determined by a precise, stable test score, one that does not take into account factors such as students’ health and hunger in their testing performance. Not everyone agrees on what is salient at a particular grade level, leading to subjectivity in weighting phonics knowledge, vocabulary, comprehension, the ability to synthesize a theme and recognize an author’s point of view in a given passage, or some combination of such things.
Standardized tests are typically the basis for establishing grade level. But test scores themselves don’t indicate grade level, which is a creation of an interpreter. That’s why different tests don’t always produce the same grade level. A student who tests at fourth grade in one state may test at the third or fifth grade when moving to another state using a different test. In short, different tests or standards can produce different grade levels.
David Reinking is a retired professor at Clemson and the University of Georgia. He is an inductee in the Reading Hall of Fame, and a former co-editor of Reading Research Quarterly and Journal of Literacy Research. (Courtesy)
The National Assessment of Educational Progress calls itself “the nation’s report card” even to the point of using the phrase on its website and then having it repeated as if it is an established fact. It is often invoked in commentaries on grade levels. But it wasn’t designed for that purpose. NAEP itself states that “NAEP Proficient achievement level does not represent grade level proficiency as determined by other assessment standards (e.g., state or district assessments). NAEP achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis and should be interpreted and used with caution.”
But that hasn’t stopped many policy makers and journalists from trying to connect a NAEP test score to a grade level. Giving in to political pressure and rejecting recommendations from authorities in developing tests, in 1990 NAEP officials did introduce four tiers of reading achievement: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient and Advanced. These levels were established solely using subjective judgment about what’s expected of children tested at a specific grade level.
Peter Smagorinsky is a retired professor at UGA, an inductee in the Reading Hall of Fame, and a former co-editor of Research in the Teaching of English. (Courtesy)
Then, they set equally subjective cut scores to establish boundaries between these four levels. States often use a parallel model for their own tests. In Virginia, student performance is measured on a 0–600 scale, with proficiency set at 400-499 and advanced at 500 or above. It’s hard to imagine that a meaningful difference exists between a student scoring 499 (proficient) and 500 (advanced).
Much confusion is also centered in interpreting whether “basic” is acceptably normal or if it is reasonable to expect all students to be “proficient.” Many commentators, some of whom have a vested interest in arguing that there is a reading crisis, argue the latter. Some have promoted the false idea that “proficient” is grade-level reading, which it absolutely is not. Then, they wrongly argue that two-thirds of American students are reading below grade level by counting “basic” scores as below grade level.
A number of educators have debunked the conclusions of NAEP misinterpreters. Yet, the dogged belief persists that everything can be reduced to subjective interpretations of test scores divided into hierarchical categories that can be falsely, if conveniently, converted to grade levels.
We are concerned whenever we encounter all-too-common misinformation about grade-level reading ability. When misinformation becomes disinformation offered by those who use grade-level reading ability to advance political, polemical or ideological agendas, we become concerned about how faith in test scores lends them to manipulation and deception to help create the crisis that critics have historically claimed is engulfing schools, only to be saved by their favorite solutions.
David Reinking is a retired professor at Clemson and the University of Georgia, an inductee in the Reading Hall of Fame, and a former co-editor of Reading Research Quarterly and Journal of Literacy Research. Peter Smagorinsky is a retired professor at UGA, an inductee in the Reading Hall of Fame, and a former co-editor of Research in the Teaching of English.
Diane Ravitch's blog 