Carol Kocivar is former President of the California State PTA. She has worked as an attorney, journalist, and ombudsperson and is the parent to two children who graduated from the San Francisco public schools
Scary as this may seem, it is time to talk with your children about how our democracy is threatened.
I know. I know. Those are strong words. I certainly am not suggesting that we ask first graders whether the president should have more power than the Congress or the Supreme Court. But I am looking at this through the lens of history– with the knowledge that Hitler and Mussolini strengthened their hold through the indoctrination of youth.
Our children are not born with democracy in their DNA. It is our responsibility to ensure that each generation has the knowledge and skills to support and preserve our democracy.
Political outreach to children is already underway. Below is an example of a Kid’s Guide on the internet.
“With the triumphant return of President Trump to the White House, Americans everywhere are celebrating his return and what it means for our nation. And, as our kids are the future of our country, it’s important for them to understand how Trump will make America great again. That’s why we created The Kids Guide to President Trump, and right now we’re giving it away for FREE!”
Kids are taught about the Constitution in school In elementary school, students should already have some basic knowledge about how our government is supposed to work. By the time they have completed the 8th grade, they should know the basics of our constitutional democracy. For example, the California History/ Social Science frameworks provides that 8th graders should be taught about separation of powers, checks and balances, the nature and purpose of majority rule, and the ways in which the American idea of constitutionalism preserves individual rights.
They should know, for example, that the president is not a king.
They should know that the Congress passes laws, not the president.
They should know that the President and his staff cannot refuse to follow court orders.
They should know the president does not have the right to refuse to implement spending decisions of Congress.
They should know their rights include freedom of speech.
What can parents do?
In age appropriate language, discuss current events with them. I was going to say discuss it at the dinner table but you probably have a better shot at their attention as you drive to and from sports events.
Seek out incidents that challenge the basic principles of our democracy and discuss them.
What do they think? How does that square with what they know about the constitution?
Explain why you think it is important that they understand what is happening in the country.
Discuss money for schools. Does their public school need more or less money? What do they think about cutting funding for their school?
Talk about the importance of voting. Can voting change public policy?
Ask what would help them become more involved in issues that affect their school? Their community? Their country?
It’s up to us to preserve democracy for our children.
Olga Lautman is a fearless defender of democracy. She keeps close tabs on authoritarian regimes and has had many reasons to should the alarm since the return of Trump. Now that Trump controls the executive branch, Congress, and usually the Supreme Court (where he occasionally loses when Barrett and Roberts dissent), he is on a path to tyranny.
She warns that his crackdown on dissent is a decisive step towards full-fledged authoritarianism. Let me add as a personal that not all forms of dissent are legal, even by the most liberal definition. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, you can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. While I support student protests, there are reasonable limits defined by time, place, and manner. If students prevent others from learning by disrupting their classrooms or closing the library, that’s out of line, in my view. You are free to disagree. That’s your right, as it is mine.
Lautman writes:
Trump’s Crackdown: Silencing Dissent and Censoring the Press
While Trump floods the zone with chaos, I am watching a deeply disturbing pattern emerge. Recently, he has targeted universities under the guise of combating antisemitism, threatening to cut funding, open investigations, and deport foreign students involved in what he deems “illegal protests.” This move to silence student voices is part of a broader strategy—Trump is systematically laying the groundwork to criminalize dissent. Concurrently, he has continued to invoke emergency powers over immigration, granting himself sweeping authority with minimal oversight.
Adding to this concerning trend, Trump is weaponizing the Federal Communications Commission to suppress media freedom. Under his regime, the FCC has initiated investigations into major news organizations like NPR and PBS, scrutinizing their content and funding. The White House has also barred Associated Press reporters from covering presidential events, citing disagreements over “terminology.” Furthermore, the regime has taken control of the White House press pool, deciding which journalists can cover presidential activities, effectively beginning the process of sidelining independent media voices.
Today, the targets are “antisemitism” and “immigration.” Tomorrow, it could be any form of resistance to the regime. This pattern mirrors tactics employed by autocratic governments, where laws and regulations are manipulated to suppress opposition and control public discourse. It is imperative to recognize and challenge these encroachments on our democratic freedoms before dissent becomes a criminal act, and that is why I felt it was important to bring it to everyone’s attention.
The Playbook of Repression
Trump’s attacks on universities have nothing to do with stopping antisemitism. If they did, there would be a serious, balanced approach to addressing hate across the board. Instead, he’s selectively using it as a pretext to punish colleges, strip funding, launch investigations, and lay the groundwork for broader crackdowns on protests. These moves, along with the threat to deport foreign students who participate in protests, are a classic authoritarian tactic—silencing youth movements before they become a real threat.
In Russia, we have seen this exact strategy play out. Putin started by using the language of “public order” to justify suppressing protests. Then, he expanded it to clamp down on journalists, opposition figures, and universities. Today, any form of public dissent in Russia is met with immediate arrests, long prison sentences, or exile.
Trump is following the same playbook. First, redefine what qualifies as a legal protest. Then, frame all opposition as a national security threat. Finally, implement policies that criminalize resistance. Let’s not forget—during his first term, Trump wanted the military to shoot protesters, but guardrails stopped him. Now, with those guardrails gone and loyalists installed in key positions, he is laying the groundwork to justify an all-out assault on free speech and assembly, using the rhetoric of “law and order” to disguise repression as a “necessary” security measure.
The Danger of Emergency Powers
Trump’s continuing invocation of emergency powers on immigration is another red flag. Emergency powers are not inherently undemocratic, but in the wrong hands, they are a tool for consolidating unchecked authority. In Russia, Putin used emergencies—terrorist attacks, economic crises, and foreign threats—to justify expanding his power. Each crisis became an excuse to centralize control and dismantle any resistance to the regime.
Trump is testing the limits of emergency powers to override legal norms. He has already deployed the military on U.S. soil for immigration enforcement—what stops him from escalating further? With the Insurrection Act looming in the background, he is laying the groundwork to use military force against civilians under the pretense of a “national emergency.”
This is Just the Beginning
We are witnessing the early stages of a full-blown authoritarian shift. The selective targeting of student protesters, the abuse of emergency powers, and the push to redefine “illegal protests” are all interconnected. Today, it’s about silencing students. Tomorrow, it will be about crushing unions, blacklisting journalists, or jailing political opponents.
This is not alarmism—it’s a pattern seen time and again in authoritarian regimes. And it’s why we must sound the alarm now.
What Can We Do?
Expose and Document – Share information, track developments, and call out every attempt to silence dissent. Authoritarians thrive on people looking the other way.
Support Targeted Groups – Defend students, journalists, unions, and activists under attack. Legal funds, advocacy groups, and independent media need resources to fight back.
Pressure Lawmakers – Demand that Congress and state governments put up real resistance. Emergency powers must be challenged, and unconstitutional crackdowns must be met with legal action.
Mobilize and Protest – Peaceful mass protests and civil resistance are essential. Authoritarianism collapses when people refuse to comply.
Prepare for Escalation – The time to organize networks and alternative platforms is now and will be critical to keeping resistance alive.
The question is not whether Trump will attempt to consolidate power—it’s whether Americans will resist before it’s too late.
Jess Piper lives on a farm in Missouri. She has been fighting for years against the mean-spirited policies of the Republicans in her state. She’s also pushed hard to persuade the Democrats to run candidates in rural counties, which they have written off.
In this post, she calls on parents, teachers, and decent folks to speak out against the lawsuit to kill Section 504, which protects the rights of people with disabilities.
She writes:
I loved my Kentucky-born grandma. She was one of 12 kids who lived in a small cabin in a valley next to a creek in Harlan. She made bologna gravy and fried chicken, but every time I visited, she made potato soup and a German Chocolate Cake. She knew they were my favorites.
She called me Jessie and I loved to sit and listen to her talk. You had to pry the stories out, but once she started, her narratives always kept me laughing or crying.
I miss her.
My grandma pictured with her siblings and parents. Harlan, Kentucky — 1930 something.
I was one of the first on that side of my family to graduate from college. When I received my MA in Education, my grandparents came all the way down to Arkansas to celebrate the day with me. They were very proud, but especially Grandma. She was proud to have a teacher in the family.
One day, years later, she asked me a question, “Jessie, what happened to education? The kids I went to school with could all read and write. Now, there are so many in school who can’t read well or do math.”
Grandma wasn’t trying to berate me or public schools — she did watch Fox News though and was getting some ideas in her head that didn’t live in reality. Fox regularly ran stories on kids in urban areas falling behind and that part isn’t necessarily untrue, but you and I both know why they focused on urban kids and not rural kids.
I reminded her of a few things about schools back in the 30s and 40s in Kentucky. Her school was poor but not nearly as poor as the Black schools in surrounding counties. I also asked her if she could remember any kids with disabilities in her class or school. She did not remember anyone with a disability, but she did say there were quite a few boys who couldn’t read well and they always dropped out by 6th or 8th grade to go to work on the farm or in a coal mine.
There you go, Grandma. There it is.
I will never forget that scene in “Forrest Gump” when Forrest’s mom had to have sex with the local Principal so her child could be enrolled in school. I know that is likely a stretch, but how far of a stretch?
There were no accommodations back then. If a child presented with a disability, they were most often turned away. Children could legally work on a farm at any age and they could work in a mine by 14.
The poor kids went to work and the kids with disabilities were shut out.
Grandma understood immediately after our talk…she just hadn’t thought about it much.
Fast forward to 2025 and Missouri is under the boot of a GOP supermajority and an Attorney General with few morals but a lot of hate that he directs at women, minorities, and folks with disabilities…even children.
Missouri AG Andrew Bailey was appointed in 2022 when Eric Schmitt won his Senate race. Don’t get me wrong — Eric Schmitt was nearly as bad and sued Missouri schools to force them to remove mask mandates in 2020. You know, when folks were dying from a global pandemic.
But, in my opinion, Andrew Bailey is the worst AG we have had in recent memory and that’s saying a lot because Josh Hawley was also a Missouri AG.
We have scraped the bottom of the barrel with Andrew Bailey.
Bailey is suing China for failing to supply our state with masks during COVID though Bailey has repeatedly said that masks didn’t prevent the spread of COVID.
Bailey is suing Costco for their DEI policies, saying that the private company should be forced to hire more white men because hiring women and people of color is discriminatory.
Bailey is suing Starbucks because he argues that, “Starbucks diversity initiatives have caused higher prices and longer lines,” and that, “Starbucks workforce is more female and less white.”
Yes, you read that right. I mean, it’s as condescending and racist as it sounds, but his first statement also goes against the Republican mantra of the “free market.” If folks don’t like a line or think the coffee is too high, they can just run over to a Scooter’s or McDonald’s.
But, it only goes downhill from there…Missouri’s AG has joined a suit to gut the 504 program.
What is Section 504 in plain language?
Section 504 is an important law that protects people with disabilities. 504 says you can’t discriminate against disabled people if you get money from the United States government. Section 504 says you cannot mistreat people because of their disabilities.
Section 504 has rules that explain what disability discrimination is. The rules say that schools, hospitals, and doctors’ offices have to include people with disabilities.
In the suit, my AG and sixteen other state AGs are suing because they want to eliminate gender dysphoria from a protected status under 504 — a Biden era addition to protect trans kids. But, the suit asks the court to get rid of all the updated rules – and to get rid of Section 504 altogether. The lawsuit says that Section 504 goes against the United States Constitution.
This will impact so many students in the country. The point is to offer no accommodations for any disability. For any child.
This is what they meant when they said Make America Great Again. They meant Kentucky in the 1930s.
There are a few things you can do: Call your AG if you live in Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, or West Virginia. Demand that they drop from the lawsuit.
The bright side of this suit is that it is bringing disability and accommodations in front of everyday Americans. Folks who may not understand DEI, understand a 504 — they should know diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts include disability.
Another positive note: my AG has rarely won any suit he has filed or joined. He is very bad at his job because he doesn’t seem to understand the Constitution. I hope this suit ends like most of them do…Bailey, with his tail tucked between his knees, running from cameras.
You can help get the word out by sharing this post or the others I will list at the bottom of this post.
Tell everyone you know and then start calling. We can’t do everything, but we can do one thing.
I should warn you, however, that the Office of Civil Rights may not exist anymore. It will probably be transferred to the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. The person nominated to lead that office is hostile to many of the civil rights protections that have been law for many years.
Here is a plain language explanation of the lawsuit, prepared by the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.
If the suit is successful, it would affect students and everyone else in every state, not just those where the suit was launched.
Wherever you live, join with other parents to protest. Contact all organizations that defend disability rights. Call your local officials.
Don’t let them get away with this attack on the disability rights of your child, which have been the law since 1973.
Newsweek reports that school officials and students in Bridgeport are planning to stand up for their fellow students who are immigrants. Meanwhile, the students are protesting in the best way possible, holding posters that say: “WE ARE ALL ILLEGALS.” The kids are alright.
A school district in Connecticut is defying President Donald Trump‘s order to allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to go to sensitive locations.
Bridgeport Public Schools announced on Tuesday guidelines designed to protect students in the event of an attempted raid by ICE agents at any of its schools.
Newsweek has contacted the White House via email for comment outside of normal office hours.
Why It Matters
Trump has begun implementing sweeping immigration reforms and is preparing to target millions of undocumented immigrants. The school district’s stance signals the emergence of grassroots opposition to the administration’s plans to initiate the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history.
What To Know
Bridgeport Public Schools’ announcement came after the acting director of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a directive on January 21 ending the policy that ICE agents would not conduct actions in or near “sensitive” areas, such as churches, hospitals or schools.
Interim school superintendent Dr. Royce Avery reaffirmed that the school district’s immigration enforcement guidelines remain in place. Avery said that ICE agents and other government officials are prohibited from entering school buildings, boarding buses or attending school events without prior written approval from the superintendent.
“Every student in Bridgeport, regardless of their immigration status, has the right to feel secure and supported in our schools,” he said.
Avery did not say if any ICE raids were planned in Bridgeport. He added that Bridgeport Public Schools does not collect or store information about students’ immigration status, ensuring their privacy is protected….
What People Are Saying
Interim school superintendent Dr. Royce Avery said in a press release: “I became an educator to advocate for all students, and I will ensure their rights and privacy are upheld. Our schools will remain a safe space where all students can learn, grow, and succeed without fear or discrimination.”
Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Benjamine Huffman said in a statement: “This action empowers the brave men and women in CBP [Customs and Border Protection] and ICE to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens—including murders and rapists—who have illegally come into our country. Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement and instead trusts them to use common sense.”
Janet Murguía, president and CEO of Latino civil rights and advocacy organization UnidosUS, told Newsweek: “Many of the president’s proposed executive orders, however, are strictly punitive measures such as changing enforcement targets to include schools, churches and hospitals, and are designed to inflict pain on the most vulnerable—families, children and even the sick and injured.”
John Thompson retired after many years as a teacher in Oklahoma. Although he usually writes about politics, he has recently been writing about what he learned in the classroom.
He wrote:
If we want to prepare our students for the 21stcentury, educators, patrons, and politicians should relearn the lessons of history as to why classroom instruction is only one of the education tools we need to develop.
After more than two decades of failures, the corporate reform belief that individual teachers can transform public schools has been disproven. But, holistic learning requires a team effort where we bring students out of the school, as well as bringing members of diverse communities into the school. This narrative describes the learning that my young friends and I shared when exploring nature.
The first time I took inner city kids camping and fossil hunting, a couple of minutes into the first lesson I became hooked by my new career. A third grader shouted that she had found a “real live dinosaur nose! It still has blood on it!”
Sleepy Hollow Camp was the type of progressive institution you would expect from the veterans of the civil rights campaign “Freedom Summer” who helped lead the program. Sleepy Hollow was committed to positive behavioral reinforcement. We received marvelous professional development for picking up on warning signs before misbehavior escalated, for disengaging when necessary, and for re-engaging kids in a constructive manner. The data from the families’ applications for the program gave us extremely valuable information. Outstanding social workers helped us to interpret the students’ records. Professional development included cooperative games and culminated in a “ropes course” for building teamwork.
Sleepy Hollow’s professional development for environmental education was fantastic. We were provided the hands-on materials about our camp in the Arbuckle Mountains, where “twice this ancient mountain range had been worn away. But three times it rose from the sea.” We identified plants and animals that flourished “where the American South met the West, and as a result we had as much biodiversity as anywhere in the United States.”
When teaching such lessons to adolescents, it did not take long for them to recognize them as metaphors for their lives. The children first raised the issue of respecting the diversity of people, as well as biomes. And kids sought the reassurance that people who have been beaten down, like mountain ranges, can rise again.
After each long day of adventures, an evening campfire was always perfect for celebrating new friendships, reflecting on the day’s discoveries, and contemplating the meaning of life.
Rashad, one of the teen leaders at camp who was well-known at his middle school for political protests involving Black Nationalism, took charge of the evening talent shows. He excelled at satire, and my lessons often inspired the jokes and dance numbers. In such a setting, the power of children’s moral consciousness in driving the intentionality required for deep learning was clearly illuminated.
August offered extraordinary meteorite showers as the campfires were dimming. Walking back to the cabin or the tent, the kids were quiet and contemplative knowing that they were sharing something profound. Those night- time reflections borrowed the language of the Black church. We were all lying silently in our bunks one night when the cabin’s leader, Tyson, volunteered an account of a family tragedy. He asked if we knew the story behind the song “Amazing Grace,” and told his cabin mates about the slave trader, John Newton’s, conversion at sea and his becoming an abolitionist. Tyson then sang for us an incredibly beautiful version of the hymn.
I came to know Richard a bit more intimately after violence broke out after a turtle was killed. Members from another street gang knew how devoted Richard was to wildlife, so they provoked a fight by killing a turtle he had adopted.
The wiry and high-strung 8th grader began our most intense conversation with a calm account of the death of his grandmother along with six others in a boiler explosion at an Oklahoma City school. Summing up the lessons he learned through mourning, he spoke in a low voice, “I think about things – deep things,” while his eyes darted back and forth, frantically, on high alert for danger.
Richard switched the subject to tales about his days in California living with a rich uncle, an “O.G.” (Old-time Gangsta.) Richard talked about how he would plan ways to invest the family’s wealth to help the underprivileged. Pumping his fists and striking out for emphasis, Richard repeated again, “I think of things – deep things.”
But everything changed for Richard when his uncle was busted on drug charges and all their money was lost. He claimed to not being upset by all of that. It brought him closer to real suffering and prompted new ideas for helping the poor. By this point in our conversation, he exhibited the explosive force of a television evangelist, proclaiming, “I think of things – deep things!”
Back home, his once-powerful uncle still had enemies, and Richard was now more vulnerable and afraid. But that just made him identify more with people who never had power and made him wish he could do good – not just for people, but for all of the earth. That is why the turtle’s death upset him so much. Again subdued, Richard wrapped up his sermon, “I think of things – deep things.”
Richard’s peers confirmed that his uncle had had money, power, and a reputation, and that I would understand when we returned to the city and saw his family. It was on the bus ride home that I fully grasped the trauma and fearfulness that dominated Richard’s home life. In those two weeks away, the camp had become a safe zone for him and he grew more and more agitated the closer we got to the inner city. He sat pensively, practically glued to me for the ride home.
Richard’s suffering was also apparent to the other students and I was struck by the empathy that they expressed. Even the kids who were the most “down” with the “Crips” — the gang that rivalled his uncle’s “Bloods” — started to treat him with kindness. Something transformative had happened over the course of the two weeks at camp.
Richard was picked up by his uncle. Someone who had once displayed power and inspired fear was now a broken man and clearly an alcoholic. Richard made a point of introducing me as his friend, and the uncle earnestly voiced appreciation. Though we had just met, the former gang leader grasped my hand and forearm and made it clear that he needed to communicate his deep appreciation for helping his nephew. Like many others, O.G. grieved for the pain he had inflicted upon his family.
This, and countless other poignant conversations, illustrates the challenges faced by children and educators alike in trying to overcome the legacy of poverty. But it also points to solutions. Simply put, there is no substitute for honest and painful discussions with young people about the troubles and transgressions of their past, and often grim and anxious aspects of their present. Long after high-profile tragedies are forgotten by society, trauma endures for many survivors. Despite such stress and tragedy, Richard, his friends, and even his uncle, managed to hold onto their moral core.
This could be the rock upon which school improvement in the inner city is founded.
This post appeared originally in the Louisville Courier-Journal. It has since been posted by The Network for Public Education, whose contents are curated by Peter Greene.
Liam Amick is a senior at Trinity High School, a Catholic school in Kentucky, where vouchers are on the ballot next week in Amendment 2, a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would okay vouchers. Trinity has made support of the Amendment mandatory. Amick would like to disagree, and does so in the Courier Journal.
Every day when I drive into school, I’m greeted by yard signs blazing with the message “YES on 2!” To see these put up at Trinity, a school that generally requests little political discussion at school, was quite a shock.
I’m a “private school kid.” I went to St. Francis of Assisi for first through eighth grades, and I am now a senior at Trinity High School. I will always be indebted to those schools for providing me with fantastic educations and experiences in the most formative years of my life. But to say I am disappointed with Trinity’s stance on Amendment 2 — a Kentucky ballot measure that would allow public tax funding to be used for private schools — would be an understatement.
An even bigger disappointment has been Trinity’s and the Archdiocese of Louisville‘s responses to criticism of their position. When both Trinity’s Student Government and Faculty Senate asked if the “YES on 2!” signs could be taken down, they were told that the archdiocese had asked us to put them up and there was absolutely no chance of them being taken down. Also, the administration doesn’t allow our school journalism program to report on any political topics and or criticisms of Trinity and its policies, so I felt that to share my views I had to look outside of the school.
In my opinion, the desire of non-public schools to support Amendment 2 is logical, but closed-minded. What’s important to remember is that, in Kentucky, 65% of non-public schools are found in Louisville, Lexington and the general Northern Kentucky area. Out of 120 counties in Kentucky, 89 have no access to a non-public school, and well-run, accredited non-public schools aren’t going to magically appear in those counties after the passage of Amendment 2. So, the “school choice” amendment would in fact offer students in these areas no “choice” to go to a different school.
Supporters of Amendment 2 often bring up Kentucky’s 2023 $1 billion budget surplus, claiming that that money will be used to provide funding to public schools and said schools will lose no money. However, that surplus money already has a destination. According to House Appropriations and Revenue Chair Jason Petrie, the extra money has “provided the opportunity to invest more than $2.7 billion over the next two years to improve road, rail, river, air, and water infrastructure.” Although Petrie claims they are also making “targeted investments in school facilities,” the bottom line is that significantly fewer tax dollars would go to public schools, leaving no replacement funding in their wake.
The Brookings Institution has published a study of absenteeism rates that shows they have soared. But as of now, the reasons for increased absenteeism are unidentified.
The study was conducted by Tom Swiderski, Sarah Crittenden Fuller, and Kevin C. Bastian.
Here is the key finding:
“Between 2018-19 and 2021-22, the percentage of chronically absent K-12 students nearly doubled from 15% to 28%, with only a marginal decline in 2022-23, remaining well above pre-pandemic levels.”
Why are children and young people not attending school? What are they doing instead? What are the costs to them and their schools?
Paul Krugman, the economist who writes a regular column for the New York Times, recently explored why Republicans oppose free lunch for students. The simple answer is that it’s just plain weird. The more complex answer is that they don’t want to create an “entitlement” for children. The irony that he does not explore is why Republicans are unwilling to pay for free lunches, yet eager to pay the tuition of students who attend religious or other private schools, regardless of their family’s income.
He writes:
You could say that Tim Walz became the Democratic vice-presidential nominee with one weird trick — that is, by using that word to describe Donald Trump and JD Vance, a categorization that went viral. In his maiden campaign speech he upgraded it a bit further to “creepy and weird as hell.” (If you think that’s over the top, have you seen Trump’s bizarre rant speculating about whether Joe Biden is going to seize back his party’s presidential nomination?)
But Walz is more than a meme-maker. He has also been an activist governor of Minnesota with a strong progressive agenda. And I’d like to focus on one key element of that agenda: requiring that public and charter schools provide free breakfasts and lunches to all students.
Perhaps not incidentally, child care has long been a signature issue for Kamala Harris, and Walz’s policies may have played a role in his selection as her running mate.
In any case, free school meals are a big deal in pure policy terms. They have also met fierce Republican opposition. And the partisan divide over feeding students tells you a lot about the difference between the parties, and why you really, really shouldn’t describe the MAGA movement as “populist.”
Now, even many conservatives generally support, or at least claim to support, the idea of cheap or free lunches for poor schoolchildren. The National School Lunch Program goes all the way back to 1946, when it passed with bipartisan support and President Harry Truman signed it into law.
Why should the government help feed kids? Part of the answer is social justice: Children don’t choose to be born into families that can’t or won’t feed them adequately, and it seems unfair that they should suffer. Part of the answer is pragmatic: Children who don’t receive adequate nutrition will grow up to be less healthy and less productive adults than those who do, hurting society as a whole. So spending on child nutrition is arguably as much an investment in the future as building roads and bridges.
There’s a strong case that in general child nutrition programs more than pay for themselves by creating a healthier, higher-earning future work force. In other words, this is one area where there really is a free lunch.
Schools, then, should feed students who might otherwise not get enough to eat. But why make free meals available to all children, rather than only to children from low-income households? There are multiple reasons, all familiar to anyone who has looked into the problems of antipoverty policy in general.
First, trying to save money by limiting which children you feed turns out to be expensive and cumbersome; it requires that school districts deal with reams of paperwork as they try to determine which children are eligible. It also imposes a burden on parents, requiring that they demonstrate their neediness.
Additionally, restricting free meals to children whose parents can prove their poverty creates a stigma that can deter students from getting aid even when they’re entitled to receive it. I know about this effect from family history: My mother, who grew up in the Depression, used to talk about her shame at not being able to afford new shoes because her parents, although just as poor as her classmates’ parents, couldn’t bring themselves to apply for government assistance.
And it’s not as if feeding children is prohibitively expensive. So if you want to make sure that children get enough to eat, having schools offer free meals to all their students, without an income test, would seem to be simple common sense.
But Republicans in general aren’t on board. The Minnesota law that Walz signed passed essentially along party lines. The people behind Project 2025, in particular, don’t approve. (Yes, despite denials, Project 2025 is a very good guide to what a second Trump administration might do.) The project’s magnum opus, “Mandate for Leadership,” whose 900 pages lays out a detailed policy agenda, singles out feeding students as something that should be reined in. “Federal school meals increasingly resemble entitlement programs,” it warns, as if this is self-evidently a bad thing. A bit farther down, it reads, “The U.S.D.A. should not provide meals to students during the summer unless students are taking summer-school classes.” I guess being hungry isn’t a problem when school is out.
Stories like this are why my hackles rise whenever people call MAGA a populist movement. The people who will almost certainly make policy if Trump wins are as committed as ever to a right-wing economic agenda of cutting taxes on the wealthy while slashing programs that help Americans in need — including programs that help children.
In addition to being cruel, this agenda tends to be unpopular. Most Americans support providing all students with meals, regardless of their income, just as most Americans now support the Affordable Care Act, which Trump will very likely again try to destroy if returned to office.
But the American right lives in an echo chamber that normalizes views on both economic and social policy that are very much at odds with what a majority of voters want. Those extreme views often fly under the radar. But sometimes they do attract attention. And when they do, many people find them … weird.
Peter Greene wades into the debate about what teachers should call students who ask to be addressed by a different name.
He writes:
Names have power, so it makes sense that young humans, who are generally in search of both identity and some amount of power over their own lives, will often try to exert some control over their own names.
As a teacher, it’s not a fight worth picking. I taught so many students–soooooo many– who wanted to be called by another name. Sometimes it was perfectly understandable– a common nickname for their full name, or going by a middle name. Sometimes it was a leap– “Albert” would prefer to go by “Butch.” I had some unusual cases, like the girl who had the same name as three other students in class, so told me she’d rather go by Andrea (pronounced Ahn-dray-uh). And a few times, I had a trans student who wanted to use a different name.
Did I agree with all of them? No more than I agreed with some of my students’ questionable fashion choices. But it cost me nothing to honor these preferences, to give students that small measure of control over their own identities. It was a small thing for me, but a thing that helped make my classroom a safe, welcoming space where we could get on with the work of learning to be better at reading, writing, speaking and listening.
So I don’t get teachers like Vivian Geraghty, the middle school language arts teacher who found herself with two transgender students and a) refused to call them by their chosen names and b) asked to have them removed from their classrooms.
Geraghty is going to matter because she was told to resign, maybe, and then sued the district. Based on a U.S. District judge decision, this matter is going to trial (at least partly because there seems to be dispute about what actually happened). According to court documents, the students made their request on Day One and Geraghty knew these requests were “part of the student’s social transition” but disagreed because of her religious beliefs and “wanted those students out of her classroom.”
Geraghty cites her religious convictions as the reason she would not honor the student request, and though this is a fashionable hill for christianists to die on these days, I don’t really get it. Why is transgenderism such a heinous crime against religion and conscience that they cannot even acknowledge such people exist is beyond me.
Part of the dispute is over whether Geraghty jumped or was pushed. Her defense is from theAlliance Defending Freedom, the conservative culture panic law group that has made several trips before SCOTUS, including Dobbs. They say Geraghty could not put aside her beliefs to “affirm untruths that harm children.”
And yet she was okay with treating two actual children like this.
I do not and probably never will grasp the current argument that one cannot practice one’s faith unless one is fully free to discriminate against people of whom you disapprove, and yet that argument surfaces again and again.
But I do believe this– it is not a teacher’s job (nor, really, that of any adult) to tell a student who he or she is. We can nudge, offer encouragement and support, and create a safe place for them to try to figure it out. But the most basic part of treating a human being like a human being is to call them by the name they have for themselves. If you can’t do that and if you insist that you must have the God-given right to make your disapproval of their identities clear to them in every interaction, then you do not belong in front of a classroom.
Diane Ravitch's blog 