https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2025/12/18/court-ruling-a-roadblock-to-west-virginia-charter-schools/

On December 3, Kanawha Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey issued a permanent injunction that prevents the West Virginia Professional Charter School Board from authorizing any new charter schools without the approval of the voters in the county where the charter wants to do business.

West Virginia passed a charter school law in 2019; that law stated that charter schools would be authorized by county school boards, or in some rare cases, the state school board. But local elected school boards can be reluctant to open up competing schools funded with local taxpayer dollars (in fact, the very first application for establishing a charter school was rejected by the county board). In 2021, the state modified the charter law. The bill turned every mention of “charter school” into “public charter school,” and it created the West Virginia Professional Charter School Board, a new path for charter authorization.

Kevin Bolling is executive director of the Secular Student Alliance, which advocates for schools free of religious ideology. Bolling writes here about the attack on public schools in Colorado.

In Colorado, a quiet revolution is underway, one that threatens the very idea of public education.

The Colorado Schools Fund, launched in 2024 with $50 million in philanthropic support, is not simply financing new charter and microschools. It is reshaping the public narrative about education itself. Through a strategic mix of capital, ideology and political influence, CSF and its allies are advancing a powerful message: that market-driven “choice” is the only remedy for supposedly irredeemable public schools.

Once public schools are cast as broken beyond repair, charters and microschools become steppingstones toward something far more consequential: a broad voucher system that redirects public money to private and religious education. The Daniels Fund, whose donation seeded CSF, has long championed vouchers. Their investment signals the next phase, a push to convince parents that privatization is not only desirable, but inevitable.

The consequences are profound. This approach doesn’t merely siphon resources away from neighborhood schools; it erodes their legitimacy. When foundations and political operatives rebrand public education as a failure, they create the very conditions they claim to solve. And as public confidence collapses, the argument for taxpayer-funded private schooling becomes easier to sell.

That dynamic is already playing out in Pueblo, where Riverstone Academy presents an alarming test case. Operating under Education reEnvisioned BOCES, the school has marketed itself as a public elementary school while pushing a Christian curriculum. Ken Witt, head of the BOCES, even described Riverstone as “Colorado’s first public Christian school” during a board meeting last fall. Yet the school’s official paperwork made no mention of religious instruction. Was the omission accidental or intentional?

The backstory suggests the latter. Emails show Brad Miller, a lawyer for Pueblo County School District 70, requesting permission to establish a new school inside the district’s boundaries but governed by neighboring District 49. The arrangement, he wrote, would allow the group to work with Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative legal organization known for high-profile religious liberty cases to test “the legalities around the issue of whether a public school may provide religious education.”

Riverstone Academy appears designed as a legal provocation: a taxpayer-funded public school created to force a battle over whether public dollars can support explicitly Christian instruction. This is not a misunderstanding. It is a strategy, one aimed at normalizing religious schools operating with public funds.

This local experiment unfolds alongside a national effort to redefine public education. The Trump administration’s recently passed federal voucher bill casts public schools as a “monopoly” in need of disruption, echoing decades of market rhetoric. But as Kevin Welner of the National Education Policy Center warns, the supposed “flexibility” states gain under the bill is illusory. Instead, it invites federal overreach, weakens student protections and replicates the academic declines already associated with large-scale voucher expansion.

Those protections matter, especially for LGBTQ+ students and families. Behind the lofty language of empowerment lie schools that quietly, and sometimes openly, exclude them. Across the country, private schools participating in voucher programs deny admission to LGBTQ students or the children of LGBTQ parents. Some embed exclusion in handbooks or “morality clauses”; others teach explicitly anti-LGBTQ doctrine. Yet taxpayer dollars increasingly subsidize these institutions under the banner of choice.

The Douglas County School District’s “Choice Scholarship” program, a voucher initiative struck down in court, would have funneled public funds to religious schools with documented histories of exclusion. As Gregory M. Lipper of Americans United for Separation of Church and State put it, “Taxpayer money can’t be used to fund religious schools or religious education.” Voucher systems blur that principle, and families who accept vouchers lose crucial federal civil rights protections, including those guaranteed by Titles VI and IX, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and even constitutional rights to free expression and due process.

When a Colorado district court ruled in 2011 that Douglas County’s program violated the state constitution it reaffirmed a moral commitment: that public education, however imperfect, rests on the promise that every child, regardless of identity, belongs.

If we abandon that promise in pursuit of “choice,” we are not expanding opportunity. We are narrowing it. And for LGBTQ+ students, the cost of that illusion may be nothing less than their place in America’s classrooms.

Creative Commons License

Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education, is an expert on charter schools and charter legislation. For the past decade, she has studied the charter school movement, state charter laws, and federal funding for charters and the consequences of those laws and funding more closely than anyone I know.

She wrote the following article, which was published in the current issue of The Progressive:

More than thirty years have passed since nineteen states first embraced charter schools as laboratories of innovation, and the evidence is clear: The model has broken down. Public trust has sharply eroded. School closures are routine, leaving students stranded and families frustrated. And nearly every day brings yet another charter school scandal.

The second installment of “Charter School Reckoning: Disillusionment,” a three-part report by the National Center for Charter School Accountability, reveals that the very structure of this sector—rather than merely isolated bad actors—is what enables mismanagement, profiteering, and instability at high cost to students and taxpayers. The need to rewrite charter laws is no longer a matter of debate; it is a matter of protecting students, taxpayers, and the public trust.

Roughly half of all charter schools by the 2018-19 school year were operated by management corporations, both for-profit and nonprofit. In Michigan, for-profit operators run 70 percent of the state’s charter schools. In Ohio and Florida, for-profits run half. Nevada’s, North Carolina’s, and South Carolina’s for-profit-run school sectors are quickly increasing. Charter schooling is now an industry, not a public school reform.

This growth in corporate chartering has been accompanied by the expansion of complex real estate and contracting structures. These arrangements are not incidental; they are built into the fabric of many charter school laws. In nearly every state, management companies can own school buildings, set their own lease terms, and collect “management fees” that reach 10 percent to 25 percent of a school’s total revenue. Through these related-party transactions, companies maximize profits, siphoning off funding that should be benefitting students.

In every state, authorizing entities that issue charters for schools are responsible for ensuring that the school is fiscally sound, well-managed, and that students are achieving. According to the new report, authorizers “decide who can start a new charter school, set academic and operational expectations, and oversee school performance. They also decide whether a charter should remain open or closed at the end of its contract.” Unfortunately, fee incentives, multiple authorizers, and political appointees to state authorizing boards often make the authorization process vulnerable to corruption and mismanagement. 

In 25 percent of states with charter school laws, four or more types of organizations—including universities, nonprofits, struggling colleges, junior colleges, school districts, and state agencies—are permitted to authorize charters to collect at least 3 percent of a school’s funding. In some states, small and cash-strapped nonprofits and colleges have created charter portfolios that generate millions of dollars. The “Charter School Reckoning” report also documents examples of failing schools that “authorizer shopped” to avoid being shut down, as well as one case of an authorizer who took charter customers on junkets to London and Stockholm.

Charter school board governance also generally remains slap-dash and unaccountable. Only five states require charter school governance to be based on elections. Nearly all other appointments are created by charter school boards’ bylaws, with only a handful of states having any requirements around term limits or membership.

Too often, board members have been sought out by the school’s operator and serve without term limits or approval beyond the board. The Epic Charter Schools case in Oklahoma shows how boards stacked with associates of the school’s founders failed to oversee tens of millions of dollars in questionable spending, with one board member admitting that he was a childhood friend of co-founder David Chaney.

Drawing from news stories published between September 2023 and September 2025, the “Charter School Reckoning” report documented a staggering $858 million in taxpayer funds lost to fraud, theft, profiteering, or incompetence. In story after story, board members were asleep at the wheel, claiming ignorance of the theft, fraud, and incompetence occurring on their watch. Only three states—California, Minnesota, and Massachusetts—“expressly prohibit contracts between a charter school board member and a company with whom the school is doing business.”

The consequences of these system design flaws fall heavily on students and families, with more than one in four charter schools closing by their fifth year and nearly 40 percent shuttering by year ten. And the funds taken from the public school system and taxpayer pockets are irretrievably lost.

These documented patterns point to a clear conclusion: Charter laws in many states create predictable opportunities for profiteering, opacity, and instability. Reform must therefore address the systemic issues that enable these outcomes. The report concludes with ten concrete legislative changes that, if correctly implemented, will reduce fraud and abuse and bring charter schools back to their original mission to serve as laboratories of educational innovation, deserving of the word “public.” Among the specific changes supported by the evidence in this report are stronger financial transparency rules, clear prohibitions on related-party transactions, limits on authorizer fees, democratic governance requirements for charter school boards, and renewal terms capped at five years.

The report concludes, “We can still incubate good ideas, but we should do so where they belong: inside the public system, with the sunlight, stewardship, and community voice that public money requires. Recommitment to that principle—public dollars for public schools under public rules—is the surest way to move from reckoning to repair.”

Yesterday, 37-year-old Nicole Good was murdered while driving away from ICE agents.

As her car slammed into another car, a man approached ICE and identified himself as a medical doctor. He wanted to check her pulse. The ICE agent said “I don’t care,” and they prevented him from aiding the dying woman.

ICE called for an ambulance but it could not get close to the crash scene because of barricades. The ambulance crew arrived at Nicole’s car without a stretcher, and they carried her away by her limbs.

The first reaction from Trump and Noem was to insult the victim as a “domestic terrorist” who was trying to kill ICE agents. The films showed that this was not true. They said she was trying to run over the ICE agent who fired three shots at her. This was not true. Nicole turned sharply to the right to avoid hitting him after he stood in front of her car. He fired a shot directly at her, which pierced her windshield. As she turned away, he fired two more shots at her. She did not endanger him. He killed her. He could have shot out her tires but he chose to kill her by shooting her in the head.

Parker Molloy wrote about the barrage of lies:

Immediately, DHS had a story ready. Spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin released a statement saying Good had “weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them.” Secretary Kristi Noem added that agents had been trying to push their vehicles out of the snow when Good “attacked them.” President Trump posted on Truth Social that Good “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer.”

There’s video. Multiple angles. You can watch it. The video shows agents approaching Good’s car. It shows one grabbing her door handle, yelling at her to get out. It shows her car reverse, then pull forward. It shows an agent fire through the windshield. It shows her car drift forward and crash.

The video does not show anyone getting run over. It does not show anyone stuck in snow. The street is clear.

Lies. Lies. Lies.

There was supposed to be a federal-state investigation but the FBI and ICE have said they will not collaborate with state investigators. They will not share their records or films. By now, based on what federal authorities have said over the past 24 hours, we know that we can’t trust federal agents to tell the truth.

Everyone has had multiple opportunities to view videos taken from different angles. None of those videos show Nicole “weaponizing” her car, trying to hit or kill the ICE agent. None of them show her being violent, willful, or vicious. Nothing in her background portrays her as a “professional activist.”

Once again the Trump administration will lie and blame the victim. Unless there is a statement by state and federal authorities, the investigation will have no credibility.

Yesterday Trump gave an unusual two-hour interview to reporters from The New York Times.

One reporter asked Trump whether he felt constrained by international law or by Congress, and he answered that he did not.

Here is his response:

President Trump declared on Wednesday evening that his power as commander in chief is constrained only by his “own morality,” brushing aside international law and other checks on his ability to use military might to strike, invade or coerce nations around the world.

Asked in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times if there were any limits on his global powers, Mr. Trump said: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

“I don’t need international law,” he added. “I’m not looking to hurt people.”

I immediately thought of Marlon Brando in The Godfather.

Nobody constrains the godfather. Only his own morality. And you know what that means.

In few words, Trump boldly expressed The Trump Doctrine. He will take action without deference to Congress, the Constitution, or the United Nations. Nothing will hold him back except his “own morality,” says a man who is famous for lying, cheating, and ignoring the law. A man who dodged the draft, cheated on all three of his wives, refused to release his tax returns, went bankrupt multiple times (while playing the role of a business genius), a man whose multiple businesses have folded (Trump steaks, Trump wines, Trump airlines, Trump University, Trump vodka, among other failed ventures).

This group of friends in Maine has adapted the well-known song, “The 12 Days of Christmas” to fit a different theme: “When he’s gone.” They never say his name, but we know it.

Hilarious! Also, hopeful. Someday he will be gone. Gone with his egotism, narcissism, vengefulness, cruelty, greed, and disdain for the rule of law.

President Trump and Secretary Kristi Noem described her as a domestic terrorist. She was painted by them as a zealous provocateur, part of an organized conspiracy or group. They said she “ran over” an ICE agent.

At the time, no one knew much about her.

The New York Times reported:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The woman shot and killed by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in Minneapolis on Wednesday was Renee Nicole Macklin Good, a 37-year-old mother of three who had recently moved to Minnesota.

She was a U.S. citizen born in Colorado and appears to never have been charged with anything involving law enforcement beyond a traffic ticket.

In social media accounts, Macklin Good described herself as a “poet and writer and wife and mom.” She said she was currently “experiencing Minneapolis,” displaying a pride flag emoji on her Instagram account. A profile picture posted to Pinterest shows her smiling and holding a young child against her cheek, along with posts about tattoos, hairstyles and home decorating.

Her ex-husband, who asked not to be named out of concern for the safety of their children, said Macklin Good had just dropped off her 6-year-old son at school Wednesday and was driving home with her current partner when they encountered a group of ICE agents on a snowy street in Minneapolis, where they had moved last year from Kansas City, Missouri.

Video taken by bystanders posted to social media shows an officer approaching her car, demanding she open the door and grabbing the handle. When she begins to pull forward, a different ICE officer standing in front of the vehicle pulls his weapon and immediately fires at least two shots into the vehicle at close range.

In another video taken after the shooting, a distraught woman is seen sitting near the vehicle, wailing, “That’s my wife, I don’t know what to do!”

Calls and messages to Macklin Good’s current partner received no response.

Trump administration officials painted Macklin Good as a domestic terrorist who had attempted to ram federal agents with her car. Her ex-husband said she was no activist and that he had never known her to participate in a protest of any kind.

He described her as a devoted Christian who took part in youth mission trips to Northern Ireland when she was younger. She loved to sing, participating in a chorus in high school and studying vocal performance in college.

She studied creative writing at Old Dominion University in Virginia and won a prize in 2020 for one of her works, according to a post on the school’s English department Facebook page. She also hosted a podcast with her second husband, who died in 2023.

Macklin Good had a daughter and her son from her first marriage, who are now ages 15 and 12. Her 6-year-old son was from her second marriage.

Her ex-husband said she had primarily been a stay-at-home mom in recent years but had previously worked as a dental assistant and at a credit union.

Donna Ganger, her mother, told the Minnesota Star Tribune the family was notified of the death late Wednesday morning.

“Renee was one of the kindest people I’ve ever known,” Ganger told the newspaper. “She was extremely compassionate. She’s taken care of people all her life. She was loving, forgiving and affectionate.”

The New York Times reviewed videos of the incident from three diffferent angles and concluded that she was turning to avoid hitting the ICE agent when he began firing at her.

ProPublica published this article by Megan O’Matz and Jennifer Smith Richards in October, but I somehow missed it. It’s still relevant because it nails the personnel that Trump and wrestling entrepreneur Linda MacMahon installed at the U.S. Department of Education. The common thread among them: they want to privatize public schools, and they want to emphasize the Christian mission of schools.

It starts:

The department is not behaving like an agency that is simply winding down. Even as McMahon has shrunk the Department of Education, she’s operated in what she calls “a parallel universe” to radically shift how children will learn for years to come. The department’s actions and policies reflect a disdain for public schools and a desire to dismantle that system in favor of a range of other options — private, Christian and virtual schools or homeschooling.

Over just eight months, department officials have opened a $500 million tap for charter schools, a huge outlay for an option that often draws children from traditional public schools. They have repeatedly urged states to spend federal money for poor and at-risk students at private schools and businesses. And they have threatened penalties for public schools that offer programs to address historic inequities for Black or Hispanic students….

To carry out her vision, McMahon has brought on at least 20 political appointees from ultraconservative think tanks and advocacy groups eager to de-emphasize public schools, which have educated students for roughly 200 years.

Among them is top adviser Lindsey Burke, a longtime policy director at The Heritage Foundation and the lead author of the education section in Project 2025’s controversial agenda for the Trump administration.

In analyzing dozens of hours of audio and video footage of public and private speaking events for McMahon’s appointees, as well as their writings, ProPublica found that a recurring theme is the desire to enable more families to leave public schools. This includes expanding programs that provide payment — in the form of debit cards, which Burke has likened to an “Amazon gift card” — to parents to cobble together customized educational plans for their children. Instead of relying on public schools, parents would use their allotted tax dollars on a range of costs: private school tuition, online learning, tutors, transportation and music lessons.

Although more than 80% of American students attend public schools, Burke predicted that within five years, a majority would be enrolled in private choice options. The impact of their policies, she believes, will lead to the closure of many public schools.

Accountability, once a watchword for conservatives, won’t be needed in the future that McMahon and Burke are building.

As tax dollars are reallocated from public school districts and families abandon those schools to learn at home or in private settings, the new department officials see little need for oversight. Instead, they would let the marketplace determine what’s working using tools such as Yelp-like reviews from parents. Burke has said she is against “any sort of regulation….

Advocates for public schools consider them fundamental to American democracy. Providing public schools is a requirement in every state constitution.

Families in small and rural communities tend to rely more heavily on public education. They are less likely than families in cities to have private and charter schools nearby. And unlike private schools, public school districts don’t charge tuition. Public schools enroll local students regardless of academic or physical ability, race, gender or family income; private schools can selectively admit students.

Karma Quick-Panwala, a leader at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, which advocates for disabled students, said she wants to be optimistic. “But,” she added, “I’m very fearful that we are headed towards a less inclusive, less diverse and more segregated public school setting.”

McMahon has welcomedeaders of extremist rightwing groups into the Department, like Moms for Liberty and Parents Defending Education.

Little attention was paid to the conservative education activists in the front row [at McMahon’s confirmation hearings] from Moms for Liberty, which has protested school curricula and orchestrated book bans nationwide; Defending Education (formerly Parents Defending Education), which has sued districts to fight what it calls liberal indoctrination; and the America First Policy Institute, co-founded by McMahon after the first Trump administration.

Now two people who once served at Defending Education have been named to posts in the Education Department, and leaders from Moms for Liberty have joined McMahon for roundtables and other official events. In addition, at least nine people from the America First Policy Institute have been hired in the department.

AFPI’s sweeping education priorities include advocating for school vouchers and embedding biblical principles in schools. It released a policy paper in 2023, titled “Biblical Foundations,” that sets out the organization’s objective to end the separation of church and state and “plant Jesus in every space.”

The paper rejects the idea that society has a collective responsibility to educate all children equally and argues that “the Bible makes it clear that it is parents alone who shoulder the responsibility for their children.” It frames public schooling as failing, with low test scores and “far-left social experiments, such as gender fluidity…”

AFPI and the other two nonprofit groups sprang up only after the 2020 election. Together they drew in tens of millions of dollars through a well-coordinated right-wing network that had spent decades advocating for school choice and injecting Christianity into schools.

Ultrawealthy supporters include right-wing billionaire Richard Uihlein, who, through a super PAC, gave $336,000 to Moms for Liberty’s super PAC from October 2023 through July 2024.

Defending Education and AFPI received backing from some of the same prominent conservative foundations and trusts, including ones linked to libertarian-minded billionaire Charles Koch and to conservative legal activist Leonard Leo, an architect of the effort to strip liberal influence from the courts, politics and schools.

Maurice T. Cunningham, a now-retired associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, studied the origins and connections of parents’ rights groups, finding in 2023 that the funders — a small set of billionaires and Christian nationalists — had similar goals.

The groups want “to undermine teachers unions, protect their wealthy donors from having to contribute their fair share in taxes to strengthen public schools, and provide profit opportunities through school privatization,” he concluded. The groups say they are merely trying to advocate for parents and for school choice. They didn’t discuss their relationship with donors when contacted by ProPublica.

These groups and their supporters now have access to the top levers of government, either through official roles in the agency or through the administration’s adoption of their views.

Tiffany Justice, one of the co-founders of Moms for Liberty, is optimistic about the plans of MacMahon:

Asked what percentage of children she imagines should be in public schools going forward, Justice, who is now with The Heritage Foundation’s political advocacy arm, told ProPublica: “I hope zero. I hope to get to zero….”

McMahon’s tenure also has been marked by an embrace of religion in schools. She signaled that priority when she appointed Meg Kilgannon to a top post in her office.

Kilgannon had worked in the department as director of a faith initiative during the first Trump term and once was part of the Family Research Council, an evangelical think tank that opposes abortion and LGBTQ+ rights.

She has encouraged conservative Christians to become involved in what she’s described as “a spiritual war” over children and what they’re being taught in public schools.

Open the link to read the article in full.

Like you, I have seen multiple videos of the killing of Renee Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis.

This one, which appeared on TikTok, shows beyond doubt that the ICE agent was never in danger. She was told both to leave and to get out of the car.

She was leaving. The ICE agent shot three times. She was murdered.

The Associated Press reports that Republicans in Congress released a bipartisan budget bill that funds the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The bill ignores Trump’s efforts to rename it as the Trump Kennedy Center. The bill also ignores Trump’s desire to rename the Center’s opera house for his wife Melania. (Who knew Melania is a patron of opera?)

So Republicans are willing to stand up to Trump on small matters like name-change but not on major issues like his rejecting Congressional authority over going to war and kidnapping the President of another nation. Actually the name-change might mean more to the egotistical Trump.

The AP wrote:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump may have his name on the building, but it’s still the Kennedy Center to Congress. 

bipartisan spending package released Monday by House Speaker Mike Johnson includes $32 million for operating expenses at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts through Sept. 30, 2027. 

Trump made a series of leadership changes at the center shortly after he took office in 2025 that ended with the Republican president’s handpicked board of trustees voting in December to rebrand the venue as the Trump Kennedy Center by adding his name to Kennedy’s on the exterior of the building and the website. 

The Kennedy Center said the vote recognized Trump’s work to revitalize an institution he had criticized as being too liberal-leaning. But since he took over the center, numerous artists have canceled appearances, ticket sales and attendance have fallen, and viewership for December’s broadcast of the Kennedy Center Honors program — which he predicted would soar because he was the host — was down by about 35% compared to the 2024 show.