Modern man is presently having a rendezvous with chaos, not merely because of human badness, but also because of human stupidity. If Western civilization continues to degenerate until it, like twenty-four of its predecessors, falls hopelessly into a bottomless void, the cause will be not only its undeniable sinfulness, but also its appalling blindness. And if American democracy gradually disintegrates it will be due as much to a lack of insight as to a lack of commitment to right.
2026 Eduwonk word of the year: Variance. Expect variance across the board, high variance. In education we’re embracing variance with ideas like ESAs or more flexibility for states around federal dollars and rules. That will work out well in some places, not so well in others. You might not like RFK’s vaccine policies, but the new food pyramid is pretty good and a rebuke to industry food lobbying many thought they’d never see. Expect high variance across the board at such a transitory time.
The 2026 midterms won’t be about education. Midterms generally are a referendum on the incumbent and, more recently, structural issues around polarization and redistricting. But expect education to emerge in the 2028 national conversation among Democrats. Smart Dems know the party’s interest-group-driven approach is a liability; expect new ideas. Rahm Emanuel is an early mover here, but keep an eye out for others.
A country can have a low birthrate, low rates of immigration, but it can’t have both and remain economically robust (personally, I’m for rejecting the choice and embracing both family-encouraging policies and robust managed immigration). But the current approach we’re taking by default and active choice has all sorts of economic implications. It also matters for schools. Fewer kids along with more parents frustrated and choosing alternatives to the public schools and pre-existing financial pressure = Not great! Expect more attention to consolidation, closures, and tough decisions that matter to the future of the public education sector (this will also affect the for-and non-profit sectors in education as well, contact me if you want to learn more about BW’s M&A work).
Ed tech will continue to emerge as a flashpoint. The debate about AI, technology, and kids is not going to break cleanly left/right or red/blue. Australia’s play—a social media ban for young people—is being watched and proposed here.
Bill Gates thinks AI will supplant teachers. I wouldn’t bet on it. That prediction is likely to join the pile of similar ones by everyone from Thomas Edison to Hyman Rickover and Steve Jobs. The realization that AI might matter more to administration, management, and support than to actual instruction seems to be growing. Watch that space. The use cases—special education paperwork, assistants for teachers, efficiency and data—are compelling. More compelling than the idea that Sam Altman will just teach the kids. One proof point for this? Ed tech 1.0 and how it impacted the sector in ways outside the classroom.
Civics will be a 2026 flashpoint. It’s A250, and President Trump plans to celebrate it as the founders almost certainly envisioned, with MMA fights and other neo-Roman gladiatorial spectacles, nationalism, divisive and coercive issues, and the like…. Civics is pretty divisive in K–12 schools, with too many folks who think schools aren’t doing their job if they don’t produce little proto-revolutionaries or, conversely, reflexive nationalists.
WCAG. Based on my surveying of industry leaders and state officials, you probably haven’t heard of WCAG. You will. It’s a set of regulations around web accessibility for people with vision needs. Sensible stuff to ensure access, and that matters in public sector activities—including education—where broad access is essential. New rules go into effect this spring. States are all over the place on compliance. How the new regulations will be enforced is something of an open question as well. On the one hand, the division at the Department of Justice that oversees it is now mostly a ghost town, and remaining staff are focused elsewhere (and at the White House the Trump team is trying to get rid of ASL interpreters, so this is not exactly a pro-accommodations crowd). There is also, however, the possibility of frivolous lawsuits that could discredit the new regulations. Colorado offers an example of a productive enforcement model. Sleeper issue to keep an eye on.
Trump tuition scholarships. The Trump tuition scholarships that were included in last year’s tax bill are a devilishly clever policy that will have the dual effect of supporting more school choice while splitting Democrats. It’s a dollar for dollar $1700 tax credit regardless of whether the state where you live participates. If Democrat-led states, which often have more affluent taxpayers, opt in, then leaders there piss off teachers’ unions and other adult groups. If they don’t participate, then they have to explain why they are leaving what could be a lot of money on the table. Already, Dem governors are staking out different positions, and there is a testy debate behind the scenes about the best path forward. And the policy isn’t even finalized yet! Regs come later this year. At issue is how broad usage of the funds will be and how much scholarship-granting organizations could fund public school-facing activities.
Here’s the thing: This is more like casino gambling than an education policy in terms of policy diffusion. You have a lot of governors who don’t love gambling, but like their citizens putting tax dollars in the coffers of neighboring states even less. Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell notably gave voice to this sentiment. The tax credit policy seems likely to spread because it will be hard to stay out over time (just as we’ve seen with gambling), especially if the regs allow programs that benefit public school students.
Did you think the religious charter school issue was dead after the Supreme Court deadlocked 4–4? Nope. The stakes are too high. Keep an eye on this TN case, and there will be more.
In Eduwonk today, new WonkyFolk, some VA news, 2025 holiday books. This is probably the last post of the year. There was some noise about a possible big announcement from the administration before Christmas but sounds less likely. So thank you for reading, see you in early January.
Jed and I did a holiday–themed WonkyFolk, but he’s a grinch. Seriously. He showed up with an Elf on the Shelf. We covered a lot of ground, 2025 reactions, tech and cell phones, Rod Paige, and why education conversations are so stunted.
Which brings us to….it’s that time of year again. Here are some books I read in 2024 that stuck with me — useful, provocative, or just enjoyable. No themes except worth your time and good for a gift. Not too late to shop for Christmas. Past years here for more ideas.
Cohen takes what was, at least until Trump stormed back on the scene and AI exploded, the biggest intervention/fad/issue in education and actually explains what works, what doesn’t, and why. If you want to cut through the hype, the vendor fog, and evolving definitions of what “high-dosage” means, then this book is the best tutor around. Sorry. Liz is a policy person, but the book feels like a school book.
Kogan is one of the sharpest analysts of how schools really operate in terms of education politics (spoiler, adult interests often trump what might help kids as you might have inferred from the title). He’s an academic but he writes in English. And with a clarity you don’t often see in the space. Probably the most straight ahead book on education politics since Joe Williams. (Deep cut). Kogan breaks down the incentives that shape school governance, politics, and decision-making.
Reading is power. There is a reason that throughout history when someone wanted to control others they went after literacy. Down the street from where I live is the grave of a guy who was hunted by Confederates for years, and ultimately murdered, for teaching Black Americans to read up to and during the Civil War. It’s a sober reminder of why this matters. But as is our way in this sector, we’ve created Republican and Democratic ways to teach reading. We’ve ignored decades of research. We even argue sometimes about how important it is. As a result, we’ve sentenced millions of Americans to diminished lives. The Science of Reading is the latest, encouraging, effort to get that right. Shanahan lays out why the complaints about reading, and what kids are reading in schools are not a side show but must be a central education issue.
Did you like Pappyland? This is not Pappyland. It’s a deep dive on the murder of Emmett Till from the same writer. The Barn includes a lot of new information and specifics that even if you’re familiar with this atrocity beyond the broad contours will probably be new to you. We wasted a lot of time and energy on flaky DEI books over the past decade, read a book like this instead.
My wife and I decided to see Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney in the same calendar year this year. We succeeded. I’m not an obsessive Beatles fan, but their genius and influence is undeniable. Leslie looks at Lennon and McCartney not as icons but as human beings in relationship with each other. It’s hard to think of a new angle on the Beatles, but he finds one: The songs they wrote to each other, that’s the conversation. So read this one for two reasons. First, it’s lovely. You might even find the room getting dusty at points. Second, anyone who has worked in close professional partnerships will learn from and reflect on the tale. A bonus? You learn the intimate history of some of the greatest songs in the songbook.
I think two of the best books on 80s youth culture were Cameron Crowe’s Fast Times and Patricia Hersch’s A Tribe Apart. Here, Crowe tells his life story. Is this an unsparing take on things. Of course not, that was never Crowe’s thing. He partied with the bands. He wasn’t merciless. But it’s brain candy, a fun-well written read, with great stories, and some insights. This is for the music or movie lover in your life.
OK, for a guy who says I’m not a Viking guy I do recommend Viking books from time to time. A few years ago it was the fantastic The Long Ships. And I will say that seeing actual Viking ruins in Iceland fascinated me. This year for the beach I read American Vikings, a look at the evidence of Viking exploration in North America and how they show up today. The history of Vikings in North America turns out to be more interesting — and more contested and more present — than you might think on first glance.
The past few weeks have seen an upsurge in Dunkelman discourse. It’s an important book and argument. I suggested this book along with two others earlier this year as valuable markers of where we are and how we got here. Whether you agree in whole, part, or not at all, this is an important book and contribution to the discourse about how we go forward.
Book banning is one of those issues that most people aren’t really against. They’re against banning of stuff they like, less concerned with stuff they don’t. Today’s conservatives are for free speech except around issues of race, gender, and so forth. Today’s left is against book banning and censorship except around some issues of gender, race, and so forth. Because it’s about power not first principles. Szetela looks at this in the context of publishing. It’s an echo of Diane Ravitch’s 2003 Language Police.
Helen Lewis is a fantastic writer on almost any topic. Here she looks at “genius” through a historical ens (you get a Beatles cameo here, too). What really makes what we think of as genius possible? And why can’t we accept what Lewis calls its, “random, unpredictable nature?”
I’m not a huge fan of self-help books, though I did recommend Mark Manson’s Subtle Art a few years ago. This one, though, might be good for a young person in your life. It’s pretty straightforward, you could read it on an airplane. It’s a lot of people’s take on how to be successful in work and life around some key issues as well as her experience. Given the randomness of social capital it’s not a bad primer for young people moving into professional life.
OK, maybe I do read more self-help books than I think? This book isn’t about how money won’t make you happy – it’s about how it’s not the only thing that will and it’s not enough. Another quick read, and another good one for young people.
I was at a gathering recently, and a Silicon Valley person who had transitioned into education was talking about how he approaches personnel decisions—basically using data: replacing lowest-performers each year. Essentially, the idea is that it’s a coin flip, but if your selection process is genuinely reliable, the odds will be in your favor.
A more traditional education person in the conversation had a host of questions—about support, counseling, and various other things.
The exchange was fascinating to watch because they were talking past each other and quite literally didn’t understand one another or what was being said. It was a real Mars–Venus culture clash.
We have to figure out how to talk the same language because we’re staring down a serious problem. The past few days have seen a flurry of articles from writers who are not traditional characters on the education beat. And they point up a culture clash that isn’t R and D, left or right—it’s more about who thinks we have a serious problem and who thinks the erosion of standards isn’t a big deal, or is acceptable in service of other goals.
What these three recent stories have in common is stark takes calling attention to an issue that doesn’t get enough attention: it’s not only poor, Black, or Hispanic students struggling in schools. Subpar learning is widespread.
She followed it up with a look at what this is actually about and why, despite howls of protest from people who are OK with the status quo, no one is saying everyone will be an engineer, we’re talking about pretty low-level skills that can be universal. And what no one seems to be talking about is the skilled part of skilled trades, you have to be able to do math to be successful if you chose to do something besides college. Actually more. Technical jobs require more math than sociology.
All three articles are worth reading, and all three point up a real problem whether you approach it from the vantage point of personal agency, freedom, and choice—or American competitiveness.
The only thing missing? Political traction to address it in too many places. As Tom Kane notes in the New York Magazine article:
What’s stunning is just how much professionals tolerate—and, in some cases, contribute to—obfuscation as a matter of course. We’ve discredited measurement, transparency, and the idea that performance matters, and we’ve baked it into the political price.
Perhaps that’s why political traction for such an obvious, and real, problem is so elusive?
*That’s a misquote. The actual statement from the damaged Apollo 13 was, “we’ve had a problem.” You can listen here.
Friday Fish Porn
Here’s Bellwether’s managing partner Rebecca Goldberg with a nice one in the Roaring Fork Valley of Colorado (from a few weeks ago when it was warmer, if you missed the context clues). Good time to point you toward Bellwether’s new strategic plan for the next several years, learn more here.
This picture is part of this one of a kind archive with hundreds of pictures of education types and their relatives with fish from rivers, lakes, and streams all over the world. Send me yours.
I don’t have much in common with Donald Trump, but one thing we apparently share is a fondness for watches. We don’t have many of the same ones—his collection reportedly runs to Patek Philippe and Vacheron Constantin, classic and elite timepieces to be sure. Mine reflects my interests: watches with connections to space exploration or to family members. I treasure my stepfather’s early-gen Seiko from Vietnam more than I ever would a Rolex. I like microbrands that outpunch their weight in quality; Trump likes name brands that signal wealth. He has a gold Rolex day date, of course.
Where our tastes really diverge, though, is with the Trump watch. They are supposed to look impressive. I think the line is underwhelming, overpriced, and well, tacky. You can get a better watch for half the price—and good watches for less. I’d recommend this Seiko GMT instead, for example, if you want something better in the ballpark of that price point. But the Trump watch is like a lot of Trump things: a feat of marketing without much behind it. “It will have your friends asking, where did you get that?” the website boasts. Spoiler alert: watches are like college sweatshirts—only the fringes notice or care enough to even ask.
Anyway, all that brings us to yesterday’s announcement about the Department of Education and the administration’s gambit to delegate its responsibilities to other agencies. It’s all show with less behind it than you might think. That’s not to say it’s show without consequence, there are always consequences. If you buy that stupid watch, you’re still out $500. But this restructuring is farce, theater, and a missed opportunity. The event announcing it was rushed because there isn’t much to announce; key administration officials weren’t even in D.C. or around for it. There was little of the rollout you’d expect for something of real magnitude. For a reason.
Why? As Chad Aldeman points out, all that’s really happening is tasks being reassigned to different agencies. In some cases programs no one other than professionals had heard of 48 hours ago though to listen to some folks the republic now hinges on it. Some of this might not even be legal. Agencies have some power to delegate, but this might go too far in some cases—especially regarding specific statutory functions. The lawyers (I’m not one) and the courts will sort that out.
But it’s another in a long line of administration moves underscoring that you can’t really do this without Congress’s consent if you mean to really do it.
And look, you have to be deep into Bluesky territory to care whether the Department of Education or State handles international education and foreign language partnerships. Moving Title I to Labor, however, why?
That’s why this is a missed opportunity because, even in this hyper-partisan time, there’s probably some appetite for a proper government restructuring around education and training given its importance to American competitiveness. Sending some postsecondary and career training functions to the Department of Labor makes sense. There’s even an argument for merging the two agencies. Sending student aid to Treasury is another idea with merit. Conversely, moving IDEA to Health and Human Services is a lousy idea, in my view, but moving Head Start from HHS to Education might help with aspects of that program. Does anyone think we’re doing a good job or doing right by kids on Indian education? None of this would be any kind of miracle cure. Education, like all the other agencies, runs some programs well and others poorly.
Still, sending a proper bill to Congress—or even a proposal or principles to jump-start the legislative process (which his party controls) would be a way, though, to start a real conversation about reform here. It might go nowhere. It might just make lobbyists some money. Or it might lead to a reform bill. Only one way to find out: try. This isn’t trying. This is a stunt that’ll just get unwound down the road. It doesn’t remove red tape as proponents claim – it creates red tape. It’s also inefficient and doesn’t streamline—this adds complexity and layers. This time and effort could be spent on real reform. It’s performance art.
On the politics, my hunch, supported by some public opinion research, is average people actually care less than you think as long as the funding flows. And if you think people are going to get spun up about things like which agency handles foreign medical accreditation then I don’t know what to tell you. Schools losing money will get their attention; bureaucratic realignments—yawn. And the fuse on this stuff is slow as we’ve discussed in the past. Nonetheless, in political speech we’ll hear about it non-stop, in many cases from people who can’t otherwise be bothered to be serious about educational achievement in this country. The Trump folks, meanwhile, will say they checked this box and are returning education to the states (reader, they’re actually moving it across the National Mall).
But anything beyond appearances might not be Trump’s aim anyway. His maximalist style of politics means he can’t afford to lose, compromise, or appear weak. That’s why the Epstein vote was such a big deal for him. I’ll be surprised if there are revelatory things about Trump in the Epstein documents (though the blast radius could be substantial for others, including some in our sector). My hunch is we’d have heard specifics already if there were something really damning on him in there. Pee tape all over again (though perhaps there is some seemingly minor thing that could trigger a prenup issue, who knows).
In any event, the issue for him is that by crossing him, Republican members of Congress like Thomas Massie (KY) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA) showed that it can be done—successfully. The specific issue at hand, in this case the Epstein files, matters less than the dynamic of Trump showing he doesn’t lose, ever, and that crossing him is political suicide. That’s why he reversed himself earlier this week on releasing the files—to try to salvage a win. Think of it like a chess game, where a pawn, nominally a minor piece, suddenly comes under intense pressure on a particular square and takes on outsized importance.
The Department of Education’s abolition has that same quality. Trump’s all in on it, so he has to stay all in—no matter how farcical it is and continues to be. It’s also a great distraction. A lever he can pull again and again and get the reaction he wants.
What’s the education forecast in Virginia? Cross-pressure.And why that matters nationally.
A lot of people are asking: What’s going to happen on education in Virginia? It’s a good question. And matters beyond Virgina’s borders. The commonwealth took several big steps forward on schools over the past few years — some initiated by the legislature (science of reading and assessment reform), and some by Governor Glenn Youngkin (innovative public lab schools across the commonwealth, more ambitious standards, transparency, and a real accountability system).
Enter Spanberger. A moderate Democrat, perhaps more by temperament than politics. She worked for the CIA before winning one of Virginia’s vanishingly few swing districts to serve in Congress (she was my member of Congress for a time before retiring to run for governor).
She enters office with the wind at her back. Virginia’s countercyclical off-year election cycle, Trump’s abysmal numbers in the state, a non-Trump on the ballot electorate, and the government shutdown all handed Spanberger a legit landslide. Even seasoned observers and Democratic leaders were surprised by how well the party did — picking up 13 House seats and giving the incoming governor a commanding 64–36 majority. The state senate, not on the ballot, remains closely divided, though Democrats now hold a tiebreaker with the lieutenant governor’s seat.
When Glenn Youngkin took office in 2022, Virginia’s standards were among the lowest in the nation — that was too often reported as just his claim, but in fact it’s federal IES analysis. The state also had the largest pandemic learning loss of any state, plunging students back to 1990s achievement levels. Extended school shutdowns deep into 2021 were the prime cause, but years of lowered standards made the system brittle. Yet because this problem implicated school closures, effort to address it became almost hopelessly political. To Youngkin’s credit he championed an accountability system that now includes all students (English language learners were previously and inexplicably excluded) and transparently reports on school performance.
For Spanberger, who clearly has 2028 on her mind, that massive House margin is a mixed blessing on education. There will be a lot of pressure to undo the accountability reforms and roll back the clock to the happier of time of just telling everyone than more than 90% of schools in Virgina were doing ok even as Mississippi passed us by. Various special interest groups are hoping the Commonwealth’s flirtation with accountability and transparency is a passing thing.
So here’s the risk: Spanberger standing on a national debate stage and being asked why she lowered standards, dismantled accountability, closed public choice schools, or turned a clear system into a California-style maze that bewilders parents. Education won’t decide 2028, but it will be a marker of seriousness — a signal of whether Democrats learned from the unseriousness of 2024. (Check out Rahm Emanuel’s latest comments if you haven’t already, a clear signal of where politically attuned leaders think Democrats need to go.)
Happily for Spanberger, there’s a better path. Her national political interests line up with a strong agenda for students. Virginia’s unfinished education agenda gives her real opportunity to sail to her own horizon, rather than one various political interests map out for her. Three immediate issues:
School finance reform. Virginia’s system is outdated and inefficient, among the worst in the country. It works OK for wealthy suburban districts and varying degrees of badly for everyone else. Fixing it could be a national bipartisan calling card and a positive signal to rural voters.
School improvement capacity. The new accountability system identifies struggling schools, but the state still offers too little help. UVA’s successful school improvement center mostly works outside Virginia — truly no one is a prophet in their own land. The current state superintendent is refocusing resources and the SEA’s energy creatively, but more is needed. If Democrats won’t embrace choice, then they need to be really serious about improving schools. Like other places Virginia’s public schools are leaking students post-pandemic and various new options are emerging.
Assessment reform. Virginia’s assessments lag in quality, frustrate educators, and yield too little timely and actionable data. This issue is bipartisan, legislation has passed the generally acrimonious legislature, and it’s an issue ripe for progress.
So, the story Spanberger could tell: modernizing finance to serve rural Virginians, actually improving low-performing schools, expanding choice inside the public system, and creating better assessments — rejecting the false choice between testing and no testing. That’s the sharp, differentiated edge Democrats need in today’s increasingly choice-saturated era. Being pro-growth and pro-education reform go hand in glove.
Getting there will take fortitude. Her lieutenant governor led efforts to delay and resist accountability implementation and isn’t going to be accused of being a reformer. Many of those 64 Democrats want to rip out Youngkin’s reforms root and branch just because. They’d be wiser to build on his mental health and early learning work, expand lab schools, and pocket the civil-rights–oriented accountability system. Republicans, decimated in this election, may not see accountability as a priority; their focus during the campaign was more kulturkampf than learning.
Virginia remains far behind much of the country on education, though many in the state’s political culture still assume we’re ahead. The fact that Mississippi’s Black students outperform ours hasn’t registered among the comfortable set. Six in ten Black students below basic on NAEP, and about half of poor kids — that doesn’t resonate with leaders who prefer to call themselves “world class.”
Again, addressing these issues would align with Spanberger’s national ambitions. Heeding activist calls to roll back progress would please the loudest voices but hurt her long-term. She’s right-to-work — part of her brand — but that puts her under pressure from organized labor. Keeping momentum on education in Virgina will upset the teachers’ unions, too.
Can Spanberger fight a two-front war? Sure. But it’ll take a defter touch of centrism than just calling “defund the police” inane and politically toxic, which was obvious but still a political lift. So the question is whether she can play a long game under pressure — and make Virginia the test case for a new brand of Democratic education politics.
The opportunity is right there.
Friday Fish Porn
This is more of a PSA than fish porn. Grateful Dead wife sent me this picture, it’s of musician Susan Tedeschi with a big fish. Tedeschi was once part of a trivia question around here. The answer was Mark D’Alessio, one of this sector’s gems. I go to a lot of live music. If I can’t be outside, that’s the next best thing. In just the past few weeks I’ve seen some local acts, Sierra Hull, Ires DeMent, Paul McCartney, Jeff Tweedy, Tedeschi Trucks Band a couple of times, and Billy Strings (yes, my kids are away in college).
It’s those last two I really want to flag for you. TTB and Billy Strings are two of the best live acts out there and they’re both advancing and innovating with genuinely American styles of music. Want to hear Doc Watson played in an arena? Bobby “Blue” Bland covers from a 12-piece act? Then do yourself a favor and check them out when you have a chance. I can’t guarantee it will brighten your day, but you surely won’t be worse off for it. Billy Strings is on tour now and again this winter. TTB is winding down their year but will be at The Beacon Theater for a long run in March, and hopefully other theater shows where they really shine.
If you’ve sent me your fish porn or fish pics and I have not posted them, apologies, working through it. If you haven’t, send me yours to become part of this one of a kind archive with hundreds of pictures of education types and their relatives with fish from rivers, lakes, and streams all over the world.
This is a guest post by Anson Jackson, a Texas-based partner at Bellwether who leads academic advising work. Agree or disagree he’d welcome your feedback and engagement either way. Anson’s in a lot of schools, all around the country. (As with all content here, it’s the views of the author alone, Bellwether has never taken institutional positions and encourages a diversity of viewpoints across our team.)
Charters Have a Quality Problem. Collective Action is Part of the Solution. – By Anson Jackson
The party-splitting politics of President Trump’s new tax credit scholarship program are getting the attention of education advocates. Yet that is obscuring another story: public charter schools are also seeing a surge in support. The charter sector enjoyed steady growth over the past several decades, and charters are increasingly popular among parents. After years of flat funding, charters are one of the only education programs to see an increase in the president’s recent budget proposal. Despite this popularity, however, charters today aren’t consistently delivering the high-quality education students and families deserve.
Parents should have options as to how to best educate their children, and excellent charter schools should be one of them. I’ve taught in and led public charter school networks, and my own children benefited from attending a charter school. A growing number of families seem to want the same, with nearly three fourths of parents saying they’d consider sending their child to a public charter school if one were available.
In theory, charters allow more autonomy for schools — and more options for students — in exchange for increased accountability. In my work supporting and leading schools, I’ve seen a lot of innovative ideas that, if implemented well, would change students’ lives. But that promise falls apart if charter schools can’t deliver a high-quality education to all students. For the sector to succeed, persistently low-quality schools can’t be a part of the equation.
To solve the sector’s growing quality problem, leaders must rethink how charter accountability works. Everyone who supports a charter school — from authorizers and funders to boards and charter support organizations — must take a more coordinated approach to improving school quality and giving parents and students a real choice. Here’s what that might look like.
Authorizers should be involved from day one
Many new charter leaders have incredible visions for teaching and learning, but lack experience in school operations. Others are strong entrepreneurs with expertise in other fields, but have limited school leadership experience. During the application period, charter leaders must identify the support and training they’ll need; in exchange, authorizers should ensure that leaders follow through with training and perform well in their roles. Authorizers can also help leaders uphold their promises, and address their own blindspots, by taking an active role in charter planning and design. That means reviewing charter design elements — like the instructional model, curriculum, and staffing practices — and offering timely, two-way feedback that helps leaders keep the school’s vision and mission central as it evolves.
Charters need longer pathways of support
Most charters close due to issues that come up not during the design and authorization phase, but during implementation. Ongoing collaboration among all stakeholders is crucial to ensuring a charter’s continued success.
In addition to providing support up front, authorizers must continue to set and hold a high bar for quality of training, and hold schools accountable if leaders aren’t following through. Other stakeholders — like charter incubators, funders, and support organizations — also play a role in helping charters maintain quality by providing support beyond year one. These stakeholders can help provide technical assistance, coaching, and curriculum implementation during the charter’s first year, and can tailor support for subsequent years based on the school’s performance and needs. This kind of adaptive partnership may be different than what charter leaders are used to, but it means they can address problems before they arise.
Too often, quality slips because a charter doesn’t have the right metrics or systems in place to track its success. In my work with charters, I’ve seen many schools struggle with financial issues in their second or third years that should have been addressed in year one. This doesn’t just hurt the school; it negatively impacts outcomes.
To solve problems like these, charter school leaders and boards need clear and sustainable systems that track their schools’ financial, academic, and operational performances. Instead of remaining far removed from decision-making, authorizers must work in partnership with charter school leaders, boards, and community members to create strong, proactive systems of support and shared accountability that center student needs and anticipate challenges. These systems must be aligned with authorizer requirements and research-based measures of school quality, and include benchmarks of distress to allow leaders to act quickly to identify problems. Authorizers can also require this data to be submitted at regular intervals, regularly monitoring metrics to flag issues early.
This type of intervention isn’t too much oversight; it’s actually putting students’ needs first. Charters need these proactive checks in place to make sure they can catch issues and address them before it’s too late.
The right board is critical to success
Charter schools are nonprofit organizations run by volunteer boards. While only authorizers can review, renew, and revoke charters, it’s up to the board of each charter school or network to make sure the school is fulfilling the promises in the charter in between authorizer review cycles. For this reason, authorizers deserve a role in building the right board. While this might sound controversial, boards without the right makeup of members to support and hold the charter leader accountable lessen a school’s chances of success. Authorizers can provide schools with a range of supports to ensure quality board makeup – ranging from indirect assistance, like providing a rubric for board quality, to a direct approach, like identifying potential board members with the right expertise. Regardless of the level of support, authorizers cannot take a hands-off approach.
Charters must embrace transparency
All parents and taxpayers deserve to know how public schools in their communities are performing. All public schools should be transparent, but because of charters’ autonomy, this is even more important in the charter sector. Families and community members need to understand how metrics do or don’t align with the school’s mission and have a consistent understanding of how their children are performing in school, the school’s financial status, and the makeup of the school’s leadership and staff. Withholding performance information from families, good or bad, is malpractice.
Charter boards, support organizations, and funders should partner together to provide regular, accessible updates to their communities. This might mean reimagining the use of social media, community events, and how and when board meetings are conducted to ensure community members always have access to the information they need. Social media and other communications strategies offer opportunities for schools to increase transparency and communicate with parents and community members about school performance.
It’s a time of political pressure on the charter sector but there are also opportunities for positive change — collective action among authorizers, charter boards, and leaders must be part of the solution. If the charter sector embraces this type of collaboration and support today, in the coming years, it can truly deliver on its promise to provide the high-quality outcomes that every student deserves.
This has been going on for 3+ years. The phase-in will be four or five years. People sometimes ask me, ‘why are people so confused about some of these issues?’ It’s such a mystery!
Apparently there also wasn’t space to point out how out of alignment Virginia’s standards are with other states – Virginia having the lowest in some cases. You know….context. The comments on the article are worth reading. But this is a debate that will be won or lost at the elite level.
I split my time between two communities. Politically, in the last election one went roughly 80–20 for Harris, the other 70–30 for Trump. As you might imagine, there was a more robust “No Kings” rally in one place than the other. That’s part of the point. In Virginia, No Kings was in part a turnout strategy—our statewide elections happen in off-years and are happening now—but as a message, it was more catharsis than strategy.
Think about effective political leaders for a moment. They use symbols and targets, not generalized vibes. Martin Luther King Jr.’s message wasn’t “things are bad” or “here’s what we don’t like.” He chose specific targets—symbolic and important—and went after them, strategically. (Worth noting: Trump, too, picks his targets well, at least from a political standpoint.)
By contrast what was the specific message of No Kings? Effective political efforts pick smart targets, apply pressure, and go after them. No Kings was every left-of-center cause under the sun: the environment, the economy, layoffs, the Supreme Court, trans rights, education, DOGE, tariffs, and so on. The unifying theme was simple: “We don’t like Donald Trump.” Fair enough—I don’t either. But that’s not an agenda for change; it’s an emotion. Politically, it was a rehash of an election we just ran—and Democrats lost. Not by the landslide Trump and his minions claim, but convincingly enough. And in that election—and the two before—we learned that about half the country doesn’t like Donald Trump. Maybe more now, according to polls. But in many cases, they like the Democrats even less. No we don’t like Trump is not revelatory; it’s retread.
The rally I saw was near Washington, D.C., where federal workers are being treated horribly by the President and OMB Director Russ Vought. That would be a specific thing to protest, with concrete remedies to demand. Or take the issue of masked federal agents grabbing people off the street—that’s both unpopular and actionable. Or various issues at the Department of Justice. Or the arguably extra-judicial killings of drug runners. The list goes on—but that’s the point. Plenty of good targets. Pick one or two. A generalized primal scream might be a fun way to spend a Saturday, if that’s your thing, but it doesn’t create leverage.
It’s great to get people fired up. But real politics isn’t therapy—it’s leverage. The point isn’t to shout at the throne; it’s to take back power from the crown.
“Patriotic Education” is not.
I don’t do a lot of public commenting through a formal process. (Part of my job, of course, is public commenting overall though, and I do a lot of that.) And I’m fortunate that I’m often asked for input on things in other ways.
My comment reflects my personal views, not those of my employer (which does not take positions and where some colleagues may disagree with me) or any other organization with which I am affiliated. For background, I’ve had the privilege in my career of teaching civics, helping to write state standards in public roles, and advising various organizations and institutions on these questions. My comment is about the proposed definition of “patriotic education.”
It’s obviously essential that we do a better job teaching history–abundant state and national data make that clear. Our literacy and history challenges are intertwined, and so are their solutions. Ensuring that students have a rich history curriculum to support literacy–with books and primary sources reflecting diverse viewpoints and age-appropriate content–is critical.
However, this proposed definition of “patriotic education” would work against that goal rather than advance it in several key ways. First, we should not flinch from teaching how America has grown closer to a more perfect union, but neither should we shy away from teaching the ways we have fallen short. This definition overemphasizes the former while minimizing the latter. That is the path to indoctrination, not education. The response to coercive practices should not be more coercion of a different kind.
Second, related, this approach invites a counterproductive cycle as elections shift political control over federal policy. Over-indexing on one interpretation of history will inevitably lead to an overcorrection in the opposite direction. That energy would be better spent improving instructional quality for students rather than perpetuating political swings and adult-focused education politics.
Third, states are appropriately taking the lead here, and while the quality of their standards varies, there are exemplars. The key problem in state standards is less about red or blue, left or right, or woke versus anti-woke, and more about instructional ideology and quality. Standards should be specific, content-focused, accurate, and rigorous. This proposed definition distracts from that essential work.
Fourth, we are talking about public schools–open to, and funded by, Americans with a wide range of beliefs. It is entirely appropriate to teach students about patriotism, our traditions, and why they are worthy of respect. It is equally appropriate, in a free country, for people and families to see things differently and dissent. Our role in education is to ensure students can make informed choices about these questions, not to make those choices for them.
We can teach young students why and how people show respect for the flag, but we cannot coerce their respect for it; that is the role of their family and then themselves when they are of age. We can teach about the genius of the Founders’ design, but we cannot suppress dissent should students–after a rigorous and high-quality education–see it differently. In education, our adversary is not viewpoint; it is ignorance.
That’s why this proposed definition is as inappropriate as its inverse would be–a federal priority that called for a diminished focus on American accomplishments and leadership. American patriots are not afraid of exposing our history and achievements to scrutiny; they welcome it. They are not afraid to let students make up their own minds about American aspirations, values, traditions, and history after a high-quality education, because they have confidence in those very aspirations, values, and traditions. Patriots know that anything less denies and discredits our greatness; it does not advance it. When forced, it is the antithesis of patriotism.
For a more robust approach, I urge you to look at Virginia’s 2023 History and Social Science Standards, which cover both American and global history as well as civics. The front matter and the standards themselves offer a roadmap–praised by experts on the political right and left–for how to balance teaching all of our history while avoiding indoctrination one way or another. They explicitly note that debate, petitioning the government for change, and protest can be patriotic and essential to progress. In this country, we don’t fear disagreement; we manage it through the brilliance of the Founders’ work.
The confidence in our way of life embodied in that approach offers a more constructive path forward than fragile efforts at coercion reflecting fear and insecurity. We don’t need to ennoble American values, because we believe that when exposed to them, students will see their worth and merit. We don’t need to force unity, because we believe in E pluribus unum. In other words, true patriotism includes faith in our institutions, in our people, and in our ability to confront our full history because of our belief in America. A patriotic education would reflect that. This definition does not.
I urge you to withdraw or revise this priority.
Fish Porn
It’s Friday, so fish.
Here’s Simmons Covington with a monster from the Frying Pan on a recent Colorado trip.
Friday Fish what? New around here? In this unique archive, you’ll find hundreds of pictures of education types and their relatives with fish from rivers, lakes, and streams all over the world. Send me yours to be included.
OK, it’s been a minute. It’s a chaotic time, and no small part of my job is helping people separate signal from noise. Below you’ll find some Virginia politics, a big thing to watch for on the federal education tax credit regulations, some reading about reading, odd takes on school safety, ed research ideas and some fish porn.
First, a few recent events and coming attractions:
Look for a new WonkyFolk next week. Jed and I talk with Macke Raymond about what’s happening at CREDO and her new project on American education.
A few weeks ago on WonkyFolk, Jed Wallace and I talked with Shaka Mitchell about the new education tax credit scholarship program that was part of the recent tax bill. (Calling it the “Big Beautiful Bill” only underscores how often these things are misnamed—calling it the “Big Ugly Bill” just sounds juvenile.) It was a valuable conversation. Shaka is on top of this, but understanding the program’s potential impact depends on many contingencies—the biggest being that the Treasury Department hasn’t yet released regulations about it. That’s normal; these things take time.
We’ll see what they do. Those who know aren’t talking. Those who talk don’t. Some of the issues stem from things that weren’t allowed because the program had to survive a strict legislative process under the Byrd Rule, informally known as a Byrd Bath, and how to address that.
A threshold question however is: will they regulate it as “tuition scholarship plus” or “tuition scholarship only”?
Tuition scholarship plus would be the more disruptive path—further unbundling the system by ushering in new providers. States could allow scholarships not just for non-public school tuition but also for tutoring, special education supports, and other activities. That would require variable scholarship amounts but create a robust alternative pipeline of financing for unbundled education supports. It would make it harder for some Democratic governors to say no. It would please rural Republicans. It would make it a more expansive program. More expansive = more long term disruption.
Tuition-only would set larger scholarships closer to or at tuition levels. That route would likely generate more political division. There would be less incentive for blue states to opt in, but more intra-state strife over doing so. A divisive wedge. If you haven’t heard, 2026 is a big election year.
(Not doing tuition scholarships at all won’t be an option for states that choose to participate in the program, and a key thing here is states have to opt in.)
Not always, but pretty often, when the Trump administration faces a choice between creating divisiveness or creating long-term change, it picks the former. The president and his team are rarely accused of consensus-building.
Two recent stories about reading in national publications:
Kelsey Piper notes in The Argument that some of the states making meaningful gains share common strategies around literacy. Why isn’t that catching fire more? I have a hunch:
Via The Argument
In The Atlantic, Idrees Kalhoun sees the same problem—we’re not doing a great job on reading. Why might that be? Wait, wait, I have a hunch:
Here’s the thing: this work contains multitudes. There’s plenty to debate—even deep questions of values that can’t be resolved empirically so you can fight about those forever. We don’t have to make everything partisan or strident. The lousy job we do on literacy is a choice—a longstanding poor one.
Howling at the moon on school safety?
First, Daniel Buck writes for Fordham that maybe we just can’t do much about mass shootings in schools (which, thankfully, are rare). Shrug emoji.
“Through it all, I’ve come to a conclusion that I don’t like: There’s not much schools can do to prevent mass shootings. The best, or even the only, approach may be to focus on the everyday threats to student safety that receive far less attention.”
Second, from the Rockefeller Institute: higher-powered firearms are more lethal in school shootings. I had to read this a few times to make sure there wasn’t a subtle point I was missing—but no. Look, nobody wants to get run over, but if it happens, you’re better off if it’s a bike than an SUV. Chainsaws do more damage than kitchen knives. Same idea here. Again, most of these people tell us what they’re going to do beforehand. The problem is disconnectedness and weak relationships. Let’s listen more—and make sure schools are places with trusting relationships so administrators can hear those warnings early.
Friday Fish what? In this unique archive, you’ll find hundreds of pictures of education types and their relatives with fish from rivers, lakes, and streams all over the world. Send me yours.
