U.S. Supreme Court Eviscerates Voting Rights Act

By dianeravitch
April 30, 2026 //
7

The six conservative-right wing justices on the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, by striking down Section 2, which requires that minorities have districts in which their voting preferences may be heard. This section led to the creation of districts that elected Black representatives.

We can now expect redistricting of Congressional districts and state legislative districts to sharply reduce the number of Black elected officials.

Richard L. Hasen of Slate wrote that the decision “will go down in history as one of the most pernicious and damaging Supreme Court decisions of the last century. All six Republican-appointed justices on the court signed onto Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion gutting what remained of the Voting Rights Act protections for minority voters, while pretending they were merely making technical tweaks to the act.

This decision will bleach the halls of Congress, state legislatures, and local bodies like city councils, by ending the protections of Section 2 of the act, which had provided a pathway to assure that voters of color would have some rudimentary fair representation. It’s the culmination of the life’s work of Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who have shown persistent resistance to the idea of the United States as a multiracial democracy, and a brazen willingness to reject Congress’ judgment that fair representation for minority voters sometimes requires race-conscious legislation. It gives the green light to further partisan gerrymandering. It protects Alito’s core constituency: aggrieved white Republican voters. It’s a disaster for American democracy.

Future generations of legal scholars will review the Republicans’ retreat from civil rights protections enacted in the 1960s. Perhaps psychologists will figure out why Justice Clarence Thomas consistently opposes laws intended to protect people like him.

Categories Bigotry, Civil Rights, Democracy, Elections, History, Injustice

King Charles’ Speech to Congress

By dianeravitch
April 30, 2026 //
14

King Charles III came to Washington, D.C. to smooth over some rough patches in Britain’s relationship with the United States, all of it driven by Trump’s egotism and insults.

The King might have addressed those differences directly, but instead he chose to highlight the values and history we share. In his speech, he appealed for a revival of our strong partnership.

What was most interesting was not what he said, but what he implied. He referred to General George Washington. He mentioned Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address.” He said that an acre of land at Runnymede, where Magna Carta was signed, was designated as American soil, as a tribute to President Kennedy. I don’t recall anything he said about Trump, unless it was a perfunctory thank you at the opening.

On the issues, he took a strong stance against Trump, clearly but obliquely. Charles saluted our Christian heritage but then spoke of respecting all people of every religion and no religion.

He made strong comments about protecting the environment, in contrast to Trump’s hostility to the very idea of climate change.

When he spoke about NATO, which Trump berates, the audience applauded loudly.

When Charles spoke of the importance of protecting Ukraine, the audience leap to their feet and gave sustained applause.

Gracious, literate, articulate–everything that Trump is not–Charles was applauded by both sides of the aisle.

Why can’t we have a President like that?

Categories Democracy, Environment, Ethics, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Funding

Hegseth Is Taking Control of Independent “Stars and Stripes,” a Military Publication

By dianeravitch
April 30, 2026 //
2

William Becker is a prominent environmental activist. He is also a veteran and at one point during his service, he wrote for “Stars and Stripes.”

It’s hard to keep track of the latest Trump administration outraged, but one of the latest is that Secretary of DEFENSE Pete Hegseth is taking control of “Stars and Stripes” so it will be an outlet for Pentagon propaganda and Hegseth’s brand of Christian nationalism and straight white male supremacy.

Becker wrote about this travesty at The Hill, a widely read D.C. publication:

One of the classic sounds of the Vietnam War was the voice that famously boomed,  “GOOOOD MORNING, VIET-NAM”  over Armed Forces Radio each day. 

The Army’s daily newspaper was an equally important fixture. Stars and Stripes was founded by Union soldiers during the Civil War. It was unique: a military publication independent from the brass, delivered to the troops along “the world’s most dangerous paper routes.”

During World War II, the paper shifted from a weekly to a daily publication, serving up national and international news along with stories from the theaters in Europe, Asia and, most recently, the Middle East. The paper had always been independent of military control. In the late 1980s, Congress required it.

Now, the Pentagon appears ready to make it a mouthpiece for Pete Hegseth, President Trump’s carefully coiffed secretary of Defense with battle-hungry biceps. We can expect the storied newspaper to acquire all the dignity of a British tabloid, becoming the manosphere’s daily drumbeat against “stupid rules of engagement” and “tepid legalities” like international law and the Geneva Conventions.

I have a dog in this fight. I was an Army sergeant who served as a combat correspondent for Stars and Stripes in Vietnam during 1966 and 1967. There were just a few of us. We didn’t wear rank or military uniforms. We traveled throughout South Vietnam, embedding ourselves in combat operations to give the soldiers’ perspectives on the war. At age 19, I competed hour by hour with veteran broadcast and newspaper reporters, the best in the business.

It wasn’t always about battle and bloodshed. We also wrote and photographed the military’s efforts to “win the hearts and minds” of the Vietnamese people. Based on Hegseth’s podium performances, “woke” coverage like that won’t appear in the paper. We can’t expect stories about the U.S. military as peacekeepers and rescuers during global disasters. We won’t read about the quiet ethos of professional soldiers. We’ll be bombarded with saturation coverage of how young men “intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill our enemies.”

Until last week, the newspaper’s independence was defended by an ombudsman, most recently Jacqueline Smith. She has been fired by the Pentagon. A spokesman explained that the department is taking over control of the paper to “modernize its operations, refocus its content away from woke distractions that siphon morale, and adapt it to serve a new generation of service members.”

In other words, Stars and Stripes is being swept up in the conservative tide taking over the news and entertainment media in the U.S. But as former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich notes, “Acquisition of a media company should be treated differently than the acquisition of, say, a company developing self-driving cars or one developing small nuclear reactors, because of the media’s central role in our democracy.” 

In 1966, Stars and Stripes featured my photos of the Philippine army, one of America’s allies in the war, handing out rice to villagers from the back of a truck. Now, we can anticipate that it won’t waste ink on such wokeness; it will report how God wants maximum lethality with minimum morality to “kill people and break things,” and deliver divine retribution with “overwhelming and punishing violence against the enemy.“

One of the problems with the Pentagon’s effort to “intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill our enemies” is that President Trump and Hegseth are working overtime to make enemies out of friends. Hegseth’s chief policy adviser suggests punishing NATO for not joining the U.S. in Trump’s war against Iran. Trump accuses NATO of being a “paper tiger” for not helping to open the Strait of Hormuz. 

Yet neither man apparently consulted with or advised NATO before launching the Iran war. NATO nations are understandably reluctant to join Trump in the international crimes he threatens. 

Trump has hardly been a good ally. He has soured relations with Europe with his threats to take Greenland by force and his punitive trade tariffs. In 2018, he called the hard-fought nuclear weapons agreement with Iran “decaying and rotten” and pulled out of it, leaving co-signers France, Germany and the United Kingdom in the lurch. 

He has insulted allies by failing to acknowledge their support after 9/11. He accused NATO of avoiding the front lines in the Afghanistan war, even though 1,000 servicemembers from European countries died in the conflict. He even suggested that he would encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to any NATO country that doesn’t pay enough for its own defense.

Hegseth and Trump have poisoned our relationship with allies. Will they now try to poison the views of the rank-and-file military? Stars and Stripes currently reaches 1.4 million people and gets 26 million page views on its digital edition. It may take a boycott by the rank-and-file or a crackdown by Congress to save it. 

William S. Becker is co-editor of and a contributor to “Democracy Unchained: How to Rebuild Government for the People,” and a contributor to Democracy in a Hotter Time, named by the journal Nature as one of 2023’s five best science books. He previously served as a senior official in the Wisconsin Department of Justice. He is currently executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project.

Categories Censorship, Freedom of the Press, Propaganda, Trump

Why Did Washington Press Corps Invite Trump to Dinner?

By dianeravitch
April 29, 2026 //
15

Kevin Cullen, a columnist for The Boston Globe, lambasted the Washington press corps for inviting Trump to be their speaker. What did they expect he would say? Did they want to be insulted as “enemies of the people” and “fake news”?

Sure, it’s customary to invite the President. But did anyone expect Trump to forget about his hatred of the media? Cullen thinks they should be more careful in choosing a speaker, like picking someone who appreciates the First Amendment.

He wrote:

So many questions after a deranged, thankfully inept gunman tried to force his way into the White House Correspondents’ Association gala, where President Trump was a guest.

The biggest one being: Why was Trump there in the first place?

Like all fascists, Trump hates a free press and has done his level best to humiliate, intimidate, harm, cancel, and even prosecute journalists and news outlets. Like all authoritarians, he has tried to limit press scrutiny of himself and his administration.

So what on earth were the White House press corps thinking when it invited this guy to their annual dress-up party?

It’s like inviting your obnoxious neighbor to a family barbecue after he relieves himself in your pool.

It’s like inviting a jackal to a tea party for a bunch of cute little bunny rabbits.

Let’s roll the tape:

In 2015, when he was running for president, Trump mocked New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski, who suffers from a congenital joint condition. Trump was just getting warmed up.

In 2017, after a Republican congressional candidate in Montana assaulted and body slammed a reporter for The Guardian, Trump voiced support for the attacker, saying, “He’s my kind of guy.”

In 2020, after MSNBC’s Ali Velshi was hit by a rubber bullet during a protest after George Floyd was murdered by a police officer in Minneapolis, Trump called it a “beautiful sight.” Trump misidentified Velshi as being with CNN, but, hey, all the fake news is all the same to Trump anyway.

At a campaign rally in Pennsylvania in November 2024, Trump stood behind bulletproof glass and reassured his supporters he was safe, noting that anyone who tried to shoot him would have to shoot through a bunch of journalists standing in front of him, adding, “I wouldn’t mind that so much.”

More recently, the FBI, led by Kash Patel, the laughably unqualified frat bro whom Trump appointed as FBI director, launched an investigation of Elizabeth Williamson, a New York Times reporter who had the temerity to point out that the FBI is spending untold taxpayer dollars providing a SWAT team to “protect” Patel’s girlfriend, Weymouth’s own Alexis Wilkins, when she engages in risky public acts like getting her hair done.

Even more recently, after Saturday’s attack, Trump insulted CBS’s Norah O’Donnell and questioned her professionalism, calling her a “disgrace” for asking a question about the gunman’s manifesto.

If you’re noticing a pattern here, Trump really doesn’t like women journalists who question him.

I could go on — and I haven’t even mentioned the shakedowns of all the networks, and Trump using his influence so Edward R. Murrow’s storied CBS News becomes more like Fox News Lite — but you get the point. 

And yet, Trump’s press secretary stood before journalists after Saturday’s attack and claimed, with a straight face, that the leftist press and Democrats are responsible for the violent rhetoric that leads to attacks like the one at the Washington Hilton.

So what did the Washington press corps think was going to happen when it gave Trump a platform at its shindig?

Did they think he would have some Jeffersonian conversion, pronouncing that if given the choice between a government without journalism or journalism without government, he would choose the latter?

Thomas Jefferson believed strongly in the idea of a free press that would act as a watchdog against government corruption and overreach.

Trump hates a free press for those very same reasons. He doesn’t want the public to know about his cons, about him using government to enrich his family and his cronies. He can’t stand the idea of the press, or anyone, questioning his judgment, or pointing out the folly of his ways, about him starting a needless war when he ran for president claiming he would never start a needless war.

Trump resembles not Thomas Jefferson, but George Jefferson, the TV character who hated everyone and everything. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest Trump is more familiar with George Jefferson than Thomas Jefferson.

Why give Trump a platform to spew his fascist hatred of a robust, free press?….

Categories Accountability, Ethics, Extremism, Fake News, Fascism, Freedom of the Press, Trump

ACT Scores Show No “Miracle”

By dianeravitch
April 29, 2026 //
13

I begin by saying for the zillionth time that I do not believe in miracles or panaceas in education. There is not one way of teaching that is just right for all students. Teachers know this. And yes, I believe in the value of phonics as part of teaching reading.

I am not a proponent of the “science of teaching,” because I do not believe that there is only one best way to teach reading or math or science or history. I do not believe that legislators in the state or Congress should mandate HOW to teach. Well-prepared, experienced teachers know how to teach and are at their best when they have reasonable class sizes so they can give extra time to students who can’t keep up.

When state legislators start telling surgeons how to operate on patients, let me know.

Home life affects learning outcomes. All standardized tests show that family income affects test scores; the kids from the wealthiest families are typically at the top, while the kids who grow up in poverty typically have the lowest scores.

This is not because rich kids are inherently better than poor kids but because rich kids have advantages associated with family income, such as educated parents, regular medical care, good nutrition, economic security, better -funded schools, smaller class sizes, and predictability about where and how they live.

Poor kids often do not have these advantages because they are poor. The person who said it best and pulled together the data is Richard Rothstein, in his important book, Class and Schools. I first read it in 2007, and it was pivotal in changing my views about educational achievement and score gaps, and their causes.

Mississippi–and also Louisiana and Alabama–have been hailed for their improved reading scores on the NAEP. Fourth-grade scores have improved impressively. I am very happy for them. I have no doubt that their teachers work very hard and are not paid as well as they should be.

But I looked for an external monitor to see if there had been a “miracle.” A long-lasting miracle, based on their adoption of the “science of reading.” And I landed on the ACT, because in nine states (including Mississippi), 100% of students take the same test.

Mississippi started giving ACT to all juniors in 2015. First cohort for the “reform” hit 11th grade in 2022. If reading had improved dramatically, it should be reflected in rising ACT scores for the state’s students.

Here are the Mississippi scores:

Average ACT Composite Scores for Mississippi (Junior Year Administration)

  • 2025: 17.5
  • 2024: 17.4
  • 2023: 17.5
  • 2022: 17.4
  • 2021: 17.3 

Key Trends and Data

  • Graduating Class of 2023: Average composite score was 17.6.
  • 2024 Graduates: Average score was 17.7.
  • Participation: Mississippi typically reports 100% participation due to statewide testing, which contributes to a lower average compared to states with lower, self-selected participation rates.
  • Demographics: As of 2025, 9.5% of juniors met all four ACT readiness benchmarks. 

In states like Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana, the average score for Black students typically ranges from 15.0 to 16.5, roughly following national averages for this demographic (which was 16.0 in 2024).

As of 2025 and 2026, nine states have maintained 100% ACT participation because they mandate the test for all public high school graduates.

States with 100% ACT Participation

  • Alabama
  • Arizona
  • Kentucky (Note: Kentucky plans to switch to the SAT in Spring 2026)
  • Louisiana
  • Mississippi
  • Nevada
  • Oklahoma
  • Tennessee
  • Wyoming 

Recent and Upcoming Changes

Illinois: Switched to the ACT as its mandatory college entrance exam starting in the 2024-2025 school year, making it a graduation requirement for all public high school students.

South Dakota: Scheduled to join the list of states requiring the ACT starting in the 2025-2026 school year.

Nebraska: Frequently reports near-universal participation (often cited at 95-100%) due to state-funded testing initiatives. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Why Participation is 100%

In these states, the ACT is typically used as a statewide accountability assessment. The exam is provided for free during regular school hours, ensuring that every student—regardless of their college plans—takes the test. This leads to more equitable access but often results in lower statewide average scores compared to states where only high-achieving, college-bound students self-select to take the exam.

You can check the ACT State-by-State Average Scores on the official ACT Website.

Categories Accountability, Childhood, Equity, Funding, Poverty

Indiana: The Negative Effects of Holding Back Students

By dianeravitch
April 29, 2026 //
2

One essential aspect of the so-called “science of reading” is the policy of “retaining” (flunking) students in third grade who do not pass the mandatory third-grade test to enter fourth grade.

Retaining low-scoring students boosts fourth grade scores. The students who are held back to repeat third grade may see a rise in their reading scores, but there are likely to experience harmful long-term consequences.

Steve Hinnefeld of the blog School Matters reports on a study that documents the long-term effects of retention.

He writes about a study by an economist at the University of Miami:

The study’s author, Jiee Zhong, found that academic gains from retention fade over time, and the practice “increases absenteeism, violent behavior, and juvenile crime, and reduces the likelihood of high school graduation.” Analyzing data on Texas students, Zhong found that being retained was tied to a 19% reduction in earnings at age 26.

Other studies have reached the same conclusion.

Teacher-blogger Nancy Bailey has suggested alternatives to retention that help children and don’t hurt them, like tutoring, smaller class size, summer school, small group instruction, looping two classes with the same teacher, a mixed-grade class, and assistance with resource classes. Bailey cited Melissa Roderick of the University of Chicago, who wrote in 1995: “The permanency of retention and the message it sends students may have long-term effects on self-esteem and school attachment that may override even short-term academic benefits.”

Hinnefeld writes:

Indiana started giving its third-grade standardized reading test in 2012 as part of a wave of “reforms” that also included private-school vouchers and expansion of charter schools. Initially, schools were told to retain students who didn’t pass the test; for a few years, they did. But they gradually returned to the previous approach: Teachers and families consulted to decide if it was in a student’s best interest to be promoted.

From 2017 to 2024, few third-graders were retained, even if they didn’t pass IREAD-3. Then state officials decided once again to get tough. The legislature voted in 2024 to require students to pass the test to be promoted, with “good cause” exceptions for some special education students and English learners. Indiana became one of 26 states to tie retention to tests, according to the Education Commission of the States.

The good news: Hoosier third-graders did better than anticipated. In 2025, the first year of mandatory retention, 87.3% passed IREAD-3, up from 82.5% the previous year. Statewide, just over 3,000 students had to repeat third grade.

State education officials took credit for the improvement, attributing it to Indiana’s emphasis on the “science of reading,” along with increased state and foundation funding. Students also have more opportunities to pass the test: They take it at the end of second grade, at the end of third grade, and, if they don’t pass, during the following summer. (There are no penalties for second-graders who don’t pass).

It’s also likely that teachers are more focused on ensuring that students pass IREAD-3, knowing there will be serious consequences if they don’t. They also would have worked to ensure students receive good-cause exceptions if they qualified. The number of Indiana students with exceptions increased by almost half between 2024 and 2025.

Teachers and families, for the most part, understand that holding kids back should be a last resort. Zhong’s study puts data behind what they know intuitively.

Indiana, like the other 25 states that follow this testcentric, anti-child policy must decide what matters most: test scores or the well-being of students.

Categories Education Reform

Paul Thomas: There Was No “Mississippi Miracle”

By dianeravitch
April 29, 2026 //
10

Paul L. Thomas of Furman University has been a persistent critic of the narrative about the “Mississippi Miracle.” The story gained great traction when New York Times‘ columnist Nicholas Kristof took it national on September 1, 2023, in an article titled: “America Has a Reading Problem. Mississippi Has a Solution.” The “miracle” supposedly was accomplished without doing anything to improve the lives of children and their families, without even raising teachers’ salaries. The “science of reading” did the trick; that, plus holding back third graders who didn’t pass the final reading test.

Many articles have been written since then recycling the claim that the “science of reading” was largely responsible for the impressive growth in Mississippi’s fourth grade reading scores on NAEP (the National Assessment of Educational Progress), which is administered every two years. If only states forced teachers to teach the “science of reading,” there would be no failure in reading (except, of course, for the students who were retained in third grade and not participants in the fourth grade testing.)

The “Mississippi Miracle” allegedly occurred within the context of a “Southern Surge,” where low-spending, non-union states like Alabama and Louisiana also participated in a miraculous increase in reading scores. These professors complexified that claim recently.

The most recent article confirming the “miracle” appeared in The Atlantic and was written by Rachel Canter, who participated in the Mississsippi reforms as leader of Mississippi First and is now at the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.

Paul Thomas writes on his Substack blog:

“No story has caught the imagination of education reformers this decade quite like the ‘Mississippi miracle,’” Rachel Canter asserts in The Atlantic, adding:

Other states are now trying to emulate what Mississippi did. Those efforts largely revolve around adopting what’s known as the “science of reading”— a set of principles and teaching techniques, including phonics, that are grounded in decades of empirical research.

Canter, the Director of Education Policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, released as well a report on Mississippi reading and education reform, noting:

I personally spent 17 years helping state leaders run that race. As the head of Mississippi First, a nonprofit I founded in 2008, I played a hand in, and sometimes led, many of the state’s key education policy conversations with the legislature while also working with the Mississippi Department of Education to implement the reform agenda. This is my insider’s view of what policymakers, philanthropists, and pundits should know about what really happened.

Both Canter’s article and her report are lessons themselves in how education reform in the US works, specifically during this cycle driven by the “science of reading” and “science of learning.”

Notably, Canter mentions “empirical research,” yet neither a magazine article nor a think tank report meet the standards of “scientific” championed by “science of” reformers—experimental/quasi-experimental research published in peer-reviewed journals [1].

Also, Canter’s article introduces on a larger scale one of the many multiverses of the “science of reading” existing currently.

The article and report express what Mississippi officials have been arguing for a while: Mississippi reform is not a miracle; it is many years of hard and complex work.

Canter, in fact, seems to double-down on Mississippi reform is effective due to high-stakes accountability (the core of education reform since Reagan, reform that has never worked but perpetuated a permanent cycle of crisis and reform in the US).

I will return to Canter’s argument about Mississippi’s reform success, but I think the criticism of overly simplistic stories about the Mississippi “miracle” are valid and many are beginning to acknowledge that news articles and podcasts have driven reductive and misguided reading reform, policy, and classroom practice [2].

In short, a lesson we should learn, finally, is to reject “miracle” narratives in education. 

Lessons Ignored (And Questions Unanswered)

The problem with Canter’s article and report (beyond that they lack experimental rigor) is that her claims are just as misleading and often just as incomplete as the media stories being sold.

One lesson ignored in the Mississippi story is that it suffers from “the moment” syndrome. I have been asking since the start of the “miracle” narrative: Why haven’t we looked at the historical increase in grade 4 NAEP reading scores, including an ignored spike well before the 2019 christening of “miracle”?:

Image

A bigger lesson, however, is taking greater care when deciding if reforms work as well as what causes that success. Related, as well, is assuring that the data used to decide success or failure represents learning.

Here the Mississippi story is much different that the media “miracle” or Cantor’s argument that high-stakes accountability has worked in the state.

Several questions must be answered.

If Mississippi’s reform has worked, why does the state have the same wealth and race gaps as in 1998?

Image

If Mississippi’s reform has worked, why does the state continue to retain about 9000 K-3 students per year?

  • 2014-2015 – 3064 (grade 3) – 12,224 K-3 retained/ 32.2% proficiency
  • 2015-2016 – 2307 (grade 3) – 11,310 K-3 retained/ 32.3% proficiency
  • 2016-2017 – 1505 (grade 3) – 9834 K-3 retained / 36.1 % proficiency
  • 2017-2018 – 1285 (grade 3) – 8902 K-3 retained / 44.7% proficiency
  • 2018-2019 – 3379 (grade 3) – 11,034 K-3 retained / 48.3% proficiency
  • 2021-2022 – 2958 (grade 3) – 10,388 K-3 retained / 46.4% proficiency
  • 2022-2023 – 2287 (grade 3) – 9,525 K-3 retained/ 51.6% proficiency
  • 2023-2024 – 2033 (grade 3) – 9,121 K-3 retained/ 57.7% proficiency
  • 2024-2025 – 2132 (grade 3) – 9250 K-3 retained/ 49.4% proficiency

And most significantly, if Mississippi reform has worked, do the test score increases in grade 4 represent greater student learning?

There is little scientific evidence on this important question, but the evidence is suggesting a principle by Gerald Bracey: “Rising test scores do not necessarily mean rising achievement.”

First, an analysis of reading reform and a statistical analysis of Mississippi test score increases suggest that those increases are statistical manipulations caused by grade retention and not student learning.

When grade 8 data are compared to grade 4, those analyses seem accurate since states behind Mississippi in grade 4 catch and pass by grade 8 (include the subgroup of Black students):

Image
Image

The irony here is that in 2019 when Hanford declared Mississippi reading reform a “miracle,” many uncritically jumped on that bandwagon.

The Atlantic article is receiving the same uncritical and effusive response—although it is no more credible.

Canter offers just a different compelling but ultimately misleading story.

As of 2026, there simply is no empirical evidence Mississippi’s reading reform has worked.

There remains no “science” in the multiverse of “science of reading” stories.

[1] One frustrating aspect of the “science of reading” movement has been the demand for “science” while advocates tend to use anecdotes, cherry pick evidence, and ignore research counter to their stories. Note the expectations, often ignored, for “scientific” by The Reading League:

https://radicalscholarship.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/scientifically-based-research.jpg

[2] I have four open-access articles in English Journal, documenting with research that the media stories (specifically by Emily Hanford) are misleading and inaccurate.

If you want to help with the costs of keeping my public work open access and free, please DONATE.

Image

Subscribe to Paul Thomas

Launched 4 months ago

P.L. Thomas, Professor of Education (Furman University, Greenville SC), is the poetry editor for English Journal. NCTE named Thomas the 2013 George Orwell Award winner. Follow his work @plthomasEdD.

Categories Accountability, Curriculum, Education Reform, Mississippi, NAEP, Research

Trump’s Face and Signature on the New Passport?

By dianeravitch
April 28, 2026 //
10

The Bulwark reported that the State Departnent plans to put Donald Trump’s face and signature on new passports. The story has since been confirmed by major media, including The New York Times.

I breathe a sigh of relief. I renewed my passport last year. It doesn’t expire until 2035.

According to Benjamin Parker in The Bulwark:

THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS CLOSE TO FINALIZING a radical redesign of the U.S. passport to include a picture of President Donald Trump, The Bulwark has learned from two sources with knowledge of the redesign, including one who shared images currently under consideration.


The redesign is ostensibly part of a larger celebration of the 250th anniversary of American independence. It comes as the Treasury Department prepares to produce coins featuring Trump’s image—both a controversial $1 coin in general circulation1 and an “as large as possible” commemorative gold coin—and as the National Park Service emblazons Trump’s face on its park passes. Both of those redesigns were justified as being part of the 250th anniversary celebration.


According to the images of the passport redesign provided to The Bulwark, the inside cover of the new State Department-issued document will feature a scowling Trump—taken from his second inaugural portrait—superimposed over the Declaration of Independence, as well as the president’s signature in gold.

Categories Trump

ProPublica: Texas Medical Board Sanctions Three Doctors Whose Inaction Caused Pregnant Women to Die

By dianeravitch
April 28, 2026 //
4

ProPublica fearlessly reports on injustice, profiteering, and malignant public policy.

In this article, ProPublica reports on a decision by the Texas Medical Board to sanction three doctors who withheld treatment from pregnant women who needed medical intervention and died because they didn’t get it. The doctors were following the state’s strict abortion ban, which harshly punishes any doctor who aids an abortion unless the fetus is dead.

ProPublica reports:

Two of the doctors failed to properly intervene as a pregnant teenager repeatedly sought care for life-threatening complications, the board found. The third did not provide a dilation and curettage procedure to empty a miscarrying patient’s uterus, and she ultimately bled to death.

As ProPublica investigated those preventable deaths and five others across three states in the past few years, reporters found that abortion bans have influenced how doctors and hospitals respond to pregnancy complications. Facing risks of prison time and professional ruin, doctors have delayed key interventions until they can document that a fetus’ heart is no longer beating or that a case meets a narrow legal exception. Some physicians say their colleagues are discharging or transferring pregnant patients instead of taking responsibility for their care.

Doctors and lawyers have questioned why medical boards, which oversee physician licensing and investigate substandard care, have not played a more active role in guiding doctors on how to uphold medical standards within the constraints of the law. When asked by ProPublica in 2024 what recourse miscarrying patients had when a doctor denied them necessary treatment, the president of the Texas Medical Board said it had no say over criminal law but that patients could file a complaint and “vote with their feet” to seek care from another doctor.

Since then, the Texas board has taken more steps than those in other states, publishing guidance this year that provides case studies on how doctors can legally provide abortions to patients with certain medical complications. The state Legislature ordered the board to create the training materials as part of the Life of the Mother Act, which was passed after ProPublica’s reporting and made modest adjustments to the state’s abortion restrictions in an attempt to prevent additional maternal deaths.

Georgia, where Amber Thurman died after doctors did not try to empty her septic uterus for 20 hours, has not revisited its ban or disciplined key doctors involved.

Maternal care experts say health care providers will continue to hesitate to offer standard care as long as bans carry serious criminal consequences — Texas’ law can put a physician behind bars for 99 years. But those who spoke to ProPublica say that medical board sanctions are one of the few levers that can provide a counterweight, pushing hospitals and doctors to provide standard care despite uncertainty over vaguely written laws.

Michelle Maloney, who is representing the families of both Texas patients in malpractice lawsuits, said she was pleasantly surprised by the board’s recent actions. “Over the course of my career, I’ve had many horrific, horrific death cases. For someone to get disciplined by the medical board, especially while there’s ongoing litigation, is just extraordinarily rare,” she said.

In 2024, ProPublica reported on the case of 18-year-old Nevaeh Crain, who began experiencing severe pregnancy complications when she was six months pregnant in 2023. Although she exhibited clear signs of an infection, doctors at two hospitals sent her home. On her third visit, as Crain’s condition deteriorated, a doctor did not send Crain to the intensive care unit until he could confirm fetal demise with two ultrasounds. Texas law requires doctors to create extra documentation before performing procedures that could end a pregnancy. By the time the doctor had logged there was no fetal heartbeat, the medical record shows, Crain was too unstable for surgery. She died with her fetus still in her womb.

Categories Accountability, Cruelty, Ethics, Gender, Health, Medicine, Texas

Dan Rather: Trump’s War on Science Is Outrageous!

By dianeravitch
April 28, 2026 //
6

Dan Rather, the esteemed journalist, wrote on his blog Steady about the dreadful consequences of Trump’s defunding of science, medicine, and public health.

But on Friday night, when we weren’t looking for a controversial announcement, Trump fired every single member of the 24-person National Science Board. Why? The simplest answer is that the members of the board were not his sycophants. They allegiance is to science, not to the person of Donald J. Trump. He couldn’t control them. They had to go.

Dan Rather wrote:

We toss around terms like “American exceptionalism” far too easily. But there is little debate that, in areas of science and medicine, this country has long been the world leader. We have more top scientists, elite doctors, and preeminent researchers than anywhere else. Their work has meant people live longer, healthier lives.

It is also a cornerstone of American influence around the world.

Scientific and medical research requires significant funding. It has thrived because our elected officials have had the political will to provide a financial pipeline to the public and private sectors.

President Donald Trump is severing that lifeline.

As the mainstream media was renting tuxedos and getting manicures ahead of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Trump was busy pounding nails into the coffin of the American scientific research community.

Tucked away on Friday evening, in a terse, two-line email, the White House personnel office fired the entire National Science Board. “On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I’m writing to inform you that your position as a member of the National Science Board is terminated, effective immediately,” the email read.

No reason was given in the email, and the White House has had no additional comment on the firings.

The independent, 24-person board is made up of top scientists and engineers who serve staggered, six-year terms, to ensure overlap between presidential administrations. They are chosen “solely on the basis of established records of distinguished service.”

The board advises the National Science Foundation (NSF), which supports a wide range of research, from Antarctic exploration to quantum computing. NSF-funded research helped develop the MRI machine, LASIK eye surgery, and Wi-Fi, among many other innovations. It distributes $9 billion in research grants annually.

“[I]t is not enough simply to keep abreast of the rest of the world in scientific matters. We must maintain our leadership,” President Harry Truman said in 1950, when he established the board.

Keivan Stassun, a physicist and astronomer at Vanderbilt University who was appointed to the board in 2022, called the Trump purge “a wholesale evisceration of American leadership in science and technology globally,” to the Los Angeles Times.

Although the president is often reluctant to explain why he does imprudent and detrimental things, if one looks hard enough, a reason can usually be found. In this case, there may be two.

Reason one: to save face. The board was set to meet in early May to work on the release of a new report. The report outlines how the U.S., once the world leader in scientific research, is losing ground to China. If there is no board, the report can’t be released.

Reason two: money. In its 2026 budget, the Trump administration recommended a 55% cut to the NSF. After lobbying by the National Science Board, Congress rejected the White House’s proposal and funded the NSF at 2025 levels.

To avoid the same fate for this year’s budget, which again recommends slashing the foundation’s funding, Trump did away with the board before its members could convince members of Congress.

Friday’s firings are just the latest in Trump’s long list of objectionable actions to cast doubt on scientific findings and thwart research.

The United States has been on the cutting edge of scientific and medical research since the end of World War II. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been the world leader in funding biomedical research. A 2020 study found that NIH-funded research was associated with every new drug approved between 2010 and 2019.

But all of that is now changing. And Trump is to blame.

Science is “explicitly designed to counter human self-deception,” psychologist Steven Pinker told Chris Mooney in his book “The Republican War on Science.”

When deception is your modus operandi, you will naturally try to squash, discount, and demonize the truth. Being anti-science helps protect established special interests. Think climate change denialism and fossil fuel companies.

Trump called the climate crisis “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world” at last year’s United Nations General Assembly. He said this even as the globe is in the midst of the warmest 10-year span on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The NSF’s board is not the first the Trump administration has hamstrung. In June of last year Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services, fired the 17-person vaccine advisory board and replaced many with vaccine skeptics. Trump himself replaced leading scientists with tech billionaires on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

The administration significantly cut funding to the National Cancer Institute, once the gold standard for rigorous, evidence-based research. It no longer funds mRNA research, a revolutionary technology that has the potential to radically improve cancer care.

It canceled 22 separate mRNA contracts, including one working on a vaccine for brain cancer in children. Kennedy is an mRNA skeptic, claiming the vaccines aren’t safe while providing no evidence.

Pancreatic cancer is an incurable disease with a dismal survival rate. Fortunately for pancreatic cancer patients, research into an mRNA vaccine was far enough along that the cuts didn’t affect the very promising treatment.

BioNTech, a German biomedical research company, partnered with Moderna, an American company, to develop pancreatic cancer vaccines using mRNA technology.

The technology, already in development when the pandemic hit, was used to create the Covid vaccine. The Lancet estimated that mRNA vaccines prevented 14.4 to 19.8 million deaths just in the first year of use.

MRNA vaccine technology was in the pipeline thanks to billions of dollars in federal grants over decades. This allowed researchers to get Covid vaccines to market incredibly quickly. This technology is now helping people with pancreatic cancer live years longer than ever before.

Moderna is also using mRNA therapy in combination with other drugs to cut melanoma death rates by 49%. Applications for a variety of cancers are in the works.

Paul Darren Bieniasz, a British-American virologist, wrote in The Guardian, “If we continue the destructive course plotted by this administration, medicines that would otherwise have saved lives in future generations, will not be invented. Technologies that would have ensured future employment and prosperity in the U.S. will not be devised. Solutions that allow the generation of power while causing less damage to the environment, will never be developed. Clearly, if we decline to nurture science, the lives of future Americans will be shorter, sicker and poorer.”

While Donald Trump won’t be around to see that, millions of Americans will. Trump doesn’t like inconvenient truths. Science is a kaleidoscope of inconvenient truths. Rather than deal with them like the world leader he should be, he gaslights, he rages, he denies all.

And as with so much else in this administration, we the people pay the price.

Categories Academic Freedom, Corruption, Democracy, Disruption, Ethics, Extremism, Funding, Health, Injustice, Medicine, Science, Stupid, Trump
« Older Entries