Derrell versus The Groups on Trump’s Education Freedom Tax Credit

Plus, Vlad Kogan versus Tom Toch on “root causes,” and the techlash backlash is here.

Hi, ed policy peeps. I’ve been a bit down in the dumps over the past few weeks, worried that y’all haven’t been reading SCHOOLED, as our views have been lower than usual. But then Substack shared the news yesterday that “Gmail recently made a change that’s affecting open rate reporting across the industry.” The decline wasn’t real! I feel like Stuart Smalley. “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!”

Still, I HAVE heard feedback from some of you that my newsletters have been getting too long lately, and that I should keep excerpts of articles and reader comments a lot shorter. I’ll give that a try.

Enjoy today’s slimmer, calorie-dense issue with great contributions from Derrell Bradford, Jenny Muñiz, Tony Bennett, James Talarico, Jonah Goldberg, Vlad Kogan, Christy Wolfe, Mike Goldstein, and many more.

---

One of the year’s big ed-policy debates has been whether governors should opt into President Trump’s Education Freedom Tax Credit. Like Democrats in Virginia playing tit-for-tat with gerrymandering, in this case, Republicans learned that turnabout is fair play, using the promise of “free” federal dollars as a ploy to push Democratic governors to embrace a policy—private school choice—they wouldn’t otherwise touch. Remind anyone else of Race to the Top and Common Core, but in reverse?

I’ve been arguing, including here at SCHOOLED, that the Trump administration should put maximum pressure on blue states to participate by allowing them some leeway in how the program works within their borders—letting them target scholarships to poor and working-class families, for example. Well, Steve at Treasury still hasn’t published the draft regulations, though I’m not holding my breath that he will take my advice.

But those regs should see the light of day soon, so I don’t see any reason for Democratic governors to make a decision until they do. But that’s not stopping them; Jared Polis is already a yes, and Tim Walz and Tony Evers are already no’s. (Just about every Republican governor is in.)

Nor is it stopping the edu-sphere from debating the topic. This week, The 74 turned to Derrell Bradford to make the case that blue states should join the program, and invited a group of civil rights advocates—Jenny Muñiz, Nicole Fuller, Ashley Harrington, and Hal Smith—to argue against it.

Let’s start with Derrell, who also doesn’t think the feds will allow states to add regulations to the tax credit initiative. But he still thinks governors can “steer” the dollars to causes they support by, for example, launching their own Scholarship Granting Organizations or using the bully pulpit:

Governors, when opting in to the program, have the opportunity to assert their priorities for it, including whom they think it should prioritize (such as low-income students), how they’d like to see it measured (i.e., state assessments) and what kinds of SGOs, or even which ones specifically, they believe are worth contributing to. Governors can do this with their state’s entire communications apparatus at their disposal. This is a megaphone of the highest and loudest order.

Those sorts of nudges aren’t enough for Jenny, Nicole, Ashley, and Hal—not by a mile. They write:

“Choice” is a compelling slogan, but with private school vouchers, it’s the school’s choice, not the families. Participating private schools control their own admissions and enrollment decisions, with little oversight of nondiscrimination compliance. Private schools can kick students out without any explanation or deny admission to students based on religious affiliation, LGBTQ+ status, language proficiency, and more.

I’m still willing to wait for the administration to issue regulations before settling my own mind on whether opting in makes sense for Democratic governors. But what do YOU think? Weigh in via the comments, by replying to this newsletter or by emailing me at SCHOOLED [at] fordhaminstitute [dot] org.

---

The backlash to the techlash has arrived. Richard Culatta takes the maximalist position, arguing that “bills forbidding use of technology in the classroom will deny students essential skills and train them for a world that no longer exists.” Here’s what concerns him:

In Missouri, a bill recently passed the statehouse that will require 70 percent of elementary school assignments to be completed with pencil and paper and prohibit schools from assigning any homework that uses technology. In Tennessee, legislators passed a bill to ban all technology in grades K–5 for students and teachers. A proposed Kansas measure would mandate that all K–5 instructional materials be “print-based.” Virginia’s Senate has passed legislation directing the state to cap instructional screen time by grade level. And in Utah, a package of bills signed by the governor will sharply curtail the use of technology to support learning.

I’m not crazy about state legislation on this issue either, given the likelihood of unintended consequences. And Richard makes some good points that we shouldn’t lump edu-tainment and research-based tech products together, ignore the value of assistive technology for students with disabilities, nor should we “assume that the best way to limit tech use is with a timer.” (Great line!) But I’ve got to give one particular argument of his the side-eye:

The ed tech bans gaining momentum in statehouses around the country guarantee that the students who can least afford to fall behind will be the ones hurt most.

I’m sorry, but I share the conventional wisdom that it’s America’s most disadvantaged kids who are most at risk of being put in front of screens and “AI tutors” all day while affluent children enjoy artisanal instruction from real-live humans.

Meanwhile, my colleague Meredith Coffey digs into the unintended consequences of school screen time limits.

It’s unclear whether policymakers in these states have considered a swath of classroom realities. Many schools lack hard-copy versions of curricula and other materials. For example, evidence-based K–5 Amplify curricula—used in over 8,000 U.S. school districts for English language arts, math, and/or science—either encourage or require digital components. Where both print and digital versions of any curriculum are available, it’s typically cheaper to purchase digital versions. So will districts and schools be able to afford hard-copy versions? Will they be able to obtain materials soon enough to comply with the rapidly approaching effective dates (e.g., July 1, 2026, in Oklahoma and Tennessee)? Will they be able to adequately support teachers modifying their instructional methods so dramatically? Will states and districts have capacity to pivot to pen-and-paper screeners and assessments, and if they can’t, how will they equip students when they do encounter such digital tasks? (Or, as some reformers fear, will device bans become a means for undermining state testing?)

Keep an eye on that assessment question—and whether that’s the reason some teachers unions are lining up to support these sorts of bans. And read the rest of Meredith’s post for her analysis of recent legislation in Iowa, Utah, and Rhode Island that address some of these issues more thoughtfully than other states do.

---

A few weeks ago, the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy published a great interview that Jonathan Plucker did with Tony Bennett, and now Dale Chu has written up what he sees as Tony’s lessons for today’s state chiefs and aspiring reformers.

Bennett’s reflections are clarifying. One of the most widely cited concepts from that period is what he describes as “tight–loose–tight”: tight on goals, loose on means, tight again on accountability. It is a deceptively simple framework that depends on discipline at every stage. Over time, however, that balance has been replaced by something closer to “loose–tight–loose”: loose agreement on goals, tight constraints on implementation, and laissez-faire oversight on top.

As one of the OG advocates for “tight-loose,” I’ll admit that the framework hasn’t aged well. I’m now a believer in being tighter on “the means,” especially when it comes to curriculum, as we’ve learned that most districts didn’t have the know-how to pick great instructional materials on their own, nor will they nail the implementation challenges without a lot of support. But that doesn’t mean it was smart to move to “loose-tight-loose” instead—with little accountability for results, which, as Dale writes, feels like where most states have landed today.

---

Chad Aldeman, Jim Cowen, and the rest of the gang at the Collaborative for Student Success have been getting some well-deserved publicity for their “graduation gap” analysis, showing the vast discrepancy between most states’ sobering proficiency rates in high school math and their sky-high graduation rates. Now Neetu Arnold digs into the details in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin, explaining where this gap is coming from. The “grading for equity“ stuff is part of the problem, but so is credit recovery, which…

…allow[s] high schoolers to make up courses that they previously failed. Such programs often encourage schools to focus more on boosting graduation rates than on actual learning.

I know, I know, we’re all shocked that some districts would play these sorts of games.

---

You know who’s not playing games? Mike Goldstein and Sean Geraghty, who sincerely want the federal government to field a “National Assessment of Flourishing and Participation.” What would the NAFP do (beyond proving unpronounceable)?

The idea is simple. NAEP measures what students know. NAFP would measure what they do outside of school all week.

At the center is a clear metric. The NAFP would provide a weekly count of hours spent doing activities tied to teens’ development: sports and fitness, the arts, paid work, volunteering, in-person socializing, homework (verified to ensure it is actual work, not fake), and sleep. This would yield what we’ll call the Productive Hours Index (PHI).

There’s lots more to their plan—I’m telling you, they are serious about it! As for its rationale:

An assessment that measures how teenagers spend their time would inform major debates. It would shape discussions about technology and mental health, provide evidence on extracurricular investments, and give parents and policymakers a clearer picture of whether teens are thriving, not just how they’re scoring.

It’s compelling! Now if Congress could just reauthorize the legislation behind the Institute for Education Sciences.

---

Finally, let’s look at “How Teach for America Helped Set Up James Talarico’s Political Rise.” Though that headline is a bit misleading, as the story is really about the TFA spinoff organization, Leadership for Educational Equity (LEE).

In the Texas Observer, Matthew Chesnut, who did TFA with Talarico in San Antonio and still teaches there today, explains that:

LEE started in 2007 as a way to channel TFA alumni and other affiliated partners toward careers in politics and policy, offering workshops, leadership coaching, and fellowships, among other things, to its members. Its website boasts that over 1,100 LEE members are current or former elected officials and that two-thirds of LEE members win in general elections.

Furthermore…

Talarico’s first electoral victory came with his initial run for the Texas House in 2018, when he successfully flipped a red seat that included his native Round Rock. His largest donor was plaintiff’s attorney–backed Texans for Insurance Reform. But in second place was the LEE Texas PAC, which contributed $50,000.

This PAC has contributed primarily to local school board races, to candidates on both sides of the aisle, but their donation to Talarico’s race was one of their few efforts at backing a state legislative candidate. Over the course of his four terms in the Lege, LEE Texas PAC has remained one of his largest donors—giving a total of $77,000, mostly concentrated in his competitive 2018 and 2020 campaigns.

Chesnut details the contributions to LEE from deep-pocked billionaires, including Reed Hastings and Arthur Rock, though also claims that he’s not trying to prove “some sinister ulterior motive—that Talarico is somehow insincere in his efforts to curtail corporate influence or deliver on a progressive platform.”

For our purposes, though, it’s helpful to know that if Talarico pulls off the improbable and wins a Texas Senate seat, it will be a big win for LEE.

---

Jonah Goldberg makes a strong case for keeping AI out of American classrooms. “Just as you can’t learn how to ride a bike from reading a book, you can’t get the benefits of reading by asking AI to read a book for you. The same holds for math, science, computer programming and nearly every other aspect of education.” —AEI

“More than a third of the federal government’s education research budget—an estimated $289 million—could go unspent this year,” writes Jill Barshay. Particularly troubling: “85 percent of the $77 million designated for special education remains unspent and there are no federal notices or documents, as there usually would be, detailing plans to launch grant competitions and spend it.” —The Hechinger Report

Interest in the skilled trades is growing fast, and some programs go beyond job training, aiming to give young people—especially men—a sense of purpose in addition to employment possibilities. In The New Yorker, Emma Green shares a fantastic look into Steubenville, Ohio’s College of St. Joseph the Worker, where a promising new model for post-high school education is changing young lives and trying to build hope in a city fallen on tough times.

It’s good to highlight programs like the one in Steubenville, and to look beyond well-intentioned efforts to push all kids toward traditional colleges. Still, the “learn to code” era reminds us that we are generally terrible at picking the jobs of the future, and many careers in skilled trades require backbreaking work for mediocre pay—covered by River Page this week in The Free Press. Acceptance into the best training programs, particularly those covered by future employers through apprenticeship models, is highly selective, and affordable programs like high school vocational pathways and public community colleges struggle to keep up with demand for spots. And as Te-Ping Chen and Lauren Weber show in The Wall Street Journal this week, choosing a career in the trades can still lead to debt with no credential to show for it.

---

Last week we covered a debate about Democrats and education reform featuring Charlie Barone and Tom Toch. Vlad Kogan took issue with what Vlad called a “small, but to me hugely important, passage in Tom’s piece”:

Public education desperately needs strengthening, but policymakers must address root causes by addressing the many hurdles in students’ lives that compound their challenges in classrooms.

Vlad writes:

I think this is totally, 100% wrong—to the point that I have a whole section in the first chapter of my book No Adult Left Behind titled “What about Racism, Poverty, and Other ‘Root Causes’?”

Here are three separate reasons to reject Tom’s argument:

1. People have been saying the way to fix urban education is to fix “root causes” since at least the 1960s. This was a major theme of LBJ’s Kerner Commission report. That we are still talking about fixing “root causes” 60 years later, after the War on Poverty, etc., should make us doubtful that this an actual strategy rather than an excuse to avoid actually addressing the problem for another 60 years.

2. If “root causes” sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the same argument progressives have been making on crime and policing, too (also since the 1960s). In that area, the idea has been thoroughly debunked.
   
   We found ways to dramatically reduce crime during this period, even as the root causes remain. In the 1990s, we saw a dramatic crime decline—one that sociologist Patrick Sharkey showed disproportionately affected Black men and extended their life expectancy by an entire year on average, something he called a “public health breakthrough.” No one agrees about what drove the crime decline, but I don’t think anyone seriously argues it was success in moving the needle on “root causes.”

3. Finally, it’s much easier to teach an elementary school child how to read than to fix poverty, racism, and other root causes. Too many schools are failing at this very basic task, and that means our public policies are failing. If we don’t know how to use public policy to ensure that all kids how to read by the end of third grade, the idea that we’ll figure out how to use policy to fix much more difficult issues underlying “root causes” is just implausible.

Thibaut Delloue shared thoughts about Democrats and education reform, too.

For Democrats, I find there is an opportunity to rebrand “school choice” as “educational pluralism.” Cardus put it nicely last year: “educational pluralism views education through the lens of institutions and communities in addition to the individual and the state. By contrast, the lens of school choice is of the individual versus the state, and the lens of privatization is of state versus non-state actors.” If progressives can’t stomach the market-driven thinking of school choice, then put the publicness of education back at the forefront, but with parents in mind—the state manages or curates high-quality education options that parents then choose.

It’s also the norm around the world, even in (gasp) France and Sweden. It’s noteworthy that Weingarten and AFT union leaders visited Sweden and Norway—which did not embrace vouchers like Sweden—in 2017 and concluded that Sweden’s trajectory toward “choice” was the cause of its academic decline. In truth, Sweden outranks Norway in the PISA rankings. Democrats should embrace what’s happening in Indianapolis, where a new mayor-appointed governing body will manage public school infrastructure like facilities and transportation and the school district will focus on instruction (imagine that). Jed Wallace, as you mention, is beating that drum in CharterFolk.

And speaking of Jed, his take on the charter sector’s “marginal revolution” inspired a response from Christy Wolfe:

One of the enabling conditions of the slow steady progress of charter schools has been the consistently increasing funding and policy support in the federal Charter Schools Program (CSP). Without the CSP, the sector would be half its current size. Thankfully, the program has not been subject to wild policy swings in statute, which has helped with state policy alignment. And unlike federal accountability policy that was significantly rolled back in ESSA, the CSP kept going, with improvements, and some might argue, even more accountability relative to what was required in the rest of ESEA. The ESSA updates to the CSP also codified grants for higher performing schools to replicate, building on current law, not a pendulum swing. It is an exemplar of what ideally should be our goal in policy—to build on what has been working.

---

Have a great weekend!

Mike

---

Sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox, usually on Tuesday and Friday mornings. SCHOOLED is free, but a few linked articles may be paywalled by other publications.

---