Tag: public schools

Brutal Numbers: Schools Spent $30 Billion on Laptops… and They Seem to Have Made Kids Dumber

Technological innovation doesn’t always yield good results.

Even as electronic devices are championed as the best means of learning for youth — with a massive price tag — we aren’t seeing dramatic improvements in students’ performance.

On Feb. 23, Techspot published an article citing the beginning of the tech takeover in the classroom under former Maine Democratic Gov. Angus King.

In 2002, King created a program to put Apple laptops in middle schoolers’ repertoire. By 2024, the federal government had used a staggering $30 billion to follow his state’s plan, getting tablets and laptops to students across the country.

This seemed like an obvious shift in the right direction on paper: The world is becoming more technological. Students will use these devices in the workplace, so why not familiarize them now?

But neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath laid out the adverse impacts of this decision to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

According to Horvath, Gen Z is the first cohort to see declining test scores compared to their predecessors. He found an inverse relationship between academic performance and time using digital devices.

“This is not a debate about rejecting technology,” he told lawmakers. “It is a question of aligning educational tools with how human learning actually works. Evidence indicates that indiscriminate digital expansion has weakened learning environments rather than strengthened them.”

Techspot cited studies showing 3,000 university students spent two-thirds of time on their school laptops engaging in material unrelated to classwork.

Fortune found that in 2017, test scores weren’t improving after King’s program.

A study published in OxJournal made a worrying conclusion regarding technology and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

The research “established an evident correlation between digital media use and the prevalence of ADHD in contemporary society. This applies for all age demographics, depending on the setting, such as being in school or in a workplace.”

“The earlier we immerse our children’s underdeveloped minds in digital media, offering them instant fulfillment, the higher the likelihood that an attention-deficit disorder will emerge as they mature,” the study continued.

“This inhibits individuals from focusing their selective attention on a particular task, as well as reduces their divided and sustained attention.”

A traditionally minded educator — or most conservatives — could have seen this coming.

Keep reading

What’s Next In The Fight To Stop Schools From Transing Kids After SCOTUS Victory

A few weeks before Christmas in 2022, Amber Lavigne was cleaning her 13-year-old’s bedroom when she stumbled upon her daughter’s secret: a chest binder. She learned that Autumn had been wearing the garment, which girls use to flatten their breasts to achieve a masculine appearance, for about two months at school in Maine, where she had adopted a boy’s name, Leo, and was using he/him pronouns. 

It was the first of two chest binders Lavigne found that had been provided to her eighth-grade daughter by a social worker at the Great Salt Bay Community School, according to a federal lawsuit Lavigne filed in 2023, which is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Her lawsuit alleges that the public school not only aided and abetted Autumn’s gender transition but also hid the information from her parents. 

“I think it’s important for parents to know that this is occurring in our public schools because I don’t think many parents believe that it’s as bad as it really is,” Lavigne said on a recent podcast. “When I was a kid, one of the first things I heard about adults is if any adult asks you as a child to keep a secret, there’s something wrong with that adult, and you need to come tell me immediately.”

“And now, I mean, it’s like we’re in upside-down land.” 

The Maine lawsuit and others like it raise one of the most contentious issues in the broader conflict over transgender policies: whether a parent’s constitutional right to direct their children’s education and medical care extends to a circumstance that society has never grappled with until the past decade or so — a youth’s rejection of their biological sex, adoption of a new name and matching pronouns, and assertion of a new gender identity. And to what extent children who are transitioning or exploring gender options have the right to confidentiality if they worry about rejection and hostility at home.

Keep reading

Bad Faith Noncompliance: Virginia Schools Flout Supreme Court And Trump With DEI ‘Rebrand’

Just over a year ago, President Trump issued two executive orders banning destructive diversity ideology (a.k.a. “DEI” or “diversity, equity, and inclusion”) from the federal government and its contractors, including colleges and universities. The EOs sought to restore merit as the basis of hiring, advancement, and college admissions.

Both EOs reinforced prior actions by the president as well as by the Supreme Court: In his first term, Trump signed EO 13950, Combatting Race and Sex Stereotypes, which banned divisive concepts based on race and ethnicity, a measure duplicated in many states; and in June of 2023, the Supreme Court decided Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard (“SFFA”), which found that diversity rationales for racial preferences in admissions were themselves discriminatory and therefore unlawful.

Notwithstanding these major legal developments against DEI, colleges and universities, especially in Virginia, are continuing business as usual to promote it, albeit under different names, a move known as rebranding. “To avoid scrutiny,” said one official at the University of Virginia, diversity offices are now called offices for “community and belonging,” while “queer brunch” is now marketed as “cozy brunch.” At George Mason University, the DEI office is now called the Office for Access, Compliance, and Community—same staff, same stuff. They do this even though Trump’s EO explicitly banned rebranding, stating such programs are illegal “under whatever name they appear.”

Obviously, bad actor schools are engaged in bad faith noncompliance.

In this 250th anniversary year of America’s founding, we should remember that the word “diversity“ is absent from our foundational documents: it does not appear in either the Declaration of Independence or in our Constitution.

How, then, did “diversity” become so ubiquitous—in education, government, and corporate America—and what does it really mean?

“Diversity” is in fact a top-down, divide-and-conquer strategy pitting Americans against each other based on race, ethnicity, and sex (and now including “gender” and gender ideology). It distracts from—and detracts from—talent and excellence, actually encouraging racial discord as everyone must have skin color or race in mind, rather than achievement or moral character. Accordingly, it destroys nations. Only corrupt politicians, owned and controlled by anti-American handlers, could parrot the lie that “Diversity is our strength.”

Many date the debut of diversity ideology from the 1978 Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, where the medical school of the University of California at Davis had a special admissions program reserving 16 of its 100 open spots for minorities, often with lesser qualifications than white applicants, such as complainant Allan Bakke. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell announced in this opinion that “diversity” was a legitimate governmental interest. But he and the other justices rejected the medical school’s rigid quotas to get there—insisting, instead, that race should be one of many different criteria for admission even while stating that “racial and ethnic considerations are inherently suspect” under the Constitution.

These ambiguities guaranteed more fights about the role of race in college admissions and elsewhere.

In 2003, the Court made matters worse in Grutter v. Bollinger, where Justice Sandra Day O’Connor elevated “diversity” from a permissible state interest to a compelling one, finding that the University of Michigan law school’s racial preferences in admissions were lawful, provided they were tailored and individualized.

Historically, “compelling state interests” concerned public safety, national security, or the protection of minor children. With no history, tradition, or textual basis to do so, the Grutter Court not only shoved diversity onto this list but also put it above a citizen’s right to equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. For this reason, many called the decision illegitimate. In practice, this case was the official government stamp of approval for discrimination against Christian, heterosexual men of European descent, as they are the only demographic said not to contribute to diversity.

Keep reading

Virginia Democrats Move To Require Teaching Jan. 6th As An “Insurrection”

Virginia Democrats are moving to require teachers to tell students that Jan. 6th was an “insurrection” and effectively bar them from referencing “peaceful protests” or election irregularities. The characterization of the riot as an insurrection is historically and legally false. However, any parents who want to send their children to Virginia public schools would have to accept this form of indoctrination as part of their children’s education.

In the last election, Democrats campaigned as moderates, including Abigail Spanberger.

Once in control of the Governor’s mansion and the legislature, however, they have moved quickly to the far left in a flurry of measures. Democratic legislators just voted themselves almost a 300% increase in salaries.  They will need it. They are moving to increase taxes on ride shares, concerts, counseling, leaf blowers, Amazon deliveries, DoorDash, Uber Eats, ammunition, and other areas.

However, HB 333, drafted by Del. Dan I. Helmer of Fairfax, raises serious concerns over academic freedom and free speech.

The summary of the bill mandates “a program of instruction on or relating to the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the United States Capitol” and further:

“prohibits any such program of instruction, any accompanying curriculum or instructional materials, or any instruction provided by a teacher as a part of such program of instruction from (i) describing, portraying, or presenting as credible a description or portrayal of the actions precipitating or involved in the January 6, 2021, insurrection as peaceful protest or (ii) stating, suggesting, or presenting as credible a statement or suggestion that there was extensive election fraud that could have changed or actually changed the results of the 2020 presidential election. The bill requires any such program of instruction, any accompanying curriculum or instructional materials, or any instruction provided by a teacher as a part of such program of instruction to describe the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the United States Capitol as an unprecedented, violent attack on U.S. democratic institutions, infrastructure, and representatives for the purpose of overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election.”

Soon after Jan. 6th, I condemned the riot but rejected the argument that this was an insurrection. However, it soon became part of an orthodoxy in politics and academia despite the fact that the public rejected it. As former House Speaker Pelosi declared, “It is essential that we preserve the narrative of January 6th.”

Yet, “insurrection” and “sedition” are legal terms. They have a meaning. The FBI investigated thousands after January 6th and charged hundreds. Not one was charged with insurrection or conspiracy to overthrow the country. The vast majority are charged with relatively minor offenses of trespass or unlawful entry or property damage- the type of charges that are common in protests and riots.

Indeed, the Supreme Court effectively reduced many of the charges to mere trespass in later litigation, rejecting obstruction claims.

Faced with a collapsing historical and legal narrative, Democrats are now moving to simply indoctrinate students that this was an “insurrection.”

Keep reading

TN School Clears Record of Christian Teacher Punished for Refusing to Read LGBTQ+ Book to First-Graders

An elementary school in Nashville, Tennessee, has cleared the record of a Christian teacher who was punished for refusing to read a book about same-sex marriage to his first grade students. 

Teacher Eric Rivera declined to read the LGBTQ+ propaganda book to his young students, citing his Christian beliefs, and instead asked a colleague to read the book, Fox News reported. In response, KIPP Antioch College Prep Elementary issued a “final warning letter” in January to Rivera for declining to read the book, according to legal group First Liberty Institute. 

The following day, Rivera was asked to the principal’s office and threatened with firing, according to the report. School leadership reportedly told him he must maintain “fidelity” to the curriculum, “and a discipline letter was placed in his personnel file.” 

Before the incident, Rivera had no previous warnings or history of discipline, according to First Liberty. After facing pressure from school leadership, Rivera asked for a religious accommodation but was instead reassigned to a lab and technology position and then to a kindergarten class, per the report.

First Liberty sent a letter to the school on behalf of Rivera in February. After receiving the letter, KIPP Antioch agreed to clear Rivera’s record, First Liberty said on Monday. The school additionally will allow “all teachers to ask another employee to read materials objectionable to their faith.”

“We are pleased that the school has made the right decision by accommodating Mr. Rivera for his deeply held religious views,” Senior Counsel at First Liberty Cliff Martin said in a press release.  

“Our client is deeply devoted to teaching and is grateful that his record has been cleared and reasonable accommodations will be provided going forward,” he continued. 

The elementary school did not respond to the outlet’s request for comment by time of publication.

Keep reading

Degraded Schools

Many students are chronically absent or have dropped out of school.

Nat Malkus, a senior fellow in education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, oversees the Return to Learn Tracker, which monitors chronic absenteeism in U.S. schools. His latest report, released in early February, includes data from 39 states and Washington, D.C.

He states that after reaching a high of 29 percent in the 2021–22 school year, the chronic absenteeism rate—missing 10 percent or more of school days in an academic year—fell by 2.6 percentage points the following school year and by 2.2 percentage points the following school year. This progress was encouraging, but it stalled last school year, with rates falling by just over one percentage point on average. This leaves the average chronic absenteeism rate for most of the country at 23 percent, roughly 50 percent higher than the pre-pandemic baseline.

This chronic absence problem is especially egregious in our large urban areas. In Los Angeles, more than 32 percent of students were chronically absent during the 2023–24 school year. Thirty-four elementary schools have fewer than 200 students, and 29 use less than half of their buildings. Chicago is even worse, with a chronic absentee rate of 41 percent.

Malkus concludes that these patterns suggest that shifts in attitudes and behavior are largely driving the across-the-board increases in post-pandemic absenteeism. Six years into the pandemic, students and their parents are placing less value on attending school each day.

One realistic way to address chronic absenteeism—and save taxpayer dollars—would be to close ineffective schools. But government educrats and teacher union bosses refuse to allow that to happen. In fact, school closures have slowed over time.

An analysis by the IZA Institute of Labor Economics shows that in 2014–15, the closure rate—the share of schools nationwide that were open one year and closed the next—was 1.3 percent, but in 2023–24, the rate was just 0.8 percent.

Another way to alleviate the problem would be to reduce the number of teachers by eliminating the lowest performers, but that will not happen. Teacher union-mandated permanence clauses make it nearly impossible to fire an incompetent teacher. In California, a 2012 court case revealed that, on average, only 2.2 of California’s 275,000 teachers (0.0008 percent) were dismissed each year for unprofessional conduct or unsatisfactory performance.

Chronic absenteeism rates would also improve if students felt a sense of purpose in going to school. Currently, many kids lack interest in showing up. A 2024 report from Gallup and the Walton Family Foundation surveyed over 1,000 Gen Z students aged 12 to 18 and found that only 48 percent of those enrolled in middle or high school felt motivated to show up. Only half said they do something interesting in school every day. Similarly, a 2024 EdChoice survey indicated that 64 percent of teens said school is boring, and 30 percent view it as a waste of time.

In addition to the problem of chronically absent students, families are removing their children, especially if they are high achievers, from government-run schools in large numbers.

Joshua Goodman, an associate professor of education and economics at Boston University, authored a study that found that nationally, white and Asian parents are far more likely to withdraw their children from public schools than Hispanics and blacks.

“The question that worries me is whether this means that public schools have now cemented a reputation as not being the place where high-achieving students attend. If you’re a family that’s looking for a challenging curriculum, and you have a talented student, you’re no longer seeing public schools in quite that light,” Goodman said.

Perhaps the leader in the public school exodus is Chicago, whose numbers are particularly grim. Dwindling enrollment has left about 150 Windy City schools half-empty, while 47 operate at less than one-third capacity, leading to high costs and limited course offerings.

Worth noting is that Chicago spends about $18,700 per student. At small schools that have been losing students, per-pupil costs are double or triple that. At one 28-student school, the cost per student is $93,000. (For the sake of perspective, the Latin School of Chicago, among the city’s most expensive private schools, costs about $47,000 per year.)

Not surprisingly, as the number of students declines, school district insolvency is on the rise. Education finance experts say more districts are grappling with this problem, especially those that spent pandemic federal aid on recurring expenses or didn’t scale back their budgets in anticipation of the aid’s end.

As a result, districts are facing increased involvement from their counties and states, ranging from financial monitoring to takeovers. In rarer cases, districts may even declare bankruptcy or consider merging with other districts.

While public schools are bleeding students, school choice of all types continues to grow. Overall, there are now 75 private school choice programs in 34 states, serving more than 1.5 million students.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Blocks California School Policy Hiding Kids’ ‘Gender Presentation’ From Parents

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major win for California parents seeking to protect their children from LGBT ideology in state schools on Monday.

In its per curiam opinion, the high court vacated a stay (“pause”) issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on a December injunction by a California-based district court judge. That permanent injunction prohibited enforcement of a California policy that permitted or forced school employees to “mislead[] the parent or guardian of a minor child in the education system about their child’s gender presentation at school.”

In his order, District Judge Roger Benitez, a Bush 43 appointee, further required California officials to notify school personnel of his ruling and to include in materials for parents and faculty a statement acknowledging parents’ “federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.”

California parents’ victory was short-lived, however, because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals froze Benitez’s order a few weeks later. In its unanimous ruling, the appellate court’s three-judge panel of Democrat appointees claimed that state officials “have shown that ‘there is a substantial case for relief on the merits,’” and said it was “skeptical of the district court’s decision on the merits.”

The 9th Circuit’s decision prompted plaintiffs to file an application with SCOTUS, in which they requested that the high court vacate the 9th Circuit’s stay and allow Benitez’s injunction to take effect.

In its unsigned opinion, SCOTUS granted the plaintiffs’ request to vacate the 9th Circuit’s injunction “with respect to the parents because this aspect of the stay is not ‘justified under the governing four-factor test.’” The high court noted that the parents are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and that they will suffer “irreparable harm” if the 9th Circuit’s ruling is allowed to remain in place.

The court’s order does not apply to the plaintiff teachers suing over the policy, however. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have granted the plaintiffs’ application in full.

Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Keep reading

LA schools superintendent raided by FBI illegally overstayed visa before gaining legal status

As attention has turned to Los Angeles Unified School District superintendent Albert Carvalho in the wake of an FBI raid at his residence and the school district’s headquarters, a clip has resurfaced showing Carvalho admitting that he was an “undocumented migrant” in the United States.

In April 2025, Carvalho said in a speech, “I would be a hypocrite if I did not fight for those who today are facing conditions that over 40 years I faced as an undocumented migrant to this country.”

He later added that he came to the US at the age of 17, saying, “Education made me and saved me. I became a teacher, a principal, a superintendent leading the nation’s largest districts, four times selected as national superintendent of the year. Do not underestimate the power of the immigrant child who may very well become an adult who does well and good by America.”

Per the New York Times, Carvalho grew up in Portugal, and described growing up in a “poor environment,” being raised alongside his five siblings, two of whom died young, by parents with education that did not extend past the third grade.

After graduating from high school in the country, Carvalho came to the US on a visitor visa, which he overstayed and became illegally present in the country. He first worked as a dishwasher in Manhattan and eventually ended up in Miami, where he worked at restaurants, farms, and construction sites.

“Back in the mid-’80s, it was not difficult to find a job without documents,” Carvalho said. “They worked you more hours for less pay.”

He spent two years in the country illegally but eventually secured a student visa. He also obtained a Social Security number and legal work authorization. Per Governing, he eventually became a US citizen.

Keep reading

Hunter College Professor Caught on Hot Mic Making Racist Comments About Black Students

Hunter College has placed associate biology professor Allyson Friedman on leave following widespread backlash over comments she made during a virtual public meeting that were captured on a hot mic, as reported by The New York Post.

The incident occurred Feb. 10 during a New York City School District 3 Community Education Council meeting. Friedman, who attended as a parent of a public school student, was inadvertently heard interrupting a Black eighth-grade student who was speaking about concerns over the potential shutdown of her Upper West Side public school.

A recording of the meeting circulated online, prompting swift criticism.

“They’re too dumb to know they’re in a bad school,” Friedman was heard saying while her microphone was unknowingly unmuted.

“If you train a black person well enough, they’ll know to use the back,” she added. “You don’t have to tell them anymore.”

Keep reading

Families Receive $1.5 Million After Supreme Court Victory Over LGBT Storytelling

A Maryland school district that lost a recent U.S. Supreme Court case will pay $1.5 million to parents who weren’t allowed to opt their children out of LGBT story time, the families’ attorneys said.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the plaintiffs in the landmark Mahmoud v. Taylor case, announced the settlement on Feb. 20. The defendant, the Montgomery County Board of Education—which oversees Montgomery County Public Schools, the largest school district in the state—was also ordered to comply with court orders mandating advance notice and opt-out provisions.

“Public schools nationwide are on notice: running roughshod over parents’ rights and religious freedom isn’t just illegal—it’s costly,” Eric Baxter, Becket senior counsel and the lead attorney in the case, said in a Feb. 20 statement.

“This settlement enforces the Supreme Court’s ruling and ensures parents, not government bureaucrats, have the final say in how their children are raised.”

The Feb. 19 order from Judge Deborah Boardman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland did not specify the settlement amount but did say the plaintiffs are “entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs” outlined in a separate agreement. Three families and “Kids First,” an unincorporated association of parents and teachers, are listed as the awardees.

The Supreme Court announced its 6–3 ruling on June 27, 2025, and directed the litigation of remaining issues, including any settlement, to continue in lower courts.

The case dates back to 2022, after a group of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish parents told the board of education that, for religious reasons, they wanted to remove their elementary school children from book readings about same-sex romances between young children, gender transitions, and pride parades. The parents were denied permission to do so, even though the district and the state have policies and laws allowing opt-outs and requiring advance notice of such materials.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, stated that the government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of instruction that threatens the religious beliefs and practices that parents choose to instill in their children.

Baxter said the court had ongoing jurisdiction over the district to ensure compliance.

“It took tremendous courage for these parents to stand up to the school board and take their case all the way to the Supreme Court,” Baxter said in a statement.

Keep reading