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 … Continue reading "Will The Trump Administration Go For Disruption or Division On Education Tax Credits? Plus, Virginia, Reading, School Safety, and Fish Porn."
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.
On Monday, Bellwether and CALDER are hosting a conversation about what we can learn from pandemic natural experiments with various policy reforms. You can watch later or join live to participate in the discussion.
In RCE, Rick Hess and I took a look at the proposed higher education compact. The idea itself isn’t terrible—some of the specifics are—and the method isn’t how government is supposed to work. This is Congress’s job.
It was really fun to talk high schools and how to innovate with high schools and pathways with a great Bipartisan Policy Center panel. What are the opportunities and risks with pathways? What do students need to know? We get into that and more.
Over on LinkedIn, Bellwether hosted a discussion, sponsored by Curriculum Associates, on opportunities and risks around devolving more education authority to the states. It featured a great panel of people involved in this work at the state and federal levels. Listen or watch here.
Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack? Sign up for free here.
Virginia
Did you know that’s a song by Clipse? I was at their show recently. They still have it. Unusual stuff in politics? Virginia still has that, too.
Last time we talked about how a few swirling culture-war issues had failed to break out in the Virginia election. One of those—allegations about a school facilitating an abortion for a student—is now being strongly refuted by the school system after an investigation. I doubt it will change many minds; it’s mostly an issue among partisans. Some people are still arguing loose ends and that the district isn’t coming clean. One signal to watch though: the public investigative report goes pretty hard against the whistleblower’s credibility, which would be an aggressively reckless thing to do if they weren’t pretty confident.
Tax credit disruption or tax credit divisiveness?
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.
Will the West Wing and OMB take yes for an answer?
Reading
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:
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:
That’s right, don’t mind all of us over here with our “I love science!” lawn signs. It’s almost like this is politics rather than evidence.
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.”
OK, right. Except most school shooters signal or say what they’re going to do in advance. In advance. That’s something schools can get upstream of with good school culture. The Parkland shooter told anyone who would listen what he was up to. Other high-profile shooters did, too, in various ways. In some cases, people even gave them firearms despite the signals and warnings. Against that backdrop, “oh well, what can we do?” seems like the wrong takeaway?
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 Porn
A few weeks ago Rachel Dinkes was featured here. She then sent more pictures—and also wrote an interesting essay on education research for The 74. I recently wrote one for The 74 with some colleagues on the same topic. And that, friends, is all it takes around here to skip the line.
Below her 74 essay, you’ll find a couple of pictures of Rachel with fish off Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.
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.
Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack? Sign up for free here.
