Keira Giacometti

22 March 2025

Since the Department of Education’s inception in 1979, it has been a controversial aspect of the U.S. Government. Here, I evaluate the extent of the Department of Education’s usefulness in 2025 and argue that Common Core has led to consequences much larger than the department’s other shortcomings. Each section is separated into its own category, in which an analysis is performed on how much of a threat to education each opponent is. I find that Common Core creates a “work smarter, not harder” mentality that opens students up to using AI. Then, the shallow thinking processes of both Common Core and AI can lead to conservative ideology garnering a larger say in public schools. Finally, I discuss ways individuals can enact change in their  school districts.

Introduction

Due to systemic inequalities that inhibited children’s access to and quality of education, Jimmy Carter proposed the revised federal Department of Education in 1979, which “[established] policy for, [administered], and [coordinated] the most federal assistance to education” [1]. He explained the department’s responsibilities: “administering federal student aid, enforcing Title IX protections, and promoting educational research” [1].  Carter’s goal was equity in education. Nothing more. 

After former President Carter’s passing, President Biden’s secretary of education, Miguel Cardona, asserted, “Everything we do [here] to raise the bar for America’s students is part of Jimmy Carter’s lasting legacy” [2]. Except, if you really peel back the layers of education in America, you start to notice that nothing has really changed since the 1970s. While physical punishment has since been outlawed, other flaws in the public school system are still present, such as funding inequality, lack of access to unbiased learning, and the inconsistent quality of teaching. Standardized testing is the paradigm of elementary education [3]. AI could become a new tool, but is largely unregulated, instead posing a threat to education [4]. And human opinion is damaging the study of factual information. 

Since its inception, the Department of Education (ED) has become a scapegoat for the problems in America’s public education. Naysayers argue education should be left to the states, however, they don’t understand that the ED is part of a larger obstacle. 

Part One: No Child Left Behind so Every Student Succeeds

In 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law a bipartisan bill called “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) that significantly updated Lyndon B. Johnson’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) [5]. This was Bush’s attempt to make America’s education ‘competitive,’ meaning that it could still be among the world’s most educationally competitive countries. In order to ensure every student was receiving the same standard of education, he required that all students from grades three through eight participate in a standardized test that covered topics the student should have learned that year, putting focus particularly on math and reading. Then, the student would again be tested in high school. All of these scores would be reported back to the government, and if the students passed, the schools would get more Title I money to use [5]. If the students did not meet the government’s adequate yearly progress for all students or a subgroup (i.e. English as a second language, accommodated students, minorities, and kids under the poverty line), then repercussions would be handed out, such as not earning the money, allowing transfers to better schools in the district, state intervention, or in extreme cases, a total shutdown [5]. In addition, teachers were now required to have bachelor’s degrees and state teaching certification. 

NCLB proved futile; Congress did not update or reauthorize the law at any time between 2002 and 2015, as any reauthorization bills never gained traction in Congress, and students did not take advantage of the offers for free tutoring or transferring due to poor communication with parents about the program and concerns regarding the quality of the programs [5]. Title I was constantly underfunded and states often ignored the demands to place highly qualified teachers across all schools, not just the wealthy ones [5]. Moreover, the test scores were not returning the expected results. Allison Woods, who wrote a thesis as partial fulfillment of the Polymathic Scholars program in the College of Natural Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin,  revealed that in 2013, less than half of America’s public school students scored at or above the designated proficiency levels in both math and language arts. To add insult to injury, there was scarcely any improvement in either field between grades four and eight. There is a large gap in proficiency based on income, suggesting that high-income students were performing better in the state assessments. Mathematical proficiency was inconsistent across race as well. White students scored an average of 54% proficiency, Black students scored 18%, and Hispanic students scored 26%. By 2014—Bush’s goal year to reach 100% proficiency in math and English—no measure of progress in learning had been achieved. Students were no better at reading or math than they were before NCLB [6]. To rectify NCLB’s flaws, President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015 [7].

 While narrowing the government’s involvement in schooling, ESSA continues to uphold the protections given to the students most in need, requires a high academic standard, increases access to high-quality preschool, and reiterates there is ‘accountability’ for even the lowest-performing schools [7][8]. Standardized tests were now controlled by the state, however they still had to submit their lesson plans, standards, and goals to the ED for approval [6]. Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, ESSA waived the testing requirement, relieving some of the pressure felt by states by mitigating the educational standards. 

Conversations about ESSA’s effectiveness have come into play in the years since its imposition. Understand that the ESSA’s commitment to state flexibility clashes with the need for equity in education [8][9]. As Yiting Chu, a professor at the University of Louisiana Monroe wrote, “most of the state plans do not include a clear definition of what they mean by equity” [9], allowing for states to present education plans that are inconsistent with what the government hopes to achieve in schools. Furthermore, ESSA impedes the government’s ability to ‘punish’ a school for not meeting standards, does not increase the education fund (merely provides advice on how to spend the existing budget), and keeps a large portion of the ‘student success equates to more funding’ model of NCLB [8][9]. 

Acknowledgement of the policies put into place since the early 2000s can explain a large expanse of issues we are seeing today, from the factory-like programming of children to achieve the highest possible grades to the burnout they are experiencing before they even step foot on a college campus. The foundation has been set, and with no amendments to try to fix the problem at the federal level, different organizations have had to step in. 

Part Two: Common Core

NCLB’s failures led to an imposition of a curriculum titled “Common Core State Standards” (CCSS), an optional (but highly recommended) program developed by the National Governors Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and Achieve–a private consulting firm– that teaches the “correct” academic standards to all children in the schools that utilize it [10][11].  The material lines up with the federal education goals for the future generation of kids; by third grade, a standard of ‘college readiness’ will be impressed onto students. The program highlights collegiate potential primarily through math, language arts, critical thinking, and analysis.

In the description for Common Core Language Arts, it is written: “The standards paint a picture of what it means to be a literate person in the 21st century, fully prepared for the challenges ahead” [12]. Students should be able to read a page, take in information, and effectively form an argument. They should be able to write full sentences, know the difference between ‘good’ and ‘well’, or ‘your’ and ‘you’re’. Once they understand the basis of English, Common Core believes students should efficiently connect Language Arts to History and Science. 

Within their math curriculum, Common Core chooses to universalize math, breaking it down into building blocks [13]. There is a focus on key concepts and broad strokes. True, a tenth grader will not understand the philosophy of geometry, but according to Common Core, the baby steps they learned in middle school should help them solve the sides of a triangle all the same. 

While Common Core says they had parents and teachers involved in the making of the standards, researchers have found no parent input and only one K-12 teacher involved in the entire creation [11]. Teachers were only brought in after the standards had been designed to tweak and legitimize the curriculum [11]. Also, the expectations of Common Core’s standards are tougher than NCLB. Less students were hitting the grade requirements after Common Core was implemented [11]. However, the state testing itself is more connected to the federal policies, not to the Common Core State Standards. Nonetheless, no federal policy or Common Core Standard has a similar plan, outline, or citation to determine what 1: constitutes universal ‘college or career’ readiness and 2: the resources needed for every student to hit the proficiency line come testing season in May. 

Upon reading about Common Core, a pattern starts to become evident. The blame for the children not hitting their marks did not fall to the student, but rather the teacher. Nor did it prove the idea that generalized education may not be the best for every child.

 Standardized testing requires a new method of teaching: “teaching the test” and how to pass instead of actually letting kids learn necessary life skills. The children are taught to recognize standardized test’s patterns in hopes that they will have a better chance at hitting that proficiency line, which ensures schools are funded and children can move to the next section. There is hardly room to teach the children outside of the Common Core bubble anymore. Every child is getting shoved down this standardized pipeline and graduating with the bureaucratic expectation that no child’s education is better than the others, which we know to be false. This development is not the teacher’s fault; they are merely doing what they have been told to. “Teaching the Test” is a problem started by NCLB that has now detached and become its own money-making venture. 

Common Core’s standardized testing has been developed by Pearson–a test publishing company–for many years [14]. Their logos are slapped onto their tests, giving students something to blame when they panicked, threw up, cried over, or did not finish the tests [3][11]. The tests are excruciatingly long, hard to understand, and seemed programmed to trip a student up. The tests say it’s to “prepare for college”, yet the abstract of a 2007 article by Richard S. Brown and David T. Conley states the following:

Exams were found to be moderately aligned with a subset of the university standards, but in an uneven fashion. English exams were somewhat more aligned than math exams, but math exams had high alignment in some specific standard areas, and English exams aligned poorly or not at all in areas requiring higher order thinking [15]. 

While there is always an option to opt out of the standardized tests, some states make certain ones—such as Pennsylvania’s Keystones—mandatory, or bury the lede to opting your child out. 

A common practice in America is only allowing students to access AP or Honors courses in high school if they excel on their grades and standardized tests. If they don’t, then their education may not be up to par with the kids who did. What’s more, if you transferred into a school that utilizes Common Core from a school that didn’t, the new administration may put you in a class you don’t fit because they don’t have the statistics to prove otherwise, which is a detriment to the kid’s future. 

The top-down, teacher-excluded, privately-funded world of Common Core is hurting learning. There’s no room for excitement about education; no room to explore an interest further. Common Core’s curriculum has generated a new form of child factory labor. Come in, sit down, learn the patterns so they don’t fail, get a quick break for lunch, sit and learn some more patterns, go home. The program is churning out kids who feel college is a requirement for a successful life, even if that assumption is not true. Children have been labeled as “college-ready” or “not ready” since third grade. Questions have been asked regarding the way math is taught, types of mandated readings, and if Common Core devalues student experience and prior knowledge within reading comprehension [11]. The amount of funding their school receives is based on their test scores, not how badly the school needs it. School is not a place for bureaucracy. Should there be equalized standards so that every child in America’s public schools has the same shot in life? Absolutely. Is the culmination of NCLB, ESSA, and Common Core the way it should’ve been done? Absolutely not. We’re seeing the consequences of proliferating such a flawed system in real time. 

Part Two and a Half: A Quick Tangent on America’s Literacy Rate

In 2025, 54% of American adults cannot read above a sixth grade level [16]. That is roughly 181,382,349 people out of a total adult population of 340.1 million [17]. For one of the wealthiest countries in the world, that number is astonishing on paper. 

Below are a few researched factors to the low literacy rate [18]. 

1. Undiagnosed learning disabilities that affect the ability to read. 
2. Immigrants may have low English proficiency and/or a lack of reading/writing skills in their first language. 
3. Lack of reading intervention in schools. 
4. Poverty or a proximity to violence at a young age. 
5. Lack of parental or guardian literacy. 

Kareem Weaver, a NAACP activist based in Oakland, CA spoke on illiteracy in the documentary The Right to Read. He argues, “Illiteracy is the pipeline to prison. It’s also the pipeline to homelessness, the pipeline to unemployment, and depression” [19]. The outdated teaching methods and curricula based on testing and ‘whole language’ (an approach that allows students to choose their own books, emphasizing comprehension and recognizing words based on exposure) are damaging literacy, which in turn, is damaging our other skills [19][20]. We need to be able to decode print as well as comprehend, which students aren’t always being taught. Without reading, we can’t argue, teach, or learn harder concepts in other subjects. If we can’t read, we can’t progress [17][18][19].  

Without strong readers, our country will continue to struggle with critical thinking and media literacy. Without any push from policymakers to resolve the problem–and seemingly little concern from Common Core regarding the decline–there is no clear solution to bring up our country’s literacy. 

America’s declining literacy rate—and lack of attention from federal policymakers—is a complex topic with many facets. What’s important here is the fact that students aren’t motivated to read entire books, essays, or passages. Skimming has become the new normal. Taking advantage of this knowledge, a new tool has entered the mainstream. One that almost limits a person’s need to read anything at all. 

Part Three: AI 

Allen Morgenstern, a 1930s industrial engineer, coined the term, ‘work smarter, not harder’ [21]. Originally used to encourage workers to strategize and complete tasks more efficiently, the phrase has now been pushed onto students. Within standardized testing, they are told to use their prior knowledge to escape completing hard work because their established building blocks will help them. As technology has progressed, students have found a new way to answer questions and use the “work smarter, not harder” method testing has provided them. Now, they just have to insert a question and receive an answer. The magic tool? Generative AI. 

AI is a gray area. For one, Carnegie Learning’s State of AI in Education Report reveals 77% of educators think AI could be a useful tool [22]. It reduces time on administrative tasks, has assisted learning benefits, improved student engagement, and enhanced learning outcomes [23]. Sal Khan, the founder of Khan Academy, demonstrated the AI tutor that helped a student excellently grasp symbolism in The Great Gatsby [24]. 

On the other hand, generative AI has a tendency to provide inaccurate information. Students use ChatGPT to write essays and answer difficult math problems. AI plagiarism detectors sometimes mistake student’s work for AI [25]. If a student inserts a teacher’s intellectual property, such as their PowerPoints, into a program like ChatGPT, that IP is now used to educate the AI further.

AI is not regulated. On a syllabus, there will be an AI policy with expressed repercussions, yet that doesn’t seem to scare students away from the enticing interface. They will work smarter, not harder as long as they don’t get caught.

Common Core and standardized tests initiated the idea of working smarter, not harder within education. However, it has also opened them up to using AI. The learned need to be correct–remember, funding is determined by test scores–combined with using the smartest method to find an answer seems to open them up to using AI. They presume their answers will be accurate and most of the work will have been done for them. This method of ‘learning’ is ruining education. 

The use of AI walks a thin line between advancing independent thought and spitting out Google results [25]. In fact, a team of Microsoft researchers and Hao-Ping Lee from Carnegie Mellon University conducted a study on the impact of Generative AI on critical thinking. After surveying 319 people who use GenAI at least once a week, they found that the tools “inhibited critical engagement with work and can potentially lead to long-term overreliance on the tool and diminished skill for independent problem-solving” [4]. 

There needs to be a framework on how to use AI in education. This framework should include policies that teach administrators and students how to efficiently use AI without the consequence of inhibiting independent learning [25]. A lack of comprehensive policy increases the risk of a student being punished for using AI, regardless of how or why they used it. Asking AI to simplify a complicated subject should not hold the same weight as using AI for plagiarism.

A great baseline for AI policy is Temple University. They have specific policies dedicated to each tier of AI usage, from no AI to encouraged AI, as well as acceptable and unacceptable uses. Professors can tweak the outlines to fit their needs [27]. These guidelines are wonderful and provide plenty of space for professors and students to engage in discourse on what constitutes correct AI usage in education. Public elementary and high school administrators can look at policies like Temple’s and create their own, working with their employed teachers to mold the policies to the needs of the district. 

If generative AI had clear ethical guidelines, clear expectations on what is plagiarism and is not, citations, and a student’s requirement for full transparency when using AI, then it truly could be a remarkable tool for learning [26]. Without those requirements and no clear direction on how AI should be used in the classroom, generative AI is nothing more than an opponent of efficient education. 

Part Four: Conservative Ideology

There’s always a discussion about how much involvement a parent or outside group should have in a public education. In 2022, 17 states restricted the way teachers can teach current events and past history [28].  A Louisiana law tried to mandate that all classrooms list the Bible’s Ten Commandments, but in November 2024 was ruled as unconstitutional by a federal district court judge [29]. Acts like the Stop WOKE Act and Parental Rights in Education Act—both signed into law by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in 2022—effectively prohibits teaching subjects that make students feel anguish, vaguely restricts discussions regarding race and injustice, and restrains gender and sex education [30]. Additional laws at the state level have required book screenings before landing on classroom shelves and bans [29]. Groups such as Moms for Liberty are increasingly earning a say in how school districts function [30]. On January 14, 2025, A bill in the House of Representatives passed with bipartisan support that would ban transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports at federally funded schools [31]. 

These new rules have nothing to do with NCLB, Common Core, or AI. They come from a group of people who believe the education their child is working for is not up to par with the standards the parents want for them. Yet, they are refusing to see this from a child’s perspective. If learning is already not fun due to the stress of standardized testing, and groups are actively working to take away, whitewash, or censor parts of history, science, and culture that are vital to a child’s understanding of the world, they’re going to lose any interest in learning they have. We will not progress as a society if we don’t learn what we’re supposed to learn. 

Moms for Liberty and Chaya Raichik, known for her social media account @LibsofTiktok are two conservative players in the education field who have limited or no educational background. LibsofTiktok is a realtor from New York; in 2024, she was selected to serve on Oklahoma’s state library advisory committee [32]. Moms for Liberty started as a Floridan group that argued against COVID-19 protocols, but in September before the election, co-founder Tiffany Justice was rumored to be one of Trump’s serious considerations for Secretary of Education should he win [33]. As of January 2025, Trump’s secretary of education pick is former WWE chief executive Linda McMahon. While she does have a small background in education—she served on Connecticut’s Board of Education in 2009—many wonder about her fit in this particular field [34]. 

That’s not to say a conservative education has no positive factors. Their methods strive for traditional teaching methods, such as textbooks, and encourage self-reliance as well as civic participation [35]. These methods, if used correctly, could give a student more of an identity to latch onto, or another form of education that benefits them. The teaching methods encouraged by conservatives are not inherently bad alone. However, the way the tools are being used will harm the students in the long run. 

It is understandable that a parent would want what is best for their child. However, steps need to be taken back and these people’s wishes need to be evaluated. Will it really do your child good to have restricted learning? Will they benefit from the book bans and lack of gender education? Will the erasure of certain topics ensure that minorities are protected and students learn from history so that they don’t repeat it in the future? Will banning transgender athletes make their experience in public schools better? 

Keeping education unbiased is imperative to developing critical thinking skills, understanding history, acknowledging how humans act, and growing as a community [36]. An education such as this keeps people from believing conspiracies and allows them to contribute more to society.  The subjects in consideration by conservatives as woke or inappropriate are some that are most eye-opening and interesting for children. These subjects help them learn about their identity, their past, and possibly help them understand what their future could look like. It allows them to progress themselves and others, should they choose to take the lessons to heart. There is nothing woke about a well-rounded, impactful education. There is nothing inappropriate about learning that it is okay that people are different from you. It should be distressing that Americans in the past have treated minorities with hate in their hearts. Learning from that is the epitome of education. If that is erased and students learn an evangelical, alt-right, censored depiction of English, History, Sex Education, Art, Music, and many more, our love for learning and our desire for improvement may disappear. 

Part Five: What Do We Do Now? 

Keeping Jimmy Carter’s goals for education in mind—wanting to provide federal assistance so that every student is well-rounded and receiving an equal education—it is clear that the ED and its subsequent consequences have not met those goals. We have seen through Common Core, No Child Left Behind, and certain state policies, that equal education is not possible. As long as ideologies carry education, education cannot be the same for every child. That is extremely unfortunate.  

There are a lot of things that need to change if the Department of Education wants to have a say in public schools. For one, a standardized curriculum could be implemented, but standardized testing should not be the end all, be all of that curriculum. It should not determine how much funding a school gets, and it should not be the reason kids are miserable. In addition, it cannot erase or ban aspects of learning they don’t like. Can there be age restrictions on how in-depth a topic is explained? Absolutely! In fact, there should be. A fourth grader doesn’t need to know the explicit details of events like Pearl Harbor or the Tulsa Massacre. They can learn that it happened and then explore the events more in detail as they get older. 

If the ED cannot guarantee equal access to education without standardized testing, then maybe we have to reevaluate how it functions. If the department was removed, the socio-political problems in education would stay. Common Core is too integrated into how schools teach, AI is still unregulated, and the policymakers at the state level could continue implementing their ‘anti-woke’ rules into schools. Education across all 50 states would be unequal. But isn’t it unequal already?  

The ED is most likely going to be obsolete–or at least severely scaled back–by 2028. Yet, removing the ED is not going to resolve any of America’s educational problems. Our instructional backbone is built on a myriad of issues that come together to form a living organism. Removing an organ does not necessarily kill the creature. The body will only stop if the organ is vital. The ED is no longer a vital organ, but rather the appendix of American learning. There are too many other factors that contribute to the decline in our country’s quality of education; ones that have been built up and revised over the years. 

Reforming education is not a task that has to come from the top. It can begin at the bottom. Joining your local school board—whether from running for a spot or listening in on meetings—is a great way to get involved locally. Your ideals can be brought to a discussion and you can work with like-minded people to implement change. Plenty of conservative groups (such as the aforementioned Moms for Liberty) are already taking advantage of the school board’s function. They go to meetings and they express their desires through the public opinion panel. There’s nothing stopping anyone from doing the same. In fact, it’s much better to at least share your ideas in a setting akin to a school board than it is to keep them to yourself. 

If a school board is not for you, there are also educational reform groups that you can volunteer for or support. In the Pittsburgh area, there are groups like the Homeless Children’s Education Fund, Reading Ready Pittsburgh, and SLB Radio Productions Inc [37]. There are also national groups such as Alliance for Excellent Education, PIE Network, YouthBuild, and the Network for Public Education [38]. 

There are attainable ways to make a difference in the public education system. You don’t have to sit back in fear and wonder about what the quality of your child’s education is going to look like if the ED goes away (or if you’re of a contrarian opinion, what would happen if it stays). The great thing about local governments, the internet, and nonprofits is that they allow you to learn and create your own opinions. Volunteering could give you hands-on experience with the children that will be most affected by the policy changes. School board meetings give you access to your community and give you a say in what goes on inside your schools. If you want better for the upcoming generations of America, nothing is going to help them more than collective action. 

Achieving equitable education for all students is terribly important to the future of this country. Education, as we have seen, is such a large factor in how we progress as a society. Keeping it unbalanced, unfair, and regulated through tests that teach children to work smarter and not harder is a detriment to everyone and everything. Our country deserves an intelligent population. Our children deserve to be bright. If we don’t provide them the chance to be brilliant, then our future looks bleak. 

---

Special thanks to Dr. Katrina Bartow Jacobs from the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Education for reviewing this piece.

Image via Pexels Free Photos

Works Cited

[1] “Carter Establishes Department of Education | Mystic Stamp Discovery Center.” Info.mysticstamp.com, Mystic Stamp Company, 17 Oct. 2023, info.mysticstamp.com/carter-establishes-department-of-education_tdih/.

[2] AFSA Web Administration. “President Jimmy Carter’s Legacy in Education.” Theschoolleader.org, American Federation of School Administrators, 7 Jan. 2025, www.theschoolleader.org/news/president-jimmy-carter-s-legacy-education.

[3] Long, Cindy. 2023. “Standardized Testing Is Still Failing Students.” Www.nea.org. NEAToday. March 30, 2023. https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/standardized-testing-still-failing-students.

[4] Lee, Hao Ping (Hank), et al. “The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects from a Survey of Knowledge Workers.” CHI 2025, 2025, pp. 15–17, https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713778.

[5] Klein, Alyson. “No Child Left Behind: An Overview.” Education Week, 10 Apr. 2015, http://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/no-child-left-behind-an-overview/2015/04.

[6] Woods, Allison. The No Child Left behind Act: Negative Implications for Low Socioeconomic Schools. 2015, pp. 2–4, honors.cns.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/documents/allison_woods-nochildleftbehind.pdf.

[7] U.S. Department of Education. “Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).” U.S. Department of Education, 2024, www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/laws-preschool-grade-12-education/every-student-succeeds-act-essa.

[8] Walsh, Alexandra, et al. “Has the ‘Every Student Succeeds Act’ Left Children Behind? | the Regulatory Review.” Www.theregreview.org, The Regulatory Review, 6 Aug. 2022, http://www.theregreview.org/2022/08/06/saturday-seminar-has-the-every-student-succeeds-act-left-children-behind/.

[9] Chu, Y. (2019). “What are they talking about when they talk about equity? A content analysis of equity principles and provisions in state Every Student Succeeds Act plans.” Education Policy Analysis Archives 27(158). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4558 

[10] National Education Association. “Common Core 101 | NEA.” Www.nea.org, 14 July 2020, http://www.nea.org/professional-excellence/student-engagement/tools-tips/common-core-101.

[11] Karp, Stan. “The Problems with the Common Core.” Rethinking Schools, 2013, rethinkingschools.org/articles/the-problems-with-the-common-core/.

[12] Common Core State Standards Initiative. “English Language Arts Standards.” Www.thecorestandards.org, The Core Standards, 2021, http://www.thecorestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/.

[13] Common Core State Standards. “Mathematics Standards | Common Core State Standards Initiative.” Www.thecorestandards.org, 2021, www.thecorestandards.org/Math/.

[14] “Developing Assessments | Pearson Assessments US.” Pearsonassessments.com, Pearson, 2023, http://www.pearsonassessments.com/large-scale-assessments/k-12-large-scale-assessments/developing-assessments.html. Accessed 11 Feb. 2025.

[15] Brown, Richard S., and David T. Conley. “Comparing State High School Assessments to Standards for Success in Entry-Level University Courses.” Educational Assessment, vol. 12, no. 2, Apr. 2007, pp. 137–60, https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190701232811. 

[16] Parker, Alvin. “Literacy Statistics in the US for 2022 (Data & Facts).” Prosperity for All, 3 Nov. 2022, http://www.prosperityforamerica.org/literacy-statistics/.

[17] U.S. Census Bureau. “U.S. Population Estimated at 335,893,238 on Jan. 1, 2024.” Census.gov, 28 Dec. 2023, http://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/12/happy-new-year-2024.html.

[18] Rosen, David. “Causes of Low Adult Literacy in the US.” ProLiteracy, 21 Aug. 2023, http://www.proliteracy.org/news/causes-of-low-adult-literacy-in-the-us/.

[19] The Right to Read. Directed by Jenny Mackenzie, Film, Giant Pictures LLC, 2023.

[20] Caminiti, Julia. “Whole Language vs Structured Language Approach to Teaching Reading.” Stern Center for Language and Learning, 6 Apr. 2023, sterncenter.org/whole-language-vs-structured-language-approach-to-teaching-reading/.

[21] “The Problem with ‘Working Smarter, Not Harder.’” Liberty Wingspan, Liberty High School, 24 Mar. 2023, libertywingspan.com/70457/opinion/the-problem-with-working-smarter-not-harder/.

[22] “The State of AI in Education Artificial Intelligence in Education 2024 Report.” Carnegie Learning, 2024, discover.carnegielearning.com/hubfs/PDFs/2024-AI-in-Ed-Report.pdf.

[23] Slagg, Alexander. “AI in Education in 2024: Educators Express Mixed Feelings on the Technology’s Future.” EdTech, Corporate Data Warehouse, 30 Sept. 2024, edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2024/09/ai-education-2024-educators-express-mixed-feelings-technologys-future-perfcon.

[24] Khan, Sal. “Sal Khan: How AI Could Save (Not Destroy) Education.” Www.ted.com, TED, 1 May 2023, http://www.ted.com/talks/sal_khan_how_ai_could_save_not_destroy_education.

[25] Walden University. “5 Pros and Cons of AI in the Education Sector.” Www.waldenu.edu, Walden University, 2024, http://www.waldenu.edu/programs/education/resource/five-pros-and-cons-of-ai-in-the-education-sector.

[26] Aniston, Amber. “Why Schools Must Act Now: The Urgent Need for AI Policies in Education.” Masterlylegal.com, 17 Oct. 2024, www.masterlylegal.com/why-schools-must-act-now-the-urgent-need-for-ai-policies-in-education.

[27] Eaton, Lance. “Class Policies for AI Tools | Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning.” Northern Illinois University, www.niu.edu/citl/resources/guides/class-policies-for-ai-tools.shtml.

[28] Alleyne, Akilah. “Book Banning, Curriculum Restrictions, and the Politicization of U.S. Schools.” Center for American Progress, 19 Sept. 2022, http://www.americanprogress.org/article/book-banning-curriculum-restrictions-and-the-politicization-of-u-s-schools/.

[29] ACLU. “Court Blocks Louisiana Law Requiring Public Schools to Display Ten Commandments in Every Classroom | American Civil Liberties Union.” American Civil Liberties Union, 12 Nov. 2024, http://www.aclu.org/press-releases/court-blocks-louisiana-law-requiring-public-schools-to-display-ten-commandments-in-every-classroom.

[30] American Oversight. “Right-Wing Attacks on Education and Student Expression – American Oversight.” American Oversight, 29 Sept. 2023, americanoversight.org/investigation/right-wing-attacks-on-education-and-student-expression/.

[31] KHOU 11. “U.S. House Passes Bill to Ban Transgender Athletes in Women’s Sports with Bipartisan Support.” YouTube, 15 Jan. 2025, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p-Z83mYwQE.

[32] Murphy, Sean. “Oklahoma Superintendent Faces Blowback for Putting Libs of TikTok Creator on Library Panel.” AP News, 24 Jan. 2024, apnews.com/article/oklahoma-education-superintendent-walters-libs-tiktok-raichik-4db2bcb9d8e0582f67329f6879bdf6ba.

[33] Klein, Alyson. “Moms for Liberty Co-Founder Would Be ‘Honored’ to Be Trump’s Education Secretary.” Education Week, 25 Sept. 2024, http://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/moms-for-liberty-co-founder-would-be-honored-to-be-trumps-education-secretary/2024/09.

[34] Megerin, Chris. “Linda McMahon: What to Know about the Ex-WWE Mogul and Trump’s Pick for Education.” AP News, 20 Nov. 2024, apnews.com/article/linda-mcmahon-trump-education-secretary-wwe-613016d0c164b89765af761404cbb123.

[35]: Administrator, Web. 2022. “What Is the Importance of Conservative Values in Education | HSOA.” High School of America. November 15, 2022. https://www.highschoolofamerica.com/the-importance-of-conservative-values-in-education/.

[36} University of the People. 2020. “Why Is History Important and How Can It Benefit Your Future?” University of the People. University of the People. July 1, 2020. https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/why-is-history-important/.

[37] “GreatNonProfits City.” Greatnonprofits.org, 2024, greatnonprofits.org/city/pittsburgh/PA/category:education/sort:review_count/direction:desc. Accessed 10 Feb. 2025.

[38] Team, Planbook. “15 Advocacy Groups Championing Teachers and Learning across the U.S.” Planbook Blog, 9 Oct. 2017, blog.planbook.com/championing-teachers/. Accessed 10 Feb. 2025.