Shanker Blog

Fighting Back Against Musk’s War on Workers: The Department of People who Work for a Living will Hold DOGE Accountable

Our guest author is Elizabeth "Liz" Shuler, President of the AFL-CIO, the democratic federation of 63 national and international unions that represent more than 15 million working people. She is also a Shanker Institute board member.

A government that works for billionaires will never work for the people. Yet, under the guise of “efficiency,” that’s exactly what’s happening. Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is gutting Essential public services slashing jobs, undermining the livelihoods of hard working Americans, all while consolidating power in the hands of the ultra-wealthy. This isn’t about making government work better; it’s about making it work for the elite. 

That’s why the AFL-CIO is fighting back with the Department of People Who Work for a Living (DPWL), a campaign dedicated to exposing these destructive policies and ensuring that the government serves the many, not the few.

DOGE acts with the precision of a wrecking ball.  Thousands of federal workers have been fired with no warning, their careers, the work they do for the American people, and their financial stability thrown into chaos. Dozens of Education Department employees were put on leave simply for their connection to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Programs that work to improve student outcomes have been eliminated. Cuts to Social Security and Medicare are putting the health and security of seniors at risk. Veterans’ benefits are being stripped away, leaving those who served our country with fewer resources. Rural hospitals and clinics, already struggling, are now facing closure due to slashed federal funding. 

Stand Up for Reading Research

Guest authors Kata Solow and Callie Lowenstein are two of the leading voices of the stand up for reading research movement. Kata and Callie are former classroom teachers who believe meaningful change in education must be collaborative and teacher-led.

Step back and think about it: the Science of Reading Movement is extraordinary, and very unusual. 

Since 2019 -- and in spite of huge political differences -- teachers, parents, journalists, and researchers have worked together and driven the passage of over 430 bills aimed at aligning literacy instruction with research, in all states and the District of Columbia. 

This is a remarkable outcome for any movement, let alone one that lacks formal structure, organization, and leadership. We are a powerful movement. Our strength derives from our drive and passion to learn, drawing insights from our students, our peers, and the rich, expansive research that we refer to as the Science of Reading. 

But where does this research come from? Much of it comes out of a small division of the US Department of Education called the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), which, among other things, funds high-quality research into what works in education. 

Our movement owes so much of our success to the IES. But now this progress is being threatened, as funding and personnel cuts have ground essential research to a halt and upended the IES, as we know it.  

Do you use UFLI, Think SRSD, or Reading Simplified, to name three incredible literacy programs? These programs–that teachers across the country are using to help countless students–were developed as a direct result of funding from the IES. 

Today’s cuts means that the next effective reading program will never get into the classroom. We can’t let that happen.  

How Would Cutting Federal Aid to Schools Affect Student Achievement?

There is indication that the current administration may dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (USED). It is still unclear what any such plan, if implemented, would entail. Although K-12 education policy is largely controlled by states, USED performs numerous very important roles in the education sphere. Arguably, the most important of these is the administration of federal funding for public schools, which constitutes roughly 10 percent of all K-12 revenue. 

In this post, we simulate, for each school district, what could happen to student achievement if this federal aid were removed entirely. We also simulate the impact of a second, “block grant” scenario, described below. 

Our results, in short, indicate that eliminating federal funding would cause irreparable harm to the overwhelming majority of students, regardless of poverty, race, or urbanicity. 

Literacy Policy and NAEP

Over the past few years, the Shanker Institute has been tracking and analyzing reading legislation. After NAEP results were made public, colleagues and friends began asking for my take on the link between literacy policy and NAEP reading outcomes. While many experts in student assessment have written extensively about NAEP's dos and don'ts —here’s a recent example — I wanted to offer my perspective because, as Morgan Polikoff wisely cautioned in 'Friends Don’t Let Friends Misuse NAEP Data,' we must use the data responsibly. I understand the eagerness to see policy efforts make a difference for students; however, expecting too much too soon can be misguided and may even sabotage good policy efforts.

First and foremost, NAEP scores provide extremely valuable information about how U.S. students perform in various subjects in any given year. Using NAEP to advocate for improving academic outcomes makes a lot of sense. However, NAEP cannot specifically tell us why students are where they are or what can be done to improve their performance. And yet, raw NAEP scores are routinely misused—even at the highest levels — in this manner. 

Reflections on Belonging While in Pursuit of Accomplished Teaching

Our guest author, Yewande Lewis-Fokum, is a lecturer at The West Indies University in Jamaica and is also involved in teacher training and professional development at both the elementary and high school levels

As a visiting scholar at the Center for Research on Expanding Educational Opportunity (CREEO) at UC Berkeley for the month of May 2024, I was privileged to engage in rich conversations about teacher development with Drs. Travis Bristol and Jacquelyn Ollison, leading advocates for equity and justice in classroom practice. I also had the time, space, and library resources to write, research, and offer insight on the National Board Certification support CREEO offers.

National Board Certification, is "the most respected professional certification available in education designed to develop, retain, and recognize accomplished teachers and to generate ongoing improvement in schools nationwide.” It is a voluntary system, managed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, where teachers document attainment of “high and rigorous standards for what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do.”

Diversity Makes America Great

Our guest author is Stanley Litow, a professor at Columbia University; author of Breaking Barriers: How P-TECH Schools Create a Pathway From High School to College to Career and The Challenge for Business and Society: From Risk to Reward; a columnist at Barron's; a Trustee at the State University of New York (SUNY); and a member of the Shanker Institute Board of Directors.

As someone who spent my career in government, business and education, I have become increasingly alarmed at the constant attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion work.

Diversity finally became a U.S. priority over half a century ago, thanks to Martin Luther King, Jr. and other leaders in the Civil Rights movement when ending race discrimination was made a high U.S. priority. But interest and concern peaked again, after George Floyd's murder, when every sector of the economy pledged to address the critical disadvantages faced by people of color. Floyd's death was at the hands of the police, but his death exposed a problem that was much larger. While some improvements had been made, people of color were clearly under steep structural challenges, far beyond policing. The problem was apparent, in schools, colleges, and all sectors of the economy. In many high schools, data showed screened admission criteria to college prep classes were widespread, depriving many students of color fair access to school programs, like Advanced Placement courses. Data also showed colleges and universities used admissions screening to access their most competitive programs. Data made clear that faculty at all levels were under-represented so far too frequently students of color could not experience teachers or faculty of color, let alone in educational leadership. 

What Will 2025 Mean for Labor?

Our guest author is  Joseph A. McCartin, a professor of history and executive director of the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University in Washington, DC. He is also a member of the Albert Shanker Institute’s board of directors.   

Only weeks into 2025 it appears as though this year will be one like no other in recent memory.  Not only has power changed hands in Washington, bringing to office an administration that seems more determined than any in U.S. history to upend the status quo, this transition is taking place in a world in which democratic governments in many countries are struggling to deal with powerful ethno-nationalist populist challenges, AI is emerging as a potentially disruptive force in many workplaces, and our post-pandemic economic recovery seems to be slowing.

To predict how this year will unfold, though, seems impossible at this point – especially for a historian, for we are far better at explaining how we’ve reached this point than what is likely to come next. Nonetheless, there is one thing that anyone who has studied labor history can already say with confidence: 2025 is shaping to be one of the most consequential years that U.S. workers and their movement have ever faced.

What Makes High-Quality Afterschool Programming

When I was in undergrad, I worked at an afterschool program (ASP) for elementary school students that was one blacktop playground away from another. Every year, we would have one or two parents switch their child from our program to theirs. While the switch almost always revolved around programming costs, it was hard to see students leave. As I am sure many educators and those close to them know, you become invested in your students’ lives. You hear about their families, support them through personal struggles, and help them develop new skills. 

As if saying farewell to students was not hard enough, almost every time we saw our old students, they would talk about needing snacks, not having the support they needed, or other students being mean. Most of the time, our students would end up coming back due to parents being shocked by the difference in quality between the two programs when we advertised the same services. 

Due to the plethora of academic, social, and behavioral benefits associated with ASPs (Beal, 2024), there is a false assumption that the quality of programs is uniform and sufficient (Hirsch et al., 2010). 

It is important that we challenge the assumption that all ASPs are created and implemented equally, as the benefits of ASPs are only present when program quality is high (Durlak et al., 2019; Yohalem & Wilson-Ahlstrom, 2010).

But what makes high-quality afterschool programming? That is the million-dollar question that researchers have yet to agree upon. 

From my experiences working in and researching ASP, I believe that having a whole child-based design, prioritizing student engagement, having quality staff members, and strong administration are overarching tenets that make high-quality ASPs. 

Happy Holidays from the Albert Shanker Institute!

Dear Shanker Institute community:

Thank you for your participation and solidarity this year. In 2024 we hosted conversations ranging from ambitious conferences like, Passion Meets Purpose featuring AFT President Randi Weingarten, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, and ASI board member Stan Litow and more; to meaningful civic engagement like Defending Our Democracy: The Crucial Role of the Latino Vote in the 2024 Election. 

We also deepened our partnership with ShareMyLesson, through professional development offerings like Teaching the Power of Local Democracy: Why voting matters in every election and, of course, our yearlong partnership together with the AFT Book Club. From the January book club kicking off with Amanda Gorman to a meaningful conversation with Jason Reynolds, the book club became a popular event attracting audiences each month. Watch for our 2025 AFT Book Club series coming soon!

Invest in Democracy: Promote Civic Education

Our guest author is Stan Litow, a professor at Columbia University; author of Breaking Barriers: How P-TECH Schools Create a Pathway From High School to College to Career and The Challenge for Business and Society: From Risk to Reward; a columnist at Barron's; a Trustee at the State University of New York (SUNY); and a member of the the Shanker Institute Board.

The 2024 Election results are behind us. The implications of the vote and its ability to cloud the future are looming larger and larger, and the results and impact on Americans are increasingly looking grim or uncertain. While a majority of Americans support women's rights and access to health care both policies are increasingly at risk. While most Americans believe Climate Change is a real threat, there is a strong likelihood that environmental policy and programs are  also at risk. Most Americans also trust scientists and doctors. As a result of their trust, Americans favor vaccination which are essential to deal with health care crises like measles,  mumps, or Covid, but that too is now at risk, along with the Affordable Care Act, Medicare and Medicaid. And the same is true for gun violence. Most Americans believe that background checks are critically important but that, too, seems unlikely. 

 For those of us who care deeply about our nation’s schools, the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education’s support for students and schools, such as Title I funding and support for private school vouchers, could devastate our entire public education system and disadvantage millions of students, teachers and parents.

 While a majority of Americans voted for a presidential candidate who does not hold the same views as a majority of Americans on these issues, locally, where they had the opportunity on their ballots, Americans largely did vote to support abortion rights, to require paid sick leave, mitigating climate change, and to support our public schools.