Not that anyone asked me but: on state education priorities

In their past two meetings, the Board of Ed has established priorities; in November, for the FY27 budget request, and in December, for the Commissioner, which he proposed as being the foundation of a strategic plan. 

I'd first note--and I do realize that the Board here is constrained by state deadlines on budget--that the above is really backwards; you always want to establish your priorities before you do your budgeting. You set your values before you spend your money. 

With that in mind, then, let's consider first the priorities, with a connection to what one would then need for budgetary priorities. 

Let's first note that he started with this slide: 

...which I just find super disheartening as framing. Someday, someone is going to note? remember? that public education is guaranteed by the state "for the preservation of their rights and liberties" and that it is for the good not only of individual children, but for all of us. THAT is what we should be leading with, anytime we are asking how we are doing.

To do over your break: public comment now open on proposed federal prohibition on gender affirming care for young people.

PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOW OPEN on prohibiting gender affirming care for young people. Comments are open until February 17, 2026.

The grossly expressed summary: 

This proposed rule would require that a State Medicaid plan must provide that the Medicaid agency will not make payment under the plan for sex-rejecting procedures for children under 18 and prohibit the use of Federal Medicaid dollars to fund sex-rejecting procedures for individuals under the age of 18. In addition, it would require that a separate State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) plan must provide that the CHIP agency will not make payment under the plan for sex-rejecting procedures for children under 19 and prohibit the use of Federal CHIP dollars to fund sex-rejecting procedures for individuals under the age of 19.

("sex-rejecting" is what they've come up with? Really?)

Flood 'em with comments!

Does your district have a policy for this?

Earlier this week, the AP reported on a case of a middle school girl in Thibodaux, Louisiana, who was ongoingly bullied by boys at her school with AI-generated nudes. When the school ongoingly did not deal with it, she and others fought one of the boys on a school bus. She was kicked out of school; the boys did not face consequences from the district, 'though it appears that they are facing legal consequences now.

Two things: 

1. The responses of administrators in this story are maddening:
   "At the disciplinary hearing, the girl’s attorney asked why the sheriff’s deputy didn’t check the phone of the boy the girls were accusing and why he was allowed on the same bus as the girl. “Kids lie a lot,” responded Coriell, the principal. “They lie about all kinds of things. They blow lots of things out of proportion on a daily basis. In 17 years, they do it all the time. So to my knowledge, at 2 o’clock when I checked again, there were no pictures.”
   
   The superintendent commented that "a “one-sided story” had been presented of the case that fails to illustrate its “totality and complex nature.”
   
   After an appeal to the school board to get her back into her school:
   “She’s already been out of school enough,” one of the girl’s attorneys, Matt Ory, told the board on Nov. 5. “She is a victim.
    “She,” he repeated, “is a victim.”
    Martin, the superintendent, countered: “Sometimes in life we can be both victims and perpetrators.”
   
   
   
2. I continue to see headlines of districts passing what they appear to be calling "an AI policy."
   One policy? Really?
   Because unless you've gone through your policies and found all of the places where AI could impact district operations, this isn't covered in policy. Did you consider the above in your bullying policy? 

As I am typing this, I am seeing AFT President Randi Weingarten attempt to defend her position on AI on Bluesky: 

We know students, like the rest of the world, are using AI. Teachers need to be equipped to deal w/all the issues AI creates. Our approach starts with maximizing safety & privacy and empowering educators to make educational decisions, so AI tools can benefit not harm www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-ne...

[image or embed]

— Randi Weingarten 🖇️📚✊🇺🇸 (@rweingarten.bsky.social) December 23, 2025 at 5:04 PM

They can't.  

Wait, what? moments from last week's Board of Ed

Due to the Consensus Revenue hearing starting at noon, I did not liveblog the last section of the Board of Ed meeting last Tuesday, which was on the interim graduation report. I did watch it later in the day--you can read my MASC coverage here--but much like the Commissioner's goals, feedback was not so much focused on the report as it was talking around associated items. 

Please enjoy this waving snowman from Palmer.
The snowman has nothing to do with the post,
but we need to take our happy things where we can.

There were five eyebrow raising moments during the meeting--two from the Commissioner's priorities, and three from the graduation discussion--that I want to be sure we don't miss, as much as everyone's attention right now may be elsewhere. 

This week's AI doesn't work at all story

Headline in the Washington Post: 

A school locked down after AI flagged a gun. It was a clarinet.

From the article: 

Some school safety and privacy experts said the recent incident at the Florida middle school is part of a trend in which threat detection systems used by schools misfire, putting students under undue suspicion and stress.

“These are unproven technologies that are marketed as providing a lot of certainty and security,” said David Riedman, founder of the K-12 School Shooting Database. 

Even more remarkable is the response of the company: 

 “We don’t think we made an error, nor does the school,” Alaimo said. “That was better to dispatch [police] than not dispatch.”

To leave out what sending schools unnecessarily into lockdown does for student and staff mental health, actual student safety, not to mention their education, demonstrates how little this industry actually cares for the well-being of students.

And never forget: this is indeed an industry. Fear sells. 

What we're losing in the Office of Civil Rights

 Good read from The Hechinger Report: 

Now, however, the Trump administration is wielding the power of the Justice Department in new and, some say, extreme ways. Hundreds of career staffers, including most of those who worked on education cases, have resigned. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights also has been decimated, largely through layoffs. The two offices traditionally have worked closely together to enforce civil rights protections for students. The result is a potentially lasting shift in how the nation’s top law enforcement agency handles issues that affect public school students, including millions who have disabilities...

The Justice Department’s lawyers historically have worked on a few dozen education cases at once, concentrating on combating sexual harassment, racial discrimination against Black and Latino students, restraint and seclusion, and failure to provide adequate services to English learners. 

In the last 11 months, however, the agency has sued over and opened investigations into concerns about antisemitism, transgender policies and bias against white people at schools. It sued at least six states for offering discounted tuition to undocumented immigrants and pressured the president of the University of Virginia to resign as part of an investigation into the school’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies. And it joined other federal departments to form a special Title IX investigations team to protect students from what the administration called the “pernicious effects of gender ideology in school programs and activities.”  

FY27 Consensus revenue hearing

 ...which you can find here

Remember, the idea here is that they're hearing testimony which will inform the Executive branch, House Ways and Means, Senate Ways and Means in agreeing on a revenue projection.

The major players here are Senate Ways and Means Chair Michael J. Rodrigues, House Ways and Means Chair Aaron Michlewitz and Secretary of Administration and Finance Matthew J. Gorzkowicz.

Rodrigues opens by introducing his colleagues...and my video went down
posting as we go