Featured Stories
Southeastern Legal Foundation Releases Statement on Department of Ed's Call to Action for American Universities
ROSWELL, Georgia, Aug. 7 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following statement:
* * *
Southeastern Legal Foundation releases statement on Department of Ed's call to action for American universities
SLF released the following statement after the Department of Education called on university presidents to reaffirm colleges as places of excellence:
"Now is the time for America's universities to finally pull away from woke indoctrination and focus on education. SLF has taken on multiple cases involving universities imposing political views and/or restricting views of students. These
... Show Full Article
ROSWELL, Georgia, Aug. 7 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following statement:
* * *
Southeastern Legal Foundation releases statement on Department of Ed's call to action for American universities
SLF released the following statement after the Department of Education called on university presidents to reaffirm colleges as places of excellence:
"Now is the time for America's universities to finally pull away from woke indoctrination and focus on education. SLF has taken on multiple cases involving universities imposing political views and/or restricting views of students. Thesecases are just some examples indicating the trust that our schools have lost with the public.
The American people deserve universities that they can trust where students are allowed to participate in a free marketplace of ideas.
The Department of Education is calling on Universities to work to restore that public trust. While there is a lot of work to do, SLF agrees that now is the time for our Universities to reaffirm their status and work to educate, not indoctrinate."
* * *
Original text here: https://slfliberty.org/southeastern-legal-foundation-releases-statement-on-department-of-eds-call-to-action-for-american-universities/
Researchers at the Royal Marsden Receive Academic Promotion
LONDON, England, Aug. 7 -- The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust issued the following news:
* * *
Researchers at The Royal Marsden receive academic promotion
A quartet of consultants at The Royal Marsden have received academic promotions from The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR)
-
Dr Kate Newbold, Consultant Clinical Oncologist, Dr Alison Tree, Consultant Clinical Oncologist and Dr Julia Chisholm, Consultant Paediatric Oncologist have been awarded the title of Professor.
Dr Anna Minchom, Consultant Medical Oncologist, has been awarded the title of Reader.
The new
... Show Full Article
LONDON, England, Aug. 7 -- The Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust issued the following news:
* * *
Researchers at The Royal Marsden receive academic promotion
A quartet of consultants at The Royal Marsden have received academic promotions from The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR)
-
Dr Kate Newbold, Consultant Clinical Oncologist, Dr Alison Tree, Consultant Clinical Oncologist and Dr Julia Chisholm, Consultant Paediatric Oncologist have been awarded the title of Professor.
Dr Anna Minchom, Consultant Medical Oncologist, has been awarded the title of Reader.
The newtitles became effective from 1 August 2026.
Professor Kate Newbold
Professor Newbold is a Consultant Clinical Oncologist specialising in the treatment of head and neck cancers and thyroid cancer.
Her research focuses on improving outcomes and quality of life for patients through treatment deescalation in early-stage thyroid cancer, optimising the delivery of radioisotopes, developing novel systemic therapies for advanced thyroid cancer, and applying functional imaging to the management of head and neck cancer.
She has served as UK Principal Investigator for multiple phase II and III clinical trials that have helped shape the treatment of both early and advanced thyroid cancer.
Professor Newbold said: ""It is a tremendous honour to receive a professorship from the ICR. This recognition reflects the dedication and achievements of the many researchers and clinicians across the ICR and The Royal Marsden who work in head and neck and thyroid cancer. I am incredibly proud of what we have achieved together and look forward to continuing to drive exciting and innovative developments that will benefit patients in the years ahead.
Professor Alison Tree
Professor Tree was appointed Consultant Clinical Oncologist at The Royal Marsden in 2014, specialising in urological malignancies. Her role is part-funded by The Royal Marsden Cancer Charity and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Cancer.
Professor Tree's current research interests focus on technical radiotherapy developments in prostate cancer, aiming to make radiotherapy more effective and reduce side effects.
She has led trials in MR-guided prostate radiotherapy, in boosting treatment of dominant intraprostatic lesions (a tumour nodule in prostate cancer) and in ablating oligoprogressing metastases (additional cancer growths following treatment of metastases) in advanced prostate cancer.
She said: "Thanks to the incredible support I have received from The Royal Marsden Cancer Charity and NIHR, I look forward to supporting our next generation of clinical researchers, so that we remain at the forefront of radiotherapy research for decades to come. I am delighted to have been awarded the title of Professor, which reflects the excellent mentorship and encouragement I have received from The Royal Marsden and ICR over the last 15 years."
Professor Julia Chisholm
Professor Chisholm is an internationally recognised, clinical academic researcher in paediatric and adolescent soft tissue sarcomas, with particular expertise in rhabdomyosarcoma. She is one of the consultant leads for The Royal Marsden's Paediatric Drug Development Unit, funded by The Royal Marsden Cancer Charity, and has led numerous early and late phase trials locally and nationally. Her research has changed international standards of care across Europe and beyond.
She said: "This professorship is a reflection of the excellence of the children and young people's (CYP) service at The Royal Marsden, and particularly our early- and late-phase clinical trials work, as well as our national and international standing in research.
"More than this, it is a positive reflection on the entire team and the vital role they play in creating an environment of research excellence at The Royal Marsden. I would like to thank all my clinical and academic colleagues who have provided their support along the way, as well as the patients and families who participate in clinical trials and support the work carried out by the CYP unit."
Dr Anna Minchom
Dr Minchom is a Consultant Medical Oncologist and Biomedical Research Centre Clinical Scientist in the Oak Foundation Drug Development Unit at The Royal Marsden. She is also lead in the Lung Research Unit. Her role is part funded by The Royal Marsden Cancer Charity and NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Cancer.
Her main research focus is using a biomarker-driven and translational approach to develop novel drugs and drug combinations for the treatment of patients with lung cancer and mesothelioma. She is Chief Investigator and Principal Investigator for Phase I, II and III trials including first in-human studies with novel agents including signalling molecule inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates and immunotherapy.
She said: "I am delighted to be appointed as Reader. Thank you to my collaborators and colleagues who work with me on this research, including The Royal Marsden Cancer Charity, and NIHR as the funding and support from them continues to be integral to our work. I am looking forward to further progressing research in drug treatments for patients with thoracic cancers."
Dame Cally Palmer, Chief Executive at The Royal Marsden, said: "These academic achievements are a testament to their contribution to the collaborative partnership of The Royal Marsden and the ICR. Together, we pioneer new cancer therapies through complex studies and clinical trials which influence how cancer patients are treated and cared for around the world."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.royalmarsden.nhs.uk/news-and-events/news/researchers-royal-marsden-receive-academic-promotion
Freedom From Religion Foundation: Real Threat Isn't Muslims - It's Government Religious Favoritism
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 7 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
The real threat isn't Muslims -- it's government religious favoritism
The Freedom From Religion Foundation chastises a Senate hearing yesterday for promoting anti-Muslim fearmongering and undermining the First Amendment.
The Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee hearing was aptly and ominously titled: "Hidden in Plain Sight: Confronting the Muslim Brotherhood Network in America,"
"Hidden in plain sight is the fact that Sen. Ted Cruz and others are engaged in a latter-day witch hunt to
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 7 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
The real threat isn't Muslims -- it's government religious favoritism
The Freedom From Religion Foundation chastises a Senate hearing yesterday for promoting anti-Muslim fearmongering and undermining the First Amendment.
The Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee hearing was aptly and ominously titled: "Hidden in Plain Sight: Confronting the Muslim Brotherhood Network in America,"
"Hidden in plain sight is the fact that Sen. Ted Cruz and others are engaged in a latter-day witch hunt todemonize a religious minority while at the same time seeking to use our federal government to promote Christian nationalism," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor.
The hearing repeatedly blurred the distinction between violent extremists and lawful Muslim religious and civic organizations, portraying constitutionally protected advocacy, litigation, coalition-building and civic engagement as evidence of a broader religious threat. Such rhetoric runs counter to the First Amendment's twin guarantees of religious liberty: the Establishment Clause, which bars the government from favoring one religion over another, and the Free Exercise Clause, which protects every person's right to practice their faith free from government discrimination.
Showing the dangers of such governmental disfavor toward a religious minority is the fact that the hearing was delayed from its originally scheduled date of May 20, after three people were killed two days earlier in a targeted attack at the Islamic Center of San Diego.
Cruz suggested that Muslim organizations must be viewed with suspicion because they file lawsuits, challenge government policies, organize on college campuses and engage in public advocacy. Those are ordinary First Amendment activities routinely exercised by religious and secular organizations across the ideological spectrum, including conservative Christian legal groups that frequently litigate against state/church protections and seek to influence public policy.
"When advocacy by one religious community is portrayed as evidence of extremism while similar advocacy by politically favored religious groups is celebrated, the government abandons the religious neutrality required by the Constitution," adds FFRF Co-President Dan Barker. "The First Amendment protects every American's right to petition the government, speak freely and participate in civic life regardless of their religious beliefs."
The hearing reflects a broader trend to portray Christianity as uniquely compatible with American government while treating minority faiths as inherently suspect or less authentically American. The Framers of the Constitution were first in history to prohibit religious tests for public office and adopted the First Amendment in part to assure that our government would not elevate one faith while marginalizing others.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the model for the First Amendment's Religion Clauses, its protections extend equally to "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination." The Constitution's promise of religious liberty has always rested on equal treatment -- not religious favoritism.
FFRF's affiliated advocacy organization, the FFRF Action Fund, joined a broad coalition of religious liberty, civil rights and faith-based organizations warning that the hearing's premise "is among the latest in a long line of attacks that are designed to sow fear and conspiracy theories about an entire religion and a diverse community for political gain." The coalition cautioned that such attacks undermine the nation's commitment to religious freedom for all.
Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee announced that they would boycott the hearing, calling it a "political creepshow" that scapegoats Muslims for political gain amid rising violence targeting houses of worship.
The government has a compelling interest in investigating and prosecuting terrorism wherever credible evidence exists. But congressional oversight must target unlawful conduct supported by evidence, not cast a cloud over millions of peaceful Americans because they belong to a disfavored faith. History has repeatedly demonstrated that when the government singles out one religion for suspicion, the religious liberty of all Americans is weakened.
"When elected officials exploit religious prejudice for political gain, they don't just harm one faith community," Gaylor says. "They erode the constitutional principle of separation between religion and government that protects everyone's religious liberty. The government has no business deciding which religions are truly 'American' and which should be viewed with suspicion."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 41,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/the-real-threat-isnt-muslims-its-government-religious-favoritism/
[Category: Religion]
Why Medicare Pays More for the Same Healthcare, Depending on the Building
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 6 -- The Georgia Public Policy Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Why Medicare Pays More for the Same Healthcare, Depending on the Building
*
Most people are probably aware that where they receive their healthcare affects the price. For example, treatment in an emergency room costs more than in a primary care physician's office, even if the diagnosis in both places is a sinus infection.
But perhaps less intuitive is that the payment can change depending on who owns the healthcare facility.
Roughly two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance,
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 6 -- The Georgia Public Policy Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Why Medicare Pays More for the Same Healthcare, Depending on the Building
*
Most people are probably aware that where they receive their healthcare affects the price. For example, treatment in an emergency room costs more than in a primary care physician's office, even if the diagnosis in both places is a sinus infection.
But perhaps less intuitive is that the payment can change depending on who owns the healthcare facility.
Roughly two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance,typically through their employer. But it is often Medicare, the government health insurance program for those aged 65 and older, that sets the benchmark for how healthcare is paid for in this country.
Medicare has traditionally paid hospitals more than physicians for the same routine care-even when that care isn't delivered inside the hospital's four walls. For common procedures like ultrasounds and biopsies, "hospital outpatient departments" are paid more than privately owned physician offices or imaging centers, even though the exact same service is being performed just as safely in each setting.
The difference can be significant. Medicare pays $164 for an ultrasound in a physician's office, but $339 for the same scan in a hospital outpatient department; a biopsy priced at $150 in an independent office can run $800 in a hospital setting. Rep. Jason Smith, the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee chairman, cited these figures at a congressional hearing in April, as Sally Pipes reported in Forbes.
This isn't just a Medicare problem, either. According to data compiled by Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and cited by KFF, commercial insurers paid 31% more for clinic visits performed in hospital outpatient departments than in physician offices in 2022. This gap was even more stark for other services, with chest X-rays costing 238% more and prostate biopsies costing 563% more in the hospital setting.
In July, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) took action to address this imbalance and proposed a rule that would change how hospitals are reimbursed for these services.
Amid the hundreds of pages in the "Calendar Year 2027 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System proposed rule" is a provision that chips away at exactly this kind of price disparity. CMS is proposing to extend "site-neutral" payment policy to imaging services performed without contrast -ultrasounds, as well as CT scans, MRIs and X-rays that don't use contrast dye. Imaging that requires contrast is not included in this shift.
Under the proposal, when these imaging services are furnished at an "off-campus" hospital outpatient site, Medicare would pay these facilities using the same fee schedule rate paid to independent physician offices, rather than the higher hospital outpatient rate that is currently applied. CMS estimates the change would save Medicare and its beneficiaries a combined $260 million in the first year alone -including about $70 million in reduced out-of-pocket costs for seniors.
While those savings represent real money, especially for seniors on fixed incomes, they also reflect a much bigger problem.
MedPAC, the independent commission that advises Congress on Medicare payment policy, has estimated that more broadly aligning payment rates towards site neutrality across outpatient settings could have cut Part B spending by $6 billion and saved Medicare beneficiaries $1.5 billion in out-of-pocket costs in a single year, according to KFF.
Proponents of this tiered reimbursement structure have noted that hospitals and health systems incur costs that independent physician offices and other healthcare facilities do not: primarily the costs of operating 24/7 emergency care, often for those without insurance. Hospitals have also argued that patients treated in their outpatient departments are sicker and more complex to treat.
But these arguments don't hold up to scrutiny. Nonprofit hospitals are already exempt from taxes in exchange for operating ]emergency services regardless of the patient's ability to pay. Charging patients with private health insurance more to offset losses elsewhere is an argument for cross-subsidization that has taken root among policymakers, but needs to be reconsidered.
As for the complexity claim, MedPAC's own analysis, also cited by KFF, found that differences in patient severity between hospital outpatient departments and physician offices are actually small -and that the services typically targeted by such reforms, like ultrasounds, tend to be low-complexity to begin with.
It's a modest step, and a telling one, when CMS acknowledges that patients shouldn't be left to pick up the tab based on who happens to own the building where it's delivered.
#Topics on this page
MedicareJason SmithKFFMedicare Payment Advisory CommissionSocial Security AdministrationAmericansBlue Cross Blue Shield AssociationCenters for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesHouse Committee on Ways and MeansMagnetic resonance imagingSally PipesUnited States Congress
***
Original text here: https://www.georgiapolicy.org/news/why-medicare-pays-more-for-the-same-healthcare-depending-on-the-building/
Freedom From Religion Foundation: Okla. Plaintiffs Urge Federal Court to Uphold Rejection of Religious Public Charter School
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 6 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Okla. plaintiffs urge federal court to uphold rejection of religious public charter school
A group of seven Oklahoma taxpayers today urged a federal court to uphold the state's rejection of an attempt to open the nation's first religious public charter school. The intervenors are represented by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Education
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 6 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Okla. plaintiffs urge federal court to uphold rejection of religious public charter school
A group of seven Oklahoma taxpayers today urged a federal court to uphold the state's rejection of an attempt to open the nation's first religious public charter school. The intervenors are represented by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union and the EducationLaw Center.
At a hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, attorneys for this group of taxpayers -- which includes families with children attending public schools, teachers and clergy -- argued that allowing the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation to operate a religious public charter school would be a clear violation of state and federal law that defines charter schools as public schools that must be secular and open to all students. Ben Gamla is seeking a preliminary injunction that would allow it to open while its lawsuit, National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation Inc. v. Shellem, proceeds. The Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board rejected the school's application, which made clear that Jewish religious teachings would be integrated into "every dimension of ... life" at the school, including classroom instruction and other activities. Charter schools, like all public schools, cannot lawfully indoctrinate religion or discriminate.
The Oklahoma taxpayers who were granted intervenor status to participate in the lawsuit oppose Ben Gamla's effort to force Oklahoma to authorize and fund an unconstitutional religious public charter school. They object to their tax dollars funding a public charter school that will indoctrinate students into a particular religion. The intervenors also object to public funds being diverted from their nonreligious and inclusive public schools - which already face serious resource limitations - to a religious school that plans to discriminate based on religion.
Americans United attorneys Alex J. Luchenitser, associate vice president and associate legal director, and Luke Anderson, constitutional litigation fellow, argued on their behalf during today's hearing. In addition to opposing Ben Gamla's request for a preliminary injunction, the attorneys argued against a request by Ben Gamla to block the intervenors from obtaining documents and other information about the school's planned operations. The attorneys representing the intervenors also include Nancy A. Noet and Samuel T. Grover of the Freedom From Religion Foundation; Brent Rowland and Morgan Bandy of the Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice; Dan Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU; and Jessica Levin, Wendy Lecker, Patrick Cremin and Katrina Reichert of the Education Law Center.
"The federal court should rule according to constitutional principles," says Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "A religious public charter school has no place in our secular public education system."
"We urge the court to protect all Oklahomans' religious freedom and affirm that this religious public charter school violates Oklahoma law and the U.S. Constitution," says Americans United President and CEO Rachel Laser. "Oklahoma public school families, Jewish leaders, and taxpayers have spoken - they want their public schools to remain open to all beliefs."
"Oklahoma has been down this road. Our courts said charter schools are public schools, and public schools don't teach religion -- that's still the law here, and it doesn't change because a different faith is asking this time. Our clients want that principle applied evenly, which is the only way it protects anyone," says Brent Rowland, executive director, Oklahoma Appleseed.
"We're urging the court to reaffirm the time-honored, core legal principle that public schools can't be religious and religious schools can't be public schools," says Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. "That foundational idea has been crucial to protect both religious liberty and public education for so long, and there's simply no reason to abandon it now."
"It should be beyond question that every part of our public education system must be open and welcoming to all students," says Robert Kim, executive director of Education Law Center. "Our clients are standing up for the values that define not just our public schools but our democracy as well."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 41,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a religious freedom advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, AU educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom. Learn more at www.au.org.
* * *
The Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice is a 501(c)3 public interest law firm that fights for the rights and opportunities of every Oklahoman.
* * *
Education Law Center (ELC) pursues justice and equity for public school students by enforcing their right to a high-quality education in safe, equitable, non-discriminatory, integrated, and well-funded learning environments. ELC seeks to support and improve public schools as the center of communities and the foundation of a multicultural and multiracial democratic society. Visit edlawcenter.org.
* * *
For more than 100 years, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has worked in courts, legislatures, and communities to protect the constitutional rights of all people. With a nationwide network of offices and millions of members and supporters, the ACLU takes on the toughest civil liberties fights in pursuit of liberty and justice for all.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/okla-plaintiffs-urge-federal-court-to-uphold-rejection-of-religious-public-charter-school/
[Category: Religion]
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: Who Decides What Makes A "Good" School?
DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 6 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary by Education Entrepreneurship Lab Director Kerry McDonald:
* * *
Who Decides What Makes A "Good" School?
Why a decentralized market is the solution for schooling.
-
I recently stayed in an Airbnb for the first time. I was visiting my older daughter in Milwaukee, where she was doing a summer undergraduate math fellowship at UWM. I generally prefer hotels, but there weren't any near the university, so I downloaded the Airbnb app and began searching for a spot to stay. I looked at proximity, price,
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 6 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary by Education Entrepreneurship Lab Director Kerry McDonald:
* * *
Who Decides What Makes A "Good" School?
Why a decentralized market is the solution for schooling.
-
I recently stayed in an Airbnb for the first time. I was visiting my older daughter in Milwaukee, where she was doing a summer undergraduate math fellowship at UWM. I generally prefer hotels, but there weren't any near the university, so I downloaded the Airbnb app and began searching for a spot to stay. I looked at proximity, price,and pictures to find a good fit. I ruled out some places based on tangible reasons, such as a lack of air conditioning, but also on intangible ones. I couldn't quite say why I didn't like certain spots, but I didn't. They just weren't for me. As I narrowed down my options, I scanned customer reviews and ratings to see what others thought of my finalists. Some of their assessments of quality mattered to me; others didn't. Then, I took the leap and booked my stay. It was a lovely home in a great location and I would happily return.
This experience got me thinking more about how we make choices in our lives. We all have distinct needs and preferences. Some of us like pickup trucks; others like Priuses. Some of us demand Dunkin' coffee (me!); others swear by Starbucks. Some of us prefer to live in the city; others in the suburbs. Some of us like to read mystery novels; others prefer science fiction. Some of us want one type of Airbnb experience; others prefer something else. We are all different, and that diversity is what makes our society so dynamic.
It's also why decentralization is crucial. No top-down policy could possibly satisfy all of our individual needs and preferences, and imposing such a policy would understandably breed discontent. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek writes in The Road to Serfdom: "Our freedom of choice in a competitive society rests on the fact that, if one person refuses to satisfy our wishes, we can turn to another."
In education, we are thankfully starting to see the choice, variety, and abundance we enjoy in all other parts of our lives where market competition prevails. As education entrepreneurs launch new K-12 schools and learning spaces, and as the expansion of school-choice programs makes these learning environments more accessible, families are increasingly able to find an educational setting that satisfies their wishes, or turn to another when needed.
Like an Airbnb stay, that satisfaction is highly subjective. For some families, a school that satisfies their wishes is one that prioritizes rigorous, rote academics; for others, it could be a school where their kids spend most of the day outside, playing in nature. For many, it's likely somewhere in between.
I met a mom who recently enrolled her son in a private high school whose stated pillars are athletics, faith, and academics. In that order. Some families might choose schools with those three pillars in a different order, while others will choose different pillars altogether. In a free society, freedom of choice is paramount.
All of us will have our educational wishes satisfied in myriad ways, which is why we should be leery when politicians and policymakers seek to impose one-size-fits-all school-accountability requirements or other top-down metrics of educational "quality," such as student performance on standardized tests. This holds true for both public schools and private schools, including emerging ones and those participating in school-choice programs.
Some families value standardized test scores--the often-touted tool of education central planners--when choosing schools, but many do not. Polling from EdChoice finds that out of 14 reasons why parents chose their child's current school, including public, private, charter, and homeschool, test scores ranked near the bottom of parents' priorities. Other factors--such as proximity and peer socialization for public school parents, and safety and academic quality for private-school, homeschool, and charter-school parents--were cited as the top reasons for choosing a particular school.
As the economist Thomas Sowell reminds us in Knowledge and Decisions: "The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best." In education, that decision rests with parents, not policymakers. Look at their revealed preferences--where parents choose to enroll their children when given options--as the primary metric for educational quality and accountability. Which schools and learning spaces are growing, and which are shrinking? Which educational models are increasingly sought after, and which are stagnating?
In Massachusetts, for example, Boston University researchers found that enrollment is down 2% in traditional public schools, while it is up 14% in private schools and up an astonishing 45% in homeschooling, compared with pre-pandemic rates. That's in a state without any private-school-choice programs. In choice-friendly Florida, where all K-12 students are eligible for an education savings account (ESA) of around $8,000 a year, more than half of students attend a school other than their assigned district school, with private schools and homeschools seeing particularly strong increases.
The path toward greater educational freedom for families is widening, despite ever-present centralizing and standardizing forces--including from some proponents of school-choice policies who think they know what makes a "good" school. To keep those forces at bay, we should encourage entrepreneurship and competition to expand education options and enhance consumer choice. We should favor decentralized decision-making over top-down planning. We should accept that some schools will close because they do not satisfy the wishes of their consumers, and recognize that as a sign of a healthy education marketplace. We should acknowledge that school "quality" is in the eyes of the consumer, and each of us will define it differently based on our own unique needs and preferences.
Finally, to unlock greater educational freedom and individual flourishing, we should, as FEE founder Leonard Read urged, have "a faith in free people." We should trust that parents--not politicians or pundits--know what is best for their children's education and should have the freedom to choose. "Freedom is impossible without this faith," said Read.
* * *
Kerry McDonald is a Director, Education Entrepreneurship Lab and Senior Fellow at FEE, where she leads the Education Entrepreneurship Lab and hosts the LiberatED podcast. She is also the Velinda Jonson Family Education Fellow at State Policy Network, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and a regular contributor at Forbes.com and The 74. Kerry is the bestselling author of Unschooled: Raising Curious, Well-Educated Children Outside the Conventional Classroom (Chicago Review Press, 2019), and the author of the forthcoming book, Joyful Learning: How To Find Freedom, Happiness, and Success Beyond Conventional Schooling (Hachette/PublicAffairs, 2025).
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/who-decides-what-makes-a-good-school/
FFRF Takes Rep. Alford to Task for Calling Church/state Separation a 'Lie From Satan'
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 6 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF takes Rep. Alford to task for calling church/state separation a 'lie from Satan'
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is enlightening Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., after his shocking claim that the all-American principle of separation between church and state is a "lie from Satan."
Alford, who represents Missouri's 4th Congressional District, hosted Southern Baptist pastor and Christian nationalist activist Malachi O'Brien on a July 17 episode of "Getting Comfortable with Mark Alford."
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 6 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF takes Rep. Alford to task for calling church/state separation a 'lie from Satan'
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is enlightening Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., after his shocking claim that the all-American principle of separation between church and state is a "lie from Satan."
Alford, who represents Missouri's 4th Congressional District, hosted Southern Baptist pastor and Christian nationalist activist Malachi O'Brien on a July 17 episode of "Getting Comfortable with Mark Alford."Alford introduced the episode's central subject as "the separation of church and state -- or the myth of that."
Alford complained that when he posts bible verses on social media, "demonic forces come out of nowhere" to criticize him because he is a member of Congress. He then asked O'Brien: "How did we buy into this lie from Satan that the church and the state have no mixture at all?" Alford portrayed President Trump as a divinely protected leader and joined O'Brien in characterizing the Trump administration's privileging of Christianity as a national revival. He assented to various declarations by O'Brien, such as that "Christians should run their own country."
FFRF is calling on the member of Congress to retract the historical and constitutional misinformation he spread on his podcast.
"The separation of church and state is neither a myth nor a 'satanic' lie," FFRF Co-Presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker have written Alford in response. "It is a foundational American principle embodied in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 famously coined a metaphor explaining the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, by saying it erects "a wall of separation between church and state." The fact that the phrase does not appear verbatim in the U.S. Constitution does not negate the principle it explains, FFRF notes.
Alford and O'Brien also repeated the familiar falsehood that the Constitution protects "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." On behalf of an organization whose very name is "Freedom From Religion," the FFRF co-presidents explain that religious freedom necessarily includes the right to freedom from religion in government.
"Your oath of office was to protect and defend the Constitution, not the bible," FFRF reminds the U.S. representative. "You were not elected to be a pastor. Missouri's 4th Congressional District is not your congregation."
FFRF maintains that Americans should be disturbed that a sitting member of Congress is using his public platform to vilifying a foundational constitutional principle and encouraging Christians to seize the machinery of government -- the very epitome of Christian nationalist ideology.
"The separation of church and state is not hostile to religion," FFRF's letter concludes. "As a member of Congress, your duty is to defend that wonderful American principle, not demonize it."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 41,000 members nationwide, including nearly 500 members in Missouri. FFRF's purposes are to defend the constitutional principle of separation between church and state, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-takes-rep-alford-to-task-for-calling-church-state-separation-a-lie-from-satan/
[Category: Religion]
