Frederick M. Hess
@rickhess99
Followers
20K
Following
7K
Statuses
19K
Educator. Author. Director @AEIeducation. Blogger @educationweek. Executive editor @educationnext. Contributing editor @NRO. Mean-spirited SOB.
Washington DC
Joined May 2013
The ugly NAEP results are a reminder that schools have lost the plot. Me, at @EducationNext.
10
23
80
Umm. Here’s David Hogg, youth activist & now vice-chair of the Democratic National Cmte: “I’m never planning on having kids. I would much rather own a Porsche and have a Portuguese water dog and golden doodle. Long term it’s cheaper, better for The environment and will never tell you that it hates you or ask you to pay for college.” Setting aside how pathological this is, also seems like a lousy way to regain public trust on education, no?
Like me? I’m never planning on having kids. I would much rather own a Porsche and have a Portuguese water dog and golden doodle. Long term it’s cheaper, better for The environment and will never tell you that it hates you or ask you to pay for college.
6
5
9
RT @cspanwj: WATCH: @rickhess99 from @AEI and @Bob__Kim from @EdLawCenter respond to reports about Trump administration plans to dismantle…
0
6
0
Outstanding. As many of us have argued, it’s long past time to slash overhead rates that may have been defensible when erecting the post-WWII research infrastructure but which today mostly underwrite bloated campus bureaucracies.
Last year, $9B of the $35B that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) granted for research was used for administrative overhead, what is known as “indirect costs.” Today, NIH lowered the maximum indirect cost rate research institutions can charge the government to 15%, above what many major foundations allow and much lower than the 60%+ that some institutions charge the government today. This change will save more than $4B a year effective immediately.
1
6
20
RT @ginnygentles: @marcportermagee Mark shared his thoughts about the 2024 NAEP results on this week's Freedom to Learn episode - "the resu…
0
3
0
RT @MorningAnswer: .@rickhess99, Director of Education Policy Studies at @AEI & author of "Letters to a Young Education Reformer," joined D…
0
4
0
Brutally honest take from former U.S. SecEd @BetsyDeVos as to what the U.S. Department of Education actually does: “It shuffles money around; adds unnecessary requirements and political agendas via its grants; and then passes the buck when it comes time to assess if any of that adds value. “Here’s how it works: Congress appropriates funding for education . . . The department’s bureaucrats take in those billions, add strings and red tape, peel off a percentage to pay for themselves, and then send it down to state education agencies. Many of them do a version of the same and then send it to our schools. The schools must then pay first for administrators to manage all the requirements that have been added along the way. After all that, the money makes it to the classroom to help a student learn—maybe. “In other words, the Department of Education is functionally a middleman. And like most middlemen, it doesn’t add value. It merely adds cost and complexity.” Yup. It’s a point I’ve made before— but few can make it more pointedly than someone who helmed 400 Maryland for 4 yrs.
Just what does the Department of Education actually do anyway? Mostly, it writes rules, houses an expansive bureaucracy, and funnels dollars to states and institutions of higher education. Contrary to the claims of the teachers unions and aggrieved Democrats, it doesn’t educate anyone — and a glance at its thousands of regulations is a reminder that most have much more to do with accounting than with learning. When it comes to K–12 schooling, the federal government only contributes about 10% of what the United States spends each year (the lion’s share is supplied by states and localities). The bulk of the department’s work boils down to throwing vast sums at higher education, mostly by issuing, managing, and (not) collecting payments for student loans. That’s why insiders have long described the department as a gargantuan bank with a second-rate policy shop attached. Meanwhile, the department employs an army of 4,000 bureaucrats — including 86 senior executive service employees, who earn over $200,000, and more than 1,000 GS-15 managers, all of whom earn more than $160,000 if they work in Washington, D.C. Heck, there are more than 100 staff members just in the office of communications, at an average salary of over $100,000 and an annual cost to taxpayers of more than $13 million. If this description makes hysterical defenses of the department seem a little unhinged, you’ve got the idea.
23
80
278
RT @alexanderrusso: He's not wrong about the @EdWriters' Trump coverage roundup. I propose a few other ideas - from me and others includi…
0
2
0
Perhaps the Education Writers Association wasn’t feeling partisan enough. In any event, EWA just blasted out a resource guide for covering Trump’s exec orders. Here are a half-dozen favorites: - “How to Cover Political Threats to DEI” - “Is It the Scopes Trial on Repeat? Tips for Covering Divisive Concepts” - “Immigrant Student Pain Points: What to Know” - “A Guide to the Guides: What to Know About LGBTQ Style Guides for Journalists” - “Covering Violence Against Trans and Nonbinary People” - “Who Gets a School Choice? Reporting Tips to Unlock the Complexities” Gosh. Is it just me, or does this read like it could’ve been issued by AOC or the AFT…
3
7
21
RT @askteacherzcom: @rpondiscio This is especially poignant from your prose @rpondiscio : “My colleague @rickhess99 put it well: Restoring…
0
2
0
RT @JoanneLeeJacobs: Want equity? Go Old School. "When traditional norms erode, the biggest losers are the students who aren’t getting stru…
0
8
0
One way to make sense of what Trump is attempting with Department of Education is to recognize parallels to what Biden attempted with student loans, but played in reverse (and even more aggressively). With student loans, some of us were gobsmacked/horrified/furious that Biden sought to transfer a TRILLION dollars in taxpayer funds to his base, in clear violation of the law. But we feared no one would have standing to sue or that the courts might not stop him. Well, the courts eventually granted standing and slowed/stopped Biden’s giveaway . . . but he *still* managed to give $400 billion away— with irreversible consequences for the budget, executive authority, and the law. We may be witnessing a similar dynamic, but with ratchet running the other way. Opponents will need to establish standing and get the courts to weigh in. Right now, they feel overwhelmed and helpless. (I remember that feeling). I suspect that whatever Trump attempts with ED will get reined in, but only later— and, in all likelihood, only after some irreversible consequences.
3
1
4
RT @rickhess99: I keep getting asked about a possible Trump executive order abolishing the Department of Education. In the interest of both…
0
5
0
0
1
0
RT @ginnygentles: The U.S. Department of Education has: - 86 ES employees making an average salary of $201,374 - 1,000+ GS-15 employees mak…
0
3
0
RT @rickhess99: Just what does the Department of Education actually do anyway? Mostly, it writes rules, houses an expansive bureaucracy, an…
0
39
0
RT @arotherham: The @rickhess99 and I discussed navigating the Trump world we're in and reflexive partisanship for @educationweek. My advic…
0
1
0
I keep getting asked about a possible Trump executive order abolishing the Department of Education. In the interest of both transparency and time management, I’ll share the points I keep repeating: First, I don’t have any inside information as to whether an EO is coming or what it might say. So take all of this for what it’s worth. Second, I don’t believe Trump can abolish ED without congressional authorization. But I didn’t believe Biden could spend $400 billion on loan forgiveness without congressional authorization. And he did. So, we’ll see. Third, abolishing ED doesn’t abolish the programs. Pell, Title I, IDEA, et al. are there until Congress says otherwise. The President could try to limit outlays, but I don’t think he’d get very far. So, this is more about the bureaucracy than the programs. Fourth, rumors seem to suggest that an EO might include one or more of the following (it should go without saying that what IT ACTUALLY SAYS will matter a ton). - It could instruct executive appointees to work with Congress to abolish ED. That’s really more of an email than an EO, given that this claims no new authority. Such an EO wouldn’t really change anything. - It could direct ED staff to commence efforts to move units to other agencies and to downsize ED’s headcount. This could be a very big deal, but it would depend a lot on exactly what the EO says, how these efforts proceed, and any litigation. - It could simply announce that ED is now closed. I’d expect that to be met with an injunction by day’s end. It would look like a huge deal but likely have minimal practical impact. - It could try to assert the authority to interrupt or suspend mandated spending. THAT would be surprising and a huge deal. But it would also be hard to see how it stands up. Bottom line is that there are a lot of heated claims being made. That’s why I advise tuning out the rhetoric and focusing, instead, on how significant any changes are— and how likely they are to ultimately play out as articulated in an EO.
2
5
14
RT @EdWeekOpinion: .@rickhess99 and @arotherham discuss reflexive partisanship and why it matters for schools. #EWOpinion #K12 #RHSU https:…
0
5
0