1. Create cross-age tutoring opportunities by enlisting older students to help struggling younger ones. This actually benefits BOTH age groups, and it’s effective. It teaches other lessons as well, including the importance of community and of sharing what you know with others. It will keep some kids from being held back and others out of special education. That’s better for them, and it saves your district money.

2. Create ‘Early College’ opportunities, as many as possible for your ambitious high school juniors and seniors (and perhaps even some sophomores). Here’s a look at a successful program in Texas that we reported on for the PBS NewsHour in 2015. This district actually lured high school dropouts back to school with the promise of a more engaging curriculum that included opportunities to take college courses. At the high school graduation we attended, most seniors also had college credits, and quite a few members of the class also received their 2-year college degrees with their diplomas! Fewer high school dropouts, a clear and strong bridge to higher education, a better reputation, and cost savings…..what’s not to like?

3. Extend ‘Homeroom Period’ from the normal perfunctory 5 minutes to a half hour or more. For most high school students, “Homeroom” is the equivalent of the starting blocks in a track meet. They touch base, listen to (or maybe ignore) morning announcements, and, when the bell sounds, dash off to class. In truth, “Homeroom” is important to school administrators because it gives them a head count. It’s a meaningless perfunctory exercise for kids. I wrote about this in detail here. This is an opportunity to create more “down time” inside the school day for students to think and do independent study work. Mental “breathing room” would allow students to stretch, think more creatively, and challenge conventional wisdom. Too often schools are draining the lifeblood out of students with a compulsion to “protect students from themselves” by scheduling every minute of every day. Why not let them grow up, take intellectual risks, and be genuinely heard by giving them the gift of free time?

4. Encourage teachers to reach out to parents–in the first few weeks of school–to praise their child. Don’t wait till they misbehave. This resonates with me because I saw my daughter Elise doing it 25 years ago when she was teaching in a middle school in Harlem. Nearly all of her students were Hispanic, and she made a point of calling their parents very early in the year and praising their children — in her fluent Spanish — for something they had done in class. With a few kids, she admitted, it was a stretch to find something worth cheering about, but she felt that it was absolutely critical that her first contact with her students’ parents be a positive one.

For too many kids, school is rarely a positive experience, suggesting that schools failed them, not the other way around. This is one step, teacher by teacher, in the direction of breaking that pattern.

5. Let Students Make the Classroom Rules: In 41 years of reporting, I visited thousands of elementary school classrooms, and I’m certain that virtually every one of them displayed–usually near the door–a poster listing the rules for student behavior. These were store-bought, glossy, laminated posters. No editing possible, and no thought required. Just follow orders! Here’s an example:

I can imagine teachers reading the rules aloud to the children on the first day of class and referring to them whenever things got loud or rowdy. “Now, children, remember Rule 4. No calling out unless I call on you.” Here’s a great opportunity to practice democracy. Teachers and their students can spend some time during the first few days of school discussing what sort of classroom they want to spend their year in. That is, what rules should we establish?

Teacher: Kids, let’s make some rules for our classroom. What do you think is important?

Skilled teachers will lead the conversation in certain directions: What if someone knows the answer to a question? Should they just yell it out, or should they raise their hand and wait to be called on?

Or: If one of you has to use the bathroom, should you just get up and walk out of class? Or should we have a signal? And what sort of signal should we use?

I watched that process a few times, and, no surprise, the students invariably came up with reasonable rules much like those on the laminated posters: Listen, Be Respectful, Raise Your Hand, Be Kind, and so forth. But there’s a difference, because these were their rules, and, because they owned them, they were therefore more likely to adhere to them.

6. Make Parents Feel that the School is Theirs. Generally speaking, educators do very little–if anything– to make parents feel that the school is theirs, but there’s actually an easy way to start to change: Schedule frequent ‘Talent Nights’ with pot-luck meals, performances by students, live music, with child-care provided by other students. Once parents feel that it’s their school too, consider offering short classes teaching the skills necessary to help their kids become better readers or more proficient problem-solvers. No lectures, no ‘parent involvement committees,’ no window-dressing, but a genuine partnership that invites openness and commitment from everyone.

Because some parents have grown accustomed to educators saying ‘Leave the education to us,’ they’ll need help learning to accept their new role and responsibility. Because some teachers have grown accustomed to holding parents at arm’s length, they will have to learn ways to acknowledge that parents are essential. (They’ll have business cards to hand out!)

A big part of public education’s problem is its failure to recognize that most parents want their children to succeed but may not know how to contribute. Turn that around by accepting parents as valuable assets. Partners, not ‘outsiders.’

That’s six changes that will have no significant impact on the budget but will, if done well, change everything.

I have about a dozen more changes to suggest, so please stay tuned. And feel free to share your thoughts as well.

I’ve been thinking a lot about that recently. So has The New York Times, which recently ran a story in which 37 experts rated 30 possible changes. The Times’ roster of experts does not include a single classroom teacher, an oversight that’s hard to explain. Nor did the newspaper ask any education reporters for their judgments (an oversight that upsets me, even though it may not bother you). I wrote about this recently on my blog, here and here.

The experts recruited by the Times had several favorite reforms: 1) small group tutoring, 2) adopting what’s known as ‘The Science of Reading,’ and 3) universal pre-kindergarten, and 4) more money.

In this column and over the next few weeks, I’m going to recommend roughly two dozen changes, only a few of which will require spending more money—and not very much at that.

These suggestions are based on my having spent 41 years in the back of classrooms in just about every state and a handful of other countries, plus four years teaching, 18 years as a public school parent, and quite a few years as a student. I know these approaches work because I’ve witnessed it.

It’s important to understand that poor academic performance and declining attendance are symptoms of what ails public education. They are not the problem. Therefore, trying to raise test scores with more drill and test practice is as dumb and ineffective as treating strep throat with lozenges. Attacking the problem of poor attendance by expanding the truancy police to force kids to come to school is equally stupid and counter-productive.

A second observation: The conventional view of education is that schools produce graduates from their assembly line. This is the much-criticized ‘factory model’ of education. Let’s turn that on its head. Keep the factory, but think of students as ‘knowledge workers,’ whose job is to create knowledge, not regurgitate facts and figures. By that logic, schools are ‘knowledge factories,’ and creating is the polar opposite of regurgitation.

Here are four changes that I would make immediately.

1. Revived (or expanded) extra-curricular activities like music, theatre, journalism, dance, debate, and sports. All of these teach team play and–more importantly–failure. In these activities, students learn to rely on each other and to pick themselves up after falling short. And to pick up their teammates.

What we adults call, often disparagingly, ‘extra-curricular’ activities are often the main reason kids come to school.

2. Separate English, math, and science classes for boys and girls in middle and high school. My wife, a career educator, made me aware of a fascinating paradox: Girls do better in single-sex classrooms, but boys do better in mixed classrooms. In a mixed classroom some girls are intimidated and hide their intelligence and suppress their curiosity. Studying alone, without boys around, girls shine. In mixed classrooms, some boys try to impress girls with their knowledge, although others may bury their intelligence because being ‘smart’ is not ‘manly.’

The rest of the school activities like cafeteria and extra curricular activities should be mixed.

I’ve seen this done very effectively in several charter schools in New Orleans.

3. Short, unstructured, but frequent recess breaks in elementary school, as is done in some Japanese schools I’ve visited. And by ‘frequent,’ I mean at least three and perhaps more 15-20 minute unstructured breaks from sitting at a desk. Kids, especially young kids, need to move. As workers, we aren’t expected to sit all day, so why do we expect that of young children?

High school and middle school students have class change breaks five or six times a day, their opportunities to move around.

Or emulate Sweden: “In Sweden, outdoor free play is a foundational part of early education. Daily outdoor time is expected — often in all types of weather — based on the belief that movement, risk-taking, and unstructured exploration are essential to development. The cultural philosophy of friluftsliv (“open-air living”) reflects the understanding that children regulate and learn best when connected to movement and nature.”

(I am adding information sent to me by Lina Ruiz, an education reporter for the Fort Worth (TX) Star-Telegram, about TCU Professor Deborah J. Rhea, who has studied the correlation between student outcomes and outdoor free play. “The model she says works best is four, 15-minute recess blocks per day. Her research shows two hours of daily distraction time in the classroom is saved with the outdoor breaks, and student test scores increase by 10% by fourth grade.” And Lina shared links to three interesting documents: here, here, and here. (The first is Ruiz’s reporting, a useful summary.)

4. Business cards for teachers: They are professionals and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. It will change the dynamic in every parent-teacher meeting when the teacher can offer their business card and say, “Hi, Mr. Merrow, I’m Nancy Ross. It’s a pleasure to meet you,” instead of the awkward “Hello, I’m Mrs. Ross.”

Academic counselors get cards too. Administrators already have them, proof of their importance if you need convincing.

And if some businesses offer to provide the business cards as long as they can put their logo on the card, tell them, politely, to f**k off.. Advertising would defeat the whole purpose.

Two of these changes, separate academic classes and multiple short ‘free-play’ recesses, won’t cost a dime. Business cards might cost a few hundred dollars, depending on how many teachers (and perhaps other staff) are involved. Restoring ‘extra curricular’ activities could be expensive; ramping them up shouldn’t cost a lot.

Those are four changes I would make right away if I ran a school. There are at least 18 more on my list, so I hope you will stay tuned. And please share your own ideas and suggestions on this Substack page or at Themerrowreport.com.

Then they mash the two points of analysis, cost and effectiveness, and identify the best changes as 1) small group tutoring, 2) adopting what’s known as ‘The Science of Reading,’ 3) universal pre-kindergarten, and 4) more money.

How they got to this conclusion is interesting–and, in my view, indefensible. They asked an unpublished number of academics to participate, and 36 University Professors and one Research Fellow at a California Public Policy Institute signed on. Those 37 were then asked to rate, on the basis of cost and effectiveness, 30 different policies and practices that might change education.

Did they even ask any teachers or school board members? There aren’t any on the list, so it’s fair to assume that the reporters didn’t go down that road.

Just suppose for a minute that The Times was doing a similar article about ways to improve public transportation? Would all their experts have been academics, or would they have asked the men and women who run bus and subway systems in a few cities to weigh in? Maybe ask a few of the people who once led systems but are now retired? Ask a few transportation advocacy groups, like the Straphangers Campaign in New York City, the T Riders Union in Boston, or Circulate San Diego?

As the lawyers say, ‘Asked and answered.’

What if The Times had taken on medical care? Would they have only asked academics? Of course not, but, hey, it’s just public education, so who cares!

The next sign of disrespect is their list of 30 strategies, which they say they got by asking around and by reading Democratic and Republican political proposals.

Dollars to doughnuts, Google was heavily involved.

Some public schools are doing really interesting things, such as gender-specific classes in academic subjects like English and math, or multiple but short recess breaks for elementary school children, or project-based learning that involves the local communities, but you wouldn’t know that from The Times’s reporting.

And then they write, somewhat disingenuously, “We see our survey not as a scientific poll, but as a useful measure of how experts steeped in the research view these ideas,” which is reporter-speak for “You don’t have to take any of this seriously.”

Just imagine how the 37 academics might have responded if two doctoral students had presented this proposal: “First we will cobble together the most talked-about changes in schools. Then we will ask a lot of experts for their opinions (but no teachers, school board members, or politicians). Next, we will put our findings on a spreadsheet and publish it somewhere. Finally, we will submit it for our PhD thesis.”

The professors I know would have sent the students packing.

Apparently, the editors of the New York Times said, “Cool, go for it.”

Here’s what George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, and five other once-outspoken critics of Donald Trump are doing NOW, to save our democratic republic from fascism.

(Spoiler alert: NADA, ZIPPO, BUPKIS, NOTHING!)

PAUL RYAN: “Everybody knows I’m not a Trump guy” is what he told Harvard’s Institute of Politics in April, but he followed his mild critique with “but…” In fact, the former Republican candidate for Vice President and former Speaker of the House seems to have followed every criticism of Trump with some sort of qualification. It adds up to something worse than silence.

MITT ROMNEY: The former candidate for President (2012) has been ‘evolving’--but, unfortunately, in the direction of silence. He was a harsh critic of Trump back in 2016 and twice voted to convict him when he was impeached. However, lately his criticism has been muted. Here’s part of what he said at Harvard in April: “I’m not the first one to suggest that that we’re taking steps towards an authoritarian approach,” Romney said. “When President Biden said, ‘I’m going to get rid of a trillion dollars of student debt without Congressional approval,’ that’s a pretty authoritarian thing, and President Trump has done far more than his share.”

He was more critical in 2024: “I’m, as you know, not a supporter of President Trump’s. I didn’t support him in this election. I didn’t the last time he ran either, largely for matters of character,” the Utah Republican, who was the 2012 GOP presidential nominee, told CNN’s Jake Tapper in a wide-ranging interview on “State of the Union” on Sunday.

And in 2016 he said “Here’s what I know: Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University,” Romney said.

GEORGE W. BUSH: His prolonged silence is analyzed in detail in an insightful article, “George W. Bush’s Code of Silence,” in The New Yorker in September. I urge you to read Jacob Weisberg’s entire article, and perhaps this one paragraph will entice you to click on the link above:

Bush coming out against Trump could have made a difference at many points. It likely would have mattered in the fall of 2016, by which point his post-Presidential approval rating had risen above fifty per cent with all voters. If Bush had endorsed Hillary Clinton, it might have encouraged members of his own party to vote for a responsible Democrat, however disliked, over a malignant Republican. The same was true again in 2024, when Bush could have joined the Cheneys in endorsing Kamala Harris as a far lesser evil. But, by then, Bush’s show of staying above the fray had hardened into a fixed posture. He hadn’t criticized Trump before, and he wasn’t going to now. This post‑Presidential abdication stands as the final, damning failure of the Bush Presidency. A leader who framed politics around a straightforward, Christian morality of right and wrong saw evil and failed to call it out.

MIKE PENCE: Pence was, of course, Trump’s Vice President during his first term. He incurred Trump’s wrath when he denied Trump’s request/order to disapprove of the slate of electors that voted to certify Joe Biden’s victory. He then ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, failing spectacularly. He subsequently declined to endorse Trump, although he did not endorse the Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris.

Pence’s language has been muted, as in this interview with NPR: Trump and Pence ran in 2020 on a mission to “drain the swamp,” rooting out government corruption and wasteful spending. However, Pence said Trump appears to have shifted from those goals. “There’s maybe nothing more swampy than the battle over getting tariff waivers for big business,” Pence said.

JEB BUSH: If anyone could be expected to be publicly critical of Trump, it’s Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor who ran for and lost the 2016 Republican nomination to Trump, who mocked him mercilessly. “Low Energy Jeb” was just one of the epithets Trump flung his way, month after month. After dropping out, Bush endorsed Ted Cruz.

That was 10 years ago, and since then (like his brother George) Jeb has been silent about Trump’s attacks on democratic institutions and traditions.

He did, however, surprise observers by endorsing Trump’s Iran policies back in January: “President Trump continues to demonstrate historic leadership on Iran, with unprecedented support for the Iranian people as they face bullets for freedom.” And “We applaud President Trump for his courageous decision to launch this military operation. For 47 years, the Iranian regime has unleashed terror, violence and misery—against its own people and across the region—while threatening the United States, Israel and our allies.”

REX TILLERSON: Trump’s first Secretary of State publicly stated that Trump was “undisciplined,” unwilling to read important material, and prone to supporting actions and policies that would be clear violations of international law. Privately, he called Trump “a moron.” That was in 2016-2017. Fired by Trump, Tillerson, the former chief executive of ExxonMobil, has gone dark.

ELAINE CHAO: Chao, Trump’s Secretary of Transportation, was the first Cabinet member to resign after the January 6th Insurrection attempt. Chao, the first Asian-American to serve in a Presidential cabinet, later called out Trump for his anti-Asian remarks in speeches and on social media in which he attacked Chao and her husband, Senator Mitch McConnell, calling her ‘Coco Chow’ and him ‘Old Broken Crow.’ Here’s one TruthSocial post from January, 2023: “Does Coco Chow have anything to do with Joe Biden’s Classified Documents being sent and stored in Chinatown?” Trump wrote. “Her husband, the Old Broken Crow, is VERY close to Biden, the Democrats, and, of course, China.”

Chao responded, saying that his attacks say “a whole lot more about him than it will ever say about Asian Americans.”

Like Mitt Romney, Chao seems to have ‘evolved’ into silence. It’s probably just a coincidence that in January 2025 Trump appointed Chao to the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees (and we know how that Board has voted, lock-step).

BETSY DEVOS: DeVos, Trump’s first Secretary of Education, also resigned from Trump’s Cabinet in a public display of (feigned) integrity after the January 6th Insurrection attempt. I say ‘feigned’ because she continues to support Trump financially through at least one major PAC.

GENERAL JOHN KELLY: Of all the men and women I’m writing about, Trump’s former Chief of Staff has been the most critical of Trump, saying that he “could fit the bill of a fascist” and that he was unfit to serve–all this just two weeks before the 2024 Presidential election.

“Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy,” he told The Times.

“So, certainly, in my experience, those are the kinds of things that he thinks would work better in terms of running America,” he told ABC News.

CNN reported that, the day after the January 6th insurrection, Kelly supported using the Twenty-fifth Amendment to remove Trump from office, saying “What happened on Capitol Hill yesterday is a direct result of his poisoning the minds of people with the lies and the frauds.”

I haven’t seen General Kelly, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Mike Pence or any of the other well-known Republicans stepping up to the plate to defend our democratic republic.

So I guess it’s up to us!

I suggest you click the link below before watching the NewsHour piece, but that’s up to you.

https://www.youtubine.com/watch?v=SpKJ9NDdDdk

During my 41 years in journalism, I interviewed or spent time with a lot of charismatic people, and no one, not even Bill Clinton, came close to Dolly. She had the gift of magnetic intensity–100% positive–that made the interviewer feel as if this conversation was, for her, the most important one she was ever going to have, ever! And there was nothing contrived about it. She listened to the questions with 100% concentration and then answered directly and thoughtfully. I’m sure she had been asked my questions hundreds of times, maybe thousands, but she answered as if this was the first time.

I spent maybe 30 minutes or so with her, that’s all, but I can tell you that all the wonderful things that have been said about her, and are now being said, believe them….

Teacher: Children, what does this sign say?

Many hands go up, and a lot of the kids call out “Stop” and “It says Stop” and “That’s a Stop sign.”

“Maybe you recognized the sign because you’ve seen it on lots of street corners, but let’s read what this sign actually says. First, let’s take it apart, letter by letter. The first letter, T, makes a sound. What sound does T make?”

The teacher then goes through the sounds the other three letters make, the children make the sounds and put them together, laughing when they realize their mistake.

Then she holds up a slightly different sign for her students to decode: (this sign reads SPOT, but I am flummoxed by pasting graphics. Sorry)

They do, with increasing confidence because they’re enjoying the game the teacher is playing.

“OK, now let’s see what happens if we move the letters around again.”

She holds up another sign: (this one reads POST)

“Same four letters. Let’s try to read it by sounding out each letter. Start with the first one. What sound does P make?”

After they’ve decoded and pronounced POST, they are delighted when she brings out two more versions of the familiar sign:

They take those words apart, then put the sounds together, eventually reading both words. OPTS is the most challenging because the First Graders don’t know the word, leading to a discussion about OPTIONS, a noun, and OPT, a verb. The teacher doesn’t move on until she’s sure everyone understands. Then she challenges her students to use those words in conversation during the day, or at home that night.

Finally, the real thing, which they decode with ease:

And for one more challenge, she holds up this sign, STOP but with an E at the end.

She tells them how it is pronounced and explains that, when the letter E follows a vowel, that vowel ‘says its own name.’ She tells them how to pronounce it, and then she writes several words on the blackboard: NICE, HOSE, and CASE. The children sound them out.

Then she holds up another image, a GO sign:

“Who knows what this sign says? Can anyone use it in a sentence?” (Many hands go up.) “That’s good.”

After sounding out the two letters and putting the word together, the teacher asks the children, “What happens to GO if we replace the G with S or N?”

She writes SO and NO on the blackboard, next to GO, which the children figure out almost immediately.

“But letters can be tricky things, children. What sound does ‘O’ make in STOP? Keep that in mind.”

She replaces the G with the letter T, making TO . Some students automatically rhyme it with GO and SO, pronouncing it ‘TOE.’ Now she explains that in this new word, TO, the letter O has a different sound.

“So we see that the letter O can make different sounds. English is tricky, but we will learn all the tricks. Read this sentence: ‘SO I said NO, you must GO TO the STORE.’

Which word isn’t following the rules?”

They all seem to understand that TO is the exception.

“I warned you that letters were tricky! But there are ways to figure out most letters, rules that work most of the time. But not all the time, because English breaks a lot of its own rules. I promise you we will have fun figuring all this out…”

The teacher is incorporating Word Recognition– often called “Look-Say” or Whole Language–techniques into her reading instruction. Because English is often non-phonetic, readers must learn to recognize quite a few words, as she is explaining to her First Graders.

Another time she writes two short sentences on the blackboard: COME HERE! WHERE ARE THE MACHINES?

“OK, kids. On your toes now, because only one of these words follows the rules.”

She asks them to pronounce each word according to the rules they have learned. They do, pronouncing COME with a long O, WHERE with a long E, ARE with a long A, and MACHINES with a long I. Then she pronounces them correctly, mystifying and delighting her students.

“I told you English was tricky and sneaky, but we won’t let it beat us!”

She creates a list of other rule-breaking words to learn.These so-called ‘sight words’ include who, where, to, are, been, because, machine, and police. The list will grow throughout the year.

She often asks her students to tell the class what words they want to be able to read. Hands go up, and children call out, ‘Bathroom,’ ‘Girl’s Room,’ ‘Boy’s Room,’ ‘Ice Cream,’ ‘Police,’ ‘Rocket Ship,’ and more. By meeting them where they are and encouraging their curiosity, she’s empowering them.

Another time she will ask her students what sentences they would like to write. “I love you, Momma” and “I miss you, Daddy. Please come home,” some call out. She writes the sentences on the board for everyone to read.

Neither Phonics nor Word Recognition, this strategy is closer to the “Literacy as Liberation” practiced by Brazilian educator Paolo Friere. Whatever the source, it’s a powerful motivation for young children, giving a strong sense of mastery.

When the year is nearly over, she will ask her children some questions: ‘Who are the three or four fastest runners in the class?’ The children call out five or six different names. ‘OK, now who are the three or four best singers in the class?’ Again names are called out. ‘And one more question. Who are the three or four tallest kids in our class?’ More names.

“I asked those questions because some of you are taller, some of you can run faster, and some of you can sing better, but that’s just how things are turning out. It’s not because you are better. You’re just different. The same thing is true with reading. All of you are readers, good readers, but some of you can read better….because you got lucky at birth, not because you are a better person.”

She is correct. It turns out about 40 percent of young children absorb the basics of Phonics without difficulty and are able to decode and comprehend with ease. But everyone–even ‘born readers–has to learn to read because reading is not a natural act.

“You’re all readers now, and nobody can take that away from you….ever. So please keep on reading, and writing, and thinking, and asking questions.”

Full disclosure: That teacher isn’t one person but a mashup of marvelous First Grade teachers I encountered as an education reporter, all but one of them women. Among the women was my own First Grade teacher, Mrs. Catherine Peterson at Hindley School in Noroton, Connecticut. I went back and spent a day with Mrs. Peterson when I was in my late 30’s and working for NPR. The man was Johnny Brinson, a First Grade teacher in Washington, DC. Like all great teachers, they made reading a challenging game, and then did everything possible to see that their students ‘won’ the game.

To summarize: Learning the alphabet is a straightforward 2-step process: Shapes and Sounds. One must learn to recognize the shapes of the 26 letters and what each letter sounds like. There’s no argument about this, and certainly there has never been and never will be an “Alphabet War.”

The same rule–Shapes and Sounds–applies to reading. Would-be readers must apply what they learned about Sounds–formally called Phonics and Phonemic Awareness–to combinations of letters–i.e., words. They must also learn to recognize some words by their Shapes, because many English words do not follow the rules of Phonics. (One quick example: By the rules of Phonics, ‘Here’ and ‘There’ should rhyme; they do not, and readers must learn how to pronounce both.) To become a competent, confident reader, one must rely on both Phonics and Word Recognition.

Ergo, there’s absolutely no need, justification, or excuse for “Reading Wars” between Phonics and Word Recognition. None! And yet American educators, policy-makers, and politicians have been waging their “Reading Crusades” for close to 200 years. As a consequence, uncounted millions of adults have lived their lives in the darkness of functional illiteracy and semi-literacy.

Here’s something most Reading Crusaders don’t understand: Almost without exception, every first grader wants to be able to read, because they understand that reading gives them some measure of control over their world, in the same way walking does.

And skilled teachers can teach almost all children–including the 5-20 percent who are dyslexic–to become confident readers.

Skilled teachers understand that reading–like walking–is not the goal. It’s the means to understanding, confidence, and control. Children don’t “first learn to read and then read to learn,” as some pedants maintain. That’s a false dichotomy: they learn to read to learn.

And so skilled teachers use whatever strategies are called for, beginning with the essential: Phonics, but including Word Recognition, what one might call Reading as Liberation, and more.

Here are seven (perhaps overlapping) possibilities:

1. Public Schools are Stepping Stones designed to give all children the opportunity to reach their potential. They are Ladders.

2. Neither Ladders nor Stepping Stones, Public Schools exist to ratify the existing social and economic order.

3. They exist to teach ‘The Three R’s’ of reading, writing, and math. Full stop!

4. They are sorting machines, designed to separate winners from losers in our competitive capitalist system. They use standardized test scores and other measures to achieve this.

5. They are instruments of Social Control designed to civilize the unwashed masses, ‘Americanize’ immigrants, and maintain the social order.

6. Their purpose is to prepare citizens for life in a democracy–even though they are almost as undemocratic as prisons and the military!

7. They are designed to indoctrinate. Why else would they have 5-year-olds–who have no idea what the words ‘pledge’ and ‘allegiance’ even mean–pledging allegiance?

I am giving a talk in about 10 days to a sophisticated audience, and I’d appreciate your thoughts. You can post a public answer (my preference) here or here, or you can write to me privately at john.merrow@gmail.com.

Thanks,

John

Reading is not a science! Full stop.

Chemistry, Biology, and Physics are sciences, but reading is a skill, much like tuning a piano or an automobile engine, or throwing a pot or a frisbee. Those who would have us believe that “A Science of Reading” exists, and that it reduces reading to a hard and fast set of rules are either devious politicians, opportunistic charlatans eager to sell snake oil curriculums, liars, or ignoramuses.

But, while reading is a skill that can be learned, teaching reading is both an art and a skill.

However, the “Science of Reading” bandwagon shows no signs of slowing down. To date, 43 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation relating to what is called ‘evidence-based reading instruction.’ I say that’s well and good if that means making sure teachers understand the importance of phonics. Not so good, if it means hours of rigid drills in the sounds that letters make.

Don’t laugh–that’s what happened the last time we fought ‘the reading wars’ back in the 1980’s. I remember being in public schools in Connecticut where reading had been reduced to about 30 discrete steps, which could be drilled and practiced. Once the kids had mastered the steps, they were deemed to be readers. Perhaps they could read, but all the kids I interviewed absolutely HATED reading!

Phonics–matching letters and groups of letters with the sounds they make–is the engine of reading. But it’s not enough to know the rules of English because our language has almost as many ‘exceptions to the rule’ words as it has rules. So learners need to know more than just the rules. They have to recognize some words, the ones that break the rules.

Some of my favorite examples of our rule-breaking language:

If reading were a science, HE, SHE, and THE would rhyme, so why don’t they?

If reading were a science, PRIVATE, ESTIMATE, AND PRIMATE also should rhyme, but they don’t.

If reading were a science, MAINTAIN, OBTAIN, and CAPTAIN would rhyme, wouldn’t they?

Say these three words aloud: ANGER, RANGER, and HANGER. If reading were a science, they would rhyme, but they don’t.

Why don’t these words rhyme? “Because reading isn’t a real science.”

Let me give you one more example of our language’s irregularities: Say this word aloud: EAR. Now put a B in front of EAR to make BEAR. By the rules of Phonics, BEAR should rhyme with EAR….but it doesn’t

Now that you have learned to pronounce BEAR, it stands to reason that adding a D, making BEARD, will produce a word that is pronounced BARED. But it’s not; it’s pronounced BEERD.

Back to the rules: EAR and HEAR rhyme, as they should, but HEARD isn’t pronounced HERE-D; instead, it’s pronounced HERD.

And if we add a T to HEAR to make HEART, we don’t get HERE-T. No, it’s HART.

Back to hard core phonics: By its rules, DEAR, FEAR, HEAR, GEAR, and PEAR should rhyme…. Which they do, with one important exception. Let’s talk about the exception. Let’s add an L to PEAR, to make PEARL. It should be pronounced PAIR-L, but of course it’s not. It’s PURR-L.

So, learning our weird language is not a walk in the park. Nonetheless, properly trained teachers can teach almost any first grader to read, because most children want to be able to read. They understand, intuitively, that reading gives them more control over their environment. It’s learning with a purpose. It’s why children want to learn to walk–to get somewhere– and to talk–to be understood. The same applies to learning to read.

It’s painful but necessary to acknowledge that public schools have done a poor job teaching children to read over the years. 21% of American adults are functionally illiterate, and 54% of us read at a sixth grade level or lower. That’s embarrassing, tragic for those individuals, and damaging to our economy, but please do not blame teachers.

It’s not their fault, because almost all of them were trained by education professors in thrall to the belief that children needed above all to recognize words, not sound them out. So, for years and years the fundamental principles of phonics (letters make sounds!) have been ignored or, more likely, scorned in favor of what is called ‘Whole Language,’ the curious notion that children should be taught to recognize words, not sound them out. (When Whole Language fell into disrepute, the name changed to “Balanced Literacy,” with equally disastrous results.)

Education bureaucrats compounded the problem with their catchy mantra, “First they learn to read; then they read to learn.” That’s utter nonsense! They happen together.

The craze for ‘The Science of Reading’ dates back to 2017, when a brilliant reporter, Emily Hanford of American Public Media, launched a podcast series called “Sold a Story.” If you missed it, it’s still relevant. She exposes the hypocrisy of education professors who continue to teach and preach ‘Whole Language,’ basically recognizing the shapes of words, as the one true way to teach children to read.

But I can’t imagine that Ms Hanford is thrilled with some of the unintended consequences, which I wrote about here in 2024.

If you have the time and the curiosity, here’s a good teacher at work, making learning to read a journey of discovery and pleasure.

Reading, and learning to read, should not be politicized, but they have been and are. Somehow, Phonics became ‘Conservative’ and then ‘Republican,’ while Whole Language became left, liberal, and Democratic. Ideologues in George W. Bush’s administration did a lot of damage.

More recently, the so-called Mississippi Miracle, which saw its fourth graders making huge gains in reading and math, has been oversimplified, unfortunately.

There is hope. The very red state of Texas has just issued a mandatory reading list of its public schools, and kids there will be reading lots of good books. Yes, there’s a Christian bias, but Texas isn’t giving in to the widespread idea that today’s children have such short attention spans that they can only read excerpts. Bravo to James Traub for celebrating this in a recent New York Times column.

I realize that I’m suggesting a lot of additional reading (this in a nation where only about 16% of adults read for pleasure), but here’s one more important piece, “The End of Reading is Here,” by Rose Horowitch in this month’s Atlantic.

What can YOU do? Read to your grandchildren and grandchildren; give them gift certificates for their local bookstore or Barnes & Noble. Support banning cellphones in school and at your dinner table.

One more thing: Get copies of Jim Trelease’s wonderful book, The Read-Aloud Handbook, now in its 7th edition, for everyone interested in having children read. Jim was a special guy, a reporter in Springfield (MA) with an interest in education. He visited a lot of schools in the 1970’s and 80’ and became intrigued by what was called ‘sustained silent reading.’ He thought there might be a connection between being read to and loving to read. There was, and there is. Turns out the more we read to children, the more likely it is that they will become readers.

I don’t remember how Jim and I got connected, probably through my weekly radio program on NPR, but when Jim self-published “The Read-Aloud Handbook” in 1979, he asked me to write a blurb for the cover. It was the first book I ever blurbed, and I wouldn’t mind if that fact were mentioned in my obituary, so significant was Jim’s book.

Jim passed away in 2022, but his book is a living testament to a life well-lived.

You will not regret buying “The Read-Aloud Handbook.” (And if you happen to find a first edition, my mailing address is PO Box 1381, Edgartown MA 02539.)

PS: I woke up thinking that I had a copy somewhere and—of course—got out of bed and searched until I found it. It’s the 4th Edition. Jim signed it “To John, my all-time favorite footnote.’ Dated 4.8.98. No blurbs from me—or anyone else, for that matter. The reference is to an interview I did for NPR with Captain Kangaroo about television’s negative impact on reading.

I’m still hoping to find a First Edition (1982).

Now imagine that you’ve inserted yourself into the Senate race in Maine, first urging the Governor, age 78, to run. That fizzled out, and when the nominee, Graham Platner, was forced to step aside, Maine’s Democrats nominated Troy Jackson, a veteran politician. Almost immediately, Jackson said he wasn’t a fan of Senator Schumer and wouldn’t vote for him as the party’s leader. “The Democratic Party needs to have a different approach — getting people back in the party, getting working-class, everyday people back in the party — and I don’t believe it’s going to happen with Senator Schumer,” he said.

So what now? Remember, you’re role-playing as Senator Schumer, the savvy veteran politician. Perhaps you would immediately issue a statesman-like statement, something like:

“I want Troy Jackson, and everyone in Maine, to know that, even if he doesn’t support me, I support him. I want everyone to know that I will do all that I can to see that he’s elected. Once he wins, he will have a chance to get to know me, and perhaps he will change his mind. That’s in the future. What matters now is gaining control of the Senate and the House so we can stop Trump and his cronies from robbing us blind, stop Trump from turning America into a fascist nightmare.”

Schumer didn’t say anything like that, not even close. Instead, he behaved like a disgruntled 7th grader, saying the politician’s version of “Well, if he won’t support me, I won’t support him. So there!!” His office tried to paper over the tantrum, but the incident perfectly encapsulates what’s wrong with the Democratic party in 2026.

Troy Jackson isn’t the only disaffected Democrat who wants new leadership.

As you may have read, many big donors have figured out that the rot at the top includes the Democratic National Committee, which is broke. It has about $16.3 million in cash but owes $18.5 million. Meanwhile, the Republicans are awash in cash.

So, what’s a good Democrat to do? Well, you have options….

One option is Act Blue, which allows you to select which candidates you wish to support.

Another is Emily’s List, which supports pro-choice candidates.

Another (and perhaps more promising) option that we recently discovered is WAY TO WIN, which describes itself as a ‘strategic donor collaborative and strategy hub’ that uses new media to build coalitions. Way to Win’s focus now is on retaking the House, and its specific attention is races in the south and southwest. It’s data-driven, and its leadership comes across as smart and committed. Please take a look….and, if you are as impressed as we are, donate and spread the word.

Remember, despair is not an option; nor is sitting on your hands until November.

Here’s a photo, taken this morning. The clock reads 1:16

Underneath the clock is the ‘certificate of authenticity’ that accompanied Josh’s gift, which reads:

THIS IS AN AUTHENTIC ‘HENCEFORTH ELECTRO-MECHANICAL SERIES 3’ TIMEPIECE. THERE IS NO NEED TO SET IT, AS IT IS ALREADY SET TO ITS OWN TIME.

TO FULLY ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF YOUR TIMEPIECE, IT IS ADVISABLE TO REMOVE, COVER, OR DISABLE ALL OTHER TIME-KEEPING EQUIPMENT IN THE AREA IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO ALREADY.

SHOULD THERE BE A PROBLEM, ONE OF OUR TECHNICIANS WILL ARRIVE JUST BEFORE IT OCCURS. YOU HAVE PLENTY OF TIME!’

“Turning back the clock” is a perennial fantasy, brought to life vividly in Jack Finney’s 1970 novel, “Time and Again,” and in “Back to the Future,” the memorable 1985 film starring Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd. Both of those plots involve a child’s parents meeting and falling in love, but I’m interested in having readers fantasize about world events, not personal ones.

So, here’s the question: If you could turn back the clock, what would you change, not in your personal life but in the larger world? Not big stuff like dropping the second A-Bomb or assassinating Hitler or Stalin, but small events that, done differently, would have had a profound impact on our lives.

No doubt some of you have already thought about having Fred Trump wear a condom!

Me, I’d somehow convince President Reagan not to do his deal with Rupert Murdoch that did away with the ‘fairness doctrine’ that required equal time on TV and radio for different points of view. That deal has given us Fox, NewsMax, MS Now, and all the unbalanced crap that pollutes our airwaves.

And I would have George W. Bush first read and then take seriously the FBI warnings that the ‘foreign-appearing’ men who were taking flying lessons weren’t interested in learning how to land the planes. That probably would have prevented 911.

I’d change at least three votes in the Senate if I could. 1) I’d have Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a medical doctor, abide by his Hippocratic oath and vote against confirming Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services; and 2) I’d have Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa vote against confirming Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense and 3) (going back to Trump’s first term) I’d give Senator Susan Collins the courage to vote against sending to the full Senate the nomination of Betsy DeVos to be Secretary of Education.

It’s now 36 minutes later, but on Josh’s clock it’s 36 minutes earlier!!

Alas, as Omar Kayyam wrote,

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,

Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit

Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,

Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”

While we cannot change the past, much of what will happen tomorrow is subject to our control. So if you, like me, are unhappy with the direction that Trump is taking our country, get involved. Support the ACLU and groups that are working to protect voting rights. Write postcards. Donate to promising political candidates.

The clock is ticking….

Well, I biked 86 miles, which was just barely–1.1%--above the stated goal.

In all, 101 different people donated, which is an impressive 18.8% above the stated goal.

And those 101 people donated $27,845 to MVIHT, which is a mind-boggling 385% above the stated goal.

And on my blog and in these emails, about 3,000 of “my closest friends” have read about IHT, a truly remarkable organization that has built homes and apartments for hundreds of families here on Martha’s Vineyard. More than 500 beds, with hundreds more in the pipeline.

To be candid, once I learned that more than 85 people had donated, I began hoping for 100. And we made it, thanks to you.

And now that we are so close to $30,000, I’m hoping that a few more of you will go here and make your tax-deductible donation. We need just $2,155.

But, whatever, my heartfelt thanks….

John

(PS: Planning is underway for next year when I will turn 86 (Lord willing and the creek don’t rise). However, in this political climate ‘86’ is interpreted as encouraging assassination, and so the plan is to try to bike 100 miles.)

What then happened: Messi all but disappeared and Argentina played poorly (and thuggishly), losing only 1-0 in extra time, but the score would have been 5-0 or worse but for their remarkable goalie, who made a record 11 saves.

Before the World Cup semifinal games (England v. Argentina and Spain v. France), Trump predicted that England would prevail because of Harry Kane, England’s captain and striker.

What then happened: Kane played poorly, and England lost.

When an American player, Folarin Balogun, received a red card and therefore a ban for the team’s next game, Trump intervened, the red card was ‘suspended,’ and Trump took full credit.

What then happened: The American player all but disappeared on the pitch, and the American team played poorly and was routed by Belgium, 4-1. In its celebration, Belgian players mocked Trump and his infamous dance.

In June Trump announced that he wanted to go to Madison Square Garden in New York City to see the Knicks and the San Antonio Spurs play for the NBA Championship. He would be the first sitting US President to attend an NBA championship game.

What then happened: The Knicks, who hadn’t lost a single playoff game, lost Game 3 to the Spurs, 115-111, and Trump was booed, even more loudly than the Spurs.

Are you detecting a pattern?

Before the 2025 Super Bowl between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Philadelphia Eagles, Trump publicly and loudly supported the Chiefs, announcing his friendship with the family of KC quarterback Patrick Mahomes.

What then happened: The Chiefs were routed, 40-22, a score that looks much closer than it was because the Chiefs scored 16 points in the last few minutes of the game.

Trump invested in the World Football League, a wannabe competitor to the National Football League.

You know what happened: The WFL went belly-up, bankrupt.

If Trump’s deadly impact were restricted to sports, this would be comical, but, unfortunately, the Trump jinx (or curse) isn’t limited to sports, because the full truth is that EVERYTHING Trump touches turns to sh*t.

…..Including six casinos, Trump steaks, Trump Airlines, Trump University, and more.

…..Including the lives and reputations of men and women who signed to work for him. We’re looking at you, Bill Barr and Lindsey Graham and Tulsi Gabbard and Marco Rubio and JD Vance and on and on.

…..Including lots of Washington DC, like half of the White House, The Kennedy Center, Lafayette Park, and the reflecting pool by the Lincoln Memorial.

….Including, tragically, the US Government and institutions like the CDC, the FBI, and the Departments of Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, and Health & Human Services.

While it will take years to rebuild our country after Trump’s destructive reign of error and terror, the work is underway. You and I can help by contributing generously to the American Civil Liberties Union and by signing up to work with groups that are actively working to protect the vote this November and beyond.

Here are five: Indivisible, Protect the Vote, The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Bipartisan Policy Center, and Defend 2026.

Flush Trump…..

And millions are accepting the invitation. One American adult in five is participating, wagering nearly $11 Billion.

(Journalists are trained to ask “Cui bono?” Who benefits? I will come back to that.)

If you check sports schedules on the ESPN App, you learn who’s playing, who’s favored, the betting line, what the over/under is, and more. In short, everything you need to know to place your bets!

Anyone with a smart phone can place bets, 24-7, and millions are, including a growing number of young people. “People in their early 20s are the fastest-growing group of gamblers, according to recent research. And many kids are starting younger than that. Nearly two-thirds of adolescents, ages 12 to 18, said they had gambled or played gambling-like games in the previous year.”

No secret why professional sports leagues and mega-wealthy owners like Jerry Jones, who owns football’s Dallas Cowboys, and Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots, are all in with gambling: They know a fundamental truth: most Americans–particularly young ones–are financially illiterate, or close to it. They know that, while gambling is a sucker bet because the house always wins, investing in gambling seems to be a license to print money, given the number of suckers (i.e., undereducated people) in the audience.

The old saw, “There’s a sucker born every minute,” is incomplete. Add “...and we don’t do enough to teach them about money.”

Kristina Vorndran, writing in the Harvard Kennedy School publication, asserts, “Millennials and Gen Z want financial education, and 88% of adults support mandatory school courses on financial literacy.[iii] In response, 26 states now require high school personal finance courses, up from just 7 in 2019.[iv] Utah led the push for financial literacy in 2003 with its General Financial Literacy Program, but it took 18 years for over 10 states to follow suit. Now, just over half of the states require financial literacy for high school graduation, still leaving gaps, especially in underserved communities.”

The organization WalletHub surveyed financial literacy in our 50 states and concluded that Minnesota, Colorado, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Virginia do the best job of teaching financial literacy. Worst, they say, are Arkansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska, and Louisiana. Here’s another interesting source: https://www.theapef.org/ I am not vouching for either of these surveys, and a good friend, the Minnesota educator Joe Nathan, says that ranking his state #1 cannot be accurate because its requirements are not being implemented. And I cannot recall Joe ever steering me wrong!

About a dozen years ago I was visiting elementary schools in Japan, and in a couple of classrooms the teachers had given students the super-market inserts from local newspapers. Students were told they had a certain amount of money and had to buy enough food for their family for a week. No ‘right answers’ but lots of good discussion.

I know teachers who ‘gave’ their middle school students an (imaginary) monthly budget–but not enough money to pay for everything they wanted. Again, no right answers, but lots of learning.

About 30 years ago the great Johns Hopkins economist Arnold Packer and I created a curriculum for Baltimore public high schools, with the goal of raising achievement levels in math and English. (We didn’t think about it at the time, but we were teaching financial literacy!)

I dug around in boxes and found 3 CD’s (or CD-ROM’s?) from the project, and then I discovered that it ran for 3 years, 97-99. I doubt anyone has the records, and, sadly, my good friend Arnie died about 10 years ago. (BTW, Arnie was the architect of SCANS, the Secretary’s Commission for Achieving Necessary Skills, a worthy GOP initiative in the Labor Department.)

True story: It was probably in 1994 that he and I attended some sort of education/economics meeting, which we both felt was largely BS. Afterwards we went to a bar and (after quite a few beers) came to the conclusion that we could teach kids the essential English and math skills by having them do real work. I remember that we sketched out a design on bar napkins!! We kept talking, and, when the US Department of Education announced a huge grant program to fund innovative ways to teach those basic skills, Arnie pounced. “Let’s apply,” he said. We partnered with Baltimore City Schools and asked for $14M, I think.

We made the first cut, but fewer than half of the those remaining would get grants. Months later I was on a bus in rural Germany with a bunch of educators and happened to sit next to the Department’s key tech person, the one in charge of those grants. While we did not discuss that grant program, a few months later we got the grant.

My small production company made the videos and produced the CD materials. Although I was based in NYC, I spent a lot of time in Baltimore in “our” classrooms. It was really exciting, seeing those students taking on the challenge of creating a business from scratch.

I have always believed that kids rise to meet expectations, and this experience cemented that view.

All the money, time, and energy devoted to “closing the achievement gap” is wasted unless we acknowledge and do something about our persistent “expectations gap,” which is most often based on race and social class, and sometimes gender as well.

Here’s how our curriculum worked: Small teams of students created businesses in an imaginary shopping mall. They had to choose a product, figure out where they would get it wholesale, what they would charge, what kind of storefront they would rent, how many employees, salaries and benefits, advertising, loans and interest rates on those loans, and so on. They also had to develop a business plan…and then present it in person to real, honest-to-God business people.

We helped train English and math teachers to use the curriculum, and we persuaded (with $$ from a Department of Education grant) some high schools to adopt it, which required changing schedules to allow for team-teaching and extended periods.

Because in every participating high school, not all English and math teachers were involved, some students got our curriculum, and some did not. A pretty cool research study because they all had to take the Maryland state tests.

Guess what? Our kids showed dramatic improvement in both subjects, far outperforming those in traditional English and math, and not just once but for a couple of years running.

But guess what happened next? The high schools abandoned the curriculum, saying that schedule changes were causing too much disruption, or team-teaching was too much work, or it was making the regular teachers look bad. (Oh, and our Department of Education grant was used up.)

What have I learned? That we as a society do not care enough to see that all kids get real opportunities to learn how money works, or to create and produce real knowledge. It’s cheaper to do drill-and-kill, and it’s easier and cheaper to give kids multiple-choice tests–even though nothing in adult life resembles a multiple-choice test.

So let’s ask that fundamental question, “Who benefits from widespread financial illiteracy?” In Christ’s time, it was the money lenders in the temple. Today, it’s pretty much the same crowd, offering bitcoins, expensive college loans, ‘free’ chances to bet, etc etc.

The losers aren’t stupid, however. At some point at least some of them will wake up and realize that they are being duped. That may happen in the November elections….

While most states now require some sort of financial education, it’s clearly not working. Parents and everyone else who wants a healthy society need to demand that public elementary schools develop dynamic curriculums that teach kids how money works, even when that means critiquing capitalism.

Will that happen? Wanna bet?

However, a scant amount of research turns up dozens of examples of “86-47” that have nothing to do with killing Trump. However, quite a few “86-47” references do involve Trump and his administration.

One involves Jesus. That’s right, Jesus Christ had his own “86-47” moment when he expelled 86 money-changers from the Temple, and the oldest was 47. Will this uncomfortable historical fact awaken Trump’s (supposedly) Christian supporters who have yet to notice that Trump and his family are running a 24/7 grift that has brought them billions? Don’t bet on it!

Here are some more non-Trump ones:

1. Because the World Cup is now being contested, recall that one year the great Ronaldo, wearing jersey number 47, scored 86 goals. His “86-47” moment.

2. Kobe Bryant once scored 86 points in 47 minutes in an NBA game. His “86-47” moment.

3. The New York Mets once made 86 errors over a 47 game stretch.

4. Earlier this month I biked 86 miles to celebrate my 85th birthday. And when I was 47 I caught a 16 pound, 9 ounce bluefish from the shore, the largest caught on Nantucket that entire summer. That’s my own “86-47” moment.

Now let’s talk about the Trump Administration.

“86-47” applies to Trump’s infamous ICE, because 47% of ICE new hires have IQ’s of 86 or lower. It could be worse: suppose 86% of ICE had IQ’s of 47 or below?!?

When he was 47, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who brought the charges against Comey, was arrested for going 86 miles an hour in a school zone.

The Trump Administration’s severe cuts in foreign aid for nutrition and health care are causing an estimated 86 deaths every 47 minutes; most are children and pregnant women. Take a bow, Trump and Marco Rubio, for your “86-47” accomplishment.

The undistinguished podiatrist who wrote multiple evaluations of Trump’s supposed bone spurs that allowed him to dodge the draft for several years was 47 when he wrote the first diagnosis. He died mysteriously in ‘86. An odd “86-47” moment.

The draft slot that Trump should have filled was, over the years, filled by 86 young men, 47 of whom were wounded, some fatally, in VietNam. Take a bow, Trump, for that “86-47” moment.

The Epstein Files have at least one “86-47” moment that may involve Trump. According to unconfirmed sources, Epstein boasted that he and a few of his friends had ‘interesting, complicated, and memorable’ sex with 47 different young girls 86 times during the month of June, 1989. Was one of those friends DJT?

One more “86-47” moment, this one in the Oval Office. In early April the 47th President of the United States told 86 lies in a mere 47 minutes, on subjects ranging from the 2020 election, windmills, solar power, Gavin Newsom, Mexico and the Wall, Iran’s nuclear capacity, Hunter Biden, mandatory gender-altering surgery for children in Blue states, Jeremy Raskin, immigrants eating cats, his intelligence, and his sexual prowess.

That particular “86-47” moment says to me that we can and must “86-47” Trump in the forthcoming elections, which we can do by supporting Democrats, supporting the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other organizations that are working to protect the vote, and by making our voices heard.

Perhaps it’s time to “25th” our neo-fascist, corrupt President by invoking the 25th Amendment. JD Vance couldn’t possibly be worse, could he? (written with fingers crossed).

Our Black Lab made the connection, the way dogs always seem to do. Henry went right up to the stranger, wagging his tail, and she began petting him. The child, who looked about 10 years old, was nicely dressed and waiting quietly outside our thrift store, where my wife was inside, searching for treasures. I assumed the little girl was a summer resident, perhaps from Greenwich CT or some other wealthy town and that her mother, like my wife, was also inside browsing. As she was petting our dog, I struck up a conversation based on those (erroneous) assumptions. When I asked her where she lived, she told me they were moving in a few days because the owners were coming to the Island. Before long, I learned that her Mom worked at the thrift store, part-time, to supplement their income, and that her family moved as many as five times every year because they couldn’t afford a home or apartment.

This happened 12 or 13 years ago, but I still remember being shocked, because, to my way of thinking, every child needs and should have a room of their own, a place they can decorate with favorite posters and keep their special stuff, a place they can retreat to.

I told my wife about it, we did some digging, and we were shocked to learn that Martha’s Vineyard had a housing crisis. That’s when we got involved with the Island Housing Trust, a remarkable organization. And while IHT has built homes for several hundred essential workers and their families over the past twenty years, the need is greater than ever. Housing prices on Martha’s Vineyard continue to soar, as off-Islanders bid up prices. The “affordability gap” between what a median income household can afford and the median home price is now a staggering $1.5 million.

Just one year ago about 40% of units were available for year-round rental, but unfortunately more and more units are now being rented to tourists by the week, removing them from the reach of year-round residents. One consequence is housing insecurity at almost all income levels. Fire departments, law enforcement, emergency management, public safety, wastewater treatment, public works departments, town halls, and our public schools struggle to attract and retain employees. For example, our hospital reports that about 20% of staff positions are unfilled because potential hires cannot find housing.

It’s estimated that 40% of year-round Island households are forced to spend excessive amounts on housing, with a majority spending more than half of their income on housing. Perhaps as many as 100 Islanders are homeless, many others have month-to-month leases or are crashing with friends, and lots of essential workers commute daily from the Cape.

Joan and I have been through this before, during the first tech boom in the early 2000’s. We were in its epicenter, Palo Alto, California, and real estate went through the roof. Houses that were listed for, say, $400,000 ended up selling for three times that amount. Apartment rents doubled and tripled, and suddenly some of the men and women whose services kept Palo Alto running smoothly were forced to relocate to cheaper apartments two or more hours away from their workplaces. Some workers even took to sleeping in their cars during the week, parked on Palo Alto’s side streets, to avoid the 4-hour commute.

Palo Alto is not an island, of course, and eventually things settled down. But here on Martha’s Vineyard we are eating our seed corn when we fail to make certain that essential workers can afford to live here.

A partial solution is an Island-wide Housing Bank, into which 2% of every sale price over a certain amount is set aside, money that then becomes available for building affordable, attainable housing. A bill to create a Housing Bank is in front of the Massachusetts Legislature now. You can learn more here, the website of the Coalition to Create the MV Housing Bank.

I’ve often wondered about that young girl, who would now be in her early 20’s. Did she ever have a room of her own? Was she able to grow up here, or was her family forced to leave for the mainland?

It’s too late to help that young girl, but we can help IHT build hundreds more homes for our essential workers. (Or you can work to create a similar organization in your area, or support the one that’s already hard at work.)

When you make a pledge, it’s not simply charity. It’s also in your self-interest, because organizations like IHT that help year-round Islanders achieve the American Dream of a home of their own actually protect your investment in your vacation home and the wonderful lifestyle that Martha’s Vineyard offers you and your family.

This is an island, and, without essential workers, it will eventually grind to a halt. If we fail to invest in affordable, attainable housing, we will be forcing many more essential workers to commute by ferry every day.

Ergo, expect serious limitations on all sorts of essential services.

Or, eventually, no service at all. It’s our choice.

Here’s the backstory: In the 15 years that I have ‘biked my age,’ I have exceeded the required distance every year. For example, the year I turned 77, I biked 83 miles, giving me six “Surplus Miles.” And three times–on my birthdays in 2011, 2014 and last year–I biked a Century, at least 100 miles.

In all, I have biked 106.78 “Surplus Miles.”

Knowing I had all those miles in my pocket, I had no problem guaranteeing that I would bike 85 miles this year. So, when I asked everyone to donate to the Island Housing Trust so it could continue to build affordable, attainable housing for the men and women who keep Martha’s Vineyard running, and their families, I “boldly” offered to match their donations if I did not make it.

I went so far as to GUARANTEE to four different groups that I would personally donate $8500 of my own money to IHT if I didn’t bike 85 miles. That’s $34,000 I‘m committed to donate if I don’t bike 85 miles. Sounds impressive, right?

But because I have those 106.78 “Surplus Miles,” I figured I wouldn’t even have to get out of bed–let alone get on my bike–this birthday!! Talk about a safe bet!

So a few weeks ago I filed a petition with ABBA, the Annual Birthday Bikers Association, for permission to count 85 of my 106.78 “Surplus Miles” toward this year’s goal.

The organization does have some strict rules, such as

1) No Performance-Enhancing Drugs;

2) Only One 15-minute Nap During the Ride; and

3) No Sex During the Ride.

But, those Draconian rules to the contrary notwithstanding, I fully expected ABBA would reward past performances by allowing “Surplus Miles” to be counted in the future.

ABBA’s decision just came down, and I am devastated: PERMISSION DENIED! With no possibility of appeal, and so that means I have to bike the entire 85 miles…or pay $34,000 to IHT.

What makes this even worse is that ABBA doesn’t exist! It is a fabrication, completely imaginary. But it’s MY fabrication! I created ABBA, just made it up, out of whole cloth. It doesn’t exist, although I have written extensively about it here, here, here, and here.

Sometime, somehow, in the last three or four months Artificial Intelligence took over MY completely imaginary, non-existent organization and made it real. AI filed incorporation papers in Stockholm, Sweden, and ABBA now has a Board of Directors, non-profit tax status, membership rules, and an Executive Director, Christina Karlsson, who rejected my petition. AI has even given ABBA a theme song, “The Winner Takes It All.”

(If you believe what you’ve just read and want to make me pay $34,000, click this link and donate $85 (or more) to the Island Housing Trust.)

(If you do not believe a single word of it, you’re still in luck, because your donations to IHT will also be accepted.)

“Not so,” replied A.I. (which is defending itself without benefit of counsel). “We are innocent. Student writing was stone cold, deader than a doornail, when we arrived on the scene.” A.I. went on to say, “We have a rock-solid unbreakable alibi: we weren’t even around when the crime took place!”

Turns out, that’s true.

In its front page story, “How A.I. Killed Student Writing (And Revived It),” The Times makes sweeping generalizations based on what 400 (out of 5.5 million) college and school teachers volunteered. Granted, most of these 5.5 million teachers aren’t teaching writing, but relying on self-selected sources seems dubious, especially for the front page. What we learn is that a few creative and dedicated teachers, frustrated by their students’ reliance on A.I., are having the kids write in class, on paper, with pens or pencils.

More than a year ago the Wall Street Journal reported the same story, based largely on the dramatic rise in the sale of ‘blue books’ on college campuses: “Sales of blue books this school year were up more than 30% at Texas A&M University and nearly 50% at the University of Florida. The improbable growth was even more impressive at the University of California, Berkeley. Over the past two academic years, blue-book sales at the Cal Student Store were up 80%”

Both reports hang on the same premise: Student writing is dead, and A.I. is the killer. I think that’s flat out false. Most education systems stopped trying to teach writing when Artificial Intelligence was still the stuff of science fiction. Playing up to politicians, many education bureaucrats and administrators (who generally don’t trust teachers) decided the way to ‘raise standards’ was to require students to write more papers and read more books and plays (or excerpts!). Any suggestion that writing one outstanding paper would be better than six or a dozen so-so papers fell on deaf ears. Quantity triumphed over quality, almost never a good outcome….

And because writing skills can’t be tested by a machine, why bother trying to teach them? Moreover, since we don’t trust teachers, it would be foolish to rely on their evaluation of their students’ writing skills.

The murder weapon? Machine-scored multiple choice tests.

The killers? Test-score obsessed politicians and education bureaucrats.

Did they have accomplices? Maybe we need to look in the mirror.

Happily, lots of teachers have not given up. A Google search turns up a treasure trove of ideas for improving student writing, starting in the elementary years. Writing thank you notes, keeping a journal, and so on. Here’s one you might want to share with teachers in your world.

It’s not semantics to assert that the goal is to develop writers, not “teach writing.” That’s an important distinction.

So what can teachers who want to develop writers do? First of all, take a deep breath because we’ve been through this before. Back when the internet emerged, some students figured out that they could download papers and submit them as their own. Next came profit-making companies offering papers written to order. While bureaucrats thought they could win that struggle by spending millions on technology to scan papers and (supposedly) detect plagiarism, thoughtful teachers triumphed by 1) reducing the number of papers assigned, and 2) working with individual students as they developed their ideas and wrote drafts. It’s harder to cheat if the teacher is overseeing the process and kids are writing about something they genuinely care about.

What’s called for now is emulating what my high school English teacher, Mr. William Sullivan, did nearly 70 years ago.

Two or three times every week he would tell us to clear our desks of everything except for a single sheet of paper and a pencil. What followed was what he called a “2-8-2,” meaning that we had two minutes to think–no writing allowed–followed by eight minutes to write, and then two more minutes to read what we had written and correct any errors. He would put our writing assignment on the blackboard.

Sometimes we would have to include a certain sentence, such as “I wish I had missed that train.” Or “I still wish I hadn’t missed that flight.”

Even today I can remember one particular assignment: “Turn out the light; I don’t want to go home in the dark,” which Mr. Sullivan said were the dying words of William Sydney Porter. Of course, he challenged us to explain the contradiction.

(Fun fact: Some forty or fifty years later I discovered that Porter, whom we know as O. Henry, actually did not contradict himself. His dying words were “Turn up the lights. I don’t want to go home in the dark.” Apparently Mr. Sullivan changed his words to create that challenging paradox.)

Although I went to Taft, a private school in Connecticut with small classes and privileged students, Mr. Sullivan’s approach can work at all levels. I know this to be true because I taught working-class kids in a public high school, first generation African American college students in an HBCU, and young men serving sentences in a federal prison.

I used Mr. Sullivan’s “2-8-2” all the time, and I believe the experience started many of my students down the path to becoming thoughtful writers.

Frequent in-class writing worked then, and it should work in the age of Artificial Intelligence, CHATgpt, Bard, and whatever other ‘advances’ are in our future.

However, policymakers and administrators have to behave sensibly and understand that ‘less is more.’ That means smaller classes, fewer students per teacher, and heightened trust in teachers. Those shouldn’t be a bridge too far, if we truly want our young people to be thoughtful and capable citizens.

You may stop here if you wish. What follows is the story of my own dabbling in A.I., printed in my blog in April 2023, more than three years ago.

If you’re at all like me, you’re curious about Artificial Intelligence and new applications like ChatGPT and Bard. The brilliant Thomas Friedman of the New York Times says the world will never be the same again, but my interest is narrower: If students can simply ask Bard or ChatGPT to write their papers for them, how can teachers prevent this from happening?

So, naturally, I turned to Bard, which told me (within seconds) that, while it can help students generate ideas, do research, improve their writing, and learn about different writing genres, it’s not supposed to be a substitute for original research and writing. Then it warned me to “Monitor students’ use of Bard to make sure that they are not plagiarizing or engaging in other forms of academic misconduct.”

Yeah, right. If I’m teaching English in a public high school, I probably have between 100 and 125 students! There aren’t enough hours in the day….

Second question: Can Bard help identify cheaters and plagiarists? Within seconds, I received an answer:

“There are a few things you can look for to tell the difference between original writing and prose provided by Bard.

• Original writing is typically more creative and original than prose provided by Bard. Bard is trained on a massive dataset of text, so it can be very good at generating text that is grammatically correct and factually accurate. However, it is not always able to generate text that is creative or original.

• Original writing is typically more personal and engaging than prose provided by Bard. Bard is a machine learning model, so it does not have the same level of understanding of human emotions and experiences as a human writer. As a result, its writing can be dry and impersonal.

• Original writing is typically more nuanced and complex than prose provided by Bard. Bard is a large language model, but it is still under development. As a result, it can sometimes struggle to understand the nuances of human language. This can lead to writing that is simplistic or even nonsensical.

• Ask yourself if the writing sounds like it was written by a human. Bard-generated text can sometimes sound robotic or unnatural. Original writing should sound like it was written by a human.

To put this the test, I gave Bard the following task:

Please write a short memoir of no more than 200 words about my childhood. I am one of six children, the second oldest and the first-born son. We grew up on a small farm with chickens, a few cows, a few pigs, and one goat. I’m now 81.

Within seconds, Bard spit out this:

“I was born in 1942, the second oldest of six children. We grew up on a small farm in the Midwest. My father worked hard to provide for our family, and my mother took care of the house and the children. We didn’t have much money, but we were happy.

I loved growing up on the farm. I spent my days playing with my siblings, helping my father with the chores, and exploring the woods behind our house. We had chickens, a few cows, a few pigs, and one goat. I loved taking care of the animals, and I learned a lot about hard work and responsibility.

I also learned a lot about nature on the farm. I spent hours watching the birds and the animals, and I learned to identify all the different plants. I loved being surrounded by nature, and it helped me to appreciate the beauty of the world.

I had a wonderful childhood on the farm. It was a time of innocence and discovery, and I will always cherish those memories.

Now that I am 81 years old, I still look back on my childhood with fondness. I am grateful for the opportunities I had, and I am proud of the person I have become. I know that my experiences on the farm helped to shape me into the man I am today.

Boring, and also wrong, and so I responded:

This is inaccurate. I was born in 1941, and our farm was in Connecticut. Worse, however, it does not capture either the small pleasures of collecting the eggs every morning or learning to milk cows; nor does it capture the deep pain of watching a pig or steer that I raised being slaughtered. Please rewrite.

In just a few seconds, Bard responded by adding a few paragraphs, highlighted below to make it easier for you to read: “Sure, here is a more accurate and detailed memoir:

I was born in 1941, the second oldest of six children. We grew up on a small farm in Connecticut. My father worked hard to provide for our family, and my mother took care of the house and the children. We didn’t have much money, but we were happy.

I loved growing up on the farm. I spent my days playing with my siblings, helping my father with the chores, and exploring the woods behind our house. We had chickens, a few cows, a few pigs, and one goat. I loved taking care of the animals, and I learned a lot about hard work and responsibility.

I also learned a lot about nature on the farm. I spent hours watching the birds and the animals, and I learned to identify all the different plants. I loved being surrounded by nature, and it helped me to appreciate the beauty of the world.

One of my favorite things to do was collect the eggs every morning. I would wake up early and go to the chicken coop, where I would find a dozen or so eggs waiting for me. I would carefully collect the eggs and put them in a basket, then bring them back to the house. My mother would use the eggs to make breakfast, and I would always get to eat one of the freshest eggs in the world.

Another thing I loved to do was milk the cows. I would go to the barn in the evening and bring the cows into the milking parlor. I would sit on a stool and milk each cow in turn, collecting the milk in a bucket. The milk would then be used to make butter, cheese, and ice cream.

Of course, there were also some challenges growing up on a farm. One of the hardest things was watching the animals being slaughtered. I knew that it was necessary to eat meat, but I still felt bad for the animals. I would often cry when I saw them being killed.

Overall, though, I had a wonderful childhood on the farm. It was a time of innocence and discovery, and I will always cherish those memories. I am grateful for the opportunities I had, and I am proud of the person I have become. I know that my experiences on the farm helped to shape me into the man I am today.

OK, but even with this information, the machine’s writing remains pedestrian and without emotion. Human writers would know not to begin with their birthday, for one thing and would instead lead with a sentence designed to keep the reader’s interest: “70 years later, at age 81, I can still hear the terrified squealing of the hog as it was strung up by its hind feet to be slaughtered….”

My conclusion: Don’t run from A.I. But do not create conditions that make it easy for students to use it to avoid work. “Expect and respect” are the key words: Expect more from students, and respect them by giving them challenging tasks.

Even if you (like me) haven’t read the 160,000 word epic, you are probably familiar with Dante’s portrayal of Hell, “The Inferno,” which he divides into nine circles: Limbo, Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Wrath, Heresy, Violence, Fraud and Treachery.

Two circles of Hell, Violence and Fraud, have sub-circles. There are three types of violence: against others, against self, and against God.

And nine versions of fraud: 1) Pandery (pandering) and seduction; 2) Flattery; 3) Simony (selling forgiveness for sins); 4) Sorcery; 5) Barratry (being excessively litigious); 6) Hypocrisy; 7) Thievery; ending with two “Councillors of fraud,” the sowers of discord; and the liars and falsifiers.

So, here’s your question: In which circles of Hell would you put Donald Trump’s enablers? By “enablers,” I mean those who are bent on destroying our democratic republic, whether it’s to line their pockets, to serve their warped version of Christianity, or to compensate for their unhappy childhood or adult impotence.

Perhaps “enablers” should also include those who have turned and continue to turn a blind eye to all that’s going on. Should they be consigned to Limbo, Hell’s first circle?

My own partial list is already pretty long: John Roberts, Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio, Elon Musk, Jamie Dimon and all the other bankers who knew Trump was a fraud but did nothing, Merrick Garland, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, James Comey, Mark Burnett (who produced ‘The Apprentice’), Judge Aileen Cannon, Peter Thiel, JD Vance, Rudy Guiliani, Pete Hegseth, Russell Vought, Pam Bondi, Jeff Bezos, Tucker Carlson, Leonard Leo, Franklin Graham, George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Brendan Carr of the FCC, and lots of others.

To complete this assignment, you’ll need some blank paper and a pencil with an eraser. Keep in mind that the offenses grow more serious as one descends into Hell. In other words, Lust is not as grievous a sin as Greed, and Wrath is worse than Greed.

That’s why this task is not a slam dunk, because for example, if you decide that Marco Rubio should be punished for Lust, you are, in effect, absolving him of Hypocrisy. Does JD Vance belong in the second circle of Flattery, the sixth circle of Hypocrisy, or in the ninth circle with the liars and falsifiers?

And you cannot dodge this responsibility by putting someone into multiple circles! That’s why you will need an eraser!

Ready, set, go…..

Below Tom’s poem is a photo of a painting that hangs in our kitchen, created by the talented artist Nick Lamia. Karma!

Now

There’s the repaired swivel chair on the patio

still able to hold your weight,

and there’s the morning breeze

brushing past your cheek,

and there’s the presence of the Japanese maple

transplanted long ago from your father’s backyard.

Now you’re getting used to things

that will not be happening again—

from now on never to look into a pair of eyes

saying, Let’s go somewhere and take off our clothes;

never again to feel you’ve nailed the proud turn

of the tango.

Now you almost love how you’ve been one

of many stones tumbled along by the river of time.

You’re about to say you’ve finally learned

to roll with it all, but that would be false.

It’s okay that there’s no word for the pleasure

of watching that chipmunk run

to the toe of your shoe, then stop, blink,

and go on with its day.

You think about how a life is made

of a million nows, and you feel quite sure

there’s no way your father’s dying

miserably in a hospital bed

would have cancelled out the best

moments of his time alive.

Now there’s the breeze again, a little warmer,

stirring the leaves of his tree.

—Tom Crider

My Dartmouth classmate, the distinguished actor Steve Macht, recently shared this thoughtful analysis with his classmates. After reading it, I asked Steve if he would allow me to share it more widely, and he gladly agreed. If you post your reactions on my Substack page or at Themerrowreport.com, Steve will see them.

Trump, King George, and the Failure of Recognition

The comparison between Donald Trump and King George III becomes more illuminating when viewed not politically, but dramatically—through the lens of Aristotle.

In true tragedy, as Aristotle teaches, a man errs (hamartia), comes to recognize that error (anagnorisis), and undergoes reversal (peripeteia). The movement is inward. Responsibility is discovered, not deflected. From that recognition comes pity—because we see ourselves in the man—and fear, because we recognize how easily we might follow the same path.

But when recognition does not occur—when error is never owned, never examined, never internalized—tragedy collapses into melodrama.

And melodrama requires a villain.

King George III, as he lives in the American imagination (fairly or not), became such a figure. In the Declaration of Independence, he is not portrayed as a man capable of self-reflection, but as a fixed force—unyielding, deaf to petition, certain of his own rightness. Whether or not the historical George possessed that rigidity in full, dramatically he functions as the antagonist: a figure against whom others must act, because he will not act upon himself.

This is precisely where critics place Donald Trump.

Trump’s public pattern—over years—is not merely one of error. All leaders err. It is the absence of acknowledged error that defines the pattern. Mistakes are reframed as victories. Contradictions are dismissed or ignored. Blame is displaced outward—onto opponents, institutions, and circumstance. There is motion, but no inward turn.

In Aristotelian terms, there is no anagnorisis.

Without recognition, there can be no true reversal—only escalation. Each challenge becomes an external attack to be defeated, rather than an internal signal to be understood. The dramatic structure shifts: instead of a shared human struggle toward understanding, we are given opposing forces locked in conflict.

That is melodrama.

And in melodrama, the villain is not necessarily evil in his own mind. Quite the opposite: he often believes himself justified, even heroic. But dramatically, he is defined by one essential trait—he does not change. He cannot recognize himself as the source of the conflict. Therefore, the conflict must always be someone else’s doing.

This is why the analogy to “Mad King George” persists—not as a clinical judgment, but as a dramatic one. It names a fear: what happens when power is joined not simply to error, but to the inability to recognize error?

My Aristotelian framework makes the distinction exact:

· In tragedy:
I did this. I see it. I must change.

· In melodrama:
They did this. I must defeat them.

Trump, in this reading, is not tragic. He does not move toward recognition. Therefore he cannot generate pity—only opposition. The emotional field splits: those aligned with him feel embattled and justified; those opposed feel threatened and resistant. Fear and anger replace fear and pity.

That is the signature of melodrama.

And it is why the comparison to King George, though historically imperfect, carries dramatic truth. It is not about monarchy versus democracy. It is about a deeper question:

Can a leader recognize himself?

If not, then the drama cannot resolve through understanding. It can only be resolved through struggle.

Steve Macht