BOULDER, CO (December 16, 2025) — In this month's episode of NEPC Talks Education, Christopher Saldaña speaks with Jarvis Givens, professor of education and African and African American Studies at Harvard University, about his new book. American Grammar: Race, Education and The Building of a Nation centers the experiences of Black and Native Americans in the origin story of American education. Givens challenges the familiar narrative of American public education as "the great equalizer." He argues that this conception rests on historical narratives focused solely on white experiences while ignoring how common schooling was structurally developed through the subjugation of Black and Indigenous peoples. He points, for instance, to the Land Ordinance of 1785, which facilitated the founding of public schools through the dispossession of Native lands. He also notes that early school funds were invested in banks that profited from the slave trade. Givens explains his use of "grammar" in the book's title as a way of thinking structurally about how law and policy create conditions determining who fits, and who does not, within American education. He also draws a crucial distinction between "exclusion" and "domination," arguing that the traditional framing of racial injustice as exclusion is inadequate. Black and Native peoples were never truly excluded from the story of American education, he contends; rather, American schooling developed directly through their subjugation. When asked what he hopes readers take away from the book, Givens says he wants to shatter the idea that education has ever been a benign institution. Education has always been political, he emphasizes, and the choices educators, students, and community members make inevitably carry political implications. A new NEPC Talks Education podcast episode, hosted by Christopher Saldaña, will be released each month from September through May.  Don’t worry if you miss a month. All episodes are archived on the NEPC website and can be found here. NEPC podcast episodes are also available on Apple Podcasts under the title NEPC Talks Education. Subscribe and follow!  

BOULDER, CO (December 11, 2025) — A large and growing body of high-quality research shows that increased school funding positively affects student outcomes. Yet, as compared to the effect of school funding reported in an authoritative meta-analysis, a new Brookings Institution report examining this relationship finds a much smaller (although still positive) effect. In his review of A State-Level Perspective on School Spending and Educational Outcomes, Rutgers University lecturer and school finance expert Mark Weber explains how the report’s reliance on overly simplistic methods prevents it from credibly estimating the true relationship between funding and student outcomes. As Dr. Weber shows, the report uses comparisons of statewide averages for spending and outcomes (comparing states to states), which masks substantial variations within states that are central to understanding how school resources affect students. The consensus that more funding leads to better outcomes for students is built on a foundation of high-quality, rigorous evidence. That consensus can and should be tested regularly by ongoing research, using appropriate data and methodologies. It cannot, however, be credibly challenged by a few simplistic correlational analyses, like those applied in the Brookings report. Consequently, Dr. Weber concludes, little meaningful guidance is offered by the recent report for policymakers seeking to reform school funding policies. Find the review, by Mark Weber, at: https://nepc.colorado.edu/review/state-funding Find A State-Level Perspective on School Spending and Educational Outcomes, authored by Sarah Reber and Gabriela Goodman and published by The Brookings Institution, at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-state-level-perspective-on-school-spending-and-educational-outcomes/  

BOULDER, CO (December 4, 2025) — A recent report from the Common Sense Institute (CSI) addresses two important policy questions about Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program: 1) how much the ESA program will cost in the upcoming year, and 2) what the demographic characteristics of ESA users are by household income and race/ethnicity. David Garcia of Arizona State University reviewed ESA’s in Arizona: Q3 2025 Report. He determined that, given the limited data available about the program’s volatility, policymakers should not be lulled into thinking that the major financial hits to the state’s budget are in the past. This view runs contrary to the report’s conclusion that the ESA program is now “essentially fully subscribed,” meaning the rapid, runaway growth in students and costs observed over the past two years is not expected to continue. The report further reasons that, at this point in the policy’s implementation, ESA costs are largely offset by declines in public school enrollment. Again, Prof. Garcia explains that the situation is too volatile to reliably make such predictions. On student demographics, the report finds that the typical ESA student comes from a middle-income Arizona household and that ESA users generally resemble the state’s overall K-12 population by race and ethnicity. Yet the report’s own analysis shows that ESA students are considerably more white than Arizona’s public-school students, complicating the narrative that the program fully reflects the state’s diversity. This new report follows three earlier quarterly CSI analyses released over the past year, each addressing essentially the same questions about cost and user characteristics. While the Q3 report does not break new ground relative to the prior versions, the frequency of these reports underscores both the urgency surrounding Arizona’s ESA program and the ongoing uneasiness about its future fiscal impact. Prof. Garcia concludes that, despite its efforts to suggest that the dust has settled following the universal expansion and subsequent runaway growth of the program, the report is ultimately constrained by limited data, and policymakers should not assume that Arizona has weathered all the significant budget impacts. Find the review, by David R. Garcia, at: https://nepc.colorado.edu/review/az-esas Find ESA’s in Arizona: Q3 2025 Report, written by Glenn Farley and published by Common Sense Institute Arizona, at: https://www.commonsenseinstituteus.org/arizona/research/education/esas-in-arizona-q3-2025-report  

BOULDER, CO (December 4, 2025) — A recent report from the Common Sense Institute (CSI) addresses two important policy questions about Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program: 1) how much the ESA program will cost in the upcoming year, and 2) what the demographic characteristics of ESA users are by household income and race/ethnicity. David Garcia of Arizona State University reviewed ESA’s in Arizona: Q3 2025 Report. He determined that, given the limited data available about the program’s volatility, policymakers should not be lulled into thinking that the major financial hits to the state’s budget are in the past. This view runs contrary to the report’s conclusion that the ESA program is now “essentially fully subscribed,” meaning the rapid, runaway growth in students and costs observed over the past two years is not expected to continue. The report further reasons that, at this point in the policy’s implementation, ESA costs are largely offset by declines in public school enrollment. Again, Prof. Garcia explains that the situation is too volatile to reliably make such predictions. On student demographics, the report finds that the typical ESA student comes from a middle-income Arizona household and that ESA users generally resemble the state’s overall K-12 population by race and ethnicity. Yet the report’s own analysis shows that ESA students are considerably more white than Arizona’s public-school students, complicating the narrative that the program fully reflects the state’s diversity. This new report follows three earlier quarterly CSI analyses released over the past year, each addressing essentially the same questions about cost and user characteristics. While the Q3 report does not break new ground relative to the prior versions, the frequency of these reports underscores both the urgency surrounding Arizona’s ESA program and the ongoing uneasiness about its future fiscal impact. Prof. Garcia concludes that, despite its efforts to suggest that the dust has settled following the universal expansion and subsequent runaway growth of the program, the report is ultimately constrained by limited data, and policymakers should not assume that Arizona has weathered all the significant budget impacts. Find the review, by David R. Garcia, at: https://nepc.colorado.edu/review/az-esas Find ESA’s in Arizona: Q3 2025 Report, written by Glenn Farley and published by Common Sense Institute Arizona, at: https://www.commonsenseinstituteus.org/arizona/research/education/esas-in-arizona-q3-2025-report  

BOULDER, CO (November 18, 2025) — In this month's episode of NEPC Talks Education, Christopher Saldaña speaks with Julie Marsh, professor at USC's Rossier School of Education and Sol Price School of Public Policy, and James Bridgeforth, assistant professor at the University of Delaware's School of Education, about the unprecedented challenges facing California school board members and how they navigate today's complex political landscape. Marsh and Bridgeforth explain that school boards have always been political, but today's environment presents unique challenges. Politicization has expanded beyond urban and rural areas into suburbs, disagreements increasingly fall along party lines, and conflicts have intensified. Tensions accelerated during the pandemic with debates over masks, vaccines, and in-person learning, and persist in current controversies over curriculum, book bans, and transgender athletes. The conversation explores how board members conceptualize their roles through four primary orientations: as change makers (questioning the status quo), champions (supporting and promoting district goals), rule followers (adhering to standing policies and procedures), and representatives (voicing constituent concerns). These orientations are dynamic and not mutually exclusive, as board members may shift between roles depending on the issue or context. Marsh and Bridgeforth note that board members now devote 20-40+ hours per week on board work during busy periods, oftentimes while maintaining full-time jobs and family responsibilities. Many face personal attacks, strategic misinformation campaigns, and threats of recall—stresses they never anticipated when choosing to serve. This emotional toll has led many to reconsider running for reelection. The discussion also addresses the paradox of increasing demands with minimal compensation. While California recently passed legislation allowing increased board compensation and requiring more financial training, tensions remain when districts facing declining enrollment must balance board pay with potential teacher layoffs. Board members express clear needs for support in interpreting data, evaluating curricula, navigating political tensions, understanding rapidly changing legal guidance, and building peer networks. Marsh and Bridgeforth emphasize the importance of mentorship programs and networking opportunities with other board members, and training specifically geared to today's challenges. Above all, they stress that if we are to realize the promise of local democratic governance in education, we must find ways to support board members in navigating these divided times. A new NEPC Talks Education podcast episode, hosted by Christopher Saldaña, will be released each month from September through May.  Don’t worry if you miss a month. All episodes are archived on the NEPC website and can be found here. NEPC podcast episodes are also available on Apple Podcasts under the title NEPC Talks Education. Subscribe and follow!