The Education Gadfly Show

It’s another Mike Petrilli solo episode of The Education Gadfly Show, and this week he’s tackling some big questions about state education mandates and local control. From recess requirements to curriculum and Science of Reading policies, when should states step in, and when does intervention go too far? Mike looks at how Mississippi and other Southern states have taken a more hands-on approach to improving student achievement and what the rest of the country can learn from their success.

Then, on the Research Minute, Amber Northern examines a new study from Texas finding that Science of Reading certification exams can help identify more effective reading teachers, but may also be shrinking the teacher pipeline.

Recommended content:

• Now states are mandating recess. Really? —Michael J. Petrilli, SCHOOLED
• Recess Is Disappearing. Parents Are Pushing to Bring It Back. —Chao Deng, The Wall Street Journal
• School Is Back in Session, and Recess Is Having a Moment —Emily Tate Sullivan, The 74
• Is state leadership at odds with local control? —Michael J. Petrilli, SCHOOLED
• Pondiscio v. Ryan on state-led curriculum reform —Michael J. Petrilli, SCHOOLED
• Mississippi’s School Transformation —Sarah Mervosh, The New York Times
• Why Tennessee Should Be the National Model for Literacy —Scott Langford, Curriculum Matters
• Louisiana Threads the Needle: Launching a Coherent Curriculum in a Local-Control State —Robert Pondiscio, Education Next
• Texas Has a Theory of Education —Robert Pondiscio, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• Screen or Barrier? Science of Reading Certification Exams and Teacher Supply in Texas —Andrew Avitabile, EdWorkingPapers (2026)

Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our show? We would love to hear them. Send them to [email protected]

They say everything’s bigger in Texas, but does that include teachers’ paychecks? Mary Lynn Pruneda, director of education and workforce policy at Texas 2036, joins Mike Petrilli and David Griffith to discuss Texas’s Teacher Incentive Allotment (TIA), a performance-based teacher pay program that rewards great teachers with higher pay, especially in high-need schools. Is Texas’s approach to merit pay helping attract and retain teachers in the classrooms that need them most?

Then, on the Research Minute, Amber Northern examines a new National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) study looking at whether accelerating students in middle school math leads to better outcomes in high school and college.

Recommended content:

• What Is TIA? —Texas Teacher Incentive Allotment, Texas Education Agency
• House Bill 2: Improving Texas Student Outcomes With Targeted Funding Increases —Mary Lynn Pruneda, Texas 2036 (2025)
• Three things Ohio should learn from Texas on teacher merit pay —Jessica Poiner, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• Big State, Bigger Idea: How Texas’ Teacher Incentive Allotment Is Changing Teacher Pay —National Council on Teacher Quality (2026)
• From Incentive to Impact: The Texas Teacher Incentive Allotment’s Path to Improved Retention and Achievement—J. Jacob Kirksey, Teresa Lansford, Angela Crevar, and Kristin Mansell, Texas Tech University (2024)
• Frequently Asked Questions About the Teacher Incentive Allotment —Texas Teacher Incentive Allotment, Texas Education Agency
• Targeted Acceleration in Middle School Math: Impacts on College Entry, Degree Completion, and STEM —David Card and Laura Giuliano, NBER (2026)

Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our show? We would love to hear them. Send them to [email protected]

Kevin Shafer, president of City Fund, joins Mike Petrilli and David Griffith to discuss efforts to expand access to high-quality public schools across the country. Speaking on his experience with school reform in Camden, New Jersey, Shafer discusses what it takes to improve school systems and the role charter schools can play in that work. Is it better to work with districts to build a portfolio of schools, or focus on growing high-quality charters outside the system?

Then, on the Research Minute, Amber Northern examines a new study finding that districts losing students gain more funding per pupil, but much of that additional money goes toward reserves and facilities rather than higher teacher pay.

Recommended content:

• A flexible “third way” option: Partnership schools on the rise —Andy Smarick, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• Three ways charters reform and improve our schools —Chester E. Finn, Jr., Bruno V. Manno, and Brandon L. Wright, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• Denver doesn’t spell doom for portfolio-style reform —Paul T. Hill, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• The Baby Bust Goes to School —Michael J. Petrilli, Education Next
• Robbers or Victims? Charter Schools and District Finances —Mark Weber, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• Moving Target: The Success and Failure of Missouri’s Charter School Funding Surge —Andrew M. Camp, Collin Hitt, and David Griffith, Thomas B. Fordham Institute (2026)
• The “Would You Rather?” Test —Marguerite Roza, American Enterprise Institute and Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• Enrollment, Fiscal, and Resource Changes in American Public School Districts, 1998 to 2019 —Matthew H. Lee and Benjamin Scafidi, Education Finance and Policy (2026)

Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our show? We would love to hear them. Send them to [email protected]

Kimberly Richey, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education, joins Mike Petrilli and David Griffith to talk about the latest federal guidance on school discipline and Title VI. What does the Department’s new approach to racial disparities in discipline mean for schools? Can the new guidance stick, or will the rules continue to change every time a new administration takes control of the White House?

Then, on the Research Minute, Amber Northern reviews a new NWEA study examining whether schools are getting Algebra I placement right, and why students should be allowed to take algebra as soon as they are ready.

Recommended content:

• Dear Colleague Letter: Guidance on Pupil Discipline and Compliance with Title VI —U.S. Department of Education
• Toward a durable compromise on discipline disparities? —Michael J. Petrilli, SCHOOLED
• Doing educational equity right: School discipline —Michael J. Petrilli, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• Groundhog Day for school discipline —David Griffith, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• Getting Algebra Placement Right: Expanding Opportunity and Strengthening Preparation —Megan Kuhfeld, Daniel Long, and Scott J. Peters, NWEA (August 2026)

Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our show? We would love to hear them. Send them to [email protected]

Ian Rowe, founder of Vertex Partnership Academies, joins Mike Petrilli and David Griffith to discuss Nikole Hannah-Jones’s recent reflections on her decision to send her daughter to a predominantly Black, low-income public school. They discuss school choice, parental involvement and family stability, and that family structure deserves more attention in conversations about student achievement. Should family structure become a more common measure in education data?

Then, on the Research Minute, Amber Northern shares a new study of team-based teaching in Arizona. The researchers find no overall improvement in student achievement, but positive results in middle school math and much lower teacher turnover. 

Recommended content:

• In Fighting for Every Black Child, Did I Betray My Own? —Nikole Hannah-Jones, The New York Times Magazine
• Choosing a School for My Daughter in a Segregated City —Nikole Hannah-Jones, The New York Times Magazine
• Why I Send My Kid to Low-Income Urban Public Schools —Matthew Yglesias, Slow Boring
• Family Structure, a Key Factor Hidden in Plain Sight: The Case for Federal Reporting in Education —Ian V. Rowe, Brad Wilcox, and Grant Bailey, American Enterprise
• Evidence on Team-Based Teaching Models in Arizona —Mary Laski, Calen Clifton, and Dan Goldhaber, CALDER (August 2026)

Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our show? We would love to hear them. Send them to [email protected]

Mike Petrilli is back on the mic solo this week to weigh the case for and against banning AI in schools. He considers growing concerns about cheating, an erosion of grading standards, and the broader effects of technology on student learning, as well as arguments that well-designed AI tools could still have a useful place in the classroom. Are blanket bans too extreme, or is it time for schools to press pause?

Then, on the Research Minute, Brian Fitzpatrick examines a new systematic review of state and locally funded pre-K programs and what it reveals about the strength of the evidence behind their short- and long-term effects.

Recommended content:

• Let’s debate the AI bans —Michael J. Petrilli, SCHOOLED
• High Tech, Low Standards: High School in the Age of Distraction —Brian R. Fitzpatrick, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• Schools Are Urged to Embrace AI—and Ban Phones. Can We Resolve the Tension? —Rick Hess, Education Week
• Hot Takes on NYC AI Ban —Ben Wallerstein, Whiteboard Advisors
• A Systematic Review of Research Designs Used to Evaluate State and Locally Funded Pre-K Programs —Anamarie A. Whitaker, Cara L. Kelly, Tyler W. Watts, Mark Lipsey, Juan Camilo Cristancho, Jade M. Jenkins, Caroline M. Botvin, Drew H. Bailey, Greg J. Duncan, Tania Maria Cruz Cordero, Melissa Stoffers, and Mindy Rosengarten, EdWorkingPapers (August 2026)

Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our show? We would love to hear them. Send them to [email protected]

Brian Fitzpatrick, research manager at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, joins Mike Petrilli and David Griffith to discuss his new report, High Tech, Low Standards: High School in the Age of Distraction. They examine how cell phones, school-issued devices, grade inflation, and AI are changing the high school experience, why banning phones alone may not be enough to solve the distraction problem, and what schools can do to refocus students on learning.

Then, on the Research Minute, Amber Northern reviews a new study on test-optional admissions at elite colleges. The findings suggest these policies may unintentionally disadvantage high-achieving students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Recommended content:

• High Tech, Low Standards: High School in the Age of Distraction —Brian R. Fitzpatrick, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• Can schools escape the digital delusion? | Episode 1026 of The Education Gadfly Show
• Why education technologies disappoint —Adam Tyner, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• How Test-Optional Policies in College Admissions Disproportionately Harm High-Achieving Applicants from Disadvantaged Backgrounds —Bruce Sacerdote, Douglas O. Staiger, and Michele Tine, American Economic Association (September 2026)

Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our show? We would love to hear them. Send them to [email protected]

Programming note: The Education Gadfly Show is taking a short end-of-summer break next week. We’ll be back with a new episode after Labor Day on Wednesday, September 9.

Checker Finn, president emeritus of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, joins Mike Petrilli and David Griffith to talk about the future of Head Start and why he thinks the troubled federal preschool program needs rebuilding, not destroying. They discuss the Trump administration’s approach to Head Start, the program’s longstanding weaknesses, and what meaningful reform could look like.

Then, on the Research Minute, Amber Northern reviews a new two-year experiment with Khan Academy’s AI tutor, Khanmigo. The study finds modest gains in math achievement, but students rarely engaged deeply with the AI tutor, raising questions about whether the improvement came from the AI itself or simply from structured practice on Khan Academy.

Recommended content:

• The Trump team gives Head Start the DOGE treatment —Chester E. Finn, Jr., Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• Reroute the Preschool Juggernaut —Chester E. Finn, Jr., Hoover Press (2009)
• Head Start Program Performance Standards —U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
• Transformative for the motivated and mere meh for the unmotivated: How AI will and won’t affect learners —Sean Geraghty and Mike Goldstein, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• One Click Away: AI Tutoring with Khanmigo in a Two-Year School Experiment —Philip Oreopoulos and Nina Low, EdWorkingPapers (2026)

Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our show? We would love to hear them. Send them to [email protected]

Mike Petrilli is solo once again to revisit the college-for-all debate and consider whether the backlash has become an overcorrection. He considers the risks of steering academically underprepared students toward four-year degrees, the growing enthusiasm for career pathways, and whether today’s push away from college could discourage some students who might actually succeed there.

Then, on the Research Minute, Amber Northern reviews a new study examining more than two decades of state pre-K expansion and what it reveals about balancing access, spending, and program design.

Recommended content:

• Has the pendulum swung too far away from college for all? —Michael J. Petrilli, SCHOOLED
• Notice of Intent to Submit Federal Ed-Flex Waiver Requests— State of Alabama Department of Education
• Hey, Claude, should I go to college? —Michael J. Petrilli, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• Returns to Four-Year Higher Education —Doug Webber and Celeste K. Carruthers, Live Handbook of Education Policy Research
• Who should go to college? More students may benefit than we think —Matt Barnum, Chalkbeat
• Honest talk about who should go to college —Michael J. Petrilli, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• 23 Years of State Pre-K Expansion: How States Balance Investment, Access, and Quality in the Modern Era —Casey Moran, Mindy L. Rosengarten, Eunho Cha, Jade M. Jenkins, Kenneth A. Dodge, Allison Friedman-Kraus, W. Steven Barnett, and Tyler W. Watts, EdWorkingPapers (2026)

Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our show? We would love to hear them. Send them to [email protected]

Andrew Camp and Collin Hitt join Mike Petrilli and David Griffith to discuss Moving Target: The Success and Failure of Missouri’s Charter School Funding Surge, a new Fordham report by David, Andrew, and Collin. They examine Missouri’s effort to close the charter funding gap, how schools used the additional money, and why true funding parity remained out of reach. They also discuss the effects on staffing, teacher retention, and student achievement.

Then, on the Research Minute, Amber Northern reviews new research from Ohio on whether the threat of third-grade retention can improve reading achievement by prompting schools to provide struggling students with additional literacy support.

Recommended content:

• Moving Target: The Success and Failure of Missouri’s Charter School Funding Surge —Andrew M. Camp, Collin Hitt, and David Griffith, for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• The Impact of Increasing Funding for High-Performing Ohio Charter Schools: The Quality Community School Support Fund, 2019–23 —Stéphane Lavertu, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• Charter School Funding: Inequity’s Next Frontier —Sheree Speakman, Chester E. Finn, Jr., and Bryan C. Hassel, for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• Why Ohio’s third-grade retention law worked (until lawmakers killed it) —Vladimir Kogan, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• The Effect of Retention Threat on Student Learning Gains: Evidence from Ohio —Sarah Souders and Robert Bifulco, EdWorkingPapers (July 2026)

Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our show? We would love to hear them. Send them to [email protected]