The Education Gadfly Show

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 AgencyHouse 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 InstituteBig 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 AgencyTargeted 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 InstituteThree ways charters reform and improve our schools —Chester E. Finn, Jr., Bruno V. Manno, and Brandon L. Wright, Thomas B. Fordham InstituteDenver doesn’t spell doom for portfolio-style reform —Paul T. Hill, Thomas B. Fordham InstituteThe Baby Bust Goes to School —Michael J. Petrilli, Education NextRobbers or Victims? Charter Schools and District Finances —Mark Weber, Thomas B. Fordham InstituteMoving 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 InstituteEnrollment, 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 EducationToward a durable compromise on discipline disparities? —Michael J. Petrilli, SCHOOLEDDoing educational equity right: School discipline —Michael J. Petrilli, Thomas B. Fordham InstituteGroundhog Day for school discipline —David Griffith, Thomas B. Fordham InstituteGetting 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 MagazineChoosing a School for My Daughter in a Segregated City —Nikole Hannah-Jones, The New York Times MagazineWhy I Send My Kid to Low-Income Urban Public Schools —Matthew Yglesias, Slow BoringFamily Structure, a Key Factor Hidden in Plain Sight: The Case for Federal Reporting in Education —Ian V. Rowe, Brad Wilcox, and Grant Bailey, American EnterpriseEvidence 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]

Brian Fitzpatrick, an education researcher and policy analyst at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, joins a wide-ranging discussion of AI in schools. The conversation explores cheating, distracted learning, foundational skills, and whether carefully designed tools belong in classrooms. Fitzpatrick also examines the evidence behind state-funded pre-K, fading academic effects, program quality, and child-care benefits.

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 InstituteCan schools escape the digital delusion? | Episode 1026 of The Education Gadfly ShowWhy education technologies disappoint —Adam Tyner, Thomas B. Fordham InstituteHow 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 InstituteReroute 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 FamiliesTransformative 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 InstituteOne 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, SCHOOLEDNotice of Intent to Submit Federal Ed-Flex Waiver Requests— State of Alabama Department of EducationHey, Claude, should I go to college? —Michael J. Petrilli, Thomas B. Fordham InstituteReturns to Four-Year Higher Education —Doug Webber and Celeste K. Carruthers, Live Handbook of Education Policy ResearchWho should go to college? More students may benefit than we think —Matt Barnum, ChalkbeatHonest talk about who should go to college —Michael J. Petrilli, Thomas B. Fordham Institute23 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 InstituteThe Impact of Increasing Funding for High-Performing Ohio Charter Schools: The Quality Community School Support Fund, 2019–23 —Stéphane Lavertu, Thomas B. Fordham InstituteCharter School Funding: Inequity’s Next Frontier —Sheree Speakman, Chester E. Finn, Jr., and Bryan C. Hassel, for the Thomas B. Fordham InstituteWhy Ohio’s third-grade retention law worked (until lawmakers killed it) —Vladimir Kogan, Thomas B. Fordham InstituteThe 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]

Congressman Josh Harder joins Mike Petrilli and David Griffith to discuss his push to revive the National Reading Panel and advance the READ Act. They consider whether a new panel could update the evidence base on reading instruction, how federal funding might encourage stronger implementation of science-of-reading reforms, and whether literacy could help rebuild a bipartisan federal role in education policy without repeating the mistakes of past reforms.Then, on the Research Minute, Amber Northern reviews a new study on how adding AP courses may affect school enrollment, socioeconomic integration, and academic tracking.Recommended content:Is the Senate’s READ Act a Reading First redux?— Michael J. Petrilli, SCHOOLEDREAD Act section-by-section summary—Senate HELP CommitteeFrom the Teacher’s Desk: A Science of Reading Progress Report—David Griffith and Brian Fitzpatrick, for the Thomas B. Fordham InstituteCan Uncle Sam help kids read? | Episode 1023 of The Education Gadfly ShowTracking to Retain Higher-Income Students: Evidence from the Addition of Advanced Courses—Farah Mallah, EdWorkingPapers (July 2026)Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our show? We would love to hear them. Send them to [email protected]