How to fix the woke teacher problem



It’s time to dismantle one of the most degraded sectors in American higher education: schools of education. The colleges responsible for training and certifying the majority of our nation’s teachers have become factories for mediocrity and indoctrination.

States have both the authority and obligation to replace these monolithic institutions by promoting better teacher-prep pathways that are already proving their worth across the nation.

As recent graduates of Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education, we believe that teachers must be more than competent technicians — they must deliberately form American citizens.

The declining value of schools of education is an opportunity for states to look elsewhere for teacher preparation.

Today, however, schools of education are the chief culprits in the growing disquiet among pundits and everyday Americans about the value of the traditional four-year college experience. Graduates with bachelor’s degrees in education are among the lowest earners of any college major. Even more alarmingly, recent research shows their degrees aren’t worth what they paid and are often financed with loans.

These schools are also failing to live up to their own promises. The National Council on Teacher Quality found in its most recent study that only one in eight teacher-prep programs dedicate “sufficient time” to covering fundamental math content; 28% of elementary programs “adequately address” all core components of reading instruction; and 3% require candidates to take courses in necessary science and social studies content.

Other research has further exposed education schools’ century-old dismissal of, and contempt for, rigorous academic content.

What are these institutions of higher learning teaching instead? American schools of education have long been infiltrated by the left’s “long march through the institutions” and serve as havens for neo-Marxist ideas.

At Stanford, we weren’t taught about the science of reading or what knowledge children should learn. Rather, we read Paulo Freire’s "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," a radical polemic that rejects the teaching of received knowledge as oppressive and envisions schools as drivers of political activism.

This intellectual lineage explains why critical theory and its offshoots such as the 1619 Project, which is riddled with historical inaccuracies yet was taught in 4,500 classrooms in a single year, have become so dominant in American public education.

At our alma mater, the influential education professor Jo Boaler has led efforts, backed by debunked research, to remove algebra from California middle schools while simultaneously building a consulting enterprise that charges schools thousands of dollars to implement these same “reforms.”

RELATED: College professors want your child's soul. Here's how you can stop them.

Angela Lewis/Bloomberg/Getty Images

All of this points to a simple conclusion: Education schools will not be reformed from within. A machine built on a flawed foundation cannot be repaired by replacing a few parts. We should not expect universities to solve the problem. They are the problem. The declining value of schools of education is an opportunity for states to look elsewhere for teacher preparation.

States can improve the quality of teacher preparation and boost teacher effectiveness by promoting alternative teacher training programs that are already proving their worth. Prospective teachers should first earn a bachelor’s degree in the subject they will teach — history, biology, math, or literature — then enter a focused, apprenticeship-style training under veteran classroom teachers.

Across the country, a growing ecosystem of alternative programs is allowing individuals without education degrees to enter the teaching profession. To be most effective, such programs should emphasize clinical practice, a proven predictor of teacher effectiveness that is often missing from university teacher preparation. This approach also enables new educators to earn their credentials while working and earning a good wage.

Clinical practice means educators are trained not in the ideological vacuum of schools of education, but inside real classrooms, learning from real teachers, and working with real students. In this way, teachers are grounded in the practical knowledge and skills that impact students’ academic outcomes, not ideology.

Studies show that in the first few years of teaching, demonstrated effectiveness is a far better predictor of long-term quality than the pathway through which a teacher was certified — and that greater differences exist among teachers who trained in the same program than those who bypassed such programs entirely.

Teach for America corps members, who are generally young, non-education majors, on average produce stronger gains for students than their traditional counterparts. At worst, they are no less effective than those who spent four years in a typical teacher prep program. Even earning a master’s degree in education does not reliably produce better educators.

Florida, for example, has developed a teacher certification program for professionals with non-education bachelor’s degrees and an apprenticeship program for those with associate’s degrees. These programs feature high-quality, self-paced curriculum modules for participants.

Tennessee offers the Job-Embedded Practitioner Licensure Program, enabling new educators to bypass the traditional credentialing bureaucracy entirely and earn their license while serving as teachers of record.

Arizona provides an Alternate Teaching certificate that similarly emphasizes real-world preparation, including a requirement that candidates demonstrate proficiency in both the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution, ensuring that even non-traditional entrants receive a grounding in civics free from ideological overlay.

Any replacement for the failed ed-school model must form educators capable of passing along the blessings of liberty to future generations. It’s time to recover the true purpose of public education: pursuing truth, cultivating virtue, and forming citizens who are morally capable of sustaining a free republic.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published at the American Mind.

Another white flag! Child sex-change regime continues to collapse under weight of Trump enforcement



President Donald Trump declared war on gender ideology and the corresponding child sex-change regime upon retaking office. Despite the best efforts of non-straight activists and overreaching federal judges, the campaign is off to an excellent start — as recently evidenced by Stanford Medicine's partial surrender.

Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 28 directing all federal agencies to ensure that medical institutions receiving federal funding "end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children" — an initiative that accords with popular opinion, which is majoritively against sex-change drugs and surgeries for children.

"Across the country today, medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child's sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions," wrote Trump. "This dangerous trend will be a stain on our Nation's history, and it must end."

It's clear that the president meant business — which in practice, has meant putting the sex-change regime out of business.

Children's Hospital Los Angeles — which reportedly had patients as young as 3 and billed millions of dollars for hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and sex-change mutilations for minors — announced last month that it was shuttering its child sex-change center after assessing the "severe impacts" of the Trump administration's actions and proposed policies.

Stanford Medicine revealed last week that it too was shuttering one of its youth sex-change practices.

'Her testes are nonfunctional, and in medicine, don't we often recommend the removal of nonfunctional organs like an appendix?'

The Stanford Pediatric and Adolescent Gender Clinic was founded in 2015 by pediatric endocrinologist Tandy Aye.

During a 2019 TED Talk, Aye suggested age should not determine when kids can have their genitals surgically removed and/or distorted.

"Doctors usually allow those who are 18 to make decisions about their procedures and consent so that you can weigh the risks and benefits," said Aye, a member of the World Professional Association of Transgender Health. "Well then, the transgender patient may be one of the most well-informed patients. Who else has had years of psychological evaluation, months of medical therapy, and has thought of this one procedure for so long?"

Aye suggested that in the case of a little boy sterilized after being pumped full of puberty blockers, conventional medical wisdom would dictate that his testicles should be removed.

"Her testes are nonfunctional, and in medicine, don't we often recommend the removal of nonfunctional organs like an appendix?" asked Aye. "So therefore, does it make sense for Avery to wait until she's 18?"

Some of Aye's colleagues at WPATH admitted behind closed doors that informed consent by minors was all but impossible.

RELATED: Sacrificing body parts and informed consent to the sex-change regime

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

It's clear that the Stanford clinic shares Aye's eagerness for putting children on the path to sterility and permanent discomfort, stating in its FAQ that it treats "transgender and gender diverse children, adolescents, and young adults" and "will see younger children before puberty starts for education, social support, and referral to mental health and community resources."

The clinic is, however, pausing the surgical side of its deformative practice.

Stanford told the San Francisco Chronicle in a June 24 statement, "After careful review of the latest actions and directives from the federal government and following consultations with clinical leadership, including our multidisciplinary LGBTQ+ program and its providers, Stanford Medicine paused providing gender-related surgical procedures as part of our comprehensive range of medical services for LGBTQ+ patients under the age of 19, effective June 2, 2025."

"We took this step to protect both our providers and patients," said Stanford. "This was not a decision we made lightly, especially knowing how deeply this impacts the individuals and families who depend on our essential care and support."

'Children deserve evidence-based care, not irreversible harm backed by political activists.'

The decision to pause genital mutilation at the clinic, which will reportedly continue to provide other forms of sex-change "care," was supposedly made before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee Republicans' ban on sex-change genital mutilations and sterilizing puberty blockers for minors on June 18.

Similar laws are on the books in 23 other red states.

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman at the medical advocacy group Do No Harm, told Blaze News in a statement, "It is encouraging that Stanford Medicine has joined the ranks of medical systems ending experimental sex-change surgeries on children. However, Stanford Medicine should remain under scrutiny for its history of performing these procedures and its continued use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones on children."

RELATED: Democrats' meltdown over SCOTUS child sex-change ruling reveals they learned nothing about 2024 blowout

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

"As the administration continues to investigate and take regulatory action against hospitals that harm gender confused kids, it should by no means give Stanford Medicine a pass until it complies with HHS' recommendations for treating gender dysphoria," continued Goldfarb. "Children deserve evidence-based care, not irreversible harm backed by political activists."

As Goldfarb alluded, the Trump administration is bringing the full weight of the law down on those who would mutilate children on the basis of pseudoscience and false, ideologically driven narratives.

Attorney General Pam Bondi noted in an April 22 memo that pursuant to Trump's executive order, she was directing all Department of Justice employees "to enforce rigorous protections and hold accountable those who prey on vulnerable children and their parents."

Just last week, the FBI launched criminal probes into Boston Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital Colorado, and Children's Hospital Los Angeles — all three listed on medical advocacy group Do No Harm's list of the 12 worst offending institutions that promote sex changes for minors.

Time will tell whether the administration will take a similar approach to Stanford.

Blaze News has reached out to the Department of Justice for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Poll: Only 36% Of Democrats Are Proud To Be American

It is worth noting when significant portions of one party reject being proud to be American in the span of one decade, while another remains completely unaffected by the shift in sentiment.

Can 'cryptocredits' replace Stanford? Bitcoin pioneer launches Network School



Unless you've been living under a rock on some distant planet, you’re probably aware of the ideological capture that's taken root in U.S. universities — and, more broadly, across the Western education system.

Once considered places where minds were expanded and intellectual growth was fostered, these institutions now resemble echo chambers where perspectives are narrowed and critical thinking is sacrificed at the altar of ideology. Graduates don’t just emerge with distorted mindsets; they impose their problematic perspectives on broader society.

The school’s mission is to unearth what Srinivasan calls 'dark talent' — no, not criminal masterminds capable of taking down a nation's power grid. Rather, these are individuals brimming with potential, many of whom are often overlooked by the conventional education system.

So what can be done? How do we reclaim education from this downward spiral? Enter Balaji S. Srinivasan, a man with a radical plan to shake things up.

A doer, not a dreamer

Srinivasan, a 44-year-old American entrepreneur and investor, is no stranger to innovation. He served as the chief technology officer of Coinbase and was a general partner at the renowned venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. With a résumé like that, it’s clear that Srinivasan isn’t just a dreamer — he’s a doer.

Raised on Long Island, Srinivasan is a Stanford graduate through and through, holding bachelor's, master's, and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering, plus a master's in chemical engineering, all from the prestigious university. But despite his deep roots in traditional academia, he’s recognized the flaws in the current system.

He's also come to grips with the downfall of his alma mater. The very institution that gave Srinivasan his academic credentials is one of those universities that has fallen prey to the ideological capture he’s rallying against.

In response, he has launched a controversial new initiative: the Network School

'Dark talent' wanted

To say the Network School is unconventional is an understatement.

It's an online-first school designed to provide continuous learning, fitness, and community, especially for those who don’t have access to traditional elite pathways.

The school’s mission is to unearth what Srinivasan calls 'dark talent' — no, not criminal masterminds capable of taking down a nation's power grid. Rather, these are individuals brimming with potential, many of whom are often overlooked by the conventional education system.

The school, set to open its doors on September 23 with a physical campus in Singapore, blends structured and unstructured learning. Every day, according to its founder, students will tackle problem-solving tasks that earn them “cryptocredentials” — non-transferable NFTs that serve as proof of their skills. These credentials will form part of a larger “cryptoresume,” a portfolio that verifies expertise across both technology and the humanities.

It's certainly a fresh, digital twist on education, but is it more snake oil than substance?

Strange bedfellows?

Speaking of snake oil, one notable figure contributing to the school’s ambitious approach is Bryan Johnson, a man I have written about before. Best described as a mash-up between Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Michael Jackson, the 47-year-old Johnson is by far the best-known biohacker on the planet.

A tech entrepreneur who now wants to live forever, Johnson will bring his Blueprint fitness and nutrition program into the educational mix. In plain English, Blueprint consists of a carefully managed plant-based diet paired with a demanding exercise routine that covers strength training, cardio, and flexibility.

But I ask, why is Bryan Johnson involved? His role in the Network School seems more like a flashy add-on than a substantive contribution to education.

Cryptocred credulity

Graham Hillard of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, a nonprofit dedicated to enhancing higher education in the U.S., told Align that while "traditional academia needs to be challenged, we should remain cautious about institutions offering cryptocredentials." Hillard, who frequently writes on the troubling state of U.S. universities, is absolutely right.

While the traditional system certainly needs to be challenged and “dark talent” should be given the opportunity to flourish, we must carefully analyze the alternatives being offered.

Is the Network School really that different from Andrew Tate’s Hustlers University or Patrick Bet-David’s "university"? I ask this because the similarities are striking, particularly when it comes to the lack of accreditation.

Where will these graduates go once they emerge from the Network School?

Yes, they’ll have “cryptocredentials” and a shiny “cryptoresume,” but will these carry any weight in the real world? Absolutely not. Try landing a role at Costco, Chevron, Citibank, or the local construction site with a cryptoresume, and there's a good chance that security will either laugh you out of the place or show you the door.

This isn’t to dismiss the Network School’s potential or suggest that it is an outright scam; rather, it’s to highlight that while the school is designed to tackle a genuine problem, its proposed solution raises more questions than it answers.

Align contacted the Network School for comment but did not recieve a response.

Terrorists declare support for anti-Israel student protesters while the Associated Press gives them nominal cover



Anti-Israel radicals across America have taken over several college campuses where they have erected pro-Hamas encampments, attacked police, made foreign policy demands, and parroted genocidal rhetoric. Their efforts to signal solidarity with the Islamic terrorists who massacred thousands of Israelis and dozens of Americans in October — the same terror organization that has since plotted attacks on Western nations — have not gone unnoticed overseas.

Two Palestinian terrorist groups announced their support this week for the student protesters, even referring to them as their own.

Endorsed by terrorists

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a Gaza-based terrorist group that combines Marxist-Leninist ideology with Arab nationalism, released a statement Tuesday condemning Israel and celebrating the students who have condemned the Jewish state's self-defense.

"At a time when all peace-lovers in the world stand by the Palestinian people in their just struggle to regain their usurped rights, the ugly face of Zionist racism is clearly visible," said the terror group, according to an online English translation tool. "While our students at American universities were looking forward to the support and solidarity of the administration of universities whose interests, profits and investments prevailed over noble human values."

The PFLP decried the "punitive measures" taken against students, alleging that professors and school administrators have threatened and blackmailed students "simply because they stand by the Palestinian people and support their just struggle for freedom and human dignity."

The PFLP extended the ACLU's November complaint against Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida education officials to other officials who have ordered the breakup of pro-terror student organizations.

According to the terrorists, those who have taken action against fellow travelers on campus operate "under the illusion that they are capable of suppressing the struggle of our students in universities in the United States."

"We ... affirm our unwavering support for the student struggle," said the terror group, singling out the George Soros-funded "Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) at Columbia, Rutgers, Yale, Stanford universities, and others."

Extra to championing the student groups and underscoring their value to the terrorist cause, the PFLP gave them marching orders: "We call for strengthening the unity of students and their struggle to withdraw the investments of American universities from the Zionist entity, and to sever all forms of relations with them," emphasizing the need for the "escalation of their struggle."

Izzat Al-Rishq, reportedly a Hamas Political Bureau official, issued a statement Wednesday similarly signaling support for the student radicals on American soil, reported the New York Sun.

"The American administration, led by President Biden, violates individual rights and the right to expression, and arrests university students and faculty members because of their rejection of the genocide that our Palestinian people are subjected to in the Gaza Strip at the hands of the neo-Nazi Zionists, without the slightest sense of shame about the legal value represented by the students and university professors," said the terrorist.

Perhaps recognizing the resonance of the anti-Israeli rhetoric with elements of the Democratic Party, Hamas added, "Today's students are the leaders of the future, and their suppression today means an expensive electoral bill that the Biden administration will pay sooner or later."

Pro-Hamas radicals by any other name

Palestinian terrorists clearly understand what the student radicals mean to accomplish, but the Associated Press appears keen to pretend students' intentions are alternatively benign.

The liberal media outfit has begun referring to the pro-Hamas protests as "antiwar protests" despite their participants' genocidal slogans — such as "long live intifada" or "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" — and the violent verve that animates them.

This rhetorical switch aligns the publication with Progressive Democrats, such as anti-Israel Rep. Cori Bush (Mo.), who similarly refer to the pro-Hamas students as "anti-war protesters."

Natalie Sanandaji, a New Yorker who survived the Nova music festival massacre, expressed disgust this week over the Associated Press' strategic wordplay, telling "Just the News, No Noise," "When people are chanting in their protests, 'intifada now,' simply look up the definition of 'intifada' — that is not anti war."

"To downplay it is to make these people feel like what they're doing is okay," continued Sanandaji. "We need to talk about how serious it is. Downplaying it is just putting more people at risk."

"Nobody is pro-war. To call this an anti-war protest is absurd," Dan Schneider, vice president of Media Research Center's Free Speech America told Just the News. "This is not about war. This is about the extermination of Jews and the elimination of Israel as a legal state."

Human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali suggested on X that it would even be deceitful to refer to the protesters as pro-Palestinian, noting, "They are not pro Palestinian. They are anti-Jewish and anti-American. They are flexing their Islamist muscles. Incompetent and weak university students who allowed this problem to get out of hand will not stop them."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Scientists deal another blow to gender ideology, confirming the obvious: Men's and women's brains work differently



Radical feminist theorists such as Judith Butler and various exponents of trangenderism have suggested that sex — or at the very least gender, assuming there is a difference — is socially constructed.

A group of Stanford Medicine researchers rained on the gender ideologues' parade this week with a new study indicating that no amount of social construction or cosmetic surgery can hide the fact of one's actual sex on a brain scan.

The study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, identified "highly replicable, generalizable, and behaviorally relevant sex differences in human functional brain organization localized to the default mode network, striatum, and limbic network."

Simply put: men's and women's brains not only are physically distinct, but they operate differently.

Differences between the sexes in behavior, performance, and physiology have been observed and understood since time immemorial. While various studies have substantiated this common sense in esteemed academic journals — highlighting in 2017, for instance, the volumetric and structural differences between male and female brains — the Stanford scientists suggested that previous scientific work demonstrating differences in brain organization between the sexes remained inconclusive.

Accordingly, they set out to "uncover latent functional brain dynamics that distinguish male and female brains."

Lead authors Srikanth Ryali and Yuan Zhang, along with senior author Vinod Menon, director of the Stanford Cognitive and Systems Neuroscience Laboratory, fed a new artificial intelligence model various brain scans, telling it whether it was digesting images of male or female brains. Over time it began to "notice" subtle patterns that could help it differentiate between the two types.

The researchers then tested their spatiotemporal deep neural network model on the brain scans of 1,500 young adults, ages 20 to 35. The AI model proved incredibly effective at determining whether the scans came from men or women, getting it right over 90% of the time.

"Our results demonstrate that sex differences in functional brain dynamics are not only highly replicable and generalizable but also behaviorally relevant, challenging the notion of a continuum in male-female brain organization," said the study.

"This is a very strong piece of evidence that sex is a robust determinant of human brain organization," Menon said in a release.

The researchers also created sex-specific models of cognitive abilities. According to Stanford Medicine, one AI model was able to predict cognitive performance in men but not in women. The other model was effective in predicting cognitive performance but with the sexes reversed.

"These models worked really well because we successfully separated brain patterns between sexes," Menon noted. "That tells me that overlooking sex differences in brain organization could lead us to miss key factors underlying neuropsychiatric disorders."

The "hot spots" that were most helpful in distinguishing between male and female brains were the so-called default mode network, the corpus striatum, and the limbic system.

The Telegraph noted that the "default mode network" is the area of the brain believed to be the neurological seat for the "self," critical for contemplative thought, daydreaming, and processing autobiographic memories.

The striatum is a cluster of neurons in the forebrain that plays a general role in skill learning, apparently optimizing behavior by "refining action selection and in shaping habits and skills as a modulator of motor repertoires."

The limbic system is a group of structures deep inside the brain that performs various functions — from governing emotions, motivation, smell, and behavior to playing a role in the formation of long-term memory and dealing with sexual stimulation. It's also reportedly important in habit forming and rewards.

"A key motivation for this study is that sex plays a crucial role in human brain development, in aging, and in the manifestation of psychiatric and neurological disorders," continued Menon. "Identifying consistent and replicable sex differences in the healthy adult brain is a critical step toward a deeper understanding of sex-specific vulnerabilities in psychiatric and neurological disorders."

Gina Rippon, a leftist professor emeritus of cognitive neuroimaging at the Aston Brain Center, scrambled to account for the study's conclusions, claiming that society is to blame for the physical neurological differences between men and women, reported the Telegraph.

"The really intriguing issue is that those areas of the brain which are most reliably distinguishing the sexes are key parts of the social brain," said Rippon. "The key issue is whether these differences are a product of sex-specific, biological influences or of brain-changing gendered experiences. Or both. Are we really looking at sex differences? Or gender differences?"

Rippon has spent many years downplaying the role of biology in creating sex differences in the brain, going so far as to pen a controversial book in 2019 called "Gendered Brain: The New Neuroscience that Shatters the Myth of the Female Brain."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

How And Why The Ivy League Will Die

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Screenshot-2024-01-17-at-5.36.30 AM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Screenshot-2024-01-17-at-5.36.30%5Cu202fAM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]The responsibility for the destruction of the Ivy League lies not with wokeness nor diversity hires nor a naive donor class, but with the people who are supposed to be keeping the lights on.