May 2026 — Ed Reporter Monthly Email Edition

The alleged gunman who tried to assassinate President Donald Trump and other high-ranking administration officials at the White House Correspondents Dinner on April 25, was indicted two days later on three counts by a federal grand jury in Washington, DC. Cole Tomas Allen is charged with attempting to assassinate the president, transporting a firearm and ammunition in interstate commerce with the intent to commit a felony, and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. An additional charge of assaulting an officer or employee of the United States with a deadly weapon was dropped.

But a federal judge is more concerned with Allen’s comfort in the DC jail where he is currently being held than with his crimes. District Court Judge Zia M. Faruqui apologized multiple times to the alleged shooter, calling the jail conditions “unconstitutional” and complaining that Allen is being treated similarly to the J6 defendants, even though he had not been charged with a prior offense.

Faruqui apparently chose to ignore the fact that many of the J6 defendants had not been charged with a prior crime either, or that some had not even attempted to enter the Capitol building that fateful day, much less try to assassinate the president of the United States. Rather, he dutifully appeared to embrace the illusion that all J6ers were guilty of “insurrection” and therefore deserved of any manner of ill treatment.

The judge demanded that the jail update him on its long-term plans for Allen, whom he whined was being held in his cell 23 hours a day and “without a tablet” to use for contacting family and friends.

Sadly, in today’s justice system, facts don’t seem to matter and laws are perverted to protect the guilty. But U.S. Attorney for D.C., Jeanine Pirro, said at a news conference on April 27, as reported by ABC7 News and other media outlets: “Make no mistake, this was an attempted assassination of the President of the United States with the defendant making clear what his intent was.” She said he further intended “to bring down as many of the high-ranking cabinet officials as he could. This is the kind of situation that we cannot tolerate.”

Pirro said the 31-year-old Allen “had a shotgun, a .38 semi-automatic pistol, at least 3 knives, and ‘all kinds of paraphernalia.’” Although it’s not clear whether he shot the secret service officer, he is charged with firing two rounds with his shotgun before he was apprehended by secret service agents.

The email

Allen is alleged to have traveled by train under false pretenses to the nation’s capital from his home in Torrance, California. His accusations against President Trump as spelled out in his manifesto have been widely reported, including the following diatribe:

• Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed. I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial. I’m not a schoolkid blown up, or a child starved, or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration. Turning the other cheek when “someone else” is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.
•  
• I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.

The manifesto was included in an email Allen scheduled to go out to his friends and family just prior to the shooting. It is unclear whether the email contained the entire “manifesto,” or if there were two separate documents. The first three paragraphs of the email consist of apologies to his parents, neighbors, colleagues, students — he is a part-time teacher — and to those who may have been in harm’s way during his dark mission.

Allen began his email with the dubious greeting, “Hello everybody!” followed by “So I may have given a lot of people a surprise today.” Following the apologies, he then devoted six paragraphs — several of which consisted of one sentence — to describing the reasons for his actions.

The would-be assassin wrote that he’d contemplated making such a move “a long time ago,” but that this was his “first real opportunity” to “do something about it.”

The email described his “expected rules of engagement (probably in a terrible format, but I’m not military so too bad.)” He signed the missive “Cole ‘coldFace’ ‘Friendly Federal Assassin’ Allen.”

The teacher connection

According to published reports, Allen earned a degree in mechanical engineering from Caltech and a master’s degree in computer science from California State University. He is said to have developed one or two non-violent video games and in recent years has worked as a teacher at C2 Education. Although there has been no official confirmation of his length of tenure, ABC7 Los Angeles reported that C2 Education named him “Teacher of the Month” in December 2024.

A 25-year-old for-profit company, C2 Education specializes in personalized tutoring and college preparation programs for students ranging in age from elementary school through high school.

According to ABC7 News, the company issued a statement in the wake of the attack that read: “We were shocked to hear the news of the horrifying incident that transpired at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. We are cooperating fully with law enforcement to assist them in their investigation. Violence of any kind is never the answer.”

C2 Education operates in 13 states across the country, including California, where Allen tutored at the Torrance location. Several of his students expressed shock that he could have been guilty of trying to kill the president. The Los Angeles Times said students described Allen as “very intelligent, proficient in biology, mathematics, and science.” They considered him a nice person, and on “the quiet side.” Other reports describe him as “average” and “unremarkable.”

Media sources say neighbors also expressed surprise and said they were “sad” for his family.

Climate of violence

There is no doubt the U.S. and the world are in the throes of a climate of violence and political assassination. Awash in leftwing political propaganda and rhetoric, young adults like Allen are becoming increasingly bold and believe they are justified in their radical actions.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the education environment at all levels. Teachers’ unions put radical left activism above teaching academics. University professors and administrators thwart every attempt by the Trump Education Department and conservative state education officials to impart some semblance of fairness, decency, and morality in higher education. They maintain their far-left policies, such as DEI, often hiding them in order to continue receiving federal funds.

Research from Defending Education shows that a combination of national, state, and local teachers’ unions have directed “more than $1 billion in total political spending toward left-wing political groups, advocacy organizations and campaigns since 2015.” Training programs, literature, and instructional videos churned out by union leadership are influencing the teachers who propagandize children in the nation’s classrooms, often unbeknownst to parents.

Defending Education’s research director, Rhyen Staley, told Fox News last month: “Gone are the days of unions just advocating for higher wages, better working conditions, and good health insurance; they are a political machine focused on fomenting a ‘political revolution.’”

Although Allen may not have been directly influenced by the teachers’ unions, family members told authorities that he “was prone to making ‘radical statements’ and often spoke about wanting to fix what he saw as problems in the world.” Authorities say he had “purchased multiple firearms years earlier and stored them at his parents’ home.”

The Standing for Freedom Center, which according to its web page “exists to uphold the Christian faith and defend America’s Constitution,” wrote that Allen’s manifesto not only raged against the Trump presidency, but also “expressed pointed anti-Christian hatred….” The website noted: “His posts on the left-wing platform BlueSky demanded Trump be removed from office and tried for ‘high crimes.’ Cole attended at least one ‘No Kings Protest,’ and he had documented ties to a progressive activist group called ‘The Wide Awakes.’”

While described as a political “independent,” he contributed to Kamala Harris’s campaign in 2024.

Conflict of interest?

Allen has pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him, starting with the attempt to assassinate President Trump. CNBC reported that his defense attorneys filed a motion to “disqualify acting attorney general Todd Blanche and U.S. Attorney for DC Jeanine Pirro,” claiming a conflict of interest, since they were present at the dinner and “have given the impression that they are victims in the case.”

Appearing on Fox News Anchor Harris Faulkner’s show on May 11, former House Speaker, Newt Gringrich, called the move to disqualify Pirro and Blanche an attempt on the part of Allen’s lawyers to “play games,” to “maneuver and manipulate the truth.”

He explained: “We have video coverage of this guy and a pretty good idea of who he is and what he did, but we’ll get a song and dance and appeals that’ll take years. We need a whole new approach to our legal system, because it lends itself to exactly this type of gameplaying, which is nonsense.”

Gingrich observed that the attorneys’ reasoning for disqualifying Blanche and Pirro would necessarily disqualify all 2,800 people who were present in the room, which he again dismissed as “gameplaying,” and “nothing to do with justice” or “the law.”

It remains to be seen whether this ploy by the defense will be effective.

Allen is expected to appear in court again on June 29, and could face up to life in prison if convicted.

An anti-homeschool bill has passed the Connecticut House and Senate and will force parents to prove they are not abusive or neglectful before they are allowed to homeschool their children. H.B. 5468 requires parents to pass an abuse and neglect registry check through the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) before beginning a home education program. Democrat Gov. Ned Lamont is expected to sign the bill into law.

Advocates of the legislation used a familiar tactic to push it through; a particularly horrific, high-profile abuse case known as the Waterbury captivity case involving a child, known publicly only as “S,” who was locked away in a small room for nearly two decades by his stepmother. She allegedly removed him from public school in fourth grade after school officials notified authorities that he was eating out of garbage cans due to hunger. He reportedly has two stepsisters, but they were instructed that the boy “was their secret” and that they were not to discuss him outside the home.

The family claimed the child was being homeschooled, and after his rescue he told police he was given a dictionary and a few books each year. He also had a radio, which became his only connection to the outside world except for the rare occasions when his father briefly took him out of the house. “S” said he lived under the constant threat of even more severe deprivations, which sufficed to keep him under control for years.

There is one report of the boy’s father alleging harassment by school staff and the police for trying to follow up on the child’s wellbeing after he was withdrawn from the school. At some point in his later life, the father is said to have been confined to a wheelchair, and he passed away in 2024.

According to NBC Connecticut news, in February 2026, a conservator for “S” filed a notice with the Connecticut Claims Commissioner’s Office asserting “that DCF would have discovered the boy was ‘confined to the home, undernourished, abused, and otherwise neglected’ had DCF fully investigated the complaints it received.”

When he was finally rescued in 2025 after starting a fire in the home to attract outside attention, the victim was reportedly 31 years old, 5’9” tall, and weighed just 68 pounds. NBC noted that the conservator’s notice could “allow for a future lawsuit against Connecticut’s DCF.”

The former principal of the boy’s elementary school, Tom Pannone, said he “repeatedly contacted police for welfare checks after noticing concerning signs,” and that police and DCF visited the home on several occasions but nothing was done. Pannone said school staff reported that before he was removed from the school, he was constantly hungry and thirsty, stealing food from other students and sometimes drinking water from the toilets.

In many true abuse cases, state departments of children and families or children and family services unfortunately drop the ball or miss or ignore evidence of parental wrongdoing. The Waterbury case is truly shocking in that school staff raised concerns multiple times and neighbors reported that they never saw the boy outside, but only looking out the window of the locked room upstairs where he was allegedly held.

Pannone told NBC Connecticut just last month: “I can remember almost every teacher from kindergarten, first, second, third grade, being in my office with me, calling DCF together. [A]nd it wasn’t just once a year; it was numerous times a year … We reported it and not a damn thing was done. That’s the tragedy of the whole thing.”

The stepmother, Kimberly Sullivan, faces charges in the case. She claims no abuse took place, that “S” was not kept in a locked room, and her lawyer says she is the victim. The investigation is ongoing and the legal process is continuing.

Punish all homeschoolers

Connecticut PBS reported that the Waterbury case “is among a string of high-profile incidents involving children connected with DCF that prompted lawmakers to act this year.” The new law includes reforms to DCF designed to strengthen protections for children during investigations of potential abuse or neglect. The law also “establishes a new Child Welfare Policy and Oversight Committee, and a mentorship program for newly hired social workers at DCF.”

But while homeschooling has never been regulated in Connecticut, advocates believe the new law takes an extreme position, and that the real goal is to limit the right of parents to choose the best option for educating their children. The CT Homeschool Network, described as “a watchdog for homeschool freedom and privacy,” called the legislation “wholly irresponsible,” and said the state is using homeschooling families as “the scapegoat” for the DCF’s failures.

The law faced strong opposition from Republicans, but the Democrat majority passed it along party lines. U.S. News quoted the ranking Republican member of the Connecticut Senate Education Committee as saying: “What is at stake is not simply homeschooling, but the meaning of liberty itself.” Religious leaders from the Education Association of Christian Homeschools and the Family Institute of Connecticut, as well as the Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) all voiced objections to the legislation.

HSLDA president, James R. Mason, pointed out that Connecticut’s law will subject every family who decides to homeschool to a DCF background check, “not after evidence of abuse” or “in response to a specific concern,” but because they are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

With the Connecticut DCF facing scrutiny in the wake of the Waterbury case in particular, observers say it’s easy to imagine that the agency might be overzealous in denying good parents their constitutional right to educate their own children.

Supreme Court precedent

Mason cited the 1979 Supreme Court ruling in Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, which was not related to education but “concerned a difficult question about when a parent may admit a child for mental health treatment.” He wrote that the court first quoted an older case, Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) which affirmed: “The child is not the mere creature of the State.”

“That line marks a boundary,” noted Mason. “The state may have interests in the welfare of children, but it does not possess children. Parents do not exercise their role at the pleasure of a regulatory scheme; they fulfill a duty that precedes the state.”

Democrats maintain the law provides “a very minimal degree of regulation,” and compared it to drunk driving laws that are not “looking to infringe upon the rights of reasonable and responsible drivers.”

But homeschool proponents believe the camel’s nose is now under the tent in Connecticut and the door is open to false accusations and restrictions against good parents while abusers manage to evade the system.

More updates

Education Reporter has often described attempts by various states to control homeschooling. (See for example, March 2025 and July 2024.) This year, HSLDA also reported on a setback in Nebraska, where parents are now prevented from homeschooling if they are being investigated by the Nebraska Division of Children and Family Services (CFS), even if the claims against them are unsubstantiated. Parents could spend months defending their innocence.

HSLDA’s Mason said Nebraska’s reversal of its prior homeschooling law “is especially troubling because the legislation the governor signed appears to conflict with constitutional guarantees.”

Although Nebraska’s law was amended to apply to all education options, Mason points out that it is consistent “with a concerning narrative being forwarded by ideological opponents to homeschooling—one that accuses homeschooling parents of placing children in greater danger for abuse or neglect by the mere act of taking charge of their education and teaching them at home.”

The one bright spot on the homeschool legislation front was the defeat of several restrictive bills in West Virginia, which would have limited the ability of parents to withdraw their children from public schools in favor of homeschooling.

Nonetheless, homeschooling remains under attack, even as the public education system doubles down on issues repugnant to many parents, such as the denial of biological reality in the promotion of transgender transitioning and the incursion of males in female restrooms, locker rooms, and sports.

HSLDA, for one, pledges to continue defending the right of parents to homeschool their children across the country, advocating in state legislatures and working to engage parents and citizens committed to freedom.

As HSLDA’s newsletter editor and staff writer noted on May 5: “The United States Supreme Court declared in Parham v. J.R., “The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.”

Meanwhile in Connecticut, “S” has been undergoing medical treatment and is said to be making progress given his decades-long ordeal. His identity is being closely guarded to protect him from casual onlookers and well-meaning strangers, but there appears to be hope for his future.

For decades, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has worked to subvert American life and values through far-left political action, education, and legal initiatives. Their operatives have lashed out at pro-family, Christian, and parents’ rights groups, labeling them “hate groups” and listing them on their infamous “hate map.” Now, the SPLC stands accused of channeling millions of dollars into the alleged right-wing extremist “hate” groups it claims to so vigorously oppose.

The U.S. Justice Department announced on April 21 that a federal grand jury in Montgomery, Alabama, returned an indictment charging the SPLC with “11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.”

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the SPLC stands accused of “manufacturing racism to justify its existence. Using donor money to allegedly profit off Klansmen cannot go unchecked,” Blanche said. “This Department of Justice will hold the SPLC and every other fraudulent organization operating with the same deceptive playbook accountable. No entity is above the law.”

The indictment alleges that while the SPLC has claimed for decades to be promoters of racial justice by dismantling “white supremacy,” supporting the LGBT agenda, and advancing “the human rights of all people,” it has since 1980 been operating “a covert network of individuals who were either associated with violent and extremist groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, or who had infiltrated violent extremist groups at the SPLC’s direction.” It states that “unbeknownst to donors,” some of their money “was being used to fund the leaders and organizers of racist groups” at the same time the SPLC was publicly denouncing these groups.

The indictment further charges that the SPLC’s objective “was to obtain money via donations through materially false representations and omissions about what the donated funds would be used for.” It asserts that the organization “opened bank accounts connected to a series of fictitious entities” to disguise the fraudulently obtained donations with which it paid the individual recruits. “In order to keep the scheme going,” the indictment continues, “the SPLC made a series of false statements related to the operation of the accounts.”

Understandably, conservative organizations that have been victims of the SPLC’s vengefulness and false accusations for years are rejoicing.

Alliance Defending Freedom’s news and commentary editor, Bryan Chai, called the grand jury indictment “sweeping” and observed that the SPLC, the self-proclaimed “catalyst for racial justice” which aims to “dismantle white supremacy,” was charged with “directly putting money into the pockets of groups like the Ku Klux Klan.”

Tina Descovich, president of Moms for Liberty, said when the news broke:

• Of course I’m not surprised by what they are doing. We’ve been a victim of their dishonest, immoral and highly effective tactics almost since our inception. We started with $500 and we were up against their HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars. I’d love an opportunity to testify to the attacks, threats, cyber attacks, cancellations, and more that we have experienced because of them. What does surprise me is that they may now ACTUALLY be held accountable.

Descovich pointed out that the SPLC has “put a target on the back of every mom that wants to stand up and speak out on behalf of her child and we take that very seriously…. If it is now ‘hate’ or ‘extreme’ or ‘antigovernment’ to ask questions of public education officials, what does that say about parents’ ability to be involved in their children’s education?”

While it seems the tables may have finally turned on the SPLC, conservative groups should not be overly optimistic. The mainstream media has rallied to their defense, and left-leaning organizations insist the Justice Department’s case is “weak” and “politically motivated.”

The New York Times framed it with these words: “How the SPLC drew the ire of conservatives.” And an op-ed in The Hill contends that the government’s theory behind the indictment “is flawed,” and called the SPLC “a venerable civil rights organization known for relentlessly fighting against White supremacist groups.” The article claims the SPLC “was almost certainly targeted because it called out hate speech by right-wing groups, not due to any legitimate law enforcement priority.”

Other mainstream media outlets have chimed in supportively as well, as for decades they have cited the far-left group’s findings as gospel. From 2007 until last fall, the FBI also considered the SPLC a reliable source on the topic of “hate” crime.

But as songwriter Bob Dylan penned in 1964, “the times they are a-changin.’” In October 2025, ADF’s Chai wrote that despite SPLC’s pretense at nobility, it “is a discredited and scandal-ridden group that one of its own employees once described as ‘a highly profitable scam.’”

Chai noted that the SPLC’s “hate group” labels have “real-world consequences” rather than merely being “smear tactics,” and that they are “made so much worse when you realize just how influential—both to law enforcement and to everyday people—these labels turned out to be, the FBI included.”

His article referenced a letter directed to White House Domestic Policy Council Director, Vince Haley, and signed by representatives of nine organizations victimized by the SPCL, including Moms for Liberty, Alliance Defending Freedom, Turning Point Action, the Family Research Council, Gays Against Groomers, American Cornerstone Institute, WallBuilders, and New Discourses.

The letter pointed out that the SPLC lists “over 1400 entities” — mostly “traditional value and faith-based organizations” — on its Hate Map in addition to the letter’s signatories. (Education Reporter referenced this letter in November 2025.)

While it was written before the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the letter mentioned the SPLC’s hit piece on Turning Point USA and Charlie “for advocating for President Trump’s agenda on such issues as faith and the reality of biological sex.” The letter eerily added: “This would be laughable if the consequences of this reckless and dishonest behavior were not so deadly serious.”

Finally, the letter stated: “Enough is enough. The SPLC’s defamatory Hate Map should no longer be used by federal agencies as a fig leaf to mask discrimination against conservatives.”

On the same day the letter arrived, FBI Director Kash Patel announced a change would be forthcoming at the bureau. He acknowledged that the SPLC’s “so-called ‘hate map’ has been used to defame mainstream Americans and even inspired violence.” Finally, he stated: “Under this FBI, all ties with the SPLC have officially been terminated.”

Conservatives hope the Justice Department’s indictment against the organization will at least slow its gravy train and limit its sphere of influence once and for all.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has renamed its longstanding curriculum, Teaching Tolerance, to Learning for Justice in its ongoing far-left indoctrination of schoolchildren through a variety of educational vehicles. The SPLC’s influence in education is comprehensive, with woke themes embedded in subjects ranging from math to English Language Arts (ELA) to physical education.

On May 12, the pro-parent organization, Defending Education, posted the results of an in-depth investigation of the SPLC’s Learning for Justice Curriculum in K-12 classrooms. The scope of this destructive, divisive, Marxist/Communist instruction on impressionable schoolchildren is, for many parents, chilling indeed.

It’s common knowledge that “social justice” propaganda has been in schools for years and stems from many sources. But Defending Education’s report shows just how far-reaching the SPLC curriculum is and how many different ways its content is promoted and used “by state agencies, education institutions, teachers unions, professional associations, consultants, and education focused companies.”

Founded in 1971, ostensibly to fight for civil rights primarily in the South, the SPLC by the 1980s had become, as the parents’ rights group, Alliance Defending Freedom, described it, “a fear-mongering, money-raising machine, resulting in the resignation of its entire legal department in 1985.”

In the decades since, the SPLC has shown itself to have grown even more corrupt and ideologically extreme, which makes it worth considering whether the teachers’ unions (NEA and AFT), and certain other educational entities have been influenced by the SPLC to become more radical themselves, or have merely partnered with it as a far-left ally to help destroy traditional education. Defending Education’s research shows, for example, that the 2020 National Sex Education Standards (NSES) “were ‘further informed by . . . the [SPLC’s] Social Justice Standards.’”

The NSES document lists “Jey Ehrenhalt, MEd, School Programs Coordinator, Teaching Tolerance (A Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center)” as a contributor and reviewer of the NSES standards, which are designed to start with children in “early elementary” grades and continue through high school. The document states that “sex education should avoid cisnormative, heteronormative approaches” or, in other words, should exclusively teach the LGBT ideology, as well as contraception, abortion, “language inclusivity,” intersectionality, etc.

About Learning for Justice

In addition to its Marxist advocacy and monitoring of conservative Christian organizations, which it labels “hate groups” (e.g. Defending Education; the Alliance Defending Freedom), the SPLC’s Learning for Justice (LFJ) programs are intended to “advance anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and other far-left ideologies into school curriculums and lessons.”

The LFJ curriculum offers a range of lessons and supplementary materials “for school districts and teachers to incorporate into their teaching methods and to use in the classroom.” For example, one resource titled “Why Talk About Whiteness?” claims that “the normalization of whiteness and the impenetrable ways it protects itself are cornerstones of the way institutions function in the United States.” It holds that “recognizing white privilege is a necessary but insufficient means for confronting racism and increasing opportunities for people of color. In fact, acknowledging white privilege but taking no initiative to own it or address it can be harmful and counterproductive.”

This propaganda is beaten into the heads of schoolchildren again and again throughout the school day. Defending Education points out that the “true scope” of LFJ’s impact on the public education system is difficult to gauge, as social justice standards are not only woven into curricula but are incorporated into lesson plans, assignments, and special projects of individual teachers. A key example is the destructive social and emotional learning (SEL), which is embedded in most school curricula and conditions children to accept the progressive ideologies en masse. (See Education Reporter, September 2023.)

The end game in all this is to call students to “collective action” in order to combat the alleged wrongs they are told have infected America throughout its history.

‘Learning for Justice’ on Fox News

A recent Fox News program exposed the SPLC’s Learning for Justice curriculum in a surprisingly comprehensive and revealing way. The program, called “Outnumbered,” featured five Fox News personalities discussing various aspects of the curriculum and showing pictures of its key features as provided to Fox by Defending Education.

Legal analyst and on-air personality, Emily Compagno, led the segment by showing a visual of the curriculum’s “Anchor Standards and Domains,” and recited for the audience the four groups of standards depicted on the screen: “Identity, Diversity, Justice, and Action.”

Compagno read examples of the standards as follows: “Students will recognize unfairness on the individual level (e.g., biased speech) and injustice at the institutional or systemic level (e.g. discrimination)”; and, “Students will plan and carry out collective action against bias and injustice in the world….” She then named Alaska and Rhode Island as examples of state boards of education that have recommended their school districts adopt the standards, and she mentioned lessons and programs such as “Second Step,” that integrate and/or are based on the SPLC curriculum.

Another visual showed that as many as 150 school districts in 43 states have integrated LFJ standards and materials in K-12 classrooms across the country.

Compagno expressed shock at what she called “not only the breadth of infiltration but the depth of infiltration, curated for every age group, and really, the [LFJ] indoctrination…. This is a full-force playbook on what is, frankly, communism,” she said.

Fox co-host Todd Piro agreed, observing that this type of programming is enabling the election of Democrat Socialists like Zohran Mamdani, “that we would never have thought possible even 10 years ago … or, in the big picture, Americans hating America.”

Piro believes it is the ability of the SPLC’s curriculum, and programs like it, “to get granular, to get into the minds [of children] at an early age and allow this stuff to fester.” He asked rhetorically, “instead of schools teaching kids the basics — math and English — and raising test scores that are plummeting, what are we seeing? We’re seeing the next generation of protesters who hate ICE, who are going after our brave men and women in uniform, who are doing things to subvert America.”

Visibly moved by the revelations, Piro vowed to research what is in his children’s school, and urged all parents to do the same, and if they find it, to “start a movement to get it removed….” “This cannot happen,” he concluded, “or we lose our country.”

The panel agreed that American institutions across the board have allowed themselves to be “blindly fed” the LFJ standards and programs without delving in, exploring, or double checking their content or validity. Panelist Kayleigh McEnany referred to the irony that children are learning about racism and injustice from a group that is “giving money to the very extremist groups” they claim to be fighting. “Everyone should have a problem with that,” she asserted.

McEnany also criticized the fact that concepts such as anti-racism, white supremacy, white privilege, gender ideology, queer theory, and more are being taught to kindergarteners. She seemed aghast that in some schools, even children in pre-K are being introduced to these concepts, when they “can’t even write their own names.” Calling out the New York Times and other mainstream media outlets, she emphasized the need for them to present “real facts” and, in general, to practice “real journalism,” particularly with regard to the SPLC.

The segment ended with the “Outnumbered” panel pointing to the inability of U.S. schoolchildren to master basic skills, and showed the audience a video clip of Education Secretary Linda McMahon stressing: “The most important thing we can do is make sure our children can read and do math. When you have only 30 percent or less of 8th graders and 4th graders that can read at proficient levels, we are failing our students and we need to change that.”

Compagno noted that while dismal test scores prove how woefully lacking students are in reading and math, “we see how they are spending their time learning to be part of the activist collective when they can’t even add.”

Fortunately, conservative organizations like Defending Education and the Alliance Defending Freedom, along with the Trump Administration, are working hard to rectify that, and curtailing the SPLC’s influence on education will help.

Tennessee has raised the ire of LGBT activists by officially removing the title “Pride Month” from the month of June and replacing it with “Nuclear Family Month.” Tennessee’s Republican governor, Bill Lee, signed a resolution for the new June celebration, which defines the traditional family as “one husband, one wife, and any biological, adopted, or fostered children.” WorldNetDaily reports that the state legislature’s wording describes the nuclear family as “God’s perfect design for humanity and is aligned with the long-held traditional values of Tennessee.” A post on X reports the resolution also reads: “God’s design for familial structure”—and that it condemns “humanistic, globalist ideologies.” Predictably, the resolution was met with hysterical rage from the LGBT community. Organizations like GLAAD accused legislators and the governor of “intentionally harming some families” and thereby “actively harming all by not focusing their time working for an inclusive Tennessee where all are welcome and can succeed.” The group wrote: “Resolutions like this do more to reveal the cluelessness of elected officials whose own families and those of their constituents have various family dynamics and structures.” But the nuclear family has for millennia been defined just as Tennessee’s resolution defines it, with the traditional familial structure serving as “the bedrock of society since the creation of the world.” The resolution also points out that fatherless families are more likely to live in poverty, abuse alcohol and drugs, and are more likely to have mental health and behavioral issues, including higher rates of youth suicide. Moreover, the resolution does not prevent Tennessee residents from celebrating Pride Month however they see fit; only that it will no longer be recognized by the state.

Microschools are continuing to grow in popularity, says a new report by The 74. The report shows that microschools, which were a result of the pandemic and began as small educational pods operating out of homes, churches, or small commercial spaces, now serve “an estimated 2% of the U.S. student population, or about 750,000 students.” Most microschools are established and run by current or former teachers; the report shows “86% of founders have an education background, compared with 71% last year.” For some parents, microschools are an extension of homeschooling, offering “community, guidance, or access to certified teachers and additional resources.” For others, they are an option now available due to the increase in state school choice programs. The report shows that “the vast majority of microschools operate outside the public system, but the expansion of state-funded programs supporting private schools, like education savings accounts (ESAs), has further fueled their spread.” For-profit microschool networks such as Primer, which operates schools in Florida and Arizona, and is adding schools in Alabama this fall, are expected to grow in the current climate of parental dissatisfaction with traditional public schools. Democrats are critical of ESAs, claiming they “not only hurt public schools, but offer false hope to the 1 in 5 students who attend school in rural areas” that lack private school options or lack transportation when options do exist. But Amar Kumar, CEO of the successful KaiPod Learning network, points out that microschools are easier to launch than a typical brick-and-mortar school, and can provide an alternative. Accreditation appears to be the next hurdle for microschools. Experts warn that “if they want to serve students on ESAs, they’ll have to meet the same requirements as other private schools.” Given their success to date, many parents trust they will find a way.

One California university earned a surprising ranking as one of America’s top 25 “most conservative” colleges in the country. Biola University is a Christian university located in La Mirada, California, a southeastern suburb of Los Angeles. Fox News reported that Biola ranked No. 24, according to Niche, a university profile website. Niche’s rankings are based on student surveys of “personal political preferences” and their perception of campus political preferences. Just two other California universities ranked in the top 100 most conservative: California Baptist University ranked No. 44, and National University came in at No. 81. A spokesperson for Biola credited the school’s commitment “to the unchanging truths of the Bible” for the ranking. In a statement to Fox News Digital, the university wrote in part: “As we celebrate America’s semiquincentennial, we are mindful of the key role private faith-based universities like Biola play in preserving and perpetuating our common good, our freedoms, and the transcendent virtues that make a nation strong.” It noted that the university lives up to its mission “by integrating Christian faith and biblical truths into academics, student life, and cocurricular activities….” Biola describes itself as “a nondenominational evangelical university founded in 1908.” It enrolls approximately 3,600 undergraduate students, and requires 30 hours of Bible courses regardless of major. Biola also ranks as the best Christian college in California; 8th out of 40 in education quality, and 12th out of 65 private universities in the state.

Originally published by The College Fix, April 20, 2026. Reprinted by permission.

Reports focus too much on over-giving A grades ‘when the inflation of an F to a D or a D to a C is the bigger concern,’ University of Utah professor says.

Harvard’s recent grade inflation controversy has renewed concerns about how many students are receiving top marks. But some professors say the deeper problem in higher education isn’t just inflated A’s — it’s the quiet disappearance of failing grades.

Hollis Robbins, a former dean and professor of English at the University of Utah, told The College Fix the larger problem may be what happens to low grades before they ever appear on a transcript.

Robbins said she hears “from professors and lecturers across the country that they are under pressure from deans not to fail students who are at risk.”

In a post on X responding to a report about sinking academic standards, Robbins wrote that “universities will not let professors fail any students because they’ll lose tuition dollars.”

When she was a dean at Sonoma State University, she told The Fix that she noticed “the resources being marshaled to identify students ‘at risk of failing’ and prevent the failure.”

“While there are certainly good and socially responsible reasons for supporting students at risk of failing at public institutions, when the taxpayer is subsidizing the education, I have long seen the pressure put on faculty members not to give a student an F, even if the student deserved it,” Robbins told The Fix via email.

Her comments come amid concerns about grading standards, especially at elite universities. In November, The Fix highlighted a 25-page report from Harvard’s Office of Undergraduate Education warning that the university’s grading system is “damaging the academic culture of the College.” According to that report, 60 percent of undergraduate grades are now A’s.

Concerns about grade inflation are not limited to the Ivy League. At Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, recently released data shows “a 0.15 point increase in the mean grade given in courses across all three of the college’s academic divisions” over the past 20 years, according to student newspaper The Phoenix.

Robbins said faculty are often nudged toward alternatives that keep failing grades off the books. “Allow the student to ‘withdraw’ from the class instead,” she told The Fix. “Faculty are told repeatedly that the failure of a student is the faculty’s failure.”

She tied that pressure to rankings and retention.

“Universities are ranked by ‘graduation rate’ and ‘retention rate’ so every student who fails lowers the ranking of the university,” Robbins said, adding that “the pressure on faculty takes the form of constant reminders that any student failure puts the entire college or university at risk of a loss of ranking and prestige.”

Robbins also said the issue extends beyond elite grade inflation stories. “Most higher ed journalists are spending way too much time on grade inflation at the top (too many As) when the inflation of an F to a D or a D to a C is the bigger concern,” she said.

She pointed to DFW rates, or students who earn a D, an F, or withdraw.

“Universities usually flag courses with high DFW rates — students who earn a D or an F or withdraw from the course,” Robbins said. “Faculty who teach courses with high DFW rates are often brought in to an administrator’s office for a stern talking to.”

Robbins was not alone in raising that concern, as other professors and on X also described administrative pressure, grading floors, or professional costs tied to giving failing grades.

However, some said the opposite, including University of Washington economics Professor Jason Kerwin. “This is overstated—I’m a college professor, and I fail students sometimes,” Kerwin wrote in a post on X responding to Robbins’ initial comment.

In an email to The College Fix, he elaborated, “I have personally given out failing grades in the past, and the university has never interfered when I have done so.”

Kerwin added, “I have always had discretion to assign grades based on my expert judgment of student performance, and never encountered any interference from campus or department administrators over the grades I assign.”

He said tenure can help protect that discretion. “An advantage of the tenure system is that it insulates faculty from this kind of pressure,” he told The Fix.

Still, he acknowledged that some pressures can shape grades indirectly. Both his and Robbins’ comments suggest the issue is less about a formal ban on failing grades than about the incentives surrounding them.

“One incentive that shapes grades is the pressure to maintain course enrollments,” he said. “If certain courses or majors develop a reputation for giving out lower grades or failing many students, their enrollments may drop as students switch to easier majors.”

Harvard’s grade inflation report attracted widespread criticism and, in February, resulted in a faculty committee proposing a 20 percent cap on A grades.

However, there has been pushback from some students, as the Wall Street Journal recently noted. And a faculty vote on the matter, initially slated for earlier this month, was postponed “to at least May to allow for extended discussion,” to the Harvard Crimson.

The College Fix reached out to Harvard’s media relations office three times for comment, asking for more details about the grade inflation issue, including data on the number of failing grades students receive, but did not receive a response.

College Fix contributor Leona Salinas is a student at Texas State University where she studies political science and journalism. She serves as the president of the Turning Point USA chapter and vice president of the Network of Enlightened Women chapter. She is an intern with Tufts University and a contributor to Campus Reform and the Washington Examiner, reporting on higher education, politics, and culture. She also writes for her school’s conservative paper, the Bobcat Tribune.