education

Education Department Celebrates National School Choice Week

It’s National School Choice Week, and the U.S. Department of Education is celebrating remarkable steps taken last year to give parents more choice over their child’s education.

Running from Jan. 25-31, National School Choice Week celebrates the millions of parents who have chosen alternative education options for their children, and raises awareness about charter schools, private schools, homeschooling and other education opportunities available for families.

“During National School Choice Week, we celebrate how school choice has changed the lives of millions of students by empowering parents and families to choose a school or program that best meets their child’s needs,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in a statement.

The secretary released a special message to celebrate:

According to a January 2026 poll by the National School Choice Awareness Foundation, more than 46 million U.S. parents (75%) considered finding a new school for at least one of their children last year – a five-year high, and up from 60% in 2024. Twenty-one percent of parents (13.3 million) ultimately enrolled their child in a new learning environment.

The survey found most parents who enrolled their child in a new school were motivated by practical factors including entering school for the first time (20%), moving between school levels (26%) or families relocating to a new community (16%).

However, the most common reason parents gave was dissatisfaction with their child’s previous school (32%).

Parents said that when selecting a new school, their top priorities are a safe, supportive environment (61%), a positive social environment (47%) and a particular educational approach – like STEM, arts or faith-based education (39%).

Secretary McMahon highlighted the importance of school choice for parents:

The Trump Administration has worked to invest a record $500 million for charter school expansion, support the first-ever federal tax credit for education scholarships, and most importantly, return education to the states – so that decisions are made closest to the child.

The Education Freedom Tax Credit was created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald J. Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025.

Taxpayers can receive a tax credit of up to $1,700 for contributions made to a Scholarship Granting Organization, which then uses the funds to help children attend a school of their choice. States must opt-in to become a “covered state.”

Secretary McMahon shared a map of 23 states that have opted to participate in the tax credit program, including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

On January 28, Florida became the 24th state to opt in to the tax credit.

“Florida families have access to the nation’s top ranked and largest school choice program. About 1.4 million students are enrolled in school choice options in Florida – more than most other states’ entire K-12 school population,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “The new federal school choice program will allow Florida families to supplement their existing scholarships.”

 Colorado Gov. Jared Polis also plans to allow his state to participate in the program.

“[The tax credit] supports donors to give more money to our schools,” Polis told the Colorado Sun. “I mean, I would be crazy not to [participate].”

On Jan. 28, President Trump issued a proclamation celebrating school choice week.

“No student should ever be trapped in a failing school, and parents deserve more choices, not fewer,” the declaration states. “We are working to guarantee that every child — regardless of where they live — has access to a world-class education and a chance to achieve the American Dream.”

The Department of Education highlighted several further actions it took in 2025 to expand school choice:

  • Awarded $500 million to the Charter Schools Programs, the largest investment in the program ever.
  • Urged states to expand education choice by using up to 3% of their federal Title I allocation to support education choice initiatives.
  • Encouraged states to continue to maximize parent options for choosing the safest school setting for their children.
  • Provided guidance to states so that they can prioritize school improvement dollars to districts that will turn around underperforming schools and give students school choice options.
  • Approved the first-in-the-nation “Returning Education to the States” Waiver to Iowa – empowering states and local leaders to have more control over their federal dollars.
  • Released additional guidance on how states might provide equitable services for students enrolled in private schools in more efficient and effective ways to best meet private school students’ needs.

“Happy National School Choice Week,” Secretary McMahon said. “Here’s to giving parents more power, educators more flexibility, and students more freedom to be successful in 2026!”

For more information on school choice, check out our available articles and resources below.

Related articles and resources:

Putting Children First in Education

School Choice for Parents

Schooling Options

Public Charter Schools

Is Homeschooling The Best For Me And My Kids?

Home Schooling: Giving Your Child a Strong Foundation

7 Things Every Homeschooling Rookie Should Know

Faith Development and Homeschooling

Education Department Launches ‘Presidential 1776 Award’ to Promote Civics Education

3 Reasons to Pay Attention to Your Child’s School

‘Equipping Parents For Back-To-School’ – Updated Resource Empowers Parents

Photo from Getty Images.

Ed Dept. Finds San José State Violated Title IX With Male Athlete in Women’s Volleyball

In a win for women’s athletics, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) found that San José State University discriminated against women by allowing a male to participate in women’s volleyball and use female-only facilities.

The OCR announced it is giving SJSU a Proposed Resolution Agreement “to voluntarily resolve its Title IX violations.” Among other requests, the agreement asks the school to publicly acknowledge there are two unchangeable sexes and apologize to female athletes.

Blaire Fleming, a male athlete who identifies as “transgender,” played on SJSU’s women’s volleyball team from 2022-2024, redshirting during his last year.

Trent Kerston, head coach at that time, recruited Fleming and gave him an athletic scholarship and spot on the team – both of which should have gone to a woman – but hid Fleming’s natal sex from his teammates.

Teammates and women from opposing teams suspected that Fleming was male, due to the strength of his hits and height of his jumps. But the team only found out the truth in April 2024, when Reduxx, a feminist news and opinion outlet, published an article titled “EXCLUSIVE: Biological Male Quietly Joined Women’s NCAA Division I Volleyball At San Jose State University.”

In its announcement, the OCR stated that San José State violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education programs receiving federal financial assistance.

The OCR found that SJSU “actively recruited and allowed a male to compete on the women’s indoor and beach volleyball teams and reportedly instructed members of the coaching staff not to tell the female players that the athlete was a male.”

The office noted the resulting loss of privacy for Fleming’s teammates:

As a result, female athletes on the team shared women’s locker rooms and hotel rooms with the male student while being unaware that he is a member of the opposite sex.

OCR added:

In addition to privacy concerns, the presence of this male athlete presented a safety concern for female athletes and provided SJSU’s volleyball team with an unfair physical advantage over opposing teams.
On multiple occasions, the male athlete spiked the ball so forcefully that it knocked females on the opposing team to the ground. During one season, seven all-women’s teams from other universities forfeited their competitions, accepting a loss rather than competing against a male.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon explained the damage on X:

San José State University caused significant harm to female athletes by allowing a male to compete on the women’s volleyball team – and when female athletes spoke out, SJSU retaliated.

The OCR’s Resolution Agreement requires SJSU to:

  • Issue a public statement to the SJSU community that SJSU will adopt biology-based definitions of the words “male” and “female” and acknowledge that the sex of a human – male or female – is unchangeable.
  • Specify that SJSU will follow Title IX by separating sports and intimate facilities based on biological sex.
  • State that SJSU will not delegate its obligation to comply with Title IX to any external association or entity and will not contract with any entity that discriminates on the basis of sex.
  • Restore to individual female athletes all individual athletic records and titles misappropriated by male athletes competing in women’s categories, and issue a personalized letter of apology on behalf of SJSU to each female athlete for allowing her participation in athletics to be marred by sex discrimination.
  • Send a personalized apology to every woman who played in SJSU’s women’s indoor volleyball (2022–2024), 2023 beach volleyball, and to any woman on a team that forfeited rather than compete against SJSU while a male student was on the roster – expressing sincere regret for placing female athletes in that position. 

SJSU, the Mountain West Conference and the NCAA are also facing lawsuits from Fleming’s teammates, women from opposing teams and a former assistant coach who faced retaliation from the school for filing a Title IX complaint.

But the university remains between a rock and a hard place. While the federal government cracks down on males in women’s sports and private spaces, the California attorney general is suing to stop those efforts.

In addition, California law prohibits “discrimination on the basis of … gender, gender identity, [and] gender expression.” So SJSU may run afoul of state law for acceding to the U.S. Department of Education demands.

The Daily Citizen will continue to keep you informed about this and other battles to protect girls and women’s sports, privacy and safety.

Related articles and resources:

Athletes Rally at Supreme Court to Keep Boys Out of Girls Sports

Department of Justice Launches Title IX Task Force to Protect Women’s Sports  

Four Women’s Volleyball Teams Forfeit — Won’t Play Team with a Man

NCAA and San Jose State ‘Transgender’ Volley Player Usurp Women’s Rights

NCAA Ban on Men in Women’s Sports ‘Toothless,’ Say Advocates, Gaines

Riley Gaines and 15 Other Female Athletes Sue NCAA Over ‘Transgender Policy’

San Jose Coach Suspended for Filing Discrimination Complaint Against Transgender Player

SJSU Hired Same Law Firm to Simultaneously Defend and Investigate Male Athlete on Women’s Team

Top 5 Moments From Supreme Court Arguments Over Girls Sports

Photo from Getty Images.

Education Department Launches ‘Presidential 1776 Award’ to Promote Civics Education

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) on Monday announced the creation of the Presidential 1776 Award, a national competition meant to promote civic knowledge ahead of America’s Semiquincentennial – the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

The award will recognize “exceptional student knowledge of the American founding,” the ED shared in a press release. The award program “establishes a national scholarship contest that evaluates students’ understanding of civics and the principles that shaped the United States.”

Participating high school students “will compete in three rounds of multiple-choice and verbal examinations” being developed by the James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation.

The national finals will be held in Washington, D.C. in June 2026, with three winners receiving scholarships totaling $250,000.

“What better way to get our students excited about learning more of our nation’s deep and rich history than a friendly competition meant to challenge high schoolers to show off their knowledge of our great nation’s founding ideals?” U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement.

The ED explained how the competition will unfold:

  • In round one, students take The Impossible Civics Test, an online, timed, electronically proctored multiple-choice exam. Students have 90 minutes to answer up to 4000 randomized civics and founding history questions in three 30-minute sections of increasing difficulty. Four finalists from each state are selected.
  • In round two, the finalists from each state advance to five regional semifinals, which consist of short answer verbal competitions held simultaneously across the country. The top four students from each region move on to the national final.
  • In round three, students will answer short answer verbal questions and will be awarded a point for each correct answer. The top three winners receive scholarships of up to $150,000.

“As we prepare to celebrate America’s 250th birthday, this competition is an opportunity for young people to push themselves, learn our history, and take pride in the principles that unite us,” Secretary McMahon added.

“I am grateful to the James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation and all of the educators, partners, and families who are helping to make this effort possible. Game on!”

The ED also shared information about the competition on its social media pages.

The competition comes at an important time when American’s civic knowledge seems to be increasing.

A survey released on Constitution Day by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that more than two-thirds of U.S. adults (70%) can name all three branches of government, compared to just 65% last year. Most Americans, however, can name only one of the five rights guaranteed under the First Amendment – the freedom of speech.

The Presidential 1776 Award is just one of the ED’s initiatives to celebrate America’s 250th birthday.

Secretary McMahon’s other Education 250 initiatives include the History Rocks: Trail to Independence Tour, in which the secretary is visiting all 50 states in the approximate order in which they joined the Union; and the America 250 Civics Education Coalition, made up of over 50 organizations, which will host multiple events in 2026 “inspiring citizens to reflect on America’s story” and “deepen their understanding of civic responsibility.”

The ED urged Americans to learn more about the Presidential 1776 Award and sign up by visiting www.presidential1776award.org. Interested individuals can sign up for the contest newsletter to get information and instructions when the registration opens on Feb. 1, 2026.

Related articles and resources:

Putting Children First in Education

School Choice for Parents

Schooling Options

Public Charter Schools

Is Homeschooling The Best For Me And My Kids?

Home Schooling: Giving Your Child a Strong Foundation

7 Things Every Homeschooling Rookie Should Know

Faith Development and Homeschooling

Constitution Day Survey Finds Americans’ Civic Knowledge Increasing

President Trump Signs Executive Order Dismantling Department of Education

Photo from Getty Images.

Maryland School Teaches Sixth Graders About Being ‘Transgender’ and ‘Nonbinary’

In celebration of “Transgender Awareness Week,” Westland Middle School, in Bethesda, Maryland, gave sixth grade students lessons on “transgenderism” and “being nonbinary.”

As reported by Fox News, the 11- and 12-year-old students were inculcated into the irrational, deceptive world of transgender ideology via videos and a 12-slide presentation.  

As reporter Andrew Mark Miller explained for the news outlet:

Multiple slides in the presentation provide information on “what it means” to be transgender and students are then quizzed about what they learned.
In another slide, students are told to discuss questions with their neighbor in class, including, How do people know if they are a ‘girl’ or ‘boy?’”
Slide from Fox News of the sixth grade lesson on “transgenderism.”

Another slide asked students to answer questions such as: “What do I already know about the experiences of transgender people?”; “What do I want to know about the experiences of transgender people?”; and, following the lesson, “What have I learned about the experiences of transgender people?”

The slides included “8 Tips for Being Nonbinary!” a video from a “non-binary producer” named “Laurenzo” who has 889 thousand followers on TikTok and 54 thousand followers on Instagram.

In the video, Laurenzo answered questions such as, “If someone calls you by your wrong pronouns, what do you do?” and “I don’t know which ‘label’ is right for me … Help?”

“Laurenzo” in front of the “nonbinary” flag.

In answering the latter question, Laurenzo described her journey from straight to bisexual to lesbian to nonbinary, saying she always identified as an “androgynous person.”

She encouraged the sixth graders “to create the identity that you feel is your true self on the inside,” rather than embracing their male or female sex.

The activist also referred to her “chosen family” – a term used by some in the LGBT community when they reject their natural family and embrace others who identify as homosexual or transgender as their “real family.” 

Laurenzo goes on to talk about “how to bind properly.” Breast binding, also known as chest binding, is the dangerous practice of using cloth strips, sports bras or special undergarments that compress breast tissue, flattening the breasts in an attempt to look male.

These attempts by females to look masculine come with many risks, as a fact sheet from the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) explains. The professional organization notes that 89-97% of individuals who bind their breasts report adverse reactions in online surveys, including:

  • Chest and/or back pain, reported by 75-80%, with 39% describing severe pain and 21% reporting limitation in daily activities.
  • Fractured ribs (3%).
  • Pulmonary problems, such as shortness of breath (47-68%); reduced exercise tolerance and difficulty speaking; pulmonary edema; and restrictive lung disease.
  • Skin problems (78%),including acne, rashes, itching and scarring.

ACPeds concludes:

Since most children and adolescents who feel uncomfortable with their biological sex, will feel comfortable at the end of normal uninterrupted puberty, chest (breast) binding should not be recommended. Those who practice chest binding should be educated about the adverse effects.

Laurenzo notes that binding “restricts your breathing, but she then goes on to tell the sixth graders:

My general advice about binding is make sure you’re being safe about it, don’t be wearing a binder more than eight hours in a day [and] definitely not exercising.

There is nothing “safe” about this practice. Montgomery County Public Schools is promoting a dangerous, false ideology. When young people attempt to change their bodies to mimic the opposite sex, there are multiple, irreparable health risks.  

Humans are made in the image of God – male and female. This isn’t just a biblical, theological issue, it’s also a matter of science. “Gender,” as some sort of internal self-definition, is a false concept.

Westland Middle School is one of the top-ranked middle schools in Maryland – yet it is teaching an unscientific concept as if it were true. In addition, only 68% of students are proficient in reading and 40% are proficient in math – scores which would earn a D and an F, respectively, in most classrooms.

Rather than indoctrination, the school should stick to teaching the basics.

Related articles and resources:

Addressing Gender Identity with Honesty and Compassion

An Essential Primer on Defending the Reality of Male and Female

Counseling Consultation & Referrals

FTC Begins Investigating ‘Gender-Affirming’ Medical Community for Deception, False Advertising

HHS Releases Report on Harms of ‘Transgender’ Medical Interventions for Minors

How the “Trans” and Gender Redefinition Issue Attacks the Family

How to Respond to “Trans” and Gender Ideology? Simple: Live Not by Lies

Resources for families struggling with wrong-sex identification

Transgenderism and Minors: What Does the Research Really Show?

‘Transgender Means Many Different Things’ — And Nothing

What Does it Mean to Be Trans, Anyway?

Should Taxpayers Be Paying for Students’ Breakfast and Lunch?

There are currently nine states that provide free breakfast and lunch to all public school students: California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York and Vermont.

In Colorado, voters will be deciding this November whether the “free” meal program will continue.

Originally approved in 2022, a “Yes” vote on Proposition MM will increase taxes on those families or individuals earning more than $300,000 a year and keep the current program going. The existing “Healthy School Meals for ALL” (HSMA) has been running annual deficits since its inception.

The concept of taxpayer-funded meals at public schools for the poor is not a new phenomenon. Adopting and adapting policies from Europe, The Children’s Aid Society in New York launched a program in 1853. The benefit was limited to a vocational school. Despite calls by some to expand it across public schools, it took until the early 1900s for it to become policy in several large city districts.

Historians credit a book written by Robert Hunter in 1904 with triggering wider acceptance, who wrote,

There must be thousands – very likely sixty or seventy thousand children – in New York City alone who often arrive at school hungry and unfitted to do well the work required.

It is utter folly, from the point of view of learning, to have a compulsory school law which compels children, in that weak physical and mental state which results from poverty, to drag themselves to school and to sit at their desks, day in and day out, for several years, learning little or nothing.

If it is a matter of principle in democratic America that every child shall be given a certain amount of instruction, let us render it possible for them to receive it, as monarchial countries have done, by making full and adequate provision for the physical needs of the children who come from the homes of poverty.

Early implementation of the benefit was run by outside charities until the Philadelphia School Board assumed control in that city in 1909. Other districts soon followed.

To be sure, America was a much different place at the turn of the 20th century. At the time, welfare programs were limited. But then came the Great Depression and President Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” efforts which significantly expanded and began normalizing and destigmatizing the distribution of government aid.

The Special Milk Program (SMP) launched in 1954 was actually a government subsidy to dairy farmers that doubled as a benefit to students, who could then purchase it for a reduced price. President John F. Kennedy began the tradition of “National School Lunch Week” in 1962 to highlight the correlation between healthy eating and learning.

The Child Nutrition Act of 1966 codified the concept and empowered and encouraged the Secretary of Agriculture to play an active role in making sure America’s schoolchildren had healthy food options in the cafeteria. Federal grants and subsidies incentivized participation.

Of course, there is a big difference between providing and encouraging the availability of nutritious foods in schools and expecting taxpayers to fund it all. In the evolution of school breakfast and lunch programs, unfortunate and unnecessary class divisions have emerged.

In some cases, such as in Colorado, taxpayers of a certain income level (over $300,000) bear the burden – but all taxpayers, regardless of income, help fund public school, and the monies are often fungible.

You’d be hard pressed to find anyone unmoved by efforts to help those students and families in true need – but the idea of a state providing free meals for everyone? One might argue it’s a matter of fairness. Others will point out the sensitivity and embarrassment of some paying and others not paying anything at all.

Yet, does the government providing free meals for all instill and cultivate a dangerous mindset that Big Brother is here to take care of you from beginning to end? Or is it in the best interest of all given the importance of children eating well in order to learn well? But is it really a zero-sum game?

Thomas Sowell once observed, “Cell phones and other electronic devices are by no means unheard of in low-income neighborhoods, where children would supposedly go hungry if there were no school-lunch programs. In reality, low-income people are overweight more often than other Americans.”

In Colorado, no groups have formed to oppose the proposition to continue free meals, and no money has been raised to try and persuade people to vote against the initiative. It seems nobody wants to be accused of supporting anything that’s anti-child.

It’s ironic, though, that many of the same people who support taxpayer meals for children also support the right to kill children who, just a few years earlier, were still in the womb.

Image from Shutterstock.