Tag: Conservatives

  • Conservatives see married parents as a solution to low student achievement. It’s not that simple

    Conservatives see married parents as a solution to low student achievement. It’s not that simple

    by Jill Barshay, The Hechinger Report
    January 12, 2026

    Conservatives have long argued that unwed motherhood and single parenting are major drivers of poor student achievement. They contend that traditional two-parent families — ideally with a married mother and father — provide the stability children need to succeed in school. Single-parent households, more common among low-income families, are blamed for weak academic outcomes.

    That argument has resurfaced prominently in Project 2025, a policy blueprint developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation that calls for the federal government to collect and publish more education data broken out by family structure.

    Project 2025 acknowledges that the Education Department already collects some of this data, but asserts that it doesn’t make it public. That’s not true, though you need expertise to extract it. When I contacted the Heritage Foundation, the organization responded that the family-structure data should still be “readily available” to a layman, just like student achievement by race and sex. Fair point.

    Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

    With some help, I found the figures and the results complicate the conservative claim.

    Since 2013, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), often called the Nation’s Report Card, has asked students about who lives in their home. While the question does not capture every family arrangement, the answers provide a reasonable, albeit imperfect, proxy for family structure and it allows the public to examine how a nationally representative sample of students from different types of households perform academically. 

    I wanted to look at the relationship between family structure and student achievement by family income. Single-parent families are far more common in low-income communities and I didn’t want to conflate achievement gaps by income with achievement gaps by family structure. For example, 43 percent of low-income eighth graders live with only one parent compared with 13 percent of their high-income peers. I wanted to know whether kids who live with only one parent perform worse than kids with the same family income who live with both parents.

    To analyze the most recent data from the 2024 NAEP exam, I used the NAEP Data Explorer, a public tool developed by testing organization ETS for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). I told an ETS researcher what I wanted to know and he showed me how to generate the cross-tabulations, which I then replicated independently across four tests: fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math. Finally, I vetted the results with a former senior official at NCES and with a current staff member at the governing board that oversees the NAEP assessment.

    The analysis reveals a striking pattern.

    Among low-income students, achievement differs little by family structure. Fourth- and eighth-grade students from low-income households score at roughly the same level whether they live with both parents or with only one parent. Two-parent households do not confer a measurable academic advantage in this group. Fourth-grade reading is a great example. Among the socioeconomic bottom third of students, those who live with both parents scored a 199. Those who live with just mom scored 200. The results are almost identical and, if anything, a smidge higher for the kids of single moms. 

    As socioeconomic status rises, however, differences by family structure become more pronounced. Among middle- and high-income students, those living with both parents tend to score higher than their peers living with only one parent. The gap is largest among the most affluent students. In fourth grade reading, for example, higher-income kids who live with both parents scored a 238, a whopping 10 points higher than their peers who live with only their moms. Experts argue over the meaning of a NAEP point, but some equate 10 NAEP points to a school year’s worth of learning. It’s substantial.

    Family structure matters less for low-income student achievement

    Still, it’s better to be rich in a single-parent household than poor in a two-parent household. High-income students raised by a single parent substantially outperform low-income students who live with both parents by at least 20 points, underscoring that money and the advantages it brings — such as access to resources, stable housing, and educational support — matter far more than household composition alone. In other words, income far outweighs family structure when it comes to student achievement.

    Despite the NAEP data, Jonathan Butcher, acting director of the center for education policy at the Heritage Foundation, stands by the contention that family structure matters greatly for student outcomes. He points out that research since the landmark Coleman report of 1966 has consistently found a relationship between the two. Most recently, in a 2022 American Enterprise Institute-Brookings report, 15 scholars concluded that children “raised in stable, married-parent families are more likely to excel in school, and generally earn higher grade point averages” than children who are not. Two recent books, Brad Wilcox’s “Get Married” (2024) and Melissa Kearney’s “The Two-Parent Privilege” (2023), make the case, too, and they point out that children raised by married parents are about twice as likely to graduate from college as children who are not. However, it’s unclear to me if all of this analysis has disaggregated student achievement by family income as I did with the NAEP data.

    Related: Trump administration makes good on many Project 2025 education goals

    Family structure is a persistent theme for conservatives. Just last week the Heritage Foundation released a report on strengthening and rebuilding U.S. families. In a July 2025 newsletter, Robert Pondiscio, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, wrote that “the most effective intervention in education is not another literacy coach or SEL program. It’s dad.” He cited a June 2025 report, “Good Fathers, Flourishing Kids,” by scholars and advocates. (Disclosure: A group led by one of the authors of this report, Richard Reeves, is among the funders of The Hechinger Report.)

    That conclusion is partially supported by the NAEP data, but only for a relatively small share of students from higher-income families (The share of high-income children living with only their mother ranges between 7 and 10 percent. The single-parent rate is higher for eighth graders than for fourth graders.)  For low-income students, who are Pondiscio’s and the scholars’ main concern, it’s not the case. 

    The data has limitations. The NAEP survey does not distinguish among divorced families, grandparent-led households or same-sex parents. Joint custody arrangements are likely grouped with two-parent households because children may say that they live with both mother and father, if not at the same time. Even so, these nuances are unlikely to alter the core finding: For low-income students, academic outcomes are largely similar regardless of whether they live with both parents all of the time, some of the time or only live with one parent. 

    The bottom line is that calls for new federal data collection by family structure, like those outlined in Project 2025, may not reveal what advocates expect. A family’s bank account matters more than a wedding ring. 

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or [email protected].

    This story about family structure and student achievement was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-family-structure-student-achievement/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=114283&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-family-structure-student-achievement/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Conservatives Clash Over Ono Hire at UF

    Conservatives Clash Over Ono Hire at UF

    Less than a year after former president Ben Sasse resigned abruptly, the University of Florida has gone in the opposite direction for its next presidential pick, announcing Santa Ono as the sole finalist.

    Ono, who stepped down from the University of Michigan presidency last week after less than three years on the job, brings a wealth of academic and research experience: He also served in the top jobs at the University of Cincinnati and the University of British Columbia.

    Sasse, a Republican U.S. senator from Nebraska when he was hired in late 2022, previously served as president of Midland University, a small institution in his home state. Despite a lack of experience overseeing a massive research enterprise like UF, Sasse fit a profile in demand in Florida, where GOP lawmakers have ascended to presidencies at multiple universities. But his time at UF was short-lived; after less than 18 months on the job, he stepped down amid a spending scandal. At the time, he cited his wife’s deteriorating health as his reason for leaving.

    Ideology has regularly trumped experience in recent Florida presidential hires. Multiple former lawmakers, all Republicans, are at the helm of various state institutions. They include former lieutenant governor Jeanette Nuñez at Florida International University, Adam Hasner at Florida Atlantic University and Richard Corcoran at New College of Florida, among others.

    Considering those recent hiring trends, Ono is an outlier—a traditional higher ed candidate in a state where Republican governor Ron DeSantis and the Florida Board of Governors, most of whom he appoints, have taken active roles in presidential searches.

    And while many faculty members have celebrated the selection of a candidate with strong research and leadership credentials, some conservative figures are pushing back on Ono.

    Now a public battle appears to be brewing over who will lead the University of Florida.

    Opposition Emerges

    When UF announced Ono as the sole finalist for its presidency on Sunday, many observers were shocked that he was leaving his plum job at Michigan so soon. In October, Ono signed an eight-year contract extension with a $1.3 million base salary to keep him at Michigan long term. (Though UF’s compensation package has not yet been released, Ono could earn as much as $3 million a year, according to a salary range set by trustees.)

    But almost seven months later, Ono resigned when his candidacy at UF was announced.

    Given the trend of DeSantis’s involvement in presidential searches across the state, it seems unlikely Ono would have emerged without the governor’s blessing. But other conservative figures have publicly objected to Ono’s candidacy over concerns about diversity, equity and inclusion programs at Michigan, which has been scrutinized for its significant spending on such efforts.

    Chris Rufo, a trustee at New College of Florida who has championed anti-DEI efforts nationwide, strongly opposed the pick and called for UF to reverse course on the hire. Rufo has been a regular critic of DEI at UM.

    “The finalist for the University of Florida presidency is a left-wing administrator who recently declared his support for ‘DEI 2.0’ and claimed that ‘the climate crisis is the existential challenge of our time.’ Florida deserves better than a standard-issue college president,” Rufo wrote on X.

    Congressman Byron Donalds, who represents Florida’s 19th Congressional District and is the expected front-runner to replace DeSantis as governor at the end of his term, has also voiced concerns: “Florida cannot afford to inject wokeness into our flagship university. This selection must be blocked and the search committee must start over,” Donalds wrote in a social media post.

    DeSantis Defends the Pick

    But DeSantis defended the selection in a Wednesday press conference.

    Though he said he was “not involved” with the search and had not talked to Ono, he emphasized that he has faith in UF’s trustees—most of whom he appointed—guiding the pick. He added that the expectations for higher education in Florida were clear, noting the state’s opposition to DEI and what he called a rejection of “woke indoctrination” at state institutions.

    “I don’t think that a candidate would have been selected who is not going to abide by those expectations, and I think that you will likely see that will be very clear in this instance. I will let the process play out, but we have put a real serious stake in the ground on this,” DeSantis said.

    The governor boasted that Florida “led the efforts” to take down diversity initiatives, which he said the Trump administration has since followed on a national level.

    DeSantis also noted that Ono eliminated the University of Michigan’s DEI office in recent months.

    “I don’t think that anyone would want to come to the University of Florida if your goal was to pursue a woke agenda. You’re going to run into a brick wall here in the state of Florida,” DeSantis said.

    If the governor disapproved, he could blow up the search, as he did last month when UF’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences tried to hire a new dean. In that case, DeSantis ordered the search restarted after his office took issue with DEI statements from candidates. Allowing UF’s hiring effort to proceed seems to suggest at least tacit approval from DeSantis.

    Some members of the Florida Board of Governors have also thrown their support behind Ono, pushing back on criticism. Their support is critical, considering that board has the power to upend presidential searches, which it has done in past searches, such as at FAU in 2023.

    Florida Board of Governors member Alan Levine has taken to social media to urge fellow conservatives, including Rufo, to give Ono a chance and hear him out through the process.

    “Chris, let’s give @SantaJOno a chance to tell his whole story,” Levine wrote in response to Rufo. “He eliminated the DEI office at Michigan. He faced threats and vandalism for standing up to the pro-palestinian/anti-israel/anti-US movement on campus. There seems to be more to Dr. Ono’s actions, and we need to let him tell his story. No candidate is without things they need to explain. I’m open to giving him the chance to do that, particularly given his total body of work.”

    The University of Florida declined to comment on critiques of the candidate.

    Ono Explains

    As Ono exits Michigan, he leaves several controversies in his wake.

    The outgoing president has faced criticism for his handling of pro-Palestinian protests in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas on Israel and the brutal retaliatory offensive by the Israeli military. Several former employees alleged they were fired for engaging in pro-Palestinian protests, prompting a lawsuit against the university, Ono and others, filed earlier this month.

    Michigan has also navigated a series of athletic scandals during Ono’s tenure. Most recently, a former Michigan football coach was accused of hacking the digital accounts of more than 2,000 NCAA athletes and downloading “personal, intimate digital photographs and videos,” according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Matt Weiss, an assistant at UM from 2021 through early 2023, was charged with 14 counts of unauthorized access to computers and 10 counts of aggravated identity theft in March. The incident also prompted multiple lawsuits against the university.

    And Ono shut down Michigan’s DEI office in March, despite objections from constituents.

    But in an op-ed shared exclusively with Inside Higher Ed, Ono made no mention of the lawsuits and avoided most other controversies. Instead, he focused on the potential at the University of Florida, emphasizing his belief “in Florida’s vision for higher education” and UF’s leadership.

    “The passion I’ve seen for this institution—including during my visit to campus earlier this week to meet its students, faculty and administrators—is infectious, and the alignment between the Board of Trustees, the Board of Governors, the governor and the Legislature is rare in higher education. This alignment signals seriousness of purpose, and it tells me that Florida is building something truly exceptional. I’m excited to be part of that,” Ono wrote in the op-ed Thursday.

    Ono echoed themes championed by both DeSantis and Rufo as he argued that universities must reject “ideological capture” and renew “emphasis on merit.” He also sought to distance himself from DEI efforts.

    “Like many, I supported what I believed to be the original intent of DEI—ensuring equal opportunity and fairness for every student. That’s something on which most everyone agrees,” he wrote. “But over time, I saw how DEI became something else—more about ideology, division and bureaucracy, not student success. That’s why, as president of the University of Michigan, I made the decision to eliminate centralized DEI offices and redirect resources toward academic support and merit-based achievement. It wasn’t universally popular, but it was necessary.”

    Ono added that he would bring “that same clarity of purpose to UF.”

    Source link

  • POLL: Conservatives more optimistic, liberals more concerned about free speech in 2025

    POLL: Conservatives more optimistic, liberals more concerned about free speech in 2025

    • FIRE’s poll found confidence in the future of free speech is still low (41%), but jumped 10 points compared to a July poll.
    • Conservatives went from the most pessimistic subgroup to the most optimistic following Donald Trump’s election, while liberals’ optimism fell.

    PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 30, 2025 —A new poll finds that confidence in the future of free speech in America and belief in Donald Trump’s commitment to the First Amendment both saw an uptick, at least among conservatives. (Liberals are not so sure.)

    The newest edition of the National Speech Index — a quarterly barometer of free speech from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression — found that Americans are still mostly pessimistic about the state of free expression in America, with only 41% saying the country is headed in the right direction. 

    But those numbers represent an all-time high since FIRE began asking the question last year, and a 10-point jump from the 31% who said the country was headed in the right direction in July.

    The increase in confidence is driven in large part by a substantial surge in free speech optimism from self-described conservatives. The October edition of the National Speech Index found that less than a third (30%) of very conservative Americans and less than a fifth (18%) of conservative Americans said that people’s ability to freely express their views was headed in the right direction, while now roughly half of very conservative (49%) and conservative (52%) Americans now say it is headed in the right direction.

    “Unsurprisingly, the sudden shift suggests that for many Americans’ their feelings about the future of free speech depend in large part on whether they trust whomever occupies the White House,” said FIRE Research Fellow and Manager of Polling and Analytics Nathan Honeycutt. “Of course, we at FIRE have long recognized that no party has a monopoly on censorship.”

    Liberals, on the other hand, saw a drop in free speech optimism. In October, 46% of very liberal Americans and 49% of liberal Americans said people’s ability to freely express their views was headed in the right direction, compared to about a third now (34% and 32% respectively). That fall wasn’t large enough to outweigh the large jump from conservatives.

    When asked about Trump’s commitment to the First Amendment, opinions were mixed. While 39% said they had “quite a lot” or “full” confidence he would protect their First Amendment rights, 41% said they had “very little” or “no confidence at all.” But that’s still a seven-point increase from when FIRE asked the same question about then-candidate Trump in October, when 32% said they had “quite a lot” or “full confidence” in Trump’s protection of the First Amendment.

    For comparison, FIRE also asked about the Supreme Court and a high-profile elected official on the other side of the political aisle, California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Opinions on Newsom were split neatly into thirds: 34% said they had high confidence, 34% said they had some confidence, and 32% expressed low confidence. Meanwhile, only 23% of Americans said they had high confidence in the Supreme Court to protect their First Amendment rights, compared to 44% who said they had low confidence.

    “Though declining levels of trust in institutions is concerning, skepticism that politicians or the courts will protect your free speech is always a healthy instinct,” said Honeycutt. “The best defense against censorship isn’t a particular public official. It’s the American people themselves cultivating a free speech culture, defending others’ right to disagree, and holding leaders accountable.”

    As censorship attempts tend to target controversial and unpopular opinions, FIRE asked respondents to judge several political statements on how offensive they found them. The results showed that wide swathes of Americans identified statements on both sides of certain divisive topics as offensive. While 45% of respondents found it “very” or “extremely” offensive to say “Black Lives Matter is a hate group,” for example, 51% said “The police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan” was an offensive statement as well.

    Read more about the National Speech Index

    In another example, 40% of Americans believe that “transgender people have a mental disorder” — a sentiment banned on Facebook and Instagram until earlier this month — is an extremely or very offensive statement. But 59% also said the idea that “children should be able to transition without parental consent” was offensive. 

    “The problem with policing offensive speech is that there will always be disagreement on what is and isn’t offensive,” said FIRE’s Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens. “Many people who want to ban offensive speech imagine they could never end up on the receiving end, but often what people find offensive changes rapidly.”

    The National Speech Index is a quarterly poll designed by FIRE and conducted by the Dartmouth Polarization Research Lab to capture Americans’ views on freedom of speech and the First Amendment, and to track how Americans’ views change over time. The January 2025 National Speech Index sampled 1,000 Americans and was conducted between January 3 and January 9, 2025. The survey’s margin of error of +/- 3%.


    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    The Polarization Research Lab (PRL) is a nonpartisan collaboration between faculty at Dartmouth College, Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania. Its mission is to monitor and understand the causes and consequences of partisan animosity, support for democratic norm violations, and support for partisan violence in the American Public. With open and transparent data, it provides an objective assessment of the health of American democracy.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link