For too long, our schools have fallen short in providing basic education–reading, writing, and arithmetic. Now students need to deal with the large-scale devaluation of four-year college degrees and extreme debt burdens on top of nearly 40% of undergraduate students having to take remedial classes in college.

America’s workforce is aging, and we simply aren’t replacing new retirements. The National Electrical Contractors Association released a report saying 30% of electricians are nearing retirement. What’s better – filling that job, or another sociology major?

Linda McMahon, our new Secretary of Education, has consistently advocated for skill development as the key to securing American prosperity. Across the nation, there is a growing recognition that the future of work is not just about college degrees but about equipping young people with hands-on abilities that directly translate into the workforce. Trump’s agenda to bring back manufacturing jobs relies heavily on creating a workforce capable of meeting the needs of the industry. However, without widespread access to skill development programs, that vision will remain unattainable.

That’s not to say that college degrees are worthless. Far from it – but it’s time we recognize that an undergraduate degree is not the pinnacle of success, and in fact, may not be the right path for many students. That’s why public schools, in addition to focusing on basic education, should offer the opportunity for vocational education, like shop classes or technical internships. Many schools have similar programs, but those are the exception and not the rule. We have a widening gap between the demand for technical jobs and the number of people qualified to perform them. Why not give students a real choice?

What America needs is a modern approach to education that balances two crucial elements: civic virtue and skill development. Schools should not only teach young people the technical expertise needed to thrive in industries like manufacturing, construction, and technology, but also imbue them with the sense of pride and responsibility necessary to serve their communities and their country.

However, the point of public schools isn’t just to train a skilled workforce. It also requires the development and cultivation of moral character, which has always been essential in a republic like the United States. A healthy system requires informed, responsible citizens who understand the value of community, the importance of integrity, and the need to contribute to the greater good. Yet, in recent years, many teaching colleges have deviated from this responsibility and caved towards ideological agendas that are at odds with American values.

These two goals – skill development and moral formation – are not mutually exclusive. They should – and do – complement one another. A student who learns to work with their hands in a trade like welding or machining can also develop a deep respect for the work ethic, dedication, and discipline that define these crafts. Such training fosters pride in one's work and the understanding that one’s efforts contribute to something greater — whether it be the manufacturing of vital products or the rebuilding of American infrastructure. When paired with education that instills the values of personal responsibility, respect for one’s country, and a commitment to service, these skills can help lay the foundation for a new American Golden Age.

What’s clear is that Trump’s education agenda must be rooted in a balance of both pragmatic and philosophical goals. It is not enough to simply revive old manufacturing jobs; we must rebuild an education system that cultivates skilled workers who are also virtuous citizens, ready to lead the nation into a prosperous and unified future. This is the way forward — a vision where America’s greatness is measured not just in its economic prowess, but in the strength and character of its people.

Subscribe now

There’s a small but growing number of classical charter schools across the United States, but the movement is scoring its biggest win so far. Miami Dade School District, the 3rd largest public school system in the country, is adopting a classical pilot program for elementary school students. The district has ~350,000 students, and the program likely won’t include more than a few hundred, but a successful implementation could have huge ramifications across Florida and the country.

Of course, it helps that Florida has rapidly become one of the most classical friendly states. They’ve allowed the Classical Learning Test to be used in college admissions, for determining scholarships, and even created a classical teaching certificate through the Florida Department of Education. Florida is probably one of the best states in America for classical proponents right now, up there with Texas, possibly even better.

(As an aside, the original proposal in Miami-Dade highlights the successes of classical programs in D.C., New York, and Nashville in proficiency and graduation rates above the averages in those areas. It’s been particularly successful in minority-majority schools too).

Classical education is not a new concept — far from it (as you might have guessed from the term itself). The more “modern” adaptation is largely influenced by The Lost Tools of Learning, an essay published in 1947 by Dorothy Sayers. Sayers heavily relies on the concept of the trivium for engaging with students and making sure they learn material in different ways as they mature — or more fundamentally, making sure our children learn how to learn.

The trivium is more skills-based and may not accurately correspond to grade level as we typically think about it, but there are rough comparisons to be made. They are:

• Grammar (K - 4/5)

• Logic or Dialectic (4/5 - 8)

• Rhetoric (9 - 12)

Grammar is applied much more broadly than it may seem. Every “subject” has its own grammar, that is, its own foundational elements. Grammar is important for language development, but it’s also important that in each academic subject, the student learns the foundational elements for their long-term understanding of the subject. It is impossible to learn algebra without first knowing how to add, after all. Memorization and repetition are key for this stage.

The logic, or dialectic stage, is focused on critical thinking. They take the foundational knowledge presented in the grammar stage and build upon it. They ask questions about the material, make comparisons, and determine cause and effect. They may know the United States became independent in 1776, but this stage would address the conditions that led to such a declaration.

Rhetoric is the final stage in the trivium. It’s largely focused on output, that is, allowing students to synthesize the knowledge and understanding from the previous two stages to develop their own thoughts, and present it in their own words. By this level, the students would be able to engage with new information and form an opinion, then articulate it concisely and with persuasion.

The trivium has been adapted by Dorothy Sayers and those who came after her in an attempt to provide students with the core skills to engage with, understand, and articulate belief in material, whether it originates from the classroom or over the course of life itself. The end goal is an academically, morally, and intellectually well-developed student who is ready to enter the world upon graduation.

But why is classical education experiencing such a resurgence right now?

In February 2024, Arcadia Education performed a market analysis of K-12 Classical Education. They found that:

• There were ~1500 classical schools in the 2023-24 academic year, totaling almost 700,000 students nationwide.

• 219 of those schools were public charter schools, with a total student population of roughly 125,000.

• Homeschooling, co-ops, or micro schooling options with a classical curriculum had just over 260,000 students.

• The number of classical schools is growing at almost 5% per year.

The 2019 National Household Education Survey, which Arcadia Education used in their analysis, showed that:

1. 74% of parents considered homeschools out of a desire to provide moral instruction.

2. 72% were dissatisfied with the academic instruction in their schools.

These are both very strong reasons to pull your children out of public schools, especially in such a charged environment. The obvious and immediate rebuttal to my own statement here would be that education has always been charged, it’s just that most people assumed that public education was “good enough.” That is rapidly changing. The school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic certainly accelerated the trend, but more parents, teachers, and lawmakers are starting to sound the alarm on the state of our education across the country. It’s not looking good.

The families that wanted moral instruction were likely more religious (particularly evangelical) and engaged enough to send their children to private religious schools or homeschool. A few months ago, I spoke with someone heavily involved in the Association of Classical Christian Schools, who informed me that their participatory schools had more than tripled from 2016 to 2024. This isn’t a new organization either. They’ve been around since 1993!

The Society for Classical Learning, an organization focused on promoting a classical Christian education model, released a document in 2023 that noted the classical Christian movement expanded from 170 schools in 2010 to over 700 in 2023. The growth associated with the classical movement, particularly classical Christian schools, is astounding.

The mistrust of public schools is on the rise, and people will naturally seek alternatives. It won’t change the fact that, despite record declines in public school enrollment, the over 80% of kids in America will attend public school. But that’s why public schools are starting to open up classical options of their own, including charter schools, or pilot programs like Miami-Dade.

It’s only one small band-aid on a massive wound for public schools, but offering (or bringing back) educational programs that serve thousands of students is bound to see results.

Recently, I had the pleasure of appearing on the DonorsTrust “Giving Ventures” podcast with Peter Lipsett to talk about my work at the 1776 Project Foundation. I was preceded on the podcast by David Hoyt, who is the Executive Director of School Boards for Academic Excellence — a reform-minded group aiming to supplant the State School Board Associations — and I couldn’t recommend them highly enough.

It’s more important than ever to engage with local school boards, especially since the public school system is facing a rapid decline in many parts of the country. The National Center of Education Statistics released their Report on the Condition of Education 2024 back in May, which included figures like:

• The 2023 NAEP LTT reading and mathematics assessments had declined 4 points in reading and 9 points in math compared to 2020.

• Compared to the 2012 results, reading scores have dropped an average of 7 points, along with a 14 point drop in math.

• “In 2022, overall school enrollment of young children, as well as public elementary and secondary school enrollment, increased from the prior year but remained lower than before the coronavirus pandemic.”

The American Enterprise Institute has done extremely interesting work on tracking chronic absenteeism rates by state, with their most recent update back in September 2024.

Chronic absenteeism — missing 10 school days or more per year — is a huge problem following the COVID-19 pandemic. The rate nearly doubled from 15% to 28% from 2019 to 2022, and even several years later, it remains above 20% in many states. It’s also detrimental for students. The more school days they miss, the more they fall behind, which in turn disincentivizes many from returning to school or finishing their work. This vicious pattern must be stamped out — and AEI has been doing a lot of research to support it.

There are many other problems facing public schools, and each one could be its own separate article. Reading and math comprehension scores are struggling to recover post-COVID, along with chronic absenteeism rates. School districts are facing budget shortfalls after the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) run out. The (lack of) discipline in schools is also a growing concern for all major parties: students, parents, and teachers.

Local school districts are arguably the first and most important layer of governance to deal with these issues. States may have the constitutional remit, but it’s the school district that levies taxes, sets budgets, implements programs, and drafts policy that affect everyone involved in the school system. School districts are often the largest employer in rural areas as well. There’s such a wide intersection of policy issues that it can be overwhelming for board members, especially newly elected members, to get up to speed and make a positive impact.

That’s why I was extremely happy to get on this podcast and break down how we’re going to fix that at the 1776 Project Foundation. There’s a lot more I can (and will) say on this topic in the future.

I’ve broken out the transcript for my segment of the podcast (which starts roughly around 17:30 on the embed).

Transcript

PL: Next is a group that says public schools are too important for conservatives to give up on. The 1776 Project Foundation is the 501c3 offshoot of the 1776 Project PAC, which focuses on electing conservatives to school boards across the country.

The foundation serves as a think tank for developing and promoting better ideas for public schools that challenge critical race theory, promote parental rights, and remove political ideology from the classroom. Aiden Buzzetti is President of the foundation and joins me. Aiden, thanks for being here.

AB: Thank you for inviting me on.

PL: We're at a time when there's so many conservatives who are antagonistic to public schools. I've meant to look at how many Giving Ventures podcasts we've done focused on alternative schooling models, micro schools, classical charter schools, and all these things, but here we are talking public schools today.

All public schools all the time. Your work says we shouldn't cede ground on public schools quite yet. Talk to me about that.

AB: It's very important that conservatives don't give up the fight for public schools. From a purely numeric standpoint, 80% of students in the United States go to public school. Even in states where school choice has been implemented or passed or is popular, a lot of parents still choose districts based on the quality of public schools. It's the base option for parents and students all across the country.

It's inconceivable that we would cede that ground to ideological actors and people who don't understand how bad the education system is.

If we can take it back, if we can fix the way we teach our kids, then we should see tremendous improvement across the board for our parents and kids.

PL: One of the ways your broader organization did that was through the political process. We focus more on the c3s here, but it's worth noting this really is an offshoot of that political project, the 1776 Project PAC. Maybe speak briefly about the work of the PAC, and then I'm curious how that evolved to add the c3 component.

AB: The 1776 Project PAC started in 2021, founded by Ryan Girdusky, who's also the founder of the Foundation. He has this story about how he found out his nephew had been given the book 'Race Cars' in public school, which is a book about police brutality. It was given out in the classroom, and he thought that was unacceptable, and the schools weren't being responsive. The school board wasn't being responsive. He did more research and found out it was a huge issue.

2021 was the year of mask mandates and lockdowns, and many parents were focused on schools in general. Over the last few years, we've done over 400 school board races. We have raised millions of dollars a year from donations of $20 or less. It's a very salient movement.

What we found doing all these board races was that winning candidates would reach out to us and say, 'Thank you so much for the support. What do I do now? What should I be focusing on now?' At the time, there wasn't really an organization dedicated to engaging these board members. If they were, they were very hyperlocal, which is good. But we realized these school board candidates and members we had worked with had no national apparatus.

They had no idea what other school board members, what other school districts were doing, good or bad, across the country. So we started this foundation because we want to fill that gap. We want to provide hands-on resources for school board members interested in reforming public education, interested in these solutions and ideas, for board members across the country. And really challenging the status quo - we shouldn't just accept that public education is as bad as it is.

PL: I'm curious, on a macro level, why does anybody run for school board anymore? It seems like a thankless job. It's hard. My mom was on school board outside of Atlanta in the nineties. It was awful then. It seems awful now. Why are these folks running?

AB: For a lot of these candidates, it really is a labor of love. Most of the people I interviewed were first-time candidates. Many were parents. Some were grandparents. They all worked full time. Many didn't really know how elections worked. They didn't know the stakes or the time it took. Some people adapt really well to that, and some don't.

But people run for school board fundamentally because they care about their communities. They care about their children and want to make sure their area has the absolute best education they can possibly offer. It is usually a completely unpaid job, or very little paid, in addition to being now a very divisive issue in these communities. The people who choose to run for school board, win, and decide to stay on for a long period of time - they just care. They are really invested in the future and in turning everything around in a positive way over the next decade.

PL: Let's get into the meat of your work. As I understand it, there are three main verticals: fellowships, outreach, and model policy. Maybe you could disabuse me if there's something else I'm forgetting, but talk about each of those in turn and what 1776 Project Foundation is doing to help get these school board members more adequately equipped.

AB: The fellowships portion of our programming is intuitive. We want to find some of the most innovative voices in education for reforming public education and bring them in to output research, original research when possible, and other materials that can keep this conversation in the movement going, focused on public schools. There are many aspects of the education movement being debated. We're focused on public schools.

We're focused on not abandoning the 80% of students in this country that go to public school, so we want to find board members, previous administrators, public policy experts, and create this environment where we have a wealth of knowledge and research to pass on to board members. Outreach is functionally the outgrowth of the fellowship. When we produce research and materials they can use, we want to distribute those as far as possible to as many school board members as possible. One of the main things we've been distributing has been our First 100 Days handbook, written by sitting school board members.

It's as broad as it can possibly be — because some specifics depend state by state — but fundamentally covers the basics of being a board member.

If you ran for school board and knew nothing about how it worked, this is the playbook to make sure you are as successful as possible and that you don't get misled by your superintendent, board attorney, or school administrators.

The model policy is us working with board members and our legal center to create or take the ideas we research, take ideas from other groups doing amazing work on education, and create tangible policies, whether at the board level or state level, so we can have statutes and precedents we can show other school board members how it's been working over the long term.

PL: Is there any work you're trying to do at the federal level, or is it really all at the state and local? Maybe there's no reason to do it at the federal level.

AB: The federal level is certainly important, simply because of the amount of money the federal government pours into states and local school districts, and those often come with strings. But there's a lot that school boards can do, and states can do because states have the original constitutional remit of education. Focusing on the board level and state level is where we really want to be. If we can loosen up these federal strings, especially the strings that tie programs to diversity and equity initiatives, that will give these boards a free hand to try out new policies, but they still need to have those policies ready in the first place.

PL: How much do the teachers' unions stand in the way of this? Are they an obstacle at this point, or do they have much interaction with the school boards?

AB: In some cases, the teachers' unions have offices on the school campus, on public school campuses. It's not everywhere, but it speaks to the broader influence of unions in the public education system. Some states like Florida have done a fairly good job at putting pressure on the unions, making them decertify if a certain percentage of teachers don't belong to the union anymore.

Having legislation like that passed in other states would certainly diminish their influence, but the teachers' union is ubiquitous.

The National School Board Associations are pretty tight with them as well, and they often provide the main policy support and legal support for these boards. You can't separate them from the public schools right now, but it is possible for boards to fight back. They regularly spend millions of dollars on these board races.

Whenever we did political work - separate organization - whenever we would invest money in a race and support people, the union, if they were involved in that race, would usually come back with twice, three times as much money that our political action committee spent, not including all the money they'd already given to school board members in the first place.

So they are all over the place, and we are going to have to fight very hard to diminish their influence, but this is part of the work we're doing.

PL: What is the reach right now? I'm trying to think of it in comparison to School Boards for Academic Excellence that we also talk to. You're more of almost a federal think tank, but working at the state and local level, if that comparison seems apt enough. So what is the reach? How many school boards are you working with, or is it really more an individual candidate thing versus the school boards? How do you think about that?

AB: School Boards for Academic Excellence is fantastic, and they're setting up state organizations whereas we are overarching. We're more focused on the individual board members regardless if they're in the majority or minority. There are still things you can do in the minority.

Often, it's about lowering the attrition rate. Prior to 2016, most school board members - I think 80% - ran for reelection. Now it's down to 30. It's definitely below 40. There's massive attrition because of how divisive it's become. Board members as a whole are less willing to deal with it, which is understandable considering they're usually normal people not used to politics.

For us, we want to engage individual board members to make sure they don't quit. The longer you're on the board, the more experience you have, the more able you are to oversee the superintendent, oversee the progress of the school district, try new things out.

We have a network of over 250 school board members that we have supported in the past that we're bringing more closely to the work we're doing on the foundation side. Getting board members to engage with each other individually, even if it's somebody from Florida and somebody from Maryland, is extremely beneficial because there are things board members in Florida can do that board members in Maryland can't, but maybe they want to.

They can apply upward pressure on the states and sometimes on the federal government to try and change the rules to get new things done. We really want to make sure these individual board members are engaged. It's worth pointing out there are somewhere between 12,000-16,000 individual school boards in the United States, and these boards range from having 5 to 12 members on them. So we're looking at over 80,000 individual elected school board members. This is a huge space.

If we can create a core group of experienced people now that can disseminate through different organizations and events, we can build this momentum over a longer period of time. It's not just about elections, not just about flipping boards, although it is the easiest way to make immediate change happen, but continuing the wealth of experience and research and progress that these boards often start completely from scratch.

PL: To wrap up, what's the big push for 2025?

AB: We're distributing our first 100 days handbook, which is immensely useful for new school board members, and we will be identifying new board members aligned with this reform movement and reaching out to them and sending them these materials to get them started on the right foot. We're also going to be expanding our outreach, going to more conferences, recruiting more board members into our network, and hopefully producing original research that can really push the boundaries of what public education can mean or do for their kids.

PL: We're always going to have school boards. As you say, it's a big piece, and we really shouldn't cede that ground even as we work for school reform and all the other fights that we have as well. Aiden Buzzetti, thank you so much.

AB: Thank you for having me on. I appreciate it.

Subscribe now

The proposal itself explicitly removes any lands that are “not part of any of our country’s magnificent national parks or other natural treasures,” with the charters awarded based on the quality of the proposals. It’s an exciting development, bolstered by a follow-up promise from President Trump to streamline federal regulations for these cities and make them “true frontiers for the return of U.S. manufacturing.”

In a sense, it’s a complete vindication of Alexander Hamilton’s focus on manufacturing in the early days of the American Republic, but also a unique and underappreciated revival of one of his most ambitious projects: The Society for the Establishment of Useful Manufactures.

In 1792, then-Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton submitted the Report on the Subject of Manufactures to the United States Congress, a wide-ranging document that formed a core part of his economic program – one he believed was essential for securing the long-term independence of the United States.

Much of it was adopted by successive Congresses over Democratic-Republican objections, but many forget one of the most immediate and important projects that was near-simaltaneous, and also spearheaded by Hamilton: The Society for the Establishment of Useful Manufactures, or S.U.M, which reflected Hamilton’s desire to promote internal improvements and domestic industry in the United States. The Society was arguably one of the first examples of what we’d now call a public-private partnership in American history – it was also a planned city and could have been one of the first “company towns” as well.

That’s a lot of firsts – but how did it happen?

The Report on Manufactures leaned heavily on government incentives or subsidies to establish manufacturing capabilities inside the United States, particularly those that could be deemed essential for security – like gunpowder. In a writing from 175, The Farmer Refuted, Hamilton touches on the subject by saying: “The welfare, perhaps the existence of Great Britain, as an independent, or sovereign state, depends, upon her manufactures and trade”. The Farmer Refuted goes into detail on the manufacturing limitations placed upon the colonies by Britain – something that no doubt influenced Hamilton’s perception that industry was necessary for sovereignty. The S.U.M, as first established, was one of the first endeavors in the United States to create, or “manufacture”, an industrial site from scratch. Completely from scratch – utilizing undeveloped land to develop a town and all the necessary infrastructure.

The incorporation and charter of the Society was passed by the State of New Jersey and signed by Governor William Paterson, which allowed the corporation to exempt its property from state tax for ten years and from local taxes forever. Not long after, the state bought $10,000 (roughly $330,000 in today’s dollars) worth of capital stock. I imagine the Governor was pleased to hear that the proposed town was to be named Paterson, after his own person. The S.U.M. chose what is now Paterson, NJ mainly for its proximity to New York City and Philadelphia, which were major population, financial, and trade centers in America, but also to utilize the local Great Falls, which was to be used to power mills & other manufactories.

Hamilton’s goal was lofty, and technically failed in its original purpose – to build and operate their own mills and facilities, populated by a town filled with their own workers – as the Panic of 1792 (along with other instances of mismanagement) drained the corporation of its funds with not enough output. The Society was forced to begin leasing its land, existing mills, and water power to new companies – again, the site was ideal because of its proximity to major financial and shipping centers – and saw a much better return on investment.

Paterson, New Jersey exploded in size throughout the 19th century, and its falls powered 150 years of industry, before companies moved cross-country and overseas in pursuit of better facilities and cheaper costs.

Where are our modern Patersons in the United States? The domestic environment is arguably much, much better than 19th century America, including a more mature corporate and startup culture, investment mechanisms from stock to venture capital and more, and also widespread, underutilized manufacturing facilities left over from before our broader deindustrialization.

I’m not just talking about makerspaces here, or detached incubators (although it seems many incubators are software-focused given our tech saturated age). Where are the honest to God communities based around manufacturing, where private companies, enterprising individuals, local officials, and patrons of the future collaborate and come together for a common purpose?

We’ve already seen the strong but humble beginnings in this vein:

El Segundo, California, with its own storied history in manufacturing and defense production, now serves as a home-base for up-and-coming hard-tech (and many defense focused) companies run by a cadre of ambitious young Americans. These startups are focused on manufacturing real, tangible products, and have amassed millions of dollars in investments to make their dreams possible. The Mayor of El Segundo has been a vocal supporter of these startups as well – which bodes well for their future.

California Forever, a company in Solano County, California, has ambitious plans to rezone agricultural land into a new city. It’s backed by prominent Silicon Valley investors and is ambitious — they promise thousands of jobs for existing residents and millions in new tax revenue for the county — and their website contains testimonials from existing businesses and those that want to move there.

The plan is to create a mixed-use, walkable city (remember the craze about those?). I’d like to point out the districts on the map — there’s room specifically for maker & manufacturing businesses. It might not be manufacturing centric, but the ultimate goal here is to create a new, well-planned, person focused city.

Elon Musk has also publicly toyed with the idea of incorporating “Starbase,” a city that would cover SpaceX’ headquarters in South Texas – and just recently filed paperwork to make it a reality. The prospect of the “company town” is not new and many still exist in different structural forms (see: Disney’s Reedy Creek and the Texas Renfair’s Todd Mission municipality, along with Former NV. Governor Sisolak’s Innovation Zones). The main difference between Starbase and a company town versus the S.U.M. model is the reliance of the community on one major employer – which almost always sparks ethical concerns.

The S.U.M. model promoted a diverse manufacturing workforce and a wide array of companies instead of being dominated by one employer – some may outnumber others, to be sure, but the Society acted as the energy provider & landlord, which would give more protection to residents.

When Donald Trump creates freedom cities, he should not focus on the company-town model, but instead on individual “society” proposals, which in the modern sense could be an association of several companies or wealthier individuals, to propose wide-ranging and multipurposed developments that could benefit from overlapping industry and skillsets. A highly concentrated industrial or manufacturing center would also simplify supply chain efforts and provide centralized location for shipping the produced items.

The federal government could lease the land to these entities for a set period of time, and not only exclude them from some federal permitting laws (starting with the National Environmental Policy Act) but allow additional tax incentives according to pre-approved metrics or development standards.

The local government of the "Freedom Cities” could elect regular citizens to serve on their assemblies or councils, with representatives not just from the chartered associations, but the companies that choose to relocate their business there, and create new, potentially subsidized “makerspaces” for manufacturing start-ups to produce new products without being forced into the hinterlands for cheaper factory space and away from central locations.

This, too, could bring about more innovative and responsive state policy replications, particularly in de-industrialized areas, to both attract investment and fill up their abandoned and cheaper factory space.

We should use this freedom city model to create and test new manufacturing hubs across the country, spread out our capital, and make it cost-effective to set up shop and reinvest in our forgotten towns.

Subscribe now