Nick Covington has, for as long as I've followed his work, treated education as a political fight. He doesn't ask whether something works. He asks who's behind it. That dodges the only question that matters, which is whether kids learn. His main charge is that people pushing explicit instruction are sneaking politics into the classroom. But look at the record. The people he attacks are talking about reading scores, lesson design and research. He's the one turning every argument about teaching into an argument about political sides, sorting teachers into camps and judging methods by who supports them. The politicizing he warns about is mostly his own. His method is simple. He labels his opponents, lumps them together and treats them all as guilty by association. If the other side's reasons are always a cover, you never have to answer them. When I pushed back, he didn't name a single error. He said a chatbot wrote my comment. That isn't a rebuttal. It goes after the person and skips the argument. Direct instruction spent decades out of favor while the money went elsewhere. Teachers use it because they've seen it work. Nick keeps warning that someone is politicizing education. He's right, but he's pointing at the wrong person. covingtonedu.substack.com/p/…

NEW: Last school year, a 7th grader viewed 4,700 YouTube videos during class. An 8th grader viewed 5,700 videos in class. A 2nd grader viewed ~500 in just 2 months. Less than 5% were educational. @nbcnews analyzed the YouTube watch histories of students from across the country. My new story shows how far some take it on their school laptops and iPads --> nbcnews.com/specials/hooked-…

🚨🚨THE DEMOCRACY FILES / ILLEGITIMACY PLAYBOOK, PART 5: Washington state's Secretary of State weighs in 🚨 The below clip shows Danielle Reiff of DRG pitching her vision to an audience including Washington state's Secretary of State, Steve Hobbs. She explains the red-line scenarios and ultimately a vision of creating a "cross-partisan" government in the wake of an illegitimate federal government. Her three "democratic emergency" scenarios should be familiar by now: · Election meltdown - which includes a widespread public loss of trust in election results · Insurrection Act deployed against protesters · An attempt to delay seating of legitimately elected officials post-election If the federal government becomes illegitimate in her view because of the above, then she proposes a cross-partisan system of transitional governance. She names a cross-partisan board of governors, as well President Obama and President Bush as potential transitional leaders. WA SoS Hobbs replies to Reiff that he has had the exact same conversation with German and Japanese officials regarding how to deal with AfD and right-wing nationalist parties. Now, to be fair, he does not want to commit because, in his words, "we're winning." But he doesn't disagree either. Note also that here and in other recordings, "election meltdown" does not mean some sort of flashy media crisis. It means, simply, a large segment of the population doesn't believe the election results are legitimate.