Charter Schools have been growing rapidly in some states. But what does this mean for their students? Wikimedia Commons American education has been on the decline for the past decade. Across all subjects, school districts are reporting that test scores have been in a state of free fall for years—before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with our current educational system despite massive public spending per K-12 student. Clearly, the problem is not a lack of funding, but rather where that funding is going. Traditional public schools have long dominated education nationwide, but charter schools are an alternative that are rapidly growing in popularity. Charter schools, like public schools, receive funding entirely via taxpayers rather than tuition fees. But in contrast, charter schools have far more autonomy over their administration and curricula for students. As they operate independently from the public school districts of their area, they are instead governed by contracts between themselves and local or state governments, allowing them to set customized learning standards and methods. As a result, charter schools often specialize in specific subjects, from STEM to vocational training, which offers a clear career path for students that show a strong interest in said subjects, rather than forcing them to devote equal effort to subjects that will be irrelevant to their careers. Also, charter schools are usually more receptive to input from parents and local community members, often integrating them into their boards of directors, such as in states like Illinois. Although far from perfect, charter schools have shown promising success in the past decade for their students, if following specific models. For example, they have had the most positive impact upon students from impoverished urban communities and minority backgrounds. In California’s major urban centers like Los Angeles County, they regularly rank among the best in the state, and perform even better when adjusting for the economic background of their students’ families. According to the Center for Research on Education Outcomes, their students accumulate six and sixteen extra days worth of math and reading education, respectively, per year more than their public school counterparts. And although for-profit charter schools (i.e. those in Michigan championed by former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos) have seen questionable progress, areas that force them to be non-profit, such as the District of Columbia, have seen rapid improvements in their students’ success. As of 2026, roughly twice as many American students attend charter schools compared to a decade before. If these success stories continue to come about, they could pose a competition to public schools to keep them in check.
By Edward Kim
Last month, rapper Macklemore was dropped from Ed Sheeran’s latest tour for solidarity with Palestine. As an opener for the global popstar, Macklemore shouted “Free Palestine” and, in protest, performed his 2024 pro-Palestine song “Hind’s Hall.” It didn’t sit well with Gillette Stadium owner and pro-Israel billionaire Robert Kraft, who pressured the tour promoters into giving the rapper the boot. Sheeran stated that he prefers that his platform remain apolitical and left Macklemore to fend for himself, which has since earned him the ire of many. People with a platform are expected to take a stand on issues even when it goes against their personal beliefs or interests. In 1990, NBA legend Michael Jordan gained infamy for his refusal to publicly endorse a black Democratic candidate named Harvey Gantt against an openly-racist Republican challenger, later joking off-the-record that “Republicans buy sneakers, too.” There may be a coldness in putting business and personal choice above ethics, but it’s hardly irrational. Both Jordan and Sheeran have been vocal about wanting to keep their distance from politics, but in a world where everyone feels obligated to insert themselves into conversations and broadcast their righteousness, silence is the gravest of sins. The backlash against Sheeran is driven by the assumption that a political statement from a celebrity can make a difference. There may be some proof of this: Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris in 2024 led thousands of fans to flock to voting registration sites, though Harris lost regardless. The opposite must also be considered. How much damage can public commentary cause? Take the case of Charlie Kirk for instance. He became the left’s argument against the expression of opinions to millions due to the abject harm it can do. Particularly in the charged context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what you say and who says it can have serious consequences. Macklemore should know this considering he fueled the fire that now burns him. In 2014, for his song “Thrift Shop,” he dressed up as a Jewish caricature using a fake beard and prosthetic nose. He claims it was unintentional, but his outfit said it all. The Israeli lobby and government justify their actions through such televised examples of antisemitism, and Macklemore has given them ammunition for zealous activism and indiscriminate war in the past. Activists say that who you associate with defines where you stand, but it applies to them as well. If the ideology or movement you associate with has any problematic elements, it reflects on your own character. This is what keeps people like Sheeran—often characterized as a down-to-earth people-pleaser—from engaging with politics or aligning with a specific cause. His humanitarian support for Ukraine in 2022 is pointed out as hypocritical, but a stance that is universally accepted in the West is essentially apolitical. At worst, he will be called spineless, but abstaining is his choice, as is choosing to speak on the issues that he feels comfortable talking about. Just as people should have control over their own bodies and be free to love who they want without judgement, they should also be able to live and think how they want without being burned at the stake for it. The worst tendency of ideologues is to erode the very concept of the individual through their “us vs them” worldview. Even Macklemore, who has long been friends with Sheeran and does not blame him for his neutrality, has been absorbed into the mob and been made into their martyr. Celebrities may be privileged, but they are afforded the same rights as the rest of us. Privacy is inarguably of far more importance to someone famous than to the general population, and as an internationally famous individual, Sheeran wants to be left alone to do what he does best, which isn’t politics. Critically speaking, public statements are not reliable indicators of one’s true nature to begin with. Macklemore has made a brand around controversy, social commentary, and advocacy for years. We don’t know if he means what he says or if it’s all business. Meanwhile, Michael Jordan refused to publicly participate in politics, yet he has donated to many causes, including the campaign of a man he didn’t want to endorse on-screen. People should not be judged based on limited information and singular events. What’s said on camera or online can be worlds apart from what’s said or done behind closed doors. Moreover, being pro-Palestine or making statements in support of the Palestinian cause does not by default make you a good person; history is replete with bad people who ended up on the right side. Some have a lot to gain by doing or saying what will improve their social standing. Macklemore’s “Free Palestine” tour in Europe sold out immediately, and regardless of whether he said its proceeds will go to humanitarian relief, he has amassed many more fans who will continue to line his pockets. Prior to this debacle, both Sheeran and Macklemore were seen as middling artists by the internet, but now one is a hero and the other a villain. Choosing to be apolitical is often the same as choosing to be political. It is a personal decision made with one’s interests and needs in mind. Just as some prefer privacy, others live and die for attention. Universally-admired people like the late Dolly Parton were apolitical, while some as controversial as Donald Trump were involved in politics since the 1980s. Clearly, there is nuance being swept under the rug, as is typical of mob hysteria and social media witch hunts. The problem is that when people are unable to identify someone as either an enemy or ally based on their politics, they’re faced with the laborious task of trying to actually understand their fellow human being. As a kid, Sheeran was bullied for his stutter and appearance. As a teen, he moved to London on his own to make it big. He performed on the streets and slept in public spaces to get through cold nights. He
By Amaan Bhimani
In the wake of mass public surveillance with Flock and Axon cameras tracking cars and public spaces, more and more people are pushing back and have now turned the tables to surveil law enforcement. After a hacking group known as stegan0gram dismantled a Flock camera and copied its internal data, an activist group created its own tracking software, SparrowMap, to hold law enforcement accountable. Homeland Security is not pleased with people turning Flock surveillance cameras against the police and government officials, with the DHS reportedly monitoring activists developing these technologies and anyone else openly critical of the automatic license readers. However, SparrowMap is not illegal, as the system uses ARP technology to track police cars in real time, using publicly available road livestreams and footage provided by volunteers. The hackers pose the question: why destroy the cameras when they could reverse-engineer them and uncover the secrets of those spying on the public? The ultimate irony is that the government didn’t even consult people about whether they wanted to be surveilled. Yet, the second the citizens do the same thing to them, it suddenly becomes a problem. —Alexandra Miskewitz
By Alexandra Miskewitz
Follow Us