Education

Teachers have very limited options when it comes to discipline. Positive reinforcement strategies (the carrot) gained momentum in the early 1990s, and while I do believe these strategies are indeed helpful, I think the pendulum has swung too far in that direction. Over the last couple of decades, classroom authority has been significantly weakened, making discipline much more difficult. Children—more than any other group I have encountered in my leadership experience—challenge authority at every possible opportunity. This is exactly why a firm, authoritative presence is necessary in the classroom; without it, structure breaks down, and learning suffers.

I believe the pendulum must now swing back in the other direction, and we must start using the stick more. The only stick we really have at our disposal is referring a student to the administration (usually a vice principal or councilor) or “writing them up,” which is usually followed by a call to the student’s guardian. Fortunately, it is effective: most students do curb their bad behavior after being written up or even at the threat of it. And the other students do take notice.

Unfortunately, many teachers are not enforcing this as much as they could, and it’s completely understandable given how the system has made it increasingly difficult for them to do so. Many parents refuse to believe their child is misbehaving, leading to intense pushback against teachers and administrators. On top of that, school leadership often faces pressure to reduce disciplinary actions due to district policies, or fear of legal repercussions. As a result, teachers are discouraged from using the one stick tool they have left.

We must provide more support to teachers and administrators by empowering them to discipline our children and allowing more time in their schedules to call home. One surprising thing I’ve noticed is that students actually gravitate toward discipline when it is applied consistently. This benefits everyone and is greatly needed.

This is almost more of a plea to parents than a policy decision, but I encourage all guardians to be more empathetic about how challenging this job is and to offer greater support when they receive a call from the school.

B. Bring Back Homework:

C. Feed Our Kids Right:

Our children deserve better than the highly processed, low-quality meals served in many public schools today. Much of the meat used is the same grade found in pet food—low-grade, heavily processed, and packed with fillers and additives. This isn’t food that fuels learning or growth. We need to invest in healthier, organic meals sourced from local farms. While this may cost more in the short term, it will pay for itself by improving student health, boosting academic performance, reducing long-term healthcare costs, and strengthening our local economy. Feeding our kids right isn’t a luxury—it’s a responsibility.

D. Teach Meditation:

Due to the prevalence of technology in our lives, not only are children, but people in general, struggling to maintain their attention. The problem is even more pronounced among children in learning environments, where constant distractions abound. In response, a growing number of K–12 schools across the U.S. are integrating mindfulness and meditation practices into the classroom. Programs like Inner Explorer and Learning to BREATHE are being used to help students manage stress, build resilience, and improve concentration. Research and support from organizations like the CDC highlight the mental health benefits of these practices, including reduced anxiety and improved behavior. The problem of inattention in schools has reached a point of crisis. We must address it. While changing the broader culture may take time, meditation holds extraordinary potential to help students regain focus and emotional balance, offering a tangible solution in the meantime. Cities like Oakland, California, and New York City are already leading the way, implementing mindfulness programs in schools to foster better attention and emotional well-being.

E. School Choice is Bad:

School choice programs, particularly voucher systems, are often presented as a solution to improving education, but a deeper look reveals significant flaws and unintended consequences. The vast majority of voucher funds primarily benefit wealthy families who already have the means to send their children to private schools. In Arkansas, 82% of voucher funds go to families already enrolled in private institutions; in New Hampshire, it’s 75%; and in Florida, 70%. These statistics suggest that the program is not serving the underprivileged as often advertised, but rather subsidizing the education of those who could already afford private school without public funding.

Much of the data supporting school choice comes from organizations with clear biases, such as the American Federation for Children and EdChoice, which have financial interests in expanding these programs. Florida and Wisconsin, frequently touted as success stories for school choice, also face this issue, as studies often emphasize short-term, modest gains while downplaying the broader consequences and cherry-picking data to favor their agenda.

The consequences of school choice on public schools are severe. As more students leave public schools for private institutions through vouchers, those left behind often face larger class sizes, fewer resources, and a lower quality of education. Public schools, particularly in low-income areas, depend on state funding tied to student enrollment, and the funds lost to vouchers exacerbate their struggles. This funding gap forces many schools to cut essential programs, including arts, sports, and special education services, further widening the inequality between wealthy and disadvantaged communities. Additionally, public schools are left with a higher concentration of students who may have more complex needs, yet fewer resources to address them. As a result, the very students who could benefit the most from public education—those in disadvantaged, underfunded schools—are often the ones who are left with the least. Instead of addressing the root causes of inequality in public education, school choice programs merely redistribute resources in a way that entrenches existing disparities, leaving public schools weaker and less capable of fulfilling their mission.

The solution to improving public schools isn’t to let them starve to death, but rather to learn from and potentially adopt the practices that contribute to the success of private schools.

III. College

A. Evolve Away From the 4-Year Degree:

Society needs to evolve away from the expectation that a bachelor’s degree is a prerequisite for most jobs. While higher education can provide valuable skills in areas like critical thinking, reading, and writing, the truth is that many positions—especially technical or hands-on roles—rely more on practical experience and targeted training than on traditional academic credentials. In Hampton Roads right now, the most in-demand job is welder—a skilled trade that emphasizes precision, hands-on ability, and technical know-how. Most jobs require specific skills and expertise that can be developed through a combination of on-the-job experience, apprenticeships, and focused classroom instruction—rather than a four-year degree.

By focusing on skills and experience rather than academic qualifications, society could create a more equitable job market that better reflects the actual demands of many professions. As industries continue to evolve, especially with AI, it’s crucial to reconsider the assumption that a 4-year degree is the proper path to successful employment.

B. Make College More Affordable:

Right now, we suffer from the Bennett Effect, where the cost of higher education rises in response to increased government funding. As the government provides more financial aid, colleges often raise tuition, assuming students can afford the higher costs due to the availability of aid, creating a cycle of rising prices. To fix this, we need to increase transparency in college pricing and hold universities accountable for how they use government financial aid. By offering tax incentives or additional funding to schools that keep administrative costs low and do not raise tuition based on this trend, we can break the cycle and ensure that financial aid truly makes education more affordable, not the opposite.

That said, we must make college education more accessible for the middle and low-income classes. One way to do this is by increasing the prevalence of tuition-free or low-cost university options in the U.S., similar to the models in Europe. Currently, there are 13 European countries where public universities offer free or affordable education, and we could draw inspiration from these systems to create a higher education landscape that allows more people to attend college without the burden of excessive debt. 

Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania are among the prestigious universities making college more affordable for low- and middle-income families by offering free tuition for students from households earning up to $200,000, with additional support for living expenses. Harvard, for example, covers all costs for families making $100,000 or less. These efforts reflect a broader movement among elite universities to make higher education more accessible. To encourage more schools with large endowments to follow suit, the government could offer tax incentives or matching funds to institutions that implement similar financial aid policies, ensuring that a greater number of students can attend college without the burden of overwhelming debt.

Online education platforms like Coursera, edX, and Udacity offer free or low-cost courses created by top universities such as Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and the University of Michigan. These platforms provide high-quality learning opportunities in subjects ranging from computer science to the humanities, often with the option to pay for certificates or advanced programs. By expanding access to knowledge beyond traditional classrooms, they help close educational gaps and offer flexible pathways to career advancement. To maximize their impact, we should encourage more universities and public institutions to contribute courses and provide funding or incentives that increase the availability and visibility of these accessible learning tools.

C. Student Debt:

While I would love to completely eliminate all student debt, doing so wouldn’t be fair to those who worked hard to pay their way through college or to those who chose to forgo higher education because of the cost. Wiping out student loans entirely would create an imbalance (and a "moral hazard") by rewarding some while leaving others who made sacrifices with nothing in return. The fairest solution, then, is to allow student debt to be discharged in bankruptcy court, just like other forms of debt, while also helping borrowers rebuild their credit. In addition, we should place limits on the amount debt collectors can garnish from wages. This approach would provide relief to those truly struggling, while maintaining accountability and fairness.