3 stories credited to Diane Ravitch's blog
Latest story Apr 22, 2026 · on ChamberLight since Apr 2026
A story can appear as several articles (copies of the same piece), so counts of stories and of articles differ.
Scores for Diane Ravitch's blog
Writing quality not enough rated stories yet: 2 of 10. How it is measured
Scores last checked Sep 24, 2026.
Stories ChamberLight collected, by month
Stories credited to Diane Ravitch's blog, by publication date. ChamberLight collects articles that mention the officials it tracks, so this shows its own coverage of this source, not how much the source publishes.
- Stories from Diane Ravitch's blog
- Shaded: ChamberLight collected no stories, or almost none, from any outlet (a gap in its collection, not in the outlet’s publishing)
Show as a table
| Month | Stories | All outlets |
|---|---|---|
| March 2026 | 1 | 609 |
| April 2026 | 2 | 4,537 |
| May 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| June 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| July 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| August 2026 | 0 | 1 (collection gap) |
| September 2026 | 0 | 598 |
Top topics
Share of this source’s stories tagged with each topic. A story can carry several topics, so the shares do not add up to 100%.
- Budget/Spending3
100% of 3 stories · 33% across all outlets
- Ethics/Corruption2
67% of 3 stories · 62% across all outlets
- Defense/Military1
33% of 3 stories · 26% across all outlets
- Education1
33% of 3 stories · 3% across all outlets
- Infrastructure1
33% of 3 stories · 8% across all outlets
- Taxes1
33% of 3 stories · 5% across all outlets
The thin mark on each bar is the topic’s share across all outlets.
Who they cover
Party of the officials these stories are mainly about, across all 3 officials named. A story counts once for each official it is mainly about, so the split is over 4 story–official pairs, from 3 stories.
- Republican75% · 3 pairs
- Democrat25% · 1 pair
Most covered
Stories mainly about each official, and their share of the source’s 3 stories.
Article tone
ChamberLight’s article analysis assigns each story a tone toward the official it covers. It describes the coverage of that official, not Diane Ravitch's blog’s stance, and reader votes do not change it. 3 stories.
- Good Look
- 0 (0%)
- Mixed
- 3 (100%)
- Informational
- 0 (0%)
- Bad Look
- 0 (0%)
Challenges to these scores
No one has challenged a score on this page yet. Anyone can; editors publish every outcome here.
Articles served from dianeravitch.net
4Senator Kelly Introduces Bill to Roll Back Federal Vouchers
Peter Greene wrote in Forbes about a Democrat-led effort to eliminate the federal voucher program from Trump’s “One Big Ugly Bill,” the one that takes from the poor and gives to the richest. Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona led the opposition to this program. Kelly knows how vouchers have harmed the state budget and public schools in Arizona. Greene wrote: One portion of the President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” was a federal school voucher program that any state could join. But before that plan can go into effect, a new Senate bill has been proposed that would undo the vouchers entirely. Senators Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and an additional 28 senators have introduced the Keep Public Funds in Public Schools Act. The act would strike IRS Code Section 25, the portion of the IRS code that was inserted to create the federal school voucher program, eliminating that program. The new voucher program was sold as a tax credit program. It would allow taxpayers to claim a $1,700 tax credit by diverting that payment from the IRS to a scholarship granting organization that would then award at least $1,530 of that donation to a student (the rules governing the program allow SGOs to keep 10% of the donated funds). Kelly cites his home state of Arizona as a cautionary tale, where taxpayer-funded school vouchers have become costly: “Since 2022, our state’s universal voucher program has diverted and drained money from public schools; last year alone cost Arizona taxpayers nearly $1 billion. Instead of investing in classrooms, special education services, or school safety, lawmakers pushed massive tax giveaways and created a parallel education system that lacks transparency and accountability.” 12News and reporter Craig Harris have run a series of reports showing much of that money has gone to questionable and disallowed purposes, including dirt bikes, custom tires and luxury hotel stays. Choice advocates such as EdChoice have pushed back, but have had difficulty debunking Harris’s results. “In Arizona, we’ve already seen how universal vouchers are leading to rampant fraud and benefiting people who already had the means to send their kids to private school, while decimating public education for everyone else,” said Kelly. On X, Secretary of Education Lindas McMahon noted that Kelly surely knows “the Education Freedom Tax Credit does not take a single dollar away from public schools — it brings new, private money into education.” When Kentucky’s similarly-structured tax credit scholarship program was challenged in court, the state made a similar argument that the program did not use any public taxpayer funds. But when the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled against the program, they rejected that argument. “The money at issue cannot be characterized as simply private funds,” they wrote, “rather it represents the tax liability that the taxpayer would otherwise owe.” When it comes to granting tax credits, the federal government has one power that states do not. Most states require a balanced budget; the state needs to find a way to cover the money it lost by offering credits rather than collecting on the tax liability. The federal government can just add the uncollected taxes to its deficit tab. Kelly noted in an interview, “It is a deficit bomb, this federal program.” The Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan entity that assists Congress on tax legislation, estimated that the credit could cost $25.9 billion between 2025 and 2034 or around $3 billion to $4 billion a year. That would mean potential income of $300-$400 million for SGOs; several organizations are preparing to launch national SGOs to work with the federal voucher program. In addition to Kelly and Hirono, the Keep Public Funds in Public Schools Act is cosponsored by Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Chris Coons (D-DE), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Fetterman (D-PA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Angus King (I-ME), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).
Is the Trump Regime Planning to Restore a Military Draft?
Jim Bourg, a writer for Reuters for many years., now writes a blog on Substack called Public Impact News. This is a story that I found ominous. Is Trump planning to revive the military draft? Will he begin drafting young men to fight in Iran? Why? In recent years, we have been told repeatedly that the future of warfare will be high-technology, drones and drone interceptors, not trench warfare. Note that the report does not mention adding women to the Selective Service registry. Is that because Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, doesn’t want women in the military? No one has forgotten that Trump ran for office as a “peace candidate,” or that he shamelessly campaigned for a Nobel Peace Prize, or that he created a new entity called the “Board of Peace,” of which he is chairman for life and sole manager of the billions it has already collected from its members. And yet the “peace president” wants to reinvigorate the Selective Service register. Young people between the ages of 18-26, their parents and grandparents, should ask why. Bourg reported: Congress Quietly Approved Automatic Selective Service (Draft) Registration in 2026 Defense Bill WASHINGTON – (Public Impact News) – In another recent move that has gotten very little coverage or attention, prior to the start of hostilities between the U.S. and Iran, the U.S. Congress approved a significant change to the way the United States registers young men (18-26 years old) for potential military conscription, passing a provision in the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act that will automatically enroll eligible males into the Selective Service draft system using federal government databases. The change is scheduled to take effect on Dec. 18, 2026. Under current law, men between the ages of 18 and 26 are required to register with the Selective Service System themselves. Failure to do so can lead to penalties and may make individuals ineligible for certain federal benefits, including student financial aid and government employment. The provision included in the annual defense policy bill directs federal agencies to share certain identifying information with the Selective Service System so eligible men can be registered automatically. Lawmakers say the goal is to ensure that the registration requirement already on the books is enforced consistently without relying on young people to complete the process manually. The measure appears in the final compromise version of the NDAA approved by both chambers of Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump. Supporters say the change modernizes an outdated administrative system while preserving the existing legal framework. Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the provision does not expand the government’s authority to draft Americans into military service. “This does not create a draft and it does not change the underlying requirement that young men register with Selective Service,” Reed said during debate on the bill. “It simply ensures the system works as intended and that eligible individuals are properly registered.” Some Republicans also supported the change as a practical step to maintain military readiness. Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the voluntary registration system has left gaps that could complicate mobilization in a national emergency. “Ensuring the Selective Service system has accurate and complete records is part of responsible national preparedness,” Cornyn said. “Automatic registration makes the process more reliable and fair.” The automatic registration proposal was championed in the House by Representative Chrissy Houlahan, a former Air Force officer, who argued that the existing system leaves too many eligible men unregistered simply because they are unaware of the legal requirement. Opponents, however, said the provision was adopted with little public attention and raises concerns about government data sharing and individual privacy. Several lawmakers also questioned the timing of the change as the United States remains engaged in an ongoing war with Iran. Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, criticized the provision during debate. “I do not support quietly expanding the federal government’s reach into personal data to track young Americans for potential military service,” Paul said. “If Congress wants to debate conscription, that debate should happen openly.” Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, raised similar concerns in the House, warning that the change could create unnecessary anxiety among families at a time of international conflict “Americans are already worried about escalation in the Middle East,” Massie said. “Implementing automatic draft registration during a war sends the wrong message and risks making people think a draft is coming.” Defense officials and congressional leaders have emphasized that the policy change does not activate military conscription. A draft would require a separate act of Congress and approval by the president. The Selective Service System has remained in place since the end of the Vietnam War draft in 1973, maintaining a database of potential recruits in the event Congress authorizes conscription during a national emergency. Officials say automatic registration is intended to ensure the database remains accurate if it is ever needed. Still, the change has renewed public attention to the Selective Service system, particularly as the United States confronts a widening conflict with Iran. Whether the provision becomes a routine administrative update or the beginning of a broader debate about military service may depend in part on how that conflict develops in the months ahead.
Is the Trump Regime Planning to Restore a Military Draft?
Jim Bourg, a writer for Reuters for many years., now writes a blog on Substack called Public Impact News. This is a story that I found ominous. Is Trump planning to revive the military draft? Will he begin drafting young men to fight in Iran? Why? In recent years, we have been told repeatedly that the future of warfare will be high-technology, drones and drone interceptors, not trench warfare. Note that the report does not mention adding women to the Selective Service registry. Is that because Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, doesn’t want women in the military? No one has forgotten that Trump ran for office as a “peace candidate,” or that he shamelessly campaigned for a Nobel Peace Prize, or that he created a new entity called the “Board of Peace,” of which he is chairman for life and sole manager of the billions it has already collected from its members. And yet the “peace president” wants to reinvigorate the Selective Service register. Young people between the ages of 18-26, their parents and grandparents, should ask why. Bourg reported: Congress Quietly Approved Automatic Selective Service (Draft) Registration in 2026 Defense Bill WASHINGTON – (Public Impact News) – In another recent move that has gotten very little coverage or attention, prior to the start of hostilities between the U.S. and Iran, the U.S. Congress approved a significant change to the way the United States registers young men (18-26 years old) for potential military conscription, passing a provision in the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act that will automatically enroll eligible males into the Selective Service draft system using federal government databases. The change is scheduled to take effect on Dec. 18, 2026. Under current law, men between the ages of 18 and 26 are required to register with the Selective Service System themselves. Failure to do so can lead to penalties and may make individuals ineligible for certain federal benefits, including student financial aid and government employment. The provision included in the annual defense policy bill directs federal agencies to share certain identifying information with the Selective Service System so eligible men can be registered automatically. Lawmakers say the goal is to ensure that the registration requirement already on the books is enforced consistently without relying on young people to complete the process manually. The measure appears in the final compromise version of the NDAA approved by both chambers of Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump. Supporters say the change modernizes an outdated administrative system while preserving the existing legal framework. Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the provision does not expand the government’s authority to draft Americans into military service. “This does not create a draft and it does not change the underlying requirement that young men register with Selective Service,” Reed said during debate on the bill. “It simply ensures the system works as intended and that eligible individuals are properly registered.” Some Republicans also supported the change as a practical step to maintain military readiness. Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the voluntary registration system has left gaps that could complicate mobilization in a national emergency. “Ensuring the Selective Service system has accurate and complete records is part of responsible national preparedness,” Cornyn said. “Automatic registration makes the process more reliable and fair.” The automatic registration proposal was championed in the House by Representative Chrissy Houlahan, a former Air Force officer, who argued that the existing system leaves too many eligible men unregistered simply because they are unaware of the legal requirement. Opponents, however, said the provision was adopted with little public attention and raises concerns about government data sharing and individual privacy. Several lawmakers also questioned the timing of the change as the United States remains engaged in an ongoing war with Iran. Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, criticized the provision during debate. “I do not support quietly expanding the federal government’s reach into personal data to track young Americans for potential military service,” Paul said. “If Congress wants to debate conscription, that debate should happen openly.” Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, raised similar concerns in the House, warning that the change could create unnecessary anxiety among families at a time of international conflict “Americans are already worried about escalation in the Middle East,” Massie said. “Implementing automatic draft registration during a war sends the wrong message and risks making people think a draft is coming.” Defense officials and congressional leaders have emphasized that the policy change does not activate military conscription. A draft would require a separate act of Congress and approval by the president. The Selective Service System has remained in place since the end of the Vietnam War draft in 1973, maintaining a database of potential recruits in the event Congress authorizes conscription during a national emergency. Officials say automatic registration is intended to ensure the database remains accurate if it is ever needed. Still, the change has renewed public attention to the Selective Service system, particularly as the United States confronts a widening conflict with Iran. Whether the provision becomes a routine administrative update or the beginning of a broader debate about military service may depend in part on how that conflict develops in the months ahead.
Treasury Department Expects to Make Two Coins with Trump’s Face on Them
Republicans are eager to put Trump’s name and face wherever possible, both to please him and to acknowledge him as the Sun God of their party. Two plans are under discussion. One, which appears likely to go into distribution, is to mint a $1 coin, whose image of Trump was approved by him, a handsome profile. The other is a 24 karat gold coin that would be minted to mark the 250th anniversary of the nation. It would be sold for thousands of dollars and would be super-sized, as much as 3″ across. However, the gold coin is controversial. It is supposed to be approved by two commissions. The first one rejected the idea because putting the face of a living President on a coin seemed to them akin to a king, not appropriate for a democracy. The second commission, stocked with Trump allies, is enthisisstic about the gold coin. Dan Diamond of The Washington Post wrote: A federal arts commission on Thursday voted to approve a commemorative U.S. gold coin featuring Donald Trump, the administration’s latest effort to celebrate the president, even as Democrats and members of another federal committee say the idea is deeply inappropriate and potentially illegal. The proposal calls for a 24-karat gold coin depicting Trump leaning on a desk with clenched fists, based on a photograph taken by his chief White House photographer and now displayed in the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. Such gold coins from the U.S. Mint typically sell for several thousand dollars. A Mint official told the panel that Trump had personally approved the design. Members of the Commission of Fine Arts — composed entirely of Trump appointees, including a 26-year-old executive assistant whose only listed credential for the post was managing Trump’s portrait project — spent several minutes discussing potential changes to the coin, including how big to make it, before officially endorsing it. “I think the larger the better, and the largest of that circulation, I think, would be his preference,” said Chamberlain Harris, Trump’s executive assistant. Harris also said that the image captured Trump looking “very strong and very tough” and that it would be “fitting” to have him on a coin to mark the nation’s 250th anniversary. James McCrery II, who served as Trump’s first architect on his planned ballroom before wrangling with the president over its size, encouraged Treasury officials to make the coin “as large as possible, all the way to three inches in diameter” as he led the vote to approve it. But new coin designs are supposed to receive approval from two panels — and that second panel, the bipartisan Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, refused last month to consider the proposed gold coin. In interviews, members opposed putting a sitting president on currency, saying it would break with democratic norms and reek of subservience to royalty. “It’s wrong. It goes against American culture and the traditions that drive what we put on our coinage,” said Michael Moran, a Republican coin collector who then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) recommended for appointment. “I didn’t sign up for this.” Several members of the coin committee said the Trump administration could seek to mint the coin without their panel’s approval but would probably face legal challenges. The coin committee is composed of numismatists, or experts in coin collecting, as well as a historian and an artist who specializes in medallic arts. Its most famous former member — retired basketball star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, a longtime coin collector — said he was disheartened because he believed well-designed coins could inform and inspire. He cited as examples a 1998 silver dollar that honored Crispus Attucks, who was enslaved, escaped and was killed in the Boston Massacre in 1770, and a 2017 gold coin that depicted Lady Liberty as an African American woman. “I’m not enthusiastic about memorializing Mr. Trump on a coin because he has done so much damage to our country,” said Abdul-Jabbar, who served on the committee a decade ago. “It takes a huge consensus to get agreement on something like this, and I’m not inclined to be supportive of the president’s request.” The White House did not respond to questions about the commemorative coin and whether it was appropriate to commission it. The Treasury Department, which oversees the Mint, said the commemorative coin was appropriate for this year’s anniversary. “As we approach our 250th birthday, we are thrilled to prepare coins that represent the enduring spirit of our country and democracy, and there is no profile more emblematic for the front of such coins than that of our serving President, Donald J. Trump,” U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach said in a statement. Only one past president — Calvin Coolidge — was featured on a U.S. coin in his lifetime. Coolidge’s portrait appeared on a commemorative coin to mark the nation’s sesquicentennial in 1926, a year when he was president, with an image of George Washington overlaid. Coolidge’s inclusion sparked controversy, and most of the coins were later melted. The Trump-themed gold coin marks the administration’s latest effort to shape U.S. currency. Officials last year proposed a separate $1 coin design featuring the president’s likeness, intended to honor the sesquicentennial and enter circulation, but the coin committee balked at taking up the proposal. Mint officials argue that because the committee declined to consider the coin, the administration is not bound by its review — a claim that current committee members dispute. Meanwhile, the arts commission in January approved the Trump-themed $1 coin. The Treasury Department has not yet specified whether or when that coin will enter circulation. A photograph of President Donald Trump, featured at the National Portrait Gallery, inspired the image used for the planned gold coin. (Maxine Wallace/The Washington Post) Democrats have bristled at efforts to recognize Trump on currency and attempted to stop it. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nevada), one of several Democrats who introduced legislation last year intended to block any living or sitting president from being featured on U.S. currency, told The Washington Post that the Trump-themed gold coin was “embarrassing” and against the nation’s values. “Monarchs and dictators put their faces on coins, not leaders of a democracy,” added Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon). Lawmakers and congressional staff have also cited past laws they say should constrain the administration, such as a 2005 law that restricted some $1 coins to honoring deceased presidents. Donald Scarinci, a Democrat whom Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) recommended to the coin committee, said that gold coins presented a “loophole” because the Treasury Department has the independent power, without congressional authority, to mint them. “They can definitely make the coin without our review. But it would be an illegal coin,” Scarinci said. “It’s not about Donald Trump. It’s about whoever the president is. It’s not something done in a democracy.” Trump has also sought to remake White House grounds, proposing a visitor screening center also under consideration Thursday and demolishing the White House’s East Wing to build his long-desired ballroom. His projects extend into Washington, with plans to construct a 250-foot triumphal arch along with other projects that would leave a physical imprint on the city. The wrangling over the coin comes amid a bigger fight over how Trump and his allies are seeking to memorialize the 79-year-old president, with nearly three years remaining in his term. Trump’s deputies have put his name on buildings, such as the Kennedy Center and the U.S. Institute of Peace, drawing complaints from lawmakers and lawyers who say that only Congress can rename the facilities, and GOP lawmakers have proposed renaming Dulles International Airport after him. Those efforts are generally unpopular, surveys have found. About two-thirds of Americans said they opposed efforts to rename Dulles Airport and the Kennedy Center after Trump, with about 15 percent in favor, according to an Economist/YouGov poll conducted last month. Majorities of Americans also said they opposed demolishing the East Wing to build the ballroom and erecting the triumphal arch, according to the poll. Trump officials last year also scrapped designs for commemorative quarters that were approved in 2024 by the arts commission and coin committee, months before Trump took office, and would have honored Black Americans and notable women. Coin committee members said they were unhappy about the administration’s decision to instead issue quarters honoring the Mayflower Compact, Revolutionary War and the Gettysburg Address, calling the process flawed and the new designs lacking. “The designs, the themes that they came up with for the quarters — that could have been done by a fifth-grade class on American history,” Moran said. Coin committee members said they will continue to balk at considering currency with Trump’s face on it. “I think all of us feel the weight of responsibility here,” Scarinci said. He noted that Trump fired holdovers on the arts commission and that the administration could do the same with the coin committee, whose members are appointed by the Treasury Department. “They may fire us all,” Scarinci added. “They may replace us all to make this coin … but there’s a very high caliber of people on this committee, they know numismatics, and they know history, and they know this is wrong.” Arts commissioners in January, at the first meeting of the reconstituted board, showed little compunction of their counterparts on the coin committee as they weighed the $1 coin and discussed Trump’s own preferences. Two of the proposed designs “both remind me a little bit of that portrait that was done of the president, which he did not like,” said Roger Kimball, a critic that Trump named to the panel. But he praised another version that had “a statesmanlike quality, to the coif of the hair.” The commission ultimately recommended that version. Officials last year proposed a separate $1 coin design featuring the president’s likeness. The arts commission recommended this version in January. (U.S. Treasury)