Adam Hall

29 years in mixed-methods research and public policy. 10 years as a virtual public charter school founding board member. 7 years in AI strategy and practice.

[Adam Hall @longlanellc]

@neetu_arnold Give 'em hell Neetu. The education status quo deserves and frankly needs it.

[Adam Hall @longlanellc]

Give 'em hell Neetu. The education status quo deserves and frankly needs it.

[Neetu Arnold @neetu_arnold]

A common pattern I’ve observed with some critics of my writings is that they have no real argument against what I’m saying, but rather they’re upset that I’m not talking about their favorite issue

This article from Hollis reacting to my recent WSJ article and Manhattan Institute report on grade inflation, is a useful example

Hollis explicitly says that she’s against my ideas about grade inflation “because [they] ignore the much bigger problem in public higher education, which is lack of quality”

I, like most who are concerned about the current state of higher ed, care deeply about quality — it just happens to not be the primary focus of my report & article. And importantly, working on solutions to grade inflation doesn’t stop anyone from thinking about quality issues

Hollis also makes some strange assumptions about my background & why it makes me too out of touch to understand what’s happening outside of the Ivy League. This is a tiring ad hominem that I’ve dealt with many times.

To be clear: I grew up in rural upstate New York with middle class immigrant parents. I went to public school. The part of Cornell I attended was the public part, so technically I do have first hand experience with public universities. And for the record, I come from no political connections or famous relatives.

I have also extensively covered public universities in my writings, which often involved visiting those universities in person and talking with students and faculty

To Hollis, it’s apparently a mystery why I “care so much about grade inflation at all.” I’ll defer to my own report to discuss the many reasons I think this issue is important

More importantly, I’m not alone; many faculty and other higher ed thinkers have been writing about this issue for decades. Perhaps Hollis remains confused as to why, but I can only surmise her blindness to the issue is by choice

https://t.co/HU87JYvtdc

[Neetu Arnold @neetu_arnold]

A common pattern I’ve observed with some critics of my writings is that they have no real argument against what I’m saying, but rather they’re upset that I’m not talking about their favorite issue

This article from Hollis reacting to my recent WSJ article and Manhattan Institute report on grade inflation, is a useful example

Hollis explicitly says that she’s against my ideas about grade inflation “because [they] ignore the much bigger problem in public higher education, which is lack of quality”

I, like most who are concerned about the current state of higher ed, care deeply about quality — it just happens to not be the primary focus of my report & article. And importantly, working on solutions to grade inflation doesn’t stop anyone from thinking about quality issues

Hollis also makes some strange assumptions about my background & why it makes me too out of touch to understand what’s happening outside of the Ivy League. This is a tiring ad hominem that I’ve dealt with many times.

To be clear: I grew up in rural upstate New York with middle class immigrant parents. I went to public school. The part of Cornell I attended was the public part, so technically I do have first hand experience with public universities. And for the record, I come from no political connections or famous relatives.

I have also extensively covered public universities in my writings, which often involved visiting those universities in person and talking with students and faculty

To Hollis, it’s apparently a mystery why I “care so much about grade inflation at all.” I’ll defer to my own report to discuss the many reasons I think this issue is important

More importantly, I’m not alone; many faculty and other higher ed thinkers have been writing about this issue for decades. Perhaps Hollis remains confused as to why, but I can only surmise her blindness to the issue is by choice

https://t.co/HU87JYvtdc

[Adam Hall @longlanellc]

What is most alarming is that even minimal accountability is so upsetting to so many who are opposed to this low bar.

I've been saying this for 30 years, and I'll say it again: education is not and was never intended to be primarily a jobs program for adults.

Taxpayers should not be penalized for poorly designed weak programs, and students should not bear the weight of debt, wasted time and effort, and false hope.

Excellent work by The HEA Group.
https://t.co/1vcQjWt7TD

[Adam Hall @longlanellc]

Recent coverage in New York Magazine questions the foundations of Gifted and Talented (G&T) programs, suggesting identification methods are flawed and the very concept of giftedness may be overstated or illusory. While equity concerns and testing limitations warrant scrutiny, a careful reading of the piece indicates that the author underplays robust evidence supporting targeted services for high-ability students.

https://t.co/0ZSdVmKFJ0

Strong research counters the narrative. Meta-analyses consistently show positive effects from acceleration, ability grouping, and enrichment. Steenbergen-Hu et al. (2016) synthesized a century of data, finding moderate to large academic gains from acceleration (effect sizes often exceeding typical interventions) with no consistent social-emotional harm. Special grouping for the gifted yielded an effect size of g = 0.37.

Plucker and Callahan (2020) reviewed the evidence base for advanced learning programs and affirmed the effectiveness of well-implemented strategies such as pull-out programs, clustering, and differentiated curricula in boosting achievement, critical thinking, and engagement compared to general education alone.

Redding and Grissom (2021) linked G&T participation to higher reading and mathematics achievement using nationally representative data, with longitudinal studies also associating participation with advanced coursework and college enrollment, particularly benefiting underserved high-ability students.

Twin and behavioral genetic studies further challenge environmental determinism: Plomin (2015) notes intelligence heritability rises to 50-80% by adulthood, underscoring stable individual differences that effective education should nurture rather than ignore.

Pros: These programs help prevent under-challenge and disengagement.

Cons: Inconsistent implementation and identification gaps persist, especially for underrepresented groups. Dismantling them risks talent loss across the board.

Actionable recommendation:
Prioritize universal screening, evidence-based acceleration/grouping, and teacher training in differentiation. Data-driven refinement beats ideological elimination.

🤔 What are your experiences with G&T programs: effective, flawed, or both?

References

Plomin, R. (2015). Genetics and intelligence differences: Five special findings. Molecular Psychiatry, 20 (1), 98–101. https://t.co/DigPXBYxMj

Plucker, J. A., & Callahan, C. M. (2020). The evidence base for advanced learning programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 102 (4), 14–21. https://t.co/V5kaZhfmZv

Redding, C., & Grissom, J. A. (2021). Do students in gifted programs perform better? Linking gifted program participation to achievement and other outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Advance online publication. https://t.co/mJ0sUWMn3F

Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86 (4), 849–899. https://t.co/Z84ubCy08D

[Adam Hall @longlanellc]

Damn fine piece here. We need more folks like @rpondiscio. I don't always agree with his positions and assertions, but you have to give him credit for writing the following quotable quotes that ask us to carefully consider what we are maintaining, building, and destroying as we move forward:

“Individualism is woven into the fabric of American culture. From the founding period onward, Americans have celebrated independence, self-direction, and resistance to authority. [...] The notion that schools have an obligation to transmit a common intellectual inheritance can sound uncomfortably elitist.”

“I support school choice. [...] But honesty requires acknowledging the tradeoff: The more successful educational pluralism becomes, the harder it becomes to maintain a common body of knowledge. Choice sits uneasily alongside coherence.”

“Knowledge-rich education confronts a sprawling coalition of competing values: autonomy, personalization, local control, choice, relevance, pluralism, innovation, flexibility, and distrust of authority. Many of these values are worthy. Some of them I support myself. Yet every one of them makes it harder to organize a single school—let alone the nation’s schools—around the deliberate accumulation of shared knowledge.”

[Robert Pondiscio @rpondiscio]

Knowledge-rich education doesn't merely challenge educational progressivism. It collides with some of the deepest commitments of American life:

Individualism.
Local control.
Personalization.
Choice.
Distrust of authority.

That's why it remains more admired than adopted.

https://t.co/yenGAxnhJP

[Adam Hall @longlanellc]

@neetu_arnold Educational malpractice is real. It costs lives slowly and often irreversibly.

[Adam Hall @longlanellc]

Progress in Teacher Preparation for Reading Instruction: Insights from NCTQ's 2026 Review

The ability to read proficiently in early grades shapes long-term academic, economic, and life outcomes. Yet approximately 40% of fourth graders in the United States cannot read at a basic level, a persistent challenge with serious consequences including higher dropout rates, lower lifetime earnings, and increased involvement in the criminal justice system (National Council on Teacher Quality [NCTQ], 2026).

Background and Context

For decades, many teacher preparation programs have not fully aligned with the science of reading, relying instead on disproven methods. The science of reading, grounded in decades of research, emphasizes five core components: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Over 90% of students could learn to read with instruction aligned to this evidence base (NCTQ, 2026).

NCTQ's Review

The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) analyzed over 700 elementary teacher preparation programs in its 2026 *Teacher Prep Review: Reading Foundations*. This builds on prior evaluations, examining coverage of the five components, practice opportunities, contrary practices, and preparation for diverse learners (NCTQ, 2026).

Key Findings

- Progress is notable: 53% of programs now earn an A (up from 26% in 2023), meaning they adequately cover all five components with limited contrary practices. The number of fully aligned programs has doubled (NCTQ, 2026).

- Challenges remain: 47% still fall short, with 21% earning an F. Phonemic awareness is the least addressed component (65% of programs). More than one in five programs offer no practice opportunities across components (NCTQ, 2026).

- Preparation for diverse learners lags significantly. Most programs dedicate minimal time to English learners (60% fewer than two hours), struggling readers, and speakers of English language varieties other than General American English (NCTQ, 2026).

- Contrary practices (e.g., three-cueing) have declined but persist in 20% of programs (NCTQ, 2026).

Recommendations

Teacher preparation programs should fully align curricula to the science of reading, strengthen practice opportunities, address needs of diverse learners, and eliminate contrary practices. States can support this through rigorous standards, program reviews, and high-quality licensure tests. A-rated programs must maintain standards and share effective practices (NCTQ, 2026).

Strong reading preparation is essential for equipping teachers and closing opportunity gaps.

🤔 What steps is your institution or state taking to advance the science of reading in teacher prep?

Share your thoughts below.

Reference
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2026). NCTQ teacher prep review: Reading foundations. https://t.co/flDW8djiNc

[NCTQ @NCTQ]

New NCTQ data out today shows good news and bad news.

The good: More teacher prep programs are preparing future elementary teachers to teach reading well.

The bad: Nearly half of the programs we reviewed still aren't fully aligned to reading research.

https://t.co/0AgtikPs4W

[Adam Hall @longlanellc]

Or the automobile, or electrification, or...(ad infinitum)... Why does humanity have to be so nearsighted and farsighted - at the same time?

[John Arnold @johnarnold]

Imagine if this had been the response to the introduction of the tractor.

via Toronto Star

[Adam Hall @longlanellc]

More importantly, make data centers refocus their investments. Don't encourage first-wave wildcatters, instead, reward those who implement more costly technologies to cut noise levels to near-zero, generate power onsite or in a way that fits within and benefits the communities that they exist in, and require advanced cooling technologies that don't waste local resources. Innovation isn't free, but it is the answer to longevity. We have to stay ahead of China, and this requires what American industry used to do best: innovate.

[John Arnold @johnarnold]

Blanket bans are a cultural response to an economic question.

Make data centers pay the full cost of their power. Reconsider whether tax incentives are justified. But under the right conditions, they pay property taxes, create jobs, and provide a net benefit to many communities.

[Adam Hall @longlanellc]

New 2026 KIDS COUNT Data Book Highlights Uneven Progress in Child Well-Being Across the U.S.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation's 2026 KIDS COUNT Data Book provides a comprehensive snapshot of child well-being using 16 indicators across four domains: Economic Well-Being, Education, Health, and Family and Community. This edition introduces an enhanced index with both state rankings and scores (0 to 1,000 scale) to better track progress since 2019.

Background and Methods
The report draws on federal data sources to compare outcomes from 2019 (pre-pandemic baseline) to 2024. Indicators are weighted equally within domains. The new scoring system anchors to 2019 outcomes, with 1,000 representing the best observed state performance that year, enabling measurement of absolute changes rather than just relative rankings. Detailed sample sizes and statistical power vary by indicator but rely on large-scale national surveys and administrative data.

Key Findings
Nationally, the U.S. score declined slightly from 553 to 547. Seven indicators improved, seven worsened, and two remained stable. Positive trends include a 24% drop in teen birth rates and a 22% reduction in children living in high-poverty neighborhoods. Economic Well-Being improved modestly (551 to 557), and Family and Community saw strong gains (518 to 608). However, Education plummeted (518 to 417), with reading/math proficiency and preschool participation declining in nearly every state (47). Health also worsened (624 to 607), with persistent concerns around child/teen deaths and a rise in high housing cost burdens affecting 22.4 million children.

Twenty-nine states declined overall, 15 improved (including notable gains in South Carolina by 38 points and Mississippi/Louisiana in education), and six were stable. Geographic disparities remain stark, with scores ranging from 271 in Mississippi to 838 in New Hampshire.

Recommendations
Policymakers, educators, and communities should prioritize evidence-based investments in education recovery, stable housing, health access, and family supports. Targeted policies like expanded child tax credits and literacy-focused reforms have shown results in lower-ranked states. Reliable public data remains essential for accountability and effective resource allocation.

As education professionals and leaders, we must use this data to advocate for policies that deliver real outcomes for children regardless of zip code.

🤔What trends stand out in your state?

References

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2026). 2026 KIDS COUNT data book. https://t.co/THOEPVeH6i

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2026). 2026 KIDS COUNT data book news release. https://t.co/9ByNUrtMTM

[Adam Hall @longlanellc]

Data manipulation is an old political tradition. I'm surprised that this is new to some folks.

[John Arnold @johnarnold]

Research has consistently shown a strong inverse relationship between police presence and crime rates. That makes the widespread decline in crime since 2019 even more striking given it occurred alongside a reduction in police across most large cities.

[MartinCothran @MartinCothran]

Education is the only profession I know of in which a large proportion of its workers ("child-centered" progressives) are opposed to doing the very thing they are supposed to do (actively passing on knowledge and skills). There are no dentists opposed to teeth, no electricians who refuse to work with wires, no professional athletes averse to exerting themselves, no musicians who hate melody (well, actually, we may have few of those). But there is a whole segment of the teaching profession that is fundamentally against the active process of didactive instruction.

[Adam Hall @longlanellc]

Hmmm, @LeaderJohnThune and @SenateGOP is this what you're hoping for--but nationwide?

[Kevin Sorbo @ksorbs]

This was election night. Nithya had single digit support and conceded the election.

Now she has more mail-in ballots than Pratt AND Bass.

Make that one make sense.

[Adam Hall @longlanellc]

Harvard's Grade Inflation Crackdown: Bold Move or Doomed Gesture?

Harvard faculty voted overwhelmingly (458-201) to cap A's at roughly 20% per undergrad course starting fall 2027 (Harvard Crimson, 2026). This targets the reality where nearly 60-70% of grades have become A's in recent years.

Sounds good on paper. But as Andrew Gillen (2026) argues, it will likely flop. Why? Classic collective action problem. One elite school tightening standards risks driving students to competitors still handing out easy A's. Parents and students chase high GPAs for grad school and jobs, pressuring faculty to go along.

The upside? Restoring real meaning to grades could push students harder and give employers better signals of true excellence. The downside? Without broad coordination, it just creates headaches for professors and students while others keep the party going.

Real hope, per Gillen, lies with accreditors enforcing grading rigor across institutions. Coordinated pressure might actually stick.

In an era of credential inflation, this shows why piecemeal fixes rarely work. True academic integrity demands systemic change.

🤔 What say you? Seen grade inflation erode standards in your world? Share below.

References

Gillen, A. (2026, June 3). Harvard's plan to curb grade inflation will probably fail, but there is hope. Cato Institute. https://t.co/hBux5E5Ks1

The Harvard Crimson. (2026, May 20). 70% of faculty vote to overhaul Harvard grading with A cap. https://t.co/IlzhkO1gjB

[Adam Hall @longlanellc]

🏦⚖️As more universities push total costs of attendance above $100,000 per year, it is worth examining the role of federal subsidies in driving these increases.

Another set of institutions are crossing this threshold. Recent analyses indicate that at least 16 colleges, including Amherst, NYU, Duke, and USC, now have sticker prices exceeding $100,000 when factoring in tuition, fees, room, board, and other expenses for the 2025-2026 or 2026-2027 academic year (New York Magazine, 2026; Bryan Alexander, 2025).

This pattern reflects a broader dynamic: when governments set a subsidy ceiling, it often becomes the new market floor. Providers adjust prices upward, confident that aid will cover much of the difference for students. Research on the so-called Bennett Hypothesis supports this view. For instance, Lucca et al. (2015) found that increases in subsidized federal student loan maximums led to tuition increases of about 60 cents on the dollar, with effects most pronounced at private institutions and for more expensive programs.

We see similar effects across sectors. In agriculture, subsidies for high tunnel greenhouses and farm fencing can inflate costs and favor established players. In education, federal student aid and school reform funding have coincided with rising prices, higher profits for institutions adept at navigating the system, added inflationary pressure, and growth in national debt. These programs also create incentives to game metrics designed to track outcomes and accountability.

Federal subsidies can expand access in the short term but risk distorting markets over time. Greater transparency around true net costs, completion rates, and return on investment could help families and policymakers make better decisions.

🤔What are your thoughts on balancing affordability with market signals in higher education?

References

Alexander, B. (2025, July 22). American colleges and universities finally crack the $100,000 per year barrier. Bryan Alexander. https://t.co/ycmPQhknZF...

Lucca, D. O., Nadauld, T., & Shen, K. (2015). Credit supply and the rise in college tuition: Evidence from the expansion in federal student aid programs (Staff Report No. 733). Federal Reserve Bank of New York. https://t.co/rQr5tbRyZk

New York Magazine. (2026, June). At least 16 colleges will cross the $100,000 mark this year. https://t.co/rupRb9x5jN...

[Erick Erickson @EWErickson]

One of the greatest speeches of the late 20th century, given on the 40th anniversary of one of the most spectacular days in human history.

[Adam Hall @longlanellc]

I'd say that we at least need leaders who know what they don't know. And NIST has its own share of outsized failures as well, and, as you note, voluntary models simply won't be enough moving forward. I understand what you are saying, and I agree in spirit, but the devil is in the details, and institutional trust is at all time lows.

[Adam Hall @longlanellc]

Quick question: As tech races ahead of what most people can understand, how do we possibly elect leaders capable of making sound public policy on AI and data centers?

Explaining the guts of algorithms and massive data centers to the average person is like teaching card tricks to a rooster. People nod, smile, then default to hype, fear, or ego. The reality is these systems are now so complex they're detached from daily life.

One country loves this knowledge gap: China. The CCP has poured serious money into stoking American opposition to data centers through shell companies, PR outfits, and paid activists who generate noise but little real understanding or constructive policy.

We invented modern AI. We invented the chips that power it. Yet here we are, barely a month or two ahead of China in a field we created. That's not dominance - that's a warning.

Data centers aren't optional. They power AI: the most potent, dangerous, and useful technology we've ever built. They also enable surveillance. Yes, they can be built cleaner, quieter, and more efficient - with closed-loop cooling and better power systems. But all that costs more. So far, too many operators are taking the cheap, fast route.

This wave hitting rural Southeast communities looks a lot like the oil wildcatters of old: rush in, cut corners, extract what you can, and move on with little regard for long-term impact.

Our system assumes elected officials either understand the systems they regulate or know how to learn fast. That assumption is breaking under the speed of this technology. We don't have time for the usual American fits and starts - especially while competing against a rival whose entire system is built for patient, long-horizon planning.

We need to get smarter, elect smarter, and move faster. The next conflict won't be won with missiles and bodies alone. It will be won by whoever dominates this tech. Right now, we're sleepwalking into second place in the game we invented.