Thanks to the extraordinary generosity of an anonymous donor, people can now attend the Truth In Education Summit at no cost!

If the registration fee was keeping you from attending, your ticket has been covered. These donor-sponsored tickets are available on a first-come, first-served basis, so please register today and select the “Donor-Sponsored Ticket” option.

This is more than an event—it is a call to parents, grandparents, pastors, and concerned citizens who recognize that we must reclaim education for Christ and equip families and churches to protect the hearts and minds of the next generation.

Join Alex Newman, Rhonda Thomas, Matt Sharp, Dran Reese, and Sam Sorbo for a powerful and informative day at First Baptist Atlanta.

Claim your sponsored ticket: truthineducation.org/events

Please share this announcement.

Reading Through the Lines of Public School Graduate Illiteracy

Teachers face pressure from their school districts to artificially inflate student grades, masking the rising illiteracy of public education graduates.

As test scores and literacy rates are declining in the United States, teachers are sounding the alarm about yet another problem in public education—the pressure to change and artificially inflate grades. While parental requests for grade changes are nothing new, teachers are now being instructed by their school districts to comply.

Samira Hardcastle, a former Tennessee Teacher of the Year, recently left the profession after she refused to change a student’s grade and then watched as the school district changed it due to parental pressure. Ms. Hardcastle stated that, in addition to parental pressure, “it works out for the district because it makes our scores look better.” She also said teachers comply with district grade-change policies out of fear of retaliation: “A lot of teachers can’t speak up because they’re afraid of … having something happen to them.”

While outright pressure to change grades may be the most recent wave of public education disclosures, the concept of inflating grades is not new. Recently, Harvard faculty members overwhelmingly voted to support a new initiative that would cap A’s at 20% of the enrolled student population, effective in the fall semester of 2027. This move comes as data provide a clear example of grade inflation: more than 60% of grades received by Harvard undergraduates in the 2024-2025 academic year were A’s.

Pledge a Tax Deductible Donation

Even as Harvard has moved to tackle grade inflation head-on, other institutions, such as the University of Michigan, have implemented “grade covering” programs in which first-year students in certain majors will no longer have their first-semester grades count toward their cumulative grade point averages. While the university describes the policy as an effort to address the growing mental health crisis among new students and allow them time to acclimate, others point to it as yet another indication that students are not academically prepared for the rigors of college-level work.

University professors are on the receiving end of high school grade-inflation policies, and many have begun to speak out about the illiteracy of the newest generation of incoming students. Professors are having to accommodate students in ways that would have been unthinkable a generation ago—assigning less reading so as not to overwhelm students; reading assigned materials in class together prior to discussion; assigning the same texts repeatedly throughout the year; and adjusting assignments to reduce anxiety and improve grades.

These professors are not alone in voicing their concerns about student illiteracy and grade inflation. Data show that even as graduation rates increased from 74.7% in 2005 to 87% in 2022, literacy rates are decreasing. A recent study cited by the National Literacy Institute found that 21% of U.S. adults had low literacy skills in 2024, with 54% below a 6^th-grade level and 20% below a 5^th-grade level. Of particular concern is that the 4^th-grade literacy rates are also declining, with only a 34% proficiency rate as of 2025. As students are receiving inflated grades and being pushed through the public education system, their post-graduation literacy rates are beginning to appear in national statistics, with strong indications that the worst is yet to come.

Photo credit: The Global Statistics

High school illiteracy has become such a contentious issue that students are even filing lawsuits against their school districts for failing to educate them in this basic life skill. Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson shares his insights that these lawsuits are only the tip of the iceberg: “We’ve created incentives for particularly public school systems to just push students along and not to hold them accountable.” He explains that one major cause of this phenomenon is that money is often tied directly to student performance, creating an incentive for school districts to manufacture the appearance of success through inflated grades, graduation rates, and test scores.

Teachers are speaking out about the problems and pressures they face at the hands of a bloated and dictatorial public education system. Perhaps it is time to listen.

Published by the Washington Stand on August 18, 2026

America has a reading crisis. Parents know it, teachers see it, and lawmakers can no longer ignore it. Too many children have been denied the basic ability to decode words, comprehend a text, and read independently. The latest National Assessment of Educational Progress found that only 31% of fourth graders performed at or above NAEP Proficient in reading in 2024, while 40% performed below NAEP Basic. A return to systematic phonics and explicit reading instruction is long overdue.

But parents should not confuse the sound instructional methods emphasized by the “science of reading,” including systematic phonics, with everything now being marketed, mandated, and digitized under its banner. The concern is not phonics or legitimate reading reform. It is the growing infrastructure being attached to that reform, including federal incentives, state implementation requirements, approved-vendor lists, continuous assessment, artificial intelligence tutors, student profiling, and values-laden digital content.

That distinction matters because Washington is moving rapidly. In March, the House Education and Workforce Committee advanced the bipartisan Science of Reading Act of 2026. The bill would prioritize federal education funds for instruction grounded in phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing while discouraging the discredited three-cueing model. In June, a bipartisan group of senators introduced the READ Act, another federal effort to expand evidence-based literacy reforms. Neither proposal, on its face, requires schools to adopt artificial intelligence reading platforms. The concern arises when federally encouraged literacy reforms are implemented alongside the separate and rapidly expanding use of adaptive platforms, digital assessments, and AI-assisted instruction.

The appeal is obvious. After years of educational fads, “back to basics” sounds like a restoration of common sense. Yet federal funding rarely remains a simple suggestion. It influences state standards, approved materials, teacher training, assessments, and procurement decisions. A reform aimed at correcting poor reading instruction can therefore create a promoted, protected market for companies that meet government definitions and reporting requirements. That pattern is already visible at the state level. The Virginia Literacy Act requires school divisions to use literacy programs aligned with state-defined, evidence-based requirements, and Virginia publishes approved K–5 instructional programs and procurement information. Tennessee similarly maintains official state-approved lists of textbooks and instructional materials. Such requirements can channel public purchasing toward a limited group of qualifying providers. Districts may soon find themselves buying not only phonics materials, but entire ecosystems of software, diagnostics, professional development, dashboards, and recurring subscriptions.

Pledge a Tax Deductible Donation

Teaching children the relationship between letters and sounds is not ideological. It is foundational. Yet when federal dollars begin to steer states toward a uniform policy framework, parents should ask who defines “evidence-based,” which vendors qualify, what financial relationships are in place, which technologies accompany the curriculum, and what information those systems collect.

Those questions become urgent when reading instruction moves from a teacher and a book to an adaptive platform system.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences is supporting a $9,999,825 research center devoted to using generative AI in elementary reading. The project will integrate AI into an existing reading platform that reportedly serves more than one million students. Researchers plan to analyze speech and engagement, generate personalized texts, conduct interactive conversations, and adapt instruction to a child’s progress and needs.

The research will involve data from more than 10,000 elementary students, primarily in first and third grades. Official project materials describe platform-based measures of usage, engagement, reading progress, demographics, and performance. The program also envisions student-facing AI that can generate content tailored to a child’s interests and engage in real-time conversations about what the child reads.

Supporters will understandably point to the potential benefits. A struggling reader may receive immediate practice. An English learner may receive tailored assistance. A teacher may identify difficulties sooner.

But capability is not the same as wisdom. A system capable of detecting a child’s speech, engagement, interests, and reading behavior can also construct an increasingly detailed profile of that child. Once a school makes the platform part of required instruction, the family may have little practical ability to refuse it by opting out.

Parents therefore deserve answers to key questions before these technologies become routine or the sole curriculum offered. Who owns the student data? How long is it retained? Is it used to train AI models? Can it be shared with vendors or researchers or sold commercially? May parents inspect, correct, download, or delete the record? Can children receive the same instruction without submitting to continuous digital monitoring?

The international direction of education technology should also concern American families. UNESCO openly connects digital transformation to U.N. Sustainable Development Goal 4. Its AI and education program promotes global policy guidance and AI competency frameworks for teachers and students. UNESCO says it has supported more than 70 countries since 2024 in developing digital learning policies and strengthening teachers’ digital capacities.

At its scheduled Digital Learning Week 2026, UNESCO plans to examine how artificial intelligence is reshaping education, including publicly oriented AI, nations’ control over digital systems, and the broader changes these technologies are bringing to schools. UNESCO does not control American reading classrooms, but the parallel trajectory is difficult to miss: common benchmarks, digital platforms, personalized learning, large-scale data collection, AI competencies, and education organized around globally defined goals.

Reading is never merely mechanical. Phonics teaches a child how to unlock words, but the books and digital passages placed before that child help shape what he believes about God, human nature, family, freedom, and truth. An AI system that selects or generates reading material is not simply teaching pronunciation. It is making editorial choices, curating thought content, whether parents can see those choices or not.

That is why transparency must accompany every literacy reform. Parents should ask their districts for the complete reading curriculum, approved book lists, vendor contracts, privacy policies, assessment schedules, the school personnel responsible for maintaining student records, and records of all AI tools used with students. They should ask whether lessons include social-emotional, gender, climate, or global citizenship content unrelated to decoding and comprehension. They should insist that schools offer nondigital alternatives and obtain meaningful, fully informed parental consent before collecting data beyond what is strictly necessary to teach reading.

Christians should welcome truthful methods that help children read well. We should also remember that God assigns the primary responsibility for a child’s formation to the family, not to a teacher, school, vendor, an algorithm, a federal agency, or an international organization. Deuteronomy 6:6–7 commands parents to teach God’s words diligently to their children throughout the ordinary rhythms of life.

The choice is not between failed reading instruction and unquestioning acceptance of a digital system. We can defend phonics while rejecting AI grooming and surveillance. We can demand literacy without surrendering local control or parental authority. We can embrace useful tools without allowing those tools to replace teachers, parents, books, and human judgment.

The science of reading should help children master words. It should never become a pretext for systems that quietly master the child.

Rhonda Thomas is the founder and president of Truth In Education, a volunteer Christian nonprofit that exposes harmful ideologies and Marxist globalist agendas in America’s schools. A national speaker and advocate for parental rights, she works to equip families to reclaim their biblical role in their children’s education.

Truth In Education has worked alongside parents, female athletes, legislators, and national organizations to defend fairness, safety, and equal opportunity in women’s sports. Together, we have fought to preserve sex-based athletic protections and supported the state laws that now protect women and girls in 27 states.

Those hard-won protections could now be placed at risk by unintended language in a federal college sports bill.

This is an urgent and time-sensitive call to action. Please act immediately.

The Protect College Sports Act (S. 4668) could come before the U.S. Senate for a vote as soon as tonight.

Although the bill primarily addresses issues involving college athletics, including name, image, and likeness agreements, its current language risks preempting the laws of the 27 states that have acted to protect women’s sports.

Pledge a Tax Deductible Donation

As presently drafted, the bill may also create an unnecessary risk of undermining the recent victories in B.P.J. and Hecoxand could reopen the issue of sex-segregated athletic teams to further prolonged litigation.

Please contact your U.S. senators immediately and urge them to support a simple but essential amendment: Clarify that the bill’s preemption of state laws is narrow and does not preempt state laws protecting women’s sports.

Suggested Message to Senators

Please amend the Protect College Sports Act, S. 4668, to make clear that its preemption language does not override state laws protecting women’s sports. Twenty-seven states have enacted these important protections. Congress should not unintentionally jeopardize those laws or reopen litigation over the right of states to preserve fair and safe athletic opportunities for women and girls.

Please act before the Senate votes.

Additional Information

ADF Press Release: ADF Urges Senate to Clarify College Sports Bill Won’t Preempt State Women’s Sports Laws

Statement from ADF President and CEO Kristen Waggoner

Senators on the Committee: Senate Commerce Committee Members

Below is a map showing the states whose women’s sports laws could be affected.

Please contact your senators, the senators on the Committee, and share this alert with others who are willing to act. The protections secured for women and girls must not be unintentionally erased.

What is really happening in America’s schools—and why should every parent be paying attention?

I recently sat down with investigative journalist and author Alex Newman to discuss his powerful book, Woke and Weaponized: How Karl Marx Won the Battle for American Education—and How We Can Win It Back. Alex explains how America’s education system became a vehicle for radical ideology, political indoctrination, and the transformation of our children’s beliefs, values, and understanding of truth.

This conversation is not merely about what is being taught in the classroom. It is about who will shape the hearts, minds, and futures of the next generation. Alex offers valuable historical insight, exposes the forces driving the transformation of education, and challenges parents, churches, and concerned citizens to become informed and engaged.

Please watch, share, and encourage others to join the effort to protect children, defend parental rights, and restore truth in education.

Pledge a Tax Deductible Donation

Register by August 21

truthineducation.org/events or fba.org/events/

Who Is Shaping the Hearts and Minds of the Next Generation?

This is more than an education conference. It is a call to understand what is happening, recognize what is at stake, and act while there is still time.

Your children and grandchildren are growing up in an educational system that is changing faster than most parents realize. In just one day, you will hear from trusted national experts, understand the forces reshaping today’s classrooms, and leave equipped with practical tools to protect and guide the next generation.

Matt Sharp of Alliance Defending Freedom will explain what parents need to know about social media, artificial intelligence, parental rights, and important developments at the state, federal, and Supreme Court levels.

Pledge a Tax Deductible Donation

Alex Newman will expose the spiritual battle behind the ideologies and doctrines entering our classrooms—and explain why education is never morally or spiritually neutral.

Rhonda Thomas, President of Truth In Education, will reveal how whole-child education, social-emotional learning, mental-health programs, data collection, and artificial intelligence are being used to redefine the child, reposition the parent, and reshape the family.

Dran Reese, Founder of Public School Exit, will challenge parents, grandparents, pastors, and churches to reclaim their God-given responsibility to educate and disciple the next generation.

Sam Sorbo will empower parents to rethink education, recognize their choices, and take courageous steps toward an education rooted in truth, freedom, and family.

Come prepared to be informed, encouraged, and equipped. Register today—and invite every parent, grandparent, pastor, and friend you know.

We look forward to seeing you there.

Rhonda Thomas

COMMENTARY

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) has become one of the fastest-growing initiatives in American education. What began as a program ostensibly intended to help students manage emotions and build healthy relationships is now embedded in the vast majority of K-12 schools, influencing classroom instruction, teacher training, school climate, and student assessments. But is SEL as ideologically neutral as supporters claim?

Supporters describe SEL as a research-based framework to improve student well-being, reduce behavioral problems, and prepare children for success in school and life. Few parents would object to teaching children kindness, self-control, or empathy. Yet behind these widely accepted goals lies a deeper question that warrants careful examination: What worldview is shaping these programs, and what vision of human flourishing are they ultimately advancing?

That question is especially important for Christian parents, pastors, and educators. Every educational system teaches more than academic subjects; it also communicates beliefs about human nature, morality, identity, purpose, and transformation. These foundational assumptions inevitably shape children’s hearts and minds. True Christian education values both academic knowledge and biblical wisdom, as Proverbs 9:10 declares, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” Children need rigorous academic fundamentals in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and history, alongside spiritual truth rooted in God’s word, not a false clinical psychology disguised as “emotional learning.”

Historical and Philosophical Roots Reveal a Non-Christian Foundation

SEL’s origins trace back to collaborative efforts in the 1990s that drew on New Age influences. The Fetzer Institute, founded by John E. Fetzer with the goal of confirming New Age beliefs through science, hosted key conferences that led to the creation of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) in 1994. Fetzer was an avid devotee of Alice Bailey, the influential occultist and theosophist who founded Lucifer Publishing Company (later Lucis Trust) and authored “Education in the New Age,” which advocates using schools to prepare children to be global citizens under a new spiritual, eco-political world order and a spiritual hierarchy.

Daniel Goleman, author of “Emotional Intelligence,” co-founded CASEL. Goleman and the Dalai Lama have co-authored bookspromoting Buddhist meditation for emotional regulation, viewing Buddhist traditions as desirable, asserting that all religions are one, and embracing Marxist economics alongside diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice (DEIJ). The Dalai Lama’s SEE Learning (Social, Emotional, and Ethical Learning) program, developed in collaboration with Emory University, extends SEL with compassion practices rooted in his Buddhist vision for globally culturally ethical education.

The roots align with holism (interconnectivity of all entities into one universal whole) and New Age spirituality rather than biblical revelation. As Scripture warns, “There is a way that appears to be right to a man, but in the end, it leads to death” (Proverbs 14:12).

Pledge a Tax Deductible Donation

SEL as a Strategic Tool for Global Agendas

SEL serves as the “human software” for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which emphasize global peace, equity, and unity under centralized frameworks. These goals present as benevolent, but echo Nimrod’s Babel-like vision of one world government, religion, and economy ruled by self-selected elites — contrasting with God’s design for distinct nations and families with free will (Genesis11;Acts17:26).

This U.N. model parallels Plato’s “Republic,” where philosopher-kings rule for “peace and safety,” and aligns with broader shifts toward state control over education and family life, inverting God’s omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence through extensive surveillance and data systems. A discipleship system offering a counterfeit gospel, SEL targets children’s souls, imposing false identities and global citizenship while undermining biblical family authority. It mimics the gospel’s promise of transformation, peace, and community, but it delivers a false path and a destructive end.

1. Replaces Sin with Emotional Dysregulation

SEL frames human brokenness as “trauma” or “dysregulation” or other pathologies, addressed through mindfulness, not repentance, and Christ as Lord. Healing comes through self-awareness, psychology, or pharmaceuticals, not the cross. Scripture declares: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23; see also Isaiah 53:6; Psalm 53:2-3; Romans 5:12).

2. Offers Self-Redemption instead of Grace

Children learn “self-regulation,” “self-soothe,” and “self-actualize” — a false salvation by works, rebranded as psychology and Eastern mystical rituals. This echoes humanism and ancient heresies such as Pelagianism (which denies original sin). Ephesians 2:8-9 stands in opposition: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works.”

3. Substitutes Emotional Intelligence for the Holy Spirit

CASEL’s five competencies — self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making, replace the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). These flesh-based skills cannot produce true spiritual fruit. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit as Helper (John 14:16, 26), not competencies from fallen humanity.

4. Promotes Global Unity over God’s Kingdom

Programs like SEE Learning foster planetary citizenship and worldly universal ethics, prioritizing allegiance to a “global ethic” over Christ’s exclusive lordship. This conflicts with Exodus 20:2-3 and James 4:4: “Friendship with the world is enmity with God.” Revelation 18:4 calls God’s people to “come out of her.”

5. Imposes a New Moral Code via DEIJ

SEL catechizes children in a redefined understanding of equity, diversity, inclusion, and social justice that contradicts biblical impartial justice, holiness, and identity in Christ (Leviticus 19:15; 20:26; Romans 12:2).

6. Elevates the State/School over Family and Church

Schools become providers of basic needs, emotional support, and authority — replacing parental authority and discipleship (Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:1-4) and God’s supply (Philippians 4:19). This fosters dependency on the state rather than the Lord as Shepherd (Psalm 23:1).

7. Replaces Sanctification with Secular Psychology

SEL uses biometric surveillance programs to assess, predict, and diagnose mental and behavioral health issues, and it employs “corrective” secular psychological methods to alter children’s identities, values, and behaviors. The goal is generational conformity under the veneer of a harmonious global community.

SEL further imports Eastern mysticism through specific Mindfulness curricula: MindUP’s Brain Breaks (Buddhist mindfulness), body scans echoing Vipassana, and other practices that revive heresies such as Quietism, Gnosticism, and Pelagianism. Curricula such as MindUP incorporate Buddhist Anapanasati breathing practices.

One example of a K-12 mindfulness program is the InnerExplorerapp, which consists of automated “daily mindfulness programs [that] integrate seamlessly into classrooms.” It is used in more than 120 school districts across all 50 states, impacting more than two million students and delivering more than two billion “mindful minutes” to classrooms. It also provides lessons for individual teachers and families.

Perhaps the most advanced of the programs is MindLift, which “combine[s] Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Self-Affirmation Theory, and AI technology … to provide mental health program interventions,” with the claim that “[o]ur AI adapts to your unique needs and circumstances” to provide “inclusive support.” In the K-12 setting, the program says it provides “a student-specific AI-powered mental health assessment and intervention platform.” This platform includes an AI-driven chatbot that assesses student mental health by “create[ing] a real-time, multimodal system that can assess mental health through the use of behavioral pattern tracking, audio tone analysis, facial expression recognition, and text sentiment interpretation.”

When AI mental health programs gain “personalized” surveillance/assessment data from another AI program and then deliver an AI-based remedial program, it is not “student-specific.” It is AI-specific.

While these are only a few of the many mindfulness programs currently used in K-12 education, all mindfulness programs share the same marketing strategy: they come equipped with expert recommendations and numerous studies, making them appear to be the answer to the growing mental health crisis facing many students today.

Pledge a Tax Deductible Donation

Scriptural Warnings against Counterfeits

SEL disguises itself as neutral “well-being” but functions as a rival religion with its own creed (emotional regulation over new birth), clergy (counselors and trainers), discipleship (daily mindfulness, surveillance, and predictive diagnostics), and sacraments (journaling and breathing rituals). Satan masquerades as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), and Paul warns against “another gospel” (2 Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 1:6-9).

SEL Is Incompatible with Christianity

From a biblical perspective, SEL bears demonic fruit by denying sin, redefining identity apart from the Imago Dei, and offering humanist self-salvation without Christ. It falsely promises peace and unity but leads away from the narrow way (Matthew 7:13-14). Christians must discern and reject SEL, train their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4), and provide strong academic foundations paired with biblical wisdom.

A greater proportion of K-12 schools are delivering SEL training to children. By the 2023-2024 school year, 83% of school principals reported that their schools used an SEL curriculum, up from 76% in the 2021-2022 school year.

In practice, SEL crowds out rigorous academic instruction with endless emotional processing, mindfulness exercises, and social engineering activities. Far from building mental health, it destabilizes children by fostering emotional fragility, self-focus, and dependence on external validation and state systems rather than on resilience through Christ and disciplined learning. The result is a generation increasingly deprived of real knowledge and left more anxious, confused, and spiritually adrift. God’s way is perfect (Psalm 18:30); His grace is sufficient (2 Corinthians 12:9).

SEL is not education. It is religious deception.

Rhonda Thomas is the founder and president of Truth In Education, a volunteer Christian nonprofit that exposes harmful ideologies and Marxist globalist agendas in America’s schools. A national speaker and advocate for parental rights, Rhonda works to equip families to reclaim their biblical role in their children’s education. She promotes homeschooling, prays with church leaders, and encourages churches to establish Christian schools.

By Katie Allen, Truth In Education
First published in The Federalist

As the Supreme Court made waves with its landmark ruling protecting women’s and girls’ sports, the court also published another landmark ruling that met with little public discussion: Chatrie v. United States.

Chatrie focused on answering the question of whether or not law enforcement accessing Google Location History data constituted a Fourth Amendment search. The court determined that it did, explaining that “[a]n individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information … from a third-party tech company.”

In reaching this decision, the court focused on the intricate and intertwined nature that cellular devices play in everyday life, all while the Location History “tracks and tracks and tracks” the device and subsequently the user carrying it. The location data collected provides the government “a virtual panopticon with which to scrutinize its citizens’ activities” and thus qualifies for Fourth Amendment protections.

This is significant, as Fourth Amendment searches require probable cause, which must be asserted in detail by law enforcement seeking a warrant to conduct the search. The warrant must be approved by the correct judicial authority, and the search must be properly conducted to ensure it adheres to the parameters outlined in the warrant.

Pledge a Tax Deductible Donation

So what does this have to do with K-12 education? A lot, it turns out. While it is no surprise that schools collect location data on students through EdTech programs and apps, most parents have no idea the extent to which their own location data is collected and used. One example of this is the Thomson Reuters CLEAR software, which allows designated school district personnel to “[a]ccess license plate data and develop pattern of life information” on students and families:

While marketing itself as a solution to help school personnel save time verifying student addresses, the software capabilities go far beyond address and residency verification, with features such as alert functions to allow district personnel to “[g]et notified immediately when any relevant information changes with a student.” These expansive surveillance functions are not surprising, given the company’s own description of the product as a “powerful online investigation software” with applications in law enforcement and investigative financial services, among others.

Notably, parents are not informed of the intense level of location surveillance being conducted on them, their student, and their family members. The CLEAR searches are not being conducted by law enforcement personnel, but by school administrators. No warrants are needed, no uniform compliance protections are in place.

The questions go deeper, as programs such as Google Workspace for Education and many other EdTech applications collect student location data based on tracking and storing school-issued device locations. These devices are often carried by students outside the classroom — to sports practices and work and coffee dates … and ultimately to their private homes. This essentially mimics the “virtual panopticon” referenced in Chatrie as it captures the student’s pattern of life via their location history — which is fully accessible to designated school administrators at all times. Even as students have reduced Fourth Amendment protections at school, they do still have them, and they certainly have them outside the school premises.

The tension between these K-12 education programs and Chatrie is bound to create a stir as parents — and their students — begin questioning these surveillance practices and asserting their Fourth Amendment constitutional rights.

Please visit Truth in Education’s website to learn more about data collection and to obtain an opt-out form covering a variety of sensitive subjects along with instructions on how to file it with your child’s school.

Already have an opt-out and need help enforcing it? Have questions about your school district’s data collection capabilities? Contact us at info@truthineducation.org.

Katie Allen is policy advisor for Truth in Education (TIE), a Christian, Atlanta-based nonprofit that exposes harmful ideologies and Marxist globalist agendas in America’s schools and advocates for parental rights. TIE works to equip families and churches to reclaim their biblical role in children’s education. The organization leads efforts to promote homeschooling, launch Christian schools, and equip parents to stand firm in the spiritual battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation. TIE also engages in legislative efforts to defend parental rights and protect children from government overreach.

On the 250^th anniversary of our nation’s founding, the celebration of all things American has been a joy to see. Amongst the many virtues and character of America, the concept of ‘rugged individualism’ is often extolled. There is much truth in the idea that people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and making it through their own hard work is a unique component of the story that is America. When looking at the great pioneers of our nation who settled our country, both known and unknown, it is easy to applaud the concept of rugged individualism. Particularly in the early days of our founding, it was understood that government was no help, only a hindrance. No self-respecting American would look to the government for anything. Government was for defense, keeping order, and regulating trade and currency. Other than those main items, people preferred to be left to themselves. With rugged individualism as a guiding precept, people were expected to rely on themselves.

What made rugged individualism so successful was that the early settlers knew they could rely on themselves because they had a deep and abiding Christian faith. Although they may have been alone…on the plains, in a log cabin, trapping in the forest, carrying mail by Pony Express, herding cattle…they knew there was a higher power, a Divine Providence, watching over them. Rugged individualism became possible because the early settlers and pioneers believed with all their might that they were never alone, even when they were by themselves. Through their faith in God, they had reserves they were able to call upon when things became unbearably difficult. It allowed them to persevere and carry on.

Support Our Work

Fast forward a hundred years or so, and Americans began to enter a new era. An era where their unquestionable success fed their pride, tricking them into believing that God was no longer needed. They had conquered where it mattered, and their hubris allowed them to attribute that success to themselves alone. Early pioneers never made that mistake; they knew any success they had was a gift from God, and they gave thanks for His loving care. The same was true even amidst disasters and failures; their hope in God allowed them to continue in the face of insurmountable odds. Modern Americans rejected the freeing faith of their forefathers. Their repudiation of God was a long process, a slow drip of daily decisions devoid of connection to Him. Playing out over decades, fewer people were willing to recognize the presence of God acting in their lives. Even worse, more people began to disbelieve in God than believed.

In this atmosphere, a new concept emerged in 1996. It was Hillary Clinton, First Lady of the United States at the time, who wrote a book entitled, It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us. Here, she embraced the idea of collectivism in parenting children. Rugged individualism was discarded as being old-fashioned, and the non-Western communal idea of having children raised by many people rather than their parents was put forth as the new, better way to raise children. Parents were told they were not enough. They needed other people to help. They were told it was too hard. They were told they were insufficiently trained. They were belittled.

Instead of dismissing such notions as nonsense, parents bought into the lie. More than that, they embraced it wholeheartedly. Perhaps if they could share the burden of child rearing with everyone, life would become easier…for them. No one ever asked if such a plan was better for the children. And so, like many insidious but outwardly benevolent ideas, the idea of surrendering one’s children to society at large became the fashionable option. The great socialist experiment of coaxing children from the arms of their parents and into the grasping claws of the government had taken a giant leap forward. It was all wrapped up in the supposedly ‘new’ idea of letting the Village raise your child; most did not understand that a Village did not mean one’s neighbors; it meant the government.

Governmental social services providing ‘care’ for children took a giant leap forward, as funding from leftist groups, legislators, and corporations all jumped on the ‘it takes a village’ bandwagon. Teachers and medical staff were given greater power over children in their care. The embracing of the Village over the parent led to the whittling away of parental rights, until decades later, the Village of the educational system has now had the power to medically transition a child’s sex without parental permission or even parental knowledge.

How did we get to this place? The rejection of God by Americans, the culture, and every social structure in the nation left a gaping void…one that needed to be filled. Instead of God-centered families, neighbors, and church communities helping where needed, the government became the god. Parents were taught to think, “Surely this person…fill in the blank with teacher, doctor, social worker…can do a better job with my child than I can.” Without their faith and reliance on God, they lost the sense of rugged individualism their ancestors had always embraced. Without God as their anchor, they became ‘not enough’. Without a reference to a biblical God, their will and intellect became dimmed, and they were easily persuaded that no God would be needed, for the Village would be there. The Village indeed came for the children, and many have been lost, wounded, or destroyed as a result.

On the 250^th birthday of our nation, a nation founded by God and with all deference to Him, it is time for parents to reject the Village. It is time to rescue one’s children from the Village and bring them back to a God-centered home with the nuclear family of father, mother, and child. It is time to rediscover the rugged individualism that made our nation, and that is only possible when a people puts God at the forefront of their lives. Our founding fathers were brave and put everything on the line to make a country where men could live freely. On this anniversary, are we called to do less? It is time to burn the Village concept down. Let us pray for a return to God, and a return to the ideals that made the United States of America the greatest nation on earth. Long may it stand.

Betsy DeBry, Truth In Education, is a homeschool educator and community advocate. Holding a master's degree in chemistry from Georgia Tech, she has spent years teaching science to homeschool students and advocating for parental rights, transparency, and accountability in K-12 education.

In one day, you'll hear from trusted national experts who have firsthand knowledge of the issues shaping today's classrooms. Everyone will leave equipped with practical tools to protect the next generation. This summit is for anyone concerned about what is happening in K-12 education. The anti-God worldview that is being taught, the data mining and surveillance, and the loss of parental rights.

Reserve your seat today! Please share this flyer with your friends, family, and groups.

Register Here

Georgia is the first state to pass the Education and Workforce Strategy Act (HB 1302), marking a significant shift in how the state coordinates education and workforce policy under one roof. As of July 1, 2026, the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement (GOSA) officially became the Governor’s Office of Education and Workforce Strategy (GOEWS). Other states will soon follow suit through Executive Orders or legislation.

This is an example of how AI is affecting both education and the workforce. The digital revolution has supercharged behavioral science in education. Modern platforms collect extensive student data through biometrics, surveys, keystrokes, mouse movements, facial recognition, voice analysis, and interaction logs. Learning and predictive analytics identify patterns and forecast outcomes using their programmed algorithms. Adaptive learning systems dynamically adjust content difficulty and pathways. “Portrait of a Graduate” profiles compile not only academic metrics but also behavioral, attitudinal, and social-emotional data that can follow students into higher education and the workforce.

Support Our Ministry

Behavioral economics has introduced powerful tools. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s concept of nudging, implemented through computer algorithms that alter choice architecture to predictably influence decisions without forbidding options, is widely used in ed-tech. Examples include default settings that encourage certain study habits, gamified streaks and rewards, personalized reminders, and framing that promotes specific values or behaviors. AI systems now integrate emotion detection with nudges, creating real-time interventions that feel personalized yet operate at massive scale.

Synthesis and Implications. The evolution is clear: from Pavlovian bells and Skinner boxes, through Lewin’s group processes and Cold War experiments (BLUEBIRD → ARTICHOKE → MK-Ultra), to postwar diffusion into organizations and schools, the rise of formalized Social Emotional Learning (SEL), and UNESCO’s global frameworks, to today’s AI-augmented data ecosystems and nudges. Techniques once confined to labs or secret programs are now normalized, scalable, and often presented as compassionate and evidence-based.

This history offers lessons. MK-Ultra demonstrated the dangers of unchecked power in the name of security and a lack of consent. Modern systems, while less overtly coercive, are nonetheless equally coercive, raising parallel concerns about privacy, data permanence, ideological embedding, and the subtle reshaping of beliefs under the banner of wellness or global citizenship.

As behavioral science grows more powerful through AI, societies must prioritize transparency, genuine informed consent, parental involvement, and safeguards that protect individual autonomy rather than assuming institutional benevolence. They must also honor individuals as image bearers of Christ.

Rhonda Thomas is the founder and president of Truth in Education, a Christian Atlanta-based nonprofit that exposes harmful ideologies and Marxist globalist agendas in America’s schools. A national speaker and advocate for parental rights, Rhonda works to equip families and churches to reclaim their biblical role in children’s education. Truth in Education also engages in legislative efforts to defend parental rights and protect children from government overreach.

Loopholes Remain In 2025 Revision of COPPA

Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)

Historically, K-12 schools were considered safe places for children and teens, including their personally identifiable information (PII), which usually includes significant family information. Three Federal statutes assign responsibility for protecting this information: the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232h); the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) rule (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99); and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), codified (15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506), with authority for regulations under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule, codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at (16 CFR Part 312). Effective Date: June 23, 2025; Compliance Date: April 22, 2026.

FERPA and PPRA place the responsibility for securing and maintaining student PII on schools that receive federal funding. COPPA places the onus on EdTech companies. It was recently updated by Congress and the FTC to recognize the expansion of electronic data, the modes of acquiring PII, and the growth of potential commercial exchange and use of students’ PII.

Under the 2013 COPPA Rule, schools and teachers act in lieu of parents and consent to EdTech collecting students’ PII for the school’s use, not for commercial purposes. Schools routinely approve an array of digital tools, learning platforms, multiple assessment systems, and AI-powered applications that use biometric data for behavioral and mental health evaluations. Parents may or may not receive notice and are rarely given an option to choose. The “not for commercial purposes” is questionable in the recent past.

On January 16, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) finalized amendments to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule. It is the first update since 2013. Businesses operating child-directed websites, apps, and services must adjust their practices to comply with these new regulations, which have the full force of law. COPPA provisions apply to children under 13 years of age. Requests to extend COPPA to youth 17 years were denied.

Here’s a brief overview of the key changes the FTC chose to include and the persistent loopholes it chose not to tighten or close.

Support Our Work

Educational technology: The FTC kept the education rules that allow school personnel to replace verified parental consent (VPC) in educational settings or contexts. They deferred to the Department of Education, saying it will update FERPA. This “pass the buck” has been used by the FTC since COPPA was first passed in 1998. The Department of Education seems more dedicated to its own elimination than to updating FERPA before its demise. This is an egregious loophole.

Avatars and push notifications: Proposed changes to classify avatars as PII and to restrict push notifications to children without parental consent were rejected. However, the FTC expressed concerns about engagement techniques that could harm children’s mental health. A serious loophole.

Maintained Use of Persistent Identifiers:

• The FTC failed to prohibit the use of persistent identifiers that encourage children to remain on a site, through in-game prompts or pop-ups. Serious loophole.

Parental Opt-In Consent for Targeted Advertising and Third-Party Disclosures

• Websites and online services directed at children must obtain VPC before sharing children’s personally identifiable information (PII) with third-party vendors/contractors for targeted advertising or other commercial purposes.

• Parents must be notified of the specific third parties or the categories of third parties receiving their child’s data and the purposes for such disclosures. Categories, are too broad to be informative.

Expanded Definition of Personal Information

• Biometric identifiers, such as fingerprints, facial templates, retina patterns, and genetic data are now included as PII under COPPA, as are government-issued identifiers.

New Requirements for “Mixed Audience” Sites

• The COPPA Rule defines “mixed audience” sites as those directed at children but not targeting them as their primary audience.

• Mixed audience sites may collect PII to determine a user’s age.

Updated Privacy Notice and Parental Consent Requirements

• Direct notices to parents must explicitly state how children’s PII will be used.

• Privacy policies must include a data retention policy detailing the retention term and use/reasons for retention of children’s PII.

Approved Methods for Initiating and Obtaining VPC

• Facial recognition technology to match a parent’s selfie to their official photo ID.

• Unique, personal, knowledge-based questions to verify a parent’s identity.

• A “text plus” method to obtain VPC, similar to the “email plus” method. The text plus method is only utilized when an operator does not “disclose” children’s PII and must be coupled with additional steps to vet that the person providing consent is the parent.

Data Retention and Security Policy with Actionable Plan

• Operators must establish a written data retention policy specifying why children’s PII is collected and its retention term.

• Indefinite data retention is strictly prohibited.

• A written information security program for operators must be implemented to protect children’s PII, including regular testing and monitoring. It is provided to parents and involved schools. Lacks specifics: when and how often.

Transparency in Safe Harbor Programs (Tech companies form cluster groups of contractors)

• FTC-approved Safe Harbor programs must disclose membership and submit additional reports. These programs and reports must be posted on their websites. There are six approved Safe Harbor participants: PRIVO, kidSAFE, ESRB, CARU, iKeepSafe, and TrustArc.

TIE Analysis: Some definitions and language within COPPA are subject to broad interpretation, which can influence how the law is implemented and enforced.

EdTech programs may be Public/Private Partnerships (PPPs) which involve nonprofits, for profits, government entities (schools, school districts, state ed departments, etc.) working under mutually agreed upon Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) – may include a council of “stakeholders” persons receiving some type of benefits (students, parents, school personnel, etc.). There is opportunity for financial conflicts of interests in PPPs. FTC imposes direct liability on Tech and third party Tech contractor companies after they investigate and find cause. Violations can incur FTC enforcement actions of fines up to $53,088 per violation.

Barbara Bush is a Research Analyst for Truth In Education (TIE), a Christian, Atlanta-based nonprofit organization that exposes harmful ideologies and Marxist globalist agendas in America’s schools and advocates for parental rights.

©2026 All rights reserved. Short quotations may be used with proper attribution. This article may be shared in full, unaltered, with clear attribution to Truth In Education.

The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of the one without the other."
— Democracy in America - Alexis de Tocqueville

Two hundred and fifty years ago, ordinary men pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to establish a nation where liberty would be protected and rights would be recognized as coming from God—not government.

Generation after generation has carried that inheritance through sacrifice, courage, and faith.

As we celebrate America’s 250th birthday, may we do more than enjoy the fireworks. May we remember the cost of freedom, teach our children the truth about our nation’s founding, and recommit ourselves to being faithful stewards of the blessings we have received.

May God continue to bless America, grant us wisdom for the days ahead, and raise up men and women who will courageously preserve liberty for generations yet to come.

Happy 250th Birthday, America. 🇺🇸

“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord...” — Psalm 33:12

The War Is Far From Over

The Supreme Court decisively held yesterday in West Virginia v. B.P.J. that schools can determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex. In their 6-3 ruling protecting women’s and girls’ athletic teams, the Court provided strong precedent in interpreting both Title IX and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to allow for sex to be interpreted based on biology and to ensure states had the authority to make decisions on biological sex categories.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas gives the gift of clarity by not only stating that biology matters but explaining how transgender individuals do not qualify as a protected class entitled to higher judicial scrutiny than other classes of citizens.

Title IX Interpreted to Mean “Biological Sex”

The ruling upheld the traditional understanding of Title IX and its subsequent legislation and applications in understanding that sex refers to biological sex.

The Court states that a key purpose of Title IX was to promote competitive fairness – as well as safety – for women and girls by recognizing the inherent physical differences between them, specifically in the realm of contact sports. Title IX was a success, as it quickly and significantly skyrocketed athletic participation for women and girls, achieving its federal objective in a remarkable and lasting way.

In examining the original intent and definitions of Title IX and its subsequent documents, the Court determined that the word sex “cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex.”

Title VII Allows for States to Make Decisions Based on Biological Sex

The Court in its ruling also discussed the potential application of Title VII, which prohibits employers from discriminating against certain protected classes of citizens – namely sex, as applicable to West Virginia v. B.P.J. In its ruling, the majority determined that Title VII and Title IX were inherently different, as the former applied to employment and the latter applied to athletics, resulting in different levels of judicial scrutiny.

Under the scrutiny standard used by the Court in analyzing the present case, the Court determined that states had the authority to place individuals into biological sex categories for the purpose of determining eligibility for women’s and girls’ athletic teams. The Court also acknowledged that to take any other position would be to equally require that the State must then evaluate not only differences in subclasses of biological sex, but differences in individual transgender bodily abilities based on hormones taken and levels of puberty achieved. This unrealistic burden would encompass an infinitely wide range of variances including differences in “height, weight, muscle mass, heart capacity, lung capacity, strength, speed, endurance, jumping ability, and so on.”

Based on this analysis of Title VII, the Court ruled that having separate athletic teams for biological females as a comprehensive designated sex class was acceptable, and to do otherwise by allowing biological males to compete would not only be unreasonable to the State but would potentially even undermine the State’s ultimate objectives of achieving equality.

Sex is Defined by Biology – and Transgender Individuals Are Not a Protected Class

In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas affirms that transgender individuals are not a protected class entitled to heightened levels of judicial scrutiny. Rather, he presents them as a class of individuals “experiencing ‘gender dysphoria’” and thus equates them to other judicial classes (mental illness or immigration status) which are not entitled to Title VII protections.

Justice Thomas provides a gift of clarity in his concurring opinion. He not only states unequivocally that “Sex is an immutable ‘biological’ characteristic…; it is binary,” but he also specifically acknowledges that “Men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe that they are.”

Even more profound, Justice Thomas goes a step further to point out that “To use language to obscure reality—to show ‘indifference regarding the truth’— is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens ‘as equal[s].’”

The War Rages On

Even while delivering clarity in the legal sphere, the Court equally acknowledges that “[w]hether biological males may participate on women’s and girls’ sports teams may be a debated policy question” that will continue across the nation.

The ruling in West Virginia v. B.P.J. is a major victory, but the war to protect women’s sports and private spaces is not over. As many commentators have already pointed out, the ruling protects the 27 states that choose to protect women and girls’ sports. It does not require the remaining 23 states to do so. Our work will continue through discussion, education, and advocacy until women and girls are protected across the nation.

Katie Allen is policy advisor for Truth in Education, a Christian, Atlanta-based nonprofit organization that exposes harmful ideologies and Marxist globalist agendas in America’s schools. She advocates for parental rights and First Amendment jurisprudence in public education.

The most important moments of fatherhood are often not the grand occasions, but the quiet, everyday interactions—helping with homework, offering encouragement, sharing wisdom, and simply being present.

That is exactly what Rockwell captured. The painting reminds us that children are shaped not only by what fathers say, but by the time they give and the presence they provide. A father seated beside his child, patiently guiding and encouraging, may seem like an ordinary moment. Yet it is often in these small moments that character is formed, confidence is built, and lifelong memories are made.

The Bible places great importance on a father’s role in the family. Fathers are called to teach, guide, and model godly character for their children. Deuteronomy 6 instructs parents to teach God’s truth diligently throughout the routines of daily life, while Ephesians 6:4 calls fathers to bring up their children in the training and instruction of the Lord. The biblical model of fatherhood is not defined by perfection, but by faithful presence.

On Father’s Day, we celebrate more than what fathers do—we celebrate who they are. Their steady influence, quiet sacrifices, and daily investment in the lives of their children leave a legacy that extends far beyond childhood. Some of the smallest moments become the deepest impressions, shaping not only a child’s future, but generations to come.

“The righteous man walks in his integrity; his children are blessed after him.” (ESV) Proverbs 20:7

Support Our Work

Support Our Work

Mark your calendars! Truth In Education is pleased to announce our Truth In Education Summit on Saturday, August 29, 2026, in Atlanta, Georgia. Join us for a day of insight, encouragement, and practical solutions as nationally recognized speakers address some of the most pressing issues facing families, education, parental rights, and our culture.

Whether you are a parent, educator, pastor, policymaker, or concerned citizen, this event will equip you with the knowledge and resources needed to navigate today’s educational challenges. Registration details will be released soon. We hope you’ll save the date and plan to join us.

We would like to invite you to a special lecture presentation hosted by The Salt & Light Council on Monday, June 15.

I will be speaking on a topic that every parent and privacy advocate needs to understand: The Broad Capabilities of Student Surveillance Software.

We will expose how digital platforms are reading more of your child’s data than their actual homework, and discuss what we can do to protect parental rights.

Support Our Work

Leave a Comment / By Rhonda Thomas / Originally Published at Liberty Sentinel

May 19, 2026

In 2023, Texas became the first state to authorize public-school chaplains under Senate Bill 763. Florida followed in 2024 with House Bill 931, inviting volunteers to serve as “chaplains” for students. Proponents hailed both bills as victories for faith and freedom, restoring a moral compass to classrooms. Yet a closer look at the network behind the modern “chaplain movement” reveals something far more complex: a pipeline of organizations that repackage spiritual care as emotional management and recast the pastoral role as a tool of social engineering.

From SEL to Spiritual Care

The story begins not with the pulpit but with psychology. In the 1990s, the Fetzer Institute, a Michigan-based philanthropic foundation devoted to “spiritual transformation,” funded and helped shape the early frameworks for what would become Social and Emotional Learning (SEL). Fetzer later described its role this way: “Our commitment to whole-child education dates to the 1990s, when we played a significant funding and organizing role in what would become social and emotional learning.”

That early investment gave rise to CASEL, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning—now the leading authority on SEL implementation in U.S. schools. CASEL’s history lists David J. Sluyter, Senior Advisor at the Fetzer Institute, as a founding team member. Fetzer’s humanistic vision of “whole-child spiritual flourishing” thus became embedded in public education as state-mandated emotional conditioning.

SEL’s five core competencies—self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making—sound benign. Yet they redefine morality by emphasizing emotion and replacing virtue rooted in truth with behaviors deemed socially harmonious. That same deception now reappears under a new banner: chaplaincy.

The Chaplaincy Innovation Lab: A Fetzer-Funded Bridge

Two decades after Fetzer seeded SEL, it turned to professionalizing spiritual care through the Chaplaincy Innovation Lab (CIL) at Brandeis University. CIL describes itself as “the leading cross-sector network for research and education in chaplaincy and spiritual care.” Its project states, “Funded by the Fetzer Institute, this initiative supports networks of spiritual-care providers who identify as spiritual but not religious.”

That phrase—spiritual but not religious—defines CIL’s core mission: training chaplains to work comfortably in secular institutions, detached from any theological anchor. The model emphasizes empathy, trauma response, and “inclusive spirituality.” CIL’s language mirrors CASEL’s competencies: emotional regulation, social awareness, and ethical decision-making. SEL’s vocabulary simply migrated from classrooms to chaplain training.

Fetzer’s financial and philosophical fingerprints on both SEL and CIL reveal a through-line: the transformation of spirituality into humanist-based psychological well-being with eastern mysticism or universalist tones. Where schools once taught civics and moral reasoning, they now administer emotional therapies. Where chaplains once preached Scripture, they now manage “spiritual wellness outcomes.”

The United Nations Chaplains Association: Expanding the Reach

Enter the United Nations Chaplains Association (UNCA), a U.S.-based nonprofit that claims to operate “throughout the continental United States and the Caribbean.” Its mission: “Promoting social and economic development, crisis counseling, disaster management, and leadership engagement.” It operates “Crisis Counseling & Intervention Units” and “Community Care Coalitions,” deploying chaplains trained in trauma response, emotional stabilization, and interfaith cooperation.

Despite its name, UNCA does not appear on the official United Nations NGO registry and has no documented consultative status with the United Nations. Yet its rhetoric closely mirrors the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4.7 (SDG 4.7), which calls for “education for sustainable development and global citizenship.” By combining humanitarian outreach, emotional counseling, and leadership training, UNCA effectively translates the SDGs’ moral framework into a chaplaincy practice—spiritual globalization presented as community care.

The overlap in mission language is unmistakable: “social development,” “emotional resilience,” and “leadership for peace.” These phrases originate in UN and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) policy papers, but now reappear in American schools through programs that they present as faith-neutral chaplain programs.

Support Our Work

From Policy to the Classroom

During the Texas legislature’s debate over SB 763, supporters argued that chaplains could ease the burden on overworked counselors and address student mental health crises. The law permits districts to “employ or accept as volunteers, chaplains to provide support, services, and programs for students as assigned by the board.” It imposes no requirement for certification, ordination, or professional counseling licensure. Amendments that would have required parental consent for student interactions were rejected.

Florida’s HB 931 added limited safeguards—background checks and parental notification—yet left the term “chaplain” undefined. Across both states, the outcome is the same: anyone trained in interfaith or psychological models can now serve as a spiritual-emotional counselor in public schools.

Meanwhile, the National School Chaplain Association (NSCA), founded by Rocky J. Malloy, has promoted such legislation nationwide. Malloy previously led Mission Generation, which described its curriculum as “Bible-based Social Emotional Learning.” In 2022, he headed Hope Rising, a program that explicitly framed SEL as the vehicle for moral development. In other words, Malloy’s statements link SEL and chaplaincy, confirming that the two frameworks share not only language but also lineage.

Convergence of Systems

Taken together, these institutions form a coherent structure

What emerges is a humanist bureaucracy cloaked in spiritual language, not a revival of a biblical worldview. It advances a global ideology of emotionally coerced consensus, moral relativism, and civic conformity, administered through psychology rather than faith. While CASEL teaches emotional intelligence, CIL and UNCA enforce emotionally orthodox conformity. Both serve the same end: managing belief by managing feelings.

A New State Religion

The irony is striking. Public schools that long banned prayer and Scripture now invite state-approved chaplains trained in “pluralistic spirituality.” The old objection—that religion has no place in government institutions—has been replaced by a subtler creed: religion without divine revelation. This system preserves the ritual veneer of compassion while stripping away God’s authority and replacing conscience with fear-driven compliance.

In practical terms, the chaplain bills expand the broader system of emotional and behavioral governance already embedded in frameworks such as Social Emotional Learning (SEL), the Dignity Index, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), and Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS). These models increasingly position schools not merely as academic institutions but as centers for managing students’ emotional well-being, relationships, identity development, and behavioral outcomes.

CASEL’s SEL framework, for example, promotes competencies tied to self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making, while researchers associated with “Civic SEL” openly link social-emotional competencies to civic attitudes and democratic engagement. Each additional layer—including counselors, social-emotional coaches, mindfulness instructors, and now chaplains—extends institutional influence further into students’ interior lives, shifting responsibilities once held by families and churches into the hands of state-connected systems. It is, in effect, the creation of a public-school priesthood without theology, credentialed through networks tracing back to therapeutic humanism, emotional governance models, and global “whole child” frameworks associated with organizations such as the Fetzer Institute and UNESCO.

Military vs School Chaplain Training

The contrast between U.S. military chaplains and many school chaplain models is significant. Military chaplains must complete extensive theological education, accredited seminary training, ordination, endorsement by recognized religious bodies, clinical pastoral training, and operate under strict federal oversight and accountability standards.

By comparison, school chaplain programs such as NSCA have far fewer standardized requirements and often lack uniform standards for training, counseling, or oversight. This raises concerns about qualifications, accountability, parental rights, and the placement of underqualified spiritual or emotional support personnel in positions of influence over children.

Conclusion

The chaplain bills now advancing across multiple states promise moral restoration but deliver deceptive manipulation. Behind them lies a web of philanthropic and intergovernmental interests that has spent three decades merging psychology, education, and faith into a single system of pseudo-emotional management, which is really behavior control. If Texas and Florida are the first to open that door, the question is not whether chaplains belong in schools, but whose doctrine they will preach upon arrival.

Rhonda Thomas is the President of Truth In Education (TIE), a Christian nonprofit based in Atlanta dedicated to exposing harmful ideologies, Marxist influences, and globalist agendas in America’s schools while advocating for parental rights. TIE equips families and churches to reclaim their biblical role in educating children by promoting homeschooling, supporting the launch of Christian schools, and empowering parents to stand firm in the spiritual battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation.

More Articles By Rhonda Thomas https://thefederalist.com/author/rhondathomas/

Most parents still believe that when they send their child to school, that child will be taught reading, writing, mathematics, science, and history. They assume that school records contain grades, attendance, and test scores — nothing more.

But what if that assumption is no longer true? What if education has been quietly changing in ways most families have never been fully told about? Across the country, school systems are adopting programs called “Portrait of a Graduate,” “Future Ready Learner,” and “Whole Child Development.” These initiatives are presented as modern, innovative, and necessary for future success. But behind the appealing language is a shift that should give parents pause. Schools are moving away from teaching academic knowledge and toward training that measures attitudes, emotions, behaviors, and even aspects of identity.

In many classrooms today, students are no longer evaluated solely on what they know, but increasingly on how they think, how they react, how they cooperate, and how they see themselves. Children may be asked to write about their fears, reflect on personal and family struggles, share emotional experiences, or discuss their own and family beliefs and attitudes in group settings.

These activities may sound harmless — after all, reflection has long been part of learning. But what makes this different is that these responses are often observed, recorded, documented, and evaluated as part of a broader effort to measure “internal traits” such as resilience, empathy, self-awareness, and sense of belonging. These are deeply personal aspects of a child’s inner life — areas that historically belonged to families, not government institutions.

Parents should stop and ask themselves an uncomfortable question: What happens when a child’s personality, emotions, and identity-related reflections become part of a school record? Childhood is about developing, learning, and maturing. Children change constantly. A child who struggles socially at age 9 may flourish by age 13. A child who lacks confidence in one year may develop strength and maturity in the next.

But written and video-recorded observations, behavioral notes, and recorded reflections do not mature along with the child. They remain fixed snapshots of moments in development that may not reflect who that child ultimately becomes. The possibility that temporary struggles could become lasting labels should concern every parent who believes in growth, redemption, and second chances.

Many modern education programs rely on technology platforms that store student work, track participation, and analyze patterns over time. Federally funded state education systems include long-term student biometric data tracking initiatives designed to follow student information across years of schooling. Federal guidance also outlines how student information is to be collected, stored, and managed through digital education records and data governance practices.

Parents are accustomed to thinking of school records as academic transcripts, but the reality may now include behavioral observations, emotional reflections, biometric data, and identity-related responses stored alongside academic information. Once information is stored digitally, it becomes part of a permanent system that may follow a child across years of schooling into adulthood

There is also the growing connection between these programs and career planning. Some educational systems now encourage students to identify strengths, preferences, and interests at increasingly younger ages. National career readiness frameworks organize student pathways into structured “career clusters” designed to align education with workforce needs. These strategic plans aim to attract lucrative business to the respective states by offering the incentive of a youthful, trained workforce. Corporations fund the professional associations and elected officials pushing this agenda. It sacrifices our children on the altar of economics.

Federal education initiatives also promote career and technical education programs designed to prepare students for workforce participation and career readiness. Children may be asked to consider what careers match their personalities or what pathways align with their perceived strengths. On the surface, this sounds like preparation for the future. But parents should ask themselves whether early classification — based on immature self-perceptions, AI analysis of covertly recorded biometrics, or limited experiences — could unintentionally narrow opportunities rather than expand them.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of all is whether these changes are quietly shifting the purpose of education itself. If increasing amounts of time are devoted to reflection, self-analysis, emotional processing, and behavioral observation, what happens to the hard work of mastering reading, mathematics, science, and history? These subjects require time, repetition, and discipline.

National academic assessments have documented long-term declines in core academic performance, particularly in reading and mathematics, reinforcing concerns about foundational skill development. Federal education statistics also track instructional time and academic performance trends across subjects, providing further evidence of ongoing academic challenges. When academic focus weakens, the long-term consequences may not appear immediately, but they surface later, when students struggle to read critically, calculate accurately, or reason logically.

Parents should not assume that these changes will be announced clearly or debated openly. Many of these programs have gradually emerged, introduced through strategic plans, curriculum revisions, or new educational initiatives that sound positive and forward-thinking. They are rarely described in ways that highlight long-term consequences.

Yet once systems are in place, reversing them becomes difficult. Records accumulate. Policies solidify.

These developments are part of a broader shift away from traditional academic instruction and toward the shaping of attitudes, beliefs, and identity within institutional settings. It trains our children to be easily controlled. From this perspective, the concern is not simply educational — it is philosophical. When schools begin influencing areas once reserved for parents, families must ask whether the line between education and indoctrination has been crossed. Indoctrination, when incremental, does not always appear dramatic or obvious. It arrives slowly, through repetition, reinforcement, and the steady normalization of new expectations.

This is why parents must become proactive, inquisitive, informed observers, not passive participants. The greatest danger is not always what is visible — it is what goes unnoticed until its effects are already in place. A parent who waits until high school to ask questions may discover that years of records, observations, and assumptions have already accumulated about their child. At that point, the path forward may be shaped by decisions made long before the family realized what was happening.

Rhonda Thomas is the founder and president of Truth in Education, a Christian Atlanta-based nonprofit that exposes harmful ideologies and Marxist globalist agendas in America’s schools. A national speaker and advocate for parental rights, Rhonda works to equip families and churches to reclaim their biblical role in children’s education. Truth in Education also engages in legislative efforts to defend parental rights and protect children from government overreach.

Truth In Education is dedicated to helping parents and communities defend truth, protect children, and restore a biblical foundation in education. If this mission resonates with you, we invite you to subscribe and stand with us as we equip families for the challenges ahead.

THE DATA PROFILE – Your Child’s First Social Credit Score

The data collection framework in schools is preparing students to become the pioneer generation of a social credit score system – without them ever realizing it.

The Data Collection Framework of Public Education

Under the guise of student safety, surveillance programs collect a wide range of data to include AI-driven behavioral detection, social media monitoring, student communications monitoring, online and web monitoring, and remote video monitoring/proctoring. These programs are software installed on student devices and attached to student school logins, using a search algorithm to constantly scan all student activities to identify material that is problematic and subsequently alert designated school or law enforcement personnel. Activities monitored can include social media posts, chats, documents, comments, emails, and more. While seemingly limited to school devices, this surveillance software can also function on a student’s private devices at home if a student uses their school-issued login for a program or social media account. Types of collected data can include student and parent/guardian first and last names, physical address and email address, along with parent/guardian phone numbers, student ID, and a student’s location during use.

In perhaps the most alarming example of modern student surveillance, the CLEAR software product by Thomson Reuters allows designated school district personnel to “[a]ccess license plate data and develop pattern of life information” on students and families:

2026© 1Image from Thomson Reuters CLEAR

While marketing itself as a solution to help school personnel save time verifying student addresses, the software capabilities go far beyond address and residency verification, with features such as alert functions to allow district personnel to “[g]et notified immediately when any relevant information changes with a student.” These expansive surveillance functions are not surprising, given that the company’s own description as a “powerful online investigation software” with applications in law enforcement and investigative financial services, among others.

Image from Thomson Reuters CLEAR

By enrolling their child in the public education system, parents must understand that they are allowing their child and family to be subject to extensive surveillance, while also helping to create their child’s permanent data profile with the information collected.

Behavior Profiling of Students through Data Collection

Other types of surveillance data focus on logging a child’s daily social choices. Programs like ClassDojo document behaviors such as showing respect, curiosity, washing hands, being off task, giving air hugs, and much more. Points are given to reward behavior deemed positive or removed to punish behavior deemed negative. Queries can be conducted to display a child’s social choice metrics over selected time frames, and scores can even be ranked among class members to determine which students perform the best and which ones perform the worst. The data is generally integrated into the child’s K-12 education record where it remains indefinitely, often without parental knowledge or consent.

Even more concerning is that parents are not guaranteed access to their child’s behavior reports. The company states that school district administrators can customize parent reports by deciding “whether to share all points, only positive points, or no points at all with family members and students.”

Image from ClassDojo

The surveillance data collected on a child at school is ultimately combined with the child’s other data and integrated into a combined student profile using programs such as Infinite Campus, which not only track student measurements but use predictive analytics and “statistical algorithms [to] measure how factors such as attendance, behavior, academics, and home and school stability interact to predict graduation.” Infinite Campus also provides “daily risk predictions” and surveys measuring emotional states, contributing to each student’s assigned score in categories such as “[a]ttendance, behavior, curriculum, and stability.” By combining student data and feeding it continuously into analytical models, the program boasts its promise that “no one slips through the cracks.”

Image from Infinite Campus

Student Data Profiling and Social Credit Score Systems

The data gathering and student profile records of the public education system are eerily similar to the framework of the social credit score system used in China. This system is built upon a framework of citizen data gathered through video monitoring, location tracking, banking data, individual purchases, financial transactions, travel, online activity, social media interactions, and more, filtered through algorithms and assigned points to create a social credit “score” for each citizen.9 These scores are increased when positive behavior actions are logged and decreased in accordance with negative actions. Positive actions can include good works such as donating blood or volunteering while negative actions can include exercising one’s right to petition the government or defying authority. Consequences accompany one’s social credit score, with perks for those with high scores and difficulties for those with low scores to include inability to access financing or even being prohibited to travel. Like the behavioral tracking and investigative programs of public education, China’s social credit score system relies upon data gathered from a wide array of physical and digital surveillance tools, using powerful AI-driven analytics to create and monitor profiles on each tracked individual. And like with ClassDojo, social behaviors are categorized and logged, with administrators determining who has access to the records. Positive and negative behaviors are arbitrary, determined solely based upon what governmental authorities determine to be desirable behaviors in society. Whether these governmental authorities are school district personnel or Chinese Communist Party leaders, the system – and its purpose of training the minds of citizens– remains the same.

Conclusion

Perhaps the most concerning of all is the fact that students – and parents – rarely seem to question the data being collected and stored about them. Rather than voicing concerns about privacy, students see surveillance as a necessary fact of life to exist in a safe society. Some would even frown upon those who question it, as questioning implies that someone “has something to hide,” creating the false conclusion that only those with bad intentions desire privacy from government surveillance and profiling. This widespread acceptance creates the ideal ground for not only a social credit score system but also for an entire digital city infrastructure built upon centralized surveillance and control – all without citizen knowledge or public discourse.

From a Biblical Christian perspective, social credit score systems in public education are even more problematic. Such systems teach obedience to government-dictated morals, thus placing the State as the determiner of right and wrong rather than God. Children in school learn to follow written rules rather than understand the wisdom of God’s natural law of morality written on the hearts of men. They are taught to expect rewards for their obedience and don’t understand that choosing true morality can result in discomfort or hardship, especially when it challenges what the state and even society has deemed to be correct. The system reinforces to children that they should be moral because they are being watched and documented rather than being moral because they know and love God. Replacing a biblical foundation of morals with a state-centered one should be of paramount concern for all Christian parents whose children are being educated in the public school system.

Truth In Education

info@truthineducation.org

©2026 All rights reserved. Short quotations may be used with proper attribution. This article may be shared in full, unaltered, with clear attribution to Truth In Education.

The full article, along with supporting sources, is available on our website.