I am a one-issue voter; I vote on education policies.  When I read Project 2025,  during the US presidential election, I was concerned about the implications on education in the US. Some of those concerns are now live: “President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to initiate the process of dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. This action aims to return educational control to the states, but it requires further Congressional approval to be fully realized. The move has sparked debate on the implications for federal oversight in education, state autonomy, and potential disparities in educational funding.”

President Donald Trump took a decisive step in his administration’s push to shrink government spending on Thursday, signing an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education.

The move, long championed by conservatives, is part of Trump’s broader campaign to cut federal bureaucracy, a strategy led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which is overseen by billionaire Elon Musk.

Flanked by schoolchildren seated at desks in the White House’s East Room, Trump declared, “We’re going to eliminate it, and everybody knows it’s right. The states will take back education, as it should be.”

For me, education is not a local issue because the liberation of the mind is universal conceptually. The idea that moving education to the state will advance the nation is faulty because a disparate model of education cannot bring a cohesive framework for a national economic acceleration. The Utah model, the Alabama model, the Maryland model, etc may not be optimal because education requires a national roadmap!

In the US, basic education is largely funded by local real estate tax, and that means where you live determines the quality of your education. A rich kid who lives in a wealthy neighborhood will attend a better school compared with a poor kid who lives in a place with minimal real estate tax revenue. So, just like that, communities see gaps in attainment because young people are set up as a result of where they live, as learning opportunities are not universal.

If you remove the federal factor, I expect this playbook to accelerate to the extent that inequality will widen. Yes, without federal support those underperforming communities could be forgotten! The implication is that in 20 years, the GREAT America will become more unequal economically.

(If Nigeria does what the US government plans to do, most schools in villages will fold because the government gets largely zero taxes from rural communities. Today, the federal of Nigeria funds some core components of our basic education, making sure every kid has a shot)

Comment on Feed

Comment 1: I agree with you on this. Over 90% of education policies are in the hands of states in the US. US Dept Education (USDE) mostly oversee programs that help to close the gap between the underserved people and the affluent. This executive order will exacerbate the inadequacy and decimate programmings that carters to the needs of the poorest of the poor across US. The people that will suffer more are minorities: Hispanics, Americans of African descent, people in the Appalachia area, & Native American communities.

This plus other policies will set America back decades, and the damage this will do in four years would take half a lifetime to re-write. The reasons why Americans kids are behind their counterparts in the West is not because USDE is obstructing progress. It is because they do not have enough funding to close the gap. This position will ensure that charter school system is proliferated, where school tax money is taken from poor communities to fund the education of rich kids in private schools.

USDE was established by congress, and only the congress has the power to abolish it. I look and I cannot see that congress standing up for ordinary people who will be impacted by this policy. They have fallen in line, right and left.

Comment 2: The reason why this move was necessary is because if Nigeria spent what the Department of Education spends, every Nigerian student would have a school.
America cannot be spending that kind of money and be getting worse outcomes than India.

My response: The comparison on amount is not relevant. You focus on the framework. The budget of Harvard is more than 3X the education budget of Nigeria.

Comment 2A: It is very relevant. America is the main laggard even within the OECD. The framework is obviously bad as the outcomes are mediocre.
Harvard is going to get its cuts as well.

My response: In quantifiable impacts on innovation, America leads OECD. But if you are focusing on test scores, sure, you can give it to OECD. It is not America that needs to change, it is what OECD measures that needs to change. Sweden is well ahead of US on education based on OECD standards, but America is well ahead of Sweden on practical global innovation competitiveness except in exam tests

Comment 3: I agree that this is simply another means of widening the inequality. Presently schools in rich communities are better funded and adequately equipped than those in poor or average communities. Even the ratings confirm this. Education is not something to be politicized and I hope this decision would be reconsidered.

Apple’s streaming service, Apple TV+, is reportedly losing more than $1 billion annually, according to The Information on Thursday.

The revelation provides a rare look into the financial struggles of Apple’s content business, which the company has historically kept under wraps. Although Apple refused to disclose Apple TV+ performance metrics in its quarterly earnings calls, the streaming service has long been rumored to be operating at a loss, overshadowed by more dominant competitors.

The report also sheds light on Apple TV+’s subscriber count, revealing that the service had 45 million subscribers in 2023—a figure that places it between NBCUniversal’s Peacock (36 million) and Disney’s Hulu (53 million). While these numbers indicate moderate success, Apple TV+ still trails far behind streaming giants like Netflix (260 million subscribers) and Disney+ (152 million subscribers).

Competition’s Role in Apple TV+’s Financial Struggles

Apple’s struggle in the streaming market is widely believed to have been compounded by competition, as dominant players continue to expand their market share, leaving Apple TV+ in a precarious position. Netflix and Disney+ remain the undisputed leaders in the industry, leveraging vast libraries of existing content and aggressive spending on new productions.

Apple TV+, in contrast, has pursued a quality-over-quantity strategy, focusing on big-budget, critically acclaimed originals like Ted Lasso, Severance, and Killers of the Flower Moon. However, this approach has struggled to translate into mass-market appeal. Unlike Netflix and Disney+, which have extensive catalogs of licensed and original content spanning decades, Apple TV+ started from scratch in 2019, leaving it with a relatively limited library.

Adding to Apple’s woes, streaming heavyweights have taken aggressive steps to secure their market dominance. Netflix, for instance, cracked down on password sharing, forcing users to either subscribe or lose access, a move that led to a surge in new paying subscribers. Meanwhile, Disney has leveraged its vast intellectual property, rolling out major franchises like Marvel, Star Wars, and Pixar films exclusively on Disney+, ensuring that its platform remains indispensable to fans.

Can Apple Sustain the Losses?

While losing $1 billion annually is an alarming figure, Apple has the financial muscle to withstand these losses if it chooses. The company maintains a net cash position of $57 billion, meaning it has the ability to fund Apple TV+ for years without significantly impacting its overall business.

For Apple, streaming is less about immediate profitability and more about strengthening its ecosystem. Apple TV+ is often bundled with other services, such as Apple Music and iCloud, as part of the Apple One subscription package, encouraging users to remain within Apple’s ecosystem. This strategy ensures that even if Apple TV+ itself isn’t making money, it contributes to Apple’s broader revenue streams by increasing customer retention.

Legal and Financial Hurdles Looming Over the Industry

The broader streaming industry has entered a period of financial scrutiny, with many companies scaling back on content spending after years of rapid expansion. Hollywood’s major studios, including Warner Bros. Discovery and Disney, have begun cutting costs and prioritizing profitability over growth.

At the same time, regulatory scrutiny over Apple’s dominance in digital services is mounting, with the U.S. government and European regulators investigating the company’s App Store policies. If forced to loosen its grip over in-app payments, Apple could lose a key advantage in promoting Apple TV+ subscriptions through its ecosystem.

However, analysts believe that Apple is unlikely to abandon Apple TV+, but the company may need to rethink its approach to remain competitive. Reports suggest Apple is exploring more partnerships, including potentially bundling Apple TV+ with other streaming services or striking deals for live sports content.

The Cupertino giant has already secured Major League Soccer rights and is in talks for expanding its sports offerings, seeing live events as a way to drive long-term engagement. Additionally, the company is rumored to be considering acquiring a major content library, which would help Apple TV+ compete with Netflix and Disney+ on content volume.

Apple’s stock has remained resilient. Shares rose 0.75% on Thursday to $216.78, and Apple continues to hold its title as the most valuable company in the world, with a market cap of $3.26 trillion.

However, the question remains: Can Apple TV+ carve out a sustainable niche in an increasingly cutthroat industry, or will it be forced to rethink its long-term streaming ambitions?

In a landmark policy shift, the Federal Government of Nigeria has announced that full-time Higher National Diploma (HND) graduates are now eligible for National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) mobilization.

The announcement was made in a press release by Boriwo Folasade, Director, Press & Public Relations, Federal Ministry of Education, following confirmation from Minister of Education, Dr. Maruf Olatunji Alausa. The Minister stated that after discussions with the Director-General of NYSC, it was resolved that only full-time HND graduates would be eligible for mobilization, while those who completed their studies part-time remain ineligible.

This decision is seen as another step towards curtailing the long-standing stigmatization of HND holders, who have historically been marginalized in both employment opportunities and career progression.

For years, polytechnic graduates in Nigeria have faced systemic discrimination in both public and private sectors, often being placed at a disadvantage compared to their counterparts with university degrees (BSc). This has fueled a growing call for reforms, with stakeholders demanding an end to the HND-BSc dichotomy that limits opportunities for polytechnic graduates.

The exclusion of HND graduates from the NYSC program has been one of the major factors reinforcing this inequality. Many employers, especially in the public sector, require NYSC certification as a prerequisite for employment. By preventing HND holders from participating in the one-year service program, they were effectively shut out from many government and corporate job opportunities.

This new development is expected to alleviate some of these challenges, but stakeholders argue that more needs to be done to fully integrate polytechnic graduates into the workforce without discrimination.

To facilitate a smooth mobilization process, the National Board for Technical Education (NBTE) has been directed to fast-track the collation of data for eligible HND graduates. A circular has already been sent to all Rectors of Polytechnics, instructing them to upload relevant graduate information onto a newly created HND admission portal.

According to Dr. Alausa, this portal will serve as the official database for NYSC mobilization and help address previous challenges related to discrepancies in admission records. He urged all eligible full-time HND graduates to take full advantage of this opportunity and proceed with their mobilization without delay.

“The Honourable Minister urges all eligible full-time HND graduates to take full advantage of this opportunity and proceed with their mobilization without delay,” the statement read.

Dr. Alausa further reaffirmed the government’s commitment to equity and inclusivity in the education sector, emphasizing that this decision aligns with broader efforts to uplift technical education and provide fair opportunities for all Nigerian graduates.

The mobilization of HND graduates into NYSC comes amid renewed calls to abolish the HND-BSc dichotomy, which has historically placed polytechnic graduates at a disadvantage.

In 2021, the Nigerian House of Representatives passed a bill criminalizing discrimination against HND holders, stating that treating polytechnic graduates as inferior to university graduates was unlawful. The bill was meant to compel employers in both the public and private sectors to treat HND and BSc holders equally in terms of employment, career progression, and remuneration.

However, despite the passage of the bill, discrimination against HND graduates has remained prevalent, with many companies and government agencies still favoring university graduates for employment and promotion opportunities. This underlines the need for more concrete action to dignify HND certificates and ensure that polytechnic graduates are given equal career opportunities.

Calls for Further Reforms and Government Investment in Polytechnic Education

The decision to allow HND graduates into the NYSC program has rekindled discussions about education reform in Nigeria. The Association of Private Polytechnics in Nigeria has urged President Bola Tinubu to sponsor a bill that will completely abolish the HND-BSc divide, arguing that poor policy implementation has led to declining enrollment in polytechnics, threatening the country’s industrial and technological growth.

A previous bill aimed at equalizing HND and BSc qualifications was passed by the 9th Senate, but it was never signed into law. Advocates are now pushing for its reintroduction, urging the government to do more than just approve NYSC mobilization for HND graduates.

What This Means for Polytechnic Graduates

A Higher National Diploma (HND) is a practical and vocational qualification awarded by polytechnics and technical institutions in Nigeria and other Commonwealth countries. The two-year program focuses on specialized knowledge and hands-on skills in fields such as engineering, technology, business, and applied sciences.

For years, HND graduates have faced limited career opportunities, especially in the public sector, where they are often placed at a lower rank than Bachelor’s degree (BSc) holders. The exclusion of HND graduates from NYSC mobilization further deepened the divide.

With this new policy, eligible full-time HND graduates can now complete the one-year mandatory NYSC service, providing them with access to employment opportunities that previously required NYSC certification.

However, education stakeholders stress that while this is a positive move, the government must follow through with broader policies that fully integrate polytechnic graduates into Nigeria’s workforce without discrimination. The pressure remains on the government to end the HND-BSc divide, ensuring that all graduates are treated equally, regardless of their chosen institution.

The Trump administration’s pursuit of a leaner, more privatized federal government has claimed another target—this time, Amtrak’s CEO, Stephen Gardner. Gardner, who had been in the role since 2022, abruptly announced his resignation on Wednesday as the administration and Elon Musk set their sights on potentially privatizing the government-owned passenger rail service.

In his resignation statement, Gardner said, “I am stepping down as CEO to ensure that Amtrak continues to enjoy the full faith and confidence of this administration.”

His departure comes as no surprise given the mounting pressure on Amtrak to align with the Trump administration’s demands, including budget cuts, the elimination of diversity programs, and a shift toward private investment in national rail infrastructure.

A Long Career Derailed by Politics

Gardner had been with Amtrak for over a decade before assuming the CEO position. He previously served as the company’s chief operating and commercial officer starting in 2009, later becoming president in 2020. Beyond his corporate leadership, he is a lifelong rail enthusiast, having worked as a train conductor and operations manager early in his career. His passion for rail even extended to his personal life—he once founded a punk band named Chessie, inspired by the defunct Chesapeake and Ohio Railway.

Despite Gardner’s deep ties to the industry, his position at Amtrak became increasingly untenable under the new administration. Trump’s long-standing hostility toward Amtrak is well-documented; during his first term, he attempted to slash federal funding for the company by half. Now, with his second term well underway, his administration has doubled down on efforts to reduce Amtrak’s reliance on public funds and steer it toward privatization.

Earlier this year, billions of dollars earmarked for Amtrak’s expansion efforts became collateral damage in Trump’s federal spending freeze. The administration has been particularly critical of the company’s spending practices, with Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy pressuring Amtrak to abandon diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and enforce return-to-office mandates. The message has been clear: comply with the administration’s agenda or lose federal support.

Adding to Amtrak’s troubles, Musk has also waded into the debate, publicly mocking the company and calling for its privatization. Speaking at a recent conference, Musk described Amtrak as “kind of embarrassing”, advising foreign visitors, “If you’re coming from another country, please don’t use our national rail. It can leave you with a very bad impression of America.” He also suggested that both Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service should be privatized, reinforcing Trump’s broader push to dismantle government-run services deemed inefficient.

The Reality of Amtrak’s Performance

Ironically, Amtrak is coming off a record year of ridership, bolstered by an ongoing expansion plan aimed at bringing rail service to an additional 40 million people in the coming years. The company has been steadily adding new routes and improving service in an effort to modernize U.S. passenger rail.

Privatization, however, remains a highly controversial proposal. While some argue that private investment could accelerate modernization efforts, others fear it could lead to higher fares, reduced service, and a focus on only the most profitable routes—leaving rural and less-populated areas without viable rail options.

Others also point to Musk’s own track record in transportation as evidence that privatization may not be the magic solution Trump envisions. Musk’s Boring Company, which promised to revolutionize underground mass transit, has struggled to deliver on its grand ambitions. Over the past seven years, it has completed just 2.4 miles of a proposed 68-mile tunnel network in Las Vegas, a project that has been plagued by delays, cost overruns, and a lack of regulatory oversight. Other Boring Company projects have been abandoned altogether due to financial and logistical challenges.

By comparison, Amtrak’s federally backed operations don’t seem so ineffective after all. While the company is far from perfect, it has at least managed to expand services and maintain reliability, something many of Musk’s ambitious transportation ventures have failed to do.

Amtrak’s future now looks uncertain. The Trump administration has relied heavily on executive orders to dismantle or liquidate government institutions it deems wasteful, but many of these moves have faced legal challenges. For now, Amtrak is leaderless, and its employees face uncertainty about the company’s future. Whether Trump and Musk succeed in reshaping the national rail system—or whether Amtrak survives as a public entity—will likely depend on political and legal battles still to come.