The Education Gadfly Weekly: Public funding for religious schools can help ease our culture wars
The Education Gadfly Weekly: Public funding for religious schools can help ease our culture wars
![Catholic school classroom](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/top_attachment_size/public/2024-07/mp-7-4-24-2.jpg?itok=eiXzAdaY)
Public funding for religious schools can help ease our culture wars
Knee-jerk reaction against public subsidies for religious education is unwise. That’s because allowing religious families to choose sectarian schools for their children could very well be a saving grace for our society. And you don’t have to be among the faithful to believe so.
Public funding for religious schools can help ease our culture wars
Charter schools can’t afford to lose Republican support
When to choose inquiry-based learning over direct instruction in STEM
Assessing the federal Striving Readers grant program
#927: How to shrink schools and school districts as enrollment declines, with Marguerite Roza
Cheers and Jeers: July 4, 2024
What we're reading this week: July 4, 2024
![Road turning right](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/2024-07/dc-7-4-24-copy.png?itok=jmOUiOi1)
Charter schools can’t afford to lose Republican support
![Student doing math on a white board in classroom](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/2024-07/jl-7-4-24-2-copy.png?itok=4t1EiyEj)
When to choose inquiry-based learning over direct instruction in STEM
![Child reading in school](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/2024-07/jm-7-4-24.jpg?itok=DVtXYoyQ)
Assessing the federal Striving Readers grant program
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/2024-07/marguerite-roza-resized.jpg?itok=kpay2I_3)
#927: How to shrink schools and school districts as enrollment declines, with Marguerite Roza
![Fordham Gadfly image](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/2024-07/gadfly-guy.png?itok=6XEhm64h)
Cheers and Jeers: July 4, 2024
![Fordham Gadfly image](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/2024-07/gadfly-guy0.png?itok=Iw7U5iQU)
What we're reading this week: July 4, 2024
![Catholic school classroom](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/2024-07/mp-7-4-24-2.jpg?itok=TS25Qc6T)
Public funding for religious schools can help ease our culture wars
The Washington Post reported recently that billions of dollars now flow to religious private schools thanks to the explosive growth of vouchers and “education savings accounts” in red states, with Catholic schools benefitting the most. A Duke Law School professor was quoted complaining that “we are, as a society, underwriting religion.” Media pundit Dave Pell wrote that this was part of a “religious war.”
But that sort of knee-jerk reaction against public subsidies for religious education is unwise. That’s because allowing religious families to choose sectarian schools for their children could very well be a saving grace for our society. And you don’t have to be among the faithful to believe so.
Indeed, as a lapsed Catholic, I understand discomfort over sending taxpayer dollars to religious institutions. We nonbelievers may not love the idea of schools engaging in religious training or taking socially conservative stances. I certainly wouldn’t send my own children to a school that is unwelcoming to gay children or the children of gay parents. Nor would I be happy for my sons to learn that the world is just 6,000 years old or that evolution is just a theory.
But I also understand the distress that many religious families experience when forced to send their kids to public schools that teach ideas and values directly at odds with their own. Indeed, many of today’s education culture wars arise from this clash of values. It’s possible for open-minded Americans to support practices like comprehensive sex education, LGBTQ-themed books for elementary schools, and teaching that gender is just a social construct while also acknowledging that religious conservatives would find all of this deeply problematic.
But here’s the good news: In a system of school choice, we don’t have to fight these culture wars out in the public square. We can let families vote with their feet and send their kids to schools that better align with their own moral values. Just as we already let families opt their children out of sex education, so too can we let them opt their children out of public schools altogether.
This notion of educational pluralism, as Johns Hopkins scholar Ashley Berner has written, is widely prevalent in Europe, Australia, Canada, and much of Asia, demonstrating that it’s no right-wing smoke screen for biblical schooling.
Indeed, there’s good reason to believe that, as more parents gain access to school choice, including the option of sending their children to religious private schools, we will see today’s education culture wars recede. Religious families won’t need to storm school board meetings to denounce the latest progressive obsession that’s being foisted upon their kids because their kids will be happily learning in private schools instead.
No doubt, many Americans have concerns about private school choice that go beyond the question of religious instruction. I share some of these concerns myself. I don’t love the idea of tuition vouchers going to wealthy families that don’t need the help. Nor am I convinced that just because a school is private it is necessarily high quality (though urban Catholic schools can boast a proud history of serving poor children and children of color well—and school choice will help sustain such schools). I prefer programs with quality control mechanisms, especially through regular assessments of student learning. Thankfully, several states with the largest programs have crafted policies that prioritize lower-income families and demand at least some transparency around results.
So the secular argument for private school choice is that, done right, it should help students learn, while also easing our education culture wars. Pluralism, in other words, can bring greater peace. All of us, regardless of our faith, should be able to say “amen” to that.
![Road turning right](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/2024-07/dc-7-4-24-copy.png?itok=jmOUiOi1)
Charter schools can’t afford to lose Republican support
Charter schools are in for a slog. It doesn’t matter who wins in November. Joe Biden is not a fan. Donald Trump was lukewarm on the topic when he had his hands on the switch. Even the president’s potential replacements are bad on the issue. The broad bipartisan agreement that fueled the birth and growth of charter schools is a distant memory. Ironically, this comes as their academic results continue to shine. The fact of the matter is that charter schools are no longer the outpost for Democrats and the halfway house for Republicans that they were during the Clinton-Bush-Obama years.
Indeed, most Democrats now abhor anything outside the one best system and are all too eager to lump charter schools into the same bucket as vouchers, education savings accounts, and parochial schools. Although most charter advocates hold firm to the notion that charters are public schools, the loudest voices on the left have long insisted that they’re not—not really. For them, the push for a religious charter school in Oklahoma simply confirms their priors. (Last week’s state supreme court decision might help, but only until it’s likely overturned at the federal level.) On the other side of the ledger, Republicans have become more enamored with private and faith-based options. Louisiana just became the twelfth state to enact a universal voucher plan—an incredible feat considering there were none three years ago. As these programs become more established in red states, the right could be emboldened to come out swinging against charters as a weak-kneed alternative to the real thing.
The latest omen is a paper published by the Heritage Foundation titled “The Woke Capture of Charter Schools.” Authored by Jay Greene, Ian Kingsbury, and Jason Bedrick, the report claims that charters are more “woke” than their traditional neighborhood counterparts, as measured by the frequency of eight key words and phrases in publicly available parent-student handbooks: diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, restorative, social-emotional, gender identity, and culturally relevant/affirming. The report raises more questions than it answers, but the allegation alone is enough to antagonize the only party that can realistically embrace charter schools in today’s polarized, populist climate.
Methodologically speaking, the biggest concern is the paper’s small sample size, drawing from only 211 charter handbooks (there are nearly 8,000 charter schools nationwide). There’s also a question to be asked as to whether all eight of Heritage’s keywords are necessarily signs of wokeness. Are “diversity” or “inclusion” unalloyed evils? How about “justice” divorced from social justice? Plenty of dumb things have been done in the name of “equity,” but many still use it as shorthand for high expectations for all. The attacks on the Walton and Gates foundations, among others, read borderline conspiratorial. What’s more, there’s a huge gap between what’s printed in a handbook versus what actually happens in classrooms. Taken together, these wonky concerns serve to undercut the authors’ conclusion that charter schools have gone woke.
Still, it’s not a pretty picture—and Andy Rotherham presciently comments that charter schools might not have a chair when the music stops:
The Republicans are no picnic in general these days. Here, although they’re allergic to accountability in some of these [education savings accounts] programs, they are pretty good on school choice. That’s the awkward reality Democratic education reformers have to accept. What charters need to do is engage, maintain, and build on that Republican support while also organizing parents to actually pressure Democratic leaders to moderate their posture here and again make charters a default consensus position. That can’t be about partisan politics, it has to be about charter politics.
Can education reformers accept this “awkward reality?” Heritage is no picnic either nowadays, but setting aside the problems with its new paper, the Heritage education shop has some sharp minds with criticisms worth contemplating. For example, the embrace of restorative practices by schools might make for good partisan politics, but it stinks when it comes to the charter variety—especially at a moment when incidents of student misconduct are on the rise. Similarly, the repudiation of meritocracy is a lousy way to win over converts, to say nothing of the six in ten Americans who say most people can get ahead if they’re willing to work hard.
Heritage’s findings prompted me to go down memory lane and dig out the family handbook from the Connecticut charter school that I founded twenty years ago. None of the eight keywords identified by Greene, Kingsbury, and Bedrick made an appearance back then. Organized around “general information” and “student behavior,” the message to parents is staid by today’s standards:
We believe in teaching students to live up to [our core values], much the same way we teach them addition and subtraction in math. We correct any student, anywhere, anytime—but we do so in a way that requires them to practice the desired behavior. Most people think of discipline and think of controlling children. Discipline, however, is a means and not an end; discipline is also one of life’s great gifts. Disciplined people are far more likely to achieve their goals.
As you can probably tell, my school was unapologetically focused on two things: academic excellence and character development. There wasn’t enough time in the day for anything else, let alone political grandstanding or virtue signaling.
Rotherham is right that charter advocates would do well to “engage, maintain, and build” Republican support for charter schooling because trying to woo Democratic elites on the merits of charters feels like a lost cause. This means dialing down the progressive dogma, focusing less on politics and more on practice and pedagogy. It means paying more attention to whether kindergartners can read, do arithmetic, and embrace the Golden Rule.
The good news is that parents of all stripes remain strongly supportive of charter schools. In spite of assertions by Heritage, the idea that charter schools all went woke is far from reality. However, Heritage’s paper should be a clarion call for the charter community not to lose conservatives and Republicans, which includes pushing back against allegations that all charters have gone woke. Charter advocates must recognize the need to shore up their support on the right, even in blue states. And they should never shy away from advertising that they still embrace traditional values like “justice.”
![Student doing math on a white board in classroom](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/2024-07/jl-7-4-24-2-copy.png?itok=4t1EiyEj)
When to choose inquiry-based learning over direct instruction in STEM
Inquiry-based learning in STEM classrooms, long a contentious topic, has been making news since the introduction of the controversial California Math Framework. This student-led approach aims to foster engagement by sparking curiosity and critical thinking. Rather than passively receiving knowledge from an instructor, students take an active role in their learning by searching for evidence, constructing arguments, and collaborating with peers.
So does it work? The short answer is yes, but only when done well and at the correct skill level.
Much of the recent criticism of inquiry-based learning (or at least the version of inquiry-based learning embraced by California) stems from its discouragement of rote memorization. That, in turn, could hinder students’ development of “math fact fluency,” or the ability to recall addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division facts flexibly and efficiently. My colleague Daniel Buck has pointed to seemingly problematic examples of students suggesting multiple ways to solve a multiplication problem. For example, to multiply 12 by 7 in an inquiry-based classroom, some students might add 12 seven times, while others take the sum of 10x7 and 2x7—whereas a student who has memorized their math facts can quickly and confidently recall “84!” without needing to engage in higher-order thinking.
So what’s more valuable: students creatively constructing a well-rounded picture of their math facts or the ability to recall facts quickly when needed?
Both my experience as a middle-school math interventionist and common sense suggest that this is a “both/and” situation. A student who has achieved true number sense should be able to recall the answer to 12x7 without hesitation and to deconstruct the problem in multiple ways.
But don’t just take my word for it. Study after study suggests a combination of automatic recall and critical thinking skills is necessary for developing a robust understanding of mathematics.
Still, grade level and other contextual factors matter when it comes to striking the right balance—and here, the California Framework goes astray. Plenty of research shows that early learners, especially those who are low-achieving, benefit from explicit instruction that is intended to build math fluency. To put it simply, students should absolutely memorize their math facts. Rote memorization and direct instruction are essential during the foundational stages of learning mathematics.
But once students have achieved math fact fluency, inquiry-based learning, done right, offers a pathway to much greater depth of understanding in math and science classrooms. In fact, a growing body of evidence suggests that students learn better with this approach, particularly in the later grades. For example, a 2008 study based in the Detroit Public Schools Community District showed that a new inquiry-based science curriculum in select seventh and eighth grade cohorts was associated with higher standardized achievement test gains on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) exams compared with the rest of the district.
Critics of inquiry-based learning often misunderstand the role of the teacher. Yes, students drive the discussion, but that does not mean they choose where the car is headed. For example, one effective technique is to use “back-pocket questions”—a series of scaffolded questions designed to match individual skill levels and promote productive struggle. During the lesson, the teacher circulates the room, assessing how close students are to finding the correct answer. For groups that are struggling, the teacher poses increasingly leading questions, thus allowing students to think independently while still getting to the right answer.
As this example suggests, inquiry-based instruction is an art rather than a science, and in practice, it requires immense preparation and skill on the part of the instructor. Thus, schools and districts adopting this approach should provide substantial professional development and coaching for teachers. Poor implementation can be detrimental, leaving students to struggle without adequate support.
When executed correctly, inquiry-based learning can significantly boost achievement, especially in later grades. But completely dismissing memorization and direct teaching in the early grades is misguided and risks stunting mathematical development in young learners. A “both/and” approach that considers when direct versus inquiry-based teaching is appropriate will build the strongest number sense. And especially in middle and high school, well-planned inquiry-based lessons could transform STEM classes for the better.
![Child reading in school](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/2024-07/jm-7-4-24.jpg?itok=DVtXYoyQ)
Assessing the federal Striving Readers grant program
Starting in 2010, Congress invested more than $1 billion to assist states with their literacy improvement efforts through the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy (SRCL) program. SRCL was designed to target funding toward disadvantaged schools (defined in several ways), encourage staff to use evidence-based practices, and support teachers in providing fully comprehensive literacy instruction. In total, this competitive program has awarded grants to fourteen states through two application rounds (with a new round just concluded). A recent study from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) assesses how well SRCL implementation has been aligned with program goals and whether student learning in grant-winning states has improved as a result.
Specifically, analysts examined data from the eleven states—Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma—that won awards in 2017 during the second round of grants. The average award was $33 million and was intended to provide three years of literacy support. Data come from school leader surveys describing their approach to using the grant funds during the 2018–19 school year, district staff surveys describing how SRCL funds were used that year, wide-ranging teacher surveys in both 2018–19 and 2019–20, and state grant director interviews. The U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) and Evidence for ESSA databases provided curriculum rating information. Administrative and academic data on students were gathered from various national and state level sources through the 2018–19 school year.
First up, targeting. Overall, the grant funding went where it was supposed to. On average, SRCL schools were relatively disadvantaged compared to non-SRCL schools. Across the four types of student disadvantage that states most commonly considered—low socioeconomic status, English learner status, disability status, and migrant or foster care status—73 percent of SRCL schools ranked in the most disadvantaged quartile in their state on at least one type. In contrast, just 53 percent of non-SRCL schools were disadvantaged in any way, and very few of those were in the top quartile. However, this overall finding masks some problematic targeting in certain states, where student disadvantage was minimally considered as a subgrant criteria or considered at a lower priority than SRCL intended. The analysts note that “some states that placed a heavy emphasis on targeting in the subgrant competition did not achieve it.”
Second, spending. The vast majority of districts (82 percent) used SRCL funds to purchase a core literacy curriculum for all students or a supplemental program to help struggling readers. Unfortunately, many of these curricula were not high quality, meaning they were not supported by strong or even moderate evidence of effectiveness. Of the 236 programs purchased with SRCL funds, only 12 percent had a strong or moderate evidence review rating. No published research could be identified for almost half of the programs purchased. The fault for this is laid at the feet of skittish state grant directors. According to interviews with state officials, only two states (Montana and North Dakota) emphasized the importance of strong or moderate evidence in their grant competition process. Other frequent purchases included literacy-related professional development (84 percent of SRCL districts), books unrelated to a specific curriculum (64 percent), or parent engagement activities (50 percent).
Third, implementation. The researchers looked at six key practices of effective and comprehensive literacy instruction, including an emphasis on phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing; frequent opportunities to practice reading and writing; and regular use of formative assessments. They then assessed each district and school on its adherence to these practices. Overall, no more than 11 percent of teachers in any grade band engaged in all six practices; approximately 80 percent of K–8 teachers met at least three of the six applicable to their grade. The percentage for high school teachers was considerably lower (63 percent). Additionally, high school teachers reported emphasizing practices more common to lower grades (decoding, comprehension, grammar, etc.), which may be an indication that their students were still reading and writing at an elementary school level.
Finally, outcomes. Evidence from the first year of grant implementation shows no difference between SRCL and comparable non-SRCL schools in English language arts achievement trends overall. Combining results across states and grades, the overall difference in ELA achievement between SRCL and non-SRCL schools with similar demographic characteristics was very close to zero and not statistically significant. A tiny glimmer of hope comes from Louisiana and Fordham’s home state of Ohio, which both showed small positive differences in achievement overall. However, disadvantaged students—those specifically intended to be helped by the SRCL grant effort—showed no difference in achievement whether attending SRCL or non-SRCL schools in any state or grade.
The analysts stop short of calling the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy program a failure, citing the possibility that a further year of implementation might yield some actual improvement. There is no concrete reason, however, to assume that previous state decisions on unproven curriculum and established patterns of weak on-the-ground implementation would change significantly without additional incentives or intervention—none of which was forthcoming. And of course, that following year of implementation was 2019–20, when Covid-mitigation disruptions wiped out both data and the positive momentum of many students who had it. Moving forward from pandemic learning losses, states can likely learn a valuable lesson from this example: Money can’t buy success in the realm of literacy interventions without focusing on evidence-based best practices that are implemented faithfully.
SOURCE: Michael S. Garet et al., “Did the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy Grant Program Reach Its Goals? An Implementation Report. Evaluation Report,” National Center for Education Evaluation at IES (May 2024).
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/2024-07/marguerite-roza-resized.jpg?itok=kpay2I_3)
#927: How to shrink schools and school districts as enrollment declines, with Marguerite Roza
On this week’s Education Gadfly Show podcast, Marguerite Roza, the director of the Edunomics Lab and a research professor at Georgetown University, joins Mike and David to discuss how schools and school systems can downsize in response to declining enrollment. Then, on the Research Minute, Adam examines a new study investigating the academic impacts of ESSER funding, the largest one-time federal investment in public schools in history.
Recommended content:
- “The math of school closures: How district leaders should navigate the perfect storm of budget shortfalls and declining student enrollment” —Marguerite Roza & Aashish Dhammani, The 74
- “Schools will have to start closing again” —Michael Petrilli, Wall Street Journal
- “Doing educational equity right: School closures” —Michael Petrilli, Fordham Institute
- Dan Goldhaber and Grace Falken, “ESSER and student achievement: Assessing the impacts of the largest one-time federal investment in K12 schools,” CALDER (June 2024).
Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our podcast? Send them to Daniel Buck at [email protected].
![Fordham Gadfly image](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/2024-07/gadfly-guy.png?itok=6XEhm64h)
Cheers and Jeers: July 4, 2024
Cheers
- The NYC Solves initiative is revamping math instruction and curriculum in the Big Apple. —Education Week
- A new Fordham report finds that Ohio’s brick and mortar charter schools get students the equivalent of 13 extra days-worth of learning. —The Toledo Blade
- The School Toilet Summit convened in Germany to brainstorm ways to improve school bathrooms. —The Guardian
- Combatting identity politics and teaching children what it means to be an American are the keys to preserving American democracy. — Richard D. Kahlenberg, The Liberal Patriot
Jeers
- The teacher preparation pipeline is broken, focusing more on political indoctrination than practical training for prospective educators. —Daniel Buck, National Affairs
- An Alaska supreme court ruling could limit the ability of homeschooling families to spend public monies on private schooling or religious-tinged supplies and curriculum. —Alaska Beacon
![Fordham Gadfly image](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/2024-07/gadfly-guy0.png?itok=Iw7U5iQU)
What we're reading this week: July 4, 2024
- Seventeen states have mandated financial literacy courses since 2020, bring the total up to twenty-five. —The Economist
- School choice policies are proving controversial in conservative, rural communities. —Alec MacGillis, The Atlantic
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down a religious, charter school, but the issue will likely rise again to be decided at the federal Supreme Court. —Joshua Dunn, Education Next
Gadfly Archive
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/default_images/fallback%402x_3_3.png?itok=nmuY2ERj)
The Education Gadfly Weekly: How to improve retention and job satisfaction: “Let Teachers Teach”
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/default_images/fallback%402x_3_3.png?itok=nmuY2ERj)
The Education Gadfly Weekly: Is classical education research-based?
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/default_images/fallback%402x_3_3.png?itok=nmuY2ERj)
The Education Gadfly Weekly: On curriculum and literacy, Texas gets it
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/default_images/fallback%402x_3_3.png?itok=nmuY2ERj)
The Education Gadfly Weekly: One new idea, and two old ones, for moving beyond age-based grouping of students
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/default_images/fallback%402x_3_3.png?itok=nmuY2ERj)
The Education Gadfly Weekly: 5 things we learned this school year
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/default_images/fallback%402x_3_3.png?itok=nmuY2ERj)
The Education Gadfly Weekly: What makes Britain’s most successful school tick
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/default_images/fallback%402x_3_3.png?itok=nmuY2ERj)
The Education Gadfly Weekly: How a parent movement could revolutionize education
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/default_images/fallback%402x_3_3.png?itok=nmuY2ERj)
The Education Gadfly Weekly: Let’s talk about bad teachers
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/default_images/fallback%402x_3_3.png?itok=nmuY2ERj)
The Education Gadfly Weekly: Schools are neglecting advanced learners before high school
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/default_images/fallback%402x_3_3.png?itok=nmuY2ERj)
The Education Gadfly Weekly: Time for a ceasefire in the civics wars
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/default_images/fallback%402x_3_3.png?itok=nmuY2ERj)
The Education Gadfly Weekly: Next, curtail the Chromebooks
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/styles/grid_attachment_size/public/default_images/fallback%402x_3_3.png?itok=nmuY2ERj)