HGF Projects
The Skyrocket Education Program (Beloit, WI)
The Beloit Wisconsin School District is considering implementation of a pilot program for a school in the district that is based on a recommendation and a proposal from Diane Hendricks of the Hendricks Family Foundation. The HGF has researched the program and has found some concerns regarding the proposal presented to the school board. We have put together a report that will be submitted to the School District for their consideration ahead of the vote next Tuesday. (March 3rd, 2026)
Expose Skyrocket - PDF
Skyrocket_References - PDF
Speech delivered to the School Board - by Rachel Riley
Its really tricky when something potentially harmful is buried within something that is in-arguably good. Take one look at the way legislation is done in our country. Proposed bills can have one piece that everyone wants fixed, buried deep inside a bunch of bad ideas. Alternatively, there could one really bad idea overwhelmed by a whole bunch of “common sense”, because what idiot would dare vote against “common sense”? What monster could be against the gift of an expensive literacy program? But this is not a literacy program. The literacy tutoring offer of this proposal is buried within something much bigger in scope, that the public should be made aware of.
Some board members voiced concerns that the unanimous vote requirement seemed manipulative. I shared those concerns, and in the Q and A session with the foundation representative their response did not alleviate my concerns: "A 'no' vote isn't neutral. its opposition. If you're having conversations with other people in the district, if those conversations trickle down in a way that create opposition in that environment, that will not help us be successful. Your being all in matters."
This kind of language should cause alarm bells, as conversations about the success of the program and whether or not it is good for the students and staff should ALWAYS be open for discussion, even if it would lead to once again pulling out of a pilot program. By forcing such a strong commitment from the school board, the foundation makes it less likely that the pilot be abandoned, even if it isn't working or is actively doing harm.
The foundation wants “skin in the game” (their words) because what this is is a radical social experiment. Quote from Brent Fox: "It's a test. We're gonna try something new."
This board, on their way out the door, is deciding whether or not one of our schools will be used in this sociological test. As with any ethical experiment, especially the ones that may negatively impact participants, it CANNOT continue without the full informed consent of those who will be involved and impacted. You cannot put the kids into a program like this without explicitly telling the parents and teachers ahead of time about the potential dangers and increased expectations that will be placed on them. I've seen no evidence that such an outreach has been made to the parents, in fact I'm seeing evidence of the opposite. All of those involved at the chosen school, not just the ones in the literacy program, would need to be informed of this colossal shift, including a full disclosure of the associated hazards. The school district could even be opening itself up to a lawsuit if it continues onward without that informed consent. Someone said “if you say no, you don't care about Beloit's kids.” Here's a quick list of reason why that isn't true at all:
-Skyrocket uses an “emotional constancy” rubric on teachers, which forces fake emotional states.
-The proposal will incentivize those fake emotional states in the presence of emotionally developing children.
-The proposal will incentivize strict adherence to time metrics and precise policies over addressing emotional distress of emotionally developing children.
-Teachers in the program feel exhausted, inauthentic, micromanaged, professionally disrespected, and surveilled.
-Skyrocket could leak over into the district, corrupting the board
-Skyrockets or the Hendricks foundation could end up with sensitive School board information.
-If it goes badly, it could leave a lasting stain on BSD
-This board and this superintendent will not be here to do the hard work they admit they are signing up for.
-The extra tech and strangers in our schools create potential danger for our vulnerable immigrant families and others.
-Its unsustainable and could leave the district not getting much out of the experience but a headache.
-There are no 3rd party research studies that measure Skyrockets success.
-Their coaching is only actively being used in about 60 schools
-Around 240 schools are using their frameworks only, not the full, in depth, on site coaching service that is being pushed here.
To be clear, Skyrocket has nothing to do with the literacy portion of this proposal, but it is the most expensive part. Open Literacy is being coupled with Skyrocket in this unique proposal from the Hendricks foundation, and it has been sold to the public AS a literacy program, which could be viewed as a deceptive move. If you look at where the real money is, it would appear that the Hendricks foundation thinks improving our school culture is actually more important than tutoring kids in reading.
It was my understanding that a schools culture is derived naturally and authentically through the combination of unique personalities within it, not scripted into existence through a, frankly creepy, teacher grading system. It might be in your mind to take this one time, 3 year offer from the Hendricks foundation with the intention of learning some of these techniques and then spreading that throughout the district if it works. Some techniques acquired could no doubt assist in creating a disciplined, joyful learning environment and i think we should look into some of them to use when the teachers find them to be natural and appropriate. But that type of research is available online for free without someone looking over our teachers shoulders.
I understand that we do have a situation with declining literacy rates, but insisting upon implementation of this program by the fall and balking at waiting a year doesn't seem to me to be in the spirit of fully informing the community, either. Giving bonuses to teachers and staff for “strong school-wide culture and proficiency” creates a MASSIVE conflict of interest by incentivizing an environment which does not center on the well-being of the students but the score that teachers get from skyrocket.
Ultimately, literacy scores are dropping and parents aren't engaged because our families are in economic turmoil. Something that would really help the kids in our community would be stable access to affordable housing & food, health & mental health-care. Because i agree with skyrocket on one thing, that in order to be successful, the foundation of a thing has to be solid, but it would seem that we have different interpretations of what “foundational” means for a public school child learning how to read.
I strongly urge and would advise you to vote no on this proposal.
I gave each board member a report on the psychology of Skyrocket and other programs that are proponents of “emotional constancy” in schools, which is controversial. I also gave copies of what I found to the local media, along with a copy of this speech.
References: “Emotions in Narratives”, Yale School of Medicine, Child Study Center: https://medicine.yale.edu/childstudy/services/community-and-schools-programs/center-for-emotional-intelligence/research/current-research/emotions-in-narratives/
“How Social-Emotional Learning Transforms Classrooms”, Greater Good Magazine: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_social_emotional_learning_transforms_classrooms
“The Role of Educators in School-Based Social and Emotional Learning”: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773233925000580
“Modeling Emotional Regulation to Support Students' Growth”: https://www.edutopia.org/article/guiding-students-regulate-emotions-modeling/
“Evidence for Social and Emotional Learning in Schools”: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/evidence-social-emotional-learning-schools-report
“Teachers' Emotions and Emotional Authenticity; Do they Matter to Students Emotional Responses in the Classroom?”: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13540602.2020.1834380 “Surface Acting, Emotional Exhaustion, and Employee Sabotage to Customers: Moderating Roles of Quality of Social Exchanges”: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6246630/ “The Impact of Surface acting and Mindfulness on Preschool Teachers' Burnout: The Roles of Emotional Empathy, and Perceived Organizational Support”: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1612015/full
“New Study Shows Emotional Suppression has Negative Outcomes on Children.” https://www.newyorkfamily.com/new-study-shows-emotional-suppression-has-negative-effect-on-kids/
“Editorial: The role of Teachers' Emotions in Students' Outcomes: From the Perspective of Interpersonal Emotions”: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9755833/
“The Social Consequences of Expressive Suppression”: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-02341-008
“Emotional Suppression: Physiology, Self Report, and Expressive Behavior”: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-36668-001
The Watch
There needs to be information in order to make good decisions, or to form good opinions. There is no substitute for accurate information, or a variety of points of view to help get to accurate information. To that end, the Information Exchange aims to provide information to and get information from alternative channels that are not agenda driven, specifically people from our neighborhoods closest to what's going on. Big media companies have their own agenda's, either because they have a narrative they are actively pushing or because they have financial concerns at odds with their desire to provide accurate information. This network is designed to be free of such concerns, soliciting information from as close to the source of events as possible.