Category: Opinion

  • If We Care About Learning, We Must Care About Kids’ Oral Health – The 74

    If We Care About Learning, We Must Care About Kids’ Oral Health – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    In our country, conversations about improving student performance typically focus on curriculum standards, class size, testing, teacher pay and school technology. These debates are certainly important, but they overlook a quieter factor that affects learning every single day: children’s oral health.

    As a practicing dentist in Montclair, California, I regularly see children whose ability to learn is undermined by untreated dental disease. They arrive in pain, exhausted from poor sleep, unable to concentrate and often embarrassed to smile or speak. These children are not outliers. They represent a widespread and preventable problem that directly affects academic success.

    The connection between oral health and school performance is well-documented. A 2019 meta-analysis found that children with one or more untreated decayed teeth were significantly more likely to have poor academic performance and higher absenteeism rates than children without dental issues. Additional studies consistently show that dental problems are linked to lower grades, difficulty completing homework and reduced psychosocial well-being.

    This relationship is easy to understand. Dental pain interferes with sleep, nutrition, focus and emotional regulation. A child who spends the night awake with a toothache will struggle to pay attention the next day, if they even reach school. According to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health, children with poor oral health were nearly three times as likely to miss school as their healthy counterparts.

    Moreover, a child who feels embarrassed by visible dental issues may avoid participating in class or reading aloud. All the data lead us to the same conclusion: Frequent absences for emergency dental visits cause students to fall behind academically and socially, creating a cycle that becomes harder to break over time.

    Unfortunately, poor oral health disproportionately affects children from low-income families and communities with limited access to dental providers. While California’s Medi-Cal dental coverage exists, low reimbursement rates and provider shortages mean many families struggle to find timely care. In 2022, fewer than half of children enrolled in Medi-Cal received a preventive dental visit. I regularly hear the same story from these distressed parents. They called several offices before finding one that accepts Medi-Cal patients or has open appointments within weeks or even months.

    As a result, minor dental issues often turn into painful infections that disrupt school attendance and learning. This is particularly concerning given that dental caries is the most chronic disease among children in the United States. When combined with socioeconomic disadvantage, limited access to care, and poor oral health becomes a serious public health issue. Across California, Hispanic children are almost twice as likely as white children to experience untreated cavities.

    If decision makers are serious about improving educational outcomes, oral health must be treated as part of the educational system, not as an optional or separate medical concern. School-based dental programs can play a critical role by providing preventive services, early screenings, fluoride treatments, and sealants directly where children already are.

    Dental assistant Leslie Hernandez applies fluoride varnish to a preschooler’s teeth at a dental clinic visit to a school. (Getty Images)

    A great example of good practice is the Virtual Dental Home program in California. It is a demonstration project testing the delivery of health-related services and information via telecommunications technologies. Dental hygienists and assistants go to community sites such as schools, Head Start programs, day care centers and nursing homes to conduct exams and collect diagnostic information. Then the dentist uses the collected data to advise the local provider on the needed preventive and routine restorative care.

    When necessary, patients are referred to dental offices for more complex needs. These lower-cost providers meet many of their patients’ oral health needs. Such programs, if funded by MediCal, would drastically reduce absenteeism and catch problems before they become emergencies.

    Access also depends on policy. Policymakers must increase reimbursement rates to enable more dental providers to accept low-income patients, thereby expanding care for families who currently face long wait times or no options at all. Integrating dental screenings into existing school health services, alongside vision and hearing checks, would help ensure that oral health issues are identified early. At the same time, comprehensive oral health education that involves parents, teachers, and caregivers can reinforce prevention at home and in the classroom.

    We would never expect a child with untreated vision problems to succeed without glasses or a child with hearing loss to learn without support. Expecting children to perform academically while experiencing a toothache and infection is no different.

    Education begins with a child who is healthy, comfortable, and able to focus. If we truly care about learning, we must start treating children’s oral health as what it really is: a foundation for academic success, not an afterthought.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • On a college campus in Minneapolis, a sense of danger and anxiety prevails

    On a college campus in Minneapolis, a sense of danger and anxiety prevails

    by Paul Pribbenow, The Hechinger Report
    January 30, 2026

    Spring semester at Augsburg University in Minneapolis, where I serve as president, began with the sound of helicopters on January 20 — one year after the second Trump inauguration, two weeks after the killing of Renee Good, and four days before the shooting of Alex Pretti. 

    Our campus in the heart of the city is seamlessly integrated with the surrounding neighborhood, so what happens in Minneapolis reaches into the heart of Augsburg. The city offers our students extraordinary opportunities for learning and service; in every discipline, the city acts as an extension of the classroom. 

    The reverse is also true, and what is happening in higher education and in our city right now is unprecedented — a word that has risked losing its meaning through overexposure. Yet I don’t know how else to describe how profoundly the so-called “Operation Metro Surge” has affected our students, faculty, staff, neighbors and community.

    A sense of danger and anxiety permeates Minneapolis. The ongoing federal operation in our streets, the targeting of immigrant communities and the killings of U.S. citizens by federal agents raise profound questions about what justice looks like in practice.

    Related: Fear, arrests and know your rights: How one school district is grappling with ICE coming to town 

    I often think about what this moment means for all of us who serve as college presidents. I firmly believe that we have been called to stand for the historic values that have defined higher education in our democracy for more than 250 years.

    Those values — human dignity, academic freedom, social mobility and the rule of law —must be our North Star no matter what challenges we face. 

    I sincerely hope my colleagues around the country will not face the distressing challenges we have experienced here in Minneapolis. But if they do, perhaps there is something to be learned from our story about what it means to be called to lead in a moment such as this.

    Aside from the helicopters, spring term opened with an unusual quiet on campus. Many more students than usual opted for online classes: After Good was killed, Augsburg immediately pivoted to increase virtual options for students — adding several new online course offerings and increasing caps on existing online courses.

    For some, this decision is about personal safety; others are caring for siblings or family members after a parent was taken by ICE. Some had no choice but to take a temporary leave of absence for the spring; others moved into emergency housing on campus to avoid the risks of a daily commute. 

    In this fraught time, our goal is prioritizing in-person learning as much as possible, while allowing individuals the flexibility to make the best choices they can for their own circumstances. This calculus looks different for every student, faculty member and staffer.

    This work is ongoing, and our academic advisors continue to meet one-on-one with students to navigate the thorny problem of making satisfactory academic progress in a time of personal and collective crisis. 

    At Augsburg, as on many college campuses throughout the U.S. that serve a large number of low-income and first-generation students from diverse backgrounds, these questions are not hypothetical. Our students have been stopped and interrogated by agents in unmarked cars while crossing from one campus building to the next. 

    Many of our Somali American neighbors — including those with citizenship or legal status — are afraid to go out in public, fearing harassment, detainment, or worse. Swatting attacks that have targeted educational institutions around the Twin Cities have prompted multiple evacuations of campus buildings. 

    Most chillingly, ICE  has detained several Augsburg students, including one on campus following a tense confrontation with armed agents in early December. 

    Navigating all of this has been relentless and exhausting. As with any community, Augsburg students, faculty, and staff have diverse viewpoints, including about how best to respond to our current moment. 

    But a truth we hold in common is that education is resistance — not to any political party or administration, but to the forces of dehumanization, violence, and injustice, wherever they are deployed. 

    I am not naïve enough to believe that simply being educated in a university with a deep commitment to the liberal arts will cultivate in the hearts of students that love of the world and their neighbors; they each must make that choice. 

    Related: Opinion: Colleges must start treating immigration-based targeting as a serious threat to student safety and belonging

    But for better or worse, the city is our classroom. Our students are receiving a crash course in what my colleague Najeeba Syeed calls a “lived theology of neighborliness.” 

    In the midst of this crisis, we know that educating students for lives of service has been our core purpose for 157 years. This moment, while difficult, is one we are called to meet in the long arc of higher education’s role in our democracy. The stakes couldn’t be higher.

    Paul C. Pribbenow is the president of Augsburg University.

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]

    This story about Minneapolis and ICE raids was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-on-a-college-campus-in-minneapolis-a-sense-of-danger-and-anxiety-prevails/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=114597&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-on-a-college-campus-in-minneapolis-a-sense-of-danger-and-anxiety-prevails/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • The debate over AI in education is stuck. Let’s move it forward in responsible ways that truly serve students

    The debate over AI in education is stuck. Let’s move it forward in responsible ways that truly serve students

    by Maddy Sims, The Hechinger Report
    January 29, 2026

    Artificial intelligence is already reshaping how we work, communicate and create. In education, however, the conversation is stuck.

    Sensational headlines make it seem like AI will either save public education (“AI will magically give teachers back hours in their day!”) or destroy it completely (“Students only use AI to cheat!” “AI will replace teachers!”).

    These dueling narratives dominate public debate as state and district leaders scramble to write policies, field vendor pitches and decide whether to ban or embrace tools that often feel disconnected from what teachers and students actually experience in classrooms.

    What gets lost is the fundamental question of what learning should look like in a world in which AI is everywhere. And that is why, last year, rather than debate whether AI belongs in schools, approximately 40 policymakers and sector leaders took stock of the roadblocks in an education system designed for a different era and wrestled with what it would take to move forward responsibly.

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.

    The group included educators, researchers, funders, parent advocates and technology experts and was convened by the Center on Reinventing Public Education. What emerged from the three-day forum was a clearer picture of where the field is stuck and a shared recognition of how common assumptions are holding leaders back and of what a more coherent, human-centered approach to AI could look like.

    We agreed that there are several persistent myths derailing conversations about AI in education, and came up with shifts for combating them.

    Myth #1: AI’s biggest value is saving time for teachers

    Teachers are overburdened, and many AI tools promise relief through faster lesson planning, automated grading or instant feedback. These uses matter, but forum participants were clear that efficiency alone will not transform education.

    Focusing too narrowly on time savings risks locking schools more tightly into systems that were never designed to prepare students for the world they are graduating into.

    The deeper issue isn’t how to use AI to save time. It’s how to create a shared vision for what high-quality, future-ready learning should actually look like. Without that clarity, even the best tools quietly reinforce the same factory-model structures educators are already struggling against.

    The shift: Stop asking what AI can automate. Start asking what kinds of learning experiences students deserve, and how AI might help make those possible.

    Myth #2: The main challenge is getting the right AI tools into classrooms

    The education technology market is already crowded, and AI has only added to the noise. Teachers are often left stitching together core curricula, supplemental programs, tutoring services and now AI tools with little guidance.

    Forum participants pushed back on the idea that better tools alone will solve this problem. The real challenge, they argued, is to align how learning is designed and experienced in schools — and the policies meant to support that work — with the skills students need to thrive in an AI-shaped world. An app is not a learning model. A collection of tools does not add up to a strategy.

    Yet this is not only a supply-side problem. Educators, policymakers and funders have struggled to clearly articulate what they need amid a rapidly advancing technology environment.

    The shift: Define coherent learning models first. Evaluate AI tools based on whether they reinforce shared goals and integrate with one another to support consistent teaching and learning practices, not whether they are novel or efficient on their own.

    Myth #3: Leaders must choose between fixing today’s schools and inventing new models

    One of the tensions dominating the discussions was whether scarce state, local and philanthropic resources should be used to improve existing schools or to build entirely new models of learning.

    Some participants worried that using AI to personalize lessons or improve tutoring simply props up systems that no longer work. Others emphasized the moral urgency of improving conditions for students in classrooms right now.

    Rather than resolving this debate, participants rejected the false choice. They argued for an “ambidextrous” approach: improving teaching and learning in the present while intentionally laying the groundwork for fundamentally different models in the future.

    The shift: Leaders must ensure they do not lose sight of today’s students or of tomorrow’s possibilities. Wherever possible, near-term pilot programs should help build knowledge about broader redesign.

    Myth #4: AI strategy is mainly a technical or regulatory challenge

    Many states and districts have focused AI efforts on acceptable-use policies. Creating guardrails certainly matters, but when compliance eclipses learning and redesign, it creates a chilling effect, and educators don’t feel safe to experiment.

    The shift: Policy should build in flexibility for learning and iteration in service of new models, not just act as a brake pedal to combat bad behavior.

    Myth #5: AI threatens the human core of education

    Perhaps the most powerful reframing the group came up with: The real risk isn’t that AI will replace human relationships in schools. It’s that education will fail to define and protect what is most human.

    Participants consistently emphasized belonging, purpose, creativity, critical thinking and connection as essential outcomes in an AI-shaped world.

    But they will be fostered only if human-centered design is intentional, not assumed.

    The shift: If AI use doesn’t support students’ connections between their learning, their lives and their futures, it won’t be transformative, no matter how advanced the technology.

    The group’s participants did not produce a single blueprint for the future of education, but they came away with a shared recognition that efficiency won’t be enough, tools alone won’t save us and fear won’t guide the field.

    Related: In a year that shook the foundations of education research, these 10 stories resonated in 2025

    The question is no longer whether AI will shape education. It is whether educators, communities and policymakers will look past the headlines and seize this moment to shape AI’s role in ways that truly serve students now and in the future.

    Maddy Sims is a senior fellow at the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE), where she leads projects focused on studying and strengthening innovation in education.

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

    This story about AI in education was produced byThe Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-ai-education-responsible-ways-serve-students/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=114551&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-ai-education-responsible-ways-serve-students/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • What Education Leaders Can Learn from the AI Gold Rush – The 74

    What Education Leaders Can Learn from the AI Gold Rush – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Every week, my 7-year-old brings home worksheets with math problems and writing assignments. But what captivates me is what he creates on the back once the assigned work is done: power-ups for imaginary games, superheroes with elaborate backstories, landscapes that evolve weekly. He exists in a beautiful state of discovery and joy, in the chrysalis before transformation.

    My son shows me it’s possible to discover something remarkable when we expand what we consider possible. Yet in education, a system with 73% public dissatisfaction and just 35% satisfied with K-12 quality, we hit walls repeatedly.

    This inertia contributes to our current moment: steep declines in reading and math proficiency since 2019, one in eight teaching positions unfilled or filled by uncertified teachers, and growing numbers abandoning public education.

    Contrast this with artificial intelligence’s current trajectory.

    AI faces massive uncertainty. Nobody knows where it leads or which approaches will prove most valuable. Ethical questions around bias, privacy and accountability remain unresolved.

    Yet despite uncertainty — or because of it — nearly every industry is doubling down. Four major tech firms planned $315 billion in AI spending for 2025 alone. AI adoption surged from 55% to 78% of organizations in one year, with 86% of employers expecting AI to transform their businesses by 2030.

    This is a gold rush. Entire ecosystems are seeing transformational potential and refusing to be left behind. Organizations invest not despite uncertainty, but because standing still carries greater risk.

    There’s much we can learn from the AI-fueled momentum.

    To be clear, this isn’t an argument about AI’s merits. This is a conversation about what becomes possible when people come together around shared aspirations to restore hope, agency and possibility to education. AI’s approach reveals five guiding principles that education leaders should follow:

    1. Set a Bold Vision: AI leaders speak in radical terms. Education needs such bold aspirations, not five percent improvements. Talk about 100% access, 100% thriving, 100% success. Young people are leading by demanding approaches that honoring their agency, desire for belonging, and broad aspirations. We need to follow their lead.

    2. Play the Long Game: Companies make massive investments for transformation they may not see for years. Education must embrace the same long-term thinking: investing in teacher development programs that mature over years, reimagining curricula for students’ distant futures, building systems that support sustainable excellence over immediate political wins.

    3. Don’t Fear Mistakes: AI adoption is rife with failure and course corrections. Despite rapid belief and investment, over 80% of AI projects fail. Yet companies continue experimenting, learning, adjusting and trying again because they understand that innovation requires iteration. Education must take bold swings, have honest debriefs when things fall flat, adjust and move forward.

    4. Democratize Access: AI reached 1.7 to 1.8 billion users globally in 2025. While quality varies and significant disparities exist, fundamental access has been opened up in ways that seemed impossible just years ago. When it comes to transformative change in education, every child deserves high-quality teachers, engaging curriculum and flourishing environments.

    5. Own the Story, and Pass the Mic: Every day, AI gains new ambassadors among everyday people, inspiring others to jump in. The most powerful education stories come from young people discovering breakthroughs during light bulb moments, from parents seeing children thrive, from teachers witnessing walls coming down and possibilities surpassing imagination. We need to pass the mic, creating platforms for students to share what meaningful learning looks like, which will unlock aspirational stories that shift the system.

    None of this is possible without student engagement. When students have voice and agency, believe in learning’s relevance and feel supported, transformative outcomes follow. As CEO of Our Turn, I was privileged to be part of efforts that inspired leaders and institutions across the country to invest in student engagement as a core strategy. We’re now seeing progress: all eight measures of school engagement tracked by Gallup reached their highest levels in 2025. This is an opportunity to build positive momentum; research consistently demonstrates engagement relates to academic achievement, post-secondary readiness, critical thinking, persistence and enhanced mental health.

    Student engagement is the foundation from which all other educational outcomes flow. When we center student voice, we go from improving schools to galvanizing the next generation of engaged citizens and leaders our democracy desperately needs.

    High-quality teachers are also essential. Over 365,000 positions are filled by uncertified teachers, with 45,500 unfilled. Teachers earn 26.4% less than similarly educated professionals. About 90% of vacancies result from teachers leaving due to low salaries, difficult conditions or inadequate support.

    Programs like Philadelphia’s City Teaching Alliance prove what’s possible: over 90% of new teachers returned after 2023-24, versus just under 80% citywide. We must create conditions where teaching is sustainable and honored through higher salaries, better working conditions, meaningful professional development and cultures that value educators as professionals.

    Investing in teacher quality is fundamental to workforce development, economic competitiveness and ensuring every child has access to excellent instruction. When we frame this as both a moral imperative and an economic necessity, we create the coalition necessary for lasting change.

    Finally, transformation must focus on skill development. The workforce young people are entering demands more than technical knowledge; it requires integrated capabilities for navigating complexity, building authentic relationships and creating meaningful change.

    At Harmonious Leadership, we’ve worked with foundations and organizations to develop leadership skills that result in greater innovation and impact. Our goals: young people more engaged in school and communities, and companies reporting greater levels of innovation, impact and financial sustainability.

    The appeal here is undeniable. Workforce development consistently ranks among the top priorities across political divides. Given the rapid rate of change in our culture and economy, we need to develop skills for careers that don’t yet exist, for challenges we can’t yet imagine, for a world that demands creativity, adaptability and resilience.

    The AI gold rush shows what’s possible when we set bold visions, invest for the long term, embrace learning from failure, democratize access and amplify voices closest to transformation.Our children, like my son drawing superheroes on worksheet backs, are in chrysalis moments. The choice is ours: remain paralyzed by complexity or channel the same urgency, investment and unity of purpose driving the AI revolution. We know what works: student engagement, quality teachers and future-ready skills. The question isn’t whether we have solutions. It’s whether we have courage to pursue them.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • OPINION: Colleges need to recruit more men, but Trump’s policies are making it difficult

    OPINION: Colleges need to recruit more men, but Trump’s policies are making it difficult

    by Catharine Hill, The Hechinger Report
    January 20, 2026

    While attending a gathering of Ivy League women years ago, I upset the audience by commenting that a real challenge for U.S. higher education was the declining participation of men in higher education, not just the glass ceiling and unequal pay faced by women.  

    At the time, I was president of Vassar College (which did not become co-ed until 1969). We surveyed newly admitted students as well as first-year students and learned that the majority expressed a preference for a gender-balanced student body, with as co-educational an environment as possible.  

    With fewer men applying, that meant admitting them at a higher rate, something some other selective colleges and universities were already doing. While, historically, men were much more likely to attain a college degree than women, that changed by 1980. For more than four decades now, the number of women on campuses has surpassed the number of men.  

    Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter. 

    These days, 27 percent more women than men age 25 to 34 have earned a bachelor’s degree, according to the Pew Research Center. Aiming for greater gender balance, some colleges and universities have put a “thumb on the scale” to admit and matriculate more men.  

    But the end of affirmative action, along with the Trump administration’s statements warning schools against considering gender identity (or race, ethnicity, nationality, political views, sexual orientation and religious associations) in admissions, could end this preference. 

    To be clear, I believe that the goal of admissions preferences, including for men, should be to increase overall educational attainment, not to advantage one group over another. Economic and workforce development should be a top higher education priority, because many high-demand and well-paying jobs require a college degree. America should therefore be focused on increasing educational attainment because it is important to our global competitiveness. And the selective schools that have high graduation rates should give a preference to students who are underrepresented in higher education — including men — because it will get more Americans to and through college and benefit our economy and society.  

    Preferencing students from groups with lower overall educational attainment also helps colleges meet their own goals.  

    For schools that admit just about all comers, attracting more men — through changes in recruitment strategies, adjustments in curricula and programs to support retention — is part of a strategy to sustain enrollment in the face of the demographic cliff (the declining number of American 18-year-olds resulting from the drop in the birth rate during the Great Recession) and declining international applicants due to the administration’s policies.  

    Colleges that don’t admit nearly all applicants have a different goal: balancing the share of men and women because it helps them compete for students.  

    Selective schools don’t really try to admit more men to serve the public good of increasing overall educational attainment. They believe the students they are trying to attract prefer a co-educational experience. 

    We are living in a global economy that rewards talent. When selective colleges take more veterans, lower-income students and students from rural areas and underrepresented groups, the chance of these students graduating increases. That increases the talent pool, helping to meet employer demand for workers with bachelor’s degrees.  

    The U.S. has been slipping backward in education compared to our peers for several decades. To reverse this trend, we need to get more of our population through college. The best way to do this is by targeting populations with lower educational attainment, including men. But by adding gender to the list of characteristics that should not be considered in admissions decisions, the Trump administration is telling colleges and universities to take the thumb off the scale for men.  

    I suspect this was unintended or resulted from a misunderstanding of who has actually been getting a preference in the admissions process, and in assuming incorrectly that women and/or nonbinary applicants have benefited.  

    Over the last 15 years or more, some attributes, including academic performance, have likely been traded off in order to admit more men. How big these trade-offs have been has differed from college to college and will be hard to calculate, given all the student characteristics that are considered in making admissions decisions.  

    I’m in favor of making these trade-offs to contribute to improved overall educational attainment in America.  

    But given the Trump administration’s lumping of gender with race, college and university policies intended to attract men will now face the same legal challenges that affirmative action policies aimed at improving educational attainment and fairness face.  

    Differential admit rates will be scrutinized. Even if the administration doesn’t challenge these trade-offs, rejected women applicants may seek changes through the courts and otherwise, just as happened with regard to race.  

    Related: Trump’s attacks on DEI may hurt men in college admission  

    Admitting male athletes could also unintentionally be at risk. If low-income has become a “proxy” for race, then athletic admits could become “proxies” for men. (Some schools have publicly stated that they were primarily introducing football to attract male applicants.) 

    Colleges and universities, including selective ones, are heavily subsidized by federal, state and local governments because they have historically been perceived as serving the public good, contributing to equal opportunity and strengthening our economy.  

    Admissions decisions should be evaluated on these grounds, with seats at the selective schools allocated according to what will most contribute to the public good, including improving our nation’s talent pool.  

    Targeting populations with lower-than-average college-going rates will help accomplish this. That includes improving access and success for all underserved groups, including men.  

    Unfortunately, the current administration’s policies are working directly against this and are likely to worsen educational attainment in America and our global competitiveness.  

    Catharine “Cappy” Hill is the former managing director of Ithaka S+R and former president of Vassar College. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about men and college was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter. 

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/colleges-men-trump-new-policies-disadvantage/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=114387&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/colleges-men-trump-new-policies-disadvantage/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • After L.A.’s Wildfires, Reshaping Disaster Response to Address Children’s Needs – The 74

    After L.A.’s Wildfires, Reshaping Disaster Response to Address Children’s Needs – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    As the one-year anniversary of the Los Angeles wildfires passes, rebuilding efforts continue to lag despite assurances to the contrary and many families are still navigating their search for a return to normalcy. For children in particular, the effects of a disaster do not end when the smoke clears or the debris is removed. 

    As more people’s lives are upended each year due to climate disasters communities — and our political leaders at the local, state and federal levels — must do more to ensure the needs of children and families are met during these emergencies.

    During wildfires and other disasters, we continually see the familiar pattern of school closures, child care disruption, families moving into temporary housing and routines essential to children’s sense of safety abruptly severed. Communities and political leaders at every level must confront a hard truth: Our emergency systems were not designed with children in mind. 

    During wildfires, schools and child care systems are among the first institutions to fail. Children are displaced from classrooms, separated from trusted adults and thrust into shelters or hotel rooms never designed to support their physical, emotional or developmental needs. Studies show that stress brought on by exposure to natural disasters can have an outsized impact on children and lead to lifelong trauma. This trauma can lead to socio-emotional impairments; health-risk behaviors, such as alcohol and drug abuse; and even early death, according to the Adverse Childhood Experiences study published in 2011 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Kaiser Permanente. 

    This past year has made it clear that local jurisdictions can no longer rely on federal disaster systems to carry the full burden of recovery. As the future of entities such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency becomes more uncertain, states, cities and counties must assume greater responsibility for protecting their most vulnerable citizens. 

    This starts with treating schools as critical infrastructure. While schools became formally recognized as part of critical infrastructure — specifically within the Education Facilities subsector in 2003 under Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7 (HSPD-7) — they are not allocated commensurate resources and protections for security as other designated critical infrastructure. 

    The Covid-19 pandemic underscored the central role that schools play in economic stability, as widespread closures rapidly disrupted labor markets and productivity. Treating schools as critical infrastructure would align education with other essential public systems that underpin public health, safety and economic performance; as such, it merits long-term investment.

    Second, schools need contingency plans that ensure continuity of in-person education when normal operations are disrupted. After the LA wildfires, many schools scrambled to set up alternate sites or transitioned to online learning. Students are still making up learning losses from the pandemic, and it is unclear whether those losses can be stemmed. Online learning should be used only when all other options have been exhausted, given the devastating impacts on student learning. The planning needs to begin now, not after disaster strikes.  

    Third, practice is key to success. Emergency plans often fail children not because they are poorly written but because they are never written with children in mind. Children experience disasters differently than adults, and procedures designed without them can inadvertently heighten fear and trauma. Age-appropriate drills, school-based tabletop exercises and responder training in developmentally appropriate communication can dramatically improve outcomes. 

    Local governments can formally integrate school districts, child care providers and pediatric health systems into emergency planning rather than treating them as afterthoughts once a crisis unfolds. Practicing with children builds familiarity, reduces panic and accelerates recovery — not just for young people, but for entire communities.

    Finally, funding structures must reflect the realities families face after disasters. While billions are allocated for fire suppression and mitigation, far fewer resources are earmarked for sustaining schools, child care and pediatric mental health in the months and years that follow. Local and state governments should establish dedicated funding streams for child- and family-centered recovery — supporting school continuity, mental health care and family stabilization — since these investments can reduce long-term social and economic costs.

    Implementing a family-centric disaster response model isn’t just a moral imperative. Adverse childhood experiences lead to an economic burden of  hundreds of billions of dollars annually in the U.S, much of it absorbed by taxpayers through Medicaid and Medicare spending, special education, disability programs and lost lifetime tax revenue. When disaster responses destabilize children, short-term emergencies are converted into long-term public liabilities, driving government inefficiency and reactive spending. These failures also spill into insurance markets, increasing claims, raising premiums and deepening reliance on federal backstops that distort risk pools and shift costs to the public.

    In an era of escalating disasters and constrained budgets, policies that protect family stability during crises are not social add-ons but high-return investments: reducing future taxpayer exposure, stabilizing insurance systems and limiting the need for costly federal intervention after the fact.

    The one-year mark of the Los Angeles wildfires should not serve as a memorial to what was lost, but as a reckoning with what must change. Disasters will continue to test our systems, but allowing children to bear the brunt of those failures is a policy choice, not an inevitability. Protecting children during emergencies necessitates radical change. If we fail to act, we are not merely accepting risk: We are knowingly passing preventable harm and long-term costs onto the next generation.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • The time to prepare young people for a future shaped by computer science is during middle school

    The time to prepare young people for a future shaped by computer science is during middle school

    by Jim Ryan, The Hechinger Report
    January 19, 2026

    The future of work will demand fluency in both science and technology. From addressing climate change to designing ethical AI systems, tomorrow’s challenges will require interdisciplinary thinkers who can navigate complex systems and harness the power of computation. 

    And that is why we can’t wait until high school or college to integrate computer science into general science. 

    The time to begin is during middle school, that formative period when students begin to shape their identities, interests and aspirations. If schools want to prepare young people for a future shaped by technology, they must act now to ensure that computer science is not a privilege for a few but a foundation for all. 

    The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts more than 300,000 computer science job openings every year through 2034 — a rate of growth that far outpaces most other sectors. Yet despite this demand, in 2024, only about 37 percent of public middle schools reported offering computer science coursework. 

    This gap is more than a statistic — it’s a warning sign that the U.S. technology sector will be starved for the workforce it needs to thrive.  

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education. 

    One innovative way to close this gap is by integrating computer science into the general science curriculum at every middle school. This approach doesn’t require additional class periods or separate electives. Instead — by using computational thinking and digital tools to develop student understanding of real-world scientific phenomena — it reimagines how we teach science. 

    Science and computer science are already deeply interconnected in the real world. Scientists use computational models to simulate climate systems, analyze genetic data and design experiments. And computer scientists often draw inspiration from biology, physics and chemistry to develop algorithms and solve complex problems, such as by modeling neural networks after the brain’s architecture and simulating quantum systems for cryptography. 

    Teaching these disciplines together helps students see how both science and computer science are applicable and relevant to their lives and society.  

    Integrating computer science into middle school science instruction also addresses long-standing equity issues. When computer science is offered only as a separate elective, access often depends on prior exposure, school funding and parental advocacy. This creates barriers for students from underrepresented backgrounds, who may never get the chance to discover their interests or talents in computing.  

    Embedding computer science into core science classes helps to ensure that every student — regardless of zip code, race or gender — can build foundational skills in computing and see themselves as empowered problem-solvers. 

    Teachers must be provided the tools and support to make this a reality. Namely, schools should have access to middle school science curriculums that have computer science concepts directly embedded in the instruction. Such units don’t teach coding in isolation — they invite students to customize the sensors that collect data, simulate systems and design coded solutions to real-world problems. 

    For example, students can use computer science to investigate the question: “Why does contact between objects sometimes but not always cause damage, and how can we protect against damage?”  

    Students can also use sensors and programming to develop solutions to measure the forces of severe weather. In doing so, they’re not just learning science and computer science — they’re learning how to think like scientists and engineers. 

    Related: The path to a career could start in middle school 

    Integrating general science with computer science doesn’t require more instructional time. It simply requires us to consider how we can use computer science to efficiently investigate the science all students already study. 

    Rather than treating computer science as an add-on, we can weave it into the fabric of how students investigate, analyze and design.  

    This approach will not only deepen their understanding of scientific concepts but also build transferable skills in logic, creativity and collaboration. 

    Students need to start learning computer science earlier in their education, and we need to start in the science classroom by teaching these skills in middle school. To ensure that today’s students grow into tomorrow’s innovators and problem-solvers, we must treat computer science as foundational, not optional. 

    Jim Ryan is the executive director of OpenSciEd. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about computer science in middle school was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter. 

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/high-school-college-computer-science-lessons/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=114382&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/high-school-college-computer-science-lessons/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • The 6-7 Craze Offered A Brief Window Into the Hidden World of Children – The 74

    The 6-7 Craze Offered A Brief Window Into the Hidden World of Children – The 74

    Many adults are breathing a sigh of relief as the 6-7 meme fades away as one of the biggest kid-led global fads of 2025.

    In case you managed to miss it, 6-7 is a slang term – spoken aloud as “six seven” – accompanied by an arm gesture that mimics someone weighing something in their hands.

    It has no real meaning, but it spawned countless videos across various platforms and infiltrated schools and homes across the globe. Shouts of “6-7” disrupted classrooms and rained down at sporting events. Think pieces proliferated.

    For the most part, adults responded with mild annoyance and confusion.

    But as media scholars who study children’s culture, we didn’t view the meme with bewilderment or exasperation. Instead, we thought back to our own childhoods on three different continents – and all the secret languages we spoke.

    There was Pig Latin. The cool “S” doodled on countless worksheets and bathroom stalls. Forming an L-shape with our thumb and index finger to insult someone. Remixing the words of hand-clapping games from previous generations.

    6-7 is only the latest example of these long-standing practices – and though the gesture might not mean much to adults, it says a lot about children’s play, their social lives and their desire for power.

    The irresistible allure of 6-7

    You can see this longing for power in classic play like spying on adults and in games like “king of the hill.”

    A typical school day involves a tight schedule of adult-directed activities; kids have little time or space for agency.

    Kids spend much of their days watched and controlled – and will jump at the chance to turn the tables. (H.Armstrong Roberts/ClassicStock via Getty Images)

    But during those in-between times when children are able to stealthily evade adult surveillance – on playgrounds, on the internet and even when stuck at home during the pandemic – children’s culture can thrive. In these spaces, they can make the rules. They set the terms. And if it confuses adults, all the better.

    As 6-7 went viral, teachers complained that random outbursts by their students were interrupting their lessons. Some started avoiding asking any kind of question that might result in an answer of 67. The trend migrated from schools to sports arenas and restaurants: In-N-Out Burger ended up banning the number 67 from their ticket ordering system.

    The meaninglessness of 6-7 made it easy to create a sense of inclusion and exclusion – and to annoy adults, who strained to decipher hidden meanings. In the U.S., siblings and friends dressed as the numbers 6-7 for Halloween. And in Australia, it was rumored that houses with 6-7 in their address were going for astronomical prices.

    Remixing games and rhymes

    Since before World War I, historians have documented children’s use of secret languages like “back slang,” which happens when words are phonetically spoken backwards. And nonsense words and phrases have long proliferated in children’s culture: Recent examples include “booyah,” “skibidi” and “talk to the hand.”

    6-7 also coincides with a long history of children revising, adapting and remixing games and rhymes.

    For example, in our three countries – the U.S., Australia and South Korea – we’ve encountered endless variations of the game of “tag.” Sometimes the chasers pretend to be the dementors from Harry Potter. Other times the chasers have pretended to be the COVID-19 virus. Or we’ll see them incorporate their immediate surroundings, like designating playground equipment as “home” or “safe.”

    Similar games can spread among children around the world. In South Korea, “Mugunghwa kkochi pieotseumnida” – which roughly translates to “The rose of Sharon has bloomed,” a reference to South Korea’s national flower – is similar to the game “Red Light, Green Light” in English-speaking countries. In the game “Hwang-ma!,” South Korean children in the early aughts shouted the word and playfully struck a peer upon seeing a rare, gold-colored car, a game similar to “Punch Buggy” and “Slug Bug” in the U.S. and Australia.

    A group of young children play a game in a field on an autumn day.
    Variations of ‘Red Light, Green Light’ exist around the world.
    Jarek Tuszyński/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    Historically, children have reworked rhymes and clapping games to draw on popular culture of the day. “Georgie Best, Superstar,” sung to the tune of “Jesus Christ Superstar,” was a popular chant on U.K. playgrounds in the 1970s that celebrated the legendary soccer player George Best. And a variation of the clapping game “I went to a Chinese Restaurant” included the lyrics “My name is, Elvis Presley, girls are sexy, Sitting on the back seat, drinking Pepsi.”

    Making space for children’s culture

    One reason 6-7 became so popular is the low barrier to entry: Saying “6-7” and doing the accompanying hand movement is easy to pick up and translate into different cultural contexts. The simplicity of the meme allowed young Korean children to repeat the phrase in English. And deaf children have participated by signing the meme.

    Because the social worlds of children now exist across a range of online spaces, 6-7 has been able to seamlessly spread and evolve. On the gaming platform Roblox, for example, children can create avatars that resemble 6-7 and play games that feature the numbers.

    The strange words, nonsensical games and creative play of your childhood might seem ridiculous today. But there’s real value in these hidden worlds.

    With or without access to the internet, children will continue to transform language and games to suit their needs – which, yes, includes getting under the skin of adults.

    A great deal of attention is given to the omnipresence of digital technologies in children’s lives, but we think it’s worth taking a moment to appreciate the way children are using these technologies to innovate and connect in ways both creative and mundane.The Conversation

    Rebekah Willett, Professor in the Information School, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Amanda Levido, Lecturer, Southern Cross University, and Hyeon-Seon Jeong, Professor of Digital Media Education, Gyeongin National University of Education



    Source link

  • OPINION: Colleges must start treating immigration-based targeting as a serious threat to student safety and belonging  

    OPINION: Colleges must start treating immigration-based targeting as a serious threat to student safety and belonging  

    by Madison Forde, The Hechinger Report
    January 12, 2026

    Last month, a Boston University junior proudly posted online that he had spent months calling Immigration and Customs Enforcement to report Latino workers at a neighborhood car wash.

    Nine people were detained, including siblings and a 67-year-old man who has lived in the U.S. for decades. The student celebrated the arrests and told ICE to “pump up the numbers.”

    As the daughter of Caribbean immigrants and a researcher who studies immigrant-origin youth, I was shaken but not surprised. This incident, which did have some backlash, revealed a growing problem on college campuses: Many young people are learning to police one another rather than learn alongside one another.

    That means the new border patrol could be your classmate. Our schools are not prepared for this.

    That is why colleges must start treating immigration-based targeting as a serious threat to student safety and belonging and take immediate steps to prevent it — as they do with racism, antisemitism and homophobia.

    Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

    The incident at Boston University is bigger than one student with extreme views. We are living in a moment shaped by online outrage, anonymous tip lines and a culture that encourages reporting anyone who seems “suspicious.”

    In this environment, some young people have started to believe that calling ICE is a form of civic duty.

    That thinking doesn’t stay online. It walks right into classrooms, dorms and group projects. When it does, the impact is not abstract. It is deeply personal for the immigrant-origin youth sitting in those same rooms.

    Many of these students grew up with fear woven into their daily lives. Their neighbors disappeared overnight, they heard stories of parents being detained at work and they began translating legal mail before they were old enough to drive. They know exactly what an ICE call can set into motion. They carry that fear with them to school.

    These are not hypothetical harms. They show up in everyday decisions: where to sit, what to say, whom to trust. I’ve met students who avoid speaking Spanish on campus, refuse to share their address during class activities and sit near the exits because they’re not sure who views their family as “a threat.” It is not possible to learn well in an environment where you do not feel safe.

    There is a strong body of developmental research highlighting belonging and social inclusion as central to healthy development. In her work on migration and acculturation, Carola Suárez-Orozco shows that legal-status-based distinctions among youth intensify exclusion and undermine both social integration and developmental well-being.

    When belonging erodes, colleges begin to function like small border zones, where everyone is quietly assessing who might turn them in. It is nearly impossible for any campus community to thrive under that kind of pressure.

    Quite frankly, nor can America’s democracy.

    If we raise a generation of students who feel compelled to police the nation’s borders from their dorms, the immigrant-origin youth sitting beside them in classrooms will carry the psychological burden of those borders every single day. Yet colleges are almost entirely unprepared for this reality.

    Most universities have clear policies for racial slurs, antisemitic threats, homophobic harassment and other identity-based harms. But very few have policies that address immigration-based targeting, even though the consequences can be just as severe and, in some cases, life-altering.

    Boston University’s president acknowledged the distress caused by that student’s actions. Yet, the university did not classify the behavior as discriminatory, despite the fact that his calls targeted a specific ethnic and immigration-status group. That silence sends a clear message: Harm against immigrant communities is unimportant, incidental or simply “political.” But this harm is neither political nor the price of free expression or civic engagement; it is targeted intimidation, with real and measurable consequences for students’ safety, mental health and academic engagement.

    In my view, colleges need to take three straightforward steps:

    1. Define immigration-based harassment as misconduct. Calling ICE on classmates, doxxing immigrant peers or circulating immigration-related rumors should be classified under the same conduct codes that protect students from other forms of targeted harm. Schools know how to do this; they simply have not applied those same protections to immigrant communities.

    2. Train faculty and staff on how to respond. Professors should have a clear understanding of what to do when immigration rhetoric is weaponized in the classroom, or when students express fear about being reported. Although many professors want to help, they may lack basic guidance.

    3. Teach immigration literacy as part of civic education. Most students do not understand what ICE detention entails, how long legal cases can drag on or what it means to live with daily fear like their immigrant peers. Teaching these realities isn’t “political indoctrination,” it is preparation for a life in a multicultural democracy.

    These three steps are not radical. They are merely the same kinds of protections colleges already provide to students targeted for other aspects of their identity.

    Related: STUDENT VOICES: ‘Dreamers’ like us need our own resource centers on college campuses

    The Boston University case is a warning, not an isolated moment. If campuses fail to respond, more young people will internalize the idea that policing their peers is simply part of student life. Immigrant-origin youth, who have done nothing wrong, will carry the emotional burden alone.

    As students, educators and researchers, we have to decide what kind of learning communities we want to build and sustain. Schools can be places where students understand one another, or they can become places of intense surveillance. That choice will shape not just campus climates, but also the society current students will eventually lead.

    Madison Forde is a doctoral student in the Clinical/Counseling Psychology program at New York University.

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

    This story about immigration-based targeting at colleges was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-colleges-must-start-treating-immigration-based-targeting-as-a-serious-threat-to-student-safety-and-belonging/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=114272&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-colleges-must-start-treating-immigration-based-targeting-as-a-serious-threat-to-student-safety-and-belonging/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Instead of defining Black children by their test scores, we should help them overcome academic barriers and pursue their dreams

    Instead of defining Black children by their test scores, we should help them overcome academic barriers and pursue their dreams

    by Nosakhere Griffin-EL, The Hechinger Report
    January 5, 2026

    Across the U.S., public school districts are panicking over test scores.

    The National Assessment of Educational Progress, or the Nation’s Report Card, as it is known, revealed that students are underperforming in reading, with the most recent scores being the lowest overall since the test was first given in 1992.

    The latest scores for Black children have been especially low. In Pittsburgh, for example, only 26 percent of Black third- through fifth-grade public school students are reading at advanced or proficient levels compared to 67 percent of white children.

    This opportunity gap should challenge us to think differently about how we educate Black children. Too often, Black children are labeled as needing “skills development.” The problem is that such labels lead to educational practices that dim their curiosity and enthusiasm for school — and overlook their capacity to actually enjoy learning.

    As a result, without that enjoyment and the encouragement that often accompanies it, too many Black students grow up never feeling supported in the pursuit of their dreams.

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.

    Narrowly defining children based on their test scores is a big mistake. We, as educators, must see children as advanced dreamers who have the potential to overcome any academic barrier with our support and encouragement.

    As a co-founder of a bookstore, I believe there are many ways we can do better. I often use books and personal experiences to illustrate some of the pressing problems impacting Black children and families.

    One of my favorites is “Abdul’s Story” by Jamilah Thompkins-Bigelow.

    It tells the tale of a gifted young Black boy who is embarrassed by his messy handwriting and frequent misspellings, so much so that, in erasing his mistakes, he gouges a hole in his paper.

    He tries to hide it under his desk. Instead of chastening him, his teacher, Mr. Muhammad, does something powerful: He sits beside Abdul under the desk.

    Mr. Muhammad shows his own messy notebook to Abdul, who realizes “He’s messy just like me.”

    In that moment, Abdul learns that his dream of becoming a writer is possible; he just has to work in a way that suits his learning style. But he also needs an educator who supports him along the way.

    It is something I understand: In my own life, I have been both Abdul and Mr. Muhammad, and it was a teacher named Mrs. Lee who changed my life.

    One day after I got into a fight, she pulled me out of the classroom and said, “I am not going to let you fail.” At that point, I was consistently performing at or below basic in reading and writing, but she didn’t define me by my test scores.

    Instead, she asked, “What do you want to be when you grow up?”

    I replied, “I want to be like Bryant Gumbel.”

    She asked why.

    “Because he’s smart and he always interviews famous people and presidents,” I said.

    Mrs. Lee explained that Mr. Gumbel was a journalist and encouraged me to start a school newspaper.

    So I did. I interviewed people and wrote articles, revising them until they were ready for publication. I did it because Mrs. Lee believed in me and saw me for who I wanted to be — not just my test scores.

    If more teachers across the country were like Mrs. Lee and Mr. Muhammad, more Black children would develop the confidence to pursue their dreams. Black children would realize that even if they have to work harder to acquire certain skills, doing so can help them accomplish their dreams.

    Related: Taking on racial bias in early math lessons

    Years ago, I organized a reading tour in four libraries across the city of Pittsburgh. At that time, I was a volunteer at the Carnegie Library, connecting book reading to children’s dreams.

    I remember working with a young Black boy who was playing video games on the computer with his friends. I asked him if he wanted to read, and he shook his head no.

    So I asked, “Who wants to build the city of the future?” and he raised his hand.

    He and I walked over to a table and began building with magnetic tiles. As we began building, I asked the same question Mrs. Lee had asked me: “What do you want to be when you grow up?”

    “An architect,” he replied.

    I jumped up and grabbed a picture book about Frank Lloyd Wright. We began reading the book, and I noticed that he struggled to pronounce many of the words. I supported him, and we got through it. I later wrote about it.

    Each week after that experience, this young man would come up to me ready to read about his dream. He did so because I saw him just as Mr. Muhammad saw Abdul, and just like Mrs. Lee saw me — as an advanced dreamer.

    Consider that when inventor Lonnie Johnson was a kid, he took a test and the results declared that he could not be an engineer. Imagine if he’d accepted that fate. Kids around the world would not have the joy of playing with the Super Soaker water gun.

    When the architect Phil Freelon was a kid, he struggled with reading. If he had given up, the world would not have experienced the beauty and splendor of the National Museum of African American History and Culture.

    When illustrator Jerry Pinkney was a kid, he struggled with reading just like Freelon. If he had defined himself as “basic” and “below average,” children across America would not have been inspired by his powerful picture book illustrations.

    Narrowly defining children based on their test scores is a big mistake.

    Each child is a solution to a problem in the world, whether it is big or small. So let us create conditions that inspire Black children to walk boldly in the pursuit of their dreams.

    Nosakhere Griffin-EL is the co-founder of The Young Dreamers’ Bookstore. He is a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project in partnership with the National Black Child Development Institute.

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

    This story about Black children and education was produced byThe Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’sweekly newsletter.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-instead-of-defining-black-children-by-their-test-scores-we-should-help-them-overcome-academic-barriers-and-pursue-their-dreams/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=114013&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-instead-of-defining-black-children-by-their-test-scores-we-should-help-them-overcome-academic-barriers-and-pursue-their-dreams/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link