Category: Opinion

  • How Do We Rebuild Public Trust in Higher Education? Together

    How Do We Rebuild Public Trust in Higher Education? Together

    A recent Lumina–Gallup poll offers a rare piece of good news: public confidence in higher education has ticked up from a recent low of 36% to 43%. While the rebound is modest, it breaks a years-long narrative of decline, and it’s worth asking: What is driving renewed trust?

    Drs. Julie Posselt and Adrianna Kezar Respondents pointed to three factors: quality of education, opportunities for graduates, and innovation. In other words, the public is telling us that when we deliver tangible value—educational excellence, new opportunities, and forward-looking ideas—trust grows.

    At the USC Rossier School of Education, this belief is guiding our next chapter. This month, we are merging the Pullias Center for Higher Education and the Center for Enrollment Research, Policy and Practice. Working collectively under the Pullias banner thanks to the generous bequest of the Earl and Pauline Pullias family, we are coming together to propel learning across decades of experience in research-practice partnerships. 

    The teams in our centers work with community colleges, school districts, nonprofits, businesses, government agencies, state higher education systems, and national associations. Though we love theory work as much as the next professors, we know theory’s greatest power is realized when tested and applied in the real world, in partnership with the communities we serve.

    Take the USC College Advising Corps. Through partnerships with public high schools across Los Angeles County, we place nearly 40 trained college advisers per year, most of them recent college graduates from across Southern California, into underresourced high schools. The result has been to support 10,000 high school seniors annually, with more than 88,000 first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented students helped since the program began more than a decade ago. This is the kind of scale, innovation, and equity-driven practice that the public recognizes and values.

    Our work to date and going forward will be defined as much by our approach. We partner with communities, connecting research directly to policy and practice to innovate on the systems that shape student access and success, from high school through graduate education and into the workforce. This work often means capacity building, institutional improvement, and student-centered design—not in theory alone, but in practice, in partnership, and at scale.

    Look around and you’ll find many more examples of people and organizations who inspire not just through individual excellence but also by deepening wells of mutual support and mutual investment. There are longstanding national examples such as Campus Compact, which brought together college presidents across the country to sign a declaration and create an organization focused on civic engagement; they have sponsored collaborative responses to crises and offer faculty development. That kind of solidarity is not typical, but to our minds it is increasingly valuable.

    Benjamin Franklin warned at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” His words are as relevant to higher education today as it was to the Continental Congress. Our sector’s future depends on resisting the pull toward isolation and polarization, and instead modeling connection, mutual support, and shared purpose. 

    In a year certain to bring challenges, higher education must lead not from the top of the ivory tower, but from within networks of trust we build with the communities around us—of professionals and publics. For us, merging our centers is just one example of the belief that we are stronger together—intellectually, financially, and in service of the public good. We welcome connecting with you through your stories and examples of the same. 

     ____________

    Drs. Julie Posselt and Adrianna Kezar are Co-Directors of the Pullias Center for Higher Education at University of Southern California.

    Source link

  • DEI was the Compromise, Not the Solution

    DEI was the Compromise, Not the Solution

    Dr. Marcela Rodriguez-Campo Through the work that I did as a director of a diversity office, I was always finding ways to make magic out of the least given how poorly our work was funded. Nonetheless, we did everything we could to pay folks for their time and labor. After finishing the planning of one of the largest state-wide events my team had ever hosted, a local artist we had collaborated with previously offered to return to our campus to offer my team a pour-painting workshop, for free. I was left stunned.

    That’s too generous, right? Are you sure? Maybe we can dig up some funds or find a sponsorship?

    No. I want to give this to your team as a thank you for the work that you all do. And for being a safe person folks can go to.

    My eyes immediately welled up with tears: We were safe for her and now she wanted to keep our spirits safe in return. This is community care. 

    When people from historically marginalized communities enter the Ivory Tower as students, staff, or faculty, institutions actively work to estrange us from our communities. They teach us that our culture, our histories, our languages don’t matter, by rarely including us in the curriculum. They show us that our voices and our stories aren’t allowed to take up space there, when they ban our books, dismiss our questions, deny our realities, and reject our ways of knowing. They mold us into “professionals”, train us in Eurocentric research and teaching practices, and force us to subscribe to their ways of being in order to succeed and survive. They convince us that success will be measured by their standards, rather than those set forth by our communities.

    Diversity, equity, & inclusion (DEI) offices are fundamentally about enacting an ethic of care that is culturally and politically grounded in the communities our students come from.

    The Trump administration has deemed that a danger and threat to society. They are attempting to make us forget ourselves and pushing an agenda of historical amnesia. They are trying to make us forget that there is a whole world out there beyond the Ivory Walls that needs us to exist. Heartbreakingly enough, it is working. Once bold and visionary leaders are capitulating to authoritarianism and white supremacist ideology. As we see the far-reaching resistance to this now trending DEI-boogeyman, it is more important than ever that we remember our lineage, that we return to our communities, that we return to the river that offered us our first sips of liberation. So that we may continue to — as Toni Morrison taught us — move in the direction of freedom.

    As we face persistent threats and attacks on our work, allow me to offer the DEI professionals and our student leaders a reminder: your community needs you and it needs you free, too. Let us learn from the lineage of our work and remember as our own continuous act of rebellion the river from which DEI pulls from.

    Cultural centers and diversity offices did not come about placidly or because of the goodwill of institutions. They were fought for, demanded. They were created not because of the polite and demure requests of Students and Faculty of Color, but as a result of courageous boycotts, sit-ins, building occupations, protests, mobilization, and organizing of marginalized communities who recognized the second-class support they were receiving and who were inspired by the activism of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s. Chicano students in East LA walked out of schools in droves to denounce the substandard education they were being given. They stepped out to demand better teachers, better learning conditions, more resources, and ethnic studies. In that same year a month later, Black students at Columbia University occupied Hamilton Hall to protest segregation and racism in higher education. Students collectively led a revolution through each act of resistance and refused to accept an education system that dehumanized and disrespected their community.

    DEI is a byproduct of student activism. As Black cultural centers began opening, cultural centers for other community groups were created in the same vein, to offer safe spaces and resources to students from the margins. Cultural centers created spaces for students to develop a collective consciousness where they could find themselves and each other in a sea of white curriculum, culture, policies, and practices. They have historically supported the recruitment, retention, and graduation of marginalized student groups. Student and scholar activists’ radical visions of transforming higher education to equitably serve and empower students from the margins was stunted by institutional resistance that was coded as budgets, enrollment, and value add. Some of the same code words we hear today.

    So, DEI was created as the compromise, a palatable option. One that checked some of the boxes, while not transforming the institution wholly. DEI was never intended to be the radical resolution student activists fought for.

    The aggressive attack on DEI is the consequence of our ability to become effective, to reach a critical mass of folks nationally to question the status quo and the system enough to make the people in power uncomfortable. Whether DEI is banned for one presidency or two or forever, it was never meant to save us. We have to do that. Our communities have always done that. DEI was never going to be enough and at many institutions, it was never intended to be effective. We need to reclaim our agency and power and voices from the institutions who never loved us back anyway and recognize that there is so much more we could build with or without them in and with community. As this current moment and the highly organized right works to scare, intimidate, and paralyze us, the most critical thing we could be doing in this very moment is building community from within and especially from outside of our institutions.

    Beloved, we are the global majority. And this current political moment is working hard and fast because it is the last opportunity to reset the scales. They are scared of the collective power and freedom we can tap into in our communities because our communities are our source. The very care that we offer to our students we first learned from our communities. The care we owe is to our communities. The reason we do this work is for our communities. The care we are searching for is in our communities. The resistance has begun and will continue to exist within our communities. Your work will likely need to evolve, as this work always has, so go ahead and evolve.

    In Emergent Strategy by adrienne maree brown she shares this powerful wisdom on interdependence and community by Naima Penniman:

    “When Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast, almost everything lost its footing. Houses were detached from their foundations, trees and shrubbery were uprooted, signposts and vehicles floated down the rivers that became of the streets. But amidst the whipping winds and surging water, the oak tree held its ground. How? Instead of digging its roots deep and solitary into the earth, the oak tree grows its roots wide and interlocks with other oak trees in the surrounding area. And you can’t bring down a hundred oak trees bound beneath the soil! How do we survive the unnatural disasters of climate change, environmental injustice, over-policing, mass-imprisonment, militarization, economic inequality, corporate globalization, and displacement? We must connect in the underground, my people! In this way, we shall survive” (p. 84–85).

    We have left ourselves vulnerable because we have dug our roots deep in academia and have not rooted ourselves like the oak tree across our community. We must become an oak tree, rooting ourselves expansively, interdependently within community so that when they come for us– and they will– we will continue to stand. Whatever work we are able to do between now and the next attack on our work, let us reach towards the oak trees who seeded us and root ourselves to one another as we gear up for the struggle of our lifetime. It is the imperative of our lifetime to remember who we are and return to community.

    When my institution quickly disposed of the legacy of the DEI professionals and students, community saved me. When they demonized me, targeted me, and worked to snuff out my fire, community reminded me of who I am. When the institution nearly convinced me that someone like me should not exist, community reminded me of the entire world that breathes and lives outside the ivory walls that needs me. Community rekindled my spirit and my hope, that even in the direst set of circumstances, my people make magic.

    _____________________

    Dr. Marcela Rodriguez-Campo is an educator and scholar-practitioner. She is a former DEI Director from a public four year institution. She is the founder of Co-Libre Education.

    Source link

  • The resumption of student loan payments means students will need new policies — and our help

    The resumption of student loan payments means students will need new policies — and our help

    After a three-year pause prompted by the pandemic, the clock on student loan repayments suddenly started ticking again in September 2023, and forbearance ended last September. For millions of borrowers like Shauntee Russell, the resumption of payments marked a harsh return to financial reality.  

    Russell, a single mother of three from Chicago, had received $127,000 in student loan forgiveness through the SAVE program, and had experienced profound relief at having that $632 monthly payment lifted from her shoulders. SAVE exemplified both the transformative power of debt relief and the urgent need to continue this fight — but now SAVE has been suspended. 

    Such setbacks cannot be the end of our story, as I document in my forthcoming book. The resumption of loan payments, while painful, must serve as a rallying cry rather than a surrender. We stand at a critical juncture. The Supreme Court’s devastating blow to former President Biden’s initial forgiveness plan and the ongoing legal challenges to programs like SAVE have left 45 million borrowers in a state of financial limbo. The fundamental inequities of our higher education system have never been more apparent.  

    Black students graduate with nearly 50 percent more debt than their white counterparts, while women hold roughly two-thirds of all outstanding student debt — a staggering $1.5 trillion that continues to grow. These aren’t just statistics; they represent systemic barriers that prevent entire communities from achieving economic mobility. 

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

    The students I interviewed while reporting on this crisis reveal the human cost of inaction. They include Maria Sanchez, a nursing student in St. Louis who skips meals to save money and can only access textbooks through library loans.  

    Then there is Robert Carroll, who gave up his dorm room in Cleveland and now alternates between friends’ couches just to stay in school.  

    These students represent the millions who are working multiple jobs, sacrificing basic needs and seeing their dreams deferred under the weight of financial pressure. 

    Yet what strikes me most is their resilience and determination. Despite these overwhelming obstacles, these students persist, driven by the same belief that motivated civil rights leaders like Congressman Adam Clayton Powell Jr. — that education is the pathway to economic empowerment and social justice. 

    The current political landscape, with Donald J. Trump’s return to the presidency and a Republican-controlled Congress, presents unprecedented challenges. Plans to dismantle key borrower protections and efforts to eliminate the Department of Education signal a dark period ahead for student debt relief.  

    But history teaches us that progress often comes through sustained grassroots organizing and innovative policy solutions at multiple levels of government and society. 

    State governments have an opportunity to fill the federal void through programs like Massachusetts’ Student Loan Borrower Bill of Rights and Maine’s Student Loan Repayment Tax Credit. 

    Universities must step up with institutional relief programs, as my own institution, Trinity Washington University, did when it settled $1.8 million in student balances during the pandemic. 

    The Black church, which has long understood the connection between education and liberation, continues to provide crucial support through scholarship programs. Organizations like the United Negro College Fund, the Thurgood Marshall College Fund and the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education remain vital pillars in making higher education accessible. 

    Still, individual, institutional and state efforts, while necessary, are not sufficient. We need comprehensive federal action that treats student debt as what it truly is: a civil rights issue and a moral imperative. The magnitude of the crisis — it affects Americans across every congressional district — creates unique opportunities for bipartisan coalition building. 

    Smart advocates are already reframing the narrative by replacing partisan talking points with economic arguments that resonate across ideological lines: workforce development, entrepreneurship and American competitiveness on the world stage.  

    When student debt prevents nurses from serving rural communities, teachers from working in underserved schools and young entrepreneurs from starting businesses, it becomes an economic drag that affects everyone.  

    Related: How Trump is changing higher education: The view from 4 campuses 

    The path to federal action may require creative approaches — perhaps through tax policy, regulatory changes or targeted relief for specific professions — but the political mathematics of 45 million impacted voters ultimately makes comprehensive action not just morally necessary, but politically inevitable.  

    Student debt relief is not about handouts — it’s about honoring the promise that education should be a ladder up, not an anchor weighing down entire generations; it’s about ensuring that Shauntee Russell’s relief becomes the norm, not the exception. The fight is far from over.  

    The young activists I met at the March on Washington 60th anniversary understood something profound: Their debt is not their fault, but their fight is their responsibility. They carry forward the legacy of those who came before them who believed that access to education should not depend on one’s family wealth, and that crushing debt should not be the price of pursuing knowledge. 

    The arc of history still bends toward justice — but in this era of political resistance, we must be prepared to bend it ourselves through sustained organizing, innovative policy solutions and an unwavering commitment to the principle that education is a right, not a privilege reserved for the wealthy. 

    The resumption of payments is not the end of this story. It’s the beginning of the next chapter in our fight for educational equity and economic justice. And this chapter, like those before it, will be written by the voices of the millions who refuse to let debt define their destiny. 

    Jamal Watson is a professor and associate dean of graduate studies at Trinity Washington University and an editor at Diverse Issues In Higher Education. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about student loan payments 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.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Black Women’s Leadership in Higher Education: The Remaking of Academic Power

    Black Women’s Leadership in Higher Education: The Remaking of Academic Power

    I
    Dr. Tina M. King     n the storied halls of higher education, Black women who ascend to the presidency do so while carrying the weight of history, community, and the unspoken expectation that we will be both miracle workers and scapegoats. Black women in higher education leadership navigate a complex matrix of anti-Blackness and misogynoir —a reality where their expertise is simultaneously appropriated and undermined. Research reveals that more than most Black women executives in predominantly white institutions (PWIs) experience racelighting (racialized gaslighting), characterized by dehumanizing scrutiny. We endure identity taxation, where we are expected to carry the unsustainable burden of single-handedly solving institutional race problems, often where we are the target of the attack while comforting white fragility. Simultaneously, we experience racelighting where people of color receive racialized messages and question their thoughts and experiences. This racelighting is perpetuated by the institution’s willingness to tokenize Black women’s identities for diversity optics while suppressing our agenda for transformative anti-racist praxis. The narrative of Black women’s leadership in PWIs is not simply a tale of individual achievement but also reflects the deep, persistent anti-Blackness embedded in the academy’s very structure.

    The attacks, swift and severe, are often cloaked in the familiar rhetoric of “governance, academic integrity, or collegial concern,” but the subtext is unmistakably racial. They are orchestrated not as a response to policy but as a rebuke of Black authority daring to reshape the institution’s priorities. In such attacks, we are called incompetent, corrupt, and unwilling to do the hard work (lazy), echoing tropes that have long been used to undermine Black people in general and Black women in leadership specifically. The most insidious move, however, is often the elevation of a single Black or Brown person to be the messenger or carrier of the attack, serving as a shield to deflect accusations of racism and to lend legitimacy to the movement or campaign t o disparage and discredit Black women’s leadership.Dr. Regina Stanback StroudDr. Regina Stanback Stroud

    This dynamic is not new. Dr. Patricia Hill Collins (2000), in her foundational work on Black Feminist Thought, describes how Black women in leadership are subjected to controlling images— stereotypes that are deployed to police the boundaries of acceptable Blackness. In the academy, these images manifest as relentless questioning of competence, insinuations of aggression, and the expectation that Black women will perform emotional labor to maintain white comfort. The token messenger, perhaps unwittingly, becomes complicit in this system, their proximity to whiteness granting her temporary power even as it reinforces the very structures that marginalize leaders of color—in other words, they become complicit in using the academic tools of white supremacy to join in the assault on Black women’s leadership.

    What begins to emerge is a spectator sport where people at all levels of influence remain silent in the face of orchestrated attacks. Please make no mistake: silence does not represent neutrality; it represents complicity. By refusing to address the racialized nature of the attacks, the institution is signaling that Black women leaders are ultimately expendable, their contributions contingent upon their willingness to placate white interests and prioritize white comfort. This is the reality of what Breonna Collins (2022) calls “epistemic violence” –the systematic invalidation of Black knowledge and leadership under the guise of procedural fairness.

    Yet Black women leaders have always found ways to resist and reimagine the academy. Drawing on the tradition of Black feminist resistance, we create counterspaces within hostile institutions, mentoring the next generation and insisting on the legitimacy of their vision. We redefine “institutional fit” not as assimilation into white norms but as the capacity to transform the institution in service of justice.

    Despite these acts of resistance and reimagination, the very presence and leadership of Black women in academic spaces often disrupts entrenched power structures and exposes the discomfort many have with authentic Black excellence. A threat to many, Black excellence in leadership prioritizes the needs of marginalized students and communities over the preservation of the status quo.

    While some may wish to uphold privilege and power for themselves, others may be well-intentioned but unable to recognize Black excellence. They may interpret Black leadership as arrogance or see Black Leaders simply as flaunting their positions or being opinionated. Still others may believe they are doing good but fail to recognize their own deep biases. Those who consider themselves allies may suffer fatigue along with Black leaders, but that mutual suffering does not, an ally make. It must be accompanied by one’s willingness to use their white privilege and capital to actively combat anti-Blackness and misogynoir at play.

    Studies of HBCU leadership reveal how Black women executives subvert PWI pathologies through radical self-definition, where we reject white-normed leadership frameworks to implement culturally grounded approaches and ethical care (prioritizing community needs over respectability politics). We create counter-spaces that center Black epistemologies, such as mentorship programs that affirm Black women’s intellectual sovereignty. Black women leaders engage in institutional truth-telling where we document systemic racelighting through critical race methodology.

    True transformation requires more than performative allyship. It demands redistribution of resources, independent accountability structures, and a commitment to centering Black epistemologies in institutional decision-making. There is a growing recognition that Black leadership is not incidental— it is essential to the future of higher education. The time has come for institutions to choose: will they cling to the master’s tools, or will they finally make room for the radical imagination and power of Black women’s leadership?

    Until higher education is willing to confront its foundational anti-Blackness, it will continue to sacrifice its most visionary leaders on the altar of white comfort. The question is not whether another attack will come but who will have the courage to stand in solidarity and say, “Enough.” The future of academia depends on this shift. Ultimately, we must move beyond the white gaze and demand for our pain, and instead, embrace the Black radical imagination and the remaking of power in the academy.

    Dr. Tina M. King is president of San Diego College of Continuing Education 

    Dr. Regina Stanback Stroud is the chief executive officer of RSSC Consulting

    Dr. Jennifer Taylor Mendoza serves as the 13th president of West Valley College.

     

     

     

     

    Source link

  • No More One-Trick Ponies: Adapt, Evolve, or Step Aside

    No More One-Trick Ponies: Adapt, Evolve, or Step Aside


    Dr. Mordecai Ian Brownlee     The year 2025 has been marked by numerous legislative changes, resulting in a state of legislative whiplash that has directly impacted institutions of higher education nationwide. From executive orders, to the dismantling of the Department of Education, to call of regional accreditation reform, to the discontinuance of federal funds, to the national erosion of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs (and anything that remotely resembles it), higher education have been conditioned to brace daily for the next social media post or breaking news update that can send our colleges and universities into a frenzy. With the passage of H.R.1 by the 119th Congress, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the higher education sector will need to work quickly to fully understand the Act’s impact on our institutions, students, and communities as the 2025-2026 school year begins. As we seek understanding, it is essential to distinguish fact from fiction, separate narratives from actualities, and prioritize responsibility over fear.

    Leadership in the next era of higher education

    Now is the time for leaders serving in this evolving era to make an explicit declaration that, regardless of the circumstances, their respective institutional missions must not and will not fail. The dreams of our students, as well as the livelihoods of our faculty and staff, are at stake. Not to mention, in such a disruptive era, higher education must normalize the assessment of its academic and student support services to determine the relevance and impact of colleges and universities on the broader communities they serve. Far gone are the days of piddling the same old student experiences and academic programs that fail to lead students to livable wages, let alone failing to provide social care for learners seeking to realize brighter futures. Far gone should be the days when institutional legacies prevent institutions from making necessary changes to ensure institutional vitality and sustainability. In addition to addressing wasteful processes and systems that continue to strain the institution’s ability to serve its enrolled students responsibly.

    Equitable student success reimagined

    It is essential to note that this work must be envisioned, designed, and implemented differently, given the internal and external political realities prevailing within the respective states of our institution. How we lead this work in the state of Colorado, where I serve as a college president, will undoubtedly differ from how it is led in other states. From coast to coast, from metro to rural, from public to private, and from four-year to two-year institutions, the real power for equitable student success lies in our ability to bring our institutional missions to life in new ways that build bridges to fulfill academic rigor and provide opportunities for the disenfranchised. Regardless of the environment, I encourage us, as educators, to recognize the dynamic shift that must occur within our perspectives and approaches.

    Our profession doesn’t need any more one-trick ponies – people who can only serve and have an impact if the conditions are ideal or to their liking. What we need are those who deeply understand that the failure of our students and the missions of our institutions is not an option. We need those who understand the power of environmental scanning and program assessment, as well as the ethical responsibility we have to those we serve, to provide transformative and meaningful learning experiences that account for the political and cultural differences present in each community.

    It is this educational versatility paired with agility that will ensure our ability to do “the work” despite the times. Yes, our job titles may change, our departments may be reorganized, and our funding may be discontinued. However, I challenge every college president and their respective institutional boards not to become distracted. Instead, cultivate your awareness of the times, re-center yourself around your respective missions, and embrace the changes that our institutions must implement, recognizing that through disruption, genuine innovation can emerge. And while that change may not be ideal, it is indeed necessary.

    Dr. Mordecai Ian Brownlee is President of Community College of Aurora.

     

    Source link

  • Black fathers should not be perceived as a threat when they show up for their children

    Black fathers should not be perceived as a threat when they show up for their children

    Across the country, Black fathers are too often seen as a threat when they speak up and advocate for their children. And it’s not just in courtrooms and on sidewalks — it’s happening in classrooms, daycares and schools. 

    I’ve spent my career in education and equity leadership, and I know this is part of a larger, troubling pattern. When Black parents — especially men — assert themselves in spaces not designed for them, they are too often perceived as “aggressive.”  

    Their advocacy is sometimes interpreted as “rude,” and their presence is framed as disruption rather than partnership, something that has played out in my own experience as a proud Black father of three.  

    This isn’t about one parent or teacher or even one moment. It’s about what happens when systems designed to support children carry embedded racial assumptions. 

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

    I’ll never forget picking my kids up from daycare during a lice outbreak. My wife and I had no experience dealing with lice, and I asked a few questions — just trying to understand what to expect. Instead of getting reassurance or guidance, I was met with suspicion, even subtle blame.  

    Or the time I raised a safety concern about an emotional child in my son’s class who had a pattern of throwing chairs. Rather than treating my concern as legitimate, it was brushed off — as if I were overreacting.  

    In both cases, my presence and voice weren’t welcomed. They were managed. 

    In a society in which Black men are still fighting to be seen as full participants in their children’s lives, we cannot ignore the role that bias plays in shaping who gets welcomed, who gets questioned and who gets believed. Daycares, schools, courts and society at large must actively affirm and restore the voices of Black fathers, rather than dismiss them. 

    Too often, Black men are portrayed as threats or criminals — rather than as nurturers and protectors. These images become mentally entrenched, shaping public attitudes and institutional responses. This persistent framing contributes to a cultural blind spot that brings confusion to the presence of Black fathers and negatively affects how they are treated in schools, courts and communities. 

    Nationally, for example, Black families are disproportionately reported to child protective services, even when controlling for income or neighborhood factors.  

    Despite this anti-Black bias, Black fathers defy stereotypes every day. Black dads, on average, are actually more involved in daily caregiving than fathers of other racial backgrounds, the National Health Statistics Reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes. Yet media representation has not caught up with this reality.  

    As a student pursuing a doctorate in education leadership and policy, I study how identity shapes access to opportunity. And I know that bias against Black men starts early — when we are boys. A 2016 Yale Child Study Center report found that preschool teachers, regardless of race, were more likely to monitor Black boys for misbehavior — even when no misbehavior was apparent. 

    And in Indiana, studies highlight that nearly four out of every five Black children in the state will be investigated for suspected maltreatment. 

    Related: 7 realities for Black students in America, 70 years after Brown 

    These are not just statistical disparities — they’re stories of fractured trust between families and the institutions meant to serve them.  

    I have explored the concept of “mega-threats” introduced by researchers Angelica Leigh and Shimul Melwani — high-profile, identity-relevant events that trigger lasting psychological stress for people who share that identity. Though typically used to describe major public tragedies, these threats can be individual and personal, too. When a Black father sees himself reduced to a stereotype — his parenting undercut, his words distorted — it becomes an embodied threat, one that lingers and works to fulfill the myth that Black fathers are absent. These corrosive interactions run counter to the heroic influence and legacy that Black men have within their communities as warm demanders — men who emphatically build relationships and uphold high expectations. 

    If we want to support children, we must support their families. That means ensuring that early childhood professionals are trained not just in child development but in cultural competence and anti-bias practices. It means separating assumptions from observations when writing reports.  

    And it means reflecting on how language like “rude” or “aggressive” can carry racial undertones that reinforce long-standing stereotypes. 

    In my work as an educator, leader and former coach, I’ve partnered with countless families across race and class lines. What all parents want — especially those from marginalized communities — is the assurance that when they show up, they’ll be heard, not judged. That their questions will be met with respect, not suspicion. 

    If we truly believe in family engagement, we must be honest about the ways our systems still punish the very people we say we want more of. Black fathers are showing up.  

    The question is: are we ready to see them clearly? 

    Craig Jordan is an educator and doctoral student at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College. A native of Gary, Indiana, he writes about equity, identity and systemic change in education. His work has been featured in IndyStar and Yahoo News. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about Black fathers 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.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • NYC Teachers Believe Many Kids Are Gifted & Talented. Why Doesn’t the District? – The 74

    NYC Teachers Believe Many Kids Are Gifted & Talented. Why Doesn’t the District? – The 74


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

    In 2020, around 3,500 incoming New York City kindergartners were deemed eligible for a public school gifted-and-talented program. In 2021, that number spiked up to over 10,000.

    What happened to nearly triple the number of identified “gifted” students in NYC in a single year?

    The difference was the screening method. In 2020, as in the dozen years beforehand, 4-year-olds were tested using the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test and the The Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test. Those who scored above the 97th percentile were eligible to apply to citywide “accelerated” programs. Those who scored above the 90th were eligible for districtwide “enriched” classes.

    But in 2021, the process was changed. Now, instead of a test, students in public school pre-K programs qualify based on evaluations by their teachers, and there is no differentiation between those eligible for “accelerated” or “enriched” programs.

    In 2022, the last year for which figures are available, 9,227 students were deemed qualified to enter the gifted-and-talented placement lottery. But for the last decade there have only been about 2,500 spots citywide. Over 6,700 “gifted” students weren’t offered a seat. 

    That’s a shame, because, based on their overwhelming responses to the city’s G&T recommendation questionnaires, NYC teachers believe the vast majority of their young students – a statistically impressive 85% – would thrive doing work beyond what is offered in a regular classroom.

    When evaluating students for a G&T recommendation, teachers are asked, among other things, whether the child:

    • Is curious about new experiences, information, activities, and/or people;
    • Asks questions and communicates about the environment, people, events and/or everyday experiences in and out of the classroom;
    • Explores books alone and/or with other children;
    • Plays with objects and manipulatives via hands-on exploration in and outside of the classroom setting;
    • Engages in pretend/imaginary play;
    • Engages in artistic expression, e.g. music, dance, drawing, painting, cutting, and/or creating
    • Enjoys playing alone (enjoys own company) as well as with other children.

    This video illustrates how such “gifted” characteristics can be applied to … anybody.

    The Pygmalion Effect has demonstrated that when teachers are told their students are “gifted,” they treat them differently — and by the end of the year, those children are performing at a “gifted” level.

    Extrapolating that 85% of incoming kindergartners to the 70,000 or so kids enrolled at every grade level in NYC, that would mean there are 59,500 “gifted” students in each academic year, for a whopping total of 773,500 “gifted” K-12 students in the New York City public school system.

    And extending those calculations to the whole of the United States, then 85% of 74 million — i.e. 62,900,000 — 5- through 18-year-olds are capable of doing work above grade level. With that in mind, academic expectations could be raised across the board, and teachers would implement the new, higher standards filled with confidence that the majority of their students would rise to the occasion. NYC teachers have already said as much on their evaluations.

    What would happen if NYC were to provide a G&T seat to every student whom its own teachers deemed qualified? If it were subsequently confirmed that over 773,500 students in a 930,000-plus student school system are capable of doing “advanced” work, can parents, activists and everyone invested in making education the best it can possibly be for all expect to see such higher-level curriculum extended to all students — in NYC and, eventually, across America?

    As for the minority who weren’t recommended for “advanced” instruction, the combination of Pygmalion Effect and the benefits of mixed-ability classrooms should raise their proficiency, as well.

    Isn’t it worth a try?


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

    Source link

  • Fixing Michigan’s Teacher Shortage Isn’t Just About Getting More Recruits – The 74

    Fixing Michigan’s Teacher Shortage Isn’t Just About Getting More Recruits – The 74

    The number of vacancies is likely an undercount, because this number does not include substitutes or unqualified teachers who may have been hired to fill gaps.

    Local news reports and job boards suggest that at least some Michigan districts are still struggling to fill open positions for the fall of 2025.

    The teacher shortage is a nationwide problem, but it is especially acute in Michigan, where the number of teachers leaving teaching and the overall teacher shortage both exceed the national average. This shortage is particularly severe in urban and rural communities, which have the most underresourced schools, and in specialization areas such as science, mathematics and special education.

    For more than two decades, my work at Michigan State University has centered on designing and leading effective teacher preparation programs. My research focuses on ways to attract people to teaching and keep them in the profession by helping them grow into effective classroom leaders.

    Low pay and lack of support

    Teacher shortages are the result of a combination of factors, especially low salaries, heavy workloads and a lack of ongoing professional support.

    A report released last year, for example, found that Michigan teachers and teachers nationwide make about 20% less compared to those in other careers that also require a college education.

    From my experience working with teachers and district leadership across the state, I know that beginning teachers – especially those in districts which have severe shortages – are often given the most challenging teaching loads. And in some districts, teachers have been forced to work without the benefit of any kind of planning time in their daily schedule.

    The shortage was made much worse by the COVID-19 pandemic, which led many educators to leave the profession. Yet another culprit is the many teachers who, in Michigan as well as nationally, were hired during the 1960s and early ’70s, when school enrollments saw a massive increase, and who in the past decade have been retiring in large numbers.

    Creating pathways to certification

    One recent strategy to address the teacher shortage in Michigan has been to create nontraditional routes to teacher certification.

    The idea is to prepare educators more quickly and inexpensively. A variety of agencies – from the Michigan Department of Education, state-level grants programs such as the Future Proud Michigan Educator program, as well as private foundations and businesses – have helped these programs along financially.

    Even some school districts, including the Detroit Public Schools Community District, have adopted this strategy in order to certify teachers and fill vacant positions.

    Other similar programs are the product of partnerships between Michigan’s intermediate school districts, community colleges and four-year colleges and universities. One example is Grand Valley State University’s Western Michigan Teacher Collaborative, which targets interested students of college age. Another is MSU’s Community Teacher Initiative, designed to attract students into teaching while they are still in high school.

    Perhaps even more visible are national programs such as Teachers of Tomorrow and Teach for America. Candidates in such programs often work as full-time teachers while completing teacher training coursework with minimal oversight or support.

    ‘Stuffing the pipeline’ is not the solution

    But simply “stuffing the pipeline” with new recruits is not enough to solve the teacher-shortage problem in Michigan.

    The loss of teachers is significantly higher among individuals in nontraditional training programs and for teachers of color. This starts while they are preparing to be certified and continues for several years after certification.

    The primary reasons for the higher attrition rates include a lack of awareness of the complexity of schools and schooling, the lack of effective mentoring during the certification period, and the absence of instructional and other professional guidance in the early years of teaching.

    How to repair the leaky faucet

    So how can teachers be encouraged to stay in the profession?

    Here are a few of the things scholars have learned to improve outcomes in traditional and nontraditional preparation programs:

    Temper expectations. Teaching is a critically important career, but leading individuals to believe that they can repair the damage done by a complex set of socioeconomic issues – including multigenerational poverty and lack of access to healthy and affordable food, housing, drinking water and health care – puts beginning teachers on a short road to early burnout and departure.

    Give student teachers strong mentors. Working in schools helps student teachers deepen their knowledge not only of teaching but also of how schools, families and communities work together. But these experiences are useful only if they are overseen and supported by an experienced and caring educator and supported by the organization’s leadership.

    Recognize the limits of online learning. Online teacher preparation programs are convenient and have their place but don’t provide student teachers with real-world experience and opportunities for guided discussion about what they see, hear and feel when working with students.

    Respect the process of “becoming.” Professional support should not end when a new teacher is officially certified. Teachers, like other professionals such as nurses, doctors and lawyers, need time to develop skills throughout their careers.

    Providing this support sends a powerful message: that teachers are valued members of the community. Knowing that helps them stay in their jobs.

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Source link

  • Columbia Capitulated, Other Institutions Should Not

    Columbia Capitulated, Other Institutions Should Not

    Jin Hee LeeColleges and universities play a critical role in American democracy. By bringing together young adults, faculty, and employees to live and learn in a shared educational setting, higher education institutions shape the future citizens and leaders of our country. But they can only achieve this mission if their campuses reflect the multiracial society that we all live in. Unfortunately, Columbia’s recent settlement with the Trump administration calls into question whether it can fulfill its educational mission to foster a dynamic learning environment for its campus community. Given longstanding problems with unfair underrepresentation and academic exclusion, Black students and faculty likely will bear the brunt of this troubling settlement. Other colleges and universities must not make the same mistake.

    Columbia’s settlement agreement with the Trump administration gives the federal government unprecedented oversight into the university’s operations. Under the agreement, Columbia will allow administration officials to review, and potentially reject, any effort by the university to advance equal opportunity through admissions, hiring, and promotion. Notably, these conditions advance the administration’s express agenda to suppress and ban efforts to ensure an inclusive and welcoming educational environment for Black students and faculty, thereby preventing them from fully contributing their expertise and lived experiences to the larger campus community.

    Such unprecedented scrutiny by the federal government is especially troubling given the administration’s flawed interpretation of our constitution and civil rights laws in recent guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Justice. For example, the Trump administration believes that programs open to people of all races, such as those geared towards first-generation college students or rural areas, are unlawful if they are intended to break down unfair barriers to equal access and opportunities for disadvantaged students, including disadvantaged students of color. Thus, according to the administration, higher admissions or hiring rates of Black students and faculty, following the implementation of more equitable practices that do not rely on any applicant’s race or ethnicity, could expose Columbia to legal sanctions pursuant to the Department of Justice’s inaccurate interpretation of equal protection and civil rights laws.

    The settlement also causes Columbia to be subsumed into the Trump administration’s campaign to silence lawful protest and target immigrant communities. It requires Columbia to increase the number of employees trained and authorized to arrest and remove students for protesting in ways that the administration or Columbia, in their full discretion, deem inappropriate. Based on the settlement, student groups are subject to “sanction . . . including by defunding, suspending, or de-recognizing them” for “discriminatory conduct,” which threatens erasure of affinity spaces for underrepresented groups given the administration’s inaccurate understanding of “discrimination.”Student groups that express views disfavored by the Trump administration or Columbia’s leadership are particularly at risk. If an international student is arrested during a protest, the agreement requires Columbia to notify the Department of Homeland Security and disclose their identity.

    Such government interference with campus protest, which has been integral to expressions of dissent and the free exchange of ideas throughout American history, undoubtedly will chill the speech of many students and faculty, thus eroding their First Amendment rights. It is particularly ironic that the settlement agreement requires student protesters, including those wearing masks, to identify themselves upon request, while masked ICE officers can abduct and detain college students without even charging them with a crime. As a consequence of the agreements’ terms, Columbia’s campus will become less welcoming to students, including Black students, who already struggle with discrimination and exclusion. This, in turn, will deter many talented students and faculty from joining Columbia’s campus, thereby degrading the university’s reputation and academic scholarship.

    Other colleges and universities must not follow Columbia’s capitulation. Instead of being centers of learning, where people from diverse backgrounds can engage in a free flow of ideas, opinions, and perspectives, the current administration seeks to use these institutions to actualize an undemocratic vision of an America, where dissent is silenced and resources and opportunities are hoarded for the wealthy and powerful. In many ways, this cynical vision of America aims to turn back the clock to an era, not so long ago, when institutions of higher learning were reserved for the privileged few and either explicitly or implicitly excluded Black students and faculty as unwelcome and undeserving outsiders.

    ___________

    Jin Hee Lee is director of strategic initiatives at the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), where she leads a department that integrates litigation, policy, organizing, communications, research, and public education to advance community-centered racial justice advocacy—most notably through the Pro Truth Initiative.

     

     

     

    Source link

  • Tutoring provides a much-needed on-ramp into the teaching profession. School districts should pay attention.

    Tutoring provides a much-needed on-ramp into the teaching profession. School districts should pay attention.

    After graduating from Knox College in Illinois with a bachelor’s degree, Stephanie Martinez-Calderon’s plans were upended by the pandemic. She hadn’t planned on becoming a teacher but found an opportunity to tutor remotely for the year after college. 

    Tutoring helped her build confidence and develop instructional skills, and today she’s a middle school teacher in the Washoe County School District in Nevada. 

    Tutoring can be a powerful training ground for future educators, providing hands-on experience, confidence and a bridge into the classroom. And what might begin as a temporary opportunity can become a career path at a time when teachers are needed more than ever: A recent report noted that nearly one in five K-12 teachers plan to leave teaching or are unsure if they’ll stay. 

    Turnover remains a crisis in many districts, one that can be solved by a ready-made pipeline of young future educators with instructional experience and relationship-building skills they’ve gained from tutoring.  

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

    How school districts think about tutoring should evolve. Rather than seeing it as a short-term response to pandemic-interrupted learning, they should view it as part of the fabric of school design and future educator development. This requires including tutoring in strategic plans, forming community partnerships and creating a structure to sustain programs that cultivate tutors for careers in education. To fund these programs and pay tutors, districts can redirect Title I funds, use federal work-study and create apprenticeship programs.  

    Starting as a tutor allows aspiring educators to build core teaching skills in a supportive, lower-stakes environment. Tutors learn to navigate student relationships and adapt lessons to individual needs. Without having to manage an entire classroom, they can practice asking questions that get students thinking and selecting problems to help students learn. This early practice eases the transition into teaching. 

    Tutors from Generation Z, born between 1996 and 2012, often bring fresh energy to the profession. As digital natives, they are reimagining how to engage and inspire students, leverage technology and foster creativity and new approaches to learning. 

    They are also the most ethnically and racially diverse generation yet: Many come from backgrounds historically underrepresented in the teaching force; over half of undergraduates identify as first-generation college students. Their engagement broadens the prospects for a more diverse teacher pipeline. 

    Tutor recruiters have noticed that Gen Z workers don’t just want a job — they want roles committed to social impact, professional growth and sustainable work-life balance. 

    Gen Z’s emphasis on flexibility and remote opportunities is one of the most significant workforce changes since the pandemic. They value mental health, stability and mission-driven work. Part-time, hybrid and wellness benefits help recruit young talent. 

    At our nonprofit, recruiters hear from education candidates that Gen Z appreciates the chance to try out industries, and that tutoring provides them with a window into the world of teaching. 

    Public schools could better meet the evolving needs of young professionals entering education by reimagining tutor roles to include hybrid options, mental health supports and collaborative teaching pathways for professional growth. For instance, a tutor might start off working in a part-time online tutoring role, but after interacting with students virtually and gaining more experience, they may be more excited to take on a full-time teaching role on-site.  

    For school districts, tutoring programs can serve as effective recruitment pipelines. By offering recent graduates a low-barrier entry point into education — one that doesn’t require immediate certification — districts can spark interest in teaching among candidates who may not have previously considered it. 

    Amid ongoing hiring challenges, particularly mid-year vacancies, tutors can offer timely solutions.  

    When tutors step into teaching roles, they bring valuable continuity — familiarity with the students and insight into progress and school culture. This seamless transition supports both student learning and district staffing needs. 

    Related: PROOF POINTS: Taking stock of tutoring 

    The idea that tutoring should be built into future educator pipelines is spreading. For example, since the launch of its Ignite Fellowship in 2020, Teach for America says that 550 of its former tutors have become full-time teachers. The program has proven to be especially effective at drawing in nontraditional candidates — those who may not have initially envisioned themselves in the classroom. In Washington, D.C., the school district launched a tutor-to-teacher apprenticeship program after success with high-impact tutoring. In Texas, teacher residents are required to work as tutors and in other support roles while co-teaching with a mentor. 

    By offering flexible, purpose-driven opportunities, districts can attract Gen Z professionals and give them a meaningful entry point into teaching. And tutoring programs can become more than academic support — they can serve as strategic talent pipelines that strengthen the future of the teaching workforce. 

    Alan Safran is co-founder, CEO and chair of the board of Saga Education; Halley Bowman is senior director of academics. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about tutoring 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.  

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link