Blog

  • The Case for Miscarriage Leave Policies (opinion)

    The Case for Miscarriage Leave Policies (opinion)

    Miscarriage leave policies are a blind spot on many college campuses, one that urgently needs to be addressed.

    For me, losing my unborn child to miscarriage exposed an uncomfortable truth about the academy. While we are encouraged to, and should be expected to, show compassion and care for our students who endure unimaginable life circumstances, there is little to no formal infrastructure in place to support the inevitable suffering of faculty.

    In the wake of my unexpected miscarriage and subsequent related surgery, I was profoundly struggling. I found out at nine weeks of gestation that I’d experienced what’s called a missed miscarriage, and what followed were weeks of mental and physical pain. Despite the traumatic nature of these events, I returned to work and continued with lesson preparation, grading and responding to emails as quickly as humanly possible, given the circumstances.

    It is not surprising I felt compelled to quickly return to work. A persistent problem in higher education is that many faculty members, staff and administrators are spread impossibly thin, leading to compassion fatigue and burnout in the face of heavy teaching loads, mentoring and service expectations, and publishing quotas. This problem is exacerbated for women, minorities, contingent faculty and marginalized groups in the academy.

    Contrast this to how we seek, rightly, to treat our students. A pedagogy of care centers on human connection and empathy to guide and support students who are struggling. It creates a culture and climate of care for students that extends beyond the classroom. For instance, students who experience miscarriage during the academic semester are protected under Title IX. This means we provide our students who have miscarriages with the proper support and grieving time so as not to derail their semesters. On my campus, if a student is going through a mental health crisis or a loss like a miscarriage, we are advised to send them to the counseling center, where they can be provided with one-on-one counseling sessions and proper resources to help with their care.

    This same structure of care that has been put in place for our students isn’t in place for faculty. As professor and scholar Maha Bali notes, an authentic pedagogy of care should recognize that faculty also need care, asking institutions to support instructors with policies and structures that allow them to do their jobs well without burning out. Though employees are protected under the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, we don’t always have the same resources on campus for faculty and staff who are struggling with mental health issues as a result of a miscarriage. More campuses should follow the model of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where faculty members can access counseling on campus through the Employee Counseling and Consultation Office.

    For women in academia who have endured a miscarriage, the historical silence surrounding the experience lends itself to even greater feelings of isolation and loneliness. It adds to barriers to success and tenure. Between 15 and 20 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage, but the stigma surrounding it keeps women quiet. I work in a supportive department, where my chair and many of my colleagues never hesitated to provide me with what I needed. However, that is not the case for everyone. Even in my case, there was still a significant amount of logistical work to consider.

    When I miscarried, I knew that I’d have to cancel classes because of the physical toll it took on my body and the subsequent recovery from surgery. However, that also meant reorganizing my semester to accommodate my students’ needs. The nature of the academic year leaves little room for flexibility in canceling classes and reorganizing lessons and as such, requires considerable time and effort to do so. This detracted from my ability to grieve and heal, physically and emotionally. During times of loss, faculty shouldn’t have to think twice about mundane details; they should have a clearly outlined miscarriage policy they can turn to so there is no question they are entitled to the leave they need.

    Too often on college campuses, there is a lack of visibility and clarity on how faculty can access help. Fair and caring policies, such as a standalone miscarriage policy, provide time and space for faculty members to grieve, while also clearly defining the rights of faculty, staff, and administrators and ensuring consistent treatment when an employee experiences a loss. As Grace Ellen Brannon and Catherine L. Riley suggest in their book chapter, “Missed Realities About Miscarriage in Academia,” such policy or guidance documents typically include “(1) information on how managers can offer practical and emotional support during and after a loss, and (2) managers’ responsibilities when it comes to practical support. They also include (3) other relevant policies, including medical absence and maternity or family leave policies, alongside any relevant mental health or well-being policies.”

    In the United Kingdom, the University of Essex has a policy in which a pregnant employee who experiences a miscarriage is eligible for “pregnancy-related” sick leave, with no time limit on sick days one can take for miscarriage leave (partners or others affected are also eligible for “compassionate or special leave”). In addition, the policy outlines resources for department chairs (called line managers in the U.K.) to help them implement these policies for their faculty in the most humane way possible, as well as ideas for how to facilitate a return to work for employees who find it understandably difficult in the aftermath of pregnancy loss.

    One promising example in the United States comes from the University of Santa Clara, which has a Reproductive Loss Leave policy, which clearly outlines the time an employee can take off with pay in the event of a reproductive loss, defined as a “failed adoption, failed surrogacy, miscarriage, stillbirth, or an unsuccessful assisted reproduction.” At the University of Arizona, the paid parental leave program allocates two weeks of paid leave in the event of a miscarriage. Outside academe, a growing number of private-sector employees are adding miscarriage leave policies. But these examples still seem to be the exception, not the norm.

    Although our institutions may not be fully equipped yet, we can start showing support for our colleagues who have experienced miscarriage in small ways, whether through acts of care on an individual level or the development of formal peer support groups.

    Sometimes all we need is to be heard. The sheer act of listening can go a long way, but doesn’t replace the need for structural change. In the aftermath of my loss, one colleague reached out with a simple email, which read in part, “If you ever need to talk, I’m here.” And so, in the depths of my loss, I knocked on his door, walked into his office, and with tears in my eyes, asked, “Can I talk?” We sat, crying with one another about our respective losses and the stress of it all, and I left feeling lighter. I felt lighter because I felt love and care from my colleague.

    As bell hooks argues, love is not merely an emotion, but a practice and choice that can transform teaching and learning. I encourage us all to take a step back and listen to each other. I’m certain if you listen closely enough, you’ll hear what your colleagues need, and it’s probably love. Love in the form of small acts of care and open dialogue about miscarriage is a start. Love in the form of miscarriage-specific policies that demonstrate our institutions’ care for us is the end goal. Ultimately, we need policies that acknowledge the material reality of loss, help to reduce the invisible emotional labor of miscarriage by providing short-term teaching relief for affected faculty, and allow us to grieve and heal with dignity.

    Alyse Keller Johnson is a writer and associate professor of communication studies at Kingsborough Community College, part of the City University of New York. Her research and writing tackle themes of health, illness, motherhood and grief and can be found at alysekellerjohnson.com.

    Source link

  • How Mass Layoffs at the Education Dept. Affect Colleges

    How Mass Layoffs at the Education Dept. Affect Colleges

    Before the Department of Education laid off half its staff in March, college financial aid officers on the west coast could typically help a student track down their missing login information for the federal aid application in a matter of minutes.

    But now, due to limited hours of agency operation, tracking down a student’s Federal Student Aid ID can take days or even weeks; an east coast-based help line, which used to be open until 8 p.m. now closes at 3 p.m.—or noon Pacific time, according to Diane Cooper, the senior financial aid officer at Northwest Career College in Las Vegas.

    For Cooper, the reduction in force has upended countless advising sessions and made it difficult to enroll working adult learners with tight schedules.

    “When I have a student who’s driven 30 minutes to get here and then we have this issue, I can’t do anything,” Cooper said. “When they did this reduction, I don’t think they thought about colleges on the west coast.”

    Over the past three months, the financial aid office at Northwest has tried to be proactive and warn students about retrieving their username and password in advance, but not everyone gets the message in time.

    “When [prospective students] face a roadblock, it’s very frustrating,” Cooper said. “I’ve even had some people say, ‘Well, college just must not be meant for me.’”

    Difficulties applying for financial aid are just one of the many road bumps students and university staff across the country have faced since Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the Department of Government Efficiency cut the department down to just over 2,000 employees—about half of what it was during the Biden administration.

    The Department of Education told Inside Higher Ed that all three of its help lines, the Federal Student Aid Information Center, FSA Partner School Relations and the FPS Helpdesk were open well past noon Pacific time.

    “Just within President Trump’s first six months, the Department has responsibly managed and streamlined key federal student aid features, including fixing identity verification and simplifying parent invitations, while ensuring the 2026–27 FAFSA form is on track,” said deputy press secretary Ellen Keast.

    But Cooper said ever since the reduction in force if she calls FPS in the afternoon they are closed.

    Since March, colleges, advocates and others have noticed lags in communication about financial aid. Between March 11 and June 27, the department also dismissed more than 3,400 civil rights complaints—an unprecedented number, according to one former official. Additionally, the department ended an IPEDS training contract, among other changes at the Institute for Education Sciences, sparking concerns about the future of data collection at the agency.

    Some college administrators expressed optimism that the staff shortage would be temporary after a district court blocked the layoffs in May. But the Supreme Court extinguished that hope last week when it overturned the ruling, giving McMahon the go-ahead to proceed with the pink slips and other efforts to dismantle her agency.

    Now, higher education experts are adjusting to the reality of a smaller department for potentially years to come.

    “It’s a whole lot easier to break things than it is to put them back together again,” said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education (ACE).

    He and others worry that the department’s deficiencies will only get worse as staffers rush to overhaul the federal student loan system and implement other policies in the Big Beautiful Bill over the course of the next year. Add to that President Trump’s plan to dismantle the department by transferring certain programs to other agencies and what you have, Mitchell said, is “a mess.”

    “I suppose we all need to adopt a ‘time will tell’ philosophy about this,” he said. “But I for one am not optimistic.”

    Keast, on the other hand, said the department is complying with court orders and fulfilling its statutory duties.

    “We will continue to deliver meaningful and on time results while implementing the President’s [One Big Beautiful Bill] to better serve students, families, and administrators,” she said.

    Behind the Scenes ‘Breakdown’

    Cooper and Northwest Career College are not alone in struggling to get help from the Federal Student Aid Office. Nearly 60 percent of colleges and universities experienced noticeable changes in agency responsiveness or processing delays, according to a survey conducted by the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators in May.

    While 48 percent of respondents ranked front-facing glitches that directly affect students as their top concern, Melanie Storey, NASFAA’s president and CEO, noted that the Free Application for Federal Student Aid and aid distribution have been operating relatively smoothly. Many of the challenges created by the reduction in force, she said, are actually taking place behind the scenes.

    Nearly half of the institutions surveyed said that the FSA regional office they reported to had closed, and about a third said they were experiencing gaps in support as a result. Applying for the financial aid eligibility of a new program or addressing compliance concerns was already difficult before the regional offices closed, said Storey, who worked at FSA during the Biden administration. Now it will be even more arduous.

    “Our communities are just not getting answers to questions that they have,” she explained. “But if we see a breakdown in that work, we will see a breakdown in the delivery of aid.”

    Paula Carpenter, the director of financial aid at Jefferson College, a community college in eastern Missouri, said the biggest unknown is whether she will be able to complete the college’s recertification before the September 30 deadline and maintain its eligibility for federal aid.

    In the past, when it was time to begin the recertification process, Carpenter received an email from staff at the FSA Kansas City office, which was one of eight that closed in March.

    Now, “I’m uncertain on when I should submit the application, how long it’s going to take, and the impact it will have on other changes along the way,” she said. “The loss of those working relationships we had with the Kansas City participation team is definitely creating a lot of uncertainty.”

    Although critics have accused DOGE of operating in a rash and haphazard manner, one senior FSA official told Inside Higher Ed that the decision to cut staff at the regional offices that handled eligibility and compliance was likely deliberate.

    “The easiest place to cut is in functions that the broader public doesn’t see, even if they may be impactful,” said the official, who requested anonymity to speak freely. “You can’t cut the FAFSA … and you can’t cut the teams that support the actual technology for dispersing aid and handling repayment, because then borrowers start calling the press and calling Congress,” they added. “But if it just takes longer for schools to go through the process, get questions answered and get support then there’s not a discrete pain.”

    But just because the pain may not be publicly distinct, that doesn’t mean colleges aren’t feeling it.

    “There’s never been a worse time to be starting or renewing a Title IV program, and there’s never been a better time to be not following Title IV regulations,” the staffer said.

    Future of ‘Flying Blind’

    Other concerns raised by higher education advocates are more focused on the future.

    The sweeping Big, Beautiful Bill, signed into law July 4, includes a swath of higher education policy changes, ranging from revamping student loan repayment plans to introducing a novel accountability metric for colleges. Getting those changes implemented by July 1, 2026 with fewer employees is a tall order for the department, and many higher education advocates worry that the agency will struggle to pull it off.

    Mitchell from ACE fears that a general lack of data will hamper efforts to implement the new policies. The Institute for Education Sciences, an agency focused on collecting and analyzing education data to inform policy, was almost entirely gutted by the layoffs. Fewer than 20 employees remain, down from more than 175 at the start of the year, according to the Hechinger Report. The National Center for Education Statistics, one of the most crucial arms of IES, is down to just three staff members.

    Without IES fully staffed, Mitchell worries colleges and universities will be held to new student outcome standards based on inaccurate data.

    “Who will be on the other side receiving information about program level earnings? We don’t know,” he said, referring to the new post-graduation income test that colleges will have to pass. “If the cuts go through the way they are planned, higher education will largely be flying blind. We won’t know what programs and interventions will work to improve student success at the very moment when higher ed is facing a crisis of confidence about whether it is doing the right thing for students.”

    Without the department, colleges will have to increase their own technical capacities, he added, and that comes at a cost.

    The department acknowledged that the bill includes major changes to the federal student aid system and the development of a new accountability program but said that, with billions of dollars in federal funding, the Office of Federal Student Aid will be able to complete both projects.

    More disruptions are expected at the department in months to come as the Trump administration aims to shift certain responsibilities and programs to other agencies. Last week, shortly after the Supreme Court ruling, McMahon formally announced a plan to move career, technical (CTE) and adult education programs to the Labor Department. Trump and other officials have also talked about moving the federal student loan program to either the Small Business Administration or the Treasury Department.

    But the FSA official said the department is using the transfer of smaller CTE programs as a test run first and will take its time to move the federal aid system—if it does at all. The official is also confident the department will be able to put the new policies and programs in motion, but only if Congress extends the deadlines.

    “I think there’s a wide recognition, including on the Hill, that the timelines in the bill aren’t realistic,” the official said. “I feel good about being able to get [it] done … [But] if the question is, can we hit all the details and all the timelines? I think that’s impossible.”

    Both the department staffer and Storey from NASFAA said that if lawmakers and White House staff are smart, they will apply the lessons learned from the last time FSA overhauled student aid programs. For the Biden administration, pressure to finish a big project in a short amount of time, combined with a lack of feedback from college leaders, led to a botched rollout of the new financial aid application, they said. Hopefully, this time things will be different.

    “If we learned anything from the FAFSA debacle, it was that while the department was struggling to get their implementation in order, they neglected institutions and vendors who are incredibly important partners in that ecosystem of delivering aid,” Storey said. “Let us not make that mistake again. Ignore the role of institutions, at your peril. They are the front lines.”

    Source link

  • Teaching Critiques in an Unsettled Political Time (opinion)

    Teaching Critiques in an Unsettled Political Time (opinion)

    As a university professor, I recently found myself in an awkward spot. I teach a large survey course called Introduction to Cultural Anthropology that enrolls some 350 students. As part of the course, I usually spend one class period every semester lecturing on the anthropology of development. This is a field in which the dominant strains have involved critiquing development projects, most frequently for two sorts of reasons: either for ignoring local cultural practices and priorities, or for exacerbating the very things that development projects are meant to ameliorate.

    In the spring semester of 2025, after I had already finalized and posted the course syllabus, something unprecedented happened in the United States: the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was dismantled by the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). From the standpoint of the standard critiques of development, some of the rationales the Trump administration provided for this unprecedented move were eerily familiar. “Musk and the Right Co-Opt the Left’s Critique of U.S. Power,” The New York Times proclaimed.

    Development isn’t the only topic on which such a critique of power has suddenly shifted politically. Science, another topic on which I spend some class sessions, is similarly fraught. For a long time, many researchers in the anthropology of science argued that the values and beliefs of scientists shape the sciences. The attacks on scientific authority that began during President Trump’s first term and have intensified since amplify these very same sorts of arguments. So how do we broach these topics today, as university professors?

    In pondering this question in the context of my own class, I came to view the common refrain that the right is “coopting” or “appropriating” the critiques made by the left with some curiosity and a bit of suspicion. Both of these terms carry some connotations of misuse and bad faith. Don’t get me wrong: There certainly is truth to the view that some Republican politicians in the United States have recently lifted and re-deployed arguments simply because they justify a desired end (and achieve a little trolling as an added benefit). But, educationally, “appropriation” in this context is not always a useful refrain. It sidesteps the arguments themselves by drawing pre-determined boundaries around their fair use.

    Further, the view that these migrating arguments are cases of “cooptation” does not always stand up to historical scrutiny. Take, for example, questions concerning the power vested in experts. Today, the right is waging more of a battle against experts and the institutions that house them than the left. This battle is undergirded by several arguments, including claims of insufficient “viewpoint diversity” and elite capture, themselves logics that have migrated.

    This battle against experts is most vociferously waged in the name of a populist view: that the people know what’s best for them. A couple of decades ago, the left was more invested in critiquing the ways that expertise was used to exert control over people who understood their own circumstances and their own needs better than many experts.

    But before that, a similar argument sat at the core of the neoliberal right. The famed neoliberal theorist Friedrich von Hayek made this sort of argument against expertise as part of his case for unfettered markets, which, he argued, aggregated and responded to the locally informed decisions of large numbers of individuals better than any expert ever could. It’s also a mistake to think about the migration of these ideas in terms of a stable divide between left and right: MAGA has instilled in the “right” in the guise of the current Republican party a new hostility toward the free market while the “left” of today’s Democratic party has embraced elements of neoliberalism.

    Instead of simple “appropriation,” the migration of arguments across an array of worldviews should be interpreted as zones of agreement where the depth of that agreement—superficial or comprehensive?—has to be scrutinized. Why and how are different implications drawn from these zones? This entails continuing to think about and teach these critical perspectives rather than shying away from them for fear of exacerbating the attacks they now authorize.

    Ultimately, recognizing that similar critiques cross-pollinate with disparate ideological positions is an invitation to engage even more deeply with the substance of these arguments, both in the classroom and beyond.

    Talia Dan-Cohen is an associate professor of sociocultural anthropology and associate director of the Center for the Humanities at Washington University in St. Louis.

    Source link

  • How Neoliberalism Haunts Our Lives: 24/7/365

    How Neoliberalism Haunts Our Lives: 24/7/365

    Neoliberalism isn’t just an economic theory or a dry policy framework. It’s a lived reality that operates around the clock, shaping our lives in ways many people don’t fully see. Neoliberalism tells us that markets solve everything, that individual responsibility trumps social solidarity, and that human worth is best measured by productivity, consumption, and credentialing. Its presence is constant—at work, in education, in healthcare, in housing, even in our relationships.

    This is not a new critique. But as the 21st century drags on and late capitalism becomes more extractive, predatory, and digitally surveilled, the impacts of neoliberal ideology have intensified. For the working class, for students, for adjuncts, for debtors, for renters, and for the chronically ill, neoliberalism is not an abstraction—it is a system of permanent exhaustion.


    The Day Begins: Sleep-Deprived and Algorithmically Watched

    The neoliberal day begins before the alarm rings. If you’re poor, you may be sleeping in your car or waking up in a crowded home. If you’re middle-class, the first thing you see is likely your phone, already feeding you metrics about your body (sleep scores, heart rate, missed messages). Neoliberal logic tells us our time must be optimized, even our rest must be productive.

    Gig workers check their apps to see if they’ll get enough rides or orders to survive. Others log into remote jobs monitored by keystroke trackers, digital timesheets, or AI productivity tools. Control is constant, and surveillance is internalized: we discipline ourselves with planners, metrics, reminders, shame.


    Education: Credentials Over Knowledge

    For students, neoliberal education is a high-cost simulation of opportunity. Degrees are sold as investments in “human capital,” with ever-rising tuition and debt. Public funding is replaced by predatory loans, branding consultants, and privatized ed-tech platforms. The curriculum is shaped by market demand, not civic responsibility. Liberal arts are gutted, and adjuncts are paid poverty wages while administrators balloon in number.

    The university, once imagined as a space for critical thinking and collective inquiry, is now a debt-fueled credential mill—an HR pipeline for corporations, a subscription model of social mobility that rarely delivers.


    Healthcare: A Business of Despair

    Neoliberalism doesn’t take a break when you get sick. In fact, your illness becomes a profit center. In the U.S., the healthcare system is a financial trap. Insurance is often tied to employment; losing your job means losing your access to care. Big Pharma, hospital chains, and insurance conglomerates operate under the logic of maximizing shareholder value—not public health.

    Even mental health is commodified. Wellness apps, “self-care” products, and Instagram therapy push the idea that individual solutions will fix systemic problems. Suffering is reframed as personal failure.


    Housing: A Market, Not a Human Right

    Housing insecurity is one of neoliberalism’s clearest failures. Real estate speculation, gentrification, and the financialization of housing have made shelter a luxury good. Renters face skyrocketing costs and eviction threats, while homes sit vacant as investment vehicles.

    Public housing is stigmatized and underfunded. Homelessness becomes a criminal issue instead of a humanitarian one. You’re told to “pull yourself up” while the ladder is systematically removed.


    Work and Labor: You’re Always On

    The 9-to-5 is no longer the norm. Neoliberal work is either hyper-precarious or all-consuming. The gig economy pretends to offer flexibility, but in practice it strips away rights, benefits, and security. Professional workers face unpaid overtime, side hustles, and an expectation of constant availability. Labor laws lag decades behind. Union-busting is normalized.

    At the same time, those without work are treated with suspicion. Unemployment, disability, and even retirement are framed as moral failings or burdens on the system.


    Nightfall: No Rest for the Weary

    At night, the apps don’t sleep. Your data is still harvested. Your bank is still charging fees. Your landlord’s algorithm is still adjusting rent. Your student loan is still accruing interest. Your body, overstressed and under-cared-for, begins to break down.

    Even dreams aren’t free: entertainment has been colonized by neoliberal culture, feeding you aspirational lifestyles and endless content to dull your exhaustion. Everything is monetized. Everything is a subscription.


    Resistance in the Cracks

    Despite its pervasiveness, neoliberalism is not invincible. People are resisting in small and large ways—through union organizing, mutual aid, alternative media, degrowth activism, and radical pedagogy. These aren’t just political choices; they are survival strategies.

    But for resistance to grow, we must name the problem clearly. Neoliberalism is not just a phase of capitalism—it’s an ideology embedded in every institution and mediated by every platform. It isolates us, overworks us, and extracts from us while pretending to offer freedom and choice.


    The 24/7/365 Trap

    We live in neoliberalism’s world, but we don’t have to live by its rules. That starts with refusing its myths: that poverty is personal failure, that education is a private good, that health must be earned, that the market is sacred.

    As long as neoliberalism governs our lives without challenge, inequality will deepen and democracy will continue to erode. The question isn’t whether we can afford to abandon neoliberalism—the question is whether we can survive if we don’t.


    Sources:

    • Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos

    • David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism

    • Sarah Jaffe, Work Won’t Love You Back

    • Marion Fourcade and Kieran Healy, “Seeing Like a Market”

    • Astra Taylor, The Age of Insecurity

    • Michael Hudson, The Destiny of Civilization

    • Maurizio Lazzarato, The Making of the Indebted Man

    Source link

  • PRINCIPAL VOICE: Inviting families into our classrooms slashed absenteeism and raised reading levels

    PRINCIPAL VOICE: Inviting families into our classrooms slashed absenteeism and raised reading levels

    Two years ago, I bought each of the teachers at Hamilton Elementary in San Diego’s City Heights neighborhood a blue chair. I told them to put it in the back of their classrooms, and that if a parent or caregiver wanted to visit to see how their children are learning — no matter what the reason — that this would be a dedicated space for them.

    I may have earned some exaggerated eye-rolls from educators that day. After all, I can appreciate the disruption to learning that classroom visitors can sometimes cause, especially among excitable elementary schoolers.

    But school is our home, and it is our responsibility to invite families into our home and welcome them. And this was a necessary olive branch, my way of saying to families: “From here on out, things are going to be different.”

    And they were. They also can be different at other schools, because the benefits of family engagement go well beyond student achievement.

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

    Research has long shown that when parents and caregivers are involved and engaged with their children’s education — whether that’s by attending parent-teacher conferences or participating in school events — student achievement, motivation and social-emotional well-being increase.

    Parent involvement with reading activities has a positive impact on reading achievement, language comprehension, expressive language skills and level of attention in the classroom, according to the National Literacy Trust.

    Research also shows that educators enjoy increased job satisfaction and are more likely to keep teaching at the school, families enjoy stronger relationships with their children and feel less isolated, and even school districts themselves become better places to live and raise children.

    None of this was the case when we returned to normalcy following Covid. Just 13 percent of students were reading on grade level, and 37 percent were chronically absent. I knew right away that before we even attempted to tackle academics, we needed to engage families and make them feel deeply connected and committed to the community I envisioned building here.

    Today, 45 percent of students are reading at grade-level, and chronic absenteeism, at 12 percent on the most recent official numbers, is down to 10 percent in our own tracking, with a goal of pushing it down to 8 percent in 2025-26.

    But it wasn’t easy given the distrust that had boiled over during the pandemic, with families skeptical of our ability to effectively support their children and school staff feeling defensive and exhausted.

    It was clear to me that families weren’t excited to send their kids to school, didn’t feel informed about what was happening on our campus and, moreover, didn’t feel comfortable — let alone capable — of communicating their needs to us.

    Complicating matters further was the need to share information across many languages other than English, which can make relationship-building and communicating expectations difficult.

    Roughly half of our students are English learners, and while the majority of their families are Spanish-speakers, there are growing populations of students whose first languages are Haitian-Creole, Pashto and Vietnamese.

    Related: What the research says about the best way to engage parents

    The first thing I did was establish open communication with parents using ClassDojo, a mobile app that gives families an easy, intuitive central access point to our teachers and staff, automatically translates all messages into parents’ native languages and allows us to share stories about what is happening in school.

    It became an easy way to build trust and collaboration between families and staff.

    Creating that type of visibility was key to breaking down walls between us. And in those early days, we didn’t post about literacy, math or anything related to academics. Instead, we focused solely on attendance and getting families to come inside the school as much as possible.

    We focused on relationship-building activities and joyful learning. We hosted after-school art classes and monthly family Fridays, when families could come to school to engage in a fun activity.

    We organized a Halloween costume drive with candy and fun games for kids; we hosted a Read Across America event where we passed out Play-Doh; and we organized other low-stakes events at school, rooted in building a partnership between home and school.

    Again, our goal wasn’t learning during these meet-ups. It was all in service of building trust and creating meaningful relationships with students and their families.

    Once we had the foundation in place, we added a focus on academics — though we rooted that learning in family engagement, too. For example, our schoolwide focus last year was phonics, so we sent activities home for families to complete with their children that were tied specifically to concepts the students needed reinforced, based on their individual assessments, like long vowel patterns and sight words.

    These activities were taught by the students and their teachers to family members during conferences.

    Beyond helping students, the exercise challenged a false narrative so many families had assumed — that they either didn’t know enough about what was happening in school to help, weren’t confident enough to help or didn’t have enough time.

    Today, the atmosphere at Hamilton feels radically different than when I first walked through the doors. When we first started hosting Family Fridays, about 10 family members and their children showed up.

    Now, we have roughly 200 caregivers at every meet-up. Families run most of the community-based initiatives at the school — from a boutique where families can shop among donated clothes twice a month, to a food distribution center, to a book club, English classes and a monthly meet-up where families can socialize.

    When district leaders visit, they’re always impressed by the participation. I tell them, if you care about family engagement, it has to be so deeply embedded into the system that people don’t have a choice but to do it.

    That’s why I’m constantly thinking about how to center family engagement in staff meetings, in attendance meetings, in literacy and math plans, in behavioral and counseling plans and in meetings about school procedures and budgets.

    It’s a strategy that not only involves families but also supports academic achievement and student well-being. For me, family engagement is the ultimate strategy for academics.

    Sometimes in the K-12 world we keep outreach and academics separate, but in reality, engagement is the key that unlocks our ability to hit academic goals and create a joyful school community.

    Dr. Brittany Daley is the principal of Hamilton Elementary School in San Diego, California.

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

    This story about family engagement 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

  • General Education for Working Learners in the Age of AI – Faculty Focus

    General Education for Working Learners in the Age of AI – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • General Education for Working Learners in the Age of AI – Faculty Focus

    General Education for Working Learners in the Age of AI – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • The possibilities for radical collaboration in HE go far beyond mergers

    The possibilities for radical collaboration in HE go far beyond mergers

    2024-25 has been quite a year for collaboration in higher education. A year on from the election of the Labour government two things are pretty clear: there will be no significant injection of public funds into the sector in the current parliament; and the guiding lens for this government’s post-16 education policy will be regional.

    Instead of a highly competitive national higher education market the current policy landscape speaks to finding more ways to pool resources between institutions – so much so that Universities UK announced the formation of its taskforce on efficiency and transformation with the announcement of a “new era of collaboration” in higher education.

    Early in the year as the reality of the fiscal situation became clearer the sector saw a renewal of interest in coordinated efficiency models, including shared services, joint procurement, and up to and including mergers and acquisitions. There was only one problem: anyone who had experience of these kinds of initiatives, whether in higher education or another sector, would quickly warn that they require a great deal of upfront investment of time and energy, and the intended efficiency savings rarely materialise in the short term.

    No institution whose sole objective was to save money would look to collaboration as the best solution. But when we have explored themes of collaboration with the sector – through our radical efficiency article series with KPMG UK and our Connect More report with Mills & Reeve – we have found that despite the competitive pressures on the sector there is an appetite to explore where greater coordination between institutions could enhance value for students, employers, research funders and communities and regions.

    Play by play

    That sense of strategic potential for new ways of realising value is the starting point for a new publication from KPMG UK and Mills & Reeve. Titled Radical collaboration: a playbook, the report sets out the strategic context and considerations for boards and executives considering the range of options for structural collaboration, and the legal implications for the different kinds of possible models for structural collaboration.

    “If structural collaboration is framed as a short term fix for immediate financial sustainability then it’s the wrong answer to a bad question,” says Justine Andrew, partner at KPMG UK, and one of the authors of the playbook. “I think this is the moment, looking at the medium to long term, to say ‘is there a more joined-up way of fulfilling the purposes of what universities are for which is delivering world class teaching and research with impact in our places?’”

    It is often assumed that “structural collaboration” is a euphemism for merger – which itself is a euphemism for acquisition of one education provider by another. But this is far from accurate. One of the intents of the playbook is to explore the breadth of possible collaborations available to higher education providers on a spectrum from the softer to harder forms, including contractual alliance models, federation, group structures, and even the concept of a “multi-university trust.”

    “The multi-university trust is a concept that doesn’t exist yet,” says Poppy Short, partner at Mills & Reeve, and playbook author. “But in the school sector we have multi-academy trusts where all the institutions combine into one charitable company but the legacy institutions operate out of a separate academic division within that corporate vehicle, with some localised autonomy and branding. I think we will see one or more of those in higher education in the not too distant future.”

    Better the hurdle you know

    A further, highly practical, intent of the playbook is to help institutions to navigate some of the initial barriers to thinking through those different possibilities. Where higher education providers have merged – something that, while not especially common in higher education, is hardly beyond the bounds of accepted practice – they have been surprised to discover a lack of formal guidance that sets out the legal and regulatory requirements to help two organisations become one. There is even a degree of murkiness about the extent to which organisations are allowed to start conversations about collaboration under competition law – something which, under pressure from the sector, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has said it will look into.

    To tackle this lack of guidance, for each of the collaborative entities explored the playbook sets out the corporate structure and governance, and the implications for brand identity, management of finances and delivery of services, and the impact on staff and students, including a real-world example where one exists. The playbook then sets out a worked example of a hypothetical scenario of a group of providers in a place working through options for structural collaboration, thinking through what the strategic drivers and risks for individual institutions might be, and the legal, financial and regulatory implications for a new corporate group entity.

    “We really hope the playbook can move the conversation from the theoretical into a really practical one,” says Justine. “We’re using the fictional example of a place called Newtown that has a diverse range of FE and HE providers, and looking through a regional lens, if I’m a student, if I’m an employer, if I’m a combined authority, an industrial partner is the way that the sector I’m interfacing with set up the best for me from a curriculum, a research, a delivery point of view. So we’re not only thinking through the impact on the institutions themselves but flipping the lens a bit and asking whether, from the end user point of view, there is a better way of doing this.”

    Why wait for government

    Traditionally, the sector might have looked to the government to set out an agenda or framework where policy gaps are identified – but it’s also fair to say that few in the sector want the government to start putting pressure on institutions to work together or combine forces when the strategic rationale for doing so is undercooked. Far better for the impetus to come from institutions themselves, underpinned by a shared idea of the kinds of value that can be created through collaboration and a common commitment to achieving those ends.

    That doesn’t mean there is no role for government, not least in reducing the barriers to collaboration and potentially setting out some kind of brokerage framework or regulatory support service to encourage and support exploration of options. There are also some obvious tweaks to be made to the tax system to, at the very least, ensure structural collaborations do not incur a tax penalty.

    “I think the Department for Education is in listening mode,” says Poppy. “I think they are looking for the sector to come forward with ideas, for these conversations to start happening, and for the asks to fall out of that. Obviously there are funding challenges but there are other asks as well, such as could the department broker conversations with the CMA or give some additional regulatory guidance? Also it would be helpful to work on joining up the different forms of education provision across FE and HE so you’re not constantly finding hurdles – just as you get over one issue in your sector, you’re in another sector. I think there are many things the department could do to help universities navigate their way through some of the decision-making and planning and considering what their options are.”

    None of this looks like the kind of funding investment in transformation the sector might hope to see, but it’s worth noting that in some cases a benefit of scale can be to unlock opportunities for private investment. The playbook works through the circumstances under which private investment could be a sensible option and points to some existing public/private partnerships already in place in the sector.

    Radical collaboration may not be the answer for all or even most higher education institutions in England. But both the sector and government have to answer the fundamental policy question of how to organise the post-16 education sector in such a way as to support the provision of the kinds of diversity of qualifications, subjects and modes of delivery that will enable the largest possible numbers to benefit from the opportunity to enhance their life chances.

    If there is a chance that broader and deeper structural collaborations across further and higher education can help to deliver that agenda, then at the very least boards and executive teams have to give those options meaningful consideration – and this playbook just radically lowered the bar to starting that process.

    This article is published in association with KPMG UK and Mills & Reeve. You can view and download Radical collaboration: a playbook here.

    Source link

  • Canberra staff “in the dark” after council review – Campus Review

    Canberra staff “in the dark” after council review – Campus Review

    A review of the University of Canberra’s (UC) management said governing body members should be held more accountable after staff felt ‘shut down‘ and shunned from decision making.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • New UOW leadership reduces job cuts – Campus Review

    New UOW leadership reduces job cuts – Campus Review

    The new University of Wollongong (UOW) leader will cut senior staff and reduce non-salary spending to save some non-academic positions in the university’s restructure.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link