Over the past four decades, neoliberalism has reshaped higher education into a market-driven enterprise, producing what can only be described as a global College Meltdown. Once envisioned as a public good—a tool for civic empowerment, social mobility, and national progress—higher education in the United States, the United Kingdom, and China has been transformed into a competitive market system defined by privatization, debt, and disillusionment.
The United States: From Public Good to Profit Engine
Nowhere has neoliberal ideology had a more devastating effect on higher education than in the United States. Beginning in the 1980s, with the Reagan administration’s cuts to federal grants and the expansion of student loans, higher education funding shifted from public investment to individual burden. Universities adopted corporate governance models, hired armies of administrators, and marketed education as a private commodity promising personal enrichment rather than collective advancement.
The results are visible everywhere: tuition inflation, student debt exceeding $1.7 trillion, and the proliferation of predatory for-profit colleges. Elite universities transformed into financial behemoths, hoarding endowments while relying on contingent faculty. Meanwhile, working-class and minority students were lured into debt traps by institutions that promised upward mobility but delivered unemployment and despair.
The U.S. College Meltdown—a term that describes the system’s moral and financial collapse—is a direct consequence of neoliberal policies: deregulation, privatization, and austerity disguised as efficiency. The profit motive replaced the public mission, and the casualties include students, adjuncts, and the ideal of education as a democratic right.
The United Kingdom: Marketization and Managerialism
The United Kingdom followed a similar trajectory under Margaret Thatcher and her successors. The introduction of tuition fees in 1998 and their tripling in 2012 marked the formal triumph of neoliberal logic over public investment. British universities became quasi-corporate entities, obsessed with league tables, branding, and global rankings.
The result has been mounting student debt, declining staff morale, and a hollowing out of intellectual life. Faculty strikes over pensions and pay disparities underscore a deeper crisis of purpose. Universities now function as rent-seeking landlords—building luxury dorms for international students while cutting humanities departments. The logic of “student-as-customer” has reduced education to a transaction, and accountability has been redefined to mean profit margin rather than social contribution.
The UK’s College Meltdown mirrors that of the U.S.—a story of financialization, precarious labor, and the erosion of public trust.
China: Neoliberalism with Authoritarian Characteristics
At first glance, China seems to defy the Western College Meltdown. Its universities have expanded rapidly, producing millions of graduates and investing heavily in research. But beneath this apparent success lies a deeply neoliberal structure embedded in an authoritarian framework.
Since the 1990s, China’s higher education system has embraced competition, rankings, and market incentives. Universities compete for prestige and funding; families invest heavily in private tutoring and overseas degrees; and graduates face a saturated labor market. The result is mounting anxiety and unemployment among young people—known online as the “lying flat” generation, disillusioned with promises of meritocratic success.
The Chinese model fuses state control with neoliberal marketization. Education serves as both an instrument of national power and a mechanism of social stratification. In this sense, China’s version of the College Meltdown reflects a global truth: the commodification of education leads to alienation, regardless of political system.
A Global System in Crisis
Whether in Washington, London, or Beijing, the pattern is strikingly similar. Neoliberalism treats education as an investment in human capital, reducing learning to a financial calculation. Universities compete like corporations; students borrow like consumers; and knowledge becomes a tool of capital accumulation rather than liberation.
This convergence of economic and ideological forces has created an unsustainable higher education bubble—overpriced, overcredentialized, and underdelivering. Across continents, graduates face debt, underemployment, and despair, while universities chase rankings and revenue streams instead of justice and truth.
Toward a Post-Neoliberal Education
Reversing the College Meltdown requires more than reform; it demands a new philosophy. Public universities must reclaim their civic mission. Education must once again be understood as a human right, not a private investment. Debt forgiveness, reinvestment in teaching, and democratic governance are essential first steps.
Neoliberalism’s greatest illusion was that markets could produce wisdom. The College Meltdown proves the opposite: when education serves profit instead of people, it consumes itself from within.
Sources:
Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos (2015)
David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (2005)
Tressie McMillan Cottom, Lower Ed (2017)
The Higher Education Inquirer archives on the U.S. College Meltdown
BBC, “University staff strikes and student debt crisis,” 2024
Caixin, “China’s youth unemployment and education anxiety,” 2023
As the £4.3 million National Civic Impact Accelerator (NCIA) programme draws to a close in December, universities across the country are grappling with a fundamental question: what does sustainable civic engagement actually look like?
After three years of momentum building and collective learning, I find myself observing the sector at a crossroads that feels both familiar and entirely new. The timing feels both urgent and opportune.
The government’s renewed emphasis about universities’ civic role – most notably through Bridget Phillipson’s explicit call for institutions to “play a greater civic role in their communities” – creates opportunity and expectation. Yet this arrives at a challenging time for universities, with 43 per cent of England’s institutions facing deficits this year.
Despite this supportive policy context, I still find myself having conversations like, “but what exactly is civic?”, “is civic the right word?” or – most worryingly – “we can’t afford this anymore.”
As universities face their most challenging financial circumstances in decades, we need to be bolder, clearer, and more precise about demonstrating our value to places and communities, across everything we do.
Determination
Instead of treating place-responsive work as a competition on some imagined league table or trying to redefine the term to fit the status quo, we need to come together to demonstrate our value to society collectively. But perhaps most importantly, we need to commit to reflect and do better despite the financial challenges.
This isn’t about pinning down a narrow, one-size-fits-all definition and enforcing uniformity. Instead, it’s about recognising and valuing the diversity of place-responsive approaches seen across the country. From the University of Kent’s Right to Food programme to Anglia Ruskin University’s co-creation approach to voluntary student social impact projects. From Dundee’s Art at the Start project to support infant mental health and address inequalities, to how Birmingham City University is supporting local achievement of net-zero ambitions through their climate literacy bootcamps.
Sometimes, it means making tough choices to reimagine how these valuable ways of working can be embedded across everything we do. Sometimes it means making this work visible, using a shared language to bring coherence – and crucially – committing, even in tough times, to honest reflection on our practice and a determination to keep improving.
The waypoint moment
I’ve found it helpful to describe civic engagement as an expedition. Most of us can imagine some kind of destination for our civic ambitions – perhaps obscured by clouds – with many paths before us, lots of different terrains, and a few hazards on the trail.
Through the NCIA’s work – led by Sheffield Hallam University in partnership with the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE), the Institute for Community Studies, City-REDI, and Queen Mary University of London – we’ve distilled three years of intensive evidence gathering and experimentation into fourteen practical “waypoints” for civic engagement, now launching as part of our Civic Field Guide (currently in Beta version).
These aren’t just statements – they’re navigation signals based on well-trodden paths from fellow explorers. They come with a bespoke set of tools, ideas and options to deal with the terrain ahead.
You can think of them like those reassuring signs on coastal walks. Helping you understand where you are and what direction you’re heading but giving you freedom to explore or take a detour.
Take our waypoint on measuring civic impact. It encourages universities to develop evaluation systems that can document progress quantitatively, alongside the rich narratives that illustrate how civic initiatives transform real lives and strengthen community capacity. It draws on examples from universities that have tried to tackle this challenge, acknowledging both their successes and the obstacles they’ve encountered, whilst offering practical tools, frameworks and actionable guidance. But it deliberately avoids prescribing a one-size-fits-all measurement approach. Because every place has different needs, ambitions and challenges. Both the civic work itself and how we measure it must be tailored to the unique character of our places and communities.
Our waypoints cover everything from embedding civic engagement as a core institutional mission to navigating complex policy landscapes. They address the “passion trap” that many of us might recognise, where civic work is reliant on a few individual champions rather than an institutional culture. They tackle issues of partnership development, cultivating active citizenship, and contributing to regional policymaking.
Perhaps most importantly, they recognise that authentic civic engagement isn’t about universities doing things to or even for their places, it’s about embracing other anchor institutions, competitors, businesses and communities as equal partners throughout the entire process of identifying needs, designing solutions, and implementing change.
This often means decentring the university from the relationship. Some of the strongest partnerships start with universities asking not “what can we do for you?” but “what are you already trying to achieve, and how might we contribute?”.
The embedding challenge
James Coe’s recent thoughts on how to save the civic agenda challenged us all to think about how universities move beyond “civic-washing” to genuine transformation. The NCIA’s evidence suggests the answer lies in weaving civic responsibility into everything we do, not just the obvious.
Being civic means thinking about procurement policies that support local businesses. It means campus facilities genuinely accessible to community groups. It means research questions shaped by community priorities, not just academic curiosity. It means student placements that address local challenges whilst developing skills and confidence.
Such as at the University of Derby. Their CivicLAB supports academics, students and the community to share insights on research and practice through a place-based approach to knowledge generation. Located centrally within the university, this interdisciplinary group cuts across research, innovation, teaching, and learning. Established in late 2020, CivicLAB has already created civic opportunities for over 14,600 staff, students and external stakeholders and members of the public.
The civic question also means responding to the sceptics with evidence: demonstrating how place-based engagement creates richer contexts for research and more meaningful experiences for students; showing how equitable partnerships, far from distracting from core academic work, can actually enhance teaching and scholarship; and providing examples of how civic engagement has strengthened global excellence, helping local communities connect their priorities and assets to broader movements and opportunities.
The future of civic engagement
At CiviCon25 – our national, flagship conference which took place in Sheffield last month – we brought together civic university practitioners, engaged scholars, senior leaders and community partners to wrestle with the challenges that will shape the next decade of civic engagement.
Our theme of “where ideas meet impact” captured something fundamental about our work: too often in higher education, brilliant ideas never quite make it into practice, or practice develops in isolation from the best thinking. We sometimes get stuck reinventing the wheel, endlessly debating definitions instead of delivering for our communities.
But something different is happening now. A new generation of determined, ambitious civic universities are leading this movement forward, and I’ve been privileged to witness their journeys first-hand. They’ve been extraordinarily generous. Sharing what’s worked, being honest about setbacks, and helping others navigate the same challenges many of them faced alone. It’s their insights, experiments, and wisdom that have shaped the NCIA’s fourteen waypoints.
As the NCIA draws to its scheduled conclusion, there’s something bittersweet about this moment. The infrastructure exists. The evidence is compelling. The policy environment has never been more supportive. But whatever happens next, we need to demonstrate our value to society collectively and commit to reflect and do better despite the financial challenges.
The civic trail will always have its hazards. We’ve learned that much. But with good maps, experienced guides, and companions who share the commitment to reach the destination, these hazards become navigable challenges rather than insurmountable barriers.
The fourteen waypoints offer the higher education sector a map and compass. Not every university need follow this path, but those that choose civic engagement as core mission must commit fully to the patient work of institutional change, equitable partnership building, and community-led impact.
The trail is well marked now. The question is: who else will join the journey?
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
A federal judge on Friday issued a preliminary injunction barring the Trump administration from freezing the University of California system’s research funding as part of civil rights investigations.
In a scathing ruling, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin found the administration’s actions unconstitutional, describing “a playbook of initiating civil rights investigations of preeminent universities to justify cutting off federal funding,” with the aim of “forcing them to change their ideological tune.”
While a lawsuit over the Trump administration’s actions is ongoing, Lin barred the federal government from using civil rights investigations to freeze UC grant money, condition its grants on any measure that would violate recipients’ speech rights, or seek fines and other money from the system.
Dive Insight:
In her ruling, Lin described a “three-stage playbook” that the Trump administration uses to target universities. First, an agency involved with the administration’s Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announces civil rights investigations or planned enforcement actions. Then, the administration issues mass grants cancellations without following legally mandated administrative procedures, Lin wrote.
In the third stage, Lin said, the U.S. Department of Justice demands payment of millions or billions of dollars in addition to other policy changes in return for restored funding. A DOJ spokesperson on Monday declined to comment on the lawsuit.
In the case of UC, the judge ruled that plaintiffs — a coalition of faculty groups and unions, including the American Association of University Professors — provided “overwhelming evidence” of the administration’s “concerted campaign to purge ‘woke,’ ‘left,’ and ‘socialist’ viewpoints from our country’s leading universities.”
“It is undisputed that this precise playbook is now being executed at the University of California,” wrote Lin, citing public statements by Leo Terrell, senior counsel in the DOJ’s civil rights wing and the head of administration’s antisemitism task force. Terrell alleged that the UC system had been “hijacked by the left” and vowed to open investigations.
The Trump administration did just that. In August, it froze $584 million in research funding at the University of California, Los Angeles after concluding that the institution violated civil rights law. It primarily cited UCLA’s decision to allow a 2024 pro-Palestinian protest encampment to remain on campus for almost a week before calling in the police.
The administration has sought a $1.2 billion penalty from UCLA to release the funds and settle the allegations. “The costs associated with this demand, if left to stand, would have far-reaching consequences,” Chancellor Julio Frenk said in a public message in August.
Lin noted in her Friday ruling that the administration also sought settlement terms “that had nothing to do with antisemitism,” including policy changes to how UCLA handles student protests, an adoption of the administration’s views on gender, and a review of its diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
The administration’s campaign resulted in a significant and ongoing chilling of faculty’s actions, both in and out of the classroom, Lin said.
In addition to teaching and conducting research differently, members of the plaintiff groups have also changed how they engage in public discourse and limited their participation in protest, Lin said. Faculty have self-censored on topics such as structural racism and scrubbed their websites of references to DEI out of fear of reprisal.
“These are classic, predictable First Amendment harms, and exactly what Defendants publicly said that they intended,” Lin concluded.
While acknowledging the importance of combating antisemitism, Lin said the government was “silent on what actions UCLA took to address” antisemitism issues on its campus between May of 2024, when pro-Palestinian protesters established an encampment, and July 2025, when the DOJ concluded UCLA had violated civil rights law by not doing enough to protect Jewish students from harassment.
As part of a separate lawsuit, Lin in September ordered the National Institutes of Health and other agencies to restore suspended grants to UCLA.
UCLA and the UC system are just one of several prominent universities similarly targeted by the federal government. At least five institutions so far have signed deals with the Trump administration to resolve federal civil investigations. The agreements brokered by Columbia, Brown and Cornell universities require each to pay millions of dollars to the federal government, causes favored by the Trump administration or both.
Harvard University, on the other hand, has fought back against the administration’s tactics. After repeated federal attacks, accompanied by unprecedented ultimatums, the university sued the administration and successfully had the government’s $2.2 billion funding freeze against it reversed. The Trump administration has previously stated its intent to appeal.
A Conversation With West Virginia University Foundation’s Kristen Shipp
Special thanks:It’s a privilege to support West Virginia University (WVU) Foundation’s annual giving outreach and big tent Giving Day Initiative. For almost 10 years, the WVU Day of Giving has relied on the ScaleFunder platform to power its campaign, leading to record-breaking success and a huge positive impact throughout the WVU community. The Foundation has also used the RNL360 report to establish a starting point for the strategic planning, link their wide-reaching fundraising efforts to major donations, and identify actions that can be implemented right away to boost the performance of their annual giving program.
Our work in the advancement and nonprofit space feels pretty unsettled these days. There’s no shortage of uncertainty and daily headlines that often add to the confusion and concern. Navigating the distractions is hard and can be exhausting.
What helps cut through the noise and keeps us focused on the work at hand? Our answer is data. Specifically, our RNL360 analytics report has proven to be an invaluable resource. Maybe it’s strange to think of data as a friend, but it can be a source of comfort, creating a little calm and providing clarity and guidance as we do our best to deliver for the people and communities we serve.
We developed the RNL360 to illustrate historic and current giving trends. The report highlights metrics you would expect, including donor retention, consistency, path to major giving, and behaviors by generation. It offers important context for leaders and stakeholders, especially those new to or outside the advancement field. Insights from the analysis help shape our work with client partners. Whether it’s development of the fiscal year plan, segmentation, revisiting ask arrays or identifying priority donors for higher touch outreach. The “readout” also brings colleagues from across campus together for a better understanding of the general fundraising landscape and relevant, institution-specific trends.
Focus on what’s actionable
Kristin Shipp
At a time when resources are stretched and the stakes are high, RNL360 is used to inform both strategic planning and practical execution—it’s designed to provide specific takeaways and identify donors who should be prioritized.
We just wrapped up a report with our partners at West Virginia University Foundation (WVUF). We learned a lot, and asked Kristen Shipp, the Foundation’s executive director of annual giving, to weigh in and share her valuable perspective.
Success in bringing (and keeping) new donors on board
WVUF’s count of 1,745 new alumni donors last fiscal year was well ahead of the benchmark group and the Foundation also received first-time gifts from an impressive count of more than 5,000 family and friends.
Q: As you think about acquisition, what’s working for you? What are the campaigns or messages that actually convert?
Kristen Shipp: WVU Day of Giving has been one of the key drivers in acquiring new donors. Each participating group is highly engaged on social media and takes full advantage of the challenges to inspire alumni and friends to give. Another effective strategy is peer-to-peer fundraising, which allows individuals to promote specific initiatives within their own networks, creating a more personal and powerful connection to the cause.
Q: How are you approaching stewardship with new donors?
KS: Our donor engagement team leads first-time donor stewardship by sending personalized messages through ThankView. This has been an effective stewardship strategy that has helped us strengthen donor retention. Overall rates have improved since our last RNL360, and retention among new alumni donors is up more than ten points.
Median gifts on the rise
We know that while younger generations are philanthropic, and many have capacity to make bigger gifts, most are directing their philanthropy elsewhere—giving to other causes and charities. WVUF has increased median gift amounts across all generations.
Q: Are there one or two strategies you’ve found successful in driving movement with gift amounts? Any that are especially effective with younger generations?
KS: While the area of greatest need will always remain a priority, we also strive to provide opportunities throughout the year for alumni and donors to give to areas that align with their personal interests. Through our recent alumni survey, fielded by RNL, we learned that many are particularly interested in supporting mental health services, the student emergency fund, and initiatives that assist first-generation students. These priorities are featured in WVU Day of Giving, and we also leverage crowdfunding and peer-to-peer fundraising to raise awareness and support for these important areas.
Practical, real-world application
Loyal donors = At least five years of consecutive giving. New donors = No gift history or no giving in the last decade.
Q: Can you share a couple of specific ways that you are using the RNL360 outputs? Is the data helpful across teams and departments?
KS: Through RNL360, we learned that in FY25, 44% of our individual donors were alumni. This reinforces the importance of developing audience-focused strategies for our annual giving campaigns to ensure our messaging resonates with both alumni and non-alumni donors. Another helpful insight was the number of new alumni donors—only 30% were graduates from the last decade. This highlights the need to better connect recent graduates with causes they’re passionate about and to engage them through the communication channels they prefer.
Keeping the faith and focus
Q: Circling back to the unsettling times…you’ve experienced a lot of change at WVU and the Foundation. What helps you reduce the noise and stay focused? Anything professionally or personally that helps keep you positive and motivated?
KS: There have been many changes at WVU and the WVU Foundation, but with change comes new opportunity. I feel incredibly fortunate to be expanding the Annual Giving team by welcoming new staff members. It’s exciting to build a team that shares the same vision, drive, and passion—and to have fun together along the way. I like to keep things light and engaging, so whenever the moment allows, you’ll probably catch me sharing a funny movie quote or GIF with my teammates.
Ready to increase engagement with your donors?
Reach out to us today, and we’ll set up a time to discuss your best fundraising strategies. Our strategists can discuss how to optimize your fundraising strategies with the right data, how you can have a great Giving Day, and much more.
Opinion Piece by Dean Hoke — Small College America and Senior Fellow, The Sagamore Institute
A Personal Concern About the Future of Public Education
It’s impossible to ignore the rising level of criticism directed at our nation’s public schools. On cable news, social media channels, political stages, and in school board meetings, teachers and administrators have become easy targets. Public schools are accused of being ineffective, mismanaged, outdated, or, in some corners, ideologically dangerous. Some commentators openly champion the idea of a fully privatized K–12 system, sidelining the public institutions that have educated the vast majority of Americans for generations.
For those of us who have spent our lives in and around education, this rhetoric feels deeply personal. Public schools aren’t an abstraction. They are the places where many of us began our education, where our children discovered their strengths, where immigrants found belonging, where students with disabilities received support, and where caring adults changed the trajectory of young lives.
Behind every one of those moments stood a teacher.
Amid this turbulence, there is one group of institutions still quietly doing the hard work of preparing teachers: small private nonprofit colleges.
Small Private Colleges: An Overlooked Cornerstone of Teacher Preparation
Despite the noise surrounding public education, small private colleges remain committed to the one resource every school depends on: well-prepared, community-rooted teachers.
They rarely make national headlines. They don’t enroll tens of thousands of students. But they are woven into the civic and human infrastructure of their regions—especially in the Midwest, South, and rural America.
This reality became even clearer during a recent episode of Small College America, in which I interviewed Dr. Michael Scarlett, Professor of Education at Augustana College. His insights provide an insider’s view into the challenges—and the opportunities—facing teacher preparation today. Note to hear the entire interview click here https://smallcollegeamerica.transistor.fm/28
I. The Teacher Shortage: A Structural Crisis
Much has been written about the teacher shortage, but too often the conversation focuses on symptoms rather than causes. Here are the forces shaping the crisis.
1. Young people are turning away from teaching
Data from the ACT show that only 4% of students express interest in becoming teachers—down from 11% in the late 1990s. Bachelor’s degrees in education have fallen nearly 50% since the 1970s. Surveys show that fewer than 1 in 5 adults would recommend teaching as a career.
The message is clear: Teaching is meaningful, but many no longer see it as sustainable.
As Dr. Scarlett told us: “The pipeline simply is not as wide as it needs to be.”
Recent data offers a glimmer of hope: teacher preparation enrollment grew 12% nationally between 2018 and 2022. However, this modest rebound is almost entirely driven by alternative certification programs, which increased enrollment by 20%, while traditional college-based programs grew by only 4%. This disparity underscores a critical concern: the very programs that provide comprehensive, relationship-based preparation—including those at small colleges—are not recovering at the same rate as faster, less intensive alternatives.
2. Burnout and attrition have overtaken new entrants
The pandemic accelerated an already-existing national trend: teachers are leaving faster than new ones are entering.
Reasons include:
Student behavior challenges
Standardized testing pressure
Emotional fatigue
Inequities across districts
Lack of respect
Political and social media hostility
As Scarlett notes, these realities weigh heavily on early-career teachers: “What new teachers face today goes far beyond content knowledge. They face inequities, discipline issues, emotional exhaustion… and they’re expected to do it all.”
3. Alternative certification can’t fill the gap
Alternative routes help—but they cannot replace the traditional college-based pipeline. Many alt-cert teachers receive less pedagogical training and leave sooner.
Scarlett captures the trend: “Teaching has always attracted people later in life… we’ve definitely seen an uptick.”
And while alternative routes have seen growth in recent years—increasing 20% between 2018 and 2021—this expansion has not translated into solving the shortage. As of 2025, approximately 1 in 8 teaching positions nationwide remains either unfilled or filled by teachers not fully certified for their assignments. The shortcut approach cannot substitute for comprehensive preparation.
“The national teacher shortage is real… and retention is just as big a challenge as recruitment.” — Dr. Michael Scarlett
II. The Quiet Backbone: How Small Private Colleges Sustain the Teacher Workforce
Small private colleges graduate fewer teachers than large public institutions, but their impact is disproportionately large—especially in rural and suburban America.
1. They prepare the teachers who stay
About 786 private nonprofit colleges offer undergraduate education degrees—representing roughly 20% of all teacher preparation institutions in the United States. Together, they produce approximately 25,119 graduates per year, an average of 32 per institution.
These numbers may seem modest, but these graduates disproportionately:
Student-teach locally
Earn licensure in their home state
Take jobs within 30 miles of campus
Stay in the profession longer
Public schools desperately need these ‘homegrown’ teachers who understand the communities they serve.
2. Small colleges excel at the one thing teaching requires most: mentoring
Teacher preparation is not transactional. It is relational. And this is where private colleges excel. Scarlett put it plainly: “Close relationships with our students, small classes, a lot of direct supervision… we nurture them throughout the program.” In a profession that relies heavily on modeling and mentorship, this matters enormously.
One of the most striking differences: “Full professors… working with the students in the classrooms and out in field experiences. Other institutions outsource that.”
This is not a trivial distinction. Faculty supervision affects:
Preparedness
Confidence
Classroom management
Retention
Where larger institutions rely on external supervisors, small colleges invest the time and human capital to do it right.
4. They serve the regions hit hardest by shortages
Rural districts have the highest percentage of unfilled teaching positions. Many rural counties rely almost exclusively on a nearby private college to produce elementary teachers, special education teachers, and early childhood educators.
When a small college stops offering education degrees, it often leaves entire counties without a sustainable teacher pipeline.
5. They diversify the educator workforce
Small colleges—especially faith-based, minority-serving, or mission-driven institutions—often enroll first-generation students, students of color, adult career-changers, and bilingual students. These educators disproportionately fill shortage fields.
“What we have here is special… students understand the value of a small college experience.” — Dr. Michael Scarlett
III. Should Small Colleges Keep Offering Education Degrees? The Economic Question
Let’s be direct: Teacher preparation is not a high-margin program.
Costs include:
Intensive field supervision
CAEP or state accreditation
High-touch advising
Small cohort sizes
Education majors also often have lower net tuition revenue compared to business or STEM.
So why should a small college continue offering a program that is expensive and not highly profitable?
Because the alternative is far worse—for the institution and for the region it serves.
1. Cutting teacher-prep weakens a college’s identity and mission
Many private colleges were founded to prepare teachers. Teacher education is often central to institutional mission, community trust, donor expectations, and alumni identity.
Removing education programs sends the message that the college is stepping away from public service.
2. Teacher-prep strengthens community partnerships
Education programs open doors to:
District partnerships
Dual-credit pipelines
Grow Your Own initiatives
Nonprofit and state grants
Alumni involvement
These relationships benefit the entire institution, not just the education department.
3. Education majors support other academic areas
Teacher-prep indirectly strengthens:
Psychology
English
Sciences
Social sciences
Music and arts
When teacher education disappears, these majors often shrink too.
4. The societal mission outweighs the limited revenue
There are moments when institutional decisions must be driven by mission, not margins. Producing teachers is one of them.
5. Addressing concerns about program quality and scale
Some critics question whether small programs can match the resources and diversity of perspectives available at large universities. This is a fair concern—and the answer is that small colleges offer something different, not lesser.
Graduation and licensure pass rates at small private colleges consistently match or exceed those of larger institutions. What smaller programs may lack in scale, they compensate for through personalized mentorship, faculty continuity, and deep community integration. These are not peripheral benefits—they are the very qualities that predict long-term teacher retention.
IV. Why Students Still Choose Teaching—and Why Small Colleges Are Ideal for Them
Despite all the challenges, students who pursue teaching are deeply motivated by purpose.
Scarlett described his own journey: “I wanted to do something important… something that gives back to society.”
Many education majors choose the field because:
A teacher changed their life
They want meaningful work
They value community and service
They thrive in supportive, intimate learning environments
This makes small colleges the natural home for future teachers.
V. What Small Colleges Can Do to Strengthen Their Programs
Below are the strategies that are working across the country.
1. Build Grow Your Own (GYO) teacher pipelines
Districts increasingly partner to:
Co-fund tuition
Support paraeducator-to-teacher pathways
Provide paid residencies
Guarantee interviews for graduates
2. Develop dual-credit and “teacher cadet” high school programs
Scarlett sees this as a major reason for hope: “We’re seeing renewed interest in teaching through high school programs… This gives me hope.”
3. Offer specialized certifications (ESL, special ed, early childhood, STEM)
These areas attract students and meet district needs.
4. Create 4+1 BA/M.Ed pathways
Parents and students love the value.
5. Provide flexible programs for career-changers
The rise of adult learners presents a major opportunity for private colleges. “We prepare our students for the world that exists.” — Dr. Michael Scarlett
VI. Why Small Colleges Must Stay in the Teacher-Prep Business
If small private colleges withdraw from teacher preparation, the consequences will be immediate and dramatic:
Rural and suburban schools will lose their primary source of new teachers.
Teacher diversity will shrink.
More underprepared teachers will enter classrooms.
Districts will become more dependent on high-turnover alternative routes.
Student learning will suffer.
And the profession will lose something even more important: the human-centered preparation that small colleges provide so well.
The teacher shortage will not be solved by legislation alone.
It will not be solved by fast-track certification mills.
It will not be solved by online mega-universities.
It will not be solved by market forces.
It will be solved in the classrooms, hallways, and mentoring relationships of the small colleges that still believe in the promise of teaching.
If we want public schools to remain strong, we must support the institutions that prepare the teachers who keep them alive. Small private colleges aren’t just participants in the teacher pipeline—they are its foundation.
When these colleges thrive, they produce educators who stay, who care, and who transform communities. That’s not just good for education—it’s essential for American democracy.
Dean Hokeis Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy firm. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). Dean has worked with higher education institutions worldwide. With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean is the Executive Producer and co-host for the podcast series Small College America and a Senior Fellow at the Sagamore Institute based in Indianapolis, Indiana.
From New York to Jakarta, the scene is the same: Shelves overflowing with cheap, ultra-processed snacks and sugary drinks have become the new normal for millions of children. As a result, for the first time in history, more children are obese than underweight.
UNICEF’s new Feeding Profit report explains why: Across the globe, cheap and intensely marketed ultra-processed foods dominate what families are able to put on the table, while nutritious options remain out of reach.
Across the world, one in 20 children under five and one in five children and adolescents aged five to 19 are overweight. The number of overweight children and teens in 2000 almost doubled by 2022, with South Asia experiencing an increase of almost 500%. In East Asia, the Pacific, Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa, the increase was at least 10%.
Ultra-processed foods and beverages, defined as industrially formulated, are composed primarily of chemically-modified substances extracted from foods, together with additives and preservatives to enhance taste, texture and appearance as well as shelf life.
These foods — which are often cheaper, nutrient poor and higher in sugar, unhealthy fats and salt — are now more prevalent than traditional, nutritious foods in children’s diets.
Today, children’s paths to healthy eating are shaped less by personal choice than by the food environments that surround them. Those are the places where and conditions under which people make decisions about what to eat. They connect a person’s daily life with the broader food system around them, and are shaped by physical, political, economic and cultural factors that help determine what foods are available, affordable, appealing and regularly eaten.
Such environments are steering children toward ultra-processed, calorie-dense options, even when healthier foods are available.
Around the world, countries are beginning to push back. In Mexico, where nearly four million children aged 4-10 are obese, the government took a bold step in March 2025. It banned the sale of ultra-processed foods and sugary drinks in schools.
The new rules go beyond restriction: Schools must offer fresh, regional foods such as fruits, vegetables and seeds, promote water as the default beverage, and establish health education programs. The policy also calls for regular health monitoring, mandatory fortification of wheat and corn flours, and more opportunities for physical activity, with penalties for schools that fail to comply.
Taking steps to slim down our diets
In September 2025, Malaysia’s Ministry of Education followed similar steps. It now prohibits 12 categories of ultra-processed foods and drinks in school canteens, from instant noodles and skewered snacks to frozen desserts and candy.
But even as countries rewrite their food policies, millions of families still face difficult choices at the market.
Shauna Downs, associate professor of food policy and public health nutrition at Rutgers University, has seen firsthand how hunger and obesity can coexist within the same communities in her research on informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya.
“People are able to find nutrient-rich foods, like leafy greens, fruits, and vegetables, and animal-source foods, but they’re often expensive, and what they can get that’s cheaper is things like mandazi [fried dough], which provide energy, and they taste good, but they’re not getting the nutrients they need,” she said.
Families that want to buy the nutrient-rich foods are forced into heartbreaking choices, Downs said.
“So now they’re making a decision between ‘Am I gonna buy this food from the market, which my family needs, or am I gonna pay for my child to go to school?’” she said.
Looking at food environments
By spotlighting the food environment, consumers and researchers alike can move past the tired “eat less, move more” narrative to fight childhood obesity and ask a better question: Why wasn’t the healthy plate the obvious, easy and most affordable choice in the first place?
Long before ultra-processed foods flooded grocery shelves, they quietly took over another key part of children’s lives: school cafeterias. Back in 1981, the Reagan administration cut US$1.5 billion in U.S. school food funding, pushing public institutions to rely on convenience over nutrition.
Pamela Koch, associate professor of nutrition and education at Teachers College, Columbia University, said that one of the things cut was for funding for schools upgrade their kitchens.
“That was the same time as the food supply was becoming more and more [saturated] with highly-processed food, and a lot of food companies realized, ‘Wait, we could have a market selling to schools. Schools don’t have money to buy supplies’,” Koch said.
Companies began offering deals: Sign a long-term contract and receive a free convection oven to reheat ultra-processed foods. For schools facing budget cuts and limited staffing, the decision was simple. The cost of that convenience would echo for decades.
Let’s start with school meals.
The nonprofit Global Child Nutrition Foundation, highlights school meals as an essential lever for transforming food systems: Create demand for nutritious foods, improve the livelihoods of those working in the food system and promote climate-smart foods. However, the cost of scaling up national programs depends on the strength of supply chains, underlying food markets, logistics and procurement models.
Countries that depend on imported food, already challenged by infrastructure and expensive trading costs, will face additional challenges in delivering healthy school meals.
In much of the world, climate stress and weak infrastructure are making nutritious food both more difficult to grow and more expensive to purchase.
Small-scale farmers, sheep and cattle farmers, forest keepers and fishers — known collectively as smallholder farmers — grow much of the food in low-income countries. They face worsening yields due to climate change, land degradation and lack of access to the technology and resources that support sustainable food production.
At the same time perishable foods are becoming more expensive because the global supply chain — how food gets shipped from a farm in one country through distribution networks to store shelves in another country — is increasingly threatened by political tension, the lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change.
Durability over nutrition
Kate Schneider, assistant professor of sustainable food systems at Arizona State University, said that smallholder farmers grow food as their livelihood. “They’re not able to grow enough food, which is partly a story of climate change,” Schneider said. “Multiple generations now have been farming … year after year on the same land, but without external inputs –– fertilizers and modern, high-yielding seeds –– they are resulting in very low yields.”
Even when fresh fruits and vegetables are available, logistical barriers make it easier to sell ultra-processed foods. Fresh produce is heavy, vulnerable to spoilage and expensive to move, especially in countries with poor transport networks.
“When we’re thinking about fresh items, they’re perishable, and they need a cold chain,” Schneider said. “You’re paying, when you buy an apple, for the three that also rotted.”
Meanwhile, ultra-processed products like soda avoid this problem entirely: “It’s cheaper for them to have a ton of different bottling plants around countries than to distribute long distances,” Schneider said.
Connecting sustainability of diets and the environment
The EAT-Lancet Commission 2.0, a scientific body redefining healthy and sustainable diets, offers a different view: The ultra-processed foods fuelling obesity are also pushing food systems beyond climate and biodiversity limits.
The planetary health diet suggests a plant-rich diet that consists of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and beans, with only moderate or small amounts of fish, dairy and meat.
To build healthier and more just food systems, experts also recommend a whole list of other things: make nutritious diets more accessible and affordable; protect traditional diets; promote sustainable farming and ecosystems; reduce food waste.
And all of this should be done with the participation of diverse sectors of the society.
The responsibility of transforming food systems falls not only on governments but also on donors and financial partners, development and humanitarian organizations, academic institutions and civil society. The stakes are high, but so is the potential to change. With bold, coordinated action, the next generation of children can be nourished by healthy food, while building food systems that sustain both people and the planet.
Questions to consider:
1. How is obesity connected to the environment?
2. What are some governments doing to try to tackle the obesity crisis?
3. What changes could you make to your diet to make it healthier?
by Jill Barshay, The Hechinger Report November 17, 2025
The teaching profession is one of the most female-dominated in the United States. Among elementary school teachers, 89 percent are women, and in kindergarten, that number is almost 97 percent.
Many sociologists, writers and parents have questioned whether this imbalance hinders young boys at the start of their education. Are female teachers less understanding of boys’ need to horse around? Or would male role models inspire boys to learn their letters and times tables? Some advocates point to research that lays out why boys ought to do better with male teachers.
But a new national analysis finds no evidence that boys perform or behave better with male teachers in elementary school. This challenges a widespread belief that boys thrive more when taught by men, and it raises questions about efforts, such as one in New York City, to spend extra to recruit them.
“I was surprised,” said Paul Morgan, a professor at the University at Albany and a co-author of the study. “I’ve raised two boys, and my assumption would be that having male teachers is beneficial because boys tend to be more rambunctious, more active, a little less easy to direct in academic tasks.”
Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.
“We’re not saying gender matching doesn’t work,” Morgan added. “We’re saying we’re not observing it in K through fifth grade.”
Middle and high school students might see more benefits. Earlier research is mixed and inconclusive. A 2007 analysis by Stanford professor Thomas Dee found academic benefits for eighth-grade boys and girls when taught by teachers of their same gender.And studies where researchers observe and interview a small number of students often show how students feel more supported by same-gender teachers. Yet many quantitative studies, like this newest one, have failed to detect measurable benefits for boys. At least 10 since 2014 have found zero or minimal effects. Benefits for girls are more consistent.
Morgan and Hu analyzed a U.S. Education Department dataset that followed a nationally representative group of 8,000 students from kindergarten in 2010 through fifth grade in 2017. Half were boys and half were girls.
More than two-thirds — 68 percent — of the 4,000 boys never had a male teacher in those years while 32 percent had at least one. (The study focused only on main classroom teachers, not extras like gym or music.)
Among the 1,300 boys who had both male and female teachers, the researchers compared each boy’s performance and behavior across those years. For instance, if Jacob had female teachers in kindergarten, first, second and fifth grades, but male teachers in third and fourth, his average scores and behavior were compared between the teachers of different genders.
The researchers found no differences in reading, math or science achievement — or in behavioral and social measures. Teachers rated students on traits like impulsiveness, cooperation, anxiety, empathy and self-control. The children also took annual executive function tests. The results did not vary by the teacher’s gender.
Most studies on male teachers focus on older students. The authors noted one other elementary-level study, in Florida, that also found no academic benefit for boys. This new research confirms that finding and adds that there seems to be no behavioral or social benefits either.
For students at these young ages, 11 and under, the researchers also didn’t find academic benefits for girls with female teachers. But there were two non-academic ones: Girls taught by women showed stronger interpersonal skills (getting along, helping others, caring about feelings) and a greater eagerness to learn (represented by skills such as keeping organized and following rules).
When the researchers combined race and gender, the results grew more complex. Black girls taught by women scored higher on an executive function test but lower in science. Asian boys taught by men scored higher on executive function but had lower ratings on interpersonal skills. Black boys showed no measurable differences when taught by male teachers. (Previous research has sometimes found benefits for Black students taught by Black teachers and sometimes hasn’t.)**
Even if data show no academic or behavioral benefits for students, there may still be compelling reasons to diversify the teaching workforce, just as in other professions. But we shouldn’t expect these efforts to move the needle on student outcomes.
“If you had scarce resources and were trying to place your bets,” Morgan said, “then based on this study, maybe elementary school isn’t where you should focus your recruitment efforts” to hire more men.
To paraphrase Boyz II Men, it’s so hard to say goodbye — to the idea that young boys need male teachers.
*Clarification: The article has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal but has undergone some peer review.
**Correction: An earlier version incorrectly characterized how researchers analyzed what happened to students of different races. The researchers focused only on the gender of the teachers, but drilled down to see how students of different races responded to teachers of different genders.
This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-male-teachers-elementary-school/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>
Far too many students enter math class expecting to fail. For them, math isn’t just a subject–it’s a source of anxiety that chips away at their confidence and makes them question their abilities. A growing conversation around math phobia is bringing this crisis into focus. A recentarticle, for example, unpacked the damage caused by the belief that “I’m just not a math person” and argued that traditional math instruction often leaves even bright, capable students feeling defeated.
When a single subject holds such sway over not just academic outcomes but a student’s sense of self and future potential, we can’t afford to treat this as business as usual. It’s not enough to explore why this is happening. We need to focus on how to fix it. And I believe the answer lies in rethinking how we teach math, aligning instruction with the way the brain actually learns.
Context first, then content
A key shortcoming of traditional math curriculum–and a major contributor to students’ fear of math–is the lack of meaningful context. Our brains rely on context to make sense of new information, yet math is often taught in isolation from how we naturally learn. The fix isn’t simply throwing in more “real-world” examples. What students truly need is context, and visual examples are one of the best ways to get there. When math concepts are presented visually, students can better grasp the structure of a problem and follow the logic behind each step, building deeper understanding and confidence along the way.
In traditional math instruction, students are often taught a new concept by being shown a procedure and then practicing it repeatedly in hopes that understanding will eventually follow. But this approach is backward. Our brains don’t learn that way, especially when it comes to math. Students need context first. Without existing schemas to draw from, they struggle to make sense of new ideas. Providing context helps them build the mental frameworks necessary for real understanding.
Why visual-first context matters
Visual-first context gives students the tools they need to truly understand math. A curriculum built around visual-first exploration allows students to have an interactive experience–poking and prodding at a problem, testing ideas, observing patterns, and discovering solutions. From there, students develop procedures organically, leading to a deeper, more complete understanding. Using visual-first curriculum activates multiple parts of the brain, creating a deeper, lasting understanding. Shifting to a math curriculum that prioritizes introducing new concepts through a visual context makes math more approachable and accessible by aligning with how the brain naturally learns.
To overcome “math phobia,” we also need to rethink the heavy emphasis on memorization in today’s math instruction. Too often, students can solve problems not because they understand the underlying concepts, but because they’ve memorized a set of steps. This approach limits growth and deeper learning. Memorization of the right answers does not lead to understanding, but understanding can lead to the right answers.
Take, for example, a third grader learning their times tables. The third grader can memorize the answers to each square on the times table along with its coordinating multipliers, but that doesn’t mean they understand multiplication. If, instead, they grasp how multiplication works–what it means–they can figure out the times tables on their own. The reverse isn’t true. Without conceptual understanding, students are limited to recall, which puts them at a disadvantage when trying to build off previous knowledge.
Learning from other subjects
To design a math curriculum that aligns with how the brain naturally learns new information, we can take cues from how other subjects are taught. In English, for example, students don’t start by memorizing grammar rules in isolation–they’re first exposed to those rules within the context of stories. Imagine asking a student to take a grammar quiz before they’ve ever read a sentence–that would seem absurd. Yet in math, we often expect students to master procedures before they’ve had any meaningful exposure to the concepts behind them.
Most other subjects are built around context. Students gain background knowledge before being expected to apply what they’ve learned. By giving students a story or a visual context for the mind to process–breaking it down and making connections–students can approach problems like a puzzle or game, instead of a dreaded exercise. Math can do the same. By adopting the contextual strategies used in other subjects, math instruction can become more intuitive and engaging, moving beyond the traditional textbook filled with equations.
Math doesn’t have to be a source of fear–it can be a source of joy, curiosity, and confidence. But only if we design it the way the brain learns: with visuals first, understanding at the center, and every student in mind. By using approaches that provide visual-first context, students can engage with math in a way that mirrors how the brain naturally learns. This shift in learning makes math more approachable and accessible for all learners.
Nigel Nisbet, Mind Education
Armed with a mathematics degree and early success as a rock musician, Nigel Nisbet moved to the US to teach mathematics, AP Physics and AP Computer Science at Van Nuys Senior High, where he pioneered integrating technology into the classroom. After a spell in district mathematics leadership at the Los Angeles Unified School District, Nisbet joined the nonprofit Mind Education team as the vice president of content creation. To continue reading about how the brain learns, visit https://www.mindeducation.org/.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
Five historically Black colleges and universities have recently announced gifts of $50 million or more in unrestricted funds from billionaire philanthropist MacKenzie Sott.
Prairie View A&M University, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, Bowie State University, Norfolk State University and Winston-Salem State University are the latest HBCUs to benefit from Scott’s philanthropy—she has already donated to at least eight other institutions this year.
On Friday, Prairie View and North Carolina A&T said they received $63 million each, the largest single gifts ever received in their histories, which follow previous gifts from Scott in 2020—$50 million to Prairie View and $45 million to N.C. A&T. Her support for each institution totals $113 million and $108 million, respectively.
Also last week, Bowie State, Winston-Salem State and Norfolk State each announced record-breaking gifts of $50 million following donations from Scott in 2020—$25 million, $30 million and $40 million, respectively.
“This gift is more than generous—it is defining and affirming,” said Prairie View A&M president Tomikia LeGrande in a statement. “MacKenzie Scott’s investment amplifies the power and promise of a Prairie View A&M University education as we advance our vision of becoming a premier public, research-intensive HBCU that serves as a national model for student success.”
Voorhees University also received a $19 million donation from Scott earlier this month, following a $4 million gift in 2020.
The five universities said they would use the donations to progress their strategic plans through funding scholarships, growing endowments, improving teaching and research, and supporting student success.
In 2019, Scott pledged to give away half her wealth in her lifetime. By 2023, her donations to educational institutions exceeded $1 billion. This year, Scott has donated $80 million to Howard University in Washington, D.C.; $38 million to the University of Maryland Eastern Shore; and $38 million each to Spelman College and Clark Atlanta University in Georgia.
“No investor in higher education history has had such a broad and transformational impact across so many universities,” said N.C. A&T chancellor James R. Martin II in a statement.
“North Carolina A&T is deeply grateful for Ms. Scott’s reaffirmed belief in our mission and for the example she sets in placing trust in institutions like ours to drive generational change through education, discovery and innovation.”
