Blog

  • Will free expression make a comeback at Haverford College?

    Will free expression make a comeback at Haverford College?

    One of the oldest and most respected liberal arts institutions in America, Haverford College has a long history of principled protest — from its abolitionist Quaker founders to the anti-Vietnam War movement of the 20th century. In recent years, that tradition has sadly curdled into a culture of censorship. But a new free-speech committee plans to restore this lost legacy.

    In the 1960s, Haverford students joined the Free Speech Movement launched at UC Berkeley, and, bucking the national trend at the time, found themselves aided by their administrators. Haverford even chartered buses so students could attend anti-Vietnam War protests around the country.

    But Haverford has in recent years developed one of the most restrictive campus speech climates in the country. The college has plummeted in FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings, landing 220th out of 251 schools in terms of how comfortable students are in expressing their ideas. Making matters worse, Haverford has taken the radical step of codifying its own decline. In a 2021 overhaul of its Honor Code, the college allowed the Honor Council to put students on trial for their political opinions. FIRE named it “Speech Code of the Month” and urged President Wendy Raymond to reject the changes. She did not.

    Four years later, the tide is finally turning.

    On July 9, 2025, Haverford’s Ad Hoc Committee on Freedom of Expression, Learning, and Community publicly released its final report, marking a pivotal course correction. The committee said the school’s Social Honor Code “is overly proscriptive and therefore restricts expressive freedom,” inferring that, when the code was written, “students were trying to legislate power dynamics between individuals based on a broader perception of societal imbalances and pursuit of social justice.” The committee criticized the code’s intrusion into interpersonal relationships and enforcement of ideological conformity, contributing to “a climate of silencing non-dominant viewpoints” and stifling “deeper learning and dialogue.”

    The committee got it exactly right.

    At Haverford — where liberals currently outnumber conservatives six-to-one — social justice is a broadly shared value. In 2021, that value motivated an egregiously censorious speech code. Now, nudged by news headlines in which the federal government has sought to effectively nationalize a private university and routinely undermines the First Amendment, Haverford seems to have rediscovered the importance of free speech.

    As former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser famously warned, “Speech restrictions are like poison gas. You see a bad speaker out there, and you don’t wanna listen to him or her anymore. So you got this poison gas and you say, ‘I’m gonna spray him with it!’ And then the wind shifts. And pretty soon, the gas blows back on you.”

    Glasser added: “And so, free speech is a kind of insurance policy. And the price you pay for that insurance policy is you gotta listen to bad people.”

    Haverford’s committee deserves credit for recognizing the absolute necessity of a strong free speech culture to a liberal arts education. Notably, the committee affirmed the importance of an open marketplace of ideas in carrying out Haverford’s educational mission, called on President Raymond to adopt an institutional statement supporting free expression, and recommended greater schoolwide investment in civil discourse programming. Perhaps most significantly, the committee called for revisions to the Social Honor Code. These changes could improve Haverford’s “red light” rating in FIRE’s Spotlight Database of speech codes as well as raise the college’s standing in our College Free Speech Rankings.

    The world is better when we embrace the humility of uncertainty — when we are willing to listen to others, debate them, work to understand them — no matter how immovable our current beliefs feel.

    Last December, FIRE sent the committee a letter offering resources and support as they reviewed Haverford’s speech climate and policies. The committee subsequently cited FIRE’s publicly available policy guidance on acceptable time, place, and manner restrictions in its final report. And the college’s new “Interim Policy on Expressive Freedom and Responsibility” passed our Policy Reform team’s review with flying colors. We encourage Haverford to make this policy permanent.

    In addition to harnessing FIRE’s insights, the committee turned to students, faculty, staff, and alumni for feedback. And even before the committee was formed, a group of students and alumni made their concerns clear with The New Kronstadt (an online magazine I created through FIRE’s Campus Scholars Program), named after the Kronstadt Rebellion in which socialist sailors in the early Soviet Union demanded free speech and other civil liberties. Vladimir Lenin didn’t take kindly to these demands and ordered the sailors slaughtered. Soviet troops massacred the rebels, illustrating how sometimes the most brutal form of censorship comes from within shared communities.

    Sounding the FIRE alarm at Haverford College

    Despite its proud history at my school, it is clear that free speech is not fully valued at Haverford College today.


    Read More

    Quite often, movements rooted in moral causes attract idealists, and idealists tend to crave clarity. Demanding conformity then becomes a way of reducing ambiguity in a morally messy world. But as Haverford alumnus and aspiring archivist Nicholas Lasinsky wrote in an op-ed for The New Kronstadt, “The world is better when we embrace the humility of uncertainty — when we are willing to listen to others, debate them, work to understand them — no matter how immovable our current beliefs feel. This is a fundamental step in any journey to understanding a topic, and a fundamental step of education.”

    Haverford seems poised to take that step again. As a Haverford alum and FIRE staffer, I’m proud to see my alma mater return to its pro-free speech roots. The work I do every day to defend free expression is shaped by the values, people, and intellectual traditions I came to know at Haverford.

    This summer, I attended the Colorado Conference on Civic Discourse to facilitate a workshop titled “Let’s Talk: Student Civil Discourse.” The keynote conversation featured Cornel West, a visiting professor at Haverford in the late 1970s and early 1980s and a frequent guest speaker on campus ever since. After watching West, a prominent left-wing defender of free thought and expression, engage in civil discourse with his friend and longtime sparring partner, the conservative legal scholar Robert P. George, I had a chance to speak with West. His face lit up when he heard I’d studied at Haverford. He remembered my old English professor and Haverford’s former president, Kimberly Benston, as a brilliant scholar of the often-censored writers Ralph Ellison and Amiri Baraka. Reflecting on how those authors shaped us, we lingered on the final line of Ellison’s Invisible Man: “Who knows but that, on the lower frequencies, I speak for you?”

    When any honest, unfiltered voice is heard, it can speak beyond identity and viewpoint, breaking a silence we may not know we shared. Finding the courage to speak is our shared human condition. 

    On a deeper level, Ellison’s Invisible Man is not only the story of one nameless black man navigating 1940s America, but a meditation on the universal struggle for self-definition and human dignity — and the necessity of free speech to achieve it. For when any honest, unfiltered voice is heard, it can speak beyond identity and viewpoint, breaking a silence we may not know we shared. Finding the courage to speak is our shared human condition. 

    This month, Haverford found its voice again — and called for its administrators to reaffirm the right of its community to speak freely. Now, college leadership must answer. President Raymond must ensure the committee’s words do not ring hollow and take action to ensure the Social Honor Code is revised to permit free speech. The college should also adopt an institutional statement on free expression and implement the cultural investments and pedagogical programming the committee prescribed. If the committee’s recommendations take hold, a frequent Quaker refrain and campus ideal can resonate with renewed promise: “Let your life speak.”

    Source link

  • What the Fall of Rome Tells Us About the American Oligarchy

    What the Fall of Rome Tells Us About the American Oligarchy

    There are tax farmers squeezing a province dry. There are soldiers fighting for the emperor’s baton. And then there are a few who dread the empire’s fall and dream of the old republic.

    This is not just the story of ancient Rome. It’s also an apt metaphor for the state of contemporary America—a late-stage empire defined by extreme inequality, militarization, and a governing class that clings to power while the social fabric unravels.

    In Rome, the Senate once stood as the heart of the Republic, composed of elite Patrician families who wielded enormous religious, political, and economic influence. But as historian and economist Michael Hudson writes in The Collapse of Antiquity, these elites became entrenched creditors and landlords, a rentier class unwilling to compromise or adapt. They refused debt cancellation, land redistribution, or any reforms that might curb their power—transforming what was once a dynamic, if imperfect, republic into a brittle and parasitic empire.

    This refusal to evolve created an unsustainable system. Wealth concentrated in fewer hands. Small farmers and urban workers were crushed under debts. The rural economy collapsed as latifundia (large estates) displaced independent farmers. Military commanders, frustrated with elite gridlock, seized power for themselves. And the Senate, once a genuine force of governance, became a ceremonial shell. What followed was a long descent: civil wars, authoritarianism, economic stagnation, and eventually the re-feudalization of the West.

    Hudson’s view is clear: the Roman Senate and elite, by prioritizing their creditor rights over the common good, destroyed the economic base that sustained the Empire. In their greed and rigidity, they ensured the fall they feared.

    Now consider the United States. Like Rome, America has become dominated by a professional ruling class: oligarchs, financiers, tenured politicians, credentialed technocrats, and think-tank warriors. Institutions of higher education, once engines of democratic possibility, have increasingly become training grounds for this elite. And like the Roman Senate, they are largely unaccountable—privatizing gains, socializing losses, and suppressing reform.

    Just as Roman tax farmers drained the provinces, today’s student loan servicers, for-profit colleges, and hedge fund–backed housing firms squeeze the public to fund private empires. Just as Roman generals became emperors, today’s billionaires and media moguls wield near-sovereign power over public discourse, elections, and foreign policy. And just as the Roman elite clung to legal fictions while society crumbled, our ruling class insists the republic is healthy—even as inequality soars, infrastructure decays, and democratic norms erode.

    There are still those who long for a return to the “old republic”—to a time when education was a public good, when civic virtue mattered, and when government sought the common welfare. But those voices are increasingly drowned out in a landscape of imperial spectacle, culture wars, and managed decline.

    Hudson reminds us that ancient societies that survived economic collapse—like those in Mesopotamia—did so by recognizing the need for periodic resets. They canceled debts. They redistributed land. They prioritized stability over elite entrenchment. Rome—and perhaps America—refused to learn those lessons.

    In this moment of crisis, the choice is stark: will we continue down the path of empire, ruled by debt and extraction? Or will we recover some measure of republic, with institutions that serve people, not just capital?

    One thing is certain: empires fall. But their people don’t have to fall with them—if they choose to resist.

    Sources:

    • Michael Hudson, The Collapse of Antiquity: Greece and Rome as Civilization’s Oligarchic Turning Point, 2023

    • Mary Beard, SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, 2015

    • Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 1776–1789

    • Kyle Harper, The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire, 2017

    • Higher Education Inquirer, ongoing coverage on student debt and elite university structures

    • U.S. Department of Education, data on student debt and institutional concentration of resources

    Source link

  • Ky. Prof. Calling for War Against Israel Pulled From Teaching

    Ky. Prof. Calling for War Against Israel Pulled From Teaching

    Since Oct. 7, 2023, scholars and members of the broader public have debated whether Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza actually constitutes a genocide of Palestinians. Fights have erupted over scholarly association resolutions, course descriptions and assignments calling it such.

    Ramsi Woodcock, a University of Kentucky law professor, says it’s a genocide. On his website, antizionist.net, he says that the ongoing genocide—combined with his expectation that Israel would violate any future ceasefire and continue killing—creates a “moral duty” for the world’s nations.

    That duty, he writes in the “Petition for Military Action Against Israel,” is to wage war on Israel until it “has submitted permanently and unconditionally to the government of Palestine everywhere from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.” He asks fellow law scholars to sign the petition, adding that Israel is a colony and war is needed to decolonize.

    This month—just after Woodcock says he was promoted to full professor—the university removed him from teaching. In a July 18 message to campus that doesn’t specifically name Woodcock, UK president Eli Capilouto wrote that legal counsel was investigating whether an employee’s “conduct may violate federal and state guidance as well as university policies.”

    “We have been made aware of allegations of disturbing conduct, including an online petition calling for the destruction of a people based on national origin,” Capilouto wrote. Woodcock told Inside Higher Ed that characterization of his petition is “obviously defamatory, creates a hostile environment for me and makes me potentially physically unsafe.” He said he’s considering suing Capilouto and the university for defamation.

    Capilouto further wrote that the petition, which the unnamed university employee seemed to be “broadly” circulating online, “can be interpreted as antisemitic in accordance with state and federal guidance.” Woodcock responded that “what Palestinians resist, and what those who advocate for them resist, is colonization, apartheid and a currently unfolding genocide—they are not opposed to any particular religion or any particular people.”

    But Shlomo Litvin, chairman of the Kentucky Jewish Council and rabbi for the Chabad at UK Jewish Student Center, told Inside Higher Ed that “calling for the establishment of a state that is free of Jews in a land that currently has seven million Jews is calling for the death of seven million Jews,” including “families and relatives of [Woodcock’s] students.”

    “What he’s calling for is a second Holocaust,” Litvin said, adding that “this idea that there is a possibility of the Jews coming to some imaginary country and being safe there is a fantasy that not even he believes.”

    Woodcock countered, “Rabbi Litvin is trying to distract us from an actual second Holocaust that Israel is committing right now in Gaza and which only immediate military intervention will stop.”

    Woodcock has become another example of pro-Palestine faculty across the country being investigated for their writing or speech about the conflict while they aren’t teaching. During the Biden era, investigations at other universities led to discipline and terminations. The current Trump administration has stripped universities of federal funding and punished them in other ways for allegedly failing to address campus antisemitism. And Woodcock’s case continues the debate about when denunciations of Israel or Zionism are or aren’t antisemitic.

    But why UK began investigating Woodcock now remains unclear.

    ‘Not Academic Discourse’

    In a July 18 email obtained by Inside Higher Ed, UK’s general counsel, William E. Thro, wrote to Woodcock that “recently, the university became aware of your writings on certain websites, your conduct at academic conferences, and your postings on American Association of Law Schools [sic] list serves [sic], and other actions.”

    “These activities may create a hostile environment for Jewish members of the university community or otherwise constitute harassment as defined by the Supreme Court,” Thro wrote. “The university has concerns that your actions may violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the equivalent state laws, and various university policies.”

    Title VI prohibits discrimination based on shared ancestry, including antisemitism.

    But the letter didn’t provide further details, such as what conference conduct or writings the university was concerned about, or how university officials became aware of this expression. A UK spokesperson said, “At this time, we are not going to comment beyond [Capilouto’s] statement, as there is an active investigation.”

    Woodcock said he made a statement about “Israel’s genocide of Palestinians” at a conference over a year ago. He later shared a link to his antizionist.net site on Association of American Law Schools online discussion forums, triggering “really lively debate about whether Israel has a right to exist.”

    “Nobody wants to talk about that question, and as soon as you bring it up, you see how hungry people are to debate it,” Woodcock said.

    He says he created the antizionist.net website late last year but didn’t share it broadly until the start of this month. It’s a site for what he dubs the Antizionist legal studies movement.

    “Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza,” Woodcock wrote on the site in December. “No genocide in the 20th century ended without armed intervention. For more than a year now, the international community has been in denial about the implication of these two facts.”

    He listed various failed international efforts to stop the genocide, ending with “Even the most outspoken international lawyers dare not speak the name of the only thing that history suggests might actually stop Israel. That is, of course, war—by the international community against Israel.”

    Woodcock says he wants Israel defeated and replaced with a Palestinian state, and he doesn’t insist the vast majority of Jews be automatically allowed to remain. He says Palestinians should get to decide. His definition of “antizionist legal scholars” includes that they oppose “any right of self-determination for Jewish people as such in Palestine.” He does say that “the tiny minority of Jewish people whose ancestors lived in Palestine immediately prior to the arrival of the first Zionist colonizers in Palestine in 1882 … share in the right of Palestinians to self determination.”

    “Palestinian people alone should decide how Palestine should be governed after independence, including the legal status of the colonizer population,” he says.

    The Kentucky Jewish Council and State Sen. Lindsey Tichenor, a co-chair of the state General Assembly’s Kentucky-Israel Caucus, praised the decision to remove Woodcock from the classroom. In a statement, Tichenor wrote that the “reports coming out of our taxpayer-funded flagship university are incredibly disturbing. A law professor calling for the destruction of Israel and against the right for the Jewish people to have self-determination is not a policy disagreement, but a call to violence.”

    “That is not academic discourse. It’s antisemitism and racism and abuse of his power, plain and simple,” Tichenor wrote. She thanked Capilouto “for his strong and unequivocal condemnation of this hateful message” and for reinforcing “the importance of moral clarity and swift institutional accountability.”

    But Capilouto’s message also hinted at the academic freedom concerns at play. He wrote that the situation “compels us to address questions other campuses are grappling with as well—chiefly, where and when does conduct and the freedom to express views in a community compromise the safety and well-being of people in that community?”

    In a statement to Inside Higher Ed, Connor Murnane, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s campus advocacy chief of staff, said, “FIRE is actively investigating this case, and we’re concerned that Professor Woodcock may have been punished for protected activities.”

    Jennifer Cramer, president of UK’s American Association of University Professors chapter, said that “assuming he did not pose a threat in any meaningful way to our campus, I think that the treatment of this case seems outside of the bounds of the norm.” She said that “whether we agree with what he says or not shouldn’t matter, because that’s the point of academic freedom.”

    Woodcock hasn’t stopped calling for war on Israel, posting on X, “Zionists are frustrated that their intimidation campaign hasn’t shut me up.”

    Source link

  • Why Grad Students Can’t Afford to Ignore AI  (opinion)

    Why Grad Students Can’t Afford to Ignore AI  (opinion)

    I recently found myself staring at my computer screen, overwhelmed by the sheer pace of AI developments flooding my inbox. Contending with the flow of new tools, updated models and breakthrough announcements felt like trying to drink from a fire hose. As someone who coaches graduate students navigating their academic and professional journeys, I realized I was experiencing the same anxiety many of my students express: How do we keep up with something that’s evolving faster than we can learn?

    But here’s what I’ve come to understand through my own experimentation and reflection: The question isn’t whether we can keep up, but whether we can afford not to engage. As graduate students, you’re training to become the critical thinkers, researchers and leaders our world desperately needs. If you step back from advances in AI, you’re not just missing professional opportunities; you’re abdicating your responsibility to help shape how these powerful tools impact society.

    The Stakes Are Higher Than You Think

    The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence isn’t just a tech trend but a fundamental shift that will reshape every field, from humanities research to scientific discovery. As graduate students, you have a unique opportunity and responsibility. You’re positioned at the intersection of deep subject matter expertise and flexible thinking. You can approach AI tools with both the technical sophistication to use them effectively and the critical perspective to identify their limitations and potential harms.

    When I reflect on my own journey with AI tools, I’m reminded of my early days learning to navigate complex organizational systems. Just as I had to develop strategic thinking skills to thrive in bureaucratic environments, we now need to develop AI literacy to thrive in an AI-augmented world. The difference is the timeline: We don’t have years to adapt gradually. We have months, maybe weeks, before these tools become so embedded in professional workflows that not knowing how to use them thoughtfully becomes a significant disadvantage.

    My Personal AI Tool Kit: Tools Worth Exploring

    Rather than feeling paralyzed by the abundance of options, I’ve taken a systematic approach to exploring AI tools. I chose the tools in my current tool kit not because they’re perfect, but because they represent different ways AI can enhance rather than replace human thinking.

    • Large Language Models: Beyond ChatGPT

    Yes, ChatGPT was the breakthrough that captured everyone’s attention, but limiting yourself to one LLM is like using only one search engine. I regularly experiment with Claude for its nuanced reasoning capabilities, Gemini for its integration with Google’s ecosystem and DeepSeek for being an open-source model. Each has distinct strengths, and understanding these differences helps me choose the right tool for specific tasks.

    The key insight I’ve gained is that these aren’t just fancy search engines or writing assistants. They’re thinking partners that can help you explore ideas, challenge assumptions and approach problems from multiple angles, if you know how to prompt them effectively.

    • Executive Function Support: Goblin Tools

    One discovery that surprised me was Goblin Tools, an AI-powered suite of tools designed to support executive function. As someone who juggles multiple projects and deadlines and is navigating an invisible disability, I’ve found the task breakdown and time estimation features invaluable. For graduate students managing research, coursework and teaching responsibilities, tools like this can provide scaffolding for the cognitive load that often overwhelms even the most organized among us.

    • Research Acceleration: Elicit and Consensus

    Perhaps the most transformative tools in my workflow are Elicit and Consensus. These platforms don’t just help you find research papers, but also help you understand research landscapes, identify gaps in literature and synthesize findings across multiple studies.

    What excites me most about these tools is how they augment rather than replace critical thinking. They can surface connections you might miss and highlight contradictions in the literature, but you still need the domain expertise to evaluate the quality of sources and the analytical skills to synthesize findings meaningfully.

    • Real-Time Research: Perplexity

    Another tool that has become indispensable in my research workflow is Perplexity. What sets Perplexity apart is its ability to provide real-time, cited responses by searching the internet and academic sources simultaneously. I’ve found this particularly valuable for staying current with rapidly evolving research areas and for fact-checking information. When I’m exploring a new topic or need to verify recent developments in a field, Perplexity serves as an intelligent research assistant that not only finds relevant information but also helps me understand how different sources relate to each other. The key is using it as a starting point for deeper investigation, not as the final word on any topic.

    • Visual Communication: Beautiful.ai, Gamma and Napkin

    Presentation and visual communication tools represent another frontier where AI is making significant impact. Beautiful.ai and Gamma can transform rough ideas into polished presentations, while Napkin excels at creating diagrams and visual representations of complex concepts.

    I’ve found these tools particularly valuable not just for final presentations, but for thinking through ideas visually during the research process. Sometimes seeing your argument laid out in a diagram reveals logical gaps that weren’t apparent in text form.

    • Staying Informed: The Pivot 5 Newsletter

    With so much happening so quickly, staying informed without becoming overwhelmed is crucial. I subscribe to the Pivot 5 newsletter, which provides curated insights into AI developments without the breathless hype that characterizes much AI coverage. Finding reliable, thoughtful sources for AI news is as important as learning to use the tools themselves.

    Beyond the Chat Bots: Developing Critical AI Literacy

    Here’s where I want to challenge you to think more deeply. Most discussions about AI in academia focus on policies about chat bot use in assignments—important, but insufficient. The real opportunity lies in developing what I call critical AI literacy: understanding not just how to use these tools, but when to use them, how to evaluate their outputs and how to maintain your own analytical capabilities.

    This means approaching AI tools with the same rigor you’d apply to any research methodology. What are the assumptions built into these systems? What biases might they perpetuate? How do you verify AI-generated insights? These aren’t just philosophical questions; they’re practical skills that will differentiate thoughtful AI users from passive consumers.

    A Strategic Approach to AI Engagement

    Drawing from the strategic thinking framework I’ve advocated for in the past, here’s how I suggest you approach AI engagement:

    • Start with purpose: Before adopting any AI tool, clearly identify what problem you’re trying to solve. Are you looking to accelerate research, improve writing, manage complex projects or enhance presentations? Different tools serve different purposes.
    • Experiment systematically: Don’t try to learn everything at once. Choose one or two tools that align with your immediate needs and spend time understanding their capabilities and limitations before moving on to others.
    • Maintain critical distance: Use these tools as thinking partners, not thinking replacements. Always maintain the ability to evaluate and verify AI outputs against your own expertise and judgment.
    • Share and learn: Engage with peers about your experiences. What works? What doesn’t? What ethical considerations have you encountered? This collective learning is crucial for developing best practices.

    The Cost of Standing Still

    I want to be clear about what’s at stake. This isn’t about keeping up with the latest tech trends or optimizing productivity, even though those are benefits. It’s about ensuring that the most important conversations about AI’s role in society include the voices of critically trained, ethically minded scholars.

    If graduate students, future professors, researchers, policymakers and industry leaders retreat from AI engagement, we leave these powerful tools to be shaped entirely by technologists and venture capitalists. The nuanced understanding of human behavior, ethical frameworks and social systems that you’re developing in your graduate programs is exactly what’s needed to guide AI development responsibly.

    The pace of change isn’t slowing down. In fact, it’s accelerating. But that’s precisely why your engagement matters more, not less. The world needs people who can think critically about these tools, who understand both their potential and their perils, and who can help ensure they’re developed and deployed in ways that benefit rather than harm society.

    Moving Forward With Intention

    As you consider how to engage with AI tools, remember that this isn’t about becoming a tech expert overnight. It’s about maintaining the curiosity and critical thinking that brought you to graduate school in the first place. Start small, experiment thoughtfully and always keep your analytical mind engaged.

    The future we’re building with AI won’t be determined by the tools themselves, but by the people who choose to engage with them thoughtfully and critically. As graduate students, you have the opportunity—and, I’d argue, the responsibility—to be part of that conversation.

    The question isn’t whether AI will transform your field. It’s whether you’ll help shape that transformation or let it happen to you. The choice, as always, is yours to make.

    Dinuka Gunaratne (he/him) has worked across several postsecondary institutions in Canada and the U.S. and is a member of several organizational boards, including Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada, CERIC—Advancing Career Development in Canada, and the leadership team of the Administrators in Graduate and Professional Student Services knowledge community with NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

    Source link

  • Howard Students Crowdsource to Cover Unpaid Balances

    Howard Students Crowdsource to Cover Unpaid Balances

    Howard University students have taken to social media to crowdsource funds after some found out they owe thousands of dollars to the institution following its transition to a new student financial platform, NBC News reported.

    The social media campaigns began after about 1,000 students received notice that the university put their accounts on hold because of unpaid balances. Some students received emails on June 4 saying that if the balances weren’t paid off by the end of the month, their bills would be sent to an external collections agency, according to The Root. Students in “pre-collection” have until the end of August to pay their bills. As long as a hold remains on their account, they can’t register for classes or student housing.

    Half of the cases have been resolved, according to a statement from Howard on Friday.

    “We are taking active steps to assist students experiencing challenges related to financial aid and account balances,” the statement read. “The University reaffirms its unwavering commitment to student success and to helping ensure that students are financially equipped to begin the academic year.”

    Howard officials also promised to offer virtual and in-person office hours, financial counseling, flexible payment plans, and, when possible, emergency support to affected students.

    On social media, students said they were blindsided by the news of how much they owed.

    “Myself included, many of us that have these balances on our account were not notified prior … which is why we’re struggling to pay them, because we had no idea,” said sophomore Makiah Goodman in one of multiple TikTok videos she made about the issue. She also said she discovered that a scholarship she earned couldn’t be applied to her debt. In another video, she noted that transferring out of Howard is “on the table” if she can’t pay.

    Alissa Jones, also a student, told NBC4 she was a few classes short of graduating when she found out she owed more than $57,000, despite only paying $15,000 per year for the last four years because of scholarship money.

    “Right now, it says I owe $57,540-something, like, I owe the whole thing,” Jones said. “If you have any type of hold, you cannot register for class, but with these, obsessive amounts of money that they’re saying we owe, it’s almost like, that’s not one semester’s worth of tuition, at all.”

    The breakdown in communication seems to have come as Howard transitioned from its old student financial platform, BisonWeb, to a new version, BisonHub. During the process, some student account updates were delayed between January and June of this year, according to Howard’s statement on Friday. (An earlier update from the university said between May and June.)

    Howard officials wrote in the statement that students were informed last October and November that their data would be transferred over to the new platform and that could come with “potential impacts.”

    Protests and Fundraisers

    A group of students has since launched a protest via an Instagram account called @whosehowardisit.

    The group came out with a set of demands, including an immediate in-person meeting with the Board of Trustees, more investment in financial aid and scholarships, and the resignations of some Howard administrators. They also called for student representatives to be added to hiring committees for various administrative positions going forward, particularly directors of student-facing departments. The group provided email templates for students, parents and other stakeholders to amplify their discontent.

    “For too long, students have raised concerns about communication failures, inaccessible leadership, and a lack of transparency around critical issues,” the group wrote in a “Get Involved Guide” shared on social media. “This movement is bigger than past due balances; it’s about how Howard University’s actions, or lack thereof, mirror the patterns of white supremacy, classism, and exclusion that oppress lower-income Black and brown students.”

    In their recent statement, Howard officials acknowledged students’ outspokenness about the issue.

    “While we are addressing the challenges related to the timing of the transition of students’ account data, we are also seeing an increase in the number of students who are publicly expressing frustration and concerns over rising financial pressures and the ability to continue their education,” they said, noting that Howard disproportionately serves low-income students.

    They added, “Recent federal cuts to research grants, education programs, and fellowships have compounded financial pressures on both students and faculty.”

    Students also shared to the @whosehowardisit Instagram account a central hub for the GoFundMe campaigns. Currently, about 70 students’ crowdsourcing campaigns are listed. (The site notes that the campaigns haven’t been “personally verified.”) Run by broadcast journalism student Ssanyu Lukoma, the site also features a GoFundMe submission form and a directory for possible scholarships and other financial resources.

    Some of the fundraising efforts have already paid off. Goodman’s GoFundMe campaign, for example, has so far raised more than $4,000 toward her $6,000 goal. Another campaign for Brandon Hawkins, a rising sophomore, hit $13,000, which is approaching his goal of $16,000. He said in a July 23 update that he’s now met his outstanding balance to Howard and any additional funds will go toward his tuition next year.

    “I hold a very personal and powerful mission: to be the first Black man in my family to graduate from college and create a new legacy for future generations,” Hawkins wrote on his GoFundMe page. “However, despite my academic achievements and unwavering passion, I face serious financial barriers that are threatening my ability to return to Howard and continue pursuing my degree.”



    Source link

  • Do Regional Publics Know Their Product? (opinion)

    Do Regional Publics Know Their Product? (opinion)

    While institutions of higher education have in recent months been incessantly targeted from without, it is also important for universities’ long-term health that we consider what has been going on within them. Often, the national conversation disproportionately focuses on Ivy League institutions—what one famous professor recently referred to as “Harvard Derangement Syndrome”—but if we want to understand what the vast majority of American college students experience, we must look at the regional public universities (RPUs) that are “the workhorses of public higher education.”

    According to the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, roughly 70 percent of all U.S. undergraduates enrolled at public four-year institutions attend RPUs. Yet declining enrollments and years of austerity measures have left these workhorse universities particularly vulnerable. Writing about the difficult financial decisions many of these campuses have already made, Lee Gardner warns that “if many regional colleges cut at this point, they risk becoming very different institutions.”

    But those who work at regional public universities will tell you that they are already very different institutions. Rarely, however, have these transformations been the subject or result of open campus discussion and debate. Often, they are not even publicly declared by the administrations spearheading these shifts, though it’s not always clear if that is by design or because administrators are unclear about their own priorities. An unsettling likelihood is that we no longer know what these workhorse universities should be working toward.

    My own regional college is part of the State University of New York system, which, as political scientist and SUNY Cortland professor Henry Steck argues, has always struggled to define its mission and purpose. “From its earliest days,” writes Steck, “SUNY’s history has been characterized not simply by the recurrent challenges of growth and financing, but by a more profound disagreement over what higher education means to New Yorkers.”

    As a result, the SUNY system “has yet to discover or resolve its full identity,” which, today, is torn between three “disparate visions” that emerged in the latter half of the 20th century: the civic-minded vision of 1950s university leader Thomas Hamilton, who emphasized the cultivation of intellectual, scientific and artistic excellence through broadly accessible liberal learning; a utilitarian vision that, beginning in the 1980s, stressed the economic importance of graduate research and professional education; and the neoliberal ethos of a 1995 trustees’ report entitled “Rethinking SUNY” that encouraged both greater efficiency and more campus autonomy to boost competition between institutions in the system.

    One can perceive all three visions overlapping in complex ways in my own campus’s mission statement, which emphasizes “outstanding liberal arts and pre-professional programs” designed to prepare students “for their professional and civic futures.” But day-to-day realities reveal a notable imbalance among those aims. Recent years have seen a substantial scaling back of liberal arts programs, particularly in the humanities. In 2022, our philosophy major was deactivated despite overwhelming opposition from the Faculty Senate.

    In 2020, my own department (English) had 14 full-time faculty; this coming fall, it will have just six. Meanwhile, there has been an ever-increasing emphasis on pre-professional majors and a borderline obsession with microcredentials, allegedly designed to excite future employers. Lip service is still paid, on occasion, to the importance of the liberal arts, particularly in recent months as federal overreach has prompted colleges to reaffirm the responsibility they have, as my own president put it in a campuswide email, “to prepare students for meaningful lives as engaged citizens.” But without robustly supported humanistic disciplines—and especially without a philosophy department—how are we to teach students what a “meaningful life” is or what engaged citizenship in a democratic culture truly entails?

    To state the problem more openly in the language of business so familiar to college administrators: It’s not just that we do not have a coherent and compelling vision; it’s that we have no idea what our product is anymore. On my own campus, administrators tend to think the issue is simply a marketing problem. It is our task as a department, we are told, to spread the word about the English major and recruit new students. In many ways, this is right: Universities and the disciplines that constitute them have not been great at telling their story or communicating their value to the public or even to the students on their campuses.

    But the issue goes much deeper. “Remarkable marketing,” writes marketing expert Seth Godin, “is the art of building things worth noticing right into your product or service. Not slapping on marketing as a last-minute add-on, but understanding that if your offering itself isn’t remarkable, it’s invisible.” Godin calls these remarkable products “purple cows” (which are clearly unlike other cows).

    Yet to the extent that conversations on my campus have been oriented toward a product at all, it rarely concerns the nuts-and-bolts dynamic of liberal learning that happens in the humanities classroom—that is, the rigorous intellectual journey faculty should be leading students on, taking them outside themselves (and their comfort zones) and into the broader world of ideas, histories and frameworks for making sense of human experience. Instead, the focus has shifted, not simply to inculcating skills, but more significantly to the immense institutional apparatus comprised of therapists, advisers, technology specialists and other paraprofessional support systems.

    Put another way, because there seems to be massive uncertainty about the nature of the higher education classroom, what we end up marketing to prospective students and their parents, wittingly or unwittingly, is an array of services for “managing” the classroom and helping students transact the business of completing a degree or assembling one’s microcredentials on the way to employment.

    The result is a highly technocratic conception of the university and a fiercely transactional notion of higher education that flattens virtually everyone’s sense of what should transpire in the college classroom and which redistributes professional authority away from faculty and toward various administrators and academic support personnel—a shift that Benjamin Ginsberg has astutely documented.

    Faculty, meanwhile, are constantly implored, often by academic support staff who have never taught a class, to “innovate” in their methods and materials, “as though,” retorts Gayle Green, “we weren’t ‘innovating’ all the time, trying new angles, testing what works, seeing if we can make it better, always starting over, every day, a whole new show.” It’s a world of learning management systems (aptly titled to emphasize “management”), learning centers (as if the classroom were a peripheral element of college life), “student success” dashboards, degree-tracking software and what Jerry Z. Muller calls a “tyrannical” preoccupation with data and metrics, which serve as the simplified benchmarks through which educational progress and value are measured.

    And while, as Greene’s book highlights, this approach to higher education has permeated every university to some extent, what is unique to my campus—and, I suspect, to other cash-strapped RPUs fighting to stay relevant and competitive—is the fervent extent to which we have embraced this technocratic approach and allowed it to dominate our sense of purpose.

    To be clear, I am in no way opposed to robustly supporting student success in the multitudinous ways a university must these days. I routinely invite learning center specialists into my classrooms, I refer students to the advising or counseling centers, and I have worked with our accessibility office to ensure my supplementary course materials meet all students’ needs. What concerns me is the lack of substantive, broad-ranging discussion about what terms like “student success” or “student-centered education” even mean, and the dearth of guidance from administrators about how the various campus constituencies should work together to achieve them. That guidance would require a much clearer and more well-communicated vision of what our ultimate purpose—and product—is.

    As much as I admire Godin’s mindful emphasis on “building things worth noticing right into your product or service,” I wonder if some core element of the liberal learning that resides at the heart of higher education is a product that can’t be endlessly innovated. What if higher education is a product similar to, say, the process of drawing heat or energy from a natural resource such as firewood or sunlight? Yes, we can refine these processes to a great extent by building energy-efficient woodstoves to capture more heat from each log or solar panels and storage devices to wrest more energy from every beam of light. But eventually there will be diminishing returns for our efforts, and some so-called improvements may simply be cosmetic changes that really have nothing to do with—or may even detract from—the process of heat or energy extraction, which, at its foundation, simply entails intimate contact with these distinctly unchanging natural elements.

    Etymologically, this is precisely what “education” means—to educe or draw forth something hidden or latent. And as silly as the above analogy may sound, it is precisely the metaphor that philosophers and writers have used since the classical era to conceptualize the very nature of education. In The Republic, Plato likens “the natural power to learn” to the process of “turning the soul” away from reflections projected on a cave wall (mere representations of reality) and leading oneself out from the cave and into the sunlight of truth.

    Closer to our own time and place, Ralph Waldo Emerson professed in “The American Scholar” that colleges “can only highly serve us, when they aim not to drill, but to create; when they gather from far every ray of various genius to their hospitable halls, and, by the concentrated fires, set the hearts of their youth on flame.”

    “Forget this,” he warned, “and our American colleges will recede in their public importance, whilst they grow richer every year.”

    But it was W. E. B. Du Bois who, arguing for racial equality roughly six decades later, brought these ideas together in one of their most radical forms, forever giving all American universities something to aspire to. In The Souls of Black Folk, Du Bois, drawing on the education-as-heat-extraction metaphor to evoke the immense powers of learning, posited that “to stimulate wildly weak and untrained minds is to play with mighty fires.” And his paean to the college classroom is remarkable for its emphasis on the university’s spartan but enduring methods:

    “In a half-dozen class-rooms they gather then … Nothing new, no time-saving devices,—simply old time-glorified methods of delving for Truth, and searching out the hidden beauties of life, and learning the good of living … The riddle of existence is the college curriculum that was laid before the Pharaohs, that was taught in the groves by Plato, that formed the trivium and quadrivium, and is today laid before the freedmen’s sons by Atlanta University. And this course of study will not change; its methods will grow more deft and effectual, its content richer by toil of scholar and sight of seer; but the true college will ever have one goal,—not to earn meat, but to know the end and aim of that life which meat nourishes.”

    This is a vision of education almost perfectly designed to baffle today’s educational reformers or RPU administrators, not simply for its attitude toward innovative “time-saving devices,” but for the fact that Du Bois was advocating this approach—one more akin to those found at wealthy liberal arts schools these days—for Black individuals in the Jim Crow South in contrast to the more trade-focused vision of his contemporary, Booker T. Washington.

    Washington’s vision has clearly triumphed in RPUs, where the humanistic learning that Du Bois writes so passionately about has been dying out and, in the years ahead, will likely be relegated to the spiritless distributional requirements of the general education curriculum. As Eric Adler has admirably written, such an approach further shifts responsibility for meaningful curricula away from faculty judgment and toward student fancy and choice.

    So, too, does it marginalize—that is, reduce to a check-box icon in a degree-tracking tool—the emphasis on “soul-crafting” that takes place, as Du Bois well knew, when students persistently grapple with life’s biggest questions. “By denying to all but privileged undergraduates the opportunity to shape their souls,” Adler argues, “vocationalists implicitly broadcast their elitism.”

    That very elitism was broadcast at my own university when an administrator suggested in a conversation with me that our students often work full-time and thus are not as focused on exploring big questions or reading difficult texts. When I pushed back, asserting that my classroom experience had demonstrated that our students were indeed hungry to read the serious literary and philosophical texts that can help them explore questions of meaning and value, the administrator immediately apologized for being presumptuous. Nevertheless, the elitism was broadcast.

    If RPUs are serious about the civic ideals they have once again begun to champion in response to potential government overreach, then they need to re-evaluate the overall educational product they are offering and redirect autonomy and respect back toward the faculty—particularly the humanistic faculty—who are best poised to educate students in the kinds of “soul-crafting” that are essential to a well-lived life in a thriving democratic society.

    There have been many calls to revive civics education in the United States, but no civics education will be complete without cultivating the broader humanistic knowledge and imaginative capabilities that are essential to daily life in a liberal democracy. Literature, philosophy, history, art—all are vital for helping us understand not only ourselves but also the ideas, beliefs and experiences of other individuals with whom we must share a political world and with whom we often disagree. Such an endeavor may seem rather basic and perhaps old-fashioned. But anyone who has taught at the college level knows it is an immensely complex undertaking. It is already a purple cow.

    Scott M. Reznick is an assistant professor of English at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, where he has taught for the past five years, and associate professor of literature at the University of Austin, where he will begin teaching this fall. He is the author of Political Liberalism and the Rise of American Romanticism (Oxford, 2024).

    Source link

  • International Graduates and the New Employability Challenge

    International Graduates and the New Employability Challenge

    • By Louise Nicol, Founder of Asia Careers Group.

    As global economies come under increasing strain from technological disruption, demographic change and tightening labour markets, one long-held assumption is starting to fray: that an overseas degree guarantees stronger employment outcomes for international graduates returning home. For many years, particularly across Asia, this belief underpinned the value proposition of international education. But new data suggests that this premium is beginning to erode – not because domestic education is closing the gap, but because international graduates are being left to navigate the final step of their journey alone.

    Recent analysis from the Asia Careers Group (ACG), drawing on the outcomes of over 20,000 international graduates from UK and Australian universities who returned to China, India, Malaysia, and Singapore since 2015, offers critical insights. The headline message is that while international graduates continue to outperform their domestically educated peers in many cases, the margin is narrowing. The problem is not the quality of education delivered overseas, but the lack of structured support that enables these students to transition into meaningful employment in their home markets. For families across Asia making significant financial sacrifices to send their children abroad, the return on investment increasingly hinges not just on the degree earned, but on the job secured afterwards. For universities in the UK and other major host countries, international graduate outcomes are no longer just a reputational concern – they are becoming central to the long-term sustainability of international recruitment strategies.

    China’s story illustrates the shifting terrain. For decades, foreign-educated Chinese graduates enjoyed a clear employment advantage in China’s urban job markets. Overseas qualifications, English fluency and global experience were seen as major assets. But just before the pandemic, as outbound numbers surged and China’s youth unemployment crisis deepened, that edge started to dull. The term ‘Sea Turtles’ (or haigui) came to represent the growing number of returnees entering an already saturated labour market, combined with employer preference for local experience, meant that the haigui label no longer guaranteed success.

    By 2020, full-time employment among returnees had dropped below 30% – lower than the domestic graduate average for the first time. And yet, recovery has followed. In 2023-24, nearly 50% of internationally educated Chinese graduates secured full-time employment within six months of graduation, while only 30% of their domestically educated peers did the same. Despite mounting geopolitical pressure and a sluggish economy, UK and Australian degrees remain a lever of upward mobility, so long as students are able to connect their education to employment.

    India reveals the outsized influence of immigration policy on international graduate outcomes. Following the withdrawal of post-study work rights by the UK government in 2012, Indian students returning home with UK degrees struggled to compete in the domestic job market. The lack of international work experience meant they were often indistinguishable from their peers who had remained in India. When post-study work rights were reinstated in 2019, a marked improvement followed. By 2022, nearly 65% of Indian returnees were in full-time employment within six months, well ahead of the national average. However, this improvement has not held.

    Since 2023, the data shows another downward trend. While the Graduate Route remains technically available, it has not been accompanied by sufficient careers guidance, reintegration support, or India-facing employer engagement. As a result, many students—even those who stay on to work in the UK for a period—struggle to reconnect with Indian employers when they return. Without a deliberate, structured transition, the employability premium fades.

    Malaysia presents a more complex picture. ACG data from 2010 to 2021 show that full-time employment for returnees dropped from nearly 80% to just over 30%. By contrast, Ministry of Education and Khazanah Research Institute data suggest that domestic graduate outcomes have remained relatively flat, hovering around 45–50%. On the surface, this looks like a convergence, but not for the right reasons. Employment outcomes for returnees have worsened, rather than improved, for domestic graduates. And yet when salary data is introduced, the story changes. International graduates continue to command significantly higher incomes, particularly those with UK and Australian degrees. ACG’s analysis and national labour statistics both show a clear premium: returnees are more likely to earn over RM6,000, while 65% of domestic graduates earn under RM2,000. This suggests that international education still opens doors to higher-level and better-paid roles—but only once graduates overcome the initial hurdle of securing employment. Without local support networks and targeted CIAG, many returnees remain stranded at the starting line.

    Singapore’s system is notable for its transparency, with robust graduate employment data published annually. Even so, ACG’s data shows that internationally educated Singaporean returnees are now significantly less likely to secure full-time roles than their locally educated peers. Between 2013 and 2023, employment for returnees fell from over 80% to just above 40%, while domestic graduate outcomes stayed consistently above 75%. But this is less a judgement on the quality of international education than a reflection of systems misalignment. Many Singaporeans now study abroad at the postgraduate level in destinations or fields that don’t map neatly onto Singapore’s structured graduate pathways, especially in the public sector. Some never return. Others miss out on local graduate schemes or lack the mentoring and guidance necessary to re-enter the domestic market. These are not less capable graduates – they are structurally unsupported.

    The implications for UK higher education institutions and policymakers are profound. Graduate outcomes for international students returning home have long been neglected in favour of compliance metrics, application numbers, and league table performance. But if we are to retain our position as a leading destination for international students, we must confront a simple truth: it is no longer enough to bring students in, deliver a quality education, and send them on their way. We must know what happens next. That means tracking international graduate outcomes systematically, forging deep partnerships with employers in key source countries, and embedding culturally tailored careers support into the student journey – not as an add-on, but as core infrastructure. This also means preparing students for re-entry from the moment they arrive, rather than reacting after they leave.

    Governments in destination countries must play their part too. That includes aligning visa and migration policy with long-term employability outcomes, ensuring post-study work routes remain stable and transparent, and avoiding knee-jerk compliance changes that disrupt student confidence. The UK, in particular, must make good on the promise of the Graduate Route by working with universities to ensure that work experience gained in the UK translates into lasting employability abroad. We should also consider incentivising institutions to track and support international graduate success, just as we are increasingly focused on domestic outcomes.

    And finally, for students and families, the message is clear: an international degree can still unlock opportunity, but it is not a guarantee. The most successful graduates are those who receive support tailored to their return journey—those with access to informed advice, strong alumni networks, and employer connections in their home country. Without these, the international education premium – once considered automatic – is slipping.

    References

    1. Asia Careers Group (ACG). Proprietary international graduate outcomes tracking data, 2015–2024.
    2. India Skills Report (ISR). Confederation of Indian Industry, Wheebox, and Taggd, various years.
    3. Ministry of Education, Malaysia & Khazanah Research Institute (KRI). Graduate Tracer Study and labour market reports, 2010–2021.
    4. Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM). Monthly and graduate salary distribution reports.
    5. Ministry of Education, Singapore. Graduate Employment Survey (GES), 2013–2023.
    6. UK Home Office & Migration Advisory Committee. Graduate Route Policy Review, 2024.
    7. Chinese Ministry of Education (MoE) and independent think tank analysis of returnee graduate outcomes (Haigui commentary), various sources.

    Source link

  • Schools and colleges nationwide face Trump investigations

    Schools and colleges nationwide face Trump investigations

    The Trump administration moved quickly after taking office to open dozens of investigations into schools and universities nationwide. Most of those announced publicly mark a dramatic shift in priorities from previous administrations.

    The Education Department and other agencies are looking into allegations of antisemitism and racial discrimination against white students at dozens of colleges. The agency also has begun investigating policies that protect transgender athletes and, in some cases, targeted entire state departments of education as part of that work.

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education. 

    Here’s a look at investigations the Trump administration has announced. This map and list will be updated. Know of an investigation we missed? Tell us: [email protected]. 

    Although the majority of investigations that have been opened are in states considered to be liberal, almost every state in the country has at least one entity under scrutiny. And many institutions face more than one investigation.

    Related: Tracking Trump: His actions to dismantle the Education Department, and more

    To date, colleges and universities have received the most attention from the administration, with more than 60 targeted over alleged incidents of antisemitism and another 45 under scrutiny over their work with a program that aims to increase diversity among Ph.D. candidates. Most of the K-12 investigations involve transgender policies, including those about access to sports and locker rooms. 

    Contact investigations editor Sarah Butrymowicz at [email protected] or on Signal: @sbutry.04

    This story about Trump investigations was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger 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

  • If we are serious about improving student outcomes, we can’t treat teacher retention as an afterthought

    If we are serious about improving student outcomes, we can’t treat teacher retention as an afterthought

    In the race to help students recover from pandemic-related learning loss, education leaders have overlooked one of the most powerful tools already at their disposal: experienced teachers.

    For decades, a myth has persisted in education policy circles that after their first few years on the job, teachers stop improving. This belief has undercut efforts to retain seasoned educators, with many policymakers and administrators treating veteran teachers as replaceable cogs rather than irreplaceable assets.

    But that myth doesn’t hold up. The evidence tells a different story: Teachers don’t hit a plateau after year five. While their growth may slow, it doesn’t stop. In the right environments — with collaborative colleagues, supportive administrators and stable classroom assignments — teachers can keep getting better well into their second decade in the classroom.

    This insight couldn’t come at a more critical time. As schools work to accelerate post-pandemic learning recovery, especially for the most vulnerable students, they need all the instructional expertise they can muster.

    That means not just recruiting new teachers but keeping their best educators in the classroom and giving them the support they need to thrive.

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

    In a new review of 23 longitudinal studies conducted by the Learning Policy Institute and published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, all but one of the studies showed that teachers generally improve significantly during their first five years. The research review also found continued, albeit slower, improvement well into years 6 through 15; several of the studies found improvement into later years of teaching, though at a diminished pace.

    These gains translate into measurable benefits for students: higher test scores, fewer disciplinary issues, reduced absenteeism and increased postsecondary attainment. In North Carolina, for example, students with highly experienced English teachers learned more and were substantially less likely to skip school and more likely to enjoy reading. These effects were strongest for students who were most at risk of falling behind.

    While experience helps all teachers improve, we’re currently failing to build that experience where it’s needed most. Schools serving large populations of low-income Black and Hispanic students are far more likely to be staffed primarily by early career teachers.

    And unfortunately, they’re also more likely to see those teachers leave after just a few years. This churn makes it nearly impossible to build a stable, experienced workforce in high-need schools.

    It also robs novice teachers of the veteran mentors who could help them get better faster and robs students of the opportunity to learn from seasoned educators who have refined their craft over time.

    To fix this, we need to address both sides of the equation: helping teachers improve and keeping them in the classrooms that need them most.

    Research points to several conditions that support continued teacher growth. Beginning teachers are more likely to stay and improve if they have had high-quality preparation and mentoring. Teaching is not a solo sport. Educators who work alongside more experienced peers improve faster, especially in the early years.

    Teachers also improve more when they’re able to teach the same grade level or subject year after year. Unfortunately, those in under-resourced schools are more likely to be shuffled around, undermining their ability to build expertise.

    Perhaps most importantly, schools that have strong leadership and which foster time for collaboration and a culture of professional trust see greater gains in teacher retention over time.

    Teachers who feel supported by their administrators, who collaborate with a team that shares their mission and who aren’t constantly switching subjects or grade levels are far more likely to stay in the profession.

    Pay matters too, especially in high-need schools where working conditions are toughest. But incentives alone aren’t enough. Short-term bonuses can attract teachers, but they won’t keep them if the work environment drives them away.

    Related: One state radically boosted new teacher pay – and upset a lot of teachers

    If we’re serious about improving student outcomes, especially in the wake of the pandemic, we have to stop treating teacher retention as an afterthought. That means retooling our policies to reflect what the research now clearly shows: experience matters, and it can be cultivated.

    Policymakers should invest in high-quality teacher preparation and mentoring programs, particularly in high-need schools. They should create conditions that promote teacher stability and collaboration, such as protected planning time and consistent teaching assignments.

    Principals must be trained not just as managers, but as instructional leaders capable of building strong school cultures. And state and district leaders must consider meaningful financial incentives and other supports to retain experienced teachers in the classrooms that need them most.

    With the right support, teachers can keep getting better. In this moment of learning recovery, a key to success is keeping teachers in schools and consciously supporting their growing effectiveness.

    Linda Darling-Hammond is founding president and chief knowledge officer at the Learning Policy Institute. Michael J. Petrilli is president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and an executive editor of Education Next.

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

    This story about teacher retention 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