Blog

  • WEEKEND READING: Student working lives: paid work and access and participation

    WEEKEND READING: Student working lives: paid work and access and participation

    This blog was kindly authored by Martin Lowe, Professor Adrian Wright, Dr Mark Wilding and Mary Lawler from the University of Lancashire, authors of Student Working Lives (HEPI report 195).

    The clearest finding of our recent HEPI report, Student Working Lives, was the growing prevalence of paid work among students and its profound impact on their experiences and outcomes.

    This trend is not confined to disadvantaged groups; it is now a reality for the majority of students, with the Advance HE and HEPI Student Academic Experience Survey revealing how 68% of students now work during term time. Yet, despite its significance, paid work remains largely absent from regulatory frameworks designed to promote equality of opportunity in higher education.

    As the Office for Students (OfS) reviews its approach to access and participation, we argue that paid work should be recognised as a distinct risk on the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register (EORR). Doing so would enable providers to respond more effectively to the challenges students face and ensure that widening participation efforts reflect the realities of modern student life.

    A risk-based future for access and participation

    Since taking office, the Labour Government has placed widening participation as a central pillar of its higher education agenda. From the introduction of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement to the creation of a new Access and Participation Task and Finish Group, ministers have signalled their determination to open doors to learners from non-traditional backgrounds.

    This ambition was reiterated in the recent Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, which proposed a significant shift in the regulatory approach in England:

    We will reform regulation of access and participation plans, moving away from a uniform approach to one where the Office for Students can be more risk-based.

    While this statement attracted less attention than the more headline-grabbing measures on tuition fees and maintenance grants, it represents a potentially transformative change. A risk-based model could allow the OfS to focus on the most pressing barriers to equality of opportunity, provided those risks are accurately identified.

    The existing EORR complements this approach. Having been introduced under the leadership of outgoing Director of Fair Access and Participation at the OfS, John Blake, the register has already been widely welcomed by the sector. By identifying factors that threaten access and success for disadvantaged student groups, it enables providers to design interventions tailored to their own context. Rather than simply seeking to address outcome gaps, the EORR encourages institutions to tackle the underlying causes.

    However, the register is not static. If it is to remain relevant, it must evolve to reflect emerging challenges. One such challenge is the growing necessity of paid work alongside study, a risk that intersects the financial pressures felt by students but extends far beyond them.

    Paid work is more than a financial issue

    The current EORR already identifies ‘Cost Pressures’ as a risk, acknowledging that rising living costs can undermine students’ ability to complete their course or achieve good grades. Yet this framing is too narrow on its own. Paid work is not merely a symptom of financial strain; it’s a complex factor that shapes engagement, attainment, and progression into graduate employment.

    Our research shows that paid work is a necessity for most students, regardless of background, with average hours worked remaining static across each Indices of Deprivation (IMD) quintile. However, its impact is uneven. Students having to work more than 20 hours per week, those employed in particularly demanding sectors and those balancing caring responsibilities may all face challenges due to increased workload. However each should be supported in different ways.

    Figure 1: Likelihood of obtaining a ‘good’ honours degree by work hours

    These patterns matter because they influence both academic performance and participation in enrichment activities that support retention and employability. Paid work is a structural feature of student life that can amplify existing inequalities, but present specific nuances depending on the local context.

    Our analysis highlights how the risks associated with paid work differ across institutions and how regional labour markets shape patterns of student employment. For instance, our survey indicates a higher proportion of students working in health and social care in Lancashire, where the sector represents 15% of total employment. In contrast, Liverpool’s relatively large share of hospitality student workers reflects the sector’s prominence, accounting for around 10% of jobs in the city region. These different contexts can help steer local interventions to reduce risk associated with particular sectors.

    Figure 2: Employment by top four sectors (multiple responses accepted)

    Recognising paid work as a formal risk would help empower institutions to develop context-sensitive strategies. These might include the crediting of paid work within the curriculum, embedding guidance on employment rights within pastoral support, or designing schedules that accommodate students’ working patterns.

    Access and participation – two sides of the same coin

    As the OfS explores separating out the “Access” and “Participation” strands of its regulatory framework – as outlined in their recent quality consultation – paid work should feature prominently in supporting both ambitions. Widening access is not simply about opening the door; it is about ensuring wider groups of students see themselves as being part of that experience. For some mature learners, carers, and those with financial dependencies (who may feel excluded by the traditional delivery model of higher education) the support to balance paid work and study is critical.

    Ignoring this reality risks undermining the very goals of widening participation. Higher education must adapt to the evolving profile of its students, who increasingly diverge from the outdated stereotype of the full-time undergraduate.

    Our recommendation is for the OfS to prioritise paid work as a key aspect of the future of Access and Participation regulation, inserting it as a distinct risk within the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register. Doing so would:

    • signal its importance as a structural factor affecting equality of opportunity;
    • enable targeted interventions that reflect institutional and regional contexts;
    • support innovation in curriculum design, pastoral care, and timetabling;
    • and promote collaboration between universities, employers, and policymakers to improve job quality and flexibility.

    This is not about discouraging students from working. For many, employment provides valuable experience and skills. Instead, it is about recognising that when work becomes a necessity rather than a choice, it can compromise educational outcomes, especially for those already at the margins.

    The OfS has an opportunity to lead the sector in addressing one of the most pressing challenges facing students today. By treating paid work as a formal risk, it can help ensure that access and participation strategies are grounded in the lived realities of learners.

    As we look to the future, one principle should guide the sector: widening participation does not end at the point of entry. It extends throughout the student journey, encompassing the conditions that enable success. Paid work is now not only part of that journey, but a critical factor.

    Source link

  • A Cloaked Threat in U.S. Higher Ed That the House Committee on the CCP Has Ignored

    A Cloaked Threat in U.S. Higher Ed That the House Committee on the CCP Has Ignored

    [Editor’s note: The Higher Education Inquirer has attempted to contact the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party a number of times regarding our extensive investigation of Ambow Education and HybriU.  As of this posting, we have never received a response.]  

    In the evolving landscape of U.S. higher education, one emerging force has attracted growing concern from the Higher Education Inquirer but remarkably little attention from policymakers: Ambow Education’s HybriU platform. Marketed as a next-generation AI-powered “phygital” learning solution designed to merge online and in-person instruction, HybriU raises serious questions about academic credibility, data governance, and foreign influence. Yet it has remained largely outside the scope of inquiry by the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.

    Ambow Education has long operated in opaque corners of the for-profit higher education world. Headquartered in the Cayman Islands with a U.S. presence in Cupertino, California, the company’s governance and leadership history are tangled and controversial. 

    Under CEO and Board Chair Jin Huang, Ambow has repeatedly survived regulatory and institutional crises, prompting the HEI to liken her to “Harry Houdini” for her ability to evade sustained accountability even as schools under Ambow’s control deteriorated. Huang has at times held multiple executive and board roles simultaneously, a concentration of authority that has raised persistent governance concerns. Questions surrounding her academic credentials have also lingered, with no publicly verifiable evidence confirming completion of the doctoral degree she claims.

    Ambow’s U.S. footprint includes Bay State College in Boston, which was fined by the Massachusetts Attorney General for deceptive marketing and closed in 2023 after losing accreditation, and the NewSchool of Architecture and Design in San Diego, which continues to operate under financial strain, low enrollment, leadership instability, and federal Heightened Cash Monitoring. These institutional failures form the backdrop against which HybriU is now being promoted as Ambow’s technological reinvention.

    Introduced in 2024, HybriU is marketed as an AI-integrated hybrid learning ecosystem combining immersive digital environments, classroom analytics, and global connectivity into a unified platform. Ambow claims the HybriU Global Learning Network will allow U.S. institutions to expand enrollment by connecting international students to hybrid classrooms without traditional visa pathways. Yet independent reporting has found little publicly verifiable evidence of meaningful adoption at major U.S. universities, demonstrated learning outcomes, or independent assessments of HybriU’s educational value, cybersecurity posture, or data governance practices. Much of the platform’s public presentation relies on aspirational language, promotional imagery, and forward-looking statements rather than demonstrable results.

    Compounding these concerns is Ambow’s extreme financial fragility. The company’s market capitalization currently stands at approximately US$9.54 million, placing it below the US$10 million threshold widely regarded by investors as a major risk category. Companies at this scale are often lightly scrutinized, thinly traded, and highly vulnerable to operational disruption. Ambow’s share price has also been highly volatile, with an average weekly price change of roughly 22 percent over the past three months, signaling instability and speculative trading rather than confidence in long-term fundamentals. For a company pitching itself as a provider of mission-critical educational infrastructure, such volatility raises serious questions about continuity, vendor risk, and institutional exposure should the company falter or fail.

    Ambow’s own financial disclosures report modest HybriU revenues and cite partnerships with institutions such as Colorado State University and the University of the West. However, the terms, scope, and safeguards associated with these relationships have not been publicly disclosed or independently validated. At the same time, Ambow’s reported research and development spending remains minimal relative to its technological claims, reinforcing concerns that HybriU may be more marketing construct than mature platform.

    The risks posed by HybriU extend beyond performance and balance sheets. Ambow’s corporate structure, leadership history, and prior disclosures acknowledging Chinese influence in earlier filings raise unresolved governance and jurisdictional questions. While the company asserts it divested its China-based education operations in 2022, executive ties, auditing arrangements, and opaque ownership structures remain. When a platform seeks deep integration into classroom systems, student engagement tools, and institutional data flows, opacity combined with financial fragility becomes a systemic risk rather than a marginal one.

    This risk is heightened by the current political environment. With the Trump Administration signaling a softer, more transactional posture toward the CCP—particularly in areas involving business interests, deregulation, and foreign capital—platforms like HybriU may face even less scrutiny going forward. While rhetorical concern about China persists, enforcement priorities appear selective, and ed-tech platforms embedded quietly into academic infrastructure may escape meaningful oversight altogether.

    Despite its mandate to investigate CCP influence across U.S. institutions, the House Select Committee on the CCP has not publicly examined Ambow Education or HybriU. There has been no hearing, subpoena, or formal inquiry into the platform’s governance, data practices, financial viability, or long-term risks. This silence reflects a broader blind spot: influence in higher education increasingly arrives not through visible programs or exchanges, but through software platforms and digital infrastructure that operate beneath the political radar.

    For colleges and universities considering partnerships with HybriU, the implications are clear. Institutions must treat Ambow not merely as a technology vendor but as a financially fragile, opaque, and lightly scrutinized actor seeking deep integration into core academic systems. Independent audits, transparent governance disclosures, enforceable data-ownership guarantees, and contingency planning for vendor failure are not optional—they are essential.

    Education deserves transparency, stability, and accountability, not hype layered atop risk. And oversight bodies charged with protecting U.S. institutions must recognize that the future of influence and vulnerability in higher education may be written not in classrooms, but in code, contracts, and balance sheets.


    Sources

    Higher Education Inquirer, “Jin Huang, Higher Education’s Harry Houdini” (August 2025)
    https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/08/jin-huang-higher-educations-harry.html

    Higher Education Inquirer, “Ambow Education Continues to Fish in Murky Waters” (January 2025)
    https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/01/ambow-education-continues-to-fish-in.html

    Higher Education Inquirer, “Smoke, Mirrors, and the HybriU Hustle: Ambow’s Global Learning Pitch Raises Red Flags” (July 2025)
    https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/07/smoke-mirrors-and-hybriu-hustle-ambows.html

    Ambow Education, 2024–2025 Annual and Interim Financial Reports
    https://www.ambow.com

    Market capitalization and volatility data, publicly available market analytics

    Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, Bay State College settlement

    U.S. Department of Education, Heightened Cash Monitoring disclosures

    House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, mandate and public hearings

    Source link

  • Oklahoma Supreme Court strikes down controversial social studies standards

    Oklahoma Supreme Court strikes down controversial social studies standards

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down the state’s controversial social studies standards, citing last minute changes that included lessons on the Bible. The standards were pushed by former state Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters and adopted by the state board of education earlier this year. 

    In the closely divided opinion, the state supreme court ruled that the creation of the standards violated the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act, which requires state boards to publicly post such changes in an effort to maintain transparency.  

    “The version of the Standards approved by the Board on February 27, 2025, was not publicly posted until after the Board voted on the 2025 Standards,” the 5-4 majority opinion said. “Three Board members stated in a subsequent meeting of the Board that they did not know that the version they were voting on was different from the version publicly posted in December 2024.”

    In addition, board members were notified of the new standards approximately 17 hours before voting on them, the opinion stated.

    The 11th hour changes to the curriculum included requiring: 

    • First grade students to identify how David, Goliath, Moses and the Ten Commandments influenced American colonists, founders and culture.
    • Second grade students to “identify stories from Christianity that influenced the America Founders and culture, including teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.”
    • Fifth graders to explain how “Biblical principles” influenced the American founders. 
    • High school students to describe Biblical stories.
    • High school students to “identify discrepancies in the 2020 election results,” partly by examining “the sudden halting of ballot counting” and “the security risks of mail-in balloting.” 
    • High school students to “identify the source of COVID-19 pandemic from a Chinese lab.” 

    The state court, however, did not decide whether the inclusion of these topics violated the FIrst Amendment, which protects religious freedom. Instead, it said the board adopted “fundamentally different substantive Standards” without proper public notification. 

    The standards were already on pause since September, when the state supreme court said the 2019 standards would stay in place until the lawsuit challenging the 2025 standards was decided. 

    The decision this week keeps the old standards in place until the state board “properly” creates new standards for social studies, which will then go to the legislature for approval, the opinion states.

    “The Oklahoma State Supreme Court just launched an incredibly aggressive attack on Christianity, the Bible, on President Trump,” said Walters in a video posted to X on Wednesday. The standards, he said, were meant to “bring back an understanding of the role of the Bible in world history and American history.” 

    “These justices should be ashamed of themselves,” he added, calling on the justices to resign. Walters resigned in September from his role as top education official of Oklahoma, after a turbulent time in office that included other attempts to incorporate the Bible in public schools. 

    Civil rights organizations celebrated the ruling.

    “The authority to govern comes with accountability for making decisions in the full view of the people the government serves,” said Brent Rowland, legal director of Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, a nonprofit that focuses on education and other local social issues, in a Tuesday statement. “This decision moves us toward the open, rigorous, and inclusive public education our students deserve.”

    Source link

  • Trump administration appeals ruling in Harvard University case

    Trump administration appeals ruling in Harvard University case

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • The Trump administration on Thursday filed to appeal the ruling against the federal government’s roughly $2.2 billion freeze of Harvard University’s research funding.
    • In September, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs struck down the freeze orders, ruling the government acted unlawfully and violated the university’s First Amendment rights when targeting Harvard’s funding and attempting to force myriad policy changes at the university. 
    • Burroughs entered a final judgment in October concluding the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act and its actions were “arbitrary and capricious.” The administration’s appeal fulfills its promise in September to contest the ruling.

    Dive Insight:

    In Burroughs’ final ruling on Oct. 20, she permanently blocked the Trump administration from enforcing the funding freeze orders. She also barred the government from issuing new grant terminations or withholding “funding to Harvard in retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights,” or for alleged discrimination without following the proper steps under civil rights law.

    The administration filed its appeal of the ruling with the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

    White House spokesperson Liz Huston said in a statement Friday that Harvard “failed to protect its students, allowing harassment and discrimination to run rampant on its campus.” She added that the university “is not entitled to taxpayer funding, and we are confident the university will be held fully accountable for their failures.”

    Meanwhile, a Harvard spokesperson said in an emailed statement Friday that the university remains “confident in our legal position.”

    “The federal district court ruled in Harvard’s favor in September, reinstating critical research funding that advances science and life-saving medical breakthroughs, strengthens national security, and enhances our nation’s competitiveness and economic priorities,” the spokesperson said. 

    The appeal follows a monthslong legal battle between Harvard and the Trump administration. 

    At the end of March, President Donald Trump’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced it would review some $9 billion of Harvard’s grants and contracts. U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon at the time claimed the university failed “to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination” in the wake of 2024’s tumultuous season of pro-Palestinian protests. 

    Days later, the Trump administration sent Harvard a wide-ranging, unprecedented set of demands backed by threats to the university’s federal funding. Those demands included changing “biased” departments, governance reforms, and the elimination of all of Harvard’s diversity, equity and inclusion programs. 

    The administration followed up with even stricter demands that called for a viewpoint “audit” of Harvard’s students and faculty, and for the institution to reduce the power of faculty and administrators involved in activism. After Harvard President Alan Garber rebuked the Trump administration for overstepping its authority, the government froze over $2 billion in funding to the university. 

    The government has since waged a multi-agency financial and bureaucratic war against Harvard, threatening everything from its tax-exempt status to its ability to enroll international students to its control of its patents

    In Burroughs’ initial ruling in September, the judge questioned the Trump administration’s rationale in issuing grant termination letters. The federal government said it was trying to end institutionalized antisemitism at Harvard, but Burroughs concluded that a connection was “wholly lacking” between its actions and its official motivations.

    The evidence didn’t “reflect that fighting antisemitism was Defendants’ true aim in acting against Harvard,” Burroughs wrote in her ruling. “Even if it were, combatting antisemitism cannot be accomplished on the back of the First Amendment.”

    Since then, the government has reinstated most of the university’s frozen funding.

    Over the months of litigation, several media reports have cited anonymous sources predicting an ever-nearing settlement between Harvard and the Trump administration. Trump himself said as much in September. 

    So far, a deal hasn’t materialized.

    Source link

  • 10 Tips for Creating a Student Centered Classroom

    10 Tips for Creating a Student Centered Classroom

    3. Shift from Autopsy Grading to Continuous Feedback

    Traditional grading often acts as a terminal event that ends the learning process. It is like an autopsy because it tells you what happened to the patient after it is too late to save them. Student centered assessment focuses on providing actionable feedback while the learning is still happening. This approach encourages students to view their work as iterative and values the process of revision over the final grade.

    Chromebook Tip

    Utilize the Private Comments feature in Google Classroom or the Suggestion Mode in Google Docs. Engage in a back and forth dialogue while students are still cognitively wrestling with the work. You might even consider withholding the final score until the student has responded to your feedback or made a revision.

    4. Implement Inquiry Based Challenges

    Rote lectures often answer questions that students have not yet asked. A student centered approach reverses this dynamic by using the Five Es model (Engage, Explore, Explain, Extend, and Evaluate). By starting with a provocation or a driving question you create a need to know that motivates students to seek out answers. This anchors the direct instruction that follows in a meaningful context.

    Chromebook Tip

    Use a Google Form as an Inquiry Log. Before a unit starts have students submit their questions and hypotheses about the topic. As they learn they can return to the form to update their thinking or add new questions. This creates a digital record of the intellectual journey of the student.

    5. Design a Physical and Cultural Ecosystem

    The physical environment of a classroom communicates a lot about the expected behavior. Rows of desks facing the front signal that the teacher is the center of attention while clusters and flexible zones signal that collaboration is valued. Student centered learning struggles to survive in a rigid space so it is important to break up the graveyard formation of rows.

    Chromebook Tip

    Since Chromebooks are portable you should encourage students to move around the room. Designate a quiet zone where headphones are required for independent study and a collaboration zone where screens can be shared for group projects.

    6. Empower Students as Co Teachers

    In a traditional classroom the teacher holds all the responsibility for logistics and troubleshooting. In a student centered room these responsibilities are shared to build agency and community. Giving students real jobs helps them feel that the classroom belongs to them and allows you to focus on instruction rather than management.

    Chromebook Tip

    Create a Cyber Squad or Genius Bar composed of students. Train this small group to be the first line of defense for tech issues (such as formatting images or connecting to wifi). This offloads minor troubleshooting from you and empowers students as experts.

    7. Curate Student Led Portfolios

    Standardized tests only provide a snapshot of student performance on a single day. Portfolios offer a comprehensive view of growth over time and require students to exercise metacognition. When students select their own best work and explain why they chose it they develop a deeper understanding of their own learning process.

    Chromebook Tip

    Have students build Google Sites to house their work. They can embed their best Google Docs, link to video projects, and type reflections for each entry directly on the page.

    Creative Option

    Google Sites has limited design flexibility for headers and buttons. If students want to create a highly visual or branded portfolio header they can design it in Canva and upload the image to their Google Site to add personality and flair.

    8. Collaboratively Create Norms and Social Contracts

    Rules that are imposed from the top down are often followed only when the authority figure is watching. Norms that are co-created by the community are more likely to be internalized and respected. Facilitating a session where students brainstorm desirable behaviors shifts the culture from compliance based discipline to community responsibility.

    Chromebook Tip

    Use a shared Google Doc or Google Slide for the brainstorming phase. This allows all students to type their ideas simultaneously. It ensures introverted students can contribute their ideas about classroom culture anonymously and that every voice is captured.

    Creative Option

    Use Canva Whiteboards to allow students to add sticky notes and connect ideas visually on an infinite canvas.

    Source link

  • Westminster x The Academy – who will win?

    Westminster x The Academy – who will win?

    Hear from Emma Cayley, head of School of Languages at the University of Leeds and chair of the University Council of Modern Languages, and Darren Paffey, MP and chair of the Modern Languages APPG, about why they think their side will win the contest.

    Sign up for the challenge here.

    Source link

  • Charters Gain Power in New Indianapolis Plan – The 74

    Charters Gain Power in New Indianapolis Plan – The 74

    In a move called historic by charter advocates and shameful by opponents, Indianapolis officials reached agreement on a plan to provide all charter students with buses and close struggling schools.   

    The proposal, recommended to the state legislature by a panel of leaders from around the city calls for creating a powerful new government agency, the Indianapolis Public Education Corporation, handing charters a measure of control over citywide education decisions they have never had. 

    The corporation — Indiana’s legal term for a school district — would oversee a unified transportation system for all schools; along with the ability to decide which schools are not serving students. The agency would also oversee a single enrollment system. 

    The plan, which still needs approval by the state legislature, is a big win, in some ways, for charter schools that have grown rapidly in recent years and now educate more than half of Indianapolis’ students. 

    Along with gaining transportation for students, charters will have representatives on the new board with equal standing to district officials for the first time in shaping Indianapolis school policy.

    That power, though, is taken from the Indianapolis Public Schools district, whose schools could be closed by the corporation and which already saw the state legislature shift property taxes away from the district to charters earlier this year. 

    Robert Enlow, CEO of the national charter advocacy group EdChoice, based in Indianapolis, called the recommendation “historic” in its support of charters.

    “It is a bold and courageous direction that represents a groundbreaking pathway,” Enlow said after the vote on Wednesday.

    But the proposal has tradeoffs for all sides, which have already sparked howls of opposition from voters and other charter advocates, as well as worry from the district about how the legislature could change the plan. 

    That more power could go to charters has enraged some residents since leaders started discussing the new plan this summer. Right before the vote, Rev. Clyde Posley, president of the General Missionary Baptist State Convention of Indiana, spoke on behalf of several clergy calling the entire effort a “heavy-handed public overreach” in support of “private agendas.”

    “(It) not only invites scavengers and investors to pillage off the plight of a broken school system,” Posley said. “It is not only wrong, it is vicious.”

    Indianapolis Public Schools Superintendent Aleesia Johnson, who worked on the plan for several months, urged residents to keep fighting as the plan goes to the legislature, but said change is necessary.

    “The proposal tonight is an imperfect solution for a challenging set of realities,” Johnson said before voting in favor of it..

    Those realities include growing pains from the rapid rise of charters in a city with a stagnant population. Many charter schools don’t offer buses, forcing students to use public transport or be driven by parents who have pleaded for buses for their children.

    The city also has about 50,000 school seats for 41,000 students, leaving 9,000 open, while the Indianapolis Public Schools faces a budget deficit that will require a tax increase from voters.

    Whether the plan will pass as is by the Republican-dominated, pro-charter legislature is unclear. State Sen. Jeff Raatz, chairman of the Senate Committee on Education and Career Development, had no immediate comment. 

    Bob Behning, the chairman of the House Education Committee who wrote the bill forcing Indianapolis officials to work out a partnership, said he was “pleased with the decision.” He did not elaborate on details of the plan, some of which he has opposed. 

    The new corporation would move toward mayoral control of schools, which cities across the U.S. have tried with varying success. It would have an executive director and a nine-member board  appointed by the mayor – three chosen from the Indianapolis Public Schools board, three charter school leaders and three others.

    That proposal for a mostly-unelected board immediately drew protest from residents, many with the Central Indiana Democratic Socialists of America. After constant shouts of “Unelected!” and “This is a sham!” residents called for the city’s voters, not the legislature, to approve the new corporation. One climbed onto the platform where the panel was seated and was removed by security. And audience members chanted “Shame!” as the panel ended its meeting.

    Charter schools are also raising opposition, including the recommendation that every charter must share money and participate in the new busing system, even as the overall recommendation would give them more power. 

    One charter school advocacy group, the Indiana Charter Innovation Center, called that an “unfunded mandate.”

    “The proposals put forward would place significant burdens on charter schools without providing funding, would reverse major legislative progress, and would create a structure that pulls decision-making farther from the schools and families most affected,” the center said in a social media post.

    The center also objected to the recommendation to limit charter authorizers — organizations that oversee charters and decide which can open — just to the mayor’s office, the state charter board and, as a recent development, the Indianapolis Public Schools board. 

    Andrew Neal, a member of the panel making the recommendation, said requiring all schools to be part of the plan is “a significant equity issue.”

    “I know there are some individuals out there who fear how that will impact their schools, or how that will impact their systems,” Neal said just before the vote. “But I am telling you, this is an opportunity for students…the ones that because of a fragmented system, continue to fall through the cracks.”

    Stand for Children, an education advocacy group that has led the push for busing, said parents will appreciate the new system.

    One parent, Christa Salgado, has repeatedly asked state and local officials for help with transportation after driving her son to school every day took a toll on her and her son had to move to live with his father.

    “I had to drive across the city about 30 minutes back and forth in the morning, and then in the afternoon to pick him up, as a single mother,” she told the panel just before Wednesday’s vote. “This was unsustainable, and unfortunately, I could only do this for a year.”

    The district still isn’t sure, with the final result still up to the legislature, what impact it will have on its authority and budgets. But superintendent Johnson voted in favor of the recommendations, while urging residents to put pressure on the state legislature to make sure the district doesn’t lose too much to charters.

     “If we continue to have an elected board with just the same oversight as they do today…,” she conceded, “the challenges of incoherence and thinning resources will remain.”


    Did you use this article in your work?

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

    Source link

  • VICTORY: Court vindicates professor investigated for parodying university’s ‘land acknowledgment’ on syllabus

    VICTORY: Court vindicates professor investigated for parodying university’s ‘land acknowledgment’ on syllabus

    • Universities can’t encourage professors to wade into controversial subjects, then punish professors for disagreeing with the administration
    • Court: “Student discomfort with a professor’s views can prompt discussion and disapproval. But this discomfort is not grounds for the university retaliating against the professor.”

    SEATTLE, Dec. 19, 2025 — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today delivered a decisive victory for the First Amendment rights of public university faculty in Reges v. Cauce. Reversing a federal district court’s opinion, the Ninth Circuit held University of Washington officials violated the First Amendment when they punished Professor Stuart Reges for substituting his satirical take on the university’s preferred “land acknowledgment” statement on his syllabus.

    On Dec. 8, 2021, Reges criticized land acknowledgment statements in an email to faculty, and on Jan. 3, 2022, he parodied UW’s model statement in his syllabus: “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.” Reges’s statement was a nod to John Locke’s philosophical theory that property rights are established by labor.

    COURTESY PHOTOS FOR MEDIA USE

    Represented by FIRE, Reges filed a First Amendment lawsuit in July 2022 challenging the university’s actions, which included a months-long “harassment” investigation. University officials created a competing class, so students wouldn’t have to take a computer science class from someone who didn’t parrot the university’s preferred opinions. 

    “Today’s opinion is a resounding victory for Professor Stuart Reges and the First Amendment rights of public university faculty,” said FIRE attorney Gabe Walters. “The Ninth Circuit agreed with what FIRE has said from the beginning: Universities can’t force professors to parrot an institution’s preferred political views under pain of punishment.”

    Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Daniel Bress stated: “A public university investigated, reprimanded, and threatened to discipline a professor for contentious statements he made in a class syllabus. The statements, which mocked the university’s model syllabus statement on an issue of public concern, caused offense in the university community. Yet debate and disagreement are hallmarks of higher education. Student discomfort with a professor’s views can prompt discussion and disapproval. But this discomfort is not grounds for the university retaliating against the professor. We hold that the university’s actions toward the professor violated his First Amendment rights.”

    That’s exactly right. 

    “Today’s opinion recognizes that sometimes, ‘exposure to views that distress and offend is a form of education unto itself,’” said FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley. “As we always say at FIRE: If you graduate from college without once being offended, you should ask for your money back.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    CONTACT:

    Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • How One California School Came Together to Pack 20,000 Meals for the Holidays – The 74

    How One California School Came Together to Pack 20,000 Meals for the Holidays – The 74

    When Vevian Nguyen heard the strike of a gong echo for the 10th time, signaling that 10,000 meals had been made, her school cafeteria erupted in applause, and she knew her gloves and hairnet were staying on.

    “Every time we hit the gong, it felt like a little pat on the back, like, ‘Oh, you did something good,’” Vevian said. “Now you can keep doing it.” 

    Within an hour, Vevian and more than 200 students at Laguna Creek High School, a school in the Elk Grove Unified School District in Sacramento County, packed more than 10,000 meals to be donated during the holidays, exceeding their goal for the night. But Vevian, who is a junior and president of Laguna Creek High’s service-oriented Interact Club, said she wasn’t there to simply check off her service hour requirements. 

    “We want to be involved in our community, which is having to be able to know that you’ve helped a family or at least just one person out there,” the 16-year-old said. “And, I feel like that helps your character, it builds who you are and where you stand within your school and your community.”

    The October food-preparing night was part of an international initiative called Rise Against Hunger, which is run by a coalition of student groups such as the National Honor Society and the Rotary International Club. This was Laguna Creek’s second Rise Against Hunger. During the holidays, their 20,000 meals will reach families in Vietnam that were affected by major floods and landslides this year. 

    Sandi Peterson, a positive behavior intervention support administrator and adviser for the National Honor Society, had helped Vevian prepare for the event throughout the school year. At weekly club meetings, students created infographics and posters, spread the word on social media, and promoted their goal of packing 10,000 meals to every classroom on campus. It was a student-led collaboration and a clear, ambitious objective, Peterson said, that drove hundreds of students to sign up, show up, and lock in. 

    “Not one student was on their phone; they were all talking to each other, chatting, laughing. Once we heard the 10,000 gong, it was this huge celebration, and then it started moving so fast,” Peterson said. “We were having to hit the gong for 5,000, 6,000, 7,000 (more) all at the same time. These kids, in less than two hours, assembled 20,000 meals.” 

    Like most schools in California, Laguna Creek has struggled to recover from high rates of chronic absenteeism after the pandemic’s school closures. Many of those students across the state also report a persistent feeling of loneliness and detachment from their school communities. For Cynthia Dettner, an instructor and supervising teacher for the Interact Club at Laguna Creek High, the night of meal-packing also showcased a rare school connectedness among students. 

    “After the Covid years, where students were often isolated, watching all of these students laugh and smile and build their own character by reaching out to help others, it’s a gift,” Dettner said. “It’s a joy to see them come together and befriend each other.” 

    On each side of a cafeteria table, students sporting red hairnets and plastic gloves measured and assembled nutritionally balanced portions of dried rice, vegetable protein, vitamin packets, dried tofu and protein additives into pre-labeled bags. They then rotated each bag to teams of students who stapled, heat-sealed, and counted each package to be ready for distribution worldwide. 

    “It looks almost like a Hallmark movie where you see the cookie factory in progress,” Dettner said. “It’s all kinds of hands and smiles working together, they’re all engaged and involved, and that lifts the community.”

    Students plan to pack more than 40,000 meals next year for families in need. (Sandi Peterson)

    Although Peterson had spent the year raising sponsorship funds for the event, she said the students who packed the meals soon took ownership of the initiative. 

    “Within two weeks, I had students come up to me and say, ‘Ms. Peterson, maybe if we go around and start collecting money on our own, we could do another one in a couple months,’” Peterson said. “So, now they’re trying to tag-team and do 40,000 meals in our next school year. The ticket to longevity is I know that the kids will always show up.”

    Vevian grew up in a low-income family, and after watching friends and family members struggle financially in recent months, she said she’s felt more compelled to help others. Laguna Creek’s new holiday ritual has further motivated her year-round commitment to community service. 

    “To contain the attributes of a leader, I learned that you have to actually step up and use your voice and really hold yourself accountable,” Vevian said. “If you just make one impact, it can slowly build that momentum for the rest of everyone else to stand behind you.”


    Did you use this article in your work?

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

    Source link