Tag: America

  • VICTORY: Catholic University of America reverses Reddit ban on campus Wi-Fi

    VICTORY: Catholic University of America reverses Reddit ban on campus Wi-Fi

    Less than 24 hours after a student senate resolution asking the university to unban Reddit on campus Wi-Fi, the Catholic University of America has reversed course, restoring access to the forum-based website for all students and faculty on campus.

    The university’s IT department blocked the website, citing “certain content” and “phishing and malicious links” on the site’s forums.

    University attempts to restrict access to websites are nothing new. CUA banned 200 pornographic websites in 2019 at the behest of its student government — a ban FIRE opposes because it undercuts CUA’s stated commitments to free expression and academic freedom. (Bans on pornographic speech nearly always sweep into their ambit not just “hardcore pornography” but huge amounts of clearly protected expression.) It’s hardly just porn: campus messaging apps have been a frequent target of university administrators, from Yik Yak in 2017, to Fizz and Sidechat in recent months. But at public universities — and at private universities like CUA that choose to promise their students and faculty members expressive freedom — these bans are unacceptable incursions into free speech and academic freedom.

    Furthermore, such online platform bans are increasingly futile: they generally don’t keep students from accessing information the university doesn’t want them to see. It’s far too easy to turn off Wi-Fi or to fire up a VPN that allows students to bypass college-made content controls. Imposing a ban nonetheless sends a signal: some content is too dangerous for you to see, and we’re going to decide for you what that content might be. That message is antithetical to a university where students are supposed to learn how to work with others, find resources, and access information. 

    CUA says it is in the business of encouraging its students to engage with those on campus and across the world. But once you start down the road of banning websites based on their content, you face the same slippery slope to censorship as always. If CUA must ban porn sites because of their content, well, Reddit has objectionable content too. Doesn’t it need to be banned? What about X? Facebook? There is no natural limit to this principle, only the preferences of those in power at the time. 

    The university’s restrictions have a more pernicious effect on academic freedom, too. Online social media like Reddit have provided the basis for myriad forms of faculty research. Academics have studied how Reddit’s user-driven content-moderation influences political discourse and used its subreddits as a natural experiment on online social development. In other words, put hundreds of millions of people in one place, and researchers will want to study it. 

    Banning it from the campus network would demand they get awfully creative in order to do so. Though students can easily evade the ban by switching off Wi-Fi on their phones, faculty members may have a harder time using their personal hotspots to download petabytes of Reddit data to research. The result: academic research involving Reddit is chilled.

    And a Reddit ban cannot be plausibly based on security concerns. Though CUA vaguely referenced “phishing” content on Reddit, such content is present on any site where users interact with others, and students and faculty can still access X, Instagram, and myriad other social media sites where they are subject to such content. Not to mention email, which is by far the riskiest platform for phishing.

    CUA’s policy was both underinclusive in not targeting other, equally risky social media websites and overinclusive in targeting everything on Reddit, not only content threatening university network security. Such a double-bind is something we often see at FIRE. It almost always means policymakers aren’t thinking through the ripple effects of their rules.

    A culture of free expression demands more from university rulemakers than vague explanations and underexamined repercussions.

    Students at CUA expect more, too. They spoke up, calling on the university’s IT department to investigate its content controls to ensure a ban like this does not happen again. Hopefully, this abortive effort serves as a lesson to CUA administrators: the best way to avoid backlash for censorship is to never open the door to it in the first place.


    FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If you’re faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533).

    Source link

  • School closures are accelerating in rural America. But research on whether they help students is mixed

    School closures are accelerating in rural America. But research on whether they help students is mixed

    by Chris Berdik, The Hechinger Report
    January 5, 2026

    PEACHAM, Vt. — Early on a chilly fall morning in this small Vermont town, Principal Lydia Cochrane watched a gaggle of kids chase one another and a soccer ball around their school recess yard. Between drop-off and first bell, they were free, loud and constantly moving. 

    With only about 60 students in prekindergarten through sixth grade, Peacham Elementary is the sort of school where all the kids know one another and locals regularly respond to calls for supplies and volunteers for field trips and other school activities. Cochrane gestured at the freshly raked wood chips around the swings and climbing structures, one of many tasks Peacham families completed at a recent community workday.

    “With a small school, the families know how crucial it is to support it and ensure it succeeds, and so they show up for it,” said Cochrane. 

    Peacham is also a type of school that’s disappearing nationwide, as education systems grapple with plunging enrollments and rising costs. Amid declining birth rates and growing competition from private-school voucher programs, the number of students in U.S. public schools dropped about 2.5 percent between 2019 and 2023, according to the most recent federal data. Fewer students leads to higher per-pupil spending, because district staffing and other expenses largely remain in place despite enrollment drops, and states are increasingly trying to escape the education budget crunch via school consolidation: In the past three years alone, at least 10 states have considered measures to mandate or incentivize district mergers

    These pressures are especially keen in rural areas where the smallest schools predominate and play an outsized role in community life. Vermont, the nation’s most rural state, has lost about 20 percent of its K-12 public school student population in the past two decades. That’s helped push per-pupil costs and property taxes to the breaking point. Early in 2025, the state’s governor and education secretary released a plan to overhaul Vermont education, proposing massive district consolidation as the foundation for sweeping changes in school funding, curricula and academic standards. 

    The Legislature responded with its own comprehensive plan, which passed last summer as Act 73, calling for a minimum of 4,000 students per district, a threshold now met by only 1 of the state’s 119 districts. 

    District mergers are not the same as school closures, but one invariably leads to the other, as they have in Vermont’s other recent waves of district consolidations. The scope of Act 73’s proposals have ignited intense pushback from people fearing the loss of local control over education, even from a majority of the task force created to map options for bigger districts. 

    This month, the state Legislature will consider whether to push forward or completely rethink the process, a debate that will be closely watched by rural education advocates nationwide. Backers of school consolidation maintain that the crises of declining enrollment, falling test scores and tight education budgets demand a bold response and that consolidating schools is necessary to control costs and more equitably distribute resources and opportunities. 

    Opponents say the evidence that widespread school consolidation saves money — or helps students — is mixed at best, and that success depends highly on local context. They want any mergers and closings to be voluntary and done with a clear-eyed accounting of what’s to be gained and lost. 

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

    Vermont’s student-teacher ratio of 11 to 1 is the lowest in the nation, and the state now spends nearly $27,000 per student, second only to New York State. That has triggered spikes in local taxes: In 2024, Vermonters facing double-digit property tax increases subsequently rejected nearly one-third of school budgets when they next went to the polls.

    The school budget revolts led Republican Gov. Phil Scott and his recently appointed education secretary, Zoie Saunders, to propose an education overhaul in January 2025 that would have divided the state into five regional districts serving at least 10,000 kids each. That plan was then superseded by Act 73, which created a redistricting task force of lawmakers and education leaders to map options for the Legislature to consider when it returns to work this month. 

    Saunders argues that school consolidation is key to the broader education transformation that Vermont needs in order to tackle several interconnected challenges, including rising student mental health issues, falling test scores and stubborn achievement gaps. “Many of these issues are hard to solve unless we address our issues around scale and funding,” she said in an interview. “We had to think about reform in a way that was going to focus on funding, quality and governance, because they’re all connected.”

    The state has consolidated schools several times before. Most notably, in 2015, Act 46 triggered several years of mergers — first voluntary, then required — that eliminated dozens of districts and led many small schools to close. 

    Jessica Philippe, a Peacham parent who was on the school board at the time, recalled the worry that the district and its elementary school would be swallowed up. Many of Vermont’s smallest districts, including Peacham, operate only an elementary school and cover the higher grades by paying tuition for students to attend public or certain private schools outside the district. 

    “It seems like this is a cycle we have to go through,” she said. “Every five or 10 years, we have to fight to keep this place, because people from away think, oh, that’s just a few kids we have to disperse.”

    The Peacham school board fended off that threat by showing the state board of education ample data that Peacham Elementary was viable and that there wasn’t much money to be saved from a merger. In fact, the state has never done a full financial analysis of Act 46. At the very least, the mergers failed to stem the spending and tax hikes that triggered Act 73.  

    The only comprehensive accounting of Act 46 was done by a Vermont native, Grace Miller, for her 2024 undergraduate thesis at Yale University where she studied economics and education. In her analysis of 109 districts between 2017 and 2020, she found that mergers did yield some savings, but it was soaked up by new spending such as higher salaries in newly combined districts and higher costs to bus students to and from schools farther away.

    Meanwhile, some of the fastest-growing educational costs in Vermont are arguably outside school and district control, such as skyrocketing health care premiums, which account for about 15 percent of district spending. According to data from KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation), Vermonters pay the highest “benchmark” health care premiums of any state, nearly $1,300 a month, almost double what they paid just five years ago. The state has also shifted other financial burdens onto districts, such as capital construction costs for schools, which the state hasn’t funded in nearly two decades.

    “We need to be focused on those core cost drivers,” said Rebecca Holcombe, a Vermont state representative and member of the redistricting task force, “not because there aren’t small schools that are inefficient and might not make it, but because even if we addressed them, we’d barely touch the real problem.” 

    Holcombe, who was the state’s education secretary when Act 46 passed, believes some school consolidation makes sense for Vermont, but not mandated mergers, especially at the scale proposed by Act 73. She was among the eight of 11 task force members who voted not to include maps of new, bigger district options in their final report in early December.  

    Instead they proposed a 10-year plan to create five regional “cooperative education service areas” where districts would pool resources to coordinate services — such as transportation, special education and professional development — and generate savings through scale. It also proposed that the state offer financial incentives to districts that voluntarily merge, centered on creating or strengthening high schools to serve students from combined districts and beyond. 

    Speaking to reporters, Gov. Scott admonished the task force a few days after its members voted to forward only the shared services plan to the state Legislature without mapping options for consolidating districts. “They didn’t redraw the lines,” he said. “They failed.” 

    When lawmakers reconvene on Jan. 6, it’s unclear how they’ll handle recommendations from a task force that arguably rebuked its founding legislation. They could ignore the task force and create their own maps of 4,000-student districts. They might amend Act 73 to fit the task force’s proposal. 

    Or they might start fresh. 

    Related: A school closure cliff is coming. Black and Hispanic students are likely to bear the brunt

    Seated in her office at Doty Memorial School in Worcester, a small Vermont town north of Montpelier, Principal Gillian Fuqua choked up when explaining her change of heart — from opposing to supporting a plan to close the school she’s overseen since 2019. Doty has about 60 K-6 students this year, and Fuqua slides a paper across her desk showing projections based on town birth records that enrollment could drop to 40 by the fall of 2028. 

    “It’s absolutely heartbreaking to me,” she said. “But we have to think about what we want for our kids, and we’re not in a good place right now.”

    Worcester is one of five towns merged into a single district by Act 46 in 2019. For two years in a row, the district has considered closing Doty, which would require voter approval. Last year, the plan was shelved without a vote after residents protested. But now a vote has been scheduled for February 10. 

    This past fall, when the district restarted consolidation discussions, Fuqua joined the “configuration committee” and dropped her previous opposition to closing the school. It already must combine two grades in classrooms to meet state minimums for class size. Fuqua worried that if classes shrink further, teachers might struggle to foster soft skills such as teamwork, collaborative problem solving and navigating a diversity of opinions. A larger school, she continued, could also support a full-time instrumental music teacher instead of the one-day-a-week instructor that Doty kids get, as well as a full-time librarian. 

    Indeed, there is ample evidence from Vermont and other states that merged schools can expose students to more and varied learning opportunities. A report released in 2024 by the Vermont Agency of Education, based on surveys and superintendent interviews from seven districts that merged early in the Act 46 era, highlighted merged districts saving, adding or restarting school offerings such as literacy intervention services, world languages and after-school extracurricular activities. 

    Nevertheless, education researchers stress that sending students to a bigger school with more resources doesn’t necessarily mean improved academic achievement or well-being. “These students are often experiencing an enormous transition, and there are a whole bunch of factors that can affect that,” said Mara Tieken, an education professor at Bates College who studies school consolidation. 

    School closings tend to be in more disadvantaged areas, for instance, and students there now take longer bus rides that cut into time for studying, sleep and after-school programs. Another variable is whether students from a closed school all transfer to the same new school, or are “starburst” out because no single school can accommodate them all. Tieken said it takes serious planning “to smooth that transition for new students, to create a culture that’s welcoming.”

    Research on student outcomes following school mergers reflects this tangle of factors. Some studies indicate that consolidation improves test scores, especially when students move to higher-performing schools. Others find little academic impact or lower performance in the first years after merging, more missed school days and behavioral issues and longer-term disadvantages in college graduation, employment and earnings as young adults

    “The answer to virtually every question about school consolidation is: It depends,” said Jerry Johnson, director of the Rural Education Institute and professor of educational leadership at East Carolina University, who has researched school consolidation for decades. 

    Related: Merger madness? When schools close — forever 

    Whatever might be gained from a merger, many Doty parents (and students) remain opposed. In interviews, several said their tiny school provides something incredibly valuable and increasingly rare: human connection and community. In places like Worcester, a local school is one of the few spaces that regularly brings folks together and serves as a magnet for the young families that sustain small-town life.

    Rosie Close, a fifth grader at Doty, described a tradition of students making and serving  soup at the town’s free “community lunch” held every Wednesday at the town hall. “If they closed Doty,” she said, “that would kind of take away part of the town, too.”

    While some Doty families had deep roots in the area, others moved to town more recently, including Caitlin Howansky, mother of a third grader. Howansky grew up in New York City, where she went to an elementary school with more than 30 kids per class.

    “Nobody outside of that classroom necessarily knew my name or knew me as a whole person. I was just one of the crowd,” she said. 

    By contrast, Howansky said, the teachers at Doty “know every kid’s strengths and weaknesses across the whole building.”

    That doesn’t mean that she and her neighbors are blind to demographic or economic realities, especially when housing, health care and so much else is getting more expensive. Early in December, for instance, Vermonters learned that property taxes would likely be spiking again next year, by nearly 12 percent on average.

    “A lot of people are saying, if we fight this again, are they just going to come back and try again next year?” Howansky said. “And is it fair to the children to live under this constant threat and this constant stress of not knowing?”

    She still thinks the fight against a merger is worth it, but said, “Everyone has to figure out where to draw their individual line.”

    Contact editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965, via Signal at CarolineP.83 or on email at [email protected].

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

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/schools-are-closing-across-rural-america-heres-how-a-battle-over-small-districts-is-playing-out-in-one-state/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=114097&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/schools-are-closing-across-rural-america-heres-how-a-battle-over-small-districts-is-playing-out-in-one-state/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • A Critical Tool for Understanding U.S. Intervention in Latin America

    A Critical Tool for Understanding U.S. Intervention in Latin America

    Barbara Trent’s 1992 documentary The Panama Deception remains an essential work for comprehending the nature and impact of U.S. military interventions in Latin America. Winner of the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, the film offers a critical examination of the December 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama—Operation Just Cause—and challenges official narratives about that intervention.

    Reframing the Official Narrative

    The Panama Deception scrutinizes the publicly stated justifications for the 1989 invasion, including protecting U.S. citizens, defending democracy, and combating drug trafficking. In doing so, it highlights stark discrepancies between government claims and on‑the‑ground realities, arguing that the invasion served broader strategic interests rather than solely humanitarian or legal objectives.

    The film foregrounds how the U.S. government and mainstream media shaped public perceptions, often downplaying civilian casualties and simplifying complex political dynamics to justify military action. By exposing this media bias, the documentary encourages viewers to question official accounts and consider how information is framed in service of policy goals. 

    Human Cost and Civilian Impact

    A central contribution of the documentary is its focus on the human toll of the invasion. Using firsthand testimonies, footage of destruction, and accounts of displacement, the film documents the suffering of Panamanian civilians—particularly in impoverished neighborhoods such as El Chorrillo—which received limited attention in U.S. media coverage. 

    These portrayals deepen our understanding of how military interventions affect everyday lives beyond abstract geopolitical objectives. For students and scholars of international relations, human rights, and media studies, this emphasis provides a critical counterpoint to sanitized official histories.

    Historical and Geopolitical Context

    The Panama Deception situates the Panama invasion within a longer history of U.S. influence in the region. It suggests that long‑standing strategic interests—including control over the Panama Canal and hemispheric dominance—shaped U.S. policy long before the invasion’s official rationales were publicly articulated.

    While the Torrijos‑Carter Treaties mandated transfer of canal control to Panama by 1999, the film and many independent observers argue that U.S. policymakers were intent on maintaining influence and minimizing threats to American strategic goals. 

    Media Critique and Public Perception

    One of the documentary’s most enduring contributions lies in its examination of media complicity. The Panama Deception demonstrates how mainstream outlets often uncritically echoed government talking points, marginalizing dissenting voices from Panamanian civilians, independent journalists, and human rights advocates. 

    This critique remains relevant for students exploring how propaganda, framing, and selective reporting can influence public support for foreign policy decisions. The film thus serves as a case study for media literacy alongside political critique.

    Conclusion: Educational and Analytical Value

    The Panama Deception offers a multifaceted analysis of U.S. interventionism that transcends a single historical event. By combining archival evidence, eyewitness accounts, and critical commentary, it provides learners with a structured means to examine the intersections of power, narrative, and human consequence. For educators and researchers in Latin American studies, political science, and media studies, the film underscores the importance of questioning official narratives and exploring the lived effects of foreign policy decisions.


    Selected Sources

    • The Panama Deception (1992 documentary overview and details). 

    • Analysis of the film’s critique of U.S. media and government narratives. 

    • Historical context on media bias and human impact. 

    • Wider context on the invasion and implications related to Panama Canal treaty issues. 

    Source link

  • What’s the gossip from The PIE Live North America?

    What’s the gossip from The PIE Live North America?


    Nicholas Cuthbert

    Nick began his career with Nottingham Trent University in the UK working in international student recruitment, before going on to a wide range of leadership and consultancy roles in the private sector. He joined The PIE in 2021 and is a key commentator on the current trends in the global higher education industry. He curates content for our PIE Live conferences and is the co-host of the Tales from the Departure Lounge podcast. Get in touch with Nick at [email protected]


    View all articles by Nicholas

    Source link

  • Notes on the Complete College America Conference

    Notes on the Complete College America Conference

    Having returned to the community college world after a two-year sojourn, I wasn’t sure what to expect at my first large-scale higher ed–themed conference. That was especially true given that the conference in question, Complete College America’s Next, was new to me and included both two-year and four-year schools. It was in Baltimore, so it wasn’t a rough drive.

    It was gratifying to see that I hadn’t been entirely forgotten. Thanks to everyone who took a moment to yell “Matt!” from behind as I wandered the hallways. I needed that.

    I attended as part of a delegation from Westmoreland, which is in its second year with CCA. In that role, I tried to glean whatever insights I could to bring back to campus. Some highlights:

    • At a panel on using course scheduling as a retention tool, I came away with one insight, one statistic and one phrase. The insight was that schedule optimization works best at scale; the smaller the scale, the less room to move. That’s especially true at multicampus or multilocation institutions. As the rep from Ad Astra put it, “It’s not helpful to offer things partway.”

    That’s a real challenge when you’re trying to be within driving distance of a lot of people in a sparsely populated area. The statistic was that the major jump in retention occurs among students who take at least 18 credits per year. Lower than that and retention drops precipitously; higher than that and the gains are incremental. Eighteen seems to be the magic number. Finally, someone (my notes fail me) termed some students whose courses were at inaccessible times or locations “unintentionally part-time.” I think the same could be said of many workers; there’s something there.

    • A panel on the impact of academic policies on student retention brought home to me how much context matters. The presenters, Daphne Holland and Debbie Connor, were both from Coastal Carolina University. As they tell it, CCU is a four-year public institution that’s mostly residential, rapidly growing and chock-full of full-time, out-of-state students. I stayed anyway, on the theory that students are students and the struggles are largely the same everywhere.

    And that seemed true at first; they mentioned that the most common reason for students leaving is finances. From there, they outlined changes to their academic probation policy, including an intermediate status called “academic advisory” for students who are passing, but not by much. (Students on advisory are required to check in with success coaches a few times per semester.) When I asked how changes to an academic policy would affect finances, they responded that the finances in question were HOPE scholarships that would be lost below a certain GPA. Alas, though interesting, it wasn’t as relevant to my world as I had hoped.

    • Naturally, I attended the panel on higher ed reporters. That one was more of a personal interest. It was great to finally meet Scott Carlson from The Chronicle and Johanna Alonso from IHE. I hadn’t known of Kirk Carapezza, who hosts the College Uncovered podcast, but immediately added it to my podcast feed.
    • Chike Aguh gave the afternoon keynote, focusing on higher ed and the future of work. The talk was largely about AI and the need to prepare students for the world as it’s taking shape. (The theme of “AI is changing everything, get over it” pervaded the conference—AI skepticism was regarded as passé, if not self-indulgent.)

    He noted that in America, “we treat college like marriage,” acting as if the initial choice is irrevocable and life-determining. That’s not true in the community college world, but I have seen 17-year-olds look at a college decision that way. Instead, he proposed a “war college of technology,” in which professionals would take an education break every five years or so to get up to speed on the latest technology. Politically, I suspect that’s dead on arrival, but a version of that could be a useful way to package continuing ed.

    • I was much more engaged by the panel on Scalable Student Success Strategies in a Shifting Political Landscape. Carrie Hodge, from CCA, and Julia Raufman, from the Community College Research Center, led a delicate but necessary discussion on ways to improve student success when certain words, resources and tactics have been ruled out of bounds by the current political climate. I’ll respect the sensitivity of the discussion by leaving it at that, other than to thank Hodge and Raufman for a badly needed conversation.
    • Finally, the panel on workforce pathways in Texas had a similar alternate-universe feel to the earlier CCU panel. In the case of Texas, Daniel Perez and Shawnda Floyd reported that the performance funding system to which community colleges are subjected is not zero-sum. In other words, if everybody does better, everybody gets more funding. The colleges aren’t competing with each other, so they don’t have to divert resources to competing with each other.

    You could hear gasps in the room, including my own. Floyd, from Dallas College, reported that they use philanthropic funding to cover the cost of tests for industry certifications for both students and instructors, which struck me as an excellent idea. In response to a question about reducing the benefits of higher education to income, Perez agreed that they go far beyond that but cautioned against “going down the rabbit hole of positive externalities” with legislators. In the short term, he’s obviously right about that, but it’s still disheartening.

    Of course, as with many conferences, many of the highlights came from hallway conversations. Reconnecting with old friends and former colleagues is good for the soul.

    Even when my immediate reaction to hearing about programs in some places was a variation on “must be nice …” it’s still useful to be reminded that some of the dilemmas we face aren’t inevitable. If 2025 has taught us anything, it’s that the old adage about change happening first slowly and then all at once is true. The key is to push the change in the right direction. Kudos to CCA for doing exactly that.

    Source link

  • Teach For America Partners with Aspen Institute to Add Policy Training for Rural Educators

    Teach For America Partners with Aspen Institute to Add Policy Training for Rural Educators

    A Teach for America teacher works with a student. Teach for AmericaTeach For America has partnered with the Aspen Institute’s Policy Academy to expand leadership training for rural educators.

    The collaboration adds a four-part policy impact series to TFA’s Rural School Leadership Academy, a yearlong fellowship now in its 13th year. The new curriculum aims to help rural educators influence education policy at the state and national levels while addressing challenges in their local schools.

    Seventy fellows will participate in the policy training this year, learning to connect classroom issues to district and state-level decision-making. Past participants requested more tools to influence the systems affecting rural students, according to TFA.

    “RSLA was created to walk alongside those leaders—helping them grow, connect, and see what’s possible,” said Casey DeFord, managing director of alumni career advancement and field integration at Teach For America. “Our partnership with the Aspen Institute will deepen RSLA’s impact by equipping fellows with the policy skills needed to drive lasting change.”

    The Rural School Leadership Academy selects a cohort of educators annually to receive career development through virtual learning, in-person gatherings, school visits and personalized coaching. The program serves educators at various career stages, from aspiring leaders to experienced principals.

    Betsy Cooper, director of the Aspen Policy Academy, said rural educators bring valuable expertise to policymaking.

    “This partnership will enable educators to address unique challenges in their schools through policy entrepreneurship,” Cooper said.

    Participants who complete the program will receive a co-branded certificate from both organizations.

    Source link

  • What I learned about Head Start in rural America

    What I learned about Head Start in rural America

    When Starr Dixon heard the Trump administration was floating a proposal last spring to eliminate Head Start, the 27-year-old parent in rural Michigan cried for a week.

    The free, federally funded early learning program has been life-changing for her and her young daughter, she said. It provided stability after Dixon, who lives about 100 miles north of Lansing, left a yearslong abusive relationship. 

    While her 3-year-old daughter has blossomed socially, emotionally and verbally in the program during the last year and a half, Dixon has taken on numerous volunteer positions with Head Start, gaining experience that she can put on her resume after a 7-year gap in employment. She hopes to ultimately apply for a job at Head Start. 

    “It has just completely transformed my life,” she said.

    This year, I talked to people in communities across rural America and learned how Head Start is essential in places where there are few other child care options. Head Start also provides an economic boost for these areas and serves as direct support for parents, many of whom go on to volunteer for or get jobs at their local programs. 

    Related: Young children have unique needs and providing the right care can be a challenge. Our free early childhood education newsletter tracks the issues. 

    Though my reporting focused on western Ohio, parents in other parts of the country, like Dixon, shared similar stories with me about how critical Head Start is to their lives. But since January, the Trump administration has taken what some call a “death by a thousand cuts” approach to the program, firing federal staff, closing regional offices and offering no increase in spending on Head Start in budget proposals. 

    All those moves have caused chaos and upheaval. In Alabama, Jennifer Carroll, who oversees 39 Head Start sites run by the Community Action Partnership of North Alabama, told me she is reassuring the families she works with that her program’s funding is stable for at least the rest of the year. Carroll fears that if parents think Head Start funding is in jeopardy, they’ll pull their children out of the program, disrupting their learning.

    Another example: Keri Newman Allred is the executive director of Rural Utah Child Development Head Start, which operates Head Start programs spread across 17,000 square miles in central and east Utah. Newman Allred estimates her programs, which employ 91 residents and serve 317 children, can survive for one more year. After that, without more money, they will have to make cuts to the program if they want to give teachers a raise to meet inflation. 

    Related: Rural Americans rely on Head Start. Federal turmoil has them worried 

    While other Head Start programs can supplement operations with private donations, Newman Allred’s programs serve some of the most sparsely populated parts of America, known as “frontier counties,” where there are no deep-pocketed philanthropies. Her programs rely solely on federal funding. 

    In April, the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, abruptly shuttered five of Head Start’s 10 regional offices. Programs in Maine that were without directors or that needed assistance with regulations, finances or federal requirements have been left to go it alone without consistent, daily support.

    “The closure of regional offices has all but crippled programs,” said Sue Powers, senior director of strategic initiatives at the Aroostook County Action Program in the rural, northernmost tip of Maine. “No one’s checking in. When you’re operating in a program that is literally in crisis, and you need [regional staff] and do not have them, it’s more than alarming.”

    Contact staff writer Jackie Mader at 212-678-3562 or [email protected].

    This story about Head Start 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

  • Make America Crash Again (Glen McGhee and Dahn Shaulis)

    Make America Crash Again (Glen McGhee and Dahn Shaulis)

    Climate change has begun to have immediate effects, with increasing natural disasters disrupting communities and infrastructure. Reduced environmental regulations have intensified these risks, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations and increasing economic costs.

    The rollback of regulatory protections in finance, environment, and education has allowed risky practices to grow while reducing oversight. This shift has raised the chances of economic shocks and deepened social inequalities.

    Trade disputes and reduced international cooperation have weakened key economic and diplomatic relationships. At the same time, BRICS countries are expanding their influence, altering the global economic landscape in ways that require careful attention.

    The expansion of surveillance programs and strict immigration enforcement have raised concerns about civil liberties and community trust. These pressures threaten the social cohesion needed to address larger systemic issues.

    Recent reporting by the Higher Education Inquirer shows that the student debt crisis and speculative financial pressures in higher education mirror and magnify these broader challenges. The sector’s increasing reliance on debt financing not only affects students but also contributes to wider economic fragility (HEI 2025).

    Earlier analysis emphasized that these trends were predictable outcomes of longstanding policy decisions and economic structures (HEI 2020).

                 [Analysis of US Economic Downturns for duration and population impact]

    Preventing a serious downturn requires coordinated action on multiple fronts. Strengthening regulations is necessary to reduce financial risks and protect consumers. Effective climate policies are essential, particularly those focused on vulnerable communities. Reforming higher education financing to reduce unsustainable debt burdens can ease economic pressures. Restoring international cooperation and fair trade practices will help rebuild economic and diplomatic relationships. Protecting civil rights and fostering social trust are crucial to maintaining social cohesion.

    These issues are deeply interconnected and require comprehensive approaches.

    Sources

    Higher Education Inquirer, Let’s Pretend We Didn’t See It Coming…Again (June 2025): https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/06/lets-pretend-we-didnt-see-it-comingagain.html

    Higher Education Inquirer, The US Working‑Class Depression: Let’s All Pretend We Couldn’t See It Coming (May 2020): https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2020/05/lets-all-pretend-we-couldnt-see-it.html

    Federal Reserve, Consumer Credit Report, 2025

    U.S. Department of Education, Student Loan Debt Statistics, 2025

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Sixth Assessment Report, 2023

    Council on Foreign Relations, The BRICS and Global Power, 2024

    Source link

  • Announcing a Special Small College America Webinar – Edu Alliance Journal

    Announcing a Special Small College America Webinar – Edu Alliance Journal

    “Guiding Through Change: How Small Colleges Are Responding to New Realities”: A Live Conversation with Three Small College Presidents

    August 2, 2025, by Dean Hoke: Over the past several months, higher education has experienced an unprecedented wave of transformation. The elimination or curtailment of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, shifting federal financial aid policies, declining enrollment in traditional undergraduate programs, and heightened visa scrutiny and geopolitical tensions pose potential risks to international student enrollment, an area of growing importance for many small colleges.

    Dr. Chet Haskell, in a recent piece for the Edu Alliance Journal, captured the mood succinctly: “The headlines are full of uncertainty for American higher education. ‘Crisis’ is a common descriptor. Federal investigations of major institutions are underway. Severe cuts to university research funding have been announced. The elimination of the Department of Education is moving ahead. Revisions to accreditation processes are being floated. Reductions in student support for educational grants and loans are now law. International students are being restricted. These uncertainties and pressures affect all higher education, not just targeted elite institutions. In particular, they are likely to exacerbate the fragility of smaller, independent non-profit institutions already under enormous stress.”

    Small colleges—often mission-driven, community-centered, and tuition-dependent—are feeling these disruptions acutely.

    As we enter the third season of Small College America, a podcast series that spotlights the powerful impact of small colleges across the nation, my co-host Kent Barnds and I wanted to mark the moment with something special. Rather than recording a typical podcast episode, we’re hosting a live webinar to engage in a timely and candid discussion with three dynamic presidents of small colleges.

    Join us for a special Small College America webinar:

    “Guiding Through Change: How Small Colleges Are Responding to New Realities”

    Wednesday, August 27, 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM Eastern

    Our panelists bring deep experience, insight, and a strong commitment to the mission of small colleges:

    • Dr. Andrea Talentino is the president of Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois. She previously served as provost at Nazareth College in Rochester, N.Y., and Dean of the College of Liberal Arts at Norwich University in Northfield, Vermont. In her administrative work, she has focused on building strong teams and developing a positive organizational culture.
    • Dr. Tarek Sobh is the President of Lawrence Technological University. A distinguished academic leader, he previously served as Provost at LTU and as Executive VP at the University of Bridgeport. An expert in robotics, AI, and STEM education, Dr. Sobh has published extensively and presented internationally. He is passionate about aligning academic programs with workforce needs.
    • Dr. Anita Gustafson, President of Presbyterian College, is a historian and long-time faculty leader who assumed the presidency in 2023. She has been a strong advocate for the value of the liberal arts and the importance of community engagement. Dr. Gustafson returned to PC after seven years as the dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and a professor of history at Mercer University in Macon, Ga.

    This one-hour webinar will explore how small private colleges are navigating today’s evolving environment and planning strategically for the future.

    Who Should Attend:

    • Institutional Leaders and Academic Faculty
    • Trustees and Advisory Members
    • Donors and Corporate Supporters
    • Alumni of Small Colleges
    • Community Leaders and Advocates

    👉 Click Here to Register

    There is no charge to attend—secure your spot today!

    We hope you’ll join us for this thoughtful and timely conversation.

    Source link