

College recruitment is a bit like hosting a dinner party. You might set the table beautifully, prep your best dish, and send out invitations. But if you forget dessert or serve something your guests did not actually want, you will still leave people hungry.
That is the story unfolding when we compare two recent sets of data: the 2025 Marketing and Recruitment Practices Report (RNL, 2025) and the 2025 Prospective Family Engagement Report (RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP, 2025). Together, they show where colleges are feeding families exactly what they want, and where they are still serving mystery meat.
Email is still king, and on this, families and colleges are totally in sync. Nearly all institutions rely on it to connect with prospective students and their families (98–100%), and approximately 90% of families consider it their top way to receive college updates (RNL, 2025; RNL et al., 2025). But that is not the end of the story: lower-income and first-generation families are more likely to prefer text messages, with about 30% say getting updates on their phones suits them best. And when it comes to college portals? Most families are not shy about their feelings. Seventy-seven percent call these hubs “invaluable” for keeping track of deadlines and details.
Here is the practical takeaway. If your family portal is still in beta, you are late. The portal is the digital front porch. Families want to step in. They do not want to just peer through a window.
However, this is where institutions often fall short.
Email may be the king, but texts and portals are the court. Together, they make families feel included, informed, and respected. Income, language, and schedule should not become barriers to access.
Families shout this from the rooftops. Show me the money.
Ninety-nine percent say tuition and cost details are essential. Seventy-two percent have already ruled out institutions based on the sticker shock (RNL et al., 2025).
Meanwhile, many institutions are still burying their net price calculators three clicks deep or waiting until after application to share the real numbers (RNL, 2025). That delay does not just frustrate. It eliminates your campus from consideration.
Here is the practical takeaway. Put cost and aid at the forefront. Homepage, emails, campus events. If families cannot find your numbers, they will assume they are bad.
Widen the lens for a moment.
Clarity is equity. Make costs easy to find, easy to understand, and easy to compare. If you do, you keep your institution in the game.
Only 45% of private and 38% of public institutions offer family portals (RNL, 2025). Seventy-seven percent of families consider portals “invaluable” during the planning process (RNL et al., 2025). That is not a gap. It is a canyon.
Here is the practical takeaway. Stop debating whether you need a portal. You do. Build one. Promote it. Keep it fresh. A portal is not just another login. It is a family’s command center.
Here is why the design matters:
Think of your family portal as the ultimate cheat sheet. If it answers questions before families even think to ask them, you have built trust.
Institutions know visits are powerful. Families confirm it. Ninety-seven percent say seeing campus in person shapes their decision (RNL, 2025; RNL et al., 2025). First-generation families value them even more.
Here is the practical takeaway. Do not just host cookie-cutter tours. Offer tailored experiences for first-generation families, local students, or academic interest groups. If your best tour story is still “this is the library,” you are missing the emotional connection.
And do not forget the families outside the “traditional tour” box.
The real question: Are your campus experiences built for everyone, or just for the students who can spend a sunny Thursday afternoon strolling through your quad?
Three out of four families want at least weekly updates or timely news when it matters (RNL et al., 2025). Institutions are trying, but too often, communication still feels like a one-size-fits-all t-shirt. Technically wearable. Not flattering.
Here is the practical takeaway. Treat families as partners, not sidekicks. Share updates in plain language. Offer Spanish-language options. Spotlight ways families can support their students. Yield is not just about students. It is about family buy-in.
And remember:
When communication feels clear, inclusive, and personal, families lean in. When it does not, they check out. Sometimes, they cross your institution off the list.
Families across the board say cost, aid, program details, and outcomes are critical. Lower-income and first-generation families face significantly larger “information deserts” when searching for them (RNL et al., 2025). Yet institutions often double down on generic email campaigns or broad digital ads. They assume everyone is starting from the same place (RNL, 2025).
Here is the practical takeaway. Equity in outreach is not just a value statement. It is a recruitment strategy. Translate materials. Send proactive aid guides. Partner with community groups to get info where it is needed most.
And remember:
If families cannot find or understand what they need, they will assume you do not have it. Or worse, that you do not care.
Institutions love their toys. Chatbots, SEO, and retargeted ads. These tools can be powerful (RNL, 2025). But families are not impressed by bells and whistles if the basics are missing. They want clear, easily accessible information about costs, aid, programs, and outcomes. Too often, they click into a chatbot or portal and leave frustrated because the answers are not there (RNL et al., 2025).
Here is the practical takeaway. Do not let technology become window dressing. Audit your site from a family’s perspective. Can they find costs, aid, majors, and career outcomes in under two clicks? If not, no chatbot in the world can fix it. No amount of flash will.
Think beyond the default user.
Digital tools are not about looking modern. They are about making life easier. If your tech feels like another hoop to jump through, families will bounce. If it feels like a helpful hand, families will lean in.
The alignment is clear on some fronts. Families want email, visits, and cost clarity, and institutions largely deliver. But the gaps, portals, aid communication, and equity in outreach are where recruitment wins or loses.
Families are not just support systems. They are decision-makers. Right now, they are asking colleges to meet them with transparency, respect, and practical tools that make a complicated journey a little simpler.
In other words, if institutions want families to stay at the table, they will need to stop serving what is easiest to cook and start serving what families ordered.
RNL works with colleges and universities across the country to ensure their marketing and recruitment efforts are optimized and aligned with how student search for colleges. Reach out today for a complimentary consultation to discuss:

Johns Hopkins University announced Thursday that it’s eliminating tuition, fees and living expenses for its Homewood campus undergraduates whose families make less than $100,000 a year; students whose families earn up to $200,000 will pay no tuition. It joins a wave of other institutions—especially private, selective ones—that have announced tuition guarantees.
In a news release, the university said the change “means students from a majority of American families, including middle-class families earning above the national median household income of $87,730, can attend Hopkins at no expense.”
Further, Hopkins said, “Most families with incomes up to $250,000 will continue to qualify for significant financial aid. Even those with annual incomes exceeding $250,000 may qualify, especially when there are multiple children in college at the same time.”
Most of the university’s undergrads study on the Homewood campus, in North Baltimore. The release said the new aid levels “will go into effect for eligible current students in the spring 2026 semester and for new, incoming students next fall.”
In a message to the university community, JHU president Ron Daniels said that since businessman and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg donated $1.8 billion to the university in 2018, Hopkins’s share of Pell Grant–eligible students rose from 15.4 percent to 24.1 percent, the highest proportion in university history.
“Our financial aid investment has continued to grow, inspired by Mayor Bloomberg’s transformative gift, with generous contributions by more than 1,200 donors who have given $240 million for financial aid at Hopkins over the last several years,” Daniels wrote. “We are in their collective debt.”

Key points:
While most teachers are eager to implement the science of reading, many lack the time and tools to connect these practices to home-based support, according to a new national survey from Lexia, a Cambium Learning Group brand.
The 2025 Back-to-School Teacher Survey, with input from more than 1,500 K–12 educators nationwide, points to an opportunity for district leaders to work in concert with teachers to provide families with the science of reading-based literacy resources they need to support student reading success.
Key insights from the survey include:
“Teachers know that parental involvement can accelerate literacy and they’re eager for ways to strengthen those connections,” said Lexia President Nick Gaehde. “This data highlights how districts can continue to build on momentum in this new school year by offering scalable, multilingual, and flexible family engagement strategies that align with the science of reading.”
Teachers also called for:
Gaehde concluded, “Lexia’s survey reflects the continued national emphasis on Structured Literacy and shows that equipping families is essential to driving lasting student outcomes. At Lexia we’re committed to partnering with districts and teachers to strengthen the school-to-home connection. By giving educators practical tools and data-driven insights, we help teachers and families work together–ensuring every child has the literacy support they need to thrive.”
The complete findings are available in a new report, From Classroom to Living Room: Exploring Parental Involvement in K–12 Literacy. District leaders can also download the accompanying infographic, “What District Leaders Need To Know: 5 Key Findings About Family Engagement and Literacy,” which highlights the most pressing data points and strategic opportunities for improving school-to-home literacy connections.

Dear Presidents, Chancellors and OTHER Temporary Custodians of My Properties:
Greetings from the Family—I mean, the Administration. You’ve been running a nice little operation there: world-class labs, libraries, free-thinking faculty, students from all over the globe who still believe in the marketplace of ideas, all asking dangerous questions like “Why?” and “What is your evidence?”
It’s over.
As the founder of a MAJOR university, I’m here to say this: We’re gonna do things my way now.
As you know, I’m a SUCESSFUL international businessman. I offer certain countries—let’s call them “friends”—deals: They pay me a modest consideration, or maybe a big, beautiful luxury jet, and I won’t slap them with tariffs to make their economy bleed out. I offer the same generous arrangement to higher ed.
Take Crooked Columbia and Brownnosing Brown—smart enough to come to the table, hand over the dough and watch my charges vanish like magic. Funding? Flowing again … for now.
High and mighty Harvard’s still holding out, though, thinking they can win a staring contest. Let’s just say their next accreditation visit is gonna be … comprehensive.
UCLA? Aka Useless College for Leftist Agendas. Rumor is my friends in D.C. have started looking real close at their books. Would be a shame if we had to start collecting on that billion the hard way.
The rest of you RADICAL LUNATIC LEFT, listen up:
Investigations into your crimes against America, like “allowing students to protest” or “letting faculty disagree with the government,” can disappear overnight … for a price.
Call it a FAVOR from a friendly accreditor.
But remember, what I giveth I can take awayeth.
I don’t do promises; I do BUSINESS. And it’s business time.
Apple, Intel, NVIDIA jump when I say jump. Universities? Child’s play.
Some say I’m an ANTISEMITISM SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR on campus and sure, I like the Jews. I’ll take the compliment, right alongside credit for sprucing up big, beautiful Confederate statues.
My war on hate? Let’s just say it has … range. And if a few very fine people happen to be nearby, standing back and standing by, waiting for the signal to help CLARIFY my position, well, that’s just business.
That NASTY WOMAN at the Bureau of Labor Statistics? The one who brought me cooked-up job numbers I didn’t like? FIRED.
That Georgia political hack who couldn’t find enough votes? ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!
Judges who cross me? Death threats from my cyber goons have them looking over their shoulders.
Your degree, your Nobel Prize, your teaching awards—SAD! I’ve built towers with my name in gold, hosted the No. 1 reality show on television, and put my face on steaks, sneakers and Bitcoin.
So you publish in that fake Ranger Rick Nature magazine. I don’t care if your lab just cured cancer; if your research questions don’t support my worldview, your grant is pulled and your lab reassigned to our friend of the family on the board, Mikey, who’s very confident about his opinion on quantum biology.
IRB? More like, “I’m Rich, Buddy.”
Loyalty—to ME—is the only credential that matters.
MARXIST MANIACS who lack American values and good Christian sensibilities have no business shaping our young peoples’ minds. Cover letters with Bible verses or Lee Greenwood lyrics will receive special consideration.
After I cut more big, beautiful deals with my AI buddies, the bots will weed out candidate files with the words “inclusive excellence” or “diversifying the pipeline.”
No more “global citizen” snowflake CRAP. In fact, pretty soon, it’s gonna be all AI at the podium—no critical thinking, no unions, no problem.
International students are allowed, but only RICH ones, with no subversive ideas, like democracy, on their social media feeds. No students from the shithole countries—you know the list. (Come to think of it, I don’t like any country, so being from one of our so-called allies won’t help either.)
NO “underrepresented” anything. ONLY OVERREPRESENTED. Racial disadvantage, adversity, “lived experience” or some “community-based” qualifications? FORGET ABOUT IT.
We’re running a university, not a sob story contest!
You want to admit a Latina who speaks three languages and started her own nonprofit? Great—as long as all three languages are English and she’s truly FEMALE.
And while we’re at it, ban “optional” diversity statements. The only statement that matters is your pledge of allegiance. To me.
You thought academic freedom meant hiring the best scholars, encouraging debate and letting a thousand ideas bloom.
HILARIOUS!
From now on, FREEDOM means freedom to offer academic programs that look just like the ones we had in 1952, when America was great (minus the jazz) and McCarthy knew what higher education should look like.
It took Viktor 10 YEARS to bring his universities to heel. I’m doing it in six MONTHS, results like nobody’s ever seen before.
“woMEN’s” studies? GONE.
African American literature course? Replaced with Great Books by Even Greater White Men.
Faculty scholarship on critical race theory, gender equity or, God forbid, climate science, will get an automatic tenure-denial stamp. Come to think of it, tenure? What’s that? More like Permanent Welfare for America-Hating Communists.
Just watch what you publish, pal. I can make tenure go away real fast, the same way I disappeared USAID.
My good friend VICE CHANCELLOR Rufo will replace it with rolling one-year contracts, renewable upon click-through loyalty oath training modules.
Also, just a heads-up. Any course material still using the outdated term “Gulf of Mexico” will be flagged in our next surveillance round. My top patriot and loyal adviser, Stephen, suggests: “The Gulf of AMERICA FIRST.” And you so-called political scientists, get your facts right on who won the 2020 election. You’d best update those course materials, nice and clean, and nobody’s sabbatical turns into an extended stay at Alligator Alcatraz.
Capishe? I don’t want to have to slam any more heads together.
It’s time you got the picture, EGGHEADS: Knowledge isn’t power. Power is power.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Your Don
P.S. I’ll let you keep your football program. You’re welcome.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
More Californians are using paid family leave benefits to care for a child after a new state law that increased payments for parents went into effect in January, according to new state data.
Claims in the first two quarters this year were up about 16%, compared with the same time period last year, according to data provided to LAist from the California Employment Development Department.
Anne Chapuis, public information officer for EDD, said several factors contributed to the uptick.
“The January 2025 benefit rate adjustment has led to higher benefit amounts for eligible customers. Also, we typically see a higher seasonal number of claims submitted near the end of each calendar year,” Chapuis said in an email.
While claims tend to tick up at the beginning of every calendar year, the uptick in the first quarter of 2025 was nearly 25% higher than the same period last year.
Before this year’s change, most workers got up to 60% of their income when they took time off to care for a new baby. Now, many workers can get up to 90% of their wages.
The changes stemmed from legislation in 2022 that aimed to allow more families to be able to take leave, especially low-income workers. Prior analysis showed that higher-income workers were using paid family leave benefits at much higher rates than workers making less than $20,000 a year.
For those making under $20,000, claims were up about 2%, while claims for those making under $60,000 were up 17%.
Currently, moms and dads can get up to eight weeks of paid family leave to bond with a new child. That’s in addition to the paid time off pregnant people get before and after giving birth to a child.
The paid family leave program in California is funded through the State Disability Insurance program, which covers about 18 million employees in the state. Workers pay into this fund with 1.2% taken out of their paychecks (it usually shows up on paystubs as “CASDI”).
Workers who make less than $63,000 a year can get up to 90% pay — workers who make above that get 70%.
Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
A version of this essay originally appeared on Robert Pondiscio’s SubStack.
A recent report from the University of Virginia—Good Fathers, Flourishing Kids — confirms what many of us know instinctively but rarely see, or avoid altogether, in education debates: The presence and engagement of a child’s father has a powerful effect on their academic and emotional well-being. It’s the kind of data that should stop us in our tracks — and redirect our attention away from educational fads and toward the foundational structures that shape student success long before a child ever sets foot in a classroom.
The research — led by my AEI colleague Brad Wilcox and co-authored by a diverse team that includes another AEI colleague, Ian Rowe — finds that children in Virginia with actively involved fathers are more likely to earn good grades, less likely to have behavior problems in school, and dramatically less likely to suffer from depression. Specifically, children with disengaged fathers are 68% less likely to get mostly good grades and nearly four times more likely to be diagnosed with depression. These are not trivial effects. They are seismic.
Most striking is the report’s finding that there is no meaningful difference in school grades among demographically diverse children raised in intact families. Black and white students living with their fathers get mostly As at roughly equal rates — more than 85% — and are equally unlikely to experience school behavior problems. The achievement gap, in other words, appears to be less about race and more about the structure and stability of the family.
This may be a surprising finding to some, but not to William Jeynes, a professor of education at California State University, Long Beach, whose meta-analyses have previously demonstrated the outsized academic impact of family structure and religious faith. (The new UVA report does not study the role of church-going).
As I wrote in How the Other Half Learns, Jeynes’ work highlights how two-parent households and religious engagement produce measurable benefits in educational achievement. “When two parents are present, this maximizes the frequency and quality of parental involvement. There are many dedicated single parents,” Jeynes has noted. However, the reality is that when one parent must take on the roles and functions of two, it is simply more difficult than when two parents are present.” Jeynes’ most stunning finding, and his most consistent, is that if a Black or Hispanic student is raised in a religious home with two biological parents the achievement gap totally disappears—even when adjusting for socioeconomic status.
My colleague Ian Rowe has been a tireless advocate for recognizing and responding to these patterns. He has long argued that NAEP, the Nation’s Report Card, should disaggregate student achievement data by family composition, not just by race and income. That simple step would yield a more honest accounting of the challenges schools are facing — and help avoid both unfair blame and unearned credit.
Yet this conversation remains a third rail in education. Many teachers and administrators are understandably wary of saying too much about family structure for fear of stigmatizing children from single-parent households, particularly in settings where single-parent households are dominant. Rowe has also faced resistance to his efforts to valorize the “Success Sequence,” the empirical finding that graduating high school, getting a full-time job and marrying before having children dramatically increases one’s odds of avoiding poverty. But being cautious is not the same as being silent, and it’s not compassionate to pretend these dynamics don’t matter when the data so clearly shows that they do.
None of this absolves educators of their duty to reach and teach every child. But it does suggest we should be clear-eyed in how we interpret data and set expectations. Teachers, particularly those in low-income communities, often shoulder the full weight of student outcomes while lacking the ability to influence some of the most powerful predictors of those outcomes. That’s frustrating — and understandably so.
Citing compelling evidence on fatherhood and family formation is not a call for resignation or excuse-making. It’s a call for awareness and intelligent action. While schools can’t influence or re-engineer family structure, teachers can respond in ways that affirm the role of fathers and strengthen the school-home connection. They can make fathers feel welcome and expected in school life — not merely tolerated. They can design family engagement activities that include dads as co-participants, not afterthoughts. They can build classroom cultures that offer structure and mentoring, especially to students who may lack it at home.
And maybe — just maybe — the field can overcome its reluctance to share with students what research so clearly shows will benefit them and the children they will have in the future. Rowe takes pains to note his initiative to teach the Success Sequence is intended to help students make decisions about the families they will form, not the ones they’re from. “It’s not about telling them what to do,” he says, “it’s about giving them the data and letting them decide for themselves.”
This leads to a final point, and for some an uncomfortable one: If we truly care about student outcomes, perhaps we should be willing to support the institutions that reliably foster them. And that includes religious schools.
Religious schools — particularly those rooted in faith traditions that emphasize marriage, family life and moral formation — often create environments where the presence of fathers and the reinforcement of shared values are not incidental but central. A recent analysis by Patrick J. Wolf of the University of Arkansas, published in the Journal of Catholic Education, found that adults who attended religious schools are significantly more likely to marry, stay married, and avoid nonmarital births compared to public‑school peers. The effects are most pronounced among individuals from lower‑income backgrounds.
In states with Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) and other school choice mechanisms, we have an opportunity — perhaps an obligation — to expand access to these institutions. That’s not merely a question of parental rights or religious liberty. It’s a matter of public interest. If these schools produce better education and social outcomes by encouraging family formation and reinforcing the value of fatherhood, the public benefits — even if instruction is delivered in a faith-based context. Said simply: The goal of educational policy and practice is not to save the system. It’s to help students flourish.
So yes, let’s fund fatherhood initiatives. Let’s run PSAs about the importance of dads. But let’s also get serious about expanding access to the kinds of schools — whether secular or religious in nature — that support the kind of family culture where children are most likely to thrive. Because if we follow the evidence where it leads, we must conclude that the biggest intervention in education is not another literacy coach or SEL curriculum. It’s dad.
Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter