Tag: Future

  • Why should we care about cuts to funding for science education?

    Why should we care about cuts to funding for science education?

    Key points:

    The Trump administration is slashing the funding for new projects focused on STEM education and has terminated hundreds of grants focused on equitable STEM education. This will have enormous effects on education and science for decades to come.

    Meaningful science education is crucial for improving all of our lives, including the lives of children and youth. Who doesn’t want their child or grandchild or neighbor to experience curiosity and the joy of learning about the world around them? Who wouldn’t enjoy seeing their child making careful observations of the plants, animals, landforms, and water in their neighborhood or community? Who wouldn’t want a class of kindergartners to understand germ transmission and that washing their hands will help them keep their baby siblings and grandparents healthy? Who doesn’t want their daughters to believe that science is “for them,” just as it is for the boys in their classroom?

    Or, if those goals aren’t compelling for you, then who doesn’t want their child or grandchild or neighbor to be able to get a well-paying job in a STEM field when they grow up? Who doesn’t want science itself to advance in more creative and expansive ways?

    More equitable science teaching allows us to work toward all these goals and more.

    And yet, the Department of Government Efficiency has terminated hundreds of grants from the National Science Foundation that focused squarely on equity in STEM education. My team’s project was one of them.  

    At the same time, NSF’s funding of new projects and the budget for NSF’s Education directorate are also being slashed.

    These terminations and drastic reductions in new funding are decimating the work of science education.

    Why should you care?

    You might care because the termination of these projects wastes taxpayers’ hard-earned money. My project, for example, was 20 months into what was intended to be a 4-year project, following elementary teachers from their teacher education program into their third year of teaching in classrooms in my state of Michigan and across the country. With the termination, we barely got into the teachers’ first year–making it impossible to develop a model of what development looks like over time as teachers learn to engage in equitable science teaching.

    You might care because not funding new projects means we’ll be less able to improve education moving forward. We’re losing the evidence on which we can make sound educational decisions–what works, for whom, and under what circumstances. Earlier NSF-funded projects that I’ve been involved with have, for example, informed the design of curriculum materials and helped district leaders. Educators of future teachers like me build on findings of research to teach evidence-based approaches to facilitating science investigations and leading sense-making discussions. I help teachers learn how they can help children be change-makers who use science to work toward a more just and sustainable world.  Benefits like these will be eliminated.

    Finally, you might care because many of the terminated and unfunded projects are what’s called NSF Early Career Awards, and CAREER program funding is completely eliminated in the current proposed budget. CAREER grants provide crucial funding and mentoring for new researchers. A few of the terminated CAREER projects focus on Black girls and STEM identity, mathematics education in rural communities, and the experiences of LGBTQ+ STEM majors. Without these and other NSF CAREER grants, education within these fields–science, engineering, mathematics, data science, artificial intelligence, and more, from preschool through graduate school–will regress to what works best for white boys and men.

    To be sure, universities have some funds to support research internally. For the most part, though, those funds are minimal. And, it’s true that terminating existing projects like mine and not funding new ones will “save” the government some money. But toward what end? We’re losing crucial evidence and expertise.

    To support all children in experiencing the wonder and joy of understanding the natural world–or to help youth move into high-paying STEM jobs–we need to fight hard to reinstate federal funding for science and science education. We need to use every lever available to us–including contacting our representatives in Washington, D.C.–to make this happen. If we aren’t successful, we lose more than children’s enjoyment of and engagement with science. Ultimately we lose scientific advancement itself.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Digital learning is different

    Digital learning is different

    Key points:

    In the animated film Up, the character Dug is a talking dog with an interesting mannerism. Each time he sees a movement off to the side, he stops whatever he is doing, stares off in that direction and shouts, “Squirrel!” I feel that this is a perfect representation of how schools often deal with new and emerging technologies. They can be working hard to provide the best instruction for their students but become immediately distracted anytime a new technology is introduced.

    From the internet and computers to cell phones and artificial intelligence, schools continue to invest a lot of time and money into figuring out how best to use these new technologies. Overall, schools have done a good job adapting to the numerous digital tools introduced in classrooms and offices–and often, these tools are introduced as standalone initiatives. Why do school districts feel the need to ‘reinvent the wheel’ every time a new technology is released? Instead of looking at each new technology as a tool that must be integrated in the curriculum, why not determine what is missing from current instruction and identify what prevents integration from occurring naturally?

    Schools need to recognize that it is not just learning how to use these new digital tools that is important. They must learn how to interpret and use the incredible variety of resources that accompany these tools–resources that provide perspectives that students would never have access to when using physical resources.

    Digital is different

    For centuries, learning material has come from a variety of physical resources. These include human-made items (i.e. textbooks, documents, paintings, audio recordings, and movies) as well as one of the most commonly used physical resources: teachers. In traditional instruction, teachers spend a great deal of class time teaching students information from these physical resources. But the physical nature of these resources limits their availability to students. To ensure that students have long-term access to the information provided by these physical resources, most traditional instruction emphasizes memorization, summarizing, and note taking. 

    With digital resources, students can access information at any time from anywhere, which means learning how to retain information is less important than learning how to effectively find credible information. The authenticity of the information is important because the same tools that are used to access digital resources can just as easily be used to create new digital resources. This means there is a lot of misinformation available online, often consisting of nothing more than personal opinions. Students need to not only be able to search for information online, but they also need to be able to verify the authenticity of online information. The ability to identify misleading or false information is a skill that will benefit them in their personal and academic lives.

    Learning

    While it is fairly easy to find information online, especially with the inclusion of AI in search engines, there are some search techniques that will reduce the amount of misinformation found in simple search requests. By teaching students how to refine their searches and discussing the impact of these search skills, students will be more discerning when it comes to reviewing search results. They need to be aware that the most helpful sites do not always appear at the top of the search list. Some sites are sponsored and thus automatically placed at the beginning of the search list. Other sites will tweak their web search parameters to ensure a higher priority in the search list.  A better understanding of how online searching works will result in more effective searches. 

    Once information is found, the authenticity of the resource and the information itself needs to be established. Fortunately, there are standard practices that can be utilized to teach verification. In the early 2000’s, a popular checklist method called CRAAP (Currency [timeliness], Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose) emerged. While this method was effective in evaluating the authenticity of the website, it did not ensure the accuracy of the information on the website. In 2019, the SIFT (Stop, Investigate, Find confirming resources, and Trace claims) methodology was introduced.  This methodology focuses on determining if online content is credible. These are not the only tools available to teachers. Librarians and media specialists are a good place to start when determining age-appropriate lessons and material to teach verification.

    Students need to have access to some high-quality digital resources starting in elementary school. Teaching website verification at an early age will help students understand, from the beginning, that there is a lot of misinformation available online. At the same time, schools need to ensure that they provide access to digital resources that are age appropriate. Today’s network technology provides many ways for schools to monitor and control what information or sites are available to students at different grade levels. While these network tools are effective, they should be used in conjunction with well-trained teachers who understand how to safely navigate digital resources and students who are expected to practice responsible internet behavior. Introducing a select number of digital resources in elementary classes is the first step toward creating discerning researchers who will gain the ability to effectively judge a website’s appropriateness and usefulness.

    Teaching

    In order to create opportunities for students to experience learning with digital resources, instructional practices need to be less reliant on teacher-directed instruction. The use of physical resources requires the teacher to be the primary distributor of the information. Typically, this is done through lecture or whole-class presentations. With digital resources, students have direct access to the information, so whole-class distribution is not necessary. Instead, instructional practices need to provide lessons that emphasize finding and verifying information, which can be done by shifting to a learner-centered instructional model. In a learner-centered lesson, the onus falls on the student to determine what information is needed, and if the found information is credible for a given task. The class time that previously would have been spent on lecture becomes time for students to practice finding and authenticating online information. Initially, these learning experiences would be designed as guided practice for finding specific information. As students become more proficient with their search skills, the lesson can shift toward project-based lessons.

    Project-based lessons will help students learn how to apply the information they find, as well as determine what unknown information they need to complete the work. Unlike lesson design for practicing information searching and verification, project-based lessons provide opportunities for students to decide what information is needed and how best to use it. Instead of directing the student’s information-gathering, the teacher provides guidance to ensure they are accessing information that will allow the students to complete the project.

    This shift in instruction does not necessarily mean there will be a significant curricular change. The curricular content will remain the same, but the resources could be different. Because students control what resources they use, it is possible that they could find resources different from the ones specified in the curriculum. Teachers will need to be aware of the resources students are using and may have to spend time checking the credibility of the resource. Given the varying formats (text, audio, video, graphic) available with digital resources, students will be able to determine which format(s) best supports their learning style. Because most digital tools utilize the same digital resources and formats, teaching students how to learn with digital resources will prepare them for adapting to the next new digital tool. It is simply a matter of learning how to use the tool–after all, they already know how to use the resource.

    When creating units of study, teachers should consider the type of resources students will be using. To simplify matters, some units should be designed to utilize digital resources only and include lessons that teach students how to find and verify information. Students still need to develop skills to work with physical resources as well. It may be helpful to start off with units that utilize only physical or digital resources. That way teachers can focus on the specific skills needed for each type of resource. As students gain proficiency with these skills, they will learn to use the appropriate skills for the given resources.

    The amount of information available to the public today is staggering. Unfortunately, too much of it is unverified and even purposely misleading. Trying to stop misinformation from being created and distributed is not realistic. But teaching students how to validate online information can make the distribution of and exposure to misinformation much less impactful. The open nature of the internet allows for many divergent opinions and perspectives. We need to ensure that when students graduate, they have the skills necessary to determine the authenticity of online information and to be able to determine its merit.

    Teaching and learning with digital resources is different, and traditional instruction does not meet the learning needs of today’s students. Giving students the opportunity to master learning with digital resources will prepare them for the next technology “squirrel” and will enable them to determine how best to use it on their own.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • K12 Earns High Marks for Excellence in Online Public Education

    K12 Earns High Marks for Excellence in Online Public Education

    RESTON, Va.(GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — K12, a portfolio brand of Stride, Inc. has been recognized for its steadfast commitment to quality education. In a recent review by Cognia, a global nonprofit that accredits schools, K12 earned an impressive Index of Education Quality (IEQ) score of 327, well above the global average of 296. Cognia praised K12 for creating supportive environments where students are encouraged to learn and grow in ways that work best for them. 

    For over 25 years, K12 has been a pioneer in online public education, delivering flexible, high-quality learning experiences to families across the country. Having served more than 3 million students, K12 has helped shape the future of personalized learning. This long-standing presence in the field reflects a deep understanding of what families need from a modern education partner. The recent Cognia review further validates K12’s role as a trusted provider, recognizing the strength of its learning environments and its commitment to serving all students. 

    “What stood out in this review is how clearly our learning environments are working for students,” said Niyoka McCoy, Chief Learning Officer at Stride, Inc. “From personalized graduation plans to real-time feedback tools and expanded course options, the Cognia team saw what we see every day, which is students being supported in ways that help them grow, stay engaged, and take ownership of their learning.” 

    K12’s impact extends well beyond the virtual classroom. In 2025, the organization was honored with two Gold Stevie® Awards for Innovation in Education and recognized at the Digital Education Awards for its excellence in digital learning. These awards highlight K12’s continued leadership in delivering meaningful, future-focused education. What sets K12-powered online public schools apart is a curriculum that goes beyond the basics, offering students access to STEM, Advanced Placement, dual-credit, industry certifications, and gamified learning experiences. K12’s program is designed to spark curiosity, build confidence, and help students thrive in college, careers, and life. 

    Through student-centered instruction and personalized support, K12 is leading the way in modern education. As the learning landscape evolves, K12 adapts alongside it, meeting the needs of today’s students while shaping the future of education. 

    To learn more about K12 and its accredited programs, visit k12.com.

    About Stride, Inc.  

    Stride Inc. (LRN) is redefining lifelong learning with innovative, high-quality education solutions. Serving learners in primary, secondary, and postsecondary settings, Stride provides a wide range of services including K-12 education, career learning, professional skills training, and talent development. Stride reaches learners in all 50 states and over 100 countries. Learn more at Stridelearning.com.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • Middle and high school students need education, career guidance

    Middle and high school students need education, career guidance

    Key points:

    Students need more support around education paths and career options, including hands-on experiences, according to a new nationwide survey from the nonprofit American Student Assistance.

    The survey of more than of 3,000 students in grades 7-12 offers insights into teens’ plans after high school. The research, Next Steps: An Analysis of Teens’ Post-High School Plans, uncovers evolving trends in teenagers’ attitudes, perceptions, and decision-making about their post-high school plans.

    “This analysis of teens’ post high school plans reveals shifts in students’ thinking and planning. We need to change the way we help young people navigate the complex and evolving landscape of education and career options,” said Julie Lammers, Executive Vice President of ASA. “Starting in middle school, our young people need early access to opportunities that empowers them to explore careers that match their interests and strengths; hands-on, skills-based experiences in high school; and information and resources to navigate their path to postsecondary education and career. All of this will enable them to graduate informed, confident, and empowered about what they want to do with their futures.” 

    The survey offers notable findings regarding parental influence on teens’ planning, perceptions of nondegree pathways like trade or technical school, apprenticeships, and certificate programs, and a continued drop-off in kids’ plans to go to college immediately after high school graduation.

    Key findings include:

    Teens’ interest in college is down while nondegree paths are on the rise. Nearly half of all students said they aren’t interested in going to college, with just 45 percent saying two- or four-year college was their most likely next step. Meanwhile 38 percent of teens said they were considering trade or technical schools, apprenticeships, and technical bootcamp programs, although only 14 percent say that such a path is their most likely next step.

    Parents are one of teens’ biggest influencers—and they’re skeptical of nondegree options. A vast majority (82 percent) of teens said their parents agree with their plans to go to four-year college, while only 66 percent said parents supported plans to pursue a nondegree route. In fact, teens reported parents were actually more supportive (70 percent) of foregoing education altogether right after high school vs. pursuing a nondegree program.    

    A concerning number of young people don’t have plans for further education or training. Nearly one quarter (23 percent) said they have no immediate plans to continue formal education or training upon graduation. Teens not planning to continue education after high school indicated they were thinking of beginning full-time work, entering a family business, starting their own business, or joining the military.

    Teens, and especially middle schoolers, are feeling better prepared to plan their futures. In recent years policymakers, educators, employers, and other stakeholders have pushed to make career-connected learning a more prominent feature of our education to workforce system. Survey results say it’s paying off. Agreement with the statement “my school provides me with the right resources to plan for my next steps after high school” grew from just 59 percent in 2018, to 63 percent in 2021, to 82 percent in 2024. Notably, the largest increase occurred at the middle school level, where confidence in in-school planning resources jumped from 60 percent in 2018 to 90 percent in 2024.

    Girls are much more likely to plan to attend college than boys. Boys and girls are equally interested in college when they’re in middle school, but by high school, more than half (53 percent) of girls say they’re likely to attend college compared to just 39 percent of boys. The gender gap is smaller when it comes to nondegree pathways: 15 percent of high school boys say they will likely attend vocational/trade school, participate in an apprenticeship, or take a certificate program, compared to 10 percent of high school girls.

    City kids aren’t as “into” college. Urban teens were least likely (39 percent) to say they plan to go to college. Suburban teens are much more likely to plan to attend a college program (64 percent) while 46 percent of rural students planned on college.

    Students of color are college bound. More than half (54 percent) of Black teens and 51 percent of Hispanic youth are planning to go to college, compared to 42 percent of White teens.  

    This press release originally appeared online.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • How worried are we about the future? Let’s quantify it.

    How worried are we about the future? Let’s quantify it.

    Fear. Uncertainty. Those are human emotions that many people are feeling these days. It turns out you can quantify fear and uncertainty by looking at the stock market.

    Stocks are shares of a business that people can buy on a public market, betting that the business will grow and profit and the shares will be more valuable over time. But share prices also rise and fall based on how people feel about the economic future. 

    So individual stocks, as well as whole sectors of an industry or the overall market in general, can rise or fall on economic or company reports, politics, geopolitical events, unexpected news and whether investors are optimistic or pessimistic about the future. 

    When these kinds of changes or reports cause stocks to suddenly and frequently rise and fall, we say the market is “volatile.” 

    Throughout 2025, the U.S. stock market, which is the biggest in the world, has been pretty volatile. One way to measure it is through the Standard and Poor’s 500 Index, which is a snapshot of 500 major company stocks. 

    Politics and plunging markets

    From mid-February to early April, the S&P 500 index plummeted 19% as U.S. President Donald Trump launched a trade war that raised fears of inflation, a recession, job losses and a swelling national debt.  

    The U.S. market has largely recovered those losses in response to Trump pausing his tariff wars and lowering tariffs from scary levels. As of 30 June 2025, the stock market was dancing in record high territory. 

    Robert Whaley, a finance professor at Vanderbilt University and director of its Financial Markets Research Center, developed a way to measure a stock market’s volatility by keeping track of stock options — contracts that gives investors the right, but not an obligation, to buy or sell a stock at a predetermined price at a set future date. 

    It is popularly known as the “fear index” and goes by the symbol VIX. 

    The fear index is a measure of how much volatility is expected in the next month. Historically, its long-term average has been 17. During April, it was 40-50. In comparison, the index was at 85 in the COVID-19 market crash of March 2020 and at 89.5 during the global financial crisis of 2008-2009. 

    Buying and selling on fear

    What happens during market volatility? High volatility usually implies higher risk because price movements are less predictable. While some short-term stock traders can make money during market volatility, longer-term buy-and-hold investors might get jittery. 

    Mutual fund cash holdings were at a 15-year high in March. That means that professional money managers held onto cash and stayed on the sidelines. What do global investors crave? Stability and predictability. 

    “The VIX as of now (intraday June 30) is at 17 so things are calmer which is surprising given what is happening in Ukraine and Iran,” Whaley said. “It seems the markets have become quite comfortable about it.” 

    He underscored that the fear index is intended to help institutional investors — such as those who manage pension funds or retirement accounts that many people invest in — predict market volatility over the next 30 days. For people who might not be actively involved in the stock market, all of this still matters. 

    “It reflects how institutions are feeling about the marketplace,” Whaley said. “An analogy would be if you own a house on the beach and learn a hurricane is coming. How much might insurance cost if you could actually buy it that late?” 

    Reading the market

    Whaley said that young people should develop an intuitive feel of stock market volatility, since it is an expression of nervousness. 

    “In essence, it’s a fear gauge,” he said. “If people are getting nervous buying put options [that gives investors a right to buy] that drives up put prices. If VIX was at 30-40% institutions are scared to death. Right now at 17%, there’s no concern in the short run.”

    Whaley said the index is normally around 15-20%, but a reading below 15% would reflect that investors are complacent. 

    As for the limitations of the fear index, Whaley said some people read too much into it and some institutions might overpay for VIX options and futures to try to insure their investments against losses. 

    While the fear index was born on a real-time basis in 1993, Whaley calculated that it would have reached an intraday high of 172 and closed at 156 on October 19, 1987, the date of the global stock market crash known as Black Monday. Whaley said other market earthquakes that caused big percentage drops included the 2008 financial crisis and Trump’s tariffs. 

    Whaley said viewed in a historical context, the fear index is like any other index — like the Dow Jones Industrial Average — that has a market value. “Indices are useful in terms of their history,” he said. “A barometer of fear. If VIX is higher, figure out what is going on.” 

    Questions to consider:

    1. What type of news might cause fear in a stock market?

    2. If there is a lot of uncertainty in a stock market, what do many professional investors do? 

    3. Can you think of another way to measure how fearful people are about the future?

    Source link

  • America’s future depends on more first-generation students from underestimated communities earning an affordable bachelor’s degree

    America’s future depends on more first-generation students from underestimated communities earning an affordable bachelor’s degree

    I recently stood before hundreds of young people in California’s Central Valley; more than 60 percent were on that day becoming the first in their family to earn a bachelor’s degree.

    Their very presence at University of California, Merced’s spring commencement ceremony disrupted a major narrative in our nation about who college is for — and the value of a degree.

    Many of these young people arrived already balancing jobs, caregiving responsibilities and family obligations. Many were Pell Grant-eligible and came from communities that are constantly underestimated and where a higher education experience is a rarity.

    These students graduated college at a critical moment in American history: a time when the value of a bachelor’s degree is being called into question, when public trust in higher education is vulnerable and when supports for first-generation college students are eroding. Yet an affordable bachelor’s degree remains the No. 1 lever for financial, professional and social mobility in this country.

    Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

    A recent Gallup poll showed that the number of Americans who have a great deal of confidence in higher education is dwindling, with a nearly equal amount responding that they have little to none. In 2015, when Gallup first asked this question, those expressing confidence outnumbered those without by nearly six to one.

    There is no doubt that higher education must continue to evolve — to be more accessible, more relevant and more affordable — but the impact of a bachelor’s degree remains undeniable.

    And the bigger truth is this: America’s long-term strength — its economic competitiveness, its innovation pipeline, its social fabric — depends on whether we invest in the education of the young people who reflect the future of this country.

    There are many challenges for today’s workforce, from a shrinking talent pipeline to growing demands in STEM, healthcare and the public sector. These challenges can’t be solved unless we ensure that more first-generation students and those from underserved communities earn their degrees in affordable ways and leverage their strengths in ways they feel have purpose.

    Those of us in education must create conditions in which students’ talent is met with opportunity and higher education institutions demonstrate that they believe in the potential of every student who comes to their campuses to learn.

    UC Merced is a fantastic example of what this can look like. The youngest institution in the University of California system, it was recently designated a top-tier “R1” research university. At the same time, it earned a spot on Carnegie’s list of “Opportunity Colleges and Universities,” a new classification that recognizes institutions based on the success of their students and alumni. It is one of only 21 institutions in the country to be nationally ranked for both elite research and student success and is proving that excellence and equity can — and must — go hand in hand.

    In too many cases, students who make it to college campuses are asked to navigate an educational experience that wasn’t built with their lived experiences and dreams in mind. In fact, only 24 percent of first-generation college students earn a bachelor’s degree in six years, compared to nearly 59 percent of students who have a parent with a bachelor’s. This results in not just a missed opportunity for individual first-generation students — it’s a collective loss for our country.

    Related: To better serve first-generation students, expand the definition

    The graduates I spoke to in the Central Valley that day will become future engineers, climate scientists, public health leaders, artists and educators. Their bachelor’s degrees equip them with critical thinking skills, confidence and the emotional intelligence needed to lead in an increasingly complex world.

    Their future success will be an equal reflection of their education and the qualities they already possess as first-generation college graduates: persistence, focus and unwavering drive. Because of this combination, they will be the greatest contributors to the future of work in our nation.

    This is a reality I know well. As the Brooklyn-born daughter of Dominican immigrants, I never planned to go away from home to a four-year college. My father drove a taxi, and my mother worked in a factory. I was the first in my family to earn a bachelor’s degree. I attended college as part of an experimental program to get kids from neighborhoods like mine into “top” schools. When it was time for me to leave for college, my mother and I boarded a bus with five other students and their moms for a 26-hour ride to Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee.

    Like so many first-generation college students, I carried with me the dreams and sacrifices of my family and community. I had one suitcase, a box of belongings and no idea what to expect at a place I’d never been to before. That trip — and the bachelor’s degree I earned — changed the course of my life.

    First-generation college students from underserved communities reflect the future of America. Their success is proof that the American Dream is not only alive but thriving. And right now, the stakes are national, and they are high.

    That is why we must collectively remove the obstacles to first-generation students’ individual success and our collective success as a nation. That’s the narrative that we need to keep writing — together.

    Shirley M. Collado is president emerita at Ithaca College and the president and CEO of College Track, a college completion program dedicated to democratizing potential among first-generation college students from underserved communities.

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

    This story about first-generation students was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Is CTE the future of arts career pathways?

    Is CTE the future of arts career pathways?

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

    Dive Brief:

    • While career and technical education has long connected students to real-world job skills and opportunities in different fields, it may also offer an avenue to strengthen arts programming and diversify career pathways for students interested in the arts. 
    • CTE experts emphasize the importance of thinking outside the traditional arts education framework by combining foundational techniques with an awareness of how those skills can be applied in the real world and meet local job market needs.
    • “There’s a dismissiveness about careers in the arts because it’s assumed that you have to be a starving artist, but that’s truly not the case,” said Ashley Adams, executive director of Arts Media Entertainment Institute, a nonprofit that connects educators to creative professionals. “There are incredible jobs for students that use their creative skills, and it empowers them if you can teach them about those careers early on.”

    Dive Insight:

    Adams began as a classroom teacher at a school with a robust Parent Teacher Association that regularly fundraised to support high-quality arts programming. However, not every school has access to this type of resource, Adams said, which is why she views CTE in the arts as an avenue for equity and access for students.

    For example, a theater teacher in Colorado launched a new course that teaches technical theater skills such as set design and sound design in order to qualify for CTE state and federal level funding. 

    Technical training is valuable for students because graduating with a certification in an industry-recognized software platform boosts and strengthens their resume when applying for jobs, Adams said. She added that because CTE programs are project-based, it’s a great preparation for the workforce, as many jobs are seeking professionals who can work collaboratively.

    For an arts-oriented CTE course to succeed, one of the main factors to take into consideration — as with any CTE course — is labor market value. Dan Hinderliter, associate director of state policy for Advance CTE, a national association for CTE directors and professionals, explained that there needs to be at least some level of local labor market analysis to determine which careers and opportunities are available, and to make these explicitly clear to stakeholders.

    “There’s a lot of programs in, say, California — where there’s more opportunity because they have the labor market — than you would find in rural Oklahoma, where they don’t inherently have a lot of need for students with a lot of technical arts skill and background,” Hinderliter said.

    If a school district decides they have a local labor market that’s looking for a much more technical approach to arts education, Hinderliter encourages them to make sure they partner with the employers in that area and, more comprehensively, with the state. 

    At the local level, the AME Institute connects teachers with creative industries and ensures they have training resources and the knowledge necessary to prepare students for these jobs. The organization provides virtual learning opportunities, in-person institutes that include visits to industry studios, and curated programming to strengthen pathway curriculum. 

    “It’s workforce development, and our workforce needs creators, it needs innovators, if we are going to continue to be a leader,” Adams said. “Entertainment is a huge industry sector within our economy, but if we’re going to continue to lead in that industry sector and many others, we have to have creative thinkers. We have to have people who are taking these tools and using them in innovative ways.”

    Source link

  • The future for teacher diversity in a world of DEI scrutiny

    The future for teacher diversity in a world of DEI scrutiny

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

    With diversity, equity and inclusion efforts facing scrutiny under the Trump administration, school districts and states looking to diversify their teacher workforces are in a precarious situation. 

    Nearly a month into President Donald Trump’s second term, for instance, the U.S. Department of Education slashed $600 million in “divisive” teacher training grants — specifically through the Teacher Quality Partnership Program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development Grant Program. The department said in February that those cuts were made to grants that “included teacher and staff recruiting strategies implicitly and explicitly based on race.” Advocates for the federal grants said the decision particularly impacted funding for programs aiming to improve teacher diversity in classrooms. 

    For years, there’s been a push for more policies to support the recruitment and retention of teachers of color as the nation’s K-12 public school student population grows more racially diverse and as teacher shortages persist. Advocates often point to research that shows when schools hire teachers who look like their students — particularly students of color — student achievement improves and disciplinary rates go down.

    While research from the National Council on Teacher Quality found that teacher diversity slowly grew between 2014 and 2022, those findings also suggested that teachers of color are opting out of careers in education as teacher diversity lags behind the rate of the broader workforce.  

    But with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that repealed race-conscious admissions in higher education and the Trump administration’s ongoing push against DEI, some experts advise districts and states to be cautious when approaching teacher diversity efforts moving forward. On the flip side, advocates say the need for these initiatives remain. 

    A ‘scary’ time for teacher diversity initiatives

    Before Modesto City Schools began its teacher workforce diversity partnership with California State University, Stanislaus, there was a “mismatch” in representation between students of color and teachers of color in its elementary schools, said Shannon Panfilio-Padden, an associate professor at the university’s college of education. 

    During the 2021-22 school year, elementary enrollment for students of color in Modesto City Schools could range from 60% in some buildings to as much as 98% in others. That’s compared to the range of 13% to 66% among elementary teachers of color in the district, said Panfilio-Padden, who helped oversee the partnership between the district and university. “What Modesto had been working on for years was diversifying their teacher workforce, but no matter what they tried, it wasn’t working.”

    By improving collaboration and identifying workforce barriers with Modesto City Schools, CalState Stanislaus — which has a majority Hispanic student population — was able to double the number of candidates who are teachers of color, from 6 to 16, who entered the district’s classrooms between the 2021-22 and 2023-24 school years, said Panfilio-Padden. 

    The partnership was spurred through CalState’s Center for Transformational Educator Preparation Programs, which aims to boost recruitment and retention of teachers of color to serve California’s diverse student population. 

    At a time when such initiatives are being targeted at the federal level, Panfilio-Padden said “it can be scary.” But, she said, she’s dedicated to supporting her students, who are aspiring teachers from diverse backgrounds. 

    “We need teachers so desperately in California, and we need highly qualified teachers,” she said. Panfilio-Padden said the university can’t predict the amount of federal aid or state grant money that will be available to aspiring teachers, but “at the same time, when they continue to come to us with an enthusiasm to teach elementary kids, it just puts everything into perspective.” 

    Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, Massachusetts enacted the Educator Diversity Act in November 2024 as part of the state’s economic development package. The legislation looks to address barriers to recruiting and retaining educators of color by allowing multiple pathways for teacher certification, creating a statewide dashboard for tracking educator workforce diversity at the district level, and increasing uniformity in hiring practices to support candidates from underrepresented backgrounds. 

    Source link

  • Tech Titans, Ideologues, and the Future of American Higher Education

    Tech Titans, Ideologues, and the Future of American Higher Education

    American higher education is under pressure from within and without—squeezed by financial strain, declining enrollment, political hostility, and technological disruption. But the greatest challenge may be coming from a group of powerful outsiders—figures with deep influence in politics, technology, and media—who are actively reshaping how education is perceived, delivered, and valued. Among them: Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Sam Altman, Alex Karp, and Charlie Kirk. Each brings a different ideology and strategy, but their combined influence represents an existential threat to traditional colleges and universities.

    Donald Trump’s second rise to power has included a full-spectrum attack on elite and public institutions of higher learning. From threats to strip funding from schools that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, to freezing billions in research grants at elite institutions like Harvard, Trump has positioned universities as enemies in a broader cultural and political war. His proposed education policy emphasizes trade schools and short-term credentials over liberal arts and research, while his administration has floated revoking accreditation from institutions that resist his agenda. Rather than investing in public education, the Trump agenda calls for punishment, privatization, and obedience. And for institutions that don’t comply, there are growing threats of taxation, defunding, and public humiliation.

    Elon Musk is undermining higher education in a different way. Musk has openly mocked the need for college degrees, suggesting that “you can learn anything online for free.” While that’s partly rhetoric, it’s also a blueprint for disruption. His experimental school Astra Nova already offers a glimpse into a post-institutional future—one that favors creative, independent thinking over traditional credentialing. Now, with plans to launch the Texas Institute of Technology & Science, Musk is betting that elite training can happen outside the bounds of accreditation and federal oversight. Musk’s future is technocratic and libertarian, with universities seen as bloated, slow-moving, and culturally out of touch.

    Peter Thiel’s vision is even more radical. Thiel has compared American higher education to the Catholic Church before the Reformation—rich, corrupt, and intellectually bankrupt. His Thiel Fellowship pays young people to skip college entirely, offering $100,000 to start companies instead of accumulating debt. He argues that universities reward conformity and delay adulthood. For Thiel, colleges don’t just fail to prepare students—they actively mislead them. His endgame is a decentralized, market-driven system in which talent rises through initiative and capital, not credentials.

    Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, presents yet another threat—this time from artificial intelligence. Altman doesn’t reject learning, but he does question the institutions that monopolize it. With tools like ChatGPT and future AI tutors, Altman envisions personalized, real-time learning for everyone, everywhere. In this model, universities risk becoming obsolete—not because they are wrong, but because they are too slow and too expensive. Altman has also pushed universities to take a more active role in shaping AI policy; if they don’t, the tech industry will do it for them. The message is clear: adapt or be replaced.

    Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir, is building a new kind of corporate university. Through programs like the Palantir Meritocracy Fellowship and “Semester at Palantir,” Karp is recruiting students directly out of elite schools—particularly those disillusioned by what he sees as anti-Israel sentiment or campus censorship. These programs offer practical, high-paid experience that bypasses traditional academic pathways. Karp’s vision doesn’t require the elimination of universities—it just renders them unnecessary for the most competitive jobs in tech and intelligence. His model suggests a future in which corporations, not universities, decide who is qualified.

    Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, has weaponized the culture war to delegitimize higher education entirely. Kirk’s brand of activism portrays universities as corrupt, anti-American indoctrination centers. Through social media campaigns, donor networks, and student chapters, he has built an infrastructure of resistance against academic institutions. His goal isn’t reform—it’s replacement. Through efforts like the Freedom College Alliance, Kirk is helping to build a parallel educational system rooted in conservative Christian values, classical curricula, and ideological purity. In Kirk’s world, higher education isn’t broken—it’s the enemy.

    Together, these six men are shaping a new, fragmented future for American education. Some want to burn it down. Some want to replace it. Some want to privatize it or profit from its collapse. What they share is a conviction that traditional universities no longer serve their intended purpose—and that a new model, rooted in tech, politics, or religion, must take its place.

    This isn’t a theoretical debate. Universities are already responding—cutting liberal arts programs, racing to implement AI tools, rebranding themselves as career accelerators, and seeking favor with donors who increasingly resemble these disruptive outsiders. For those who resist, the future may include not just funding cuts, but political investigations, lawsuits, and public smear campaigns.

    Higher education faces a stark choice. It can double down on its public mission—defending critical thinking, civic engagement, and social mobility—or it can retreat into elite credentialing and survival mode. What it cannot do is ignore the forces gathering at its gates. These forces are rich, powerful, ideologically driven—and they are not waiting for permission to remake the system.

    Source link

  • This Thursday on the Future Trends Forum: an international enrollment scenario (Bryan Alexander)

    This Thursday on the Future Trends Forum: an international enrollment scenario (Bryan Alexander)

     

    How might international student enrollment changes impact colleges and universities? This Thursday, on June 5th, from 2-3 pm ET, the Future Trends Forum is holding an interactive exercise to work through an evidence-based scenario wherein fall 2025 numbers crash. Everyone will participate by representing themselves in the roles they currently have or would like to take up, and in those positions explore the scenario.

    We will develop responses to the situation in real time, which may help us think ahead for whatever form the crisis eventually takes. In this exercise, everyone gets to collaboratively explore how they might respond.   
     
    As with our first election simulation, not to mention our solarpunk, generative AI, black swan, and digital twin workshops, this one will involve participants as cocreators and investigators, exploring and determining what might come next.  Consider it a trial run for a potential future.

    To RSVP ahead of time, or to jump straight in at 2 pm ET this Thursday, click here:

    To find more information about the Future Trends Forum, including notes and recordings of all previous sessions, click here: http://forum.futureofeducation.us/.

    (chart from Statista) 

    Source link