Tag: lost

Have Democrats Lost Voters’ Trust on Education? Not According to Most Polls – The 74

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Chalkbeat Ideas is a new section featuring reported columns on the big ideas and debates shaping American schools. Sign up for the Ideas newsletter to follow our work.

Democrats are in disarray on education — according to a growing chorus of Democrats.

A variety of left-leaning journalists, politicians, and advocates have all recently claimed that voters have become disillusioned with the party’s approach to schools. Often, these commentators cite anger over pandemic-era closures and argue that Democrats need to embrace tougher academic standards or school choice.

“For decades, when pollsters asked voters which party they trusted more on education, Democrats maintained, on average, a 14-point advantage. More recently that gap closed, then flipped to favor Republicans,” wrote former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel last month.

Is this emerging conventional wisdom true, though? This assertion has typically relied on one or two surveys, rather than a comprehensive look at the data. So I compiled all publicly available polls I could find that asked voters which party they preferred on education.

The verdict was clear: In more than a dozen surveys conducted this year by eight different organizations, all but one showed Democrats with an edge on education. This ranged from 4 to 15 points. Among all 14 polls, the median advantage was 9 points. Although Democrats appear to have briefly lost this edge a few years ago, voters again now tend to trust Democrats on the issue of education, broadly defined.

The narrative that Republicans had wrested the issue of education from Democrats emerged in 2021, after Virginia’s Glenn Youngkin won a come-from-behind victory in the governor’s race after campaigning on parents’ rights.

Long-running data from the Winston Group, a political consulting firm, showed that in late 2021 and early 2022 Republicans really had eroded Democrats’ lead on education. The parties were even briefly tied for the first time since the early 2000s, when former President George W. Bush was championing No Child Left Behind. Polling commissioned in 2022 and 2023 by Democrats for Education Reform, a group that backs charter schools and vouchers, also showed Democrats falling behind on education.

Since then, though, Democrats appear to have regained their edge. In the run-up to the 2024 presidential election, the party held at least a 10-point lead, according to Winston Group. Other polls from last year also found that more voters preferred Democrats’ approach on education, even as the party lost the presidency.

Emanuel pointed me to polling from 2022. “Democrats have not gained ground as much as Trump has cost GOP gains they have made,” he says when asked about the more recent surveys.

This year in Virginia, Democrat Abigail Spanberger easily won in her bid to replace Youngkin. Education was one of her stronger issues, according to a Washington Post survey.

Some argue that these election results disprove the idea that Democrats are losing on schools. “That’s not what panned out at all,” says Jennifer Berkshire, a progressive author who writes and teaches about education. She notes that the Republican governor candidate in New Jersey also tried to make schools an issue and lost badly.

The Winston poll shows Democrats’ advantage is currently below its peak between 2006 and 2009 but is comparable to many other periods, including the tail end of the Obama administration and part of the first Trump administration.

Keep in mind: These surveys ask about education broadly, not just K-12 schools. When given the option, a good chunk of voters don’t endorse either party’s approach. For instance, a YouGov survey found Democrats up 39%-32% on education with another 29% saying they weren’t sure or that the parties were about the same.

The one public poll in which Democrats did not have an advantage came from Blue Rose Research, a Democratic-aligned firm. Ali Mortell, its head of research, says different survey methodologies can lead to different results.

Regardless, she wants to see Democratic politicians lean into the issue more. “Say they do have that trust advantage right now, [education] is still not something that they’re really talking about a lot,” Mortell says.

One of the top messages that resonates with voters focuses on addressing teachers’ concerns about stagnant pay and large class sizes, Blue Rose polling finds.

Democrats’ lead on education doesn’t appear to have grown much over the last year, according to surveys from Winston, YouGov, and Ipsos. That’s somewhat surprising since Trump’s approval has sunk generally and is low on education specifically.

Jorge Elorza, the CEO of Democrats for Education Reform, points to a survey it commissioned showing the two parties tied when it comes to making sure schools emphasize academic achievement. “Democrats should be focused on delivering results,” he says. “When we ask voters about that, it’s a toss up.” A separate DFER poll found the party with only a 1-point lead on who voters trust to ensure “students are prepared for success after high school.”

Democrats’ overall polling advantage on education does not necessarily speak to the substantive merits of their policies, however. One analysis found that Democratic-leaning states have seen bigger declines in student test scores in recent years. At a national level, Democrats have not offered a particularly clear message on K-12 education, unlike Trump.

“For the last six years there’s [been] no proactive agenda for Democrats on educational excellence,” says Emanuel.

The party’s approach to schools has clearly lost a segment of America’s political tastemakers including center-left nonprofit executives, political strategists, and even some Democratic politicians. Yet, despite insistent assertions otherwise, regular voters don’t seem to share this view, at least at the moment.

I relied on the following polls from this year, with Democrats’ lead in parentheses: Blue Rose Research (February, tied); Fox News (July +15); Ipsos (February +6, April +4, October +7); Napolitan News Service (August +9, October +6); Navigator (August +9); Strength in Numbers (May +11, October +15); YouGov (May +7); Winston (April +15, June +14, August/September +11). To find these surveys, I conducted my own search and asked a variety of large pollsters, as well as a number of advocates. Differences in results between polls can come from random error, as well as differences in sampling and question wording. Although the precise wording varied, each poll asked voters which party they preferred on education.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

Did you use this article in your work?

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

Source link

November 22, 2025
Former Professor on How New College of Florida Lost Its Way

Amy Reid spent more than 30 years at New College of Florida, where she served as a professor of French and the founder and director of the gender studies program. Her relatively secure employment as a tenured professor emboldened her to become one of the most outspoken critics of the conservative effort to transform NCF into a “Hillsdale College of the South,” led by then-interim president Richard Corcoran, who was hired by a swath of conservative trustees installed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2023.

That same year, Reid was elected to serve as faculty representative on the Board of Trustees; she voted against Corcoran’s appointment to be the college’s permanent president and pushed back against numerous policies, including an effort by the administration to use the faculty to help enforce gendered bathroom laws.

Last month, Corcoran denied a recommendation from the New College provost that Reid be granted emerita status at the college, citing Reid’s advocacy for faculty and academic freedom, which he described as “hyperbolic alarmism and needless obstruction.” In response, the New College Alumni Association Board of Directors made Reid an honorary alum.

Since taking unpaid leave in August 2024 and then retiring a year later, Reid has brought her talents and penchant for advocacy to PEN America, a nonprofit focused on fighting education censorship and protecting press freedom.

Inside Higher Ed spoke with Reid over Zoom about her experience as the faculty representative on the New College Board of Trustees, the transformation of the public liberal arts college and expanding efforts by Florida conservatives to censor faculty speech.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: Before you became faculty representative on the Board of Trustees at New College, the previous representative quit in protest. What motivated you to pursue the role and what were you hoping to do with it?

A: Things had been contentious on campus. Frankly, that’s an understatement. When the new board members were appointed that January [2023], they described their arrival on campus as a “siege”—using military language. So I began organizing with other faculty members and providing support to students so that they could respond to the rapid changes on campus, changes that included the immediate firing of our president [Patricia Okker], and then, over the coming weeks, a number of key leaders; the censoring of student speech and chalking on campus; the denial of tenure to a number of very qualified faculty.

I started holding weekly teas for students, providing them a place to ask questions and to be heard and also to have cookies. So working with my colleagues and providing support for students were the two things that I really wanted to do.

As a senior member of the faculty and as the leader of the gender studies program, I felt like I had a particular responsibility to speak up on campus. I knew that colleagues of mine who were not tenured couldn’t necessarily do that, so I tried to speak up for my community. And after Matt Lipinski resigned from the Board of Trustees and from his faculty position [after the board denied tenure to five professors], he actually reached out and asked me to stand for election as chair of the faculty, because I’d been both working in collaboration with others through the union and also because of my outspokenness as director of the gender studies program. So after talking with other colleagues, I agreed to stand for election in collaboration with two other colleagues.

Q: What was the initial reception from the board when you joined?

A: What I really remember, actually, was the real support that I had from colleagues and students and alums. So yes, there was a certain amount of tension with certain members of the Board of Trustees. There were people on the board who did reach out in friendly and professional ways—greeting me at meetings, things like that—but really I had strong support from faculty, alums and students, and that’s what mattered.

Q: Do you think you were successful in the faculty representative role?

A: That’s really a challenging question, and it depends on what metrics you want to use. I think I did a good job of raising serious questions and concerns in the trustee meetings, even if my votes were not often on the winning side. I always brought my integrity with me, and as an educator, that was really important to me. I think I was able to help rally faculty around various policy proposals that we put forth, because my job wasn’t just in the Board of Trustees, it was also in the management of the faculty, which meant multiple meetings every week about budgets and other administrative issues.

There was a lot of work there behind the scenes to support faculty, to support the curriculum and also to advocate for students in a number of ways. I know that students and faculty and alums felt that they could reach out to me about their concerns, that they knew I would listen and respond. When people spoke at Board of Trustees meetings, I paid attention and took notes on all of the people who came to speak. In that way, I think I was effective, but frankly, the votes on the board were stacked.

Q: When you resigned, you said that the “New College where you once taught no longer existed.” Was there a specific moment that tanked your faith in New College leadership?

A: It’s really not about a loss of faith in the new leadership. Richard Corcoran came in with a set of ideas about how he wanted to change the campus, to change what one trustee called the “hormonal and political balance on campus.” And Corcoran followed through on that. I can point first to the firing of valuable and dedicated campus leaders, including President Patricia Okker, the dean of diversity, the campus research librarian. [I can also point to] the denial of tenure to six very qualified and effective faculty, the chasing away of over 30 percent of the faculty and about 100 students—and that’s a real record for the first eight months of this administration.

Then you have the painting over of student art on campus, the replacement of grass with Astroturf and the plowing down of hundreds of trees along the bay front. You have the wasting of millions of dollars of state funds on bloated administrative salaries and portable dorms that were uninhabitable within three months due to mold. You have the abolishing of the gender studies program in the summer of 2023, the erasure of our budget, our eviction from our campus office in December of 2023. The imposition of a rigid and limited core curriculum in spring of 2024. The withholding of diplomas from a cohort of students in May 2024, the wholesale destruction of the student-led gender and diversity center in August 2024. That was a student-led space with a collection of books that had been curated by students for over 30 years, all thrown in the dumpster.

So not one moment, but a lot. But what I still have faith in, even today, is the determination of students and alums to pursue an education that embodies academic freedom, which I understand is the right of students to pursue an education free from government censorship. And also, I have great faith in those faculty who are remaining, who support the New College academic mission and who are doing their best day in and day out to support our students.

Q: Were you surprised when Corcoran denied the dean’s recommendation to grant you emerita status?

A: Not really. I’d say it’s par for the course, but I was surprised that he was so up front about his reasons. In his statement, he noted that despite my record of achievement as a teacher and a researcher, it was my advocacy for the college—my opposition to him—that was the problem. So now he’s on the record explicitly as punishing speech, and that is stunning.

What happened to me is just one small thing, but it reflects a pattern of censorship on the campus that needs to be called out. But more importantly at this moment, I really want to thank my colleagues who nominated me for emeritus status and the New College alums who adopted me as one of their own. That’s meaningful, and I am very grateful.

Q: As a reporter, I spend a lot of time reading and writing bad news, but I’m seeing the same types of attacks on faculty speech and academic freedom that happened at New College occur at other institutions, in Florida and elsewhere. Would you say these current attacks on faculty speech are unprecedented?

A: A lot of people have talked about this as unprecedented, but what I see is the culmination of a pattern of censorship we’ve seen playing out at state levels across the country. In Florida, in 2022, they passed House Bill 233, which allows or encourages students to surreptitiously record faculty if they intend to file a complaint against them.

Since then, really, the state has been tightening a gag around faculty speech in myriad ways. Just in the past couple of months, we’ve seen a number of faculty sanctioned—even one emeritus professor at [University of Florida] lost his status based on complaints about his social media posts. So what’s happening now could be cast as unprecedented, but yet, it’s part of this pattern we see playing out now, not just in Florida, but across the country, where some 50 faculty members have been sanctioned or fired because of their speech or social media posts since the start of September.

Since 2021, PEN America has been actively tracking efforts to censor speech in college and university classrooms across the country, and we’ve seen a real rise in the number of bills introduced to censor speech … and in the numbers that are being passed; 2025 was really a banner year for censorship in higher education in this country. There were a record number of gag orders passed across the country—10 of them, 10 bills that explicitly limit what can be said in college and university classrooms.

And then there are other restrictions designed to chill faculty speech—restrictions on tenure or curricular control bills, and let’s also remember the bills that were introduced or passed to limit student protests on campus. All of those things are designed to make people afraid to speak up and to question things on campus. That’s not healthy for our education system, and it’s not healthy for our democracy. Currently, about 40 percent of the U.S. population lives in a state that has at least one state-level law restricting classroom speech at the college and university level. Is that something we’re OK with as a country? Do we really think that our First Amendment rights are that fungible?

Source link

November 12, 2025
Harvard’s operations lost $112.6M in FY25 amid Trump’s pressure campaign
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- Harvard University reported a $112.6 million net operating deficit in fiscal 2025, its first shortfall since the pandemic and the largest that the private nonprofit has racked up since 2011.
- The deficit — a steep decline from last year’s surplus of $45.3 million — shows the toll the Trump administration’s financial war against the institution has taken on its finances.
- Despite its fiscal challenges this year, Harvard remains the country’s richest university. At $82.4 billion, its total assets grew 7.3% year over year in fiscal 2025, thanks to donations and strong investment returns.
Dive Insight:

Harvard’s financials show strains from federal disruptions, with revenue from federal support dropping 8.4% to $628.6 million in fiscal 2025, which ended June 30.

“Even by the standards of our centuries-long history, fiscal year 2025 was extraordinarily challenging,” Harvard President Alan Garber said in a message accompanying the financial statements.

But the report understates the extent to which the Trump administration has tried to hurt the university as it pushes Harvard to enter a potentially expensive and far-reaching settlement.

The attacks began this spring with the cancellation of research grants over allegations that the Ivy League institution failed to protect students on campus from antisemitism.

In April, it froze $2.2 billion of Harvard’s grants and contracts after the university declined a settlement that would have given the federal government unprecedented say in academic operations

In a Thursday Q&A, Harvard Chief Financial Officer Ritu Kalra described an “abrupt termination of nearly the entire portfolio of our direct federally sponsored research grants.” That included $116 million in reimbursement for money Harvard already spent that “disappeared almost overnight.”

The Trump administration has threatened and attempted to do much more. The administration has also tried through multiple maneuvers to block Harvard’s ability to enroll international students, who make up a little over a quarter of its student body.

A federal court overseeing Harvard’s litigation against the government has paused or blocked the above efforts, but the Trump administration has either filed or promised appeals over those decisions.

President Donald Trump’s government has also sought to weaken Harvard’s patent rights by licensing them out through an obscure regulatory process never used by the federal government before and. Additionally, it has threatened Harvard’s access to federal student aid if the university does not comply with an expansive data request about undergraduate admissions. The administration further sought a $500 million settlement to resolve investigations into the university, a proposal Garber dismissed.

All of that has come amid rising costs for the university and many others in the country. In fiscal 2025, Harvard’s total operating expenses rose 5.7% to $6.8 billion.

And starting in 2026 the university expects a tax bill on its endowment amounting to around $300 million a year going forward, after Republicans’ passed a massive spending package this year, which increased taxes on wealthy college endowments.

“That means hundreds of millions of dollars that will not be available to support financial aid, research, and teaching,” Kalra said.

To navigate the choppy, uncertain financial waters, Harvard has laid off employees, frozen hiring, kept salaries flat and slowed spending on new projects. Going forward, Garber said that Harvard has intensified efforts to expand its revenue pool and is “examining operations at every level of the University as we seek greater adaptability and efficiency.”

Endowment distributions and current-use gifts comprise 46% of its operating budget, far outpacing funds that the university receives from tuition or sponsored research.
Source link
October 17, 2025
University of California would need $5B if it lost federal funding, leader says
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- The University of California system’s president warned state lawmakers Wednesday that it would need at least $4 billion to $5 billion to minimize harm in the event of a major loss of federal funding.
- In a letter to state Sen. Scott Wiener, chair of California’s joint legislative budget committee, UC President James Milliken said the Trump administration’s actions “place the entire University of California system at risk,” noting there is a“distinct possibility of more to come.”
- The federal government in August suspended $584 million in grants to the University of California, Los Angeles over antisemitism-related allegations. Milliken responded at the time that cuts “do nothing to address antisemitism.”
Dive Insight:

In his letter to Wiener, Milliken detailed the many ways the University of California depends on federal funding. That includes $5.7 billion in research funding and $1.9 billion in student financial aid per year. UCLA alone received over $875 million in federal grants and contracts in fiscal 2024, according to the latest system financials.

He also described the potential impacts of losing this funding in dire terms.

“Classes and student services would be reduced, patients would be turned away, tens of thousands of jobs would be lost, and we would see UC’s world-renowned researchers leaving our state for other more seemingly stable opportunities in the US or abroad,” he wrote.

Cutting off research funding, largely for scientific studies, has been the primary tool of the Trump administration when targeting colleges. Federal officials often link the cuts to allegations that colleges aren’t doing enough to respond to campus antisemitism that the administration ties to protests over Israel’s war against Hamas.

In some cases, the tactic has paid off for the federal government. Columbia University agreed to settle allegations by paying $221 million to the federal government in return for having most of its $400 million in suspended research grants restored.

The administration is also seeking $500 million from Harvard University, which has been navigating a multi-agency attack from the federal government.

However, a federal judge on Wednesday ruled that the Trump administration’s suspension of $2.2 billion of Harvard’s funding was unlawful. The judge in the case concluded that the evidence does not “reflect that fighting antisemitism was Defendants’ true aim in acting against Harvard.”

On the West Coast, the U.S. Department of Justice announced in June it was investigating the UC system over “potential race- and sex-based discrimination in university employment practices.”

Meanwhile, the administration has also demanded $1 billion from UCLA specifically. While the UC system and UCLA have negotiated with the administration, Milliken in August said the sum “would completely devastate our country’s greatest public university system as well as inflict great harm on our students and all Californians.”

State officials have panned the administration’s demand in fiercer terms, with both Gov. Gavin Newsom and Wiener describing it as extortion.

In an August statement, Wiener likened the $1 billion demand to “classic mob boss behavior,” describing the administration as “threatening to illegally revoke funding — here, science funding — or take other punitive steps unless the university submits to his control, pays him off, and submits to his racist, transphobic, xenophobic dictates.”

As it navigates the numerous financial risks at the federal level, as well as other structural financial pressures, UCLA has paused faculty hiring and is moving to consolidate its IT operations to save costs on top of past budget moves.

In his letter to Wiener, Milliken described the current moment as “one of the gravest threats in UC’s 157-year history,” and suggested further actions from the Trump administration could be in store later.

In outlining the amounts the UC system would need to survive a blow to federal funding, he said that the UC system “will need the resolve and partnership of our state’s leaders.
Source link
September 5, 2025
Brown to Fund Grad Students Who Lost Grants

The university has vowed to honor financial commitments made to M.F.A. and Ph.D. students.

Brown University will give money to some of its graduate students whose federal research grants were cut by the Trump administration, The Brown Daily Herald reported.

“We want to make sure that we’re able to give each of you all of the attention and support that you need to get through comfortably [and] well supported,” Janet Blume, interim dean of the graduate school, said at a Graduate Student Council meeting Wednesday. She said the university will honor the financial commitments of M.F.A. and Ph.D. students who lost their grants.

The National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies have terminated thousands of academic researchers’ grants—including many at Brown—that don’t align with the Trump administration’s ideological agenda.

Blume said Brown is also reducing its graduate student admissions target this year to allow “time to work out issues of the federal financial landscape and also shifts in the job market.”

In addition to canceling research grants, numerous federal agencies have put forth plans to cap the amount of money they reimburse universities to cover indirect research costs, which universities say will hurt their budgets and slow innovation. Brown is among the institutions suing the government over its changes to indirect cost reimbursement rates, which are on pause during ongoing litigation.

Brown, which had a $46 million deficit before President Trump took office in January, has also faced targeted scrutiny from the Trump administration. The university implemented a hiring freeze in March. In April, the government froze $510 million of Brown’s federal research dollars in retaliation for the university’s alleged failures to address antisemitism on campus.

In June, administrators warned of the potential for “significant cost-cutting” measures amid the “deep financial losses” resulting from grant cuts, increased endowment taxes and threats to international student enrollment.

The following month, Brown and the government came to an agreement, and the frozen grant money is coming back to the university. However, the deal did not restore the grants of researchers whose funding was terminated as part of the broader ideologically driven policy changes.

Source link

September 5, 2025
A gender gap in STEM widened during the pandemic. Schools are trying to make up lost ground

IRVING, Texas — Crowded around a workshop table, four girls at de Zavala Middle School puzzled over a Lego machine they had built. As they flashed a purple card in front of a light sensor, nothing happened.

The teacher at the Dallas-area school had emphasized that in the building process, there are no such thing as mistakes. Only iterations. So the girls dug back into the box of blocks and pulled out an orange card. They held it over the sensor and the machine kicked into motion.

“Oh! Oh, it reacts differently to different colors,” said sixth grader Sofia Cruz.

In de Zavala’s first year as a choice school focused on science, technology, engineering and math, the school recruited a sixth grade class that’s half girls. School leaders are hoping the girls will stick with STEM fields. In de Zavala’s higher grades — whose students joined before it was a STEM school — some elective STEM classes have just one girl enrolled.

Efforts to close the gap between boys and girls in STEM classes are picking up after losing steam nationwide during the chaos of the Covid pandemic. Schools have extensive work ahead to make up for the ground girls lost, in both interest and performance.

In the years leading up to the pandemic, the gender gap nearly closed. But within a few years, girls lost all the ground they had gained in math test scores over the previous decade, according to an Associated Press analysis. While boys’ scores also suffered during Covid, they have recovered faster than girls, widening the gender gap.

As learning went online, special programs to engage girls lapsed — and schools were slow to restart them. Zoom school also emphasized rote learning, a technique based on repetition that some experts believe may favor boys, instead of teaching students to solve problems in different ways, which may benefit girls.

Old practices and biases likely reemerged during the pandemic, said Michelle Stie, a vice president at the National Math and Science Initiative.

“Let’s just call it what it is,” Stie said. “When society is disrupted, you fall back into bad patterns.”

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

In most school districts in the 2008-09 school year, boys had higher average math scores on standardized tests than girls, according to AP’s analysis, which looked at scores across 15 years in over 5,000 school districts. It was based on average test scores for third through eighth graders in 33 states, compiled by the Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University.

A decade later, girls had not only caught up, they were ahead: Slightly more than half of districts had higher math averages for girls.

Within a few years of the pandemic, the parity disappeared. In 2023-24, boys on average outscored girls in math in nearly 9 out of 10 districts.

A separate study by NWEA, an education research company, found gaps between boys and girls in science and math on national assessments went from being practically non-existent in 2019 to favoring boys around 2022.

Studies have indicated girls reported higher levels of anxiety and depression during the pandemic, plus more caretaking burdens than boys, but the dip in academic performance did not appear outside STEM. Girls outperformed boys in reading in nearly every district nationwide before the pandemic and continued to do so afterward.

“It wasn’t something like Covid happened and girls just fell apart,” said Megan Kuhfeld, one of the authors of the NWEA study.

Related: These districts are bucking the national math slump

In the years leading up to the pandemic, teaching practices shifted to deemphasize speed, competition and rote memorization. Through new curriculum standards, schools moved toward research-backed methods that emphasized how to think flexibly to solve problems and how to tackle numeric problems conceptually.

Educators also promoted participation in STEM subjects and programs that boosted girls’ confidence, including extracurriculars that emphasized hands-on learning and connected abstract concepts to real-life applications.

When STEM courses had large male enrollment, Superintendent Kenny Rodrequez noticed girls losing interest as boys dominated classroom discussions at his schools in Grandview C-4 District outside Kansas City. Girls were significantly more engaged after the district moved some of its introductory hands-on STEM curriculum to the lower grade levels and balanced classes by gender, he said.

When schools closed for the pandemic, the district had to focus on making remote learning work. When in-person classes resumed, some of the teachers had left, and new ones had to be trained in the curriculum, Rodrequez said.

“Whenever there’s crisis, we go back to what we knew,” Rodrequez said.

Related: One state tried algebra for all eighth graders. It hasn’t gone well

Despite shifts in societal perceptions, a bias against girls persists in science and math subjects, according to teachers, administrators and advocates. It becomes a message girls can internalize about their own abilities, they say, even at a very young age.

In his third grade classroom in Washington, D.C., teacher Raphael Bonhomme starts the year with an exercise where students break down what makes up their identity. Rarely do the girls describe themselves as good at math. Already, some say they are “not a math person.”

“I’m like, you’re 8 years old,” he said. “What are you talking about, ‘I’m not a math person?’”

Girls also may have been more sensitive to changes in instructional methods spurred by the pandemic, said Janine Remillard, a math education professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Research has found girls tend to prefer learning things that are connected to real-life examples, while boys generally do better in a competitive environment.

“What teachers told me during Covid is the first thing to go were all of these sense-making processes,” she said.

Related: OPINION: Everyone can be a math person but first we have to make math instruction more inclusive

At de Zavala Middle School in Irving, the STEM program is part of a push that aims to build curiosity, resilience and problem-solving across subjects.

Coming out of the pandemic, Irving schools had to make a renewed investment in training for teachers, said Erin O’Connor, a STEM and innovation specialist there.

The district last year also piloted a new science curriculum from Lego Education. The lesson involving the machine at de Zavala, for example, had students learn about kinetic energy. Fifth graders learned about genetics by building dinosaurs and their offspring with Lego blocks, identifying shared traits.

“It is just rebuilding the culture of, we want to build critical thinkers and problem solvers,” O’Connor said.

Teacher Tenisha Willis recently led second graders at Irving’s Townley Elementary School through building a machine that would push blocks into a container. She knelt next to three girls who were struggling.

They tried to add a plank to the wheeled body of the machine, but the blocks didn’t move enough. One girl grew frustrated, but Willis was patient. She asked what else they could try, whether they could flip some parts around. The girls ran the machine again. This time, it worked.

“Sometimes we can’t give up,” Willis said. “Sometimes we already have a solution. We just have to adjust it a little bit.”

Lurye reported from Philadelphia. Todd Feathers contributed reporting from New York.

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

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

September 5, 2025
Something’s Lost, but Something’s Gained

In reflecting on my feelings about the advent of artificial intelligence in our lives, I must report they are mixed. I have the strong sense of the inevitability that this technology will meet and exceed its hype to alter the course of humanity, generally for the better. However, at the same time there is a measure of trepidation in my awe of the potential power and performance of AI.

I am receiving more frequent emails from colleagues reporting renewed intransigence among faculty regarding the push to adapt to AI use by students, to integrate the technology into teaching and to help prepare learners for the AI-enhanced workplace. I see parallels to the 1990s and early 2000s, when faculty also resisted the advent of online and blended learning. That resistance gradually subsided until the pandemic, when remote learning, albeit a less refined use of the technology, came to the rescue of universities.

In both instances, the resistance seems to be prompted by a general lack of understanding and comfort with the technology. This creates an elevated level of anxiety. It also requires a change in pedagogy to adapt to expanded capabilities in the hands of students. This involves reconceiving and rewriting lesson plans and, in some cases, learning outcomes for multiple classes. This can be time-consuming. Yet, this is not the first time that emerging technology has impacted teaching modes and methods.

I am fortunate to remember, as a faculty member, the advent of the personal computer in the late 1970s, graphing calculators in the mid-1980s, the rise of the World Wide Web in the early 1990s, Google Search in 1998 and, in 2001, the launch of Wikipedia. Each one of these technologies demanded changes in the ways we presented and assessed learning. Questions of student integrity were raised in each of these cases. We also were urged to consider the students’ needs to become facile with these tools as they left to commence their careers. Imagine HR’s response to applicants who could not conduct an internet search or use a personal computer. The pressure was on to adapt to the emerging technologies while ensuring integrity.

Each of the technologies has become incrementally more sophisticated and more capable. They have required more and more attention by faculty to maintain a quality learning environment, and to prepare students for the rapidly changing workplace environment. In the case of AI, larger leaps in sophistication are coming on a weekly or monthly basis. The stakes are high. The integrity of the instruction, the relevance of the learning and the future employment of the students hang in the balance. The pressure is on the faculty to maintain quality and security in a rapidly changing environment.

Change in the AI field comes not on the rather pedestrian pace of new releases of the past, when we would see new versions released on annual schedules by just a handful of providers. Now, we must track 10 or 12 of the largest providers, as each of them releases new versions about every three or four months, or more often. Generative models still see improvements while agentic models offering awesome deep research and autonomous agents are flooding the market from around the world.

In a TED talk recorded last month in Vancouver, former Google CEO and chairman Eric Schmidt explained that, if anything, artificial intelligence is wildly underhyped, as near-constant breakthroughs give rise to systems capable of doing even the most complex tasks on their own. He points to the staggering opportunities, sobering challenges and urgent risks of AI. Schmidt asserts that everyone will need to engage with this technology in order to remain relevant. Meanwhile, in an interview this month, the current Alphabet/Google CEO, Sundar Pichai, on the All In podcast, affirms the commitment of the company to developing AI. He describes the evolution from Google search through AI, while it continues on the continuum of a discovery path of quantum computing and pursuing the concept of autonomous robots.

Just as Google is working to further develop and refine their multiple versions of AI, so too are many other major corporations and start-ups. What they come up with over the coming months and years will have a huge impact on higher education, the workplace, job market and society as a whole. The very nature of human jobs will change. Meanwhile, Elon Musk predicts smart robots will proliferate and will outnumber humans. His Optimus robots are to sell under the Tesla label, priced at $20,000 to $30,000. Of course, AI is central to the operation and functioning of such humanoid robots.

So, what might the workplace, or more specifically the individual human work assignment within that workplace, look like? In his recent podcast, Wes Roth reviews “The Age of the Agent Orchestrator” by OpenAI’s Shyamal Hitesh Anadkat. In the article, Anadkat describes the key new role that humans may play in the AI-enhanced workplace, noting that in the future “the scarce thing is no longer ‘who knows how to do that task by hand.’ The scarce thing becomes ‘who can orchestrate resources well’—compute, capital, access to data, and human/expert judgment.” That role he describes as the “agent orchestrator.” In sum, Anadkat writes,

“As always, the most important thing is to build something that users want. In a world where your marginal cost of expertise/knowledge goes to zero, your ability to turn cheap intelligence and expensive resources into valuable products is what will matter. i’m [sic] very excited to see the new companies, the new tools, and the new jobs that come out of this. Welcome to the Age of the Agent Orchestrator!”

The human will orchestrate what may be a very large number of highly capable intelligent AI agents. That may not seem as creative of a job as many of us now hold, such as authors, researchers, graphic designers, Web developers and the diversity of positions in designing and enhancing instructional resources. Yet, there is creativity, and certainly impact, in marshaling the vast resources at hand in the workplace of the future. Implicitly, the job becomes one of orchestrating abundant resources in conducting a symphony of interacting virtual workers to achieve desired goals. Doing so in the very best way calls upon higher-order creative thinking, strategic planning and execution.

All of these developments bring to mind the assertion of the pre-Socratic philosopher, Heraclitus, who is credited with saying 2,500 years ago, “The only constant is change.” We can expect much more change in the field of AI over the coming months and years. It will be far-reaching and long-lasting. It will penetrate the very essence of what it means to be a human in a technological society. We in higher education cannot ignore this change or make it stop simply because it is inconvenient or incompatible to our teaching style. The money, momentum and weight of advantages of AI make it an inevitable advance to civilization. It is not stoppable. We must change our practice to meet the needs of the students and society.

I am left with a less-than-easy feeling to welcome artificial intelligence with all of its sweeping ramifications into our work, lives and future. Yet, at the same time, I know that we must move forward to meet that future, if not so much for ourselves, but rather for our students who will live the greater part of their lives alongside their AI companions.

In the late 1960s, a gifted folk music composer and performer, Joni Mitchell, released an impactful song titled “Both Sides Now.” Within that song is a phrase that has stayed with me through the decades: “Well, something’s lost, but something’s gained in living every day.” I suppose it helps to sum up my feelings about this new technology that is rapidly gaining momentum and promising to change our learning systems, workplaces, lives, identities and society.

Source link

May 28, 2025
Our Debate Over Higher Ed Has Lost the Plot (opinion)

There is an endless war being waged against colleges and universities in this country, one unprecedented in our lifetimes. Not merely a war of words, it is one of deeds. Beginning with state-level efforts to ban “critical race theory” and “divisive concepts” from college classrooms and diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives from campuses, it has now grown into an obsessive preoccupation of federal policy.

Broad executive orders have sought to ban concepts related to race, gender and identity on campus, using the leverage of withheld federal grants. Drastic and indiscriminate cuts have been made to university funding. International students have had their visas revoked on the basis of their political views. Attacks on nonpartisan university accreditors have mounted. And escalating demands that elite private research universities effectively place themselves in government receivership or lose further billions in federal dollars have thrown the sector into chaos.

That is why I was honored to sign, and to help coordinate, last month’s letter from more than 600 college, university and scholarly society presidents in defense of our nation’s institutions of higher learning. The letter, which calls for “constructive engagement that improves our institutions and serves our republic,” also criticizes “the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering” institutions of higher learning and warns that “the price of abridging the defining freedoms of American higher education will be paid by our students and our society.”

I remain concerned that the problems colleges and universities face today go deeper than funding cuts and government threats. Indeed, our national debate over higher education has lost the plot entirely. Critics of higher education present the entire sector as an elitist, out-of-touch indoctrination factory for liberal orthodoxy, one that has replaced the great books of the Western canon with political claptrap. This charge has gained broad traction among the public. But not only is it untrue on the merits, it fundamentally misunderstands the purpose and mission of higher education. It asks the wrong question and delivers the wrong answer.

If our sector is to regain the respect and appreciation of American society, we need to reorient the national conversation. We need to help people remember what it is that colleges and universities actually do—and why it matters.

The American Association of Colleges and Universities, where I have been president since 2016, is a voice and a force for what we call liberal education. Let me be clear: teaching students to believe in liberal politics or conservative politics is the opposite of what “liberal education” means. Rather, the term, which predates modern political labels, refers to liberating the mind from received orthodoxies of all types.

I agree with Margaret Mead—and with leaders across the political spectrum, from Barack Obama to Ron DeSantis—that students should be taught how to think, not what to think. A successful college education is measured not by what its graduates believe but by what they can conceive. It fires the imaginations of its students, helps them explore ideas and experiences different from their own, and trains them in habits of thought and mind that aid them in making their own meaning from the world. It provides them both with the practical skills they will need for their future employment and with the critical thinking tools that help them attain, and succeed in, their jobs of choice. By providing a forum and a method for open inquiry and intellectual freedom, and by exposing students and communities to new ideas and perspectives, it also helps to strengthen our democracy.

This type of education does not happen by chance, from a hodgepodge of unconnected courses; it is part of a plan. For decades, AAC&U has served as a learning lab for a type of comprehensive undergraduate education that teaches students in a systematic way, over the course of a two-year or four-year degree, how to become effective thinkers and problem-solvers. We pioneered the concepts of high-impact practices, inclusive excellence and innovations in general education, learning outcomes and assessment, innovations that have been adopted by hundreds of campuses across the country, including many of our nearly 900 member institutions.

Higher education should always try to do better at opening students’ minds; in fact, that commitment is at the core of my organization’s work. Taking criticism seriously is how colleges and universities innovate and improve. But that innovation cannot happen if the government steps in to ban or defund ideas it dislikes, taking away the academic freedom of faculty; if it strips university leadership of its autonomy to make decisions about what ideas are permitted or promoted on campus; or if it makes so many threats or cuts that professors and students become afraid to speak and think freely.

The careful process of preparing students for democratic citizenship requires helping them understand the great multiplicity of people, cultures and beliefs that make up the world we live in. It is time for us to stop asking whether colleges and universities teach the “right” ideas and ask, instead, whether they teach students the skills they need to navigate our complex world. That approach would lead us away from culture wars and heavy-handed government restrictions and toward constructive engagement with the educational missions of colleges and universities so they can work together with government to improve our students’ educations.

Lynn Pasquerella is president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities.

Source link

May 20, 2025
How I Lost Faith in My University’s Mission (opinion)

I am currently chair of the philosophy department at the University of Utah. I have taught at “the U” for 32 years. We are a flagship but not an elite university; we admit 89 percent of applicants. Our students range from quite unprepared to extremely capable. For the most part, I have loved my job and have put my heart and soul into it. I have always been proud to be on this faculty helping students at all levels of academic readiness acquire skills in reading, writing, speaking and reasoning that enhance their lives and prepare them for virtually any job. But recently, my pride has evaporated and been replaced with feelings of grief and shame.

This year—my first as chair—has seen profound upheaval. In January 2024, shortly before my term began, the State Legislature passed an anti-DEI bill, prohibiting, among other things, offices and programs related to diversity, equity or inclusion. Administrators were required to purge these three words from university websites and other documents, such as RPT—retention, promotion and tenure review—guidelines, and the university administration interpreted the law as requiring that the Women’s Resource Center, the Black Cultural Center and the LGBT Resource Center be shuttered.

The state has also imposed a “bathroom bill” requiring trans university students to use locker rooms aligning with their sex assigned at birth, has banned Pride flags in public spaces (and in faculty offices if they can be seen through a window), and now requires faculty to post their syllabi in a publicly searchable database. It also prohibits university presidents from taking a stand on any issue that does not bear upon the “mission, role or pedagogical objectives” of the institution. And finally, as the coup de grâce for academic freedom and faculty expertise, it has funded and established the Center for Civic Excellence at Utah State University, mandating that all students take general education courses on the topics of Western civilization and the rise of Christianity. The law establishing the center identifies it as a pilot program to be rolled out to other Utah universities in the future.

Then there is the state of Utah’s version of the national campaign against alleged “waste, fraud and abuse.” Recently passed laws dictate the process by which all post-tenure reviews of faculty must be conducted, curtail shared governance and cut state funds to all Utah public institutions by 10 percent ($60.5 million). Universities can have the funds “reallocated” if they use them for high-demand, high-wage majors. As a result, we lost our History and Philosophy of Science major, which drew some of our best students, many of them double majoring in STEM subjects and working toward careers in medicine and public health. To be clear, eliminating this major will reduce opportunities for students while producing no savings whatsoever; offering it requires no additional staff, advisers or courses beyond what is already in place for our philosophy major. These funding cuts also mean that tenure-line faculty in my department will receive a zero percent raise this year.

In addition to the state’s actions, the upper administration—in seeming alignment with Facebook’s motto of “move fast and break things”—has instituted so many changes in such a short time it is hard to keep track. It abruptly revamped the advising system, brought four colleges under the umbrella of a Colleges and Schools of Liberal Arts and Sciences in a “shared services” arrangement, and keeps rolling out new “student success initiatives.” Whether these changes are wise or not, the pace at which they were made imposed a crushing amount of (mostly stultifying) work on deans and department chairs. Aside from refereeing a few manuscripts for journals, I have not read a piece of philosophy since I became chair, much less written one. In the midst of this, the dean of my college, a strong supporter of philosophy, resigned in the middle of the fall semester and was replaced by someone from outside our college, essentially putting us in receivership.

While all this is happening, my youngest child, who is queer, is deciding where to attend college. He applied to the University of Utah, where he was admitted to the Honors College and received a scholarship. But how can I send him here? I fear for his safety no matter where he lives in our current hate-filled political climate, but still I hesitate to subject him to the environment on my own campus. I will likely incur a hefty bill, then, so he can attend a university out of state.

I had more or less come to terms with this constraint, and was also managing to persevere in my job, when something happened that finally took the wind out of my sails: The president of the university announced, to the surprise of faculty, that returned missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be eligible to receive up to 12 college credits for their service to the church.

I am galled by what all this says about who matters at my university. While students like my child can’t even have a designated room on campus to hang out in with like-minded others—and while the main symbol reminding us of the existence and dignity of students like him is banned from public spaces—returned LDS missionaries, who have an entire institute across from campus dedicated to their spiritual support, can get a full semester of credit, at a greatly reduced cost, essentially for going door to door trying to persuade people to join their church. This set of priorities is so wrong-headed that it verges, for me, on surreal. And yet the administration sees no irony or hypocrisy in naming its Office of Student Experience “U Belong.”

Soon I will be hosting a retirement party for a wonderful colleague who joined the faculty one year before I did. In another era, I would have been sad to see him go but glad to be continuing in what I regard as my vocation. Now I feel nothing but envy. It is time for me, too, to retire, but, alas, that is not an option, because I have four years of out-of-state tuition to pay.

Cynthia Stark is a professor and chair of the philosophy department at the University of Utah.

Source link

May 19, 2025
Bank holiday reading: Flying the Nest in the wrong direction – How we can attract our ‘lost boys’ back into HE

In sociology, the term ‘male flight’ refers to men abandoning fields, activities, or professions when they are perceived as becoming too ‘feminine’ or associated with women. Lisa Wade argues that this is ‘bad long-term strategy for maintaining dominance.’ Education, especially in recent years, has become a battleground for cultural and political struggles, particularly in the wake of growing far-right influence in both Europe and the United States. But is the shift away from higher education by young men simply a cultural power struggle, or are we failing to meet their needs and expectations?

The Impact of Gender Dynamics on Higher Education Participation

Men are increasingly opting out of higher education. The widening gender gap in college enrolment reveals a troubling trend: higher education is now facing what can be described as male flight. In the United States, this gap has expanded dramatically. In 1979, only 200,000 more women attended college than men; by 2021, that number had surged to 3.1 million more women than men. While the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted enrollment figures in 2021, this shift underscores a broader trend in gender and education that warrants serious consideration.

A similar pattern is unfolding in the UK. In 2020/21, there were 2.75 million students enrolled in higher education, with women making up 57% of the student body. The undergraduate sector exhibits the largest gender gap. This growth, however, raises critical questions about the future of male participation in higher education.

The Retreat of Men from Higher Education: A Closer Look

The trend of male flight from higher education is unlikely to reverse without targeted intervention. A study by King’s College London highlights that young men today are particularly concerned about the challenges they face in society. Unlike their older counterparts, younger men and women hold vastly different views on education, social issues, and political ideologies. According to a survey of over 3,500 young people aged 16+, young men tend to be less supportive of gender equality initiatives and are increasingly aligning with right-wing political views. Within this context, right-wing political groups, such as Reform UK, advocate for a ‘no-nonsense’ approach to education, emphasizing a patriotic curriculum that they argue better addresses concerns about social equality. Their proposals often reflect a growing sentiment among some groups, particularly white men, who feel that their experiences and challenges do not align with current gender equality initiatives.

While the political rhetoric surrounding this issue is highly charged, it demands serious attention. The key question now is: How can we rebuild young men’s confidence in higher education? This is particularly pressing when considering young men from low-income or disadvantaged backgrounds. Research shows that white working-class men are disproportionately likely to cite the high cost of higher education as a barrier to entry.

Fees and student loans are the biggest concern of young people as they look ahead onto the HE landscape, with over 25% of young Britons thinking that university is not worth it. Alongside this sector-wide issue, young men are retreating from HE in much higher numbers than any of their female or BAME counterparts. This is something that should not be ignored if we want truly inclusive HE.

What Can We Do? Policies to Address Inclusive Education and Rebuild Trust Among Disadvantaged White Men

Many of these issues must be addressed by universities themselves. Male students often feel that higher education fails to cater to their unique needs. Young men are less likely to engage in extracurricular activities – such as sports or student unions – that are integral to the student experience. Neil Raven’s contribution to this blog last year highlights young men feeling unsupported and disengaged, and as with everything in this sector, the solution to this question is not straightforward. To truly address the challenges young men face in education, universities must acknowledge that their needs and experiences are distinct and deserve to be supported in meaningful and effective ways.

When we talk about the financial red flags facing disadvantaged young white men, we’re really addressing the prospect of being burdened with debt—especially when they are just one choice away from avoiding it altogether. Adopting Tim Leunig’s recommendation to shorten the student loan repayment term from 40 years to 20 would give students greater confidence that they can achieve financial freedom by mid-life.

Furthermore, research conducted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies commissioned by the Department for Education (DfE) found that only 1 in 5 students would not be financially better off by going to university. This is reason enough to incentivise young white men back into the warm embrace of higher education.

A shorter repayment term would not only alleviate long-term financial anxiety but also encourage people from all backgrounds to pursue higher education without the fear of being shackled by debt for life. The Higher Education Policy Institute’s own research, despite indicating young women being more debt-averse than men (even with men paying more of the debt due to higher salaries in the longer term), shows that most of our young people are opposed to the Labour government’s tuition fee increase. A shorter repayment term will perhaps not only restore the confidence of our young women – who are already sceptical of the lower salaries they will receive throughout their careers – but reassure all of our young people that student loans are not a lifelong burden, and that we have a system that rewards ambition rather than punishing those who take the leap.

Moreover, this shift could help restore confidence in the value of a degree, particularly for those who currently see university as a risky financial gamble rather than a stepping stone to social mobility. This is, as Mr Raven identifies, especially important as men doubt and call into question graduate outcomes in the long term.

Figure 1 New HEPI polling shows Labour’s tuition fee rise made more palatable by maintenance support increase – HEPI

HEPI’s research also indicates that a tuition fee hike is made more palatable if accompanied by an increase in maintenance support. In a piece I wrote for the Sixteenth Council, I referred to the Institute for Fiscal Studies’s proposals regarding maintenance support. One of these was restoring the generosity of maintenance support to 2020 levels, which represents a 16% increase for the 23/24 intake. Yes, this means issuing £1.5bn in maintenance loans, but repayment levels would mean that the cost to the government and the taxpayer would fall to £0.4bn.

Therefore, making HE more attractive for young people – especially those white, working-class young men who are lacking that engagement with education – involves reducing the repayment term for tuition fees down to 20 years and restoring maintenance support to pre-COVID levels. Ultimately, this would, as HEPI’s research indicates, make the recent tuition fee rise more palatable and, in turn, set young minds at ease.

Another way of addressing these practical problems is spearheading a secondary school library-building scheme. The National Literacy Trust identified a strong link between school library use and reading attainment, which is especially important as low reading abilities help to ‘entrench’ education inequality in the UK. The provision and accessibility of school libraries from a young age can help boost attainment in early years and beyond, setting young men on a course that permits more positive thinking about further and then higher education.

The National Literacy Trust’s report also notes that library users receiving free school meals showed higher reading enjoyment and increased reading and writing for pleasure. They tended to read and write a greater variety of material relative to non-library users. In 2021, the Commons Education Committee found that white working class students were ‘by far the largest group of disadvantaged pupils’ with just under a million eligible for free school meals in 2020. Accessible libraries and reading spaces may be the next big step we can take to help disadvantaged pupils. The National Literacy Trust’s report reveals that white working-class boys receiving free school meals are particularly poised to benefit from a campaign of boosting libraries and reading spaces in educational settings, which may help improve their engagement with education as a whole.

A few months ago, I attended the Publishers’ Association’s parliamentary drop-in event, where I learnt a lot about the importance of the relationship between school libraries, reading attainment, and the publishing industry as a whole. I enjoyed reading in my primary school’s small library space, and throughout my time at secondary school, I made use of both the school’s reading spaces and our local community library. Unfortunately, I must recognise that this was an enormous privilege for a white working-class student when it should just be a permanent feature of our outstanding education system.

This is extremely relevant now as I look out on the educational landscape. Young men are falling behind women in education, a significant issue which goes way back to before primary school. According to the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), ‘From the day they start primary school, to the day they leave higher education, the progress of boys lags behind girls’.

Ultimately, the success of higher education in the 21st century will depend on how effectively universities can adapt to the evolving needs of all students. In the case of young men, this means recognizing their unique challenges and addressing them with targeted, thoughtful solutions. Only by doing so can we create a higher education system that truly serves everyone, regardless of gender.

As Mr Raven notes in his blog contribution, it is certainly ‘our problem, not theirs’.

Source link

April 21, 2025