McDonald’s, the fast-food titan with global reach and billion-dollar profits, is the latest corporate target in an escalating campaign of economic resistance. Starting June 24, grassroots advocacy organization The People’s Union USA has called for a weeklong boycott of the chain, citing the need for “corporate accountability, real justice for the working class, and economic fairness.”
Branded the Economic Blackout Tour, the campaign seeks to channel consumer power into political and structural change. According to The People’s Union USA, Americans are urged to avoid not only McDonald’s restaurants but also fast food in general during the June 24–30 protest window. Previous actions have focused on companies like Walmart, Amazon, and Target—corporate behemoths long criticized for their low wages, union-busting tactics, and monopolistic behavior.
John Schwarz, founder of The People’s Union USA, has emerged as a vocal critic of corporate greed. In a recent video statement, Schwarz accused McDonald’s and its peers of dodging taxes and lobbying against wage increases. “Economic resistance is working,” he declared. “They’re feeling it. They’re talking about it.”
The movement is tapping into deep and widespread frustration—fueled by stagnant wages, rising living costs, and mounting corporate profits. While many Americans struggle with student loan debt, inadequate healthcare, and job insecurity, companies like McDonald’s have been accused of shielding their profits offshore and benefiting from political influence in Washington.
This is not the first time McDonald’s has come under fire. The company has faced criticism from labor rights groups for paying low wages, offering unpredictable schedules, and relying heavily on part-time or precarious employment. More recently, pro-Palestinian activists have also launched boycotts, citing alleged ties between McDonald’s franchises and Israeli military actions in Gaza.
As part of the current boycott, The People’s Union USA is pushing for a broader shift in spending—away from multinational corporations and toward local businesses and cooperatives. In line with previous actions, the group is also encouraging Americans to cut back on streaming, online shopping, and all fast-food purchases during the boycott period.
With Independence Day on the horizon, Schwarz and his allies are framing the protest as not just economic, but patriotic. “It’s time to demand fairness,” Schwarz said, “and to use our economic power as leverage to fight for real freedom—the kind that includes fair wages, democratic workplaces, and tax justice.”
While McDonald’s has not released an official response to the boycott, a 2019 letter from company lobbyist Genna Gent suggested the chain would not actively oppose federal minimum wage increases. For Schwarz and his supporters, such declarations ring hollow without meaningful action.
The July target for The People’s Union USA? Starbucks, Amazon, and Home Depot—three more corporate giants with long histories of labor disputes and political entanglements. The next wave of boycotts will extend throughout the entire month, further testing the staying power and impact of this new consumer-led resistance.
At a time when higher education, particularly the for-profit and online sectors, often channels students into low-wage service jobs with crushing debt, these campaigns raise larger questions about the role of universities in perpetuating corporate power and economic inequality.
The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to follow these developments, especially as they intersect with issues of labor, student debt, corporate influence, and the broader fight for economic justice in the United States.
Dr. Riann MullisImagine going through a typical work week without a colleague or coworker inserting an analogy or anecdote from sports into the conversation. Regardless of the reason, from comparison to training, or overcoming adversity, “Collegiate athletics have been a part of the American culture since the 1800s” (Lewis, 2013). Sports significantly influence colleges and universities nationwide, acting as a driving force for institutional culture. The National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) is no stranger to cultivating a positive environment for student-athletes. The association has been providing student-athletes with opportunities to compete in collegiate athletics since 1938 (NJCAA, 2025). Community college athletics traditionally have not received the majority of attention from national media; however, discussion is crucial at this foundational level, especially for the more than 45,000 NJCAA student-athletes pursuing academic and athletic opportunities each year.
Mainstream media’s focus on ticket sales, influential athletes, and comparisons of athletic experience have contributed to a heightened sense of awareness of athletics at all levels. A significant change for athletics occurred more than 50 years when President Richard Nixon signed Title IX of the Education Amendment (Title IX) into law in 1972 (Valentin, 1997). “Implementing Title IX requires institutions to provide equal athletic opportunities for members of both sexes and to accommodate students’ athletic interests and abilities effectively” (U.S. Department of Education [USDE], 2020b).
Dr. Jennifer Spielvogel The ability to conceptualize the similarities and differences of sports becomes critical to recognize what is considered fair opportunities and experiences for student-athletes. This informs the concept of athletic equity. Though major progress has been made since the enactment of this law, questions remain as to what equity looks like in athletics (Jensen, 2022).
In a recently published study, “The Assessment of Athletic Equity by Head Men’s and Women’s Coaches in the National Junior College Athletic Association”, (Mullis, 2024) head coaches from a variety of NJCAA sports at Division I (DI) and Division II (DII) institutions were surveyed and interviewed to glean their opinions pertaining to implementation and best practices of athletic equity. Questions focused on observations, opportunities, and experiences.
The NJCAA head coaches’ opinions about athletic equity initially focused on facilities, scholarships, and travel provided for teams. They were asked to assess the level of agreement on a 4-point Likert (1932) scale ranging from 4 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree) and the mean (M) was calculated for each question. The head coaches assessed facility equity (M = 2.8), scholarship equity (M = 2.8) and travel equity (M = 3.2) at prominent levels, indicating equity is present. The survey data also were disaggregated by team, with no significant differences found from head coaches of men’s and women’s teams in any sport. Further, the coaches agreed that equity is present for all teams at their institutions.
In the study, head coaches also rank ordered the importance of six distinct coaching roles: advisor, advocate, fundraiser, leader, mentor, and role model. All 192 survey respondents were consistent in ranking leader as the most significant role. The coaches were confident about their relationships and impact on the student-athletes. Most impressively, when interviewed, none of the coaches mentioned wins and losses. Rather, their focus, shared with enthusiasm, highlighted the importance of each of their identified roles and their overwhelming responsibility to advance athletic equity through fair experiences and opportunities for their student-athletes.
Collectively, the head coaches conveyed enhanced advocacy accountability for their athletes and teams. Case in point, when coaches were asked in the interviews if they had a responsibility to advocate for athletic equity, an NJCAA DII women’s basketball coach confidently expressed:
Yes. Absolutely. If I do not advocate for my kids [women’s basketball student-athletes], who is going to do that? That is my job. My goal is to make sure they are getting the same treatment the same opportunities that every other sport, whether it be male or female, is getting on campus.
With similar conviction, when posed the question if he considered himself responsible for advocating for athletic equity, a DII softball coach sharply stated, “No question.” In the interviews many coaches indicated that campus athletic directors and presidents should be involved and aware of athletic needs. From their perspective, there is a need for effective collaboration and communication, as the administration’s decisions can significantly impact the advancement of athletic equity.
The assessments and opinions from NJCAA DI and DII head coaches offer a never-before-seen insight into athletic equity implementation at the NJCAA level. Continuing the conversations around the best practices of athletic equity through the voice of the coaches is imperative for the future of collegiate athletics. Implementing progressive ideas such as campus forums, shared documentation, and open discussion around the student-athlete and how to best provide equitable experiences for everyone involved will lead to the continuation of athletic equity at the two-year college level.
Dr. Riann Mullis serves as Athletic Director and Title IX Coordinator at Neosho County Community College (KS).
Dr. Jennifer Spielvogel serves as Professor of Practice, Community College Leadership Program, Department of Educational Leadership, at Kansas State University.
The Roueche Center Forum is co-edited by Drs. John E. Roueche and Margaretta B. Mathis of the John E. Roueche Center for Community College Leadership, Department of Educational Leadership, College of Education, Kansas State University.
References:
Jensen, M. (2022, June 23). What would starting Title IX from scratch look like? Philadelphia Inquirer. https://www.inquirer.com/college- sports/title-ix-anniversary-polls-issues 20220623.html
Lewis, G. (2013). The beginning of organized sport. American Quarterly, 22(2), 222–229. https://history.msu.edu/hst329/files/2015/05/ LewisGuy-TheBeginning.pdf
Likert, R (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Retrieved May 4, 2025 from https://archive.org/details/likert-1932/ page/14/mode/2up
Mullis, R. (2024). The assessment of athletic equity by head Men’s and Women’s coaches in the national junior college athletic association (Order No. 31489530). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Kansas State University; ProQuest One Academic. (3097398397). Retrieved from https://er.lib.k-state.edu/ login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations- theses/assessment-athletic-equity- head-men-s-women/docview/3097398397/ se-2
National Junior College Athletic Association. (2025). About. History. Retrieved May 4, 2025 from https://www.njcaa.org/about/history/ index
U.S. Department of Education. (2020b). Intercollegiate athletics policy: Three part test – part three. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/ list/ocr/docs/title9-qa-20100420.html
Valentin, I. (1997). Title IX: A brief history. 25 years of Title IX. WEEA Digest. Women’s Educational Equity Act Resource Center at EDC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED414271
In a stunning escalation that has drawn comparisons to authoritarian crackdowns, former President Donald Trump has ordered 2,000 California National Guard troops into Los Angeles to quell protests sparked by ICE raids across the region. Despite opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom and local officials, Trump bypassed state authority by invoking federal powers under Title 10 of the U.S. Code—stopping short of the more drastic Insurrection Act but still raising serious constitutional questions.
The protests began after ICE agents detained dozens of individuals in workplace raids across South L.A. County. The response from the public was immediate and fierce, with large demonstrations erupting near ICE facilities and federal buildings. As tensions grew, federal officers deployed tear gas and non-lethal weapons against demonstrators, while arrests mounted and reports of detainee mistreatment surfaced.
What makes this moment particularly alarming is the way Trump has redefined protest as “rebellion,” authorizing military support for federal law enforcement without a state request. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has even threatened to deploy active-duty Marines from Camp Pendleton—a move unseen since the 1992 Rodney King unrest. Legal experts and civil rights advocates have sounded the alarm, calling the federal takeover of California’s National Guard unprecedented and chilling.
The implications for higher education, especially for undocumented and mixed-status students, are profound. Campuses in Southern California are already on edge, with many students fearing ICE presence and military escalation. Faculty and staff in sanctuary campuses and immigrant advocacy networks warn that the militarization of civil immigration enforcement could further chill free speech, academic freedom, and student organizing.
Law professors like Erwin Chemerinsky have warned that Trump’s actions bypass both precedent and constitutional norms: “It is using the military domestically to stop dissent.” Georgetown’s Steve Vladeck noted that the National Guard’s role may technically be limited to support functions, but the symbolism and real-world consequences of armed troops on city streets are undeniable.
Trump’s invocation of rebellion in response to protest mirrors earlier moments of U.S. history where power was used to silence dissent. But this time, it is playing out amid a polarized political landscape, weakened democratic institutions, and a rising authoritarian movement—with the academy, once again, caught in the crossfire.
As protests continue, California’s colleges and universities—long sites of political activism—face renewed pressure. The presence of federal troops, surveillance, and threats of repression may signal a dangerous new phase in the government’s approach to dissent. What was once unthinkable is becoming reality: a nation where protesting immigration raids can be construed as rebellion, and soldiers patrol streets not in a time of war, but in a time of political theater.
Plaintiffs allege both moves violate federal lawand threaten major research projects and millions of dollars in federal funding at universities in their states. An NSF spokesperson declined to comment on the lawsuit.
The suing states — nearly all of whom have Democrat attorneys general —asked a federal judge in New York to block NSF’s indirect cost cap and its April directive barring diversity-related grants.
Dive Insight:
On April 18, the science research agency — which was founded in 1950and had a budget of $9 billion last fiscal year — issued a statement announcing it would prioritize research focused on creating “opportunities for all Americans everywhere.”
“Research projects with more narrow impact limited to subgroups of people based on protected class or characteristics do not effectuate NSF priorities,” the agency said at the time.
The same day, NSF began issuing mass termination notices for projects that seek to boost participation in scientific fields by “women, minorities, and people with disabilities,” according to Wednesday’s complaint. Studies on misinformation and environmental justice also received termination notices.
The canceled projects include a University of Delaware study on post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidality among veterans;a new doctoral program in New Jersey promoting increased participation of underrepresented groups in science-related Ph.D.s; and a University of Oregon initiative providing some 20,000 students with learning experiences in computer science.
Later, in May, NSF moved to cap reimbursement for indirect research costs at 15% for all new grants issued to colleges. The cuts affect funding for equipment, administrative staff, laboratory construction and other expenses in research programs.
The funding cap already sparked at least one other lawsuit, from a group of higher education associations.
The change could bring steep financial and infrastructural damage to university research programs that the government relies on to advance knowledge and technology in the country, the state plaintiffs argued.
According to Wednesday’s lawsuit, the “vast majority” of university projects in the plaintiff states had negotiated indirect research rates between 40% and 60% with NSF. Those states’ “institutions will not be able to maintain essential research infrastructure and will be forced to significantly scale back or halt research, abandon numerous projects, and lay off staff,” the plaintiffs argued.
In both cases — the April directive and May indirect cost cap — the NSF violated law, the states said.
In the case of the April directive, the plaintiffs pointed to statutes that explicitly direct the agency to promote scientific participation among underrepresented groups in the U.S.
They further argue that the longstanding policy has worked, citing statistics showing that the number of women in science and engineering occupations or with related degrees doubled between 1995 and 2017. Participation in these fields by those from minority groups rose from 15% to 35% during the period.
The plaintiffs likewise argued that the indirect cost cap undermines a federal law directing the NSF to support basic scientific research and education programs.
Under the Trump administration this year, the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Energy also both adopted similar 15% caps on overhead reimbursement. Courts have blocked both policies, though the cases are ongoing.
The National Urban League has released a new report examining the progress and setbacks in the fight for racial justice in the five years since George Marc MorialFloyd’s murder, challenging Americans to view the ongoing struggle as “a movement, not a moment.”
The report, titled “George Floyd Five Years Later: Was it a Moment or a Movement?” traces the trajectory of racial justice initiatives since May 25, 2020, when Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. It details how initial outrage and corporate pledges of more than $66 billion for racial justice programs have faced increasing backlash, culminating in recent executive orders eliminating federal diversity programs.
“History will judge us – not by how we responded in the days after George Floyd’s death, but by what we are building five, ten, and twenty years later,” said Marc H. Morial, President and CEO of the National Urban League. “The fight for justice, safety, and dignity is far from over—and the stakes for our democracy could not be higher.”
The report chronicles how Floyd’s murder ignited what it calls “one of the most significant calls for racial justice in generations,” with protests spanning from Minneapolis to Madrid demanding police accountability and government action to address systemic inequities.
While the initial response was robust – with corporations, higher education institutions, philanthropy, and nonprofits pledging billions to confront systemic racism – the report documents how commitments have significantly eroded. Data revealed that DEI job postings declined 44% from 2022 to 2023, and major companies like Google and Meta scaled back programs supporting Black talent.
The report details a pattern of progress and regression across several administrations. Under President Biden, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, led by Kristen Clarke, convicted more than 180 police officers for civil rights violations and investigated 12 police departments. President Biden’s executive order on safe policing created a national database to track police misconduct and banned chokeholds for federal officers.
In stark contrast, the report notes that the second Trump administration “eliminated all DEI initiatives across the federal government on Day One” and “froze all open DOJ civil rights investigations.”
“Five years after George Floyd’s murder, we are living in a different America,” the report states. “As President Trump began his second term, he signed various executive orders gutting federal diversity programs and efforts. This led to corporations and institutions of higher education abandoning their commitments to racial justice and eliminating their diversity programs altogether.”
The National Urban League’s response has been multifaceted. The organization established a new division, Equitable Justice and Strategic Initiatives (EJSI), to advocate for justice system reforms. It developed “21 Pillars for Redefining Public Safety and Restoring Community Trust” as a framework for police reform and created a “D3” platform based on three principles: Defend Democracy, Demand Diversity, and Defeat Poverty.
In early 2025, the organization convened the Demand Diversity Roundtable, an emergency strategy session to confront threats posed by the new administration’s actions against civil and human rights. With partners, they filed a lawsuit challenging what they describe as “unconstitutional anti-equity executive orders.”
“It is of the utmost urgency that we rise to defend not only the progress made in the years immediately after George Floyd’s murder, but of the last 60 years,” Morial emphasized in the report.
Despite the setbacks, the report presents evidence that public sentiment still largely supports diversity efforts. It cites polling showing 61% of Americans believe diverse employees positively impact organizations, and 75% agree more needs to be done to guarantee everyone is advancing.
“Despite challenges and headwinds coming our way, we are doubling down on the fight for a more equitable and just world, where our classrooms, offices, and boardrooms reflect who America is,” the report concludes.
The 14-page report, designed with a striking red cover featuring Floyd’s name, includes a timeline of events from 2020 to 2025 and offers practical guidance for citizens wanting to protect their rights, including consistently checking voter registration status and supporting organizations fighting for equity.
Morial’s message is clear: “As the moment of 2020 fades for some, we are positioned to lead the movement for a more just America where all Americans can live safe, full lives and thrive.”
It should come as little surprise – given the scale and complexity of the challenge – that the government sees investing in research and innovation (R&I), and the accompanying promise of new technologies and ideas, as key to achieving its complex policy goals of growing the economy, transitioning to clean power, and modernising the NHS.
After all, history shows that state backing of R&I to overcome a range of problems – particularly in times of crisis – is hardly a novel idea. If the rapid technological advances witnessed in the 1940s to support the war effort are receding further into the past, then memories of the mass Covid-19 vaccine rollout at least remain fresh.
With this in mind, the government’s commitment “to promote innovation and harness the full potential of the UK’s science base” through “protecting record funding for research and development” is merely the latest example of those in power acknowledging the vast capacity of R&I to transform society.
This tradition at least partly explains the strong international reputation the UK has accumulated over the years in the field of R&I, with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) – the country’s largest single public funder of R&I – at the forefront.
In 2023–24, UKRI assessed 28,866 applications for competitive grant funding, ultimately spending £6 billion on R&I grants. Its recently approved projects have included funding for very early-stage research in microbial fuel cells and hydrogen purification, and the development of bone stem cell and biomaterial technology to reduce infection rates and the cost of hip repairs.
In short, UKRI plays a critical role in the country’s R&I ecosystem, supporting cutting-edge work that feeds not only into the government’s environmental and health policy ambitions, but in other areas too.
And by looking at the effectiveness of UKRI’s grant support, the National Audit Office (NAO) has identified some lessons for government that can serve a very useful, and much broader, purpose when it comes to tackling the major challenges facing the country.
Lessons learned
First is the importance of taking a planned and coordinated approach to R&I, which involves using good quality information on funding and knowing how to build a base to innovate in each research area. Government departments should be aware of other organisations with related objectives, determine whether they are also putting funds or resources into trying to innovate in that area, and identify potential linkages with their own workstreams.
This “portfolio” approach to innovation is a key component in well-managed risk taking, which brings us to our second lesson: the need to establish a clear and effective risk appetite, and put in place the organisational cultures and processes that can support bold decision-making. Innovation – the act or process of doing something that has not been done before – goes hand-in-hand with risk. Embracing it requires the knowledge and the confidence in accepting that things may not turn out quite as intended, or may even fail together.
The head of the NAO said as much in his recent address in Parliament, where he called on the government to unlock the vast opportunities for boosting productivity and strengthening resilience in the public sector by adopting a fast-learning approach when investing in innovation: in other words, learning quickly what works and what does not, so that failed projects can be promptly scrapped in favour of redirecting energy and resources to more promising ideas.
Ultimately, a coherent, comprehensive and clearly communicated risk appetite can help organisations reap substantial rewards, more than offsetting the disappointment of unsuccessful ventures.
Third is the caveat that while a clear plan, coordination and risk appetite can lead to successes, the full benefits of innovation cannot be realised without effective monitoring and evaluation. As well as evaluating programmes on a macro level, organisations should regularly draw together learning by theme (such as in a specific research area), with the support of strong data systems. Doing so can ensure that they effectively capture cumulative learning and develop a well-rounded understanding of which innovations are working well, which ones are not, and why.
Across the whole of government
Arguably the most important lesson of all, however, is remembering that these insights cut across the whole of government and need not be strictly applied to the domain of R&I. The projects funded by UKRI may be operating on the frontier of scientific and technological research, but this does not mean that what we learn about their approaches to innovation cannot be applied to other government contexts.
If government is to achieve its long-term policy goals, it must do more to identify the public spaces where innovation is lacking, and take measures to reverse this trend. This includes breaking down the barriers that are preventing some organisations from adopting the right culture to allow innovation to flourish. It would do well to start with taking on board some of the lessons learned from UKRI’s approach.
When students become literacy influencers, reading transforms from a classroom task into a global conversation.
When teens take the mic
Recent studies show that reading for pleasure among teens is at an all-time low. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only 14 percent of U.S. students read for fun almost every day–down from 31 percent in 1984. In the UK, the National Literacy Trust reports that just 28 percent of children aged 8 to 18 said they enjoyed reading in their free time in 2023.
With reading engagement in crisis, one group of teens decided to flip the narrative–by turning on their cameras. What began as a simple classroom project to encourage reading evolved into a movement that amplified student voices, built confidence, and connected learners across cultures.
Rather than writing traditional essays or book reports, my students were invited to create short video book reviews of their favorite titles–books they genuinely loved, connected with, and wanted others to discover. The goal? To promote reading in the classroom and beyond. The result? A library of student-led recommendations that brought books–and readers–to life.
Project overview: Reading, recording, and reaching the world
As an ESL teacher, I’ve always looked for ways to make literacy feel meaningful and empowering, especially for students navigating a new language and culture. This video review project began with a simple idea: Let students choose a book they love, and instead of writing about it, speak about it. The assignment? Create a short, personal, and authentic video to recommend the book to classmates–and potentially, to viewers around the world.
Students were given creative freedom to shape their presentations. Some used editing apps like Filmora9 or Canva, while others recorded in one take on a smartphone. I offered a basic outline–include the book’s title and author, explain why you loved it, and share who you’d recommend it to–but left room for personal flair.
What surprised me most was how seriously students took the project. They weren’t just completing an assignment–they were crafting their voices, practicing communication skills, and taking pride in their ability to share something they loved in a second language.
Student spotlights: Book reviews with heart, voice, and vision
Each student’s video became more than a book recommendation–it was an expression of identity, creativity, and confidence. With a camera as their platform, they explored their favorite books and communicated their insights in authentic, impactful ways.
Mariam led the way with a polished and emotionally resonant video review of John Green’s The Fault in Our Stars. Using Filmora9, she edited her video to flow smoothly while keeping the focus on her heartfelt reflections. Mariam spoke with sincerity about the novel’s themes: love, illness, and the fragility of life. She communicated them in a way that was both thoughtful and relatable. Her work demonstrated not only strong literacy skills but also digital fluency and a growing sense of self-expression.
In one of the most touching video reviews, Dana, a student who openly admits she’s not an avid reader, chose to spotlight “Dear Tia,” written by Maria Zaki, her best friend’s sister. The personal connection to the author didn’t just make her feel seen; it made the book feel more real, more urgent, and worth talking about. Dana’s honest reflection and warm delivery highlight how personal ties to literature can spark unexpected enthusiasm.
Farah’s confident presentation introduced her classmates to Utopia, a dystopian novel by Egyptian author Ahmed Khaled Towfik. Through her review, she brought attention to Arabic literature, offering a perspective that is often underrepresented in classrooms. Farah’s choice reflected pride in her cultural identity, and her delivery was clear, persuasive, and engaging. Her video became more than a review–it was a form of cultural storytelling that invited her peers to expand their literary horizons.
Rita’s review of Frostblood, a fantasy novel by Elly Blake, stood out for its passionate tone and concise storytelling. She broke down the plot with clarity, highlighting the emotional journey of the protagonist while reflecting on themes like power, resilience, and identity. Rita’s straightforward approach and evident enthusiasm created a strong peer-to-peer connection, showing how even a simple, sincere review can spark curiosity and excitement about reading.
Literacy skills in action
Behind each of these videos lies a powerful range of literacy development. Students weren’t just reviewing books–they were analyzing themes, synthesizing ideas, making connections, and articulating their thoughts for an audience. By preparing for their recordings, students learned how to organize their ideas, revise their messages for clarity, and reflect on what made a story impactful to them personally.
Speaking to a camera also encouraged students to practice intonation, pacing, and expression–key skills in both oral language development and public speaking. In multilingual classrooms, these skills are often overlooked in favor of silent writing tasks. But in this project, English Learners were front and center, using their voices–literally and figuratively–to take ownership of language in a way that felt authentic and empowering.
Moreover, the integration of video tools meant students had to think critically about how they presented information visually. From editing with apps like Filmora9 to choosing appropriate backgrounds, they were not just absorbing content, they were producing and publishing it, embracing their role as creators in a digital world.
Tips for teachers: Bringing book reviews to life
This project was simple to implement and required little more than student creativity and access to a recording device. Here are a few tips for educators who want to try something similar:
Let students choose their own books: Engagement skyrockets when they care about what they’re reading.
Keep the structure flexible: A short outline helps, but students thrive when given room to speak naturally.
Offer tech tools as optional, not mandatory: Some students enjoyed using Filmora9 or Canva, while others used the camera app on their phone.
Focus on voice and message, not perfection: Encourage students to focus on authenticity over polish.
Create a classroom premiere day: Let students watch each other’s videos and celebrate their peers’ voices.
Literacy is personal, public, and powerful
This project proved what every educator already knows: When students are given the opportunity to express themselves in meaningful ways, they rise to the occasion. Through book reviews, my students weren’t just practicing reading comprehension, they were becoming speakers, storytellers, editors, and advocates for literacy.
They reminded me and will continue to remind others that when young people talk about books in their own voices, with their personal stories woven into the narrative, something beautiful happens: Reading becomes contagious.
Nesren El-Baz, ESL Educator
Nesren El-Baz is an ESL educator with over 20 years of experience, and is a certified bilingual teacher with a Master’s in Curriculum and Instruction. El-Baz is currently based in the UK, holds a Masters degree in Curriculum and Instruction from Houston Christian University, and specializes in developing in innovative strategies for English Learners and Bilingual education.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
A group of universities and higher education associations is suing theNational Science Foundationover its new cap on reimbursement for indirect research costs for all future college grants.
In court documents filed Monday, the plaintiffs — led by the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities and the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities — allege the unilateral 15% cap, which took effect May 5, violates the law in “myriad respects” and that its effects will be “immediate and irreparable.”
The new lawsuit follows two other legal challenges over similar caps implemented by the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Energy — both of which have been blocked, at least temporarily.
In the ruling, the judge said NIH unlawfully implemented the cap and violated constitutional prohibitions on applying new rules retroactively. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the case is ongoing.
Next came the Energy Department. In April, the agency announced the same 15% cap on indirect research costs,alleging the plan would save taxpayers $405 million annually. Again, colleges sued, and a federal judge blocked the plan — albeit temporarily — while the lawsuit moves forward.
The ACE, AAU and APLU are plaintiffs in both cases.
Now NSF has introduced its own cap, to the chagrin of colleges and higher ed experts. When announcing the 15% cap, the agency argued the move would streamline and add transparency to the funding process and“ensure that more resources are directed toward direct scientific and engineering research activities.”
But the new lawsuit argues that NSF’s policy echoes the other agencies’ attempts, to deleterious effect.
“NSF’s action is unlawful for most of the same reasons, and it is especially arbitrary because NSF has not even attempted to address many of the flaws the district courts found with NIH’s and DOE’s unlawful policies,” it said.
Like the lawsuits against NIH and Energy Department’s policies, the plaintiffs allege that the NSF’s cap oversteps the agency’s authority.
“It beggars belief to suggest that Congress — without saying a word — impliedly authorized NSF to enact a sweeping, one-size-fits-all command that will upend research at America’s universities,” it said.
In fiscal 2024, Congress gave NSF $7.2 billion to fund research and related activities. In turn, the agency funded projects at 1,850 colleges —more than 1 in 4 of the higher education institutions in the U.S. eligible to receive federal dollars.
That year, NSF awarded Arizona State University, one of the plaintiffs, 172 awards worth a total of $197.5 million in anticipated and obligated funding, according to court documents. Prior to the NSF’s new policy, the institution negotiated a 57% rate for indirect costs in fiscal 2026.
The University of Illinois, another plaintiff, receivedjust over $129 millionin NSF funding in fiscal 2024 —making the agency its biggest funder — and negotiated an indirect research funding rate of 58.6%.
The university said in court documents that it has received the most NSF funding of all U.S. colleges for six years in a row, and it is poised to lose more than $23 million a year if the agency’s new cap is allowed to continue.
The college plaintiffs are:
Arizona State University.
Brown University, in Rhode Island.
California Institute of Technology.
The University of California.
Carnegie Mellon University, in Pennsylvania.
The University of Chicago.
Cornell University.
The University of Illinois.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The University of Michigan.
The University of Minnesota.
The University of Pennsylvania.
Princeton University, in New Jersey.
The lawsuit also cited an attempt by the first Trump administration to cap rates for indirect research at a federal agency. In 2017, the White House proposed cutting the cap to 10% for all NIH grants. Congress – then under Republican control as it is now — “identified serious problems immediately” and took “swift and bipartisan” action against the proposal, the lawsuit said.
On April 17, HELU is partnering with the Coalition for Action in Higher Education (CAHE) for the National Day of Action for Higher Education. There are more than 175 events planned in 44 states for April 17. We urge you to join us however you can, either in-person or online.
As campus workers, students, and community members, we have a
unique power and responsibility to exercise our collective voice in this
moment of turmoil. It is our labor and our ideas which sustain higher
education, and higher education sustains our economy and communities.
In a significant shift for higher education access, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker announced his support for new legislation that would allow the state’s community colleges to offer bachelor’s degrees in high-demand fields. The move aligns Illinois with a growing national trend that has seen dramatic expansion in community college baccalaureate (CCB) programs across the country.
“By allowing our community colleges to offer baccalaureate degrees for in-demand career paths, we are making it easier and more affordable for students to advance their careers while strengthening our state’s economy,” Pritzker said in his February announcement.
The proposed bills, SB2482 and HB3717, would make Illinois the 25th state to implement such programs, joining states like California, Washington, and Florida that have already embraced community college bachelor’s degrees as a way to meet workforce demands and increase educational access. The measure appears to be stalled in the state legislature.
The Illinois initiative addresses practical challenges faced by many community college students. According to State Representative Tracy Katz Muhl, 78% of community college students work while in school, making relocation to four-year institutions impractical.
“Community college students are deeply rooted in their local communities—they work here, raise families here, and contribute to the local economy,” says Dr. Keith Cornille, President of Heartland Community College. “By expanding community college baccalaureate programs, we’re meeting students where they are.”
The proposal has gained support from education leaders including Illinois Community College Board Executive Director Brian Durham, who highlighted the potential to increase access to affordable higher education without burdening students with excessive debt.
A recent survey revealed that 75% of Illinois community college students would pursue a bachelor’s degree if they could complete it at their current institution—a statistic that demonstrates significant untapped potential in the state’s third-largest community college system, which serves 600,000 residents annually.
Illinois’ move follows a remarkable expansion in community college baccalaureate programs nationwide. According to a recent report from The Community College Baccalaureate Association (CCBA) and higher education consulting firm Bragg & Associates Inc., 187 community colleges across the country were offering or authorized to offer bachelor’s degrees as of last year.
This represents a 32% increase from Fall 2021, when only 132 institutions had such authorization. Today, approximately one-fifth of the nation’s 932 community colleges offer bachelor’s degrees, with the number of CCB degree programs rising from 583 to 678—a 17% increase in just two years.
“It’s a big jump over the last two years,” says report author Dr. Debra Bragg, president of Bragg & Associates Inc. Bragg anticipates “tremendous growth” in coming years as more states recognize the potential of these programs.
The movement began in 1989 when West Virginia became the first state to authorize a community college to confer bachelor’s degrees. By 2010, several more states—including California, Michigan, Florida, Texas, and Georgia—had followed suit. Some states have embraced the model completely, with Florida, Delaware, and Nevada authorizing all their community colleges to confer bachelor’s degrees.
Geographic and demographic patterns Community colleges offering bachelor’s degrees are not distributed evenly across the country. According to the CCBA report, 62% of CCB colleges are located on the West Coast, where there is “less density” of higher education institutions and longer commutes to traditional four-year schools.
“Geographic access to college, measured through proximal distance from a student’s home to college, correlates with students deciding whether they will ever participate in higher education,” the report notes. “Research on ‘education deserts’ shows most students choose to attend college within 50 miles of their home.” Washington (32), California (29), and Florida (28) lead the nation in the number of community colleges offering bachelor’s degrees. These institutions tend to be concentrated in large city and suburban areas (36%) or rural and town settings (27%) rather than in small cities or midsize urban areas.
Perhaps most significantly, CCB programs appear to be effectively serving traditionally underrepresented student populations. Approximately half of all community colleges offering bachelor’s degrees qualify as minority-serving institutions (MSIs), with Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) comprising 71% of these MSIs.
Data from the 2021-22 academic year shows that about half of all CCB graduates come from racially minoritized groups. Hispanic or Latinx students made up the slight majority (52%) of these graduates, followed by those identifying as Black or African American (29%) or Asian (9%).
Women are also well-represented among CCB graduates, accounting for 64% of degree recipients. This aligns with broader trends in higher education, where women generally attain degrees at higher rates than men.
The gender distribution varies by field of study. While business programs attract the largest portion of both male and female students (around 40% for each), men are more likely to pursue STEM fields (34%), while women gravitate toward nursing programs (26%).
The CCBA report highlights that CCB degrees are primarily focused on workforce preparation. Business programs dominate the offerings, followed by health professions, education, and nursing—all areas that align with significant workforce needs.
This workforce alignment is a key selling point for Illinois’ proposed legislation. The initiative comes as Illinois employers report growing demand for workers with bachelor’s degrees in specialized fields, mirroring workforce gaps seen in other states with successful CCB programs.
CCBA President Dr. Angela Kersenbrock sees these workforce-focused degrees as central to the community college mission. “To me, this is the community college really embracing its missions,” says Kersenbrock. “I know some folks say this is community colleges stepping over their mission. But I think it’s a full embracing of what they should be doing… closing equity gaps, being the people’s college, setting people up for economic success and mobility, and being very responsive to what a community needs in terms of workers and employees.”
Despite the growth and apparent success of community college baccalaureate programs, they are not without controversy. Some traditional four-year institutions view them as mission creep or unwelcome competition.
Illinois’ proposal faces similar scrutiny. Critics question whether community colleges have the resources, faculty expertise, and infrastructure necessary to deliver quality bachelor’s degree programs. Others worry about potential duplication of existing programs at four-year institutions.
Supporters counter that CCB programs typically focus on applied fields with clear workforce connections rather than traditional academic disciplines. They also emphasize that these programs often serve students who would otherwise not pursue bachelor’s degrees at all, rather than pulling students away from existing institutions.
Looking Ahead If Illinois passes the proposed legislation, it will join a diverse group of states finding success with community college baccalaureate programs. States like Washington, California, and Florida report positive outcomes in terms of both degree attainment and workforce preparation.
For Illinois’ sprawling community college system—the third largest in the nation—the change could significantly reshape higher education access. Community colleges often serve as entry points to higher education for first-generation college students, working adults, and others who face barriers to traditional four-year institutions.
“This initiative isn’t about competing with our university partners,” notes one Illinois community college president. “It’s about creating additional pathways for students who might otherwise never earn a bachelor’s degree.”
As more states consider similar legislation, the community college bachelor’s degree appears poised to become an increasingly common feature of American higher education. With workforce demands continuing to evolve and traditional college enrollment patterns shifting, these programs offer a flexible approach to meeting both student and employer needs.
For Bragg, the trend represents a natural evolution of community colleges’ historical mission.
“Community colleges have always adapted to meet changing educational and workforce needs,” she observes. “Bachelor’s degrees are just the latest example of this responsiveness.”
As Illinois moves forward with its proposal and other states watch closely, the coming years will likely see further expansion of bachelor’s degree options at community colleges nationwide—continuing a transformation that is making higher education more accessible to students who need it most.
