Tag: Power

  • Black Women’s Leadership in Higher Education: The Remaking of Academic Power

    Black Women’s Leadership in Higher Education: The Remaking of Academic Power

    I
    Dr. Tina M. King     n the storied halls of higher education, Black women who ascend to the presidency do so while carrying the weight of history, community, and the unspoken expectation that we will be both miracle workers and scapegoats. Black women in higher education leadership navigate a complex matrix of anti-Blackness and misogynoir —a reality where their expertise is simultaneously appropriated and undermined. Research reveals that more than most Black women executives in predominantly white institutions (PWIs) experience racelighting (racialized gaslighting), characterized by dehumanizing scrutiny. We endure identity taxation, where we are expected to carry the unsustainable burden of single-handedly solving institutional race problems, often where we are the target of the attack while comforting white fragility. Simultaneously, we experience racelighting where people of color receive racialized messages and question their thoughts and experiences. This racelighting is perpetuated by the institution’s willingness to tokenize Black women’s identities for diversity optics while suppressing our agenda for transformative anti-racist praxis. The narrative of Black women’s leadership in PWIs is not simply a tale of individual achievement but also reflects the deep, persistent anti-Blackness embedded in the academy’s very structure.

    The attacks, swift and severe, are often cloaked in the familiar rhetoric of “governance, academic integrity, or collegial concern,” but the subtext is unmistakably racial. They are orchestrated not as a response to policy but as a rebuke of Black authority daring to reshape the institution’s priorities. In such attacks, we are called incompetent, corrupt, and unwilling to do the hard work (lazy), echoing tropes that have long been used to undermine Black people in general and Black women in leadership specifically. The most insidious move, however, is often the elevation of a single Black or Brown person to be the messenger or carrier of the attack, serving as a shield to deflect accusations of racism and to lend legitimacy to the movement or campaign t o disparage and discredit Black women’s leadership.Dr. Regina Stanback StroudDr. Regina Stanback Stroud

    This dynamic is not new. Dr. Patricia Hill Collins (2000), in her foundational work on Black Feminist Thought, describes how Black women in leadership are subjected to controlling images— stereotypes that are deployed to police the boundaries of acceptable Blackness. In the academy, these images manifest as relentless questioning of competence, insinuations of aggression, and the expectation that Black women will perform emotional labor to maintain white comfort. The token messenger, perhaps unwittingly, becomes complicit in this system, their proximity to whiteness granting her temporary power even as it reinforces the very structures that marginalize leaders of color—in other words, they become complicit in using the academic tools of white supremacy to join in the assault on Black women’s leadership.

    What begins to emerge is a spectator sport where people at all levels of influence remain silent in the face of orchestrated attacks. Please make no mistake: silence does not represent neutrality; it represents complicity. By refusing to address the racialized nature of the attacks, the institution is signaling that Black women leaders are ultimately expendable, their contributions contingent upon their willingness to placate white interests and prioritize white comfort. This is the reality of what Breonna Collins (2022) calls “epistemic violence” –the systematic invalidation of Black knowledge and leadership under the guise of procedural fairness.

    Yet Black women leaders have always found ways to resist and reimagine the academy. Drawing on the tradition of Black feminist resistance, we create counterspaces within hostile institutions, mentoring the next generation and insisting on the legitimacy of their vision. We redefine “institutional fit” not as assimilation into white norms but as the capacity to transform the institution in service of justice.

    Despite these acts of resistance and reimagination, the very presence and leadership of Black women in academic spaces often disrupts entrenched power structures and exposes the discomfort many have with authentic Black excellence. A threat to many, Black excellence in leadership prioritizes the needs of marginalized students and communities over the preservation of the status quo.

    While some may wish to uphold privilege and power for themselves, others may be well-intentioned but unable to recognize Black excellence. They may interpret Black leadership as arrogance or see Black Leaders simply as flaunting their positions or being opinionated. Still others may believe they are doing good but fail to recognize their own deep biases. Those who consider themselves allies may suffer fatigue along with Black leaders, but that mutual suffering does not, an ally make. It must be accompanied by one’s willingness to use their white privilege and capital to actively combat anti-Blackness and misogynoir at play.

    Studies of HBCU leadership reveal how Black women executives subvert PWI pathologies through radical self-definition, where we reject white-normed leadership frameworks to implement culturally grounded approaches and ethical care (prioritizing community needs over respectability politics). We create counter-spaces that center Black epistemologies, such as mentorship programs that affirm Black women’s intellectual sovereignty. Black women leaders engage in institutional truth-telling where we document systemic racelighting through critical race methodology.

    True transformation requires more than performative allyship. It demands redistribution of resources, independent accountability structures, and a commitment to centering Black epistemologies in institutional decision-making. There is a growing recognition that Black leadership is not incidental— it is essential to the future of higher education. The time has come for institutions to choose: will they cling to the master’s tools, or will they finally make room for the radical imagination and power of Black women’s leadership?

    Until higher education is willing to confront its foundational anti-Blackness, it will continue to sacrifice its most visionary leaders on the altar of white comfort. The question is not whether another attack will come but who will have the courage to stand in solidarity and say, “Enough.” The future of academia depends on this shift. Ultimately, we must move beyond the white gaze and demand for our pain, and instead, embrace the Black radical imagination and the remaking of power in the academy.

    Dr. Tina M. King is president of San Diego College of Continuing Education 

    Dr. Regina Stanback Stroud is the chief executive officer of RSSC Consulting

    Dr. Jennifer Taylor Mendoza serves as the 13th president of West Valley College.

     

     

     

     

    Source link

  • Humanizing Higher Ed Data: The Strategic Power of Student Digital Twins

    Humanizing Higher Ed Data: The Strategic Power of Student Digital Twins

    Higher education institutions are overflowing with data, yet many still struggle to turn that information into actionable insight. With systems siloed across admissions, academics, student support, and alumni relations, it’s hard to get a clear picture of the student journey — let alone use that data to enhance engagement or predict outcomes.

    Enter the “digital twin”: a transformative framework that helps institutions centralize, contextualize, and humanize student data. More than a dashboard or data warehouse, a student digital twin creates a living, dynamic model that reflects how students interact with your institution in real time. It’s the difference between looking at data and understanding a student.

    The data disconnect holding higher ed back

    Disconnected data is one of the most persistent obstacles facing colleges and universities. Key information is often trapped in different systems — student information systems (SIS), learning management systems (LMS), customer relationship management (CRM) tools, financial aid platforms, and more.

    This fragmentation makes it difficult to:

    • Personalize student communications
    • Identify at-risk students in time to intervene
    • Support seamless transfers or cross-departmental collaboration
    • Harness emerging technologies like generative AI

    The result? Missed opportunities, inefficient outreach, and limited visibility into student experiences.

    Demystifying the student digital twin

    A digital twin is a virtual representation of a physical entity. In higher education, that entity is the student. The student digital twin brings together behavioral, academic, and operational data to create a comprehensive, contextual profile of each learner.

    Unlike a static dashboard or data warehouse, a digital twin captures relationships, sequences, and interactions. It enables institutions to:

    • Visualize student journeys across systems
    • Model future scenarios
    • Generate predictive insights
    • Power real-time personalization

    Most importantly, a digital twin humanizes data by shifting the focus from systems to students.

    What makes it work: The Connected Core® architecture

    At Collegis, the digital twin is powered by Connected Core — a composable, cloud-native platform built specifically for higher education. The architecture includes:

    • Integrated data fabric: A higher ed-specific data layer that unifies SIS, LMS, CRM, and more.
    • Packaged business capabilities: Modular features like lead scoring, advising nudges, and financial aid workflows.
    • Composable platform: A low-code development environment that allows institutions to customize workflows and experiences.

    Together, these elements create an agile foundation for digital transformation and continuous improvement.

    Ready for a Smarter Way Forward?

    Higher ed is hard — but you don’t have to figure it out alone. We can help you transform challenges into opportunities.

    Use cases that drive institutional impact

    Digital twins aren’t theoretical. They’re already delivering measurable value across the student lifecycle. With real implementations across enrollment, student success, and digital engagement, Collegis partners are proving just how powerful a connected data foundation can be.

    These examples show how the digital twin moves from concept to impact:

    • AI lead prioritization: By integrating digital journey signals with CRM intelligence, one partner increased inquiry-to-appointment conversion by 38%.
    • Transfer credit evaluation: AI-driven transcript assessments delivered >85% accuracy in early evaluations, reducing friction for prospective students.
    • AI-powered website search: Semantic search functionality improved engagement by 250% during pilot testing, enhancing conversion potential.

    These outcomes demonstrate how digital twins don’t just aggregate data — they activate it.

    Implementation, integration, and ROI

    One common question we encounter about this concept is, “Can’t we do this with our own data warehouse?” The answer is not really.

    Data warehouses are optimized for reporting, not real-time personalization. The digital twin’s networked model is designed for operational use, enabling advisors, marketers, and faculty to act in the moment.

    Collegis typically helps institutions realize value within three to six months. Whether starting with a marketing use case or building a full student model, we work with partners to:

    • Identify quick wins
    • Integrate priority data sources
    • Build a data model tailored to their institution

    Why Collegis — and why now?

    Unlike generic analytics platforms, Connected Core is purpose-built for higher education. It’s not a retrofitted enterprise tool. The following features make it unique from other offerings:

    • AI-native and human-centered: It’s designed to deliver explainable, actionable insights.
    • Composed, not constrained: It’s flexible enough to integrate with legacy systems and custom-built tools.
    • A strategic partnership: Collegis provides not just the technology, but the advisory services and data talent to ensure sustained success.

    Start humanizing your student data

    The digital twin helps institutions shift from reactive reporting to proactive engagement. It empowers colleges and universities to not only understand their students better, but to serve them more effectively.

    Ready to explore how a student digital twin could transform your data strategy? Contact us to request a demo!

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Bryan Chitwood is Director of Data Enablement at Collegis Education, where he helps lead data strategy, product development, and advisory services. With a Ph.D. in English and advanced certifications in data leadership and cloud architecture, he helps institutions harness data to drive results.

    Source link

  • Elite Power, Higher Education, and Political Ambition

    Elite Power, Higher Education, and Political Ambition

              [JB and Penny Pritzker] 

    The Pritzker family stands as a symbol of wealth, influence, and access in American public life. From the luxury of Hyatt Hotels to the boardrooms of private equity and the highest ranks of government, their reach extends across economic sectors and institutional spheres. But beneath the carefully managed public image lies a troubling contradiction—one that implicates higher education, for-profit exploitation, and national politics.

    Penny Pritzger

    Penny Pritzker, a former U.S. Secretary of Commerce and current trustee of Harvard University, has been a key figure in shaping education policy from elite perches. She also had a working relationship with Vistria Group, a private equity firm that now owns the University of Phoenix and Risepoint. These two entities have been central to the subprime college industry—profiting from the hopes of working-class students while delivering poor outcomes and burdensome debt.

    Pritzker’s relationship with Vistria runs deeper than simple association. In the late 1990s, she partnered with Vistria co-founder Marty Nesbitt to launch The Parking Spot, a national airport parking venture that brought them both business success and public recognition. When Nesbitt founded Vistria in 2013, he brought with him the experience and elite networks formed during that earlier partnership. Penny Pritzker’s family foundation—Pritzker Traubert—was among the early funders of Vistria, helping to establish its brand as a more “socially conscious” private equity firm. Although she stepped away from any formal role when she joined the Obama administration, her involvement in Vistria’s formation and funding set the stage for the firm’s expansion into sectors like for-profit education and healthcare.

    Vistria’s acquisition of the University of Phoenix, and later Risepoint, positioned it as a major player in the privatization of American higher education. The firm continues to profit from schools that promise economic mobility but often deliver student debt and limited job prospects. This is not just a critique of business practices, but a systemic indictment of how elite networks shape education policy, finance, and outcomes.

    Penny’s role as a trustee on the Harvard Corporation only sharpens this contradiction. Harvard, a university that markets itself as a global champion of meritocracy and inclusion, remains silent about one of its trustees helping to finance and support a firm that monetizes educational inequality. The governing body has not publicly addressed any potential conflict of interest between her Harvard role and her involvement with Vistria.

    JB Pritzger

    These contradictions are not limited to Penny. Her brother, J.B. Pritzker, is currently the governor of Illinois and one of the wealthiest elected officials in the country. Though he has no documented personal financial stake in Vistria, his administration has significant ties to the firm. Jesse Ruiz, J.B. Pritzker’s Deputy Governor for Education during his first term, left state government in 2022 to take a top leadership position at Vistria as General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer.

    This revolving-door dynamic—where a senior education policymaker transitions directly from a progressive administration to a private equity firm profiting from for-profit colleges—underscores the ideological alignment and operational synergy between the Pritzker political machine and firms like Vistria. While the governor publicly champions equity and expanded public education access, his administration’s former top education official is now helping manage legal and compliance operations for a firm that extracts value from struggling students and public loan programs.

    J.B. Pritzker has announced plans to run for a third term as governor in 2026, but many observers believe he is positioning himself for a 2028 presidential campaign. His high-profile public appearances, pointed critiques of Donald Trump, and increased visibility in early primary states all suggest a national campaign is being tested. With his vast personal wealth, Pritzker could self-fund a serious run while drawing on elite networks built over decades—networks that include both his sister’s role at Harvard and their shared business and political allies.

    Elites in US Higher Education, A Familiar Theme 

    What emerges is a deeply American story—one in which the same elite networks shape both the problems and the proposed solutions. The Pritzkers are not alone in this dynamic, but their dual influence in higher education and politics makes them a case study in elite capture. They are architects and beneficiaries of a system in which public office, private equity, and nonprofit institutions converge to consolidate power.

    The for-profit education sector continues to exploit regulatory gaps, marketing expensive credentials to desperate individuals while avoiding the scrutiny that traditional nonprofit colleges face. When private equity firms like Vistria acquire troubled institutions, they repackage them, restructure their branding, and keep extracting value from public loan dollars. The government lends, students borrow, and investors profit. The people left behind are those without political clout—low-income students, veterans, working parents—who believed the marketing and now face debt with little return.

    Harvard’s silence, University of Phoenix’s reinvention, the rebranding of Academic Partnerships/Risepoint, and J.B. Pritzker’s ambitions all signal a troubling direction for American democracy. As more billionaires enter politics and public institutions become more dependent on private capital, the line between public service and private gain continues to erode.

    The Higher Education Inquirer believes this moment demands not only scrutiny, but structural change. Until elite universities hold their trustees accountable, until political candidates reject the influence of exploitative industries, and until the public reclaims its voice in higher education policy, the Pritzker paradox will continue to define the American experience—where access to opportunity is sold to the highest bidder, and democracy is reshaped by those who can afford to buy it.

    Sources

    – U.S. Department of Education College Scorecard

    – University of Phoenix outcome data (IPEDS, 2024)

    – Harvard University governance and trustee records

    – Vistria Group investor reports and public filings

    – Wall Street Journal, “America’s Second-Richest Elected Official Is Acting Like He Wants to Be President” (2025)

    – Associated Press, “Governor J.B. Pritzker positions himself as national Democratic leader” (2025)

    – Vistria.com, “Marty Nesbitt on his friendship with Obama and what he learned from the Pritzkers”

    – Politico, “Former Obama Insiders Seek Administration’s Blessing of For-Profit College Takeover” (2016)

    – Vistria Group announcement, “Jesse Ruiz Joins Vistria as General Counsel and CCO” (2022)

    Source link

  • New Research Highlights the Power of Access Work — and the Tools We Need to Evaluate It 

    New Research Highlights the Power of Access Work — and the Tools We Need to Evaluate It 

    • This blog was kindly authored by Dr Anna Anthony, director of HEAT. HEAT provides a collaborative data service enabling higher education providers, Uni Connect partnerships and Third Sector Organisations to show the impact of their equality of opportunity delivery through a shared, standardised data system. By aggregating data from across the membership, HEAT can publish national-level impact reports for the sector. 

    It has never been more important for providers across the sector to show that access and participation activities have an impact. With resources stretched, we need to know the work we are doing is making a measurable difference. New research from HEAT reveals a series of powerful findings: 

    1. Intensive outreach boosts HE entry by up to 29% – Students who received at least 11 hours of intensive outreach were up to 29% more likely to enter higher education (HE) than matched peers receiving minimal support. 
    1. Disadvantaged students see the biggest gains – Free school meal (FSM) eligible students were up to 48% more likely to progress to HE when engaged in intensive outreach. 
    1. Uni Connect makes a difference – The largest relative increases in HE entry were observed in FSM-eligible students who participated in Uni Connect-funded activities, further demonstrating the importance of impartial outreach delivered collaboratively. 
    1. Access to selective universities improves – Intensive outreach from high-tariff providers increased the chance of progressing to a high-tariff university by 19%. 
    1. Sustained support across Key Stages is vital – Outreach delivered across both Key Stages 4 and 5 had the greatest impact, highlighting the need for long-term, multi-stage interventions throughout secondary education. 

    These findings provide compelling evidence that the work being done across the sector to widen participation is not only reaching the right students but changing trajectories at scale. Crucially, this latest research includes previously unavailable controls for student-level prior attainment — adding new rigour to our understanding of outreach impact. You can read the full report on our website. 

    What’s next for national-level research? 

    Our ability to generate this kind of national evidence is set to improve even further thanks a successful bid to the Office for Students (OfS) Innovation Fund. Through a collaboration with academics at the Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities (CEPEO) at the UCL Institute of Education, HEAT will lead on the development and piloting of a pioneering new Outreach Metric, measuring providers’ broader contribution to reducing socio-economic gaps in HE participation. More details about this project can be found here, and we look forward to sharing early findings with the sector in 2026. 

    Local-level evaluation is just as important 

    While national analyses like these are essential to understanding the big picture, the OfS rightly continues to require providers to evaluate their own delivery. Local evaluations are critical for testing specific interventions, understanding how programmes work in different contexts, and learning how to adapt practice to improve outcomes. Yet robust evaluation is often resource-intensive and can be out of reach for smaller teams. 

    This is where use of a sector-wide system for evaluation helps – shared systems like HEAT provide the infrastructure to track student engagement and outcomes at a fraction of the cost of building bespoke systems. Thanks to a decade of collaboration, we now have a system which the sector designed and built together, and which provides the tools necessary to deliver the evaluation that the OfS require providers to publish as part of their Access and Participation Plans (APP).  

    We’re also continuing to improve our infrastructure. Thanks to a second successful bid to the OfS Innovation Fund we are building system functionality to support providers to use their tracking data when evaluating their APP interventions. This includes an ‘automated comparator group tool’ that will streamline the process of identifying matched participant and non-participant groups based on confounding variables. By reducing the need for manual data work, the tool will make it easier to apply quasi-experimental designs and generate more robust evidence of impact. 

    Next steps – sharing through publication 

    With all these tools at their disposal, the next step is to support the sector to publish their evaluation. We need shared learning to avoid duplication and siloed working. HEAT is currently collaborating with TASO to deliver the Higher Education Evaluation Library (HEEL), which will collect, and share, intervention-level evaluation reports in one accessible place for the first time. By collating this evidence, the HEEL will help practitioners and policymakers alike to see what works, what doesn’t, and where we can improve together. 

    If we want to continue delivering meaningful progress on access and participation, we need both meaningful, critical local evaluation and powerful national insights. Centralised data tracking infrastructure can give the sector the tools it needs to do both. 

    Source link

  • The Brand Power of Licensing

    The Brand Power of Licensing

    For many colleges and universities, licensed merchandise has long been a quiet but steady source of revenue and brand visibility. From sweatshirts and baseball caps to water bottles and notebooks, these products not only generate income but also serve as walking billboards that boost school spirit and brand recognition far beyond campus.

    But lately, there’s been a shift. Higher ed marketers should be paying close attention to what’s happening in the licensing space, because the early warning signs of disruption are already here.

    Tariffs and Canceled Orders: A Brewing Storm

    Recent increases and uncertainty regarding tariffs on imported goods are driving up pricing for licensees to manufacture and import collegiate merchandise. With rising material, shipping and import costs, many licensees are reassessing their strategies. Some are choosing to cancel or reduce purchase orders, pulling back on riskier bets or deprioritizing smaller-volume schools in favor of top-tier brands with national visibility. Some are choosing to completely rebuild their supply chains, which involves changing product offerings, factory partners and source nations. Smaller-volume schools necessarily will be cut from some offerings as supply chains are rebuilt.

    For institutions outside the Power Four athletic conferences, that means your branded products may no longer be showing up on some store shelves for a while or may be offered in significantly reduced volume. Even for larger schools, the financial strain on licensees and the changes they need to make could lead to diminished SKU/style offerings, fewer special collections, slower product refreshes and reorders, and less innovation.

    The Impact on Brand Visibility and Affinity

    This isn’t just a revenue issue; it’s a brand issue. Licensed merchandise is one of the few marketing channels that turn fans, alumni and students into ambassadors. Today’s prospective students are tomorrow’s student body and future alumni and lifetime fans. When a fan or parent wears your school’s hoodie to the grocery store or a high school senior sees your logo in a retail window, that visibility reinforces your institution’s cultural presence.

    If fewer products are being made or if those products aren’t showing up in physical and digital storefronts, your brand presence shrinks. That affects more than just sales; it influences how connected your audience feels to your institution and has downstream negative impacts on enrollment, community involvement, donations and athletic support. These supply chain and licensee challenges are coming on the heels of significant COVID-related upheavals and before an anticipated nationwide enrollment cliff related to shrinking high school population.

    Why Marketing Leaders Should Get Involved

    Traditionally, licensing may live under auxiliary services or a separate business office. But as marketing leaders, we should be partnering more closely with licensing teams to ensure we have a full picture of how our brand is performing in the marketplace.

    Here are three steps marketing leaders can take now to mitigate the impact of this changing landscape.

    1. Re-Engage With Your Licensing Team

    Ask for a performance snapshot: How have royalties trended? Are specific categories, like youth apparel, tailgating gear or alumni merchandise, down or up more than others? What are your top-selling or worst-performing licensees and SKUs? Are there any retail partners you could work with to broaden their selection of licensed products?

    1. Evaluate Your Licensee Mix and Sourcing Strategy

    Encourage conversations about domestic sourcing options and alternative manufacturers with domestic production. If one of your primary partners is pulling back due to tariffs, there may be smaller or niche partners who are better equipped to weather the storm and innovate in response.

    1. Activate Your Community Through Storytelling

    If retail sales are contracting, consider how your marketing team can help drive traffic to official online stores or promote domestic-sourced direct-to-consumer efforts. Strategic storytelling such as featuring alumni-owned or local licensees or highlighting sustainable merchandise can align with institutional values while boosting sales.

    A Moment for Brand Resilience

    In higher ed, we often talk about resilience in terms of enrollment, endowment or curriculum. But brand resilience matters, too, and licensing is a key part of that equation. As market conditions tighten, schools that stay actively involved in their licensing strategy will have an advantage—not just financially, but reputationally.

    Now is the time to treat your licensing portfolio not as a passive revenue stream but as an extension of your brand strategy. The marketers who do will be best positioned to navigate the challenges ahead and emerge stronger.

    Jenny Petty is vice president, marketing communications, experience and engagement, and chief marketing and communications officer, and Denise “Goat” Lamb is chief licensing officer at the University of Montana.

    Source link

  • It’s the little moments that power social mobility

    It’s the little moments that power social mobility

    Anyone who has gone into higher education from a “non-traditional” background knows that widening participation is a double-edged sword. It is there to promote social mobility – but for individual students this journey, once taken, tends to be irreversible.

    In return for out-earning your family of origin, you are likely to endure a long period of feeling like an outsider. Whether it’s your accent, the words you use, the house you lived in, what you eat, the school you went to, or where (and indeed, if) you go on holiday, there are thousands of ways that you can feel different – and lesser. For some students, this feeling of being an imposter is further compounded by differences in culture, religion and ethnicity. As time goes on you can either continue standing out like a sore thumb or you can start to assimilate and, in doing so, lose little pieces of yourself forever.

    This is the story I heard many times over while carrying out research for a report published today. A Different World explores socioeconomic disadvantage in the transition to university and first year experience. In a partnership between Unite Students, University of Leeds and Manchester Metropolitan University, students took part in interviews, focus groups and co-creation, with most of them contributing directly to the report’s 33 recommendations.

    If this many recommendations seems excessive (even though they are helpfully grouped into six themes) it’s because most of them are about small but meaningful actions. I’ve spent the best part of 25 years advocating for a more inclusive higher education sector, but it’s only since working in student accommodation that I’ve come to see the value of these day-to-day moments as a force for change.

    University visits for schools are good, tutoring projects even better, and the return of grants would be lovely – but wherever the student experience is built on middle-class norms we will continue to see lower enrolment, continuation, completion, attainment and graduate outcomes among students from a different background.

    The change that is needed – and attainable – involves small, local actions in addition to system-level change.

    In their own words

    A Different World enables students to tell their own stories in their own words, which brings a richness of nuance to the topic and reveals opportunities for change.

    For example, there are many ways to cope with alienation, but opportunities to meet others from similar backgrounds really helps. As well as other students, this could also include staff members, and not just academic staff. Student accommodation maintenance teams made a difference for one student, and outside of this research I’ve heard many stories of students whose experience has been transformed by housekeepers or the reception team. Do we recognise and encourage this enough? Students were also reassured by services specifically aimed at them. We British don’t like to talk about social class, but maybe it would be helpful if we did.

    Students also shared the challenges of working and balancing a budget, and financial matters certainly did limit opportunities for socialising and extra-curriculars. However, they talked at least as much about their budgeting skills and ability to find the best bargains, skills usually learned from family. They were so impressive in this respect that they would have been helpful peer coaches for students in financial difficulty.

    A less obvious impact of socioeconomic background is gaps in fundamental knowledge about higher education. If you are the first person in your family to go to university, and especially if your school or college isn’t geared up to preparing you for it, there will be a lot you don’t know, including “unknown unknowns”, which put you at a disadvantage. For some students, unspoken assumptions tripped them up several times in the first year leading to missed opportunities and academic disadvantage.

    A different world

    The good news is that there’s a lot that can be done that would benefit students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and much of it would benefit a wider range of students too. You are probably doing some of these already, or in pockets within the organisation.

    All academics, and especially personal tutors, could explain expectations, terms and how to interact with them. For example, what are “office hours”, how do students get a meeting with you, and what are they allowed to talk about in those meetings? Module leaders could include ice-breakers at the start of every module, which also helps to promote belonging. Campus services staff could be encouraged and trained to develop more meaningful relationships with students, within appropriate boundaries. You could employ more students, especially those on a low income, and encourage your partners and suppliers to do the same. You could work with student-led societies to develop more inclusive practices and clearer communication. Maybe offer targeted bursaries for extra-curricular activities, via a clear and efficient process. For further inspiration I’d recommend reading the case studies from Manchester Metropolitan University and the University of Leeds that are included in the report.

    Widening access has been a success story over the last three decades – but if we’re serious about delivering social mobility as a sector, and as a society, individual students will benefit from better awareness and support while they are undertaking that difficult journey.

    Source link

  • Canceling AmeriCorps grants threatens the future of education and workforce pipelines that power our nation’s progress

    Canceling AmeriCorps grants threatens the future of education and workforce pipelines that power our nation’s progress

    The recent decision to cancel $400 million in AmeriCorps grants is nothing short of a crisis. With over 1,000 programs affected and 32,000 AmeriCorps and Senior Corps members pulled from their posts, this move will leave communities across the country without critical services.

    The cuts will dismantle disaster recovery efforts, disrupt educational support for vulnerable students and undermine a powerful workforce development strategy that provides AmeriCorps members with in-demand skills across sectors including education.

    AmeriCorps provides a service-to-workforce pipeline that gives young Americans and returning veterans hands-on training in high-demand industries, such as education, public safety, disaster response and health care. Its nominal front-end investment in human capital fosters economic mobility, enabling those who engage in a national service experience to successfully transition to gainful employment.

    As leaders of Teach For America and City Year, two organizations that are part of the AmeriCorps national service network and whose members receive education stipends that go toward certification costs, student loans or future education pursuits, we are alarmed by how this crisis threatens the future of the education and workforce pipelines that power our nation’s progress, and it is deeply personal. We both started our careers as corps members in the programs we now lead.

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

    Aneesh began his journey as a Teach For America corps member teaching high school English in Minnesota. Jim’s path began with City Year, serving at a Head Start program in Boston. We know firsthand that AmeriCorps programs are transformative and empower young people to drive meaningful change — for themselves and their communities.

    At Teach For America, AmeriCorps grants are essential to recruiting thousands of new teachers every year to effectively lead high-need classrooms across the country. These teachers, who have a consistent and significant positive impact on students’ learning, rely on the AmeriCorps education awards they earn through their two years of service to pay for their own education and professional development, including new teacher certification fees, costs that in some communities exceed $20,000.

    Termination of these grants threatens the pipeline of an estimated 2,500 new teachers preparing to enter classrooms over the summer. At a time when rural and urban communities alike are facing critical teacher shortages, cutting AmeriCorps support risks leaving students without the educators they need and deserve.

    City Year, similarly, relies on AmeriCorps to recruit more than 2,200 young adults annually to serve as student success coaches in K-12 schools across 21 states, 29 cities and 60 school districts.

    These AmeriCorps members serving as City Year student success coaches provide tutoring and mentoring that support students’ academic progress and interpersonal skill development and growth; they partner closely with teachers to boost student achievement, improve attendance and help keep kids on track to graduate. Research shows that schools partnering with City Year are two times more likely to improve their scores on English assessments, and two to three times more likely to improve their scores on math assessments.

    Corps members gain critical workforce skills such as leadership, problem-solving and creative thinking, which align directly with the top skills employers seek; the value of their experience has been reaffirmed through third-party research conducted with our alumni. The City Year experience prepares corps members for success in varied careers, with many going into education.

    AmeriCorps-funded programs like Breakthrough Collaborative and Jumpstart further strengthen this national service-to-workforce pathway, expanding the number of trained tutors and teacher trainees while also preparing corps members for careers that make a difference in all of our lives.

    Those programs’ trained educators ensure all students gain access to excellent educational opportunities that put them on the path to learn, lead and thrive in communities across the country. And the leaders of both organizations, like us, are AmeriCorps alumni, proof of the lasting effect of national service.

    Collectively, our four organizations have hundreds of thousands of alumni whose work as AmeriCorps members has impacted millions of children while shaping their own lives’ work, just as it did ours. Our alumni continue to lead classrooms, schools, districts, communities and organizations in neighborhoods across the country.

    Related: Tracking Trump: His actions to dismantle the Education Department, and more

    The termination of AmeriCorps grants is a direct blow to educators, schools and students. And, at a time when Gen Z is seeking work that aligns with their values and desire for impact, AmeriCorps is an essential on-ramp to public service and civic leadership that benefits not just individuals but entire communities and our country at large.

    For every dollar invested in AmeriCorps, $17 in economic value is generated, proving that national service is not only efficient but also a powerhouse for economic growth. Rather than draining resources, AmeriCorps drives real, measurable results that benefit individual communities and the national economy.

    Moreover, two-thirds of AmeriCorps funding is distributed by governor-appointed state service commissions to community- and faith-based organizations that leverage that funding to meet local needs. By working directly with state and local partners, AmeriCorps provides a more effective solution than top-down government intervention.

    On behalf of the more than 6,500 current AmeriCorps members serving with Teach For America and City Year, and the tens of thousands of alumni who have gone on to become educators, civic leaders and changemakers, we call on Congress to protect AmeriCorps and vital national service opportunities.

    Investing in AmeriCorps is an investment in America’s future, empowering communities, strengthening families and revitalizing economies. Let’s preserve the fabric of our national service infrastructure and ensure that the next generation of leaders, educators and community advocates who want to serve our nation have the ability to do so.

    Aneesh Sohoni is Teach For America’s new CEO. Previously, he was CEO of One Million Degrees and executive director of Teach For America Greater Chicago-Northwest Indiana. He is a proud alum of Teach For America.

    Jim Balfanz, a recognized leader and innovator in the field of education and national service, is CEO and a proud alum of City Year.

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

    This story about AmeriCorps, Teach For America and City Year was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

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

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Education researchers sue Trump administration, testing executive power

    Education researchers sue Trump administration, testing executive power

    UPDATE: The hearing scheduled for May 9 has been postponed until May 16 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The court will hear two similar motions at the same time and consider whether to temporarily restore the cuts to research and data collections and bring back fired federal workers at the Education Department. More details on the underlying cases in the article below.

    Some of the biggest names in education research — who often oppose each other in scholarly and policy debates — are now united in their desire to fight the cuts to data and scientific studies at the U.S. Department of Education.

    The roster includes both Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst, the first head of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) who initiated studies for private school vouchers, and Sean Reardon, a Stanford University sociologist who studies inequity in education. They are just two of the dozens of scholars who have submitted declarations to the courts against the department and Secretary Linda McMahon. They describe how their work has been harmed and argue that the cuts will devastate education research.

    Professional organizations representing the scholars are asking the courts to restore terminated research and data and reverse mass firings at the Institute of Education Sciences, the division that collects data on students and schools, awards research grants, highlights effective practices and measures student achievement. 

    Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

    Three major suits were filed last month in U.S. federal courts, each brought by two different professional organizations. The six groups are the Association for Education Finance and Policy (AEFP), Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), American Educational Research Association (AERA), Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE), National Academy of Education (NAEd) and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). The American Educational Research Association alone represents 25,000 researchers and there is considerable overlap in membership among the professional associations. 

    Prominent left-wing and progressive legal organizations spearheaded the suits and are representing the associations. They are Public Citizen, Democracy Forward and the Legal Defense Fund, which was originally founded by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) but is an independent legal organization. Allison Scharfstein, an attorney for the Legal Defense Fund, said education data is critical to documenting educational disparities and improve education for Black and Hispanic students. “We know that the data is needed for educational equity,” Scharfstein said.

    Related: Chaos and confusion as the statistics arm of the Education Department is reduced to a skeletal staff of 3

    Officers at the research associations described the complex calculations in suing the government, mindful that many of them work at universities that are under attack by the Trump administration and that its members are worried about retaliation.  

    “A situation like this requires a bit of a leap of faith,” said Elizabeth Tipton, president of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness and a statistician at Northwestern University. “We were reminded that we are the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, and that this is an existential threat. If the destruction that we see continues, we won’t exist, and our members won’t exist. This kind of research won’t exist. And so the board ultimately decided that the tradeoffs were in our favor, in the sense that whether we won or we lost, that we had to stand up for this.”

    The three suits are similar in that they all contend that the Trump administration exceeded its executive authority by eliminating activities Congress requires by law. Private citizens or organizations are generally barred from suing the federal government, which enjoys legal protection known as “sovereign immunity.” But under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, private organizations can ask the courts to intervene when executive agencies have acted arbitrarily, capriciously and not in accordance with the law. The suits point out, for example, that the Education Science Reform Act of 2002 specifically requires the Education Department to operate Regional Education Laboratories and conduct longitudinal and special data collections, activities that the Education Department eliminated in February among a mass cancelation of projects. 

    Related: DOGE’s death blow to education studies

    The suits argue that it is impossible for the Education Department to carry out its congressionally required duties, such as the awarding of grants to study and identify effective teaching practices, after the March firing of almost 90 percent of the IES staff and the suspension of panels to review grant proposals. The research organizations argue that their members and the field of education research will be irreparably harmed. 

    Of immediate concern are two June deadlines. Beginning June 1, researchers are scheduled to lose remote access to restricted datasets, which can include personally identifiable information about students. The suits contend that loss harms the ability of researchers to finish projects in progress and plan future studies. The researchers say they are also unable to publish or present studies that use this data because there is no one remaining inside the Education Department to review their papers for any inadvertent disclosure of student data.

    The second concern is that the termination of more than 1,300 Education Department employees will become final by June 10. Technically, these employees have been on administrative leave since March, and lawyers for the education associations are concerned that it will be impossible to rehire these veteran statisticians and research experts for congressionally required tasks. 

    The suits describe additional worries. Outside contractors are responsible for storing historical datasets because the Education Department doesn’t have its own data warehouse, and researchers are worried about who will maintain this critical data in the months and years ahead now that the contracts have been canceled. Another concern is that the terminated contracts for research and surveys include clauses that will force researchers to delete data about their subjects. “Years of work have gone into these studies,” said Dan McGrath, an attorney at Democracy Forward, who is involved in one of the three suits. “At some point it won’t be possible to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.” 

    Related: Education research takes another hit in latest DOGE attack

    In all three of the suits, lawyers have asked the courts for a preliminary injunction to reverse the cuts and firings, temporarily restoring the studies and bringing federal employees back to the Education Department to continue their work while the judges take more time to decide whether the Trump administration exceeded its authority. A first hearing on a temporary injunction is scheduled on Friday in federal district court in Washington.*

    A lot of people have been waiting for this. In February, when DOGE first started cutting non-ideological studies and data collections at the Education Department, I wondered why Congress wasn’t protesting that its laws were being ignored. And I was wondering where the research community was. It was so hard to get anyone to talk on the record. Now these suits, combined with Harvard University’s resistance to the Trump administration, show that higher education is finally finding its voice and fighting what it sees as existential threats.

    The three suits:

    1. Public Citizen suit

    Plaintiffs: Association for Education Finance and Policy (AEFP) and the  Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP)

    Attorneys: Public Citizen Litigation Group

    Defendants: Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and the U.S. Department of Education

    Date filed: April 4

    Where: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

    Documents: complaint, Public Citizen press release, 

    A concern: Data infrastructure. “We want to do all that we can to protect essential data and research infrastructure,” said Michal Kurlaender, president of AEFP and a professor at University of California, Davis.

    Status: Public Citizen filed a request for a temporary injunction on April 17 that was accompanied by declarations from researchers on how they and the field of education have been harmed. The Education Department filed a response on April 30. A hearing is scheduled for May 9.

    1. Democracy Forward suit

    Plaintiffs: American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE)

    Attorneys: Democracy Forward 

    Defendants: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and Acting Director of the Institute of Education Sciences Matthew Soldner

    Date filed: April 14

    Where: U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division 

    Documents: complaint, Democracy Forward press release, AERA letter to members

    A concern: Future research. “IES has been critical to fostering research on what works, and what does not work, and for providing this information to schools so they can best prepare students for their future,” said Ellen Weiss, executive director of SREE. “Our graduate students are stalled in their work and upended in their progress toward a degree. Practitioners and policymakers also suffer great harm as they are left to drive decisions without the benefit of empirical data and high-quality research,” said Felice Levine, executive director of AERA.

    Status: A request for a temporary injunction was filed April 29, accompanied by declarations from researchers on how their work is harmed. 

    1. Legal Defense Fund suit

    Plaintiffs: National Academy of Education (NAEd) and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME)

    Attorneys: Legal Defense Fund

    Defendants: The U.S. Department of Education and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon 

    Date filed: April 24

    Where: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

    Documents: complaint, LDF press release

    A concern: Data quality. “The law requires not only data access but data quality,” said Andrew Ho, a Harvard University professor of education and former president of the National Council on Measurement in Education. “For 88 years, our organization has upheld standards for valid measurements and the research that depends on these measurements. We do so again today.” 

    Status: A request for a temporary injunction was filed May 2.*

    * Correction: This paragraph was corrected to make clear that lawyers in all three suits have asked the courts to temporarily reverse the research and data cuts and personnel firings. Also, May 9th is a Friday, not a Thursday. We regret the error. 

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or [email protected].

    This story about Education Department lawsuits was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

    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

  • The Power of SAM Paths

    The Power of SAM Paths

    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    As a computing professor with over 20 years of experience, I’m always searching for ways to continuously engage and motivate my students in the ever-changing educational landscape. In recent years, I’ve found that my students have a wide range of computer skill levels. I am continuously striving to ensure everyone has a positive experience. Incorporating SAM Paths in my courses has allowed me to provide both a positive and personalized learning experience for each of my students.

    What is a SAM Path?

    SAM Path is an adaptive learning assignment that consists of sequential combinations of exams and trainings. The three possible combinations are as follows:

    • Pre-Exam > Training > Post-Exam
    • Training > Exam
    • Exam > Training

    Each SAM Path is customizable. An instructor can select which tasks they would like to include. There are a variety of scheduling options that allow them to tailor the SAM Path to their specific needs. These include setting time limits, randomizing questions, modifying exam scenarios and allowing multiple attempts of an exam.

    How to Use SAM Path

    There is no right or wrong way to use a SAM Path. You can add SAM Paths to a traditional computing course at an interval that is appropriate for your course (weekly, by unit or by module). In a non-computing course, such as data analytics, you can implement SAM Paths that meet your needs. For example, create a SAM Path with Excel tasks that students will be required to use for a data analytics exercise.

    I will take this time to share how I’ve been using SAM Path. The sequential combination I prefer is Pre-Exam > Training > Post-Exam. The scheduling options I use are as follows:

    • A student can make one attempt on the Pre-Exam, which consists of 25 tasks.
    • A training is then automatically populated. This contains tasks the student answered incorrectly in the Pre-Exam. This way, they only focus on learning those specific tasks.
    • A Post-Exam is then automatically populated, which contains tasks the student learned how to properly complete in the training. Multiple attempts of the Post-Exam are permitted.
    • A student’s grade for the SAM Path is a combination of their Pre-Exam score and Post-Exam score.

    SAM Path benefits for students

    Students in my courses appreciate the personalized nature of SAM Paths. It allows them to work through each SAM Path at their own pace and current computer application skill-level. If a student is well-versed in a particular Office application, it allows them to complete the SAM Path quicker. It only requires them to complete training on tasks that they didn’t know how to properly complete, since they already demonstrated their knowledge in the Pre-Exam.

    The Pre-Exam also provides students with a benchmark to understand what their current skill-level is with a specific Office application. Many are surprised and humbled that they’re not as well-versed in an application that they originally thought they were. This results in students becoming more engaged with the material.

    Students also appreciate that they’re provided with an opportunity to learn how to complete incorrect tasks without penalty. They’re given a chance to demonstrate that they’ve achieved that skill. From an instructor perspective, I can also run a report on the Pre-Exam scores to gauge what the current skill-level of my class is, so that I can make appropriate adjustments to my lesson plan. If there was a certain task that students struggled with, I can ensure I reinforce that learning in my lesson.

    SAM Path best practices

    I have used SAM Paths in my courses for several years. It’s important to ensure students understand each component of the SAM path and the scheduling options that you’ve selected. An effective way that I have done this is by adding the following components to my course:

    • A video showing students how to access and complete each component of the SAM Path.
    • A SAM Path that does not count towards the students’ grade, so they can practice working through each component without penalty.
    • Instructions in the scheduling options window that reminds students of the number of attempts that I’ve selected for that component of the SAM Path. These instructions pop up on the screen as a friendly reminder for students.

    SAM Paths have been a welcome assignment type in my educational toolkit which has resulted in motivating and engaging my students. If you are a new or experienced SAM user, I would encourage you to consider adding SAM Paths to your courses. You won’t be disappointed!

    Written by Eva Turczyniak, Professor, Pilon School of Business at Sheridan College

    Explore more SAM content for your computing course and check out our SAM Paths flyer for additional information on this feature.

    Source link

  • What happens when tyrants fall from power?

    What happens when tyrants fall from power?

    “The despot is dead. Long live … er, who?“

    Unlike kings or queens, dictators and autocrats find it helpful not to have a clear successor or rival who might soften their hold on power.

    Much as that iron-fisted ruler may be loathed, their abrupt departure from the throne can bring significant risk of subsequent turmoil. They have created a system that puts them alone at the centre of power.

    The White House in March was very quick to deny that President Joe Biden was pressing for regime change when he said that his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, should not remain in power.

    There is no shortage of countries in recent decades where fallen autocrats have left a power vacuum all too quickly filled by chancers, thugs and weird ideologues, or simply some drab toady of the old regime.

    Covering tyranny

    As a reporter, it was impossible for me not to get caught up in the excitement after popular unrest had driven out yet another long-serving despot in power so long that they had forgotten who was serving whom. It really is exhilarating.

    During a long career as a journalist, I reported in a number of countries where autocratic, often staggeringly corrupt, leaders were forced unwillingly out of office. Sometimes, I’ve been there at the moment, more often to report on the aftermath.

    The first time was just over 30 years ago in Bangladesh, whose military dictator Hussain Ershad had lost power in the face of mass protests. And in a rarity for the impoverished country, whose relatively short period of independence had been marked by violence and assassinations, the leader’s downfall had been almost bloodless.

    By the time I arrived in Dhaka, crowds were cheerfully marching through the capital’s streets. The two people who would dominate Bangladeshi politics until today — the widow of one assassinated leader and the daughter of another — were happily giving interviews to visiting journalists, promising a new era for their country.

    Since then, Bangladesh’s economy has indeed grown. But the country’s politics remain plagued by autocratic leadership, corruption and a drawn-out feud between those two women.

    The lingering influence of despotism

    In the Philippines, a reporter colleague liked to tell stories about joining a crowd streaming through the Malacanang presidential palace, vacant after President Ferdinand Marcos and his wife Imelda fled the country in the face of a People’s Power revolt in 1986 following more than 20 years of rule marked by excess and rampant graft.

    This month, their son was elected president with little to offer by way of a platform beyond the promise of a return to those “halcyon days” when his parents were in charge some four decades earlier.

    In neighbouring Indonesia, the family of President Suharto, who led another Southeast Asian kleptocracy into near financial ruin until he was forced to step down in 1998 after more than 32 years of iron rule, continues to try to get back into politics. Suharto’s downfall came with mass protests, violence and fears the giant archipelago would split apart. The country has largely recovered, but some of the elites established during the Suharto years remain a powerful influence.

    Later, I was involved in reporting on the “colour” revolutions of former Soviet states, including Georgia and Ukraine. In both cases, infectious enthusiasm for change and the end of the old regimes did not take all that long to sour.

    The leader of the 2003 Georgian revolution, Mikheil Saakashvili, eventually fled into exile. He is now back in his country where he was jailed on charges of abuse of power.

    Sidelining of opposition

    Ukraine struggled to find a competent leader after casting aside the old guard from the Soviet era with its Orange Revolution, which began the following year.

    Paradoxically, and very unexpectedly, it has taken this year’s Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to reveal a leader of commanding stature in President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a former comedian.

    In many of these countries and others ruled by long-serving autocracies, the incentive is for leaders to crush any emerging threat to their hold on power. Rising political stars are sidelined, opponents are exiled, jailed or killed and domestic news coverage is limited to the official line.

    And Russia? Rumours abound that Putin, ever tightening his control during more than 20 years in power, is seriously ill or even faces a coup. As with the likes of Suharto or Marcos, Putin took office when his country was lurching through economic crisis. He was a bit dull. Unlike his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, Putin didn’t make a habit of rolling up drunk.

    He was smart, focused on the economy, not in thrall to Russia’s plundering oligarchs and able to bring stability to the lives of ordinary Russians exhausted and disoriented by the collapse of the Soviet Union. He became hugely popular.

    But there was a sense that his inner circle didn’t quite trust that popularity. By most accounts, Putin would easily have won a second term in the 2004 presidential election. But the Kremlin could not resist making sure the deck was stacked in his favour. He won 71.9% of the vote.

    What would Russia be like post-Putin

    Putin has run the country ever since, either as president or prime minister. Such is the state’s grip on Russian media that it is not really possible to be sure how popular Putin may be now. One recent poll suggested his star, which had started to look a bit faded, has brightened considerably since the invasion of Ukraine.

    His government is clearly in no mood to put that popularity up for too much public scrutiny, throttling the remaining independent Russian media and introducing a law to hand long prison terms to those who openly oppose the war on Ukraine.

    Prominent Russians who might credibly challenge Putin’s grip on the country live abroad, are in prison or dead. His most recent serious opponent, Alexei Navalny, is looking at years in a Russian prison. It isn’t all that clear, either, whether the bulk of Russians would prefer Navalny as their next leader.

    If Putin is no longer in office for whatever reason, who would be in the running to replace him?

    It seems very unlikely that the current political elite would readily allow a reformer to sweep them from power. Quite possibly, the average Russian — sympathetic to the view that the West has for years been treating their country with contempt — would prefer stability, a job and some international prestige.

    When Russia faced revolution more than a century ago, an estimated 10 million people died after the autocrat Tsar Nicholas II was removed from power.

    Perhaps that’s why Biden officials were so quick to rule out regime change. Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.

    Questions to consider:

    • If you were working for local media in Moscow, how would you write about the war in Ukraine?

    • Do you think your country’s mainstream media can be relied on to be factual in reporting? Why?

    • If the current leader of your nation loses power, how peaceful do you think the aftermath will be?

    Correction: The editor’s note at the top of the story was changed to correct the date the article was originally published.

    Source link