Tag: push

  • Trump’s new housing policies could push another 170,000 people into homelessness (National Low Income Housing Coalition)

    Trump’s new housing policies could push another 170,000 people into homelessness (National Low Income Housing Coalition)

    Why NLIHC is taking action:

    The Continuum of Care Program exists to house people experiencing homelessness using proven, evidence-based solutions and strong local leadership. Yet, this NOFO introduces structural restrictions that contradict its stated purpose — capping permanent housing resources, weakening local decision-making, and threatening the stability of community response systems nationwide.

    As many as 170,000 more people could be pushed into homelessness if these changes stand — not as an abstract number, but as real individuals, families, veterans, seniors, youth, and neighbors in every state who depend on CoC-funded housing and services to remain stably housed.

    What this lawsuit means for our field and partners:

    We are fighting to:

    • Prevent hundreds of thousands of people from losing their homes

    • Protect proven permanent housing interventions within CoC funding

    • Defend the ability of local communities to lead response strategies using data and evidence

    • Stand with municipalities and providers working to keep people housed, stabilized, and supported

    Source link

  • The Push for Viewpoint Diversity Misses the Point (opinion)

    The Push for Viewpoint Diversity Misses the Point (opinion)

    Much of the controversy around the Trump administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” has focused on its push for viewpoint diversity and the claim that open inquiry does not exist in our classrooms. That push builds on a long-standing conservative critique that today makes hay out of the fact that the vast majority of faculty in U.S. colleges and universities lean left.

    Recent data supports that claim. In elite institutions, like Duke and Harvard Universities, surveys suggest the number of faculty identifying as liberal exceeds 60 percent. The percentages differ not only by type of institution but by discipline, with the humanities and social sciences leaning more liberal than STEM. Some even claim that political bias corrupts academic disciplines.

    Liberal faculty and commentators on higher education sometimes take the bait and respond defensively to what often is a politically motivated attack. In an op-ed in The Guardian, Lauren Lassabe Shepherd argued that the purpose of the conservative critique has been “to delegitimize the academy … [and] return colleges to a carefully constructed environment not to educate all, but to reproduce hierarchy.”

    Whether or not she is right, you don’t have to look hard to see that institutions of higher education are feeling growing pressure to right their ships—to create campuses and classrooms where open inquiry flourishes, where students feel free to say what they think and to challenge ideas they disagree with. Colleges have responded by scrambling to incorporate more ideological diversity into their course offerings, to implement new programming and to recruit guest speakers who challenge progressive thinking.

    All this misses the point and distracts us from the work that needs to be done to further improve the quality of the education students receive in American colleges and universities. Put simply, instead of fixating on who is in the classroom and whether they are liberal or conservative, we should be focused on how we are in the room.

    Higher education’s greatest challenge to achieving open inquiry is not one of ideology or viewpoint diversity, but of disposition. Harvard University’s 2024 report from a working group on open inquiry gestured in this direction but did not flesh it out.

    If we are to truly commit to open inquiry, we need to step back, pause and reflect not just on what we think, but on how we acquire knowledge, how we think, whether we are interested in learning more or if we are content with what we already know.

    You can decorate campuses with all the colors of the political rainbow but not make them better places to learn.

    The issue is how we show up with others. Data suggests that students in our classrooms don’t feel comfortable pushing back on each other or on their professors when they disagree. They engage in what psychologists Forest Romm and Kevin Waldman call “performative virtue-signaling.”

    In conversations with students at Amherst College, we have heard that they are not just constraining their expression in academic settings but in social settings, too. It seems we are afraid of each other.

    It is no wonder. The academic and public squares have not proven themselves to be especially kind or generous as of late. We need look no further than the vitriolic reactions to Charlie Kirk’s murder, and the as-vitriolic reactions to the reactions to his murder. When we do, we can see that the rush to righteousness operates across the ideological spectrum.

    The work of college education is to dislodge the instinct to judge and replace it with a commitment to rigorous listening. The work of college teachers is to model an approach to the world that puts empathy before criticism.

    What if instead of just talking about the right to speech, we emphasized the right to listen? But we don’t just mean any kind of listening; we mean listening in a certain way. Deep listening. The kind of listening that takes in ideas in slow, big gulps and lets them settle deeply, and sometimes uncomfortably.

    It is listening that seeks to catch ideas in flight and carry them further. This is a disciplined kind of listening that resists defensiveness and instead burrows into curiosity.

    To foster it, we have to cultivate in ourselves and in our students a disposition to wonder. Why does someone think that way? What experiences, places, relationships, institutions and social forces have shaped their thinking? How did they get to that argument? How did they get to that feeling? How is it that they could arrive at a different perspective than I did?

    This is the heart of open inquiry, and it is much harder to achieve than it is to bring more conservatives to campus. Without the disposition to wonder, doing so will produce enclaves, not engagement, on even the most ideologically diverse campus.

    This kind of open inquiry would demand that we remove the stance of moral certainty and righteousness from our ways and practices of thinking. That is the real work that needs to animate our colleges and universities.

    It is hard, slow work. There is no magic bullet. Teachers and their students, liberals and conservatives, have to commit to it.

    While open inquiry is a social disposition, it is also about how we orient our thinking when we are alone. We need to challenge our students to wonder not just about others but about themselves.

    What would happen if we all got into the habit of asking ourselves: When was the last time we changed our mind about something? When was the last time we left a conversation or finished a text and actually grappled with our orientation to a subject?

    We yearn for our students to practice open inquiry not just when they are in our classrooms, but when they are in the library or in their dorm room with a book to read, an equation to solve, a painting to finish.

    The promise of this type of inquiry is exhilarating, freeing. And it opens up great possibilities of seeing the world differently or in more complicated ways.

    At the end of the day, the literary scholar Peter Brooks gets it right when he says, “To honor, even only nominally, the call for ‘viewpoint diversity’ is to succumb to a logic that is at its heart hostile to the academic enterprise.” At the heart of that enterprise is a belief that viewpoint diversity is not the same thing as open inquiry. That belief requires changing the culture of learning on our campuses.

    Maybe the shift does not seem responsive to the political clamor of the moment. Maybe it sounds like it demands too much and will be hard to assess.

    But whatever the case, it feels revolutionary to us.

    Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.

    Leah Schmalzbauer is the Clarence Francis 1910 Professor in the Social Sciences and associate provost and associate dean of the faculty at Amherst College.

    Source link

  • Higher ed groups push for colleges to be exempt from $100K H-1B visa fee

    Higher ed groups push for colleges to be exempt from $100K H-1B visa fee

    Dive Brief:

    • Nearly three dozen higher education organizations are urging U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to exempt colleges from the new $100,000 fee for H-1B visa petitions, arguing in an Oct. 23 letter that these employees do work “crucial to the U.S. economy.”
    • President Donald Trump caught the higher education sector by surprise when he announced the large fee last month. Large research universities heavily rely on the H-1B visa program to hire international scholars. 
    • Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, said in the Thursday letter that colleges’ H-1B workers educate domestic students for “high-demand occupations, conduct essential research, provide critical patient care, and support the core infrastructure of our universities.” 

    Dive Insight: 

    Trump shocked the higher ed world sector on Sept. 19 when he declared that new petitions for H-1B visas must come with a $100,000 payment to be processed. Yet colleges were left unsure which of their workers would be impacted amid scant details on the new policy and mixed messages from administration officials. The federal government is facing at least two lawsuits over the fee.

    In the days and weeks since the fee was announced, the Trump administration has released additional information about the new policy. Just last week, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services released guidance that said the new fee wouldn’t apply to visa holders inside the country who are requesting a change of status or extension of stay — potentially exempting international students who recently graduated and have H1-B sponsorship. 

    Mitchell’s letter asked Noem to confirm that the new USCIS guidance includes those on F-1 or J-1 visas — both of which cover international students — converting to H-1B status. He also asked if the government would return the $100,000 fee if a petition is denied and how USCIS would process H-1B applications in a timely manner given the new requirements. 

    The letter points out that the proclamation included language that allows DHS to issue exemptions for workers if government officials deem hiring them is in the nation’s interest and doesn’t pose a security risk. 

    “The continuing education of our postsecondary students is in the national interest of the United States,” Mitchell wrote. 

    He cited recent CUPA-HR data showing that 7 in 10 faculty on H-1B visas in the U.S. are in tenured or tenure-track positions, with the largest shares in business, engineering and health disciplines. 

    Mitchell contended that exempting colleges from the new fee would be similar to the higher education sector’s current exemption from the cap on H-1B visas, which are awarded via a lottery process. The cap limits annual H-1B visa awards to 65,000 workers, with an additional 20,000 for international students who finished U.S. graduate programs. 

    Congress exempted higher education from the cap in recognition “of the special role that institutions of higher education play in hiring H-1Bs on our campuses,” Mitchell wrote. 

    ACE also took issue with a recent proposal that would change how the lottery system works. Under the new proposal from USCIS, visas for higher-wage applicants would be given more priority. 

    Mitchell urged USCIS to withdraw the rule in a public comment submitted Friday on behalf of ACE and 19 other higher education groups. He argued the change would harm international enrollment, as foreign students entering the workforce after completing their degrees at U.S. institutions would have much lower access to the H-1B visa program. 

    “A central reason for the excellence of our postsecondary institutions is their ability to attract and enroll talented, motivated, and curious students, whether born in this country or abroad,” Mitchell wrote. “This proposed rule will limit the ability of our institutions to recruit and retain these students, especially those that wish to remain in the United States.”

    Source link

  • Educators push for virtual schooling in response to ICE raids

    Educators push for virtual schooling in response to ICE raids

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

    Educators are pushing for virtual schooling as an option for students and families who are living in fear of the increasing Immigrations and Customs Enforcement presence in and around school communities nationwide. 

    “This is an emergency,” said Chicago Board of Education member Anusha Thotakura during a public board meeting on Oct. 23. “Although the safest place for kids is at school, even if there is something that we can do to prevent one family being separated or one child coming back home to see that their parents are not there, we need to explore those avenues.”

    The Chicago area, including its schools and students, has been hit hard in recent weeks by the federal government’s immigration crackdown. There have been multiple individuals apprehended by ICE on or near school grounds, including near elementary schools. 

    The Trump administration said the increased enforcement is needed to reduce illegal immigration and is important for national security and safety. Changes issued in January to Department of Homeland Security policy no longer protect schools from enforcement raids. Since then, schools have witnessed apprehensions during drop-off and pick-up hours. 

    In an effort to resist, school communities in Chicago —  including oftentimes their teachers and education leaders — have formed school patrols and walking school buses, are providing families with groceries, and are also taking part in neighborhood watches by blowing whistles to alert community members when enforcement agents are nearby, Chicago education leaders have said. 

    However, travel to and from school is the main concern, said board member Emma Lozano during Thursday’s board meeting. 

    “Safe passage does not exist right now, they are all over the street,” Lozano said, saying that community members were being apprehended as recently as Thursday morning, leaving children frightened that they’d return to an empty house after school. “Our parents are asking for remote learning if possible.” 

    However, such a decision would likely require Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker to declare a state of emergency, board members said.

    Chicago Teacher’s Union President Stacy Davis Gates also pushed the district earlier this week, saying to K-12 Dive that while a virtual academy already exists, it is not yet available to all students. In the meantime, educators are being as flexible and creative as possible to ensure students can still complete their assignments, she said.

    Chicago wouldn’t be the first to float the idea of a virtual academy as a way to ensure both the safety and academic continuation for children of immigrants and immigrant children. In August, the Los Angeles Unified School District emphasized its virtual school option after a 15-year-old LAUSD student with disabilities was detained outside of a district high school at gunpoint. 

    In March, the New York State Education Department also told superintendents across the state that school districts were allowed to offer virtual learning “to individual students who may be unable or averse to attending school, including during times of political uncertainty.” Those students could include English Language Learners, immigrant and migrant students, as well as “others who may be affected and reluctant to attend school in person due to concerns about their personal safety and security,” said the letter.

    The option for remote schooling comes as recent immigration enforcement policies under the Trump administration — including vagueness surrounding who will be arrested and how long they may be detained — is causing chronic anxiety in students. These federal immigration enforcement policies have been linked to absenteeism, classroom disengagement and heightened emotional distress, according to a July report released by psychiatric researchers at University of California, Riverside and New York University. This, the researchers wrote, has led students “to avoid school or withdraw from public life.”

    Source link

  • Six States Lead Nation in Anti-DEI Legislative Push, New Report Finds

    Six States Lead Nation in Anti-DEI Legislative Push, New Report Finds

    A new policy brief from the University of Southern California reveals that six states—Texas, Missouri, Tennessee, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Indiana—have emerged as national leaders in efforts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in higher education, with significant consequences for students and faculty of color.

    The report, “DEI Under Fire: Policy, Politics, and the Future of Campus Diversity,” released by USC’s Black Critical Policy Collective, analyzed legislative trends across all 50 states between August 2024 and July 2025. Researchers developed a composite scoring system based on bills introduced and laws passed, identifying states with the most aggressive anti-DEI activity.

    Texas topped the rankings with a composite score of 16, having introduced 10 bills and passed three laws restricting DEI efforts. Missouri followed with 15 bills introduced, though none passed into law. Tennessee, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Indiana rounded out the top six states, all scoring between 9 and 14 on the composite scale.

    As of July 2025, 14 states have passed a total of 20 anti-DEI laws, up from 12 states with 14 laws when data collection began in December 2024. These laws typically target four main areas: elimination of DEI offices and staff, bans on mandatory diversity training, prohibitions on diversity statements in hiring, and restrictions on identity-based preferences in admissions and employment.

    “Diversity, equity, and inclusion are not peripheral ideals. They are institutional functions—woven into the operational, cultural, and legal architecture of colleges and universities,” wrote Dr. Kendrick B. Davis, series editor for the Critical Policy Collective, in the report’s introduction. “When those functions are restricted or removed, the effects are material.”

    The institutional responses have been swift and substantial. At the University of Texas System, at least 49 DEI-related employees were terminated following the passage of three bills in 2023. The system shut down its Multicultural Engagement Center and Gender & Sexuality Center at UT-Austin and eliminated funding for student identity-based organizations and scholarships for undocumented students.

    In Iowa, following Senate File 2435’s passage in May 2024, the University of Iowa eliminated its Office of Inclusive Education and Strategic Initiatives and laid off 11 DEI-related staff members. The university also removed scholarships specifically aimed at racially minoritized students, redirecting funds to support low-income students more broadly. By October 2024, Iowa’s state universities had reallocated more than $2.1 million from DEI programs.

    Indiana University announced one of the most sweeping academic restructurings in its history, planning to suspend, eliminate, or consolidate at least 43 undergraduate programs, including African American and African Diaspora Studies, Gender Studies, and multiple language programs. The changes follow passage of Senate Bills 202 and 289, which banned DEI offices and prohibited diversity statements in hiring.

    Preliminary enrollment data following the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard—which effectively ended race-conscious admissions—shows declining representation of students of color at several elite institutions. At Harvard Law School, Black student enrollment in 2024 dropped to 19 first-year students, down from 43 the previous year. MIT reported a 1% decrease in the proportion of Hispanic and Black students, while UNC-Chapel Hill experienced a 5% decrease in Black, Indigenous, and people of color students overall.

    “The ongoing attacks on DEI, manifested in policy restrictions forcing institutions to comply with race-evasive policies, have significant implications for racial and ethnic diversity, student access and success, and workforce development,” the report states.

    Research shows faculty diversity benefits all students by fostering critical thinking and better preparing graduates for diverse workforces. However, DEI rollbacks make it significantly more difficult to recruit faculty of color, as institutions are now restricted from considering race in hiring decisions—a limitation reinforced by the Harvard ruling.

    The report’s authors—Mya Haynes, Glenda Palacios Quejada, Shawntae Mitchum, and Alexia Oduro—note that even private institutions like Vanderbilt University have implemented similar changes despite not being subject to state laws, “reflecting broader anxieties within the private sector about maintaining—or being seen to maintain—equity-oriented infrastructure under political scrutiny.”

    Student activism has emerged in response to the restrictions. Iowa State University students organized rallies and petitions opposing the elimination of the DEI office and restructuring of the LGBTQIA+ Center. In Alabama, university professors and students filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s DEI ban, arguing it violates First Amendment rights.

    “What is one of the things that’s sometimes difficult to see is the level of coordination between states,” Davis said in an interview. “Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, and Missouri—they’re not just a random collection. They’re a coordinated collection of states that have made some formal, some informal decisions, but what is clear through the legislation is that they share a common goal in restricting access to anything that is culturally relevant or sensitive to racially and ethnically minoritized groups in this country.” 

    Davis noted that while federal actions have dominated recent headlines, states initiated the anti-DEI movement shortly after 2020.

    “We have to remember the states started this anti-DEI, anti-critical race theory movement shortly after 2020,” he explained. “This has been a long time in the making, and I think the current federal efforts are just complementary to what states had already been doing.” The report aims to help policymakers and practitioners “get through some of the noise” and track the escalating legislative activity across multiple states, Davis said.

    The report recommends that institutions embed DEI principles within broader student success initiatives, leverage private funding where public funding is restricted, and strengthen alliances among students, faculty, staff, and community organizations to advocate for institutional accountability.

    Missouri represents a notable exception in the analysis. Despite introducing 14 bills targeting DEI—more than any state except Texas—none have passed into law. The report attributes this to intense legislative gridlock, ideological conflicts within the Republican majority, and strong opposition from educational institutions and community organizations. However, the 2025 legislative session has seen renewed efforts to advance anti-DEI policies.

    The researchers emphasize that the policy shifts carry particular consequences for Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities, who are losing access to culturally affirming resources, mentorship opportunities, and financial aid programs specifically designed to address historical inequities in higher education access.

    “If access is conditional and inclusion retractable, higher education cannot claim to serve the public,” Davis wrote.

    The report represents the third in a series examining how equity is being withdrawn across the education pipeline.

     

    Source link

  • Trump’s push for ‘patriotic’ education could further chill history instruction

    Trump’s push for ‘patriotic’ education could further chill history instruction

    High school history teacher Antoine Stroman says he wants his students to ask “the hard questions” — about slavery, Jim Crow, the murder of George Floyd and other painful episodes that have shaped the United States. 

    Now, Stroman worries that President Donald Trump’s push for “patriotic education” could complicate the direct, factual way he teaches such events. Last month, the president announced a plan to present American history that emphasizes “a unifying and uplifting portrayal of the nation’s founding ideals,” and inspires “a love of country.” 

    Stroman does not believe students at the magnet high school where he teaches in Philadelphia will buy this version, nor do many of the teachers I’ve spoken with. They say they are committed to honest accounts of the shameful events and painful eras that mark our nation’s history.

    “As a teacher, you have to have some conversations about teaching slavery. It is hard,” Stroman told me. “Teaching the Holocaust is hard. I can’t not teach something because it is hurtful. My students will come in and ask questions, and you really have to make up your mind to say, ‘I can’t rain dance around this.’” 

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education. 

    These are tense times for educators: In recent weeks, dozens of teachers and college professors have been fired or placed under investigation for social media posts about their views of slain 31-year-old conservative activist Charlie Kirk, ushering in a slew of lawsuits and legal challenges. 

    In Indiana, a portal called Eyes on Education encourages parents of school children, students and educators to submit “real examples” of objectionable curricula, policies or programs. And nearly 250 state, federal and local entities have introduced bills and other policies that restrict the content of teaching and trainings related to race and sex in public school. Supporters of these laws say discussion of such topics can leave students feeling inferior or superior based on race, gender or ethnicity; they believe parents, not schools, should teach students about political doctrine.

    “It has become very difficult to navigate,” said Jacob Maddaus, who teaches high school and college history in Maine and regularly participates in workshops on civics and the Constitution, including programs funded by the Sandra Day O’Connor Institute. Almost 80 percent of teachers surveyed recently by the institute say they have “self-censored” in class due to fear of pushback or controversy. They also reported feeling underprepared, unsupported and increasingly afraid to teach vital material.

    After Kirk’s death Trump launched a new “civics education coalition,” aimed at “renewing patriotism, strengthening civic knowledge, and advancing a shared understanding of America’s founding principles in schools across the nation.” The coalition is made up made up almost entirely of conservative groups, including Kirk’s Turning Point USA, whose chief education officer, Hutz Hertzberg, said in a statement announcing the effort that he “is more resolved than ever to advance God-centered, virtuous education for students.” 

    So far, no specific guidelines have emerged: Emails to the Department of Education — sent after the government shut down — were not returned. 

    Related: Teaching social studies in a polarized world 

    Some students, concerned about the shifting historical narratives, have taken steps to help preserve and expand their peers’ access to civics instruction. Among them is Mariya Tinch, an 18-year-old high school senior from rural North Carolina. “Trump’s goal of teaching ‘patriotic’ education is actually what made me start developing my app, called Revolve Justice, to help young students who didn’t have access to proper civic education get access to policies and form their own political opinions instead of having them decided for them,” she told me. 

    Growing up in a predominantly white area, Tinch said, “caused civic education to be more polarized in my life than I would like as a young Black girl. A lot of my knowledge in regard to civic education came from outside research after teachers were unable to fully answer my questions about the depth of the issues that we are taught to ignore.”

    Mariya Tinch, a high school senior in North Carolina, at the 2025 Ready, Set, App! competition (second from left). She developed an app to help students get access to policies and form their own political opinions. Credit: Courtesy of Mariya Tinch

    Other students are upset about federal cuts to history education programs, including National History Day, a 50-year-old nonprofit that runs a history competition for some 500,000 students who engage in original historic research and provides teachers with resources and training. Youth groups are now forming as well, including Voters of Tomorrow, which has a goal of building youth political power by “engaging, educating, and empowering our peers.” 

    Related: What National Endowment for the Humanities cuts mean for high schoolers like me

    There will surely be more attention focused on the founders’ original ideals for America as we approach the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence this July. Some teachers and groups that support civics teachers are creating resources, including the nonprofit iCivics, with its “We can teach hard things — and we should” guidelines.

    How all of these different messages resonate with students remains to be seen. In the meantime, Jessica Ellison, executive director of the nonprofit National Council for History Education is fielding a lot of questions from history teachers and giving them specific advice.

    “They might be anxious about any teaching that could get them on social media or reported by a student or parent,” Ellison told me, noting the strategy she shares with teachers is to focus on “the three S’s –— sources, state standards and student questions.” 

    Ellison also encourages teachers to “lean into the work of historians. Read the original sources, the primary sources, the secession documents from Mississippi and put them in front of students. If it is direct from the source you cannot argue with it.”

    In September, students at Berlin High School in Delaware, Ohio, participated in a sign creation and postcard campaign for a levy on the ballot. Credit: Courtesy Michael LaFlamme

    Michael LaFlamme has his own methods: He teaches Advanced Placement government and U.S. history at Olentangy Berlin High School outside of Columbus, Ohio, where many of his students work the polls during elections to see up close how voting works. They learn about civics via a participatory political science project that asks students to write a letter to an elected official. He also encourages students to watch debates or political or Sunday morning news shows with a parent or grandparent, and attend a school board meeting.

    “There is so much good learning to be done around current events,” LaFlamme told me, noting that “it becomes more about community and experience. We are looking at all of it as political scientists.”

    For Maddaus, the teacher in Maine, there is yet another obstacle: How his students consume news reinforces the enormous obstacles he and other teachers face to keep them informed and thinking critically. Earlier this fall, he heard some of his students talking about a rumor they’d heard over the weekend. 

    “Mr. Maddaus, is it true? Is President Donald Trump dead?” they asked. 

    Maddaus immediately wanted to know how they got this false news. 

    “We saw it on TikTok,” one of the students replied — not a surprising answer, perhaps, given that 4 out of 10 young adults get their news from the platform.

    Maddaus says he shook his head, corrected the record and then went back to his regularly scheduled history lesson. 

    Contact editor in chief Liz Willen at [email protected].

    This column about patriotism in education was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger 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

  • The push to expand school choice should not diminish civic education

    The push to expand school choice should not diminish civic education

    From Texas to Florida to Arizona, school voucher policies are reshaping the landscape of American education. The Trump administration champions federal support for voucher expansion, and many state-level leaders are advancing school choice programs. Billions of public dollars are now flowing to private schools, church networks and microeducation platforms.  

    The push to expand school choice is not just reallocating public funds to private institutions. It is reorganizing the very purpose of schooling. And in that shift, something essential is being lost — the public mission of education as a foundation of democracy. 

    Civic education is becoming fragmented, underfunded and institutionally weak.  

    In this moment of sweeping change, as public dollars shift from common institutions to private and alternative schools, the shared civic entities that once supported democratic learning are being diminished or lost entirely — traditional structures like public schools, libraries and community colleges are no longer guaranteed common spaces. 

    The result is a disjointed system in which students may gain academic content or career preparation but receive little support in learning how to lead with integrity, think across differences or sustain democratic institutions. The very idea of public life is at risk, especially in places where shared experience has been replaced by polarization. We need civic education more than ever. 

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

    If we want students who can lead a multiracial democracy, we need schools of every type to take civic formation seriously. That includes religious schools, charter schools and homeschooling networks. The responsibility cannot fall on public schools alone. Civic formation is not an ideological project. It is a democratic one, involving the long-term work of building the skills, habits and values that prepare people to work across differences and take responsibility for shared democratic life. 

    What we need now is a civic education strategy that matches the scale of the changes reshaping American schooling. This will mean fostering coordinated investment, institutional partnerships and recognition that the stakes are not just academic, they are also democratic. 

    Americans overwhelmingly support civic instruction. According to a 2020 survey in Texas by the Center of Women in Politics and Public Policy and iCivics, just 49 percent of teachers statewide believed that enough time was being devoted to teaching civics knowledge, and just 23 percent said the same about participatory-democracy skills. This gap is not unique to Texas, but there is little agreement on how civics should be taught, and even less structural support for the schools trying to do it. 

    Without serious investment, civic formation will remain an afterthought — a patchwork effort disconnected from the design of most educational systems. 

    This is not an argument against vouchers in principle. Families should have options. But in the move to decentralize education, we risk hollowing out its civic core. A democratic society cannot survive on academic content alone. It requires citizens — not just in the legal sense, but in the civic one. 

    A democratic society needs people who can deliberate, organize, collaborate and build a shared future with others who do not think or live like they do. 

    And that’s why we are building a framework in Texas that others can adopt and adapt to their own civic mission. 

    The pioneering Democracy Schools model, to which I contribute, supports civic formation across a range of public and private schools, colleges, community organizations and professional networks.  

    Civic infrastructure is the term we use to describe our approach: the design of relationships, institutions and systems that hold democracy together. Just as engineers build physical infrastructure, educators and civic leaders must build civic infrastructure by working with communities, not for or on them. 

    We start from a democratic tradition rooted in the Black freedom struggle. Freedom, in this view, is not just protection from domination. It is the capacity to act, build and see oneself reflected in the world. This view of citizenship demands more than voice. It calls for the ability to shape institutions, policies and public narratives from the ground up. 

    Related: STUDENT VOICE: My generation knows less about civics than my parents’ generation did, yet we need it more than ever 

    The model speaks to a national crisis: the erosion of shared civic space in education. It must be practiced and must be supported by institutions that understand their role in building public life. Historically Black colleges and universities like Huston-Tillotson University offer a powerful example. They are not elite pipelines disconnected from everyday life. They are rooted in community, oriented toward public leadership and shaped by a history of democratic struggle. They show what it looks like to educate for civic capacity — not just for upward mobility. They remind us that education is not only about what students know, but about who they become and what kind of world they are prepared to help shape. 

    Our national future depends on how well we prepare young people to take responsibility for shared institutions and pluralistic public life. This cannot be accomplished through content standards alone. It requires civic ecosystems designed to cultivate public authorship. 

    We have an enormous stake in preparing the next generation for the demands of democratic life. What kind of society are we preparing young people to lead? The answer will not come from any single institution. It will come from partnerships across sectors, aligned in purpose even if diverse in approach. 

    We are eager to collaborate with any organization — public, private or faith-based — committed to building the civic infrastructure that sustains our democracy. Wherever education takes place, civic formation must remain a central concern. 

    Robert Ceresa is the founding director of the Politics Lab of the James L. Farmer House, Huston-Tillotson University. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].  

    This story about civic education 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

  • Productivity Commission to push RPL – Campus Review

    Productivity Commission to push RPL – Campus Review

    The Productivity Commission (PC) has urged the federal government to focus on recognition of prior learning ahead of the Treasurer’s economic roundtable.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Charlie Kirk’s Push for Martial Law in U.S. Cities

    Charlie Kirk’s Push for Martial Law in U.S. Cities

    Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk recently made headlines by calling for a full military occupation of American cities following what he terms the “liberation” of Washington, D.C. Speaking on a national platform, Kirk advocated deploying U.S. military forces to urban centers such as Chicago, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Portland, and San Francisco to restore order amid rising crime and social unrest. He emphasized that a sustained military presence was necessary until these cities were “safe,” drawing comparisons to the low-crime, tightly controlled environments of Tokyo and Singapore.

    Kirk’s call is not merely rhetorical; it reflects a growing faction within right-wing politics that endorses the federalization of local law enforcement issues, invoking military force as a tool for domestic order. He also proposed federalizing Washington, D.C., with military oversight — a step he deems essential to restoring law and order in the nation’s capital.

    This stance has sparked significant debate over the balance between public safety and civil liberties. Critics warn that deploying military forces in civilian settings risks authoritarian overreach and undermines democratic norms. Supporters, meanwhile, argue that urgent and decisive action is needed in cities they see as suffering from governance failures. The implications of such a military occupation extend beyond crime statistics to the very fabric of American democracy, raising concerns about militarization, racial justice, and the erosion of local governance.

    Background on Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA

    Charlie Kirk is the founder and president of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), a conservative nonprofit organization established in 2012. Founded when Kirk was just 18, TPUSA has grown into a powerful network dedicated to promoting free markets, limited government, and conservative values among youth. Financially backed by donors including the late Foster Friess and Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, TPUSA reported revenues exceeding $55 million in 2022.

    The organization’s stated mission is to “identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote freedom.” However, its campus activities have drawn criticism for compiling “watchlists” targeting left-leaning faculty and spreading misinformation. The Higher Education Inquirer has closely documented TPUSA’s growth, spotlighting its alliances with conservative student chapters, the appearances of controversial figures on its platforms, and its alignment with Trump administration policies. Beyond campuses, TPUSA has expanded through initiatives like TPUSA Faith, TPUSA Live, and the AmericaFest conference series, which have featured speakers such as Donald Trump Jr., Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene.

    Fox News and the Epstein Fallout: Kirk’s Rising Media Profile

    Amid Fox News’ ongoing tensions with Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal over the Jeffrey Epstein investigative files, Charlie Kirk has been tapped to guest host Fox & Friends Weekend. His upcoming appearances on July 27–28, 2025, alongside Rachel Campos-Duffy and Charlie Hurt, signal a strategic move by Fox News to bolster its conservative youth appeal and MAGA alignment amid internal pressures.

    This development follows the Wall Street Journal’s July 2025 investigative report detailing Donald Trump’s past ties with Jeffrey Epstein, including allegations about a hand-drawn birthday card sent to Epstein. Trump has vehemently denied the claims and sued the Journal and Rupert Murdoch for $10 billion, labeling the report defamatory. Fox News, however, has noticeably limited its coverage of the Epstein files and the lawsuit, unlike other right-leaning outlets such as Newsmax and Real America’s Voice.

    Kirk has vocally attacked the Journal’s reporting, calling it “fake” and “a hit job” on Trump. He praised Trump’s lawsuit on his podcast and social media platforms, framing the allegations as baseless attempts to tarnish the former president’s reputation. Despite initial criticism of Attorney General Pam Bondi over a DOJ memo regarding the Epstein investigation, Kirk later shifted his position, urging trust in government officials — a reversal that drew attention to the strategic recalibrations within MAGA circles.

    Institutional Expansion and Political Influence

    TPUSA’s influence extends well beyond college campuses. Through Turning Point Academy, it reaches high schools, while TPUSA Faith engages religious communities. Its political arm, Turning Point Action, spent over $7 million in the 2022 midterms, reflecting significant investment in electoral politics. TPUSA’s 2023 annual report highlights its presence in more than 2,500 schools and training of over 12,000 student activists.

    Kirk’s upcoming role on Fox News underscores the merging of youth-oriented conservative political branding with legacy cable television platforms. This integration comes as Fox News attempts to balance the demands of its MAGA base against legal and reputational challenges linked to its corporate ownership. Kirk’s rising profile represents the normalization and institutionalization of organizations like TPUSA within mainstream conservative media.

    Charlie Kirk’s calls for military occupation of American cities, coupled with his increasing prominence within conservative media, highlight the evolving landscape of political influence, youth activism, and media power in the United States. As debates intensify over public safety, civil liberties, and the militarization of law enforcement, it is crucial to scrutinize the intersection of political ideology and institutional authority. The implications extend far beyond partisan disputes — touching the core of democratic governance and social cohesion in a deeply divided nation.

    Sources:

    Axios (July 2025): “Charlie Kirk to co-host Fox & Friends Weekend”

    Wall Street Journal (July 2025): “Trump’s Epstein Birthday Card”

    IRS Form 990 Filings (TPUSA 2021–2023)

    Media Matters: “Fox News Epstein Coverage Analysis”

    FEC.gov: Turning Point Action Political Expenditures

    Rolling Stone, Puck News (July 2025): Trump’s calls to allies over Epstein story

    TPUSA 2023 Annual Report

    Higher Education Inquirer Archive (2016–2025): Reports on TPUSA campus activity

    Original Article on Charlie Kirk’s Military Occupation Call

    Source link

  • DEI Skepticism Threatens to Derail Japan’s Gender Equity Push

    DEI Skepticism Threatens to Derail Japan’s Gender Equity Push

    Japan needs to admit that long-running efforts to address gender inequality in higher education aren’t working, experts say, with antidiversity sentiment spreading from the U.S. and threatening to gain traction.

    Despite government policies spanning nearly two decades, women remain severely underrepresented across Japanese universities, particularly in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields.

    As of 2022, women made up just 26.7 percent of faculty nationwide and fewer than half of all students, with even starker disparities in senior academic roles and male-dominated disciplines.

    Sayaka Oki, a professor at the University of Tokyo, described the situation as “terrible.”

    “Gender equality doesn’t really exist here,” she added.

    As of 2022, only 11 percent of professors at Oki’s university were female, with particularly low representation in engineering. In undergraduate programs in physics and engineering, women typically make up only about 15 percent of the student population.

    “The gender imbalance starts at the student level and gets worse in higher positions,” she said. The university has launched repeated initiatives that have attempted to address the problem and has reported that it has “steadily increased the number of women in faculty positions.”

    Since 2006, Japan’s government has implemented a “goal and timetable” policy aimed at increasing women researchers in natural sciences, setting numerical hiring targets every five years.

    However, these targets have remained largely unchanged because the proportion of women earning doctoral degrees—the main feeder for research roles—has not significantly increased.

    Ginko Kawano, professor of gender equality at Kyushu University, said that, “after nearly two decades, the policy has not produced significant results, and it appears we are now at a turning point in terms of policy design.”

    Kawano noted recent government encouragement for universities to adopt admission quotas for women in STEM to improve applicant numbers.

    Yet “while this sends a positive message that women are welcome in these disciplines, it is unlikely to serve as a fundamental solution to the underlying issues,” she said.

    She also acknowledged strong opposition from students and faculty: “Institutions that choose to introduce this system should clearly explain the reasoning behind it.

    “At the same time, it is crucial for university faculty to have access to the information and knowledge necessary to evaluate the merits and drawbacks of such quotas.

    “For example, they should be aware of the historical exclusion of women from science, and recognize the persistent bias that suggest[s] women are not suited for STEM fields—biases that continue to shape the choices women feel able to make,” Kawano said.

    Adding to the complexity is a political environment increasingly wary of diversity initiatives.

    Kawano warned that antidiversity sentiment similar to that in the U.S. could gain traction in Japan, although opposition to gender equality policies has existed independently for years.

    Akiyoshi Yonezawa, professor of higher education in the Global Strategy Office at Tohoku University, highlighted demographic pressures pushing universities toward diversity.

    “Since around 1990, the number of 18-year-olds has continuously declined and is expected to continue until at least 2040,” he said.

    In response, women and international students have been framed as essential for sustaining Japan’s knowledge economy.

    Yonezawa criticized how diversity initiatives in Japan are often framed: “DEI initiatives in Japanese universities and society tend to be promoted as a ‘catch-up’ Western mindset rather than intrinsic value formation through daily experience. This makes DEI activities in Japan’s higher education fragile in the long term when faced with controversy.”

    Institutional barriers also persist. Oki described how her university’s collegial governance system complicates efforts to implement top-down diversity policies and secure funding, which often comes with centralized control conditions.

    “To access the fund, we’re required to adopt a more top-down management style,” she said. “That’s difficult because our university traditionally follows a collegial governance model.”

    Oki agreed that there was a risk that international developments had made the situation potentially more difficult—particularly in the U.S., where things like the ban on affirmative action had made colleagues “more cautious about what might happen here.”

    Source link