Tag: School

  • FIRE statement on coalition backing press freedom at Santa Fe arts school

    FIRE statement on coalition backing press freedom at Santa Fe arts school

    Today, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and three partner organizations demanded that the Institute for American Indian Arts and its new president Shelly Lowe drop all sanctions on student David McNicholas, who was punished for supposedly “bullying” IAIA administrators. The offense? Investigative journalism exposing an empty food pantry on a campus where many students live below the poverty line. Since then, McNicholas has faced over a year of retaliation from administrators. Most recently, IAIA said he couldn’t even put up posters soliciting student submissions for a new edition of his independent student magazine, since it is not a school-funded publication — despite the fact that school policies list no such requirement. 

    FIRE, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the Student Press Law Center are urging Lowe to drop the sanctions on McNicholas and revise the school’s anti-bullying and posting policies to comply with the First Amendment. 

    The following statement is from FIRE Strategic Campaigns Specialist William Harris.

    Student journalist David McNicholas isn’t backing down after the Institute for American Indian Arts tried to silence him yet again. And now, he has four national nonprofits on his side. IAIA’s forbidding McNicholas from putting up posters seeking student submissions — ironically, for a new, free-speech-themed edition of The Young Warrior — is just the latest attack in its retribution campaign against investigative journalism that put McNicholas on probation, cost him work, and even left him homeless. 

    Coalition Letter to IAIA, September 25, 2025

    FIRE and other organizations urge the Institute of American Indian Arts to drop its sanctions against McNicholas and comply with the First Amendment. 


    Read More

    IAIA’s brand-new president, Shelly Lowe, should know better. A former chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, an institution that has faced many attempts by politicians to police artistic expression over the years, she now leads a school whose attacks on press freedom and expression are straight out of the authoritarian playbook. 

    Such hostility towards the First Amendment is especially offensive at an arts school — the last place where free expression should be under attack. Strong speech policies protect the sort of expression that drives culture forward.

    Over 500 members of the public have signed on to our Take Action campaign demanding that IAIA reverse course. Lowe should heed the call.

    Stand with us and tell IAIA to end this censorial saga and restore free expression to campus.

    Source link

  • Are we outsourcing our thinking to AI?

    Are we outsourcing our thinking to AI?

    Key points:

    I’ll admit that I use AI. I’ve asked it to help me figure out challenging Excel formulas that otherwise would have taken me 45 minutes and a few tutorials to troubleshoot. I’ve used it to help me analyze or organize massive amounts of information. I’ve even asked it to help me devise a running training program aligning with my goals and fitting within my schedule. AI is a fantastic tool–and that’s the point. It’s a tool, not a replacement for thinking.

    As AI tools become more capable, more intuitive, and more integrated into our daily lives, I’ve found myself wondering: Are we growing too dependent on AI to do our thinking for us?

    This question isn’t just philosophical. It has real consequences, especially for students and young learners. A recent study published in the journal Societies reports that people who used AI tools consistently showed a decline in critical thinking performance. In fact, “whether someone used AI tools was a bigger predictor of a person’s thinking skills than any other factor, including educational attainment.” That’s a staggering finding because it suggests that using AI might not just be a shortcut. It could be a cognitive detour.

    The atrophy of the mind

    The term “digital dementia” has been used to describe the deterioration of cognitive abilities as a result of over-reliance on digital devices. It’s a phrase originally associated with excessive screen time and memory decline, but it’s found new relevance in the era of generative AI. When we depend on a machine to generate our thoughts, answer our questions, or write our essays, what happens to the neural pathways that govern our own critical thinking? And will the upcoming era of agentic AI expedite this decline?

    Cognitive function, like physical fitness, follows the rule of “use it or lose it.” Just as muscles weaken without regular use, the brain’s ability to evaluate, synthesize, and critique information can atrophy when not exercised. This is especially concerning in the context of education, where young learners are still building those critical neural pathways.

    In short: Students need to learn how to think before they delegate that thinking to a machine.

    Can you still think critically with AI?

    Yes, but only if you’re intentional about it.

    AI doesn’t relieve you of the responsibility to think–in many cases, it demands even more critical thinking. AI produces hallucinations, falsifies claims, and can be misleading. If you blindly accept AI’s output, you’re not saving time, you’re surrendering clarity.

    Using AI effectively requires discernment. You need to know what you’re asking, evaluate what you’re given, and verify the accuracy of the result. In other words, you need to think before, during, and after using AI.

    The “source, please” problem

    One of the simplest ways to teach critical thinking is also the most annoying–just ask my teenage daughter. When she presents a fact or claim that she saw online, I respond with some version of: “What’s your source?” It drives her crazy, but it forces her to dig deeper, check assumptions, and distinguish between fact and fiction. It’s an essential habit of mind.

    But here’s the thing: AI doesn’t always give you the source. And when it does, sometimes it’s wrong, or the source isn’t reputable. Sometimes it requires a deeper dive (and a few more prompts) to find answers, especially to complicated topics. AI often provides quick, confident answers that fall apart under scrutiny.

    So why do we keep relying on it? Why are AI responses allowed to settle arguments, or serve as “truth” for students when the answers may be anything but?

    The lure of speed and simplicity

    It’s easier. It’s faster. And let’s face it: It feels like thinking. But there’s a difference between getting an answer and understanding it. AI gives us answers. It doesn’t teach us how to ask better questions or how to judge when an answer is incomplete or misleading.

    This process of cognitive offloading (where we shift mental effort to a device) can be incredibly efficient. But if we offload too much, too early, we risk weakening the mental muscles needed for sustained critical thinking.

    Implications for educators

    So, what does this mean for the classroom?

    First, educators must be discerning about how they use AI tools. These technologies aren’t going away, and banning them outright is neither realistic nor wise. But they must be introduced with guardrails. Students need explicit instruction on how to think alongside AI, not instead of it.

    Second, teachers should emphasize the importance of original thought, iterative questioning, and evidence-based reasoning. Instead of asking students to simply generate answers, ask them to critique AI-generated ones. Challenge them to fact-check, source, revise, and reflect. In doing so, we keep their cognitive skills active and growing.

    And finally, for young learners, we may need to draw a harder line. Students who haven’t yet formed the foundational skills of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation shouldn’t be skipping those steps. Just like you wouldn’t hand a calculator to a child who hasn’t yet learned to add, we shouldn’t hand over generative AI tools to students who haven’t learned how to write, question, or reason.

    A tool, not a crutch

    AI is here to stay. It’s powerful, transformative, and, when used well, can enhance our work and learning. But we must remember that it’s a tool, not a replacement for human thought. The moment we let it think for us is the moment we start to lose the capacity to think for ourselves.

    If we want the next generation to be capable, curious, and critically-minded, we must protect and nurture those skills. And that means using AI thoughtfully, sparingly, and always with a healthy dose of skepticism. AI is certainly proving it has staying power, so it’s in all our best interests to learn to adapt. However, let’s adapt with intentionality, and without sacrificing our critical thinking skills or succumbing to any form of digital dementia.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Back-to-school success for all: Building vital classroom skills

    Back-to-school success for all: Building vital classroom skills

    Key points:

    As students and teachers prepare for a new school year, it’s important to remember that success in the classroom isn’t just about academics; it’s about supporting the whole child. From motor skills and posture to organization, focus, and sensory regulation, the right strategies can make the learning process smoother and more enjoyable for everyone. 

    While occupational therapy (OT) is often associated with special education, many OTs like me use and share the supportive tips and tools described below in general education settings to benefit all learners. By integrating simple, classroom-friendly strategies into daily routines, teachers can help students build independence and confidence and see long-term success. 

    Motor skills

    One of the most crucial areas to address is motor skills. Many children entering kindergarten have not yet fully mastered tasks such as cutting or forming letters and shapes correctly. Simple strategies can encourage independence, such as using a “scissor template” taped to a desk to guide proper finger placement or offering verbal cues like “thumbs up” to remind children how to hold the tool correctly. Encouraging the use of a “helper hand” to move the paper reinforces bilateral coordination.

    For writing, providing small pencils or broken crayons helps children develop a mature grasp pattern and better handwriting skills. Posture is equally important; children should sit with their feet flat on the floor and their elbows slightly above the tabletop. Adjustable desks, sturdy footrests, or non-slip mats can all help. Structured warm-up activities like animal walks or yoga poses before seated work also prepare the sensory system for focus and promote better posture while completing these tasks.

    Executive function

    Equally important are executive function skills–organization, planning, and self-regulation techniques–that lay the foundation for academic achievement. Teachers can support these skills by using visual reminders, checklists, and color-coded materials to boost organization. Breaking larger assignments into smaller tasks and using timers can help children manage their time effectively. Tools such as social stories, behavior charts, and reward systems can motivate learners and improve impulse control, self-awareness, and flexibility.

    Social-emotional learning

    Social-emotional learning (SEL) is another vital area of focus, because navigating relationships can be tricky for children. Social-emotional learning helps learners understand their emotions, express them appropriately, and recognize what to expect from others and their environment.

    Traditional playground games like Red Light/Green Lightor Simon Says encourage turn-taking and following directions. Structured programs such as the Zones of Regulation use color-coded illustrations to help children recognize their emotions and respond constructively. For example, the “blue zone” represents low energy or boredom, the “green zone” is calm and focused, the “yellow zone” signals fidgetiness or loss of control, and the “red zone” reflects anger or frustration. Creating a personalized “menu” of coping strategies–such as deep breathing, counting to 10, or squeezing a stress ball–gives children practical tools to manage their emotions. Keeping a card with these strategies at their desks makes it easy to remember to leverage those tools in the future. Even something as simple as caring for a class pet can encourage empathy, responsibility, and social growth.

    Body awareness

    Body awareness and smooth transitions are also key to a successful classroom environment. Some children struggle to maintain personal space or focus during activities like walking in line. Teachers can prepare students for hall walking with warm-up exercises such as vertical jumps or marching in place. Keeping young children’s hands busy–by carrying books rather than using a cart–also helps. Alternating between tiptoe and heel walking can further engage students during key transitions. To build awareness of personal space, teachers can use inflatable cushions, small carpet squares, or marked spots on the floor. Encouraging children to stretch their arms outward as a guide reinforces boundaries in shared spaces as well.

    Sensory processing

    Supporting sensory processing benefits all learners by promoting focus and regulation. A sensory-friendly classroom might include fabric light covers to reduce glare, or subtle scent cues used intentionally to calm or energize students at different times. Scheduled motor breaks during transitions–such as yoga stretches, pushing, pulling, or stomping activities–help reset the sensory system. For students with higher sensory needs, a “calming corner” with mats, pillows, weighted blankets, and quiet activities provides a safe retreat for regaining focus.

    The vital role of occupational therapists in schools

    Employing OTs as full-time staff in school districts ensures these strategies and tools are implemented effectively and provides ongoing support for both students and educators alike. With OTs integrated into daily classroom activities, student challenges can be addressed early, preventing them from becoming larger problems. Skill deficits requiring more intensive intervention can be identified without delay as well. Research demonstrates that collaboration between OTs and teachers–through shared strategies and co-teaching–leads to improved student outcomes.

    Wishing you a successful and rewarding school year ahead!

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • School nurses: Keep K-12 vaccine mandates

    School nurses: Keep K-12 vaccine mandates

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The National Association of School Nurses is urging the continuation of vaccine mandates in K-12 schools to help protect children from preventable illnesses. The organization credits school vaccine requirements for significantly reducing the risk of disease outbreaks in schools and the broader communities. 
    • NASN and the Florida Association of School Nurses issued a joint statement last week condemning a recent announcement by Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo that the state would seek to eliminate vaccine requirements, including those for school-aged children.
    • The statement comes as national debate increases over vaccine safety. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel on Thursday recommended changing the inoculation guidelines for the first shot of the combined measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox vaccine for children ages 4 and younger to further prevent rare cases of fever-related seizures.

    Dive Insight:

    “Vaccination is one of the greatest public health achievements in American history,” the statement from NASN and FASN said. “It has eradicated or dramatically reduced the spread of numerous deadly and debilitating diseases. Thanks to vaccines, countless children — and vulnerable populations such as immunocompromised individuals and older adults — have been protected from preventable illnesses.”

    The NASN and FASN statement points to the rise in measles cases across several states earlier this year as a warning of what can happen when vaccination rates decline.

    In Florida, the elimination of vaccine mandates would occur through policy changes and legislation, Ladapo said. Earlier this month, Ladapo said Florida would be the first state to not require vaccinations, but the timeline for this is unclear.

    Currently, the state requires a variety of immunizations for participation in preschool and K-12, according to the Florida Department of Health.

    While the CDC recommends childhood vaccination schedules, school immunization requirements are typically set at the state level. However, many states use recommendations from CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to set school vaccine policies.

    According to the CDC, vaccination participation among kindergarteners in the U.S. decreased for all reported vaccines in the 2024-25 school year, compared to the previous school year.

    Data from the National Conference of State Legislatures shows all 50 states and Washington, D.C., require certain vaccinations for school attendance. Most states also give exemptions for religious or personal reasons. Only four states — California, Connecticut, Maine, and New York — allow only medical exemptions.

    According to a Sept. 12 paper from KFF, exemptions from school vaccination requirements, particularly non-medical exemptions, have increased in recent years. That coincides with shifts in attitudes about childhood vaccinations, which are likely fueled in part by vaccine misinformation, KFF said.

    At least 10 states this year have enacted legislation that could reduce childhood vaccination rates in those states. And at least one state — Colorado — made changes that could maintain or increase childhood vaccine rates, according to KFF.

    As vaccine skepticism seems to be increasing, polling shows reduced levels of support for school vaccine requirements. Just over half — 52% — of U.S. adults support their state requiring vaccinations as a condition of public or private school attendance, according to a report released in January by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. That’s down from 71% in 2019.

    About 1,077 U.S. adults were polled by Annenberg Public Policy Center for the 2025 survey.

    Source link

  • What Happens to Dual Enrollment Credits After High School?

    What Happens to Dual Enrollment Credits After High School?

    Dual enrollment is often described to high school students and their families as a way to get an early college experience at a significantly reduced cost. These students will earn college credit—sometimes even an associate degree or other college credential—before graduating high school, potentially reducing the time and cost of earning a bachelor’s degree.

    At least that’s the promise. But what happens when the path after high school isn’t so clear?

    For us, both former DE students (or, as we call ourselves, “stealth transfers”), transferring to a bachelor’s program after high school wasn’t straightforward. And our stories aren’t uncommon. Too often, DE students leave high school without guidance on transfer pathways, and even fewer understand the complexities of credit transfer or the financial implications of their DE choices in high school. What happens to former DE students’ credits after high school? What challenges do these students face? How can we better support them?

    Stealth Transfers: Unforeseen Challenges With Credit Mobility

    As dual-enrollment students, we assumed transfer would be a simple handoff: The credits we earned in high school would transfer to any college or university we planned to attend, apply directly to our program of study and help us graduate sooner while saving money. In reality, it isn’t always this seamless. Here are a few reasons why:

    1. Students may not be aware, or advised on, whether their DE courses will be accepted for credit toward a bachelor’s or other credential in their major field of interest. Among the more than 4,000 DE students from 17 colleges who participated in the pilot of the Dual Enrollment Survey of Student Engagement (DESSE), fewer than half reported ever interacting with a college adviser, and 88 percent reported never having utilized the college’s transfer credit services.
    2. Researchers have used national data to track transfer outcomes generally; however, there is still limited research on the extent of the challenges of DE credit transfer and how colleges and K–12 partners can ensure that DE credits are seamlessly transferred and applied to students’ degree programs. Community college students face challenges in transferring credits toward a major field of interest—challenges that could be compounded for DE students due to a lack of understanding of credit transfer and infrequent use of transfer supports.
    3. After enrolling in a university, former DE students may feel poorly supported because they are right out of high school, yet have advanced academic standing, so they don’t fall so neatly into first-year or transfer student populations (and the support services designed for them). As such, stealth transfers may miss out on dedicated advising, scholarships and clear information on how to advocate for themselves during the credit-evaluation process.

    The Support That Traveled With Me: Akilah’s Story

    As a double transfer—first through DE in high school, then from community college to a private university—I always knew my path was right, even when others doubted it. While DE wasn’t as heavily promoted by my high school as other academic programs, I knew it was a valuable and accessible opportunity to prepare me for college and my future goals. However, the guidance from my high school and community college advisers wasn’t always clear and often felt generic. Instead, I leaned on the support from my faith and family. Thanks to my father’s research, I was aware of which credits would and wouldn’t transfer, helping me make informed decisions. After transferring to my university, it was affirming to have the university adviser recognize the effort my family and I put into mapping out my plan. In the end, 57 of my 65 credits transferred.

    Many students like me turn to faith, family and community to bridge gaps in information and support. My story urges colleges to recognize the supports and resources transfer students draw on while providing clear pathways and dedicated advising for them.

    Racing Through College Without a Road Map: Aurely’s Story

    When I graduated high school with an associate degree and 68 college credits, I thought being ahead of my peers would be an advantage, especially since I couldn’t afford to pay for college. I only applied to one in-state university because it accepted 60 college credits and had a scholarship for former DE students. DE prepared me for the rigor of college coursework, but not what it would feel like to be a junior-level student at 18 years old. My focus was graduating quickly to start making an income, so I met with my adviser monthly to stay on track—but I didn’t take advantage of internships or networking opportunities because I wasn’t advised of their importance and had little time left after balancing a heavy course load with part-time jobs.

    Like many low-income students, I had the encouragement to pursue a higher education, but not the guidance on how to leverage it for my goals or career. Looking back, a dedicated community for stealth transfers could have helped me catch up on the social, professional and developmental experiences that typically occur over several years in college.

    What Can We Do to Support the DE Transfer Experience? 

    The growth of DE nationally means more students will arrive on college and university campuses as stealth transfers. When these students’ transfer journeys are hidden, they may miss out on dedicated advising, strategies to reduce the cost of completing their degree and guidance on how to advocate for themselves in higher education and beyond. As former DE students who now research DE and transfer, we offer recommendations below grounded in both our lived experiences and national research.

    1. Collect data on credit transfer and experiences of former DE students. Too little information is available on what happens to DE credits after high school. Educators can better support stealth transfers by participating in surveys, like the DESSE, and tracking outcomes for former DE students, including how many credits are lost and which courses are often not transferable. These data should be disaggregated to identify gaps (e.g., race, income) and discussed with K–12, community college and university partners during professional development and planning meetings to improve transfer outcomes.
    2. Provide clear major-specific pathways and guidance for stealth transfers. Many former DE students transfer more than once after high school, yet information on these pathways is not always accessible (or understandable) to students and their families. Educators should publish clear guidance on K–12, community college and university websites for students who attend a community college after DE. In high school, students should be informed if they are taking DE courses from multiple institutions and to save their DE course syllabi so they can be better equipped in advocating for the transferability of their coursework in the future.
    3. Improve financial guidance for former DE students. Former DE students may be unfamiliar with the costs of attending college after DE. Educators can ensure that scholarship opportunities at various transfer destinations are available to former DE students and deadlines are communicated during their senior year in high school.
    4. Support stealth transfer experiences as part of college transfer support services. As dual-enrollment programs expand nationally, there will be more stealth transfer students entering higher education after high school. Educators can make transfer support services, like transfer centers, more inclusive by surveying stealth transfers to understand their needs, creating former DE affinity groups, providing dedicated supports for former DE students, fostering peer connections and hosting events or networking opportunities for this population.

    As dual enrollment continues to grow, college and university leaders must recognize that more students will arrive as stealth transfers. By making stealth transfers visible, we can ensure that the promise of DE is fulfilled—not lost in transition.

    Source link

  • Strengthening family engagement to support the science of reading

    Strengthening family engagement to support the science of reading

    Key points:

    While most teachers are eager to implement the science of reading, many lack the time and tools to connect these practices to home-based support, according to a new national survey from Lexia, a Cambium Learning Group brand.

    The 2025 Back-to-School Teacher Survey, with input from more than 1,500 K–12 educators nationwide, points to an opportunity for district leaders to work in concert with teachers to provide families with the science of reading-based literacy resources they need to support student reading success.

    Key insights from the survey include:

    • 60 percent of teachers are either fully trained or interested in learning more about the science of reading
    • Only 15 percent currently provide parents with structured, evidence-based literacy activities
    • 79 percent of teachers cite time constraints and parents’ work schedules as top barriers to family engagement
    • Just 10 percent report that their schools offer comprehensive family literacy programs
    • Teachers overwhelmingly want in-person workshops and video tutorials to help parents support reading at home

    “Teachers know that parental involvement can accelerate literacy and they’re eager for ways to strengthen those connections,” said Lexia President Nick Gaehde. “This data highlights how districts can continue to build on momentum in this new school year by offering scalable, multilingual, and flexible family engagement strategies that align with the science of reading.”

    Teachers also called for:

    • Better technology tools for consistent school-to-home communication
    • Greater multilingual support to serve diverse communities
    • Professional learning that includes family engagement training

    Gaehde concluded, “Lexia’s survey reflects the continued national emphasis on Structured Literacy and shows that equipping families is essential to driving lasting student outcomes. At Lexia we’re committed to partnering with districts and teachers to strengthen the school-to-home connection. By giving educators practical tools and data-driven insights, we help teachers and families work together–ensuring every child has the literacy support they need to thrive.”

    The complete findings are available in a new report, From Classroom to Living Room: Exploring Parental Involvement in K–12 Literacy. District leaders can also download the accompanying infographic, “What District Leaders Need To Know: 5 Key Findings About Family Engagement and Literacy,” which highlights the most pressing data points and strategic opportunities for improving school-to-home literacy connections.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • More Colleges Promise Grads Employment, Grad School Placement

    More Colleges Promise Grads Employment, Grad School Placement

    For some students, enrolling in college can feel like a gamble due to the high cost and lack of a clear career at the end of the program. But a growing number of colleges and universities are guaranteeing students will land a job or graduate program slot within months of graduation.

    Bethel University in St. Paul is the latest to make such a promise; Bethel’s Career Commitment provides students in the College of Arts & Sciences with additional assistance if they are still unemployed or not enrolled in graduate school six months after graduation—including by offering a tuition-free spot in a graduate-level Bethel course or a staff job at the university. 

    The trend indicates a growing awareness among institutions of their responsibility to provide students with career-development opportunities, as well as their recognition that a lack of institutional support can impact the college’s perceived value.

    State of play: Nationally, institutions of higher education are struggling to demonstrate value to the public, including prospective students, parents and lawmakers. Much of the trepidation comes from a lack of transparency regarding colleges’ high cost of attendance and the mountain of student loan debt Americans hold, as well as high unemployment and underemployment rates among graduates.

    A recent survey by Tyton Partners found that among students who believe college is worth the cost, 95 percent think higher education is preparing them well for jobs and careers.

    In general, students give fair ratings to the work campuses are currently doing to prepare them for their professional lives. A 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that the plurality of students rate their institution’s efforts in career development as “average” (34 percent), 44.6 percent combined consider their college “good” or “excellent,” and 18 percent said poor or below average.

    Today’s college students are also eyeing a competitive job market during an economic downturn, as well as pressures from evolving technologies, such as generative artificial intelligence, that threaten entry-level roles.

    Embedding career development throughout the curriculum or as a graduation requirement is becoming more common, encouraging students to think about life after college earlier and in more meaningful ways so they aren’t caught unprepared when senior spring rolls around.

    Previous research shows that students engaged in career development are more likely to secure a job; a 2022 survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers found that students who engaged with their career center received more job offers than their peers who didn’t. But some structural barriers can hinder students’ ability to participate in career activities, including off-campus work, caregiving responsibilities or lack of awareness of services. Internships are also increasingly competitive, leaving some students behind.

    How it works: A key piece of the Bethel Career Commitment is that students must undertake significant measures to advance their own career before the university will open additional doors of support.

    Students must complete four “phases” of career preparation prior to graduation to be eligible for a spot in Bethel’s career commitment plan. The elements include creating a Handshake profile, meeting with a career-development coach and participating in an internship. And after they earn their degree, students must meet with a career coach monthly and apply for at least 20 jobs per month to complete the final phase.

    In addition, students must have a minimum 3.0 GPA, be in good financial standing with the university and be willing to relocate.

    For students who don’t meet all the eligibility requirements, the university provides postgraduation career support in the form of coaching, Bethel University president Ross Allen told Inside Higher Ed.

    “Today, 99 percent of Bethel graduates are employed or in graduate school within a year, so we expect a small number of graduates will need the additional postgraduation support,” Allen said.

    He anticipates that graduate-level credits will often be “the most helpful next step vocationally,” but the university may offer short-term employment opportunities to students based on staffing needs, Allen said.

    A national picture: Other institutions, including Thomas College in Maine, Davenport University in Michigan, Curry College in Massachusetts and the University of Tulsa, guarantee their graduates employment, also on the condition that students participate in career development while enrolled.

    At Davenport, for example, students in select majors who earn a 3.0 GPA, complete an internship or experiential learning opportunity, and participate in extracurricular activities are supported by the DU Employment Guarantee. The plan allows students to enroll in 48 additional credits tuition-free in a graduate, undergraduate or professional program at the university, as well as participate in career coaching and recruitment efforts.

    At Curry College, students who opt into the Curry Commitment receive assistance with federal student loans for up to 12 months. They are also given a paid internship or a tuition waiver for six credits of graduate studies at the institution. To be eligible, a student must participate in career advising, workshops and résumé development; earn at least a 2.8 GPA; and graduate within four years.

    None of these institutions differentiates among the types of job a student may secure—making no distinction between a part-time role or one that doesn’t require a bachelor’s degree—leaving some questions about the underemployment of college graduates.

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    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

  • Trump Wants Harvard to Build Vocational School

    Trump Wants Harvard to Build Vocational School

    Trump reportedly wants Harvard to build vocational schools as part of a $500 million settlement.

    Zhu Ziyu/VCG/Getty Images

    While President Trump has proposed slashing the federal workforce development budget, a potential settlement between Harvard University and the Trump administration could involve the a plan to use $500 million the government is demanding to build vocational schools, Bloomberg reported Thursday. 

    Harvard is one of nine universities the Trump administration has targeted with federal funding freezes. In April, the government froze $2.2 billion in federal grants after the university rejected its demands to overhaul its policies on admissions, governance, hiring and more. In July, Harvard, which also sued the Trump administration over the freeze, was reported as open to paying as much as $500 million to settle with the Trump administration, though leaders said they would be reluctant to pay the government directly. 

    While no deal with Harvard has materialized yet, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC on Thursday that if one does, the $500 million could go toward vocational education. 

    “If Harvard settles with Donald Trump, you know what he’s going to do with the $500 million?” Lutnick said. “He’s going to have Harvard build vocational schools. The Harvard vocational school, because that’s what America needs.” 

    But deal or no deal, the frozen funds may start flowing back to Harvard soon.

    Last week, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration illegally froze Harvard’s federal money, but the government plans to appeal. Earlier this week, The New York Times reported that Harvard researchers were told some grants were being restored, though it’s not clear how widespread those restorations were.

    Source link

  • Back to the future for the TEF? Back to school for OfS?

    Back to the future for the TEF? Back to school for OfS?

    As the new academic year dawns, there is a feeling of “back to the future” for the Teaching Excellent Framework (TEF).

    And it seems that the Office for Students (OfS) needs to go “back to school” in its understanding of the measurement of educational quality.

    Both of these feelings come from the OfS Chair’s suggestion that the level of undergraduate tuition fees institutions can charge may be linked to institutions’ TEF results.

    For those just joining us on TEF-Watch, this is where the TEF began back in the 2015 Green Paper.

    At that time, the idea of linking tuition fees to the TEF’s measure of quality was dropped pretty quickly because it was, and remains, totally unworkable in any fair and reasonable way.

    This is for a number of reasons that would be obvious to anyone who has a passing understanding of how the TEF measures educational quality, which I wrote about on Wonkhe at the time.

    Can’t work, won’t work

    First, the TEF does not measure the quality of individual degree programmes. It evaluates, in a fairly broad-brush way, a whole institution’s approach to teaching quality and related outcomes. All institutions have programmes of variable quality.

    This means that linking tuition fees to TEF outcomes could lead to significant numbers of students on lower quality programmes being charged the higher rate of tuition fees.

    Second, and even more unjustly, the TEF does not give any indication of the quality of education that students will directly experience.

    Rather, when they are applying for their degree programme, it provides a measure of an institution’s general teaching quality at the time of its last TEF assessment.

    Under the plans currently being considered for a rolling TEF, this could be up to five years previously – which would mean it gives a view of educational quality at least nine years before applicants will graduate. Even if it was from the year before they enrol, it will be based on an assessment of evidence that took place at least four years before they will complete their degree programme.

    Those knowledgeable about educational quality understand that, over such a time span, educational quality could have dramatically changed. Given this, on what basis can it be fair for new students to be charged the higher rate of tuition fees as a result of a general quality of education enjoyed by their predecessors?

    These two reasons would make a system in which tuition fees were linked to TEF outcomes incredibly unfair. And that is before we even consider its impact on the TEF as a valid measure of educational quality.

    The games universities play

    The higher the stakes in the TEF, the more institutions will feel forced to game the system. In the current state of financial crisis, any institutional leader is likely to feel almost compelled to pull every trick in the book in order to ensure the highest possible tuition fee income for their institution.

    How could they not given that it could make the difference between institutional survival, a forced merger or the potential closure of their institution? This would make the TEF even less of an effective measure of educational quality and much more of a measure of how effectively institutions can play the system.

    It takes very little understanding of such processes to see that institutions with the greatest resources will be in by far the best position to finance the playing of such games. Making the stakes so high for institutions would also remove any incentive for them to use the TEF as an opportunity to openly identify educational excellence and meaningfully reflect on their educational quality.

    This would mean that the TEF loses any potential to meet its core purpose, identified by the Independent Review of the TEF, “to identify excellence and encourage enhancement”. It will instead become even more of a highly pressurised marketing exercise with the TEF outcomes having potentially profound consequences for the future survival of some institutions.

    In its own terms, the suggestion about linking undergraduate tuition fees to TEF outcomes is nothing to worry about. It simply won’t happen. What is a much greater concern is that the OfS is publicly making this suggestion at a time when it is claiming it will work harder to advocate for the sector as a force for good, and also appears to have an insatiable appetite to dominate the measurement of educational quality in English higher education.

    Any regulator that had the capacity and expertise to do either of these things would simply not be making such a suggestion at any time but particularly not when the sector faces such a difficult financial outlook.

    An OfS out of touch with its impact on the sector. Haven’t we been here before?

    Source link