This blog was kindly authored by Dr Emily Magrath, Director of Programme Development and Impact at IntoUniversity.
After fielding a flurry of questions from the classroom of 7 and 8 year olds – ‘what is my favourite colour?’, ‘Is this a university?’, ‘Do staff sleep in the building at night?’ – we settle together to explore the question: ‘what is a career?’ Today, this looks like high-vis jackets and hard hats for civil engineers to plan the needed infrastructure for a town; paleontologists codifying discovered fossils; and foley artists creating a soundscape for a forest epic. The students identify the skills they have used and tell me their many ambitions – the room includes possible footballers, doctors, engineers, nurses, lawyers, fashion designers, a taxi driver (like his dad) and a mathematician. This is a starting point, one which gives them years to think about their future possibilities and, more importantly, to build the knowledge and skills to make them future realities.
The potential for talent is everywhere
Geography has become a primary driver of inequality in the UK. Despite initiatives to widen access to university and despite increases in higher education progression rates, areas remain where progression rates and education outcomes remain persistently and stubbornly low. As recently articulated by Alan Francis OBE, Chair of the Social Mobility Commission, this continues to ‘waste talent and limit potential’ across the UK.
Mounting evidence is stark in emphasising the particular challenges of these areas, so-called cold spots, which are, in reality, places systematically starved of opportunity with intersecting barriers: geographical isolation; lack of or expensive transport options; lack of teacher quality; and a lack of graduate jobs. Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who want to pursue higher education in these locations face hard choices, often commuting to university, struggling to pursue their chosen career in their local area or having to leave it behind. It is not a surprise then to see the UPP Foundation’s inquiry on Higher Education attitudes in Doncaster this year determining that for many young people university is seen as a “bad bet.”
In the face of these challenging intersections, starting widening participation work at 16 or 17, (or even 14 or 15) is too late. Interventions beginning at these points ultimately have failed many students in these regions – approaches must be anchored from primary age.
Why start at primary age?
It is clear that students from disadvantaged backgrounds face additional educational barriers. Their starting point often shows significant gaps to more advantaged peers, and without intervention, these can become entrenched well before secondary school. In 2023, the Education Policy Institute estimated the disadvantage learning gap at age 5 to be 4.6 months. This was wider than it had been prior to the pandemic. Furthermore, in some areas of deprivation, 50% of young people begin school with delayed language development.
There are no easy solutions, but earlier intervention is essential for building learning progress, fostering positive educational experiences and supporting students to acquire necessary qualifications for progression to higher education.
I would like to study accounting. I want to be rich and I love maths. I would like to study at Oxford university because it’s one of the best universities
Year 6 student, IntoUniversity
Alongside academic development, the implicit and explicit messaging young people hear is key. Young people are full of aspirations, but they need to hear not only how to connect these to actual pathways, but also that they can achieve them. Otherwise, their beliefs can become fixed – often in early teenage years – that university is not for ‘people like them’.
An antidote to this is to start conversations early and normalise university spaces. I have seen powerful examples of how sustained work can make a difference: a widening participation officer telling 10 and 11 year olds that the local university was “their university,’ they were welcome to ask questions and find out what happened there; seeing toddlers at ease climbing over benches in a lecture theatre at a family learning day; and the 18 year old who told me they just assumed they would go to the city’s university because ‘you took me there every year since I was little’.
Building place based ecosystems
Just after the pandemic, I met a father photographing his son in a graduation gown and mortar board at one of our primary graduation trips to a university – the culmination of a programme where students have imagined a university future for themselves. He proudly showed me photos of his older children in previous years (fortuitously aged so that none had missed out during the pandemic). This engagement with the university was a touchstone for each child and for the family.
The children go through the programme in Year 4, 5 and 6, and so they know it’s coming, and their siblings know it’s coming. They have an aspiration, and they know about what’s next. It’s a clear message for our school. Education is a journey, it continues in Secondary school and beyond and opens up opportunities. Because it is built into our curriculum, university feels like an entitlement for them. It is available for them.
Primary School Headteacher about IntoUniversity primary school programme
The recent Ruskin Institute for Social Equality’s report on coastal cold spots this year similarly emphasised geography’s critical role in higher education access. It showed that, accounting for similar backgrounds, young people can experience as much as a fivefold difference in their likelihood of progressing to HE based on where they live. The report argued that a move away from ‘collaborative, place-based, cross-sector approach’ to one emphasising individual universities’ targets has not served these areas well.
Consistent, long-term, sustained work from an early age is the only path forward when countering the entrenched challenges of cold spot areas. These are not challenges that can be solved by one intervention, one school, one charity or one university. Young people in these places need ecosystems of sustained support and opportunities available from an early age. That is how we can shift the dial on persistently low progression rates and ensure equitable access to higher education for all young people, regardless of where they live.
At a moment of political turmoil in American history, rife with violence, mass protest, and division, one university chose neutrality.
In 1967, when the president of the University of Chicago convened a faculty committee to deliberate on how the university should approach social and political issues, American higher education faced a pivotal moment. The Berkeley Free Speech Movement had changed the face of campus activism just three years prior. American society was rocked by protests against the Vietnam War and racial segregation.
That the committee emerged from deliberations with the Kalven Report, which recommended that colleges and universities stay neutral on major social and political issues, was a testament to the committee’s understanding of the purpose of the university to advance knowledge and truth-seeking.
The Kalven Report, named for the chair of the committee Harry Kalven Jr., articulated the role of faculty and students as instruments of “dissent and criticism,” and the university’s role as the “home and sponsor of critics.” Importantly, the report noted that the university “is not itself the critic,” and added that the spirit of independence and neutrality mean the university “must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community.”
FAQ: Institutional Neutrality and the Kalven Report
What is institutional neutrality? The idea that colleges and universities should not, as institutions, take positions on social and political issues.
FIRE has previously argued for colleges and universities to adopt institutional neutrality, both as a boon for the campus climate and as an insurance policy for the university. By declaring itself neutral on major political and social issues, a university ensures that it does not chill potential dissenters on campus by constantly taking official positions on unresolved topics. And it is worth noting that the Kalven Report makes a significant exception for threats to the “very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry.” There, a university may feel obligated to speak out on issues related to university governance.
But recently, two public universities demonstrated that they misunderstand what institutional neutrality entails. They used the principle to restrict student speech under the guise of protecting university neutrality.
At the University of Texas at Austin, a Graduate Student Assembly representative introduced two resolutionsopposing implementation of a Texas law eliminating university DEI programs and initiatives. The GSA prepared to bring the resolutions to the floor for consideration.
But an administrator intervened on the grounds that the resolution constituted “political speech that is not permitted to be issued by a sponsored student organization in their official capacity.” This move directly contravened the GSA’s stated purpose to “serve as a voice for graduate students on matters of academics, student welfare, and campus policy.”
FIRE and the ACLU of Texas wrote to UT Austin to explain why the university’s restrictions on the GSA are not required by the university’s adoption of institutional neutrality.
When a student government merely expresses an opinion about a policy that has significant impact on campus, it is engaging in expressive activity protected by the same First Amendment principles that safeguard the speech of individual students.
Institutional neutrality restrains an institution from adopting official positions on major issues. While there are open questions about how far within a university institutional neutrality must extend, neutrality certainly does not require — and indeed, is at odds with — a university restricting the speech of student bodies. This is an especially important distinction to make, given the fact that student associations and governments are supposed to serve, in part, as voices for the student body.
There are certain circumstances where student governments do exercise powers delegated by their universities, and so must abide by the same constitutional and legal obligations that bind the university itself. Student group funding, for example, is one area where student governments are required to be viewpoint-neutral, and FIRE has urged universities to intervene when student governments violate that obligation.
But when a student government merely expresses an opinion about a policy that has significant impact on campus, it is engaging in expressive activity protected by the same First Amendment principles that safeguard the speech of individual students. Unduly restricting it violates students’ rights and the spirit of institutional neutrality, which is intended to allow the university to house exactly this kind of discourse and debate.
UT Austin is not alone. This past summer, Purdue, just one year after adopting institutional neutrality, ordered an independent student publication to stop using “Purdue” in the publication’s URL and said it would end facilitating the publication’s free circulation on campus.
The university did so because the publication is a private entity, and the university feared, in light of its stance on institutional neutrality, that the publication’s speech would be associated with the university. But this order made clear that Purdue misunderstood institutional neutrality. The university was incorrect that allowing a clearly independent student publication to use Purdue’s name in its URL was somehow a violation of institutional neutrality.
This was simply an attempt to censor student speech by removing long-standing informal arrangements the paper had with the university — an entirely unnecessary decision that could chill expression on campus. A reasonable person would not assume that an independent student publication or student organization is speaking on behalf of a university. This is especially so when one considers how many disparate university organizations use a university’s name or receive university funding.
Punishing student or faculty speech in the name of maintaining institutional neutrality turns the entire concept on its head.
Indeed, the wisdom of institutional neutrality is that it allows universities to foster the widest possible ranges of voices and perspectives on campus. It is not about protecting universities from being associated with views they dislike. Rather, universities can create environments where their community members feel free to take unpopular positions and debate difficult ideas without feeling that their university is putting its thumb on the scale in one direction or another.
Institutional neutrality does not mean penalizing student publications for their viewpoints, just as it does not justify muzzling student governments. Punishing student or faculty speech in the name of maintaining institutional neutrality turns the entire concept on its head.
Nearly 40 institutions, including university systems, have adopted institutional neutrality, and FIRE will continue to urge other universities to follow suit. But institutional neutrality must not be misunderstood as obligating a university to restrict the speech of student governments or publications. We urge UT Austin, Purdue, and other neutral institutions to refrain from using neutrality as an excuse to censor student speech.
When students of different years of study share a common class, their levels of experience and confidence differ. Students from lower years of study may hesitate to speak up in the presence of those in higher years, while more experienced students may contribute more freely. These dynamics are common and, if left unaddressed, can reinforce a power imbalance that discourages active learning.
The same challenge shows up at the start of a semester. When students meet a lecturer for the first time, the unfamiliarity often makes them cautious. Most hold back. It is not because they lack curiosity, but because they are unsure how their answers or questions will be received.
This hesitation can hold back meaningful participation. I have come to learn that all it takes is a simple, intentional tool to change the energy of a room and give every student the confidence to contribute.
One such tool that has had a lasting impact on my teaching is the “Parking Lot.”
Discovering the Parking Lot
The Parking Lot is a simple but powerful active-learning tool: a dedicated space, physical or digital, where students can “park” their questions, comments, or reflections for later discussion. This allows a session to keep its flow while assuring students that their contributions will be acknowledged.
I first encountered this tool during a two week professional development course on Competency-Based Education and Training (CBET) delivery organized by my university.
I left the training with many ideas for making my teaching more interactive, but the Parking Lot stayed with me as a practical, low-cost strategy I could implement immediately.
A few months later, in early September 2025, I have the privilege of leading an inaugural 40-Hour Mediation Training and Certification program, a capacity-building initiative for students and staff members.
As project lead, I handled admissions and could tell from the applications that we had a mix of students from different years and one staff member. I worried that students from lower years might hold back and that quieter voices might be lost. I wanted every participant to feel their questions, comments, and opinions mattered.
During the pre-training meeting, I asked the trainers if I could introduce the Parking Lot as a way to encourage engagement, and they graciously agreed.
Bringing the Parking Lot to Life
On the first day of the training, I wrote PARKING LOT on a manila sheet, taped it to the front wall near the exit, and placed sticky notes on each participant’s table. The trainers invited me to explain how it worked.
I explained the purpose of the parking lot and encouraged participants to write their questions on sticky notes at any point in the day, during sessions, breaks, or even early the next morning, if they were not ready to raise their hand.
The results were immediate and encouraging. By the end of the first day, the Parking Lot had several notes posted. The trainers reviewed and addressed them the following morning, and participants continued to engage with it throughout the week.
Some who started by writing anonymous notes eventually became confident enough to ask questions aloud. The trainers later confirmed that the Parking Lot had improved participation and enriched the discussions.
This success made me curious to see what would happen if I tried it in my regular semester classes, which were about to begin the following week.
Applying the Parking Lot in My Classes
It was my first class of the semester, and I wanted to set the tone for participation. I was teaching a fourth year second semester class on Alternative dispute Resolution.
This time, I didn’t use the Parking Lot just to collect questions — I used it to invite feedback and spark discussion.
The first question I asked was “What rules should govern our class this semester?” Students wrote their suggestions on sticky notes, and we created a “social contract” for the semester, another active learning technique I am experimenting with.
I read the suggestions aloud and asked students, “What does this rule mean for us as a class?” or “How might we apply this rule in practice?” Their answers led to rich discussion, and I saw the power of shared responsibility as play when we agreed on the class rules, their application and consequences for both the students and the teacher.
I then used the Parking Lot to ask questions to introduce the course I was teaching that semester: “What do you think is conflict?”, “What do you think is a dispute?”, “What is the difference?” Reading their answers helped me identify and gently correct misconceptions without putting anyone on the spot. The class became so interactive that students were surprised when time was up.
Motivated by the positive results, later that same day, I used the Parking Lot in my first-year, second-semester on Legal Research & Writing class.
I asked students to write down on the sticky notes why they chose to study law and what they hoped to do with their degree. I told them that their reasons could serve as a compass something to help them find direction, stay true to their path, and never lose sight of their reason for being in law school when the journey becomes challenging.
I read their answers aloud, offered encouragement, and connected their aspirations back to the course outcomes. For example, I reminded them that to become a defender of human rights, one must not only know how to find the correct law but also be capable of writing clearly and persuasively.
This exercise gave even the quietest students a voice and set a tone of openness and shared purpose for the rest of the semester.
Lessons Learned
In the three instances I have applied the Parking Lot with different groups of students, I have seen it:
Activate students’ thinking early as they process the material and reflect on what they are learning.
Open up discussion by creating a safe space where every student’s voice can be heard.
Reveal misconceptions and allow them to be addressed gently, without putting anyone on the spot.
Connect student contributions to learning outcomes, helping them see why what they wrote matters to the course.
Encourage students to take ownership of their learning, which builds confidence and keeps them engaged.
Create opportunities for mentorship, by affirming students’ ideas, encouraging them, and guiding them as they think about their future career paths.
Reflection
This experience brought me to the realization that innovation in teaching, even in public universities where resources are often limited, does not need complicated technology or big budgets.
A manila paper sheet, some sticky notes, and a willingness to listen can transform the classroom.
Most of all, this experience affirmed why I teach: to create spaces where every student, confident or quiet, can grow.
Seeing students engaged, sharing openly, and losing track of time because they are so absorbed in the conversation is one of the most rewarding experiences I can have as an educator.
What You Can Do Tomorrow
Bring a manila sheet and sticky notes to class, tape the sheet where students can see it as they leave, and invite them to post their questions, answers or reflections.
Review and address a few notes immediately or at the start of the next class. You may be surprised how quickly even the quietest students start to contribute.
J. Muthoni Mwangi, LL.B, PGDip Law, LL.M, is an Assistant Lecturer at JKUAT School of Law – Karen Campus, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, an Associate Member of CIArb, and an Accredited Mediator with SDRC. She served as Project Lead for the inaugural JKUAT 40-Hour Mediation Training & Certification and is passionate about learner-cantered legal education, mentoring the next generation of mediators, and promoting access to justice.
When students of different years of study share a common class, their levels of experience and confidence differ. Students from lower years of study may hesitate to speak up in the presence of those in higher years, while more experienced students may contribute more freely. These dynamics are common and, if left unaddressed, can reinforce a power imbalance that discourages active learning.
The same challenge shows up at the start of a semester. When students meet a lecturer for the first time, the unfamiliarity often makes them cautious. Most hold back. It is not because they lack curiosity, but because they are unsure how their answers or questions will be received.
This hesitation can hold back meaningful participation. I have come to learn that all it takes is a simple, intentional tool to change the energy of a room and give every student the confidence to contribute.
One such tool that has had a lasting impact on my teaching is the “Parking Lot.”
Discovering the Parking Lot
The Parking Lot is a simple but powerful active-learning tool: a dedicated space, physical or digital, where students can “park” their questions, comments, or reflections for later discussion. This allows a session to keep its flow while assuring students that their contributions will be acknowledged.
I first encountered this tool during a two week professional development course on Competency-Based Education and Training (CBET) delivery organized by my university.
I left the training with many ideas for making my teaching more interactive, but the Parking Lot stayed with me as a practical, low-cost strategy I could implement immediately.
A few months later, in early September 2025, I have the privilege of leading an inaugural 40-Hour Mediation Training and Certification program, a capacity-building initiative for students and staff members.
As project lead, I handled admissions and could tell from the applications that we had a mix of students from different years and one staff member. I worried that students from lower years might hold back and that quieter voices might be lost. I wanted every participant to feel their questions, comments, and opinions mattered.
During the pre-training meeting, I asked the trainers if I could introduce the Parking Lot as a way to encourage engagement, and they graciously agreed.
Bringing the Parking Lot to Life
On the first day of the training, I wrote PARKING LOT on a manila sheet, taped it to the front wall near the exit, and placed sticky notes on each participant’s table. The trainers invited me to explain how it worked.
I explained the purpose of the parking lot and encouraged participants to write their questions on sticky notes at any point in the day, during sessions, breaks, or even early the next morning, if they were not ready to raise their hand.
The results were immediate and encouraging. By the end of the first day, the Parking Lot had several notes posted. The trainers reviewed and addressed them the following morning, and participants continued to engage with it throughout the week.
Some who started by writing anonymous notes eventually became confident enough to ask questions aloud. The trainers later confirmed that the Parking Lot had improved participation and enriched the discussions.
This success made me curious to see what would happen if I tried it in my regular semester classes, which were about to begin the following week.
Applying the Parking Lot in My Classes
It was my first class of the semester, and I wanted to set the tone for participation. I was teaching a fourth year second semester class on Alternative dispute Resolution.
This time, I didn’t use the Parking Lot just to collect questions — I used it to invite feedback and spark discussion.
The first question I asked was “What rules should govern our class this semester?” Students wrote their suggestions on sticky notes, and we created a “social contract” for the semester, another active learning technique I am experimenting with.
I read the suggestions aloud and asked students, “What does this rule mean for us as a class?” or “How might we apply this rule in practice?” Their answers led to rich discussion, and I saw the power of shared responsibility as play when we agreed on the class rules, their application and consequences for both the students and the teacher.
I then used the Parking Lot to ask questions to introduce the course I was teaching that semester: “What do you think is conflict?”, “What do you think is a dispute?”, “What is the difference?” Reading their answers helped me identify and gently correct misconceptions without putting anyone on the spot. The class became so interactive that students were surprised when time was up.
Motivated by the positive results, later that same day, I used the Parking Lot in my first-year, second-semester on Legal Research & Writing class.
I asked students to write down on the sticky notes why they chose to study law and what they hoped to do with their degree. I told them that their reasons could serve as a compass something to help them find direction, stay true to their path, and never lose sight of their reason for being in law school when the journey becomes challenging.
I read their answers aloud, offered encouragement, and connected their aspirations back to the course outcomes. For example, I reminded them that to become a defender of human rights, one must not only know how to find the correct law but also be capable of writing clearly and persuasively.
This exercise gave even the quietest students a voice and set a tone of openness and shared purpose for the rest of the semester.
Lessons Learned
In the three instances I have applied the Parking Lot with different groups of students, I have seen it:
Activate students’ thinking early as they process the material and reflect on what they are learning.
Open up discussion by creating a safe space where every student’s voice can be heard.
Reveal misconceptions and allow them to be addressed gently, without putting anyone on the spot.
Connect student contributions to learning outcomes, helping them see why what they wrote matters to the course.
Encourage students to take ownership of their learning, which builds confidence and keeps them engaged.
Create opportunities for mentorship, by affirming students’ ideas, encouraging them, and guiding them as they think about their future career paths.
Reflection
This experience brought me to the realization that innovation in teaching, even in public universities where resources are often limited, does not need complicated technology or big budgets.
A manila paper sheet, some sticky notes, and a willingness to listen can transform the classroom.
Most of all, this experience affirmed why I teach: to create spaces where every student, confident or quiet, can grow.
Seeing students engaged, sharing openly, and losing track of time because they are so absorbed in the conversation is one of the most rewarding experiences I can have as an educator.
What You Can Do Tomorrow
Bring a manila sheet and sticky notes to class, tape the sheet where students can see it as they leave, and invite them to post their questions, answers or reflections.
Review and address a few notes immediately or at the start of the next class. You may be surprised how quickly even the quietest students start to contribute.
J. Muthoni Mwangi, LL.B, PGDip Law, LL.M, is an Assistant Lecturer at JKUAT School of Law – Karen Campus, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, an Associate Member of CIArb, and an Accredited Mediator with SDRC. She served as Project Lead for the inaugural JKUAT 40-Hour Mediation Training & Certification and is passionate about learner-cantered legal education, mentoring the next generation of mediators, and promoting access to justice.
KISSIMMEE, Fla. — It’s not a rebrand. But the Moms for Liberty group that introduced itself three years ago as a band of female “joyful warriors” shedding domestic modesty to make raucous public challenges to masks, books and curriculum, is trying to glow up.
The group’s national summit this past weekend at a convention center outside Orlando leaned into family (read: parental rights), faith — and youth. The latter appeared to be a bid to join the cool kids who are the new face of conservatism in America (hint: young, Christian, very male), as well as a recognition of the group’s “diversity,” which includes grandparents, men and kids.
But even as the youth — including 20- and 30-something podcasters and social media influencers, as well as student members of the late Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA — brought a high-energy vibe, stalwart members got a new assignment. Where past Moms for Liberty attendees were urged to run for school board, this year they were encouraged to turn their grievances into legal challenges.
Moms for Liberty CEO and co-founder Tina Descovich acknowledged that while many of them had experienced backlashes as a result of running for school board or publicly challenging books, curricula and policies, they needed to continue the fight. (The more pugnacious co-founder, Tiffany Justice, is now at Heritage Action, an arm of right-wing think tank The Heritage Foundation.)
“You have lost family, you have lost friends, you have lost neighbors, you’ve lost jobs, you’ve lost whole careers,” she said. Yet she insisted that it was vital that they “shake off the shackles of fear and stand for truth or we are going to lose Western civilization as a whole.”
Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education.
The gathering held up “the free state of Florida” as an example of Republican policies to be emulated, including around school choice and parental rights. The state’s attorney general, James Uthmeier, boasted of having created a state Office of Parental Rights last spring, describing it as “a law firm for parents.”
He trumpeted the state’s lawsuit against Target over the “market risks” of LGBTQ+ pride-themed merchandise and encouraged parents to reach out with potential legal actions. “If you’re identifying one of these wrongs that’s violating your rights and then subjecting our kids to danger and evil, then we want to know about it,” he said. “And we’re going to bring the heat in court to shut it down.”
Tina Descovich, CEO and co-founder of Moms for Liberty, was interviewed on Real America’s Voice, a conservative news and entertainment network that set up a remote studio outside of the Sun Ballroom at the Moms for Liberty national summit. Credit: Laura Pappano for The Hechinger Report
The shifting legal landscape, not just in Florida but nationally, had speakers gushing about the opportunity to file new challenges, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor in June. It gives parents broad power to object to school materials, including with LGBTQ+ themes, and the right to remove their children from public school on days when such materials are discussed.
“This is where we need to take that big Supreme Court victory and start fleshing it out,” said Matt Sharp, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian law firm. He added that they were “needing warriors, joyful warriors, to file cases to start putting meat on the bones of what that does.”
The directive to file suit was not just around opt-out policies, which were the basis for the Mahmoud case. (Moms for Liberty has opt-out forms and instructions on its website.) Rather, attendees were also urged to file lawsuits in support of school prayer; against school policies that let students use different names and pronouns without parental consent (what Moms for Liberty terms “secret transitions”); and to give parents access to surveys students take at school, including around mental health.
“We need people willing to stand up legally and be, you know, named plaintiffs,” Kimberly S. Hermann, president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a conservative policy group, said on a panel featuring two moms who sued their school districts. Winning a lawsuit or even just bringing one in one state, said Hermann, can get other school districts and states to adopt policies, presumably to avoid lawsuits themselves.
“One offensive litigation can have this amazing ripple effect,” she said. She and others made clear that there is staff to provide support. The legal groups will “stand with you,” said Sharp, “whether you’re passing the law or passing the local policy all the way to litigating these cases.”
Even as speakers criticized public schools particularly around LGBTQ+ issues, not as a form of inclusion but as foisting views into classrooms, they relished the chance to infuse their values into schools.
Filing these lawsuits is more than “just fighting for your role as parents,” Sharp told parents in a breakout session. “You’re ultimately fighting for your kids’ ability to be in their schools and make a difference, to be the salt and light in those classrooms with their friends and to take our message of freedom, of faith, of justice and to really spread it all across the schools.”
Overall, this year’s Moms for Liberty event lacked the obvious drama of recent years. The flood of protesters in 2023 in Philadelphia required a large police presence and barricades around the hotel, along with warnings not to wear Moms for Liberty lanyards on the streets.
This year, there were no protests. That was partly because the event was held in a secluded resort convention center that could accommodate 800 (larger than the 500-ish of past hotels). But the group failed to fill the venue or attract much media attention. There was on-location broadcast by Real America’s Voice, a conservative news and entertainment network, from a set outside the Sun Ballroom. (Steve Bannon interviewed Descovich on his show, “The War Room.”)
It also didn’t draw opposition because protesters had a bigger target. Saturday saw “No Kings” rallies across the country, with thousands decrying what they see as President Donald Trump’s authoritarianism. “I forgot it was happening since they’re mostly ignored these days,” state Sen. Carlos Guillermo Smith, (D-Orlando) and a senior advisor to LGBTQ+ rights group Equality Florida, said in a text message about the Moms for Liberty event. Liz Mikitarian, founder of the national group, Stop Moms for Liberty, which is based in Florida, said the moms “are still a threat” but not worth organizing a protest against.
It was also a quieter affair than last year’s in Washington, D.C. There, Trump’s appearance fed a party atmosphere with Southern rock, sequined MAGA outfits and a cash bar. (This year, Trump appeared, but only in a prerecorded video message.)
Sequined merchandise for sale at the Moms for Liberty gathering by the company Make America Sparkle Again included tops and jackets that paid tribute to Charlie Kirk, the slain founder of Turning Point USA. Credit: Laura Pappano for The Hechinger Report
The three-day event, of course, aired familiar grievances in familiarly florid language — conservative school choice activist Corey DeAngelis railed against teacher unions over the “far-left radical agenda that they’re trying to push down children’s throats in the classroom.” Other sessions covered the expected — the alleged dangers of LGBTQ+ policies, in sports, restrooms, school curricula and books — but there was also discussion of concerns (shared on left and right) over youth screen use, online predators and artificial intelligence.
The event made room for MAHA, the Make America Healthy Again movement led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of Health and Human Services. Descovich interviewed Dr. Joseph Ladapo, the Florida surgeon general who is working to eliminate all vaccine mandates for the state’s schoolchildren.
But the move by Moms for Liberty to attract young conservatives elevated the energy in the room. It was apparent not only in a tribute to Kirk, the slain founder ofTurning Point USA, which trains young conservatives on high school and college campuses. About 40 Florida TPUSA members took the ballroom stage to accept the “Liberty Sword,” the group’s highest honor, posthumously awarded to Kirk.
It also showed up in a breakout session of mostly conservative social media influencers and podcasters who offered tips on using humor and handling online trolls: Lydia Shaffer (aka the Conservative Barbie 2.0), Alex Stein, Gates Garcia, Kaitlin Bennett, Angela Belcamino (known as “The Bold Lib,” who said she was surprised to have been invited), and Jayme Franklin, who in addition to her podcast is the Gen Z founder of The Conservateur, a conservative lifestyle brand that The New Yorkercalled “Vogue, But for Trumpers.”
They have built huge followings based on their compulsion to provoke. “We need to go back to biblical values of what it means to be a real man and what it means to be a real woman,” urged Franklin. “People want that guidance, and that needs to begin at church. We need to push people back into the pews.”
Their inclusion, like that of conservative commentator Benny Johnson, who moderated a panel, “Fathers: The Defenders of the Family,” appeared to recognize a need to expand the base — and be edgier. Johnson charged out on stage and trumpeted that “God’s first commandment to us was, ‘Go, be fruitful, multiply.’ Go make babies!!!!” He quipped that “right-wing moms, they’re happier, right?” and asked the crowd, “Any trad wife moms out there?”
The phrase is shorthand for a woman who embraces a traditional domestic role, often with an emphasis on fashion and style. Johnson — who credited Kirk for prodding him to find Jesus, get married and become a father (he has four children) — argued that Republicans, especially those in Gen Z, should embrace the traditional nuclear family identity as a winning political move.
“We are the party of parents. We are the party of children,” he said, adding that traditional values were already dominating culture and politics. “We live in a center-right country. And I’m tired of pretending that we don’t,” he said, and showed a map of red and blue votes in the 2024 presidential election. “This is the shift. You live in a red kingdom.”
Contact editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965, via Signal at CarolineP.83 or on email at [email protected].
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.
One of the consequences of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has been a vast reconfiguring of Russia’s academic and intellectual life. Universities, thought of as a potential hotbed of opposition since the White Ribbon movement of 2011, came under intense control and its personnel placed under even greater scrutiny.
Many faculty fled. Connections with international partners in the West were severed. And then to top it off, the Russian government announced that it would abandon the three degree bachelor’s, master’s doctoral system introduced when the country joined the Bologna Process 20 years earlier.
All this has combined to create what some have called a slow motion collapse in Russian higher education. But to understand what’s been happening in Russian Universities since February 2022, you really need to go back to the dawn of the Putin era in January 2000, and understand how ideological control of institutions has come to rest squarely inside the Kremlin.
Joining the podcast today is Dmitry Dubrovsky. He’s a scholar at the Institute for International Studies at Charles University in Prague, where he has taught ever since being designated as a foreign agent by the Putin regime in early 2022. And he writes primarily about the politics of academic freedom and civil society in Russia.
He’s with us today to talk about this slow motion collapse, the internal governance of Russian institutions, and how the country might one day be put back on a track to integration with European academia. Over to Dmitry.
The World of Higher Education Podcast Episode 4.5 | Undoing Bologna: Russia’s Conservative Turn in Higher Education with Dmitry Dubrovsky
Transcript
Alex Usher (AU): Dmitry, I want to take us back to the year 2000. Vladimir Putin is the new president of the Russian Federation. What was the state of the higher education sector at the time, and how did Putin approach it? How did he view higher education as an instrument of state policy?
Dmitry Dubrovsky (DD): Well, the legacy of the 1990s left Putin with a serious challenge. The system faced underfunding and fragmentation. At the same time, scholars were eager to join the European system. There had been attempts in the 1990s, but the biggest problems were the lack of financing and the absence of international mechanisms or tools to fully integrate into the European system of higher education and science.
Putin saw higher education and science, first and foremost, as a tool to join Europe—to become part of the European family and a prominent member of the global market of ideas. That’s why Russia joined the Bologna Process in 2003 and actively pushed for internationalization.
AU: So in that sense, it’s probably not that different from most other countries in the former socialist bloc, like Poland or Romania—the idea that internationalization would bring about an improvement in higher education. Is that about right?
DD: It is right, with one very important difference. At first it might seem small, but it became a very serious issue. In higher education and science, everywhere in the world, there are always people who believe that their own system is highly advanced—at the very top.
The problem in the late Soviet Union and the Russian Federation was that a substantial number of people survived the collapse of the USSR still believing that Russian and Soviet science was the most advanced in the world. In some cases, for certain disciplines, that might have been true. But in most areas—especially the humanities and social sciences—it wasn’t.
By the late 1990s, there was a substantial group of people who were deeply disappointed in the results of democratic reforms and in what democracy had brought, both to the country overall and to higher education and science in particular.
AU: Okay, now, Putin was president until 2008, and then he switched places for four years with Prime Minister Medvedev. He returns to power as president in 2012. And as you say, it’s a different Putin—a much more authoritarian Putin. How did his approach to higher education change? If we think of “Putin 1.0” around 2000, what does “Putin 2.0” look like after 2012? How does he try to exert greater control over the system?
DD: It’s important to note that before Putin came back to power, there was a very significant period of reform in Russian higher education. Especially around 2007–2008, reforms were focused on improving quality and gaining international recognition. This was the era of what we call “managerialist modernization.”
The idea was to select flagship universities that would drive the rest of the system forward into a brighter future.
AU: And eventually that becomes the 5–100 Project.
DD: Yes, the 5–100, or “5–2020” project. The goal was that at least five Russian universities should appear in the world rankings. It was a very interesting period because it marked a serious transformation in the sociocultural landscape of Russian higher education.
For the first time, the so-called “effective managers” entered the system. From the mid-2000s onward, higher education began receiving serious investment from the state, making it appealing to a new managerial class and their approaches. Internationalization advanced, but it went hand in hand with growing managerial control over universities.
Even before Putin returned in 2012, higher education was already being used as a tool to demonstrate the effectiveness of Russian policy and as an instrument of soft power, particularly through supporting Russian universities in former Soviet countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Tajikistan.
When Putin came back, however, the situation changed dramatically. What I call the “conservative shift” began—not just in politics broadly, but within higher education and science.
AU: And some of that has to do with the broader crackdown at the time. I remember there was a lot of pressure on foreign organizations, which made international cooperation more difficult. For example, the government targeted the Open Society Foundations, George Soros’ network that had been active in supporting the social sciences and humanities. There was also a crackdown on things like gender studies and spaces for LGBTQ students.
Masha Gessen wrote about this in her book The Future is History. Why did that happen at that moment? What was it about Putin that made him say, “This is an area I want to control and push in a more conservative direction”?
DD: First and foremost, we have to remember the protests of 2011–2012. That was the time of the so-called “white ribbon” movement. It came very close to a revolution, though in the end it never happened—we failed. I was a member of that movement myself.
The significant participation of scholars and students in those protests put higher education under special scrutiny from the security services and the political apparatus. They believed that control over the education system could restore their legitimacy and symbolic power in society.
And remember, these leaders were, in many ways, Soviet people. They genuinely believed, “This is how the Soviet Union ruled—through control, especially in education and ideology.” And to some extent, that was true. The Soviet Union consolidated its power in part through universities.
Putin believed the same could work for him—that restoring control over higher education would allow him to strengthen his government, which had been undermined by the events of 2011–2012.
AU: We’ve been talking about the relationship between institutions and the government, but the government also changed the way institutions were run a couple of times, right? How has the exercise of power within Russian universities changed? I’m pretty sure there’s been a change in the process of selecting university leaders. How has that affected Putin’s ability to control universities?
DD: The specificity of Russian universities in the 1990s was that there was an enormous amount of democracy. There was absolutely no money in the system, so it was extremely poor—but at the same time, it was a kind of “poor democracy.” There were numerous elections, and the whole system of university governance was very active in self-governance.
There were real political struggles. People fought for the position of dean, they competed for the position of rector. Even department chairs could be elected. Almost every administrative position within a Russian university could be filled through an election.
When Putin consolidated power, especially during the managerial reforms, there was pressure—particularly on the flagship universities in the 5–100 Project—to amend their charters and replace elections with government appointments.
The official explanation was simple: if the state was providing so much budget support, then the state should also assign the rector rather than leave it to an election.
Even now, some Russian rectors are still technically elected. But in Putin’s Russia, an “election” is not an election in the normal sense. The ministry proposes the candidate, people watch the process, and it ends up looking very much like the way Putin himself is “elected.”
AU: Dmitry, in the early days of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, one thing that surprised a lot of people in the West—it seemed to come out of the blue—was a letter in support of the invasion signed by several hundred university rectors. Why did they do that? I mean, presumably they were ordered to by Putin, but why did Putin think that would be legitimizing?
DD: In post-Soviet societies there is a very high level of trust in higher education and science. The leaders of higher education were expected to officially support the so-called “hard decision” about the war.
But it’s important to remember—something some of our colleagues abroad seem to forget—that most of these rectors were never democratically chosen. They do not represent the voices of Russian scholars, lecturers, or faculty members. They mostly represent the vision of the presidential administration. Their role was to collect names for a list of support and then sign this shameful document.
And of course, this didn’t start in 2022. Under the “foreign agent” law of 2015, the government began a long anti-Western campaign—searching for “un-American” groups of influence, cutting connections with international centers, and declaring institutions like Central European University or Bard College in New York to be “undesirable organizations.”
This created a climate of fear and anxiety among the leaders of higher education. And there was direct blackmail: if you decided not to sign, that was your choice—but you had to think about your faculty, your team, your colleagues. They would probably be fired soon.
AU: What changed on university campuses after the invasion? Obviously, if I were in Putin’s position, I’d be worried about student unrest. So what happened in terms of surveillance on campus, and how did faculty react? I mean, you were a faculty member at the time, and you’re one of many who left fairly quickly after the invasion. How big a brain drain was there?
DD: Not as big as you might think, for different reasons. Academics can’t move as easily as other people—they need to be sure they’ll have a way to continue working, and for many there simply wasn’t anywhere to settle quickly.
My personal story was different. By coincidence, I had an invitation for a fellowship. Long story short, I relocated quickly from my home city of St. Petersburg to Prague. But for many others, leaving was far more difficult.
As for institutional surveillance—yes, it was there. It looks like Russia had been preparing for war for about two years beforehand. Around two years before the invasion, they started introducing special vice rectors responsible for “youth” whose actual role was to monitor and control loyalty.
At the same time, they established special departments within Russian universities with very long titles—things like “Promoting Civic Consciousness, Preventing Extremism, and Managing Interethnic Relations.” In practice, these were institutions embedded in higher education to control and discipline students and scholars.
Their real work was searching social networks, looking for so-called “betrayal” behaviors among students and faculty, and reporting them to the security services and police. Today, almost every region of the Russian Federation has one of these departments to oversee and report on improper behavior.
AU: After that rectors’ letter, Russia was suspended from the Bologna Process, and in retaliation Putin announced a return to the pre-Bologna system. So, getting rid of the bachelor’s, master’s, PhD framework and bringing back the old Russian model with the second PhD. How is this process unfolding? How easy is it to undo Bologna?
DD: That’s a good question. I don’t think Russia is really going to undo Bologna. They’re not planning a full reversal or trying to recreate the Soviet path.
From one side, there’s direct pressure on the Ministry of Higher Education and its bureaucrats to dramatically change a system that has been built over twenty years. But this system cannot simply be reversed. Legally, if students have already been admitted to a particular program, the state can’t just stop it midstream. At the very least, it would take four or five years to change. It can’t happen overnight.
Secondly, to me this feels like an exercise in mimicry or emulation from the old Soviet-style bureaucratic circles in higher education. I follow what’s happening closely—the statements from the Minister of Education—and they always try to explain what will be different, but they can’t. They have no clear idea what they’re trying to create.
Officially, they say, “This is not Bologna anymore. It has proved to be ineffective. Now we will collect the best achievements of the Russian system of education.” But what does that even mean? It’s absolutely impossible to understand. From my perspective, they are trying more to sabotage the process than to implement something substantial.
AU: Looking ahead, what do you think a post-Putin higher education system in Russia might look like? Is there a path back into the European higher education space, and what would it take to undo the damage that’s been done since 2012?
DD: That’s a good question. Currently, I would describe the situation as a “fourth deglobalization.” We’ve essentially gone back to the conditions of 2003, before joining the Bologna Process.
That doesn’t mean there’s no capacity—many faculty members still working in Russia earned their degrees in Western institutions. There is still substantial expertise within the system. But the fate of Russian higher education is very difficult to predict because it is so closely tied to the political fate of the Russian Federation itself.
If sanctions were to decrease and the war were to end, perhaps things could return to something like “normalcy.” But even that is debatable—what would “normalcy” mean in this context? At best, it might look like the Cold War era, perhaps similar to the late 1970s.
There are already serious restrictions in place: academic sanctions, boycotts, and bans on cooperation imposed by many institutions and countries. These severely limit Russia’s ability to develop visible academic exchanges with Europe. Instead, Russia is turning elsewhere—towards an “alternative globalization,” aligning more closely with countries like China, Iran, South Africa, and Brazil within the BRICS framework, [a political and economic bloc of major emerging economies that positions itself as an alternative to Western-led alliances].
AU: Dmitry, thank you so much for being with us today. It just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Sam Pufek and Tiffany MacLennan, and you, our listeners, for joining us. If you have any questions or comments on this week’s episode, or suggestions for future ones, please don’t hesitate to get in touch at [email protected].
Join us next week when our guest will be Joshua Travis Brown from Johns Hopkins University’s School of Education. He’ll be joining us to talk about his fascinating new book from Oxford University Press, Capitalizing on College: How Higher Education Went from Mission-Driven to Margin Obsessed. Bye for now.
*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.
For college counseling centers, this change reflects students’ desire for immediate support. “This is not a generation that would call a counseling center and get an appointment two weeks, four weeks later,” said Joy Himmell, director of counseling services for Old Dominion University. “They want help when they want it.”
But it’s important for counseling centers to educate students on the risks of using generative AI tools for well-being support, Himmell said.
The research: While ChatGPT and similar text-generating chat bots are touted as productivity tools that can expedite learning and workflow, some people turn to them for personal and emotional support.
According to a 2024 safety report, OpenAI found that some users experience anthropomorphization—attributing humanlike behaviors and characteristics to nonhuman entities—and form social relationships with the AI. Researchers hypothesized that humanlike socialization with an AI model could affect how individuals interact with other people and hamper building healthy relationship skills.
A 2025 study from MIT Media Lab and Open AI found that high usage of ChatGPT correlates with increased dependency on the AI tool, with heavy users more likely to consider ChatGPT a “friend” and to consider messaging with ChatGPT more comfortable than face-to-face interactions. However, researchers noted that only a small share of ChatGPT users are affected to that extent or report emotional distress from excessive use.
Another study from the same groups found that higher daily usage of ChatGPT correlated with increased loneliness, dependence and problematic use of the tool, as well as lower socialization with other humans.
This research shows that most people, even heavy users of ChatGPT, are not seeking emotional support from the chat bot and do not become dependent on it. Among college students, a minority want AI to provide well-being support, according to a different survey. A study from WGU Labs found that 41 percent of online learners would be comfortable with AI suggesting mental health strategies based on a student’s data, compared to 38 percent who said they would be somewhat or very uncomfortable with such use.
In higher education: On campus, Himmell has seen a growing number of students start counseling for anxiety disorders, depression and a history of trauma. Students are also notably lonelier, she said, and less likely to engage with peers on campus or attend events.
Student mental health is a top retention concern, but few counseling centers have capacity to provide one-on-one support to everyone who needs it. At her center, more students prefer in-person counseling sessions, which Himmell attributes to them wanting to feel more grounded and connected. But many still engage with online or digital interventions as well.
A significant number of colleges have established partnerships with digital mental health service providers to complement in-person services, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated remote instruction. Such services could include counseling support or skill-building education to reduce the need for intensive in-person counseling.
Digital mental health resources cannot replace some forms of therapy or risk assessment, Himmell said, but they can augment counseling sessions. “Having automated AI systems with emotional intelligence to be able to convey some of those concepts and work with students, in some ways, it actually frees the counselor in terms of doing that kind of [skill building], so that we can get more into the nitty-gritty of what we need to talk about,” she explained.
AI counseling or online engagement with ChatGPT is not a solution to all problems, Himmell said. For those who use chat bots as companions, “it sets up a system that is not based in reality; it’s a facade,” Himmell said. “Even though that can serve a purpose, in the long run, it really doesn’t bode well for emotional or social skill development.”
Faculty and staff need to learn how to identify students at risk of developing AI dependency. Compared to anxiety or depression, which have more visible cues in the classroom, “the symptomology related to that inner world of AI and not engaging with others in ways that are helpful is much more benign,” Himmell said. Campus stakeholders can watch out for students who are disengaged socially or reluctant to engage in group work to help identify social isolation and possible digital dependency.
AI in the counseling center: Part of addressing student AI dependency is becoming familiar with the tools and helping students learn to use them appropriately, Himmell said. “We need to be able to harness it and use it, not be afraid of it, and embrace it,” she said. She also sees a role for counseling centers and others in higher education to provide additional education on AI in different formats and venues.
Old Dominion partners with TalkCampus, which offers 24-7 peer-based support. The counseling service is not automated, but the platform uses AI to mine the data and identify risk factors that may come up in conversation and provide support if needed.
Universities today have access to more data than ever before to assess student success and graduate outcomes. But having data is only part of the equation. The real challenge is turning insights into action.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Starting a college project is fascinating; nevertheless, maintaining profitability is quite another matter. Many college businesses find it difficult to maintain revenue growth between increasing running expenses, administrative inefficiencies, and erratic cash flow. Actually, cash flow issues cause 82% of small firms to fail; education startups are not an exception.
The fix? smarter, data-based ideas for college recurrent income. Supported by actual data, let’s explore five tested strategies to make your college startup a revenue-generating machine.
Five Data-Based Strategies for College Recurring Revenue to Increase Profits
1. Automate Fee Collection: Save Up to 30% of Costs
Unbelievably, mistakes in manual fee processing could cost organizations up to 25% of their whole income. Automating your fee collecting guarantees faster payments, less billing errors, and simplifies the process. Studies reveal that companies implementing automation cut their running expenses by thirty percent; consider what that could mean for the financial situation of your college.
Using a cloud-based fee management solution can help you to automatically handle receipts, cut manual invoicing, and send quick payment reminders.
2. Strengthener student relationships – boost enrollment by eighteen percent
Automate Fee Collection: Save Up to 30% of Costs
Unbelievably, mistakes in manual fee processing could cost organizations up to 25% of their whole income. Automating your fee collecting guarantees faster payments, less billing errors, and simplifies the process. Studies reveal that companies implementing automation cut their running expenses by thirty percent; consider what that could mean for the financial situation of your college.
Using a cloud-based fee management solution can help you to automatically handle receipts, cut manual invoicing, and send quick payment reminders.
3. Smart Reminders & Communication — 45% Less Late Payments
Weary of hunting payments? When institutions deliver timely SMS, email, and push notifications, a shockingly 45% of late fees are paid within a week. Automated reminders guarantee parents and students never miss a deadline, therefore reducing late payments and improving cash flow.
To expedite collections and save administrative expense, schedule automated reminders for due dates, past-due penalties, and payment acknowledgements.
4. Control Your Spending Track About sixty percent of operational expenses
Unchecked expenses cause colleges to bleed money; but, systematic expense tracking helps to control 60% of operational costs. Institutions can recognize early overspending, maximize resource allocation, and increase profitability by real-time cost capture and manual expenditure entry elimination.
Use cost control tools to oversee vendor payments, check program budgets, and guarantee every dollar counts.
5. Improve Real-Time Data Insights to Increase Revenue 20%
Think about predicting financial constraints. Data analytics boosts revenue by 20% for institutions tracking revenue, costs, and student performance. Late payments, course profitability, and untapped income potential are visible in real time dashboards.
With a real-time performance metrics dashboard, track cash flow, find income trends, and improve financial agility.
Ready to Turn Your College Startup into a Revenue Powerhouse?
The path to a sustainable, recurring revenue model isn’t about working harder — it’s about working smarter. By embracing automation, student relationship management, expense control, and data-driven decision-making, your college startup can maximize revenue, minimize costs, and scale faster than ever.
Ready to future-proof your revenue strategy? Let Creatrix Campus help you build a smarter, more profitable institution — starting today.
Pursuing a career in art therapy can help turn your creative and artistic abilities into a mental health profession, allowing you to support others, especially at a time when Americans are facing unprecedented mental health crises.
Every day, art therapists support their clients within a therapeutic relationship to use art and creativity to improve their mental, emotional, and physical well-being. They work with people of all ages and backgrounds — from children experiencing developmental delays or emotional and behavioral challenges to military service members with PTSD to older adults struggling with dementia or Alzheimer’s disease.
“At the heart of my work as an art therapist is the creativity and self-expression found in art-making. We’ve all experienced it as children, and some of us have the joy to work with art to help people and communities heal. I’m always inspired by clients who may be afraid of using art materials as non-verbal language at first, but try it anyway,” explains art therapist Christianne E. Strang, Ph.D., ATR-BC.
Particularly when people are struggling, facing a challenge, or even a health crisis, their own words or language may fail them. During these times, an art therapist can help clients express themselves in ways beyond words or language. Art therapists are trained in art and psychological theory and can help clients integrate nonverbal cues and metaphors that are often expressed through the creative process.
According to research, art therapy helps people feel more in control of their own lives and helps relieve anxiety and depression, including among cancer patients, tuberculosis patients in isolation, and military veterans with PTSD.
According to art therapist Kathryn Snyder, Ph.D., ATR-BC, LPC, “Engaging in art therapy offers imagery and creative processes that support communication, expression, and insight into, as well as release of, difficult emotional experiences.”
Opportunities for art therapists
Art therapists serve diverse communities in different settings, such as medical institutions like hospitals, cancer treatment centers, and psychiatric facilities; outpatient offices and community centers; and schools. Many art therapists have independent practices. They also help support individuals and communities after a crisis or traumatic event, like a mass shooting or a natural disaster.
Training in a broad range of psychological theories and ways to use art media and creative processes is necessary to becoming an art therapist who is able to help people process and cope with mental health challenges. Art therapists hold postgraduate degrees and are then credentialed by the Art Therapy Credentials Board as ATR (art therapist registered) or ATR–BC (board-certified art therapist registered).
