This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Preliminary case numbers for pertussis, or whooping cough, in the U.S. remain elevated in 2025, compared to immediately before the pandemic, when more than 10,000 cases were typically reported each year, according to recent figures from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Meanwhile, KFF reported this year that exemptions from school vaccination requirements — and particularly non-medical exemptions — have increased. In addition, the New York Academy of Sciences reported in May that disinformation across social media, politicization of vaccines and public figures promoting skepticism, “have all contributed to declining coverage, fueling the resurgence of pertussis.”
Dive Insight:
The Texas Department of State Health Services reported on Nov. 3 that it was tracking a significant increase in pertussis cases in 2025. According to provisional data, the agency said, “Texas has had more than 3,500 reported pertussis cases through October this year, roughly four times the number reported for the same period last year.”
The number of cases is also reportedly the highest for the state in 11 years.
Texas schools, among other entities like hospitals, are required to report individuals who are suspected of having pertussis within one work day, according to the state health agency.
This is the second consecutive year that Texas has experienced high year-over-year increases in reported pertussis cases, and it’s also the second consecutive year the state’s Department of State Health Services has issued a health alert, according to a news release.
The CDC said reported cases of pertussis are currently trending down in 2025 since a peak in November 2024, when more than six times as many cases were reported, compared to 2023. The agency added that case counts will likely change as it finalizes the data.
In September, Colorado-based healthcare system UCHealth reported that cases of whooping cough “are on track to be even worse this year than in 2024,” adding that health officials in parts of the state have warned of “a noticeable jump” in pertussis cases as kids have returned to school.
In many states across the U.S. — including Florida, Oregon and Washington — cases of pertussis as of Sept. 20 were already outpacing total year-to-date cases reported by the CDC in 2025. UCHealth’s September report noted that the worst U.S. pertussis outbreaks so far in 2025 were on the West Coast, with high numbers also reported in Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, North Carolina and Arizona.
Other childhood diseases are also on the rise as a result of shifting attitudes toward vaccines and vaccine mandates. According to the CDC, the best defense against pertussis is a vaccination.
In March, measles infections spread across several U.S. states, a quarter-century after the potentially fatal disease had been declared eradicated in the U.S. in 2000.
In addition to the impact on student health, an uptick in acute and chronic illnesses can also increase chronic absenteeism issues for schools and school districts. A CDC study published last year found that in 2022, 5.8% of children experienced chronic school absenteeism for health-related reasons.
Senate lawmakers on Monday advanced legislation that would launch the most comprehensive overhaul of New Jersey’s regulation of charter schools in 30 years.
The bill advanced by the Senate Education Committee on Monday would outright ban for-profit charter schools, require them to post a range of documents online, and impose residency requirements for some charter school trustees.
“We have not looked at charter schools as a whole legislatively in this committee since the 1990s, so this is an opportunity where we’re trying to do that,” said Sen. Vin Gopal (D-Monmouth), the panel’s chair and the bill’s prime sponsor.
The bill comes as New Jersey charter schools have faced scrutiny after reporting revealed top officials were paid far more than their counterparts at traditional public schools, including, among others, a Newark charter school CEO who was paid nearly $800,000 in 2024.
The proposal, which Gopal said was the product of a year of negotiations, would require charter schools to post user-friendly budgets that include the compensation paid to charter school leaders and school business administrators. They must also post existing contracts.
Charters would be required to post meeting notices, annual reports, board members’ identities, and facility locations online. Some critics have charged that charter schools routinely fail to provide notice of their public meetings.
The legislation would also require the state to create a dedicated charter school transparency website to host plain language budgets, 990 disclosure forms filed with the IRS, contracts with charter management organizations, and a list of charter schools on probation, among other things.
It would also ban fully virtual charter schools.
“We support the bills as a step forward in holding all public schools in our state accountable for fiscal and transparency requirements that will ultimately best serve our students,” said Debbie Bradley, director of government relations for the New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association.
The two sides remained at odds over the membership of charter school boards.
Charter critics argued residency for those positions — which, unlike traditional public school boards, are largely appointed rather than elected — should mirror those imposed on regular public schools.
In New Jersey, school board members must live in the district they serve. That’s not the case for charter schools, whose trustees face no residency or qualification limits under existing law.
The bill would only impose a residency requirement on one-third of a charter school’s trustees, and rather than forcing them to live in the district, the bill would require charter trustees to live in the school’s county or within 30 miles of the school.
That language was criticized by statewide teachers union the New Jersey Education Association, which has called existing law governing charter schools outdated and flawed.
“School board representation should remain primarily local, and when we mean local, we don’t mean within a 30-mile radius. A 30-mile radius of Newark could include Maplewood, South Orange, communities that don’t necessarily represent what Newark looks like as a community,” said Deb Cornavaca, the union’s director of government relations.
Charter school supporters said their boards need flexibility because their leadership has broader responsibilities than counterparts in traditional public schools.
“Running a charter is a little different than running a traditional district. You need experience in school finance. You need to fundraise a bunch of money on the front end because you’re not getting paid on the front end,” said New Jersey Charter School Association President Harry Lee, adding they also needed familiarity with real estate and community experience.
Amendments removed provisions that would have required charter school board members to be approved by the state commissioner of education, though the commissioner retains sole power over whether to allow the formation of a new charter, a power that gives the commissioner some veto power over a charter’s board.
Gopal acknowledged the 30-mile residency rule was a sticking point and said legislators would discuss it before the measure comes before the Senate Budget Committee. Earlier, he warned the bill was likely to see more changes as it moved through the Legislature.
Some argued enrollment in charter schools should be more limited by geography, arguing that out-of-district enrollments that are common at New Jersey charters could place financial strain on the students’ former district.
Most per-pupil state and local funding follows students who enroll in charter schools, even if their departure does not actually decrease the original district’s expenses because, for example, those schools still require the same number of teachers and administrators.
Charter operators said that would make New Jersey a national outlier and argued that a separate provision that would bar new charter schools when there are empty seats in existing area charters should come out of the bill.
“It could be read as a moratorium on charters, so we want to revisit that provision,” Lee said.
Such vacancies could exist for various reasons, they argued, including student age distributions.
Alongside that measure, the panel approved separate legislation that would bar charter schools from setting criteria to enroll students, ban them from imposing other requirements on a student randomly selected to attend, and place new limits on how such schools can enroll children from outside their district.
That bill would also bar charter schools from encouraging students to break with the district. Some opponents have charged that charter schools push out low-performing students to boost their metrics.
The committee approved the bills in unanimous votes, though Sens. Owen Henry (R-Ocean) and Kristin Corrado (R-Passaic) abstained from votes on both bills, saying they are broadly supportive but need more time to review amendments.
New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: [email protected].
Did you use this article in your work?
We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how
When I first began teaching Islam, there was no road map. In 2001, I was a visiting assistant professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies at the University of Iowa—the first full-time professor of Islam in the history of the state. I was in my 20s, still finishing my dissertation, when the attacks of Sept. 11 unfolded. Suddenly, I found myself trying to explain a 1,400-year-old religion to students who had watched the Twin Towers fall on live television.
Teaching Islam in American universities has never been more widespread, more diverse or more embattled. That is the story of the past two decades: a field that has grown dramatically, transformed in terms of who teaches it, and now finds itself under intensifying political scrutiny.
That experience in Iowa shaped everything that came after. I discovered that my task was not only to introduce students to the theological, historical and cultural breadth of Islam but also to help them unlearn the simplistic caricatures they had absorbed from media and politics. Islam was not a monolith. It was not synonymous with terror. It was, like Christianity or Judaism, a faith defined by argument, diversity and adaptation.
Those class lectures eventually became the foundation for No god but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam, first published in 2005. I hoped the book would serve both general readers and university classrooms. To my surprise, it quickly became a popular text for teaching Islam in the United States and far beyond. It has been translated into dozens of languages, adopted in seminaries and world religion courses, and read in mosques, churches and synagogues.
Two decades later, the landscape of Islamic studies in American universities looks profoundly different. In 2001, very few institutions offered dedicated courses on Islam outside of theology departments. Today, there are hundreds of such courses, spanning history, political science, gender studies and literature. The proliferation has been remarkable—though uneven. Some courses are rigorous, rooted in language and text, while others are more ad hoc, responding to student demand and global events.
Another profound shift has been in who is teaching Islam. For most of the modern history of religious studies in America, Christian professors taught Christianity, Jewish professors taught Judaism—but it was rare to find Muslim professors teaching Islam. In nearly two decades of studying the subject, I had only one Muslim professor. That has changed dramatically. Today, Muslim scholars occupy faculty positions across the country, and new professional associations—such as the International Quranic Studies Association, of which I am a member—are fostering networks of Muslim academics who bring both scholarly expertise and lived experience into the classroom. This diversification has expanded the kinds of questions and perspectives that shape the field, though it has also forced universities to confront new debates over authority, representation and bias.
Meanwhile, the teaching of Islam—like so many fields in the humanities—is now buffeted by unprecedented political pressure. Across the country, state governments have moved to limit what can and cannot be taught in universities and ban diversity, equity and inclusion programs. More recently, elite universities such as Columbia and Harvard have faced political scrutiny from the Trump administration and Congress into their Middle East studies programs, accused by some lawmakers of being biased. In today’s climate, teaching Islam can feel like an act of defiance. Professors often self-censor, conscious that a stray lecture note could trigger outside campaigns or even threats. The irony is that in a moment when greater understanding of Islam is needed more than ever, the very institutions best equipped to provide that education are being undermined.
Yet this is precisely why teaching Islam in universities matters more than ever. At a time when Islam has faded from the headlines but remains entangled in the debates that define our era—from authoritarianism to surveillance to religious pluralism—the classroom is one of the few places where the faith can be encountered on its own terms. The role of professors is not to sanitize or defend Islam, but to present it in all its richness, contradictions and ongoing transformations.
The fully updated 20th-anniversary edition of No god but God is my attempt to support that task for another generation of teachers and students. The new preface reflects on what has changed since 2005—the Arab Spring, the rise of digital Islam, the ebb of the “war on terror”—and what has not: Islam’s enduring struggle to reconcile tradition and modernity, authority and pluralism.
More than two decades of teaching have convinced me that education about Islam cannot be episodic, tied only to moments of crisis or headlines of violence. It must be sustained, interdisciplinary and grounded in serious scholarship. It must expand beyond political science courses on terrorism and foreign policy, and beyond theology seminars comparing sacred texts, into the wider humanities and social sciences. And it must center the lived experiences of Muslims themselves.
The classroom is not a mosque. But it is one of the few spaces where young people can confront their assumptions, wrestle with complexity, and imagine new ways of understanding the role of religion in the world. That was my conviction in 2001, when I walked into a lecture hall in Iowa just days after Sept. 11. It remains my conviction today.
The classroom may not be a mosque, but it remains one of the few places where Islam can be encountered in all its richness, contradictions and humanity.
Reza Aslan is a writer and scholar of religion. His books includeZealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth and No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, now available in an updated 20th-anniversary edition from Random House. He is a professor of creative writing at the University of California, Riverside.
In a statement, Bell Educational Services Ltd confirmed that the group has served notice to put its three schools in Cambridge, London and St Albans into administration due to financial difficulties, with the schools set to close on October 31.
“It is with deep regret that we announce Bell Educational Services Ltd has made the difficult decision to wind down its operations and will cease to trade shortly,” the group said in a statement.
“Regrettably, the closure of the schools will also mean that staff members will face redundancy in the coming weeks,” it said, adding: “This is a deeply sad outcome for all involved”.
English UK is finding replacement courses for some 125 students affected by the news under the student Emergency Support Scheme (SES), which obliges British Council-accredited centres to offer places to those whose schools have closed suddenly. The affected students are currently studying at Bell’s Cambridge and London locations, while the St Albans site will have no students by the closure date at the end of this month.
English UK’s acting joint chief executive, Huan Japes, said he was “very sorry” for all those caught up in the closure. “[We] wish to pay our respects to the contribution that Bell has made to shaping the English language teaching industry over the last 70 years,” he added.
“The English UK team is working with Bell management and nearby centres to ensure the students can continue their courses as quickly as possible. We have visited the school to answer the students’ questions in person, and we hope staff who have lost jobs find new employment quickly. We are very grateful to Bell staff and the administrators for managing the closure responsibly and with sensitivity.”
Bell highlighted its “proud heritage spanning over 70 years” that has been “widely recognised as a pioneer in the teaching of English as a foreign language”.
But it said it faced “significant cashflow challenges” and was unable to recover financially from the prolonged impact of the pandemic. Nor could it secure a buyer for the business.
This is a very sad closure, but we don’t see it as part of a wider trend
Huan Japes, English UK
Bell school was founded by Frank Bell in 1955, having been inspired to start a language school after teaching languages in a prisoner of war camp.
English UK noted that many bastions of the ELT sector had worked for Bell at some point in their careers. “We extend our sympathies to all of Bell’s staff, students and partners affected by this closure,” it said.
Despite the news, Japes asserted that English UK data monitoring showed the UK remained a resilient market for the ELT sector. In spite of “tough trading conditions”, English UK student numbers dipped just 0.6% between 2023 and 2024, he said.
“Unexpected closures do happen, but they are rare. Bell English’s financial set up was very unusual for our industry as it was run by a charitable foundation. This is a very sad closure, but we don’t see it as part of a wider trend,” he continued.
“We understand how shocking closures are to affected staff and students, and our student emergency scheme is here to help anyone affected complete their studies as planned. We encourage students and agents to continue booking English courses in the UK with confidence.”
The company noted that Bell Switzerland SA – of which Bell is the sole shareholder – would be unaffected by the closure and would continue operating as usual.
On Oct. 24, 1995, Duke University Press published my first book, The Myth of Political Correctness: The Conservative Attack on Higher Education. Looking back 30 years at my book, it can be dispiriting to see how everything today seems the same, only worse. “Political correctness” has been replaced by “woke” as the smear of the moment, but otherwise almost every word of my book could be republished today, with a thousand new examples to buttress every point.
Sometimes the title of the book confused people who mix up a “myth” with a “lie.” As I noted 10 years ago, “When I called political correctness a ‘myth,’ I was never denying the fact that some leftists are intolerant jerks, and sometimes their appalling calls for censorship are successful. My point was that even though political correctness exists, the ‘myth’ about it was the story that leftists controlled college campuses, imposing their evil whims like a ‘new McCarthyism’ or ‘China during the Cultural Revolution.’ In reality, then and now, the far greater threat to freedom on campus came from those on the right seeking to suppress opposing views.”
I had been inspired to write the book by Dinesh D’Souza; I reviewed his best-selling 1991 book, Illiberal Education, for my column in the Daily Illini at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. If D’Souza, a recent college graduate, could publish such a terrible book full of misinformation, then surely I could write a better book. So I did.
But the publishing market was much more interested in the endless parade of conservatives bemoaning the “PC police” and “tenured radicals” than a refutation of these flawed arguments. My book, which I started to write as a graduate student in the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago (home to Saul Bellow, Allan Bloom and Edward Shils), was rejected by more than 50 publishers before I was able to persuade Stanley Fish (whom I had encountered as the editor of Democratic Culture, the newsletter of Gerald Graff and Gregory Jay’s Teachers for a Democratic Culture) to publish it at Duke. My editor (and now also an Inside Higher Ed columnist) was Rachel Toor, who helped to make some sense of my ideas.
In the end, my book failed to shift the debate about academic freedom—not because it was wrong or the facts were refuted, but because it was ignored. From my perspective, I was correct about everything and nobody learned anything from me. And I’ve been writing essentially the same thesis, over and over again, in a second book and essays and hundreds of blog posts.
Looking back at my first book, I think its claims have been proven largely correct over the past three decades (but I might be biased). At the core of the book were the chapters on the “Myth of PC” (examining how many of the leading anecdotes about repression often weren’t accurate) and “Conservative Correctness” (showing the many examples of repression from the right that were ignored by the media and campus critics of PC).
The remaining chapters also still seem on target: “The Cult of Western Culture” (why multiculturalism isn’t taking over colleges and silencing traditional works, and Shakespeare isn’t being banned); “The Myth of Speech Codes” (colleges have always had speech codes, often worse ones using the arbitrary authority of a dean, and what we need are codes that protect free speech); “The Myth of Sexual Correctness” (sexual assault is a serious problem, and feminists often face suppression); and “The Myth of Reverse Discrimination” (white men are not the victims of campus oppression and the “fairy tale of equal opportunity” is false)
Michael Hobbes did an excellent episode of You’re Wrong Aboutin 2021 on political correctness that featured some of the ideas from my book. My position, then and now, is more nuanced than Hobbes’s view of PC as a pure right-wing moral panic. The panic was there, but so were real cases of repression—on both the left and the right.
The cartoonish right-wing belief that colleges had become Maoist institutions of oppression against conservatives prompted too many on the left (and the center) to counter that everything was fine on campus. In truth, free expression has been in serious danger, both against conservatives who were sometimes censored and against leftists who also faced repression. As bad as things seemed in 1995, the repression is far worse today and clearly aimed at the left—and yet the delusions about the PC police on campus are more widespread than ever.
Even in the face of the worst campus repression in American history, many conservatives continue to recite the old, tired myth of political correctness and leftist control of higher education—a myth repeated so often for so long has become a truth in the minds of many.
The worst strategic mistake progressives made in the past three decades was to abandon the cause of free speech. Too many leftists believed in the myth of political correctness; they heard the complaints about free speech and accepted the right-wing argument that only conservatives were being silenced and concluded that free speech was a right-wing plot. They imagined that tenured radicals controlled colleges because everybody said so, and so they clung to the delusion that they could support censorship and it wouldn’t be used against them.
When conservatives demanded free speech on campus, the left should have vigorously agreed and established strong protections for free expression on campus. Instead, they let the right win a propaganda war by pretending to be battling for free speech against the social justice warriors. And they lost the opportunity to make free speech a core principle established in higher education.
The war on political correctness succeeded because the enemies it targeted were weak, disorganized leftists who were not, in fact, plotting to destroy conservatives. By contrast, today the right wants to demolish higher education like it’s the East Wing of the White House, and it is willing to use its vast power to do that.
As bad as the skepticism on the left about free speech was, the right’s abandonment of free speech is much worse, both in the degree of rejection and in the impact it has on campuses. It didn’t matter if a leftist argued against free speech because they had essentially no power, on campus or off, to impose their ideas. They had no legislators joining their demands and no donors threatening to turn off the campus money spigot.
Critics of PC had many advantages on their side: Enormous money poured into building organizations and ideas that built the myth of PC, funding groups like the Federalist Society and the National Association of Scholars, and paying individual authors such as Bloom and D’Souza to write and publicize their books. A new media ecosystem of talk radio and the internet spread the myth of PC. And the war on PC recruited principled liberals and even progressives who objected to the excesses of the left.
It will be difficult for progressives to build anything similar. Wealthy donors tend to fund conservative groups, or prefer to put their names on fancy campus buildings. Universities are anxious to create free speech centers, but usually only the kind that conservatives support.
Few conservatives are willing to speak out against the Trump regime. And many centrists and liberals who have spent a generation obsessing about the PC police find it difficult to suddenly turn around and recognize the repression from the right that they’ve been ignoring for decades. A letter condemning the Trump administration’s compact signed by principled conservatives such as Robert George and Keith Whittington is a good start toward building an ideological coalition against right-wing censorship that matches what the right did against the “PC police.”
Today, we face the worst attack on academic freedom in American history, one that combines the overwhelming external power of state and federal governments, used for the first time to target free speech, and the internal power of a campus bureaucracy devoted to suppressing controversy.
Unlike political correctness—which often relied upon exaggerated accounts of dubious examples with marginal injustices—there are so many clear-cut cases of terrible repression and extreme violations of due process and academic freedom that it’s difficult for anyone to keep track of them all. The litigation strategy developed by the right of suing every censor is an important step. Telling and retelling the stories of campus censorship today is critical. So is organizing events, on and off campus, about the repression happening today, and challenging those on the right who defend their side’s censorship.
It’s not easy to find solutions when faced with this extraordinary censorship, with unprecedented dismissals and restrictions on speech. But the right-wing attack on political correctness, now over three decades old, offers liberals and progressives a guidebook for how to do it. Quote their words. Demand their reforms. Agree with them and confront their hypocrisy when they reject every free speech policy they’ve been demanding for the past three decades.
The myth of political correctness is still alive 30 years later, invoked to deny and justify the repression from the right. Understanding how the culture wars brought us to this point of authoritarianism is essential to leading us toward the goals of academic freedom and free expression on campus.
John K. Wilson was a 2019–20 fellow with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement and is the author of eight books, including Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies (Routledge, 2008), and his forthcoming book The Attack on Academia. He can be reached at [email protected], or letters to the editor can be sent to [email protected].
Today is September 30th, National Day for Truth and Reconciliation and Orange Shirt Day. It has been just over ten years since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued its report, and so this seemed like a good time to review the state of Truth and Reconciliation – and Indigenous issues generally – on Canadian campuses. So, I am teaming up today with Mark Solomon, Associate Vice-President Reconciliation and Inclusion at Seneca Polytechnic to put together some thoughts on what progress we have made over the last decade.
Let’s start with the TRC Calls to Action which have to do with post-secondary education. These can be broken down into two parts. The first is a call (#7) to the Federal Government (not institutions, interestingly) to develop with Aboriginal groups a joint strategy to eliminate educational and employment gaps between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians. Now, while a lot of talking has been done about this, it’s hard to say that anything resembling a strategy has emerged. Partly, that’s because the feds don’t want to spend a boatload of new money and partly it is because Indigenous groups across the country don’t all agree on what that strategy should be. One sticking point seems to be the relative prominence of Indigenous vs. mainstream institutions in closing the education gap and thus implicitly how generously to fund the former. Another is that while the federal government has a treaty relationship to provide education (K-PSE) for Indigenous learners, actualizing that responsibility to some extent requires coordination with provinces and territories, which isn’t exactly the feds’ strong suit these days.
That doesn’t mean that nothing has happened on this front. The Post-Secondary Student Support Program (PSSP) for Status First Nations students was augmented substantially in Budget 2019, though inflation has since eaten away most of the value of the extra money. The federal government also provided new funding to Inuit and Métis students, thus to some extent fulfilling Call #11 on adequate funding for Indigenous students, though most would still say the funding is still inadequate. The question is: has any of this led to a closing of the access gap?
As Figure 1 shows, the answer is no, or at least not yet. Indigenous educational attainment rates are growing, particularly at the college level, but the total post-secondary attainment gap has increased a tiny bit, from 15 to 16 percentage points, and the university gap has increased a lot, from 19 to 26 percentage points.
Figure 1: Higher Educational Attainment Among Off-Reserve Population aged 25-64, 2014, 2019 and 2024
Let’s turn to the second set of Calls to Action – those Action aimed at institutions. The three big ones were parallel calls aimed at medical/nursing schools (Call 24), law schools (Call 28) and journalism schools (Call 86) to require all law students to take a course in Aboriginal people and the law, which includes the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations. This will require skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and antiracism.
(Why not social work, or policing? We wondered that too.)
The website Indigenous Watchdog has been following institutional progress on these areas. As of last year, 22 of 24 Canadian law schools had such mandatory courses, which is pretty good. The country’s 93 nursing schools have not done as well: only 41 are seen as having introduced mandatory courses with the requisite content; 18 have apparently no mandatory course at all and the remainder are somewhere in between. Journalism faculties, similarly, have a fairly spotty record: with 11 apparently meeting all criteria, four meeting partially and six not at all.
This is where evaluation of progress on reconciliation gets tricky. Lots of these professional programs which did not introduce mandatory courses have, nevertheless, things which they think are relevant to reconciliation. To take merely one of potentially dozens of examples: look at the Journalism School at TMU. There, the course Reporting on Indigenous Issues remains resolutely mandatory but the faculty has put together an interesting website called Reconciling Journalism, which the school hopes will “provide a platform for Indigenous students and host many different student projects on Indigenous issues and communities at Toronto Metropolitan University” In such a case, should one give TMU points for creativity and good wishes, or take them away for thinking that it knows better than Justice Sinclair what constitutes a contribution to reconciliation? There is a difference between “Indigenous issues” and “reconciliation” which gets blurred here.
More broadly: there are many institutions which have done a lot of Nice Symbolic Things for Indigenous peoples over the past decade. Things like Indigenous-language signage at places like Laurentian and UBC, Indigenization of campus architecture and campus planning like at Seneca, Centennial and Calgary. It’s good, but is it reconciliation? (and also: why is it is easier to change signage and build buildings than change curriculum?). It’s not just symbolic stuff, either. There has been a lot of hiring of Indigenous staff, academic and otherwise. What one might call “Indigenous lead” positions have been elevated in stature and in general individuals with Indigenous identity are moving closer to the centres of power within institutions. That’s all positive, but actually, none of the TRC calls addressed these issues. Generously, one could see these things as pre-requisites for greater Indigenous participation in higher education (back to Call #7) in the sense that Indigenous students won’t attend if they don’t feel seen or welcome; but even if that’s the case, it doesn’t seem to be working yet.
One thing that isn’t symbolic is the notion of “Indigenization” of the curriculum. Call #62 asks federal and provincial governments to provide the necessary funding to post-secondary institutions to educate teachers on how to integrate Indigenous knowledge and teaching methods into classrooms. That hasn’t happened, of course, but there has been a significant elevation of Indigenous Knowledge within institutions which is worth recognizing. The notion of “Indigenization” of institutions has got stuck in part because no one can agree on what it means nor how it can be measured. Progress here won’t come from a one-size-fits-all approach. More institutional engagement with surrounding Indigenous communities on what that could and should like is necessary because in all likelihood the answer will differ a bit from one place and one set of communities to another.
Broadly, then, it’s a mixed picture. Arguably, one could say that Canadian post-secondary institutions are doing better on Indigenous issues than they are on Truth and Reconciliation. Room for improvement for sure, but at the same time, it’s worth being mindful of the potential for backsliding, too. All of these measures were taken at a time when university and college budgets were growing; with a long period of budget cuts ahead, we’ll soon see whether or not our institutions view all of these measures as must-haves or just nice-to-haves. Time will tell.
“Education got us unto this mess and Education will get us out of it” – Justice Murray Sinclair (1951-2024)
Over 60,000 students have benefited from the math program built on how the brain naturally learns
A new analysis shows that students using ST Math at Phillips 66-funded schools are achieving more than twice the annual growth in math performance compared to their peers. A recent analysis by MIND Research Institute, which included 3,240 students in grades 3-5 across 23 schools, found that this accelerated growth gave these schools a 12.4 percentile point advantage in spring 2024 state math rankings.
These significant outcomes are the result of a more than 10-year partnership between Phillips 66 and MIND Research Institute. This collaboration has brought ST Math, created by MIND Education, the only PreK–8 supplemental math program built on the science of how the brain learns, fully funded to 126 schools, 23 districts, and more than 60,000 students nationwide. ST Math empowers students to explore, make sense of, and build lasting confidence in math through visual problem-solving.
“Our elementary students love JiJi and ST Math! Students are building perseverance and a deep conceptual understanding of math while having fun,” said Kim Anthony, Executive Director of Elementary Education, Billings Public Schools. “By working through engaging puzzles, students are not only fostering a growth mindset and resilience in problem-solving, they’re learning critical math concepts.”
The initiative began in 2014 as Phillips 66 sought a STEM education partner that could deliver measurable outcomes at scale. Since then, the relationship has grown steadily, and now, Phillips 66 funds 100% of the ST Math program in communities near its facilities in California, Washington, Montana, Oklahoma, Texas, Illinois, and New Jersey. Once involved, schools rarely leave the program.
To complement the in-class use of ST Math, Phillips 66 and MIND introduced Family Math Nights. These events, hosted at local schools, bring students, families, and Phillips 66 employee volunteers together for engaging, hands-on activities. The goal is to build math confidence in a fun, interactive setting and to equip parents with a deeper understanding of the ST Math program and new tools to support their child’s learning at home.
“At Phillips 66, we believe in building lasting relationships with the communities we serve,” said Courtney Meadows, Manager of Social Impact at Phillips 66. “This partnership is more than a program. It’s a decade of consistent, community-rooted support to build the next generation of thinkers and improve lives through enriching educational experiences.”
ST Math has been used by millions of students across the country and has a proven track record of delivering a fundamentally different approach to learning math. Through visual and interactive puzzles, the program breaks down math’s abstract language barriers to benefit all learners, including English Learners, Special Education students, and Gifted and Talented students.
“ST Math offers a learning experience that’s natural, intuitive, and empowering—while driving measurable gains in math proficiency,” said Brett Woudenberg, CEO of MIND Education. “At MIND, we believe math is a gateway to brighter futures. We’re proud to partner with Phillips 66 in expanding access to high-quality math learning for thousands of students in their communities.”
About MIND Education MIND Education engages, motivates and challenges students towards mathematical success through its mission to mathematically equip all students to solve the world’s most challenging problems. MIND is the creator of ST Math, a pre-K–8 visual instructional program that leverages the brain’s innate spatial-temporal reasoning ability to solve mathematical problems; and InsightMath, a neuroscience-based K-6 curriculum that transforms student learning by teaching math the way every brain learns so all students are equipped to succeed. Since its inception in 1998, MIND Education and ST Math has served millions and millions of students across the country. Visit MINDEducation.org.
About Phillips 66 Phillips 66 (NYSE: PSX) is a leading integrated downstream energy provider that manufactures, transports and markets products that drive the global economy. The company’s portfolio includes Midstream, Chemicals, Refining, Marketing and Specialties, and Renewable Fuels businesses. Headquartered in Houston, Phillips 66 has employees around the globe who are committed to safely and reliably providing energy and improving lives while pursuing a lower-carbon future. For more information, visit phillips66.com or follow @Phillips66Co on LinkedIn.
eSchool Media staff cover education technology in all its aspects–from legislation and litigation, to best practices, to lessons learned and new products. First published in March of 1998 as a monthly print and digital newspaper, eSchool Media provides the news and information necessary to help K-20 decision-makers successfully use technology and innovation to transform schools and colleges and achieve their educational goals.
Professor Martin Betts (left) and Macquarie University vice-chancellor Bruce Dowton. Picture: HEDx
It’s been five years since our first podcast episode was released on September 9, 2020. Our aim was high: to launch a platform seeking to change higher education for good.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Ever since 15 private colleges and universities teamed up to launch the Common App 50 years ago, the college admissions form has shifted practices and technology to meet the changing needs of institutions and students.
For instance, the latest iteration of the application, which opened Aug. 1 for the 2026–27 academic year, has what the organization calls a “refreshed look” and a new question that allows students to share their experiences with working at a paid job or taking care of their siblings. Common App, the nonprofit that runs the portal, piloted the Responsibilities and Circumstances question over the last three years, which showed in part “the importance of giving students space—beyond the personal essay—to share how these factors have shaped their high school experience,” the organization wrote in its innovation guide.
Common App is continuing to build out its Direct Admissions program, in which eligible students get an admissions offer before they actually apply. In its second year, 119 institutions have participated in the initiative and more than 700,000 students received offers.
Nearly 1.5 million first-time applicants completed the Common App in the 2024–25 cycle, submitting more than 10 million applications, according to a report released this week. That included just over 571,000 first-generation students—a 14 percent increase compared to the previous cycle. The Common App is aiming to continue to increase the number of applicants who are first-generation and from low- or middle-income households as it seeks to close equity gaps.
For this current cycle, more than 1,100 institutions are participating in the Common App, which includes 10 community colleges—yet another change for the organization aimed at ensuring students know about the available opportunities.
As the organization marks its 50th anniversary, CEO Jenny Rickard sat down with Inside Higher Ed to talk about how the Common App has changed over the years and what’s next. The conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
Q: How has the founding and the history of Common App influenced the organization today?
Jenny Rickard has led Common App since 2016.
A: The thing about Common App that is unique is how its mission actually has not changed over the 50 years of history. It still is an organization that is governed by our members. The mission has always been to simplify the admission process to enable more students to gain access to higher education. So the idea of trying to simplify the college application process by collaborating and working with all the different stakeholders in the admission process—that include students, applicants, school counselors and, obviously, admission officers—is how we go about developing this application, and it’s critically important that we listen to all of those different constituencies. Over the 50 years of Common App, what has changed is technology and the demand for higher education has continued to grow over that time. Just as the times have changed, we’ve expanded the types of institutions that we serve. As a result of that, the students and the different high schools or secondary schools that we’re able to reach.
Q: As the demographics of who is attending college have changed, Common App has made an effort to adjust to that, such as working to better serve financially independent students. So what are the biggest demographic shifts happening now and that you see coming in the applicant pool over the next few years? And how are you looking to accommodate and invest in those changes?
A: I think one of the main challenges over the past 50 years has actually been reaching different socioeconomic groups. So our moon shot that we launched to close our gap in the income bands of students using Common App shined a light on the access challenges that higher ed has faced. And some of the initiatives that we have launched are to address that gap—70 percent of the students using Common App to apply to college are from above the national median income and 30 percent are below. And that’s something that has been pretty constant in the college admissions space. We’re working through some of the initiatives that we’ve launched to reach out to more low- and middle-income students who may not think that college is something that’s possible for them, to let them know it is possible and you can go to college, and colleges would love to see you there.
So it’s trying to go beyond addressing some of what I’d call the logistical barriers that students face to apply to college and get to some of the social and economic barriers that students face in applying to college. The main theme of what we’re trying to accomplish these days is expanding access to students who have felt that higher education may not be attainable for them.
Q: One of those initiatives is direct admissions. Why is that something you wanted to invest in and how’s the program going?
A: There are students who won’t even create a Common App account because they fear that rejection. And so one of the things that we’re working on is, how do we give students the positive reinforcement that you are going to be able to find a college? There are colleges that would love to enroll you. That can then inspire them to not only perhaps apply to some of the colleges that are reaching out to them, but also maybe think more broadly about where they might want to go to school and understand that they have some agency in this process.
How we went about doing our direct admission work was inspired by the state of Idaho that had launched a program to let high school students know about the state institutions that they could get into. And we looked at that and thought, “Wow, what could Common App do nationally to help students in states that may not have a direct admission program, but also be able to expose them to the 1,100 colleges and universities that are members of this nonprofit membership association?”
We did three different pilots to email students. We worked on the language and tried to understand from the student perspective what they were experiencing. We worked with our member colleges to understand the process from their vantage point as well as school counselors to see what might work best for their students and how to support them in this effort. And after the three pilots, we decided we could scale it and also enhance the technology so that we went beyond an email notification.
Once they’re in Common App, they can now have a dashboard to see which schools would already admit them if they just continued in the process with those institutions. Every year, we make enhancements to the process as we learn from all the different stakeholders about which aspects are supporting students the best and which are supporting the institutions the best.
Q:And the number of institutions participating in the direct admissions program is going to increase to more than 200 this fall, correct?
A: I found it overwhelming, in a really great way, that we reached out to over 700,000 individual students with direct admission offers last year. Thinking about the scale that we have and being able to provide that positive reinforcement to help encourage students to continue in the admission process and be able to attain higher education is really exciting.
Q: Certain elements of the admissions process are under scrutiny, such as concerns about standardized tests. I recently wrote about a report led by a Common App researcherthat found letters of reference for some minority groups tend to skew shorter. What do you make of those debates and how do you think college admissions will change over the next several years?
A: As technology changes and institutions look at their own way of doing their admission processes, we will continue to work with our members to understand what they are experiencing and what they are wanting in order to enroll the classes of students that they want and who will thrive on their campuses. We have a common platform, but there is also flexibility by institutional type, as well as a section for colleges to have their own questions beyond what’s on the common form. That format has provided the flexibility for us to be able to have a very diverse group of members, and also in welcoming associate’s degree–granting community colleges to the platform.
We’ve been constantly evolving as the higher education environment has evolved, as technology has evolved. When you look back at Common App 50 years ago, its technology inspiration was the photocopier, and the idea was a really great idea of admissions deans seeing that they were asking some similar questions, maybe they could streamline this process for students. And then floppy disks came along, and admissions officers and college counselors said, “We need to move into this floppy disk area.” And they quickly pivoted when the internet came out, and in 1998 launched the first online application. So we will continue to evolve. Obviously, with artificial intelligence, we’re looking into how this can assist in the process.
Q: Common App has reams of data about students’ applications, and the organization has worked to make that information more easily available. What do you see as Common App’s role in the world of higher ed research?
A: We were very grateful to the Gates Foundation who, over five years ago, awarded us a grant to create a data warehouse so that we could share nationally about trends in the college application process and help shine a light on areas where there are differences across institutions and across students. So you pointed to that research about how recommendations for some populations of students aren’t as strong as others. What does that mean? And is that a reflection of the students? Is it a reflection of the secondary schools that they might attend?
Because when you think about the great diversity of colleges, the diversity of secondary schools is that much more, and the opportunities that students have [are] so different, and being able to really highlight what that means from a student access perspective is critically important for all of us to try to make sure that students have the same level of opportunities.
So investing in that data warehouse—and that investment from the Gates Foundation—is something that has really transformed us, not just only from the research reports that we’re able to do but also during COVID, we were able to see right away that first-generation college students’ applications had really dropped off. And we were able to alert all of our members that COVID was really having an impact on first-generation college students and [look into] what we could all do to try to mitigate that negative impact.
It also has been important for us to be able to understand how students are persisting within the Common App, and to help us enhance the system to try to ensure that students are not only able to start an application but to complete the application. And we’ve been able to collaborate with organizations like the National Student Clearinghouse to see if students are persisting in college. We have beenable to add the texture that the admission application provides to the clearinghouse data to understand more about student behavior, not only in Common App but also in college.
I see that as all critical in terms of informing our broad community about the kinds of changes we might need to make or things that we might want to stop doing because it’s not helping the situation. The data has really just shined a light on a number of the challenges in the admission process and informed us about ways that we might be able to mitigate those challenges. Direct admission is one of those.
After almost 20 years in business, Milestones Preschool in Inglewood closed its doors this month.
It was a decision that preschool director Milena Bice had been putting off for years. She’d turned her family home into a small business, transforming the house on a quiet tree-lined street into a playground of childish delights, complete with a sand pit, fruit trees and even a brood of chicks waddling around a small pen.
Bice loved her preschool. She loved the way it allowed her to care for her own kids when they were little, and how she could continue to apply therapeutic approaches to her work long after they’d outgrown preschool. Over the years, she developed a reputation for her care for children with neurological differences.
But child care is no easy business. Margins were about as slim as can be. When parents couldn’t afford to pay full tuition, Bice felt it was her duty to keep caring for their kids anyway. The question of closing loomed over her as her business survived the ups and downs of the global economy: first, the 2008 recession, and the COVID-19 pandemic more than a decade later.
But this month, Bice finally called it quits. She was sick of charging families high fees and still struggling to pay herself at the end of the month. And for the first time this year, she said her preschool didn’t have anyone on her waitlist. One reason is universal transitional kindergarten — or TK — no-cost public kindergarten that becomes an option for all California 4-year-olds this fall.
“ I can’t compete with free,” she told LAist in a recent interview. “And in this economy, I think a lot of families are hurting.”
Bice’s predicament mirrors a statewide challenge. As families sign their 4-year-olds up for TK, some childcare and preschool providers say they’re losing enrollment and it’s threatening their businesses. While teachers struggle to adjust, childcare remains an unaffordable and unmet need for many families across California, especially with very young children.
Child care is still a major need for CA families
Even as transitional kindergarten expands, there’s no shortage of need for child care. The California Budget & Policy Center estimates that just 19% of infants, toddlers and preschool-aged children who are eligible for state subsidized care are enrolled. The need is especially great for children age 2 or younger — the most expensive age group to care for.
A recent report from the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment found that most early education programs will need to pivot to younger kids to meet the need and stay in business, and that centers and home-based childcares are hurting from declined enrollment since the pandemic.
Anna Powell, the lead author of that report, said early educators struggling to adapt to the changing landscape of their industry are a byproduct of the state’s massive investment in universal TK, but lack of similar investment in others.
“ If one area, for example TK, receives a lot of resources to scale up to reach demand, in theory, that is positive,” she said. “What happens when you don’t invest in all the quadrants at the same time is that there can be these unintended consequences.”
Transitioning to younger kids is a challenge
Powell said that caring for younger kids requires a number of shifts in how child care programs operate. Teaching expertise is different for younger children, and staffing ratios are smaller. The time a provider might expect to have a child enrolled is also shorter, since kids are heading to the public school system earlier. This means early educators could face more turnover.
There’s also the matter of teaching preferences. Caring for a 3- or 4-year-old is very different from taking care of a 1-year-old. In a survey of nearly 1,000 early educators, just 20% said they’d be interested in teaching infants and toddlers.
David Frank, who runs a preschool in Culver City, told LAist in April that he’s also closing his doors this year. He said that 4-year-olds used to make up a third of the school’s students, and his enrollment was down from 34 to 13. His preschool already took 2 -year-olds, but he didn’t want to go any younger. One reason is it would require him to reconfigure the school to create a separate space for the youngest children.
Frank said he’s not against TK, but he couldn’t keep making it work.
“ I’m happy that children will have good, free education,” he said. “But as a person trying to run a business … it’s just no longer a viable plan to stay open anymore.”
Advocates say even more investment is needed
California’s transitional kindergarten is a plan years in the making, and, despite kinks, it has achieved a big goal: offering a free option for every family with a 4-year-old in the state.
That program runs through the public school system, but child care and early education offerings for the state’s youngest children continue to be a patchwork of different types of care with no similar central system. The state funds a public preschool program for 2- to 5-year-olds for low-income families, which has received more money in recent years. Many private programs receive state subsidies for serving low-income families, and the state has increased the number of seats it funds in recent years.
It also bumped up reimbursement rates for 3-year-olds to entice more providers to take younger kids.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office pointed to these changes, telling LAist that it has invested heavily in a universal Pre-K program that extends beyond transitional kindergarten.
Some advocates and childcare providers say still more game-changing investment is needed. The state has promised the childcare providers that receive its subsidies to overhaul its payment system to reflect the “true cost” of care, but this year deferred offering them pay bumps. The union representing those workers is currently bargaining with the state, saying providers can’t wait for a raise.
Patricia Lozano, the executive director of advocacy organization Early Edge California, said TK’s ripple effect on early education programs shows that the state needs to do more to provide for its youngest children.
“ TK was one of the key things we’ve been advocating since it was passed,” she said. “But that’s just one piece. I think the whole system itself is problematic. It’s underfunded.”
Lozano pointed to New Mexico as a potential model for California. The state has boosted teacher pay and expanded eligibility for free care by directing gas and oil revenue to state childcare programs. She said this type of consistent source of money is especially important amid threats to federal funding and state budget cuts.
“The bottom line is we need to have that source of funding protected,” she said.
In the meantime, Milena Bice’s preschool in Inglewood is closed. She’s not sure exactly what happens next. She can’t go work at a public school. Despite decades in the business, she doesn’t have a bachelor’s degree or teaching credential.
While she debates the future, Bice is holding onto her childcare license. Who knows? Maybe she’ll want to reopen someday.
