برچسب: for

How California can transform math education for English learners

Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

In California and across the country, English learners are too frequently an afterthought.

Though they are one of the largest student groups — California has more than 1 million students who are learning English as a second language, and that number is growing — their academic performance has barely budged over the last two decades. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only 4% of English learners are proficient in eighth grade math, compared with 29% of non-English learners. Furthermore, NAEP reading scores revealed that only 10% of fourth grade English learners are proficient in reading, compared to 37% of non-English learners in the same grade.

There are many reasons for this. But one of the most important is also one of the most fundamental: The textbooks and other instructional materials used in classrooms every day are typically not written with English learners in mind. While these textbooks may be rigorous and aligned with state standards, they lack the cultural relevance and language support necessary for students who are learning English. Teachers know this to be true. A survey found that 82% of teachers believe their current materials either somewhat or not at all reflect the needed academic rigor for English learners.

Fortunately, California has an opportunity to start making this right. Next year, our State Board of Education will release its first math adoption list of state-approved curricula since 2014 — recommending math instructional materials that state education leaders believe align with California’s revised math framework. While some California districts have already started or completed their selection process, many districts in the state will soon choose a new math curriculum from that list.

There is a common misconception that mathematical concepts transcend linguistic differences, so the needs of English learners shouldn’t be a concern. However, the reality is that language is critical for math instruction — and so math instruction materials that incorporate language support can help all learners. If the state recommends materials that center on the needs of English learners — and districts ultimately purchase and adopt them — we can make significant progress toward making our math curriculum more accessible for all students.

Curriculum adoption may feel technical and esoteric, but it is essential to promote equity — especially for English learners. High-quality instructional materials serve as a “floor” for instruction, providing teachers with the materials they need to connect with every student in their classroom.

Unfortunately, our classrooms — especially those serving English learners — too often fail to reach that floor. A recent report from the Center for Education Market Dynamics revealed that California districts with greater percentages of English learners are the least likely to have adopted a new math curriculum. Many of those districts are waiting for the state adoption list before moving forward. This means that the adoption — and the curricula ultimately selected by districts — will have a dramatic effect on the academic experience of English learners, in particular.

How can we get this process right? While California provides a list of state-approved curricula, it does not review instructional materials for specific populations, including English learners. This means districts and counties must figure out which math curriculum is most supportive of English learners. State leaders should provide guidance and resources to county offices of education so that districts are well positioned to run their own adoption processes. To support these efforts, California created math criteria that feature guides for how curriculum should support language and English learners. Districts should then base their curriculum selection on clear, research-based criteria focused on meeting the needs of all learners.

Many districts in California and across the country are facing fiscal challenges due to the expiration of federal Covid-relief (ESSER) funding, declining student enrollment and other factors. This is likely to reduce the resources districts can target to the needs of English learners and other marginalized groups.

But selection and adoption of instructional materials is likely already in district budgets — and so, by picking an inclusive curriculum, district leaders can make significant headway on equity without significant additional investment. After all, it will always be more resource-intensive and less effective to supplement or modify curriculum after the fact.

Additionally, teachers currently spend their own money on supplemental materials to fill gaps in existing curricula, a trend that is both unsustainable and inequitable. By adopting inclusive materials and ensuring teachers are supported in implementing those materials, districts will reduce these additional costs and provide a more cohesive and effective learning experience for all students.

We are proud to say that California’s math vision is strong and there are many possibilities in terms of changing the way instruction happens in the classroom. It’s time to ensure that districts act wisely in their curriculum adoption.

School districts with high English learner populations need to come together and demand better options for our students. We have a chance to set the tone for the rest of the nation in developing and adopting instructional materials that truly support all students.

It is time to invest in adopting educational resources that reflect our state’s — and our country’s — wonderfully diverse student population.

•••

Crystal Gonzales is the founder and executive director of the English Learners Success Forum. Martha Hernandez is the executive director of Californians Together.

The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.

Source link

07/05/2025
‘Academic probation’ sends message to students that college isn’t for them, research says

Students at Fresno City College

Credit: Ashleigh Panoo/EdSource

When a college student’s GPA dips below 2.0 — lower than a C average — schools often send a notice meant to serve as a wake-up call: Improve your grades or risk losing financial aid and being kicked out of college.

But the way that universities and colleges deliver this wake-up call could be backfiring and pushing students to give up on higher education altogether, according to new research.

That’s what California Competes, a nonpartisan policy and research organization, concluded in a recent report on “academic probation.” The policy report was born out of a study that relied on interviews with over 50 “comebackers” — students who returned to higher education years after stopping out — from Shasta College and Sacramento State.

Academic probation wasn’t on the radar of researchers until the comebackers, brought on to co-design the study, raised academic probation as a serious issue that led many students to give up on their studies.

Su Jin Gatlin Jez

“I was very surprised that this came up from the students, but this is why we center students in our work,” said Su Jin Jez, California Competes CEO, in an interview with EdSource.

Jez said students perceived being put on academic probation as a message that they aren’t cut out for higher education, not as a wake-up call. This was especially true when an automated notice did not offer clear next steps for a student to begin to turn their academic career around.

This is an issue that affects a lot of students. One national study by the Center for Analysis and Postsecondary Education and Employment found that 1 in 5 first-year students on Pell Grants were at risk of losing their grants due to low GPAs. But there’s no California-specific data about these students — something California Competes would like to see changed.

Laura Bernhard

The organization calls on the state to create a task force to examine academic probation policies at California public universities and promote practices that will help students. It also calls on each of the state’s higher education segments — community colleges, the CSUs and the UCs — to address this issue. That is happening already.

“There is interest. There’s growing recognition of the need to make these changes,” said California Competes senior researcher Laura Bernhard. “I think that’s exciting.”

Bernhard acknowledges it can be tough to roll out sweeping policy changes in a higher education system as decentralized as California’s, but there are signs of progress. During the study, the University of California announced that it would be following one of the study’s recommendations: calling it “academic notice” rather than academic probation, a phrase that makes getting D’s or F’s sound like a crime.

In this Q&A, Jez and Bernhard detail what they have learned in their research and, specifically, what they want to see happen in California. It has been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

What typically happens when a student’s GPA drops below 2.0?

Bernhard: Most schools use an automated system where a student will receive a form email notifying them of this status. Campus policies vary. California Community Colleges are required to notify students when their GPA falls under this threshold.

There is not a systemwide process, which is one of the things we wanted to flag. So the student experience varies pretty widely. It’s also going to vary based on if they’re in a targeted program that receives specialized advising, such as student athletes or people who are in an honors college, but in a lot of ways it’s left to the student. I don’t think we do a lot.

What is the problem with telling a student they are on academic probation?

Bernhard: The first, perhaps the most obvious one, would be the link to the carceral system. That can be very triggering for many people.

One of our institutional partners was reviewing their website about academic probation, and she was taken aback by the language. After they are given notice, the first image students see is a cop holding a stop sign saying, “You’re on probation.” She was horrified. Then she remembered 20 years ago, she was one of the people who helped write that policy. It was just a real moment of, “Oh goodness, what have we done?”

Jez: I think previously there wasn’t a lot of concern about a letter with that kind of language because people assume students were on academic probation because they couldn’t hack it. Because they truly weren’t college material. They couldn’t handle the coursework.

Fast-forward to today, there’s a growing understanding that students can be academically capable and excellent — and still not be getting good grades. There are all of these factors in students’ lives that impact their academic performance. Institutions want to figure out how they can help students navigate those sorts of life circumstances, so that they can succeed in the classroom. For that reason, institutions are really wanting to make sure they have the right tone in these letters.

So are some of these assumptions based on an outdated vision of who a college student is?

Jez: Traditionally, we’ve had a student who is full-time focused on academic studies. You wouldn’t think of life outside of school being a major factor for them. So if they weren’t performing academically, it was because there was some academic shortcoming.

But now most students have heavy workloads, particularly at community colleges and the CSUs. Over 400,000 students in California have children. It’s just a very different student. I think we’re beginning to tackle our policies one by one as we look back and sort of realize they don’t work anymore.

Besides that phrase “academic probation,” what are some other problems with those automated notices sent to students when their GPA dips?

Bernhard: Usually just the length. It’s long, it’s verbose, it’s wordy, it’s complex. There’s jargon. It’s not clear what steps I need to take. It’s not clear who I need to reach out to. It’s not personal. It can tend to use deficit-minded language: “You’ve done something bad; you are on probation; you are in trouble.”

Instead, things can really be flipped. It can be short; it can be clear. It can be: ‘This is temporary. This is a setback. This happens to a lot of people. We all struggle sometimes.” We can normalize this behavior. ‘These things happen sometimes. It’s out of our control and here are the steps you can take. We care about you as our person. Please talk to us. Reach out.”

I think a lot of colleges have also realized that, in addition to sending an email, we can text, we can call, we can have tables on campus. We can have an academic event with more personal outreach, which we realize is bandwidth-heavy. But sometimes that makes a huge difference for people.

This policy analysis mentions that nationally, 1 out of 5 first-time college students receiving Pell Grants end up with a GPA below a 2.0. Is there any statewide data on that?

Bernhard: I think that’s one of the biggest issues. It’s not a publicly shared data point in most cases. It’s usually within an institution. It’s hard to get good, comprehensive, systemwide statewide information about students who have a certain GPA. We obviously believe in the power of data, so that is something we would love to be able to collect and analyze.

Jez: I would love to see that, as the launch of the Cradle-to-Career data system happens, we have students’ GPA information.

Is there any kind of pushback to these changes you’re suggesting? What’s the attitude among campus leaders?

Jez: Across the three systems, I will say that there’s a growing recognition that this is a really critical issue that needs improvement. And so we’re seeing attention to this at the systemwide level.

At the campus level, there are a number of campuses that are just picking it up and sprinting with it. In many ways, our work has been thinking about how we get a more consistent, comprehensive approach, so we can pick up on campuses leading the way, learn from what they’re doing, and then sort of broaden it across the system. So the systems are all in and then the campuses are in.

You’re calling for a statewide task force. Why would that be helpful?

Jez: Unlike literally every other state in our country, we don’t have a coordinating entity that would be thinking about these issues statewide, centering the student and the students who are attending multiple institutions. It’s critical, then, that we pull it together — in these more ad hoc ways, sadly — to be able to address this.

We are hopeful that there will be a proposal in the next 12 months, maybe even the next two or three months, that will tackle this.

Was there anything that surprised you as you researched this issue?

Bernhard: I think we could have named 17 other things that we think would have led people to stop out and make returning to complete their degree more difficult. I don’t think academic probation would necessarily have been on that list.

The other thing I just really wanted to tout is that this feels, to me, like a relatively easy win. It’s essentially free. It feels small, but it could be incredibly impactful for students. There really hasn’t been pushback, because it just feels very common-sense. Now it’s just like, “Great, how do we get momentum, take action and make this change statewide?” I feel like in a year when we’re sort of feeling financially constrained, I think we should take the win.

A lot of what you’re talking about and pushing for is systemic change, but I want to close by asking you what your message would be to students on academic notice or probation right now.

Jez: When we’ve done previous research and we’ve talked about academic probation, what we hear from faculty and staff is they really saw it as an early warning sign, like “Hey, pay attention.” And then what we heard from students was the opposite. It was more like “You don’t belong, you’re not college material.”

So I think that a student should know that this status doesn’t mean you’re not college material and you don’t belong and you can’t do it. I think of it more like a wake-up call. Obviously, there are some students where some sort of crisis happens in their life, and they need to get through that moment and then get back on track. And when they hit that crisis, it’s really important to reach out to their institution because they can take incompletes or withdraw or there are other strategies that make it so that this doesn’t have an impact on their GPA.

If it’s something that’s sort of like a bigger issue where they’re having to work full time and trying to figure out how they balance their studies, reach out to your institution. There are also a number of community-based organizations that can support students. Also, many struggles aren’t visible, but students are far from alone in grappling with this. In many ways, it is a very normal experience. Students can successfully, absolutely make it out of this temporary status.

It’s really like the institution’s obligation to help the student. It is not like, “Go figure it out, student.” The institution needs to help figure out with the student, “How do we support you to success?

My last recommendation is a general customer service one. If you call customer service and the person’s not helpful, I wouldn’t try to convince that person how they should help you. Sometimes, you just hang up and find someone else. Our institutions are pretty big, so there are lots of people. Find a person that can get to your issue and that’s willing to help.

Source link

07/05/2025
Lack of candidates means many Californians won’t vote for school board

Political signs for the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified school board are on display at an intersection in Yorba Linda.

Credit: Courtesy of Kevin Reed

Millions of California residents will not have the opportunity to vote for the people representing them on their school boards on Nov. 5 because many of the board races will not appear on the ballot.

EdSource analyzed data from 1,510 school board races in 49 California counties and found that 851 races, or 56%, will not appear on a ballot because either no one is running for the seat or a single candidate is running unopposed – making that person an instant winner.

The problem is most prevalent in more remote areas of the state, where the lack of school board members has been an ongoing issue, said Troy Flint, chief information officer for the California School Boards Association.

Districts in rural counties have smaller populations, limiting the pool of candidates for school board, and offer fewer incentives — such as monthly stipends or health insurance — than larger districts, said Yuri Calderon, executive director of the Small School Districts’ Association.

In Siskiyou County, 14 school districts do not have candidates running for their open board seats, and in San Benito County, there are 20 candidates for 31 open school board seats, leaving 13 seats without candidates. Only one race, for Trustee Area 4 in the Hollister School District, is on the ballot. It has three candidates.

In Nevada County, four of the nine districts have no candidates for their open board seats. In Plumas County, there are no school board races on the Nov. 5 ballot, although there are a total of six open seats in two districts, according to the county elections department.

School board members are responsible for setting the vision for the district, hiring its superintendent, adopting policies and curriculum, passing a balanced district budget, overseeing facilities, providing direction for and accepting collective bargaining agreements, monitoring student achievement and making program changes as needed, according to the California School Boards Association.

Calderon recalls having to convince community members to run for school board when he was the chief business officer at Cold Spring School District, which serves 193 K-6 students in Santa Barbara County.

There is less incentive for rural residents to run for school board because they are usually more satisfied with their schools and less likely to think of a school board seat as a springboard to higher political office, like candidates in more populated areas of the state might, Calderon said.

The absence of school board candidates on the ballot suggests an erosion of what many regard as a pillar of American democracy in places where there is reluctance or unwillingness to run for board positions.

Cities, suburbs also have a shortage of candidates

“One of the dynamics that’s been playing out has been people reluctant to hold onto their seats, and then people are reluctant to run for office because there’s a lot of hostility out there, and sometimes threatening behavior that are prompting either existing school board members or potential school board members to rethink whether or not they want to hold this office,” said John Rogers, director of the Institute for Democracy, Education and Access at UCLA.

Sign-up below to receive breaking news alerts from EdSource by text message.

The shortage of willing school board candidates is also impacting urban and suburban areas, according to the EdSource analysis. In Los Angeles County, for example, 252 candidates are running for 174 seats, meaning 90 seats have only one candidate and will not be on the ballot. The same goes for Sacramento County, where there are only 54 candidates running for 31 seats and San Diego County where 169 candidates are vying for 100 seats.

Calderon and Siskiyou County Superintendent of Schools Allan Carver agree that potential candidates are sometimes wary about running for a board seat because of the political divisiveness that has been playing out at school board meetings.

“It’s kind of one of those thankless jobs,” Calderon said. “And there has been a lot in the media about controversial issues and people becoming very, more so than just polarized, kind of aggressive with their positions. And I think that people shy away from wanting to get involved in that.”

Some rural district seldom hold elections

The lack of candidates is so common in some rural districts, school boards routinely fill empty seats by appointing people – often the incumbents – after the filing deadline ends. Some districts rarely have elections.

“It’s very typical,” said Krystal Lomanto, San Benito County superintendent of schools. “We have seven rural districts and many of those districts do not have board members that actually run for seats – they end up appointing them. So, it is a consistent practice, at least in our community. We don’t often have – in our rural school districts – board members that run against each other, so it happens quite often.”

San Benito County, a rural county in the Central Coast region, has some of the smallest school districts in the state – 15 districts with a total enrollment of 11,969 students.

In Siskiyou County, the northernmost county in the state, there are 30 candidates running for 67 school board seats in 25 districts. Fourteen school districts have no candidates for any of their open board seats and six districts have 11 seats with candidates running unopposed.

Carver expects the number of vacancies to dwindle by January when many of the open seats will be claimed by incumbents who did not file candidacy paperwork, but will continue to hold their seats by appointment.

“A lot of these vacancies, they’d hardly even consider them vacant because I bet more than half of those — probably 20 of the 37 — the (incumbent) board members are like, ‘No, I’m happy to serve. I just didn’t get my paperwork in, so just appoint me,’” Carver said.

Finding candidates for board seats in extremely small districts can be difficult. The result is often multiple family members sitting on one board. Delphic Elementary School District in Siskiyou County is governed by a board made up of a mother, father and their adult daughter, Carver said. The single school serves 65 students, many from outside the district — limiting the number of parents eligible to run for school board, he said.

“This family happens to own property that borders the school and their driveway goes right by the school,” Carver said. “Their kids went to school there, and they’ve had a long history of supporting it. So, talk about local control.”

Stipends, insurance could attract candidates

Carver is doing what he can to make being a member of the Siskiyou County Board of Education more attractive. He recently convinced the board to raise the monthly stipend from $40 to $100 so that he could attract more candidates. He said the board, like many other rural school boards, was reluctant to increase their own pay. The board also receives health insurance.

Most school districts in Siskiyou County can’t afford to pay their board a stipend to cover expenses or to offer them insurance, Carver said.

What happens if no one runs for a seat?

If no one runs for a board seat, school boards can either appoint a trustee or hold a special election. Most boards opt to appoint a trustee to avoid costly special elections.

Santa Cruz City Schools Superintendent Kris Munro sent a letter to families last month asking parents to consider applying for a seat on the board that does not have a candidate in the upcoming election. District officials also sent news releases about the available seat, advertised it in video updates and on the district’s social media accounts, and placed a legal notice in a local newspaper, said Sam Rolens, district spokesperson.

The district, which serves 4,000 students in kindergarten through 12th grade, along the state’s Central Coast, has three open seats. The two other seats that are available have one only candidate each, meaning they also will not be on the ballot.

Applicants for the open Santa Cruz seat without a candidate had until Oct. 18 to file their applications. Three days before the deadline, two people had applied, Rolens said. The district offers its trustees a $50 monthly stipend, according to Santa Cruz Local.

Santa Cruz County has even fewer residents interested in running for school boards this year than in the previous election, according to Santa Cruz Local. Three-quarters of the open board seats in Santa Cruz County, including those in Santa Cruz City Schools, will not be on the ballot on Nov. 5, according to the news site.

Boards must have quorum to conduct business

Having a full board is imperative for conducting the school district’s business. In order to vote on agenda items, a school board must have the majority of its board in attendance. Five-member boards, for example, must have at least three, and seven-member boards must have at least four members present to take action on an agenda item.

If the school district cannot fill enough board seats to have a quorum, the county Office of Education can send one of its board members to act as a substitute until the district can make an appointment.

Having a member of the Board of Education sit on school boards isn’t common, but it has happened a few times in Siskiyou County, Carver said. In one case, a county Board of Education member became a temporary board member at a tiny district serving 25 students after it lost two members of its three-person board. In another case, a board member sat on a district board for three months until they found a willing appointee, Carver said.

Despite the dire shortage of school board candidates, Carver says he tries to encourage people who will be willing to learn and consider all sides of an issue to run for office.

“You know, we always want to encourage people who have the right faculties and demeanor, and seek to truly govern for all and don’t have just one specific issue they’re concerned about,” Carver said.

Source link

07/05/2025
ProPublica: Trump’s Choice for US Attorney in D.C. is Ethically Challenged–and a MAGA Extremist

ProPublica revealed that Ed Martin, Trump’s choice, for the high-powered job of U.S. Attorney in D.C. is ethically challenged. We already knew that Martin was a strident defender of the January 6 insurrectionists and represented some of them as their attorney. We also knew that Ed Martin has a long history of promoting conspiracy theories.

We learned only a couple of weeks ago that Mr. Martin has appeared on Russian state media more than 150 times between 2016 and 2024, a detail he initially forgot to share with the Senate Judiciary Committee vetting him. The Washington Post reported, “In early 2022, Martin told an interviewer on the same arm of RT’s global network that “there’s no evidence” of a Russian military buildup on Ukraine’s borders, criticizing U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia’s security concerns. Russia invaded nine days later, igniting a war that continues today.”

What we didn’t know is that in one important case, he was coaching someone else to attack the judge hearing the case.

Trump has chosen many unqualified people for high positions. Ed Martin is one of his worst choices.

ProPublica wrote:

The attacks on Judge John Barberis in the fall of 2016 appeared on his personal Facebook page. They impugned his ethics, criticized a recent ruling and branded him as a “politician” with the “LOWEST rating for a judge in Illinois.”

Barberis, a state court judge in an Illinois county across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, was presiding over a nasty legal battle for control over the Eagle Forum, the vaunted grassroots group founded by Phyllis Schlafly, matriarch of the anti-feminist movement. The case pitted Schlafly’s youngest daughter against three of her sons, almost like a Midwest version of the HBO program “Succession” (without the obscenities).

At the heart of the dispute — and the lead defendant in the case — was Ed Martin, a lawyer by training and a political operative by trade. In Missouri, where he was based, Martin was widely known as an irrepressible gadfly who trafficked in incendiary claims and trailed controversy wherever he went. Today, he’s the interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., and one of the most prominent members of the Trump Justice Department.

In early 2015, Schlafly had selected Martin to succeed her as head of the Eagle Forum, a crowning moment in Martin’s career. Yet after just a year in charge, the group’s board fired Martin. Schlafly’s youngest daughter, Anne Schlafly Cori, and a majority of the Eagle Forum board filed a lawsuit to bar Martin from any association with the organization.

After Barberis dealt Martin a major setback in the case in October 2016, the attacks began. The Facebook user who posted them, Priscilla Gray, had worked in several roles for Schlafly but was not a party to the case, and her comments read like those of an aggrieved outsider.

Almost two years later, the truth emerged as Cori’s lawyers gathered evidence for her lawsuit: Behind the posts about the judge was none other than Martin.

ProPublica obtained previously unreported documents filed in the case that show Martin had bought a laptop for Gray and that she subsequently offered to “happily write something to attack this judge.” And when she did, Martin ghostwrote more posts for her to use and coached her on how to make her comments look more “organic.”

Ed Martin exchanged emails with Priscilla Gray, who had worked in various roles for Phyllis Schlafly, about how to attack Judge John Barberis. (Documents obtained, formatted and highlighted by ProPublica)

“That is not justice but a rigged system,” he urged her to write. “Shame on you and this broken legal system.”

“Call what he did unfair and rigged over and over,” Martin continued.

Martin even urged Gray to message the judge privately. “Go slow and steady,” he advised. “Make it organic.”

Gray appeared to take Martin’s advice. “Private messaging him that sweet line,” she wrote. It was not clear from the court record what, if anything, she wrote at that juncture.

Gray told Martin she would direct message Barberis after she was blocked from commenting on his Facebook page. (Documents obtained, formatted and highlighted by ProPublica)

Legal experts told ProPublica that Martin’s conduct in the Eagle Forum case was a clear violation of ethical norms and professional rules. Martin’s behavior, they said, was especially egregious because he was both a defendant in the case and a licensed attorney.

Martin appeared to be “deliberately interfering with a judicial proceeding with the intent to undermine the integrity of the outcome,” said Scott Cummings, a professor of legal ethics at UCLA School of Law. “That’s not OK.”

Martin did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Martin’s legal and political career is dotted with questions about his professional and ethical conduct. But for all his years in the spotlight, some of the most serious concerns about his conduct have remained in the shadows — buried in court filings, overlooked by the press or never reported at all.

His actions have led to more than $600,000 in legal settlements or judgments against Martin or his employers in a handful of cases. In the Eagle Forum lawsuit, another judge found him in civil contempt, citing his “willful disregard” of a court order, and a jury found him liable for defamation and false light against Cori.

Cori also tried to have Martin charged with criminal contempt for his role in orchestrating the posts about Barberis, but a judge declined to take up the request and said she could take the case to the county prosecutor. Cori said her attorney met with a detective; Martin was never charged.

Nonetheless, the emails unearthed by ProPublica were evidence that he had violated Missouri rules for lawyers, according to Kathleen Clark, a legal ethics expert and law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. She said lawyers are prohibited from trying to contact a judge outside of court in a case they are involved in, and they are barred from using a proxy to do something they are barred from doing themselves….

As one of its first personnel picks, the Trump administration chose Martin to be interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, one of the premier jobs for a federal prosecutor.

A wide array of former prosecutors, legal observers and others have raised questions about his qualifications for an office known for handling high-profile cases. Martin has no experience as a prosecutor. He has never taken a case to trial, according to his public disclosures. As the acting leader of the largest U.S. attorney’s office in the country, he directs the work of hundreds of lawyers who appear in court on a vast array of subjects, including legal disputes arising out of Congress, national security matters, public corruption and civil rights, as well as homicides, drug trafficking and many other local crimes.

Over the last four years, the office prosecuted more than 1,500 people as part of the massive investigation into the violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. While Trump has pardoned the Jan. 6 defendants, Martin has taken action against the prosecutors who brought those cases. In just three months, he has overseen the dismissal of outstanding Jan. 6-related cases, fired more than a dozen prosecutors and opened an investigation into the charging decisions made in those riot cases.

Martin has also investigated Democratic lawmakers and members of the Biden family; forced out the chief of the criminal division after she refused to initiate an investigation desired by Trump appointees citing a lack of evidence, according to her resignation letter; threatened Georgetown University’s law school over its diversity, equity and inclusion policies; and vowed to investigate threats against Department of Government Efficiency employees or “chase” people in the federal government “discovered to have broken the law or even acted simply unethically.”

Martin “has butchered the position, effectively destroying it as a vehicle by which to pursue justice and turning it into a political arm of the current administration,” says an open letter signed by more than 100 former prosecutors who worked in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia under Democratic and Republican presidents.

Source link

06/05/2025
Proposition 2 is essential for California’s students and run-down schools

Classrooms for career technical education are cramped, and the Wasco Union High School District hopes to expand them with Proposition 2.

Credit: Emma Gallegos / EdSource

After decades of disinvestment and neglect, it’s clear that California’s schools are in desperate need of repair. Many school districts across the state are struggling with dilapidated buildings, old classrooms and unsafe conditions for their students.

According to a recent report from the Public Policy Institute of California, 38% of K-12 students in California are enrolled in schools that don’t meet our state’s minimum safety standards. This is obviously dangerous and completely unacceptable. Unsurprisingly, countless studies have shown that bad environmental conditions — including dirty air, lack of light and lack of safe building facilities — significantly decrease students’ academic achievement.

Unfortunately, with no dedicated resource pool and no new state school bond measures in almost a decade, California is almost out of money for school repairs. Unlike many other states, California does not have a dedicated funding stream for investments in school facilities, which makes districts across the state entirely reliant on raising money from state or local bonds for facility upgrades.

As a result, California’s school repair fund is expected to be depleted by this upcoming January, which would leave countless schools across the state without any ability to repair or upgrade their resources, sans a well-resourced PTA or local bond measure providing the funding. Wealthier districts might be able to skate by, but districts in low-income communities would be devastated.

As state superintendent of public instruction, I’ve overseen the administration of billions of dollars for K-12 school construction and modernization that came from the last state bond, but these funds were only a drop in the bucket that just scratched the surface of California’s immense needs and were depleted quickly.

That’s why Proposition 2, a bond measure this November that would provide $8.5 billion in facility renovations for TK-12 schools and $1.5 billion for community colleges, couldn’t come at a more urgent time. It’s a vitally necessary, common-sense step forward to provide critically needed upgrades to California’s schools.

To receive state bond money, districts must attempt to raise a local bond of their own and then apply to the State Facilities Program for a funding match — though districts that are unable to raise more than $15 million from a local bond can receive up to a 100% match.

The measure, along with the accompanying local bonds, would help upgrade facilities at public elementary, middle and high schools and community colleges across California to build more classrooms, modernize science labs, enhance gymnasiums, build performing arts centers, and replace aging buildings.

But most critically, Proposition 2 would help ensure basic 21st-century facility standards in every school across the state — helping low-income districts receive desperately needed funding to repair heating and air conditioning systems, repair leaky roofs, and remediate hazardous black mold. Some of the money is also earmarked for removing lead from water, creating transitional kindergarten classrooms and building career and technical education facilities.

Significantly, this proposal also includes significant equity-focused improvements to existing policy that would ensure this funding goes to the districts that most need it. Proposition 2 improves how state funds are distributed to school districts across the state, making it more equitable for less-affluent districts and those with higher numbers of English learners and foster youth.

Ten percent of the funds would be dedicated to small school districts that currently struggle to amass the funding for facility upgrades, and the formula for allocating state funding establishes a higher match to low-wealth districts that cannot afford to generate much local funding, as well as those with a high percentage of disadvantaged students.

Without Proposition 2, schools districts in smaller and lower-income areas would have no other way to pay for these critical improvements, as they struggle tremendously to raise enough local bond money to pay for school repair, making them completely reliant on funding from state bonds for facility repairs.

Additionally, while not the focus of the measure, the investments provided by Proposition 2 will also create tens of thousands of good-paying construction jobs across the state, which will boost local economies.

Ultimately, California’s schools have a desperate need to modernize our buildings, facilities and campuses, and the money needed to make the necessary repairs has been exhausted. Proposition 2 will provide an infusion of vitally important investments to our schools that will address the significant backlog of districts hoping to receive funding for repairs, and considerably improve the conditions of students across the state.

•••

Tony Thurmond is California’s superintendent of public instruction and a candidate for governor in 2026.

The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.

Source link

06/05/2025
Reading Aloud for Fluency: Celebration is as Important as Correction

Just waiting for the fun to start….

Reading aloud both to and WITH students is one of the most important things teachers can do in reading class. Doing so helps build accuracy and automaticity in a way that silent reading can’t. And when students are socialized to read with a bit of prosody, to capture the intended meaning in their expression–we get double value because prosodic oral reading leads to prosodic–and therefore better–silent reading. This is a point Colleen Driggs, Erica Woolway and I make repeatedly in our forthcoming book The Teach Like a Champion Guide to the Science of Reading.

But teachers are often reluctant to ask students to read aloud. They’re worried students won’t want to read or that they will struggle. Or they think they’re “not teaching” when students read aloud.

Yes it’s important to build systems to cause all students to be attentive when read aloud happens. FASE Reading is a great tool for that. Yes, it’s important to have a plan for student who will struggle. But it’s also important to understand that those are solvable problems. Especially if you are attentive to building a positive reading culture.

A phrase we sometimes use is “celebration is as important as correction.” And you can see that clearly in this beautiful video (one of our longest serving in the TLAC library) of Hannah Lofthus.

Hannah celebrates Cartier’s expressive reading beautifully: His classmates get to talk about “what’s so great” about his fluent prosodic reading. Hannah rewards him by letting him read a bit more. [Note that Cartier punches it up a bit on the second read; he knows he’s got it and he’s proud]. And then it’s Mahogany’s turn and she’s NOT going to be outdone.

Yes, there is also correction and deliberate practice. Those are critical factors. But this video is a beautiful example of how we can make effective oral reading go viral in the classroom by attending to the culture of reading.

Source link

06/05/2025
Pastors for Texas Children on the Signing of the Voucher Bill

One of the most determined opponents of vouchers in Texas was the Pastors for Texas Children. While some faith leaders celebrated the opportunity to get public money for their religious schools, the PTC stood firm for separation of church and state. They believe it is the state’s responsibility to provide good public schools, and it is the duty of religious groups to support their own faith.

They know the research. They know that most of the $1 billion in vouchers will be used to subsidize students already enrolled in private schools. They know that many private schools will raise their tuition in response to the state subsidy. They know that the public schools, which serve the vast majority of students, will continue to be underfunded.

PTC sent out the following message:

The Signing of HB 3

An old preacher once said that God’s Justice was figuring out what belongs to whom and giving it to them.

Universal education for ALL children is God’s Justice. A $1 billion voucher subsidy program for children already in private schools— mostly religious schools that use Caesar to support their religion— is not.

Texans know that. They have rejected voucher programs for 30 years.

Gov. Greg Abbott had to rely on a Philadelphia billionaire to give him over $12 million dollars to defeat conservative, rural Republican state representatives who opposed vouchers on deep conviction and moral principle.

We take no pleasure in calling out our governor’s lies and bullying against these decent public servants. God is not mocked by Gov. Abbott’s corruption.

The voucher bill was signed on Saturday. Also on Saturday Texans all over the state overwhelmingly approved public school bond programs and elected pro-public ed trustees as a direct response to Abbott’s voucher scam.

We will have another opportunity to express our will on public education and against the privatization of it:

The 2026 primary and general elections.

DONATE TO PTC

PO Box 471155, Fort Worth, Texas, 76147

***************************************

What Happened After Passage of HB 3.

A statewide rejection of extremism.

In the aftermath of the passage of the voucher bill, voters in several districts responded by ousting hard-line conservative school board members. Texan Michelle H. Davis described the devastating losses of MAGA school board members across the state.

It was a tough night for MAGA-aligned candidates in Texas. In the May 3, 2025, local elections, voters across the state decisively rejected far-right candidates, particularly in school board and city council races. From Tarrant County to Collin County, and from San Antonio to Dallas, communities chose leaders who prioritize public education, inclusivity, and pragmatic governance over culture wars and partisan agendas. This widespread shift signals a growing resistance to extremist politics at the local level.

Last night, voters across Texas sent a message loud enough to rattle the far-right out of their echo chambers: we’re done with your culture wars, your book bans, and your crusade against public schools. Voters chose community over chaos, educators over agitators, and progress over extremism.

The local elections weren’t just a series of wins but a sweep. MAGA-backed candidates got absolutely trounced across the state. This was the result of deep organizing, years of work by local Democrats, and voters who are fed up with the far-right hijacking of school boards and city councils to push their agenda.

Texas isn’t turning blue overnight, but make no mistake: the MAGA movement had a very bad night, and the momentum is shifting.

Tarrant County.

The Republican Party poured money, endorsements, and out-of-state personalities into these Tarrant County races, and they got wiped. Every single candidate backed by Patriot Mobile, the far-right Christian nationalist group trying to take over school boards, lost. That’s losses in Mansfield ISD, Keller ISD, and Grapevine-Colleyville ISD. A clean sweep.

The Tarrant County GOP went 0-for-11 in the county’s three largest cities: Fort Worth, Arlington, and Mansfield. Let that sink in. They didn’t just lose a few races. They got shut out entirely. In Mansfield, Republican Rep. David Cook’s backyard, where Allen West himself came out to rally the troops, the GOP lost all five races they backed.

Meanwhile, Democrats made real gains on the Fort Worth City Council. One of the biggest victories was Debrah Peoples’s victory in her race. A longtime activist and former Tarrant County Democratic Party Chair, Peoples gave progressive voters a reason to celebrate in a city that’s often overlooked on the statewide map.

Huge, huge shout out to the Tarrant County Young Democrats. They didn’t just show up, they organized, knocked on doors, made calls, and fought for every single school board seat they were targeting. And guess what? They swept them all. That’s the kind of ground game that wins elections. That’s the kind of energy we need to keep building.

Open the link to continue reading about the pushback in Texas against bookbanning rightwing MAGA culture warriors.

Source link

06/05/2025
Look for solutions beyond school grounds to address youth homicides

Eight-foot gates surround Del Sol High School in Oxnard in 2023.

Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource

The shooting in September at Apalachee High School in Georgia, which left two students and two teachers dead and nine people wounded, was the latest in a line of multiple-casualty shootings at schools in the United States.

Given the incredible suffering and loss of life resulting from these tragic events, they understandably generate considerable media attention and public concern over the safety of students and staff. Schools should be safe places for children and adults to come to each day without the threat of violence.

But, despite the attention generated by high-casualty school shootings, the data indicate something very surprising. For nearly 30 years — approximately 98-99% of all homicides of school-aged youth (generally youth between the ages of 5 and 18) have occurred outside of schools.

It’s important for California policymakers and school leaders to understand the data so that they can best protect our youth. One injury or death caused by violence in the school setting is already too much, but let’s dig into the data a bit more to get a better sense of what’s going on.

The graph below shows the total homicides on school grounds using the School-Associated Violent Death Surveillance System (SAVD-SS) and the total number of homicides of school aged youth using the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) from academic year 1992-93 to 2019-20, in four year increments.

As we can see in the graph, school-related homicides have hovered between 1% and 2% of the total number of homicides of school-aged youth for these four-year increments.

How we got the data

We examined data routinely compiled by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) for their periodic reports on school safety. Homicides and suicides that occur on school grounds are tracked by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) School-Associated Violent Death Surveillance System (SAVD-SS).

The CDC’s survey tracks homicides and suicides that that occur on school grounds during normal operating hours, as well as those that might have taken place on the bus to and from school or at school events after hours (e.g., football games). The CDC’s National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) shows the total number of homicides of school-aged youth. Comparing the two datasets enables us to determine the proportion of homicides that occur on school grounds versus total homicides for school-aged youth (which would include those at school and those outside of schools).

Even for periods in which high casualty events in schools are included (such as the tragedies in Colorado, Connecticut and Florida in 1999, 2012 and 2018 respectively), the proportion of school-related homicides did not reach 2% of all homicides of school-aged youth.

An additional year, 2020-21, is now available from the U.S. Department of Education. Those data indicate there were 11 homicides of school-aged youth at school in 2020-21. This was a period in which many schools moved to a virtual learning environment due to Covid-19.

However, 2020-21 was one of the worst years ever for total homicides of school-aged youth: 2,436 young people were murdered. For this single year, homicides of school-aged youth at school represented less than one-half of one percent (0.45%) of total homicides of school-aged youth.

These data do not give us the full picture. For example, they do not reveal anything about preceding factors that may have led to the homicide: An altercation that occurred in school may have spilled over to a homicide that occurred later on the street. In such cases, although the homicide would not be captured by the school homicide survey, the school was very much related to what happened.

What should these data inspire us to do?

Yes, we absolutely must protect children— and staff — in school. Parents entrust their children to educators. In no way do we want to minimize the pain and suffering caused by a shooting such as what occurred at Apalachee High School, or other communities around the nation.

However, given that the vast majority of homicides of school-aged children do not occur in school — but in the home, on the streets and at other venues — a comprehensive approach to protecting children from violence is needed. If we truly care about children, we’ve got to do a lot more.

School and Community Strategies for Youth Violence Prevention

What about our educators and school leaders in California? We recommend that they advocate for evidence-based approaches in the community to help address factors contributing to youth violence in the home and neighborhoods where the majority of homicides of school-aged youth occur.

And given that the average child spends about 18,000 hours in school, they are often the most likely place for prevention and intervention programs. These need to be comprehensive and evidence-based to provide our youth with the skills they need to cope in and out of school environments.

For California state policymakers, we recommend that they balance the policy focus on evidence-based school safety measures with appropriate investments in evidence-based social services, mental health support, and violence prevention programs that reach into the heart of our communities.

At all levels, we need to inform policies with comprehensive data to guide policy use and evaluation to understand how such investments are faring in reality compared with their design and initial promise.

It is the rare educator, policymaker, parent or police officer who doesn’t care about children. But while caring is necessary, it is insufficient. These data should provoke us to do more to protect children everywhere. Yes, that means in school. But just as importantly, we need to do more to protect them in their homes and the communities in which they live.

A version of this article was previously published by the University of Oregon’s HEDCO Institute on Oct. 3, 2024.

•••

Anthony Petrosino serves as director of the WestEd Justice and Prevention Research Center. He is also an Affiliated Faculty and Senior Research Fellow at George Mason University’s Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy.

Ericka Muñoz is a research associate at WestEd’s Justice and Prevention Research Center and is currently pursuing graduate studies in the Criminology, Law & Society program at the University of California Irvine.

The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.

Source link

06/05/2025
Trump’s budget would abolish funding for English learners, adult ed, teacher recruitment
A sixth-grade math teacher helps two students during a lesson about math and music.

Credit: Allison Shelley / EDUimages
Top Takeaways

The president dismissed many programs as outdated or “woke.”

Advocates for English learners argue that the cuts will reverse progress.

The initial budget will face resistance from Democrats and maybe some Republicans.
President Donald Trump would maintain funding levels for students with disabilities and for Title I aid for low-income students while wiping out long-standing programs serving migrant children, teachers in training, college-bound students, English learners and adult learners in the education budget for fiscal 2026.

Trump’s “skinny budget,” which he released on Friday, would cut $12 billion or about 15% of K-12 and some higher education programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education. It contains sparse, sometimes dismissive, language explaining why he is eliminating programs and offers no details about plans to consolidate $6.5 billion in 18 unspecified programs into a single $2 billion grant program.

“K-12 outcomes will improve as education returns to the states, which would make remedial education for adults less necessary,” according to the one-paragraph explanation for the full $729 million cut to adult education.

The budget summary justified eliminating funding for programs like Upward Bound and GEAR UP, which focus on increasing the college and career readiness of low-income students, as “a relic of the past when financial incentives were needed to motivate Institutions of Higher Education to engage with low-income students and increase access.”

“I don’t think the budget request reflects a deep understanding of what the programs are and what they do. The language is designed to capture headlines, not hearts and minds,” said Reg Leichty, founding partner of Washington, D.C.-based Foresight Law + Policy, which advises education groups, including the Association of California School Administrators, on congressional education policies.

“(Trump) has eliminated programs that it’s taken decades to build,” said U.S. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, a California Democrat serving the East Bay. “There’s been no analysis of what the financial assessment would mean to the communities served. You can always find more efficiencies, but just cutting everything is just mindless.”

Only charter schools would receive more money — $60 million to bring the total federal spending on charter schools to $500 million.

The U.S. Department of Education spent about $150 billion in fiscal 2024 on programs in states and school districts, of which California received $18.6 billion, according to the Pew Research Center.

Trump’s initial budget is the first step in what will likely be a lengthy and contentious process in Congress before the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1.

“It’s not a budget reflective of the perspectives of many Republicans on Capitol Hill. We’ll see how they try to accommodate the administration,” said Leichty. “It’s a different Congress, it’s a different moment, but still, cuts of this scale and scope are hard to imagine how even the House (with a tiny Republican majority) would pass them.”

The two largest federal K-12 programs — Title I grants of $18.4 billion and $15.5 billion for the Students with Disabilities Act — reach every school district nationwide and have bipartisan support, but Trump has proposed reshaping both programs as block grants administered by states with less oversight and more local control — actions requiring congressional approval.

“With a budget that cuts the Department of Education by so much, we’re really pleased to see it does not cut funding for IDEA,” said Kuna Tavalin, senior policy and advocacy adviser for the Council for Exceptional Children, referring to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. “Of course, the devil is in the details.”

The federal government funds programs that support students with disabilities from early childhood through 21 years old. Consolidation raises the specter that funding for some stages may be fungible, which “could potentially be really damaging,” Tavalin said.

“This raises the hair on the back of my neck,” he said.

Programs that Trump would abolish include:
- TRIO organizations like Upward Bound and GEAR UP, $1.579 billion.
- English language acquisition through Title III, $890 million.
- Migrant education, $428 million
- Teacher quality partnerships, $70 million
- Federal work-study, $980 million
- Preschool development grants, $315 million
The budget proposal also calls for cutting $49 million from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. The office would shift the focus from enforcing Title IX and programs with goals of raising achievement for minority students to carrying out presidential executive orders and ending the office’s “ability to push DEI programs and promote radical transgender ideology.”

The budget is silent on several significant programs, including Head Start, research funding through the Institute of Education Sciences, the Child Care and Development Block Grant, and the state assessment program.

Reactions

Title III

This funding helps English learners and immigrant students learn to speak, read, and write English fluently, learn other subjects such as math and science, and meet graduation requirements. California received about $157 million in 2024-25 from Title III.

Students who are not yet fluent in English when they begin school are entitled under federal law to get help to learn the language.

According to the budget, “To end overreach from Washington and restore the rightful role of state oversight in education, the Budget proposes to eliminate the misnamed English Language Acquisition program, which actually deemphasizes English primacy by funding (non-profit organizations) and states to encourage bilingualism.”

Advocates for English learners disputed the reasoning.

“The claim that Title III ‘deemphasizes English primacy’ ignores decades of research and legal precedent,” said Anya Hurwitz, executive director of SEAL (Sobrato Early Academic Language), a nonprofit organization. “Supporting bilingualism does not come at the expense of English proficiency — it enhances it.”

“Without these funds, many schools will be forced to abandon evidence-based strategies that work and cut services,” said Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together. She said that without targeted support, more students may take longer to learn English and become “long-term English learners” who struggle to thrive in middle and high school.

Migrant education

The Migrant Education Program supports children of agricultural, dairy, lumber, and fishing workers who have moved during the past three years. California received $120 million for this program in 2024-25.

Debra Duardo, superintendent of schools in Los Angeles County, wrote in an email that the loss of these funds will drastically reduce academic support and widen academic achievement gaps. “This decision would have devastating impacts on Los Angeles County schools, where we serve one of the nation’s largest populations of English learners and children from migrant families,” she said.

Preschool Development Grants

These programs help states improve their preschool and child care programs, for example, by conducting needs assessments, teacher training and quality improvement. California received Preschool Development Grants in the past, but is not currently a grantee. However, eliminating the grant program could impact California in the future, said Donna Sneeringer, vice president and chief strategy officer for Child Care Resource Center, a nonprofit organization based in Los Angeles that was a partner in the state’s last preschool development grant.

“There’s still work to be done,” Sneeringer said. “California has made significant changes in our early learning landscape. With transitional kindergarten being available to all 4-year-olds, there are a lot of changes that our child care and early learning providers are having to go through.”

In the budget proposal, the Trump administration called Preschool Development Grants “unproductive” and said they had been “weaponized by the Biden-Harris Administration [sic] to extend the federal reach and push DEI policies on to toddlers.

Adult education

Unlike K-12 schools, adult education is heavily reliant on federal funding. Sharon Bonney, CEO of the Coalition on Adult Basic Education, said she found the proposed cuts “shocking” and fears the cuts would mean adult schools would rely on volunteers rather than trained teachers. She believes that this is a part of the Trump immigration agenda — 6 out of 10 adult education students are immigrants.

Adult schools offer career education or training, but much of their programming is aimed at helping immigrants assimilate and prepare for the citizenship test or learning English as a second language.

Teacher quality grants

Federal funding for the Teacher Quality Partnership grant helps recruit and train teachers for high-needs schools and for hard-to-fill teaching positions.

University, school district and nonprofit teacher preparation programs use grants from the $70 million fund to recruit and train teacher candidates for high-needs schools and hard-to-fill teaching positions, and sometimes to offer them stipends and other financial help.

“These abrupt, short-sighted cuts will directly disrupt critical teacher residency programs that were actively preparing new educators for high-need positions in urban and rural districts across the state,” said Marvin Lopez, executive director of the California Center on Teaching Careers.

The grants have been “weaponized to indoctrinate new teachers” in divisive ideologies, according to information attached to a letter from Russell T. Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, to Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

“Cutting grants aimed at supporting and diversifying the teaching profession, at the same time that the nation’s student body is becoming increasingly more diverse and as many districts are struggling to recruit enough teachers, is senseless,” said Eric Duncan, director of P-12 policy at EdTrust West.
Source link
06/05/2025
The Nation’s First Conference for Higher Education Podcasters – Edu Alliance Journal
May 5, 2025, by Dean Hoke: For years, there have been conversations among many higher education podcasters asking: Why isn’t there a podcasting conference just for us? This question lingered, raised in passing at virtual meetups, in DM threads, and on campuses where faculty and staff were creating podcasts with little external support or collaboration.

Last winter, a group of us decided it was time to do something about it.

Joe Sallustio and Elvin Freytes of The EdUp Experience, Dean Hoke of Small College America, and Gregg Oldring and Neil McPhedran of Higher Ed Pods took a leap of faith and began planning a first-time national gathering. We believed there was a clear void. Podcasting in higher education was growing rapidly, but most lacked a community outside of their home institution to network with, share ideas, and be inspired.

That leap of faith is now a reality. On Saturday, July 12, 2025, we will convene in Chicago for the inaugural HigherEd PodCon—the first conference built by and for higher education podcasters and digital media creators.

Hosted at the University of Illinois, Chicago

This one-day event will bring together over 40 presenters, 15 sessions, and 25+ institutions and organizations from across North America. Whether you’re a faculty innovator, student producer, tech strategist, or communications pro, HigherEd PodCon offers an immersive, hands-on experience designed to elevate the impact of campus-based podcasting.

Sessions run from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., which includes networking opportunities and a reception closing out the day. The program is structured across three practical and dynamic tracks:
- Strategy, Growth & Discovery
- Content & Production
- Tech, Tools & Analytics
The keynote speaker is Matt Abrahams, lecturer in Strategic Communication at Stanford Graduate School of Business and host of Think Fast, Talk Smart. His insights on clarity, message delivery, and audience engagement will set the tone for a day of meaningful exploration.

A National Cross-Section of Institutions

HigherEd PodCon showcases participation from institutions of all sizes and types, including:
- Purdue University
- Stanford University
- University of South Carolina Beaufort
- Lansing Community College
- Brigham Young University
- Penn State University
Whether it’s a faculty-led series, a student-led network, or an advancement-focused production, you’ll hear how campuses are using podcasts to educate, engage, and amplify their stories.

Session Spotlights

Here are three sessions you won’t want to miss:

1. Podcasting, Social Media, and Video: Oh My!
Kate Young and Maria Welch, Purdue University
With more than 130 episodes and thousands of monthly downloads, This Is Purdue is among the country’s top university podcasts. In this session, Kate and Maria walk through their formula for success, including social media workflows, video strategy, and content optimization.

2. Why Podcasts Fail (And How to Make Sure Yours Doesn’t)
Dave Jackson, Podpage; Podcast Hall of Fame Inductee
Dave Jackson has helped hundreds of shows succeed—and watched others fall flat. This session offers practical guidance for anyone launching or relaunching a podcast with purpose. Topics include budget-friendly production, YouTube distribution, and sustainable growth.

3. From 5 to 30: Growing a Podcast Network That Speaks Higher Ed
Daedalian Lowry and Layne Ingram, Lansing Community College
What started as five faculty shows grew into a 30+ program podcast network that engages the entire campus and community. Learn how Lansing Community College scaled LCC Connect with collaboration, creativity, and cross-departmental buy-in.

Why Attend HigherEd PodCon?

Whether you’re just starting out or looking to take your podcast to the next level, this is the community you’ve been waiting for. Here are three reasons not to miss it:
- Network with your peers: Build meaningful relationships with fellow higher ed podcasters and digital media innovators.
- Gain tools and templates you can use immediately: From show planning to promotion, walk away with actionable strategies you can implement on Monday.
- Stay ahead of the curve: Learn how leading institutions are using podcasts to engage students, alumni, donors, and the public.
Save the Date

HigherEd PodCon 2025 is your opportunity to help shape the future of podcasting in higher education—and to find your people in the process.

Learn more and register at www.higheredpodcon.com. We have room for only 200 attendees in this inaugural event.
Early bird rate of $249 available until the end of May

Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and a Senior Fellow with the Sagamore Institute. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean, along with Kent Barnds, is a co-host for the podcast series Small College America.
Source link
06/05/2025