issue: Education

Manno for Forbes: How Are Teachers Today Thinking About Education?

Posted on by Alex Terr

America’s K-12 teachers have experienced a notable upswing in morale but have serious concerns about K-12 schools. That’s the central message about what teachers are thinking from two polls of public school teachers from Education Week and the Pew Research Center and one poll of public and private school teachers from EdChoice/Morning Consult.

These one-point-in-time snapshots help us understand teachers’ views of their profession and K-12 education. As the school year draws to a close and we observe National Teacher Appreciation Week, it’s valuable to hear the voices of teachers, as challenging and unsettling as some of their perspectives may be.

Read more in Forbes. 

Kahlenberg Q&A with Bloomberg: Liberals Should Focus on Class, Not Race

Posted on by Alex Terr

Race-based affirmative action no longer has a place in college admissions after the Supreme Court in 2023 eliminated what had been an attempt by universities to create multiracial campuses. In Class Matters: The Fight To Get Beyond Race Preferences, Reduce Inequality, and Build Real Diversity at America’s Colleges , Richard D. Kahlenberg, a liberal who testified for the conservatives who brought those cases against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, lays out his decades-long push for university admissions, and Democrats, to focus on class rather than race. Kahlenberg is director of the American Identity Project at the Progressive Policy Institute and teaches at George Washington University.

Read the interview in Bloomberg. 

Weinstein Jr. for Forbes: College Closures (And Mergers) Will Accelerate Under President Trump

Posted on by Alex Terr

America’s colleges and universities are under duress. At least 76 public or nonprofit colleges have closed or merged since March 2020, and some experts believe more are on the way.

A big reason for this trend is the “enrollment cliff.” This year, the number of high school graduates will peak at around 3.9 million and then begin a gradual descent that will result in about 13% fewer by 2041.

In response, many institutions of higher learning have recruited students from overseas to backfill the declining domestic enrollments. In the 2023-24 academic year, a record number of international students attended U.S. colleges and universities, marking a 7% increase from the previous year. Altogether, international student enrollment contributed $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy last year.

Read more in Forbes.

Kahlenberg for The 74: A Way Out of SCOTUS Charter School Ruling Mess: Focus on Mission, Not Religion

Posted on by Max Sherrill

On April 30, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could compel states with charter school laws to authorize religious charters. Reporters from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and The 74 said the court’s conservative majority bloc appeared “open to” religious charter schools.

Such a ruling would be bad for the country and deeply disruptive. It could upend the charter school sector, raising questions about the constitutionality of the federal charter school law and the laws in 47 states, all of which require charters to be nonsectarian. It could lead to blue states cutting back on charter schools and red states seeing a flood of religious charters open up, which would further balkanize an already divided country.

Is there any hope? The best outcome would be if one of the conservative justices — most likely Chief Justice John Roberts — ended up siding with the liberal justices and rejecting a requirement that authorizers must permit religious charter schools. The second-best outcome would be if policymakers took creative steps (as I outline below) to comply with an adverse Supreme Court ruling while preserving social cohesion and retaining for charter schools the flexibility they need to flourish.

Keep reading in The 74.

Manno for Forbes: Opportunity Charter High Schools And Early Career Outcomes

Posted on by Alex Terr

Celebrating National Charter School Week – May 11 to 17

“The federal Charter Schools Program has turned out to be one of the larger and more successful examples of government-supported research and development in the K-12 realm, in ways that have fostered considerable innovation,” writes K-12 policy expert Chester E. Finn, Jr. This year’s National Charter School Week celebrates the 30th anniversary of that Program’s first funding awards to charter schools in 1995. Nearly half of today’s charter schools have received Program funds.

The Charter Schools Program was created with the passage of the Improving America’s Schools Act, which “New Democrat” President Bill Clinton signed into law on October 20, 1994. The bipartisan Act was approved in the U.S House of Representatives by a vote of 289 to 128 and in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 94 to 6.

The program now provides federal financial assistance to open new public charter schools, expand existing high-quality schools, and increase access to school facilities. Current federal funding has reached $440 million, up from $4.5 million in 1995. The Trump administration has proposed increasing federal support to $500 million for the next funding year.

Read more in Forbes.

What Jamelle Bouie Gets Wrong About My Views on DEI

Posted on by Alex Terr

I often admire Jamelle Bouie’s work, so I was deeply disappointed that his recent New York Times articleincluded a gross mischaracterization of my thinking on Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) policies.

Bouie writes:

Consider this line of thought from Richard Kahlenberg of the Progressive Policy Institute, a curiously named group founded as the primary think tank of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council in 1989. According to Kahlenberg, observations that the Trump administration is not interested in fairness as such are “over the top.” To him, the president simply wants the government to “treat different racial groups the same.”

If someone didn’t click to the link Bouie provided to my report for the Progressive Policy Institute, “A Way Out of the DEI Wars,” a reader might reasonably assume I’m some sort of Trump apologist who agrees with his approach on DEI.  The reader would presumably be surprised to learn that in the report, I’m deeply critical of Trump.  I write:

After a tragic airplane crash, at a moment when the president should have been consoling the country, Trump cast blame on DEI policies despite lacking any evidence. The administration also hired an acting Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy who wrote in October, “Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work.” As outlined below, Trump issued anti-DEI executive orders that were vague, and his purge of DEI staff in the federal government swept up some people who had merely attended DEI sessions. He has targeted for elimination not only racial preference policies, but also President Lyndon B. Johnson’s requirement that, before firms evaluate candidates in a race-neutral fashion, they engage in outreach efforts to make sure a diverse group of applicants are aware of opportunities. Trump has claimed to defend “merit” and then appointed cabinet members who are utterly unqualified. In short, if one wanted to find someone to make a principled case against DEI excesses, it is hard to think of a worse candidate than Donald Trump.

In the report, I called Bouie’s critique of Trump’s opposition to racial preferences “over the top” when he compared it to the actions of President Woodrow Wilson.  Bouie wrote that Trump’s “move to end D.E.I. is of a piece with Woodrow Wilson’s successful effort, in his first administration, to resegregate the federal workforce.”

Wilson’s horrific policy included racially segregated lavatories and lunchrooms.  In one case, a Black postal worker “had the humiliating experience of being surrounded by screens so that white workers would not have to look at him.”  I disagree with Trump’s excesses on DEI, but I doubt those subject to Wilson’s vicious behavior would find Trump’s actions equally troubling.

In my DEI report, I call for a new program of “Integration, Equal Opportunity, and Belonging.”  Unlike many on the right, I’m in favor of proactive programs to bring students of different racial and economic backgrounds together in education settings.   I’m for genuine equal opportunity, which requires investments in schooling and housing.  And I’m for creating a sense of belonging on campuses for students of all backgrounds.  That doesn’t sound like the ideas of a Trump apologist.  It sounds like a good faith effort to get beyond the DEI wars.

Canter for Real Clear Education: Dear Democrats, Republicans Are Eating Your Lunch on Education. What Are You Going to Do About It?

Posted on by dcadmin

Early in my tenure at the education policy organization I founded, we barely had any money. No money meant no lobbyist, which left me, a complete stranger to the legislative process, to figure out how to pass meaningful policy.

A conversation I had with a Democratic legislator seen as an up-and-coming leader stands out among the blur of memories. He agreed to meet me at a local sandwich shop in downtown Jackson after I kept showing up at the Capitol, bright-eyed and brimming with optimism that Mississippi could, in fact, improve its public schools. I admit to feeling a little defeated that day after yet another uninspiring and unproductive education committee meeting, and I complained about it to him.

“Why don’t the Democrats seem to have any vision for education?” I asked in frustration. “Saying ‘no’ to everything the Republicans pose isn’t an agenda.”

“We’re the minority party,” he shot back. “It’s not our job to have a vision.”

I sat back in the chair, stunned, and thought to myself, “And that is exactly why you’ll always be the minority party.”

Read more in Real Clear Education.

Kahlenberg for Kappan: Calling Bull**** on Contradictory College Diversification Claims

Posted on by Alex Terr

At a time when the Trump administration is attacking diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies in K-12 schools and colleges and universities as part of a larger high-profile campaign against what Trump calls “woke ideology,” the press is faced again with the challenge of how to accurately report on these programs.

In the past, members of the media have not always risen to the challenge, downplaying education institutions’ economic incentives for racial preferences.

Polls show that most Americans support racial diversity in educational institutions, but most don’t like using racial preferences as the means of achieving that goal.

Read more in Kappan. 

Canter for the Fordham Institute’s Education Gadfly Podcast: Mississippi’s Secret? Twenty Years of Persistence and Progress

Posted on by Max Sherrill

On this week’s Education Gadfly Show podcast, Rachel Canter, the founding executive director of Mississippi First and the new director of education policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, joins Mike and David to discuss what really fueled Mississippi’s dramatic gains in student achievement. Then, on the Research Minute, Amber reports on a new study examining the impact of Ohio’s EdChoice voucher program on college enrollment and graduation rates.

Listen to the full episode.

Manno for Philanthropy Daily: Mapping Pathways to Economic Opportunity: A Guide for Donors

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Recent economic volatility has prompted speculation on Americans’ financial futures and job prospects. But whether we are entering a recession or a new era of “onshoring” jobs, one fact remains: individuals need practical pathways to good jobs and upward mobility. What kind of job opportunities do young people and workers say they want? And what kind of employment opportunities exist?

Any donor investing in the long-term economic well-being of Americans must answer these two questions. In this article, I explain the current situation among the young and employable and describe five ways of thinking about career pathway navigation.

Keep reading in Philanthropy Daily.

Kahlenberg for Inside Philanthropy: Class Matters Most: So Why Do Foundations Focus More on Race?

Posted on by Alex Terr

In the past few weeks, we’ve seen the nation’s richest institution of higher education, Harvard University, and the nation’s wealthiest philanthropy, the Gates Foundation, have their status as tax-exempt organizations questioned. President Donald Trump threatened to remove Harvard’s IRS exemption over a larger struggle with the university, while a conservative group, the American Alliance for Equal Rights, led by Edward Blum, filed a complaint with the IRS against the Gates Foundation for a minority-focused scholarship program.

A casual observer might see these disputes as part of a larger pattern of unwarranted right-wing political attacks on the nonprofit sector. But the two cases are, in fact, worlds apart.

Trump’s threats aimed at Harvard’s exempt status are part of a bigger war on universities in which the administration has bypassed due process rules and sought to micromanage private colleges. For example, in its letter, the administration called on Harvard to create a “critical mass” of conservatives on campus. Harvard, though flawed in many ways, refused, and it has been widely lauded for standing up to a bully. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which has been appropriately critical of the university’s lax attitude toward antisemitism, defended Harvard’s academic freedom.

Read more in Inside Philanthropy.

Kahlenberg for Slate: I Wrote the Book on Charter Schools. This Supreme Court Case Could Inadvertently Destroy Them.

Posted on by Alex Terr

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court is slated to consider a case that one education journal said could yield “the most significant legal decision to affect schooling in decades.” The justices will decide whether the religious liberty clause of the First Amendment requires the state of Oklahoma to fund the nation’s first religious charter school.

The central problem is that the educational institution in question, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, is not designed to promote liberal democratic values or e pluribus unum in a nation that desperately needs both. Instead, the school says its “ultimate goal” is “eternal salvation.” That is surely a valid objective for people who are members of the Roman Catholic Church. But it is not clear why Americans who adhere to other religious traditions, or to no religion at all, should be compelled to support the school.

Read more in Slate.

Rachel Canter Joins PPI’s Reinventing America’s Schools Project as Director of Education Policy

Posted on by Alex Terr

WASHINGTON — The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is proud to announce that Rachel Canter is joining PPI as Director of Education Policy for the Reinventing America’s Schools (RAS) Project.

Canter joins PPI after more than 16 years as the founder and executive director of Mississippi First, where she built a reputation as one of the most effective education reformers in the country. She brings a sharp focus on evidence-based policy, equity, and innovation — qualities that make her an ideal fit to lead PPI’s education policy initiatives at a national level.

In her new role, Rachel Canter will help chart a bold course for reclaiming America’s public schools as engines of opportunity, citizenship, and upward mobility. At a time when public confidence in K-12 education is faltering — and when neither political party offers a compelling vision for its future — Canter will help fill the policy vacuum with pragmatic, student-centered solutions that work. Her leadership will focus on restoring academic rigor, expanding high-quality public school options, and advancing policies rooted in evidence, not ideology. By working across sectors and with leaders at every level, she aims to help rebuild public education around a new compact with families — one that delivers on the promise of literacy, readiness, civic identity, and a future filled with possibility.

“Rachel Canter has a rare combination of deep policy expertise, practical experience, and a passion for expanding opportunity,” said Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute. “We are thrilled to have her leading our education policy work, and we’re confident she’ll help shape the next generation of school reform with vision and urgency.”

Canter joins Curtis Valentine, Director of the Future Learning Network at PPI, in leading the RAS Project. While Valentine focuses on grassroots and grassroots advocacy, coalition-building, and political engagement, Canter will provide the policy infrastructure that underpins those efforts. Together, their complementary roles — one centered on policy development, the other on stakeholder mobilization — reflect a coordinated approach to changing how public education works for students and families.

“I’ve spent my career developing and advocating education policies that expand access, elevate quality, and center students — especially those too often left behind,” said Canter. “I’m honored to bring that work to PPI and help drive an education agenda that’s both visionary and grounded in what works. We have a tremendous opportunity to make lasting change.”

The Reinventing America’s Schools Project inspires a 21st-century model of public education geared to the knowledge economy. Two models, public charter schools and public innovation schools, are showing the way by providing autonomy for schools, accountability for results, and parental choice among schools tailored to the diverse learning styles of children.

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us @PPI.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Kahlenberg for The Chronicle of Higher Education: Higher Ed Brought This on Itself

Posted on by Alex Terr

Academe is right to be alarmed by President Trump’s attacks on colleges and academic freedom. His administration appears to be acting in bad faith, motivated by a desire to punish political enemies and weaken the sector’s independence. The attempt to micromanage Harvard University’s viewpoint diversity is particularly alarming. Trump’s dangerous approach comes straight out of the authoritarian playbook of leaders like Viktor Orbán. It should be — and has been — roundly denounced.

But to end the discussion there misses the other half of the story: It is not simply rotten luck that landed higher education in this position. And so academic leaders must take this moment to look in the mirror. The truth is that, for decades, elite higher education has been starkly out of step with the public. At top liberal-arts colleges, one study found, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 48 to one among English-department faculty members, and 17 to one among philosophy, history, and psychology professors. While college leaders tirelessly championed diversity by race and gender, they tolerated, and sometimes abetted, an ideological monoculture.

Some academics wore this political disconnect as a badge of honor, a sign that higher ed’s leaders, faculty, and students were more enlightened than a benighted American public. And for years, they got away with it. But in our system, where even private colleges rely on enormous public subsidies, that was a dangerous game to play. Many large universities receive at least a quarter of their operating budgets from the federal government, and it was only a matter of time until we encountered an administration that sought to leverage that dependency to exact changes.

On one high-profile issue that the administration and conservative critics see as an easy target — the use of racial preferences in college admissions — elite colleges have been stunningly out of touch. And predictably, countermeasures have begun: The Department of Justice is already investigating admissions at Stanford University and the University of California’s Berkeley, Irvine, and Los Angeles campuses.

I’ve been writing about admissions for more than three decades, and over that time I’ve visited dozens of campuses. I frequently ask audience members to raise their hands if they oppose racial preferences. Very few hands go up. Often none do. When I next cite Pew Research polling showing that 74 percent of Americans, including a majority of people of color, oppose the consideration of race, my audiences seem surprised.

Maybe the American public is cold-hearted and doesn’t care about racial justice the way right-thinking people in elite colleges do? The polls contradict that as well: Americans support racial diversity, they just don’t think racial preferences are the right way to accomplish that goal. Instead, Americans support, by a substantial margin, colleges giving a break to economically disadvantaged students of all races, a disproportionate share of whom are Black and Hispanic.

This approach does not ignore America’s history of racial oppression. It is precisely because of that history that Black and Hispanic Americans are more likely to find themselves in America’s lower socioeconomic brackets. Moreover, as I argue in my new book, Class Matters, the strong political support for economic rather than racial affirmative action makes sense given profound changes in American society over the past half century or more.

Read more in Inside Higher Ed.

Manno for Forbes: Workplace Career Guidance And Mentorship: Education And Gender Matter

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Work is not only about the economic exchange that comes from earning a living. Work also involves social exchange. It is a place where we earn a living and make connections with other people. These connections nurture social capital, the relationships we need to work, live life, and reach our potential.

The American Perspectives Survey of over 5,000 U.S. adults conducted by the Survey Center on American Life is filled with insights into workplace social capital. It includes a discussion of the workplace career guidance and mentorship workers receive. It also describes the different workplace experiences and social relationships that exist between those with and without college degrees and between males and females.

Understanding education and gender differences in developing workplace social capital is important because it helps us understand social wealth and social poverty in the workplace and beyond. This awareness also should lead us to ensure that K-12 students receive career education and mentorship experiences before they graduate from high school. These K-12 experiences prepare students to take advantage of the job opportunities they will have for career guidance and mentorships that nurture workplace social capital.

Keep reading in Forbes.