The Harvard EdCast

With about one in four children in the U.S. now living in immigrant families, Harvard Associate Professor Gabrielle Oliveira argues that supporting their wellbeing should be a national priority – not just for the children themselves, but for the strength of society as a whole.Yet for many Americans, migration is often seen as risky or even reckless, especially when it involves bringing children across dangerous borders and leaving everything familiar behind. Oliveira reframes this perspective to migration is an act of profound care.“Almost [no one] wants to leave their homes,” she says. “All things being equal, you want to stay where you were born with the people that you know, and love, and close to your roots. Most people that are coming, they're running for their lives in many ways. So, this is not this idea of people trying to come here to take something from the society, here to take their jobs, to take their safety, to take any of that, but it's kind of almost this beautiful thing about the United States being the safe haven where things are possible, and there's hope.”She has spent years embedded with Latin American migrant families living in Massachusetts, documenting their journeys, their struggles, and the hopes that drive them to uproot their lives, which she shares in her book, Now We Are Here: Family Migration, Children’s Education, and Dreams for a Better Life.Oliveira explains that while public conversations about immigration center on fear and scarcity, the families she followed see education as a stabilizing force and a pathway to dignity. For parents, schooling in the U.S. represents the chance for their children to flourish, not merely academically but as kind, purposeful human beings. Yet for teachers, supporting these students can be complicated by the pressures of curriculum, testing, and limited training in trauma-informed practice or what Oliveira calls “constrained care.”“If you're going to talk about a multicultural piece, why not actually talk about the home country of that child, and let that child write, and talk about that, and tell the stories, which then will increase trust in the classroom,” she says. “We know that if teachers, and students trust each other, the students are going to be a lot more inclined to want to engage more, to want to show up, and learn more in the classrooms versus if they feel that they cannot be their whole selves in the classroom.”In this episode, Oliveira shares how children and families navigate migrating to America and its schools, and offers strategies for educators.

Looking back at the early history of U.S. education, Harvard Professor Jarvis Givens says we’ve long told the story in fragments: Native education in one lane, Black education in another, and the rise of white common schools somewhere else. But in his latest research, he shows just how deeply interconnected these histories actually are, particularly how the development of public schools was entangled with Native land dispossession and the economic engine of slavery. This history is the focus of his new book, American Grammar: Race, Education, and the Building of a Nation.“The reality is that it's not that Black and Native people were not included in the project of American school development, because public schooling in the U.S. was actually developed over and through Native and Black people's dispossession through their subjugation,” Givens says. “It's Native land loss and it's the kind of capital generated from race-based slavery that's really driving the economic development of the nation and also its internal institutions, schooling in particular.”Givens introduces the idea of an “American Grammar,” a framework in which race, power, and knowledge were built into the structure of schooling itself. That grammar hasn’t disappeared, he says, noting how today’s debates over curriculum, representation, and educational justice reflect it.“If we're not being clear and if we're not being as nuanced and detailed as possible in how we're naming how we got to this place, then we can allow ourselves to work with faulty assumptions or faulty understandings about this history that then come to inform the solutions we try to create,” Givens says. “And that's one of the major issues I think that we're up against. How we narrate the past and how we narrate injustice has direct implications for how we go about bringing about justice in the context of schools.”In this EdCast, Givens discusses what it means to rethink what we believe we know about the origins of American education and what becomes possible when we finally reckon with the full story.

Harvard Graduate School of Education Professor Jal Mehta knows that education research matters – it has the power to shape schools, classrooms, and policy. Yet, today, in increased political polarization, many may question whether education research can be neutral.“As a researcher, you have a lot of choices about what topics you study. Those choices are driven by a whole variety of things. They're driven by what researchers would think is interesting and sort of like where the edge of the field is. They're driven, to some degree, I would imagine, by people's own kind of values. And they're also driven by the interests of the moment,” Mehta says. He points out that education research inevitably echoes the issues and values of its time — from No Child Left Behind to Black Lives Matter to the current backlash against diversity and inclusion — but that doesn’t mean its partisan. Instead, it mirrors the social and political moment in which it’s conducted.“There's a lot of interest among researchers about how can we talk to each other, how can we work across difference, how can you have constructive conversations,” he says. “And it's not that those things were any less important five years ago. They just weren't at the kind of the center of the zeitgeist. So, sort of wherever the middle is, you'll find a lot of researchers kind of studying that at that moment in time.”Funding and politics, Mehta notes, also play major roles in determining which studies get done, particularly as recent cuts threaten the data infrastructure needed to track student progress. Yet despite those challenges, he sees hope in growing partnerships between researchers and schools, where the questions being asked are grounded in the realities of teaching and learning. He notes that we are all impacted by research whether we recognize it or not. In this episode, we take a deeper look at whether education research can ever truly be neutral and what happens when ideology and evidence collide.

In the wake of the pandemic, tutoring has become a central strategy for helping students recover academically but not all tutoring is created equal. Liz Cohen, vice president of policy at 50CAN, has been closely studying the rapid rise of tutoring programs across the country, especially the emergence of high-impact tutoring as the gold standard.“There's a funny thing about tutoring is that there's a lot of flexibility in it,” Cohen says. “So, in some places it might look like other interventions and in other places it might not. But one thing I want to be really clear about just to start with is that high-impact tutoring in particular is not homework help and it is not on demand.” Instead, high impact tutoring is structured, frequent, and aligned to what students are learning in school: at least three sessions a week, 30 minutes or more, in groups of four students or fewer, with the same tutor each time. Research shows that when tutoring is consistent and connected to classroom instruction, students make significantly greater learning gains, especially in early literacy and math.Cohen points to examples like Tennessee, Louisiana, and district leaders in places like Baltimore and Guilford County, where strong funding, clear expectations, and hands-on implementation support led to meaningful results. But scaling tutoring can be complicated. As Cohen discovered and reveals in her new book, “The Future of Tutoring: Lessons from 10,000 School District Tutoring Initiatives,” there’s many details that need to come together for tutoring to be a success. “What I believe is the most powerful part of the story of the high-impact tutoring movement and the tutoring movement at large that's happened in the last five years in America is that it's a human centered story that is in part empowered by tech,” Cohen says. “This is fundamentally a story about humans, and it's a story about the fact that young people in America are very hungry for meaningful relationships with adults, and those can be young adults in high school and college, or they can be older adults too.”In this episode, Cohen tells us what has made high-impact tutoring so valuable, how districts are successfully implementing tutoring, and how it has become more than just as an academic intervention.  

In an era when many Americans believe the country is too divided to come back together, Tufts University political scientist Eitan Hersh believes higher education has a crucial role to play in bridging divides and he’s putting that belief into practice through a new university center devoted to viewpoint diversity.“What do we want from students when they graduate high school or college,” Hersh says. “We want them to be able to engage with lots of different kinds of people in the workforce or in civic spaces, and know how to handle disagreement, and know how to fight for the things that they care about and know how to listen and learn and develop new ideas.”Too often, he says, universities and social networks confine people to intellectual bubbles. However, when students understand how others’ beliefs shape their views, they learn to think critically, listen better, and handle disagreement with more nuance. That philosophy drives the creation of Tufts’ new Center for Expanding Viewpoints in Higher Education, which Hersh leads. The center will host reading groups, workshops, and in-person discussions that encourage open, offline dialogue across disciplines and ideologies. The center’s mission extends beyond events. In fact, Hersh wants to rethink curriculum and teaching practices to ensure dissenting voices and unfamiliar perspectives are part of students’ education. “It doesn't mean that you, as a student change your mind on every issue. But you just realize that these issues are complicated for a reason, which is that there is a lot of gray area,” he says. “And to me, that is quite depolarizing. Because all of a sudden, it takes something that looked like an us versus them story into a story of people with different values and senses of the world reach reasonable, different conclusions.”While “viewpoint diversity” has become a politically loaded term, Hersh sees it as central to higher education’s purpose, not a partisan issue. In this episode, Hersh discusses his hope to rekindle a university culture defined by curiosity, conversation, and understanding.  

Curiosity is one of our most powerful, yet often overlooked, human drives, especially in education. Elizabeth Bonawitz, associate professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, explains that while there’s no single definition of curiosity, it’s best understood as an internal desire to resolve gaps in our knowledge or a wondering about how the world works. That innate drive begins in infancy, fueling our rapid early learning. But as children grow older, especially within structured school systems, that spark too often dims.Through her research, Bonawitz explores how curiosity operates like mise en place for learning preparing the mind to absorb, connect, and retain new information. It activates attention, memory, and motivation, setting the stage for deeper understanding. Studies from her lab show that simple practices, like encouraging children to ask more questions, not only increase curiosity but also improve learning outcomes.“Children who are more curious do better in math or reading scores in school. And that's particularly true for students that come from more under-resourced communities or students that might have other challenges associated with school,” Bonawitz says. “So, curiosity is the great equalizer for education.”But curiosity is not the easiest thing to cultivate, especially in a classroom where barriers like test driven school structures and cultural differences link to uncertainty. The good news is there are things educators and even parents can do to help foster a child's curiosity. In this episode, the EdCast takes a deeper look at curiosity and explores ways to home in on what Bonawitz considers the simple act of wonder. 

Dreama Gentry grew up in Appalachian Kentucky, in a community often defined by outsiders for what it lacked. But what she saw was strength, connection, and possibility. Today, as the founder and CEO of Partners for Rural Impact, she’s working to make sure the 14 million young people growing up in rural America can see those same possibilities for themselves.“What I see in Appalachia is that a lot of young folks have lost hope. And they've lost the ability to dream of a future and of a path. And some of that is because their parents also have lost that hope. And some parents are afraid to have dreams for their young folks,” Gentry says. “And I think that's why programs, schools, community systems have to wrap around the whole family and support the whole family in learning how to dream again, holding the hope of a better future, and providing them with those supports.”Despite rural students often graduating high school at higher levels than their peers, they also have lower enrollment rates for college. Part of Gentry’s work is developing that path for students. She explains how “place-based partnerships” are transforming rural schools by bringing together educators, families, and community leaders around one goal: every child supported, from cradle to career.“Career pathways for rural students are the same as career pathways for students in urban areas and other areas. And I think sometimes, we don't make that distinction,” she says. “I think we have a responsibility and a duty, when working with young folks, to help them actualize and develop a dream, a goal that they want to work toward, and then to make sure that they're leaving high school with the skills to achieve that, if possible. And they're college ready. They're career ready. And so, the pathways are unlimited for young people in rural places, just like they are in others.”She says there are many surprising connections between rural and urban education. In fact, Gentry notes how her work with Geoff Canada of the Harlem Children’s Zone changed her perspective. Now, she emphasizes that while the settings may differ, the core work of supporting children and families is universal. Rural and urban educators, she says, have much to learn from one another if they’re willing to move beyond perceived divides and recognize their shared mission to create opportunity for every child.In this episode, Gentry challenges assumptions about rural life, reminding us that the challenges and outcomes facing small towns are deeply tied to the nation’s future. 

When educators talk about artificial intelligence, the conversation often begins with excitement about its potential. But for Stephanie Smith Budhai and Marie Heath, that excitement must be matched with caution, context, and critical awareness. “AI is a piece of technology. It's not human, but it's also not a neutral thing either,” says Budhai, an associate professor in the educational technology program at the University of Delaware. “We have to be intentional and purposeful about how we use technology. So, thinking about why we're using it. So why was the technology created?” Budai and Heath, an associate professor of learning, design, and technology at Loyola University Maryland, are the authors of “Critical AI in K-12 Classrooms: A Practical Guide for Cultivating Justice and Joy.” Their research explores how bias is built into artificial intelligence and how these biases can harm students if left unexamined. While bias in technology isn’t new — it’s been present in tools as old as the camera — both scholars argue that educators and students must learn to approach AI critically, just as they evaluate sources and evidence in other forms of learning.“What does it mean when we ask children…to partner with or think with a machine that is based in the past, with historical data full of our historical mistakes and also doesn't really explore? It's not looking at the world with wonder. It's looking in this very focused way for the next answer that it can give the most likely possibility,” Heath says. “And I think as learners, that's actually not how we want kids to learn. We want them to explore, to make mistakes, to wrestle with ideas, to come up with divergent creative thinking.” Both Budhai and Heath believe that using AI responsibly in education means grounding teaching in equity and critical engagement. Budhai points to projects like Story AI, which helps young students tell their own cultural stories while revealing bias in generative image tools. Heath’s Civics of Technology project encourages “technology audits,” helping teachers and students uncover the trade-offs and values embedded in everyday tools. In this episode, we explore how to use AI critically in classrooms, and the responsibility of educators to cultivate AI literacy, develop thoughtful policies, and consider broader implications such as environmental impact, equity, and student privacy. 

Congress has passed the nation’s first federal school voucher–style program, set to begin in 2027. Supporters call it a landmark expansion of parental choice, while critics fear it will divert billions from public schools. Harvard Professor Marty West says the program raises important questions about the future of American schooling and even how the program will operate.The new program, part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” is officially called the Educational Choice for Children Act. Although it isn’t a direct voucher, it will operate as a tax-credit program where individuals can receive up to $1,700 in credits for donating to nonprofit scholarship-granting organizations. These groups can then distribute scholarships for private school tuition, tutoring, transportation, or even special education services. Families earning up to 300% of their area’s median income are eligible, and states must opt in, giving governors control over implementation.“What is clear, is that in any state that wants to do so, the program can be used to support private school choice, and that's what makes it significant,” West says. “It really does have the potential to turbocharge the movement to expand private school choice in the United States, which already had significant momentum at the state level.” The idea of vouchers has a long and varied history in the U.S. tracing back to 1955 when economist Milton Friedman proposed funding education through competition rather than government-run schools. Early programs often focused on targeting low-income families, but as West explains, this shifted over time, especially in recent years as the pandemic accelerated private school choice options. The research on vouchers is often mixed. As West points out, studies often showing modest academic gains, especially for disadvantaged students, and positive effects on civic outcomes and graduation rates. The need for further research on the effects of vouchers is needed. If one thing is certain, politically, vouchers remain deeply divisive. “The issue of private school choice has for decades, been the one education policy issue that most cleanly divides Republican and Democratic elected officials,” West says. Going forward, West will be paying close attention to how and whether the new federal program is adopted throughout the country. “What will the governors of blue states decide? Will they opt into the program or will they not? If they don't, this will further extend a new phenomenon in American education really in the past several years-- --which is that we're starting to see a red state model of education delivery and a blue state model of education delivery,” he says. In this episode, West shares the history of the voucher movement, what research tells us about its success, and whether this national policy will transform American education or further fracture it.  

Schools around the world are cracking down on student cell phones, with many turning to outright bans as a fix for distraction, bullying, or mental health struggles. But as University of Birmingham Professor Vicky Goodyear and Harvard’s Carrie James explain, the story is more complicated than a simple “phones are bad.”“School phone policies alone are not enough to tackle some of the issues that we're seeing in adolescents,” Goodyear says. In her study of over 1,200 students, she found no differences in mental health, academic performance, or well-being between schools with strict bans and those without. While restrictions cut down on in-school phone use, they didn’t meaningfully reduce students’ overall daily screen time. “Schools are not the silver bullet for addressing the negative impacts of smartphone and social media use,” Goodyear adds. “We also need to optimize on the benefits that are available as well. And there are also unintended consequences of these bans that we do not yet know.”As James points out, for many students, cell phones can be an important tool for safety, connection, or learning support.“Removing the devices doesn't remove some of the challenges that are associated with growing up with technologies, but it can remove some of the benefits of those connections,” James says. “So, this is not to say this is an argument for not having bell-to-bell policies. I think that they can be very, very important in a lot of cases. But it is an argument for being very alert and aware of some of those unintended consequences.” Both researchers agree schools need phone policies shaped with input from students, families, and teachers — plus opportunities to teach “digital agency,” or how to use technology intentionally and responsibly. In this episode, we explore how the real challenge isn’t keeping phones out of the classroom, but how to prepare young people to thrive in a technology-saturated world. 

Strategic leadership may be one of the hardest — and most vital — skills for school leaders to master. Liz City, senior lecturer at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a long-time coach to school and system leaders across the country, says strategic leadership is not innate but a skill that can be learned and strengthened over time.“We're in a context which, over the last five years, has been full of uncertainty and ambiguity,” City says. “I think that makes it harder for people to be strategic. It puts people in a kind of reactive survival mode, which is not our best place to be.”Learning how to be strategic can mean the difference between finding success over being less effective, doing too much, and burning out, she says. Drawing from decades of experience and recent research, City emphasizes that being strategic is not just about setting goals — it’s about taking intentional action, maintaining focus over time, and deeply understanding people and systems. In her new book, “Leading Strategically: Achieving Ambitious Goals in Education,” she and co-author Rachel Curtis outline five key elements of strategic leadership: discerning, cultivating relationships, understanding context and history, harnessing power, and think big, act small, learn fast.She explains how leaders often get stuck, especially around power and discernment, and offers practical advice for moving from reactive leadership to purposeful progress. “You can lead from lots of different vantage points. I think we assume that if you have formal authority, you have power, and you'll be able to get things done,” City says. “It turns out, though, that most things are accomplished through a large measure of informal authority.” In this episode, City shares what it really means to lead with purpose, especially in today’s climate of uncertainty and change.

It’s easy to feel overwhelmed by the statistics on global education — millions of children, especially in low- and middle-income countries, are spending years in school without mastering foundational skills. But as Harvard Lecturer Robert Jenkins reminds us, we can't afford to stay stuck in what we think we know about the learning crisis. Innovation is not just possible — it’s essential, he says.“When you look at the big picture overall globally, it feels daunting, the scale of the challenge,” he says. “But when you disaggregate that and see the incredible innovations and proactiveness of many leaders, many educators, the commitment of educators around the world, indeed, [it’s] very exciting, and reason for optimism.” While expanding access to education has been a major achievement, Jenkins points out that access alone doesn’t guarantee learning. “There was, I think, a very simplistic understanding that by promoting access and enabling kids to go to school, that would automatically translate into higher levels of learning and success in learning levels,” he says, “meaning kids, by going to school for many years, would graduate with the level of learning that would enable them to realize their full potential. And that's not the case.” True progress, he argues, requires tailoring education to individual needs, investing in holistic student support, and improving quality at every level.With the growing threats of declining humanitarian funding, Jenkins warns this has the potential to stall or reverse progress in education systems worldwide. However, he also believes that a greater awareness and engagement from high-income countries, along with encouraging innovation, evidence-based interventions, and inclusive leadership can lead to transforming global education systems.In this episode of the EdCast, Jenkins dives into what’s working, what needs to change, and how educators everywhere can play a part in transforming global education, so every child has the chance to thrive. 

Texas and California often appear to be worlds apart when it comes to politics and culture, but the education students are getting – as far as their textbooks go, at least – may not be so different.University of Chicago Assistant Professor Anjali Adukia investigated more than 260 textbooks used in both public and religiously affiliated schools in the two states, analyzing their portrayal of race, gender, religion, and historical events. “I think the part that was the most surprising to me is despite this narrative of political polarization, we actually don't necessarily see that in the books themselves that are given to kids on average,” Adukia says.While there are differences, especially regarding religious content, textbooks used in both states tend to emphasize similar themes such as family, nature, and history, she says. Additionally, the textbooks also feature similar portrayals of females in passive and stereotypical roles, while males are more often linked to power, politics, and military.She argues that textbooks play a crucial role in shaping students' identities and worldviews, transmitting cultural values and societal norms. Despite changing public attitudes, these textbooks remain largely unchanged, posing important questions about how educational content influences future generations and the values that schools are endorsing.“The process of education and its associated books and curriculum materials necessarily, and by design, transmit the knowledge that we care about, the values that we care about. They transmit messages about who belongs in what spaces in society,” Adukia says. “Also, the presence and the absence of different identities can send messages to kids which can contribute to how they view their own potential and the potential of others.”In this episode, we explore the similarities and differences across textbooks in public and religious schools, and the role textbooks play in shaping students’ identities and worldviews. 

As a third-grade teacher, Lily Howard Scott noticed how she spoke to students impacted more than just their experience in the classroom. How teachers speak to their students and intentional shifts in language can nurture children’s inner lives, foster self-regulation and reduce perfectionism, she says, and become their inner voice.“The thing about teachers, particularly elementary school teachers, is they have this superpower, which is that they catch kids at a moment where their capacity for neuroplasticity is more remarkable than it will ever be again. These kids are developing theories about themselves and their abilities, and they're bucketing themselves in all ways that may stay with them for the rest of their lives,” Scott says. “They're establishing thinking patterns that will stay with them, and elementary school teachers spend 1000 hours a year with their students in the same connected classroom… subtle shifts in language that help kids learn these basic things, that they have agency within, that they can choose which thoughts and feelings to amplify and which to quiet.”Scott shares that young children are remarkably receptive to reflective conversations about language and often adapt the terms in creative, personal ways — such as a student renaming their “inner voice” the “President Decider.” She highlights the power of reframing mistakes as "brilliant mistakes," which invites curiosity rather than shame. This shift, supported by neuroscience and the work of researchers like Lisa Feldman Barrett and Carol Dweck, helps children interpret challenges with a mindset geared toward growth and resilience.How to make these shifts is now the focus of Scott’s work and the central theme of her book, “The Words that Shape Us,” where she shares classroom-tested strategies and brain-changing teacher language.Learning to speak differently as a teacher or even parent can be challenging, but Scott stresses the importance of modeling lifelong learning alongside children. For instance, by admitting their own struggles with perfectionism or learning from errors, teachers can foster trust and mutual growth. Scott explains that language like “feelings are visitors” (inspired by Rumi’s The Guest House) helps children understand emotional regulation and agency. She admits that young children are particularly receptive to language shifts. Perhaps even more importantly, the effort to tweak how we speak to children may also play a role with children’s mental health. “If your mind is better company when you're seven, you hold on to these language nuggets and you repeat them to yourself when you're 17, so I think elementary school, it's not the precursor to serious learning. It's the most serious learning, and we should tip our hats to elementary school teachers and understand the immense and enduring influence they can have,” she says.In this episode, Scott shares insight into when children are taught empowering, compassionate language early, they carry it with them for life, enabling healthier thinking patterns and emotional well-being. She provides caution against well-meaning but common phrases like “try harder” which may inadvertently shame children. 

To succeed in school, in life, and as contributors to a more equitable society, students must be able to recognize, analyze, and challenge systemic injustices, say Harvard Lecturer Aaliyah El-Amin and Boston College Professor Scott Seider. Through their research, they are examining what it truly means to pursue education for justice in K–12 schools.“The kids who are in classrooms right now are our country's next generation of leaders,” says El-Amin. “They’re the people who are going to help determine whether we continue on our current path of deep injustice and human suffering, or whether we chart a new course toward a more just society — one where people across differences have equal access to well-being and thriving.”El-Amin and Seider argue that equipping young people with the tools to understand and respond to injustice is not only critical to building a more just society but also key to supporting youth development—academically, emotionally, and civically.“Young people who are more critically conscious of injustice are more civically engaged. They have higher self-esteem. They have better mental health…” says Seider. “The primary goal of nurturing young people's understanding of injustice is to prepare them to help build a better world. But we also have growing evidence that this critical consciousness contributes to positive youth outcomes.”To explore how justice-oriented education is being implemented across different contexts, the researchers studied more than 100 schools, identifying four core strategies for embedding this work throughout K–12 education:Building adult capacityCentering justice in the curriculumPartnering with families and communitiesEngaging students in social actionWhile this work may look different depending on the local context, El-Amin and Seider believe it can be implemented in schools everywhere.“Students are asking big questions about the world around them,” says El-Amin. “And when students are curious, engaged, and eager to participate in these conversations, educators have a powerful opportunity to bring them into critical consciousness and advocacy right in the classroom.”This episode of the EdCast explores how schools can become places where students are not only academically prepared but also empowered to confront—and help transform—the world they inherit.

In today’s digital landscape, schools face growing cybersecurity threats that can disrupt learning, compromise sensitive data, and leave administrators scrambling to recover. With cybercriminals becoming more sophisticated, understanding these risks and being prepared is more critical than ever, says Lisa Plaggemier, the executive director of the National Cybersecurity Alliance.“The vast majority of bad things that happen at institutions like schools and municipalities-- again, under-resourced organizations or organizations that have some technical debt. They haven't kept up with the latest and the greatest when it comes to technology. It's really, really, really basic things that get exploited by people that are up to no good,” she says.The Center for Internet Security recently released a report revealing that 82 percent of schools suffered from a cyber incident over an 18-month period. From ransomware attacks to AI-powered phishing scams, cybercriminals are finding new ways to exploit vulnerabilities—especially in under-resourced institutions like schools and municipalities. Plaggemier shares practical steps schools can take to protect themselves, from implementing multi-factor authentication to training staff on phishing awareness. She says the biggest mistake is not being prepared for a cyberthreats. “[This] is not something that's fun to go through, to have to answer to the press, to have to handle the crisis communications, the questions you get from parents. It then becomes such a drain on all those other things… that are a higher priority, that you realize that you've risked all those good and noble things because of a lack of preparedness,” Plaggemier says. “It's not if, it's when. So, it's all about being prepared. It's about resilience. It's about business continuity, being able to still teach school if everything's offline, and then being able to recover from the attack and go back to business as usual.”In this episode, we discuss why educational institutions are frequent targets, the role of human error in cyberattacks, and the importance of proactive security measures. 

How we see the world and interact with each other, especially whether we create welcoming environments of acceptance, does not always come naturally. Tim Shriver, chair of the Special Olympics, and Stephanie Jones, a Harvard professor whose research focuses on social emotional development, say that it’s something we can teach, and fostering an inclusive and accepting mindset in schools and communities matters. “This is not stuff that we're necessarily born with. It all grows and emerges through experiences and all kinds of things that happen in the world. So, they are malleable skills -- they can be taught,” Jones says. “And I would go further and say that the decades of work in schools focused on things like social, emotional, and behavioral development have given us some ideas about the essentials of teaching and supporting these kinds of skills.”As a longtime advocate of students with intellectual and physical disabilities, Shriver admits he was intrigued by better understanding why some people are more open to inclusion and accepting someone who may be different from them. “From any number of points of view, difference is sometimes scary. But who are the people that know how to turn that fear or that lack of familiarity into an opening, rather than using it as a closed door?” Shriver says. “So, I started to ask myself, what is an inclusive mindset? … And the more I thought about this, the more I realized, and the more I searched around issues around it, it struck me that we didn't know.”Working together they began to identify key components of an inclusive mindset and how to foster this by acting on empathy, dignity, and courageous action. In this episode, we discuss using teachable moments where students can learn to become upstanders, and why it is important to nurture these skills in the classroom and community.

Post-pandemic schools are still feeling the aftershocks—socially, emotionally, and politically – say educators and co-authors Mathew Portell and Tyisha Noise. Educators, students, and administrators are navigating a landscape that feels more uncertain than ever, with growing political pressures, policy shifts, and the lingering impact of disrupted learning.“In this hurrying time of, ‘we've got to get kids caught up,’ that intensity is there. And I think it's playing a major role in missing gaps that we need to support for students who didn't have those developmental experiences starting at a very, even young age, and building their capacity and their tools to manage all that's coming,” Portell says. Portell, an elementary school principal, and Noise, an educator and leadership consultant, believe a trauma-informed approach can help -- that is if schools truly undertake the work to make the systemic shifts necessary. They are co-authors of “Reducing Stress in Schools: Restoring Connection and Community,” a toolkit of actionable, evidence-based practices for educators that focuses on how to support students’ and adults’ nervous system regulation. One of the biggest shifts they advocate for is moving from reactive policies to a more human-centered approach aimed toward not just students but also adults.“If we want what we say we want for children, we've got to bring healing and love and support and compassion to adults. We have to pour into the adults who serve children what we want them to pour into children,” Noise says. “Draining people of everything good inside of them, and then asking them to pour from empty cups every day is not only unfair, it's inhumane.”In this episode, we discuss the tension between academic recovery and social-emotional learning as schools face increasing pressure to accelerate student progress while navigating political and logistical obstacles, and what it means to be a trauma-informed school. 

Eve L. Ewing wants people to talk, not just about how American schools started, but also how that can inform the future of schools, especially for Black and Native children. She argues that Black and Native children’s schooling experience is more than just a footnote, but a central narrative in history.“From the very first classes that I taught, I always began by telling my students, you cannot understand the history of schools in this country if you don't understand schools for Black people and schools for Native people,” she says. “Those are foundational to understanding the history of American public schooling.”Those historical foundations of American public schooling are the focus of her new book, “Original Sins: The (Mis)education of Black and Native Children and the Construction of American Racism.” Ewing explains that her book was born from a need to unify discussions on these histories, structured around three themes: discipline and punishment, intellectual inferiority, and economic subjugation. The University of Chicago Associate Professor highlights how the education system has been shaped by racist ideologies, many envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, and have only strengthened racial divisions. Those legacies continue today, with curriculums that downplay darker aspects of American history, and raise deep questions about what is the purpose of school. “There are a lot of unspoken assumptions, uninterrogated assumptions about what makes great education for Black and Native kids in particular, for low-income kids of all racial backgrounds, for kids of color of all income backgrounds, that sometimes isn't actually great for them,” she says.She hopes that educators can find meaning by understanding history and possibly find ways to create a new future for schools. “These are long and old systems, but they were created by people, and we are also people, right? And it is also within our power to examine and critique those systems and create new ones,” she says.In this episode, Ewing calls for honest conversations about history, a reevaluation of education’s purpose, and collective action to challenge systemic oppression in schools. 

The U.S. Department of Education has been a subject of political debate since its creation in 1980. “It's the one whose status has been most tenuous from the inception. So the recent calls we've heard to eliminate the Department of Education have really been a constant feature of its history from the moment it was created,” says Marty West, a Harvard professor specializing in the politics of K-12 education. He explains that the DoEd, established in 1980 under President Jimmy Carter, was politically motivated but also aimed at consolidating federal education efforts. Despite its relatively small financial footprint—contributing less than 10% of K-12 funding—it plays a key role in distributing federal funds, enforcing civil rights laws, and conducting educational research.In speaking with West, before news reports that the Trump Administration was drafting an executive order to eliminate the department, he noted that some view the DoEd as essential for ensuring equal access to education and enforcing federal education laws, while others see it as an unnecessary bureaucracy that interferes with state and local control.“I think debates over the status of the department and speculation over the department status are largely a distraction from the real debates over the scope and substance of federal education policy,” West says. “The status of the department is largely a question of bureaucratic organization and is not particularly substantive. The real question is whether the federal government has a useful and valid role to play in K-12 education.”In this episode, we discuss the Department of Education’s responsibilities, the misconceptions surrounding its influence, and the historical and political forces that have shaped its existence. We also explore the feasibility of eliminating the department and what such a move would mean for schools, educators, and students across the country.