Search This Blog

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query florida state. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query florida state. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday, June 17, 2025

Parental Pushback: Liberal Resistance to Right-Wing Indoctrination in Oklahoma Schools

In the heart of red-state America, a quiet rebellion is taking shape—led not by liberal politicians or university activists, but by parents of K-12 students. In Oklahoma, a growing number of families are fighting back against what they see as an aggressive ideological campaign by far-right leaders to insert misinformation, religious doctrine, and partisan propaganda into public school classrooms.

This resistance is not coming through marches or lawsuits alone, but through the very legal tools that conservatives once championed: parental rights. Families across the state are opting their children out of controversial new social studies standards that they claim distort U.S. history, undermine democratic institutions, and promote Christian nationalism.

Tulsa parent Lauren Parker is among the voices leading this countercharge. “Now that it’s being codified and now that it’s being brought more into the public eye, the liberals have realized that those are our rights too,” she said.

Her main concern: language recently added to Oklahoma’s social studies curriculum that questions the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. The standards require students to "identify discrepancies" in the results, echoing discredited claims advanced by Donald Trump and his supporters. These include references to “sudden halting of ballot-counting,” “sudden batch dumps,” and “security risks of mail-in balloting”—all without factual basis, and all now embedded in state-mandated education.

These standards were quietly introduced by State Superintendent Ryan Walters and passed by the Oklahoma State Board of Education, some of whom now claim they were unaware of the changes at the time of the vote. A legal challenge is pending in Oklahoma County District Court, questioning the procedures used to approve the new standards.

The opt-out movement has been fueled by organizations like We’re Oklahoma Education—WOKE—formed as a progressive response to right-wing parent groups like Moms for Liberty. WOKE provides parents with templated letters to exempt their children from lessons that include election misinformation, Biblical teachings, and content produced by conservative media outlets like PragerU and ideologically driven institutions like Hillsdale College and Turning Point USA.

“If you believe parents know best, then that applies to all parents,” said WOKE director Erica Watkins, a mother of two public school students in Jenks. Watkins, who describes her family as non-religious, said she won’t allow her children to be taught about Christian scripture in a public school classroom.

Walters has defended the addition of Biblical content as a way to provide historical context, arguing that the teachings of Jesus and the Bible shaped the country’s founding values. But parents like Parker see it differently: “This isn’t about history and facts. It’s about pushing their faith on us, and that’s unacceptable. It’s un-American.”

WOKE members are extending their efforts beyond classrooms. Their opt-out letters also reject any “interaction” with Walters and reject the use of content linked to partisan or religious agendas. In some districts, including Stillwater and Tulsa, school officials have indicated a willingness to honor these requests while awaiting clearer guidance on how to implement the new standards.

Ironically, the legal protections that parents are now invoking stem from Republican-led legislation designed to protect children from what conservatives labeled as “woke indoctrination.” Now, the same legal framework is being used to resist the imposition of a narrow, ideologically driven curriculum. As Senate Minority Leader Julia Kirt noted, “If we have separate schools for everybody who has different beliefs, we’re going to have some real challenges.”

That challenge isn't just philosophical. The battle for K-12 curriculum is already shaping higher education outcomes. Students trained in a politically skewed version of American history may enter college unprepared for academic rigor, especially in disciplines like political science, history, and journalism. Public universities in red states could increasingly find themselves in conflict with the ideological pressures shaping their incoming student populations. Faculty, already under scrutiny in places like Florida and Texas, may have to navigate a new wave of cultural and political tension on campus.

Meanwhile, the polarization of public education is reinforcing broader national divides—between those who see schools as places of civic development and democratic inquiry, and those who view them as battlegrounds in a culture war.

The resistance in Oklahoma marks a new chapter in that war. It's a reminder that parental rights are not the sole property of any political party—and that misinformation, no matter how it’s packaged, won’t go unchallenged. The pushback from parents like Parker and Watkins reflects a broader struggle for control over public education, truth, and the future of American democracy.

And in this fight, the line between K-12 and higher education grows thinner every day.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

College Meltdown: NY, IL, MI, PA, VA hardest hit


For-profit colleges, HBCUs, community colleges, and small rural private colleges have been hardest hit by the meltdown, while elite colleges and flagship universities continue to rake in tens of billions in revenues.

States and counties display different patterns during the College Meltdown. Four factors in determining where community colleges and second- and third-tier state colleges are most vulnerable to the College Meltdown include : (1) states with declining college enrollments and (2) declining numbers of high school graduates, (3) states that have already been cutting state funding of colleges and community colleges, and (4) states and counties with above average indebtedness.

I am in the process of creating a ranking of those States most vulnerable to the College Meltdown. Is your state listed? Are there any factors that aggravate or mitigate indebtedness and declining youth numbers?

(1) Declining College Enrollment Numbers (>10,000)
  • New York (-30,695)
  • Illinois (-26,089)
  • Michigan (-25,841)
  • Pennsylvania (-18,390)
  • Virginia (-15,613)
  • Massachusetts  (-13,444)
  • Wisconsin (-13,122)
  • Texas (-11,376)
  • Colorado  (-11,039)
  • Maryland (-10,444)

(2) Declining High School Graduates (> 5%) 
(10% or more decline)
  • Illinois
  • Mississippi
  • Michigan
  • Ohio
  • Vermont
  • New Hampshire
  • Maine
  • Rhode Island
  • California
(5% to 10% decline)
  • New Jersey
  • Pennsylvania
  • Wisconsin
  • Alabama
  • Missouri
  • West Virginia
  • Kentucky
  • Indiana
  • Massachusetts

(3) State Funding Cuts Targeting Higher Education (>30% since the recession)
  • Arizona (55.6%)
  • Illinois (54.0%)
  • Louisiana (39.1%)
  • South Carolina (37.0%)
  • Alabama (36.2%)
  • Pennsylvania (33.3%)
  • Kentucky (32.0%)
  • Idaho (30.8%)
  • New Hampshire (30.1%)

(4) State and Local Indebtedness
  • New York
  • South Carolina
  • Rhode Island
  • Washington
  • Florida
  • Kentucky
  • Illinois
  • Connecticut
  • Pennsylvania
  • Massachusetts
  • West Virginia
  • Colorado
  • New Jersey
  • Nevada
  • Hawaii
  • Texas
  • Kansas
  • Louisiana

Tuesday, December 23, 2025

When the Grants Disappear, So Does the Mission: MSI funding, institutional priorities, and the coming test of “social mobility” (Glen McGhee)

A recent opinion from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel declares that federal Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) programs are unlawful because they allocate funding based on the racial composition of enrolled students. The ruling immediately throws hundreds of campuses—and the students they serve—into uncertainty. But beyond the legal debate lies a more revealing institutional reckoning: if MSI grants disappear, will colleges actually fund these programs themselves?

The short answer, based on decades of evidence, is no.

For years, colleges and universities have framed MSI grants as proof of their commitment to access, equity, and social mobility. Yet those commitments have always been conditional. They have depended on external federal subsidies rather than first-principles institutional priorities. Now that the funding stream is threatened, the gap between rhetoric and reality is about to widen dramatically.

The scale of what is being cut is not trivial. Discretionary MSI programs—serving Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander–Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs), Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs), and others—have collectively provided hundreds of millions of dollars annually for tutoring, advising, counseling, faculty development, and basic academic infrastructure. These grants have often been the difference between persistence and attrition for low-income students, many of whom are first-generation and Pell-eligible.

Yet MSI funding has also sustained something else: a sprawling administrative apparatus dedicated to grant writing, compliance, reporting, assessment, and “outcomes tracking.” Entire offices exist to chase, manage, and justify these funds. This is the professional-managerial class infrastructure that has come to dominate higher education—highly credentialed, compliance-oriented, and deeply invested in external funding streams.

Follow the money, and a pattern becomes clear. When federal or state funding declines, colleges do not trim administrative overhead. They cut instruction. They cut tutoring. They cut advising. They cut student-facing programs that lack powerful internal constituencies. Administrative spending, by contrast, is remarkably durable. It rarely shrinks, even in moments of fiscal crisis.

We have seen this movie before. When state appropriations fell over the past decade, public universities raised tuition and reduced instructional spending rather than dismantling administrative layers. When DEI offices were banned or defunded in several states, institutions eliminated student services and laid off staff, then quietly absorbed the savings into general operations. There was no surge in faculty hiring, no reinvestment in instruction, no serious attempt to replace lost support with institutional dollars.

MSI grants will follow the same path. Colleges may offer short-term “bridge funding” to manage optics and morale, but that support will be temporary and partial. The language administrators use—“assessing impacts,” “exploring alternatives,” “seeking private donors”—is a familiar signal that programs are being triaged, not saved.

Could institutions afford to self-fund these programs if they truly wanted to? In most cases, no—or at least not without making choices they refuse to make. Endowments are largely restricted and already used to paper over structural deficits. Tuition increases are politically and economically constrained at campuses serving low-income students. Federal aid flows through institutions but cannot be repurposed for operations. There is no hidden pool of fungible money waiting to be redirected.

What would replacing MSI funding actually require? Cutting administrative spending. Reducing executive compensation. Scaling back amenities and non-instructional growth. Reprioritizing instruction and academic support over branding and “customer experience.” These are choices institutions have consistently shown they will not make.

This is why the rhetoric of social mobility rings hollow. Colleges celebrate access and equity when the costs are externalized—when federal grants pay for the work and compliance offices manage the paperwork. But when that funding disappears, so does the institutional courage to sustain the mission.

The contrast with historically Black colleges and tribal colleges is instructive. Their core federal funding survives precisely because it is tied to historical mission rather than contemporary enrollment metrics, and because these institutions have long-standing political champions. That distinction exposes the truth: what is preserved is not equity, but power.

The coming months will bring program closures, staff layoffs, and diminished support for the students MSI grants were designed to serve. What we will not see, despite solemn statements and carefully worded emails, is a widespread commitment by colleges to fund these programs themselves.

The test is simple and unforgiving. If social mobility were truly a foundational principle of higher education, institutions would treat MSI programs as essential—not optional, not grant-contingent, not expendable. They would pay for them out of their own budgets.

They won’t.

And in that refusal, the performance ends. The mission statements remain, but the money moves elsewhere.

Sources

Inside Higher Ed, “DOJ Report Declares Minority-Serving Institution Programs Unlawful,” December 22, 2025.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Opinion on Minority-Serving Institution Grant Programs, 2025.

U.S. Department of Education, Title III and Title V Program Data, Fiscal Years 2020–2025.

Government Accountability Office, Higher Education: Trends in Administrative and Instructional Spending, various reports.

Delta Cost Project / American Institutes for Research, Trends in College Spending, 2003–2021.

State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO), State Higher Education Finance Reports, 2010–2024.

University of California Office of the President, California State Auditor Reports on Administrative Spending and Reserves.

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board; Florida Board of Governors; UNC System Office, public records and budget documents on DEI office eliminations, 2024–2025.

Bloomberg News and Associated Press reporting on DEI bans and campus program closures, 2024–2025.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), IPEDS Finance and Enrollment Data.

American Council on Education, Endowment Spending and Restrictions in Higher Education.

IRS Form 990 filings and audited financial statements of selected public and private universities.

Columbia University public statements on federal research funding disruptions, 2025.

University of Hawaiʻi system communications on federal grant losses and bridge funding, 2025.

Congressional Budget Justifications, U.S. Department of Education, FY2025–FY2026.

Ehrenreich, Barbara and John, The Professional-Managerial Class, and subsequent scholarship on administrative growth in higher education.

Student Borrower Protection Center, Student Debt and Institutional Finance, 2024–2025.


Thursday, June 29, 2023

A People's History of Higher Education in the US

[Editor's Note: What we saw today at the US Supreme Court--with the end of affirmative action in college enrollment--is horrible but not shocking.  The History of Higher Education in the US over the last four centuries is worse than horrible--from a People's perspective. In many cases it has been horrifying. Some of it has been documented.  Much of it has not. No one has documented the full-length of the terrain, the voyage that got us here, or to what may lie ahead. Looking in the mirror, and at the injustice, what do you see?]  

A People's History of US Higher Education is sorely needed, not as a purely academic work to gather dust on shelves, or as internet click bait, but as a way to assess how our nation moves forward as a democracy--or as something less. To make history, it's helpful to know (real) history: the history of working-class (and middle-class) struggles. 

The college and university industry faces enormous challenges in the coming years, and an elitist perspective that is taught in higher education perpetuates this societal mess: one of monumental (and widely acceptable) selfishness and greed, increasing inequality (see graph below) and reduced social mobility, decreasing life expectancy, lack of transparency and accountability followed by trillions in government bailouts to the rich, and profound environmental destruction. 

A Sketch of the Current Terrain

At the front end of the higher ed pipeline, the US is not producing enough domestic students with the resources or skills to succeed in college and beyond. Much of this is related to "savage inequalities" in the K-12 system (and throughout society) that have never been remedied. And in 2026 we expect an enrollment cliff to occur, a ripple effect of the 2008 Great Recession.

Community colleges and second-tier state universities--once considered the backbone of increasing democracy and social mobility, have faced declining revenues, lower enrollment, and public defunding for more than a decade.   

Adjuncts have become the "new faculty majority"--a trend moving that way for several decades--with little resistance.  Labor has had a few recent victories at elite schools, but it remains to be seen how strong this movement will become and whether it will spread to lower rung institutions.

Drug and alcohol abuse, sexual coercion and assault, bullying, and other forms of violence and brutality are long-standing parts of the US higher ed landscape that have not been fully dealt with.

Millions of folks are learning exclusively online. Subprime robocolleges (like the University of Phoenix, Purdue University Global, and University of Arizona Global Campus) and Online Program Managers (OPMs) have replaced traditional universities with little information about their value or effectiveness.  Those schools flood the internet with targeted ads.  

White supremacy and anti-intellectualism have regained popularity, with the higher education policies of Ron DeSantis in Florida, Greg Abbott in Texas, and Sarah Huckabee-Sanders in Arkansas. The Supreme Court has also spoken recently--ending affirmative action for people of color. Legacies and other meritless preferences for the more rich and powerful remain.   

Mergers, acquisitions, and campus closings are commonplace as schools compete for a smaller number of students and an even smaller number that can pay the full amount for tuition, room and board, fees, and living expenses. 

Elite universities are financial and industrial centers, scooping up (and stealing) land, investing billions overseas and paying few taxes, and hiring foreign workers instead of Americans.  

At the end of the pipeline, US higher education may be educating the world's elites, but higher ed and the larger society are not producing enough skilled workers/good jobs for Americans. There is a growing educated underclass, people who are working but are not working in areas that they had hoped for. There are many bullsh*t jobs out there. And many gig jobs with no benefits. And there are jobs that require long hours and difficult conditions, forcing people to choose between the personal and professional. Some folks are doubling down for career advancement, borrowing (sometimes unwisely) for graduate school. 

Student loan debt makes college graduates captive to the corporations who are willing to hire them--and subject to dismissal whenever they are no longer helping them make a profit. Even at non-profits this is the case. Crushing debt results in people who decide (logically) not to marry, not to have children--at the expense of being labeled as criminals and deviants. The Republican Supreme Court will soon weigh in on the subject and likely determine that debt relief would not be fair to others--presumably the wealthy and powerful that the Justices represent.  

Let's be clear.  Higher education in the United States has always reflected and reinforced a larger (sick) society and its ills. Its beginnings and much of its history are deeply rooted in white supremacy, patriarchy, and classism-- through land theft, genocide, worker oppression, and exclusion. 

There have been many excellent critical accounts of higher education over the last century, from Upton Sinclair's The Goosestep (1923) to Craig Steven Wilder's Ebony and Ivy (2013) to Gary Roth's The Educated Underclass (2019).  Recent books have also examined elite universities, state universities, and for-profit colleges and their predatory practices. But few if any assess the dark landscape from start to finish. 

A Sketch of Where the US Has Been

In the 1600s and 1700s, elite eastern schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, and Georgetown were constructed on stolen land. The leaders of the exclusive white male schools held people captive in order to keep the schools running. All the students were white men or people who had to assimilate into the world of white supremacy. The schools also taught religious ideologies to rationalize their crimes against humanity.  What was it like for an indigenous person, an enslaved person, or a servant at one of these schools? How brutal was college life in those times?  

Government intervention was essential to increasing opportunity. After the Civil War, Historically Black Colleges and Universities enabled some African Americans to get a higher education. State universities and teacher's colleges also emerged with the promise of educating and empowering more citizens. And even then, land for state universities came from land theft of indigenous nations. Financial and industrial robber barons (men who stole wholesale from workers and their families), subsidized and controlled elite higher private higher education. These men included Leland Stanford, John D. Rockefeller, and Andrew Carnegie.  

Government funding through the post-World War II GI Bill increased enrollment (but disproportionate opportunity for white men) during the late 1940s and 1950s. The 1960s reflected a time of rebellion, greater access, and a movement toward equality. The Black Panthers, for example, challenged white supremacy at Merritt College and San Francisco State. But those days seem to be from a bygone era--a moment of opportunity lost. We do have some accounts of students and teachers, but is there one place we can find what life was like in junior colleges and lesser known state universities? 

Were the 1960s an anomaly? In 2023, it certainly appears so. For those activists who remember those times well enough, and remember the progress, it may be disheartening. Many citizens today are too young or not as well informed. Over the decades, even more have been disinformed--lied to--by elitist revisions of history.  

Battling the Business of Higher Education

Since the 1980s, US higher education has increasingly reflected and reinforced a nation of privatization, government austerity and lack of oversight, and social class exclusion. Elite credentials are used to discriminate in career fields (like law) where there is an oversupply; other careers (like nursing) are also hamstrung by hyper-credentialism--creating artificial shortages. 

Progressive organizations have been largely ineffective in battling strengthening corporate forces on campus.  The Fed and other organizations continue to sell the idea of more higher education for all, as millions face a lifetime of debt peonage.  There have been some heroes on the People's side, but they have been largely ignored by the mainstream media--which largely writes from an elitist perspective. 

We are now more than four decades into this neoliberal era. Higher education has changed, yet it still reflects much of what is wrong with America. Working class folks, and even many middle-class consumers are increasingly wary of higher education--whether it's worth buying into.  In some cases, edtech has reduced our Quality of Life. Is there anyone with enough energy, resources, and courage to document it all?  And can it be done from the perspective of the People--for the good of the People?  

Related links: 

HEI Resources

US Higher Education and the Intellectualization of White Supremacy

One Fascism or Two?: The Reemergence of "Fascism(s)" in US Higher Education

"Let's all pretend we couldn't see it coming" (The US Working-Class Depression)

The Tragedy of Human Capital Theory in Higher Education (Glen McGhee)

The College Dream is Over (Gary Roth) 

Erica Gallagher Speaks Out About 2U's Shady Practices at Department of Education Virtual Listening Meeting 

I Went on Strike to Cancel My Student Debt and Won. Every Debtor Deserves the Same. (Ann Bowers)

 


 

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

College Meltdown: State By State Changes

The National Student Clearinghouse has provided College Meltdown with state by state
changes in college enrollment from Fall 2011 to Fall 2017. 

The chart is listed in order of percentage loss or gain.  New Mexico, Hawaii, Illinois,
Michigan, and Alaska were hardest hit.  Twenty two states experienced losses of 10 percent
or more.  

Six states increased their enrollment from 2011 to 2017.  New Hampshire and Utah, the
two largest gainers, increased their enrollment by having a large online presence (Southern
New Hampshire University and BYU online).  
State Change % Change N Fall 2017 Fall 2011
Multi-State Institutions -53% -724,715 645,035 1,369,750
New Mexico -20% -28,468 115,734 144,202
Hawaii -19% -12,700 52,938 65,638
Illinois -19% -141,554 616,520 758,074
Michigan -19% -117,285 516,291 633,576
Alaska -17% -5,922 29,551 35,473
Oregon -17% -42,139 211,264 253,403
Missouri -16% -64,193 347,315 411,508
Louisiana -15% -38,854 222,640 261,494
West Virginia -15% -24,793 144,717 169,510
Montana -15% -8,134 47,811 55,945
Indiana -14% -57,710 345,140 402,850
Kentucky -14% -38,766 238,922 277,688
Minnesota -14% -58,239 362,416 420,655
Arkansas -13% -23,649 154,979 178,628
Ohio -13% -87,250 602,612 689,862
Wisconsin -12% -43,238 307,565 350,803
Oklahoma -11% -23,511 187,640 211,151
Maryland -11% -40,986 346,501 387,487
Wyoming -10% -3,396 29,333 32,729
Nebraska -10% -14,418 127,526 141,944
Pennsylvania -10% -72,163 682,995 755,158
North Dakota -9% -5,275 51,084 56,359
Iowa -9% -20,247 201,485 221,732
New Jersey -9% -37,731 383,465 421,196
Colorado -9% -28,640 291,986 320,626
Virginia -8% -44,484 484,523 529,007
New York -8% -98,904 1,092,559 1,191,463
Mississippi -8% -14,305 166,005 180,310
Washington -8% -27,148 316,152 343,300
Vermont -7% -3,177 40,024 43,201
Florida -7% -74,318 1,003,014 1,077,332
Massachusetts -7% -32,753 444,670 477,423
Maine -7% -4,690 65,361 70,051
Georgia -6% -33,836 491,898 525,734
Tennessee -6% -20,642 300,337 320,979
North Carolina -6% -32,642 522,750 555,392
Kansas -5% -10,015 193,733 203,748
District of Columbia -5% -3,727 73,925 77,652
Rhode Island -4% -3,179 69,543 72,722
South Carolina -4% -9,339 236,782 246,121
Connecticut -3% -6,257 187,124 193,381
Nevada -2% -2,651 110,085 112,736
California -2% -43,872 2,515,551 2,559,423
Alabama -1% -4,149 290,704 294,853
Delaware 0% -177 55,926 56,103
South Dakota 3% 1,200 46,598 45,398
Texas 4% 58,803 1,489,865 1,431,062
Idaho 4% 4,202 100,851 96,649
Arizona 6% 23,750 451,539 427,789
Utah* 25% 63,108 317,839 254,731
New Hampshire* 89% 69,661 147,773 78,112
*Growth driven by institutions with large online programs. Students may not be physically
located within the state.