Indiana school districts hire Black teachers, then fail to keep them
In 2024, I received an invitation to a diversity teacher recruitment fair in Carmel. The featured districts included Noblesville, Hamilton Southeastern, Carmel Clay, Zionsville and Westfield Washington, all places with important questions about the recruitment and retention of Black educators at traditional public schools.
Here are the numbers on the proportions of Black staff members at each district last year:
Hamilton Southeastern stood out, employing more Black educators than the other four combined. Whatever they were doing seemed to be working, but when the district's Black, female superintendent resigned, I worried the momentum wouldn't last.
My concerns were further confirmed when I learned three Black principals had left the district in a year. This is not an isolated trend. In districts across Indiana and beyond, diversity efforts too often stop at hiring. What follows can feel more like tokenism than inclusion, where educators of color must constantly prove their worth while receiving limited institutional support.
Educational historian Vanessa Siddle Walker has documented how, following the desegregation of the U.S. public education system, many experienced Black principals lost their roles. This was not due to performance, but because systems weren't ready to share power equitably. The context of today may look different, but similar dynamics persist.
For example, school governance remains predominantly White. With politically charged debates over curriculum and policy, diverse educators can find themselves navigating complex environments with limited support.
In education, this affects not only adults, but also students. When students of color rarely see themselves reflected in leadership, it sends an unspoken message about who belongs — and who leads.
Opinion: Indianapolis schools have once-in-a-generation chance for transformation
These patterns have broader implications. I'm in an interracial marriage, raising children who will soon enter Indiana's K-12 educational system. Comments from public leaders, such as Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith referring to the Three-Fifths Compromise as 'a great move,' or past remarks from now-Gov. Mike Braun questioning the legality of Loving v. Virginia, have lasting impacts. For families like mine, these are reminders that belonging is still conditional for many.
Nevertheless, I remain hopeful.
Charter schools in Indiana are showing real potential in supporting Black educators. With greater flexibility, many are leading efforts in culturally responsive curriculum, leadership diversity and student engagement. They aren't without challenges, but their agility often allows them to implement equity-focused practices more swiftly than traditional districts.
To be clear: All schools, whether district or charter, must be held to high standards, but recognizing and supporting innovative models that center inclusion is both fair and necessary.
Briggs: Indiana's school letter grades will help housing prices more than parents
Ultimately, doing so is not about blame. It's about accountability. Diversity in education should not be performative. It must be embedded in policy, practice and culture. When educators of color are hired, we must also be heard, valued and empowered to lead authentically.
Our students of all races benefit from inclusive leadership. They deserve to see educators who reflect their communities and are committed to equity not as a buzzword, but as a standard.
This work is deeply personal and ongoing, but I believe change is possible when we center truth, listen with humility, and act with courage. Indiana has the talent, the opportunity, and the responsibility to do just that.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
8 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: The federal government once stood up for what was right. What's changed?
As a Black teenager growing up in Detroit in the 1960s, I was horrified after seeing news coverage of the peaceful demonstrators, marchers and children being attacked and brutalized. The demonstrators, mostly Black Americans, were simply asking for the same rights that were afforded to the majority of Americans. Today's demonstrations against the Trump administration's immigration roundups in Los Angeles and elsewhere remind me of the Civil Rights Movement. The National Guard is deployed in Los Angeles, purportedly to protect federal property. The last time the guard was used in a disputed manner was 1957. Nine Black high school students attempted to enroll at the all-white Little Rock Central High School in 1957. The Democratic Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus called in the National Guard to prevent it. In response, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent the Army to protect the students. The irony is self-evident. The cause of the peaceful demonstrators in Los Angeles and beyond is righteous. It is a shame that the federal government under President Donald Trump no longer protects the disenfranchised and marginalized. Clarence Boyd, Oakland Maintain health care I was relieved when Sen. John McCain voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act in 2017. As a breast cancer survivor with two pre-existing conditions, the thought of losing my health care was terrifying. I recently overcame another bout of breast cancer, and I'm grateful a second mastectomy was avoided. Medicare's follow-up care has been superb. Now we're facing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, which threatens the health care coverage of 16 million Americans by 2034. The proposed bill includes substantial cuts to Medicaid and changes to the Affordable Care Act that will affect low-income individuals and families. What kind of society are we if we fail to support our sick, elderly and disabled? We need to pressure Congress to refuse a huge deficit increase while simultaneously denying health care to vulnerable populations. It's not crazy You might think that I am a Republican. I believe in fiscal responsibility. I support a balanced federal budget. I support a strong immigration policy. I support a strong national defense. I support a rational and fair tariff policy. I believe in fair and honest elections. But I am not a Republican. I am a Democrat. And just because I have empathy for the most vulnerable and defenseless among us, that also does not make me 'a radical left lunatic.' Bill Schrupp, Lafayette
Politico
9 hours ago
- Politico
Trump Is Wrong About Birthright Citizenship. History Proves It.
'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' That's the opening line of the Fourteenth Amendment. The vast majority of legal scholars have long understood the clause to confer citizenship on immigrant children born in the United States. But not President Donald Trump. 'This had to do with the babies of slaves,' the president asserted yesterday, at a press conference celebrating a Supreme Court decision that partially clears the way for the administration to end the practice of birthright citizenship, though the attempt will face further legal hurdles. (The court has not ruled on the challenge to birthright citizenship itself, only the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions against it.) According to Trump and his supporters, Congress never intended the amendment to grant citizenship to immigrant children — only to formerly enslaved people and their children. As legal experts have explained, the text of the amendment itself disproves Trump's claim, which the court's conservatives — who so often extoll the virtues of originalism, interpreting the Constitution based on its meaning at the time it was written — should well know. So does the historical record. We do not have to guess what members of Congress intended with the Fourteenth Amendment and the children of immigrants. We know, because they told us themselves. And Trump won't like what they had to say. The president is correct on one point: The Fourteenth Amendment's framers intended its primary beneficiaries to be formerly enslaved Black people. In the months immediately following the Civil War, ex-Confederate states began forming new governments and passing laws that sharply curtailed the rights of freedmen who had been liberated under the terms of the Emancipation Proclamation and Thirteenth Amendment. The so-called Black Codes varied by state but shared common features. In Mississippi, for example, Black people were required to sign annual labor contracts, and those who left their jobs could be arrested for vagrancy. In South Carolina, African Americans were barred from any occupation other than farming or domestic work unless they paid a special tax. Many codes also limited Black people's rights to own property, bear arms, serve on juries or testify against white people in court. These laws effectively criminalized Black life and sought to reimpose slavery in all but name. In response, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 over President Andrew Johnson's veto, conferring rights and citizenship on Black Southerners. Recognizing that they might not enjoy congressional supermajorities in perpetuity, they also sought to enshrine these rights permanently in the Constitution, via the Fourteenth Amendment. But today, Trump contends that the amendment does not apply to immigrants. His argument rests on two conceits: First, that the text of the amendment specifically limits birthright citizenship to 'persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' — which, conservatives argue, does not include immigrant children, as they owe allegiance to a foreign power and are not fully subject to U.S. sovereign authority. Second, as the president explained on Friday, he believes the framers intended only to confer citizenship on freedmen (retroactively) and their children (prospectively). In effect, they were attempting a constitutional repudiation of the infamous Dred Scott decision, in which the Court in 1857 denied that Black persons could be citizens. We know both of these arguments are shambolic, because the framers told us so. Senator Jacob Howard, a Republican from Michigan, drafted the birthright citizenship language and was clear in his intent. 'This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States,' he explained. But Howard qualified his explanation. 'This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.' At first blush, it would seem that meant to exclude the children of foreign-born immigrants from enjoying birthright citizenship. But the Senate debate makes clear he and his colleagues meant only to exclude the children of foreign diplomats and officials in the United States on business. In a key exchange, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania fretted that the amendment would expose the United States to mass demographic upheaval, specifically by making immigrant children citizens. He worried particularly about 'Gypsie' (or Roma) immigrants in his home state and a small but growing population of Chinese immigrants in California. In response, John Conness, a senator from California, who supported the bill, agreed with Howard that the citizenship clause applied to immigrants, affirming that the amendment 'relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.' Setting aside their crude racial determinism, the exchange makes clear that Howard and other Republicans intended the amendment to apply to all persons born in the U.S., not just freedmen. Cowan was the only Republican senator to vote against the amendment, specifically because of his concerns over birthright citizenship and immigration. In other words, even the amendment's opponents understood its meaning and intent. In debating who was subject to the 'jurisdiction' of the amendment, the Senate focused almost entirely on the question of whether Native Americans, who had treaty rights and sovereignty, enjoyed its provisions. Most Republican supporters believed at the time they did not. But there was essentially no disagreement about the children of immigrants, who were understood to qualify for citizenship. And the Supreme Court agreed in a landmark 1898 decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents who were barred from naturalization under the Chinese Exclusion Act. After a trip abroad, he was denied re-entry to the U.S., prompting a legal battle over whether he was a citizen. In a 6–2 decision, the court ruled that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status — establishing a foundational precedent for birthright citizenship that remains in place today In last week's decision, the court didn't specifically uphold Trump's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, it significantly limited the power of lower courts to issue nationwide (or 'universal') injunctions blocking policy implementation, including Trump's executive order denying passports and Social Security cards to immigrant children. The court signaled it would likely take up the more specific question of birthright citizenship down the line. For the time being, the decision opens the door to a patchwork legal landscape, where birthright citizenship protections can vary dramatically depending on which states or judges are involved, leaving families in some jurisdictions shielded while others face the executive order's full force. Legal experts warn that curtailing nationwide injunctions could let parts of Trump's order go into effect unevenly — forcing challenges through slower and more localized litigation — and thereby sow confusion, fear and unequal citizenship rights across the country. Trump's argument about the Fourteenth Amendment also calls into question the process by which tens of millions of American families of European descent became citizens. At the time of the amendment's adoption, its framers worried primarily about whether it would make citizens of Asian immigrants. European immigrants — Italians, Irish, Germans, Jews and, later, Eastern and Southern Europeans — were broadly understood to fall under the protections of the original 1790 Naturalization Act, which made all 'free white persons' of 'good character' eligible for citizenship. Many of those 'free white persons' never bothered to become citizens, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when a large number of immigrants were 'birds of flight' who immigrated and re-emigrated multiple times, mostly to work seasonally and bring wages back home. Many ultimately remained in the United States, but if Trump's reading of the Fourteenth Amendment were in effect, many of their American-born children would not have been citizens if their parents were unnaturalized at the time of their births. Since 1868, birthright citizenship has been central to our understanding of who is legally an American. Take it away, and that understanding gets murky. All eight of my great grandparents were foreign-born Jews from Eastern Europe. A few naturalized. Others didn't. Their children — my grandparents — were born on American soil, well before their parents became citizens. By Trump's reading, my grandparents and parents would not have been entitled to birthright citizenship. Neither, for that matter, would I. The same logic applies to tens of millions of Americans. Lucky for me, the history is clear on this point. If the Supreme Court's conservative majority actually believes in originalism, that means the legality of birthright citizenship is a matter of history — and the history is undeniable. Lawmakers on both sides of the issue acknowledged that the Fourteenth Amendment would extend birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.
Chicago Tribune
10 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: Climate job training shows what we can accomplish at the state level
Even in today's extremely challenging times, there are places in Illinois where environmental justice is happening, as was beautifully told in the June 23 front-page article 'Clean energy job training offers hope: 'It's changed my life'' by Nara Schoenberg. Due to the game-changing law passed in 2021, the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act workforce hub training classes are currently graduating many Black and brown students who are going on to well-paid clean-energy jobs. It is proof that we all must continue to fight and advocate for environmental justice here in Chicago and throughout the state. Due to the outrageous cuts to all clean energy work by the federal government, we must focus on what we can do at the local and state level. And sometimes, we just need to take a breath and look at what has already been accomplished and then keep Tribune's recent article on clean-energy job training rightly highlights the need for stronger career pathways for underserved communities and the importance of preparing Illinois' workforce for a climate-friendly future. We're proud that labor is not only part of this critical transition but also helping lead it. Illinois' landmark Climate and Equitable Jobs Act (CEJA) set a national example by tying climate action to economic justice, including the statewide network of workforce development programs that prioritize Black, Latino and other equity-eligible communities historically left out of energy careers. Crucially, it was Illinois' labor movement that helped secure landmark labor provisions in CEJA — including requirements for prevailing wages, project labor agreements and high-road labor standards for utility-scale projects — ensuring clean energy jobs are good jobs. These standards raise the bar for equity, quality and safety across the industry. Climate Jobs Illinois, in partnership with HIRE360 and unions across the state, is investing in clean energy workforce programs that open doors for equity-eligible communities. Backed by CEJA, these programs are more than job training — they're launching pads for long-term, family-sustaining careers in solar, wind, electric vehicle infrastructure and energy efficiency. Through the Climate Works Pre-Apprenticeship Program, participants receive: This is how Illinois makes a just transition real — by putting people to work in the communities that need it most, with the skills and protections to build and sustain the state's clean energy the June 27 Nation & World article 'Heat dome brings 'double whammy'': I never understand why politicians continue to ignore the facts when it comes to the health and well-being of American citizens. The evidence is overwhelming that links extreme heat and air pollution to climate change. As the article states: 'Researchers are worried about the twin health hazards of extreme heat and pollution, which can amplify each other. As climate change drives up global temperatures past record levels, the frequency of days when it is both hot and polluted has also been increasing.' As someone with respiratory issues, I live with this double whammy, and it's only gotten worse over the years as politicians ignore this fact. They pass energy policy that only worsens this impact. As the article points out, 'the (Donald) Trump administration is moving to weaken limits on emissions from power plants and cars, which could increase carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and other pollutants. It is also encouraging more mining and burning of coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels.' The article also states: 'The World Health Organization estimates that outdoor and indoor air pollution combined cause 6.7 million premature deaths a year.' And: 'A 2023 analysis of more than 20 million deaths around the world found that hot days and days with bad air quality both resulted in higher-than-normal mortality rates. But periods in which heat and pollution are combined were even deadlier.' Don't Republican politicians care about people's health? Ironically, I recently sat in on a webinar given by a leading energy professor and scientist on the state of renewable energy, highlighting that we have the technology and know-how to reverse course on this double whammy. Unfortunately, it's apparent we don't have the will or desire to take appropriate action. As a result, I'll be forced to spend more time indoors this summer and future summers, suffering the consequences of these politicians' apathy toward human recent Tribune pieces — an article highlighting Chicago Teachers Union President Stacy Davis Gates' call to prioritize district contracts ('CTU president rebukes Trump administration, urges district to prioritize union contract,' June 24) and an op-ed co-written by CTU Vice President Jackson Potter advocating for increased funding for public education and transit ('Public education and transit benefit Chicagoans but aren't being fully funded,' June 24) — raise critical issues but miss the mark on solutions. Both suggest massive new spending, funded by higher taxes on Chicago and Illinois residents. While I agree that our public schools and transit system need significant improvements, I strongly disagree that more taxes are the answer. Chicago Public Schools already has sufficient funds to support its shrinking student population. With 47 schools operating at less than one-third capacity, consolidation could free up resources to enhance remaining schools, rather than burdening taxpayers further. Similarly, our transit system — the CTA, Pace and Metra — needs an overhaul, but not through costly projects like the $1 billion-per-mile Red Line expansion. Instead, merging these agencies into a single, efficient unit with unified fares and coordinated schedules could cut administrative costs and improve service. Chicago and Illinois don't have a taxing problem; we have a spending problem. Let's prioritize efficiency and innovation over endless tax CTA appears to be on life support and needs a new president who has extensive experience running mass transit systems, someone who actually rides the trains and buses, unlike the recently departed Dorval Carter Jr. and current members of the CTA board. The mayor claimed his administration conducted a national search for a CTA president but apparently didn't do that, according to the Tribune's June 20 edition ('Records show mayor didn't conduct formal national search for CTA head'). The mayor could install one of his cronies who has no experience in running a large transit agency like the CTA. That would be a big mistake at a time when the CTA needs solid, experienced I decided to study prelaw at the University of Illinois at Springfield, I knew the LSAT and, later, the bar exam would be serious hurdles. What I didn't expect was the cost of preparing for them. Quality LSAT prep courses can cost well over $1,000. That's not within reach for aspiring professionals. Thanks to the Prepare for Illinois' Future initiative, I didn't have to make that financial trade-off. This state-funded program gave me access to one of the top LSAT prep resources from Kaplan at no cost. The weekly classes, personalized feedback on practice exams and live tutor support helped me stay on track while working a part-time job. I was able to target the areas where I needed the most improvement, boosting both my score and my confidence. Improving my LSAT score isn't only about getting into my top-choice law school; it also positions me for scholarships that make that path financially viable. But this program was never just about one student or one test. It was about access. It was about removing financial barriers that hold back aspiring professionals from advancing in law, health care, education and other critical fields. That's why I'm disappointed to hear that the program hasn't been included in the next state budget. I urge lawmakers to reconsider. The value here isn't just academic — it's economic. Programs like this unlock talent that might otherwise go unrealized. Cost shouldn't decide who gets to pursue professional success in Illinois. Not now. Not ever.
