logo
Indiana school districts hire Black teachers, then fail to keep them

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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Would Byron Donalds differ from DeSantis as governor? Here's what he told us
Would Byron Donalds differ from DeSantis as governor? Here's what he told us

Miami Herald

time32 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

Would Byron Donalds differ from DeSantis as governor? Here's what he told us

President Donald Trump endorsed U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds for Florida governor about a week before Donalds even announced that he would be campaigning for the state's top office. 'RUN, BYRON, RUN!' Trump posted on social media in February. Thus Donalds' campaign began over a year before Election Day. Donalds, a Republican, is polling at about a five-point lead over David Jolly, the most notable Democratic candidate, with about a third of voters still undecided, according to the polling firm Victory Insights. And the possibility of Casey DeSantis challenging him in a Republican primary is beginning to fade, according to lobbyists and consultants. A Brooklyn native who came to the Sunshine State more than 20 years ago to study at Florida A&M University and Florida State University, Donalds has been involved in Florida politics for about a decade. The first race he won was a state House seat in 2016, representing a coastal district near Fort Myers, and he was reelected there in 2018. During that time, Donalds was known as a firm Trump supporter. He was elected to Congress in 2020 and has since been reelected twice. While in D.C., he has aligned himself with the ultraconservative Tea Party caucus, voting hardline MAGA — though Gov. Ron DeSantis accused Donalds in 2023 of siding with then-Vice President Kamala Harris after Donalds criticized statewide education standards that had Florida students being taught that American slaves learned useful skills. Donalds, who is Black, called them 'wrong' on social media and said they needed adjustment. Donalds later endorsed Trump over DeSantis during the 2024 presidential election cycle. Only about half of Floridians recognize Donalds' name — up from a third in February, before he announced his campaign. Who would he be as Florida's governor? The Miami Herald sat down with him to find out. What follows are exchanges from Donalds' interview with the Herald, edited for brevity and clarity. Q: You launched your campaign fairly early. How do you keep people interested in your candidacy over the next 14 months prior to the primary? A: It's really about continuing to add people to your coalition. [Our campaign's] been fortunate to really be in just about every part of our state. We're going to continue to travel the state. And wherever we go to, whether it's CPAC Latino, business owners throughout our state, nonprofits, religious groups — people have been excited. I think that it's just one day at a time. You keep working hard, and it all comes together. Q: Did you time the launch of your campaign and Trump's endorsement to get ahead of potential competitors, like Casey DeSantis? A: No, that was not what happened. The president endorsed and then I was like, oh, all right, I guess we're running for governor. I had been thinking about running, and you have a bunch of different timelines of when you announce. The president's endorsement pretty much changed all that. Q: Is the Democratic Party in Florida dead? Is your only concern during this campaign a Republican primary? A: Yeah, they're pretty much dead. But that doesn't mean you ignore them and take your foot off the gas. Q: What do Floridians want from their next governor? What is the issue or issues they most care about? A: Right now, obviously, people are concerned about insurance. A lot of sticker shock around there. People want to talk about transportation — how am I getting around the state? How might we get some of the traffic off the roads? But overall, as I travel the state, people are happy with Florida. They want it to continue, so their biggest thing is, are we going to keep moving on the same path? Florida is going to remain the free state of Florida. We're going to keep people safe. We're going to make sure kids are getting a quality education. One of the things I focus on is helping children in our state become proficient in core subject matter. About 30% of our kids are proficient in math and reading. We need to raise that bar [to] 50%. If you're proficient in core subjects, now you're even more ready to take on the challenges of the world. We're preparing the future of Florida. Q: Are there any ways that your administration would be different than a DeSantis administration? A: Look, when it comes to policy, the governor and I don't really have disagreements. … I think it's more about careers. The governor was an attorney. I'm a man of finance. So I think it's just a different way of going about your business, but in terms of policy outcomes and political stances, there's not going to be much change. Q: As a former state lawmaker, what are your thoughts on the struggle between DeSantis and the Legislature this past session? A: Every session's different. What most people don't understand is that there are usually conflicts between the governor and the Legislature. It happens a lot more than people realize. It's really just maintaining open lines of communication with House and Senate leadership and really trying to do the early work of trying to get on the same page, really understanding what everybody's priorities and positions are. And just being professional and working through that on a step-by-step basis. Q: If you were to be elected, you would be the first Black Republican governor in the modern history of the party. What do you think that signals for the party? A: Our party is growing. People are far more diverse, but not just diversity for diversity's sake. We are still a party built on ideals. Strong ideas of individual liberty, human freedom, economic growth, sound policy, safe streets and children being educated. Those are principles that whether you're Black, whether you're Cuban, whether you're Puerto Rican or Dominican — you can agree with that. These are the philosophies that build families and maintain strong cultures. That's why I think you see more Black people coming to the Republican Party. They're sick of the dogma and the terrible policies. And the broken promises … [Democrats] never have real solutions. I think people are tired of it. What they're looking at in Republicans is people who are no nonsense. You may agree with us, you may disagree with us, but you're going to get a straight answer. … At the end of the day, people respect that. That's why you're seeing more minorities choose the Republican Party. Q: GOP members of Congress in Miami have called on the Trump administration to be more discerning as it seeks to deport immigrants in the country illegally. Do you agree with that position? A: No, I think the way the president is moving, it's going to continue. Let's be very clear: We have to be consistent when it comes to dealing with immigration law. What we want is more legal immigration, people who come in the right way. What Joe Biden allowed was anarchy, and that anarchy is going to create chaos. It's unfortunate this is what happens when you have terrible policy from the Democratic Party. The first thing: You've got to secure the border. [Trump] has done that. When it comes to deportations, obviously starting with criminal and illegal aliens, and then other people in the country illegally — yes, a lot of people are going to have to go home because we took on more than 10 million people. Our budgets are overwhelmed in every city in America. … We have to do the right thing, which is reset the table. And then we can work on letting people come into the country legally, to be able to come and work in America, if that's what they choose to do, or assimilate in America and become citizens. Q: Any thoughts on Alligator Alcatraz? A: I think the concept is good. Where we are right now, a lot of the county jails are overwhelmed. You have to have a release valve. That's what the governor and the attorney general are doing about that. But I think it's a temporary matter because … when we pass the 'Big Beautiful Bill' in Washington, it's going to give [Trump border czar] Tom Homan and [Homeland Security Secretary] Kristi Noem the resources they need. So it will alleviate the backfill that's happening currently with our sheriffs in Florida.

The Supreme Court's injunctions decision returns America to the constitutional horrors of Dred Scott
The Supreme Court's injunctions decision returns America to the constitutional horrors of Dred Scott

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

The Supreme Court's injunctions decision returns America to the constitutional horrors of Dred Scott

In ordinary times, someone could read the Supreme Court's decision on the legality of so-called 'universal injunctions' as just the latest example of an old dispute: the proper way to interpret the Constitution and the jurisdiction of federal courts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion saying the federal district courts do not have the authority to issue such injunctions is a classic in the genre of 'originalism.' In contrast, the dissenting opinions by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson read the law through the lens not just of its origins but with an eye to how an interpretation would affect the world beyond the courtroom. They understand that these are not ordinary times and do not want to disable the judiciary from responding when fundamental rights are at stake, in the face of an ongoing assault on the rule of law itself. To put it simply, with its decision in Trump v. Casa, the court has become an accomplice in President Trump's ongoing assault on our constitutional republic. The decision has effectively removed the federal courts as a check on the Trump administration. But it also does grave damage to the court itself — Trump v. Casa now takes its place among the high court's most infamous rulings. As Stephen Lubet says, it returns us to theIt returns us to the world of its discredited Dred Scott decision, which found that the rights of Black people depended on where they lived. Just like Blacks in the antebellum world who had one status in free states and another in slave states, immigrants and others may now find themselves in a legal nether land. To thoroughly appreciate the impact of Trump v. Casa, it is important to remember that 'universal injunctions' allow courts to grant immediate relief that benefits not only the party who requests them but also anyone harmed by an action of the government. Individuals or organizations can go to court seeking such orders while they pursue further legal action. Even before last week's ruling, they had to get over a high bar to persuade the courts to step in, including showing that in the absence of such an order, they would suffer 'irreparable harm.' One commentator rightly notes that, 'In many situations, there is no other way to stop widespread illegality, especially that perpetrated by the federal government. Nationwide wrongs require a nationwide remedy.' None of that seemed to matter to Barrett and her conservative colleagues, though. They insisted that because nationwide injunctions were not issued by English courts, federal district and appellate courts should not be able to use them today. They are living in the past rather than dealing with the realities of the present. As Barrett put it, 'because the universal injunction lacks a historical pedigree, it falls outside the bounds of a federal court's equitable authority.' But there is nothing new about the practice of granting such relief. More than a century ago, in a case involving an alleged infringement of freedom of the press by a postal regulation, the Supreme Court issued a nationwide injunction to stop such infringement until it could hear and decide the merits of the case. They have been used frequently in federal court rulings against presidents for many years. And there is nothing new about the current conservative justices' criticisms of them. Eight years ago, in another case involving Trump, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, 'I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. … If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality.' Thomas got his wish. While you would never know from reading the majority opinion that Trump has been claiming authority to ignore the law whenever it suits him, including the right to curtail the constitutionally protected right to birthright citizenship, in their dissents Sotomayor and Jackson went to great lengths to ensure that his actions would not be ignored. As Sotomayor argues, the majority now holds that 'No matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the executive to stop enforcing it against anyone.' Sotomayor condemns her colleagues' attachment to a 'rigid historical test' that allows 'a grave and unsupported diminution of the judicial power of equity,' and chastises the majority for its 'complicity' in the president's ''mockery' of our constitution.' Her opinion conjured the jurisprudence of the Dred Scott era when it warned that the court's new decision creates a 'two-tiered scheme' in which someone's citizenship status depends on whether they live in a state where an injunction has been issued or a state where no court ruling has been made. Jackson echoed Sotomayor in her worry that the court is acquiescing in the administration's desire 'to operate in two different zones moving forward: one in which it is required to follow the law (because a particular plaintiff has secured a personal injunction prohibiting its unlawful conduct) and another in which you can choose to violate the law with respect to certain people (those who have yet to sue).' The creation of law-free zones reminds Jackson of 'history's horrors,' and she notes what the majority has authorized will disproportionately impact the poor, uneducated, and the unpopular.' We can only hope that someday soon the Supreme Court will come to its senses and repudiate Trump v. Casa. In the meantime, it is left to the American people to resist the administration's effort to hollow out the Constitution and preserve what it promised, a century and a half ago, to anyone born in this country. Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College. Steve Kramer is a lawyer and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts.

US Rep. Dwight Evans of Philadelphia says he won't run for reelection
US Rep. Dwight Evans of Philadelphia says he won't run for reelection

Hamilton Spectator

time2 hours ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

US Rep. Dwight Evans of Philadelphia says he won't run for reelection

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — U.S. Rep. Dwight Evans said Monday that he will not seek reelection to his Philadelphia seat, capping a career in public office that stretches back 45 years. Evans, a Democrat, said in a statement that he decided that 'the time is right' to retire after his term is up in early 2027. Evans, 71, said he is in good health and capable of serving, a year after he suffered what he has called a minor stroke. Evans is serving his fifth term. He originally ran for Congress in 2016 against then-U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah, a fellow Democrat who had been seeking a 12th term in Congress while under federal indictment. Prior to that, Evans served for 36 years in the state House of Representatives, rising to become Appropriations Committee chairman, and the first Black chairman of the powerful committee. He was first elected when he was just 26. Evans' Philadelphia district is heavily Democratic and a crowded 2026 Democratic primary — possibly including state Sen. Sharif Street, the state Democratic Party chair — is possible to determine a successor in the seat. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store