Dr. Parham is a distinguished psychologist with more than 40 years of combined experience as an academician, executive administrator, scholar and practitioner. Before his presidency at Cal State University, Dominguez Hill, he served as vice chancellor for student affairs and adjunct faculty at the University of California, Irvine, where he had been since 1985. Dr. Parham has served in many key administrative roles in higher ed, and began his career with an appointment on the faculty at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Dr. Parham served on the Carnegie Classifications Institutional Roundtable to provide strategic guidance on the development of the updated classifications. He will be retiring from his role as president of Cal State University, Dominguez Hills, effective December 31, 2025.

Please share a bit about your personal educational experience and upbringing. How did your early experiences inform your career trajectory?

My journey to the presidency is an interesting one. I’m a psychologist by training, and a culturally centered one at that, who was delighted to be an academician. I love doing clinical work and seeing patients, teaching in the classroom, doing my research and scholarly work, and then consulting and administration. Somehow, though, my career has moved through this trajectory over the last 43+ years. It was kind of the fulfillment of a projection, if you will, from my mentor, the great Dr. Joseph L. White, from the University of California, Irvine, who was the contemporary father of the Black psychology movement.

Short story: I grew up in LA, in a single-parent household. I’m a product of public and parochial school education, and then went on to college at Cal State University, Long Beach, where I was determined to be either a police officer or an attorney. When I was young, my mom said, “Son, you have no business complaining about anything unless you’re willing to put something better in its place.” And so I grew up amid the ’60s and the ’70s with a mama who raised four kids by herself, worked for the federal government 32 years, and never earned more than $18,000 a year. I learned very early on about inequity and unfairness, both in watching my mom and watching the streets. When I went to college at Long Beach State, it had the largest criminology department in the western United States, so it was a good place to be if I was going to be an attorney or a police officer, but I was frustrated with my education there. I both perceived many of my faculty as racially biased, and learned that the criminal justice system was really about whoever had the best counsel and could manipulate the system the best, and that violated my spirit about why I wanted to get into the field in the first place, which was to help people and make a difference.

Fortunately, while at Long Beach, I got involved in what we now call co-curricular or service learning. I participated in an educational participation in the community program. Based on that experience, I then summized that part of knowing what you want to do in life is not just figuring out what you’re interested in, but also what you are good at, and based on supervisor feedback, I had a knack for this work. Ultimately, I left Long Beach and transferred to the University of California, Irvine, which changed my whole trajectory. The educational ambiance was rigorous, and I had mentoring from Joe White, and it was clear that I wanted to be a psychologist. After graduate school, it was reported that I became the first African-American academic psychologist the University of Pennsylvania ever hired in its 240-year history after it was founded by Benjamin Franklin in 1740. 

What brought you to become President of Cal State University, Dominguez Hills, and what do you most admire about the university?

After my work at Penn, I was recruited to be at the University of California, Irvine, where I thought I’d stay for five years before going back to full-time faculty. 33 years later, I was still at Irvine, serving as an administrator, faculty member, scholar/researcher, and clinician, when I got a call from former President Willie Hagin, who said, “This is an opportunity you need to take a look at as I’m getting ready to retire at Cal State University, Dominguez Hills.”

Dominguez Hills spoke to me. I applied and was lucky enough to be chosen as the 11th president of Cal State University, Dominguez Hills. I love the social justice nature of the campus. I love the fact that the California Master Plan has three legs: Excellence in academics and research, access to the state citizenry, and affordability. What I love about the CSU is that it provides access. When I came to Dominguez Hills, I announced that we would not judge our worth on selectivity ratios, but rather we would judge our worth in the Cal State system and at Dominguez Hills in particular, on how many students we can admit and how many lives we can transform.

This is a magnificent institution that has allowed me to do that. Under my tenure, I’ve developed relationships with folks, and this whole community has really embraced me as president and embraced this vision to dream about what’s possible, instead of settling for what’s traditional and predictable.

Please describe your leadership approach at CSU Dominguez Hills.

I recognize that leaders are only as good as the work produced by the people who work with and for them. Any good leader worth their salt understands that. My job is to provide strategic vision, appropriate consultation, cultivate individuals, invite folks to step aside if they are not aligned with the vision, and surround myself with good, competent people. Ironically, while I have created some of it, I’ve not had to create a lot of the excellence that you now see; I’ve simply had a chance to reveal the excellence that remained more latent than visible.

My vision and mantra as president are as follows: 

• I start with the idea that there’s no greater blessing in life next to being a parent than being entrusted with the personal and intellectual growth and development of students. My students range from 16 years old to our oldest graduate, who just broke the record last year for receiving a BA degree at 80 years of age.
• I tell my faculty and staff not to guess if students are ready for Dominguez Hills, but rather, to consider: “Are you ready for these students?” As I see it, each student is a seed of divinely inspired possibility, and if we can nurture them in the proper context, they’ll grow into the fullest expression of all they are supposed to become. CSU Dominguez Hills is the soil into which these divine seeds of possibility are going to be placed and if we water the soil with the drops of intellectual enrichment, if we nourish the soil with the values of nurturing and socialization, if we till the soil to remove the weeds of social distraction out of their lives, and give them enough sunlight of affirmation to make them feel good about being here, and affirm their sense of humanity, and give them just enough shade of critique, then we just stand back and watch them grow into the fullest expression of all they are supposed to become. Our students thrive in that kind of environment.
• CSU Dominguez Hill is a destination campus, not a default campus. I invite external stakeholders to embrace that ask while I ask my faculty and staff to dream about what’s possible, and stop settling for what’s been traditional.
• We need to own success rather than rent it. I tell my faculty that there is a difference between renting and owning success. While you take pride in the A’s and B’s students achieve, you also need to own the C’s, the D’s, the Fs, and the withdrawals. This is all of our jobs to be in that space. 

CSU Dominguez Hills has recently been named an Opportunity College and University (OCU) according to the Carnegie Student Access and Earnings Classification for being a leading institution in generating opportunity. What practices or processes drive student success on your campus?

In practice, we blew up our advising model and made it less centralized and more college-based and specific. We strengthened student supports, pursued a culture of care, and put a brand new strategic plan in place. Now, people are in a space where they think it is possible to make this vision come to life at Dominguez Hills. Along the way, we’ve seen new curricula and have more academic accreditations now than we ever have in our history. My message of striving for student excellence and being a snob for our students has rippled throughout the whole campus community. So not only are we an Opportunity College and University and in several national rankings, but we also have the educational excellence that reflects where we should be as a state system. 

This is reflected in the numbers, too. Two years ago, our retention rates for first-year full-time freshmen and transfers were up 8%, and this last year, the numbers were up 6.5%, so we’ve risen 14.5% in two years. This is due to my incredible student success team and superb cabinet, who have aligned around this shared vision. This work takes time, and it’s amazing to see the efforts we’ve cultivated over time to dramatically increase retention and graduation numbers for our students. 

As President of CSU Dominguez Hills, you served on the Institutional Roundtable to help reimagine the Carnegie Classifications for Higher Education. Why is this work important, and what do you think the new classifications will mean for higher education in the decades to come?

Sitting on the Institutional Roundtable for the Carnegie Classifications was one of the honors of my life. It goes back to what Joe White, my mentor, first taught me: “Produce enough excellence, excellence will bring you opportunity.” At the Raise the Bar Summit, hosted by then-Secretary of Education Miguel Cordona, I was invited to present the argument that colleges and universities should not judge their worth based on selectivity ratios, but on how many students gain access to their universities and how many lives they transform through social and economic mobility. Ted Mitchell, President of ACE, was at the Raise the Bar Summit, and called me a few weeks later to invite me to join the committee, presumably because of my perspective and passion for the work, and my ideas for bringing social and economic mobility as a factor that should be measured and assessed in higher ed.

Over a year and a half, I collaborated with other university presidents on the committee, and I was proud to be the only CSU voice in the room. Collectively, we said there ought to be something more than the dollars you have and the number of doctoral programs and students you train to determine classifications. We need to include other variables and factors because it’s more nuanced, and it’s more integrated and complex than just those simple variables. And looking at the CSUs, 15 of the 23 CSU campuses are now designated as Opportunity Colleges and Universities. Elevating the CSU in that space is one of the pride points of my career. 

This work—along with that report we did on Black student success coming out of the Juneteenth Symposium I hosted, which was the first one in CSU history—is an institutional achievement that will live way beyond individual leaders, like myself, because that represents systemic change. Now, the Carnegie Classifications provide a more accurate mirror and portrait of what institutions represent, particularly in some of the urban universities around the nation, which are doing the great work for their students. 

Many people say that higher education is having an existential moment with enrollment dips, ballooning debt, and declining public confidence. How do you feel about this moment, and how can we ensure that postsecondary education remains a vital engine for transformation and opportunity?  

Indeed, this is an existential moment, but education, and higher education in particular, remains the civil rights issue of our day. In spite of the times, the one word I would use to describe my perspective, spirit, and posture is, in fact, hopeful. I’m encouraged. I am almost grateful for the moment. As Sheryl Sandberg said, we need to “lean in,” even to the crazy. It sounds a little strange, but here’s what’s true: In my office, I keep a picture of Martin and Malcolm on the wall as well as a picture of the ancestors and the slave dungeons in Elmina and Cape Coast, from when I visited Ghana, Africa. Collectively, when I have a bad day or when I think the challenges of our day are too overwhelming, the ambiance in my office reminds me to always contextualize struggle. What I know is that we’ve been through worse than this and trouble don’t last always.

When we think about the social context, higher education simply cannot afford to lose its way or to be diminished in importance. Higher education has to be true to its mission of trying to help educate folks, to facilitate innovation and creativity, to help students discover and learn more facts and data, to help students form more cogent and persuasive arguments, to embrace this grand experiment in democracy and diversity that we have, and to learn how to respect, support, and affirm the dignity and humanity of every member of the human family. 

As the CSU, we are the largest system of public higher education in America. We take a backseat to nobody in that regard, and make good on the lives we change, the lives we transform, and the people we educate. We should be boldly stepping out to say we’re going to keep on keeping on. The question is: How do we sustain some movement and momentum in the face of the adversity higher education is confronting? And that’s why I’m confident that we’re gonna keep on keeping on. I’m hopeful.

Explore this insightful Q&A with Gregg Behr, Executive Director of the Grable Foundation, and Laura Jacob, Superintendent of California Area School District in rural western Pennsylvania, as they discuss their approach to innovation and how they are building lasting momentum for change in their region. Behr and Jacob discuss the impact of their partnership and the importance of high school in students’ learning journeys, while sharing a ‘little bets’ strategy, where thousands of small, developmentally appropriate innovations aggregate into ‘big moonshots’ over time. 

Their collaborative success is epitomized by California Area School District’s engagement within the Future of High School Network, an effort of 24 systems across the country dedicated to driving the evidence and implementation needed for a new architecture for high school nationwide.

The Grable Foundation is a powerful force in Pittsburgh’s education landscape. Among its areas of focus—early learning, public schools, out-of-school time, and more—the foundation also invests in high school transformation. Why high school, and why now?

Gregg Behr: Next year marks the 50th year for the Grable Foundation, and from the very beginning, supporting public schools has been a core focus. The school districts in western Pennsylvania have positioned themselves at the forefront of education innovation. Right now, we’re supporting a cohort called Future-Driven Schools, a regional alliance of nearly 50 public school districts working together—and with AASA, the School Superintendents Association—to prepare every learner for tomorrow. We have 19 school districts that are part of Digital Promise’s League of Innovative Schools. By nearly any measure, the nation’s largest cluster of innovative school districts is right here in western Pennsylvania. And the California Area School District—a member of this amazing Future of High School Network—is a great example of what that innovation looks like.

Something important about our region, and about our investment in public high schools, is the willingness of school boards and district leaders, like California Area’s Laura Jacob, to step forward. Of course, they are addressing the poverty, polarization, and everything else that’s in front of them. But these leaders are also recognizing what kids want, need, and deserve. High school is, in the end, the most critical part of that learning journey. 

So, why now? We have leadership that’s willing to take risks in developmentally appropriate ways, rethinking the entirety of the pre-K to 12 learning journey for kids, teachers, parents, families, and caregivers alike. The hardest nut to crack in all of that is high school and the bell schedule. 

How is California Area School District collaborating with the Grable Foundation? What are the key goals and the impact thus far?

Laura Jacob: The Grable Foundation is truly our nation’s and our area’s cheerleaders, as public school superintendents. They’re, without a doubt, this ongoing force in the Pittsburgh area that is championing, encouraging, and helping education leaders facilitate the change that we want to see happen. They’re also working tremendously hard to bring together individuals who want to see improvements in our schools to learn from one another, to identify different strategies school systems are utilizing to spur our professional learning together. Those conversations with tremendous leaders only continue to raise the bar. Grable has been relentless in communicating the positivity of public education, and highlighting the good work that is happening, and truly the organization has our back as public school leaders.

For example, with the Moonshot Grant from Grable, I’ve never had a grant opportunity where the grant specifically says, “we want you to make bold, challenging, risky moves, even if it means failure.” Right now, we know that when it comes to changing high school, we have to change the systematic structures that we have in place. Our current Moonshot grant is trying to redesign the transcript. We’re calling it the village transcript, as it takes a village to raise a child, and all stakeholders should contribute to identifying the skills, dispositions, and abilities of children. No longer is the transcript simply sharing high school grades, which don’t give us a good picture of the true child, but now, we’re developing a system and a structure so that we can highlight all the skills, knowledge, and experiences our community wants for our children. We’re using the skills that have been identified in Carnegie and ETS’s Skills for the Future work. For example, if a student works at the local volunteer fire department, that work would not show up on a typical high school transcript. In other words, they would be an average student, and their passion for the fire department, and the skills and certifications they’ve gained wouldn’t be traditionally recognized in a high school transcript. Now, that’s going to change with the village transcript because it’s going to provide a broader picture of what the child brings to the next step in life after high school. If it wasn’t for Grable pushing our thinking and providing a support structure with the Moonshot Grant, we likely wouldn’t be willing to take the risk of transforming the transcript.

What lessons do you think your collaboration offers about the crucial importance of local partnership and investment in driving and sustaining educational innovation? Who else needs to be at the table to appreciate the risks of innovation and to sustain and scale transformation?

Gregg: The blessing and the curse of philanthropy is that you’re always in the stratosphere. You’re always at 30,000 feet. The blessing side of that position is that we can see what’s going on, who’s doing what, and how they’re doing it. We have the privilege at Grable to support the broader learning landscape, including what happens in school, but also in early learning, out-of-school time, and mentoring. So, we invest in a range of field-building organizations year in, year out—the organizations convening and supporting early learning professionals, arts educators, out-of-school-time programs, elected officials, and beyond.

We also support Remake Learning, a nearly 20-year-old dynamic network of 800 schools, museums, libraries, campuses of higher education, creative industries, and more. What we’ve tried to do is make it incredibly normal for funders, out-of-school time directors, school superintendents, high school teachers, early learning teachers, and librarians to be in common professional development and learning programs. We’re trying to make it normal that the human beings who care about kids find a reason to get together, to wonder together, to try new things, and to ask that ever-hopeful question: “How might we?”

At its best, philanthropy is the R&D of civil society. Philanthropy can help give freedom and permission to leaders like Laura in schools—but also in museums and libraries and out-of-school spaces—to try new things. Sometimes, those efforts fail, though always in developmentally appropriate ways. Sometimes, they lead to something amazing—something that supports learners in ways no one would have been able to achieve on their own. Again, this work is about making it normal for folks like Laura and other innovators to find cause to work together, so that it’s not weird that Laura’s working with Carnegie Mellon University, or the Andy Warhol Museum, or the local workforce investment board. It’s the norm. And it’s supported by a lot of communications, too.

Laura: If it weren’t for the Grable Foundation, I wouldn’t necessarily be in contact with many of the school leaders or organizations I am now, because I’m located about 45 to 50 minutes south of Pittsburgh in a rural, small school district. Traditionally, I would not have the opportunities to interact and engage with the superintendents or museums, for example, in the Pittsburgh area. California Area School District is now connecting regularly on Zoom with a non-profit, after-school program in Pittsburgh, learning from one another because of Grable. Their ability to bring us all together has been tremendous in sustaining focus and patience.

We sometimes like to think that innovation happens immediately overnight, but it takes time. I believe in constant 1% improvement change day in and day out. It’s so important to highlight regularly where we’re seeing change happen, and how we can go even further. Innovation also requires sustained focus on constant improvement to push things further, despite challenges. The more you see change, and hear from supportive partners that you are doing innovative things, the more you believe it yourself and feel motivated to continue pushing. Sustainability, as well as focus, has really empowered us as a team.

Gregg: We talk a lot about little bets and big moonshots. To be sure, it’s part of our vernacular, and it’s an actual part of our grant-making strategy here in the Pittsburgh region via Remake Learning. We fully believe that genuine, sticky change happens in the aggregations of thousands and thousands of little bets. We can speak to the systemic changes that Laura’s taking on, but it’s little bets that add up to those changes: putting solar scooters on campus to get kids from one building to the next. Building a yurt to support outdoor learning. Bringing baby lambs in to support struggling readers in a way that they feel more comfortable, particularly in a rural setting where baby animals are familiar to kids. Using bees and beekeeping, another familiar phenomenon, to teach math. It’s the compilation of lots and lots of little things, none of which was a moonshot, and all of which was unexpected. It’s the compilation of that and many dozens of other things that position a school district—or an educational service agency, or a state—to think in a big way at a game-changing moment.

As I mentioned, we work with 47 districts involved in what we locally call Future-Driven Schools, a partnership with AASA. Next month, we are organizing a workshop around high school reform, and after that workshop, we’re going to make available to all 47 school districts grants of $1,000 each to make little bets of their own. In aggregate, it’s $47,000, which is not a huge amount of money. But we all know that schools can do incredible things with $1,000. Really, it’s just that little bit of permission, that opportunity, for someone in the district to do something tangible and passion-driven, to push something meaningful a little bit further. Then, they’ll have the opportunity to showcase the learning that happens across the network. This is an example of that little bet mentality that positions and drives us to take those moonshots.

What gives you hope and confidence that there is a positive momentum for transforming high schools across Pittsburgh because of what you’re witnessing and driving in your grantmaking?

Gregg: I have a list of five things that give me hope and confidence about the momentum for transforming high school: 

• Systems making use of learning science. Over the past decade, we’ve seen simple changes—like getting rid of the bell schedule—made ordinary to respond to how teenagers are best supported in their well-being, which is foundational to any learning that might happen. 
• Strong professional development and learning. When we look at our intermediate units in Pennsylvania—our educational service agencies—as well as significant nonprofit providers of PD, it has been made normal that museum directors, early childhood educators, high school teachers, and others are just in that same space together, whether they’re wrestling with STEM-infused curricula, or maker-centered learning, or career pathways. Ten, fifteen years ago, this would have been shocking. 
• Proliferation of networks. For decades, Grable and other funders have supported the Forum of Western Pennsylvania Superintendents, the Assistant Superintendents Forum, and the Principals Academy. There are so many leadership and teacher-led networks, like Project Zero Pittsburgh and others, where school leaders are finding reasons to connect, driving their own learning, cooperation, partnership, and building relationships, which is the essential glue for anything spreading beyond a singular building or district or entity.
• Project-based learning momentum. We’ve supported the creation of a Pittsburgh version, across multiple districts, of World of Work, borrowing from work in San Diego, where districts have introduced aviation programming or drone technology. School leaders are now wrestling with AI, but doing so together—writing policies together, thinking about coursework together, forging partnerships together with technology companies in Pittsburgh or with Carnegie Mellon University. It’s a lot of cross-district, serious, hands-on, project-based learning, and introducing curricula in new ways in their schools.
• Parent, family, and caregiver engagement. Too often, we leave them out. We have more than thirty-five school districts in this region that have been part of Parents as Allies for the last five years. After establishing research with Brookings and HundrED a few years ago, parent-led teams were established across Western Pennsylvania. These teams have since launched over 200 “little bets” to move engagement beyond basic communication, fostering a “village mentality” where families become active allies with schools, focused on the core purpose of learning and student development—a vital component for reimagining high school.

How has California Area School District worked with students, parents, and families to create a collaborative culture to support your high school transformation work?

Laura: This focus on community flips the framework to design experiences where it isn’t an us-versus-them experience, but it is truly a partnership to ensure that our kids are as successful as they possibly can be. We ask ourselves: “How can we design experiences so that all families feel welcome, not just certain families?” That was the first step in Parents as Allies: teaching us how to approach those experiences. The next step is making sure everyone is at the table, ensuring that we have diversity of perspectives and voices so that all feel welcome in our communities. 

From a leadership perspective, we see this in a class we call “The Moonshot Class,” where there are no grades and no grade levels at all. If you make it optional, families can choose to be part of it. We started with just twenty kids being part of the Moonshot program. I’m a small school, but we’ve now grown to over one hundred students who have chosen to be part of the Moonshot program. Again, it’s a step-by-step progression and change that’s happening, but that also keeps it sustainable. If I were to just dictate change, it’s not going to stick. You won’t have people believe in it. They will just comply or not comply, and that would be the end of it. By making it optional and having families involved in the decision-making, it becomes a community decision. When people get to opt in to an opportunity, that’s their vote of belief in the work and it’s how we’ve been able to sustain the Moonshot program.

Gregg: If we look at Laura’s tenure, or the tenure of superintendents among the school districts involved in our local League of Innovative Schools members, or the Future-Driven Schools with AASA, their leadership tenure far outstrips the national average. Now, that might be partly a product of Western Pennsylvania being less nomadic than other places. My conjecture is, I genuinely believe the connections that school leaders feel make the work a whole lot less lonely. And, in a sense, I think the investment in infrastructure is buying us time with leaders who have more time to accomplish more things, because we all know what leaders at four years versus nine years versus at eleven years can accomplish. 

How is the Grable team able to know how to support colleagues in your community?

Gregg: I’d like to think that we just have a culture of curiosity here. We try to go places together, so it’s never one singular person, but also making sure the whole team knows what’s happening. Really spending the time so that we’re reading, digesting, trying to make sense of things, and talking to one another. I always tell people to get out of the office. It’s just so important to be present. And honestly, we talk all the time about a customer service ethic, and we aspire at Grable to have a Ritz-Carlton, Disney-like customer service ethos, internal and external. And that external bit often means just being present and bearing witness, rather than pontificating and interrupting. I hope that’s true.

Laura: If I could interject from my perspective, the Grable Foundation is present with us, and we’re engaging together. So yes, they’re right beside me at, say, a conference or a professional development opportunity, but then also we’re having free discussions of “How do we make this happen in Pittsburgh?” or “How do we adjust or highlight certain things?” They’re physically there, but they’re also very much engaged with us together in those discussions.

Gregg: We are fundraisers as much as we are grantmakers. I would like to think that we’re a smart grantmaker, and we also know that others have funds, too. So, let’s be advocates and fundraisers as much as we are grantmakers. Because it’s not our money. Added together, it’s the community’s money.

What advice would you give local policymakers, funders, educators, and school leaders in cities across the country about building philanthropic partnerships to support high school transformation?

Gregg: I have four pieces of advice. The first is geared toward philanthropy because it’s best suited to fund intermediary and field-building organizations that attend to the quality of our learning landscape. They attend to professional development, they attend to marketing, they’re the ones who are bringing together leadership groups. That is unsexy funding. I suspect a lot of funders see it as boring, but it’s core, it’s critical, it’s foundational. Little else good can happen absent that core funding for attention to quality in the fields of interest, year in, year out.

This is related to the second piece of advice: patient support. It’s important not to get tired or start questioning which way the wind is blowing.

A third thing would be getting comfortable with catalytic grantmaking for discretionary purposes. I’m so lucky that I work on behalf of trustees who get and support that. And that, together with other funders—the Richard King Mellon Foundation, the Benedum Foundation, the Hillman Family Foundations—we’ve been able to pool funds together, for example, at Remake Learning. Then, Remake Learning itself has its own RFP process, its own panel review process, that allows for things like those Moonshot Grants. So, pooled funds provide community-based discretionary support for leaders.

The fourth is a deep investment in communications and broad support for the myriad ways we can help tell and invest in storytelling through videography, photography, social media, writers, and PR. Communication provides cover, encourages courage, and helps spread ideas.

Laura: It’s easy to point out challenges or the limitations of an idea, especially in our polarized society; however, as a leader, be sure to identify yourself with challenges that might exist in developing an idea, but champion giving it a try, and the what-ifs. 

Both Grable and Carnegie have been amazing thought partners to talk through big ideas. School leaders will always be faced with naysayers, but if you take feedback seriously, you might not achieve your end goal at the very beginning, but you can take incremental steps that begin to snowball. At the same time, as leaders, we have to be close with those who keep lifting us up and help us push forward, because it’s the supporters that keep us motivated to continue to make the change we want to see happen.

Watch the full discussion from this year’s Reagan Institute Summit on Education.

Carnegie President Tim Knowles joined Maria Flynn (CEO, Jobs for the Future), Secretary Jacob Oliva (Arkansas Department of Education), Theo Wold (Palantir Technologies), and Nirvi Shah (Hechinger) for a candid conversation on the future of high school. One shared conclusion: the traditional boundaries between high school, college, and work are rapidly dissolving.

To prepare students for what lies ahead, education must move beyond seat time and toward demonstrated competency and every pathway, whether to higher education, training, or careers, must cultivate the skills that technology cannot replace.

High school transformation starts with listening—but real magic happens when students lead. These two youth-led projects went beyond engagement, empowering students to explore innovation in their local schools as contributors on youth-adult research teams.

We heard from four high school researchers who participated in youth participatory action research (YPAR) projects that, at their core, grappled with a central question: What needs to change about high schools? Their work—Adopted Measure of Math Engagement and Better Together: How inclusive design as a policy process impacts stakeholder understanding, ownership, and engagement in assessment and accountability innovation—represents just two of many youth inputs informing the Carnegie Foundation’s National Research and Development Agenda, released July 2025. Informed by a broad range of stakeholders, including parents, students, educators, and scholars, the R&D Agenda outlines key priorities and research questions to support high school innovation at scale.

In this Q&A, four youth researchers reflect on what makes schools truly work for students, and why engaging their voices is key to meaningful change. Serrah Ssemukutu (9th) represents the “Adopted Measure of Math Engagement” project, based in Bloomington, MN. Raelynn Donovan (11th grade), Jonah Hamby (11th), and Jace Harper (10th) represent the “Better Together” project, which is based in Scottsville, KY. 

What do you think are the most important factors for creating learning environments where students are both engaged and challenged? What has this looked like for you?

Serrah Ssemukutu, 9th grade: The most important elements of a successful learning environment are strong, positive relationships between students and teachers, as well as supportive interactions among peers. For me, this means feeling comfortable asking my teachers questions and being able to rely on my classmates when I need help or collaboration.

Raelynn Donovan, 11th grade: Having a great connection with the instructor is an important factor. When students feel understood and supported by their teacher, they’re more likely to participate and challenge themselves. This kind of relationship can make even challenging material feel like it’s more manageable and increase motivation. 

Jonah Hamby, 11th grade: I think an important factor in creating learning environments where students are engaged and challenged is brainstorming. Brainstorming allows for the student to stay engaged in the task, while also challenging them to pick out the best solution.

Jace Harper, 10th grade: I think that you need to have a strong teacher-student relationship. In the classes where I have that, I tend to receive a better grade.

What role do you believe students can and should play in driving meaningful change toward a future of education that empowers them with both essential skills (communication, critical thinking, creativity) and knowledge (e.g., History, Math) for success?

Serrah: I believe students should have a meaningful voice in their education because, ultimately, it affects their lives the most. They should feel empowered to speak openly with the people they need to, but also confident in standing up for what they believe in. If there are aspects of the school system they disagree with, students should feel supported in expressing their concerns and advocating for positive change.

Raelynn: All students should express their opinions on their education through feedback, feelings, and ideas on what assists their personal learning processes. Students are more engaged with the learning process when they have a say. Students will be 100% invested in the decision-making process of their education, thus leading to a system that prepares them for the world.

Jonah: Students should speak out and stay involved in school and different clubs. This develops leadership and good communication skills for challenging speaking situations.

Jace: Being able to connect with teachers more and not just being there because you have to.

What advice would you give policymakers, educators, and school leaders on how to better connect and partner with students to ensure student success in high school and beyond?

Serrah: My advice to educators is to take the time to truly get to know their students. Building a sense of connection and community with those you teach is essential. When students feel seen, heard, and supported, they’re more likely to feel empowered in their learning—which can lead to greater success in high school and beyond.

Raelynn: Policymakers, educators and school administrators should make it a priority to form positive and respectful relationships with their students by listening to, trusting, and responding to their voices and opinions. Providing spaces for students to feel included can also enhance the quality of policy and culture within a school.

Jonah: Give students more opportunities to speak out and encourage them to do so. Also, keep students informed on what is happening within the school.

Carnegie Foundation President Dr. Timothy Knowles recently joined national education leaders, governors, and policymakers at the Let’s Get Ready! To Define Success event, hosted by the National Governors Association.

The convening focused on redefining high school to better prepare students for a dynamic future, emphasizing real-world learning, career readiness, and meaningful credentials. In a compelling panel discussion, Dr. Knowles emphasized the vital role of industry in shaping education: “If we’re really thinking that part of what high school is about is building a sense of purpose and direction and agency towards career, whether that career requires postsecondary or not, then we don’t just need business involved in identifying the skills; we also need their help in identifying and building the learning experiences and the content.”

The event highlighted the power of cross-sector collaboration in transforming educational outcomes and creating learning environments that align with the real-world demands students are facing. As the Carnegie Foundation continues its mission to catalyze transformational change for all students, this national dialogue offered valuable momentum toward redefining success in high school and beyond.

Read the full recap and watch the session below:

Carnegie Foundation President Timothy Knowles speaks to American Enterprise Institute’s Senior Fellow and Director, Education Policy Studies Rick Hess on what K-12 educators can do to support alternative career pathways. This interview was originally published in Education Week.

---

The winds of educational change are blowing. Tim Knowles is the 10th president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, the 120-year-old organization that birthed the Carnegie Unit and the Educational Testing Service. Knowles is intent on steering into the teeth of that gale, working to retool the Carnegie Unit and intent on assessing the promise of innovations like the three-year college degree or micro-credentials. These reforms, especially micro-credentials, could open the door to dramatic changes in K–12 education. I caught up with him to discuss what’s on his mind and what it means for America’s high schools and colleges. Here’s what he had to say.

Rick: Tim, last year you spoke about the need to rethink the Carnegie Unit, arguing it’s outlived its purpose. Along the same lines, you recently critiqued the traditional four-year college model. Can you say a bit about your thinking?

Tim: I’ve been thinking about achievable ways the nation can crack the $1.77 trillion student debt problem. As I’ve argued elsewhere, it’s fair to point the finger at the soaring cost of college tuition fueled by the widespread availability of student loans. However, there is another culprit that has escaped scrutiny—the 120-credit degree.

The main problem with the 120-credit requirement is it leaves nearly 40% of students who start college with some credits but no degree. That’s tens of millions of students who invest time, effort, and money in college but have little to show for it other than debt. Suffice it to say, a 60% success rate is a far cry from excellence. When I was in college—which was way back before grade inflation—60% wasn’t even passing.

Like many things in education that have outlived their shelf life, the 120-credit degree was created with good intentions. In 1906, to address the poor pay of college professors, Andrew Carnegie established the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, where I now serve as president. The first trustees of the foundation established the 120 “Carnegie Unit” standard to quantify the amount of teaching required for college professors to earn a pension. It was a tidy, time-based metric that quickly became an attractive tool for measuring student effort toward earning a degree. To this day, it dictates how much time and money students must invest to obtain one. Fixing the college-debt problem requires acknowledging that outmoded, time-based measures of learning have shaped secondary and postsecondary schooling for far too long.

In April 2025, the Carnegie Foundation and the American Council on Education announced the new Student Access and Earnings Classification, a unique approach to describing the contributions of postsecondary institutions nationwide. This classification compares similar institutions across the country, identifying whether they provide access to students in communities they serve, and whether those students go on to successful, wealth-generating careers in the regions where they live and work. Already, 479 institutions have been identified as Opportunity Colleges and Universities, meaning these offer higher access and their graduates have higher earnings, serving as models for studying how campuses can foster student success.

In light of the new classification, the Carnegie team invited select higher education leaders and members of the Carnegie Postsecondary Commission—including Shirley Collado, President and CEO, College Track; Nancy Cantor, President, Hunter College; Juan Sánchez Muñoz, Chancellor, University of California, Merced; and Aaron Rasmussen, Co-Founder, MasterClass; Founder, Outlier— to share what this new framework means for the colleges, universities, and the future of the sector.

---

Why do you believe the Student Access and Earnings Classification will have a meaningful impact on the future of higher education?

Shirley Collado, President and CEO, College Track: Higher education in this country has long centered the concept of “college readiness”—how students become ready to engage in higher education spaces. The Student Access and Earnings Classification flips the narrative. It positions student success—what students need to thrive and pursue purposeful lives after graduation—as a primary definition of success for colleges and universities. When we frame higher education in this way, it enables us to collectively activate a future where higher education meets students where they are. This creates outcomes that not only build character and the life of the mind, but, by extension, prepare students for the demands of the future of work in this nation.

There is a lot of synergy between this new classification and the mission of the organization I lead, College Track. At College Track, we focus on the success—in college and beyond—of young people who are the first in their families to earn a bachelor’s degree. We have learned that four major drivers contribute to first-generation student success: affordability, academic preparation, a sense of belonging, and access to mentors. When these conditions are met, first-generation students exceed expectations. Degree completion is more realistic, and students feel that they can bring their families and communities along in their success. If we imagine a higher education landscape that creates these conditions and affirm these four areas, students from all walks of life benefit and succeed.

Nancy Cantor, President, Hunter College: The new Student Access and Earnings Classifications place much needed emphasis on the pivotal role that higher education institutions play as engines of social mobility. Over the past several decades, the American consciousness about quality in higher education has been dominated by popular press rankings that reward exclusivity and the private benefits that can be gained by going to college. For example, valuing indices such as low acceptance rates, greater institutional wealth, greater alumni wealth, and perceived prestige over indices that emphasize how colleges and universities are public goods. At the same time, there has been a lot of research in recent years that documents declining public trust in higher education, among other institutions across the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. 

By classifying institutions according to how accessible they are and how effective they are at facilitating social mobility, Carnegie will help refocus public attention on the institutions’ role in providing equality of opportunity. This focus will improve individual student success, and also, it will simultaneously contribute to institutional excellence, given the diverse lived experiences that will be brought to our tables, and ultimately reshape a dynamic workforce for the future, instantiating what systems theorist Scott Page calls “The Diversity Bonus”. 

In national conversations among higher education leaders, I’ve seen growing momentum around measuring and increasing student success. I am hopeful that we have gotten the message out about how important it is to demonstrate our effectiveness in creating access, affordability, and social mobility. The rigor and credibility that Carnegie’s classifications bring to this discussion represent a major step forward in our collective efforts to restore public confidence in higher education.

Juan Sánchez Muñoz, Chancellor, University of California, Merced: 30 years ago, California’s Central Valley was chosen as the location for the newest University of California campus–UC Merced–because it is a location of great need, promise and opportunity. Today, UC Merced’s student body mirrors its region and the state: over 60% of our students are the first in their family to attend college, and 61% are Pell-eligible. We’re helping students and families realize their dream of a world-class education at a research university that values excellence and opportunity.  

The new Student Access and Earnings Classification quantifies our impact, giving us meaningful metrics to help the next generation of students understand how their lives – and those they care about – are improved with higher education.

This classification represents a bold and necessary shift in how we evaluate institutions, their continued efficacy and relevance moving forward. It signals a future shaped not only by innovation and discovery, but also by the values and ambitions of students and the needs of our country and its dynamic economy. For decades, the Carnegie Classification system has served as a framework for understanding the diversity of institutions across the higher education landscape, but in this moment, when questions of equity, social mobility, and economic opportunity are more urgent than ever, the need to evolve that framework has never been clearer. This new classification does precisely that.

By anchoring institutional recognition to both access and earnings, the Carnegie Foundation – a proven leader and catalyst in this space- is helping to redefine what success in higher education truly means. This is more than a classification—it’s a call to action to reimagine the higher educational landscape.

Aaron Rasmussen, Co-Founder, MasterClass; Founder, Outlier: As the adage says, you improve what you measure. Colleges and universities are responsive to benchmarks, classifications, and metrics, especially if comparable to their peer group. The Student Access and Earnings Classification will incentivize institutions to improve outcomes in these areas, benefitting both schools and students as expectations around equity and economic mobility continue to evolve.  

At the same time, the new classification will provide students with an important tool for making informed decisions. As students increasingly consult AI for help with their school choices, classifications and metrics will be better exposed and communicated. Already, R1 classification appears in a generic comparison between colleges on ChatGPT. This flattening of access to classifications benefits students and, in turn, pressures institutions in a virtuous cycle of transparency and improvement. 

Why are you hopeful that this is a meaningful moment for higher education to succeed in fostering student success? How would you characterize the responsibility of higher education to support the economic mobility of enrolled students? 

Nancy Cantor: While much media attention in recent years has fallen on controversy in higher education, data shows that a college degree remains one of the best indicators of long-term prosperity. Earning a bachelor’s degree, for example, continues to be associated with lifetime earnings of roughly $1.2 million compared to a high school diploma (see, for example, the work of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce). In that sense, there is good evidence that higher education is living up to its responsibility to facilitate social mobility.

Shirley Collado: I see the Student Access and Earnings Classification as a tool to help reinvigorate public trust in higher education. When we look at institutions that have earned this classification, many of these places have been educating the future of America for a long time. I’m excited that the Carnegie Foundation is shining a bright light on campuses that have been centering student success and access for decades, often with very lean resources and with a population of students that is often underestimated. These colleges and universities are proving that there are affordable and student-centered models that can work for all of American higher education. This is undeniably a hopeful moment, and a very meaningful one.

Right now, higher education is facing an existential crisis. Rising tuition costs, the enrollment cliff, and broad recognition that the business model of higher education is unsustainable have brought the sector to a crossroads. The new classification shows the path forward for institutions that are finding their footing in a dramatically shifting landscape. It also demonstrates that this path forward is a collaborative one that can weave in networks and partnerships beyond the academy. 

This is something we model at College Track. We’ve implemented a college and university partnership strategy with 18 institutions—from research universities to liberal arts colleges to HBCUs—that focuses on affordability, access, and a campus environment that engenders a sense of belonging for students from all walks of life. As a result, one in three College Track alumni graduate with little to no debt and our six-year graduation rate is three times the national average for first-generation college students. When we focus on student outcomes as a function of what it’s going to take to revitalize not just the educational ecosystem but the American dream, there is a lot to hope for.

Juan Sánchez Muñoz: There have always been questions about the value proposition of higher education and whether it is accessible or worth the effort and investment. Regrettably, the volume of these types of questions has increased in recent years. However, there is unequivocal data that clearly shows how lives, families, and futures are transformed through higher education. 

The Student Access and Earnings Classification creates a common language to help future students and our country reach their greatest potential.   

I, along with many others, have sought to serve as champions of this important narrative. The unambiguous relationship between access, opportunity, and earnings, as captured in the new classification, challenges us to rethink the evolving role that higher education plays in shaping the economic and social trajectories of our students and country. It encourages us to align academic programs, support services, and research partnerships with the needs of an evolving workforce and a diversifying population. And it rewards institutions not only for who they admit, but for how they empower those students to thrive long after graduation.

Aaron Rasmussen: As schools are exposed more directly to market forces and higher competition for students due to the enrollment cliff and more scrutiny of the value of higher education, they will be forced to respond to current student needs. This is the moment when savvy institutions will focus on student success and then learn to tell a compelling story to prospective students about how they, too, will succeed. 

Today’s students are considering more options for postsecondary education and weighing them against their own definitions of success. The Student Access and Earning Classification is coming at the right time to spotlight a major factor that will help institutions succeed in this new landscape.