‘There's a student well-being crisis': Students, leaders gather for education summit
Students, parents, educators, nonprofit leaders and policymakers put their heads together at the 2025 Education Summit, hosted by KConnect. The event focused on identifying the threats that students in school face and developing strategies to push for policy change.
'There's a student well-being crisis,' said Shayla Young, vice president at KConnect. 'There are many threats that are impacting or have the potential to impact the well-being of our young people.'
Young said that through community interviews and focus groups, students helped build a list of top concerns. Some of those concerns include unmet basic needs, school violence, the role of family, substance abuse and social media.
'We shouldn't be saying that our young people have to be resilient. We should be saying that our system needs to be designed so our students can be well, all of them,' said Young. 'Ensuring that we have space to talk to young people matters.'
Grand Rapids 'walk-in' aims to show support for public education
Her daughter, 12-year-old Kennedi Young, sees these issues firsthand.
'I feel like it affects everybody,' Kennedi said. 'Even the laws, like what we can talk about and can't talk about in school.'
She said Saturday's turnout made her feel heard.
'It means a lot, because it means that there's a group of people who are willing to do something and make a change for everything that's happening,' she said.
The event featured a gallery walk with community partners, hands-on data exploration and open discussions that encouraged real policy advocacy.
Salvador Lopez, the president of KConnect, emphasized the importance of including the voices of those most affected in finding solutions.
'I'm a first-generation college graduate. … That doesn't happen without community,' he said. 'So for me, it's about including people with lived experience that have been in and out of some of these issues. And we have students and parents and caregivers here today, and to me, that's where the solutions are.'
GRPS shares renderings of new school at Aberdeen site
Lopez said he hopes people understand that you don't have to be a politician to be involved in policy work.
'We have the ability through convenings like today to get in front of the policymakers and say, 'Our voices matter, our stories matter,'' said Lopez.
Grand Rapids City Commissioner Lisa Knight spoke in front of the crowd, saying adults need to do more than listen.
'If we don't help them understand how powerful their voices are, then they have nothing to say,' she said. 'We need them to think. We need them to dream. We need them to have help. Without that hope, we don't have a future.'
KConnect and its partners say this is just the beginning. They plan to continue facilitating conversations and turning them into action, helping the future of education thrive.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court lets Trump administration cut $783m of research funding in anti-DEI push
The order marks the latest Supreme Court win for Trump and allows the administration to forge ahead with canceling hundreds of grants while the lawsuit continues to unfold. The plaintiffs, including states and public-health advocacy groups, have argued that the cuts will inflict 'incalculable losses in public health and human life.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The Justice Department, meanwhile, has said funding decisions should not be 'subject to judicial second-guessing' and efforts to promote policies referred to as DEI can 'conceal insidious racial discrimination.' Advertisement The lawsuit addresses only part of the estimated $12 billion of NIH research projects that have been cut, but in its emergency appeal, the Trump administration also took aim at nearly two dozen other times judges have stood in the way of its funding cuts. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said judges shouldn't be considering those cases under an earlier Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for teacher-training program cuts. He says they should go to federal claims court instead. Advertisement But the plaintiffs, 16 Democratic state attorneys general and public-health advocacy groups, argued that research grants are fundamentally different from the teacher-training contracts and couldn't be sent to claims court. Halting studies midway can also ruin the data already collected and ultimately harm the country's potential for scientific breakthroughs by disrupting scientists' work in the middle of their careers, they argued. U.S. District Judge William Young judge in Massachusetts agreed, finding the abrupt cancellations were arbitrary and discriminatory. 'I've never seen government racial discrimination like this,' Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, said at a hearing in June. He later added: 'Have we no shame.' An appeals court left Young's ruling in place.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Supreme Court allows Trump's cuts to health research grants over DEI policies
The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed Trump administration broad cuts to National Institutes of Health grants as part of the federal government's campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion policies. But in a mixed decision the court left in place a different part of the lower court judge's ruling that threw out the administration's guidance document that introduced the policy, raising questions about whether it can be applied moving forward. The justices, on a 5-4 vote, granted in part an emergency request filed by the administration seeking to put a Massachusetts-based federal judge's ruling on hold. The court did not fully explain its reasoning, but the majority indicated that groups seeking to challenge the funding cuts have to file separate lawsuits in a different federal venue — the Court of Federal Claims. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the deciding vote in crafting the decision. Four justices, all conservatives, said they would have granted the Trump administration's application in full, while four others — conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's three liberals — would have denied it in full. "As today's order states, the District Court likely lacked jurisdiction to hear challenges to the grant terminations, which belong in the Court of Federal Claims," Barrett wrote in a concurring opinion. But, she added, "the Government is not entitled to a stay of the judgments insofar as they vacate the guidance documents." The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a collection of agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services that receives billions of dollars from Congress to fund medical research at universities, hospitals and other institutions. When President Donald Trump took office in January, he vowed to end so-called diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, policies, saying that rather than fostering equality as intended, they are a form of discrimination, primarily against white people. He has also taken aim at policies recognizing transgender rights, including access to gender transition care. The NIH then conducted a review of grants and determined that more than 1,700 of them were not consistent with Trump's directives and terminated them, including studies into HIV prevention and gender identity among teens. The moves were challenged by 16 states led by Massachusetts and the American Public Health Association, among others. After a trial, U.S. District Judge William Young in Massachusetts ruled that the government had failed to follow correct legal processes in implementing the policy, in violation of a law called the Administrative Procedure Act. In rushing to implement Trump's agenda, NIH "simply moved too fast and broke things, including the law," Young wrote. He also said that DEI was "an undefined enemy," noting that government lawyers had not been able to explain exactly what it meant. Young found that there was "pervasive racial discrimination" and "extensive discrimination" against gay, lesbian and transgender people in how grants were selected for termination. He also found "an unmistakable pattern of discrimination against women's health issues." Young declined to put his ruling on hold, as did the Boston-based 1st U.S Circuit Court of Appeals, which also kept the grants intact. In asking the Supreme Court to intervene on behalf of the Trump administration, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the case is similar to another that arose in Massachusetts in which a judge blocked Trump administration plans to terminate teacher training grants on anti-DEI grounds. The Supreme Court in April blocked that ruling on a 5-4 vote. "This application presents a particularly clear case for this court to intervene and stop errant district courts from continuing to disregard this court's rulings," Sauer wrote. Lawyers for the states pushed back on Sauer's narrative, saying it "bears little resemblance to reality, with Young's ruling a "run-of-the mill" example of a court intervening when the government violates the law. The justices Thursday disagreed over whether the April decision governed the outcome in the latest case. In a brief opinion, Roberts, who dissented in the earlier case, said it was different, with Young's findings "well within the scope of the district court's jurisdiction." But conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his own separate opinion, criticized Young for failing to abide by the April decision. "Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this court's decisions, but they are never free to defy them," he wrote. The Trump administration has regularly turned to the Supreme Court when its broad use of executive power is challenged in court and has prevailed in the majority of cases. Trump and his allies have also harshly criticized judges who have ruled against him.
2 hours ago
Supreme Court lets Trump administration cut $783M of funding in anti-DEI push
WASHINGTON -- The Trump administration can slash hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of research funding in its push to cut federal diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, the Supreme Court decided Thursday. The high court majority lifted a judge's order blocking $783 million worth of cuts made by the National Institutes of Health to align with Republican President Donald Trump's priorities. The high court did keep Trump administration guidance on future funding blocked, however. The court split 5-4 on the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts was along those who would have kept the cuts blocked, along with the court's three liberals. The order marks the latest Supreme Court win for Trump and allows the administration to forge ahead with canceling hundreds of grants while the lawsuit continues to unfold. The plaintiffs, including states and public-health advocacy groups, have argued that the cuts will inflict 'incalculable losses in public health and human life.' The Justice Department, meanwhile, has said funding decisions should not be 'subject to judicial second-guessing' and efforts to promote policies referred to as DEI can 'conceal insidious racial discrimination.' The lawsuit addresses only part of the estimated $12 billion of NIH research projects that have been cut, but in its emergency appeal, the Trump administration also took aim at nearly two dozen other times judges have stood in the way of its funding cuts. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said judges shouldn't be considering those cases under an earlier Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for teacher-training program cuts. He says they should go to federal claims court instead. But the plaintiffs, 16 Democratic state attorneys general and public-health advocacy groups, argued that research grants are fundamentally different from the teacher-training contracts and couldn't be sent to claims court. Halting studies midway can also ruin the data already collected and ultimately harm the country's potential for scientific breakthroughs by disrupting scientists' work in the middle of their careers, they argued. U.S. District Judge William Young judge in Massachusetts agreed, finding the abrupt cancellations were arbitrary and discriminatory. 'I've never seen government racial discrimination like this,' Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, said at a hearing in June. He later added: 'Have we no shame.' An appeals court left Young's ruling in place. ___
