Holyoke's Devin Sheehan will lead National School Boards Association
HOLYOKE — Devin M. Sheehan, an advocate for public education and a long-serving member of the Holyoke School Committee, will lead the National School Boards Association next year.
The association lobbies on behalf of students in public schools nationwide, working to make sure they get a fair and high-quality education.
Having attended public schools and advocated for students, Sheehan said he knows the transformative power of public education.
'In this role, I remain deeply committed to advancing and protecting our nation's public schools — standing up for equitable resources, supporting our educators, and ensuring every child has the opportunity to succeed,' he said. 'Together, we will continue to be strong voices for the future of public education."
His one-year term as the association's president will run for the 2025-26 school year. The association represents school board members across the United States and the Virgin Islands, according to a statement issued Monday by Holyoke Public Schools.
Sheehan, who works for state Sen. Jake Oliveira, D-Ludlow, holds a bachelor's degree from Franklin Pierce University and a master's in public policy from the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.
Sheehan served on the Holyoke School Committee from 2010 to 2022 and was appointed as an at-large representative in June 2024.
Over the years, Sheehan took on leadership responsibilities within the Massachusetts Association of School Committees leading to his role as president in 2019. That year, he ran for a position on the board of the National School Boards Association.
He takes the president's post in the association at a time of significant upheaval in the federal government.
'To be here now is a challenge, but I have been fighting for so many years I am ready for the challenge to keep federal legislators on their toes to get the resources that students need,' he said.
Sheehan will be involved in advocacy and outreach at the federal level, while also helping to train school board members.
Sheehan said the board is focusing on ensuring that all students have broadband access through E-rate and on reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
He takes the post at a time when the Trump administration is seeking to dismantle the Department of Education. Sheehan said he sees his role as addressing national issues and working with federal legislators.
'Policy changes can occur rapidly,' he said, 'making it crucial to watch and advocate for federal funding.'
Sheehan said the board focuses on advocating, securing and monitoring federal funds for supplemental programs provided through the Department of Education, such as universal free school lunch, student protections and educator training.
'Dismantling the federal Department of Education requires congressional action,' he said. '[A] party cannot simply close the department because the federal government provides for students with disabilities and safeguards are needed to ensure every student receives a quality education.'
Holyoke Mayor Joshua A. Garcia notes Sheehan's advocacy and roots in the community.
'As schools across the country navigate significant federal changes and evolving challenges, we need steady, experienced leadership more than ever,' Garcia said. 'His proven commitment to students make him the leader we need right now. We're proud to see him representing our community on the national stage.'
Sheehan concedes that the association lost credibility in 2021 when it wrote to the Biden administration asking that the Justice Department use the Patriot Act to investigate parents who harassed school board members.
Incidents from 2021 are mostly behind the group now, he said.
Sheehan brings a deep commitment to public education, a vision for student success and a history of service, the association's executive director and CEO, Verjeana McCotter-Jacobs, said in a statement.
Holyoke Public Schools Superintendent Anthony Soto praised Sheehan's commitment to equity and inclusivity.
Mildred Lefebvre, an at-large representative of the Holyoke School Committee, is also on the association's board.
Sheehan said having two Holyoke committee members on the board is rare.
17 'crucial' AmeriCorps programs in Mass. on the chopping block amid DOGE cuts
Holyoke Landing, location of Popeyes and Starbucks, sold
Howdy Awards honor 10 for hospitality excellence in Springfield area
Mass. tenant union to hold training for disabled Chicopee Housing Authority residents
Read the original article on MassLive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
9 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump's war against DEI isn't going so well in Virginia
Apparently when President Trump says 'illegal DEI,' he means lawful and common-sense efforts to integrate public schools. At least, that's the takeaway from the Department of Education's new investigation against Fairfax County Public Schools. Trump officials claim Fairfax County violated federal law when it adopted an admissions policy designed to 'change the demographic make up' of its most competitive high school. This theory, which equates integration with segregation, dates back to Barry Goldwater, who remarked in 1964 that 'the Constitution is color-blind … and so it is just as wrong to compel children to attend certain schools for the sake of so-called integration as for the sake of segregation.' It seems Trump agrees. Unfortunately for him, the Supreme Court does not. Just last year, the court declined to overturn a ruling for Fairfax County. As I explained at the time, that decision made sense. Even as the Supreme Court has shifted hard right, decades of conservative case law — including from Chief Justice John Roberts — condone racial goals such as diversity, equality and inclusion. The new investigation tracks Trump's disregard for courts and his tendency toward bluster over substance. But in important respects, it also exposes that Trump's war on DEI lacks any moral and legal basis. Some context is helpful. For decades, Black advocates sought to desegregate Thomas Jefferson High School, one of the nation's top-ranked public schools. As recently as 2012, the NAACP filed a civil rights complaint alleging that the school's admissions policies discriminated against African American and Hispanic students and students with disabilities. Things shifted in 2020. As racial justice protests erupted across the globe, local leaders grappled with the fact that in a county with roughly 100,000 Black residents, Thomas Jefferson High School admitted so few Black students that the number was too small to report. The state convened a task force to examine the causes of this ongoing exclusion at Thomas Jefferson and other Virginia schools. Following a series of hearings, the board revised the school's admissions process, eliminating a $100 application fee and a standardized testing requirement. Contrary to ongoing claims that the new policy compromised 'merit,' the board raised the minimum GPA for admission from 3.0 to 3.5 and added an honors course requirement. The new policy also implemented a holistic evaluation that included new 'experience factors,' such as whether the applicant qualified for reduced meals or is an English language learner. The updated process also ensured that each middle school receive a number of seats equal to 1.5 percent of its eighth-grade class. The school board resolved that '[t]he admission process must use only race-neutral methods that do not seek to achieve any specific racial or ethnic mix, balance or targets.' This means that admissions officials are not told the race, ethnicity, sex or name of any applicant. In Supreme Court parlance, the entire admissions process was 'colorblind.' The new process produced promising results. In its inaugural year, Thomas Jefferson High School received 1,000 more applicants than the prior cycle. This larger applicant pool also 'included markedly more low-income students, English-language learners, and girls than had prior classes at TJ.' Consistent with the heightened GPA requirement, the admitted class's mean GPA was higher than in the five preceding years. The new process also yielded greater racial diversity. Black students comprised 10 percent of the applicant pool and received nearly 8 percent of offers and Hispanic students comprised 11 percent of the applicant pool and received over 11 percent of offers. The overall percentage of Asian American students decreased from the preceding year, but Asian Americans continued to enjoy the highest percentage yield of all racial groups. And as the Fourth Circuit detailed, Asian American students from historically underrepresented middle schools 'saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020.' In short, Thomas Jefferson High School adopted a 'race-neutral' process to pursue a set of goals that included increasing Black and Hispanic representation. This is the precise type of practice the Trump administration denigrates as 'illegal DEI.' Efforts to promote racial diversity do constitute DEI. But they are far from illegal. In fact, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard — the 2023 decision striking down Harvard University's formal consideration of applicant race — supports most of the DEI policies Trump now targets. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts deemed Harvard's underlying goals as 'worthy' and 'commendable.' Justice Brett Kavanaugh made the point more directly; writing for himself, Kavanaugh noted that 'racial discrimination still occurs and the effects of past racial discrimination still persist' and that 'universities still can, of course, act to undo the effects of past discrimination in many permissible ways that do not involve classification by race.' The actions of the high school square with Kavanaugh's call for policies that attend to race but do not differentiate between individual students on this basis. This should short-circuit the Department of Education's investigation against Fairfax County. But it is unlikely to stall Trump's desire to outlaw integration. The Pacific Legal Foundation, which initiated the lawsuit against Fairfax County and remains a force on the right, wants to revive Goldwater's hostile approach to integration. Consider the following FAQ on Pacific Legal's website: 'schools may use or not use standardized tests, essays, interviews, or auditions, as long as their reasons for using or not using them are not racial.' By this logic, a high school could lawfully eliminate an admissions fee if motivated by public relations concerns, but it would be unlawful to take that same action if done to decrease racial barriers that exclude low-income Black and Hispanic students. Now consider higher education. Per Pacific Legal, Harvard University could eliminate admissions preferences for the children of alumni and wealthy donors if done to appease alumni pressure. But it would be unlawful for Harvard to take the same action if the goal is increasing the number of Asian American students or mitigate unearned racial preferences that flow to wealthy white applicants. The upshot is that affirmative efforts to reduce racial inequality — everything Trump dubs 'illegal DEI' — remain legal and morally just. So, at least for now, integration does not equate to segregation. Jonathan Feingold is an associate professor at Boston University School of Law. He is an expert in affirmative action, antidiscrimination law, education law, and critical race theory.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
A New Social Security Garnishment Is Set to Begin This Summer -- but There Are 2 Legal Ways Most Retirees Can Avoid It
Getting as much as possible out of Social Security isn't a luxury for most retirees -- it's an absolute necessity. This summer, the Trump administration will begin garnishing up to 15% of Social Security benefits for delinquent federal student loan borrowers. Two perfectly legal solutions exist that may allow a majority of tardy federal student loan borrowers to avoid having their Social Security checks garnished. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › For most retirees, Social Security isn't just income that's deposited into their checking or savings account on a monthly basis. It represents a financial lifeline that many would likely struggle to make do without. In 2023, Social Security was responsible for lifting 22 million people above the federal poverty line, some 16.3 million of whom were adults aged 65 and above. Meanwhile, 23 years of annual surveys from national pollster Gallup find that up to 90% of retirees require their monthly benefit, to some degree, to make ends meet. Getting as much out of Social Security isn't a luxury -- it's often a necessity. But beginning sometime this summer, select retirees can expect their Social Security checks to shrink by up to 15%. For some of these beneficiaries, it's income they simply can't afford to lose. For well over six decades, the federal government has played a role in subsidizing and guaranteeing student loans. As of April 2025, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) notes that 42.7 million Americans had a cumulative $1.6 trillion in federal student loans outstanding. However, the collection of federal student loan repayments was halted during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020) and was simply never lifted. According to the DOE, more than 5 million borrowers haven't made a payment in 360 days, and another 4 million are between 91 and 180 days late on their monthly payments. While higher education student loans may sound like something that affects relatively younger Americans, they've become a prominent issue for retirees. Whereas the aggregate number of student loan borrowers under the age of 62 has declined by 1% from 2017 to 2023, the number of student loan borrowers aged 62 and above has surged 59% to approximately 2.7 million over the same period, based on data from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Per the CFPB, an estimated 452,000 of these senior borrowers have defaulted on their federal student loans and are likely receiving Social Security benefits. Since President Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has targeted perceived government fraud and is aiming to make federal operations more efficient. One of the many changes under Trump, vis-à-vis the Social Security Administration (SSA), is the reimplementation of Social Security garnishments for delinquent federal student loan borrowers. Beginning "sometime this summer," per Trump's administration, tardy borrowers receiving a Social Security benefit -- this applies to all types of beneficiaries (retired workers, survivors of deceased workers, and workers with disabilities) -- could see their payouts garnished by up to 15%. The one caveat to this garnishment is that recipients must be left with at least a $750 monthly Social Security benefit. Thus, if your normal payout is $825 per month, the maximum garnishment would be $75 per month instead of the flat 15%. Additionally, the Trump administration isn't planning to offer delinquent federal student loan borrowers a 65-day warning prior to potential garnishment, as has been customary in the past. Rather, communications sent out provide just 30 days' notice that garnishments are possible if borrowers are still in default. According to the CFPB, 37% of the Social Security beneficiaries who have a federal student loan outstanding (delinquent or not) currently rely on their monthly check from America's leading retirement program for 90% (or more) of their income. Even a 15% garnishment for defaulted borrowers in this category has the potential to be financially devastating. It goes without saying that the easiest way to avoid this new garnishment by the Trump administration is to not be in default on your federal student loan(s). But for the roughly 452,000 Social Security retirees set to be impacted by this change in policy, there are two under-the-radar yet perfectly legal solutions that should allow a majority to avoid having their payouts garnished. To begin with, some of these defaulted borrowers may qualify for the Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) discharge program, which cancels federal student loans and stops forced collections. As the CFPB pointed out in a January research report, the DOE entered into a data-matching agreement with the SSA in 2021 to automate the TPD eligibility and federal student loan cancellation processes for beneficiaries who become disabled prior to reaching full retirement age (currently age 67 for anyone born in or after 1960). However, this TPD application process is failing Social Security beneficiaries who become permanently disabled after they reach full retirement age. The CFPB notes that the onus of applying for a TPD discharge of their federal student loans and/or garnishment falls onto aged beneficiaries. Census survey data shows that approximately 22% of Social Security recipients with federal student loans report having a permanent disability, per the CFPB's report. Social Security retirees currently in default on their federal student loan(s) can also potentially avoid having their monthly check garnished by applying for a financial hardship with the DOE. Defaulted borrowers will be required to provide documentation of their income and qualifying expenses to the DOE. If an individual's qualifying expenses are larger than their documented income -- especially pertaining to a possible 15% garnishment of their Social Security payout -- the DOE will likely grant a financial hardship exemption. Based on data from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking, the CFPB estimates that a whopping 82% of Social Security beneficiaries currently in default on their federal student loans would qualify for the hardship exemption -- in other words, their qualified expenses would exceed their documented income. Yet, a 2015 Government Accountability Office report found that fewer than 10% of Social Security recipients with forced federal student loan collections applied for a hardship exemption. If delinquent borrowers were to simply apply for this financial hardship with the DOE, a majority would likely be granted it. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. A New Social Security Garnishment Is Set to Begin This Summer -- but There Are 2 Legal Ways Most Retirees Can Avoid It was originally published by The Motley Fool
New York Post
a day ago
- New York Post
Bill Maher explains how Trump and Musk went from ‘Brangelina' to ‘Godzilla vs. King Kong'
The fiery feud between President Trump and Elon Musk is the most exciting public breakup since the days of Brangelina, according to Bill Maher. The late-night comedian compared the public warfare and vitriol to that of 'Godzilla vs. King Kong if Godzilla was on ketamine and King Kong had a combover.' The big beautiful break-up is even more shocking because Trump and Musk were 'so close,' like celebrity couples Brad Pitt and Angeline Jolie, and Ben Affleck and Jen Lopez, whose seemingly strong but ultimately whirlwind romances gripped tabloids for decades. Advertisement 3 Bill Maher compared President Trump to King Kong if he 'had a combover.' AFP via Getty Images 'They had their own couple name: E-lump,' Maher said. But like the actor pairings, the Musk and Trump demise was a long time coming, he continued. Advertisement 'I can't really think of anything other than the Trump-Elon [fight],' Maher said in his opening monologue Frday for HBO's 'Real Time.' The talk host did a brief rundown of the pair's political breakdown, pinpointing the potential beginning of the end to Trump's meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office last week when Musk showed up sporting a black eye. 3 The feud started when Elon Musk declined Trump's offer to borrow makeup, according to Maher. Getty Images The President claimed he offered makeup to the former Department of Government Efficiency head, but was turned down, which he found 'interesting.' Advertisement 'Yeah, weird, Elon, what sort of man turns down makeup?' Maher chided. The feud slowly simmered as the pair lobbed further accusations against one another, including Musk claiming Trump's tariffs would cause a recession and the President responding that no one wants to buy Tesla's electric vehicles — but 's–t got real' when Musk claimed he was the reason Trump won the election. 3 Trump and Musk had their own couple name, Maher aid: 'E-lump.' MAX 'And Trump said, 'Well, you know what Mars is a s–thole planet.' And Musk said, 'Oh my god, you are not the same man I used to heil,'' Maher said. Advertisement The fighting has only grown worse in recent days, with Musk shockingly claiming on X that Trump's involvement in the Epstein files is the reason they haven't been released. Musk has since deleted the X post. Trump, on the other hand, has tried to play it cool, saying he hasn't given much thought to his former 'First Buddy.' 'The stakes are so high because the winner faces Blake Lively,' Maher joked, referencing the recent public downfall of the actress's previously beloved image. Any good feeling between the two men is likely gone after Musk stepped up his criticism of the Trump-backed 'Big, Beautiful Bill' — and then called for the impeachment of the president and a new political party to challenge the GOP.
