News
We interviewed 30 Black public school teachers in Philadelphia to understand why so many are leaving the profession
Lynnette Mawhinney, Rutgers University – Newark and Leana Cabral, Columbia University
Tracey, a high school teacher in the Philadelphia School District, remembers the hurtful comments she heard from parents when she started her career over a decade ago as a young Black teacher in what was then a predominantly white area of southwest Philly.
“I can recall white parents making comments saying, ‘Oh, this young Black teacher who doesn’t have children herself – how is she supposed to teach my child?” she said. “And I’m like, what does my race and the fact that I don’t have children have to do with me educating your child?”
Tracey’s frustrations mirror those of other Black teachers in Philadelphia.
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the teaching profession faced what has been referred to as the Great Teacher Resignation. A national survey found that 64% of teachers were less satisfied with teaching after the pandemic compared with prior to the pandemic, and 74% would not recommend teaching as a career.
In Philadelphia, a great resignation of Black teachers started well before the pandemic and continues today. The decrease in numbers of Black teachers in the district continues despite research that demonstrates Black teachers’ positive impact on Black students’ experiences in school and academic outcomes, as well as their positive impact on all students.
We are a professor of urban education and a Ph.D. in sociology and education who research Black teacher attrition and other issues involving Black teachers and Black students.
In 2021, we were part of a small research team that interviewed 30 Black teachers who either currently or formerly worked in the School District of Philadelphia. Tracey and other names used in this article are pseudonyms to protect the anonymity of our interview participants. This study was done in partnership with Research for Action, a Philadelphia-based nonprofit education research group focused on racial and social justice. Our findings were recently published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Black Studies.
We wanted to understand, from the teachers’ perspectives, why so many Black teachers are leaving the district and what the district can do to support and retain them.
Black teachers have ‘grown weary’
In 2000, there were 4,059 Black teachers in the district. That number had dwindled to 2,866 by 2022.
It’s not an issue that is unique to Philadelphia. An education researcher at Penn State University found that between 2022 and 2023, the attrition rate for Black teachers across Pennsylvania was well over double that of white teachers.
“Black public school educators in Philadelphia have grown weary, for good reason,” wrote education scholar and author Camika Royal in her 2022 book “Not Paved for Us: Black Educators and Public School Reform in Philadelphia.”
Our interviews suggest a key reason for this weariness has to do with experiences of racism within the larger school district that affect Black teachers across the system, but manifest differently depending on their schools’ locations.
Segregated, underfunded schools
The Black teachers we interviewed who taught in neighborhoods with a majority of Black residents said they faced systemic racism through lack of resources, including books and classroom materials, for their students.
Philadelphia is one of the most racially divided cities in the U.S.. Among the nation’s 30 largest cities, it ranks second after Chicago in terms of residential segregation, according to researchers at Brown University. Schools reflect these neighborhood racial divides.
“I request things all the time and don’t get them,” said Nina, a middle school teacher in a majority Black neighborhood, “Well, there wasn’t enough books for all the kids. So, what I’m supposed to do? Now I have to go online, find my own resources and things like that.”
Racial microaggressions
Black teachers who taught in majority white sections of the city, meanwhile, spoke of their frustration with being the targets of chronic racial microaggressions.
Examples of these microaggressions included hearing white parents complain about a Black teacher being assigned to teach their child, and working with white colleagues whom they felt ignored or actively avoided speaking to or acknowledging them.
“I’m walking down the hall and I say ‘Hello,’” one mid-career teacher reflected. “If it’s just me and a white colleague and we’re passing each other in the hallway … then they don’t say anything to me. But the person behind me who was white, they’ll say something to them before (the other person) even say(s), ‘Good morning.’”
Racial microaggressions toward Black teachers is certainly not a new phenomenon. Nor is it limited to Philadelphia.
A recent nationwide survey also found that racial microaggressions are a major reason Black teachers across the U.S. are leaving teaching at high rates.
Support and validation
Despite the many systemic issues and experiences of racism that Black teachers reported to us, most of the participants in our study – 25 out of 30 – were current teachers in the district.
In other words, they had, so far, stayed in the profession.
These teachers reported they kept teaching because they were committed to students, particularly students of color.
“I stay because our (Black students), they need to see (Black teachers) in the classroom,” said Mila, a veteran teacher for whom teaching was her third career.
Many of the teachers also found support and motivation through affinity groups that provide them opportunities to meaningfully connect to other Black teachers. These groups are established by fellow teachers in the district but are organized independently of the district.
“What allowed me to stay was finding networks,” said Simon, another veteran teacher in the district. “And then the network kind of made me find my niche, find my voice, find who I was, validate me.”
Keeping Black teachers in the classroom
Education scholar Bettina Love argues that school districts and school officials should “stop trying to recruit Black teachers until you can retain the ones you have.”
Some meaningful efforts are underway. The Center for Black Educator Development, founded in Philadelphia, works to recruit and retain Black teachers both in Philadelphia and across the country. Other nationwide organizations, such as the Black Teacher Project based in Oakland, offer fellowship and space for supportive affinity groups.
School districts or administrators can offer Black teachers physical spaces, financial resources and dedicated time to meet with other Black teachers to discuss racism – including ways to resist it – along with self-care. This can help prevent an exodus of the Black teachers who have remained in the profession.
Lynnette Mawhinney, Professor of Urban Education and Senior Associate Dean for Strategic Academic Initiatives, Rutgers University – Newark and Leana Cabral, Ph.D. Candidate in Sociology and Education, Columbia University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
News
How healthy is Sodastream?
The SodaStream Sparkling Water Maker is a device that forces carbon dioxide (CO2) gas (stored under pressure in a cylinder) into water, making it sparkling (fizzy)
Sodastream machines have been gaining popularity in recent years as an alternative to store-bought soft drinks. Not only are they more environmentally friendly, but they also offer several health benefits compared to traditional sodas.
Reduced Sugar Intake
One of the most significant health benefits of using a Sodastream machine is reducing sugar intake. Traditional sodas are loaded with sugar, and excessive sugar intake can lead to weight gain, obesity, and other health problems such as Type 2 diabetes. With a Sodastream machine, you can control the amount of sugar you add to your drink, allowing you to enjoy a refreshing beverage without the harmful effects of excessive sugar consumption.
No Artificial Sweeteners
Many store-bought soft drinks contain artificial sweeteners, which can have negative health effects such as headaches and digestive problems. Sodastream machines, on the other hand, allow you to use natural sweeteners such as fruit extracts, honey or agave nectar, giving you a healthier and more natural alternative.
No Preservatives
Another advantage of using a Sodastream machine is that you can avoid preservatives commonly found in store-bought soft drinks. Preservatives such as sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate have been linked to health problems such as cancer and allergies. By making your own drinks, you can avoid these harmful additives and enjoy a healthier, preservative-free beverage.
Eco-Friendly
In addition to the health benefits, using a Sodastream machine is also environmentally friendly. Traditional soft drinks are packaged in plastic bottles or cans, which contribute to environmental pollution. With a Sodastream machine, you can reuse the same bottle multiple times, reducing waste and helping to reduce your carbon footprint.
Variety
Finally, Sodastream machines offer a wide variety of flavors and options, allowing you to customize your drink to your liking. You can mix and match different flavors or create your own unique blends, giving you a healthier and more enjoyable alternative to traditional sodas.
In conclusion, Sodastream machines offer several health benefits compared to traditional store-bought soft drinks. By reducing sugar intake, avoiding artificial sweeteners and preservatives, and being eco-friendly, they offer a healthier and more sustainable alternative to traditional soft drinks. Moreover, with a wide variety of flavors and options, you can customize your drink to your liking, making it a fun and enjoyable way to stay healthy.
Consumer Corner
Behind the Product: What Sustainability Looks Like in Beauty Development
Beauty Development: Shoppers want to know what ingredients are used, how items are packaged and whether the production process includes thoughtful choices. Beauty brands are taking note, and sustainability is increasingly shaping decisions across sourcing, packaging, production, shipping, storage and replenishment.
s
(Feature Impact) Shoppers are paying closer attention to the products they bring into their homes. They want to know what ingredients are used, how items are packaged and whether the production process includes thoughtful choices. Beauty brands are taking note, and sustainability is increasingly shaping decisions across sourcing, packaging, production, shipping, storage and replenishment.
Responsible product lines rarely come from sweeping change. They are built through smaller, connected choices made throughout development. Packaging, ingredient sourcing and production planning influence how a product performs, how much waste it creates and how sustainably products can be produced.
Consider this beauty sustainability information from Laura Badcock, Chief Operating Officer of NourishUs Naturals.
Why packaging matters beyond appearance
“Packaging is often the first thing shoppers notice,” Badcock said. “It can shape how someone feels about a product before they ever try what’s inside.”
A package should look appealing, though appearance is only part of the equation. It also needs to protect the product, travel safely, store well and hold up through regular use. Once the product is finished, the packaging should allow easy recycling, refilling or responsible disposal.
There is no single packaging option that works best for every beauty product. A lightweight container may reduce shipping weight. A refillable option may stay in use longer. A recyclable material may work well in one area but create challenges in another if local recycling systems cannot process it. Even packaging that appears sustainable can create problems in practice if it leaks, breaks or requires excess shipping materials.
Why ingredient sourcing matters
“Ingredient lists have become an important part of how people evaluate beauty products,” Badcock said. “Shoppers often look for familiar oils, butters, botanical extracts and information about how ingredients were sourced, which plays a major role in the environmental impact.”
A product’s environmental footprint is influenced by many factors, including shipping distance, processing methods, storage conditions and supplier practices.
These factors can also affect product consistency and ingredient availability over time. Beauty brands working with wholesale skin care suppliers or private label manufacturers often need to balance ingredient goals with sourcing reliability and production needs.
How better planning can lead to less waste
“Packaging and ingredients are usually the first things people associate with sustainability, but how much product gets made, stored and discarded matters, too,” Badcock said.
Overproduction is one of the biggest hidden sources of waste in beauty and personal care. Products that sit too long in storage may eventually expire or remain unsold. Excess inventory can also create additional packaging waste, warehousing needs and disposal costs.
Smaller batch sizes give producers more room to adjust as trends or demand shift, and producing closer to expected sales windows helps reduce long storage periods and unnecessary waste. Testing new products in smaller volumes and restocking based on actual demand makes overproduction less likely.
How sustainable beauty choices are connected
Packaging, ingredient sourcing and production planning are closely connected throughout development.
“A packaging choice can affect shipping weight, storage needs and whether a package can be refilled,” Badcock said. “Ingredient choices can influence sourcing timelines and how products need to be stored. Production planning affects how much material gets used and how much product could eventually go unsold.”
Beauty shoppers want more transparency around sustainability claims
Sustainability claims carry less weight when those claims aren’t explained in practice.
This shift is pushing many beauty brands to focus more heavily on traceability, supplier relationships and clearer product information. Transparency is becoming part of the customer experience itself.
More responsible product lines are built over time
Responsible beauty products come together through ongoing choices around packaging, sourcing, production and inventory planning. For shoppers, those choices influence the products they bring into their homes.
“The brands that build sustainability into early decisions tend to have the easiest time maintaining it later,” Badcock said. “Once supplier relationships, packaging formats and production routines are in place, small adjustments are far easier than major changes. Treating sustainability as part of product development from the beginning, rather than something to fix later, is what makes it work in practice.”
To find more information on the intersection of beauty and sustainability, visitNourishUsNaturals.com.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
SOURCE:
Protect yourself from the latest online scams with STM Daily News. From AI-powered fraud schemes to consumer safety tips, our Consumer Corner delivers practical information to help you make informed decisions. Visit STM Daily News for more news you can use this moment, and don’t forget to subscribe to our newsletter for updates delivered straight to your inbox.
Automotive
EPA removal of vehicle emissions limits won’t stop the shift to electric vehicles, but will make it harder, slower and more expensive
The EPA’s move to rescind the 2009 “endangerment finding” and roll back vehicle emissions limits won’t stop the shift to electric vehicles—but it will slow adoption, raise costs, and increase climate and public health harms.
Alan Jenn, University of California, Davis
The U.S. government is in full retreat from its efforts to make vehicles more fuel-efficient, which it had been prioritizing, along with state governments, since the 1970s.
The latest move came on Feb. 12, 2026, when President Donald Trump and the Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule rescinding the landmark “endangerment finding,” and reversing various emissions limits on cars and trucks. The 2009 finding stated that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. If the new rule stands up in court and is not overruled by Congress, it would undo a key part of the long-standing effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
As a scholar of how vehicle emissions contribute to climate change, I know that the science behind the endangerment finding hasn’t changed. If anything, the evidence has grown that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and threatening people’s health and safety. Heat waves, flooding, sea-level rise and wildfires have only worsened in the decade and a half since the EPA’s ruling.
Regulations over the years have cut emissions from power generation, leaving transportation as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.
The scientific community agrees that vehicle emissions are harmful and should be regulated. The public also agrees, and has indicated strong preferences for cars that pollute less, including both more efficient gas-burning vehicles and electric-powered ones. Consumers have also been drawn to electric vehicles thanks to other benefits such as performance, operation cost and innovative technologies.
That is why I believe the EPA’s move will not stop the public and commercial transition to electric vehicles, but it will make that shift harder, slower and more expensive for everyone.
Putting carmakers in a bind
The most recent EPA rule about vehicle emissions was finalized in 2024. It set emissions limits that can realistically only be met by a large-scale shift to electric vehicles.
Over the past decade and a half, automakers have been building up their capability to produce electric vehicles to meet these fleet requirements, and a combination of regulations such as California’s zero-emission-vehicle requirements have worked together to ensure customers can get their hands on EVs. The zero-emission-vehicle rules require automakers to produce EVs for the California market, which in turn make it easier for the companies to meet their efficiency and emissions targets from the federal government. These collectively pressure automakers to provide a steady supply of electric vehicles to consumers.
The new EPA move would undo the 2024 EPA vehicle-emissions rule and other federal regulations that also limit emissions from vehicles, such as the heavy-duty vehicle emissions rule.
The possibility of a regulatory reversal puts automakers into a state of uncertainty. Legal challenges to the EPA’s shift are all but guaranteed, and the court process could take years.
For companies making decade-long investment decisions, regulatory stability matters more than short-term politics. Disrupting that stability undermines business planning, erodes investor confidence and sends conflicting signals to consumers and suppliers alike.
A slower roll
The Trump administration has taken other steps to make electric vehicles less attractive to carmakers and consumers.
The White House has already suspended key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act that provided tax credits for purchasing EVs and halted a US$5 billion investment in a nationwide network of charging stations. And Congress has retracted the federal waiver that allowed California to set its own, stricter emissions limits. In combination, these policies make it hard to buy and drive electric vehicles: Fewer, or no, financial incentives for consumers make the purchases more expensive, and fewer charging stations make travel planning more challenging.
Overturning the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding would remove the legal basis for regulating climate pollution from vehicles altogether.
But U.S. consumer interest in electric vehicles has been growing, and automakers have already made massive investments to produce electric vehicles and their associated components in the U.S. – such as Hyundai’s EV factory in Georgia and Volkswagen’s Battery Engineering Lab in Tennessee.
Global markets, especially in Europe and China, are also moving decisively toward electrifying large proportions of the vehicles on the road. This move is helped in no small part due to aggressive regulation by their respective governments. The results speak for themselves: Sales of EVs in both the European Union and China have been growing rapidly.
But the pace of change matters. A slower rollout of clean vehicles means more cumulative emissions, more climate damage and more harm to public health.
The EPA’s move seeks to slow the shift to electric vehicles, removing incentives and raising costs – even though the market has shown that cleaner vehicles are viable, the public has shown interest, and the science has never been clearer. But even such a major policy change can’t stop the momentum of those trends.
This is an updated version of an article originally published Aug. 5, 2025.
Alan Jenn, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Stay ahead of the curve with STM Daily News’ Tech section, featuring the latest on innovation, consumer technology, digital trends, startups, AI, and the stories shaping how we live and work.
