A senate inquiry has recommended Australian universities cap remuneration for vice-chancellors and senior executives, finding they are rewarded too generously compared to other staff and international peers.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) has been met with widespread criticism from the federal and NSW governments for its plan to cut 1100 subjects including its entire teacher education program.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Three private universities offer the best student experience out of all Australian institutions according to the latest student experience survey, with the University of Divinity ranked number one overall.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
When the Office for Students’ (OfS) proposals for a new quality assessment system for England appeared in the inbox, I happened to be on a lunchbreak from delivering training at a students’ union.
My own jaw had hit the floor several times during my initial skim of its 101 pages – and so to test the validity of my initial reactions, I attempted to explain, in good faith, the emerging system to the student leaders who had reappeared for the afternoon.
Having explained that the regulator was hoping to provide students with a “clear view of the quality of teaching and learning” at the university, their first confusion was tied up in the idea that this was even possible in a university with 25,000 students and hundreds of degree courses.
They’d assumed that some sort of dashboard might be produced that would help students differentiate between at least departments if not courses. When I explained that the “view” would largely be in the form of a single “medal” of Gold, Silver, Bronze or Requires improvement for the whole university, I was met with confusion.
We’d spent some time before the break discussing the postgraduate student experience – including poor induction for international students, the lack of a policy on supervision for PGTs, and the isolation that PGRs had fed into the SU’s strategy exercise.
When I explained that OfS was planning to introduce a PGT NSS in 2028 and then use that data in the TEF from 2030-31 – such that their university might not have the data taken into account until 2032-33 – I was met with derision. When I explained that PGRs may be incorporated from 2030–31 onwards, I was met with scorn.
Keen to know how students might feed in, one officer asked how their views would be taken into account. I explained that as well as the NSS, the SU would have the option to create a written submission to provide contextual insight into the numbers. When one of them observed that “being honest in that will be a challenge given student numbers are falling and so is the SU’s funding”, the union’s voice coordinator (who’d been involved in the 2023 exercise) in the corner offered a wry smile.
One of the officers – who’d had a rewarding time at the university pretty much despite their actual course – wanted to know if the system was going to tackle students like them not really feeling like they’d learned anything during their degree. Given the proposals’ intention to drop educational gain altogether, I moved on at this point. Young people have had enough of being let down.
Back in February, you might recall that OfS published a summary of a programme of polling and focus groups that it had undertaken to understand what students wanted and needed from their higher education – and the extent to which they were getting it.
At roughly the same time, it published proposals for a new initial Condition C5: Treating students fairly, to apply initially to newly registered providers, which drew on that research.
As well as issues it had identified with things like contractual provisions, hidden costs and withdrawn offers, it was particularly concerned with the risk that students may take a decision about what and where to study based on false, misleading or exaggerated information.
OfS’ own research into the Teaching Excellence Framework 2023 signals one of the culprits for that misleading. Polling by Savanta in April and May 2024, and follow-up focus groups with prospective undergraduates over the summer both showed that applicants consistently described TEF outcomes as too broad to be of real use for their specific course decisions.
They wanted clarity about employability rates, continuation statistics, and job placements – but what they got instead was a single provider-wide badge. Many struggled to see meaningful differences between Gold and Silver, or to reconcile how radically different providers could both hold Gold.
The evidence also showed that while a Gold award could reassure applicants, more than one in five students aware of their provider’s TEF rating disagreed that it was a fair reflection of their own experience. That credibility gap matters.
If the TEF continues to offer a single label for an entire university, with data that are both dated and aggregated, there is a clear danger that students will once again be misled – this time not by hidden costs or unfair contracts, but by the regulatory tool that is supposed to help them make informed choices.
Absolutely central to the TEF will remain results of the National Student Survey (NSS).
OfS says that’s because “the NSS remains the only consistently collected, UK-wide dataset that directly captures students’ views on their teaching, learning, and academic support,” and because “its long-running use provides reliable benchmarked data which allows for meaningful comparison across providers and trends over time.”
It stresses that the survey provides an important “direct line to student perceptions,” which balances outcomes data and adds depth to panel judgements. In other words, the NSS is positioned as an indispensable barometer of student experience in a system that otherwise leans heavily on outcomes.
But set aside the fact that it surveys only those who make it to the final year of a full undergraduate degree. The NSS doesn’t ask whether students felt their course content was up to date with current scholarship and professional practice, or whether learning outcomes were coherent and built systematically across modules and years — both central expectations under B1 (Academic experience).
It doesn’t check whether students received targeted support to close knowledge or skills gaps, or whether they were given clear help to avoid academic misconduct through essay planning, referencing, and understanding rules – requirements spelled out in the guidance to B2 (Resources, support and engagement). It also misses whether students were confident that staff were able to teach effectively online, and whether the learning environment – including hardware, software, internet reliability, and access to study spaces – actually enabled them to learn. Again, explicit in B2, but invisible in the survey.
On assessment, the NSS asks about clarity, fairness, and usefulness of feedback, but it doesn’t cover whether assessment methods really tested what students had been taught, whether tasks felt valid for measuring the intended outcomes, or whether students believed their assessments prepared them for professional standards. Yet B4 (Assessment and awards) requires assessments to be valid and reliable, moderated, and robust against misconduct – areas NSS perceptions can’t evidence.
I could go on. The survey provides snapshots of the learning experience but leaves out important perception checks on the coherence, currency, integrity, and fitness-for-purpose of teaching and learning, which the B conditions (and students) expect providers to secure.
And crucially, OfS has chosen not to use the NSS questions on organisation and management in the future TEF at all. That’s despite its own 2025 press release highlighting it as one of the weakest-performing themes in the sector – just 78.5 per cent of students responded positively – and pointing out that disabled students in particular reported significantly worse experiences than their peers.
OfS said then that “institutions across the sector could be doing more to ensure disabled students are getting the high quality higher education experience they are entitled to,” and noted that the gap between disabled and non-disabled students was growing in organisation and management. In other words, not only is the NSS not fit for purpose, OfS’ intended use of it isn’t either.
In the 2023 iteration of the TEF, the independent student submission was supposed to be one of the most exciting innovations. It was billed as a crucial opportunity for providers’ students to tell their own story – not mediated through NSS data or provider spin, but directly and independently. In OfS’ words, the student submission provided “additional insights” that would strengthen the panel’s ability to judge whether teaching and learning really were excellent.
In this consultation, OfS says it wants to “retain the option of student input,” but with tweaks. The headline change is that the student submission would no longer need to cover “student outcomes” – an area that SUs often struggled with given the technicalities of data and the lack of obvious levers for student involvement.
On the surface, that looks like a kindness – but scratch beneath the surface, and it’s a red flag. Part of the point of Condition B2.2b is that providers must take all reasonable steps to ensure effective engagement with each cohort of students so that “those students succeed in and beyond higher education.”
If students’ unions feel unable to comment on how the wider student experience enables (or obstructs) student success and progression, that’s not a reason to delete it from the student submission. It’s a sign that something is wrong with the way providers involve students in what’s done to understand and shape outcomes.
The trouble is that the light touch response ignores the depth of feedback it has already commissioned and received. Both the IFF evaluation of TEF 2023 and OfS’ own survey of student contacts documented the serious problems that student reps and students’ unions faced.
They said the submission window was far too short – dropping guidance in October, demanding a January deadline, colliding with elections, holidays, and strikes. They said the guidance was late, vague, inaccessible, and offered no examples. They said the template was too broad to be useful. They said the burden on small and under-resourced SUs was overwhelming, and even large ones had to divert staff time away from core activity.
They described barriers to data access – patchy dashboards, GDPR excuses, lack of analytical support. They noted that almost a third didn’t feel fully free to say what they wanted, with some monitored by staff while writing. And they told OfS that the short, high-stakes process created self-censorship, strained relationships, and duplication without impact.
The consultation documents brush most of that aside. Little in the proposals tackles the resourcing, timing, independence, or data access problems that students actually raised.
OfS also proposes to commission “alternative forms of evidence” – like focus groups or online meetings – where students aren’t able to produce a written submission. The regulator’s claim is that this will reduce burden, increase consistency, and make it easier to secure independent student views.
The focus group idea is especially odd. Student representatives’ main complaint wasn’t that they couldn’t find the words – it was that they lacked the time, resource, support, and independence to tell the truth. Running a one-off OfS focus group with a handful of students doesn’t solve that. It actively sidesteps the standard in B2 and the DAPs rules on embedding students in governance and representation structures.
If a student body struggles to marshal the evidence and write the submission, the answer should be to ask whether the provider is genuinely complying with the regulatory conditions on student engagement. Farming the job out to OfS-run focus groups allows providers with weak student partnership arrangements to escape scrutiny – precisely the opposite of what the student submission was designed to do.
The point is that the quality of a student submission is not just a “nice to have” extra insight for the TEF panel. It is, in itself, evidence of whether a provider is complying with Condition B2. It requires providers to take all reasonable steps to ensure effective engagement with each cohort of students, and says students should make an effective contribution to academic governance.
If students can’t access data, don’t have the collective capacity to contribute, or are cowed into self-censorship, that is not just a TEF design flaw – it is B2 evidence of non-compliance. The fact that OfS has never linked student submission struggles to B2 is bizarre. Instead of drawing on the submissions as intelligence about engagement, the regulator has treated them as optional extras.
The refusal to make that link is even stranger when compared to what came before. Under the old QAA Institutional Review process, the student written submission was long-established, resourced, and formative. SUs had months to prepare, could share drafts, and had the time and support to work with managers on solutions before a review team arrived. It meant students could be honest without the immediate risk of reputational harm, and providers had a chance to act before being judged.
TEF 2023 was summative from the start, rushed and high-stakes, with no requirement on providers to demonstrate they had acted on feedback. The QAA model was designed with SUs and built around partnership – the TEF model was imposed by OfS and designed around panel efficiency. OfS has learned little from the feedback from those who submitted.
While I’m on the subject of learning, we should finally consider how far the proposals have drifted from the lessons of Dame Shirley Pearce’s review. Back in 2019, her panel made a point of recording what students had said loud and clear – the lack of learning gain in TEF was a fundamental flaw.
In fact, educational gain was the single most commonly requested addition to the framework, championed by students and their representatives who argued that without it, TEF risked reducing success to continuation and jobs.
Students told the review they wanted a system that showed whether higher education was really developing their knowledge, skills, and personal growth. They wanted recognition of the confidence, resilience, and intellectual development that are as much the point of university as a payslip.
Pearce’s panel agreed, recommending that Educational Gains should become a fourth formal aspect of TEF, encompassing both academic achievement and personal development. Crucially, the absence of a perfect national measure was not seen as a reason to ignore the issue. Providers, the panel said, should articulate their own ambitions and evidence of gain, in line with their mission, because failing to even try left a gaping hole at the heart of quality assessment.
Fast forward to now, and OfS is proposing to abandon the concept entirely. To students and SUs who have been told for years that their views shape regulation, the move is a slap in the face. A regulator that once promised to capture the full richness of the student experience is now narrowing the lens to what can be benchmarked in spreadsheets. The result is a framework that tells students almost nothing about what they most want to know – whether their education will help them grow.
You see the same lack of learning in the handling of extracurricular and co-curricular activity. For students, societies, volunteering, placements, and cocurricular opportunities are not optional extras but integral to how they build belonging, develop skills, and prepare for life beyond university. Access to these opportunities feature heavily in the Access and Participation Risk Register precisely because they matter to student success and because they’re a part of the educational offer in and of themselves.
But in TEF 2023 OfS tied itself in knots over whether they “count” — at times allowing them in if narrowly framed as “educational”, at other times excluding them altogether. To students who know how much they learn outside of the lecture theatre, the distinction looked absurd. Now the killing off of educational gain excludes them all together.
Taken together, OfS has delivered a masterclass in demonstrating how little it has learned from students. As a result, the body that once promised to put student voice at the centre of regulation is in danger of constructing a TEF that is both incomplete and actively misleading.
It’s a running theme – more evidence that OfS is not interested enough in genuinely empowering students. If students don’t know what they can, should, or could expect from their education – because the standards are vague, the metrics are aggregated, and the judgements are opaque – then their representatives won’t know either. And if their reps don’t know, their students’ union can’t effectively advocate for change.
When the only judgements against standards that OfS is interested in come from OfS itself, delivered through a very narrow funnel of risk-based regulation, that funnel inevitably gets choked off through appeals to “reduced burden” and aggregated medals that tell students nothing meaningful about their actual course or experience. The result is a system that talks about student voice while systematically disempowering the very students it claims to serve.
In the consultation, OfS says that it wants its new quality system to be recognised as compliant with the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG), which would in time allow it to seek membership of the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR). That’s important for providers with international partnerships and recruitment ambitions, and for students given that ESG recognition underpins trust, mobility, and recognition across the European Higher Education Area.
But OfS’ conditions don’t require co-design of the quality assurance framework itself, nor proof that student views shape outcomes. Its proposals expand student assessor roles in the TEF, but don’t guarantee systematic involvement in all external reviews or transparency of outcomes – both central to ESG. And as the ongoing QA-FIT project and ESU have argued, the next revision of the ESG is likely to push student engagement further, emphasising co-creation, culture, and demonstrable impact.
If it does apply for EQAR recognition, our European peers will surely notice what English students already know – the gap between OfS’ rhetoric on student partnership and the reality of its actual understanding and actions is becoming impossible to ignore.
When I told those student officers back on campus that their university would be spending £25,000 of their student fee income every time it has to take part in the exercise, their anger was palpable. When I added that according to the new OfS chair, Silver and Gold might enable higher fees, while Bronze or “Requires Improvement” might cap or further reduce their student numbers, they didn’t actually believe me.
The student interest? Hardly.
Across the higher education sector in England some have been waiting with bated breath for details of the proposed new Teaching Excellence Framework. Even amidst the multilayered preparations for a new academic year – the planning to induct new students, to teach well and assess effectively, to create a welcoming environment for all – those responsible for education quality have had one eye firmly on the new TEF.
The OfS has now published its proposals along with an invitation to the whole sector to provide feedback on them by 11 December 2025. As an external adviser for some very different types of provider, I’m already hearing a kaleidoscope of changing questions from colleagues. When will our institution or organisation next be assessed if the new TEF is to run on a rolling programme rather than in the same year for everyone? How will the approach to assessing us change now that basic quality requirements are included alongside the assessment of educational ‘excellence’? What should we be doing right now to prepare?
Smaller providers, including further education colleges that offer some higher education programmes, have not previously been required to participate in the TEF assessment. They will now all need to take part, so have a still wider range of questions about the whole process. How onerous will it be? How will data about our educational provision, both quantitative and qualitative, be gathered and assessed? What form will our written submission to the OfS need to take? How will judgements be made?
As a member of TEF assessment panels through TEF’s entire lifecycle to date, I’ve read the proposals with great interest. From an assessor’s point of view, I’ve pondered on how the assessment process will change. Will the new shape of TEF complicate or help streamline the assessment process so that ratings can be fairly awarded for providers of every mission, shape and size?
TEF panels have always comprised experts from the whole sector, including academics, professional staff and student representatives. We have looked at the evidence of “teaching excellence” (I think of it as good education) from each provider very carefully. It makes sense that the two main areas of assessment, or “aspects” – student experience and student outcomes – will continue to be discrete areas of focus, leading to two separate ratings of either Gold, Silver, Bronze or Requires Improvement. That’s because the data for each of these can differ quite markedly within a single provider, so it can mislead students to conflate the two judgements.
Another positive continuity is the retention of both quantitative and qualitative evidence. Quantitative data include the detailed datasets provided by OfS, benchmarked against the sector. These are extremely helpful to assessors who can compare the experiences and outcomes of students from different demographics across the full range of providers.
Qualitative data have previously come from 25-page written submissions from each provider, and from written student submissions. There are planned changes afoot for both of these forms of evidence, but they will still remain crucial.
The written provider submissions may be shorter next time. Arguably there is a risk here, as submissions have always enabled assessors to contextualise the larger datasets. Each provider has its own story of setting out to make strategic improvements to their educational provision, and the submissions include both qualitative narrative and internally produced quantitative datasets related to the assessment criteria, or indicators.
However, it’s reasonable for future submissions to be shorter as the student outcomes aspect will rely upon a more nuanced range of data relating to study outcomes as well as progression post-study (proposal 7). While it’s not yet clear what the full range of data will be, this approach is potentially helpful to assessors and to the sector, as students’ backgrounds, subject fields, locations and career plans vary greatly and these data take account of those differences.
The greater focus on improved datasets suggests that there will be less reliance on additional information, previously provided at some length, on how students’ outcomes are being supported. The proof of the pudding for how well students continue with, complete and progress from their studies is in the eating, or rather in the outcomes themselves, rather than the recipes. Outcomes criteria should be clearer in the next TEF in this sense, and more easily applied with consistency.
Another proposed change focuses on how evidence might be more helpfully elicited from students and their representatives (proposal 10). In the last TEF students were invited to submit written evidence, and some student submissions were extremely useful to assessors, focusing on the key criteria and giving a rounded picture of local improvements and areas for development. For understandable reasons, though, students of some providers did not, or could not, make a submission; the huge variations in provider size means that in some contexts students do not have the capacity or opportunity to write up their collective experiences. This variation was challenging for assessors, and anything that can be done to level the playing field for students’ voices next time will be welcomed.
Perhaps the greatest challenge for TEF assessors in previous rounds arose when we were faced with a provider with very limited data. OfS’s proposal 9 sets out to address this by varying the assessment approach accordingly. Where these is no statistical confidence in a provider’s NSS data (or no NSS data at all), direct evidence of students’ experiences with that provider will be sought, and where there is insufficient statistical confidence in a provider’s student outcomes, no rating will be awarded for that aspect.
The proposed new approach to the outcomes rating makes great sense – it is so important to avoid reaching for a rating which is not supported by clear evidence. The plan to fill any NSS gap with more direct evidence from students is also logical, although it could run into practical challenges. It will be useful to see suggestions from the sector about how this might be achieved within differing local contexts.
Finally, how might assessment panels be affected by changes to what we are assessing, and the criteria for awarding ratings? First, both aspects will incorporate the requirements of OfS’s B conditions – general ongoing, fundamental conditions of registration. The student experience aspect will now be aligned with B1 (course content and delivery), B2 (resources, academic support and student engagement) and part of B4 (effective assessment). Similarly, the student outcomes B condition will be embedded into the outcomes aspect of the new TEF. This should make even clearer to assessors what is being assessed, where the baseline is and what sits above that line as excellent or outstanding.
And this in turn should make agreeing upon ratings more straightforward. It was not always clear in the previous TEF round where the lines between Requires Improvement and even meeting basic requirements for the sector should be drawn. This applied only to the very small number of providers whose provision did not appear, to put it plainly, to be good enough.
But more clarity in the next round about the connection between baseline requirements should aid assessment processes. Clarification that in the future a Bronze award signifies “meeting the minimum quality requirements” is also welcome. Although the sector will need time to adjust to this change, it is in line with the risk-based approach OfS wants to take to the quality system overall.
Underlying all of the questions being asked by providers now is a fundamental one: How we will do next time?
Looking at the proposals with my assessor’s hat on, I can’t predict what will happen for individual providers, but it does seem that the evolved approach to awarding ratings should be more transparent and more consistent. Providers need to continue to understand their education-related own data, both quantitative and qualitative, and commit to a whole institutional approach to embedding improvements, working in close partnership with students.
Assessment panels will continue to take their roles very seriously, to engage fully with agreed criteria, and do everything we can to make a positive contribution to encouraging, recognising and rewarding teaching excellence in higher education.
In the past 20 years in the U.S., mindfulness transitioned from being a new-age curiosity to becoming a more mainstream part of American culture, as people learned more about how mindfulness can reduce their stress and improve their well-being.
Researchers estimate that over 1 million children in the U.S. have been exposed to mindfulness in their schools, mostly at the elementary level, often taught by classroom teachers or school counselors.
I have been researching mindfulness in K-12 American schools for 15 years. I have investigated the impact of mindfulness on students, explored the experiences of teachers who teach mindfulness in K-12 schools, and examined the challenges and benefits of implementing mindfulness in these settings.
I have noticed that mindfulness programs vary in what particular mindfulness skills are taught and what lesson objectives are. This makes it difficult to compare across studies and draw conclusions about how mindfulness helps students in schools.
Different definitions of mindfulness exist.
Some people might think mindfulness means simply practicing breathing, for example.
A common definition from Jon Kabat-Zinn, a mindfulness expert who helped popularize mindfulness in Western countries, says mindfulness is about “paying attention in a particular way, on purpose, nonjudgmentally, in the present moment.”
Essentially, mindfulness is a way of being. It is a person’s approach to each moment and their orientation to both inner and outer experience, the pleasant and the unpleasant. Fundamental to mindfulness is how a person chooses to direct their attention.
In practice, mindfulness can involve different practices, including guided meditations, mindful movement and breathing. Mindfulness programs can also help people develop a variety of skills, including openness to experiences and more focused attention.
A few years ago, I decided to investigate school mindfulness programs themselves and consider what it means for children to learn mindfulness at schools. What do the programs actually teach?
I believe that understanding this information can help educators, parents and policymakers make more informed decisions about whether mindfulness belongs in their schools.
In 2023, my colleagues and I conducted a deep dive into 12 readily available mindfulness curricula for K-12 students to investigate what the programs contained. Across programs, we found no consistency of content, teaching practices or time commitment.
For example, some mindfulness programs in K-12 schools incorporate a lot of movement, with some specifically teaching yoga poses. Others emphasize interpersonal skills such as practicing acts of kindness, while others focus mostly on self-oriented skills such as focused attention, which may occur by focusing on one’s breath.
We also found that some programs have students do a lot of mindfulness practices, such as mindful movement or mindful listening, while others teach about mindfulness, such as learning how the brain functions.
Finally, the number of lessons in a curriculum ranged from five to 44, meaning some programs occurred over just a few weeks and some required an entire school year.
Despite indications that mindfulness has some positive impacts for school-age children, the evidence is also not consistent, as shown by other research.
One of the largest recent studies of mindfulness in schools found in 2022 no change in students who received mindfulness instruction.
Some experts believe, though, that the lack of results in this 2022 study on mindfulness was partially due to a curriculum that might have been too advanced for middle school-age children.
Since attention is critical for students’ success in school, it is not surprising that mindfulness appeals to many educators.
Research on student engagement and executive functioning supports the claim that any student’s ability to filter out distractions and prioritize the objects of their thoughts improves their academic success.
Mindfulness programs have been shown to improve students’ mental health and decrease students’ and teachers’ stress levels.
Mindfulness has also been shown to help children emotionally regulate.
Even before social media, teachers perennially struggled to get students to pay attention. Reviews of multiple studies have shown some positive effects of mindfulness on outcomes, including improvements in academic achievement and school adjustment.
A 2023 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cites mindfulness as one of six evidence-based strategies K-12 schools should use to promote students’ mental health and well-being.
Knowing what is in the mindfulness curriculum, how it is taught and how long the student spends on mindfulness matters. Students may be learning very different skills with significantly different amounts of time to reinforce those skills.
Researchers suggest, for example, that mindfulness programs most likely to improve academic or mental health outcomes of children offer activities geared toward their developmental level, such as shorter mindfulness practices and more repetition.
In other words, mindfulness programs for children cannot just be watered down versions of adult programs.
Mindfulness research in school settings is still relatively new, though there is encouraging data that mindfulness can sharpen skills necessary for students’ academic success and promote their mental health.
In addition to the need for more research on the outcomes of mindfulness, it is important for educators, parents, policymakers and researchers to look closely at the curriculum to understand what the students are actually doing.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
The Trump administration says it will withhold some federal funding from Chicago Public Schools over an initiative to improve outcomes for Black students and guidelines allowing transgender students to play sports and use facilities based on the gender with which they identify.
Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary of civil rights in the U.S. Department of Education, wrote the district Tuesday saying his office has found CPS violated anti-discrimination laws and will lose grant dollars through the Magnet School Assistance Program. The district, with a budget of roughly $10.2 billion, has a five-year, $15 million Magnet Schools Assistance Program grant it received last year.
The feds are demanding that the district abolish the Black Student Success Plan it unveiled in February and issue a statement saying it will require students to compete in sports or use locker rooms and bathroom facilities based on their biological sex at birth, among other demands.
However, Illinois law conflicts on both fronts, putting CPS in a difficult position. The state issued guidance in March that outlines compliance with the Illinois Human Rights Law, including that schools must allow transgender students access to facilities that correspond to their gender identity. Separately, an Illinois law passed in 2024 requires the Chicago school board to have a Black Student Achievement Committee and plan for serving Black students.
Chicago Public Schools said Wednesday in an emailed statement that it “does not comment on ongoing investigations.” Previously, its leaders have said that the Black Students Success Plan is a priority to address longstanding academic and discipline disparities that Black students face. They have vowed to forge ahead with the five-year plan in defiance of the Trump administration’s crackdown on race-based initiatives.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said earlier this year that he would take the Trump administration to court if it takes federal funding away from CPS because of the district’s diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. His office also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In response to a complaint from a Virginia-based conservative nonprofit earlier this year, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation into the Black Student Success Plan, which sets goals to double the number of male Black teachers, reduce Black student suspensions, and teach Black history in more classrooms. Trainor said in his department’s interpretation, the initiative runs afoul of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year banning the consideration of race in college admissions by offering added support to Black students and teachers exclusively.
“This is textbook racial discrimination, and no justification proffered by CPS can overcome the patent illegality of its racially exclusionary plan,” he wrote.
The OCR also launched an investigation in March of CPS, the Illinois State Board of Education, and suburban Deerfield Public School District 109 to look into their policies on transgender students using facilities and participating in school sports. Trainor said Chicago’s Guidelines Regarding the Support of Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students violate Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education.
District officials told Chalkbeat recently that the members of a new school board Black Student Achievement Committee tasked with overseeing the plan’s rollout will be unveiled later this month.
Stacy Davis Gates, the president of the Chicago Teachers Union, issued a statement decrying the federal move to withhold funds from CPS and saying the district will stay the course.
“We will not back down,” she said in the statement. “We will not apologize. Our duty is to our students, and no amount of political bullying will shake our commitment to them.”
Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.
Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
Join our zero2eight Substack community for more discussion about the latest news in early care and education. Sign up now.
From her home-based day care in Washington, D.C., Alma peers out the door and down the sidewalks. If they’re clear and there are no ICE agents out, she’ll give her coworker a call letting her know it’s safe to head in for work.
They have to be careful with the kids, too. Typically, she took the five children she cares for to the library on Wednesdays and out to parks throughout the week, but Alma — who, like her coworker, does not have permanent legal status — had to stop doing that in August, when President Donald Trump declared a “crime emergency” in the district. Now, two of the kids she cares for are being pulled out of the day care. The parents said it was because they weren’t going outside.
Trump has deployed the National Guard and a wave of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents into the district. ICE arrests there have increased tenfold. The situation has thrust the Latinas who hold up the nation’s child care sector into a perpetual state of panic. Nationwide, about 1 in 5 child care workers are immigrants, but in D.C. it’s closer to 40 percent; about 7 percent nationally lack permanent legal status. Nearly all are women.
Many are missing work, and others are risking it because they simply can’t afford to lose pay, providers told The 19th. All are afraid they’ll be next.
“What kind of life is this?” said Alma, whose name The 19th has changed to protect her identity. “We are not delinquents, we are not bad people, we are here to work to support our family.”
Alma has been running a home-based day care for the past decade. She’s been in the United States for 22 years, working in child care that entire time. With two kids being pulled, she will have to reduce her staffer’s hours as she tries to find children to fill those spots.
Her four school-age children also depend on her. This month, she had to write out a signed document detailing what should happen to her kids if she were to be detained. Her wish is that they be brought to detention with her.
“I can’t imagine my kids here without me,” she said.
She said she understands the president’s approach of expelling immigrants with criminal convictions from the country, but teachers who are working with kids? Who haven’t committed any crime?
By targeting them, she said, the administration is “destroying entire families.”
The Multicultural Spanish Speaking Providers Association in D.C., which works with Latina child care providers, has seen this panic first hand for the past couple of weeks as more and more Latinas in child care have stopped coming into work. The center also helps workers obtain their associate’s degree in early childhood education, and since the semester started in mid-August, many teachers have asked for classes to be offered virtually so they don’t have to show up to campus at night.
Latinas have flocked to the child care industry for multiple reasons: Families seeking care value access to language education, and Latinas have a lower language barrier to entry, said Blanca Huezo, the program coordinator at the Multicultural Spanish Speaking Providers Association.
“In general, this industry offers them an opportunity for a fresh start professionally in their own language and without leaving behind their culture,” Huezo said.
Though the number of child care workers without permanent legal status has historically been low, recent changes from the Trump administration to revoke or reduce legal protections have likely increased it. This year, the administration has narrowed opportunities for claiming asylum at the border, tried to bar certain groups from obtaining Temporary Protected Status and temporarily paused humanitarian protections for groups of migrants.
The changes, coupled with increased enforcement, has fostered fear among Latinx people regardless of immigration status. That fear among workers is deepening a staffing crisis in an industry that already couldn’t afford additional losses, Huezo said.
“There is a shortage — and now even more,” she said. “There are many centers where nearly 99 percent of teachers are of Hispanic origin.”
Washington, D.C., has been a sanctuary city since 2020, where law enforcement cooperation with immigration officials was broadly prohibited. Earlier this year, however, Mayor Muriel Bowser proposed repealing that law and, in mid-August, Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department Police Chief Pamela Smith gave officers leeway to share information with ICE about individuals they arrested or stopped.
“There was some peace that living in D.C. brought more security,” Huezo said. Now, “people don’t feel that freedom to walk through the streets.”
Child care centers are also no longer off limits for ICE raids. The centers were previously protected under a “sensitive locations” directive that advised ICE to not conduct enforcement in places like schools and day cares. But Trump removed that protection on his first day in office. While reports have not yet surfaced of raids in day cares, ICE presence near child care care centers, including in D.C., has been reported.
A similar story of fear and surveillance has already played out in Los Angeles, where ICE conducted widespread raids earlier in the summer. Huezo said her organization has been in touch with child care providers in L.A. to learn about how they managed those months.
In the meantime, the best the organization can do, she said, is connect workers with as many resources as possible, including legal clinics, but the ones that help immigrants are at their maximum caseload. The group has put child care workers who are not leaving their homes in touch with an organization called Food Justice DMV that is delivering meals to their doorsteps. Prior to last month, people who needed food could fill out a form and get it that same week. Now, the wait time is two to three weeks, Huezo said. For those in Maryland and Virginia, it’s closer to a month.
Thalia, a teacher at a day care, said her coworkers have stopped coming to work. It’s all the staff talks about during their lunchtime conversations. When she rides the Metro into work, she looks over her shoulder for the ICE agents, their faces covered, who are often at the exits.
“They are hunting us,” she said.
Thalia, whose name has been changed because she does not have permanent legal status, has been living in the United States for nine years and working in child care that entire time. Like her, many of the Latina teachers she works with have earned certifications and degrees in early childhood education.
“We are working, we are cooperating, paying taxes,” she said. “We are there all day so other families can benefit from the child care.”
As a single mother, Thalia has also had to consider what would happen to her three children if she was detained. This past month, she retained a lawyer who could help them with their case in case anything were to happen. Her school-age kids know: Call the lawyer if mom is detained and get tickets to Guatemala to meet her there.
This is what she lives with every day now: “The fear of leaving your family and letting them know, ‘If I don’t return, it’s not because I am abandoning you.’ ”
This story was originally reported by Chabeli Carrazana of The 19th. Meet Chabeli and read more of her reporting on gender, politics and policy.
Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
