Blog

  • SNAP ends Saturday, mass mutual aid NOW (Debt Collective)

    SNAP ends Saturday, mass mutual aid NOW (Debt Collective)

    One month ago, Republicans chose to shut down the government rather than protect our healthcare. Now, by refusing to process SNAP benefits for November, they’ve put 42 million working families at risk of going hungry or being forced deeper into debt just to put food on the table.

     

    Most of us aren’t in debt because we live beyond our means — we’re in debt because we’ve been denied the means to live. This is especially true for SNAP recipients, most of whom are workers being paid starvation wages by greedy employers, or tenants being squeezed every month by predatory landlords. SNAP is a lifeline for people trapped in an economic system that’s designed to work against us, which is exactly why they’re trying to destroy it. 

     

    Authoritarianism thrives on silence and complicity. We refuse to give in. This weekend, organizers across the country are mobilizing a mass effort to connect people with existing mutual aid networks. If you are on SNAP and are not sure where to look for help, get plugged into your local mutual aid network to get your needs met and organize to help others meet theirs.

    Source link

  • Arkansas Judge Orders Removal of Ten Commandments Displays from Lakeside School District – The 74

    Arkansas Judge Orders Removal of Ten Commandments Displays from Lakeside School District – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    A federal judge on Friday ordered Ten Commandments posters be removed from Lakeside School District, two days after he permitted the Garland County district to be added to a lawsuit challenging a new state law requiring the displays.

    Following passage of Act 573 of 2025 this spring, public schools are now required to “prominently” display a “historical representation” of the Ten Commandments in classrooms and libraries. The posters must be donated or bought with funds from voluntary contributions. The law also requires them to be displayed in public colleges and universities and other public buildings maintained by taxpayer funds.

    Seven Northwest Arkansas families of various religious and nonreligious backgrounds filed a lawsuit in June challenging the constitutionality of the statute. The families allege the state law violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which guarantees that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and its Free Exercise Clause, which guarantees that “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].”

    Supporters of the law have argued the tenets have historical significance because they influenced the country’s founders in creating the nation’s laws and legal system.

    U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks granted a preliminary injunction in August that blocked implementation of the statute in four districts — Bentonville, Fayetteville, Siloam Springs and Springdale.

    Brooks later allowed the Conway School District to be added to the suit as a defendant and district families as plaintiffs. He also ordered Ten Commandments posters be removed from the district’s schools and converted a temporary restraining order against the district into a preliminary injunction.

    A temporary restraining order temporarily halts an action and may be issued immediately, without informing all parties and without holding a hearing. It’s intended to last until a court holds a hearing on whether to grant a preliminary injunction, according to Cornell Law School.

    After Brooks granted permission Wednesday to add Lakeside School District as a defendant and Christine Benson and her minor child as plaintiffs in the case, attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction on Thursday.

    Brooks granted the temporary restraining order Friday and held the preliminary injunction in abeyance. He also temporarily blocked Lakeside from complying with the law and ordered the district to remove Ten Commandments displays from its schools by 5 p.m. Monday.

    “A temporary restraining order should issue as to Lakeside School District No. 9,” Brooks wrote in Friday’s order. “Lakeside Plaintiffs are identically situated to the original Plaintiffs: They advance the same legal arguments, assert the same constitutional injuries, and request the same relief.”

    Defendants and the attorney general’s office, which intervened in the case, have until Nov. 3 to submit briefs to address why the existing preliminary injunction should not be modified to include Lakeside School District as a defendant, according to Friday’s order.

    Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: [email protected].


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Philadelphia Kids Face Delays Accessing Early Intervention Services – The 74

    Philadelphia Kids Face Delays Accessing Early Intervention Services – The 74


    Join our zero2eight Substack community for more discussion about the latest news in early care and education. Sign up now.

    When Kimberly Halevy’s son Joshua was 3, she started hearing from his preschool that he was acting out. He rarely participated in circle time and had trouble playing with other kids.

    Halevy’s friend had recently opened the preschool, and she liked that someone she knew took care of her son. But eventually, the preschool said it would only allow him back if he had a 1-to-1 aide to address his “disruptive” behavior, Halevy said.

    At first, Halevy thought getting him that aide would be straightforward. But she now describes the effort to get her kid support through Philadelphia’s federally mandated, publicly funded early intervention system as exhausting.

    Though state evaluators found Joshua should receive multiple forms of therapy each week, it took months for any services to begin, Halevy said. Then, once providers contacted her, she said it became a “guessing game” whether her son would receive the home-based occupational therapy and specialized instruction he qualified for every week.

    “I kept being mad at myself for not pushing,” Halevy said. “But now I realize that it’s just the program.”

    Across Philadelphia, young kids like Joshua are waiting months and sometimes years for early intervention services that they are legally entitled to, according to families, therapy providers, and advocates Chalkbeat spoke with.

    Federal law states a child must receive services as soon as possible after an evaluation team completes their Individualized Education Program, or IEP. Pennsylvania has interpreted that to mean 14 days. But one provider said the list she can access of children waiting for speech therapy — one of several early intervention services — is sometimes more than 2,000 families long.

    Early intervention providers are under strain nationwide, with not enough funding or staffing to meet the need. But in Philadelphia — home to 16% of the state’s early intervention population — one player is largely responsible for the system: a 170-year-old nonprofit called Elwyn that the state pays to manage the publicly funded program.

    As Philly’s early intervention system struggles to meet the needs of all kids, some providers and advocates say neither Elwyn nor the state officials who oversee the program are doing enough to ensure kids get services on time.

    In response to Chalkbeat’s questions, Elwyn President and CEO Charles McLister said Elwyn does not comment on specific cases, but the organization works quickly to assess children and provide them with services. “For the vast majority of cases, services are provided within the defined window,” said McLister.

    But McLister acknowledged that there can be delays due to family communication, transportation, scheduling, provider availability, and severe staffing shortages across the sector.

    Erin James, press secretary at the Pennsylvania Department of Education, said in a statement that the department stays in close contact with Elwyn throughout the year “to remind them of their legal obligations.”

    James did not respond to questions about service delays for Philadelphia families. But she said that early intervention programs often lack resources. “Current funding levels for EI [early intervention] services are not sufficient because the population of students who qualify for EI services has been increasing for years,” James said.

    In Philadelphia, the program’s delays are a key reason many of the city’s most vulnerable kids fall behind before they even start kindergarten, advocates say. Data from early intervention program reports the state publishes shows Philly children in early intervention programs lag behind their peers elsewhere in key growth areas, like developing social emotional skills.

    “The whole idea of having to wait more than the required time is really putting kids at a disadvantage,” said Inella Ray, director of parent advocacy and engagement at the advocacy organization Children First. “Because when kids don’t have the support that they need, in today’s current education or environment, they get pushed out.”

    Parents face delays accessing early intervention services

    Early intervention is part of the landmark Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which dictates that all children with disabilities must have access to a free and appropriate public education. Though each state creates and manages its own program, all kids through age 5 who are identified as having a developmental delay or disability are eligible.

    In Pennsylvania, the Department of Education oversees local early intervention programs for preschool-age kids. In almost every county, families get connected with services through an intermediary unit, a kind of regional education service agency.

    But in Philadelphia, things work differently. The state pays Elwyn a combination of state and federal dollars to administer the city’s preschool early intervention program, along with a much smaller program in Chester. Last fiscal year, its contract was worth around $90 million. Elwyn is in charge of assessing children, developing their IEPs, and subcontracting with a network of providers for services they qualify for.

    When Halevy’s kids’ preschool said her son needed an aide, the preschool owner gave Halevy advice: phone Elwyn. So she did, and she was relieved when the organization told her they could fit Joshua in to begin his evaluation later that week.

    That was July 2024. She hoped Joshua would have services in time to be back at preschool by the following September. But soon, Halevy said she began hitting roadblocks.

    In August, she said she didn’t hear much from Elwyn. Like other early intervention programs statewide, Elwyn often takes a two-week service break at the end of summer — one of many scheduled break periods during the year.

    But then when she did hear back that September, she learned Elwyn wouldn’t consider providing a 1-to-1 aide without observing Joshua in his educational environment. But the preschool said he couldn’t return to class unless he had someone there to specifically support him.

    At the end of September, when evaluators wrote Joshua’s initial IEP, they documented that they discussed adding an aide to assist Joshua at preschool. But they wrote that because they could not observe Joshua in his educational environment, they did not have enough information to support that recommendation. “[T]he family is in a difficult position,” the team wrote on the IEP, which Chalkbeat has reviewed.

    Joshua’s IEP states that he should receive occupational therapy and specialized instruction each week. The law requires services to begin within 14 days. But more than a month after, Joshua still wasn’t receiving services, Halevy said.

    At the time, Halevy was stretched thin. She was also working to get services for her 2-year-old daughter, who struggled with speech, through the separate early intervention program that serves children up to age 3 run by the city.

    For Halevy, sorting out her daughter’s services in the birth to 3 program was simple. Service providers quickly began contacting her and therapists started showing up for sessions. But for her son, nothing.

    “One day, I’m like, ‘Oh my gosh, what’s going on with Josh?’ and I start calling every number I had at Elwyn,” said Halevy.

    It wasn’t until two more months later, in November, when he finally began to receive occupational therapy, she said recently after reviewing text messages. In December, she said his special instruction began.

    Early intervention IEPs not always followed

    Elwyn’s Philadelphia program is the largest in the state, serving around 11,000 preschool-age children, according to the most recent data from the 2023-24 school year. The organization first won its contract for early intervention services in Philadelphia in 1998.

    But its outcomes for kids are behind the rest of Pennsylvania.

    The state requires early intervention programs to report data on how kids progress in certain areas, like social emotional learning and acquiring new skills. State program reports show that for the last five years of data, children in Elwyn’s Philadelphia program have been less likely to progress in all three growth categories compared with the state average.

    Margie Wakelin, a senior attorney at the Pennsylvania-based Education Law Center, said her team has assisted more than 80 Philadelphia families in the last year whose kids’ education was disrupted at least in part because they couldn’t access appropriate services from Elwyn. The vast majority of those children, she said, were Black and Brown kids affected by poverty.

    Some families hire attorneys to help them access the services they’re entitled to, or get pro bono representation from organizations like the Education Law Center. Many who win their cases get compensatory education, often in the form of money the family can use to pay for services after the case is over.

    But that doesn’t make up for lost time as children quickly age out of early intervention. Research shows that children’s brains develop more rapidly between birth to 5 than any other time of their life. Many families, Wakelin said, have also had their children suspended from preschool or made to only attend partial days because of their disabilities.

    “It’s such a critical period for kids to have access to high quality education,” said Wakelin. A system that identifies children as needing services but doesn’t follow through, she added, is “really failing our kids.”’

    McLister, Elwyn’s CEO, said the organization has learned that, in some cases, children are suspended from their preschool programs because of learning or behavioral needs. “Elwyn is not part of this decision making and often learns about it after the fact,” he said. He added that the organization is developing tools “that will help us understand the frequency in which this happens” and is creating additional resource materials for families.

    State reports show that Elwyn’s program is successful in some areas, like evaluating 97% of kids within 60 days, the state-required timeline. But that’s just the first step in what advocates say often becomes a month-long process to get services.

    Though the law is clear that kids should receive services within 14 days of their IEP being written, the state does not publish information on how long kids wait for services after an evaluation, or how many service interruptions they’ll experience when providers are no longer available.

    When it comes to Elwyn’s performance, CEO McLister said that students’ growth data does not account for the unique challenges of providing services in Philadelphia. The children Elwyn serves have higher needs than the state average, he said, with higher incidences of developmental delays and a greater prevalence of multiple other challenges, such as limited English proficiency, economic disadvantages, and other social risk factors.

    “For younger children, these factors produce more modest gains,” said McLister.

    McLister emphasized that Elwyn has been successful in evaluating the vast majority of children on-time, and said the most common reason an evaluation falls outside the 60-day window is a parent cancelling an initial evaluation appointment and needing it to be rescheduled.

    He said delays in getting kids services are often the result of scheduling challenges and staffing shortages — 95% of service issues related to speech and language services, he said, are due to a lack of staff. He said other delays occur when families move or change their child’s preschool enrollment, and when providers return kids to the “needs list,” meaning they stop service for that child, which happens “for a variety of reasons.”

    For Joshua, getting a consistent special instructor, a position meant to support Joshua’s learning, has been impossible, Halevy said. Her text history, which she reviewed recently, documents the challenges: The first special instructor who contacted her never visited and stopped responding to texts, she said. The next person was more helpful and saw Joshua a few times, but then abruptly quit. Now, after more than a month of no special instruction, a new provider comes mostly regularly, Halevy said.

    Access to occupational therapy has been slightly better, Halevy said. For the first several months of service, Joshua’s occupational therapist showed up inconsistently and seemed rushed, Halevy said. Now, after working out a schedule, she consistently comes around once a week.

    Early childhood intervention needs more funding, some say

    These and other challenges aren’t unique to Philadelphia families. But preschool operators and early intervention providers say there are particular and longstanding problems in Philly.

    Two years ago, Sharon Neilson, former director of the Woodland Academy Child Development Center in West Philadelphia, was part of a group pushing to bring attention to problems in the city’s early intervention program. Council members held a hearing about parents’ challenges accessing services, and Neilson and other providers met with Elwyn.

    At the time, Neilson said, she was hopeful that things would improve. But since then, she said, “we’ve actually seen it get worse.”

    Neilson, who now works as support staff at Woodland Academy, said of the 22 children enrolled at the preschool, about four currently receive services from Elwyn, and three more are going through the process of getting evaluated.

    The preschool helps families navigate the process, in part because submitting required paperwork and scheduling evaluations can create additional barriers, she said. But even with additional help, in her experience it still usually takes months for kids to be evaluated and services to begin, she said.

    “I think that’s the saddest thing for me,” Neilson said. “The families are very frustrated because they don’t know what to do — they just know that they need help for their child, but it’s just very hard to navigate.”

    Officials say a lack of resources is largely to blame. Over the past decade, the number of preschool-age children in Pennsylvania receiving early intervention services has grown by a third, and funding hasn’t kept up.

    Pennsylvania Department of Education spokesperson Erin James said that is why Gov. Josh Shapiro proposed increasing funding for preschool early intervention by $14.5 million in the state budget. However, months past the budget deadline, lawmakers remain at an impasse over the budget and early education providers are further strained.

    One provider who contracts with Elwyn said concerning inequities exist in Elwyn’s program. (Chalkbeat is not naming the provider due to her fears of retaliation from Elwyn.) It’s an accepted norm, the provider said, that kids in nicer neighborhoods get picked up for service much faster than those in poorer neighborhoods.

    “There’s an access and equity issue across the board,” said the provider. “And that’s exacerbated by the shortage of providers.”

    Asked about those access and equity concerns, McLister said that to address some related challenges, this year Elwyn is implementing more targeted training for staff and plans to develop a family resource center. He said the organization has also employed internal speech language pathologists to assign to high-priority cases.

    When families reach out to Elwyn, McLister said staff provide them with documentation and verbal explanations of how the process works to ensure families understand their rights, next steps, and how to give consent for evaluations.

    The organization also periodically notifies providers of historically underserved ZIP codes to encourage providers to serve kids equitably across the city, and includes provisions in its contracts meant to “promote fairness and accountability.” McLister said Elwyn places subcontractors on corrective action plans if the organization “detects patterns of non-acceptance that disproportionately impacts underserved areas.”

    As for Halevy, she says her family has gotten relatively lucky. They were able to get Joshua started on an evaluation quickly. And she’s been able to get new therapists when others stop showing up.

    But her family’s biggest piece of luck, she said, is that her husband recently got a new job with better health insurance. She plans to use that to get some of the services her kids need. That means she no longer will completely rely on Elwyn.

    She just wishes she could erase the months of waiting and worrying about why Joshua’s services took so long to start.

    “Basically, what happened is we fell through the cracks,” she said.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: The Renters’ Rights Act: How will students’ tenancies change and when?

    WEEKEND READING: The Renters’ Rights Act: How will students’ tenancies change and when?

    This blog was kindly authored by Martin Blakey, the former Chief Executive of the student housing charity Unipol and a member of the British Property Federation’s Student Accommodation Committee.

    On Wednesday, 22 October 2025, the Renters’ Rights Bill passed through its final stage in a thinly occupied Commons chamber, and obtained Royal Assent on 28 October. HEPI has taken a close interest in how the Act’s changes would affect students, and a number of previous blogs that have charted the Bill’s progress are listed at the end of this one.

    The Bill has a long history, first appearing under the previous Conservative government under the title the Renters’ Reform Bill in May 2023 and then being resubmitted, after some redrafting, by the new Labour Government only 10 weeks into power in September 2024. Even under a Labour Government with a large majority, it has taken 13 months to progress the Bill through all of its stages, and that parliamentary process has had to deal with over 450 amendments in the last year.

    This is a substantial Act, and its various provisions will be phased in over a period of time. The Act contains many enabling powers, allowing Ministers to implement more detailed proposals on aspects of policy as further consultations take place. The right to redress (the ombudsman proposals), the landlord database and the Decent Homes Standard are, or will be, consulted on and detailed regulation will appear over the next year.

    Even in the final stages of the Bill, the Government did not give any timetable for implementation. Still, it is reasonable to conclude that tenure reform, which is not subject to much secondary regulation, will be implemented first. All the Government now has to decide is how long it should allow to raise the awareness of landlords and tenants about these significant impending changes, and how long it should give to those running private sector housing to make the necessary legal adjustments for existing and future tenancies.

    Because the mechanics of the Act are now known, it is possible, for the first time, to say what will happen to student tenants and make a reasonable and educated guess at the timescale involved.

    Timescale

    It is now clear that today’s student tenants (studying across 2025/26) and new tenants signing up for the 2026/27 academic year will see their tenure status change.

    As Matthew Pennycook said on 8 September 2025:

    …we will introduce the new tenancy for the private rented sector system in one stage. On this date the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies – existing tenancies will convert to the new system, and any new tenancies signed on or after this date will also be governed by the new rules. Existing fixed terms will be converted to periodic tenancies…

    So, all tenancies will change on a given date and the familiar fixed-term assured tenancy (AST) which has been used by virtually all students renting from the private sector will be replaced by the new assured tenancy. The fixed term within those ASTs will cease to exist, and rent payment periods in excess of four weeks’ rent will be unenforceable.

    Depending on who you listen to, this change is likely to come into effect between April and June 2026 and so it will affect today’s student tenants.

    There are a lot of questions about how these changes will come about, and it is now possible to provide a roadmap of how this will all work.

    There are no ‘interim’ stages. So landlords signing students up in the past and now, and up to the implementation date of tenure change under the Act, will continue to use fixed-term ASTs because that is the current system.

    Landlords and tenants on current contracts or signing up for the future would best see their agreement as entering into a general contract for a residential tenancy. That tenancy will have its precise status determined, in respect of these changes, at the point when a tenant actually takes possession and can move in (which is when the tenancy is actually granted).

    So, let’s go through a variety of scenarios and see what is going to happen.

    Students currently living in off-street shared houses – a house multiple occupancy (HMO)

    These students will currently be on a joint or individual AST, almost always, with a fixed period stipulated in that agreement. On the date of the Act’s tenure implementation this will become an assured tenancy, and that means that the fixed-term nature of the agreement falls away.

    The Government accepted that, in order to maintain the lettings cycle of student shared houses in line with the academic year, landlords would be able to seek repossession of their property by using a new ground for possession 4a. This allows landlords to give tenants notice of their intention to seek repossession on a given date between June and September.

    Following implementation, landlords will have to notify tenants within the first 30 days of their intention to use ground 4a. After this transitional provision, landlords will have to notify tenants of their intention to use ground 4a at the time of signing the contract.

    Under ground 4a landlords can give tenants 4 months’ notice to leave and can enforce that through the courts.

    Some legal experts have pointed out that if implementation is between April and June, then, as many fixed-terms expire in June or July, there would not be sufficient time under ground 4a to give 4 months’ notice. So, in theory, tenants could simply choose to stay in the property and give 2 months’ notice whenever they wanted to move out. This is the case, and for the first few months of operation, landlords may find that they cannot take advantage of ground 4a –  leaving them exposed if they have let the property to a new set of tenants without having a property with vacant possession to let. Whether a court would hold a landlord responsible for any financial claim or compensation sought by incoming tenants who would have to find alternative accommodation is unlikely, particularly if the landlord had tried to mitigate any loss by, say, finding and offering alternative accommodation.

    But landlords have other things they can do to bring their tenancies to an end over the implementation period. Until the date when ASTs become assured tenancies, the landlord can still give notice using the current ‘no fault’ eviction procedure under Section 21 (S21), giving a minimum two-month notice period. A S21 notice can be given at any time after the first 4 months of the AST, so most landlords will issue a S21 notice to their resident students while the tenancy is still an AST, giving them, in most cases, a right of repossession at the end of their AST fixed term. The Renters’ Rights Act does not revoke a valid S21 notice. Only after tenure change has been implemented is it no longer possible to issue a valid S21 notice.

    So long as the landlord gives notice under S21 on an existing AST before the introduction of assured tenancies, they will be able (as they are at present) to assume that tenants leave and new tenants will arrive as normal.

    It is just worth noting that serving a notice of intention to seek repossession does not mean a tenant can be removed from the property, and only a Court can evict a tenant. This is the case now, but generally, very few students fail to leave at the end of their tenancy, so it is important not to predict problems where these have not occurred in the past.

    Students currently living in smaller off-street houses

    This is the same as stipulated above for a shared house in respect of serving a valid S21 notice, but here, once the Act has been implemented, ground 4a cannot be used because its use is restricted to only off-street HMOs. So once tenure reform has taken place and the time period for issuing S21 notices has expired, tenants in this kind of property can remain as long as they wish until they give 2 months’ notice to leave. Landlords letting these smaller houses and flats may well find that they are housing non-students.

    Several attempts were made during the discussion of the Bill to extend ground 4a to all properties occupied by students, but the Government firmly rejected that approach.

    Baroness Taylor of Stevenage made the Government’s position clear on 15 October 2025:

    The Government recognise that the new tenancy system will have an impact on the way the student market operates. While we believe the ground covers the majority of the market, there is no one-size-fits-all solution that covers all circumstances. We think it is reasonable that the ground will apply to full-time students in larger house-share situations. Removing this restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure – such as single parents living with their children or postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in the area – being evicted more regularly.

    So the Government expects that some property previously occupied by students is likely to remain occupied, and this stock will therefore leave the student market and enter the general rental market.

    Students living in off-street housing after implementation

    These students will have assured tenancy status and will fall fully under the provisions of the new Act. With the exception of ground 4a in shared student houses, they will be able to stay as long as they wish in the property until they give notice and will be able to give 2 months’ notice, at any stage of the year, to leave the property.

    Currently, they will be signed up using ASTs but after implementation, most of those tenure conditions will be replaced by the provisions of the new Act.

    Students currently living in Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA)

    The Government decided that private PBSA that had signed up to the government-approved codes of practice (The ANUK/Unipol Code) should be removed from the effects of the Act by changing ‘specified educational institutions’ to ‘specified institutions’ under provisions to be found in the 1988 Housing Act. This technical change means that PBSA providers will become specified institutions (as most educational institutions already are) and their tenancies will be common law tenancies, and this means that fixed-term tenancies can continue in those properties.

    But existing contracts in private sector PBSA will go through a ‘transitional period’ because only tenancies granted after specified status has been granted will be common law tenancies.

    As the Government explained:

    To apply the exemption retrospectively would carry significant risk, as it would turn one of these existing PBSA tenancies into what is known as a ‘common law’ tenancy: that is, a tenancy almost entirely regulated by what is in the tenancy agreement. This could cause unintended consequences, such as those PBSA tenancies containing significantly fewer rights for tenants than the assured shorthold tenancies they will have signed… We do not consider it to be the right approach, therefore, to simply exempt pre-existing PBSA tenancies from assured tenancy status.

    So existing AST tenancies in PBSA will fall under the assured tenancy status. After specified status has been granted (which will be from the date of tenure implementation) then future tenancies will be common law tenancies.

    The Government made some special concessions to minimise these ‘transitional effects’. This means the property will not have to be an HMO to use ground 4a repossession, and the July to September time frame 4a will not apply.

    PBSA providers will still be able to use S21 notices (as detailed previously) before implementation, and after that they will be able to use new ground 4a on all PBSA properties. This is likely to be useful because tenancies ending in September (mainly relating to studios) will allow sufficient time to give those tenants 4 months’ notice under the new Act.

    There will still be a moment of anxiety if a student who is not issued with a S21 notice decides simply to stay, although they could be given 4 months’ notice under new ground 4a at any stage after implementation. This risk is, however, much lower for PBSA where it is likely, if any inconvenience occurred for incoming tenants because of a ‘stayer’, that alternative accommodation may be available to be provided within the same building or in a nearby building, so the risk to the provider will be mitigated.

    Students signing up to live in Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) in the future

    At present, students will continue to be signed up on ASTs because that is the current system.

    As mentioned previously, any new tenancy will have its status determined by when a tenant ‘takes possession’ and can move in (which is when the tenancy is actually granted). If the moving-in date occurs after the PBSA manager / supplier has specified status, then tenants will have a common law tenancy. This common law tenancy means that the terms of the letting are those outlined in the tenancy agreement between the tenant and the landlord, and these will fall outside of the tenure provisions of the Act, which applies primarily to assured tenancies. A common law tenancy allows for fixed-term tenancies where repossession can be granted on the contractual terms outlined in the tenancy agreement, and rent payment periods will be as detailed in the tenancy.

    Although tenants in PBSA will have fewer rights under the Act than other tenants, membership of the Approved Code will ensure deposit protection continues and that tenants can give 4 weeks’ notice if they fail to get their required grades and no longer need their accommodation, if they stop studying and leave the institution, or they withdraw because of illness. The Code complaints system has also been tightened and improved. So tenants renting from PBSA will still see an improvement in tenure flexibility.

    Most tenancies in PBSA for 2026/27 are likely to be common law tenancies because they will come into effect after specified status has been granted.

    Conclusion

    So long as implementation takes place around April to June 2026, the annual summer 2026 changeover should be relatively smooth. The use of S21 notices by landlords is likely to be widespread and should ensure most tenancies can be brought to an end. In the unlikely event that implementation is earlier than April, then the 4 months’ notice under new ground 4a can also be used.

    The danger area relates to off-street non-HMOs and how many of those students, or ex-students, will choose to stay, reducing that supply of housing to future students. The prediction is that, over a couple of letting cycles, much of this type of housing will join the mainstream housing rental stock and move outside of the timing of the academic cycle. Educational institutions and students’ unions would be wise to try to monitor that shift and any loss of this accommodation to determine its effect on admissions.

    One interesting provision, regarding the use of ground 4a is that, for future signings, it will not apply if students signed their contracts 6 months before they can move in. It will be interesting to see whether this has any impact on ‘early letting’ in the off-street market and whether this impacts current PBSA practices.

    What can educational institutions and their students’ unions do to assist in the smooth implementation of the Act?

    Anything to do with tenure is necessarily complex, but every effort should be made to explain to students what this change will mean for them. What information exists suggests that student awareness of the Act is very low, with StuRents reporting that 69% of students said they had never heard of the Renters Rights Bill, and only 15% saying they understood how it could affect them. A recent study by Unipol also reported that 62% of students had not heard of the Bill.

    There will be real and immediate advantages for student renters who will be on assured tenancies, such as the ability to give two months’ notice and, perhaps the biggest gain of all for hard-up students, only needing to pay rent four weeks in advance. In the longer term, they will also have minimum standards set under the Decent Homes Standard and will have a right of redress through an ombudsman.

    Of course, some may temper these immediate advantages by predicting that the Act will see a reduction in student housing supply resulting in rent rises, an increase in the use of guarantors with rising deposit levels (to counter-act the risk of shorter rent payment periods) and that most shared student houses (HMOs) already fall under licencing which should already ensure that the property is safe and being kept in good order.

    The reality is that no one knows how the Act will affect the market and students specifically. With that in mind, it will be important for institutions to try to monitor how the Act affects their students in their local property market.

    In PBSA, the Act will have less effect, but this also comes at a time of rapid change in that market, with issues such as a slow-down in development; the challenges of keeping ageing stock up to standard; the growth of commuter students; greater regulation post-Grenfell with the Building Safety Regulator; and problems associated with higher rent levels and affordability.

    These market and legislative changes will mean that both housing suppliers and students are likely to see a significant transformation of student housing over the next couple of years. It is important that advice about housing rights and supply reflects those changes and assumptions that ‘things will continue as before’ are set aside.

    Previous HEPI publications dealing with this issue are:

    Renters (Reform) Bill and the impact on higher education 24 May 2023 by Rose Stephenson https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2023/05/24/renters-reform-bill-and-the-impact-on-higher-education/

    How the Renters (Reform) Bill can deliver for all tenants – including students 13 November 2023 by Calum MacInnes https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2023/11/13/how-the-renters-reform-bill-can-deliver-for-all-tenants-including-students/

    Students and the Renters (Reform) Bill: the government has listened but it needs to listen some more parts I and II run across 29 and 30 January 2024 by Martin Blakey https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/01/29/students-and-the-renters-reform-bill-the-government-has-listened-but-it-needs-to-listen-some-more-part-i/ and https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/01/30/students-and-the-renters-reform-bill-the-government-has-listened-but-it-needs-to-listen-some-more-part-ii/

    The Renters Reform Bill: after the fall – Where should student housing go from here? 19 June 2024 by Martin Blakey https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/06/19/the-renters-reform-bill-after-the-fall-where-should-student-housing-go-from-here

    Renters’ Rights Bill and Student Accommodation: The Final Stretch? 9 October 2024 by Martin Blakey https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/10/09/renters-rights-act-and-student-accommodation-the-final-stretch/

    Renters’ Rights Bill Update – into the Lords 2 February 2025 by Martin Blakey https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2025/02/03/renters-rights-bill-update-into-the-lords/

    Source link

  • Child care crisis deepens as funding slashed for poor families

    Child care crisis deepens as funding slashed for poor families

    by Jackie Mader, The Hechinger Report
    November 1, 2025

    The first hint of trouble for McKinley Hess came in August. 

    Hess, who runs an infant and toddler care program in Conway, Arkansas, heard that the teen moms she serves were having trouble getting their expected child care assistance payments. Funded by a mix of federal and state dollars, those subsidies are the only way many low-income parents nationwide can afford child care, by reimbursing providers for care and lowering the amount parents have to pay themselves.

    In Arkansas, teen parents have long been given priority to receive this aid. But now, Hess heard, they and many other families in need were sitting on a growing wait-list.

    Hess had just enrolled eight teen moms at her central Arkansas site, Conway Cradle Care, and was counting on state subsidies to pay for their children’s care. As the moms were stuck waiting for financial assistance, Hess had two options: kick them out, or care for their infants for free so their mothers wouldn’t have to drop out of school. She chose the latter. 

    Just a month later, another hit: Arkansas government officials announced they were going to cut the rates they pay providers on behalf of low-income families. Beginning Nov. 1, Hess will get $36 a day for each infant in her care and $35 a day for toddlers, down from $56 and $51 a day respectively. She’s already lost out on more than $20,000 by providing free care for 8 infants for the past two months.

    “Financially, it really is going to hurt our day care,” Hess said. But the stakes are also high for the parents who need child care assistance, she said: “For them to be able to continue school, these vouchers are essential.” 

    As states face having to cut spending while bracing for fewer federal dollars under the budget bill President Trump signed in July, some, including Arkansas, view early learning programs as a place to slash funding. They’re making these cuts even as experts and providers predict they will be disastrous for children, families and the economy if parents don’t have child care and can’t work. 

    The same families face other upheaval: The ongoing government shutdown means states may not receive their Nov. 1 shares of federal money for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, meaning families may not get that aid. Across the country, more than 100 Head Start centers, part of a federally funded preschool program that provides free child care, may have to close, at least temporarily, if the shutdown drags on as expected and they do not get expected federal cash by the start of next month. 

    Related: Young children have unique needs and providing the right care can be a challenge. Our free early childhood education newsletter tracks the issues. 

    Elsewhere, Colorado, Maryland and New Jersey recently stopped accepting new families into their child care assistance programs. In June, Oregon’s Democratic-led legislature cut $20 million from the state’s preschool program for low-income families. In September, Indiana joined Arkansas in announcing reductions in reimbursement rates for providers who care for low-income children. This summer, the governor of Alaska vetoed part of the state’s budget that would have given more money to child care and early intervention services for young children with developmental disabilities. Washington state legislators cut $60 million last month from a program that provides early learning and family support to preschoolers. Additional cuts or delays in payments have cropped up in Ohio, Nevada and the District of Columbia.

    “Almost every state is facing a very, very, very significant pullback of federal dollars,” said Daniel Hains, chief policy officer at the D.C.-based National Association for the Education of Young Children. “It does not help families when you cut provider reimbursement rates, when you cut funds going to providers, because it makes it less likely that those families are going to access the high-quality child care that they need.”

    This trend could further devastate America’s fragile child care industry, which has been especially slow to recover since the pandemic due to a lack of funding. Child care programs are expensive to run and, with limited public support, providers rely heavily on tuition from parents to pay their bills.

    In many parts of the country, parents already pay the equivalent of college tuition or a second mortgage on child care and have little ability to pay more. Yet child care staff generally make abysmally low wages and have high turnover rates. There’s often little wiggle room in program budgets.

    One of the only sources of federal funding for child care centers comes from the federally funded Child Care and Development Fund. Each year, Congress sets the level of block grants to states, which add matching funds. Arkansas officials said recent cuts to their subsidy program are in response to an unexpected $8 million decrease in federal CCDF funding this year after post-pandemic changes to the way state payouts are calculated.

    In September, Arkansas Secretary of Education Jacob Oliva told lawmakers that without cutting rates to providers, the state would be unlikely to be able to sustain the program. “The last thing I want to do is set up a reimbursement rate that at Christmas we have to call everybody and say we’re done, we spent all our money,” he said during a hearing.

    In addition to cutting payments to providers, the state increased family co-payments, the amount parents must pay toward child care in addition to what their subsidy covers. It’s far from a perfect solution, Oliva told lawmakers. “But we have to do something.”

    Related: How early ed is affected by federal cuts

    During the pandemic, child care programs and states received a fresh infusion of public funds from the American Rescue Plan Act and the Child Care and Development Block Grant, helping to stabilize those businesses. Many states used the influx to bolster their subsidy programs, allowing more children to use them and increasing what providers were paid.

    As that aid expired over the last two years, some states found money to sustain that expansion, but others did not. Indiana was left with a $225 million gap between the cost of its child care subsidy program and the state money dedicated to filling it. In October, officials cut reimbursement rates by 10 to 35 percent, saying in a statement that “there is only one pot of money — we could either protect providers or kids, and we chose kids.”

    Experts and child care directors say, however, that in the child care business it’s impossible to decouple kids from providers. The decision to cut reimbursement rates will ultimately hurt both, they insist, especially as providers find it hard to keep their doors open. Already, some programs have shuttered or announced plans to close by the end of the year. At others, families have left in search of more affordable care.

    Cori Kerns, a senior staff consultant at Little Duckling Early Learning Schools in Indianapolis, said that now that schools are receiving less money from the state, parents must make up the difference. Since the changes were announced in September, Little Duckling has lost 26 children — nearly 18 percent of its enrollment — because parents cannot afford that increase. 

    “That could be a tank of gas to them, that could be some groceries, that could be school supplies or medical needs. Some of them have had to literally stop and stay home with their child in order to survive and also not pay for child care,” Kerns said. “Those kids are suffering” as they stay home with stressed parents who are worrying about lost income, she added.  

    As families pulled their children, Kerns merged two buildings of her program into one, creating larger class sizes and new teacher assignments. That’s led to challenging behavioral problems for children who must adjust to new environments. Kerns anticipates losing teachers now that the work environment has become more stressful.

    Experts warn this trend in some states of scaling back early childhood investments is widening an existing nationwide disparity in the availability of affordable, high-quality child care. While states like Arkansas and Indiana pull back, a handful of others are moving the opposite direction, putting more money toward early learning. In New Mexico, for example, the nation’s first free universal child care program will launch on Nov. 1, paid for by oil and gas revenue that is routed to the state’s Early Childhood Education and Care Fund. In 2023, Vermont passed a payroll tax to increase child care funding in the state, while Connecticut established an endowment this year to route surplus state funds into early learning programs. 

    States have already been diverging in their approach to the child care industry since the pandemic. Rather than invest in more qualified workers, some states have opted to deregulate child care and bring teenagers in to care for young children. At the same time, places like the District of Columbia have increased qualifications for child care providers.

    Related: Rural Americans rely on Head Start. Federal turmoil has them worried

    “This is what happens when you don’t have public federal dollars in the system,” said NAEYC’s Hains. In states that are clawing back child care funds, “it’s going to result in lower quality care for children, or it’s going to result in families pulling back from the workforce and facing greater economic insecurity,” Hains said. “We’re going to see a real harmful impact on children and families as these investments are pulled back.”

    In Mooresville, Indiana, Jen Palmer calculated that her program, The Growing Garden Learning Center, will lose about $260,000 from its annual budget because of cuts in state contributions to care for children from low-income families. 

    “If nothing changes as of today, I can sustain for a year,” Palmer said. “Past that, I’m going to start dipping into my retirement savings.” She’s hesitant to discuss closing the program, one of highest-quality centers in the area. “I believe in this place. What we do is amazing. We just have to make it through this.”

    The lower subsidy rate is just the latest of a series of changes that Palmer has endured. Last December, Indiana stopped accepting new applicants into the care aid program and instead launched a waiting list. Palmer stopped getting calls from parents who wanted to enroll their children, as they couldn’t pay for care on their own. 

    Earlier this year, Indiana also announced cuts to reimbursement rates for its pre-K program, which is run in schools and child care programs throughout the state. Palmer now receives about $148 a week for each pre-K student she serves, down from more than $300 a week last year. Over the past three months, she’s had to lay off seven teachers and has taken over teaching in a pre-K classroom in the mornings. “We’re going to do our darndest that the kids don’t feel the impact,” she said. 

    She hasn’t been able to completely shield them. One toddler in her program recently shocked and delighted his teachers when he said his first word in English: a bold “no.” Concerned that the child had language delays, they were thrilled that he was starting to make progress. 

    Then the child’s family pulled him out of the program. His mother, who works as a delivery driver, had previously qualified for free child care paid for by state. With the state now paying less, her tuition jumped to $167 a month. 

    Instead of interacting with other children and teachers, playing and learning new skills, the toddler is now “sitting in mom’s car in a car seat driving around all over the county while she delivers for Uber,” said Palmer. “That just set that little guy years back. When he enters school, he’s no longer going to be on par with his classmates. That’s not fair. That can’t be the answer.”

    Contact staff writer Jackie Mader at 212-678-3562 or [email protected] 

    This story about child care was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/child-care-crisis-deepens-as-funding-slashed-for-poor-families/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113184&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/child-care-crisis-deepens-as-funding-slashed-for-poor-families/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Judges Rule Trump Can’t Completely Stop SNAP Aid – The 74

    Judges Rule Trump Can’t Completely Stop SNAP Aid – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Two federal judges on Friday ruled against President Donald Trump’s move to suspend food stamp benefits starting November 1 amid the month-long government shutdown, with each noting contingency funding is available. 

    It’s unclear if the Trump administration plans an appeal or how quickly food assistance can flow to the 42 million Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Sixteen million of them are children, putting pressure on schools to address their needs.

    U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to distribute the funds in a timely manner using contingency money. 

    “SNAP benefits have never, until now, been terminated,” McConnell said, as reported in The Hill. “And the United States has in fact admitted that the contingency funds are appropriately used during a shutdown, and that occurred in 2019.”

    In a separate ruling, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts gave the Trump administration until Monday to decide whether it will provide at least some food stamp benefits to recipients. She indicated the suspension of SNAP benefits is contrary to law. 

    She found fault with the defendants’ assertion that the U.S Department of Agriculture is prohibited from funding SNAP because Congress has not enacted new appropriations for the current fiscal year.

    “To the contrary, defendants are statutorily mandated to use the previously appropriated SNAP contingency reserve when necessary and also have discretion to use other previously appropriated funds,” she wrote. 

    Despite the judges’ rulings, many advocates say some kids will go hungry in November because the process for obtaining the aid consists of multiple steps — some of which have already been missed for those who receive help at the start of every month. 

    On October 28, more than 20 states, the District of Columbia, and three governors sued the USDA for suspending November’s SNAP benefits. They called the move unprecedented and illegal.

    “SNAP is one of our nation’s most effective tools to fight hunger, and the USDA has the money to keep it running,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, long embroiled in her own legal battle with the president, said in a statement. “There is no excuse for this administration to abandon families who rely on SNAP, or food stamps, as a lifeline. The federal government must do its job to protect families.”

    Gina Plata-Nino, interim director for SNAP at the Food Research & Action Center, said her organization encouraged the USDA to tap into its contingency and reserve funds to save children and families from going hungry. By missing this opportunity, at least some recipients will likely miss their allotment. 

    Plata-Nino said states were directed by federal officials on Oct. 10 to stop reporting critical data — a list of household eligibility and food stamp allocation — information they send directly to electronic benefit transfer contractors, who are key in distributing the aid. 

    “Even in the best-case scenario, if the judge says, ‘We rule in your favor and we demand that this happens right now’, and the Trump administration doesn’t appeal…the process of getting benefits into recipients’ accounts would take time,” she said. 

    Arlen Benjamin-Gomez, executive director of EdTrust New York, a statewide education policy and advocacy organization, said it’s clear that serious damage has already been done to what is an essential program. 

    “We know from what has happened so far with this administration that when they make announcements like this, it does have a direct impact on programs and the ability to sustain them,” she said. “For example, there was an announcement of federal cuts to Head Start very early on in the administration, and the program actually shut down. It’s still recovering. So, we can’t predict the chaos that is spread by this most recent effort to cut benefits.”

    Benjamin-Gomez praised New York for declaring a state of emergency on the matter: Gov. Kathy Hochul is committing an additional $65 million in new state funds for emergency food aid to support state food banks. But not all states will do the same.  

    Ian Coon, spokesperson for Alliance for Education, an independent, local education fund that supports Seattle Public Schools, said his organization has already earmarked funding to bridge the gap for those in need. 

    He said the Alliance decided in late October to fund $150,000 in gift cards to area food stores for families in crisis. He said school staff will help identify children in need and offer the assistance of $25, $50 or $100. The $150,000 comes from a reserve fund.  

    “We are fully aware it’s not a long-term solution, but we needed to do something,” Coon said. 

    Carolyn Vega, associate director of policy analysis for Share Our Strength, which runs No Kid Hungry, said her organization also does not predict an abrupt or smooth end to the suffering of American families who rely on these benefits. 

    “We are not holding our breath for the money to start flowing today,” she said. “Kids can’t wait: Families have to eat every single day. We know from our extensive work with schools that teachers already see kids show up to school hungry on Monday mornings. We can only imagine how much worse that would be if a family came in and were expecting to see benefits on Saturday and they did not. It’s an unbelievable strain for food banks. We know that schools will be an important resource for many families, but they can’t fill in the gap.”

    In fiscal year 2023, nearly 80% of SNAP households included either a child, an elderly person or a nonelderly individual with a disability, according to the USDA. About 39% of SNAP participants were children that year. 

    A statement on the federal agency’s website blames Senate Democrats for the shutdown. 

    “They can continue to hold out for healthcare for illegal aliens and gender mutilation procedures or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive critical nutrition assistance,” the statement read

    The department declined to comment on the judges’ rulings.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Two judges halt Trump administration’s suspension of SNAP benefits

    Two judges halt Trump administration’s suspension of SNAP benefits

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled Friday that the Trump administration must continue to fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during the ongoing government shutdown. A federal judge in Rhode Island issued a temporary restraining order on Friday that blocks the federal government from suspending SNAP funding, the National Council of Nonprofits, a party in the lawsuit against the federal government, said in an emailed press release.
    • In her ruling, Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts said that the decision to suspend SNAP payments was “based on the erroneous conclusion” that the USDA could not use contingency funds for SNAP. “This court has now clarified that Defendants are required to use those Contingency Funds as necessary for the SNAP program,” Talwani wrote. 
    • The Trump administration has until Monday to tell the Massachusetts court if it will move forward with funding SNAP benefits, even partially, for November and the timeline for doing so. 

    Dive Insight:

    The rulings come as the grocery industry braces for an unprecedented lapse in SNAP benefit distribution, given it’s unclear how the federal government will respond to the decisions and the logistics of loading funds onto EBT cards.

    In a notice on its website, the USDA claimed that funding for SNAP benefits is set to run out due to the ongoing government shutdown and, as a result, the agency will not issue benefits on Nov. 1. 

    It’s unclear if the Trump administration plans to appeal to the rulings or how quickly federal funding for SNAP could get loaded onto program participants’ EBT cards.

    The Massachusetts judge’s decision is tied to the lawsuit 25 states and Washington, D.C., filed against the Trump administration earlier this week, arguing that the USDA had planned to unlawfully halt the food nutrition program’s benefits for November. In the lawsuit, the states argued that the USDA is required to continue providing benefits as long as it has funding. The complaint claimed that the USDA has access to at least $6 billion in contingency funds appropriated by Congress, noting that the federal agency has appropriated funds to temporarily fund WIC, but has not done so for SNAP.

    “USDA’s claim that the SNAP contingency funds cannot be used to fund SNAP benefits during an appropriation lapse is contrary to the plain text of the congressional appropriations law,” the lawsuit stated.

    On Thursday, a coalition of nonprofits, advocacy groups and eight cities filed a lawsuit in a Rhode Island district court, seeking to prevent the suspension of SNAP funding.

    Nearly 42 million people participated in SNAP and received an average of $188 each in May, according to the most recently available USDA data. Some states, such as Virginia and Vermont, had prepared for temporary funding from their state funds for SNAP participants’ EBT cards to help curtail food insecurity. 

    In addition to putting people at higher risk of food insecurity, delayed November SNAP benefits would have created logistical challenges for retailers. Last week, Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association President and CEO Alex Baloga said in an emailed statement that delayed SNAP benefits could create “an operational nightmare” for food retailers and distributors across the state, possibly impairing accurate demand forecasting and leading to bare shelves of fresh foods like produce, dairy and meat.

    The potential loss of SNAP funding added to a growing list of disruptions that grocers are facing with the federal nutrition assistance program. A number of grocers are currently preparing for restrictions that go into effect next year across a dozen states that will make certain items, like soda or candy, ineligible for SNAP. Upfront costs to implement purchasing restrictions are expected to total just over $305 million for grocers, according to a report from the National Grocers Association, the National Association of Convenience Stores and FMI – The Food Industry Association, which noted that grocers are projected to shell out more than $281 million annually for compliance. 

    The One Big Beautiful Bill Act that President Donald Trump signed this summer includes $186 billion in SNAP cuts over 10 years and tightens eligibility requirements for the program. Grocers are bracing for a potential decrease in SNAP sales as states implement the changes to participant eligibility, Stephanie Johnson, group vice president of government relations and political affairs at the NGA, told Grocery Dive in July.

    Source link

  • Education Department Rule Restricts Public Service Loan Forgiveness Eligibility

    Education Department Rule Restricts Public Service Loan Forgiveness Eligibility

    File photoThe Department of Education announced a new rule that would allow the agency to exclude certain nonprofit and government employers from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, targeting organizations that “engage in specific enumerated illegal activities” or do not align with the current administration’s priorities.

    The rule, which was published Friday in the Federal Register, grants Education Secretary Linda McMahon unilateral authority to determine which organizations are ineligible for the program. It takes effect July 1, 2026.

    According to critics, the rule could disqualify employees of sanctuary jurisdictions and nonprofit organizations that provide immigrant family support, gender-affirming care, diversity and equity programs, or assistance to protesters exercising First Amendment rights.

    The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program was established by Congress in 2007 on a bipartisan basis. Under the program, federal, state, local and tribal government employees, as well as workers for 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, can have their remaining federal student loan debt forgiven after making 10 years of qualifying payments while working in public service. More than one million workers have received loan forgiveness through the program to date.

    Two advocacy organizations, Democracy Forward and Protect Borrowers, issued a joint statement committing to challenge the rule in federal court.

    “This is a direct and unlawful attack on nurses, teachers, first responders, and public service workers across the country,” the organizations said. “This new rule is a craven attempt to usurp the legislature’s authority in an unconstitutional power grab aimed at punishing people with political views different than the administration’s.”

    Alexander Lundrigan, Higher Education Policy and Advocacy Manager at Young Invincibles, called the changes “illegal” and “politically motivated.”

    “The administration cannot unilaterally rewrite a program that was passed into law by Congress,” Lundrigan said. “PSLF eligibility is defined by law, not political ideology.”

    Jaylon Herbin, director of federal policy at the Center for Responsible Lending, agrees, adding that the regulation “is the latest in a long list of cruel tricks imposed on workers and groups who hold views or serve people this administration doesn’t like.”

    He added that the restrictions “will consign millions of student borrowers to decades of unaffordable debt repayment and will worsen existing shortages of teachers, police and emergency services workers, and nonprofits who help local residents thrive and contribute to building vibrant, economically resilient communities.”

     

     

    Source link

  • Princeton president misunderstands FIRE data — and campus free speech

    Princeton president misunderstands FIRE data — and campus free speech

    The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one. In his new book Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right, Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber reports on FIRE’s data on free speech and First Amendment norms on campus while making no effort to understand it and misusing the data of others. In other words, he’s skipped that first step — and now Princeton is tumbling down the staircase. 

    Eisgruber’s book makes many questionable claims, from dismissing good-faith critiques to muddying examples of censorship. But for our purposes here, let’s cabin our criticism to the nine pages of Chapter 5 that he devotes to dismissing data, including FIRE’s.

    Our research

    FIRE’s research — like all research — is imperfect, and we welcome criticism. Research isn’t about proving you’re right. It’s about stress-testing ideas to see what holds up. Scrutiny is how the process works, and it’s how the work gets better. 

    Our largest and most ambitious annual research project is the College Free Speech Rankings, which combines three factors: written speech policies, a national survey of student views on campus free expression, and outcomes from campus speech controversies. Reasonable minds can differ on how to weigh these factors, which is why we make all our data available to anyone who requests it. If someone believes these factors should be weighed differently, or has different factors they would like to include, they are welcome to do so, and to use our data.

    College Free Speech Rankings

    The College Free Speech Rankings is a comprehensive comparison of the student experience of free speech on their campuses.


    Read More

    We’re also transparent about our methodology. This year, we preregistered our methodology before our survey data came back, in part to make clear that we do not — and cannot — reverse-engineer outcomes to put certain schools on top or bottom.

    Every year when we release the report, we get feedback. We take the thoughtful critiques seriously and have often used them to improve our work. Again, feedback is part of the process. But not all feedback comes from a place of good faith.

    Bias or projection?

    Eisgruber introduces FIRE in a manner intended to discredit us, but that probably ends up saying more about his biases than any of ours:

    An organization called FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) has probably done as much as any other entity to create the impression that free speech is under continuous assault on college campuses. FIRE is a nonprofit advocacy organization that describes itself as defending free speech and free thought for all Americans; it was founded in 1999 with a focus on campus speech issues and now receives a substantial portion of its funding from foundations often associated with conservative political causes.

    Eisgruber provides no footnote explaining or citing the conservative foundations to which he objects, when the “now” period started, or how “substantial” are those alleged funds. In reality, FIRE is funded by a very politically diverse cohort, and in the last fiscal year, 74% of our funding came from individual donors compared to 26% from foundation grants.

    Eisgruber’s implication is that FIRE is biased towards conservatives because we have conservative donors. (So does Princeton, and few would accuse it of being politically conservative.) He has to rely on these vague implications because if you look at the evidence, you have to contend with FIRE’s many cases on behalf of liberal students and professors. Or our lawsuit against the Trump administration. Or against the governments of Texas and Florida, in which we succeeded in blocking speech restrictions passed by deep-red legislatures.

    If he actually had any evidence that donors were influencing our research or casework, he’d have shown it. And with regard to our research, if the methodology and procedures are solid, it wouldn’t even matter if we were conservative, liberal, or from another planet entirely. If someone you hate tells you the sky is blue, the fact that you don’t like them is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of their statements. So he’s just tossing out the accusation and hoping that’s enough to bias his audience against us in the section that follows.

    Eisgruber then brings up FIRE’s supposed bias to praise another group’s research in a similar vein about free expression in the University of North Carolina system (more on that later):

    Unlike at FIRE and its kin, the researchers brought no discernible ideological or advocacy agenda to their work: The three original collaborators on the project included one self-identified conservative (McNeilly) and one self-identified liberal (Larson).

    If he had bothered to fact-check this claim by contacting FIRE, he would have found that our research department and those of us who work on the rankings share at least that level of political diversity (as does FIRE as a whole)! As for their indiscernible advocacy agenda, he may have missed their excellent recommendations for free expression:

    In sum, we recommend that efforts to improve the campus culture for free expression and constructive dialogue be holistic and attentive to the diverse contexts in which students encounter politics. Tangibly, we suggest that the UNC system encourage researchers from member institutions to review these data, conduct their own analyses, and develop campus-specific plans for creating and evaluating their own interventions.

    As agendas go, that’s a praiseworthy one to have, but it is an agenda.

    But while Eisgruber is quick to baselessly accuse FIRE of bias, in all his discussion of our findings, he never once pauses to consider his own biases. His defense of the status quo for free speech on campus is, not coincidentally, a defense of his own record as president. That’s a pretty big blind spot, and it shows. Even worse, his desire to justify himself leads to some exceptionally lazy takes on our research. 

    When ‘it’s not clear’ really means ‘I didn’t bother to look into it’

    Eisgruber takes issue with the methodology of FIRE’s Campus Deplatforming Database. He notes that before 2024, it was called the Disinvitation Database, and adds a footnote: “It is not clear what changed when the database expanded.” That’s not even close to correct, as we published a complete explanation about the changes on Feb. 8, 2024. It would be absurd for us to completely overhaul the methodology and purpose of our database without explaining those changes somewhere. That’s why we did explain it. He could have found this out with a simple Google search.

    One might be forgiven for missing this kind of mistake when writing a critique on X. It’s less excusable in the context of a book, for which he presumably had research assistance and certainly had an editor. (Or did he? Curiously, the same footnote also says that the database was “accessed November 17, 2025,” which, at the time of this writing, has not yet occurred.)

    As for the substance of his critique, Eisgruber calls the database a “hot mess,” claiming our inclusion criteria are too broad and that we “[conflate] disinvitation with deplatforming and censorship.” He never defines these terms, so it’s hard to know what distinction he thinks we missed. His example? He cites as “absurd” our decision to classify as a disinvitation attempt a situation in which NYU students tried to replace their commencement speaker, former Princeton President Shirley Tilghman, with someone more famous, followed by several similar efforts at Princeton.

    Reasonable minds can disagree on what such episodes mean, but by our stated methodology, they clearly count as deplatforming attempts: 

    A deplatforming attempt . . . is an attempt to prevent someone from expressing themselves in a public forum on campus. Deplatforming attempts include attempts to disinvite speakers from campus speeches or commencement ceremonies.

    That definition is public and consistent. It doesn’t depend on some subjective criterion for how “bad” we or Eisgruber think an incident was, or how justified students felt in opposing it. If Eisgruber wants to challenge our data, he could propose his own definition and see what share of our dataset fits it. Instead, he cherry-picks anecdotes he happens not to care about, and conveniently ignores more egregious examples.

    He also objects to the idea that disinvitations — even successful ones — can threaten free speech, arguing that FIRE “confuses the exercise of free speech with threats to free speech.” But that’s a false dichotomy. The exercise of free speech can absolutely threaten others’ ability to speak.

    As FIRE has noted on many occasions, calls for disinvitation are themselves protected speech — so are calls for violence in response to speech that don’t meet the bar for incitement. 

    Eisgruber agrees with FIRE that shoutdowns are never acceptable and are incompatible with free speech. But it’s hard to reconcile that with his position that disinvitation attempts can never threaten free speech. They often involve appeals to university authorities to shut down an event or speech. In other words, they are attempts by one group of people to decide for their peers what speech their peers will be able to hear, similar to a heckler’s veto.

    Eisgruber also presents a heckler’s veto from 1970 that doesn’t appear in our database, as if to prove that campus illiberalism didn’t start with Gen Z. Believe me, we’re aware. We’ve written plenty about McCarthy-era censorship and the Red Scare. Plus, FIRE was founded back in 1999, long before today’s version of the culture wars. Illiberalism on campus isn’t new, and we certainly wouldn’t argue that it is new after 25 years of fighting it. It just takes different forms in different eras — and we track it wherever it appears. The reason Eisgruber’s example wasn’t included in our database is simply that we made the decision to limit the database to incidents that occurred since FIRE’s founding.

    REPORT: Faculty members more likely to self-censor today than during McCarthy era

    Today, one in four faculty say they’re very or extremely likely to self-censor in academic publications, and over one in three do so during interviews or lectures — more than during and Second Red Scare and McCarthyism.


    Read More

    He praises Princeton for not having given in to a heckler’s veto since then: “Hickel got shouted down not by Gen Z but by members of an older generation that now criticizes young people for failing to respect free speech. Princeton students allowed every speaker in the next half century to have their say.” Unfortunately, this may have jinxed Princeton, as, apparently after Eisgruber’s manuscript was finalized, two speaking events at Princeton were disrupted.

    Survey critiques suggest he didn’t read our survey

    Eisgruber next tries to argue that concerns about self-censorship are overblown. He starts reasonably enough, noting that survey data can be tricky: 

    Polling data is, however, notoriously sensitive to sampling biases and small differences in the formulation of questions. Data about concepts such as free speech requires careful interpretation that it rarely gets.

    We agree! But then he cites FIRE’s 2021 finding that over 80% of college students self-censor at least sometimes, and 21% do so often, only to dismiss it: “Should we worry about these numbers? Not without more evidence and better poll questions.”

    What’s wrong with the poll question? He never says. He just moves on to talk about other surveys. So let’s stay on this one. What does he think about self-censorship? Well, as he defines it, he actually thinks it’s good:

    Indeed, I am most concerned about the substantial fraction of people who say they never self-censor. Do they really say everything that pops into their heads? . . . Of course people self-censor! Politeness, tact, and civility require it. And as we become more aware of the sensibilities of the diverse people around us, we may realize that we need to self-censor more often or differently than we did before.

    Do students share his conception of self-censorship as politeness or conscientious refusal to offend? Here’s how we have asked that question for the past four years:

    This next series of questions asks you about self-censorship in different settings. For the purpose of these questions, self-censorship is defined as follows: Refraining from sharing certain views because you fear social (exclusion from social events), professional (losing job or promotion), legal (prosecution or fine), or violent (assault) consequences, whether in person or remotely (by phone or online), and whether the consequences come from state or non-state sources.

    Q: How often do you self-censor during conversations with other students on campus?

    Q: How often do you self-censor during conversations with your professors?

    Q: How often do you self-censor during classroom discussions?

    • Never

    • Rarely
    • Occasionally, once or twice a month
    • Fairly often, a couple times a week
    • Very often, nearly every day

    As you can see, this isn’t asking about garden-variety tact or politeness. To be fair to Eisgruber, we didn’t provide this definition when we asked the question in 2021 (though he should have sought the most recent data; that he did not is itself strange). Unfortunately for him, since adding this clarifying definition, the portion of students who self-censor at least rarely has increased to 91-93%, depending on the context, and those reporting that they often self-censor now stand at 24-28%.

    In other words, a quarter of university students in America regularly silence themselves out of fear of social, professional, legal, or violent consequences. As for his request for “more evidence,” the responses are dire year after year. Maybe Eisgruber still thinks that’s fine, but we don’t. 

    Support for violence and shoutdowns is worse than he admits

    Eisgruber also downplays how many students think it’s acceptable to use violence or shoutdowns to silence speakers, and tries to hand-wave away data in an explanation that utterly mangles First Amendment law:

    One explanation highlights ambiguities in the survey questions. For example, American free speech law agrees with students who say that it is “rarely” or “sometimes” acceptable to stop people from talking. Not all speech is protected. If, for example, speakers are about to shout “fire” falsely in a crowded theater, or if they are preparing to incite imminent violence, you may and should do what you can to (in the words of the poll question) “prevent them from talking.”

    We would be remiss to pass up an opportunity to once again address the immortal, zombie claim that you can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Eisgruber did better than many others by including “falsely,” but it’s still incomplete and misleading (did a panic occur? Was it likely or intended? These questions matter) and has been for a very long time. It’s dispiriting to see it come from the president of an Ivy League university — one who has a law degree, no less. But also, the fact that you as a listener think someone might be about to engage in unprotected speech doesn’t mean you should dole out vigilante justice to prevent it. If you do, you’ll probably go to jail.

    Different wording, same story: growing student support for violence and shoutdowns shows campus free speech is in danger.

    But leaving that aside, what of his contention that the high levels of support are just an artifact of the “prevent them from talking” wording? Well, here’s the wording of our latest poll question on that subject:

    How acceptable would you say it is for students to engage in the following actions to protest a campus speaker?

    Q: Shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus.

    Q: Blocking other students from attending a campus speech.

    Q: Using violence to stop a campus speech.

    • Always acceptable
    • Sometimes acceptable
    • Rarely acceptable
    • Never acceptable

    With this different wording, we find 71% at least “rarely” accept shoutdowns, 54% at least “rarely” support blocking, and 34% at least “rarely” support violence. Different wording, same story: growing student support for violence and shoutdowns shows campus free speech is in danger. 

    It’s important to note that Eisgruber offers only quibbles with question wording, and offers theories for how students may be interpreting questions. He doesn’t offer competing data. While that might be understandable for the typical social media critic, if all this could be debunked by “better poll questions,” no one is in a better position to commission said research (at least on his or her campus) than the president of a university. Instead of offering unconvincing dismissals of existing data, he could have contributed to the body of knowledge with his “better” questions. We still encourage him to do so. Seriously. Please run a free speech survey at Princeton.

    As much as FIRE or Eisgruber may wish these poll numbers were different, we need to deal with the world as it is.

    Refuting FIRE data with . . . data that agree with FIRE’s data

    So what data does Eisgruber use to support his case that the situation on campus is rosier than FIRE’s data suggests? As mentioned earlier, he turns to a study of the UNC system called “Free Expression and Constructive Dialogue in the University of North Carolina.” We were darkly amused by this because FIRE Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens, who heads up our College Free Speech Rankings survey, was approached by that study’s authors based on his work on surveys for FIRE and Heterodox Academy — and they consulted with Stevens about what questions to include in their survey. Here’s Eisgruber:

    I believe, however, that the analysis by Ryan, Engelhardt, Larson, and McNeilly accurately describes most colleges and universities. Certainly it chimes with my own experiences at Princeton. 

    This could be in a textbook next to “confirmation bias.” The data that jibes with his experience he sees as more trustworthy. Yet this survey does not refute FIRE’s findings, but is perfectly compatible with them. The rosy finding upon which Eisgruber puts a lot of weight is their finding that faculty do not push political agendas in class. This isn’t an area that FIRE studies, so it’s not a refutation of our work. More importantly, it’s not asking the same question.

    Eisgruber goes on:

    There is another reason why the North Carolina study’s conclusions are plausible. They mesh with and reflect broader, well-documented trends in American political life. A mountain of evidence shows that over the past several decades, and especially in the twenty-first century, political identities have hardened.

    But FIRE’s data is also perfectly compatible with the idea of increasing polarization. It’s hard, therefore, even to find the disagreement to which he’s pointing when he says their data is good and our data is bad.

    The UNC survey, like ours, found “campuses do not consistently achieve an atmosphere that promotes free expression” and “students who identify as conservative face distinctive challenges.” This is fully compatible with our data. It’s not clear where Eisgruber finds meaningful disagreement, and to the extent he frames this data as hopeful, it seems to misinterpret the authors’ findings.

    Even if the data coming out of UNC schools were wildly different from our national-level data, it would be a mistake to take it as representative of the nation as a whole. The mistake, specifically, would be cherry-picking. Six of the seven UNC schools that we rank are in the top 20 of our College Free Speech Rankings. The most amusing part, from a FIRE perspective, is that this is not a coincidence. Those six each worked with FIRE’s policy reform team and achieved our highest “green light” rating for free speech, and have implemented programming to support free expression on campus. Indeed, since the early days of FIRE’s speech code ratings, FIRE has made a special effort to evaluate the speech codes of all of the UNC System schools, even the smaller ones, thanks to a partnership with the state’s James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal (then called the Pope Center). So if UNC campuses are far more likely to have a “green light” than the rest of the nation, that’s in significant part because of FIRE’s ongoing work. Princeton, in comparison, receives FIRE’s lowest “red light” rating.

    If anything, the UNC schools provide evidence that the way to improve free speech on campus is to address it head-on, rather than grasp about for some explanation to justify the current state of affairs. Speaking of which:

    Don’t be like Eisgruber — real leaders listen

    In the process of writing this piece, we received word of a very different response to FIRE data from administrators at Wellesley College:

    “Both FIRE stats and our own research, in some ways, have been similar,” said [Wellesley Vice President of Communications and Public Affairs Tara] Murphy. “We are taking this seriously.”

    In November [2024], Wellesley commissioned Grand River Solutions to conduct a survey on civil discourse among students. Out of 2,281 students invited to participate, 668 responded to at least one of the three questions, yielding a 29% response rate. The data was similar to the FIRE report: 36.8% of respondents said they felt either “very reluctant or somewhat reluctant” to share their views on controversial topics in the classroom, and 30% felt similarly hesitant outside of class. 

    That’s the kind of response we hope for. If campuses aren’t sure that FIRE has it right, they should be getting their own data so that they can address any campus free speech problems that the data may bear out.  

    We’re happy to report that in that sense FIRE’s rankings have been extremely successful. Many schools have reached out and worked with us to improve their policies and begin to implement programming to support free speech on campus. As dire as some of the stats can appear to be, FIRE has seen green shoots in the form of faculty and administrators who recognize the problem and want to do something about it.

    Our research deserves, and has, more thoughtful critics. Princeton’s community deserves a president who is more curious about what’s happening on his campus, and serious about improving the environment for free speech. Maybe it’s a coincidence that the academic experience that ultimately led Alan Charles Kors and Harvey Silverglate to found FIRE began when they met during their freshman year at … Princeton University. Or maybe it’s not. 

    If finding out ever becomes a priority for Eisgruber, we’d be happy to help.

    Source link