When this year’s legislative session launched in Idaho, early childhood experts and advocates were hopeful that the state, which has a shortage of child care, would invest more in early learning programs. Instead, lawmakers proposed what may be the most extreme effort yet to deregulate child care in America: The bill called for eliminating state required staff-to-child ratios altogether, instead allowing child care providers to set their own.
While the effort was met with fierce opposition in the state, it represents a trend gaining momentum in the country. Rather than investing in the struggling child care industry, more than a dozen states have proposed lowering the minimum age to work with children, easing education and training requirements, and raising group sizes and ratios. (Read my December story on this growing deregulation movement. I investigated such efforts in states including Kansas and Iowa.)
The deregulation measures come at a time when many early childhood programs face federal funding and staffing cuts. Head Start programs were hit by a federal funding freeze and struggled to draw down payments even after the Trump administration announced Head Start was exempt from the freeze. Then, earlier this month, the Trump administration closed five of the Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) regional offices and placed staff from those offices on leave, threatening support for Head Start, which is overseen by ACF, as well as programs that receive federal child care subsidies. Last week, USA Today reported that President Donald Trump is considering a budget proposal that would eliminate funding for Head Start altogether.
At the state level, Idaho lawmakers are not the only ones to propose child care deregulation legislation this year. Minnesota lawmakers also issued similar proposals, including increasing family child care capacity limits and relaxing ratios in rural areas. Another bill in the state proposes lowering the age requirement of assistant teachers from 18 to 16. In Kansas, where a lawmaker proposed hiring 14-year-olds to help in child care classrooms in 2023, a new bill aims to reduce training requirements. An Indiana measure would loosen staff-to-child ratios based on the ratios set in neighboring states, and one in North Carolina would increase maximum group sizes for young children. And in Florida, lawmakers have called for an abbreviated inspection plan for some child care programs.
While deregulation is more common in red states, there have also been some recent efforts to invest in early learning programs that transcend the red-blue divide. In Georgia, Gov. Brian Kemp proposed an additional $14 million aimed at reducing preschool class sizes and $5.5 million to address issues with the state’s child care subsidy program for lower-income families. Indiana Gov. Mike Braun called for more spending to eliminate the state’s waitlist for child care subsidies. And South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster proposed $20 million to continue a program that provides wage supplements to child care workers.
In Idaho, the deregulation legislation was eventually amended to loosen the state-mandated ratios — without eliminating them altogether. It also forbids municipalities from setting more stringent child care regulations than the state, something that was allowed in the past and allowed cities to set a “higher standard” for programs, said Martin Balben, director of strategic initiatives for the Idaho Association for the Education of Young Children.
“I think municipalities are still kind of reeling with how to confront that reality,” he said. “It remains to be seen how [they] are going to handle their lack of local control in this area moving forward.”
Experts say while deregulation is nothing new, the recent momentum is troubling. “We absolutely want to make sure that states are not rolling back their health and safety measures,” said Diane Girouard, state policy senior analyst at Child Care Aware of America. “We want to make sure that they’re not compromising children. … There are no quick fixes.”
This story about child care services was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
What do you get when you add a stewardship crisis, two expert fundraisers, and a whole bunch of Valentine’s Day puns? RNL’s February webinar, of course! Earlier this year, RNL hosted an hour-long conversation featuring Miranda Fagley and Becca Widmer, where they unpacked their strategies for creating meaningful moments through stewardship.
A tough heart-to-heart: The current state of the world
With geopolitical conflict running rampant, a rocky economic state, and a rapidly shifting domestic political landscape, it’s no wonder donors are wary of the future. During this tough heart-to-heart, we unpacked the various factors that might make donors hesitate before opening their wallets in 2025, and took a deep-dive into how the state of the world is impacting our donors, and therefore impacting the state of philanthropy as we know it. From generational differences and the more dollars/fewer donors trend we have all experiences to evolving donor expectations, advancement leaders are facing unprecedented challenges as the goal-line seems to move every year.
The heart of it all: A look at the donor data
Jumping into the “heart” of our conversation, we went straight to the source—donor expectations gleaned from RNL’s 2025 National Alumni Survey. We noticed a few alarming trends when comparing this donor expectation data with the 2024 Giving USA report, which analyzed giving trends when accounting for inflation across our sector. Total giving declined by 2.1% when adjusting for inflation and, while higher education saw a 6.7% increase in overall giving, even when accounting for inflation, donor numbers across the board were down. There is also an obvious mismatch between donor expectations and reality, as seen in our comparison of RNL’s 2024 Advancement Leaders Speak report with the 2025 National Alumni Survey. Take, for instance, the fact that 66% of donors indicated that understanding the impact of their giving is important to them. This becomes an issue when 43% of advancement leaders reported that their shops have difficulty communicating the impact of specific funds. Storytelling is the name of the game, and it is becoming clear that communicating impact is a key piece of the donor acquisition and retention puzzle.
The broken hearts club: Under-stewarded donors
Many advancement shops are unknowingly leaving a trail of broken-hearted donors in the wake of annual campaigns. Why is thoughtful stewardship important?
Connecting donors to your mission and educating them on the impact of their giving is crucial to keeping donors interested in your priorities.
Telling your story through a “thank you” is a great way to differentiate your cause and your need in comparison to other organizations in this increasingly noisy world.
The simple act of reminding donors of your impact is a great way to retain donors and move them through your pipeline. The more you can encourage donors to see themselves in your mission and important work, the more likely you are to get them onboard as true donor-partners.
On the flip-side, we unpacked that can happen if you don’t steward your donors well, including a shrinking pipeline, excessive spending when you do decide to attempt to reacquire them, and the loss of both short- and long-term revenue. Don’t be a heartbreaker!
Uncovering donor love languages: Do you know your donors?
Words of affirmation. Quality time. Acts of service. These are just a few love languages from Gary Chapman’s The Five Love Languages. Did you know donors have love languages too? It’s our job as mission-centric, donor-focused fundraisers to learn those love languages and lean into them through stewardship, relationship-building, and even solicitation.
In our exploration of donor love languages, we unpacked the first level- generational differences. Hearts are broken generationally when we do not pay attention to context and communicated need. While not always “the answer,” generational segmentation and a slight shift of message can be a simple way to get to the “heart” of what a majority of your donors want and need from your stewardship outreach. And, as we continue to experience generational shifts and the great wealth transfer, leaning into generational values will become even more important to attracting and retaining donors.
Another layer of love language exploration comes from you going straight to the source- your individual donors and what their giving history can tell you. We looked at one of RNL’s solutions for further discovering donor love languages, the RNL360, which offers an opportunity to dive into your database. By illustrating historic AND recent trends in giving and interaction, the RNL360 can provide you with a better understanding of giving and retention by donor type, an analysis of consistency and efficacy of your various giving channels (hello, smart investment in tools and campaigns!), and can help establish baseline metrics which can inform goal setting and future fundraising and engagement targets.
We can theorize all day about what donor expectations are, but the purest source of truth is looking at donor data and asking donors to tell you what they want and need. That’s where RNL’s Market Research solution comes into play. A complementary component of the RNL360, this additional solution allows you to hear directly from your donors by way of a private, but not anonymous, survey administered by RNL, where you can learn more about your donors’ philanthropic priorities, communication preferences, and sense of connectedness.
When it comes to effective stewardship and solicitation, knowledge is power.
Engagement strategies with heart: RNL experts share their takes
Our two experts shared their take on stewardship and engagement with heart, with overlapping themes of getting personal, telling your story, and taking the time to really listen to what donors are telling you they want to hear from you.
Miranda’s take
Get specific: steward in ways only YOU can.
“Single” out your society members with a special ‘thank you.’
Take the time to survey your donors- understand what you THINK will resonate and get feedback/confirmation from them.
Becca’s take
Put gratitude on repeat.
Turn generosity to belonging.
Keep impact front and center.
Asking is omnichannel, so thanking should be too.
Our main takeaways?
Consider the landscape: context is everything
Take a hard look at donor data:
Understand the “why” behind stewarding annual donors: Tell. Your. Story.
Get to know your donors’ love languages: ask your donors directly
Steward in ways only YOU can: don’t be afraid to get a little wacky
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Bright morning sun is streaming through her home’s windows as Sandra Dill reads a picture book about penguins to a room full of busy toddlers. While listening, the kids blow kisses, plop in a visitor’s lap, then get up to slide down a small slide.
Dill has been running a family child care business from her home for 15 years, and every one of her 13 grandchildren has spent time here — currently it’s 20-month-old Nathaniel, who has a puff of curly hair and a gooey grin.
“My older ones started to call it ‘grandma school,’” she said. Another one of her granddaughters, now a teenager, is returning this summer to help out.
Four of Dill’s eight available slots are funded through Head Start. This is the federal-to-local program that funds child care and other support for the poorest families in America. (Regular Head Start serves children 3 to 5 years old; Early Head Start is for those under 3.) The program — which began right here in New Haven, Connecticut — is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year.
It’s also never been so at risk: First a federal funding freeze hit providers, then a chunk of Head Start federal support staff were fired by the Department of Government Efficiency. On March 27, the Department of Health and Human Services announced it was cutting a further 10,000 jobs, and reorganizing the Administration for Children and Families, which administers Head Start. As of April 1, Head Start employees in five of the program’s 10 regions — Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle — had reportedly been laid off, according to a LinkedIn post that day from Katie Hamm, a former official with the federal Administration for Children and Families. Hamm said there does not appear to be a transition plan laying out how Head Start programs in those regions will receive funding and support. Project 2025, the conservative policy handbook organized by the Heritage Foundation, which the Trump administration has been following closely, calls for eliminating Head Start altogether.
“I think it’s terrible,” Dill said. “I just can’t imagine. It’s already not enough, and if this happens, it’s going to affect a lot of families that are already struggling.”
Ed Zigler, the “father of Head Start,” was the son of immigrants from Poland. His father was a peddler and his mother plucked chickens to make a little money, according to Walter Gilliam, executive director of the University of Nebraska’s Buffett Early Childhood Institute, who counted Zigler as his closest mentor.
When Zigler was a child, his family made its way to a settlement house in Kansas City, Missouri; these community-based charities offered a two-generation approach, caring for and educating children while also teaching English and job skills to parents and connecting families with medical care and housing help.
“That made a huge impact on his and his family’s life,” Gilliam said.
Related: Young children have unique needs and providing the right care can be a challenge. Our free early childhood education newsletter tracks the issues.
As a young psychology professor at Yale, Zigler was hired as an advisor to President Lyndon Johnson to help design family programs for the federal War on Poverty. In creating Head Start, he turned to the same two-generation model he grew up with.
To date, Head Start has served nearly 40 million children. In fiscal year 2023, the Head Start program was funded to serve 778,420 children. The program has always been underfunded: In 2020 Head Start served barely 1 in 10 eligible infants and toddlers and only half of eligible preschoolers. It’s limited to families making under the federal poverty level, which is just $31,200 for a family of four.
The sand table at Dill’s child care is an opportunity to explore shapes, colors and textures. Credit: Anya Kamenetz for The Hechinger Report
Still, for many of the families who do manage to make it through the doors, the program is life-changing.
“Head Start is in every community in America,” said Cara Sklar, director of early & elementary education policy at the D.C.-based think tank New America. “It’s the original two-generation program, with wraparound support for kids. It’s really held up as a model of quality in early learning.”
The “wraparound support” for Dill’s Early Head Start families is funded by the United Way of Greater New Haven, and comes via a network for family child care educators called All Our Kin. The network helps mothers enroll in community college and apply for housing subsidies. Dill has had mothers who lived in their cars and one who was living with her mother “six to a room,” she said. She also does regular home visits with families to talk about children’s development and support parents in goals like potty training.
Thanks to Early Head Start, a nurse, a mental health consultant and a nutritionist all help Dill keep the kids healthy and safe. And the program also provides extra funds she can use to get back up and running if, for example, the furnace needs fixing.
But Head Start is now facing funding challenges that go far beyond a broken furnace. “The past month has been harrowing for child care providers,” said Carolina Reyes, director of Arco Iris Bilingual Children’s Center, a preschool in Laurel, Maryland, that is a Head Start partner, and also a member of the nationwide advocacy group MomsRising.
The first blow to Head Start in this administration was President Donald Trump’s January 27 executive order calling for a federal funding freeze. Since Head Start is a direct federal-to-local grant program, even temporary interruptions in funding can cause programs to close their doors.
“ Programs like mine operate on razor-thin margins,” said Reyes. “I don’t have any reserves to pull from if funding is delayed or slashed.”
While funding for most programs has resumed, Joel Ryan, the executive director of the Washington State Association of Head Start, said in a recent press conference that as late as the week of Feb. 17, one in four of his programs still had trouble accessing the Head Start payment website.
That same week of the 17th, almost 70 Head Start staffers were pink-slipped in the federal government’s sweep of “probationary” employees — about one-fifth of the program’s workforce. One laid-off employee, who didn’t want to give his name because he is still fighting his dismissal and fears reprisal, said he spent five years as a contractor before switching to full time this past summer, which accounted for his probationary status. He wore many hats at Head Start, doing data analytics, working with grant recipients and serving as a liaison for state partners.
“They say we’re bloated; we could have used two more full-time people,” he said.
The cuts, he feared, will lead to further delays in programs getting the payments they rely on, not to mention the oversight that keeps kids safe.
“I come from the private sector. I will find another job,” he said. “The issue isn’t us, it’s the children and the families. We’ve got all these people in poverty who are getting screwed over by what’s happening.”
A third blow came on February 25, when the House passed a budget resolution calling for $880 billion in cuts to discretionary spending programs over the next decade, with Medicaid the prime target, along with the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Head Start families overwhelmingly rely on these safety net programs. The White House’s gutting of the Department of Education also threatens many services for preschoolers, especially those in special education. (This process, which maps out the next fiscal year, is separate from the recent vote to fund the government until Sept. 30.)
“This is going from the precipice of disaster to decimating the system,” Sklar said. “All the parts that help families, from Head Start to child care to food to health care, are all being destabilized at once.”
Gilliam said that threats to eliminate Head Start are nothing new. After designing the program during the Johnson administration, Zigler was appointed to run it under the presidency of Richard Nixon. “Some folks told him that his job was to destroy, essentially, the program that he had created,” Gilliam said.
Head Start advocates said the program has been able to fight off political challenges in the past because it is widely distributed geographically and has bipartisan support.
“I agree that Project 2025 is a real threat to Head Start, as well as to other programs that we all care about,” said Ryan, with the Washington State Head Start association.
“But I will say this: We have great research. We have great data. We have a great track record. We have a lot of bipartisan support in Congress. And we have parent power.”
By coincidence, the week the House passed its budget resolution, a group of 150 Head Start parents were on Capitol Hill lobbying as part of a group called Start Early, and they met with many Republican senators.
Tommy Sheridan, the deputy director of the National Head Start Association, struck an almost defiantly optimistic tone after the visit to lawmakers: “We still believe and have seen indicators that this administration is supportive of Head Start. And Congress as well.”
NaMaree Cunningham and her twin sister turned two on the day of our visit. Credit: Anya Kamenetz for The Hechinger Report
Another potential bright spot is the growth of child care support and funding on the state level. Elizabeth Groginsky is New Mexico’s first cabinet secretary for the state’s new Early Childhood Education & Care Department, and she said the pandemic woke a lot of people up to the importance of early care and education.
“People began to understand the impact that child care has on children’s development, families’ ability to work, the overall economy,” Groginsky said.
Since 2020, New Mexico has gone through a major expansion in home visits, child care and preschool. Vermont has made similar moves, and New York and Connecticut are heading in that direction as well. Even the deep-red state of Kentucky has expanded access.
What all of these state-level programs have in common is that they are much more widely available to middle-class families, rather than tightly targeted to families in poverty, as Head Start still is. Historically, with programs like Medicare and Social Security, universal access has meant durable support.
Now those states are contemplating stepping in further if the federal government drops the ball.
“Because the state has made such an impressive commitment to child care, we’re potentially in a better spot than others,” said Janet McLaughlin, deputy commissioner for Vermont’s Department of Children and Families. And Groginsky, in New Mexico, said firmly, “The governor and the legislature — I don’t think we’ll let New Mexicans go without. They’ll find a way.”
Support for this reporting was provided by the Better Life Lab at New America.
Contact editor Christina Samuels at 212-678-3635 or [email protected].
This story about Head Start was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
Reading my colleague Jackie Mader’s latest story about the vital importance of warm, interactive exchanges between caregivers and children brought back the terrifying feeling that comes with leaving your baby in the hands of someone you don’t really know — and the relief when you see an experienced, loving educator taking charge.
Mader’s story details how a growing number of cities and states — red and blue — are pouring resources into training teachers and even evaluating programs on how warm and responsive teachers are. As Bridget Hamre, a research associate professor at the University of Virginia, told Mader, other elements of quality, like teacher education are “only important to the degree to which they change the way that teachers interact with kids.”
The story, as well as a documentary that I saw last week at the SXSW EDU conference on model child care programs, left me feeling inspired about the future of child care in America for the first time in a while. The documentary, “Make a Circle,” tells the story of highly trained and qualified child care workers in the California Bay Area, and their efforts to transform the way society views their industry. It will be available on PBS in the fall, and is being shown at film festivals and other events across the U.S.
Throughout the film, you see the intricate and important work of early educators as they play with children, teach them letters, colors and sounds, and take them for walks in the woods. That might sound basic but, like the thoughtful interactions described in Mader’s piece, can ultimately make a huge difference in the lives and well-being of children. And sadly, this kind of child care is not widely available or affordable.
Fortunately, it was for the children of the filmmakers, husband-and-wife team Todd Boekelheide and Jen Bradwell. They actually knew some preschool owners and teachers featured in the film: Their own two children attended one of them. Bradwell calls the documentary “a love letter to early educators and a rallying cry for a child care system in crisis.”
The system needs all of the love it can get: a point that Isabelle Hau makes in her new book, “Love to Learn,” a deep dive into the importance of building quality relationships in early childhood care. (I’ll be moderating a discussion of some of her findings at the ASU+GSV conference in San Diego next month.)
“Close, nurturing relationships in the early years are like the foundation of a house,” Hau writes. “If the foundation is not solid, the house may shake apart later in strong winds.”
Both Bradwell and Hau had a chance to expound on their findings at another early childhood event: a celebration of Hau’s book at the Austin, Texas, home of Libby Doggett, who over the years taught me a great deal about the importance of quality early childhood education as the former director of Pre-K Now, a 10-year campaign to advance high-quality, voluntary pre-K for all 3- and 4-year-olds across the U.S.
Here was a crowd committed to improving the way we teach our littlest learners and training their teachers during this difficult time for the early childhood industry. The Hechinger Report is documenting cuts to research and other shifts in early childhood spending under the Trump administration. We keep an updated Trump tracker on our site to catalog everything we know. We also love hearing from you on these issues, so please respond to this newsletter to get in touch!
This story about responsive teachers was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
A new report from TASO (Transforming Access and Outcomes for Students) shines a light on the barriers faced by those with experience of children’s social care entering and succeeding in higher education.
The research points to a stark reality – inequitable access to higher education for care-experienced individuals, but also for a much larger group of people who have experienced children’s social care.
Part of the problem is that support systems often hinge on rigid definitions like “care leaver,” leaving many students, who face similar challenges, without the help they need.
When institutional policies fail to account for the diversity of these experiences, students are left to navigate higher education and life beyond it largely on their own.
The report also suggests that while “care leavers” may have better access to support through Local Authorities (LAs) dedicated widening participation schemes, while those not neatly fitting into this category often fall through the cracks.
But even if the definitions were fixed and there was more focus on “getting on” as well as getting in, what if higher education’s current offer isn’t enough to transform these students’ lives?
Understanding diversity
When the diversity of experience is overlooked, those needing support often miss out or don’t realise they’re entitled to it. Worse, support organisations sometimes view this diversity with suspicion.
For example, the SLC’s rigid “estranged” or “in contact” policy fails to grasp complex family dynamics. Grey rocking – where abuse victims maintain minimal contact for safety – is ignored, leading to invasive social media monitoring and a profound lack of understanding of the complexities of family breakdowns.
At the Unite Foundation, we provide free, year-round accommodation for care leavers and estranged students, improving outcomes by offering stability during studies and after graduation. The support gives graduates the breathing room to seek degree-relevant work instead of scrambling for immediate housing and employment.
We understand that care and estrangement experiences vary widely. Some students enter care due to bereavement, maintain some family contact, or support younger siblings – highlighting how rigid policies fail to capture real-life complexities.
A more nuanced approach is needed. I recently spoke with a vice chancellor who dismissed targeted support for estranged students, claiming most came from low-income, BTEC backgrounds, so existing support sufficed. But when I explained that many South Asian women – across all social classes – estrange themselves over arranged marriage disputes, he could not point to any existing support provisions that would reasonably address their needs.
Recognising and addressing the diverse experiences of social care or estrangement is essential for creating a more equitable education system, and the TASO report helps highlight this need.
Ongoing support
The report makes clear that gaining access to university for those with experience of social care is only the first challenge – and there is a dire need to strengthen retention strategies.
This would require some clarity around definitions and eligibility, but it would significantly help smaller and less financially robust institutions establish support systems for social care experienced students.
And support schemes are effective. The University of York, for example, offers free accommodation to care-experienced students and has seen applications from such students triple. Similarly, the University of Cardiff acts as a legal guarantor for any student in need of one for a rental contract – without a single case of rent default in the past decade.
An interesting aspect of the report highlights that the pathways to higher education for young people with experience in children’s social care often vary based on the type and timing of their experiences. In particular, it urges higher-tariff and more “prestigious” institutions to expand access to students from vocational pathways.
At the time, the Care-Experienced Graduates’ Decision-Making, Choices and Destinations Project offered some insight into this trend, explaining that a history in care often drives care-experienced people to altruistically pursue work such fields.
Additionally, I suggested that the accessibility of these courses through Access to Higher Education Diplomas and the employment certainty they offer post-graduation could play significant roles.
And I have also previously argued that care leavers have more direct contact with social workers, which exposes them to career trajectories of adults who influence them – similar to how children of lawyers are 17 times more likely to become lawyers than children of parents in other professions. So it all makes sense.
Care-experienced people need to see all higher education options as viable – not just the ones their circumstances push them toward. If they gravitate to certain courses due to access, bursaries, community, or career pathways, we should replicate these benefits across other disciplines. TASO’s call for research-intensive universities to support care-experienced students from vocational pathways is a crucial step.
Postponing the cliff-edge?
Become’s End the Care Cliff report highlighted how care leavers face an abrupt transition to independence – often much earlier than peers who typically leave home around 24. This “care cliff” leaves many at risk of housing instability and homelessness, with care leavers nine times more likely to become homeless. While TASO’s recommendations help students avoid this cliff during university, what happens when support vanishes at graduation?
The report noted that higher education can transform lives, but only if care leavers are supported to complete their degrees. But a degree alone doesn’t guarantee stability if old barriers reappear once institutional support ends.
Social work – a field with a high representation of care-experienced students – suffers from high stress and low staff retention, with average careers lasting just five to nine years. This may reflect not just job stress but also the complex backgrounds of many staff.
A 2022 UCAS report highlighted how support for care leavers often ends abruptly after graduation. Without ongoing help in early careers, the “care cliff” isn’t eliminated – just postponed.
The TASO report also highlights the need for secure housing during university breaks, but the real challenge is post-graduation.
Without family support, social care-experienced graduates often face unstable, high-cost housing that undermines career stability. While many peers live rent-free with parents, care-experienced graduates pay full rent on the same salary – assuming they’re even paid equally.
Employers may exploit their financial inexperience, and hybrid working only widens this gap – given their living conditions often aren’t conducive to productivity.
Beyond housing, these graduates face layered disadvantages. They’re more likely to be older, disabled, from minority backgrounds, or managing trauma-related health issues – often overlooked by employers.
Many are also overrepresented in high-risk groups, including justice involvement and sex work, which can impact career prospects.
Research then shows that early disadvantages persist into middle age, suggesting a need for long-term support. While the TASO report robustly addresses access and retention in higher education, it misses a crucial element – graduate careers.
Providers should prepare social care-experienced students for the workforce. But a real focus on “getting on” must also involve pushing both central government and employers to understand their lived realities beyond graduation.
If HE is serious about changing lives, it needs to work to eliminate the care cliff – not just delay it.
For example, at the age of 22, compared with the general population, care leavers and those who have ever been in care are four times less likely to enter higher education – 14 per cent of care-experienced people versus 56 per cent of the general population. Of those care leavers who do make it into higher education, 18 per cent drop out, more than double the withdrawal rate of their peers in the general population.
And it’s not just care leavers who experience unequal outcomes. The research looked more widely at anyone with experience of children’s social care – a group that is around 20 times larger than the care leaver population – and found stark inequalities in their access to and experience of higher education compared not only to the general population, but also compared to those eligible for free school meals. For example, “children in need” are two to three times less likely to attend higher education than the general population.
These results suggest that the experience of children’s social care has a lasting impact on educational prospects, and that the needs of affected young people are not being met by the current support system. Although the findings are perhaps not surprising, they are still shocking. Our report aims to act as a call to action for universities, policymakers and those seeking to close equality gaps in higher education.
Routes to an unlevel playing field
Not only is there an uphill struggle to the higher education “playing field” for those who have been in care, once there, the playing field itself is far from level. The data shows that getting those with experience of children’s social care into university is only the first challenge to address, and the high dropout rate demonstrates that targeted work is required to improve retention and support systems.
Care leavers – and others with experience of children’s social care – often take alternative routes to university. Over one-third (36 per cent) of care leavers take a vocational pathway, compared to just 13 per cent of the general population, and they are more likely to start university later in life rather than at the traditional age of 18. This suggests that the traditional academic pipeline does not serve them effectively, and that policymakers should aim to support these alternative pathways and set strategies for recruiting mature learners.
Care leavers and entry rates
There are some differences between those with experience of children’s social care overall and care leavers specifically. Although care leavers have poorer outcomes on most measures, care leavers have a relatively high entry rate at age 18/19, compared to other groups who have experienced children’s social care.
This could be due to a higher level of support being made available for this group in the transition from post-16 settings to higher education, reinforcing the importance of targeted interventions.
Accommodation outside of term time
Accommodation is another crucial area where care-experienced people are at a disadvantage, often without a stable home to go to during the term breaks. We need closer collaboration between local authorities and higher education providers to ensure they are collectively meeting their duty of support to care-experienced learners, and especially care leavers where the state has a corporate-parent responsibility.
This is one clear area where more joined-up working is needed to help ensure that care-experienced students have somewhere suitable to stay when universities close their doors outside of term time.
The people within the statistics
It is also important to note that many with experience of children’s social care enter higher education and thrive. As with all statistical reports, focusing on averages, however derived, risks missing the many important exceptions. That is, some individuals succeed despite the relatively long odds of doing so, and we should not interpret statistical results in a causal or absolute way.
We hope, in particular, that Virtual School Heads – a regional role that acts as a headteacher for all children with a social worker within a particular local authority – will find the research helpful when working on the strategic goal of improving educational inclusion and participation for care-experienced children and young people.
A call for change
The research underscores the fact that universities – including more selective or prestigious institutions – should rethink their approach to recruiting and supporting those with experience of children’s social care.
We outline some of the ways to support these groups – by recruiting mature learners, those from vocational pathways, and by strengthening retention strategies. One possible idea, previously suggested by the Social Market Foundation, is that providers could be offered an additional £1,000 for each care leaver they recruit as a “student premium”, beyond existing accommodation support. At TASO, we want to see higher education providers evaluating their interventions to attract and support those with experience of children’s social care, so we can start to build a picture of what works to benefit these students.
Our report makes it clear: universities, policymakers and local authorities must work together to ensure that those with experience of children’s social care are not left behind. The challenges they face in accessing and completing higher education are not inevitable but significant and targeted support is required to change the status quo. If higher education is a vehicle for social mobility, the continued focus on underrepresented groups – including those with experience of children’s social care – is vital.
The Secretary of State for Education was recently asked in Parliament if she would meet with campaigners to discuss the “duty of care” owed by higher education providers to their students.
Janet Daby – the Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing in the Department for Education (DfE) responded on her behalf, and also outlined the department’s current view on the law for holding negligent institutions to account.
At first glance, her response was unhelpful – arguing the department’s position is that a duty of care in higher education may arise in “certain circumstances”:
Such circumstances would be a matter for the courts to decide, based on the specific facts and context of the case being considered, and will be dependent on the application by a court of accepted common law principles.
It would be easy to argue that lawmakers, including Janet Daby and skills minister Jacqui Smith, should not simply defer to the courts on matters of law and institutional accountability.
After all, lawmakers have the power to create laws – so overall responsibility doesn’t rest solely with judges and their judicial interpretation of common law principles.
But perhaps Daby’s response was more helpful than it looked – because it directly confronts misleading statements that have persisted since 2023, particularly those made by former Minister Robert Halfon.
Although some might view her answer as a cautious response, in reality, it was a breath of fresh air – a much-need step in addressing the confusion that has clouded our understanding of legal responsibilities in higher education.
From Halfon’s Law to Daby’s Law
To grasp the significance of Janet Daby’s correction, we must first revisit the origins of the confusion – what I’ll call here Halfon’s Law.
Introduced by Robert Halfon in 2023, it laid the foundation for a misrepresentation of the legal duties owed by higher education providers to their students. Halfon’s Law is a belief that stemmed from a misunderstanding of online material, initially presented in a now-deleted AMOSSHE blog that was published in 2015.
In responding to the 128,000+ registered voters who signed our parliamentary e-petition calling for a statutory duty of care, Halfon asserted his department’s belief that universities already owed their students a broad and generalised duty of care. He said:
Higher Education providers do have a general duty of care to deliver educational and pastoral services to the standard of an ordinarily competent institution and, in carrying out these services, they are expected to act reasonably to protect the health, safety and welfare of their students. This can be summed up as providers owing a duty of care to not cause harm to their students through the university’s own actions.
At first glance, this might sound reasonable, but in truth, it was far from accurate. By conflating a general moral and legal principle – to act in a way that avoids causing harm to others – with a formal, court recognised duty of care that only arises in specific, legally-defined circumstances and relationships, Halfon introduced a dangerous oversimplification.
It was a distortion used to justify dismissing the petitioners’ call for a statutory duty of care, effectively silencing important conversations about the protections that students need.
Halfon’s Law, with the documented source having now been quietly removed from its original website, was a misstep in understanding the complexities of legal responsibilities in higher education. Its fall from grace is something to be celebrated.
Enter Daby’s Law: Janet Daby’s response marks a shift towards legal clarity. A duty of care may arise in certain specific circumstances, but ultimately, it is the courts that will determine the existence and application of any such duty on a limited case-by-case basis – should lengthy and costly litigation ever actually occur.
As it stands therefore, nobody truly knows what protections are in place, leaving students vulnerable, and institutions at risk of being punished for failing to do the right thing. As such, Daby’s position not only corrects the errors of Halfon’s Law, but also raises significant concerns, including the urgent need for a properly codified duty that both universities and their students can understand.
The advocacy that led to Daby’s law
Daby’s correction of the record didn’t happen by chance. It was the direct result of relentless behind-the-scenes efforts from advocates, especially ForThe100, who recognised the need to dismantle Halfon’s contention? – since it was a significant barrier preventing meaningful progress.
For too long, Halfon’s Law and its sweeping and factually incorrect statements had clouded the conversation around student safety and wellbeing, effectively stopping us from moving forward and pushing for the protections students desperately need. Too many policymakers thought it true – and so dismissed the need for a dedicated duty.
The subtle shift in content and tone, while preferable to outright inaccuracy, introduces its own set of challenges. Without clear or codified guidance, students, families, and institutions are left to navigate a murky and uncertain legal landscape.
That vagueness is deeply problematic. It means widespread confusion about rights and responsibilities, leaving institutions uncertain of their obligation, and exposed to unforeseen legal liabilities – while students are left unsure of the protections they can depend on.
Worse, the lack of clear, direct, and upfront standards is a reactive rather than proactive system, shifting the burden onto individuals to seek legal recourse only after harm has occurred.
This approach neither prioritises prevention nor ensures accountability, leaving gaps in a system meant to put students first.
It is now crucial that the government corrects the public response to our petition without delay. Halfon’s Law remains embedded in the official narrative, and its continued presence in government communications perpetuates confusion, and blocks meaningful progress.
More importantly, for over five decades, students have been without adequate legal protection, and this gap continues to undermine their safety and wellbeing.
Nobody should be reassured by a duty that arises in “certain circumstances” where those circumstances would be a matter for “the courts to decide”. Students and universities need instead to know where they stand – with the same sort of clarity on offer for the duty of care that universities as employers owe to their staff.
The next step is for the government to act – taking concrete steps toward enacting statutory reform that holds higher education institutions accountable for their acts and omissions with regard to student safety and wellbeing, and giving students and their families the confidence that when they enrol into a university, they know the minimum “duty of care” that they can actually expect.
Imagine you’re a student, a member of staff, a parent or even an MP trying to work out what type, level or nature of “duty of care” is owed by a university to students.
The other day Janet Daby, whose day job is Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing but who also moonlights as a kind of spokesperson for HE given that Jacqui Smith is in the Lords, was asked about duty of care.
The department’s position is that a duty of care in HE may arise in certain circumstances. Such circumstances would be a matter for the courts to decide, based on the specific facts and context of the case being considered, and will be dependent on the application by a court of accepted common law principles.
That’s unhelpful enough – but the courts don’t seem to be very clear either. Of relevance down this rabbit hole, there’s a fairly lurid bit of press coverage doing the rounds on a case involving a law student at Cambridge who has sued the university for its refusal to award him a PhD.
The Mail, with its usual insinuative air quotes, runs the headline as follows:
Cambridge law student sues university after he failed his PhD, claiming it held up his career as a barrister because he was “less able” to write a thesis.
The case itself is interesting because of the way in which the judge in a recent appeal has differentiated between different bits of law that are supposed to protect students.
Jacob Meagher is a disabled PhD student at Cambridge who alleges that he was not provided with an adequate supervisor or advisor, and was denied certain scholarships – acts which he claims were acts of victimisation.
He previously brought a claim against the university on those issues in 2017, and reached a settlement in 2019 which involved him restarting his PhD. But he alleges he was subjected to a number of detriments after the settlement – crucially, that in connection with his PhD examination, the university was aware of the adjustments he needed to avoid a disadvantage because of his disability, but failed to provide them.
That’s partly because they had been recommended by the university’s Accessibility and Disability Resource Centre (ADRC) in a plan, but not implemented in the department, which is the sort of scenario that Disabled Students UK’s research suggests is common.
That, Meagher claims, led to a suicide attempt and hospital admissions – things he claims the university was made aware of but refused to help or support him. Then following complaints, the university recognised the issues with the initial viva and is working to ensure a fair process for his re-examination.
But even though the university agreed to let the student re-defend his thesis and implement reasonable adjustments, he took the university to court for several reasons:
The case includes additional claims beyond the failure to implement reasonable adjustments during the initial viva. He alleges various breaches of the Equality Act 2010, including victimisation and discrimination, stemming from incidents throughout his PhD program. These include claims of inadequate supervision, vetoing of scholarships, and mishandling of complaints.
Meagher is seeking compensation for damages already incurred. He claims that the university’s actions have caused him financial losses, including missed opportunities for a tenancy as a barrister due to the delay in completing his PhD. He is also seeking general damages for the distress and harm to his mental health caused by the university’s alleged actions.
He is seeking a legal declaration that the university unlawfully discriminated against him, validating his claims and potentially influencing future practice at the university. He is also seeking to clarify legal issues concerning the university’s obligations ahead of that agreed re-examination.
The university or individuals?
When he initially brought his claim in August 2023, he included six individuals as defendants in the case – all senior employees of the university that held specific leadership roles within the departments and committees relevant to his complaints.
He argued that in addition to the liability of their employer under section 109, section 110 of the Equality Act 2010 allows individuals to be held personally liable for acts of discrimination committed in the course of their employment.
Meagher’s argument was that these individuals, by virtue of their positions, were responsible for the university’s decisions and actions that he alleged were discriminatory and caused him harm. So he sought a declaration from the court that these individuals had discriminated against him, in addition to the declaration sought against the university.
The university’s legal team argued that including these individuals as defendants provided no tangible benefit to Meagher as the university had acknowledged its liability for discriminatory acts committed by its employees, and that the claims against them were duplicative and unnecessarily increased the cost and complexity of the legal proceedings.
The County Court Judge hearing the initial applications in the case agreed with the university’s arguments and struck out the claims against the individuals, citing the “Jameel principle” that allows the courts to strike out claims that are technically valid but considered an abuse of process due to the disproportionate costs and burden they impose on the defendants compared to the potential benefit to the claimant.
And on appeal, a High Court judge has now agreed – hence the headlines. But it’s where the High Court has disagreed with the County Court where things get interesting.
Breach of contract?
In the County Court, Meagher argued that the university’s failure to implement adjustments recommended by the ADRC for his viva constituted not just breaches of the Equality Act 2010, but also breaches of contract and tort – and once you’re in that space the legal principles of foreseeability of harm, and the duty of care in providing services with reasonable skill and care, kick in.
On the duty to avoid foreseeable harm, the principle basically means that individuals and organisations have a legal responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent harm that is reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of their actions or omissions. If the Court determines that the harm Meagher experienced (e.g. psychological distress, academic setbacks) was a foreseeable consequence of the university’s failure to implement the adjustments, that would strengthen his claim for breach of contract and tort.
Then there’s the duty of care in carrying out a service with reasonable skill and care issue. That’s enshrined in section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and also applies under common law principles of negligence – and requires service providers, in this case, the university, to exercise reasonable skill and care in the provision of their services to consumers, in this instance, Meagher as a student.
The question in this case is whether the university, by failing to implement the adjustments recommended by its own ADRC, breached this duty of care by not conducting his PhD viva with the requisite skill and care, considering his disability. Meagher argues that the university’s failure to implement the ADRC’s recommendations, which he says were specific to his needs and aimed at ensuring a fair and accessible assessment process, constitutes a breach of this duty.
And at the heart of all that is the question of competence standards and how they intersect with reasonable adjustments for disabled students under the Equality Act 2010.
Competence standards
Competence standards are essentially the academic benchmarks used to assess whether a student has attained the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities for a particular qualification. You’ll recall from the Natasha Abrahart case that there was disagreement about whether presenting in-person to a lecture theatre was itself a required competence, or merely a way of assessing competence that could be (reasonably) adjusted.
The Equality Act doesn’t require universities to adjust competence standards to accommodate disabled students – but it does require universities to make reasonable adjustments to the assessment processes used to evaluate a student’s competence.
This distinction is crucial in Meagher’s case because he argues that the university’s failure to implement certain adjustments, specifically those recommended by the ADRC, resulted in him being disadvantaged in demonstrating his competence during his viva.
He argues that requiring him to take the viva in a standard format, without the recommended adjustments, placed him at a substantial disadvantage due to his disabilities, and that they were necessary to enable him to fairly demonstrate his understanding of the subject matter and meet the PhD competence standard.
Meagher proposed that his PhD assessment be based on an analysis of his published academic papers, a method already used for university staff, rather than a traditional thesis. He requested a legally-qualified editor to proofread his thesis for aesthetic and presentation standards, along with significant restructuring or adjustments to the viva process. His proposed adjustments included written feedback from examiners on areas needing improvement, followed by revisions and reassessment, as well as receiving written questions and a detailed agenda seven days prior to the viva to reduce anxiety.
To further support his needs, Meagher requested oral questions be linked to specific thesis sections in active voice, pauses and breaks after oral questions for cognitive processing, and the ability to write down questions for clarity. He also sought the option to clarify ambiguous questions with examiner explanations and breaks of at least ten minutes every hour to manage fatigue and maintain focus during the viva.
The Student Support Document (SSD) created by the ADRC included much of that – but Meagher says that the university failed to provide it to the examiners before the viva, leaving them unaware of his disabilities and the necessary adjustments – only providing a list of adjustments. He also alleges that adjustments to the viva format were not made – the examiners, he says, failed to avoid unnotified topics, clearly signpost questions, and accommodate the thesis format.
He was then granted an interim injunction against the university in July 2024 preventing it from taking any action over his PhD course or examination without consent from both parties pending the conclusion of the legal proceedings.
Two big issues
In other words, there are two things going on. On the one hand, in the discrimination arguments the student wants clarity over the reasonable adjustments/competence standards issue before that re-examination issue goes ahead.
Depending on what happens next, there could be significant implications across the sector as it continues to try to wrangle reasonable adjustments to assessment and the differences between competence standards in a subject that shouldn’t change, and mere methods for assessing them that could.
On the other hand, the potential compensation would be higher if Meagher was able to make the contract/tort arguments for a breach of contract and the implied duty to act with reasonable skill and care. Crucial there is whether, once it was agreed, the plan from the ADRC became part of the contract with the student – where if so we’re into avoiding foreseeable harm and so on. And that matters because it looks like it could create a form of duty of care.
On that issue, in the County Court Meagher argued that the failure to implement adjustments for his viva constituted breaches of contract and tort – but the judge reasoned that that was an attempt to improperly import the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 into contractual and duties of care.
But on appeal in the High Court, the contract and tort claims have been reinstated – the judge found that the County Court judge had got it wrong on “you’re trying to use two bits of law on one issue,” and argued that once it had agreed them, the university had separate contractual and tortious duties to implement the recommendations, irrespective of whether those recommendations aligned with the reasonable adjustments duty under the Equality Act.
And so that’s where things now get very interesting – because of who the pressure goes on now in any tug of war between professional services and academics that disabled students often find themselves in.
Where will the pressure fall?
It is possible that the pressure goes onto academic departments. If universities face potential legal liability for breaches of contract or tort when they fail to implement their reasonable adjustment plans, that could strengthen the hand of frustrated disabled students, and strengthen the authority of disability services departments within universities to ensure that their recommendations are given due weight and followed through.
It could also mean better training for academic staff on disability law, or clearer procedures for communicating and implementing reasonable adjustments so academic departments are aware of their obligations.
But it’s also possible that the risk of legal action causes universities to pressure their professional disability staff to be more cautious in creating and publishing reasonable adjustment plans that they could later be held to account over. They may put in steps like ensuring relevant academics agree first, slowing down already slow processes. There may also be a chilling effect on adjustments that beleaguered staff know will be hard to get academic staff to agree to.
And of course there’s more to run here – in the eventual potential outcome of the case – on what is and isn’t a reasonable adjustment to a PhD viva as a method of assessment.
What is clear is that the chances of an individual student having the money, time or smarts to take a case as far as Meagher has so far are slim. It also remains the case that disabled students’ rights in areas like this are desperately unclear, that the legal frameworks surrounding them interact in potentially unhelpful ways, and their access to support is heavily restricted once at the end of their course.
Someone, somewhere – perhaps OfS’ Disability in Higher Education Advisory Panel – needs to grip these issues properly. And next time Janet Daby is forced to issue an answer like “well it’s for the courts to decide”, perhaps she could remind herself and her boss in the other place that she’s a lawmaker.
Title: Addressing Challenges and Support for Youth Formerly in Foster Care
Author: Ellie Taylor
Source: Trellis Strategies
Youth formerly in foster care (YFFC) face complex and heightened demands with regard to postsecondary education. In a new brief from Trellis Strategies, the author discusses the distinct needs of YFFC who pursue higher education.
Trellis Strategies’ 2023 Student Financial Wellness Survey found that YFFC have considerably lower levels of food security compared to their peers, while the share of housing insecure YFFC students is 28 percentage points higher than that of non-YFFC students. Additionally, more than seven in 10 YFFC students did not know if their institutions had aid programs for them.
Most institutions do not have a means of identifying YFFC if they do not first identify themselves, complicating their ability to help students. However, less than 40 percent of students who indicated their YFFC status on their FAFSA reported receiving more funding. While 18 percent of students knew about institutional aid opportunities and 25 percent knew about state aid opportunities, 63 and 54 percent of students who were aware of these programs, respectively, participated in them.
The report highlights four key policy recommendations:
Fund and appoint liaisons for YFFC. Institutions should have a full-time staff member dedicated to supporting YFFC students.
Cultivate more awareness of support for students. Develop and sustain communication between higher education institutions and foster programs in order to build a robust awareness of resources for YFFC students and identify YFFC students.
Develop accessible programs for YFFC. Make programs, including trauma-informed counseling and academic support, convenient and free for YFFC.
Offer food and housing assistance. Designate specific housing for YFFC and provide aid to ease the financial burden of housing and food.
