This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Senators stressed the need for federal solutions to address a mental health crisis tied to social media and technology use among children and teens during a Thursday hearing held by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
Proposed solutions from senators and hearing witnesses spanned from completely ditching 1:1 devices and ed tech in schools to banning young children and teens from going on social media altogether.
The conversations in the Senate are developing with a sense of urgency as research continues to demonstrate the harmful social and emotional effects of social media use on youth and as more school districts and states seek to ban or limit cellphone use during the school day.
Additionally, the rapid spread of artificial intelligence tools could exacerbate these ongoing fears about technology’s impact on the youth mental health crisis, hearing witnesses said.
In the days leading up to the hearing, a coalition of education, library, and nonprofit leadership organizations sent a letter to Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Chair Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and ranking member Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. The coalition stressed the importance of federal support for ed tech and connectivity in schools.
Some members of the coalition include AASA, The School Superintendents Association, The Consortium for School Networking and national teacher’s unions including the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association.
“It is essential to distinguish between largely unsupervised, entertainment-driven technology use at home and the intentional, monitored, and carefully curated use of technology in schools — where digital tools are employed to support learning and prepare students for future academic and workforce demands,” the coalition’s Jan. 13 letter said.
Senators also brought up various pending bills in Congress that would address their concerns with children and teens’ excessive use of social media and technology. At the same time, nearly 20 bills looking to take on similar concerns about youth safety online are gaining traction after the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade advanced the package of legislation to the full Energy and Commerce Committee in December.
Cruz mentioned the Kids Off Social Media Act, a bipartisan bill he introduced last year that would prevent users under the age of 13 from accessing social media and prevent tech companies from using algorithms that feed addictive content to users under 17. Meanwhile, Cantwell highlighted other bipartisan Senate legislation such as an amendment to the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act and the Kids Online Safety Act that she said would update privacy protections for children online and limit “exploitative designs” by tech companies.
Ed tech and the youth mental health crisis
In Cruz’s opening remarks, he praised the Federal Communications Commission’s decision in September to roll back the Biden administration’s expansion of the E-rate program to offer schools and libraries federal discounts to purchase Wi-Fi on school buses and internet hotspots.
That expansion of E-rate, Cruz said, gave students “unsupervised internet access” while also undermining parental rights. The goal of the E-rate expansion under the Biden administration, however, was to increase internet access to students from low-income families so they can complete their homework and not fall behind in their classes.
Under the Children’s Internet Protection Act, which was passed in 2000, schools and libraries receiving E-rate funds must block harmful content on their devices both on and off campus. Those requirements include denying access to content that is obscene, pornographic or otherwise harmful to students.
CIPA also “requires districts to adopt internet safety policies, monitor online activity, and educate students about appropriate online behavior,” the Jan. 13 coalition letter said. “These longstanding requirements demonstrate both the seriousness with which schools approach online safety and the robust legal architecture to protect students that is already in place.”
Cantwell pushed back on comments against the E-rate program.
“Congress is obligated to act,” Cantwell said, but rather than “focusing on threatening E-rate connectivity for schools, I think we should be passing meaningful protections for kids’ online privacy, regardless of whether they’re accessing the internet from home or school.”
Cruz also questioned during the hearing “whether assigning personal devices to children is actually improving academic outcomes or doing more harm than good.”
Two witnesses supported eliminating 1:1 devices in schools, which became widespread during the COVID-19 pandemic when districts had to operate classes remotely for many months. The witnesses, Emily Cherkin, founder of The Screentime Consultant, and Jared Cooney Horvath, director of education professional development company LME Global, called for a return to traditional analog learning for younger students followed by the integration of technology into academic instruction during later years once key skills are understood.
Despite a surge in ed tech over the past several years, Horvath said students’ proficiency in digital literacy has dropped between 2018 and 2023 as seen on the global assessment known as the International Computer and Information Literacy Study. “So clearly, the secret to learning how to use tech is to not use tech,” Horvath said.
Education organizations in the Jan. 13 letter denounced the idea of banning all technology in classrooms, however, saying that the government instead would better serve the public by adequately funding schools with professional development and technical support to ensure schools have the most effective safeguards and online filters on their devices.
The latest data from the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) makes clear that the housing crisis is not just about poverty — it is about the shrinking distance between the working poor and the working-educated. The gap between wages and rent has widened so dramatically that even college-educated workers, adjunct faculty, nonprofit staff, social workers, and early-career professionals are drowning in housing costs.
The Housing Wage and the Broken Promise of Higher Ed
According to NLIHC’s Out of Reach 2025 report, a full-time worker in the U.S. needs to earn $33.63 an hour to afford a modest two-bedroom apartment and $28.17 an hour for a one-bedroom. That’s far higher than what many degree-holders earn, especially those in education, public service, healthcare support, and the nonprofit sector.
The academic workforce itself is emblematic of the problem: adjunct instructors with master’s degrees — sometimes PhDs — often earn poverty-level wages. Yet the rents they face are no different from those of skilled professionals in high-paying industries.
Higher education promised mobility; instead, it delivered a generation of renters one missed paycheck away from eviction.
An Educated Underclass Renting in Perpetuity
NLIHC’s data shows a national shortage of affordable housing: only 35 affordable and available homes exist for every 100 extremely low-income renters. While this crisis hits the lowest-income Americans hardest, it also drags down millions of educated workers who now compete for the same shrinking stock of affordable units.
This convergence — between the working poor and the working educated — reflects a structural breakdown:
New graduates carry student debt while starting in low-wage jobs.
Millennial and Gen Z workers face rents that have grown far faster than wages.
Former middle-class professionals, displaced by automation and recession, re-enter the workforce at lower wages that no longer match their credentials.
Public-sector and nonprofit workers do “mission-driven” work but cannot afford to live in the communities they serve.
Increasingly, higher education is not a safeguard against housing insecurity — it is a gateway into it.
The Spiral: Student Debt, Rent Burden, and Delayed Adulthood
The educated underclass faces a double bind:
High rents prevent saving, while student debt prevents mobility.
NLIHC data shows that renters who are cost-burdened (spending more than 30% of income on housing) or severely cost-burdened (over 50%) are forced to cut spending on essentials. For many degree-holders, this means:
Delaying or abandoning homeownership
Working multiple jobs to cover rent
Moving back in with parents
Delaying marriage and child-rearing
Relocating constantly in search of slightly cheaper housing
This is not “adulting” — it’s economic triage.
The educated underclass is increasingly indistinguishable from the broader working class in terms of economic vulnerability, yet still burdened by expectations that their degrees should have delivered them stability.
When Housing Costs Undermine Higher Education Itself
The affordability crisis is reshaping entire higher education ecosystems:
Students struggle to find housing close to campus, leading to long commutes, couch surfing, or dropping out.
Graduate students and postdocs — essential academic labor — increasingly rely on food aid, emergency grants, and organizing unions just to survive.
Colleges in high-cost cities cannot hire or retain staff because employees cannot afford to live nearby.
Public institutions face declining enrollment because families see no payoff to degrees that lead to poverty wages and unaffordable housing.
If higher education cannot provide a pathway out of housing insecurity, its legitimacy — and its future — is in question.
Toward Real Solutions: Housing as an Educational Issue
Solving this crisis requires acknowledging a simple truth: housing policy is higher-education policy.
The educated underclass is not a natural outcome of individual failure; it is the product of a system that overcharges for education and underpays for labor while allowing rents to skyrocket.
Real solutions would include:
Large-scale public investment in deeply affordable housing
Expansion of rental assistance and housing vouchers
Living-wage laws that reflect real housing costs
Student-housing development tied to public colleges
Forgiveness of rental debt accumulated during economic shocks
Strengthening unions among educators, adjuncts, graduate workers, and other low-paid professionals
The promise of higher education cannot be realized while a degree-holder earning $20, $25, or even $30 an hour still cannot afford a one-bedroom apartment.
The Verdict: Housing Is the Fault Line of the New Class Divide
NLIHC’s data confirms what millions of renters already know: the U.S. housing market punishes workers regardless of education level, and higher education no longer protects against precarity. The educated underclass is not a fringe category — it is becoming the norm.
Until wages align with housing costs and the housing system is restructured to serve people rather than profit, the divide between those who can afford stability and those who cannot will continue to widen. And higher education, once marketed as the bridge to a better life, will remain yet another broken promise — one rent payment away from collapse.
Sources
National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach 2025
As someone who’s dedicated my career to advancing the Science of Reading movement, I’ve seen firsthand what it takes to help every child become a strong, fluent reader. We’ve made incredible strides in shifting the conversation toward evidence-based instruction, but I know we’re at a critical inflection point. While we–obviously–continue our work helping schools and districts adopt SOR, there’s an issue that stands in the way of real, sustained, progress: the staffing crisis and leadership churn that are leaving our educators overwhelmed and skeptical toward “change.” Without addressing these deeper structural issues, we risk stalling the momentum we’ve worked so hard to build.
The hidden costs of constant turnover
The data on teacher and leader turnover is bleak, and I’ve seen how it undermines the long-term commitment needed for any meaningful change. Consider this: Roughly 1 in 6 teachers won’t return to the same classroom next year, and nearly half of new teachers leave within their first five years. This constant churn is a massive financial burden on districts, costing an estimated $20,000 per teacher to recruit, hire, and onboard. But the real cost is the human one. Every time a new leader or teacher steps in, the hard-won progress on a literacy initiative can be jeopardized.
I’ve watched districts spend years building momentum for the Science of Reading, providing extensive training and resources, only to see a new superintendent or principal arrive with a new set of priorities. This “leader wobble” can pull the rug out from under an initiative mid-stream. It’s especially frustrating when a new leader decides a program has had “plenty of professional learning” without taking the time to audit its impact. This lack of continuity completely disrupts the 3-5 years it takes for an initiative to truly take hold, especially because new teachers often arrive with a knowledge gap, as only about one-quarter of teacher preparation programs teach the Science of Reading. We can’t build on a foundation that’s constantly shifting.
Overwhelmed by “initiative fatigue”
I know what it feels like to have too much on your plate. Teachers, already juggling countless instructional materials, often see each new program not as a solution but as one more thing to learn, implement, and manage. Instead of excitement, there’s skepticism–this is initiative fatigue, and it can stall real progress. I’ve seen it firsthand; one large district I worked with rolled out new reading, math, and phonics resources all at once.
To prevent this, we need to follow the principle of “pull weeds to plant flowers.” Being critical, informed consumers of resources means choosing flowers (materials) that are:
• Supported by high-quality, third-party research • Aligned across all tiers of instruction • Versatile enough to meet varied student needs • Teacher-friendly, with clear guidance and instructional dialogue • Culturally relevant, reflecting the diverse backgrounds of students
Now, even when a resource meets these standards, adoption shouldn’t be additive. Teachers can’t layer new tools on top of old ones. To see real change, old resources must be replaced with better ones. Educators need solutions that provide a unified, research-backed framework across all tiers, giving teachers clarity, support, and a path to sustainable student progress.
Building a stable environment for sustained change
So, how do we create the stable environment needed to support our educators? It starts with leadership that is in it for the long game. We need to mitigate turnover by using data to understand why teachers are leaving and then acting on that feedback. Strengthening mentorship, clarifying career pathways, and improving school culture are all crucial steps.
Beyond just retaining staff, leaders must foster a culture of sustained commitment. It’s not enough to have a few “islands of excellence” where a handful of teachers are getting great results.
We need system-wide adoption. This requires strong leaders to balance support and accountability. I’ve seen how collaborative teams, engaged in problem-solving and data-based decision-making, can transform a school. When teachers see students as “our students” and not just “my students,” shared ownership grows.
A leader’s job is to protect and sustain this vision, making sure the essential supports–like collaborative planning time, ongoing professional development, and in-classroom coaching–are in place. But sustaining change goes beyond daily management; it requires building deep capacity so the work continues even if leadership shifts. This means hiring, training, and retaining strong educators, investing in future leaders, and ensuring committed advocates are part of the implementation team. It also requires creating a detailed, actionable roadmap, with budgets clearly allocated and accountability measures established, so that any initiative isn’t just a short-term priority but a long-term promise. By embedding these structures, leaders can secure continuity, maintain momentum, and ensure that every step forward in literacy translates into lasting gains for students.
For millions of Americans with college degrees, the headlines about a “possible recession” feel like a cruel joke. While official statistics lag, the lived reality for the educated underclass—those with bachelor’s or advanced degrees who are struggling to maintain stability—is nothing short of an economic depression. Rising costs of living, stagnating wages, and dwindling job security have already reshaped daily life, and many are barely hanging on.
Unemployment figures tell only part of the story. College graduates now make up a record 25% of the unemployed, with white-collar layoffs in tech, finance, and even healthcare rising. Those who are employed are often underemployed, working multiple part-time jobs or in positions that barely require a degree. The promise that a college credential ensures upward mobility is eroding rapidly, leaving a generation of highly educated Americans questioning the value of the very investment that was supposed to secure their future.
Housing costs are skyrocketing, especially in urban centers where jobs are concentrated. Even modest apartments demand incomes far above what many professional graduates earn. Student loan debt compounds the pressure, forcing difficult trade-offs between basic living expenses and debt repayment. For many, “making it” now means moving back in with parents or sharing crowded apartments with friends—situations reminiscent of a pre-adult adolescence prolonged indefinitely.
Meanwhile, inflation eats away at savings. Food prices, healthcare, and transportation costs continue to climb, leaving little room for discretionary spending or emergency funds. The safety net that the previous generation relied on—a stable job, homeownership, a modest retirement plan—is increasingly inaccessible. For the educated underclass, financial precarity has become normalized, even invisible to those who still enjoy some buffer in the broader economy.
The psychological toll is real. Anxiety, depression, and burnout are rampant among highly educated professionals facing underemployment or precarious work conditions. The “American Dream” has shifted from upward mobility to merely surviving, with little room for long-term planning or security.
Policymakers continue to debate whether a recession is coming, but for many, the recession has already arrived. It’s not marked by dramatic market crashes or bold headlines—it is quiet, slow, and insidious, felt in empty savings accounts, missed rent payments, and jobs that fail to match education and ambition. Recognizing this reality is the first step toward meaningful change. Until then, the educated underclass is living through an economic depression, one degree at a time.
This blog was kindly authored by Juliette Claro, Lecturer in Education St Mary’s University Twickenham.
Initial Teacher Education (ITE) providers across England are facing an escalating crisis: a growing inability to secure sufficient school placements for trainee teachers. With an average of 20 to 25% of unplaced trainee teachers, September 2025 has been challenging for universities and ITE providers. Despite policy ambitions to strengthen teacher supply, the reality on the ground is that many trainees’ hopes to start their first school placement in September were shattered due to a lack of school placements, especially in the secondary routes. This bottleneck threatens not only the future workforce but also the integrity of teacher training itself.
A system under strain
According to the Teacher Labour Market in England Annual Report 2025 by the National Foundation for Educational Research, recruitment into ITE remains persistently below target, with secondary subjects like Physics and Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) facing the most acute shortages. In 2024/25, Physics recruitment reached just 17% of its target, while MFL hovered at 33%. These figures reflect a long-standing trend, exacerbated by declining interest in teaching and competition from other professions.
But even when trainees are recruited, sometimes through international routes at considerable expense, placing them in schools has become increasingly difficult. The Department for Education’s Initial Teacher Education Thematic Monitoring Visits Overview Report (2025) highlights that many providers struggle to find schools with sufficient mentor capacity and subject expertise. The report reinforced the point that mentoring pre-service teachers in schools often relies on the goodwill of teachers, and when too many providers operate in one local area, competition becomes unsustainable. This is particularly problematic in shortage subjects, where schools may lack qualified specialists to support trainees effectively, for example, in Physics or Languages.
Mentoring is a cornerstone of effective teacher training. Yet research in 2024 from the National Institute of Teaching (reveals that mentors are often overstretched, under-recognised, and inadequately supported. Many people report sacrificing their own planning time or juggling mentoring duties alongside full teaching loads. As a result, there may be a rise in reluctance among teachers to take on mentoring roles, especially in high-pressure environments.
The government offers funding that aims to support mentor training and leadership, including grants for lead mentors, mentors and intensive training. However, these are often paid in arrears and come with complex conditions, making them less accessible to schools already grappling with budget constraints. Moreover, the funding does not always reflect the true cost of releasing staff from teaching duties to support trainees in schools.
Routes into teaching: a fragmented landscape?
The diversity of routes into teaching (School Direct, university-led PGCEs, Teach First, apprenticeships was designed to offer flexibility. But for ITE providers, it has created logistical headaches. Each route comes with its own placement requirements, mentor expectation, and funding mechanisms. Coordinating placements across this fragmented landscape is time-consuming and often leads to duplication or competition for limited school capacity.
As universities continue to battle through their own funding crises, competition for recruitment and placements clash with other local providers and alliances of School- Centred Initial Teacher Training (SCITT), resulting in a lot of demands but not enough offers for placements.
The 2024 ITE market reforms, which led to the de-accreditation of 68 providers, further destabilised the system. While many have partnered with accredited institutions to continue offering courses, the disruption has strained relationships between providers and with placement schools, resulting in reducing the overall number of placements available, where too many ITE providers end up saturating the same local areas for school placements.
The subject specialist shortages
The shortage of subject specialists is not just a recruitment issue: it is also a placement issue. In their 2025 report and recommendations for recruitment, retention and retraining the Institute of Physics (IoP) revealed that 58% of GCSE lessons in England are taught by non-Physics specialists.
When 25% of secondary schools do not have a Physics specialist teacher in-house and 63% of schools struggle to recruit specialist MFL teachers (British Council Language Trends 2025), it is no surprise that priorities for some school leaders is on the teaching of their students and not the mentoring trainee teachers. In many schools, Biology or Chemistry teachers cover Physics content, making it difficult to offer meaningful placements for Physics trainees. The same applies to Modern Foreign Languages, where schools often lack the breadth of language expertise needed to support trainees effectively. As non-core subjects may suffer from reduced curriculum time, finding enough teaching hours to allocate to a trainee teacher can become another challenge for some schools. Finally, as the recruitment crisis becomes more acute in more deprived areas, finding suitable mentors for trainee teachers in these areas become increasingly complex.
Without subject specialists, trainees may be placed in environments where they cannot observe or practise high-quality teaching in their discipline. This undermines the quality of training and risks having Early Career Teachers feeling ill-prepared for the classroom.
Teacher workload: the silent barrier
Teacher workload remains one of the most significant barriers to placement availability. The Working Lives of Teachers and Leaders Wave 3 Report (DfE, 2025) found that 90% of teachers considering leaving the profession cited high workload as a key factor. With rising demands around behaviour management, curriculum delivery and accountability, many teachers simply do not have the bandwidth to mentor trainees. Reduced school funding, less staff and more demands on schoolteachers has meant that it is not uncommon to have weekly meetings between teachers and trainees organised out of school hours, at 8am or at 5pm, after school meetings. This is particularly acute in schools serving disadvantaged communities, where staffing pressures are greatest and the need for high-quality teaching is most urgent. Ironically, these are often the schools where trainees could have the most impact, if only they could be placed there.
The perfect storm
As ITE providers navigate the currents and the storms of recruiting and placing trainee teachers into schools, the strain on school funding directly impacts the recruitment of future teachers. If ITE providers cannot provide school placements, teachers and schools cannot recruit. Is it, therefore, time to reconsider and revalue the mentors in schools who are the running engine of the training process whilst on school placement?
New for school mentors could include:
Streamlining mentor funding to recognise fully and value the time spent by mentors to fulfil their role in supporting with lesson planning, giving feedback to lessons, meeting the trainee weekly and supporting international trainee teachers adapting to new curricula where necessary.
Invest in subject specialist development, particularly in Physics and MFL.
Reduce teacher workload through policy reform and flexible working arrangements where mentors can co-share the responsibility with colleagues.
Clarify and coordinate training routes to ease the burden on providers and schools.
Elevate the status of mentoring through formal recognition, qualifications, and career pathways.
The future of teacher supply depends not just on recruitment, but on the ability to train teachers well. Without sufficient placements and adequate training, we risk building a pipeline that leaks before it flows. It is time for policymakers to recognise the strains on a suffocating system if recruitment targets are to be met.
The student who wrote that line in FIRE’s annual free speech survey wasn’t using a metaphor. They were describing a spring afternoon in 2024 at Indiana University’s Dunn Meadow — a campus green with a lineage of protest dating to the anti-apartheid “shantytowns” of the 1980s — when officers with rifles took positions on the roof of the Indiana Memorial Union over the heads of student protesters. Indiana State Police later confirmed they had positioned officers “with sniper capabilities” on rooftops.
The night before, administrators had convened an ad hoc meeting that rewrote IU’s Outdoor Spaces policy to require approval for structures that had long been permitted. By morning, a peaceful protest was recast as a policy violation. By noon, state police had taken a “closed sniper position” above the lawn.
Police arrested dozens of students and faculty over two days, and many received one‑year campus bans later challenged in court. Ultimately, the Monroe County Prosecutor’s office dropped the “constitutionally dubious” charges. FIRE wrote IU leadership objecting to the eleventh‑hour policy change and the resulting crackdown, warning IU that manipulating rules to curtail disfavored protest is incompatible with a public university’s First Amendment obligations.
For a university whose motto celebrates “light and truth,” the optics were unmissable: IU had turned its own tradition of protest into grounds for punishment. Unfortunately, it wasn’t an isolated incident, but a warning for what would follow.
Act now: Condemn Indiana University’s censorship of student media
Indiana University fired its student media adviser for refusing to censor the student paper, then banned the paper’s print edition.
The atmosphere that spring clarified what faculty had been saying in whispered discontent for years: academic freedom and shared governance were being treated as obstacles to be managed. On April 16, 2024, nearly 1,000 faculty came together for an unprecedented meeting where 93% of those present voted no confidence in IU’s leadership. At the time, FIRE noted that the no‑confidence movement explicitly cited encroachments on academic freedom and viewpoint discrimination concerns.
One flashpoint was the university’s handling of associate professor Abdulkader Sinno, suspended from teaching and advising in December 2023 after a dispute over a room reservation — the registered student group he had advised being none other than the Palestine Solidarity Committee. FIRE went on record with a reminder that public universities must not punish faculty for facilitating student expression or for the viewpoints associated with that expression.
Another flashpoint was art. In December 2023, IU’s Eskenazi Museum abruptly canceled a long‑planned retrospective of Palestinian‑American painter Samia Halaby, notifying the artist her work would no longer be shown in a terse letter curtailing three years of preparation. IU invoked concerns about security and the “integrity of the exhibit.” But as FIRE explained, public institutions cannot cancel art because the artist’s politics are unpopular or because controversy is inconvenient.
Meanwhile, cancellations migrated into other corners of campus life. In January 2025, the IU School of Medicine canceled its LGBTQ+ Health Care Conference, initially offering only a bare note on the website. Administrators later cited pending legislation as the reason. One invited keynote speaker, journalist Chris Geidner, publicly confirmed the cancellation. As FIRE frequently reminds universities, preemptively shutting down academic programming due to political headwinds chills debate and undermines academic freedom. Universities exist to give ideas a platform, not to turn them away.
IU’s Israel-Palestine-related cancellations didn’t run in only one political direction, either. In March 2024, IU officials urged IU Hillel to postpone an event with Mosab Hassan Yousef, a prominent pro‑Israel activist and Hamas critic, citing security threats. Instead of securing the event, IU “postponed” it, but apparently never rescheduled.
By the publication of FIRE’s 2026 College Free Speech Rankings, the numbers matched the mood. Indiana University ranked 255th out of 257 institutions surveyed, making it the worst‑ranked public university in America, with bottom‑tier scores in openness, administrative support, and comfort expressing ideas. Roughly one in four IU students reported discipline or threats of discipline for their expression, and nearly three‑quarters of faculty said the administration does not protect academic freedom.
This fall, IU’s crackdown reached the newsroom. Student editors at the Indiana Daily Student ran two straightforward, newsworthy pieces: one on IU’s suspension of the Palestine Solidarity Committee, another on IU’s abysmal free‑speech ranking. Students say Media School Dean David Tolchinsky pressed them to suppress the coverage. When they refused, the university ordered the paper’s print edition halted just before homecoming.
Control at an editorially independent student paper belongs to the students, not to administrators.
When Jim Rodenbush, the director of student media, declined to enforce content restrictions, he was fired. FIRE’s Student Press Freedom Initiative immediately wrote IU on Oct. 16, condemning the firing as apparent retaliation and the print‑ban directive as unconstitutional censorship by a public university. The students’ response captured the stakes: an image of an empty newspaper rack on campus captioned with a single word in block letters, “CENSORED.”
IU has since reversed the print shutdown amid national outcry and a federal lawsuit filed by Rodenbush. The chancellor has authorized IDS to print through June 30, 2026, within budget parameters. FIRE’s position remains: Control at an editorially independent student paper belongs to the students, not to administrators.
Seen together — the midnight rule change at Dunn Meadow, the snipers on the roof, the faculty’s 93% vote of no confidence, the sanctioning of a professor for defending a student group’s right to meet, the cancellation of an artist’s exhibit, the quiet erasure of a healthcare conference, the postponement of a controversial speaker under the elastic banner of security, and finally the order to stop the presses — it is clear Indiana University has a crisis on its hands. This is a campus where students practice self‑silencing to survive the semester, where faculty measure every sentence against the week’s political weather, where the oxygen of inquiry thins until only the safest words remain.
Today — Monday, Nov. 10 — FIRE answers in one forum the university can’t control: the public square. Our first billboard went up in Bloomington this morning. It’s stark — black, white, and FIRE red — and it names the problem plainly, pointing readers to see the record for themselves.
IU has a chance here to do the right thing, but if they don’t, more boards will follow, put up in places where IU’s leaders, alumni, and visitors will pass them on their way to games and meetings and flights. The point is not spectacle but accountability: to hold a mirror up to a public university that has tried, repeatedly, to dodge the image it has made for itself.
The first billboard in FIRE’s campaign, installed in Bloomington on Monday, Nov. 10, 2025
FIRE doesn’t launch campaigns like this to score points. We’re launching this campaign because IU, a taxpayer‑funded institution, has betrayed its public duty, believing it doesn’t need to answer to the Constitution or the consequences of ignoring the First Amendment.
Any university that posts sharpshooters over a peaceful protest, cancels art for its connotations, shutters a conference because of its politics, and then turns around and tells student journalists they can’t print the truth about any one of these stories hasn’t merely lost its way. It has chosen a different map — one that trades the honest noise of debate for the chilling silence of control. That’s not how we do things in America.
What the hell is going on at Indiana University?
Indiana University just banned its student paper for reporting its awful free speech ranking. You literally can’t make this up.
The rifles are gone from the roof now, but the memory of their presence is as much a part of Dunn Meadow as the grass. The empty newspaper racks may soon be refilled, but national headlines about a campus with no newspaper endure like a warning label.
Indiana University’s leaders have a choice to make.
They can continue to censor and pretend it’s not a problem. Or, they can acknowledge what these last 20 months have made obvious and begin to repair what fear has fractured. They can ensure student and faculty speech is not micromanaged, that journalists report without preclearance, that art hangs because it is art, and that a university’s purpose is not to avoid controversy but to teach, especially when the debate is loud and the issue is of great public importance.
We’re calling on IU to issue a public statement acknowledging its violations of students’ and faculty members’ free speech rights and to meet with FIRE’s experts to begin improving its ranking. Reinstating Rodenbush would also be a meaningful first step in demonstrating that IU is serious about addressing its free speech problems.
Until then, we’ll keep telling this story where it cannot be edited away — on screens, on pages, and, starting today, on the unmissable canvases that rise beside Indiana’s roads.
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.”
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.
“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&ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>
This blog was kindly authored by Lee Marney, a recent graduate of the University of Manchester.
Introduction
Megan Bowler’s recent HEPI report lays bare the problems that language educators are experiencing in the face of declining uptake of modern foreign languages (MFL) at both post-14 and post-16 levels since the removal of compulsory foreign language Key Stage 3 in 2004.
The report is a fascinating insight into how language learning is indeed more vital than ever in the face of artificial intelligence, and the skills acquired are beneficial not only to individuals who learn MFL, but also to local communities and the economy.
MFL and pupils for lower socioeconomic backgrounds
The report recommends various measures to promote language educational uptake. However, more ought to be done to target groups of students who have disproportionately low participation in MFL to address the current language learning crisis, particularly through the form of:
offering alternative qualification pathways; and
reforming curriculum through utilising heritage languages (A heritage language is a minority language, migrant or indigenous, learned at home during childhood) to move away from a Eurocentric model of MFL across all Key Stages.
While policy can be a useful top-down tool to encourage MFL uptake, Megan Fowlers report rightfully points out that it must be accompanied by an ethos that reformulates the way in which we view the skills accrued by MFL learning. However, one must also be able to acknowledge that policy is a vital tool in encouraging that ethos growth by uplifting the linguistic diversity of this country’s working class. By reforming qualifications and allowing curriculum content to reflect the linguistic diversity of the UK and beyond, policymakers can ensure MFL are a tool for social mobility.
Back in late 2023, a little known libertarian by the name of Javier Milei was elected President of Argentina with a strong mandate to conquer that country’s hyperinflation. His strategy for doing so was pretty straightforward — freeze public spending, which would mean a big loss in real terms until inflation came down, and then let the free market do the rest.
That was easier said than done. Milei lacked a majority in Congress and all of the legacy parties had some reason to try and preserve the status quo, but more or less, Milei got his way and the public sector, including public universities, have had to shrink enormously as a result. Falling budgets, cratering salaries, the lot.
But now the opposition is starting to gain strength. Over the northern summer, Congress passed a bill meant to roughly double state spending on public higher education. Last week, predictably Milei vetoed the law. We can probably expect a season of protests and strikes to ensue.
Returning to the show today to discuss all this is Marcelo Rabossi of the Universidad Torcuato Di Tella in Buenos Aires. He joined the podcast 18 months ago at the outset of Milei’s term to discuss what the President’s agenda was likely to have in store for the higher education sector. Today he’s with us to talk about how the system is surviving what amounts to a massive cut in real pesos, and what the next few months look like as tensions mount between the President and the opposition.
Of particular interest, I think, is where we talk about how, despite Milei’s affinity to the US hard right, he’s avoided Trumpian tactics, like targeted cutbacks through research rescissions and outright institutional extortion.
The World of Higher Education Podcast Episode 4.3 | Crisis or Reform? Higher Education in Milei’s Argentina with Marcelo Rabossi
Transcript
Alex Usher (AU): Marcelo, when we last spoke in January 2024, Javier Milei was newly elected president at the head of La Libertad Avanza. He didn’t have a majority in Congress—still doesn’t. He was elected on a mandate to stop hyperinflation, but his appeal wasn’t just about tighter money. He was a libertarian who wanted to shrink the size of government enormously, which is, in some ways, quite a revolutionary idea in Argentina. Generally speaking, how has his first year and a half in office gone? Is inflation down? Has the size of the government shrunk?
Marcelo Rabossi (MR): From the very beginning, even during his campaign, Milei promised radical changes to literally crash hyperinflation. He aimed to do this by reducing government spending and opening the economy. Inflation has dropped substantially. For example, in December 2023, monthly inflation peaked at 25% and now it’s around 2% for three consecutive months. This is largely due to Milei’s aggressive austerity measures and a very tight monetary policy. He significantly cut federal spending and restored market dynamics.
It’s also true that poverty has declined, from 54% in early 2024 to about 32% in early 2025. On the other hand, economic activity has stagnated, and retirees have lost much of the purchasing power of their pensions. That’s the dark side of Milei’s economic plan.
AU: How has he been able to achieve his agenda without a majority in Congress? What’s the dynamic there? Does he strike deals with conservative parties, or does the presidency give him some ability to rule by decree? How do you get things done when you’re a minority president?
MR: That’s a great question, because I think this is the first party in power with a minority in both chambers of Congress. Milei has relied on emergency executive decrees to bypass legislative opposition or blockages and to implement deep reforms.
Early on, he also struck strategic deals with conservative parties, particularly PRO—the party of former President Macri—and the Radical Civic Union. These strategies helped him pass the “Ley de Bases” in 2024, which was a foundational reform to deregulate the economy.
However, this approach had its limits. He’s now facing growing resistance, even from former allies. Internal divisions and shifting loyalties have made these alliances fragile.
By mid-2025, even some conservative legislators began distancing themselves from Milei’s more extreme measures and aggressive behavior. So I’d say he has governed through a mix of executive power, tactical alliances, and public pressure—but he’s losing that advantage.
AU: My understanding is that Milei’s approach to reducing expenditure and inflation has been simply to freeze spending on government departments. Inflation is lower now than it was two years ago, but it’s still reasonably high, so inflation just erodes the value of that spending.
How has this affected higher education? How big has the cut been to higher education in real terms—that is, after inflation? And is higher education different from other social sectors? Presumably you’d see the same dynamics with hospitals and other services. Is higher education being targeted for bigger reductions, or no?
MR: You’re absolutely right. Spending freezes across all public areas—education, health, infrastructure—have been his primary tool to fight inflation. But as you noted, when inflation remains high, even if it’s slowing, frozen budgets imply reductions in real terms.
Regarding higher education, let me give you some numbers. In 2024, funding for Argentina’s public universities fell by around 30% in real terms and by 2025, the projected university budget is about 35–36% lower than in 2023. According to my analysis, around 80% of higher education spending in Argentina goes to salaries, and those dropped by about 30–35%. Capital expenditures for infrastructure have also collapsed.
But it’s not only university funding. Overall, education has suffered a real decrease of more than 30% between 2023 and 2025. For example, teacher training and technology programs are down 40%, and early childhood education infrastructure is down 60%. Scholarships for low-income students have also decreased by about 40%. I should add that schools are funded at the provincial level, so national cuts didn’t have as large an impact there. But universities, which are funded nationally, were hit hard. Overall, higher education has been one of the hardest-hit sectors.
So, this “freeze strategy,” as I call it, has helped Milei achieve fiscal surpluses and reduce inflation—but it has come at the cost of shrinking real investment in the country’s future.
AU: The president is sometimes seen as Argentina’s Trump—that’s sort of his international reputation. He certainly has admirers on the U.S. far right. Elon Musk even copied him with the chainsaw routine, attacking public finances.
I don’t get the sense that Milei is a friend of higher education. He rants about “woke intellectuals” and that kind of thing, which lines up with the American right. But I don’t get the sense he’s copied Trump in terms of silencing particular lines of research or picking fights with individual universities.
So apart from the financial cuts, which can maybe be defended purely on anti-inflationary grounds, what has the relationship been between Milei and the higher education sector?
MR: Unlike Trump, Milei hasn’t gone after specific research areas or individual institutions. He hasn’t interfered with academic freedom—there have been no restrictions on curricula, no attacks on gender studies or climate research, and no attempt to control university governance.
His approach has been more structural than targeted at specific institutions. That said, the University of Buenos Aires—the largest and most important in the system—has been his main target, simply because it’s the most visible.
I should add that some of his early ideas, like replacing direct public funding of universities with vouchers, have remained more like theoretical provocations than serious proposals. They have no real support and no chance of being implemented.
So while Milei’s stance toward higher education is hostile, it’s not close to institutional repression. His obsession is with the economy and controlling inflation.
AU: A moment ago, you talked about roughly a 30% decline in real terms for university support—maybe a bit higher if you compare the end of 2025 to the end of 2023. How does a university deal with a cut of 33%? What kinds of decisions do they have to make to keep the doors open in conditions of austerity like that? And what have been the consequences of those decisions?
MR: First, universities reacted in order to survive. I would say they are operating in survival mode. In this scenario, universities have had to freeze salaries, delay infrastructure repairs, and cut back on research funding. They’ve also shortened semesters, reduced course offerings, and postponed new programs. Some campuses, like the University of Buenos Aires, have even merged departments or cut non-essential services.
To give you an idea of why these fiscal restrictions have hit so hard: between 80% and 90% of universities’ total income comes from national government funds. Remember, undergraduate education in Argentina is tuition-free, and undergraduates represent more than 90% of a total student body of over 2 million enrolled in national institutions. On the other hand, historically Argentina’s public universities haven’t had a strong tradition of fundraising. Some institutions are beginning to move in that direction, collecting money from private donors, but it’s still very limited.
AU: Surely those kinds of cutbacks would make private universities in Argentina more attractive, right? Argentina doesn’t have a huge private sector—it’s not like Chile or Brazil. I think about 80% of students are in the public system. But have private universities seen an opportunity here? Are they taking advantage of these cuts to tout the benefits of paying tuition and offering something more complete than the public sector?
MR: As I always say, in Argentina the private sector is more tolerated than stimulated, unlike in Brazil or Chile. There are about 60 private universities in the country with around 400,000 undergraduates. Historically, they’ve largely avoided political confrontations and remained neutral. Politics tends to play out in the public sector, so unlike national institutions, private universities haven’t been cast as ideological enemies or targets. This has allowed them to operate with less social and political confrontation.
On the financial side, the private sector largely depends on tuition fees—on average, 90% of their income comes from that source. So decreases in public funding haven’t been an issue for them, since they don’t rely on public subsidies or loans. Recently, however, there have been rumors about public scholarships for students at private universities.
Financially speaking, they’re in reasonably good shape. They’ve been able to maintain operations, salaries, and infrastructure. In a way, they look relatively resilient. And you’re right—while public universities are cutting programs, freezing salaries, and facing potential strikes, private universities now appear more stable and predictable for students and families. For those who can afford tuition, private institutions may seem like a real option.
AU: The public universities have obviously been fighting back over the past year and a half. I’ve lost count of the number of strikes, protests, and demonstrations of public opposition.
What’s interesting is that just in the past few months—during the Northern Hemisphere summer, your winter—Congress considered a bill to stabilize university finances. If I understand correctly, they mandated a funding floor tied to a certain percentage of GDP. That law passed about a month ago. What was this bill, and how did it pass? Because it seems to get back to the question of the president losing allies, since some of his conservative partners voted for it.
MR: Right. The goal of this law was to increase Argentina’s university budget from around 0.4% of GDP to 1.5% in the next five years. That’s a big jump. Beginning in 2026, funding will rise to 1% of GDP.
Historically, public spending on universities has been around 0.6% of GDP, peaking at 1% but usually closer to 0.8%. So this proposal represents a significant increase. It’s intended to replace the funding law passed by the government in 2024.
The bill was introduced in Congress by the rectors of Argentina’s 56 national universities, with support from unions and student organizations. It also proposes updating budget allocations for accumulated inflation in 2023–2024 and reinforcing faculty salaries starting in December 2023, with monthly updates tied to the consumer price index.
AU: Let’s talk about what happens politically here. Both houses of Congress passed the law, and Milei vetoed it on September 10th, I think. How does this get resolved at this point? What happens politically to the bill from here on in?
MR: You’re right about the veto—it’s his main political tool, given that he has no majority in either chamber. University unions, students, and education advocates have already staged protests and strikes, and more demonstrations are expected, especially around Congress.
The veto will escalate tensions between Milei and the education sector, and it’s becoming a rallying point for the opposition. In my view, the next few weeks will be critical. If Congress can’t override the veto, universities will remain under severe financial strain, and political pressure on Milei will intensify.
Either way, this is more than a budget fight. The opposition says it’s a battle over the future of public education in Argentina.
AU: President Milei has another two years and three months left in his mandate. What’s your best guess about higher education? How is it going to fare between now and then? What does the Argentinian system look like at the end of 2027?
MR: Yes, you’re right—we have two years ahead. It’s difficult to predict the future in Argentina, although some would say: expect a new crisis and you’ll probably be right.
As we’ve said, despite lacking a congressional majority, Milei has pushed through major reforms via executive decrees. That’s been his political tool. His confrontational style has kept him in the spotlight but also sparked resistance from traditional parties, the far left, conservatives, and even moderate liberals.
Whether this initial economic stabilization translates into long-term growth—and consequently, political support—remains the big question. If he wins in the next legislative elections this October, he will likely maintain his firm stance, continue vetoing, and I don’t see major changes. If the economy grows, there may be some money to calm the situation, but not enough to achieve what the vetoed law proposed: doubling university funding in relative terms in the short or medium term. That’s a kind of utopia, even if the country emerges from its depression.
But if Milei loses by a wide margin, the pressure will be enormous, creating a vicious circle that prevents Argentina from escaping economic stagnation. Keep in mind: the only way for universities to receive more funding is for the country to grow. If conflict increases, investors will postpone decisions, and in such a scenario, there are no winners.
Again, public universities in Argentina are more than just educational institutions—they are symbols of social mobility and national pride. Milei’s veto of the bill to increase university funding and staff salaries will likely trigger widespread outrage, uniting students, faculty, unions, and the political opposition. In fact, new public demonstrations are already underway and may continue for weeks, months, or even the next two years until his mandate ends.
AU: Lots to keep an eye on. Marcelo Rabossi, thank you so much for being with us today.
MR: It’s my pleasure. Thank you so much.
AU: And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Sam Pufek and Tiffany MacLennan, and you—our listeners and readers—for joining us once again. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, or suggestions for future ones, please don’t hesitate to write to us at [email protected].
Join us next week when our guest will be Yale University’s Zach Bleemer, professor of economics, who has just co-written a fascinating new paper, Changes in the College Mobility Pipeline since 1900. We’ll be talking about some of that report’s surprising findings. Bye for now.
*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.
