Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky wouldn’t concede the point. A tense Oval Office meeting Friday that was supposed to end in Ukraine agreeing to share mining resources with the U.S. devolved into a heated argument as President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance insisted Ukraine should express more gratitude for U.S. support and agree to a ceasefire with Russia, even without clear security guarantees from the U.S.
“You don’t have the cards right now,” Trump told Zelensky, as the two interrupted each other during a forceful exchange in front of TV cameras.
Tag: Early
-
After Heated Oval Office Exchange, Trump Ends Pivotal Meeting With Zelensky Early (Time)
-
Districts are spending big on tailor-made early learning centers for 4-year-olds
HOUSTON — Jefferson Early Learning Center bears little resemblance to elementary schools many adults recall attending in their earliest years. The classrooms have child-sized boats and construction vehicles children can play on, and ceilings painted to resemble outer space. There are no desks — all space is devoted to learning through play. Windows are low to the ground so children can easily look outside. The gym floor is made of “pre-K friendly” layered vinyl, rather than hardwood, to cushion inevitable trips and falls. Hallways are lined with a corrugated plastic for wiggly fingers to touch as children transition to other locations.
Children love coming to the building, said teacher Cathy Delamore. “They feel like they own it.”
Alief Independent School District, which serves about 40,000 children in west Houston, is one of a growing number of districts across the country to pump money into creating a building that is tailor-made for pre-kindergarteners. Its new facility cost about $21 million and enrolls nearly 400 4- and 5-year-olds. By making the investment, school leaders are trying to avoid some of the pitfalls of placing young children in buildings designed for older students, including lost learning time when tiny feet have to meander down long hallways to bathrooms and cafeterias. Research suggests that when designed well, buildings can contribute to better outcomes for children. Creators of the Reggio Emilia approach to early learning, an educational philosophy that emphasizes child-led learning, even refer to the environment as the “third teacher” in a classroom.
A Gulf Coast themed classroom at Jefferson Early Learning Center. The themed classrooms reflect local careers and locations to help children connect what they learn with their local environment. Credit: Jackie Mader/The Hechinger Report 
The “Space City” classroom at Jefferson Early Learning Center is an homage to the local NASA space center. Credit: Jackie Mader/The Hechinger Report Over the past few years, educators have grown aware of the benefits of a personalized pre-K environment, said Melissa Turnbaugh, a senior principal at the architecture firm PBK, which has designed more than 240 elementary schools nationwide, including Jefferson and several others in Texas. “There’s an openness and willingness to rethink these sites,” Turnbaugh 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.
Similar pre-K renovations and investments have been made in both high- and low-income Texas districts, including the nearby Houston Independent School District, Willis Independent School District north of Houston, the Mansfield Independent School District south of Fort Worth, the Harlingen Consolidated Independent School District in the Rio Grande Valley and Leander Independent School District, just northwest of Austin.
Nationally, districts of all sizes have embraced the trend over the past few years, including the Troy School District in Michigan and New York City Public Schools. In some cases, building a specialized facility helps a district with limited resources get “the biggest bang for their buck,” while meeting enrollment needs, said Turnbaugh. Some states and cities are also dedicating money to the efforts, including Illinois, Detroit and San Mateo, California.
That embrace is in part because of a growing recognition nationwide of the importance of play for young children, as well as reports that play time has been increasingly squeezed out of the early grades. States are also seeing record high enrollment in state-funded preschool programs. During the 2022-23 school year, investment in state-funded preschool reached an all-time high. Spending on the programs increased in 29 states, buoyed in part by Covid relief funds. Between 2022 and 2023, for example, Texas saw more than 21,000 additional 3- and 4-year-olds enroll. The state also slightly increased pre-K funding and, beginning in 2019, started requiring districts to offer full-day pre-K programs. The full-day programs have been rolling out in districts since 2020.
Scores of districts are “adding this new grade of 4-year-olds,” said Shelly Masur, vice president of advisory and state policy for the Low Income Investment Fund, which runs an initiative focused on creating and improving high-quality facilities for early learning programs. “They have to figure out where those kids are going to go.”
A facility built for their needs, like Jefferson, is exactly where young children should go, some experts say. The children seem to agree.
On a sunny fall morning, joyful screams could be heard as children chased each other up and down gentle hills on a large playground with natural-looking features meant to replicate the highlands and lowlands of Texas. Pre-K students in elementary schools don’t always have age-appropriate playgrounds, and structures are often designed for children who are older. But Jefferson has multiple large playgrounds and play courtyards, all designed for pre kindergarteners, featuring natural structures and textures, like logs and grass.
A playground at Jefferson Early Learning Center. Credit: Jackie Mader/ The Hechinger Report In Alief, where more than 83 percent of children qualify as economically disadvantaged, more than 20 percentage points higher than the state average, residents voted in 2015 to approve a property tax increase to help pay for full-day pre-K programs in the district. After touring the Mansfield Independent School District’s early learning facility, Alief’s district leaders decided they wanted to invest in an early learning building with immersive, themed classrooms, instead of simply adding on or repurposing classrooms in elementary schools around the district. Jefferson opened in 2022 as one of two new early learning facilities in the district. About 6 miles away, the second, Maria Del Carmen Martinez Early Learning Center, which has a similar design, serves around 400 students.
A growing body of research shows that not all pre-K classrooms, or the facilities they’re housed in, are appropriate for young kids. Early learning settings in particular should have a warm, homelike environment with ample natural light, research shows. There should be spacious classrooms that allow children to move their bodies and play in a variety of spaces around the room. Facilities should have playgrounds that are appropriate for the littlest learners, and provide ample opportunities to experience and explore nature.
Related: How play is making a comeback in kindergarten
There are also practical details to keep in mind for preschoolers, like having bathrooms adjacent to classrooms, child-sized furniture, tiny toilets, and sinks low to the ground so children can practice routines like hand washing independently. “When we make things more accessible to them, they start to learn the independence that we need them to develop over time,” said Masur. This type of setting isn’t always present in elementary schools, which are built to accommodate a much wider age range of children and are typically designed for instruction rather than play.
Facilities can have a surprisingly large impact on the experiences of teachers and young children. A study of a preschool program in West Hartford, Connecticut, for example, found the amount of children’s time spent interacting with an adult caregiver increased from 3 percent to 22 percent after the program moved from a crowded basement room to a larger classroom with bathrooms, sinks, storage space and phones inside the classroom. Although all other factors remained the same, the teachers reported their students had fewer tantrums, something they attributed to having a larger, brighter and more organized space.
A facility can even affect how satisfied early educators are with their jobs. Delamore, the Jefferson teacher, who has worked in the district for 18 years, said the bright, spacious rooms and hallways help keep her from feeling “confined” during the day. While aimed at 4-year-olds, the building’s “calming atmosphere” helps her enjoy being at work, she said.
A student builds with blocks in a classroom at Jefferson Early Learning Center. The facility was built with 4- and 5-year-olds in mind and unlike elementary schools, revolves mostly around play. Certain aspects make more sense for children at this age, she added, like the spiral shape of the building, which makes it easier to keep students together as they transition. Students eat family-style meals around circular tables, creating a sense of community, Delamore said, a contrast to the long, rectangular tables often seen in elementary school cafeterias.
Buildings that are not designed to meet childrens’ needs, or that are cramped and outdated, can impede development and learning, experts say.
One of the most recent examples of this comes from a 2016 study of Tennessee’s public preschool classrooms, which are mostly housed in existing elementary schools. That study, conducted by researchers at Vanderbilt University, found 25 percent of each school day was lost transitioning children to another activity, including walking to bathrooms and lining up to go to lunch.
Related: The complex world of pre-K play
When designing Jefferson, Turnbaugh and her team tried to “think of the campus through the eyes of a 4-year-old.” Delamore, at Jefferson, said the intricately-designed classrooms motivate students to go deeper in their play. On a recent morning in the “veterinary” classroom, a dozen 4- and 5-year-olds busied themselves around the room, immersed in play or small group work with a teacher. Children drew pictures of animals, read books and played animal-themed card games beneath large, colorful pictures of dogs and cats painted on the walls.
On one side of the room, 4-year-old Jaycyon had donned a white lab coat and was inspecting a fluffy gray and white toy cat lying on the counter in front of him. The cat was hurt, Jaycyon announced, likely from a sharp corner of the cage he was kept in.
“I have to give him a shot,” he said bravely. Jaycyon dipped a clear, plastic syringe into an orange medication bottle and confidently injected invisible medication into the cat.
At the end of three weeks, Jaycyon and his classmates will transition to a new classroom, such as “Tinker Town,” where they will learn about construction, or “Space City,” an homage to the nearby NASA space center.
On a daily basis, students have access to one of several outdoor spaces called a “back porch,” where families can also come and eat lunch together. These spaces also act as surrogate back yards for students, many of whom don’t have yards at home or access to parks. Students also have access to a sensory room with toys and soft mats, where they can take a break when they are overstimulated and practice skills to calm down.
Jefferson sits on nearly 20 acres of land, accessible via trails for students to explore with their teachers. (Alief returned the surrounding land back to its natural prairie state to help with climate-change related flooding.)
The educators at Alief say the district’s investment in a facility that encourages play-based learning has paid off. “What I see as a major difference is the children’s self-regulation, but also their confidence,” said the school’s principal, Kim Hammer, now in her 16th year leading an early childhood center. “A traditional pre-K setting is more teacher led and teacher directed,” she said. “Here it’s more teacher facilitated, so you see more of the children taking more initiative,” she added. “Children have autonomy, and children have much more choice.”
Two students play in a veterinary-themed classroom at Jefferson Early Learning Center. Each classroom is designed with a specific theme to encourage deeper play. Credit: Jackie Mader/ The Hechinger Report There is evidence that the new facility may be helping children progress. During the 2023-24 school year, 49 percent of students came in meeting vocabulary benchmarks. By the end of the year, 73 percent were at that level, Hammer said, a higher rate than previous years when the district’s pre-K programs were in traditional elementary schools. School officials say the themed classrooms help enhance children’s language skills, as children learn the vocabulary specific to that room. Attendance rates are high and holding steady, something that is uncommon in pre-K.
Despite the success and benefits of programs like Jefferson’s, educators agree there are challenges. A pre-K only facility adds an extra transition for students who, in traditional programs, might otherwise attend pre-K at their home elementary school.
Without more funding, revamped pre-K facilities are unlikely to spread fast. Many districts lack the money, partly because state and federal funding for pre-K is often less than for other grades. In Texas, for example, although the state now requires districts to offer full day pre-K, it only provides funding for half a day of pre-K. Alief has to cover the rest from local funds.
Although sustaining the building will be financially challenging in the long run, educators are determined to find a way to make it work for the benefit of the kids.
Back at the veterinary center on that fall morning, Jaycyon finally had a breakthrough. He had discovered something alarming about his patient, or “kitty,” as he had been named by the pre-kindergarteners, that would direct his next veterinary tactics.
“He burned himself in the kitchen!” he exclaimed.
How?
Jaycyon answered somberly: “He was cooking eggs.”
Contact staff writer Jackie Mader at (212) 678-3562 or [email protected].
This story about early learning centers was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education, with support from the Spencer Fellowship at Columbia Journalism School. Sign up for the Early Childhood newsletter.
-
Analysis: Early flurry of executive orders a mixed bag for free speech
Since taking office for his second term on Jan. 20, President Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders, including several implicating the First Amendment and freedom of expression. Below, we highlight some of these orders and evaluate the potential ramifications for free speech.
Executive order on protecting freedom of speech is a good start — but more must be done
One of the first executive orders the president signed was titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.” This order aims to “secure the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech” and “ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” Specifically, the order notes the government has “trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.”
FIRE welcomes this order’s call to end federal government censorship, including that which is hidden from public view. Leaks, court documents, and other disclosures have revealed instances of federal officials pressuring social media companies to limit controversial but constitutionally protected speech on vigorously disputed topics like the origins of Covid-19, the Hunter Biden laptop story, and election integrity.
We have written repeatedly about the dangers of such government coercion, commonly referred to as “jawboning,” highlighting how this sneaky form of government censorship threatens freedom of expression.
A pledge by the executive branch to respect the free speech of all Americans is a good first step. But any executive order can be modified or reversed on the say-so of one person — the president. It will take actual legislation — such as FIRE’s model transparency bill — to create mechanisms that statutorily require disclosure and bring to light governmental efforts to strong-arm private social media companies into censoring protected speech.
In the meantime, FIRE will monitor the administration’s actions, just as we did during the Biden administration, and hold federal agencies to the standards set forth in the executive order.
Executive orders targeting DEI programs appear to avoid First Amendment pitfalls — but FIRE will be watching their implementation
President Trump also signed two executive orders with the aim of dismantling diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs. The first, signed on Jan. 20 and titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” calls for “termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.”
DEI/DEIA programs and initiatives take many forms. FIRE has no position on the values DEI programs may seek to advance. But our experience defending student and faculty rights on campus demonstrates that DEI administrators and offices have regularly been involved in threats to academic freedom and speech policing, functioning as a way to enforce preferred orthodoxy or ideology. And some DEI initiatives — such as mandatory DEI statements in faculty hiring or student admissions — flatly threaten free expression and academic freedom and should be prohibited. We have previously introduced model legislation designed to eliminate such use of political litmus tests in faculty hiring and student admission decisions.
FIRE has also seen legislation in which overbroad attempts to curtail DEI mandates threaten the very same speech rights of faculty and students they aim to protect. Overbroad restrictions can improperly limit classroom discussions — as we saw in West Virginia’s recent executive order prohibiting faculty from sharing any material that promotes or encourages certain DEI-related views, while at the same time permitting criticism of those views. This allows institutions to continue ideological litmus tests as long as such tests oppose DEI — which just recreates the same problem.
Overzealous enforcement could threaten free speech by, for example, indirectly chilling a professor from sharing their positive views of affirmative action policies or leading to investigation of a government grantee for a social media post expressing personal support for DEI initiatives.
The president’s executive order appears to avoid these issues by targeting only the government’s own speech and initiatives, which it can constitutionally control. For instance, the Office of Management and Budget must provide a list of “Federal grantees who received Federal funding to provide or advance DEI, DEIA, or ‘environmental justice’ programs, services, or activities since January 20, 2021.” This is different from prohibiting any federal grantees from promoting DEI, which would threaten speech. Instead, the order specifically targets federal grants made specifically for the purpose of advancing DEI, and the federal government is free to shut off that funding if it no longer wishes to advance those ideals or views.
A second DEI-related order, signed on January 21, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” aims to eliminate “affirmative action” and “illegal discrimination and illegal preferences” in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which held race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions violated the Fourteenth Amendment. (FIRE takes no position on affirmative action.)
FIRE releases statement on the use of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ criteria in faculty hiring and evaluation
News
FIRE’s statement provides guidance to universities to ensure they respect faculty members’ expressive freedom when seeking to advance DEI.
The order helpfully includes two provisions that make clear it does not reach into the college classroom or infringe upon academic freedom:
(b) This order does not prevent State or local governments, Federal contractors, or Federally-funded State and local educational agencies or institutions of higher education from engaging in First Amendment-protected speech.
(c) This order does not prohibit persons teaching at a Federally funded institution of higher education as part of a larger course of academic instruction from advocating for, endorsing, or promoting the unlawful employment or contracting practices prohibited by this order.
While these orders avoid constitutional pitfalls on their face, implementation should proceed carefully. Overzealous enforcement could threaten free speech by, for example, indirectly chilling a professor from sharing their positive views of affirmative action policies or leading to investigation of a government grantee for a social media post expressing personal support for DEI initiatives.
Executive order on “gender ideology” invites possible abuse
This executive order focuses on “[defending] women’s rights and [protecting] freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male.” The order requires federal government agencies to:
remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications or other messages. Agency forms that require an individual’s sex shall list male or female, and shall not request gender identity. Agencies shall take all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to end the Federal funding of gender ideology.
This aspect of the order is limited to the federal government’s own speech. However, there is a risk, similar to that presented by imprecise anti-DEI legislation, that the breadth of such an order could lead to direct or indirect censorship of private actors. The government has the power to control its speech when it is the speaker, such as in a training given to its employees. But its power is much more limited when the speaker is a private citizen.
Of particular concern is this clause: “Federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology. Each agency shall assess grant conditions and grantee preferences and ensure grant funds do not promote gender ideology.”
While the government can choose to change its own messaging on gender issues, it cannot deny funds to grantees for exercising their own First Amendment rights. Further, the imprecise language could encourage government actors to withhold otherwise available grants from those with opinions that do not align with the views expressed in this executive order — chilling constitutionally protected speech. Grantees who would otherwise espouse views agreeing with “gender ideology” may refrain for fear of losing their government grant, even if they do not use the grant itself to promote “gender ideology.”
Executive order intended to “protect” Americans from noncitizens who “espouse hateful ideology” is at odds with our culture of free speech
This executive order makes it federal policy to “protect [American] citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes.” In addition to requiring agencies to ensure their policies for screening aliens align with the executive order, it requires the secretary of state to:
Recommend any actions necessary to protect the American people from the actions of foreign nationals who have undermined or seek to undermine the fundamental constitutional rights of the American people, including, but not limited to, our Citizens’ rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment, who preach or call for sectarian violence, the overthrow or replacement of the culture on which our constitutional Republic stands, or who provide aid, advocacy, or support for foreign terrorists.
The federal government has the authority to refuse entry to or deport people who genuinely present a national security threat. But the broad language of this order implies it may also be used to target people already in the U.S. for engaging in speech that is otherwise constitutionally protected. FIRE has previously expressed concern about denials of entry in cases where students and speakers were seemingly barred based on their speech. The ambiguous language of the order, including references to a “replacement of the culture,” suggests an intent to review and potentially punish foreign nationals for speech that would typically be protected.
To be clear, speech that calls for violence is generally protected by the First Amendment. As we have previously written, calls for genocide or chanting “From the river to the sea,” though listeners may be offended or deeply upset, are generally constitutionally protected. Denying visas or deporting anyone who engages in such speech will create a chilling effect, deterring foreign nationals from participating in lawful protests and demonstrations.
But just because the government may have the power to deport people for expressing their views, as it does in at least some circumstances, that does not make such deportations a good idea.
While the driving force behind this executive order is the current Israel-Hamas conflict, there is no reason other than political whim that efforts to punish foreign nationals for their speech would stay confined to one side of that issue, or to the Israeli-Palestinian issue at all. If those targeted for “espousing hateful ideology” are today likely to be those supporting Hamas, a new government could aim such efforts at supporters of Israel’s military efforts in the coming years. Those from other nations experiencing ethnic or religious conflict, from Ukraine to Myanmar to Burkina Faso, could also face adverse immigration decisions for expressing their views.
Why (most) calls for genocide are protected speech
News
Creating a “genocide” exception to free speech only opens the door to more speech restrictions and selective enforcement.
Because this executive order is directed at foreign nationals, the legal First Amendment issues (as distinct from the cultural free speech questions) are complicated. The Supreme Court noted in Bridges v. Wixon that the freedom of speech is accorded to resident aliens, but other precedent upholds immigration consequences based on viewpoint, and immigration officials have targeted foreign nationals for deportation for otherwise-protected speech.
In the 1904 case United States Ex. Rel. John Turner v. Williams, the Court upheld a law that allowed the deportation of “anarchists.” In the 1954 case Galvan v. Press, the Court upheld a law that allowed the deportation of non-citizens for belonging to the Communist Party. (Interestingly, statutory prohibitions on the naturalization of anarchists and members of the Communist Party still exist.)
But just because the government may have the power to deport people for expressing their views, as it does in at least some circumstances, that does not make such deportations a good idea. Establishing a system that allows for the routine deportation of foreign nationals based solely on their otherwise protected speech would erode our national commitment to freedom of expression as a uniquely American cultural value.
FIRE’s Senior Scholar, Global Expression Sarah McLaughlin published a piece at MSNBC exploring President Trump’s Executive Order on anti-Semistism.
-
An early look at 2023–24 financial returns shows providers working hard to balance the books
In most larger UK providers of higher education, the 2023–24 financial year ended on 31 July 2024.
Five months and two weeks after this date (so, on or before 14 January 2025) providers are obliged to have published (and communicated to regulators) audited financial statements for that year.
I’ve got a list of 160 large, well known, providers of higher education who should, by now, have made this disclosure – 43 of them are yet to do so. Of the 117 that have, just 15 (under 13 per cent) posted a deficit for that financial year (to be fair, this includes eight providers in Wales, where the deadline – for bilingual accounts – is the end of the month). This was as of the data of publication, there’s been a few more been discovered since then and I have added some to the charts below.
If you’ve been aware of individual providers, mission groups, representative bodies, trade unions, regulators, and politicians coming together to make the case that the sector is severely underfunded this may surprise you. If you work in an institution that is curtailing courses, making staff redundant, and undergoing the latest in a long series of cost-cutting exercises, the knowledge that your university has posted a surplus may make you angry.
But these results are not surprising, and a surplus should not make you angry (there are plenty of other reasons to be angry…) Understanding what an annual account is for, what a surplus is, why a university will pull out all of the stops to post a surplus, and what are the more alarming underpinning signals that we should be aware of will help you understand why we have what – on the face of it – feels like a counter-intuitive position in university finances.
Why are so many results missing?
There’s a range of reasons why a provider may submit accounts late – those who are yet to publish will already be deep in conversation with regulators about the issues that may have caused what is, technically, a breach of a regulatory condition. In England, this is registration condition E3. which is underpinned by the accounts direction.
If you are expecting regulators to get busy issuing fines or sanctions for late submissions – you should pause. There’s a huge problem with public sector audit capacity in the UK – the big players have discrete teams that move on an annual cycle between higher education, NHS, and local government audit. You don’t need to have read too much into public finances to know that our councils are under serious pressure right now – and this pressure results in audit delays, hitting the same teams who will be acting as external university auditors.
That’s one key source of delay. The other would be the complexities within university annual accounts, and university finances more generally, that offer any number of reasons why the audit signoff might happen later than hoped.
To be clear, very few of these reasons are going to be cheerful ones. If a provider has yet to publish its accounts because they have not signed off their accounts, it is likely to be engaging with external auditors about the conditions under which they will sign off accounts.
To give one example of what might happen – a university has an outstanding loan with a covenant attached to it based on financial performance (say, a certain level of growth each year). In 2023–24, it did not reach this target, so needs to renegotiate the covenant, which may make repayments harder (or spread out over a longer period). The auditor will need to wait until this is settled before it signs off the accounts – technically if you are in breach of covenant the whole debt is repayable immediately, something which would make you fail your going concern test.
We’ve covered covenants on the site before – a lender of whatever sort will offer finance at an attractive rate provided certain conditions are met. These can include things like use of investment (did you actually build the new business school you borrowed money to build?), growth (in terms of finances or student numbers), ESG (are you doing good things as regards environment, society, and governance?) and good standing (are you in trouble with the regulator?) – but at a fundamental level will require a sense that your business is financially viable. If covenant conditions are breached lenders will be keen to help if they hear in advance, but your cost of borrowing (the interest rate charged, bluntly) will rise. And you will find it harder to raise finance in future.
This is an environment where it is already hard to raise finance – and in establishing new borrowing, or new revolving credit (kind of like an overdraft facility) many universities will end up paying more than in previous years. This all needs to be shown in the accounts.
Going concern
When your auditor signs off your accounts, you would very much hope that it will agree that they represent a “going concern” – simply put, that in most plausible scenarios you will have enough money to cover your costs during the next 12 months. If your auditor disagrees that you are a going concern you are in serious trouble – all of the 117 sets of accounts I have read so far have been agreed on a going concern basis.
This designation tells everyone from regulators to lenders to other stakeholders that your business is viable for the next year – and comes into force on the day your accounts are signed off by the university and external auditor. This is nearly always for a specific technical reason – additional information that is needed in order to make the determination. For some late publications, it is possible that the delay is a deliberate plan to make the designation last as far into the following financial years as possible. This year (2024–25) is even more bleak than last year – anything that keeps finance cheaper (or available!) for longer will be helpful.
Breaking even and beyond
So your provider had a surplus last year – that’s good right? It means it took in more money than it spent? Up to a point.
In 2023–24 we got the very welcome news that Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) has been revalued and contributions reduced for both members and employers. From the annual accounts perspective, this will have lowered staff costs (very often one of the most significant costs, if not the most significant cost, for most) in USS institutions. Conversely, the increase in Teachers Pension Scheme (TPS) contributions will have substantially raised costs in institutions required by law (yes, really!) to offer that scheme to staff.
That’s some of the movement in staff costs. However, for USS, the value of future contributions to the current calculated scheme debt (which is shared among all active employers in the scheme) has also fallen. Indeed, as the scheme is currently in surplus, it shows as income rather than expenditure This is not money that the university actually has available to spend, but the drop shows out in staff costs – though most affected separate this out into a separate line it also shows up in the overall surplus or deficit (to be clear this is the accounting rules, there’s no subterfuge here: if you are interested in why I can only point you to BUFDG’s magisterial “Accounting for Pensions” guidelines).
For this reason, many USS providers show a much healthier balance than accurately reflects a surplus they can actually spend or invest. This gives them the appearance of having performed as a group much better than TPS institutions, where the increase in contributions has made it more expensive to employ staff.
Here I show the level of reported surplus(deficit) after tax, both with and without the USS valuation effect. Removing the impact of valuation puts 35 providers (including big names like Hull, Birmingham, and York) in deficit based on financial statements published so far.
And here I show underlying changes in staff costs (without the USS valuation effect). This is the raw spend on employing staff, including pay and pensions contributions. A drop could indicate that economies have been sought – employing fewer staff, employing different (cheaper) staff, or changes in terms and conditions. But it also indicates underlying changes in TPS contributions (up) or USS contributions (down) with respect to current employees on those schemes.
Charts updated 11am 27 January to remove a handful of discrepancies.
Fee income
For most universities the main outgoing is staff costs, and the main source of income is tuition fees. Much has been made of the dwindling spending power of home undergraduate fees because of a failure to uprate with inflation, but this line in the accounts also includes unregulated fees – most notably international fees and postgraduate fees. The full name of the line in the accounts is “tuition fees and educational contracts”, so if your provider does a lot of bespoke work for employers this will also show up here.
Both of these areas of provision have seen significant expansion in many providers over recent years – and the signs are that 2023–24 was another data point aligned with this trend for postgraduate provision. For this reason, the total amount of fee income has risen in a lot of cases, and when we get provider level UCAS data shortly it will make it clear that just how much of this is due to unregulated fees. International fees are another matter, and again we need the UCAS end of cycle data to unpick it, but it appears from visa applications and acceptances that from some countries (China, for example) demand has remained stable, while for others (Nigeria, India) demand has fallen.
Here I show fee income for the past two years, and the difference. This is total fee income, and does not discriminate between types of fees.
One very important thing to bear in mind is that these are figures for the financial year, and represent fees relating to that year rather than the total amount of fees per student enrolled. For example, if a student started in January (an increasingly common start point for some courses at some institutions) you will only see the proportion of fees that had been paid by 31 July shown in the accounts. If you teach a lot of nursing students who start at non-traditional times of the year this will have a notable impact, as will a failure to recruit as many international students as you had hoped to do in January 2024 (though this will also show up in next year’s accounts).
And it is also worth bearing in mind that income from fees paid with respect to students registered at the provider but studying somewhere else via an academic partnership, or involved in a franchise arrangement (something that has seen a lot of growth in some providers) shows up in this budget line.
Other movements
Quite a number of providers have drawn down investments or made use of unrestricted reserves. This is very much as you would expect, these are very much “rainy day” provisions and even if it is not actually raining now the storm clouds are gathering. Using money like this is a big step though – you can only spend it once, and the decision to spend it needs to link to plans not to need to spend it in the near future. So even if your balance looks healthy, a shift like this speaks eloquently of the kinds of cost-saving measures (up to and including course closures and staff redundancy) that you may currently see happening around you.
Similarly, a provider may choose to sell assets – usually buildings – that it does not have an immediate or future use for. The costs of running and maintaining a building can quickly add up – a decision to sell releases the capital and can also cut running costs. Other providers choose to hang on to buildings (perhaps as assets that can be sold in future) but drastically cut maintenance and running costs for this reason. Again, you can (of course) only sell a building once, and a longer term maintenance pause can make it very expensive to put your estates back into use. I should note that the overall condition of university estates is not great and is declining (as you can read in the AUDE Estates Management Report) , precisely because providers have already started doing stuff like this. If the heating seems to be struggling, if the window doesn’t open, that’s why.
In some cases we have seen decisions to pause capital programmes – not borrowing money and not building buildings as was previously planned. Here, the university makes an on-paper saving equivalent to the cost of finance if it was going to borrow money, or frees up reserves for other uses if it was using its own funds. Capital programmes don’t just include buildings – perhaps investment in software (the kind of big enterprise systems that make it possible to run your university) has been paused, and you are left struggling with outdated or unsuitable finance, admissions, or student record systems.
Where we are talking about pausing building programmes it is important to remember that these exist to facilitate expansion or strategic plans for growth. The “shiny new building” is often perceived as a vice chancellor’s vanity project – in reality that new business school and the recruitment it makes possible may represent the university’s best hope of growing home fee income faster than inflation.
What’s next?
We see financial information substantially after the financial year ends – and for most larger providers this comes alongside the submission of an annual financial return to their regulator. We know for instance that the Office for Students is now looking at ways of getting in year data in areas where it has significant concerns, but financial data (by dint of it being checked carefully and audited) is generally historic in nature.
For this reason what is happening on your campus right now is something that only your finance department has any hope of understanding, and there may be unexpected pressures currently driving strategy that are not shown (or even hinted at) in last years’ accounts. Your colleagues in finance and planning teams are working hard to forecast the end of year result, to calculate the KFIs (Key Financial Indicators) that others rely on, and to plan for the issues that could arise in the 2025 audit. The finance business partners or faculty accountants – or whatever name they have where you work – will be gathering information, exploring and explaining scenarios, and anticipating pressures that may require a change in financial strategy.
The data I have presented here is drawn from published accounts – the data submitted to regulators that eventually ends up on HESA may be modified and resubmitted as understanding and situations change – for this reason come the early summer figures might look very different than what are presented here (I should also add I have transcribed these by hand – for which service you should absolutely buy me a pint) – so although I have done my best I may have made transcription errors which I will gladly and speedily correct.
However scary your university accounts may be, I would caution that the next set (2024–25 financial year) will be even more scary. The point at which the home undergraduate fee increase in England kicks in for those eligible to charge it (2025–26) feels a long way off, and we have the rise in National Insurance Contributions (due April 2025) to contend with before then.
There are a small but significant number of large providers looking at an unplanned deficit for 2024–25, as you might expect they will already be in contact with their regulator and their bank. Stay safe out there.
If you are interested in institutional finances, I must insist that you read the superb BUFDG publication “Understanding University Finance” – it is both the most readable and the most comprehensive explanation of annual university accounts you will find.
-
3 global early ed trends to watch this year
LONDON — Participants at one of the world’s largest early childhood conferences late last year were eager to learn from each other, and notably collegial — until one of the final sessions of the event.
During a presentation about artificial intelligence in early childhood, a presenter suggested using an AI program to create artwork based on child prompts. Audience members were horrified. “Have you looked at what impact this might have on their imaginations?” one asked.
The role of artificial intelligence and technology in the early years was a popular topic at the conference, which featured more than 500 educators and experts from 43 countries. As I met with global educators and researchers over the course of several days, a few key themes emerged as ones to keep an eye on in the early childhood space this year:
1. Technology and AI in early childhood
In addition to the controversy over student artwork, presenters highlighted a host of ways they are using artificial intelligence already in early childhood classrooms, in far less controversial ways. These include writing culturally relevant lesson plans, automating report cards and helping translate communication with parents. AI was mostly presented as a way to relieve teachers of more rote tasks.
Apart from the brief flare-up, experts were careful to keep conversations focused on AI as this “smart assistant,” acknowledging that it can’t stand in for a strong, interactive teacher in the early years.
Presenters also highlighted stark differences between how preschool classrooms in different countries are using technology and the cultural gaps in attitudes about technology post-pandemic. Two researchers from University College London East, for instance, described how children in South Korean preschools regularly use nearly a dozen forms of technology, including smart televisions, robots, coding programs, virtual reality technology and tablets. Preschoolers in England, on the other hand, only have access to smart whiteboards at school for the most part, with British early educators reporting more wariness around technology in early ed classrooms.
2. Involving the rights of children — and more play — in early childhood systems
In Ireland, a new approach to early childhood is all about letting kids be kids. The country’s new early childhood guidelines were inspired by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and emphasize building loving, trusting relationships between children and caregivers. Several other countries, including Japan, Moldova, South Korea and Tanzania are also prioritizing the rights of young children, mainly by trying to bring more play into early childhood classrooms and systems.
3. Countries building out early childhood systems and investing more
Although global investment in early childhood is not at the levels experts would hope for, many are heartened by a few government-led efforts to inject more funding and strengthen standards. In 2018, for example, Saudi Arabia published a new curriculum for its early childhood programs, written in partnership with America’s National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). The curriculum is part of a larger movement to expand early childhood offerings in the country, including building hundreds of new public early learning programs by 2030 and creating more teacher training programs.
Meanwhile, in Ireland, leaders designated more than 546 million euros in new government funding for early childhood between 2022 and 2024. And in Austria, the government recently committed to provide more than 4.5 billion euros by 2030 to help parents pay for child care.
More on early childhood worldwide
In 2023, I traveled to Canada to see what America can learn from our northern neighbor’s rollout of a new national child care system.
This story by Rachel Cohen for Vox looks at the pros and cons of Germany’s universal child care system and the societal conditions that support that system.
Research quick take
- During the 2021-22 school year, 370 preschool students were expelled and nearly 2,700 preschool students received one or more out-of-school suspensions, according to new data from the Department of Education. Black children, and especially Black boys, were disproportionately suspended and expelled. Black boys account for 9 percent of preschool enrollment but represented 30 percent of the suspensions.
- A growing number of states are combining early learning programs, like home visiting and child care initiatives, under one agency or department in an attempt to streamline processes and more effectively administer early learning programs, according to a recent report by the Center for American Progress. The report found that consolidating programs into a single agency has helped states move faster when applying for funding, and with sending money out to parents and programs.
More early childhood news
In New York, advocates are calling for universal child care for 2-year-olds, reports Chalkbeat.
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds proposed codifying a program that provides free child care to the state’s child care workforce. She also wants to create a fund to raise child care wages through donations from businesses and community members, according to The Gazette.
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy has proposed requiring school districts to offer free pre-K to all 3- and 4-year-olds in the state, according to NorthJersey.com.
Hawaii is eyeing charter schools as a way to help expand the state’s free preschool program, reports Honolulu Civil Beat.
This story about preschool trends was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.
-
Early intervention services can help premature children thrive, but too few receive them
JOLIET, Ill. — After several challenging and stressful months in the neonatal intensive care unit, Karen Heath couldn’t wait to take her triplet sons home. The boys had been born severely premature at 25 weeks, each weighing a bit over a pound. In the early hours, doctors cautioned they would not survive long. The triplets, thankfully, proved the doctors wrong. But for about three months, Heath was not allowed to hold them, satisfying herself with photos, videos and kisses blown.
The long-anticipated discharge in the early summer of 2019 was joyful, but also rushed and, as Heath recalls it, somewhat cavalier. An hour before release, a physical therapist showed Heath how to help the babies gain strength by gently stretching their legs out. A nurse gave her a quick tutorial on how to use the oxygen tanks they would need for the next couple of months. And Heath gathered together basic necessities and a few mementos: diapers, pacifiers, blood pressure cuffs and tiny hospital bands.
But no one at the hospital, one of Chicago’s largest, told Heath or her husband what she felt would have been the most helpful advice in the long run: The triplets’ low birth weight alone meant they were automatically eligible for what’s known as early intervention services, which can include speech, physical, occupational and other therapies.
“This should have been a conversation way before the boys were even released,” said Heath, who lives in Joliet, a city in the suburbs of Chicago. (She declined to identify the hospital to The Hechinger Report because her children still receive regular treatment there.)
Related: Our biweekly Early Childhood newsletter highlights innovative solutions to the obstacles facing the youngest students. Subscribe for free.
Doctors, and science more broadly, have made astounding gains in their capacity to save the lives of extremely premature babies, defined as those born before 28 weeks. In the 1960s, just 5 percent of premature infants with respiratory distress survived; now it’s about 90 percent.
Despite these encouraging gains, there’s an abysmal record across the country, exemplified by Chicago, of helping these babies after they exit the NICU, particularly with access to the therapies that most reduce their risk of needing intensive, and expensive, special education services as schoolchildren. Many children who receive early intervention do not require special education services in kindergarten, including slightly less than half of those with developmental delays, according to one 2007 study.
“We have so much information on early brain development now,” said Alison Liddle, a physical therapist in Chicago who is part of a team that studied access to early intervention in the city. One of the findings was that the system is difficult for parents to navigate. “Support systems have to catch up. We have a critical window to help families.”
Three of Vasquez’ four children received early intervention services as infants and toddlers. Credit: Camilla Forte/The Hechinger Report Federal law says children with developmental delays, including newborns with significant likelihood of a delay, can get early intervention from birth to age 3. States design their own programs and set their own funding levels, however. They also set some of the criteria for which newborns are automatically eligible, typically relying on qualifying conditions like Down syndrome or cerebral palsy, extreme prematurity or low birthweight. Nationally, far fewer infants and toddlers receive the therapies than should. The stats are particularly bleak for babies under the age of 1: Just 1 percent of these infants get help. Yet an estimated 13 percent of infants and toddlers likely qualify.
“It’s like people being told at 65 that they are eligible for Social Security and a year later they are not on either Social Security or Medicare,” said Dr. Michael Msall, a neurodevelopmental pediatrician who has led efforts on early intervention access at the University of Chicago’s hospital system and is on the study team. “We’d have riots in the streets.”
The stakes are high for these fragile, rapidly growing babies and their brains. Even a few months of additional therapy can reduce a child’s risk of complications and make it less likely that they will struggle with talking, moving and learning down the road. In Chicago and elsewhere, families, advocates and physicians say a lot of the failures boil down to overstretched hospital and early intervention delivery systems that are not always talking with families very effectively, or with each other hardly at all. “They really put the onus of helping your child get better outcomes on you,” said Jaclyn Vasquez, an early childhood consultant who has had three babies of her own spend time in the NICU.
Related: Black and Latino infants and toddlers often miss out on early therapies they need
Hospitals use different processes for educating families about early intervention, which often occurs at an overwhelming time for parents. “That initial connection with the families is tricky because the families tend to be very busy when they take the baby home,” said Dr. Raye-Ann deRegnier, the lead physician on the study and director of the Early Childhood Clinic at Lurie Children’s.
At Lurie and Chicago’s Prentice Women’s Hospital, where deRegnier works, the physical therapists are generally responsible for informing families of early intervention. “I wouldn’t say that happens in every NICU,” she said. “Sometimes it’s discharge nurses, sometimes discharge coordinators, sometimes others.”
Under the current landscape, it’s helpful when physical therapists have conversations with families early and often, deRegnier said. But even when that happens, miscommunications can occur. The doctor said she recently made a point to talk to a mother about early intervention, and the woman said she had never heard of it. Yet the physical therapist had previously had a lengthy conversation with the mother about the program.
In Illinois three years ago, the state’s Legislative Black Caucus urged the creation of demonstration projects at neonatal intensive care units in hospitals, intended to model how to better connect families to services. The state’s General Assembly supported the idea, but no funding was attached to the recommendation, and it has not become a reality.
However, a coalition of therapists and hospital physicians, including deRegnier, has been working on a pilot study that included a look at barriers that families face after they leave the NICU at several of Chicago’s largest hospitals.
Their findings, published in late December, show that only 13 percent of the 60 families — all of them Medicaid eligible and with infants who automatically qualified for early intervention — were receiving those therapies three to four months after discharge. In Illinois, the therapies are overseen by the state’s Department of Human Services and its Division of Early Childhood. While the specific reasons varied, most of it came down to bureaucracy and bad communication, according to the study team.
“When you make the system so difficult to navigate, families give up,” Liddle said. “There were many families just waiting out there for services that they really need.”
Every weekday afternoon after play time, Karen Heath’s children, including her 5-year-old triplets, read books with their grandmother. Credit: Camilla Forte/The Hechinger Report By the end of June 2019, Heath’s triplets were all at home along with their 1-year-old brother. Although her husband had to return to work, Heath’s mother was around to help. The family had little idea of how best to support their growth. Doctors had warned her that the boys might never be able to sit up, walk or communicate like other children. “My main focus for so long was on coming home,” she said. “Once we got home, I’m like, ‘Now what?’”
About two weeks after the homecoming, a nurse from the county stopped by to check in on the 6-month-olds. Heath can’t say for sure, but she believes that the woman must have made a referral to early intervention because several weeks later, in August, the family got a call saying that the triplets might be eligible for therapy. By that time, they were more than 7 months old.
Heath leapt at the opportunity, but the process moved slowly after the initial call. In October, when the boys were 9 months, Heath got word that they had been automatically eligible all along because of low birth weight. But it wasn’t until early 2020, after the boys celebrated their first birthday, that the therapy was scheduled to start.
Then the pandemic hit, so the initial physical and developmental therapy sessions with three near-toddlers were all attempted over Zoom. “The boys were uninterested,” their mother recalled. “Try doing therapy on an iPad with triplets and (a toddler) hanging around.”
It wasn’t until the summer, when the children were 18 months, that they got their first in-person therapy. “The hospital should have had something in place so these kids could have gotten the services as soon as they came home,” Heath said. “I really feel like they dropped the ball. No one can blame the pandemic because they came home way before Covid started.”
Family photos, including from her triplets’ lengthy stays in the hospital, line the walls of Karen Heath’s living room. Credit: Camilla Forte/The Hechinger Report The families participating in the multihospital pilot study had a leg up on Heath: They were at least told about early intervention, with an initial referral made before leaving the NICU. But even that was not enough for most of them to connect successfully with help. A lot of the struggle came down to “logistical and technological barriers,” said Zareen Kamal, a policy specialist in Illinois for Start Early, which advocates on early childhood issues.
The early intervention system in Illinois is decentralized, with 25 coordinating offices across the state. Caseloads are supposed to be capped at 45, but due to underfunding and short staffing, average much higher, with some reports of service coordinators juggling over 100 families. Many of the offices rely on fax for communications, with no statewide electronic system in place. Incoming phone calls to families from the coordinators often register as spam. And most of the offices don’t staff the phones in the evening or weekends, when working parents are most likely to reach out.
All this means that case workers sometimes remove families from their list as “uninterested” when, in fact, the parents are unaware, or unsure how to take the next step.
Related: Six ideas to ease the early intervention staffing crisis
The state is currently taking steps to ensure equitable access to early intervention, said a spokeswoman for the Department of Human Services in an e-mail. That includes updating the standardized referral form and exploring options for electronic referrals.
“We realize that technology needs to be modernized,” wrote Rachel Otwell, the spokesperson.
That said, phone and fax remain the primary means of communication due to privacy concerns, she said.
Otwell said the agency is engaged in ongoing surveys and focus groups with thousands of early childhood community members. The state has made progress with staffing vacancies in early intervention, she added, and remains focused on “lowering caseloads to recommended levels.”
As the early intervention system currently exists in many cities and states, inequities are baked into every step of the process. Lower-income families are less likely to receive timely referrals, get screened and approved expeditiously, and then connect with therapists available for in-person work. Families with private insurance can often bypass the multistep bureaucratic process by having the therapies covered through those benefits. Studies have shown that Black newborns for a host of reasons, including higher poverty rates and weaker early medical care on average, are five times less likely than white ones to receive early intervention services.
In addition to early exposure to critical therapies, Vasquez says that strong sibling relationships and support has helped her children to thrive. Credit: Camilla Forte/The Hechinger Report For newborns there is pervasive confusion around who is automatically eligible, even among those who work in the early intervention system, Liddle says. “Some children are turned away from receiving services despite being autoeligible, because they do not show a delay on a specific assessment tool,” she said.
Complicating matters, states have different eligibility criteria: In some states, an infant with lead poisoning or a parent with a mental health diagnosis qualifies for the therapies, whereas in others they do not.
There’s also a disconnect between the medical and early intervention systems, said Msall, the University of Chicago-based physician. His colleagues in NICUs routinely fax referrals over to early intervention, he said, but the information disappears into the ether, with no follow up or technology in place for the physician to know if the connection was made or what an initial evaluation found. DeRegnier agreed that the follow-up process is complicated, partly because families may need to sign a consent form for information to be shared even with physicians.
In a nutshell, families too often have to navigate through the system entirely on their own — with only the most knowledgeable and well resourced likely to find their way to a successful outcome.
Vasquez felt immensely grateful her background as a special education teacher made it easier to supplement the work of overstretched hospital staff when her twin daughters were born at 27 weeks four years ago. The smaller of the two spent over a year so medicated in a Chicago NICU that she was essentially in a medical coma. But as soon as possible, Vasquez and her husband stepped in to help provide some early therapies. Following the advice of hospital therapists, they helped her sit up, roll over, learn to play with toys and regularly gave her full body massages. (She didn’t want to name the hospital because she believes any shortcomings were reflective of systemic issues, not specific to that hospital.)
Then, when the baby was finally released after 19 months in the NICU, Vasquez knew to call early intervention without delay. The family wasn’t more than five minutes into their drive home before she picked up her cellphone and rang them up from the back seat. “There was no second to lose,” said Vasquez, whose work as an early childhood consultant focuses on equity.
Within weeks of arriving home, the baby started upward of a half dozen different therapies, including speech, nutrition and mobility.
Partly because of the quick introduction to therapies, formal and informal, Vasquez’s daughter is thriving today at the age of 4. The girl had to spend only a few months in a self-contained classroom for children with severe disabilities before teachers said she was ready to join the “blended” class. It’s a milestone that seemed unreachable just a couple of years ago.
“After six months (in school), they said she is doing awesome,” Vasquez said. “I was told my child would need a wheelchair by kindergarten. She is running, dancing, chasing siblings, dancing on trampolines — all because of the amount of time we poured into therapies at a very young age.”
Jaclyn Vasquez plays outdoors with her children on a fall weekend afternoon. She says her background in special education made it easier to help with early therapies they needed. Credit: Camilla Forte/The Hechinger Report Physicians, advocates and families all agree that parents shouldn’t have to wait until leaving the NICU to begin lining up services. The coalition of groups working on the study recommend staff embedded at the hospitals who can help families enroll in early intervention before discharge. Each family who is automatically eligible would also leave the hospital with a legal document entitling them to therapy. “Our ultimate dream is to have the connection between [early intervention] and families be completed before they go home, and have the therapist assigned before they leave,” said deRegnier.
Many advocates also believe that for those babies on an extended stay in the hospital, those therapies should be available in the NICU. “Early intervention is birth to 3 — it shouldn’t matter if you are living in the hospital or at home,” Liddle said. “You are still entitled to those services.”
In Illinois, advocates say they hope to get funding to pilot a program at a few NICUs that would finally create the demonstration sites the Legislative Black Caucus called for years ago. If successful, the model could be expanded statewide. “Even if we are in one or two NICUs and can see how it turns out, that would be helpful,” says Illinois state Rep. Joyce Mason, who chairs the House committee focused on early childhood education.
In the meantime, too many families still find the crucial therapies to be elusive.
Even when Heath’s children finally started in-person therapy, it was limited in scope. The physical therapist, who Heath describes as an “angel,” quickly recognized that they should also be receiving other help as well, including speech and occupational therapy. Yet by the time the family worked through the bureaucratic machinery to get some of those in place, the boys were nearly 3 — close to aging out of early intervention. They received a few months of speech, but never got the occupational therapy they were entitled to.
If they had gotten the therapies earlier, “they would be in a different place at this point,” Heath says. The boys, who were diagnosed with cerebral palsy shortly before their fourth birthdays, struggle with speech and reading skills, in particular, with one of them requiring a device in order to express himself. “If you don’t know them well, it’s hard to understand what they are saying all the time,” Heath says. “If they had gotten all the services right off the bat, they wouldn’t be as far behind.”
Yet the triplets have long surpassed doctors’ early warnings that they might never sit up, walk or reach other developmental milestones. Newly arrived home from school on a clear fall afternoon not long before Halloween, the triplets, now in kindergarten and dressed as Spider-Man for “superhero” day, played exuberantly in a finished basement space. They cried out gleefully while zooming after each other in miniature bumper cars.
Heath is grateful her sons are progressing with the help of school, devoted family and the committed physical therapist, who still works with the boys. But she looks back at their first nine months and laments that, so focused on how to help the babies survive, no one in a vast team of doctors, nurses and social workers thought to discuss how the family could best help them thrive. “There was no next step for my family when we left the hospital,” she said. “It was all on us.”
Contact Sarah Carr at [email protected].
This story about early intervention services was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Carr is a fellow at New America, focused on reporting on early childhood issues.
-
Re-capturing the early 80s | HESA
Most of the time when I talk about the history of university financing, I show a chart that looks like this, showing that since 1980 government funding to the sector is up by a factor of about 2.3 after inflation over the last 40-odd years, while total funding is up by a factor of 3.6.
Figure 1: Canadian University Income by source, 1979-80 to 2022-23, in billions of constant $2022
That’s just a straight up expression of how universities get their money. But what it doesn’t take account of are changes in enrolment, which as Figure 2 shows, were a pretty big deal. Universities have admitted a *lot* more students over time. The university system has nearly doubled since the end of the 1990s and nearly tripled since the start of the 1990s.
Figure 2: Full-time Equivalent Enrolment, Canada, Universities, 1978-79 to 2022-23
So, the question is, really, how have funding pattern changes interacted with changes in enrolment? Well, folks, wonder no more, because I have toiled through some unbelievably badly-organized excel data to bring you funding data on this that goes back to the 1980s (I did a version of this back here, but I only captured national-level data—the toil here involved getting data granular enough to look at individual provinces). Buckle up for a better understanding of how we got to our present state!
Figure 3 is what I would call the headline graph: University income per student by source, from 1980-81 to the present, in constant $2022. Naturally, it looks a bit like Figure 1, but more muted because it takes enrolment growth into account.
Figure 3: University income per student by source, from 1980-81 to the present, in constant $2022
There’s nothing revolutionary here, but it shows a couple of things quite clearly. First, government funding per-student has been falling for most of the past 40 years.; the brief period from about 1999 to 2009 stands out as the exception rather than the norm. Second, despite that, total funding per student is still quite high compared with the 1990s. Institutions have found ways to replace government income with income from other sources. That doesn’t mean the quality of the money is the same. As I have said before, hustling for money incurs costs that don’t occur if governments are just writing cheques.
As usual, though, looking at the national picture often disguises variation at the provincial level. Let’s drill one level down and see what happened to government spending at the sub-national level. A quick note here: “government spending” means *all* government spending, not just provincial government spending. So, Ontario and Quebec probably look better than they otherwise would because they receive an outsized chunk of federal government research spending, while the Atlantic provinces probably look worse. I doubt the numbers are affected much because overall revenues from federal sources are pretty small compared to provincial ones, but it’s worth keeping in mind as you read the following.
Figure 4 looks at government spending per student in the “big three” provinces which make up over 75% of the Canadian post-secondary system. Nationally, per-student spending fell from $22,800 per year to $17,600 per year. But there are differences here: Ontario spent the entire 42-year period below that average, while BC and Quebec spent nearly all that period above it. Quebec has notably seen very little in terms of per-student fluctuations, while BC has been more volatile. Ontario saw a recovery in spending during the McGuinty years, but then has experienced a drop of about 35%. Of note, perhaps is that most of this decline happened before the arrival of the current Ford government.
Figure 4: Per-Student Income from Government Sources, in thousands of constant $2022, Canada and the “Big Three” provinces, 1980-81 to 2022-23
Figure 5 shows that spending volatility was much higher in the three oil provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland & Labrador. All three provinces spent virtually the entirety of our period with above-average spending levels but the gap between these provinces and the national average was quite large both in the early 1980s and from about 2005 onwards: i.e. when oil prices were at their highest. Alberta of course has seen per-student funding drop by about 50% in the last fifteen years, but at the same time, it is close to where it was 25 years ago. So, was it the dramatic fall or the precipitous rise that was the outlier?
Figure 5: Per-Student Income from Government Sources, in thousands of constant $2022, Canada and the “Oil provinces”, 1980-81 to 2022-23
Figure 6 shows the other four provinces for the sake of completeness. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were the lowest spenders in the country for most of the period we’re looking at, only catching up to the national average in the mid-aughts. Interestingly, the two provinces took two different paths to raise per-student spending: Nova Scotia did it almost entirely by raising spending, while in New Brunswick this feat was to a considerable extent “achieved” by a significant fall in student numbers (this is a ratio, folks, both the numerator and the denominator matter!).
Figure 6: Per-Student Income from Government Sources, in thousands of constant $2022, Canada and selected provinces, 1980-81 to 2022-23
An interesting question, of course, is what it would have cost to have kept public spending at 1980 per-student levels. And it’s an interesting question, because remember, total spending did in fact rise quite substantially (see Figure 1): it just didn’t rise as fast as student numbers. So, in Figure 7, I show what it would have cost to keep per-student expenditures stable at 1980-81 levels both if student numbers had stayed constant, and what it would have meant in practice given actual student numbers.
Figure 7: Funds required to return to 1980-81 levels of per-student government investment in universities, Canada, in millions of constant $2022
Weird-looking graph, right? But here’s how to interpret it. Per-student public funding did fall in the 80s and early 90s. But it rose again in the early aughts, to the point where per-student funding went back to where it was in 1980, even though the number of students in the system had doubled in the meanwhile. From about 2008 onwards, though, public investment started falling off again in per-student terms, going back to mid/late-90s levels even as overall student numbers continued to rise. We are now at the point where getting back to the levels of 1980-81, or even just 2007-08, would require a rise of between $6 and $6.5 billion dollars.
Anyways, that’s enough sunshine for one morning. Have a great day.
-
What Early Education Teachers Need to Know About Technology
Early childhood educators are responsible for the positive development, health, and well-being of many children, making critical the appropriate use of technology in those settings.
Michelle Kang
CEO, National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)
Alissa Mwenelupembe
Managing Director of Early Learning, NAEYC
When we were children — and even when our own children were little — educational television shows like “Sesame Street,” “Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood,” and “Reading Rainbow” provided time-limited relief for busy parents and an opportunity for children to learn.
Now, screens are ubiquitous as adults carry them in pockets and purses, and the content coming from those screens has changed considerably to become more interactive, brighter, and more likely to encourage continued engagement with the screen. It’s no longer as straightforward as turning off the corner television set.
The research on children and technology is ongoing, and the American Academy of Pediatrics has declined to set recommended screen time hours for children — not because unlimited screen time is good, but because not all screen time is equal.
For parents, this presents an individual challenge, but for early childhood educators, it is magnified across a whole program, where teachers are responsible for the positive development, health, and well-being of many young children at once.
What is appropriate?
A guiding rule is that the use of technology in an early childhood education setting, whether in a center, home, or school, should be in service to developmentally appropriate practices around learning.
That takes professional judgment by early educators who, through expertise and experience, can identify the value of incorporating active, hands-on technology into activities based on the readiness of the children and whether it will support their learning. That also means early educators must have appropriate training, support, and digital literacy themselves.
Any technological engagement by children should support creativity and/or cognitive and social development. Special consideration should be given to how it can help create equity, particularly by using translation and assistive technology supports to engage with multi-language learners or children with identified disabilities.
One great example of technology use in a preschool classroom was from a teacher who shared a story with the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) of assigning a classroom job of “journalist” to one of the preschoolers in her integrated special education classroom. The child would document the day by taking photos on a tablet, and then report on one of the pictures during the closing circle. It’s interactive, sparks conversation, inspires creativity, and is adaptable to different developmental levels.
What are some guidelines?
NAEYC and the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media issued a technology and interactive media position statement in 2012. While it is on the docket for a renewal and refresh, the fundamentals still hold even as technology has advanced.
Early childhood educators should:
- Select, use, integrate, and evaluate technology and interactive media tools in intentional and developmentally appropriate ways, giving careful attention to the appropriateness and the quality of the content, the child’s experience, and the opportunities for co-engagement.
- Provide a balance of activities in programs for young children, recognizing that technology and interactive media can be valuable tools when used intentionally with children to extend and support active, hands-on, creative, and authentic engagement with those around them and with their world.
- Prohibit the passive use of screens in early childhood programs for children younger than two, and discourage passive and non-interactive uses with children ages two through five.
- Limit any use of technology and interactive media in programs for children younger than two to those that appropriately support responsive interactions between caregivers and children and that strengthen adult-child relationships.
- Provide leadership in ensuring equitable access to technology and interactive media experiences for the children in their care and for parents and families.
There is no one-size-fits-all way to address technology in early education programs, even and especially as technology expands to include AI. However, well-prepared and supported educators using their professional judgment will remain the critical link between children and safe, effective engagement with technology.
-
15 Red Flags Early in a Relationship (2024)
So you go out on a first date, then, a second, then a third. And this person seems perfect – maybe even too perfect. There’s a good chance they’re just perfect for you. But there’s also a chance there’s something you’re missing. So let’s explore some potential red flags for the date that just seems that little bit TOO perfect.
Red Flags in a Relationship
15. They’re overly charismatic.
Example: “Whenever we’re out, they always seem to charm everyone, but I can’t shake the feeling that it’s all just an act.”
Excessive charm can mask a person’s real intentions. While it’s easy to be captivated by someone who always seems to say the right thing, this charm may be a distraction from deeper issues like dishonesty or manipulation. Charismatic individuals may use their likability to avoid accountability or prevent you from noticing problematic behavior. It’s crucial to assess if the charm is genuine or simply a tool for control.
14. Lack of depth in conversations.
Example: “Every time I try to talk about something meaningful, they quickly change the subject to something light and superficial.”
Surface-level conversations are common when you’re just getting to know someone, but if they consistently avoid deeper topics, it could signal emotional unavailability. If they steer clear of meaningful discussions about emotions, values, or future plans, it may indicate that they’re not interested in building a true connection. This lack of depth may prevent the relationship from growing and leave you feeling emotionally unfulfilled.
13. Inconsistent stories.
Example: “Last week they said they grew up in the city, but now they’re talking about how much they loved growing up on a farm.”
If someone’s stories frequently change or they struggle to remember details about past experiences, it can be a sign that they’re fabricating or embellishing parts of their life. These inconsistencies could point to dishonesty or manipulation, as they may be trying to create an image of themselves that isn’t real. Pay attention to whether their stories align with what they’ve previously said or if there are glaring contradictions.
12. They’re overly agreeable.
Example: “No matter what I suggest, they always say ‘yes,’ but I’m starting to wonder if they have any opinions of their own.”
While it can feel nice when someone agrees with you, constant agreement could indicate that they are trying too hard to gain your approval or avoid conflict. People who always go along with whatever you say might lack their own sense of self or be hiding their true thoughts and feelings. Disagreements are natural in any healthy relationship, and someone with genuine opinions won’t always mirror yours.
11. They avoid personal questions.
Example: “Whenever I ask about their family or past, they dodge the question or give vague answers.”
Deflecting or avoiding personal questions, especially about their past, can be a major red flag. This type of behavior might suggest that they are hiding something significant, such as past mistakes or unresolved issues. Open communication is essential in building trust, and someone who refuses to share basic details about their life may not be ready for a genuine connection.
10. They’re too quick to commit.
Example: “After just two weeks of dating, they were already talking about moving in together and planning a future.”
If someone pushes for a serious relationship too quickly, it can feel flattering at first but often signals deeper issues. Fast-tracking commitment can be a strategy to secure control or trust before you’ve had the chance to truly know each other. Healthy relationships take time to develop; rushing can prevent you from noticing potential red flags or from establishing a solid foundation based on mutual understanding.
9. Excessive flattery.
Example: “They constantly tell me how amazing I am, but sometimes it feels like they’re just trying to win me over too quickly.”
Compliments are nice, but when someone showers you with praise all the time, it can feel insincere or overwhelming. Excessive flattery is sometimes used to lower your defenses and make you more trusting before they reveal less favorable aspects of their personality. Be cautious if the flattery feels more like a manipulation tactic than genuine admiration, especially if it’s aimed at gaining your trust too quickly.
8. They’re too smooth or polished.
Example: “Everything they say and do seems rehearsed, like they’re performing rather than being real with me.”
Someone who always appears perfect or seems too polished in their behavior may be putting on a facade. While it’s natural to want to make a good first impression, perpetual perfection is unsustainable and often hides flaws or insecurities. Authentic people are willing to show their vulnerable side, make mistakes, and be real, whereas overly smooth individuals may be masking their true selves.
7. Lack of close long-term relationships.
Example: “When I asked about their friends, they mentioned a lot of acquaintances, but no one they’ve known for more than a year.”
If someone doesn’t have any close, long-standing friendships, it may indicate that they struggle with maintaining meaningful relationships. People with a pattern of brief or superficial connections might have trouble being vulnerable, resolving conflicts, or showing empathy. Healthy relationships, both romantic and platonic, are built on trust, respect, and longevity—lack of such relationships could be a red flag.
6. They’re secretive about their life.
Example: “They never tell me where they’ve been or what they’re doing, and their phone is always off limits.”
Secrecy is often a sign of deception or withholding information. If they are vague about their daily activities, background, or who they spend time with, it could mean they’re hiding important aspects of their life from you. Open and transparent communication builds trust, and someone who keeps too much of their life hidden may be protecting a side of themselves they don’t want you to know about.
5. They’re always the victim.
Example: “Every story they tell about past relationships ends with how they were wronged, and never what they might have done wrong.”
When someone consistently portrays themselves as the victim in past relationships or other life situations, it might suggest they have trouble taking responsibility for their actions. While it’s natural to encounter hardships, if they blame everyone else for their problems without acknowledging their own role, it could indicate a pattern of deflection and lack of accountability. Look for balance in their stories, where they own up to their mistakes.
4. They tell unrealistic life stories.
Example: “They claim to have met celebrities and traveled the world, but a lot of the details just don’t add up.”
Stories that seem exaggerated or too good to be true can be a red flag. People who feel the need to embellish their experiences may be insecure about their real selves or trying to craft a more appealing persona. Overly dramatic or fantastical accounts may suggest that they are not being truthful, and it’s important to gauge if their life stories match up with reality.
3. They have had a lot of sudden life changes.
Example: “They’ve switched jobs three times this year and recently moved cities without much explanation.”
While change is a natural part of life, frequent and abrupt shifts—such as changing jobs, moving homes, or cycling through friend groups—can indicate instability. Consistency in personal and professional life often reflects a level of responsibility and commitment. Sudden, unexplained changes could signal that they are running away from unresolved issues or struggling to maintain stability.
2. They’re reluctant to introduce you to others.
Example: “Despite dating for months, they still haven’t introduced me to any of their friends or family.”
If someone is hesitant to introduce you to their family, friends, or colleagues, it could indicate they are hiding you from parts of their life or that they’re not serious about the relationship. Being part of each other’s social circles is a natural progression in a healthy relationship, and reluctance to do so may suggest they have something to hide or aren’t fully committed.
1. They have perfectionist tendencies.
Example: “They expect everything to be flawless, from how the apartment is arranged to how I dress, and it’s starting to feel exhausting.”
Perfectionism can indicate underlying control issues or deep insecurities. If they hold themselves—and you—to impossibly high standards, it can lead to stress, frustration, and disappointment. No one is perfect, and striving for flawlessness can prevent authentic connection. Healthy relationships embrace imperfections and allow both partners to be human without fear of judgment.
What about Green Flags?
Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]
