As President Donald Trump has ramped up deportations, some immigrant students across New York have been too afraid to attend class in person. In response, some school districts have turned to virtual learning, a move the state’s Education Department is sanctioning, officials revealed last week.
“I will tell you in the sense of a crisis, we do have some districts right now … that are taking advantage and providing virtual instruction to our children who are afraid to go to school,” Associate Education Commissioner Elisa Alvarez told state officials at May’s Board of Regents meeting.
Alvarez shared with the board a memo the state Education Department issued in March clarifying that districts have the flexibility to offer online instruction to “students who may be unable or averse to attending school, including during times of political uncertainty.”
The memo further specified schools can tap online learning for immigrant and migrant students “who may be affected and reluctant to attend school in person due to concerns about their personal safety and security.”
Alvarez didn’t disclose how many or which districts were using the approach and for how many students. A state Education Department spokesperson did not respond to follow-up questions.
New York City public schools already have virtual options available and aren’t doing anything different for immigrant students fearful of attending school, a spokesperson for the city’s Education Department said.
Still, the disclosure from state officials highlights the ongoing fears some immigrant students are facing four months into the Trump administration and raises fresh questions about how their school experiences are being affected.
Shortly after taking office, Trump rescinded longstanding guidance barring federal immigration agents from making arrests at “sensitive locations” including schools.
Migrant families staying in New York City shelters expressed acute fears during the week after Trump’s inauguration in January and stayed out of school in large numbers, likely contributing to lower citywide attendance rates that week (though Mayor Eric Adams later downplayed the attendance woes). Some city educators said they’ve seen attendance for immigrant students rebound since that first week.
City policy prohibits federal law enforcement agents, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, from entering schools without a warrant signed by a judge, and Education Department officials have trained school staff on detailed protocols for how to respond.
At the state level, the Attorney General’s office and Education Department issued joint guidance in March reiterating that state and federal law both compel districts to only permit federal law enforcement to enter schools under very limited circumstances.
Many school leaders have worked hard to communicate those policies and reassure anxious families. And immigration enforcement inside of schools has remained rare.
But some high-profile raids have targeted school-age children, including one in the upstate New York hometown of Trump border czar Tom Homan that swept up three students in the local public schools, sparking fear and outrage. And there have been reports across the country of parents detained by immigration agents right outside schools during drop-off time.
Under those circumstances, virtual learning could give schools a way to keep up some connection with students or families who might otherwise completely disengage.
But some New York City educators said they’re still working hard to convince fearful immigrant students to come to school in person, noting that virtual learning was especially challenging for English language learners during the COVID pandemic.
Lara Evangelista, the executive director of the Internationals Network, which oversees 17 public schools in the five boroughs catering exclusively to newly arrived immigrant students, said none of her schools have made the “purposeful choice” to engage fearful students through virtual learning.
“Virtual learning for [English Learners] was really challenging during COVID,” she said.
Alan Cheng, the superintendent who oversees the international schools as well as the city’s dedicated virtual schools, said he hasn’t seen any significant changes in enrollment or interest in online learning due to fear of in-person attendance among immigrant students.
And while virtual learning might be able to offer a version of the academic experience of in-person school, it’s harder for it to replicate some of the other services that schools provide families.
“Our schools serve much more than just the academic environment,” Cheng said. “They are really community schools, they provide health care, they provide plenty of other resources.”
This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.
Sarah Osofsky returned to school last year to earn her master’s degree in social work, hoping to give back to her community and find a job that would pay enough to survive Hawaiʻi’s high cost of living.
Now, less than two weeks away from graduation, the mother of two is struggling to find a position that can sustain her family.
Most social work jobs she’s seen in recent months offer salaries of $60,000 or less — enough to disqualify her from safety net programs like food stamps, but not enough to comfortably provide for her kids. She’s considered moving back to California where she has family who could support her, but she wants to stay in Hawaiʻi so her children can be near their dad.
“What I’m balancing right now is, do I take a low, low paying job that then I’ll qualify for services like food stamps and Medicaid,” Osofsky said, “or do I hold out and try to find those few and far between really good jobs that will make enough so I don’t qualify but I don’t need it.”
Osofsky’s struggle is a familiar one for working families in Hawaiʻi. In 2024, nearly 30% of Hawaiʻi households were living paycheck-to-paycheck and struggling to afford basic necessities like housing, child care and food, according to an annual count of the state’s ALICE families — an acronym for people who are asset limited, income constrained, and employed.
Like Osofsky, roughly 40% of these families considered leaving the state over the past year, according to a study from Aloha United Way.
While some reports indicate that more locals have been returning to Hawaiʻi in the last few years, the state’s high cost of living continues to drive some families away, straining the public education system and economy.
Earlier this year, the Department of Education said its kindergarten enrollment dropped from 13,000 in 2019 to nearly 10,800 this year, citing estimates that 20% of people leaving Hawaiʻi are school-aged kids. The department is now starting the process of consolidating small schools, although it hasn’t yet identified which campuses are at risk of closure.
A few years ago, state lawmakers grappling with the Covid-19 pandemic proposed a bold slate of reforms to improve the plight of working families: free school meals for all, universal access to preschool and paid family leave. But the state’s big plans for progress have resulted in incremental steps, and some families and advocates say change isn’t happening quickly enough.
Lawmakers this session created a working group to study paid family leave but failed to turn the yearslong proposal into law. The state expanded eligibility for preschool tuition subsidies and funded preschool construction but failed to address the ongoing shortage of early learning educators. And Senate Bill 1300 — considered one of the biggest wins for students this year — expanded access to free school meals but stopped short of providing them for all kids.
At the same time, uncertainty looms around the future of programs that rely on federal dollars to support working families, including school meals and early learning centers.
Amid the upheaval, state lawmakers were hesitant to pass big spending measures this year, opting instead to set aside $200 million to help Hawaiʻi prepare for federal funding cuts. But some advocates say now is exactly the time for the state to make a bigger investment in families.
“The state Legislature, and frankly, the counties, should be thinking, ‘Bad stuff is coming,’” said Deborah Zysman, executive director of Hawaiʻi Children’s Action Network. “We don’t quite know what yet, but we should be thinking about how to take care of our own people.”
An Urgent Need For Child Care
During the Covid-19 pandemic, Osofsky worried about the social development of her son, who was just turning 2 when lockdown restrictions began. But when he began attending the University of Hawaiʻi Mānoa Children’s Center later that year, Osofsky said, he received services for his speech delay and became comfortable making friends and recognizing letters.
But paying for preschool was a challenge, Osofsky said. The Preschool Open Doors program provides a state subsidy to help cover tuition, but her son was ineligible when he started because the program only covered 4-year-olds at the time. The program expanded to include 3-year-olds last year.
Hawaiʻi has pledged to offer preschool to all 3- and 4-year-olds by 2032. The Ready Keiki initiative, led by Lt. Gov. Sylvia Luke, currently estimates the state needs to add more than 330 classrooms in the next seven years to provide preschool to an additional 6,700 children.
While lawmakers successfully expanded access to tuition subsidies and funded more preschool construction this year, progress toward the state’s ambitious goal has slowed on other fronts.
One successful bill this session expands eligibility for preschool subsidies by including 2-year-olds and repealing the requirement that families must use the subsidy at a nationally accredited provider, which has created financial and administrative barriers for smaller programs in the past, Zysman said.
But the Department of Human Services is on track to spend only $20 million of its $50 million budget for preschool subsidies this year, said Scott Morishige, administrator of the department’s Benefit, Employment and Support Services Division.
To ramp up its spending, DHS is considering expanding the income eligibility to 500% of the federal poverty line. If DHS adopts the rules this summer, Morishige said, a family of four could make up to $184,000 annually and still be eligible for assistance, compared to the past income limit of $110,000.
The state budget sets aside $20 million to build more public preschool classrooms over the next three years. The state plans on opening 25 public preschool classrooms this fall and an additional 25 classrooms the following year, far less than previous estimates that Hawaiʻi could build 40-50 classrooms annually.
While the state would like to take a more aggressive approach to opening public preschool classrooms moving forward, Luke said, the Ready Keiki initiative is also relying on private providers and charter schools to help expand access. The state is starting larger construction projects, like standalone preschool centers, that could add seats more rapidly as they open in the next few years.
“There is an urgency for us to open as many preschool seats as we can,” she said.
But families’ demand for preschool could grow beyond what the state has anticipated if the federal government stops funding its own child care programs. Head Start, which relies on federal funding and serves roughly 2,800 children and pregnant mothers, is currently Hawaiʻi’s largest provider of early learning services, said Ryan Kusumoto, president and CEO of the nonprofit Parents And Children Together.
The Trump administration has previously threatened to cut funding entirely for Head Start, although the most recent version of the federal budget keeps program funding intact. Some Hawaiʻi Head Start programs are still waiting to receive confirmation for next year’s funding, and the recent closure of some regional offices could create backlogs in awarding this money, said Ben Naki, president of the Head Start Association of Hawaiʻi.
“There’s no existing infrastructure that can pick up those 2,800 kids,” Kusumoto said. “And we’re talking about kids who don’t have any other resources.”
First Steps For Free Meals
Since September, Christine Russo said paying for meals has become a greater challenge for her family as her twins joined her 10-year-old in attending school every day. She sets aside roughly $180 each month so her kids can purchase breakfast and lunch at school — a challenge for the public school teacher, whose husband is a retail store manager.
Russo’s kids don’t qualify for free or reduced-price school meals, but she said her family could still benefit from the ongoing push to bring back a pandemic-era program that made meals free for all students.
Lawmakers stopped short of funding a universal free meals program this year but took incremental steps by passing Senate Bill 1300. Starting next year, the state will provide free school meals to students who currently qualify for reduced-price lunch. The following year, eligibility for free school meals would be expanded to families making up to 300% of the federal poverty level, or roughly $110,000 for a family of four.
The bill appropriates $565,000 to provide more free school meals next year and an additional $3.4 million for the program’s expansion the following year. More than 68,000 students in the Department of Education qualified for free meals this year, and 10,000 qualified for reduced-price meals.
The bill also requires schools feed students who don’t have enough money to purchase lunch or already have meal debt. Students have accrued more than $105,000 in meal debt this school year, DOE communications director Nanea Ching said.
At Castle High School, junior Tayli Kahoopii said she receives free meals, but some of her friends don’t qualify. When someone doesn’t have enough money in their account to purchase lunch, the register makes a buzzing sound — loud enough to embarrass students and, in one instance, deter Kahoopii’s friend from trying to purchase meals for a week.
“On a daily basis, you see kids getting their food taken away, and there’s really nothing that they can do about it,” Kahoopii said, adding that it’s difficult for students to learn and focus when they don’t have access to food during the school day.
Rep. Scot Matayoshi, who has introduced bills for the past three years proposing free school meals, said SB1300 is an important step. But he still plans on advocating for universal free school meals in the coming years, especially since it would reduce the administrative barriers schools and families face in determining who qualifies for free meals.
Daniela Spoto, director of food equity at Hawaiʻi Appleseed, said providing all students with free school meals could also become more important with federal funding on the line. Proposed federal cuts to a program allowing schools in low-income areas to provide free meals to all children could impact 52 schools and more than 27,000 kids in Hawaiʻi, according to estimates from the Food Research and Action Center.
“It should be a staple for our schools to have free school lunch,” said Castle junior Haliʻa Tom-Jardine, who will begin qualifying for free school meals next year. “It should be a right.”
‘Bad Things Are Coming’
During the pandemic, people saw lawmakers step up and meet the needs of working families through federal initiatives like the child tax credit and free school meals, said Kayla Keehu-Alexander, vice president of community impact at Aloha United Way. Now, she said, state lawmakers need to do the same during times of uncertainty.
“If we don’t start making some big policy changes around the cost of living, around housing, we could potentially be looking at a larger out-migration than we’ve had in the past,” she said.
Hawaiʻi is already starting to see the possible impacts of out-migration on its schools and economy. While some people are coming back to Hawaiʻi to raise families, Keehu-Alexander said, it’s unclear if they’re joining the workforce in areas with the worst staffing shortages, like education or healthcare.
Looking ahead to next year, Zysman said she would like to see a successful bill establishing paid family leave in Hawaiʻi, which would provide caregivers paid time off to care for their loved ones. Lawmakers have failed to pass a bill for several years, although they did approve a resolution last month establishing a working group that will study how to implement paid family leave over the next year.
Zysman added that she’s concerned about the long-term impacts of the historic tax cut lawmakers passed last year. While she supports cuts that can make it more affordable for people to stay in Hawaiʻi, she said, she’s worried that tax breaks for the wealthiest will make it harder for the state to fund programs that can keep working families afloat.
“In my gut, I feel like bad things are coming,” Zysman said, “and we should have acted more preemptively.”
This story was originally published on Honolulu Civil Beat. Civil Beat’s education reporting is supported by a grant from Chamberlin Family Philanthropy.
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Bright morning sun is streaming through her home’s windows as Sandra Dill reads a picture book about penguins to a room full of busy toddlers. While listening, the kids blow kisses, plop in a visitor’s lap, then get up to slide down a small slide.
Dill has been running a family child care business from her home for 15 years, and every one of her 13 grandchildren has spent time here — currently it’s 20-month-old Nathaniel, who has a puff of curly hair and a gooey grin.
“My older ones started to call it ‘grandma school,’” she said. Another one of her granddaughters, now a teenager, is returning this summer to help out.
Four of Dill’s eight available slots are funded through Head Start. This is the federal-to-local program that funds child care and other support for the poorest families in America. (Regular Head Start serves children 3 to 5 years old; Early Head Start is for those under 3.) The program — which began right here in New Haven, Connecticut — is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year.
It’s also never been so at risk: First a federal funding freeze hit providers, then a chunk of Head Start federal support staff were fired by the Department of Government Efficiency. On March 27, the Department of Health and Human Services announced it was cutting a further 10,000 jobs, and reorganizing the Administration for Children and Families, which administers Head Start. As of April 1, Head Start employees in five of the program’s 10 regions — Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle — had reportedly been laid off, according to a LinkedIn post that day from Katie Hamm, a former official with the federal Administration for Children and Families. Hamm said there does not appear to be a transition plan laying out how Head Start programs in those regions will receive funding and support. Project 2025, the conservative policy handbook organized by the Heritage Foundation, which the Trump administration has been following closely, calls for eliminating Head Start altogether.
“I think it’s terrible,” Dill said. “I just can’t imagine. It’s already not enough, and if this happens, it’s going to affect a lot of families that are already struggling.”
Ed Zigler, the “father of Head Start,” was the son of immigrants from Poland. His father was a peddler and his mother plucked chickens to make a little money, according to Walter Gilliam, executive director of the University of Nebraska’s Buffett Early Childhood Institute, who counted Zigler as his closest mentor.
When Zigler was a child, his family made its way to a settlement house in Kansas City, Missouri; these community-based charities offered a two-generation approach, caring for and educating children while also teaching English and job skills to parents and connecting families with medical care and housing help.
“That made a huge impact on his and his family’s life,” Gilliam said.
Related: Young children have unique needs and providing the right care can be a challenge. Our free early childhood education newsletter tracks the issues.
As a young psychology professor at Yale, Zigler was hired as an advisor to President Lyndon Johnson to help design family programs for the federal War on Poverty. In creating Head Start, he turned to the same two-generation model he grew up with.
To date, Head Start has served nearly 40 million children. In fiscal year 2023, the Head Start program was funded to serve 778,420 children. The program has always been underfunded: In 2020 Head Start served barely 1 in 10 eligible infants and toddlers and only half of eligible preschoolers. It’s limited to families making under the federal poverty level, which is just $31,200 for a family of four.
The sand table at Dill’s child care is an opportunity to explore shapes, colors and textures. Credit: Anya Kamenetz for The Hechinger Report
Still, for many of the families who do manage to make it through the doors, the program is life-changing.
“Head Start is in every community in America,” said Cara Sklar, director of early & elementary education policy at the D.C.-based think tank New America. “It’s the original two-generation program, with wraparound support for kids. It’s really held up as a model of quality in early learning.”
The “wraparound support” for Dill’s Early Head Start families is funded by the United Way of Greater New Haven, and comes via a network for family child care educators called All Our Kin. The network helps mothers enroll in community college and apply for housing subsidies. Dill has had mothers who lived in their cars and one who was living with her mother “six to a room,” she said. She also does regular home visits with families to talk about children’s development and support parents in goals like potty training.
Thanks to Early Head Start, a nurse, a mental health consultant and a nutritionist all help Dill keep the kids healthy and safe. And the program also provides extra funds she can use to get back up and running if, for example, the furnace needs fixing.
But Head Start is now facing funding challenges that go far beyond a broken furnace. “The past month has been harrowing for child care providers,” said Carolina Reyes, director of Arco Iris Bilingual Children’s Center, a preschool in Laurel, Maryland, that is a Head Start partner, and also a member of the nationwide advocacy group MomsRising.
The first blow to Head Start in this administration was President Donald Trump’s January 27 executive order calling for a federal funding freeze. Since Head Start is a direct federal-to-local grant program, even temporary interruptions in funding can cause programs to close their doors.
“ Programs like mine operate on razor-thin margins,” said Reyes. “I don’t have any reserves to pull from if funding is delayed or slashed.”
While funding for most programs has resumed, Joel Ryan, the executive director of the Washington State Association of Head Start, said in a recent press conference that as late as the week of Feb. 17, one in four of his programs still had trouble accessing the Head Start payment website.
That same week of the 17th, almost 70 Head Start staffers were pink-slipped in the federal government’s sweep of “probationary” employees — about one-fifth of the program’s workforce. One laid-off employee, who didn’t want to give his name because he is still fighting his dismissal and fears reprisal, said he spent five years as a contractor before switching to full time this past summer, which accounted for his probationary status. He wore many hats at Head Start, doing data analytics, working with grant recipients and serving as a liaison for state partners.
“They say we’re bloated; we could have used two more full-time people,” he said.
The cuts, he feared, will lead to further delays in programs getting the payments they rely on, not to mention the oversight that keeps kids safe.
“I come from the private sector. I will find another job,” he said. “The issue isn’t us, it’s the children and the families. We’ve got all these people in poverty who are getting screwed over by what’s happening.”
A third blow came on February 25, when the House passed a budget resolution calling for $880 billion in cuts to discretionary spending programs over the next decade, with Medicaid the prime target, along with the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Head Start families overwhelmingly rely on these safety net programs. The White House’s gutting of the Department of Education also threatens many services for preschoolers, especially those in special education. (This process, which maps out the next fiscal year, is separate from the recent vote to fund the government until Sept. 30.)
“This is going from the precipice of disaster to decimating the system,” Sklar said. “All the parts that help families, from Head Start to child care to food to health care, are all being destabilized at once.”
Gilliam said that threats to eliminate Head Start are nothing new. After designing the program during the Johnson administration, Zigler was appointed to run it under the presidency of Richard Nixon. “Some folks told him that his job was to destroy, essentially, the program that he had created,” Gilliam said.
Head Start advocates said the program has been able to fight off political challenges in the past because it is widely distributed geographically and has bipartisan support.
“I agree that Project 2025 is a real threat to Head Start, as well as to other programs that we all care about,” said Ryan, with the Washington State Head Start association.
“But I will say this: We have great research. We have great data. We have a great track record. We have a lot of bipartisan support in Congress. And we have parent power.”
By coincidence, the week the House passed its budget resolution, a group of 150 Head Start parents were on Capitol Hill lobbying as part of a group called Start Early, and they met with many Republican senators.
Tommy Sheridan, the deputy director of the National Head Start Association, struck an almost defiantly optimistic tone after the visit to lawmakers: “We still believe and have seen indicators that this administration is supportive of Head Start. And Congress as well.”
NaMaree Cunningham and her twin sister turned two on the day of our visit. Credit: Anya Kamenetz for The Hechinger Report
Another potential bright spot is the growth of child care support and funding on the state level. Elizabeth Groginsky is New Mexico’s first cabinet secretary for the state’s new Early Childhood Education & Care Department, and she said the pandemic woke a lot of people up to the importance of early care and education.
“People began to understand the impact that child care has on children’s development, families’ ability to work, the overall economy,” Groginsky said.
Since 2020, New Mexico has gone through a major expansion in home visits, child care and preschool. Vermont has made similar moves, and New York and Connecticut are heading in that direction as well. Even the deep-red state of Kentucky has expanded access.
What all of these state-level programs have in common is that they are much more widely available to middle-class families, rather than tightly targeted to families in poverty, as Head Start still is. Historically, with programs like Medicare and Social Security, universal access has meant durable support.
Now those states are contemplating stepping in further if the federal government drops the ball.
“Because the state has made such an impressive commitment to child care, we’re potentially in a better spot than others,” said Janet McLaughlin, deputy commissioner for Vermont’s Department of Children and Families. And Groginsky, in New Mexico, said firmly, “The governor and the legislature — I don’t think we’ll let New Mexicans go without. They’ll find a way.”
Support for this reporting was provided by the Better Life Lab at New America.
This story about Head Start was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
Starting next academic year, Harvard will offer free tuition to students from households that earn $200,000 or less a year, according to a Monday announcement from university leaders.
In addition, students with household incomes of $100,000 or less per year will attend Harvard for free, with the university covering not just tuition costs but food, housing, health insurance and travel expenses. Those students will also receive a $2,000 start-up grant in their first year and a $2,000 launch grant junior year to support their transitions to and from college.
“Putting Harvard within financial reach for more individuals widens the array of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives that all of our students encounter, fostering their intellectual and personal growth,” Harvard president Alan M. Garber said in the announcement. “By bringing people of outstanding promise together to learn with and from one another, we truly realize the tremendous potential of the University.”
The changes make roughly 86 percent of American families eligible for Harvard financial aid, according to the announcement. The move comes at a time when the Ivy League institutions are under intense scrutiny from the Trump administration and lawmakers. Harvard joins a slew of other universities, including some highly selective institutions like the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, that have unveiled expansive new financial aid plans.
Dr. Donna Y. FordNow more than ever, race has become salient in politics, higher education, P-12, and the workforce, especially in this anti-DEI era. It is not uncommon for Black and other minoritized individuals to have feelings of anxiety about discussions around race, particularly for families (e.g., parents, caregivers, guardians, etc.). Having “the talk” about racism and bias has been a rite of passage for many Black children and youth in which their parents/caregivers have to discuss the intersection of race and U.S. societal issues such as how to interact with law enforcement because navigating these circumstances can easily lead to imprisonment or a life-or-death situation. Trauma is undeniable.
Keeping “the talk” at the forefront of this op-ed, it is imperative that families have the resources to properly discuss, show, and engage their children in active conversation about race relations so Black and other minoritized youth and families can respond appropriately, particularly in proactive ways. Moreover, families must continue to instill confidence and pride in racial identity. To set the tone, we are eager to share this Sesame Street video “Elijah Explains Race to His Son, Wes, and Elmo.”
Children are Ready, Caregivers (and Educators) Must Be Too
Here is an overview from Traci Baxley. Research shows that children form race-related ideas long before they can verbalize about race and racism. It may surprise readers to know that racial awareness begins in infancy. Regardless of their age, all children get clues from their experiences (inside and outside of home) to make sense of the world. Therefore, early, intentional/proactive, honest, and age-appropriate conversations are important for promoting racial identity and pride. Here is a developmental look at children’s understanding.
•Infants show a preference for the faces of people from their own racial group as early as six months. Babies gaze longer and show happy expressions more frequently with people who look like them. Start early by introducing children to people who don’t look like them, and let children see pictures of people with a variety of skin tones and facial features.
•Toddlers use social cues such as body language and facial expressions to make sense of their world. They watch the way adults respond to differences in people and mimic our attitudes and racial biases without us even realizing it. As young as three, toddlers associate some racial groups with negative traits and use these associations to develop their own understanding about the world/environment around them. As caregivers, we need to be aware of our own biases and reactions to people whose skin color is different. Using books, videos, and music that highlight and celebrate differences.
•Preschoolers become even more aware of differences such as skin color and hair texture. They are increasingly observant of how others are similar and different from them. Toddlers compare and group/categorize people by race. Note that some children also begin to show a “pro-white” bias. Thus, they may begin to include or exclude playmates on the basis of race. Furthermore, minoritized children may associate White with wealth, power, and/or beauty.
Dr. Erik M. Hines•Kindergartners and first graders are beginning to notice that race is often a taboo topic – the proverbial elephant in the room. They may continue to include and exclude peers based on race. They are more aware of disturbing news, and they often ask questions about it. This is a timely opportunity to have meaningful conversations about race and racism.
In summary, as soon as children can ask race-based questions and make comments, support their natural curiosity by answering them, even the most difficult ones. Let them know that it’s fine/not wrong to notice skin color and to talk about race. We concur with Baxley that “the idea is to make differences normal and good!” We are uncomfortable and not prepared, our children will notice, and experience discomfort. It will be difficult to promote racial understanding and pride, which is so needed for minoritized children in these turbulent times.
A Final Word
We are staunch advocates of appreciating Black culture and its legacy of innovation, education, and significant contributions to the history of the United States. Broaching race with children is imperative to ensure that they have the confidence and belief in themselves with no limitations to their talents, creativity, brilliance and genius. These conversations around race not only prepares our youth to thrive but it also normalizes how conversations on race can be proactive as opposed to reactive.
Dr. Donna Y. Ford is Distinguished Professor of Education and Human Ecology at The Ohio State University.
Dr. Erik M. Hines is Professor of Counseling in the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University.
Dr. Tanya J. Middleton is a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Studies at The Ohio State University.
Before starting at his Harlem high school, Jeurry always assumed he was progressing appropriately in school, despite having significant learning challenges.
However, in his freshman year, he began to notice himself struggling to read longer words and more complex sentences.
As he grew increasingly overwhelmed, it became clear that the small classes exclusively for students with disabilities that he had been in since kindergarten had not adequately prepared him for high school.
Still, Jeurry managed to pass nearly all his classes. His final meeting with his Committee on Special Education — which consisted of Jeurry’s mom and several faculty members — took place in December 2016. By then, the senior had earned 45 credits — 44 were required to graduate — and a C+ average, records show.
But Jeurry was devastated to learn that he would not earn a diploma.
The reason was based on a decision the committee made when Jeurry was in sixth grade and, according to records, never revisited while he was in high school. At that time, the educators concluded that Jeurry could not learn grade-level curriculum. They decided he would be “alternately assessed,” or evaluated based on lower achievement standards. New York State students who take alternate assessments through high school cannot earn a diploma, a prerequisite for military service, many jobs, and most degree- or certificate-granting college and trade school programs.
Heartbroken, he begged the faculty to find a solution during the 2016 meeting. “They didn’t even care,” Jeurry said. “They just wanted me to ‘graduate’ and get out.”
Jeurry, who is now 26 and was diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability after graduating high school, requested that his last name be withheld over concerns about the stigma surrounding intellectual disabilities.
Special education advocates say the systemic failures that led to Jeurry’s situation eight years ago continue to jeopardize the futures of similar students. Last school year, 6,116 New York City students took the New York State Alternate Assessment, according to state data. Federal law requires that states offer such assessments for students with disabilities who are incapable of taking state tests. Importantly, it also states that only “students with the most significant cognitive disabilities” can take the alternate assessment, and that schools must fully inform parents of the potential ramifications. (State education departments are responsible for ensuring compliance with these mandates.)
Too often, however, those standards are neither maintained nor enforced, special education advocates, teachers, and families told Chalkbeat. Instead, factors like under-resourcing, nebulous procedures, and a failure to equip parents to make fully informed decisions have led schools to place some students without significant cognitive disabilities on a non-grade-level, non-diploma track. Students who take alternate assessments are typically placed in non-inclusive, low-rigor settings, which can deprive them of academic and socialization opportunities.
At the December 2016 meeting, the members of Jeurry’s special education committee said their hands were tied. According to documentation from the meeting, Jeurry’s mother said “she was not made aware of the long-term effects of alternate assessment when it was first initiated or during any supplemental [meetings].”
“They would always tell my mom, ‘His diploma is going to be real,’” Jeurry said. “She kept believing them.”
Throughout his time as a K-12 student in Harlem, Jeurry received inadequate academic support and struggled to advance past a first- or second-grade reading level.
In response to requests to interview state special education leadership, a New York State Education Department spokesperson said in an email: “NYSED is committed to working with schools and parents to determine the appropriate participation of students with disabilities in [the alternate assessment] and to fully understand the impact it has on these students.”
Since New York’s alternate assessment is used to meet federal special education law requirements, the spokesperson said, “there are very strict criteria for its development, administration, and applicability to students.”
Christina Foti, the city Education Department’s deputy chancellor for inclusive and accessible learning, acknowledged that there is room for more robust safeguards, and she said the Education Department recently recommended that the state consider several alternate assessment-related policy changes. They include clarifying definitions and participation criteria, requiring the use of a decision-making flowchart and checklist, and mandating that special education committees “conduct a complete and up-to-date battery of psychoeducational assessments” before making assessment decisions.
The Education Department is also pursuing local-level reforms, but officials are still in the early stages of developing a “definitive language and shift in practice [and] policy,” Foti said.
Inequitable outcomes for students on non-diploma track
In New York, special education committees determine annually how students will be assessed, usually starting around third grade. Although the state has established participation criteria for the alternate assessment, deciding whether students meet those criteria can be a relatively subjective process.
Data obtained through a public records request show that students placed on the non-diploma track are disproportionately Black or English language learners. Last school year, 29% of New York City students who took the alternate assessment were Black, while Black children represented only 20% of all students and 26% of those with disabilities. More than 29% of students who were alternatively assessed were English learners, while such students accounted for just 19% of the school system’s overall population and 14% of students with disabilities.
There have been some signs of progress toward ensuring that only students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are placed on the non-diploma track. Participation is declining in New York City and statewide, and racial disproportionalities among alternatively assessed students decreased between the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years, according to the data.
The New York City Education Department has worked to minimize subjectivity in assessment decisions “over the past five or six years,” said Arwina Vallejo, the department’s executive director of school-based evaluations and family engagement.
To more holistically determine students’ aptitude for grade-level learning and test participation, schools now administer “specialized assessments in reading, in writing, in math, in executive functions, in neurological abilities,” Vallejo said.
The Education Department also trains school psychologists in “culturally responsive, non-discriminatory assessment practices” to mitigate the impact of bias, she said.
But special education advocates and families say more must be done. School officials sometimes change the graduation track of children with mild intellectual disabilities or disruptive behaviors when they don’t have the will or means to try other options, said Juliet Eisenstein, a special education attorney and former assistant director of the Postsecondary Readiness Project at Advocates for Children of New York.
“It’s just a box that’s checked and not really talked about, because it’s an easier solution than figuring out a program that fits this more complex student profile,” she said.
Resources that could help such students — like one-on-one tutors or specialized placements — are often limited or nonexistent. This is especially true in New York City, where around 300,000 students qualify for special education services, and government audits have found that the Education Department regularly fails to meet its obligations to them. An estimated 2,300 special-education staff vacancies exist citywide.
Trevlon, 18, has been both alternatively and regularly assessed. He has a history of behavioral problems, an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis, and an intellectual disability classification from the Education Department. Trevlon struggled to keep up academically in elementary school and attended a middle school in District 75, a citywide district that caters to students with significant disabilities. There, he received intensive academic and behavioral support and made major strides, but he was not on a diploma track.
Trevlon, who requested that his last name be withheld because a complaint he filed against the Education Department has yet to be resolved, said he was unhappy in the highly restrictive environment. He committed himself to proving that he could be successful at a community high school. By the time Trevlon graduated middle school as valedictorian of his eighth grade class, his special education committee had agreed that he could transition back to the diploma track and into a community school.
However, Trevlon was placed in a school that did not offer the learning environment the Education Department had determined most appropriate for him: a self-contained special education classroom for 15 students. Instead, he attended large classes that integrated students with disabilities and their general education peers. He said he struggled to focus and keep up. As he fell behind academically, he became increasingly frustrated and started acting out.
After his tumultuous freshman year, Trevlon was moved back onto a non-diploma track in a District 75 school, where he felt out of place and insufficiently challenged. He begged for a different placement that might offer a path back to community school — or a diploma, at least — but nothing changed, he said.
Knowing he would never have a “real” high school experience, Trevlon grew disillusioned, started attending school infrequently, and finally dropped out last year.
“It’s not just, ‘Oh, I stopped going to school because I don’t like school,’” Trevlon said. “I feel like the system gave up on me to a certain extent, as a Black male. … All I ever really wanted to do was to work and sit down and be like everybody else.”
Parents often unaware of children’s placement on non-diploma track
Schools are legally mandated to inform a student’s parents abou
When Jeurry was in middle school, the faculty members of his Committee on Special Education pointed to his lack of academic progress and recommended that he be “alternately assessed.” Although his mother agreed to the change, she did not realize that the decision would take away her son’s opportunity to earn a high school diploma. (Sarah Komar for Chalkbeat)
t the long-term ramifications of the alternate track. However, special education advocates said they regularly work with parents who had no idea their children were on a non-diploma path — often until it was too late.
“Many parents do not even know to ask questions about alternate assessment, because they’re never informed,” said Young Seh Bae, executive director of the Queens-based Community Inclusion and Development Alliance and a parent of a student with disabilities. It’s only when graduation approaches that many parents say, “‘Oh, I didn’t realize my child wouldn’t receive a high school diploma … The school didn’t explain my child never will be able to go to college or get a license for certain things.’”
In New York, diploma-track students must pass a certain number of Regents exams, making it one of eight states that require high school seniors to pass standardized tests to earn a diploma. (New York State is planning to phase out Regents as a graduation requirement in fall 2027.)
Because Jeurry was on a non-diploma track and never took his Regents, he could only earn a Skills and Achievement Commencement Credential, which cannot be used to apply for college, trade school, the military, or many jobs.
Jeurry was reading and doing math on a first-grade level by the start of middle school and on second- to third-grade levels by the end of high school, records show. Over the years, the Education Department classified him with several different kinds of disabilities, including a learning disability at one point and an intellectual disability at another. While he was a student, he was not evaluated by an outside provider, which some families pay for if they think their children have been improperly classified by district professionals. Faculty members repeatedly told Jeurry’s mother he was incapable of progressing academically, his academic records show, and they eventually used his lack of progress to justify placing him on the non-diploma track.
From kindergarten through eighth grade, he remained in self-contained classes, receiving only speech language therapy as a supplementary service. In high school, Jeurry moved from a self-contained setting into integrated classrooms, which benefited him socially but only further highlighted how far his academics lagged behind his peers.
At no point did Jeurry’s special education committee suggest additional services or more intensive support, records show. Federal law mandates more intensive intervention if a special education student is not making progress toward his goals.
Kim Swanson, the principal of Jeurry’s high school who overlapped with him during his last year there, declined to comment on Jeurry’s situation. She said her school “always follows state guidance.”
The school’s special education committees have always informed parents of the ramifications of alternate assessment, but the school has implemented additional safeguards during Swanson’s 11-year tenure as principal, she said. These include sending home a form letter that was developed by the state with input from the city Education Department (a requirement of all New York schools since 2019), and ensuring that faculty members discuss students’ progress toward their goals before special education committee meetings.
Vallejo, who oversees school-based evaluations, said the Education Department worked with the state to develop the form letter because “there was a point where little information was available to students and families regarding alternate assessment and the impact of that designation.” Education Department faculty are committed to fully involving students’ parents in assessment decisions and revisiting them annually, Vallejo said.
Special education advocates have lobbied the state for specific alternate assessment reforms for years, with little success — including a 2022 push for policy changes that could have helped demystify the assessment decision-making process.
In August 2024, for the first time in at least five years, the state proposed policy tweaks of its own, including seeking feedback from special education advocates and families on how to clarify the existing eligibility criteria for alternate assessment and update existing decision-making tools and training materials.
In the future, Jeurry hopes to earn a four-year degree and go into marketing before someday opening his own restaurant.
After legal battle, NYC pays for more than 1,300 hours of services
Knowing that he wouldn’t receive a diploma, Jeurry skipped his June 2017 graduation.
He then languished in a city-funded GED program for more than a year. In fall 2018, on the recommendation of a teacher, Jeurry contacted Advocates for Children. Within months, a pro-bono legal team arranged by the organization filed an action against the city school system, accusing it of denying Jeurry a free, appropriate public education as required by law.
While the legal process unfolded, Jeurry’s advocates helped him apply for his diploma through a “superintendent determination,” a safety net for students with disabilities who are unable to earn the Regents scores needed for graduation but meet all other requirements. In June 2019, he received his high school diploma.
As part of the 10-month legal process, a neuropsychologist evaluated Jeurry and diagnosed him with a mild intellectual disability, concluding that he could have benefited from more rigorous support, such as one-on-one literacy tutoring.
The city ultimately agreed to compensate Jeurry for what he missed during his 14 years of school by paying for 1,308 hours of academic tutoring, life skills training, and transition services. For more than a year, he attended all-day tutoring sessions that started with phonics and built upward.
“At first, I was like, ‘It’s not helping,’” Jeurry said. But then, little by little, I started noticing my reading level going up … and I was like, ‘Oh, it is working!’”
Although it has required him to work through significant education-related trauma, Jeurry now attends community college online while working full time. He’s considering transferring to a four-year institution after he earns his associate degree in business administration.
“I didn’t want to go back, but I had to do it, you know?” Jeurry said. “I needed to get a better education.”
Sarah Komar is a New York City-based journalist. She reported this story while at the Toni Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.
Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.
This audiobook narrated by Kate Harper examines how the financial pressures of paying for college affect the lives and well-being of middle-class families The struggle to pay for college is one of the defining features of middle-class life in America today. At kitchen tables all across the country, parents agonize over whether to burden their children with loans or to sacrifice their own financial security by taking out a second mortgage or draining their retirement savings. Indebted takes readers into the homes of middle-class families throughout the nation to reveal the hidden consequences of student debt and the ways that financing college has transformed family life.
Caitlin Zaloom gained the confidence of numerous parents and their college-age children, who talked candidly with her about stressful and intensely personal financial matters that are usually kept private. In this remarkable book, Zaloom describes the profound moral conflicts for parents as they try to honor what they see as their highest parental duty—providing their children with opportunity—and shows how parents and students alike are forced to take on enormous debts and gamble on an investment that might not pay off.
What emerges is a troubling portrait of an American middle class fettered by the “student finance complex”—the bewildering labyrinth of government-sponsored institutions, profit-seeking firms, and university offices that collect information on household earnings and assets, assess family needs, and decide who is eligible for aid and who is not. Superbly written and unflinchingly honest, Indebted breaks through the culture of silence surrounding the student debt crisis, revealing the unspoken costs of sending our kids to college.
When it comes to choosing a college, the sticker price can be a major turnoff. A significant 65% of prospective students and 67% of their families report ruling out institutions based solely on the advertised “sticker price”.
But what does this mean for colleges and universities, and how can they help families look beyond the sticker shock to understand the true affordability of a degree?
Ruling out colleges based on the sticker price is on the rise – and it’s happening fast. In just three years, the percentage of families eliminating schools from consideration due to high upfront costs has jumped from 58% in 2022 to 67% in 2024.
This suggests that concerns about affordability are increasingly driving the college planning process, with families taking a hard look at the bottom line before even exploring other factors. But is this sticker shock reaction always a rational response, or might colleges be losing out on applicants who could afford to attend with the help of financial aid?
A notable divide emerges when comparing the sticker shock responses of first-generation college students to their continuing-generation peers. A full 69% of first-generation students reported ruling out schools based on sticker price, compared to 64% of continuing-generation students.
This disparity is also reflected in families’ perceptions, with 68% of first-generation families eliminating schools due to cost versus 62% of continuing-generation families. This could suggest that first-generation students and families are less familiar with the intricacies of college financing and the crucial distinction between sticker and net price.
As a result, they may be more likely to focus on the daunting upfront cost without fully exploring the available aid options. How can colleges better reach, educate, and support these first-generation students about affordability to prevent them from ruling out institutions that could be a great fit financially and academically?
The level of family involvement in the college search process also plays a role in sticker shock decisions. Students with very involved parents were less likely to rule out colleges based on sticker price (63%), suggesting that parental guidance may help applicants look beyond the initial cost to consider the bigger financial picture.
But what about students with less involved parents? A striking 75% of students with uninvolved parents ruled out colleges based on sticker price. How can colleges step in to provide the necessary counseling and education about affordability for these applicants?
Loan anxiety and sticker shock: A shared concern for students and families
For both students and their families, concerns about loan debt play a significant role in the sticker shock equation. A striking 70% of students who expressed concerns about borrowing to finance their education were more likely to rule out colleges based on high prices. Families share this loan anxiety – 73% of families with loan concerns reported ruling out institutions based on sticker price. This underscores the need for colleges to address loan concerns head-on through transparent communication about financing options, debt management strategies, and a degree’s long-term return on investment.
By providing reassurance and resources, institutions can help applicants feel more comfortable with the financial commitment and less likely to rule out schools due to initial sticker shock. Importantly, 72% of students and 79% of families reported that their borrowing concerns were negatively impacting their college planning, suggesting that proactive support from institutions is crucial in mitigating loan anxiety and promoting a more holistic view of affordability.
The net price imperative
While sticker price can be a major deterrent, the actual net price of attendance paints a very different picture. Institutions must do a better job of clearly communicating net price information to prospective students and families.
This means highlighting available aid, scholarships, and financing options to demonstrate affordability. Tools like net price calculators can be powerful in helping applicants understand the true cost of attendance. But are these resources being effectively utilized and communicated to offset the sticker shock reaction?
To help families and students look beyond sticker shock, institutions can take the following steps:
Clearly communicate net price information: Highlight the difference between sticker price and net price on your website and in recruitment materials.
Provide transparent financing information: Break down the costs of attendance and explain financing options in clear, easy-to-understand language.
Offer user-friendly net price calculators: Help families estimate their actual out-of-pocket costs with interactive net price calculators.
Proactively counsel about aid: Don’t wait for families to ask – offer personalized financial aid counseling to prospective students.
Address loan anxiety: Provide resources and guidance to help students and families understand responsible borrowing and debt management.
Highlight value beyond price: Showcase the long-term value and outcomes of a degree from your institution to demonstrate the return on investment.
Partner with high schools: Collaborate with high school counselors to provide early education about college financing and affordability.
Target outreach to first-gen students and their families: Recognize that first-generation students may need additional support and education about the college financing process.
Follow up with sticker-shocked applicants: If a student expresses interest but seems deterred by the sticker price, proactively reach out with information about aid and affordability options.
Leverage video and AI to personalize the process: Use video content and artificial intelligence tools to provide personalized, interactive explanations of financial aid and affordability. AI-powered chatbots can offer 24/7 support to answer families’ financing questions, while personalized video messages can break down complex aid packages in an easy-to-digest format. By embracing these technologies, institutions can create a more engaging, self-service-oriented experience that empowers families to confidently navigate the affordability landscape.
The bottom line and more findings from our Perceptions report
The sticker shock phenomenon is a real and growing concern in college admissions. However, by understanding the factors that drive these decisions and taking proactive steps to educate families, colleges can help prospective students see beyond the advertised tuition rate to consider the true affordability of a degree. This requires a nuanced understanding of the college financing landscape and a commitment to clear, transparent communication. With the right approaches, institutions can attract diverse applicants who may have otherwise been deterred by sticker shock.
Title: Covering the Tuition Bill: How Do Families Pay the Rising Price of College?
Author: Phillip Levine
Source: The Brookings Institution
The increasing costs of attendance at colleges and universities, especially higher “sticker prices,” have attracted attention from both families and policymakers. Although many families are not paying the full sticker prices due to financial aid, today’s families are still facing higher bills for postsecondary education.
A new analysis from the Brookings Institution examines the different funding sources that families use to pay for four-year nonprofit colleges and how these differ depending on family income. While the findings reflect the different limitations families face based on their incomes, they also suggest that rising net prices mean all households face additional hardships when their children enroll in college.
Key findings include:
Middle- and higher-income parents increasingly used their own income and savings.
Between 1996 and 2008, payments to colleges from parents’ income and savings jumped by $1,500 to $4,600, depending on the family income and type of institution. These values likely increased again by several thousand from 2008-2020, but specific figures are not available.
Middle- and higher-income parents have borrowed more.
Families with incomes below $50,000 and students attending private institutions saw the highest increases, an average of $1,200, in parents taking out loans from 2008 to 2020.
Families with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 borrowed, on average, $800 more in parent loans for students attending public institutions between 2008 and 2020.
Parents were more likely than students to take out education loans, especially between 1996 and 2008 and among middle- and higher-income families.
Students from lower-income backgrounds worked more.
Payments to colleges with funds from student earnings increased among families with incomes under $50,000 from 1996-2008. Student earnings likely also covered the bulk of net price increases for lower-income families between 2008 and 2020.
Students from families earning less than $50,000 enrolled at public institutions were six percentage points more likely to work in 2008 compared to in 1996.
These findings provide reassurance that increased student borrowing is not the primary resource for students to cover increased net prices at four-year colleges. Although the student debt crisis continues to gain attention as overall student loan debt has grown broadly, that increase is largely not occurring at four-year nonprofit institutions.
However, increased borrowing by parents, especially in middle- and higher-income families, is a trend worthy of more attention. Given that lower-income families may be unable to take on parental loans due to creditworthiness, parental borrowing can contribute to increased inequality as cost may prevent lower-income students from selecting the best school for them or from attending college at all. Middle- and higher-income families can face other significant consequences: If parents deplete their assets or save less, they may not be able to retire until they are older or have decreased retirement income.
On June 21, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a markup of three labor bills championed by Democrats: the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 728), the Healthy Families Act (S. 1664), and the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act (S. 567). The three bills passed out of the committee by a vote of 11-10 along party lines, demonstrating the challenge these bills will face to be passed into law.
Paycheck Fairness Act
The Paycheck Fairness Act aims to address wage discrimination on the basis of sex. More specifically, the bill limits an employer’s defense that a pay differential is based on a factor other than sex, enhances non-retaliation prohibitions, prohibits employee contracts or waivers banning them from disclosing wage information, and increases civil penalties for violations of equal-pay provisions.
Ranking Member Bill Cassidy (R-LA) introduced several amendments to the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act, including an amendment to substitute the text with the Wage Equity Act. The Wage Equity Act would protect employers’ ability to use bona fide business-related factors other than sex to set workers’ compensation and allow workers to voluntarily disclose their prior salary histories when they choose to do so. The amendment was ultimately defeated by a vote of 9-12, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) joining Democrats in voting against the amendment.
Healthy Families Act
The Healthy Families Act permits employees of businesses with 15 or more workers to accrue up to seven job-protected paid sick days each year to recover from an illness and provide care to a sick family member, among other health-related activities. For employers with 15 or fewer employees, the bill would allow employees to earn up to seven job-protected unpaid sick days each year to be used for the same purposes. Under the bill, workers would accrue one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked, with a cap of 56 hours that may be raised by the employer.
Cassidy offered two amendments to the bill that would exempt employers from the requirements of the bill if they already offer paid sick leave that is at least as comprehensive as the seven-day requirement or if they are religious employers denying sick leave taken for reasons that violate their religious beliefs. Both amendments were struck down by Democrats.
PRO Act
The PRO Act is a massive labor reform bill designed to increase union density. The bill includes several provisions that would overhaul existing labor laws — including the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Taft-Hartley Act, and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act — and may impose burdens on both employers and employees. Such provisions include:
codifying the National Labor Relation Board (NLRB)’s Browning-Ferris Industries joint-employer standard;
imposing the “ABC test” into the NLRA for classifying employees, making it more difficult for workers to operate as independent contractors;
preempting state right-to-work laws that prevent forced unionization;
prohibiting arbitration agreements in employment contracts;
revoking attorney-client confidentiality for employers; and
facilitating secondary boycotts by barring claims against unions that conduct them.
The PRO Act has been strongly criticized by congressional Republicans over the past several congressional sessions, and committee Republicans offered 35 amendments to modify the current text of the PRO Act. All 35 amendments were ultimately defeated when brought to a vote.
Looking Ahead
Despite the passage of these bills through the Senate HELP Committee, they are unlikely to be signed into law. Due to their partisan support, the bills are unlikely to garner enough support to bypass the 60-vote filibuster on the Senate floor and to be considered in the Republican-controlled House.
CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of future developments on these bills.
