Tag: Families

  • Teachers Create Tool to Help NYC Families Find Childcare

    Teachers Create Tool to Help NYC Families Find Childcare

    Educators tap two tech firms to create NYC Childcare Navigator, a free platform that cuts through the chaos.

    A one-stop shop

    Frustrated by the maze of agencies, websites, and applications families face to find childcare and possible financial support, New York City teachers said, “Enough!”

    The United Federation of Teachers, the union that represents more than 200,000 educators and professionals in New York City, teamed up with two tech firms to build a better approach: NYC Childcare Navigator.

    Navigator is a platform that connects New York City families to upwards of 12,000 childcare options across the five boroughs. It offers instant eligibility checks for money-saving programs, step-by-step application support, and the most comprehensive directory of childcare providers in the city — all in one free, easy-to-use website.

    The union created the tool as a benefit for its own members, but it was so successful that the union opened it up to all New York City residents in October. 

    “We couldn’t gatekeep something that we knew so many New York City families needed,” said Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers.

    Centralizing tailored childcare

    The union partnered with Mirza, a city-based tech firm that builds platforms to connect low-wage workers with local, state, and federal benefits, including for childcare.

    “We wanted to get meaningful benefits to parents, but there wasn’t a single place that would allow a parent to see all the options available. That felt like a big missing piece. But it also pointed toward a solution,” said Siran Cao, CEO and Co-Founder of Mirza, who said she was inspired by how her own mother navigated a new country and the impact that a few well-timed bits of financial support had on her own family.

    The union then introduced Upfront, a software company that consolidates multiple sources of childcare providers into a single, centralized database. The result: parents using the NYC Childcare Navigator can see every licensed program in NYC (center, home, and school-based), searchable by zip code, child’s age, availability, languages spoken, special needs, and many other filters. For the first time, childcare providers can claim a dedicated page to share current information about their specific childcare services.

    “It’s everything in a single location instead of having to make dozens of calls and scour multiple, incomplete websites,” said Levin-Robinson, who said she was motivated by how challenging it was to find care for her own children.

    Source link

  • Want to Protect American Children? End the Shutdown – The 74

    Want to Protect American Children? End the Shutdown – The 74


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

    Politicians love to say, “We must protect our children. They are our future.” But looking at what’s happening in Congress right now, children are not being protected. Families are not being prioritized. Instead, lawmakers are locked in a standoff, waiting to see who blinks first as they fight over who gets the last word and how big of a tax break they can give the wealthiest Americans.

    Meanwhile, families — especially families of color and low-income families — are left to hold their breath and wonder what this shutdown means for them. As members of Congress keep making their rounds on television, babies still need formula, toddlers still need health screenings, children still need breakfast and lunch at school and in their child care programs, and parents still need child care so they can work. Amid extreme stress, families are left, wondering how they will be able to take care of their children.

    The demands of children and their families do not stop just because Congress is at a standstill. 

    According to Kids’ Share 2024, an annual report published by the Urban Institute about federal expenditures, children received only about 9% of all federal spending in 2023, while about 43% of federal spending went toward health and retirement benefits for adults 18 years and older. That’s a very small percentage for a nation in which politicians on both sides of the aisle have expressed interest in increased government investment in children. These numbers contradict the narrative that claims children matter because they are our future.

    That 9% starts to feel even smaller during a government shutdown. Some programs, like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, are mandatory, meaning they don’t require annual congressional approval. But others, including a number of crucial children’s programs, such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), are funded through the annual appropriations process, which Congress must approve. This means when lawmakers can’t agree on a budget, these critical programs are left in limbo.

    The fallout on the horizon from this needless dysfunction is becoming clearer.

    In September, the National WIC Association reminded the public that WIC only had enough funds to temporarily remain open during a government shutdown. Now, according to Reuters, at least two dozen state websites warn there could be an unprecedented benefit gap for more than 41 million people in America who get aid from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the nearly 7 million people who rely on WIC. 

    Georgia Machell, president and chief executive officer of the National WIC Association, delivered this sobering news last week.

    “Without additional support, State WIC Agencies face another looming crisis,” she said. “Several are set to run out of funds to pay for WIC benefits on November 1 and may need to start making contingency plans.”

    Many families in historically marginalized communities, who already face greater barriers to health care, housing and early education, will feel this impact even more sharply. For example, we know that tens of thousands of young children and families rely on vital support received through Head Start, a service that promotes early learning and development, health and well-being. The shutdown is already in its fourth week, and, according to a statement issued on Oct. 16 from the National Head Start Association, if the government shutdown doesn’t end by Nov. 1, more than 65,000 children and families will be at risk of losing critical services. 

    A missed doctor’s appointment, a delay in SNAP benefits or a gap in child care isn’t just inconvenient. It can destabilize a family and hinder a child’s development, especially in the classroom.

    A research brief published by The Food Research & Action Center highlighted the links between hunger and learning, stating that “behavioral, emotional, mental health, and academic problems are more prevalent among children and adolescents struggling with hunger” and that young people experiencing hunger have lower math scores and poorer grades. The shutdown will have real and lasting consequences on the learning, development and well-being of America’s children because these programs are being impacted.

    It’s frustrating to watch lawmakers stand at podiums and declare how much they care about children while their actions — or inaction — puts children at risk. 

    Words don’t put food on the table. Words don’t pay rent. But actions do. 

    And right now, the actions coming out of Congress are sending an unfortunate message to families: protecting children is not the priority.

    If children truly are our future, then they cannot be treated as bargaining chips. Children deserve more than 9% of America’s federal spending budget. We need federal budgets that reflect children’s needs and protection for essential services. Critical programs that protect child health and well-being should never be disrupted by a government shutdown.

    Finally, Americans deserve government accountability. Policymakers should be held responsible for their words and actions, especially when they fail to deliver on the promises they make about protecting children.

    Children cannot wait. They are growing, learning and developing right now. The choices we make as a country today will shape their tomorrow.


    Did you use this article in your work?

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

    Source link

  • Child care crisis deepens as funding slashed for poor families

    Child care crisis deepens as funding slashed for poor families

    by Jackie Mader, The Hechinger Report
    November 1, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Related: How early ed is affected by federal cuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Source link

  • Beyond the Price Tag: How Cost Shapes Families’ College Choices

    Beyond the Price Tag: How Cost Shapes Families’ College Choices

    Mother and teenage daughter in kitchen looking at a laptop PC
    Perception of cost has a major impact on college choice.

    Choosing a college is rarely just about academics, location, or prestige. For most families, it comes down to the question of cost. The numbers on a price tag do not just suggest affordability; they shape what feels possible. Sticker shock alone can quietly close a door before a student even fills out an application, while clear, honest information can keep dreams in play. In this moment of rising costs and growing financial anxiety, understanding how families navigate affordability has never mattered more.

    Before examining what RNL’s latest research shows, it helps to step back and see where the broader conversation is heading. Recent studies highlight how affordability, family background, and perceptions of cost steer the college search. Again and again, the evidence points to a simple truth: for families, financial reality and perception are tightly linked (Stabler-Havener, 2024). This context is essential for understanding the RNL findings and considering how colleges can truly meet families where they are.

    What research tells us

    The research is clear: affordability, family income, and perceptions of cost are among the strongest forces shaping college choices. In one recent study, only three in ten students who believed college was unaffordable planned to enroll, showing how perception alone can narrow opportunities (Stabler-Havener, 2024).

    Policy leaders are responding. State priorities now center on boosting affordability and families’ sense of value (Harnisch, Burns, Heckert, Kunkle, & Weeden, 2024). As families weigh cost and worth, the call for reform grows louder.

    Family perspective lies at the heart of these decisions. Financial worries shape the choices parents and students make, often shrinking the list of options for those with fewer resources (Chuong-Nguyen, 2025). Parental guidance and support are deeply shaped by income and stress, sometimes as early as elementary school, when children first start to believe in what is possible (Keeling, 2025). For many out-of-state students, aid and affordability matter more than distance or campus life (Stansell, 2025). While the campus experience may guide the final decision, cost remains the gatekeeper. Together, these studies send a clear message: real and perceived affordability remain central to college access.

    Policy changes with big impact

    Federal policy changes are reshaping the landscape of affordability as well. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act keeps undergraduate loan limits intact but introduces two significant changes: a $65,000 lifetime cap on Parent PLUS loans, and a rule eliminating Pell Grant eligibility if scholarships already cover the full cost of attendance. While these details may sound technical, their impact is deeply personal. Middle- and low-income families, and first-generation students, are most likely to feel squeezed by these new limits (American Council on Education, 2025; National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, 2025). These changes may become the tipping point for families already sensitive to sticker price.

    What this means for colleges

    The research suggests several practical steps:

    • Make affordability unmistakably clear. Families often overestimate cost and underestimate available aid. Tools like net price calculators and plain-language award letters can help (Chuong-Nguyen, 2025; Stabler-Havener, 2024).
    • Reach parents early. Parents start shaping their child’s college expectations years before high school. Outreach in middle school can expand what families believe is possible (Keeling, 2025).
    • Highlight value as well as cost. Families want to know if college is worth the investment. Colleges can tell stories of career outcomes, alum success, and community, not just numbers (Harnisch et al., 2024; Stansell, 2025).
    • Connect finances to student experience. Students care about campus feel as much as aid. Affordability should be shown alongside housing, safety, clubs, and social life (Stansell, 2025).
    • Prioritize equity. First-generation and lower-income families face more information gaps and greater stress. Targeted advising, financial literacy programs, and direct communication can help bridge that divide (Chuong-Nguyen, 2025; Keeling, 2025).

    What RNL research tells us

    While these studies offer a broad view of how cost and perception shape college decisions, the lived experience of families comes into even sharper focus when we look at recent data from the 2025 Prospective Family Engagement Report. The findings from RNL, Ardeo, and CampusESP provide a window into what families are navigating right now: the confusion, the questions, and sometimes, the sense of being overwhelmed by the college search. Examining this data helps us move from general trends to the specific realities facing families today, and shows where institutions can make the most meaningful difference.

    The bottom line

    For families, cost is never just a number. It is tangled up with their hopes, sense of security, and vision for the future: sticker price, net cost, debt, and perception; all of these shape what feels possible. For colleges, the work goes beyond lowering costs. The real challenge is helping families understand those costs, connect them to real outcomes, and expand what each student believes is within reach.

    Families’ need for clear information

    The 2025 Prospective Family Engagement Report (RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP, 2025) found that 99% of nearly 10,000 families surveyed believe clear cost, tuition, and academic information is essential. Yet almost one in four families cannot find it. The gap is even larger for first-generation families (37 percent) and those earning under $60,000 (43%). These gaps are not just inconvenient; they are real barriers.

    Faces behind the data

    Consider the single parent in rural Ohio, working two jobs and searching late at night for financial aid information. She finds buried calculators and confusing language and assumes the sticker price is final. The dream quietly shrinks.

    Alternatively, think of the middle-income family in suburban Atlanta. They make too much for much-needed aid but still feel stretched thin. They cross colleges off their list without ever seeing the actual net cost.

    Income-level differences in cost perception

    The study shows clear patterns (RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP, 2025):

    • Families under $60,000 have the lowest awareness of cost tools, face the most difficulty finding aid information, and are most likely to rule out schools early due to sticker price.
    • Those earning $60,000–$149,000 have moderate awareness, but three in four have eliminated colleges based on sticker price alone.
    • Families earning $150,000 or more have the highest awareness and least trouble finding information, but even among them, almost three in four have ruled out colleges due to price.

    Financial aid and scholarships: The deciding factor

    Four out of five families list aid and scholarships among their top five decision factors; for almost two in five, it is the most important factor. The urgency is even greater for first-generation families (54%) and low-income households (68%).

    • 38% say aid and scholarships top the list.
    • 43% place them in the top five.

    Even among the highest-income families, more than a quarter cite aid as their top factor, and nearly half put it in their top five.

    Sticker shock and final cost

    • 72% of families have ruled out colleges because of sticker price. Middle-income families lead (76%), followed by high-income (74%) and low-income families (66%).
    • 65% say the final cost after aid is the biggest dealbreaker, consistent across first-generation (66%), continuing generation (65%), and especially middle-income families (73%).

    Financing difficulty and loan anxiety

    Paying for college feels “very difficult” for 28% of families, and “difficult” for another 27%. The challenge is sharpest for low-income families (47% “very difficult”) and first-generation families (40%). Even among households earning over $150,000, one in five reports that paying for college will be “very difficult.” Anxiety about borrowing is widespread; 61% of families feel uneasy about loans, regardless of income (RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP, 2025).

    Implications for colleges

    • Clarity is currency. A trust gap grows when nearly every family values clear cost information, but the most price-sensitive families cannot find it. Make cost information unmistakable, on websites, in print, in portals, and through personal outreach.
    • Lead with your aid story. Aid and scholarships top the list for most families. Burying this information wastes a key point of connection. Use real examples and plain language.
    • Defuse sticker shock early. With nearly three-quarters of families eliminating schools based on sticker price, net price calculators should be prominent, easy to use, and personalized.
    • Do not forget middle-income families. They often miss out on need-based aid but are just as price-sensitive. They deserve targeted outreach and clear explanations of their options.
    • Address financing challenges directly. Offer flexible payment plans, start conversations about the total cost early, and provide tools for first-generation and low-income families. Even high-income families appreciate empathy and honesty.
    • Reframe borrowing. With 61 percent anxious about loans, transparency about repayment timelines, graduate earnings, and debt-to-income ratios is critical.

    The emotional weight of cost

    Cost is never just a number; it is an emotional flashpoint. Families weigh college prices as figures on a spreadsheet and as symbols of opportunity, security, and trust. Information gaps hit first-generation and low-income families hardest, but financial pressure is universal:

    • Aid matters.
    • Sticker price stings.
    • Financing feels difficult for almost everyone.
    • Borrowing brings real anxiety.

    The colleges that thrive will treat cost not only as a financial challenge but as a moment to build trust and expand possibilities for every family they serve.

    Revolutionize your financial aid offers with video

    References
    • American Council on Education. (2025, July 29). Summary: One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1). Division of Government Relations and National Engagement.
    • Chuong-Nguyen, M. Q. (2025). College application experience: Personal and institutional factors affecting high school seniors’ college-going decision-making process and college choice (Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University Irvine).
    • Harnisch, T., Burns, R., Heckert, K., Kunkle, K., & Weeden, D. (2024). State priorities for higher education in 2024. State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO).
    • Keeling, C. (2025). Perceptions of parents regarding their participation in decision-making related to the academic and technical education preparation of their children’s career pathways (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University).
    • National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. (2025, July). Frequently asked questions about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. NAICU.
    • RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP. (2025). 2025 Prospective family engagement report. Ruffalo Noel Levitz.
    • Stabler-Havener, J. M. (2024). Interactions between quality, affordability, and income groups at private colleges and universities (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University).
    • Stansell, L. J. (2025). Driving enrollment amidst change: Exploring college choice of out-of-state students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville). TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/12424

    Source link

  • What Families Tell Us About College Visits, Belonging, and Trust

    What Families Tell Us About College Visits, Belonging, and Trust

    Every family’s college search tells a story, one built on hopes, questions, and the quiet moments when a parent whispers, “This feels right.” Over the past year, I have immersed myself in both research and real voices to understand what drives that feeling.

    This blog brings those insights together. I begin with what the research shows, how campus visits, family engagement, and equity intersect, and then layer in fresh data from the 2025 RNL, Ardeo, and CampusESP Prospective Family Engagement Report.

    Together, they reveal a simple truth that feels anything but small: families want to feel seen, informed, and included in the journey. For me, this work is not just about enrollment; it is about belonging, trust, and designing experiences that make families confident in saying, “Yes, this is our place.”

    The research story: Why families and visits matter

    Across K–12 and higher education, families and campus visits consistently emerge as pivotal mechanisms shaping students’ aspirations, access, and belonging. In A Review of the Effectiveness of College Campus Visits on Higher Education Enrollment, Case (2024) shows that campus visits not only help students assess academic and cultural fit but also allow parents and guardians to evaluate safety, hospitality, and organizational factors that directly influence trust and enrollment decisions.

    Amaro-Jiménez, Pant, Hungerford-Kresser, and den Hartog (2020) reinforce that family-centered outreach, such as Latina/o Parent Leadership Conferences that combine campus tours with financial aid and admissions workshops, increases parents’ College Preparedness Knowledge (CPK) and confidence in guiding their children. These immersive experiences turn visits into learning opportunities that demystify college processes and affirm parental agency.

    From an operational lens, Kornowa and Philopoulos (2023) emphasize that admissions and facilities management share responsibility for the campus visit, describing it as “a quintessential part of the college search process for many students and families” (p. 96). Every detail, from signage to staff warmth, shapes families’ perceptions of authenticity and belonging, making visits both emotional and informational experiences.

    In K–12 contexts, Robertson, Nguyen, and Salehi (2022) find that underserved families, particularly those with limited income, face barriers such as inflexible schedules and unwelcoming environments when attending school tours. They call for trust-based, personalized engagement, often led by parent advocates, to turn visits into equitable opportunities rather than exclusive events.

    Similarly, Byrne and Kibort-Crocker (2022) frame college planning through Family Systems Theory, viewing the college search as a shared family transition. Families’ involvement in campus visits, financial planning, and orientation sessions fosters understanding and belonging, especially when institutions provide multilingual materials and parent panels. Even when parents lack “college knowledge,” their emotional support and presence remain vital assets.

    Finally, Wilson and McGuire (2021) expose how stigma and class-based power dynamics shape family engagement in schools. Working-class parents often feel judged or dismissed in institutional spaces, leading to withdrawal rather than disinterest. The authors urge empathetic, flexible communication to dismantle these barriers and create welcoming, inclusive climates for all families.

    Taken together, these six studies show that family engagement and visits are deeply intertwined acts of trust, access, and belonging. Whether evaluating campus safety, building college knowledge, or navigating inequities, families who feel welcomed, informed, and respected become co-authors in their children’s educational journeys.

    The research paints a clear picture: families want to feel informed, included, and welcomed. Our latest data with RNL, Ardeo, and CampusESP shows exactly where those feelings take root, and which experiences most influence their decision to say, “Yes, this is the right college for my student.”

    What families told us: Insights from the 2025 Prospective Family Engagement Report

    Families are not passive bystanders; they are active partners in the college search, weighing what they see, hear, and feel. Their feedback reveals a clear pattern: human connection and real-world experiences matter far more than abstract or digital tools.

    Campus visits and human touchpoints build trust

    The most powerful influences on family support are on-campus visits (97%) and face-to-face interactions with admissions staff (93%), faculty (92%), and coaches (88%).

    For first-generation (98%) and lower-income families (96%), these experiences are even more critical. Seeing the campus, meeting people, and feeling welcomed helps them imagine their student thriving there.

    Key insight: Families decide with both heart and head. A warm, well-organized visit remains the single most persuasive factor in earning their support.

    Virtual engagement expands access

    Two-thirds of families (67%) value virtual visits, but that rises to 75% for first-generation and 80% for lower-income families, groups often limited by cost or travel. Virtual experiences can level the playing field when they feel personal and guided, not automated.

    Key insight: Virtual visits are equity tools, not extras. They must be designed with care, warmth, and a human presence.

    Counselors and college fairs still count

    About 73% of families see college fairs and high school counselors as meaningful sources, especially first-generation (81%) and lower-income (84%) families. These trusted guides help families translate options and make sense of complex processes.

    Key insight: Families lean on human interpreters, counselors, fairs, and coaches to navigate choices with confidence.

    AI tools spark curiosity, not confidence

    Fewer than half of families find AI tools, such as chatbots, program matchers, or demos, meaningful (40–43%). Interest is higher among first-generation (53–56%) and lower-income (55%) families, who may see AI as a learning aid. Still, most want human reassurance alongside it.

    Key insight: AI works best as a co-pilot, not a replacement. Pair technology with empathy and guidance.

    Communication quality matters most

    Two experiences top the list:

    • Information about the program or school (97%)
    • Quality of communication with parents and families (96%)

    For first-generation and lower-income families, both climb to 98%, showing that clear, bilingual, and affirming outreach builds trust and inclusion.

    Key insight: Families value how colleges communicate care; clarity and tone matter as much as content.

    Equity lens: More support, more belonging

    Across nearly every measure, first-generation and lower-income families report higher experiences. They seek more touchpoints, more guidance, and more invitations into the process.

    Key insight: Equity is about designing belonging, mixing in-person and virtual options, speaking their language, and centering relationships.

    This story does not end with the data; it begins there

    Every number and story in this study points to the same truth: families want to feel invited in. They want experiences that inform people who listen, and moments that confirm their student belongs. Our work is to create those moments, to build trust in the details, warmth in the welcome, and clarity in the journey. Because when families feel it, when they walk the campus, meet the people, and think, “This feels right!”, they do not just choose a college. They choose belonging.

    Ready to reach your enrollment goals? Let’s talk how

    Our enrollment experts are veteran campus enrollment managers who now work with hundreds of colleges and universities each year. Find out how we can help you pinpoint the optimal strategies for creating winning student search campaigns, building your inquiry and applicant pools, and increasing yield.

    Complimentary Consultation

    References
    • Amaro-Jiménez, C., Pant, D., Hungerford-Kresser, H., & den Hartog, S. (2020). Identifying the impact of college access efforts on parents’ college preparedness knowledge. Journal of College Access, 6(2), 7–27.
    • Byrne, R., & Kibort-Crocker, E. (2022). What evidence from research tells us: Family engagement in college pathway decisions. Washington Student Achievement Council.
    • Case, R. D. (2024). A review of the effectiveness of college campus visits on higher education enrollment. International Journal of Science and Research, 13(9), 716–718. https://doi.org/10.21275/SR24911223658
    • Kornowa, L., & Philopoulos, A. (2023). The importance of a strong campus visit: A practice brief outlining collaboration between admissions and facilities management. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly, 11(1), 54–74.
    • Robertson, M., Nguyen, T., & Salehi, N. (2022). Not another school resource map: Meeting underserved families’ information needs requires trusting relationships and personalized care. Digital Promise Research Brief.
    • Wilson, S., & McGuire, K. (2021). ‘They had already made their minds up’: Understanding the impact of stigma on parental engagement. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 42(5–6), 775–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2021.1908115

    Source link

  • New Promise Programs Launch for Families Making Under $100K

    New Promise Programs Launch for Families Making Under $100K

    When Jake Winston began looking at colleges in fall 2019, he was primarily looking at public colleges in his home state of North Carolina, as he felt those would be the only institutions he could afford. He was interested in Washington & Lee University, in Virginia, due to its location—far enough for a change of scenery, but not so far he couldn’t visit home—and its rich and complex history. But he didn’t think he could afford the high price tag.

    At a presentation by admissions officials, though, he learned about the W&L Promise, which covers the full cost of tuition for all students whose families fall into a specific income bracket. Once he got his aid offers back from colleges, WLU was the obvious choice, costing him just $5,000 annually, a sum that he paid out of pocket using money he made from summer research jobs.

    “Being able to know I was going to graduate debt-free from the start allowed me to pick what I was passionate in, and that’s teaching, which is not the highest-paying role in the country,” said Winston, who now teaches seventh-grade history in Northern Virginia. “But it is what I wanted to do with my life.”

    WLU has one of the oldest tuition-guarantee programs in the country. It launched in 2014, offering free tuition to students whose families make less than $75,000 each year; now, that number has surged up to $150,000, and students whose family income is less than $75,000 also get free room and board.

    Since then, more and more colleges—especially, but not only, selective private institutions—are offering completely free tuition to students whose families fall under a certain income threshold. Nowadays, that maximum is typically $100,000 annually, an income bracket that includes about 57 percent of U.S. families as of 2024, according to an analysis by the Motley Fool. But some have expanded the offer of free tuition to those whose families make as much as $200,000, encompassing all but 16 percent of American households. (Most programs also require the families to have typical assets, and some are only open to in-state students.)

    In the past year alone, a slew of universities has announced new free tuition programs or expanded their existing programs, including Wake Forest University, Reed College, Emory University, Macalester College, Tufts University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University and Lasell University.

    Administrators at more than half a dozen institutions with promise programs told Inside Higher Ed that they hope that the move will attract low-income students who didn’t realize how financially accessible higher education, even at expensive institutions, can be. It’s also an effort to improve cost transparency—an area that has frequently come under scrutiny as the actual cost of college has become increasingly obscured by scholarships, aid, fees and books and other indirect costs.

    Breaking the Cost Barrier

    For many institutions offering tuition guarantees—also called promise programs—it’s more of a change in rhetoric than in actual financial aid policy.

    Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, for example, announced a program last November guaranteeing free tuition for students with family incomes under $75,000 and promising those with incomes under $100,000 wouldn’t have to take out any student loans to access a CMU education, beginning with the incoming class in fall 2025. But according to Brian Hill, the university’s associate vice provost for student financials and enrollment systems, that’s how the university had already been quietly operating since 2016.

    “In truth, it was to make sure that prospective students knew that CMU was an affordable option for them. That was the primary reason,” he said. “We’ve been saying that we met full demonstrated financial need for our students … [but] a barrier we don’t know if we’d gotten through or not is students that would look at the sticker price [of $67,020 per year] and just completely write CMU off before they even explored it.”

    The surge of these programs comes amid concerns about the growing cost of higher education and that the return on investment of a bachelor’s degree doesn’t warrant the seemingly exorbitant cost; a few institutions in the U.S. now have a sticker price upward of $100,000 a year.

    At the same time, experts argue that the price of higher education has actually gone down when accounting for inflation and the high rate of aid students generally receive. For several decades, higher education has followed a model in which institutions advertise a high cost of attendance but a significant number of students receive large scholarships. This approach helps to make higher education look like a luxury product while students and families feel like they’re getting a good deal. But that strategy has come to bite institutions in the butt, according to W. Joseph King, former president of Lyon College and a higher education consultant, as many low- and middle-income students now feel the high cost of college makes an education unattainable.

    “What this led to was almost like an arms race of rising stated tuition numbers and a fall in net tuition numbers. All sorts of groups, including the federal government, have been trying to get to numbers that are more reflective of the actual cost,” he said.

    Promise programs aim to change that narrative by showing low- and middle-income families that getting an education even at a seemingly pricey school can be achievable.

    Colleges have made other attempts to communicate that message to students and parents. That includes developing net price calculators, which often show that low-income students would be paying just a fraction of the sticker price, or announcing that their institution is able to meet all of a student’s demonstrated financial need—a number based on a federal student aid formula that determines how much a family is able to pay.

    But many families have no idea what demonstrated financial need means or are unaware of net price calculators, enrollment professionals say. Simply saying that an institution offers free tuition can be the ultimate tool for price transparency, according to Milyon Trulove, vice president and dean of admission and financial aid at Reed College, which announced plans to expand its regional promise program—currently available only to students in Oregon and Washington—to all students with family incomes under $100,000 in 2026.

    The institution also has a net price calculator, he said. But if presented with both that calculator and the promise of free tuition, the latter will immediately be meaningful to students, whereas the former won’t.

    “[Students] say, ‘This makes sense to me, today, right now … and now I can listen to all the other stuff about fit and anxiety about money is no longer in the way of me fully participating in the college admission process,’” he said.

    Along with institutions offering free tuition to any student who fits within a certain income bracket, even more institutions offer tuition guarantees to students based on grade point average or for transferring from a local community college system.

    ‘Rigorous Financial Planning’

    Most of the university officials who spoke with Inside Higher Ed said that their institution was in a very strong financial position and able to afford to support so many students because of large endowments and generous donations, including fundraising specifically aimed at increasing student aid.

    From 2016 to 2024, Carnegie Mellon, for example, increased its undergraduate financial aid budget 86 percent.

    “We truly made a massive commitment to making affordability a real thing at CMU,” said Hill. “I think we’re in a very positive position in terms of finances, but it took a lot of commitment from … executive leadership to make this a priority.”

    Wake Forest, which announced last week that it will offer free tuition to all North Carolina students with family incomes below $200,000, is one of the few schools that said that its promise program, called the North Carolina Gateway, would substantially increase the total amount of aid it gives out. President Susan Wente said that, similarly to CMU, the funds for the initiative come in large part from a massive fundraising effort that has raised over $150 million for financial aid since 2022.

    “This involved rigorous financial planning and analysis and knowing we could meet the commitment, should we announce it,” she said.

    But not every university with a promise program is leaning on massive donation campaigns. Radford University, a public institution in Virginia, was able to begin offering free tuition to all students from Virginia with incomes below $100,000 simply because of the ample amount of funding it gets from the state, according to Dannette Gomez Beane, vice president for enrollment management and strategic communication.

    Virginia tends to be generous toward higher education, Beane said, but the two regional public universities in southwest Virginia, which has the lowest college-going rate of higher education of any area in the state, receive the most funding. That’s what allowed Radford to begin its promise program, which the institution promoted heavily in the 60-mile radius around its campus, in 2024.

    “With all things higher ed and higher ed financial aid, not everything is sure, and we’re learning that this year more than ever,” she said. “I think that state funding, federal funding—if you have models that are dependent on those, you have to constantly be adjusting your models … there is that vulnerability, but we’re just gracious that we’ve had favor with the state.”

    Boosting Low-Income Enrollment

    Although many of these programs are new, those that have been around for multiple years have seen positive results. At Washington & Lee, Sally Richmond, vice president for admissions and financial aid, said that there have been massive jumps in enrollment of rural students, first-generation students and Pell-eligible students since she joined the university in 2016.

    It’s impossible to say whether those changes can be attributed specifically to the university’s promise program, she noted. But, she said, “our financial aid office, who is certainly on the front line of having these conversations along with our admissions team, speaks to the fact that this concept of the promise is the one that resonates most with our prospective students and families.”

    Reed College, similarly, saw a 25 percent increase in middle-income students in its program’s first year, during which it was only available to students from Oregon and Washington.

    Wente, Wake Forest’s president, said she is eager to see how the university’s newly announced tuition guarantee program will impact low- and middle-income enrollment.

    “As a scientist myself, we’re going to pilot this, look at its impact, look at how we can ensure that it’s really achieving what we hope in terms of offering students greater access,” she said. “In terms of the middle and lower income bands, those are the students who often don’t have as many options. So, how do we give them as many options as possible?”

    Source link

  • How Prospective Families Weigh Online and Hybrid College Options

    How Prospective Families Weigh Online and Hybrid College Options

    Nearly half of all students worldwide have engaged in online learning.

    Online and hybrid education have shifted from emergency responses during the COVID-19 pandemic to permanent, influential forces reshaping education from kindergarten to high school to higher education. Once seen as supplemental, these models play a central role in how students, families, and institutions approach learning, access, and opportunity.

    Full online enrollment remains rare in grades K-12, with just 0.6% of U.S. public school students fully online. However, hybrid learning is widespread, with 63% of students using online tools daily (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). Globally, nearly half of all students have engaged in online learning, fueling a K–12 online education market valued at more than 171 billion U.S. dollars (Devlin Peck, n.d.; Yellow Bus ABA, n.d.).

    In higher education, the shift is even more pronounced. By 2023, over half of U.S. college students had taken at least one online course, and over one-quarter were enrolled exclusively online (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023; BestColleges, 2023). Adult learners and graduate students have been especially drawn to online programs, attracted by the flexibility and accessibility they offer (Arizton Advisory & Intelligence, 2023).

    But the numbers alone do not tell the whole story. To understand the future of online and hybrid learning, we need to listen to families, not as bystanders, but as essential decision-makers, advocates, and partners in shaping students’ educational journeys.

    What families and students think, and why it matters

    Across education levels, families appreciate the flexibility of online and hybrid models but consistently voice concerns about academic rigor, social connection, and equitable access.

    In K–12, parents generally prefer in-person schooling but want schools to improve the quality of online options (Barnum, 2020; Dong, Cao, & Li, 2020; Garbe, Ogurlu, Logan, & Cook, 2020). Adult and international students in higher education often rely on online programs to balance work and family demands. However, they face barriers such as isolation, inconsistent internet access, and limited interaction with peers and faculty (Kibelloh & Bao, 2014).

    Research underscores that strong course design is essential for satisfaction and success (Babb, Stewart, & Johnson, 2010; Detyna & Koch, 2023) and that social connection is not a luxury but a critical factor in persistence and well-being (Tayebinik & Puteh, 2012). Equity gaps also loom large: students without access to reliable devices, broadband, or support networks face steeper challenges (Eduljee, Murphy, Emigh-Guy, & Croteau, 2023; Neece, McIntyre, & Fenning, 2020).

    Families’ pandemic experiences reinforce these themes. Many described overwhelming stress and inequities that left them skeptical of online learning without stronger support and communication (Dong et al., 2020; Garbe et al., 2020; Neece et al., 2020).

    Key findings: What families want, and what budget cuts threaten

    The RNL, Ardeo, and CampusESP (2025) Prospective Family Engagement Report surveyed 9,467 families of prospective college students, offering rare insight into how families view online and hybrid education not just in theory, but as a meaningful factor in enrollment decisions.

    1. Families are cautious about fully online. Only 11% said they would consider a fully online experience for their student. In contrast, about 60% were open to hybrid models, which they saw as the “best of both worlds,” combining affordability, flexibility, and connection.

    2. First-generation families are more open. Nearly one in five said they would consider fully online, and 60% were open to hybrid options. These pathways can be lifelines, but cuts to advising, technology, or aid risk undermining that promise.

    3. Income divides are stark. Families earning under $60,000 were twice as likely to express interest in fully online compared to higher-income families. Yet as state funding declines, public colleges may raise tuition or online fees, making even “affordable” pathways harder to access.

    4. Race and ethnicity matter. Black and Hispanic families showed greater openness to online and hybrid formats than Asian or White families. That opportunity will only expand if institutions sustain culturally responsive communication, peer representation, and targeted support.

    5. Generational and gender differences are shifting demand. Younger parents and female caregivers are more comfortable with online and hybrid learning. Demand will keep growing, but families may see online options as second-class without continued investments in quality and communication.

    6. Region matters, too. Families in the Great Lakes and Far West regions were more receptive to online learning, while New England families leaned more traditional. These cultural and infrastructural differences should shape institutional strategies.

    These findings show that online and hybrid education hold real promise, especially for families seeking flexibility, affordability, and access. But that promise rests on a fragile foundation. Budget cuts threaten the very investments that make these models credible: faculty development, instructional design, technology, and support services. Without them, families’ trust could erode.

    What this means for colleges: Practical implications

    The research points to clear takeaways for colleges and universities:

    • Flexibility matters, but only if paired with quality. Families want flexible options backed by evidence of rigor, outcomes, and strong faculty engagement.
    • Hybrid is a strength, not a compromise. Market it as a high-quality “best of both worlds,” not a fallback option.
    • Equity-focused support is critical. Expand device loan programs, connectivity grants, and first-generation mentoring to close gaps.
    • Culturally tailored communication builds trust. Engage families with inclusive outreach and visible peer representation.
    • Generational shifts mean rising demand. Younger parents are more open to online and hybrid; invest now to meet tomorrow’s expectations.
    • Regional strategy matters. Align program design and marketing with local cultures, broadband realities, and institutional density.
    2025 Prospective Family Engagement Report2025 Prospective Family Engagement Report

    Ultimately, this is about listening. For some families, online pathways may be the only way higher education is possible. For others, a hybrid model that blends connection with convenience is the right fit. Institutions that understand these diverse perspectives and invest in the structures that support them will be best positioned to earn families’ trust and help students thrive.

    For more insights, read the 2025 Prospective Family Engagement Report from RNL, CampusESP, and Ardeo.

    References

    Source link

  • We cannot afford to dismantle Head Start, a program that builds futures, strengthens families and delivers proven returns

    We cannot afford to dismantle Head Start, a program that builds futures, strengthens families and delivers proven returns

    The first words I uttered after successfully defending my dissertation were, “Wow, what a ride. From Head Start to Ph.D.!” Saying them reminded me where it all began: sitting cross-legged with a picture book at the Westside Head Start Center, just a few blocks from my childhood home in Jackson, Mississippi. 

    I don’t remember every detail from those early years, but I remember the feeling: I was happy at Head Start. I remember the books, the music, the joy. That five-minute bus ride from our house to the Westside Center turned out to be the shortest distance between potential and achievement. 

    And my story is not unique. Every year, hundreds of thousands of children — kids whose names we may never know, though our futures depend on them — walk through Head Start’s doors. Like me, they find structure, literacy, curiosity and belonging.  

    For many families, Head Start is the first place outside the home where a child’s potential is nurtured and celebrated. Yet, this program that builds futures and strengthens families is now under threat, and it’s imperative that we protect it. 

    Years later, while training for high school cross-country meets, I’d run past the park next to the center and pause, flooded with memories. Head Start laid the foundation for everything that followed. It gave me structure, sparked my curiosity and built my early literacy skills. It even fed my short-lived obsession with chocolate milk.  

    More than that, Head Start made me feel seen and valued. 

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education. 

    There’s a clear, unbroken line between the early lessons I learned at Head Start and the doctoral dissertation I defended decades later. Head Start didn’t just teach me my ABCs — it taught me that learning could be joyful, that I was capable and that I belonged in a classroom.  

    That belief carried me through elementary school, Yale and George Washington University and to a Ph.D. in public policy and public administration. Now, as part of my research at the Urban Institute, I’m working to expand access to high-quality early learning, because I know firsthand what a difference it makes.  

    Research backs up what my story shows: Investments in Head Start and high-quality early childhood education change lives by improving health and educational achievement in later years, and benefit the economy. Yet today there is growing skepticism about the value of Head Start, reflecting an ongoing reluctance to give early childhood education the respect it deserves.  

    If Head Start funding is cut, thousands of children — especially from communities like mine in Jackson, where families worked hard but opportunities were limited — could lose access to a program that helps level the playing field. These are the children of young parents and single parents, of working families who may not have many other options but still dare to dream big for their kids.  

    And that is why I am worried. Funding for Head Start has been under threat. Although President Donald Trump’s proposed fiscal 2026 budget would maintain Head Start funding at its current $12.3 billion, Project 2025, the influential conservative policy document, calls for eliminating the program. The administration recently announced that Head Start would no longer enroll undocumented children, which a group of Democratic attorneys general say will force some programs to close.  

    Related: Head Start is in turmoil 

    I feel compelled to speak out because, for our family, Head Start wasn’t just a preschool — it was the beginning of everything. For me, it meant a future I never could have imagined. For my mother, Head Start meant peace of mind — knowing her son was in a nurturing, educational environment during the critical developmental years. My mother, Nicole, brought character, heart and an unwavering belief in my potential — and Head Start helped carry that forward. 

    My mother was just 18 when she enrolled me in Head Start. “A young mother with big dreams and limited resources,” she recounted to me recently, adding that she had “showed up to an open house with a baby in my arms and hope in my heart.” 

    Soon afterward, Mrs. Helen Robinson, who was in charge of the Head Start in Jackson, entered our lives. She visited our home regularly, bringing books, activities and reassurance. A little yellow school bus picked me up each morning. 

    Head Start didn’t just support me, though. It also supported my mother and gave her tips and confidence. She took me to the library regularly and made sure I was always surrounded by books and learning materials that would challenge and inspire me. 

    It helped my mother and countless others like her gain insight into child development, early learning and what it means to advocate for their children’s future.  

    Twenty-five years after those early mornings when I climbed onto the Head Start bus, we both still think about how different our lives might have been without that opportunity. Head Start stood beside us, and that support changed our lives. 

    As we debate national priorities, we must ask ourselves: Can we afford to dismantle a program that builds futures, strengthens families and delivers proven returns? 

    My family provides living proof of Head Start’s power.  

    This isn’t just our story. It is the story of millions of others and could be the story of millions more if we choose to protect and invest in what works. 

    Travis Reginal holds a doctorate in public policy and public administration and is a graduate of the Head Start program, Yale University and George Washington University. He is a former Urban Institute researcher. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about the Head Start funding was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly 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.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Families Spending More on College

    Families Spending More on College

    Families reportedly spent an average of $30,837 for college last year.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Getty Images | Rawpixel

    Families are spending about 9 percent more on college compared to last year, according to a recently released survey from Sallie Mae and Ipsos.

    The results of the survey, released earlier this week, are part of the annual “How America Pays for College” report. Ipsos surveyed about 1,000 undergraduate students and the same number of parents of undergrads from April 8 to May 8. The online survey delved into a range of topics from how they were paying for college to their views on the federal student loan program.

    On average, families spent $30,837 on college, which is similar to pre-pandemic spending—in the 2019–20 academic year, families spent $30,017 on average. In line with previous years, families are typically using their own money to pay for college, with income and savings adding up to 48 percent of the pie, and scholarships and grants accounted for a 27 percent slice.

    But 40 percent of the families surveyed didn’t seek scholarships to help pay for college because they either didn’t know about the available opportunities or didn’t think they could win one. About three-quarters of respondents who received a scholarship credited that aid with making college possible.

    Similar to other recent surveys, while a majority of families see college as worth the money, cost is still a key factor. About 79 percent reported that they eliminated at least one institution based on the price tag. Still, about 47 percent of respondents said they ended up paying less than the sticker price. That number is higher for families with students at private four-year universities. About 54 percent said they paid less compared to 45 percent of respondents at public four-year institutions.

    Source link

  • PRINCIPAL VOICE: Inviting families into our classrooms slashed absenteeism and raised reading levels

    PRINCIPAL VOICE: Inviting families into our classrooms slashed absenteeism and raised reading levels

    Two years ago, I bought each of the teachers at Hamilton Elementary in San Diego’s City Heights neighborhood a blue chair. I told them to put it in the back of their classrooms, and that if a parent or caregiver wanted to visit to see how their children are learning — no matter what the reason — that this would be a dedicated space for them.

    I may have earned some exaggerated eye-rolls from educators that day. After all, I can appreciate the disruption to learning that classroom visitors can sometimes cause, especially among excitable elementary schoolers.

    But school is our home, and it is our responsibility to invite families into our home and welcome them. And this was a necessary olive branch, my way of saying to families: “From here on out, things are going to be different.”

    And they were. They also can be different at other schools, because the benefits of family engagement go well beyond student achievement.

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.

    Research has long shown that when parents and caregivers are involved and engaged with their children’s education — whether that’s by attending parent-teacher conferences or participating in school events — student achievement, motivation and social-emotional well-being increase.

    Parent involvement with reading activities has a positive impact on reading achievement, language comprehension, expressive language skills and level of attention in the classroom, according to the National Literacy Trust.

    Research also shows that educators enjoy increased job satisfaction and are more likely to keep teaching at the school, families enjoy stronger relationships with their children and feel less isolated, and even school districts themselves become better places to live and raise children.

    None of this was the case when we returned to normalcy following Covid. Just 13 percent of students were reading on grade level, and 37 percent were chronically absent. I knew right away that before we even attempted to tackle academics, we needed to engage families and make them feel deeply connected and committed to the community I envisioned building here.

    Today, 45 percent of students are reading at grade-level, and chronic absenteeism, at 12 percent on the most recent official numbers, is down to 10 percent in our own tracking, with a goal of pushing it down to 8 percent in 2025-26.

    But it wasn’t easy given the distrust that had boiled over during the pandemic, with families skeptical of our ability to effectively support their children and school staff feeling defensive and exhausted.

    It was clear to me that families weren’t excited to send their kids to school, didn’t feel informed about what was happening on our campus and, moreover, didn’t feel comfortable — let alone capable — of communicating their needs to us.

    Complicating matters further was the need to share information across many languages other than English, which can make relationship-building and communicating expectations difficult.

    Roughly half of our students are English learners, and while the majority of their families are Spanish-speakers, there are growing populations of students whose first languages are Haitian-Creole, Pashto and Vietnamese.

    Related: What the research says about the best way to engage parents

    The first thing I did was establish open communication with parents using ClassDojo, a mobile app that gives families an easy, intuitive central access point to our teachers and staff, automatically translates all messages into parents’ native languages and allows us to share stories about what is happening in school.

    It became an easy way to build trust and collaboration between families and staff.

    Creating that type of visibility was key to breaking down walls between us. And in those early days, we didn’t post about literacy, math or anything related to academics. Instead, we focused solely on attendance and getting families to come inside the school as much as possible.

    We focused on relationship-building activities and joyful learning. We hosted after-school art classes and monthly family Fridays, when families could come to school to engage in a fun activity.

    We organized a Halloween costume drive with candy and fun games for kids; we hosted a Read Across America event where we passed out Play-Doh; and we organized other low-stakes events at school, rooted in building a partnership between home and school.

    Again, our goal wasn’t learning during these meet-ups. It was all in service of building trust and creating meaningful relationships with students and their families.

    Once we had the foundation in place, we added a focus on academics — though we rooted that learning in family engagement, too. For example, our schoolwide focus last year was phonics, so we sent activities home for families to complete with their children that were tied specifically to concepts the students needed reinforced, based on their individual assessments, like long vowel patterns and sight words.

    These activities were taught by the students and their teachers to family members during conferences.

    Beyond helping students, the exercise challenged a false narrative so many families had assumed — that they either didn’t know enough about what was happening in school to help, weren’t confident enough to help or didn’t have enough time.

    Today, the atmosphere at Hamilton feels radically different than when I first walked through the doors. When we first started hosting Family Fridays, about 10 family members and their children showed up.

    Now, we have roughly 200 caregivers at every meet-up. Families run most of the community-based initiatives at the school — from a boutique where families can shop among donated clothes twice a month, to a food distribution center, to a book club, English classes and a monthly meet-up where families can socialize.

    When district leaders visit, they’re always impressed by the participation. I tell them, if you care about family engagement, it has to be so deeply embedded into the system that people don’t have a choice but to do it.

    That’s why I’m constantly thinking about how to center family engagement in staff meetings, in attendance meetings, in literacy and math plans, in behavioral and counseling plans and in meetings about school procedures and budgets.

    It’s a strategy that not only involves families but also supports academic achievement and student well-being. For me, family engagement is the ultimate strategy for academics.

    Sometimes in the K-12 world we keep outreach and academics separate, but in reality, engagement is the key that unlocks our ability to hit academic goals and create a joyful school community.

    Dr. Brittany Daley is the principal of Hamilton Elementary School in San Diego, California.

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

    This story about family engagement was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly 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.

    Join us today.

    Source link