Tag: Funding

  • Funding Issues Make Student Devices Hard to Replace, DPI Says – The 74

    Funding Issues Make Student Devices Hard to Replace, DPI Says – The 74


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

    A new Department of Public Instruction (DPI) report says that 100% of traditional public school districts currently have a 1-to-1 digital device-to-student ratio, though many districts are struggling to replace old or damaged devices due to a lack of funding.

    Dr. Ashley McBride, a digital learning initiative consultant at DPI, presented the Statewide Trends in Student Digital Learning Access report at the State Board of Education meeting on Wednesday.

    The report compiles data on students’ access to digital devices in and out of school, as well as their out-of-school internet access, from 115 school districts and 239 charter, lab, and regional schools. Among those 239 nontraditional schools, 84% had a 1-to-1 digital device-to-student ratio.

    The report says that in total, these public school units had 1,190,045 digital devices available for students in 2024-25. Chrome devices make up 90.3% of this fleet; 8.7% were Windows devices, and Apple devices made up 1%.

    Students can take less than half of these devices home, as 56% of them must stay on school campuses.

    “Together, these findings demonstrate that North Carolina continues to rely heavily on school-issued, portable devices to support both in-school instruction and extended learning opportunities beyond the school day,” the report says.

    The report also included findings from a survey on out-of-school devices with responses from families representing 55,082 students.

    In this sample, 42% of families said their student uses a school-provided device at home, while a third said their student uses a device owned by the family. Around one in five families reported that their student has access to both family-owned and school-provided devices at home. However, 4% of families reported their student does not have access to a digital device at home.

    Families who did not have devices at home said they were too expensive, they chose not to purchase one, or the devices they owned were broken, damaged, or outdated, according to the report.

    A survey with 36,365 respondent families found that 93% had consistent and adequate internet access for their students at home. Families with limited or no access to the internet at home said that was due to high costs or the internet connection not being dependable.

    Still, those families described several alternatives they use to ensure their students can access the internet, including using the internet at public libraries, hot spots, other people’s homes, school parking lots, among other options.

    “My rural county, still one third of it, does not have internet capability. And after Helene, many parts of our community do not have Wi-Fi coverage, nor do they have cell coverage. That’s typical in the western part of the state,” said Board member John Blackburn, who represents the state’s Northwest region. “I just want to remind everybody that there are still points of darkness in the state of North Carolina.”

    Beckie Spears, the 2024 Wells Fargo Principal of the Year, said that her rural elementary school had one Chromebook cart per grade level prior to 2020. Now, there’s one in every classroom, she said, but the devices are aging and the district doesn’t “have any ways to replace them.”

    “The reality is we have stretched every resource as far as we can, and in Tier 1 counties and Tier 2 counties where local funds are not accessible, this is a real and urgent problem that needs attention from our legislators,” Spears said.

    The report says that these findings highlight the importance of school-provided digital devices for students. But since pandemic-era funding from the federal Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) and the Emergency Connectivity Funds (ECF) has ended, many schools are struggling to sustain student device programs.

    McBride’s presentation said 88 out of the state’s traditional school districts — nearly 77% — as well as 97 charter, lab, and regional schools, don’t have dedicated funds to refresh students’ school-provided digital devices.

    “Large portions of the current device fleet have aged beyond expected lifespans, resulting in higher failure rates, declining performance, and reduced reliability for both classroom and at home use,” the report says.

    The report says some schools have limited or stopped take-home access for their device fleets because they don’t have inventory to replace them.

    According to McBride, prior to ESSER funding, only 16 school districts had a 1-to-1 digital device-to-student ratio.

    DPI recommends that the state allocate recurring funding to support student device programs to reduce reliance on short-term federal funding, according to the report. This legislative session, DPI requested $152.6 million in recurring funds for a 1-to-1 device refresh over a four-year period.

    The report also recommends providing statewide guidance on devices’ life cycle management, including cost considerations and multiyear budgeting strategies. The department also recommends using data systems to track devices’ age, availability, and take-home capacity, and “exploring how to improve parental participation in reporting on home connectivity and device access.”

    This article first appeared on EdNC and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


    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

  • Congress moves to reject Trump plan to slash Education Department funding

    Congress moves to reject Trump plan to slash Education Department funding

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Congressional lawmakers this week released a fiscal 2026 education budget proposal that rejects the Trump administration’s call to dramatically decrease funding for the U.S. Department of Education and to cut major financial aid programs.
    • The Senate and House Appropriations committees jointly proposed allocating $79 billion in discretionary funding to the Education Department, up slightly from the $78.7 billion it received for the 2025 fiscal year. The Trump administration had proposed cutting the agency’s funding by 15.3%, to $66.7 billion.
    • The bipartisan proposal would also keep funding level for a suite of student support and educational access programs that would have seen their funding slashed or been defunded altogether under President Donald Trump’s plan.

    Dive Insight:

    Trump has made shuttering the Education Department a policy goal, directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon in a March executive order to “take all necessary steps” to facilitate its closure. Only Congress can fully eliminate the department, but his administration has begun hollowing it out through mass layoffs, grant cancellations, and plans to transfer program management to other agencies.

    The Trump administration sought to decrease the maximum Pell Grant award by about 23% to $5,710, an amount it said would “continue to cover the average published in-state tuition and fees for community college students.” Instead, lawmakers are looking to maintain the maximum Pell Grant award at $7,395 through the 2026-27 year.

    Trump’s spending proposal for fiscal 2026 also sought to defund three key educational access programs: TRIO, the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, and Gear Up.

    TRIO, which supports students from disadvantaged backgrounds from middle school to college, would receive $1.2 billion dollars under the lawmakers’ proposal. The FSEOG program, which assists undergraduates who demonstrate significant financial need, would receive $910 million. And Gear Up, which helps low-income students prepare for postsecondary education, would get $388 million.

    Each program’s allocation would be on par with what it received in fiscal 2025.

    The congressional plan would also maintain funding for Federal Work-Study, which provides part-time jobs to students who need help paying for college, at $1.2 billion. Trump’s plan would have slashed the program’s budget by roughly 80% to $250 million.

    The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights funding would continue at $140 million under the lawmakers’ proposal, according to a bill summary released by Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Trump had sought to cut the office’s budget by a third.

    As part of Trump’s effort to dismantle the Education Department, administration officials have announced plans to outsource the programs to four other federal agencies.

    However, lawmakers wrote in an explanatory statement accompanying their proposal that “no authorities exist for the Department of Education to transfer its fundamental responsibilities” and that it cannot transfer its congressionally allocated funds to another agency.

    Democrats on the Senate committee argued in their bill summary that the Trump administration’s interagency agreements are illegal, create “new inefficiencies, costs, and risks to funding for states and schools” and threaten “educational outcomes.”

    Under the budget proposal, the Education Department and the four agencies it struck agreements with would be required to make biweekly reports to legislators, according to the explanatory statement. Briefings would include information related to the interagency agreements, such as costs, staff transfers, “metrics on the delivery of services,” and “plans for maintaining high standards of quality and objectivity in grant competitions through multireviewer peer panels.”

    Lawmakers have until Jan. 30 to pass the remaining appropriations bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, or they will face a partial federal government shutdown.  Congress approved a stopgap funding measure in November to end the last government shutdown, the longest in U.S. history.

    Source link

  • Basing K-12 Funding on California School Enrollment Could Bring Problems – The 74

    Basing K-12 Funding on California School Enrollment Could Bring Problems – The 74


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

    This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

    For years, California schools have pushed to change the way the state pays for K-12 education: by basing funding on enrollment, instead of attendance. That’s the way 45 other states do it, and it would mean an extra $6 billion annually in school coffers.

    But such a move might cause more harm than good in the long run, because linking funding to enrollment means schools have little incentive to lure students to class every day, according to a report released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. Without that incentive, attendance would drop, and students would suffer.

    If the Legislature wants to boost school funding, analysts argued, it should use the existing attendance-based model and funnel more money to schools with high numbers of low-income students, students in foster care and English learners.

    When it comes to attendance, money talks, the report noted. For more than a century, California has funded schools based on average daily attendance – how many students show up every day. In the 1980s and ’90s, the state started to look at alternatives. A pilot study from that time period showed that attendance at high schools rose 5.4% and attendance at elementary schools rose 3.1% when those schools had a financial incentive to boost attendance.

    This is not the time to ease up on attendance matters, the report said. Although attendance has improved somewhat since campuses closed during the pandemic, it remains well below pre-COVID-19 levels. In 2019, nearly 96% of students showed up to school every day. The number dropped to about 90% during COVID-19, when most schools switched to remote learning, but still remains about 2 percentage points below its previous high.

    Attendance is tied to a host of student success measurements. Students with strong attendance tend to have higher test scores, higher levels of reading proficiency and higher graduation rates.

    “It’s a thoughtful analysis that weighs the pros and cons,” said Hedy Chang, president of the nonprofit research and advocacy organization Attendance Works. “For some districts there might be benefits to a funding switch, but it also helps when districts have a concrete incentive for encouraging kids to show up.”

    True cost of educating kids

    Schools have long asked the Legislature to change the funding formula, which they say doesn’t cover the actual costs of educating students, especially those with high needs. The issue came up repeatedly at a recent conference of the California School Boards Association, and there’s been at least one recent bill that addressed the issue.

    The bill, by former Sen. Anthony Portantino, a Democrat from the La Cañada Flintridge area, initially called for a change to the funding formula, but the final version merely asked the Legislative Analyst’s Office to study the issue. The bill passed in 2024.

    A 2022 report by Policy Analysis for California Education also noted the risks of removing schools’ financial incentive to prioritize attendance. But it also said that increasing school funding overall would give districts more stability.

    Enrollment is a better funding metric because schools have to plan for the number of students who sign up, not the number who show up, said Troy Flint, spokesman for the California School Boards Association.

    He also noted that schools with higher rates of absenteeism also tend to have higher numbers of students who need extra help, such as English learners, migrant students and low-income students. Tying funding to daily attendance — which in some districts is as low as 60% — brings less money to those schools, ultimately hurting the students who need the most assistance, he said.

    “It just compounds the problem, creating a vicious cycle,” Flint said.

    To really boost attendance, schools need extra funding to serve those students.

    Switching to an enrollment-based funding model would increase K-12 funding by more than $6 billion, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Currently, schools receive about $15,000 annually per student through the state’s main funding mechanism, the Local Control Funding Formula, with an additional $7,000 coming from the federal government, block grants, lottery money, special education funds and other sources. Overall, California spent more than $100 billion on schools last year, according to the Legislative Analyst.

    Motivated by money?

    Flint’s group also questioned whether schools are solely motivated by money to entice students to class.

    “Most people in education desperately want kids in class every day,” Flint said. “These are some of the most dedicated, motivated people I’ve met, and they care greatly about students’ welfare.”

    Josh Schultz, superintendent of the Napa County Office of Education, agreed. Napa schools that are funded through attendance actually have lower attendance than schools that are considered “basic aid,” and funded through local property taxes. Both types of schools have high numbers of English learners and migrant students.

    “I can understand the logic (of the LAO’s assertion) but I don’t know if it bears out in reality, at least here,” Schultz said. “Both kinds of schools see great value in having kids show up to school every day.”

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.


    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

  • Infants and toddlers are a growing group among homeless children

    Infants and toddlers are a growing group among homeless children

    by Jackie Mader, The Hechinger Report
    January 17, 2026

    BOSTON, Mass. — For months, Karian had tried to make it on her own in New York.

    After the birth of her second daughter, she was diagnosed with postpartum depression, major depressive disorder and anxiety. A single mother who had moved from Boston to New York about 13 years ago, she often spent days at a time on the couch, unable to do more than handle the basics for her daughters.

    “I wasn’t taking care of myself,” she said softly on a recent afternoon. “I was not really present.” The Hechinger Report is not publishing her last name to protect her privacy.

    Karian’s mother urged her to move back home to the Boston area and offered to house her and her daughters temporarily. She started working the night shift at a fast food restaurant to save up for her own place while her mother and sister watched her children. 

    But in a city where fast food wages aren’t enough to pay the rent, her efforts felt futile. And then, a month after moving in with her family, her mother’s landlord told her the apartment was overcrowded and she had to leave. Karian and her girls, then 7 years old and 8 months old, moved into a homeless shelter, where her depression and anxiety worsened. 

    “I tried my best, but it’s not their home,” said Karian, now 31.

    Karian’s children had joined the growing ranks of very young children experiencing homelessness. Between 2021 and 2023, the number of homeless infants and toddlers increased in 48 states and the District of Columbia. The most recent estimates found that in 2023 nearly 450,000 infants and toddlers in the United States were in families that lacked a stable place to live. That was a 23 percent increase compared to 2021, according to a report released last year by the nonprofit SchoolHouse Connection in partnership with Poverty Solutions at the University of Michigan.  

    The numbers could be even higher, experts worry, because “hidden homeless” children — those who are doubled up in homes with family or friends or living in a hotel — may not be captured in tallies until they start school.

    High prices for diapers and formula, the exorbitant cost of child care, the rising cost of living, and rising maternal mental health challenges all contribute to the growing rate of homelessness among very young children, experts say. In 2024, one-third of infants and toddlers were in families that struggled to make ends meet, according to the nonprofit infant and toddler advocacy organization Zero to Three. 

    “We’re talking about families who have generationally been disadvantaged by circumstance,” said Kate Barrand, president and CEO of Horizons for Homeless Children, a nonprofit that supports homeless families with young children in Massachusetts. “The cost of housing has escalated dramatically. The cost of any kind of program to put a child in, should you have a job, is escalating,” she added. “There are a lot of things that make it really hard for families.”

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

    Housing instability is dire for anyone, but particularly for young children, whose brains are rapidly growing and developing. Studies show that young children who are homeless often lag behind their peers in language development and literacy and struggle to learn self-regulation skills, like being able to calm themselves when feeling angry or sad or transition calmly to new activities. They also may experience long-term health and learning challenges.

    Early childhood programs could provide a critical source of stability and developmental support for these children. But SchoolHouse Connection found only a fraction of homeless children are enrolled in early learning programs, and the percentage who are has decreased over the past few years.

    “It’s not just incredibly tragic and sad that infants and toddlers are experiencing homelessness,” said Rahil Briggs, national director of the nonprofit Zero to Three’s HealthySteps program, which works with pediatricians to support the health of babies and toddlers. The first few years are also a “disproportionately important” time in a child’s life, she added, because of the brain development that’s happening.

    Karian and her daughters faced new difficulties after they moved into a shelter.

    They shared an apartment with another family. If the other family was using the shared common space, Karian tried to give them privacy, which meant keeping her children in the bedroom the three of them shared.

    Her older daughter had to change schools, and left without getting to say goodbye to many of her friends. At her new school, her grades dropped. The baby developed a skin condition and there was a bedbug infestation at the shelter. Karian didn’t want to put her on the floor for tummy time. She was desperate to find a home.

    “We were in a place where we couldn’t really make noise. I couldn’t really let them be kids,” she said.

    The rise in housing insecurity among young children has created more demand for programs created specifically to meet the unique needs of children who are experiencing instability and trauma. Many of these programs offer support to parents as well, through what is called a “two-generation” approach to support and services.

    Related: A school created a homeless shelter in the gym and it paid off in the classroom

    In 2021, in response to ballooning child homelessness rates, Horizons opened the Edgerley Family Horizons Center, an early learning program that serves children from 2 months to 5 years old. While some families find Horizons on their own, many are referred by shelters around the Boston area. The need is great: Edgerley serves more than 250 children, with a waitlist of 200 more. Karian’s younger child was one of those who got a spot soon after the program opened.

    Inside Horizons’ large, light-filled building on the corner of a busy street in Boston’s Roxbury neighborhood, every detail is tailored to the needs of children who have experienced instability. Walls are painted in soothing blues and greens. Each classroom has three teachers to maintain a low child-to-staff ratio. Many of the teachers are bilingual. All educators are trained in how to build relationships with families and gently support children who have experienced trauma. 

    The starting salary for teachers is $54,200 a year, far more than the national median for childcare workers of $32,050 and the Massachusetts median of about $39,000. That has encouraged more teachers to stay on at the center and provide a sense of security to the children there, said Horizons CEO Barrand.

    In the infant room, teacher Herb Hickey, who has worked at Horizons for 13 years, frequently sees infants who are hyperaware, struggle to fall asleep, can’t be soothed easily or cling desperately to whichever adult they attach to first. The goal for the infant teachers, he said, is to be a trusted, responsive adult who can be relied on.

    Every day, the teachers in the infant room sing the same songs to the babies. “When they hear our voices constantly, they know they’re in a safe space,” Hickey said. “This is calm.” 

    Teachers also follow the same familiar routines. The rooms are decorated simply, organized and filled with natural light. Teachers constantly scan the infants for signs of distress.

    “We have to be even more responsive,” Hickey said. “When the child starts crying, we don’t have the convenience to say, ‘I know you’re hungry, I’ll get to you.’” He said teachers want even the tiniest babies to learn that “we’re not going to leave you crying.’”

    Related: A federal definition of ‘homeless’ leaves some kids out in the cold. One state is trying to help

    Other needs arise with Horizons’ youngest children: Infants and toddlers living in homeless shelters often lag in gross motor skills. Many spend time on beds rather than on playmats on the floor, or they are kept in car seats or in strollers to keep them safe or from wandering off. That means they’re missing out on all the skills that come from active movement.  

    Even the arrangement of toys at the center has a purpose. Staff want children to know they can depend on toys being in the same location every day. For many children, those are some of the only items they can play with. Families entering a shelter environment can usually only bring a few bags, with no room for toys or books. A toddler who recently entered a shelter where Horizons runs a playroom came in holding a small empty chip bag, recalled Tara Spalding, Horizons’ chief of advancement and playspace. When a shelter staff member threw it away, the boy was inconsolable. “This is the only toy my child has,” staff recalled the mother saying.

    “This just shows the sheer poverty,” said Spalding. 

    As infant and toddler homelessness has increased, other cities and states have tried to provide more support to affected families and get a better sense of their needs. In Oklahoma, experts say, low wages, a lack of housing and eviction laws that favor landlords have led to rising homelessness rates. State officials are trying to gather better data about homeless families to determine the best use of resources, said Susan Agel, chair of Oklahoma’s Homeless Children and Youth Steering Committee. Their efforts are hampered, however, by the fact that many homeless families fear that their children will be taken away by child protective services because they are homeless. 

    In 2024, to fill that gap in data, the state launched a residency questionnaire given to every K-12 student that includes new questions about homelessness, including if there are younger children in the home who are not students and may not otherwise be counted in homeless populations. Officials say it isn’t a perfect solution, but it’s a start to get a sense of the severity of family homelessness. “We can’t devise a system for dealing with a problem if we don’t know what the problem is,” said Agel.

    In Sioux Falls, South Dakota, city officials have ramped up efforts to coordinate city agencies to respond to an increase in homelessness among infants and toddlers.

    “In general, the families we see more often have younger children. The school offers so much support, and there’s limited daycare access” to get similar support for infants and toddlers, said Tommy Fuston, Community Services and Housing Navigator at Minnehaha County’s Department of Human Services. “If a family has younger children, they’re going to struggle more.” 

    Each week, officials from the city, the Sioux Falls School District, local early childhood programs and shelters hold a “care meeting” to make sure any homeless families, or families at risk of homelessness, are quickly connected to the right resources and receive follow-up. “We don’t have unlimited resources, but I think it maximizes the resources that we do have,” Fuston said. “We’ve tried to create a village of supportive services to wrap around these folks.” The city relies extensively on private and faith-based donations to help. All shelters in town are privately funded, for example. 

    Related: Shelter offers rare support for homeless families: a child care center

    Karian heard about the child care center run by Horizons from a social worker soon after she and her daughters moved into their Boston-area shelter. In the infant room, her youngest daughter quickly settled into a routine, something Karian said didn’t happen when the baby was watched at night by family members. When staff identified speech and developmental delays, they helped connect Karian to an early intervention program where her daughter could receive therapy. Now 4 years old and in pre-K at Horizons, “she’s thriving,” Karian said. “She’s getting that nourishment.” 

    Karian also received support. Each family at Horizons is assigned a coach to help parents set personal goals and connect with resources. The organization offers classes in computing, financial management and English, all within the early learning building.

    Two months after setting goals with a family coach, Karian earned her GED, with the help of  the child care assistance. A few months later, she graduated from a culinary training program. She now works a steady job as a cafeteria manager for a local school district, where she earns a salary with benefits. 

    After a year in the shelter, her family was approved for subsidized housing and moved into their own apartment. Horizons allows families to stay in its programs for at least two years after they secure housing to make sure they are stable. 

    Now, Karian has her sights set on eventually opening a restaurant. She also has big dreams for her daughters, something that once seemed out of reach. She wants them to have ambition to “work towards something big,” she said. “I want them to have a dream and be able to achieve it.” 

    Experts say there are larger policy changes that could help families like Karian’s: increasing the minimum wage, expanding child care options like Head Start, which saves a portion of seats for homeless children, and offering more affordable housing to low-income families, to start.

    Providing more federal money to the programs that help poor families pay for child care could also help. Those programs require states to prioritize homeless children and give them the first opportunity to access that money. 

    While important, experts argue, these solutions shouldn’t need to exist in the first place.

    “We should be able to come to an agreement as a society that we should prioritize keeping families with infants and toddlers in their homes,” said Melissa Boteach, chief policy officer at Zero to Three. “Babies shouldn’t be homeless.”

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

    This story about homeless children 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/homelessness-is-rising-fast-among-a-surprising-group-infants-and-toddlers/”>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=114264&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/homelessness-is-rising-fast-among-a-surprising-group-infants-and-toddlers/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Cutting costs without cutting corners

    Cutting costs without cutting corners

    Key points:

    With the end of federal COVID-19 emergency funding and the inherent volatility of state income tax revenues, California school districts are in an era of financial uncertainty. Fortunately, Jurupa Unified School District is already several years into the process of finding ways to track and control expenses while still supporting teachers and staff so they can provide the best possible educational experience for our students. Here’s how we’re making staffing and payroll processes more efficient, starting with the perennially challenging extra duty.

    Getting a handle on extra duty

    In addition to our salaried staff, we have a number of part-time, hourly, and what we call “extra duty” assignments. Because a significant amount of our funding comes from grants, many of our assignments are temporary or one-time. We fill those positions with extra duty requests so we’re not committed to ongoing payroll obligations.

    For many years, those extra duty requests and time cards were on paper, which meant the payroll department was performing redundant work to enter the information in the payroll system. The request forms we used were also on paper, making it very difficult to track the actual time being used back to the request, so we could be sure that the hours being used were within the limitations of the request. We needed a better control mechanism that would help school sites stay within budget, as well as a more formal budget mechanism to encumber the department and site budgets to cover the extra duty requests.

    Budgeting can get very complicated because it’s cross-functional. It includes a position-control component, a payroll component, and a financial budgeting component. We needed a solution that could make all of those universes work together. The mission was either to find a system or build one. Our county office started a pilot program with our district to build a system, but ultimately decided against continuing with this effort due to the resources required to sustain such a system for 23 county districts. 

    Our district engaged in a competitive process and chose Helios Ed. Within six months, our team developed and launched a new system to address extra duty. Since then, we have saved more than $100,000 in staffing costs, time expenses, and budget overruns because of the stronger internal controls we now have in place.

    A more efficient (and satisfied) payroll department

    Eliminating redundant data entry and working with data instead of paper has allowed us to reduce staffing by two full-time equivalents–not through layoffs, but through attrition. And because they have a system that is handling data entry for them, our payroll department has more time to give quality to their work, and feel they are working at a level more aligned to their skills.

    Finding efficiencies in your district

    While Jurupa Unified has found efficiencies and savings in these specific areas, every school district is different. As many California district leaders like to say, we have 1,139 school districts –and just as many ways of doing things. With that in mind, there are some steps to the process of moving from paper to online systems (or using online systems more efficiently) that apply universally.

    1. Sit down and identify your objectives. What are the critical components that you must have? 
    2. Make the decision to make or buy. When COVID first hit, Jurupa Unified created its own invoice-routing system through SharePoint. We’ve also built an excursion request process in PowerApps that handles travel, conferences, and field trips. As our county office found out, though, when you’re bringing a number of functionalities together, it can make more sense to work with a vendor you trust.
    3. If you choose to buy software, be certain that it can do precisely what you need it to. If a vendor says they can develop a functionality along the way, ask to see the new feature before you buy.
    4. Be certain the vendor will be responsive. When it comes to a function such as payroll, you’re dealing with people’s livelihoods, and you need to know that if there’s something wrong with the system, or if you need help, that help is just a phone call away.

    Putting in a new payroll management system has made an enormous difference for our district, but it’s not the end of our cost-cutting process. We’re always looking at our different programs to see where we can cut back in ways that don’t impact the classroom. Ultimately, these changes are about ensuring that resources stay focused where they matter most. While budgets fluctuate and funding streams remain unpredictable, my team and I come to work every day because we believe in public education. I’m a product of public education myself, and I love waking up every day knowing that I can come back and support today’s students and teachers.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Senate advances bills rejecting Trump’s efforts to slash research funding

    Senate advances bills rejecting Trump’s efforts to slash research funding

    Dive Brief:

    • Senate lawmakers have engineered bipartisan fiscal 2026 spending proposals that would largely maintain scientific funding, defying the Trump administration’s calls for massive cuts to research. 
    • Budget bills released by Senate committees in recent days would provide $188.3 billion in total scientific research funding — 21.3% more than requested by the White House, according to an analysis published last week by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
    • However, legislators’ proposed research funding levels would still fall 3.6% below fiscal 2025 spending. The full Senate voted on Monday to advance the bills, teeing up a final vote. Congress needs to pass a budget by Jan. 30 to avoid another shutdown.

    Dive Insight:

    Since retaking office last year, President Donald Trump and his administration have pushed to downsize and disrupt the country’s longstanding system of scientific research, which for decades has relied on a financial partnership between the federal government and scientists, many of them attached to universities. 

    Headed into 2026, the Trump administration proposed broad-based cuts to the research. In all, it asked for $155.2 billion for scientific research — a 21% drop from fiscal 2025 levels — according to AAAS. 

    That figure obscures the depth of some agencies’ requested cuts. For example, the National Science Foundation under Trump asked Congress for a $3.9 billion budget — well under half its 2025 funding levels. Instead, the Senate’s appropriations committee on Thursday released an $8.8 billion budget for the NSF to “sustain U.S. leadership in scientific discovery.” 

    The Senate’s NSF proposal included investments in quantum information, artificial intelligence, regional innovation, and “critical” research facilities. 

    The Trump-appointed head of the National Institutes of Health requested $27.9 billion, a nearly 40% decrease from 2025’s $46 billion. The agency said the shrunken budget aimed to “maximize the impact of NIH research by streamlining processes and more efficiently providing funding.” 

    The Senate Appropriations committee rejected the administration’s proposal, instead advancing a $48.7 billion budget for NIH, according to Sen. Patty Murray’s office. Murray is the top-ranking Democrat on the committee.

    “The bill rejects the Trump administration’s harmful efforts to defund and dismantle critical work that HHS oversees — maintaining important funding for programs across HHS that touch the lives of nearly every American, while providing targeted increases to important bipartisan priorities,” Murray’s office said in a bill summary.

    While overall, Senate plans fall short of fiscal 2025 scientific research spending, its proposed $44.9 billion budget for basic research — which explores fundamental principles of nature and science — would tick up by 2.4% compared to last year, according to AAAS. 

    The provisional budget bill set to expire at the end of this month was a stopgap that ended the longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history.

    Source link

  • Trump Administration Plans to Freeze Billions in Childcare Funding to California – The 74

    Trump Administration Plans to Freeze Billions in Childcare Funding to California – The 74


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

    The Trump administration says it’s planning to freeze about $10 billion in federal support for needy families in California and four other Democrat-run states, as the president announced an investigation into unspecified fraud in California.

    The plans come on the heels of the Trump administration announcing a freeze on all federal payments for child care in Minnesota, citing fraud allegations against daycare centers in the state.

    The state’s Democrat governor, Tim Walz — who ran for vice president against Donald Trump’s ticket in 2024 — announced Monday he was dropping out of running for reelection. He pointed to fraud against the state, saying it’s a real issue while alleging Trump and his allies were “seeking to take advantage of the crisis.”

    On Monday, the New York Post reported that the administration was expanding the funding freeze to include California and three other Democrat-led states, in addition to Minnesota. Unnamed federal officials cited “concerns that the benefits were fraudulently funneled to non-citizens,” The Post reported.

    Early Tuesday, President Trump alleged that corruption in California is worse than Minnesota and announced an investigation.

    “California, under Governor Gavin Newscum, is more corrupt than Minnesota, if that’s possible??? The Fraud Investigation of California has begun. Thank you for your attention to this matter! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP,” the president wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.

    He did not specify what alleged fraud was being examined in the Golden State.

    LAist has reached out to the White House to ask what the president’s fraud concerns are in California and to request an interview with the president.

    “For too long, Democrat-led states and governors have been complicit in allowing massive amounts of fraud to occur under their watch,” said an emailed statement from Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the federal childcare funds.

    “Under the Trump administration, we are ensuring that federal taxpayer dollars are being used for legitimate purposes. We will ensure these states are following the law and protecting hard-earned taxpayer money.”

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press office disputed Trump’s claim on social media, arguing that since taking office, the governor has blocked $125 billion in fraud and arrested “criminal parasites leaching off of taxpayers.”

    Criminal fraud cases in CA appear to be rare for this program

    Defrauding federally funded programs is a crime — and one LAist has investigated, leading to one of the largest such criminal cases in recent years against a California elected official, which surrounded meal funds.

    When it comes to the federal childcare funds that are being frozen, the dollar amount of fraud alleged in criminal cases appears to be a tiny fraction of the overall program’s spending in California.

    A search of thousands of news releases by all four federal prosecutor offices in California, going back more than a decade, found a total of one criminal case where the press releases referenced childcare benefits.

    That case, brought in 2023, alleged four men stole $3.7 million in federal childcare benefits through fraudulent requests to a San Diego organization that distributed the funds. All four pleaded guilty, with one defendant sentenced to 27 months in prison and others sentenced to other terms, according to authorities.

    It appears to be equivalent to one one-hundredth of 1% of all the childcare funding California has received over the past decade-plus covered by the prosecution press release search.

    Potential impact on California families

    The plans call for California, Minnesota, New York, Illinois and Colorado to lose about $7 billion in cash assistance for households with children, almost $2.4 billion to care for children of working parents, and about $870 million for social services grants that mostly benefit children at risk, according to unnamed federal officials speaking to the New York Times and New York Post.

    In the largest category of funding, California receives $3.7 billion per year. The program is known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF.

     ”It’s very clear that a freeze of those funds would be very damaging to the children, families, and providers of California,” said Stacy Lee, who oversees early childhood initiatives “at Children Now, an advocacy group for children in California.

     ”It is a significant portion of our funds and will impact families and children and providers across the whole state,” she added. “It would be devastating, in no uncertain terms.”

    About 270,000 people are served by the TANF program in L.A. County — about 200,000 of whom are children, according to the county Department of Public Social Services.

    “Any pause in funding for their cash benefits – which average $1000/month – would be devastating to these families,” said DPSS chief of staff Nick Ippolito.

    Ippolito said the department has a robust fraud prevention and 170-person investigations team, and takes allegations “very seriously.”

    It remains to be seen whether the funding freeze will end up in court. The state, as well as major cities and counties in California, has sued to ask judges to halt funding freezes or new requirements placed by the Trump administration. L.A. city officials say they’ve had success with that, including shielding more than $600 million in federal grant funding to the city last year.

    A union representing California childcare workers said the funding freeze would harm low-income families.

    “These threats need to be called out for what they are: direct threats on working families of all backgrounds who rely on access to quality, affordable child care in their communities to go to work every day supporting, and growing our economy,” said Max Arias, chairperson for the Child Care Providers United, which says it represents more than 70,000 child care workers across the state who care for kids in their homes.

    “Funding freezes, even when intended to be temporary, will be devastating — resulting in families losing access to care and working parents facing the devastating choice of keeping their children safe or paying their bills.”

    Federal officials planned to send letters to the affected states Monday about the planned funding pauses, the New York Post reported. As of 3 p.m. Tuesday, state officials said they haven’t gotten any official notification of the funding freeze plans.

    “The California Department of Social Services administers child care programs that help working families afford safe, reliable care for their children — so parents can go to work, support their families, and contribute to their communities,” said a statement from California Department of Social Services spokesperson Jason Montiel.

    “These funds are critical for working families across California. We take fraud seriously, and CDSS has received no information from the federal government indicating any freeze, pause, or suspension of federal child care funding.”

    This story was originally published on LAist.


    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 Aid Could Run Out by Jan. 31 Due to Trump Funding Freeze, Colorado Officials Say – The 74

    Child Care Aid Could Run Out by Jan. 31 Due to Trump Funding Freeze, Colorado Officials Say – The 74


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

    Colorado officials say money that helps 18,000 low-income families pay for child care could run out by Jan. 31 if federal officials don’t lift the freeze they’ve imposed on funding for several safety net programs in five Democrat-led states.

    If that happens, some children could go without care and some parents would have to stay home from work. State lawmakers could cover such a funding gap temporarily, though Colorado is facing a significant budget crunch.

    The Trump administration announced the freeze on $10 billion in child care and social services funding for Colorado, California, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York in a press release Monday.

    In letters sent to the two Colorado agencies that run the affected programs, federal officials said they have “reason to believe that the State of Colorado is illicitly providing” benefits funded with federal dollars to “illegal aliens.”

    The letters didn’t cite evidence for that claim and a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services didn’t respond to questions from Chalkbeat about why federal officials are concerned about fraud in Colorado.

    Spokespeople from both state departments said by email on Tuesday they’re not aware of any federal fraud investigations focused on the programs affected by the funding freeze.

    The five-state funding freeze follows a federal crackdown in Minnesota after a right-wing YouTuber posted a video in late December alleging that Minneapolis child care centers run by Somali residents get federal funds but serve no children. It’s not clear why the other four states have gotten the same treatment as Minnesota, but all have Democratic governors who have clashed with President Donald Trump.

    In a New Year’s Eve social media post, Trump called Colorado Gov. Jared Polis “the Scumbag Governor” and said Polis and another Colorado official should “rot in hell” for mistreating Tina Peters, a Trump supporter and former Mesa County clerk who’s serving a nine-year prison sentence for orchestrating a plot to breach election systems.

    The federal freeze will affect three main funding streams in Colorado that together bring in about $317 million a year. They include $138 million for the Colorado Department of Early Childhood for child care subsidies for low-income families and a few other programs.

    The subsidy program, known as the Colorado Child Care Assistance program, helps cover the cost of care for more than 27,000 children so parents can work or take classes. It’s mostly funded by the federal government with smaller contributions from states and counties.

    The other two frozen funding streams go to the Colorado Department of Human Services and pay for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, and other programs.

    In the letter to the Colorado Department of Early Childhood, federal officials outlined new fiscal requirements the state will have to follow before the funding freeze is lifted. They include attendance documentation — without names or other personal identifiers — for children in the child care subsidy program.

    A state fact sheet issued in response to the funding freeze said funding for the child care subsidy program would be depleted by Jan. 31. It also outlined several measures already in place to prevent fraud or waste, including state audits, monthly case reviews by county officials, and efforts to recover funds if improper payments are made.

    The state said it is exploring “all options, including legal avenues” to keep the frozen funding flowing.

    Six Democratic state lawmakers, most in leadership positions, released a statement Tuesday afternoon calling the funding freeze a callous move that will make life more expensive for working families.

    “We stand ready to work with Governor Polis and partners in our federal delegation to resist this lawless effort to freeze funding, and we sincerely hope that our Republican colleagues will put politics aside, get serious about making life in Colorado more affordable, and put families first,” the statement said in part.

    The statement was from Speaker of the House Julie McCluskie; Senate President James Coleman; House Majority Leader Monica Duran; Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez; Rep. Emily Sirota; and Sen. Judy Amabile.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.


    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

  • Support for student parents at risk due to proposed funding cuts

    Support for student parents at risk due to proposed funding cuts

    UCLA Bruin Parenting Scholars (BPS) board at their winter warmth basic needs drive for students with dependents.

    Credit: Photo courtesy of Trina Rodriguez

    As students across the country wrap up their final exams, academic pressure is front and center. For many, this season is stressful. For student parents, however, the stakes are even higher.

    Alongside exams and essay deadlines, student caregivers balance jobs, household responsibilities, and the constant demands of raising children and other family members — often with little institutional support. For them, success in college is not just about grades; it is about securing stability for their families and breaking cycles of economic insecurity.

    More than one in four undergraduate students in the United States are raising children, and 54% are doing so without a partner. Despite this widespread need for support, the programs that make higher education possible for student parents are threatened. Chief among them is the federal Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) initiative, the only national program that provides campus-based childcare subsidies for low-income student parents so they can stay enrolled and complete their degrees.

    Across the University of California (UC) system, survey data shows nearly 1,000 undergraduate students and 1,500 graduate students are caregivers. These students, often older, first-generation, and low-income, face challenges that traditional student support systems were never designed to meet. Parenting students also experience food and housing insecurity at disproportionately higher rates than their non-parenting peers. Add the cost of childcare, and the financial burden becomes nearly impossible to bear.

    Despite this clear need, support is shrinking. Although Congress allocated $75 million for CCAMPIS in fiscal year (FY) 2025, and there have been previous bipartisan proposals to increase funding to $200 million annually, President Trump’s budget request and the House education spending bill for FY 2026 proposed cutting the program entirely.

    Eliminating this funding would put thousands of families under severe financial strain, intensifying the challenges for caregivers already facing heightened food or housing insecurity and making it much harder to balance school and parenting responsibilities.

    “As a CCAMPIS recipient, I know that without federally supported childcare, I would never have been able to care for my late mother while returning to school, nor would I have completed undergrad with dual degrees,” Schinal Harrington, a masters of social work (MSW) candidate at UCLA, wrote in an email to us. “As a first-generation, system-impacted woman of color, mother, and graduate student, I have spent my academic journey navigating red tape, institutional neglect, and the loss of [fellow] peers whose struggles were shaped by the same barriers student parents face today.”

    Harrington chairs Bruin Parenting Scholars (BPS), a UCLA student advocacy organization that provides resources, mentorship, and community for students with dependents. Every day, she sees how childcare access, trauma-informed services, and flexible policies support not just parenting students, but their families.

    Trina Rodriguez, another UCLA MSW student and student parent advocate, describes this reality with raw clarity: “My lived experience carries many identities, but the first thing I am when I wake up, before anything else, is ‘Mommy.’ When universities do not acknowledge the existence of this marginalized community through institutional supports — like flexible scheduling, affordable childcare, and family-friendly policies — student parents face systemic barriers to completing their education. Universities are, therefore, perpetuating harm on this community.”

    Yet despite systemic gaps, student parents demonstrate extraordinary resilience. UC survey data show that parenting graduate students feel more upbeat about their career prospects and better prepared for the job search than their non-parenting peers. Their determination is evident — even when given modest support.

    “As a parenting scholar [myself], I’ve witnessed how student parents embody perseverance, compassion, and leadership, yet must navigate systems that were never built with their lives in mind,” said Sonya Brooks, the 2025-26 UC student regent. “Supporting student parents means recognizing that higher education is not one-size-fits-all: it must evolve to meet the realities of those raising families while pursuing their dreams. The success of student parents ripples across generations, shaping stronger families, communities, and universities.”

    Other resources for student parents

    BrightLife Kids is a free virtual behavioral health coaching program for families in California with children ages 0–12.

    Part of the CalHOPE initiative, BrightLife Kids offers 1:1 video coaching and secure chat services at no cost, with no insurance or referral required, providing caregivers with helpful tools.

    When Congress passed a short-term continuing resolution (CR) to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, longer-term funding questions — including CCAMPIS funding for 2026 — remained unresolved. House and Senate appropriators are now deciding whether to follow the president’s proposal or save the program when the continuing resolution expires in January.

    Congress must restore full funding for CCAMPIS and reject cuts that threaten the educational futures of thousands of student parents nationwide. Undermining these supports jeopardizes not only individual students but entire families.

    Colleges and universities must also do their part by expanding childcare access, adopting family-friendly policies, and offering flexible learning options with integrated advising. Higher education cannot credibly claim to value its students while ignoring the realities faced by the many on campus who are raising dependents.

    Parenting students have shown up for their families. Now it is time for our institutions to show up for them.

    •••

    Duke Dela Rosa is the director, and Amrit Dhillon, Arianna Li, and Sue Jung are associates, of the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC) federal government relations department at UC Berkeley.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.

    Source link

  • MSI funding, institutional priorities, and the coming test of “social mobility” (Glen McGhee)

    MSI funding, institutional priorities, and the coming test of “social mobility” (Glen McGhee)

    A recent opinion from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel declares that federal Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) programs are unlawful because they allocate funding based on the racial composition of enrolled students. The ruling immediately throws hundreds of campuses—and the students they serve—into uncertainty. But beyond the legal debate lies a more revealing institutional reckoning: if MSI grants disappear, will colleges actually fund these programs themselves?

    The short answer, based on decades of evidence, is no.

    For years, colleges and universities have framed MSI grants as proof of their commitment to access, equity, and social mobility. Yet those commitments have always been conditional. They have depended on external federal subsidies rather than first-principles institutional priorities. Now that the funding stream is threatened, the gap between rhetoric and reality is about to widen dramatically.

    The scale of what is being cut is not trivial. Discretionary MSI programs—serving Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander–Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs), Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs), and others—have collectively provided hundreds of millions of dollars annually for tutoring, advising, counseling, faculty development, and basic academic infrastructure. These grants have often been the difference between persistence and attrition for low-income students, many of whom are first-generation and Pell-eligible.

    Yet MSI funding has also sustained something else: a sprawling administrative apparatus dedicated to grant writing, compliance, reporting, assessment, and “outcomes tracking.” Entire offices exist to chase, manage, and justify these funds. This is the professional-managerial class infrastructure that has come to dominate higher education—highly credentialed, compliance-oriented, and deeply invested in external funding streams.

    Follow the money, and a pattern becomes clear. When federal or state funding declines, colleges do not trim administrative overhead. They cut instruction. They cut tutoring. They cut advising. They cut student-facing programs that lack powerful internal constituencies. Administrative spending, by contrast, is remarkably durable. It rarely shrinks, even in moments of fiscal crisis.

    We have seen this movie before. When state appropriations fell over the past decade, public universities raised tuition and reduced instructional spending rather than dismantling administrative layers. When DEI offices were banned or defunded in several states, institutions eliminated student services and laid off staff, then quietly absorbed the savings into general operations. There was no surge in faculty hiring, no reinvestment in instruction, no serious attempt to replace lost support with institutional dollars.

    MSI grants will follow the same path. Colleges may offer short-term “bridge funding” to manage optics and morale, but that support will be temporary and partial. The language administrators use—“assessing impacts,” “exploring alternatives,” “seeking private donors”—is a familiar signal that programs are being triaged, not saved.

    Could institutions afford to self-fund these programs if they truly wanted to? In most cases, no—or at least not without making choices they refuse to make. Endowments are largely restricted and already used to paper over structural deficits. Tuition increases are politically and economically constrained at campuses serving low-income students. Federal aid flows through institutions but cannot be repurposed for operations. There is no hidden pool of fungible money waiting to be redirected.

    What would replacing MSI funding actually require? Cutting administrative spending. Reducing executive compensation. Scaling back amenities and non-instructional growth. Reprioritizing instruction and academic support over branding and “customer experience.” These are choices institutions have consistently shown they will not make.

    This is why the rhetoric of social mobility rings hollow. Colleges celebrate access and equity when the costs are externalized—when federal grants pay for the work and compliance offices manage the paperwork. But when that funding disappears, so does the institutional courage to sustain the mission.

    The contrast with historically Black colleges and tribal colleges is instructive. Their core federal funding survives precisely because it is tied to historical mission rather than contemporary enrollment metrics, and because these institutions have long-standing political champions. That distinction exposes the truth: what is preserved is not equity, but power.

    The coming months will bring program closures, staff layoffs, and diminished support for the students MSI grants were designed to serve. What we will not see, despite solemn statements and carefully worded emails, is a widespread commitment by colleges to fund these programs themselves.

    The test is simple and unforgiving. If social mobility were truly a foundational principle of higher education, institutions would treat MSI programs as essential—not optional, not grant-contingent, not expendable. They would pay for them out of their own budgets.

    They won’t.

    And in that refusal, the performance ends. The mission statements remain, but the money moves elsewhere.

    Sources

    Inside Higher Ed, “DOJ Report Declares Minority-Serving Institution Programs Unlawful,” December 22, 2025.

    U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Opinion on Minority-Serving Institution Grant Programs, 2025.

    U.S. Department of Education, Title III and Title V Program Data, Fiscal Years 2020–2025.

    Government Accountability Office, Higher Education: Trends in Administrative and Instructional Spending, various reports.

    Delta Cost Project / American Institutes for Research, Trends in College Spending, 2003–2021.

    State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO), State Higher Education Finance Reports, 2010–2024.

    University of California Office of the President, California State Auditor Reports on Administrative Spending and Reserves.

    Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board; Florida Board of Governors; UNC System Office, public records and budget documents on DEI office eliminations, 2024–2025.

    Bloomberg News and Associated Press reporting on DEI bans and campus program closures, 2024–2025.

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), IPEDS Finance and Enrollment Data.

    American Council on Education, Endowment Spending and Restrictions in Higher Education.

    IRS Form 990 filings and audited financial statements of selected public and private universities.

    Columbia University public statements on federal research funding disruptions, 2025.

    University of Hawaiʻi system communications on federal grant losses and bridge funding, 2025.

    Congressional Budget Justifications, U.S. Department of Education, FY2025–FY2026.

    Ehrenreich, Barbara and John, The Professional-Managerial Class, and subsequent scholarship on administrative growth in higher education.

    Student Borrower Protection Center, Student Debt and Institutional Finance, 2024–2025.

    Source link