Tag: Funding

  • Homeless Student Counts in California Are Up. Some Say That’s a Good Thing – The 74

    Homeless Student Counts in California Are Up. Some Say That’s a Good Thing – The 74


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

    In Kern County, the first rule in counting homeless students is not saying “homeless.”

    Instead, school staff use phrases like “struggling with stable housing” or “families in transition.” The approach seems to have worked: More families are sharing their housing status with their children’s schools, which means more students are getting services.

    “There’s a lot of stigma attached to the word ‘homeless,’” said Curt Williams, director of homeless and foster youth services for the Kern County Office of Education. “When you remove that word, it all changes.”

    Largely as a result of better identification methods, Kern County saw its homeless student population jump 10% last year, to 7,200. Those students received transportation to and from school, free school supplies, tutoring and other services intended to help them stay in school. For the purposes of this data, the definition of homelessness is broader than the state’s point in time count.

    The trend is reflected statewide. In the latest state enrollment data released last month, California had 230,443 homeless students — a 9.3% increase from the previous year. Some of the increase is due to the state’s ongoing housing shortage, but most of the increase is because of better identification, advocates and school officials said.

    Homeless students face numerous obstacles in school. They have higher rates of discipline and absenteeism, and fare worse academically. Last year, only 16% of homeless students met the state’s math standard, some of the lowest scores of any student group.

    “Schools can’t solve homelessness, but they can ensure the students are safe in the classroom and getting the education they need to get out of homelessness,” said Barbara Duffield, executive director of Schoolhouse Connection, a national homeless youth advocacy group. “That starts with identifying the child who’s homeless.”

    Challenges of counting homeless students

    Under the federal McKinney-Vento Act, schools are required to count their homeless students throughout the school year and ensure they receive services. Homeless students also have the right to stay enrolled in their original school even if they move.

    For many years, schools struggled to identify homeless students. Under state law, schools must distribute forms at the beginning of the school year asking families where they live — in their own homes, in motels, doubled-up with other families, in shelters, cars or outdoors.

    Some schools were less-than-diligent about collecting the form, or reassuring families understood the importance. Often, homeless families were reluctant to submit the form because they were afraid the school might contact a child welfare agency. Immigrant families sometimes feared the school might notify immigration authorities. And some families didn’t realize that sharing quarters with another family — by far the most common living situation among homeless families – is technically defined as homeless, at least under McKinney-Vento.

    A 2021 bill by former Assemblymember Luz Rivas, a Democrat from Arleta in the San Fernando Valley, sought to fix that problem. The bill requires schools to train everyone who works with students — from bus drivers to cafeteria workers to teachers — on how to recognize potential signs of homelessness. That could include families who move frequently or don’t reply to school correspondence.

    The bill seems to have helped. Last year, the state identified 21,000 more homeless students than it had the previous year, even as overall enrollment dropped.

    Still, that’s probably an undercount, researchers said. The actual homeless student population is probably between 5% and10% of those students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, according to the National Center for Homeless Education. In California, that would be a shortfall of up to 138,713 students.

    Influx of funding

    Another boost for identifying homeless students came from the American Rescue Plan, the federal COVID-19 relief package. The plan included $800 million for schools to hire counselors or train existing staff to help homeless students. Nearly all schools in California received some money.

    About 120 districts in California won grant money through the McKinney-Vento Act, which last year dispersed about $15.9 million in California to pay for things like rides to school, backpacks, staff and other services. Districts are chosen on a competitive basis; not all districts that apply receive funds.

    But those funding sources are drying up. Most of the pandemic relief money has already been spent, and President Donald Trump’s recently approved budget does not include McKinney-Vento funding for 2026-27.

    The cuts come at a time when advocates expect steep increases in the number of homeless families over the next few years, due in part to national policy changes. Republican budget proposals include cuts to Medicaid, food assistance and other programs aimed at helping low-income families, while the immigration crackdown has left thousands of families afraid to seek assistance. For families living on tight budgets, those cuts could lead to a loss of housing.

    And in California, the shortage of affordable housing continues to be a hurdle for low-income families. Even Kern County, which has traditionally been a less pricey option for families, has seen a spike in housing costs as more residents move there from Los Angeles.

    Joseph Bishop, an education professor at UCLA and co-author of a recent report on homeless students nationwide, said the loss of government funding will be devastating for homeless students.

    “California is the epicenter of the homeless student crisis, and we need targeted, dedicated support,” Bishop said. “Folks should be extremely alarmed right now. Will these kids be getting the education they need and deserve?”

    Better food, cleaner bathrooms

    In Kern County, identification has only been one part of the effort to help homeless students thrive in school. Schools also try to pair them with tutors and mentors, give them school supplies and laundry tokens, and invite them to join a program called Student Voice Ambassadors. There, students can tour local colleges, learn leadership skills and explore career options.

    As part of the program, staff ask students what would make school more enticing — and then make sure the suggestions happen. At one school, students said they’d go to class if the bathrooms were cleaner. So staff improved the bathrooms. At another school, students wanted better food. They got it.

    Williams credits the program with reducing absenteeism among homeless students. Two years ago, 45% of Kern County’s homeless students were chronically absent. Last year, the number dropped to 39% – still too high, he said, but a significant improvement.

    “Without McKinney-Vento funds, the Student Voice Ambassador program would go away,” Williams said. “How will we keep it going? I don’t know.”

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


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

    Source link

  • Senator Murray Blocks Trump Education Nominee as Funding Crisis Deepens

    Senator Murray Blocks Trump Education Nominee as Funding Crisis Deepens

    U.S. Senator Patty Murray U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) has blocked the fast-track consideration of Mary Christina Riley, President Trump’s nominee to serve as Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs at the Department of Education, as the administration continues to withhold nearly $7 billion in funding for K-12 schools and adult education programs nationwide.

    The move by Murray, Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, forces Riley’s nomination to undergo full committee review rather than skipping directly to Senate floor consideration. The action comes just weeks before the new school year begins, with school districts across the country scrambling to address massive budget shortfalls created by the Trump administration’s funding freeze.

    “As schools nationwide scramble to figure out how many teachers they need to lay off and afterschool programs warn parents to make back up plans—all because President Trump is blocking over $6 billion in education funding he himself signed into law—there is no reason for any Department of Education nominee to skip committee consideration and get fast-tracked for confirmation,” Murray said in a statement.

    The senator’s parliamentary maneuver reflects growing Democratic frustration with the Trump administration’s decision to withhold funding that was previously approved by Congress. The administration notified states on July 1—the traditional deadline for fund distribution—that it was placing the money under review “given the change in Administrations.”

    The funding freeze affects six critical federal education programs that support teacher professional development, English language learning, after-school programs, and services for migrant children. The largest portion consists of $2.2 billion for Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants, which fund professional development and activities to improve teacher effectiveness.

    Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have already filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the frozen funds, with California Attorney General Rob Bonta calling the move one with “no rhyme or reason” that came “abruptly” just weeks before the school year begins.

    The consequences are being felt immediately across the education landscape. The Afterschool Alliance warned that without the funds, “we will quickly see more children and youth unsupervised and at risk, more academic failures, more hungry kids, more chronic absenteeism, higher dropout rates, more parents forced out of their jobs, and a less STEM-ready and successful workforce.”

    The Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget, led by Russell Vought, has suggested the funding freeze is part of an investigation into whether money has been used for what it calls a “radical leftwing agenda,” including scholarships for undocumented students or teachings on LGBTQ topics.

    Murray rejected these justifications, arguing that the administration has provided no clear explanation for the delay and no timeline for when funding might be released. Even some Republican senators have criticized the move, with Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) telling Education Week she “strongly oppose[s] the administration’s decision to pause the delivery of education formula grant funding.”

    The funding freeze represents part of a broader Trump administration effort to reshape federal education policy. The administration’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget would eliminate all six of the grant programs currently under review, as part of a 23 percent cut to domestic spending.

    Murray, a former teacher and longtime education advocate, has been a vocal critic of the administration’s education policies. She has previously blasted Trump’s plans to dismantle the Department of Education, calling the idea “terrible” and arguing that “Trump and Musk don’t know what it’s like to count on their local public school having the resources to get their kids the education they deserve.”

    The affected programs serve some of the nation’s most vulnerable student populations, including:

    • Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II-A) for teacher professional development
    • 21st Century Community Learning Centers (Title IV-B) for after-school programs
    • Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants (Title IV-A) for STEM education and school mental health
    • English Language Acquisition (Title III-A) for English language learners
    • Migrant Education (Title I-C) for children of migrant workers
    • Adult Basic and Literacy Education State Grants for adult education programs.

     

    Source link

  • US study abroad takes major step to protect federal funding

    US study abroad takes major step to protect federal funding

    Following a record-breaking advocacy campaign that saw 20,636 letters sent to Congress, the House of Representatives has set out drastically modified cuts to US cultural exchanges, which had been at risk of “decimation” under Trump’s previous proposed budget.  

    The new plans will shrink the funding cuts to the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) to 5.5% next year, as compared to the 93% initially announced in the proposed FY2026 budget.  

    Though the proposals still amount to a $41 million cut to current funding, “it’s nowhere close to the doomsday scenario of the [President’s budget request]” executive director of the Alliance for International Exchange Mark Overmann told The PIE News. 

    “This means that the conversation about FY26 is completely new. The President’s budget can be thrown out the window,” he said, welcoming the “significant show of support for exchanges from the House and a big win for us”. 

    The plans – laid out in the House Appropriations Bill on July 14 – propose a 22% cut to overall State Department funding and are the latest step in the FY26 budget process, expected to be finalised late this year.  

    The new legislation earmarks over $700m for ECA, a “surprising” figure and a vote of confidence in the value of educational and cultural exchanges. This includes $287 million for Fulbright.  

    “And this mark from the House means that our community’s advocacy has been heard,” said Overmann.  

    This means that the conversation about FY26 is completely new. The President’s budget can be thrown out the window.

    Mark Overmann

    Though there are still many steps to go, including a review by the Senate, the unexpected move is an encouraging development and a rare piece of good news for stakeholders who expected the worst after Trump’s “draconian” proposals this May. 

    While important, the President’s budget request has no sway over the final allocations, with stakeholders emphasising at the time of its release that it amounted to nothing more than a “wish list” and was not binding.  

    The true figures will be drawn from the House and Senate Appropriations, with the latter expected imminently.  

    Traditionally, the Senate has come in higher than the house for ECA funding, with stakeholders hopeful that the trend will continue this year.  

    The news has provided a glimmer of hope during an uncertain time for US study abroad, with 40 ECA employees caught up in the Trump administration’s mass layoffs of State Department staff last week.  

    Source link

  • Navajo Nation Considers Higher Ed Funding Boost

    Navajo Nation Considers Higher Ed Funding Boost

    A month after President Donald Trump proposed slashing some $105 million in federal funding for tribal colleges next year, the Navajo Nation is considering legislation that would provide $30 million in recurring annual funding for tribal colleges and scholarships, Native News Online reported Thursday. 

    The Health, Education and Human Services Committee of the 25th Navajo Nation Council passed the proposal earlier this week, but it still has to get the approval of the full council. If it does, Diné College, Navajo Technical University and the Office of Navajo Nation Scholarship and Financial Assistance would each get $10 million a year beginning in 2027, potentially indefinitely.

    The plan would more than double the current funding allocations for those institutions, which receive a total of $12.4 million from the Navajo Nation. Each one would be required to put at least 1 percent of the $10 million allocation toward support for Diné language teacher programs, institutional endowments and K–12 education pipeline efforts. 

    According to Council Delegate Andy Nez, who sponsored the legislation, fewer than half of Navajo students who apply for scholarships through ONNSFA get one. 

    “This legislation provides a stable source of funding that directly supports our students and institutions, while investing in the longevity of learners and Diné speakers,” he told Native News Online. “We are moving beyond limited five- or 10-year grants to a consistent, annual allocation. This ensures funds go directly to the institutions and scholarship office without delay.”

    (This story has been updated to correct the amount of federal funding cut.)

    Source link

  • University funding tied to antisemitism action – Campus Review

    University funding tied to antisemitism action – Campus Review

    Universities could be subject to a ’report card’ that assesses their responses to antisemitism, which could result in cut funding, according to Australia’s antisemitism envoy’s report released on Thursday.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • How funding policy has affected foundation year provision

    How funding policy has affected foundation year provision

    The coming academic year (2025-26) is the first in which classroom-based foundation year (FY) fees will be capped at a level below the higher level fee cap.

    For many who have experienced or supported foundation year tuition this is a retreat from a proven method for supporting people who have been failed by compulsory schooling in continuing their education. Critics would point to a few years of sustained growth, particularly in franchised provision, that is of more questionable quality and benefit.

    Foundation years are an anomaly in that they sit neither at level three (alongside other pre-university qualifications like A levels or the Access to HE Diploma [AHED]) or level four (alongside higher national diplomas, and the first years of both undergraduate degrees and higher technical qualifications). As such, they will face the worst of both worlds: level 3 funding (for classroom-based provision) covered by level 4 repayment rules and level 4 regulatory interventions.

    Why cut?

    In a ministerial statement that, in a dazzling display of self-awareness, actually used the phrase “fix the foundations” twice, the Secretary of State set a fee limit of £5,760 (the maximum current cost of an AHED, though in practice fees are nearer £4,000) as a maximum for “classroom-based” (non-STEM) foundation years on 4 November 2024.

    There’s a paragraph on the ostensible reasoning for this that is worth bearing in mind:

    The government recognises the importance of foundation years for promoting access to higher education, but they can be delivered more efficiently in classroom-based subjects, at a lower cost to students.

    This sounds more like an access-focused intervention rather than an attempt to cut provision, although it is rather divorced from the cost of provision. This is despite a 2023 report from IFF Research which noted that, based on the available data and on a series of interviews:

    the cost of delivering FY and the first year of a UG degree in the same subject area was found to be broadly similar

    Indeed, there were suggestions that FYs may actually work out more expensive, given the need for more contact time and the tendency towards smaller classes. We should leave aside for the moment the great difficulties we have in understanding the cost of higher education provision more generally, and note that the evidence base for this particular decision is weak. And there is, to be clear, a huge absence of meaningful data about FYs more generally – something DfE itself attempted (after a fashion) to remedy with an ad hoc data release in October of 2023.

    Review of routes

    If you were wondering where the impetus for this policy intervention originally came from, you have to look back to Philip Augar’s review of post-18 fees and funding back in 2019:

    We recommend that student finance is no longer offered for foundation years, unless agreed with the OfS in exceptional cases.

    In broad-brush terms, his argument was that foundation years did a similar job to some level 3 qualifications (specifically the Access to HE Diplomas) at greater cost: he characterised this as “enticing” underqualified students onto expensive four year degrees that may not be in their best interests.

    It was one of many largely arbitrary (and mercifully forgotten) Augar recommendations on higher education funding, to the credit of the previous government it was very much more aligned to addressing the value offered to students. As Michelle Donelan said in 2022:

    We also know that there are some people who need a second chance, an opportunity to get into higher education through a less conventional route. Often this route is through foundation years, but we think it is unfair that some of those who take advantage of this transformational opportunity have to pay over the odds. So we are reducing the fee limit for foundation years to make them more accessible and more affordable for those who need a second chance.

    Quantity and quality

    Okay. So, ignoring Augar, there’s never been an agenda to cancel or limit the availability of foundation years. The cuts are based (albeit on some quite shaky data) on reducing costs for students while maintaining affordability for providers.

    There is, however, widely reckoned to be a quality issue with some FYs offered via franchise or partnership arrangement – something which DfE did not appear to have considered in collecting data or commissioning reports.

    With the 2025 recruitment cycle mostly over, we now have the ability to assess how the sector has responded to these interventions via the Unistats dataset.

    As I never tire of telling people, Unistats is not perfect but it is useful. The big headline story we’ve tracked in recent years is a reduction in the number of undergraduate courses on offer overall – down 6 per cent between 2023 and 2024, and down a further 3 per cent between 2024 and 2025.

    Foundation supply

    But underneath this we lost one in ten courses with compulsory foundation years (courses that must start with a foundation year) between 2023 and 2024, and a further five percent between 2024 and 2025. The latter year also saw nearly 6 per cent of optional foundation years (courses that can include a foundation year if required) disappear.

    [Full screen]

    What about franchise provision? Using a unistats proxy (does the registered UKPRN match the display UKPRN, or is there an additional UKPRN for a different teaching location) it appears that the number of franchised compulsory foundation years grew from 90 in 2023 to 107 in 2024. This trend reversed between 2024 and 2025 (with numbers falling back below 80), but the number of optional franchised foundation years fell off a cliff after 2023: from 53 in 2023 to just 12 in 2024, and 13 in 2025.

    At a (top level) subject area the dominance of social sciences and business foundation years has declined a little – engineering foundation years have always been popular and have broadly persisted over the three years in question (and are the most popular by far at Russell Group providers). Among franchised provision business and management still dominates, but the last three years has seen a rise in the number of creative and engineering foundation years offered (largely with specialised providers as franchisers).

    Policy outcomes and policy intentions

    So, it all depends on how you take the impetus of the government’s change in foundation year policy. If it was a measure to reduce overall the number of classroom (non-STEM) foundation years it has had some questionable success, likewise if you believe it was a policy designed to limit the spread of franchised foundation year degrees.

    It is possible that it has driven savings within universities – allowing foundation years to be run more cheaply. This might explain things like the paradoxical rise in franchised foundation years in creative arts alongside a drop in non-franchised provision – smaller and less historically encumbered (and potentially lower quality) providers may be better at running these foundation years at a lower overall cost.

    Here’s who is offering these courses – and what they are.

    [Full screen]

    This defaults to FY provision in 2025 but is – with a bit of effort, a fascinating tool for looking over the complete three years of courses advertised to undergraduates.

    As usual, we are hugely short of data – the fact that unistats (of all things) offers the best lens on what is happening suggests that there’s nobody in DfE with an eye on what is going on.

    But rumours of the demise of the classroom based foundation year, or even the franchise model in providing this, are likely to be overstated. It remains to be seen, by whatever measure, whether the cut-price offer is as good.

    Source link

  • School districts grapple with ‘budgetary chaos’ in wake of federal funding freeze

    School districts grapple with ‘budgetary chaos’ in wake of federal funding freeze

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

    The U.S. Department of Education’s withholding of $6.2 billion in federal K-12 grants has local and state school systems scrambling to figure out how to make up for the budget shortages. It has also caused a swell of advocacy from families, lawmakers, educators and others across the nation.

    The withheld funds for fiscal year 2025 were expected to be released by the Education Department July 1. Programs at risk due to the funding hold include English learner services, academic supports, after-school programming and professional development. 

    The frozen funds represent at least 10% or more of states’ overall K-12 federal revenues if the money is not distributed, according to the nonpartisan Learning Policy Institute.

    At the local level, superintendents and principals are voicing concern about how the funding freeze will impact their school services, particularly those that serve English learners, homeless students and students from low-income families. 

    Chase Christensen, principal and superintendent of the 80-student Sheridan County School District #3 in rural Clearmont, Wyoming, said his district was expecting $30,000 in Title II and IV funding that is being withheld. 

    The district had nearly finalized its roughly $4 million budget for the upcoming school year when it learned of the federal funding freeze. It then adjusted the budget to remove those federal funds and is making up the difference by leaving a staffing position vacant.

    Although the budget adjustment means student services under those title programs can continue, Christensen said “every dollar of federal funding for education is impactful” at the individual student level.

    “When these funds are pulled, especially this late in the game for budget planning and everything else, students are going to be the ones that lose out,” Christensen said.

    Nationally, bigger districts have the largest funding gaps, according to a New America analysis of data from 46 states that had available funding figures. Those districts include Los Angeles Unified School District ($82 million), Florida’s Dade County School District ($38 million), and Nevada’s Clark County School District ($22 million).

    Advocacy groups and policymakers are calling on the Trump administration to restore the funds. The Boys and Girls Clubs of America, a nonprofit that supports afterschool programs, said the impact of the blocked funds will be “swift and devastating,” in a statement from President and CEO Jim Clark. 

    Clark said 926 Boys and Girls Clubs across the country could close, and 5,900 jobs would be lost if the funding is not released. “Afterschool and summer learning programs are cornerstones of academic success, public safety, and family stability for millions of young people — but right now, we stand at a dangerous tipping point,” Clark said. 

    The National English Learner Roundtable, a coalition of more than a dozen national and state-based organizations supportive of English learner services, said in a Thursday statement, “This unprecedented move by the Department has blindsided schools that have always been able to rely on these funds to support the start of the school year, and has created budgetary chaos for nearly every K-12 school district.” 

    On Thursday, 150 Democratic House lawmakers sent a letter to U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon and White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought demanding the title funds be released.

    “This late-breaking decision, which provided no timeline for which states can expect a final decision, is leaving states financially vulnerable and forcing many to make last minute decisions about how to proceed with K12 education in this upcoming school year,” the letter said.

    The funding hold has already led to staff layoffs, program delays and cancellations of services, the House members said.

    Spending under review

    The withheld funds were appropriated by Congress and approved by President Donald Trump earlier this year. States expected to gain access to the monies starting July 1, as routine. But the day before, on June 30, the Education Department told grantees not to expect the funds while it conducts a review and referred questions to OMB.

    The specific grant funding being withheld includes:

    • Title II-A for professional development: $2.2 billion.
    • Title IV-A for student support and academic enrichment: $1.4 billion.
    • Title IV-B for 21st Century Community Learning Centers: $1.3 billion.
    • Title III-A for English-learner services: $890 million.
    • Title I-C for migrant education: $375 million.

    On Thursday, in a statement to K-12 Dive, OMB said no funding decisions have been made and that it is conducting a “programmatic review of education funding.”

    The office also said, “initial findings show that many of these grant programs have been grossly misused to subsidize a radical leftwing agenda.”

    OMB and the Education Department have not indicated a timeframe for the review of the frozen federal funds.

    Source link

  • New Congressional Bill Targets College Sports Funding, Could Impact Campus Diversity Programs

    New Congressional Bill Targets College Sports Funding, Could Impact Campus Diversity Programs

    A bipartisan House bill introduced last Thursday aims to reshape college athletics by limiting how universities can fund sports programs while offering the NCAA limited antitrust protections—changes that could significantly affect institutional priorities and student access.

    The SCORE Act, backed by seven Republicans and two Democrats, faces uncertain prospects despite bipartisan support. While the House appears receptive, the bill would require at least seven Democratic votes in the Senate, where passage remains unlikely.

    The legislation addresses three key NCAA priorities: antitrust protections, federal preemption of state name-image-likeness (NIL) laws, and provisions preventing student-athletes from becoming university employees. These changes come as colleges navigate the fallout from a $2.78 billion settlement requiring institutions to compensate athletes directly.

    The bill’s prohibition on using student fees to support athletics could force difficult budget decisions at universities nationwide. This restriction strikes at proposed funding mechanisms as schools scramble to find up to $20.5 million annually for athlete compensation.

    Several institutions have already announced fee increases that would be affected. Clemson University implemented a $150 per-semester “athletic fee” this fall, while Fresno State approved $495 in additional yearly fees, with half designated for athletics. Such fees disproportionately impact students from lower-income backgrounds who already face rising educational costs.

    The financial pressures extend beyond student fees. Tennessee has introduced “talent fees” for season-ticket holders, Arkansas has raised concession prices, and numerous schools are seeking increased booster contributions—all reflecting the growing financial demands of competitive athletics.

    The legislation includes provisions aimed at protecting Olympic sports programs, which some fear could be eliminated as resources shift toward revenue-generating football and basketball. Schools with coaches earning over $250,000 would be required to offer at least 16 sports programs, mirroring existing NCAA Division I FBS requirements.

    This mandate could help preserve opportunities for student-athletes in traditionally underrepresented sports, many of which provide crucial scholarship pathways for diverse student populations. However, critics question whether this protection is sufficient given the magnitude of financial pressures facing athletic departments.

    The bill’s broader implications for Title IX compliance and gender equity in athletics remain unclear, as institutions balance new athlete compensation requirements with existing obligations to provide equal opportunities for male and female student-athletes.

     

    Source link

  • Research funding requires research capacity

    Research funding requires research capacity

    This year marks 100 years since the Leverhulme Trust was established. It’s a moment for us to reflect on the extraordinary research the Trust has supported over that period – but also to look forward.

    That’s why the Leverhulme Trust Board has decided to commit an additional £100 million to UK university research over the next few years, on top of our usual £120m annual spend.

    Investing in the future

    This is not a nostalgic gesture. It is a deliberate investment in a university sector that continues to deliver world-class research, even as it faces immense financial pressure. The UK’s research base is one of the country’s greatest assets. However, it is under strain, despite the welcome increase in funding for research and development in the recent spending review.

    Universities are grappling with rising costs and uncertainty around international student income. In this context, the Trust’s centenary investment is a celebration of the sector’s excellence and, we hope, a timely contribution to sustaining that excellence.

    We are directing this funding where we believe it can make the greatest difference: into blue skies research and supporting the next generation of researchers. These are areas where funding has become increasingly difficult to secure, and where we can therefore add the most value. We are, however, not changing our usual approach, which is to leave academics, who are at the forefront of their fields, to determine the questions that are most important and pressing.

    Blue sky bedrock

    Blue skies research – curiosity-driven, often interdisciplinary, and sometimes high-risk – is the core mission of the Trust. This kind of research is also the bedrock on which much social, technological and economic progress rests. It is easy to identify vitally important blue skies research retrospectively. Much harder to prove its value in advance.

    Our award to Kostya Novoselov early in his career looks prescient – he went on to win the Nobel for his work on graphene. But predicting which of the novel projects we fund will pay off in the long term is very tricky. While the Trust’s support for Chris Stringer’s work with the Natural History Museum completely changed our understanding of early human life in Britain, it’s hard to put a value on that.

    The need to demonstrate likely impact, combined with research funding streams that are more focused on specific economic priorities, has made it harder for some disciplines to pursue discovery research. The value of quality research (QR) funding in England, which was once the major source for discovery research, has also declined by 15 per cent since 2010.

    Yet, it is blue skies research that often leads to the most profound breakthroughs. Charity funding that is patient and takes risks can therefore make a real contribution here.

    Investment at every stage

    To that end, the Trust will use £50m to establish new research centres, each receiving up to £10 million to tackle big questions over a decade. This research centre model has proven to be highly effective, not only in addressing critical issues, but also in building research capacity. Previous Leverhulme Centres have contributed to areas such as climate change, wildfires, the origins of life, ethical AI, and demographic modelling, to name but a few.

    We are also investing in the next generation of researchers. We will commit an additional £20m to doctoral training, doubling our usual spend, to support approximately 200 PhD students. This is another area under financial pressure, particularly in some arts and humanities fields.

    This investment is not just about producing future academics. We know that not all PhD graduates will stay in academia. Nor should they. One of the strengths of the UK’s research system is its ability to develop talent that contributes across a range of sectors. I recently spoke with a Leverhulme-funded doctoral student whose work explores the ethics of algorithmic decision-making. Their research is deeply theoretical, but its implications are hugely practical. Whether they end up in academia, government, or industry, their skills will be vital in tackling the AI-related challenges ahead.

    And funding academics at the beginning of their career is only part of the story. Our centenary awards will support mid-career researchers in building their first research team, a challenging transition given the increasing teaching demands in some institutions. We will also provide funding to support aspiring scholars from underrepresented groups, as well as provide mentoring and networking opportunities. We want to ensure that talented individuals from all backgrounds can access research careers and thrive within them.

    Charity funding as part of a research ecosystem

    Charities like the Leverhulme Trust have long played a significant role in supporting UK research, contributing about £2 billion per annum in total. But charity funding is not designed to support the basic infrastructure of universities. This means that any grant we award to a university also requires a contribution from the institution itself because, like most charities, we do not cover overhead costs, which is undoubtedly a challenge for universities.

    As the Nurse Review highlighted, both domestic student teaching and university research are cross-subsidised from other income streams. Further, while the UK’s research system is one of the most productive and internationally connected in the world, it is also one of the most financially exposed and the model of relying on the cross-subsidy of research with income from international students has come under immense pressure.

    We therefore need to find additional ways to sustain the research capacity that underpins so much of the UK’s economic, social, and cultural life. This is not just about protecting and preserving what we have; it is about shaping what comes next. Research is not a luxury. It is a necessity, especially in a world facing complex challenges, from climate change to economic and technological disruptions.

    To maintain the UK’s position as a global research leader, we need a funding system that provides long-term stability.

    We hope our investment will not only help to sustain the intellectual ambition that defines the UK’s research community but also prompt a wider conversation – one about how we value research, how we fund it, and how we ensure that its benefits are shared as widely as possible.

    Source link

  • Penn Gets Funding Back After Agreeing to Trump’s Demands

    Penn Gets Funding Back After Agreeing to Trump’s Demands

    Penn had $175 million in federal funding frozen in March.

    Kyle Mazza/Anadolu/Getty Images

    After the University of Pennsylvania agreed to strip a trans athlete’s awards and comply with the Trump administration’s other demands, the Education Department said Wednesday that the university will get its federal funding back, Bloomberg News and CNN reported.

    The administration had paused $175 million in funding to the university because Penn “infamously permitted a male to compete on its women’s swimming team,” an official said in March. After the funding freeze, the Education Department said in April that Penn violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 by allowing Lia Thomas, a transgender woman, to compete on Penn’s women’s swimming team in 2022. (That decision followed NCAA policies at the time as well as Title IX.)

    In order to resolve the civil rights investigation, Penn had to agree to three demands including “restoring” swimming awards and honors that were “misappropriated” to trans women athletes and apologizing to cisgender women who competed with Thomas. Penn officials said this week that the agreement ends “an investigation that, if unresolved, could have had significant and lasting implications for the University of Pennsylvania.”

    After announcing the agreement, Penn quickly began complying. CNN reported that Thomas is no longer included on a list of women’s swimming records. The document now notes, according to CNN, that “competing under eligibility rules in effect at the time, Lia Thomas set program records in the 100, 200 and 500 freestyle during the 2021–22 season.”

    Source link