Tag: Politics

  • Una de cada cinco personas que proveen cuidado infantil es inmigrante.

    Una de cada cinco personas que proveen cuidado infantil es inmigrante.

    Nueve días después de que el presidente Donald Trump firmara órdenes ejecutivas con medidas enérgicas contra la inmigración ilegal, Damaris Alvarado-Rodríguez decidió cerrar un aula en una de sus guarderías en Filadelfia.

    A pesar de tener tarjetas de residencia, las maestras de ese salón de clases, en donde atienden a niños y niñas que tienen un año de edad, estaban demasiado nerviosas para ir a trabajar. Desde que Trump tomó posesión, sus funcionarios se han enfocado en Filadelfia y otras denominadas ciudades santuario donde se limita la cooperación en la aplicación de las leyes de inmigración. Los agentes de inmigración han estado presentes constantemente en los vecindarios donde están situados los tres centros de Alvarado-Rodríguez.

    “Tengo mucho miedo de cómo esto va a afectar a nuestros niños, familias y personal”, dijo.

    En un programa de cuidado infantil familiar en Albuquerque, Nuevo México, Maggie, de 47 años, quien fue abogada antes de emigrar desde México hace 10 años, también ha visto los rápidos efectos de las órdenes ejecutivas. Cinco de los 12 niños a su cuidado dejaron de presentarse. Maggie dijo a través de un intérprete que los padres deciden dejar a sus hijos pequeños con hermanos mayores o abuelos en lugar de con ella, es decir, que salen de casa solo para trabajar y así estar fuera del alcance de las autoridades lo más posible. (The Hechinger Report no utiliza los nombres completos de algunos de los entrevistados porque temen por su seguridad). 

    “Los padres dijeron: ‘Vamos a esperar a que las cosas se calmen’”, dijo Maggie.

    Relacionado: La educación es una labor de toda la vida. Suscríbete a nuestro boletín semanal gratuito, que incluye las noticias más importantes sobre el mundo de la educación.

    En Estados Unidos, 1 de cada 5 trabajadores de cuidado infantil es inmigrante. En ciudades grandes como Nueva York, los inmigrantes constituyen más del 40 % de la fuerza laboral de cuidado infantil. En Los Ángeles, es de casi el 50 %.

    “En la economía del cuidado infantil, los inmigrantes son la columna vertebral de este trabajo”, afirma Erica Phillips, directora ejecutiva de la Asociación Nacional de Cuidado Infantil Familiar. Estos educadores de la primera infancia se “dedican a prestar uno de los servicios más esenciales y con mayor impacto para los niños pequeños de todo el país”.

    Los expertos opinan que las órdenes ejecutivas de Trump amenazan dicha columna vertebral. Entre otros cambios, las órdenes amplían las normas sobre qué inmigrantes pueden ser deportados rápidamente, sin tener una audiencia; exigen que algunos no ciudadanos se registren y presenten huellas dactilares; y limitan los permisos de trabajo.

    Un patio de recreo en uno de los centros de cuidado infantil que Damaris Alvarado-Rodríguez dirige en Filadelfia. Alvarado-Rodríguez recientemente cerró una de las aulas porque varios maestros tenían miedo de ir a trabajar debido a posibles redadas de ICE. Credit: Image provided by Damaris Alvarado-Rodriguez

    Varios proveedores de cuidado infantil dijeron que la situación parece más grave que en años anteriores. La actual administración ha establecido cuotas diarias de aprehensiones de inmigrantes, lo que ha producido arrestos de más inmigrantes por día que el promedio bajo la administración anterior. Esto incluye a muchos sin antecedentes penales, que no eran el blanco de la ejecución de la ley bajo el expresidente Joe Biden. Asimismo, Trump ha impulsado medidas para terminar con el estatus legal de millones de personas pues propuso eliminar la ciudadanía por nacimiento.

    Estados Unidos no puede permitirse perder personal de cuidado infantil. Hay ya muchos programas que tienen problemas crónicos de rotación de trabajadores, lo que puede crear inestabilidad en las vidas de los niños y niñas a su cuidado. Las tasas de rotación en el sector de cuidado infantil son  65 % más altas que el promedio en otros sectores. Los salarios bajos (una trabajadora promedio de cuidado infantil gana 13,07 dólares la hora) dificultan la contratación de personal. A menudo, los cuidadores carecen de prestaciones y pueden ganar más al trabajar en restaurantes de comida rápida o en venta minorista. La pandemia debilitó la fuerza laboral, algo que se ha tardado en reponer. Para lidiar con la escasez de cuidadores infantiles, varios estados han intentado aprobar leyes que permitan a los adolescentes trabajar en dichas aulas. 

    “Ya estamos empezando desde un punto en el que no hay suficiente cuidado infantil, los programas están en apuros y la fuerza laboral ya está viviendo un estrés increíble”, dijo Lea Austin, directora ejecutiva del Centro para el Estudio del Empleo en el Cuidado Infantil de la Universidad de California en Berkeley. “Solo podemos esperar que esto vaya a devastar aún más todo el ecosistema de cuidado y educación temprana”.

    El país lleva mucho tiempo recurriendo a los inmigrantes para los trabajos de cuidado, incluido el cuidado infantil y otras labores como el cuidado de personas mayores. Los inmigrantes tienen mayor probabilidad de servir como cuidadores de “amistades, familiares y vecinos” al asumir acuerdos informales de atención donde hay flexibilidad y que son más populares entre padres de familia.

    Al desempeñar estas funciones de cuidado, los inmigrantes permiten que otros padres puedan trabajar. Se calcula que hay 142.000 inmigrantes indocumentados que trabajan como niñeras y asistentes de atención personal o de salud en el hogar en todo el país, lo que crea “un efecto multiplicador de productividad en toda la economía”, según una investigación del Center for American Progress. En la ciudad de Nueva York, la mayoría de las 14.000 niñeras de la ciudad son inmigrantes.

    Relacionado: ‘Hay una cultura de temor’: Estudiantes indocumentados agonizan ante comienzo del nuevo mandato de Trump

    En el norte de California, Adriana, una joven de 27 años que emigró de México hace dos años, dijo que quiere empezar a trabajar y que recientemente le ofrecieron un empleo en una compañía grande. No obstante, primero necesita encontrar una guardería para su bebé de 3 meses, y le preocupa que los funcionarios de inmigración la separen de su bebé. “Tengo miedo, sobre todo porque parece que podrán entrar en mi lugar de trabajo”, dijo a través de un intérprete. “Me preocupa dejar a mi bebé solo”.

    El Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas de EE. UU. (ICE, por sus siglas en inglés) no respondió a las múltiples solicitudes de comentarios. Una de las órdenes ejecutivas de Trump, firmada poco después de haber asumido el cargo, anuló las restricciones que impedían que ICE realice redadas en escuelas y programas de cuidado infantil.

     Las tarjetas rojas que ofrecen algunos programas de cuidado infantil y escuelas, como estas en un centro en Texas, tienen como objetivo ayudar a las familias a comprender sus derechos en caso de ser detenidas por agentes de inmigración. Credit: Jackie Mader/The Hechinger Report

    La política de inmigración puede tener un efecto paralizador en las comunidades, lo que hace que los inmigrantes eviten trabajos que podrían aumentar su visibilidad ante las autoridades, dijo Chris Herbst, profesor asociado de la Universidad Estatal de Arizona, que estudió el impacto de la política en el cuidado infantil entre 2008 y 2014. Debido a que el sistema de cuidado infantil de Estados Unidos depende tanto del trabajo de los inmigrantes, “los impactos son instantáneos”, añadió.

    En Albuquerque, Ana dirige un programa de cuidado infantil que atiende a 50 familias del área, la mayoría de las cuales son ciudadanas estadounidenses. Ana se fue de México en 2020 con su esposo y su hijo pequeño cuando la violencia aumentó en su estado natal de Sinaloa, y ahora le preocupa que la puedan deportar. Ese tipo de preocupación la comparte su personal: tres de sus 14 empleados han dejado de ir a trabajar por miedo a las redadas de inmigración.

    Recientemente, Ana y su esposo reunieron algunas pertenencias en caso de ser detenidos. Para prepararse, también han considerado certificar un documento de tutela encargando a su hijo de 3 años, que es ciudadano estadounidense, así como de su hijo de 8 años, que no es ciudadano, a un familiar. “Lo que nos motiva es mejorar la situación de nuestras familias, vivir en mejores lugares y aumentar las oportunidades para nuestros hijos”, dijo. “Esperamos que [los funcionarios de inmigración] persigan a los delincuentes y no intenten seguir o perseguir a personas que son buenas y trabajadoras”.

    Elida Cruz dirige un programa de cuidado infantil en el centro de California donde atiende a los hijos de trabajadores migrantes. Cruz opina que el miedo es palpable en algunos de los padres de familia; tanto ella como su esposo reparten víveres y transportan a los pequeños hacia y desde su programa de cuidado infantil para que los padres puedan limitar su tiempo fuera de casa. Su esposo escogió una palabra clave con una familia, la cual pronuncia tres veces para que los padres sepan que es seguro abrir la puerta.

    Relacionado: Las amenazas de deportación de Trump pesan sobre los grupos que ofrecen ayuda con la FAFSA

    Cruz, como muchas otras proveedoras de cuidado infantil, ha intentado educar a las familias inmigrantes sobre sus derechos al compartir con ellas recursos disponibles y entregarles “tarjetas rojas” que aconsejan a las personas sobre qué hacer si se les acercan agentes de inmigración. Además de preocuparse por los efectos en las familias y los niños, le preocupa qué sucederá si dichas familias se van. “Financieramente, sería la devastación de mi negocio”, dijo. “Tendría que cerrar. Me quedaría sin clientes, sin niños”, añadió. “Nuestros negocios se van a hundir porque todos dependemos de los trabajadores del campo”. 

    Puede que solo sea cuestión de tiempo: incluso los niños pequeños a su cargo parecen estar conscientes de que las cosas podrían cambiar en cualquier momento. “Es desgarrador ver las caritas de los niños, llenas de miedo”, dijo. Un niño preguntó si los agentes de inmigración vendrían a su centro.

    Cruz le dijo lo único que se le ocurrió, aunque sabía que era una mentira piadosa. 

    “Le dije: ‘¿Sabes por qué no van a venir aquí? … Porque ni siquiera tienen nuestra dirección, así que no saben que estamos aquí, mijo’”. 

    Camilla Forte contribuyó con el reportaje.

    Comunícate con Jackie Mader al 212-678-3562 o [email protected]

    Este artículo sobre el cuidado infantil fue producido por The Hechinger Report, una organización de noticias independiente sin fines de lucro centrada en la desigualdad y la innovación en la educación. Suscríbete a nuestro boletín de noticias.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Education nominee McMahon says she supports calls to dismantle the agency but that funding wouldn’t be affected

    Education nominee McMahon says she supports calls to dismantle the agency but that funding wouldn’t be affected

    Linda McMahon said she stands firmly behind President Donald Trump’s calls to gut the U.S. Department of Education at her confirmation hearing to lead the department.

    But she promised to work with Congress to do so — acknowledging some limits on the president’s authority as Trump seeks to remake the government through executive orders. And she tried to reassure teachers and parents that any changes would not jeopardize billions in federal funding that flows to high-poverty schools, special education services, and low-income college students.

    “We’d like to do this right,” McMahon said. “It is not the president’s goal to defund the programs, it is only to have it operate more efficiently.”

    Trump has called the Education Department a “con job” and said that McMahon, a former professional wrestling executive and billionaire Republican donor, should work to put herself out of a job. McMahon called this rhetoric “fervor” for change.

    The Trump administration’s chaotic approach to spending cuts so far raise questions about whether McMahon’s statements — an effort to neutralize the most significant criticism of plans to get rid of the Education Department — will prove true over time.

    Thursday’s hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, punctuated by occasional protests, served as a referendum of sorts on the value of the Education Department. Republicans said it had saddled schools with red tape without improving student outcomes. Democrats said the department protects students’ civil rights and funds essential services.

    Democrats also pressed McMahon on Trump’s threats to withhold federal funding from schools that violate his executive orders and on the details of a potential reorganization — questions that McMahon largely deflected as ones she could better answer after she takes office.

    “It’s almost like we’re being subjected to a very elegant gaslighting here,” said Sen. Maggie Hassan, a Democrat from New Hampshire.

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

    Even as Trump has called for the Education Department to be eliminated and schooling to be “returned to the states,” he’s also sought to expand its mission with executive orders threatening the funding of schools that employ diversity, equity, and inclusion practices or teach that racism and discrimination were part of America’s founding. The federal government is barred by law from setting local curriculum, as Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska pointed out during the hearing.

    In a tense exchange, Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut who’s championed school desegregation and diversity efforts in education, asked McMahon how schools would know if they were running a program that violates Trump’s executive order seeking to root out “radical indoctrination” in K-12 schools. Many schools have no idea what’s allowed, Murphy said, because the order doesn’t clearly define what’s prohibited.

    McMahon said in her view, celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Black History Month should be permitted, after Murphy noted that U.S. Department of Defense schools would no longer celebrate Black History Month in response to Trump’s order.

    But McMahon would not say that running affinity groups for students from certain racial or ethnic backgrounds, such as a Black engineers club or an after-school club for Vietnamese American students, was permitted. She also would not say whether schools might put their federal funding at risk by teaching an African American history class or other ethnic studies program.

    “That’s pretty chilling,” Murphy said. “You’re going to have a lot of educators and a lot of principals and administrators scrambling right now.”

    Later in the confirmation hearing, McMahon agreed schools should teach “the good, the bad, and the ugly” parts of U.S. history, and that it’s up to states, not the Department of Education, to establish curriculum.

    McMahon’s record on DEI has sometimes been at odds with the Trump administration. She backed diversity issues when she served on the Connecticut State Board of Education, the Washington Post reported.

    During her hearing, McMahon said DEI programs are “tough,” because while they’re put in place to promote diversity and inclusion, they can have the opposite effect. She pointed to examples of Black and Hispanic students attending separate graduation ceremonies — though those are typically held to celebrate the achievements of students of color, not to isolate them.

    Related: What might happen if the Education Department were closed?

    McMahon told the committee that many Americans are experiencing an educational system in decline — she pointed to sobering national test scores, crime on college campuses, and high youth suicide rates — and said it was time for a renewed focus on teaching reading, math, and “true history.”

    “In many cases, our wounds are caused by the excessive consolidation of power in our federal education establishment,” she said. “So what’s the remedy? Fund education freedom, not government-run systems. Listen to parents, not politicians. Build up careers, not college debt. Empower states, not special interests. Invest in teachers, not Washington bureaucrats.”

    Republican Senators reiterated these themes, arguing that bureaucrats in Washington had had their chance and that it was time for a new approach.

    They asked McMahon about Trump administration priorities such as expanding school choice, including private school vouchers, and interpreting Title IX to bar transgender students from restrooms and sports teams aligned with their gender identities.

    McMahon said she was “happy” to see the Biden administration’s rules on Title IX vacated, and she supported withholding federal funds from colleges that did not comply with the Trump administration’s interpretation of the law.

    Related: Trump wants to shake up education. What that could mean for a charter school started by a GOP senator’s wife

    Teachers unions and other critics of McMahon have said she lacks the proper experience to lead the Education Department, though McMahon and others have pointed to her time serving on the Connecticut State Board of Education, as a trustee of Sacred Heart University, and her role as chair of the America First Policy Institute, where she advocated for private school choice, apprenticeships, and career education.

    McMahon also ran the Small Business Administration in Trump’s first administration. Her understanding of the federal bureaucracy is an asset, supporters say.

    Sen. Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, said McMahon’s background made her uniquely suited to tackle the pressing challenges facing the American education system today.

    Related: What education could look like under Trump and Vance 

    McMahon said multiple times that parents of children with disabilities should not worry about federal funding being cut for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, though she said it was possible that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services would administer the money instead of the Education Department.

    But it appeared that McMahon had limited knowledge of the rights outlined in IDEA, the landmark civil rights law that protects students with disabilities. And she said it was possible that civil rights enforcement — a large portion of which is related to complaints about children with disabilities not getting the services to which they’re entitled — would move to the U.S. Department of Justice.

    Dismantling the education department by moving key functions to other departments is a tenet of Project 2025, the playbook the conservative Heritage Foundation developed for a second Trump administration. Most of these functions are mandated in federal law, and moving them would require congressional approval.

    McMahon struggled to articulate the goals of IDEA beyond saying students would be taken care of and get the assistance and technology they need.

    “There is a reason that the Department of Education and IDEA exist, and it is because educating kids with disabilities can be really hard and it takes the national commitment to get it done,” Hassan, the New Hampshire senator, said. “That’s why so many people are so concerned about this proposal to eliminate the department. Because they think kids will once again be shoved aside, and especially kids with disabilities.”

    McMahon also could not name any requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act, the federal law that replaced No Child Left Behind. ESSA requires states to identify low-performing schools and intervene to improve student learning, but it gives states more flexibility in how they do so than the previous law.

    McMahon seemed open to reversing some of the cuts enacted by the U.S. DOGE Service, the cost-cutting initiative led by billionaire Elon Musk.

    She said, if confirmed, she would look into whether staff who’d been placed on administrative leave — including some who investigate civil rights complaints — should return. She also said she’d assess the programs that were cut when DOGE terminated 89 contracts at the Institute of Education Sciences and 29 training grants.

    Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, said her office had heard from a former teacher who developed an intensive tutoring strategy that was used in a dozen schools in the state. The teacher had a pending grant application to evaluate the program and its effect on student outcomes, and the teacher worried it would be in jeopardy. Collins asked if the department should keep collecting that kind of data so it could help states determine what’s working for kids.

    “I’m not sure yet what the impact of all of those programs are,” McMahon said. “There are many worthwhile programs that we should keep, but I’m not yet apprised of them.”

    The Senate education committee is scheduled to vote on McMahon’s confirmation on Feb. 20.

    This story was produced by Chalkbeat and reprinted with permission. 

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Politics determines whether Americans believe their free speech rights will be protected.

    Politics determines whether Americans believe their free speech rights will be protected.

    A new poll from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression finds that conservative and very conservative Americans have more confidence that President Trump will protect their First Amendment rights than Gov. Gavin Newsom or the Supreme Court. Liberal and very liberal Americans are skeptical that any of them will protect their first amendment rights, though they are most confident in Newsom.

    The fifth installment of FIRE’s National Free Speech Index further reveals that there is a partisan disagreement about the security of free speech in America and whether or not it is headed in the right direction. When it comes to whether people are able to freely express their views, conservatives are more likely to think that things in America are heading in the right direction and are likely to think that the right to freedom of speech is secure in America today, compared to liberals.

    This was not the case three months ago. 

    Overall, when it comes to whether people are able to freely express their views, 41% of Americans think things in America are heading in the right direction, up 5% from October when 36% of Americans felt this way. Yet, compared to last year, liberals and conservatives have swapped their perspectives on the direction freedom of speech is headed in America in this month’s survey. In July of last year, 31% of very liberal and 45% of liberal Americans reported that freedom of speech in America is headed in the right direction while just 16% of conservative and 20% of very conservative Americans reported the same. Then, in October, 46% of very liberal and 49% of liberal Americans reported the same while just 18% of conservative and 30% of conservative Americans did. 

    This month however, more conservative (52%) and very conservative (49%) Americans reported thinking things in America are heading in the right direction when it comes to freedom of speech compared to moderate (42%), liberal (34%) or very liberal (31%) Americans. After October last year, a drastic shift in ideological perspective on the state of free speech occurred between liberals and conservatives. While liberal and very liberal Americans were more likely to think that things in America were heading in the right direction in October, in January, conservative and very conservative Americans are now the ones most likely to report the same.

    In addition, last year, very liberal and liberal Americans reported much more confidence than conservative and very conservative Americans in the security of free speech in America. In July, 41% of very liberal and 30% of liberal Americans reported that the right of freedom of speech in America was “not at all” or “not very” secure while 49% of conservative and 61% of very conservative Americans reported the same. 

    In October, the partisan divide grew larger, with 32% of very liberal and 27% of liberal Americans reporting that the right of freedom of speech in America was “not at all” or “not very secure” while 55% of conservative and 60% of very conservative Americans reported the same. 

    The large partisan divide between the liberals and conservatives and the swap in their political viewpoints on free speech this month may be startling but a clear indication of how Americans are reacting to the outcome of the presidential election. 

    Yet, this month, liberals and conservatives have swapped their perspectives on the security of free speech in America, with 46% of very liberal and 36% of liberal Americans reporting “not at all” or “not very secure” and 29% of conservative and 41% of very conservative Americans reporting the same, showcasing conservatives’ growing trust that their free speech rights are secure.

    Moderates, on the other hand, have remained consistent in their views over the last six months, with approximately 40% of moderates reporting that the freedom of speech in America was “not at all” or “not very secure”.

    This quarter’s survey makes evident the ideological trends among Americans and their perspectives on the security and condition of their free speech rights. The large partisan divide between the liberals and conservatives and the swap in their political viewpoints on free speech this month may be startling but a clear indication of how Americans are reacting to the outcome of the presidential election. 

    Source link

  • What the federal freeze on spending means for education 

    What the federal freeze on spending means for education 

    UPDATE: After a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from freezing federal grants and loans, the White House rescinded its request that distribution of those grants and loans freeze should be paused. 

    A late-night directive from the White House budget office Monday that appeared to freeze streams of federal dollars that pay for everything from school lunches to university research is facing immediate legal challenges — after first stunning the education world.

    “There is no question this policy is reckless, dangerous, illegal, and unconstitutional,” said New York Attorney General Leticia James, one of the first to announce a lawsuit against the Trump administration freeze. “When Congress dedicates funding for a program, the president cannot pull that funding on a whim.” 

    After widespread confusion, the administration clarified that some education aid would not be affected, specifying Pell Grants and federal student loans. In addition, according to Education Department spokeswoman Madi Biedermann, the pause does not affect Title I funding that supports K-12 schools with many low-income students, IDEA grants for students with disabilities or other so-called formula grants.

    Many questions are still unanswered, however. What triggered the confusion: a two-page memo sent to government agencies late Monday by Matthew J. Vaeth, acting director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. It said federal agencies must pause distributing grant or loan money until after they review that spending to ensure it does not run afoul of the executive orders President Donald Trump has issued since he took office last week. Agencies have until Feb. 10 to report back on spending that runs counter to the executive orders, “including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.”

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education.

    White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt later said federal money sent directly to individuals — in the form of Medicare, Social Security benefits, food stamps and welfare benefits, among other aid — also would not be affected by the pause.

    Biermann, the Education spokeswoman, said the department “is working with OMB to identify other programs that are not covered by the memo.”

    The Hechinger Report is working to decipher some of the effects of the pause. This article will be updated. Send your questions to [email protected].

    Is Head Start affected?

    The federal grant that funds early childhood programs for low-income children is not at risk under the freeze, according to a memo issued on Tuesday by the Office of Management and Budget and reported by Bloomberg News and other outlets. The clarification ended several hours of speculation and fear among advocates and program officials that the federally-funded early learning program would be cut off from funding.

    Still, several Head Start providers who logged into their payment system Tuesday morning found a message that warned payments could be delayed due to “potentially unallowable grant payments,” according to The Huffington Post. But later Tuesday, the National Head Start Association said “Head Start agencies are not included in the list of federal grants and loans whose funds are frozen. Agencies have been able to access funds through the Payment Management System.”

    Read more: The Hechinger Report wrote about how Head Start programs are still funded by a formula set in the 1970s.

    What does this mean for Child Care and Development Block Grants (CCDBG)?

    It is unclear whether the block grant — which provides federal funding for states to improve child care quality and run subsidy programs to help low income families pay for care — will be touched by the freeze. The Administration for Children and Families did not address the question in response to a request for comment.

    Some early childhood experts suspect the grant will be affected, which could have repercussions for the children and programs that rely on those funds. “Trump and his administration are going out of their way — even circumventing the law — to deprive children and the people who care for them the resources they need to ensure safe and nurturing environments for our kids,” said Julie Kashen, director of women’s economic justice and senior fellow at The Century Foundation, in a statement.

    Read more: The Hechinger Report examined how child care block grant funds are stretched too far to help all the families that are eligible. 

    What about school lunch?

    School cafeterias rely on monthly payments from the federal government to cover the cost of food labor and supplies. It isn’t clear whether those payments will be affected, the School Nutrition Association, an organization that represents people who work in school cafeterias, said. It was hoping for more clarity from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Grants do pay for other types of school food programs, such as the Farm to School Program, which incorporates local foods into school meals.  

    Does the pause affect student loans or Pell grants? What about federal Work Study?

    Loans and Pell Grants are not affected by the funding pause because their funding goes directly to individual students, according to Biedermann, the U.S. Department of Education spokeswoman.

    But Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, which represents more than 1,600 colleges and universities, told the Boston Globe that his team believes that work-study programs are included in the freeze. Many students rely on these programs to earn money to help pay for college.

    What about grants for HBCUs and MSIs (Minority Serving Institutions)? 

    The Education Department said the freeze will not affect grant programs for historically Black colleges and universities and predominantly Black institutions, the Washington Post reported. The federal government provides these colleges with money for a host of programs, including graduate education, science programs and infrastructure.

    A department spokesperson told the Post that “the administration strongly supports HBCUs and MSIs [Minority Serving Institutions]. Funds flowing under those grant programs will not be paused, but we will work to ensure the programs are in line with the President’s priorities.”

    Read more: The Hechinger Report dug into schools where Pell Grant recipients have a track record of success.

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

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Politics and international relations has grown over the last decade – but unevenly

    Politics and international relations has grown over the last decade – but unevenly

    The world seems an uncertain place to live in as we begin 2025: growing levels of conflict and instability across the globe, democratic institutions under pressure, and civic infrastructure being tested by the raging unpredictability of the natural world. Has there ever been a more appropriate time for people, young or old, to study politics? Has there ever been a time when we have been more in need of the expertise of political scientists, theorists, and scholars of international relations to help us make sense of this complex and changing world?

    It feels timely, therefore, that we at the British Academy are publishing a report on the provision of politics and international relations in the UK. This report is the latest in a series of state of the discipline reports from our SHAPE Observatory. It aims to take the temperature of the discipline by examining the size and shape of the sector and observing key trends over the past decade or so.

    Going for growth

    One of the key themes that emerged from our report was expansion. Compared to 2011–12, there has been a 20 per cent increase in first degree students and a 41 per cent increase in postgraduate taught students taking politics and international relations. The number of academic staff has also increased by 52 per cent since 2012–13.

    With this expansion has come diversification, both among students and staff. There are now more female students studying this traditionally male-dominated subject and the proportion of first degree students from minoritised ethnic backgrounds has increased by eight percentage points since 2011–12. Over the same period, the number of international students from outside the EU has more than doubled. The workforce is also becoming more international, with notable increases in staff from outside Europe and North America.

    All of this is positive, as it shows there is still strong demand for the discipline in the UK and that both students and scholars want to come here from around the world to work and study. In interviews we conducted with academic staff, there was a strong emphasis on the positive effects of this diversification. It was argued that the learning and research environment is enriched by bringing a range of perspectives and backgrounds onto campus.

    Uneven development

    But when you scratch beneath the surface of the aggregate numbers, another picture starts to emerge. When we looked at student numbers by institution, it became clear that changes have been highly uneven across the sector since 2011–12. A stark difference was observable, for example, between the average change in student numbers at Russell Group institutions and the rest of the sector:

    Number of institutions Mean change in student numbers
    Russell Group 23 320.2
    Pre-92 other 39 -24.7
    Post-92 51 -16.8

    Mean change (FPE) in first degree student numbers, 2011–12 to 2021–22

    So, if this is a story of expansion, it is really a story of a select few institutions that have expanded remarkably, while the rest of the sector has seen its share of politics and international relations students dwindle over the past few years.

    This pattern will be familiar to some at the institutional level, particularly in England and Wales, where caps on student numbers have been removed. Yet the overall institutional picture can mask ups and downs in recruitment within the same university, along with any restructuring of departments and course portfolios. Isolating changes in student numbers for a single disciplinary area is therefore very revealing.

    Growing pains

    So what are the implications of these changes? More students are engaging with the discipline, and in England and Wales more are able to attend their first-choice destination. Those working within departments at research-intensive universities may argue that the expansion of their department has preserved a degree of pluralism in research activity and practice. The UK has a proud history of political theory, for example, and this sub-field continues to carve out a notable space in the disciplinary landscape – something not mirrored in other leading research nations.

    However, the divergence in recruitment has clearly had a destabilising impact on some politics departments. The redistribution of students across the UK has real-world consequences, leading in some instances to internal restructuring and even departmental closures. Amid gloomy forecasts for the sector, mounting financial pressures, and announcements of course closures in all manner of disciplines, the risk of an uneven balance of course provision has come into sharp focus.

    Mind the gap(s)

    It is in this context that the British Academy recently launched a new map showing changing SHAPE provision in UK higher education over a decade. The picture for politics and international relations is broadly positive, with good coverage across the country at least at the regional level. However, when you exclude students with prior qualifications above the average tariff for the discipline, there is a notable absence of people studying single honours degrees in politics and international relations in the central belt of Scotland.

    The question of access to the discipline is an important one that deserves more detailed exploration at a local level. Many of the institutions that have seen a drop in their student intake are the same universities that would argue they are most adept at reaching local communities where access to higher education is lowest. Moreover, they would likely contend that they are best placed to support these students to succeed at university.

    In an era where more of the learning experience is being digitised and moved online, and where the numbers of commuter students are increasing, perhaps the concentration of politics and international relations students at fewer universities is less of an issue. Institutions are being asked to do more with less, and from a technocratic perspective, this can create economies of scale. Whether this is in the long-term interest of students is questionable. Moreover, ever-concentrating provision does seem antithetical to the notion of addressing regional inequalities, and it runs counter to the government’s ambitions to boost local R&D.

    A question of sustainability

    The question that emerges is not whether this is a problem, but whether it is sustainable.

    There is a great deal of discussion about how current disruption in higher education will spill over into the research base. When we interviewed those working in the field, the diversity of the politics and international relations sector was identified as a key strength, and as one of the elements that contributes to its enviable reputation around the globe. Once a department is gone, it is very hard to reestablish.

    In these volatile times, facing global challenges, politics and international relations has so much to offer both students and wider society. Let’s hope the discipline continues to thrive here in the UK for many years to come.

    Source link