Tag: Program

  • Where the federal school choice program stands

    Where the federal school choice program stands

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

    School choice advocates and public school supporters are eagerly awaiting details of the nation’s first federally funded tax credit scholarship — a program that could accelerate private school choice participation while funneling taxpayer dollars to private schools.

    Approval of the first nationwide private school choice program came in the Republican-led “One Big, Beautiful Bill” signed by President Donald Trump on July 4. 

    The U.S. Department of Treasury is expected to issue proposed rules detailing how the program will operate, including how states can opt in and what guardrails will be put on managing the scholarships. However, it’s unclear where this work stands and whether the prolonged federal government shutdown has delayed this work.

    The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to an inquiry from K-12 Dive on Wednesday about the status of the rule.

    The new law allows any taxpayer to donate up to $1,700 annually to a scholarship-granting 501(c)(3) organization, or SGO. That donor would then be eligible for a 100% federal income tax credit for their contribution. The contributions could then be used toward private school tuition at secular and religious schools, homeschooling materials, and expenses at public or private schools. 

    The money generated from contributions could add up to $101 billion per year if all 59 million taxpayers chose to claim the credit, according to a July analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. However, the institute predicts not all taxpayers would participate.

    Taxpayers can begin making contributions to scholarship-granting organizations beginning Jan. 1, 2027. States need to opt in to participate. 

    Advocating for and against federal scholarships

    Since the omnibus budget was signed into law, supporters and critics of the tax credit scholarship provision have been voicing concerns and questions. For instance, a coalition of more than 200 national and state organizations that support education freedom wrote to the Treasury Department on Oct. 24 to offer their recommendations as the agency begins to write proposed regulations, according to the letter posted by Tax Analysts, a nonprofit tax publisher. 

    The group suggested that there be consistent requirements for scholarship-granting organizations and clarity on the timeline for when states submit lists of qualified SGOs.

    “We believe the three guiding principles for rulemaking are to make it: as easy as possible for as many families as possible to access scholarships for their children; as easy as possible for scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs) to participate and provide scholarships; and, as easy as possible for taxpayers to contribute to SGOs,” the letter said.

    ACE Scholarships, a Denver-based nonprofit scholarship-granting organization that operates in 13 states, is part of that coalition. Jackie Guglielmo, vice president of services, said ACE has been busy fielding inquiries from SGOs, families and schools about the new program. It has also worked to help Treasury Department staff understand how current SGOs support private school choice programs. 

    The Treasury Department is “really looking to us to understand the operations,” said Guglielmo, who anticipates proposed regulations will be released early next year.

    The organization is also meeting with state leaders to discuss their potential participation, Guglielmo said. “I think a very, very important part of this initiative that’s sometimes overlooked is that both private and public students are eligible to receive the scholarship, and that’s something that’s really exciting.”

    Arne Duncan, who served as U.S. education secretary in the Obama administration, recently co-wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post urging states to participate. “Opting in doesn’t take a single dollar from state education budgets. It simply opens the door to new, private donations, at no cost to taxpayers, that can support students in public and nonpublic settings alike,” the op-ed said.

    Meanwhile, organizations critical of the fledgling program are urging states not to opt-in. Although the program includes taxpayer contributions to public schools, people should be aware of the “potential ramifications of opening the door to a voucher scheme that is ultimately designed to benefit private and religious schools,” according to a Sept. 15 fact sheet from Public Funds for Public Schools and the Education Law Center.

    Public school supporters are concerned the program will lead to reduced funding for public schools and worry about educational equity and accountability at private schools. 

    Source link

  • University of Nebraska-Lincoln leader reduces program cuts from 6 to 4

    University of Nebraska-Lincoln leader reduces program cuts from 6 to 4

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

    Dive Brief:

    • University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s chancellor on Monday unveiled a final budget recommendation that would cut four academic programs at the university, two fewer than he originally proposed in September.
    • However, Chancellor Rodney Bennett’s new plan would eliminate two programs that a university committee voted to recommend keeping. His proposal also comes amid concerns raised by faculty over program evaluation metrics and the budget reduction process.
    • The program cuts would trim $6.7 million from UNL’s budget, mainly through doing away with roughly four dozen full-time equivalent jobs. Bennett’s proposal also calls for merging four academic departments into two new schools and reducing budgets at four UNL colleges.

    Dive Insight:

    Ultimately, Bennett proposed axing UNL’s departments of Earth and atmospheric sciences; educational administration; statistics; and textiles, merchandising and fashion design — all as part of an effort to save $27.5 million annually to address a structural deficit. 

    He spared two programs that he recommended cutting earlier: landscape architecture, and community and regional planning. The University of Nebraska System’s regents plan to consider Bennett’s final recommendations at their December meeting. 

    Bennett’s initial proposal — and how he arrived at his recommended cuts — drew opposition from affected faculty and other stakeholders.

    Based on hearings and nearly 3,000 filed comments, UNL’s Academic Planning Committee — made up of faculty, staff, administrators and students — voted in October to oppose closing four of the programs in Bennett’s original plan. 

    Two of those programs — statistics, and Earth and atmospheric sciences — are nonetheless on the chopping block in Bennett’s final plan. 

    The committee didn’t oppose Bennett’s plans to cut the educational administration and textiles programs, or to merge UNL’s departments of entomology and plant pathology into one interdisciplinary school and the departments of agricultural economics and agricultural leadership, education and communication into another.

    However, the committee called on Bennett and UNL leaders to extend the timeline for making existential decisions about any of the programs. 

    “We strongly recommend to the Chancellor, the President, and the Board of Regents that the approval of any budget cuts be delayed allowing time for units to identify creative alternative solutions that reduce or prevent the need for these cuts,” the committee said in an Oct. 24 memo. But Bennett and UNL leaders appear undeterred and are sticking with their original timelines. 

    The committee also pointed to concerns raised by UNL stakeholders about the metrics and data that officials used to decide on programs. 

    Faculty members have said that the data was incomplete and sometimes incorrect and that the administration wasn’t transparent with them about how programs were being statistically evaluated. They also contended that the programs’ full value to the university and state weren’t taken into account. 

    UNL officials reviewed the programs “in accordance with performance metrics that align with UNL standards and external accountability frameworks,” Bennett said in a public message Monday. “The metrics were also shaped through extensive consultation in the spring with academic deans, college leadership teams, department executive officers and the APC.”

    Still, some faculty continued to slam the metrics for a lack of transparency. 

    “What are these new performance expectations, and where do we find them?” Sarah Zuckerman, an educational administration professor at UNL and head of its American Association of University Professors chapter, said in a Tuesday blog post titled “No Real Metrics, Only Vibes.” UNL’s AAUP chapter has actively opposed the cuts. 

    Zuckerman added, “This feels like not only have administrators changed the rules of the game while it is still being played, but they didn’t bother to tell us.”

    UNL’s faculty senate plans to consider a no confidence vote for Bennett on Nov. 18 over his handling of the budget cuts.

    Source link

  • First neurodiversity uni program teaches inclusivity – Campus Review

    First neurodiversity uni program teaches inclusivity – Campus Review

    Southern Cross University has launched the first specialised university programs in neurodiversity and the circular economy in Australia to attract new students.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • University of Nebraska-Lincoln committee opposes most academic program cuts

    University of Nebraska-Lincoln committee opposes most academic program cuts

    An academic advisory group at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln has opposed most of the program cuts recommended by the institution’s chancellor and is calling for more time before considering major budget reductions. 

    A majority of the Academic Planning Committee members voted against eliminating four of the six programs put on the chopping block by UNL Chancellor Rodney Bennett in September as part of an effort to save $27.5 million annually. 

    The 21-person committee — composed of 10 faculty members as well as deans, administrators, staffers and students — officially issued its recommendation to Bennett in an Oct. 24 memo. 

    Bennett plans to issue his final recommendation in the coming weeks, and the University of Nebraska System regents will consider it in December. 

    In the memo, the committee pointed to concerns raised by faculty about the process Bennett and other UNL leaders used to determine which academic programs to slash. Those issues largely revolved around potential problems with the metrics and the short evaluation period used to make permanent decisions. 

    “We strongly recommend to the Chancellor, the President, and the Board of Regents that the approval of any budget cuts be delayed allowing time for units to identify creative alternative solutions that reduce or prevent the need for these cuts,” the committee said. 

    In a note Friday, Bennett thanked the committee for its work and said, “I am now carefully reviewing the APC’s recommendations and continuing consultations with our shared governance partners before finalizing the budget reduction plan.”

    A ‘top-down’ process for judging programs

    Over the past month, the academic planning committee has been collecting feedback from UNL stakeholders through hearings and nearly 3,000 submitted comments, the memo noted.

    Many questioned the validity and usefulness of the statistical metrics and data used to evaluate programs, while also accusing the administration of not being transparent about those measures. 

    Those metrics led to Bennett’s proposal that UNL permanently eliminate degrees in community and regional planning; Earth and atmospheric sciences; educational administration; landscape architecture; statistics; and textiles, merchandising and fashion design.

    In past budget deliberations, deans were given a target for reductions and could design unit-specific ways to meet goals, a process the committee described as “bottom-up.” 

    “In the current process, metrics were used in a ‘top-down’ approach to identify lower-performing units, and then a holistic review of those units was undertaken by upper administration,” the committee said. 

    Moreover, leaders only shared metrics to make program decisions confidentially with deans and the academic planning committee, which left faculty scrambling to understand those measures. 

    “No one was able to fully validate the metrics, either through confirming the accuracy of the underlying data or via analysis to confirm that the metrics were statistically valid ways to quantify the desired performance indicators,” the committee said. 

    For example, faculty from multiple units said that programs were revenue-positive, meaning cutting them would cost the university more in lost revenue than it saved in expenses. Others pointed to the extension work done by programs that make them important to the state and help UNL fulfill its mission as a public land-grant university. 

    But the comments from faculty and other UNL stakeholders weren’t just critical — they were also creative, suggesting alternative ways that programs and the university could save on costs or generate new revenue, the committee said. In fact, every unit had ideas of ways to generate revenue and save costs.

    “Given that a budget deficit has been looming for years, it is unfortunate that the process was invoked with so little time to engage the creativity and collective intelligence of the full University community,” the committee said. “When the energy of our faculty, staff, students, and stakeholders is unleashed on the problem of the budget deficit, creative and selfless solutions can emerge.”

    Source link

  • UC to Stop Funding Systemwide Postdoc Program

    UC to Stop Funding Systemwide Postdoc Program

    To date, the system has spent $162 million on fellows’ salaries, averaging about $7.36 million per year.

    Juliana Yamada/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

    Starting next fall, the University of California system office will no longer pay for the UC President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program, a fellowship established in 1984 to encourage more women and minority Ph.D.s to pursue academic careers.

    The fellowship program, available at all 10 UC campuses and three national laboratories, has inspired numerous copycats at other state universities, including at the University of Maryland, the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities, the University of Michigan and Pennsylvania State University. But its focus on recruiting diverse candidates has also been criticized by conservatives who claim it’s a pipeline for young hires with radical leftist politics.

    The UC system office will stop providing financial support for the program beginning with fellows hired after summer 2025, a system spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed. Since 2003, the UC system office has paid the $85,000 salaries of PPFP fellows for their first five years on the faculty; then the UC campus where they are employed takes over. To date, the system has spent $162 million on PPFP faculty salaries, averaging about $7.36 million per year.

    “Due to the severe budget constraints currently facing UC, the PPFP faculty hiring incentive is sunsetting as of fall 2025,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “While the University will continue to provide five years of salary support to PPFP fellows hired by summer 2025 and in earlier years, no new incentives will be provided going forward. Campuses will still be able to hire PPFP fellows as part of their normal search and hiring processes, but the additional financial contribution from the incentive program will no longer be available.”

    The University of California system is facing a decline in state funding and pressure from the Trump administration to implement a number of changes that weaken or abolish diversity, equity and inclusion practices. In March, former system president Michael Drake announced a systemwide hiring freeze and other cost-saving measures. At the same time, the system board prohibited campus officials from asking job candidates to submit a diversity statement as part of the hiring process. In August, the Trump administration demanded that the University of California, Los Angeles, pay a $1.2 billion fine for allegedly failing to address antisemitism on campus, as well as overhaul numerous policies related to admissions, hiring, athletics, scholarships, gender identity and discrimination.

    In a thread posted to Bluesky, Sarah Roberts, a professor of information studies, gender studies and labor studies at UCLA, called the PPFP program a “jewel in the crown for faculty development and recruitment at the University of California.”

    “To my mind, not only is this a direct attack by a UC central admin content to capitulate and emulate the federal position that arrived via extortion letter, it is part of a much larger plan, congruent with UC central admin, of weakening and eliminating faculty governance and power,” Roberts wrote about the decision to end funding for the program.

    Despite its origins, the PPFP no longer explicitly seeks women and minority candidates and instead considers applicants “whose life experiences and educational background would help to broaden the perspectives represented in the faculty of the University of California,” according to the website.

    This is a recent change; in 2024, the PPFP webpage included the tagline “advancing excellence through faculty diversity.” The criteria also stated that “faculty reviewers will evaluate candidates according to their academic accomplishments, the strength of their research proposal, and their potential for faculty careers that will contribute to diversity and equal opportunity through their teaching, research and service. Faculty reviewers also may consider the mentor’s potential to work productively with the candidate and commitment to equity and diversity in higher education.”

    The PPFP, and fellow-to-faculty programs at large, have drawn criticism from conservatives including John D. Sailer, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who has written extensively on the programs. He believes they allow universities to recruit scholars who “embrace positions on the fringes of leftist politics.”

    “Ideological screening has downstream consequences for our sensemaking institutions,” Sailer wrote in a February article. “Ultimately, the fellow-to-faculty model pushes conformity across once-distinct academic fields. As the UC professor put it, ‘it erodes disciplinary boundaries,’ flattening all forms of inquiry into a discussion of race and oppression.”

    Source link

  • Education Department tightens debt relief program for public servants

    Education Department tightens debt relief program for public servants

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Education on Thursday released final regulations that will bar organizations the agency deems as having a “substantial illegal purpose” from being a qualifying employer for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.
    • The Trump administration’s new rule will exclude organizations from the PSLF program that it determines to be “supporting terrorism and aiding and abetting illegal immigration,” among other activities, according to Thursday’s announcement. 
    • Several advocacy groups immediately vowed to challenge the rule in court. They and other opponents argue the agency is politicizing the PSLF program and will use the new rule to remove organizations with goals not aligned with the Trump administration, such as providing gender-affirming care or supporting undocumented immigrants. 

    Dive Insight: 

    Congress created the PSLF program in 2007 to allow college graduates who work for government employers, including school districts, and certain nonprofits to receive debt relief on their student loans after making a decade of qualifying payments. 

    Many borrowers initially struggled to get relief through the program due to confusing eligibility requirements and loan servicer issues. As of April 2018, for example, just 55 workers had received debt relief through PSLF, according to a report that year from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

    To address the problems, the Biden administration eased some of the program’s requirements in October 2022 for one year. The administration also released regulations that expanded which loan payments counted toward PSLF beginning in 2023. 

    By October 2024, over 1 million workers had received relief through the program during the Biden administration, the White House said at the time. 

    But in a March executive order directing the Education Department to change PSLF’s eligibility requirements, President Donald Trump accused the prior administration of abusing the program by relaxing its requirements. Trump also contended that the program sent tax dollars to “activist organizations” that harm national security and undermine American values. 

    The Education Department’s final rule, which takes effect July 2026, is meant to carry out the executive order. It will bar organizations from the PSLF program if the Education Department determines they illegally: 

    • Aided and abetted violations of federal immigration law. 
    • Aided and abetted illegal discrimination. 
    • Supported terrorism or engaged in violence “for the purpose of obstructing or influencing Federal Government policy.”
    • Engaged in “chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children” —  a common conservative description of providing gender-affirming care for transgender minors.  
    • Engage in the “trafficking of children” across state lines to emancipate them from their parents. 
    • Have a pattern of violating state laws. 

    The U.S. education secretary will determine whether employers have a “substantial illegal purpose” based on “a preponderance of the evidence,” which can include final federal or state court rulings or settlements in which organizations admit they engaged in illegal activities, according to an agency fact sheet. 

    Employers who are notified of such a finding will have an opportunity to respond and appeal. 

    They will also be able to “enter into a corrective action plan” with the Education Department to avoid being blocked from the program, according to an agency fact sheet. However, if they lose access to PSLF, they will only be able to reapply after 10 years. 

    If an organization is blocked from the program, loan payments made by its employees will still count toward their PSLF’s 10-year clock until the Education Department’s finding takes effect, according to a fact sheet. 

    “However, any payment made after an employer is deemed no longer eligible for PSLF will not be counted toward the number of payments to forgiveness,” the department said in the 185-page final rule, set to be published on Friday. “This approach ensures that workers who have served in good faith are not punished, while also protecting taxpayers by preventing benefits from flowing to unlawful conduct in the future.” 

    Student advocacy and nonprofit groups have decried the new rule. 

    Aaron Ament, president of the National Student Legal Defense Network, vowed in a Thursday statement to sue in the next few days. 

    “Instead of supporting first responders, healthcare workers, and teachers working to make our country a better place, the Trump Administration is punishing public servants for their employers’ perceived political views,” Ament said. 

    Democracy Forward and Protect Borrowers, two other advocacy groups, likewise said they would challenge the rule in court. In a joint statement Thursday, they said the rule would allow the Education Department to target organizations that support immigrants, provide gender-affirming care and protect the free speech rights of protesters. 

    “This new rule is a craven attempt to usurp the legislature’s authority in an unconstitutional power grab aimed at punishing people with political views different than the Administration’s,” they said.

    Source link

  • Program stops early-career researchers quitting – Campus Review

    Program stops early-career researchers quitting – Campus Review

    Universities need workers with comprehensive analytical and strategic skills, but funding cuts and progression barriers have caused retention issues, leading to early-career researchers leaving universities in droves.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Director of Online Program Development at UVA

    Director of Online Program Development at UVA

    The origins of “Featured Gigs” trace back to the first post in the series with Kemi Jona, vice provost for online education and digital innovation at UVA. While I had the idea for the series, it was Kemi who ultimately came up with most of the language for the four questions we use to explore opportunities at the intersection of learning, technology and organizational change. Today, Kemi answers questions about the role of director of online program development.

    Q: What is the university’s mandate behind this role? How does it help align with and advance the university’s strategic priorities?

    A: The 2030 Plan calls on the university to expand the reach of its educational programs—both in person and online—and to make UVA more accessible, including to learners across and beyond the Commonwealth. The University of Virginia’s Office of the Vice Provost for Online Education and Digital Innovation is a key part of advancing this charge on behalf of the university, helping our schools and institutes design, deliver and scale high-quality online and hybrid programs that extend UVA’s reach and impact.

    The director of online program development plays a central role in advancing UVA’s online education goals. The role is ideal for someone who thrives at the intersection of strategy, innovation and execution. The director will not only guide program development but also help UVA build the internal capacity and frameworks needed to sustain this growth long-term. This is a high-impact, high-visibility position that will help shape the next chapter of online and hybrid learning at UVA and potentially serve as a model for the sector.

    Q: Where does the role sit within the university structure? How will the person in this role engage with other units and leaders across campus?

    A: This role sits within the provost’s office and reports directly to the vice provost for online education and digital innovation. The director will guide UVA schools and institutes through the planning, launch and evaluation of new online and hybrid programs, serving as a trusted partner to deans, associate deans, program directors and faculty.

    This individual will bring structure and strategy to UVA’s online growth, helping schools scope opportunities, assess market demand, support business case development and build the readiness needed for sustained success. The role requires exceptional communication, diplomacy and systems-level thinking to align multiple stakeholders around a shared vision.

    Q: What would success look like in one year? Three years? Beyond?

    A: In service of the vision articulated in the 2030 Plan and aligned to the strategic goals of our partner schools and institutes, UVA is undertaking ambitious growth in its online and hybrid portfolio. In the first year, success means ensuring active projects move from planning to launch with clarity and momentum, establishing shared frameworks, timelines and accountability across partners.

    Within three years, success will be measured not only in the number of successful program launches but also in the maturity of UVA’s internal systems, talent and decision-making processes that enable continued agility and innovation.

    Longer term, the director will help institutionalize a robust, repeatable, data-informed model for program development so UVA’s schools can innovate faster and with greater confidence, while ensuring that all programs uphold UVA’s reputation for academic excellence.

    Q: What kinds of future roles would someone who took this position be prepared for?

    A: Because this individual will be deeply engaged in all aspects of online program design, development and launch, he or she will gain substantial experience working with deans, faculty and other senior leaders. This experience would help set up future leadership roles in online education and digital innovation or in the private sector.

    This role offers a rare opportunity to operate at the heart of institutional transformation—building systems and partnerships that inform how UVA advances its mission as we begin our third century as a leading public institution. The experience will prepare the director for senior university leadership roles in strategy, academic innovation or digital transformation. It will equip them with the cross-sector perspective and executive acumen valued by both higher education and mission-driven organizations beyond academia.

    Please get in touch if you are conducting a job search at the intersection of learning, technology, and organizational change. If your gig is a good fit, featuring your gig on Featured Gigs is free.

    Source link

  • Nevada Funding for Dolly Parton Book Program in Clark County Dries Up – The 74

    Nevada Funding for Dolly Parton Book Program in Clark County Dries Up – The 74


    Join our zero2eight Substack community for more discussion about the latest news in early care and education. Sign up now.

    Over the past two years, upwards of 18,000 young children in the Las Vegas metro area have received free monthly books in the mail as part of an early literacy program started by country icon Dolly Parton. But that ends this month.

    Storied Inc., the Clark County-based nonprofit partner for Parton’s Imagination Library, last week announced to parents and guardians that its October books would be the last until additional funding for the program is secured. The program, when funded, provides a free, age-appropriate monthly book to children 0 to 5 years old.

    According to Meredith Helmick, executive director of Storied, the nonprofit sought funding from the Nevada State Legislature earlier this year to keep the program going after an initial two-years of state grant funding ended, but they came up empty handed.

    Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager sponsored a bill to appropriate $3.9 million to the United Way of Northern Nevada and the Sierra, which currently runs the Imagination Library for Washoe County residents, to expand the program statewide. The bill was referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways & Means, where it languished until the end of the regular session without a hearing or even a mention, according to the legislature’s website.

    Helmick also hoped the nonprofit program might be able to secure funding through Senate Bill 460, Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro’s omnibus education legislation.

    An early version of that bill appropriated $50 million for early childhood literacy readiness programs, but an amendment reduced that to $0 for the fiscal year beginning July 2025 and $12 million for the fiscal year beginning July 2026. Helmick says lawmakers chose to prioritize expansion of preschool seats, a Cannizzaro priority.

    SB460 was heavily negotiated and amended to include many of Gov. Joe Lombardo’s education priorities. Those priorities included setting aside $7 million in grant funding for charter school transportation.

    It appears those other priorities came at the expense of existing innovative programs that were working.

    Helmick says a survey of her families last year found 62% of them had fewer than 20 children’s books in their homes before enrolling their children in the program.

    “This program is such a low cost, high reward program,” she added.

    Helmick is hopeful the program can return to the Las Vegas area. She says Storied is having conversations with large companies and other nonprofits, reaching out to elected officials at all levels of government, and urging their supporters to do the same.

    “We’ve heard rumors of a special session,” she adds. “Can we rewrite SB460 to include the language that it took out? Are there other funds that we could add or tap into that we could fit under? Maybe that’s an avenue.”

    ‘It isn’t just about the books’

    Meredith Helmick and her husband, Kyle, were inspired to start Storied Inc. after attempting to sign up their daughter for Imagination Library only to learn the nationwide program didn’t serve their area.

    Dolly Parton launched Imagination Library in 1995 and the program has since given out more than 250 million free books to children in the United States and four other countries.

    Storied Inc. is one of several partners running the program in Nevada. According to Helmick, the other partners have managed to continue their programs, either in whole or by scaling down the number of kids served.

    The sheer size of Clark County’s population makes that a tougher task for Storied. According to the Imagination Library’s website, nearly 29,000 Nevada children are enrolled, the vast majority through Storied.

    Helmick says that before they even had a chance to market the program or figure out stable funding, an intrepid stranger found the sign up form and shared it on a social media group for parents in Las Vegas.

    “In 48 hours, we had 3,500 kids registered,” she recalls. “It was, like, ‘I guess we’re doing it now.’ But it all worked out beautifully.”

    From there, the program quickly grew just by word of mouth. It was funded from June 2023 to July 2025 by a grant from the state’s Early Childhood Innovative Literacy Program. Participation fluctuates each month as kids are signed up or age out at 5 years old, but Helmick says it stays in the range of 18,000 or 19,000 thousand children spanning most of Clark County.

    (Boulder City residents have a dedicated partner, Reading to Z, which currently serves fewer than 200 kids. Rural Clark County residents who live in Valley Electric Association’s service area can sign up for a program run by the energy cooperative’s charitable foundation.)

    Over the summer, with the funding drying up, Storied stopped accepting new kids into the program.

    “We didn’t want to disappoint families” by starting to send them books only to stop sending them a few months later, said Helmick. “One thing that sets (Imagination Library) apart is these books are sent directly to their home. I am a huge proponent of libraries. I’m there practically every week. But not everybody is able to do that. That is a barrier.”

    Additionally, the books arrive addressed to the child.

    “Getting it in the mail, the label with their name, it gives them ownership of the book,” says Helmick. “It makes a huge difference. I didn’t realize it until I heard it from families.”

    On the inside of each book cover is a note from Imagination Library with tips for parents on conversations they can have with their child about the book, or questions they can ask to boost critical thinking and early reading skills.

    “It isn’t just about the books and the words and the stories you’re reading with your kids,” said Helmick. “It’s sitting together side by side. It’s having conversations with them.”

    Nevada Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Nevada Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Hugh Jackson for questions: [email protected].


    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

  • Do screens help or hurt K-8 learning? Lessons from the UK’s OPAL program

    Do screens help or hurt K-8 learning? Lessons from the UK’s OPAL program

    Key points:

    When our leadership team at Firthmoor Primary met with an OPAL (Outdoor Play and Learning) representative, one message came through clearly: “Play isn’t a break from learning, it is learning.”

    As she flipped through slides, we saw examples from other schools where playgrounds were transformed into hubs of creativity. There were “play stations” where children could build, imagine, and collaborate. One that stood out for me was the simple addition of a music station, where children could dance to songs during break time, turning recess into an outlet for joy, self-expression, and community.

    The OPAL program is not about giving children “more time off.” It’s about making play purposeful, inclusive, and developmental. At Firthmoor, our head teacher has made OPAL part of the long-term school plan, ensuring that playtime builds creativity, resilience, and social skills just as much as lessons in the classroom.

    After seeing these OPAL examples, I couldn’t help but think about how different this vision is from what dominates the conversation in so many schools: technology. While OPAL emphasizes unstructured play, movement, and creativity, most education systems, both in the UK and abroad, are under pressure to adopt more edtech. The argument is that early access to screens helps children personalize their learning, build digital fluency, and prepare for a future where tech skills are essential.

    But what happens when those two philosophies collide?

    On one side, programs like OPAL remind us that children need hands-on experiences, imagination, and social connection–skills that can’t be replaced by a tablet. On the other, schools around the world are racing to keep pace with the digital age.

    Even in Silicon Valley, where tech innovation is born, schools like the Waldorf School of the Peninsula have chosen to go screen-free in early years. Their reasoning echoes OPAL’s ethos: Creativity and deep human interaction lay stronger cognitive and emotional foundations than any app can provide.

    Research supports this caution. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health advises parents and schools to carefully balance screen use with physical activity, sleep, and family interaction. And in 2023, UNESCO warned that “not all edtech improves learning outcomes, and some displace play and social interaction.” Similarly, the OECD’s 2021 report found that heavy screen use among 10-year-olds correlated with lower well-being scores, highlighting the risks of relying too heavily on devices in the early years.

    As a governor, I see both sides: the enthusiasm for digital tools that promise engagement and efficiency, and the concern for children’s well-being and readiness for lifelong learning. OPAL has made me think about what kind of foundations we want to lay before layering on technology.

    So where does this leave us? For me, the OPAL initiative at Firthmoor is a powerful reminder that education doesn’t have to be an either/or choice between tech and tradition. The real challenge is balance.

    This raises important questions for all of us in education:

    • When is the right time to introduce technology?
    • How do we balance digital fluency with the need for deep, human-centered learning?
    • Where do we draw the line between screens and play, and who gets to decide?

    This is a conversation not just for educators, but for parents, policymakers, and communities. How do we want the next generation to learn, play, and thrive?

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link