Analysis from The Australia Institute said 10 universities together spent more than $390m on travel in 2023 and 27 institutions spent $410m on consultants amid executive pay and wage underpayment scandals.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.
HVAC projects to improve indoor air quality. Tutoring programs for struggling students. Tuition support for young people who want to become teachers in their home communities.
Our school has built up its course offerings without having to add headcount. Along the way, we’ve also gained a reputation for having a wide selection of general and advanced courses for our growing student body.
When it comes to visual creativity, AI tools let students design posters, presentations, and digital artwork effortlessly. Students can turn their ideas into professional-quality visuals, sparking creativity and innovation.
Ensuring that girls feel supported and empowered in STEM from an early age can lead to more balanced workplaces, economic growth, and groundbreaking discoveries.
In my work with middle school students, I’ve seen how critical that period of development is to students’ future success. One area of focus in a middle schooler’s development is vocabulary acquisition.
For students, the mid-year stretch is a chance to assess their learning, refine their decision-making skills, and build momentum for the opportunities ahead.
Middle school marks the transition from late childhood to early adolescence. Developmental psychologist Erik Erikson describes the transition as a shift from the Industry vs. Inferiority stage into the Identity vs. Role Confusion stage.
Art has a unique power in the ESL classroom–a magic that bridges cultures, ignites imagination, and breathes life into language. For English Language Learners (ELLs), it’s more than an expressive outlet.
In the year 2025, no one should have to be convinced that protecting data privacy matters. For education institutions, it’s really that simple of a priority–and that complicated.
Teachers are superheroes. Every day, they rise to the challenge, pouring their hearts into shaping the future. They stay late to grade papers and show up early to tutor struggling students.
Want to share a great resource? Let us know at submissions@eschoolmedia.com.
China continues to prioritize research and development despite the country’s slowing economy, with the drive for scientific self-sufficiency superseding economic development alone, according to analysts.
Recent figures from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development show China’s R&D spending grew at a faster rate in 2023 than it did in both the U.S. and E.U., as well as all OECD member states.
Growth in China reached 8.7 percent, compared with 1.7 percent in the U.S. and 1.6 percent in the E.U.
According to China’s National Bureau of Statistics, spending continued to increase in 2024, exceeding 3.6 trillion yuan ($489.9 billion) and up 8.3 percent year on year. This accounted for 2.68 percent of China’s gross domestic product in 2024, up 0.1 percentage point from the previous year.
It comes despite China’s wider economic slowdown, triggered in part by the collapse of the real estate sector in 2021, which is still struggling to recover.
Given these financial concerns, the growth in research spending is “quite a feat” and “an important indicator of where China is putting its priorities,” said Jeroen Groenewegen-Lau, head of the science, technology and innovation program at the Mercator Institute for China Studies.
The Asian superpower also now has to contend with the export tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. However, analysts expect that R&D spending will continue to grow in spite of these economic barriers.
“When you look at some of the Asian economies, they tend to be countercyclical in their investment in research,” said Caroline Wagner, a professor specializing in public policy and science at Ohio State University. “When economies slow, they actually increase their spending on research.”
She said this is true of Japan and South Korea, which both exceeded the OECD average with growth of 2.7 percent and 3.7 percent in 2023 respectively.
“When they’re experiencing a little bit of a downturn, they actually spend more on research in the hopes that it will stoke the economy,” Wagner added.
Groenewegen-Lau agreed that China’s growth trajectory looks set to continue, with investment in basic research core to the country’s national development strategy.
“Even if the economy is not going very well, they can keep up this expenditure,” he said. “They’re kind of borrowing from the future” to “conquer all these technological bottlenecks.”
He continued, “It’s clear that science technology is maybe even more important than economic development in its own right. It’s like the economic development seems sometimes to be supporting the innovation machine.”
While these figures are made up of both government and corporate expenditure, there are concerns among China’s leaders that businesses aren’t investing as much as they should, particularly in basic research, according to Groenewegen-Lau.
“The current economic situation is such that we know that they’re investing less,” Groenewegen-Lau said. “So the central government is trying to make up for that.”
Universities and research institutes are likely to benefit from this, with investment in the sector rising.
In 2024, expenditure by China’s higher education institutes on R&D reached 275.33 billion yuan ($37.68 billion), an increase of 14.1 percent from the previous year. However, this still accounted for a minority of total expenditure, with HEIs making up 8.2 percent of the total, compared with enterprises, which made up 77.7 percent.
And, as China moves away from international engagement and toward self-sufficiency, a key challenge, said Wagner, will be ensuring it has the talent capabilities to go it alone.
“They have really been working on an imitative model, where they’re connecting with and imitating leaders, and now they’re trying to pull back and say, ‘We’re going to build our own national capacity,’ but you have to have enough [human] capacity in order to do that,” Wagner said.
“I think that’s one of the questions that is maybe still out there unanswered. Can you do that on your own?”
The Education Department’s March 28 letter canceling the extensions, sent at 5:03 p.m. on a Friday, has “already caused substantial confusion” and financial upheaval regarding late liquidation for Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief funds, the plaintiffs said.
States, districts, private schools and contractors have already created budgets, hired staff, offered services to families and children and developed operating plans based on pre-approved spending extensions, according to their lawsuit.
In Arizona, for example, a school district on the Navajo reservation will likely need to lay off teachers and staff to cover costs that were supposed to be paid for by American Rescue Plan-ESSER dollars. That money had been pre-approved by the Education Department for a tutoring service for reading and math instruction and to repair aging buildings. After the Education Department rescinded the spending extensions, the tutoring service and infrastructure project were terminated, the lawsuit said.
The Education Department’s one-page March 28 letter, signed by U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, did offer states an opportunity to continue to extend spending by reapplying for Education Department approvals on a per-contract basis. But McMahon’s letter also said the spending extensions were “not consistent with the Department’s priorities” and that states had failed to meet spending deadlines set out in federal regulations.
While spending deadlines for all three congressionally approved allocations for K-12 COVID-19 recovery have expired, the Education Department under the Biden administration allowed for a longer spending runway, giving states and districts an extra 14 months to spend down the funds.
For instance, the spending deadline for ARP-ESSER was Jan. 28, but the late liquidation deadline is March 30, 2026. For funds under the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, the original spending deadline was Jan. 29, 2024, but the extended spending deadline was March 28. The spending extension for the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act was March 28, 2024.
In late February, the Education Department told K-12 Dive that about $2.5 billion out of a total $121.9 billion in ARP-ESSER funds remained to be spent by districts in the 41 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia that had received extensions. About $433 million was left to be spent by states under ARP’s Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools allocation.
The lawsuit says several states received approvals from the Education Department for ESSER spending extensions after President Donald Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20. For example, Illinois said the Education Department approved its request on Jan. 22 to extend spending under ARP-ESSER. The state said it still has $77.2 million left to spend in federal COVID funds for education.
One state — Oregon — said it submitted a request for late liquidation of EANS funds at 5:02 p.m. on March 28, or one minute before the Education Department letter went out. The state has not received a response.
Pennsylvania submitted a spending extension request for EANS funds on Feb. 10 but the Education Department has not responded to the state’s “repeated requests,” according to the lawsuit. About a month earlier, on Jan. 8, the department did grant Pennsylvania an extension for ESSER funds targeting supports for homeless children and youth.
While there was no hard deadline for states to make late liquidation requests, January 2024 guidance from the Education Department recommended submissions be made prior to Dec. 31, 2024, for ARP funds so there would be minimal disruption to accessing funds.
Democratic lawmakers in Congress are also calling for the Education Department to reverse its cancellation of ESSER spending extensions, saying the department changed the rules abruptly and has no recognition of the lasting impacts of the pandemic on students and schools.
Maryland’s Attorney General Anthony Brown, in a Thursday statement, said, “The Trump Administration’s decision to cut this funding has thrown Maryland schools into turmoil and uncertainty and threatens valuable programs that help homeless and low-income students recover from the painful effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
He added, “This is a breathtakingly heartless action that threatens to change children’s futures for the worse, and our Office will not stand for it.”
Thursday’s lawsuit was filed by Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, and the mostly Democratic state attorneys general of Arizona, California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Oregon. All the attorneys general are Democratic, except Hawaii’s, whose office is nonpartisan.
I was working with a university on how they communicate their research work.
An academic remarked to me that they simply couldn’t understand why the university didn’t talk more about the leading work they were doing in defence research.
At the time, I thought talking about research into the things that kill people would be an obvious and enormous error. I now think I may be wrong.
Missiles have a PR problem. They are not the soft embrace of a civic university which wraps its arms around their places. They are not the technician helping to solve the pandemics and global disasters of our time. And they are not the lofty ideals of pushing forward the shared understanding of the human experience.
Conducting research into defence is to acknowledge that universities are part of the unsavoury end of geo-politics too.
Universities have generally followed the lead of the government on the international research front. This is to say universities work with people, even where they may disagree with them, if it furthers a common cause of research. In an era of sharpening geo-political divides, increased defence spending, and pressure on the moral mission of universities highlighted by what they choose or choose not to cut, this feels untenable.
Strategic ambiguity is possible where the strategy is clear and the policy is not. The government has now made its spending policy for defence clear.
There are plenty who have made the moral case against UK universities being involved in research into lethal weapons. Open Democracy carried out work in 2023 where they drew the line between weapons manufacturers, university research, and global conflicts, to make the case that
“Responding to Freedom of Information requests, 44 universities told openDemocracy they had taken a combined total of at least £100m in funding and donations from eight of the biggest UK and US defence firms: RTX, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce.
All are listed in the top 100 arms and military services in the world, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.”
And there are a constellation of left-wing blogs that have sought to make the same arguments. Novara Media, for example, have sought to bring to attention the links between university weapons research and the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. It is not that universities are undertaking research directly for difficult and despotic regimes and demagogues directly. It is that they are undertaking research with companies where their technologies may either be used directly, or through their dual applications, in the defence of nations and by extension the killing of people all over the world.
This attention is likely only to grow as the government increases investment into defence technologies. The 2020 Spending Review committed to an extra £6bn of defence R&D over four years. In 2024, then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak promised a further uplift in defence spending with a significant proportion dedicated to R&D. Keir Starmer has now promised that defence spending will reach 2.5 per cent of GDP, with an ambition to reach 3 per cent, and further increases to R&D in defence.
This includes a further £2.9bn of spending in the coming financial year compared to 2024–25. This is a big increase but in context BAE systems alone spent £1.45bn on R&D in 2022 as a combination of their own and government money.
This presents a challenge for universities. The flows of R&D spending are increasingly toward defence but they have, collectively, not found the language which sets out the moral case for doing the work.
Today’s piece from Jess Lister makes it clear that a plurality of citizens in the UK are in favour of increased defence spending. A majority of the public also agree it would be better to invest in R&D in new defensive technologies. Of course, this presumes there is always a clear and practical difference between the use of weaponry for defensive and offensive purposes, and the reasons for research are as important as the actual mechanism through which research is deployed.
There are the universities that undertake research which makes the country safer but isn’t directly involved in the business of lethality. The examples of universities building partnerships, engagements, projecting the UK across the world, making the UK a better place to live, are numerous. In an era of constrained funding and increasing concerns about defence spending, the ability for universities to talk about national safety, the tolerability of living in the UK, and national security, the freedom to live free from the threat of harm or death from a foreign power, may end up moving closer together. The decision to cut Oversees Development Assistance, funding used to promote social, economic, and welfare capacity, to fund defence spending is in this regard an absurd political decision in making the UK less safe on the one hand while making it, potentially, more secure on the other.
And there is the business of the production of the UK’s defensive capabilities. There are a range of regulations which cover this work. In particular, the rules on dual use technologies which place extra restrictions on the exports of research that could have both civilian and military applications. There are specific cases which have come under scrutiny particularly under the use of technologies which could be used for drones. As a minimum, if universities are going to increasingly grow their R&D and defence budget they will need the internal capacity to navigate what has been a difficult and changing world.
Aside from the regulation there is a real narrative problem on defence research. There are generally three explanations used when a university is asked about defence research. The first is that we follow all of the rules. The second is that we work directly with companies and what companies choose to do beyond our due diligence isn’t within our control. And the third is that even where projects are within the rules we continually monitor them. The problem with all of these responses is that they are the minimum of procedural compliance not explanation of work.
In his acceptance speech newly appointed Chancellor of the University of Oxford and once foreign secretary William Hague stated that
We do not need to agree on everything, indeed we should not. I am pleased to say we do not need a foreign policy: we are not a country. Nor do we need a view on every daily occurrence: we are not a newspaper. The concern of a university is that opinions are reached on the basis of truth, reason and knowledge, which in turn requires thinking and speaking with freedom.
This is the same William Hague who suggested in 2015 that
In the 21st Century, foreign policy is no longer the preserve of governments speaking behind closed doors. It’s also about that web of connections between individuals, groups, companies and all kinds of organisations, on social media and international travel.
The William Hague of 2015 is correct and the William Hague of 2024 is mostly wrong. The frustration with university work into defence isn’t because the public believe what they are doing is illegal – in fact the public support what they are doing. It is that universities are trying to pursue an amoral approach to defence (as in, without a moral position, as opposed to immoral or evil), which leaves them open to charges of hypocrisy.
The reason for this is a refusal to commit to bright red lines. It would be totally legitimate for universities to state there are certain partners, certain countries, and certain contexts in which they will not work. It also would be totally legitimate for universities to say they work with anyone regardless of their politics, but universities have done neither.
The one unilateral intervention in refusing to work with Russia was the morally correct step, and has of course opened up the charge of hypocrisy. The line seems to be that universities will work with foreign partners irrespective of what they do unless they are legally barred from doing so and/or said foreign partners undertake a full scale invasion of a neighbour.
The age of strategic ambiguity is over because ambiguity cannot be funded, supported, or made consistent to a public who don’t always appreciate the value of universities. Universities are not a country but they are a global network that allows for the movement of people, ideas, and technologies. The basis on which these things are allowed to move is the moral mission of our era for universities.
Rachel Reeves’ Spring Statement had little in it for the sector to celebrate.
The Office for Budget Responsibility,(who provide independent analysis of the country’s finances), downgraded 2025 growth forecasts from two per cent to one per cent.
For all the flurry of pro-growth activity since the election, the growth outlook to 2029 is basically unchanged. Economic growth and the much desired fiscal headroom (which gives the Government capacity for extra spending) still seem unlikely to materialise.
For universities who are hoping for a crumb of additional funding at some point in the future, there was nothing to settle their nerves about the increasingly difficult financial position the Government finds itself in.
It’s safe to say that some sectors are doing better than others. Defence is clearly one of the winners. Starmer’s commitment to increase defense spending (made before the Spring Statement) to 2.5 per cent of GDP from April 2027 was a significant one. The measures taken to generate the fiscal headroom to pay for it- particularly cutting overseas development aid, and slashing welfare budgets – were not particularly popular ones. This is not an era of win-win policy choices – but boosting defence spending is a critical part of what Starmer’s government sees as a core responsibility: to position Britain as a steady hand in an unstable world.
The continuation of the war in Ukraine, renewed conflict in the middle east, and a second Trump presidency, renewed trade wars and global volatility all point towards this being the difficult but correct choice to make.
A significant uplift to its budget is the sort of things the higher education sector can only dream of. The increase to defence spending is not only massive, it’s also moderately popular. In a new Public First/Stonehaven poll, which looked at the trade offs the Government will need to make in the current era of hard choices, we found it which has moderate public support: 57 per cent back the uplift.
There is an opportunity for the higher education sector here that they may be reluctant to take. Universities are a relatively silent partner in the UK’s defense capabilities, despite the fact this is a clear area of opportunity. Defense companies are increasingly avoiding campuses for graduate recruitment after a rising wave of student protests – the Times reported that 20 companies have been advised against attending on campus events because of security fears.
Many universities are trying to balance their industrial R&D and skills partnerships with the defense sector with a growing generational divide in attitudes towards the defense industry. Negative perceptions of the defense sector are particularly entrenched among Gen Z. Just under a fifth (17 per cent) of the general population say that they would be ashamed to work for the defense industry – but this rises to 31 per cent of 18-24 year olds. Nearly a third of 18-34 year olds say their friends would judge them if they worked in the defense industry. Going too hard on defence and being seen to be doing too much may risk a knock-on impact on student recruitment.
The increased investment in defense and security isn’t just about more soldiers and sailors and more ships and planes. It includes commitments on research and skills, and a ringfenced post of 10 per cent of the uplift for “novel technologies”. Increasingly, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) will become a major strategic procurer and funder in advanced research and development across the UK, which presents an increasingly rare and hard won opportunity for UK universities – and one where the public opinion is more balanced.
Talking about the role for university led R&D which boosts national security is a reputation win for the sector as a whole. In our large-scale research with the Campaign for Science and Engineering, which explored what the UK public think and feel about R&D, we found a strong preference for investment in new defensive technologies over more military personnel – a view broadly shared across all ages, and across the political spectrum
When we asked what the highest priority should be to improve national security, investment in R&D was the joint second most popular option, behind tackling cyber attacks and misinformation.
The defense sector as a whole might be an unpopular thing to talk about on campus. But there is a significant government investment being made in defense spending, and a clear moral and social argument that we live in a time when increasing the capacity and capability of our national security systems is the right thing to do. We know there is broad public support for this investment going towards research and development, and that there are significant skills gaps across our defense sector, impacting our broader defense and security offering.
In a time when politicians are making hard choices, university leaders need to be doing the same.
The modern armed services need highly skilled graduates in a range of roles – not just as professional soldiers, sailors or pilots but also in a myriad of supporting roles such as cyber security, communications, quantum technology, logistics, engineering, advanced manufacturing, foreign languages, and diplomacy. And equally too, the government will need academics and university research labs to step up, in partnership with businesses, to help design and roll out technologies that will support this expanded defence effort. This is both an economic case and a moral case – and one that universities should seize.
And if this is an opportunity which universities shy away from, they may be waiting a long time for the next economic windfall to come their way.
In addition to the ban on DEI spending, the bill seeks to limit the classes that colleges could require students to take. It would prohibit courses designed primarily “to indoctrinate participants with a discriminatory concept” and bar the Council on Postsecondary Education, Kentucky’s higher education coordinating board, from approving degree programs that require students to take such classes.
The bill defines discriminatory concepts as those justifying or promoting “differential treatment or benefits conferred to individuals on the basis of religion, race, sex, color, or national origin.”
The bill would also prohibit colleges from using diversity statements — descriptions of one’s experiences with and commitment to diverse student populations. And it would bar colleges from requiring employees or students to undergo diversity training.
The legislation would exempt DEI training and programs required by federal and state law.
Additionally, the bill requires state colleges to undergo audits every four years to prove they did not spend funds on DEI.
State Sen. Stephen West, a Republican, said Wednesday that the legislation had been “fully vetted” and that every college that would be affected by the bill had the opportunity to submit input.
In support of the bill, West, the chair of the Senate education committee, cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning race-conscious admissions practices.
While the court’s ruling exclusively addressed admissions, West applied it to higher education more broadly — an interpretation also adopted by the U.S. Department of Education, and one that is becoming increasingly popular among conservative critics of DEI.
Similarly, West raised a common criticism of college DEI — alleging that it holds White students responsible for a past in which they did not play a role.
He cited his youngest son during Wednesday’s hearing. “He’s responsible for himself and should not be made to feel less than, and this applies to every student, no matter what your race, creed, national origin, sex,” West said.
Democratic State Sen. Keturah Herron pushed back against West’s argument.
“I know that you said that you are not responsible for the sins of the past, and you’re not,” Herron told West on Wednesday. “You’re not responsible for the things that have happened to my mother or my life experiences either. However, you are responsible, and we are responsible — this whole body is responsible — for what we do today moving forward.”
Student and faculty groups have also opposed the bill, saying it would eliminate grants and programs that are crucial to the success of students from underrepresented backgrounds.
But even with Beshear’s anticipated veto, some Kentucky college leaders have been operating under the assumption that HB 4 — or a bill like it — would become law this year.
The University of Kentucky dissolved its DEI center in August, with Northern Kentucky University doing the same shortly thereafter.
At the time, Eli Capilouto, president of the University of Kentucky, said lawmakers signaled their intent to restrict diversity efforts, forcing his institution to prepare.
“Kentucky legislators have made clear to me in our conversations that they are exploring these issues again as they prepare for the 2025 legislative session,” he said. “If we are to be a campus for everyone, we must demonstrate to ourselves and to those who support and invest in us our commitment to the idea that everyone belongs — both in what we say and in what we do.”
HOUSTON — Jefferson Early Learning Center bears little resemblance to elementary schools many adults recall attending in their earliest years. The classrooms have child-sized boats and construction vehicles children can play on, and ceilings painted to resemble outer space. There are no desks — all space is devoted to learning through play. Windows are low to the ground so children can easily look outside. The gym floor is made of “pre-K friendly” layered vinyl, rather than hardwood, to cushion inevitable trips and falls. Hallways are lined with a corrugated plastic for wiggly fingers to touch as children transition to other locations.
Children love coming to the building, said teacher Cathy Delamore. “They feel like they own it.”
Alief Independent School District, which serves about 40,000 children in west Houston, is one of a growing number of districts across the country to pump money into creating a building that is tailor-made for pre-kindergarteners. Its new facility cost about $21 million and enrolls nearly 400 4- and 5-year-olds. By making the investment, school leaders are trying to avoid some of the pitfalls of placing young children in buildings designed for older students, including lost learning time when tiny feet have to meander down long hallways to bathrooms and cafeterias. Research suggests that when designed well, buildings can contribute to better outcomes for children. Creators of the Reggio Emilia approach to early learning, an educational philosophy that emphasizes child-led learning, even refer to the environment as the “third teacher” in a classroom.
Over the past few years, educators have grown aware of the benefits of a personalized pre-K environment, said Melissa Turnbaugh, a senior principal at the architecture firm PBK, which has designed more than 240 elementary schools nationwide, including Jefferson and several others in Texas. “There’s an openness and willingness to rethink these sites,” Turnbaugh said.
Related: Young children have unique needs and providing the right care can be a challenge. Our free early childhood education newsletter tracks the issues.
Similar pre-K renovations and investments have been made in both high- and low-income Texas districts, including the nearby Houston Independent School District, Willis Independent School District north of Houston, the Mansfield Independent School District south of Fort Worth, the Harlingen Consolidated Independent School District in the Rio Grande Valley and Leander Independent School District, just northwest of Austin.
Nationally, districts of all sizes have embraced the trend over the past few years, including the Troy School District in Michigan and New York City Public Schools. In some cases, building a specialized facility helps a district with limited resources get “the biggest bang for their buck,” while meeting enrollment needs, said Turnbaugh. Some states and cities are also dedicating money to the efforts, including Illinois, Detroit and San Mateo, California.
That embrace is in part because of a growing recognition nationwide of the importance of play for young children, as well as reports that play time has been increasingly squeezed out of the early grades. States are also seeing record high enrollment in state-funded preschool programs. During the 2022-23 school year, investment in state-funded preschool reached an all-time high. Spending on the programs increased in 29 states, buoyed in part by Covid relief funds. Between 2022 and 2023, for example, Texas saw more than 21,000 additional 3- and 4-year-olds enroll. The state also slightly increased pre-K funding and, beginning in 2019, started requiring districts to offer full-day pre-K programs. The full-day programs have been rolling out in districts since 2020.
Scores of districts are “adding this new grade of 4-year-olds,” said Shelly Masur, vice president of advisory and state policy for the Low Income Investment Fund, which runs an initiative focused on creating and improving high-quality facilities for early learning programs. “They have to figure out where those kids are going to go.”
A facility built for their needs, like Jefferson, is exactly where young children should go, some experts say. The children seem to agree.
On a sunny fall morning, joyful screams could be heard as children chased each other up and down gentle hills on a large playground with natural-looking features meant to replicate the highlands and lowlands of Texas. Pre-K students in elementary schools don’t always have age-appropriate playgrounds, and structures are often designed for children who are older. But Jefferson has multiple large playgrounds and play courtyards, all designed for pre kindergarteners, featuring natural structures and textures, like logs and grass.
In Alief, where more than 83 percent of children qualify as economically disadvantaged, more than 20 percentage points higher than the state average, residents voted in 2015 to approve a property tax increase to help pay for full-day pre-K programs in the district. After touring the Mansfield Independent School District’s early learning facility, Alief’s district leaders decided they wanted to invest in an early learning building with immersive, themed classrooms, instead of simply adding on or repurposing classrooms in elementary schools around the district. Jefferson opened in 2022 as one of two new early learning facilities in the district. About 6 miles away, the second, Maria Del Carmen Martinez Early Learning Center, which has a similar design, serves around 400 students.
A growing body of research shows that not all pre-K classrooms, or the facilities they’re housed in, are appropriate for young kids. Early learning settings in particular should have a warm, homelike environment with ample natural light, research shows. There should be spacious classrooms that allow children to move their bodies and play in a variety of spaces around the room. Facilities should have playgrounds that are appropriate for the littlest learners, and provide ample opportunities to experience and explore nature.
Related: How play is making a comeback in kindergarten
There are also practical details to keep in mind for preschoolers, like having bathrooms adjacent to classrooms, child-sized furniture, tiny toilets, and sinks low to the ground so children can practice routines like hand washing independently. “When we make things more accessible to them, they start to learn the independence that we need them to develop over time,” said Masur. This type of setting isn’t always present in elementary schools, which are built to accommodate a much wider age range of children and are typically designed for instruction rather than play.
Facilities can have a surprisingly large impact on the experiences of teachers and young children. A study of a preschool program in West Hartford, Connecticut, for example, found the amount of children’s time spent interacting with an adult caregiver increased from 3 percent to 22 percent after the program moved from a crowded basement room to a larger classroom with bathrooms, sinks, storage space and phones inside the classroom. Although all other factors remained the same, the teachers reported their students had fewer tantrums, something they attributed to having a larger, brighter and more organized space.
A facility can even affect how satisfied early educators are with their jobs. Delamore, the Jefferson teacher, who has worked in the district for 18 years, said the bright, spacious rooms and hallways help keep her from feeling “confined” during the day. While aimed at 4-year-olds, the building’s “calming atmosphere” helps her enjoy being at work, she said.
Certain aspects make more sense for children at this age, she added, like the spiral shape of the building, which makes it easier to keep students together as they transition. Students eat family-style meals around circular tables, creating a sense of community, Delamore said, a contrast to the long, rectangular tables often seen in elementary school cafeterias.
Buildings that are not designed to meet childrens’ needs, or that are cramped and outdated, can impede development and learning, experts say.
One of the most recent examples of this comes from a 2016 study of Tennessee’s public preschool classrooms, which are mostly housed in existing elementary schools. That study, conducted by researchers at Vanderbilt University, found 25 percent of each school day was lost transitioning children to another activity, including walking to bathrooms and lining up to go to lunch.
Related: The complex world of pre-K play
When designing Jefferson, Turnbaugh and her team tried to “think of the campus through the eyes of a 4-year-old.” Delamore, at Jefferson, said the intricately-designed classrooms motivate students to go deeper in their play. On a recent morning in the “veterinary” classroom, a dozen 4- and 5-year-olds busied themselves around the room, immersed in play or small group work with a teacher. Children drew pictures of animals, read books and played animal-themed card games beneath large, colorful pictures of dogs and cats painted on the walls.
On one side of the room, 4-year-old Jaycyon had donned a white lab coat and was inspecting a fluffy gray and white toy cat lying on the counter in front of him. The cat was hurt, Jaycyon announced, likely from a sharp corner of the cage he was kept in.
“I have to give him a shot,” he said bravely. Jaycyon dipped a clear, plastic syringe into an orange medication bottle and confidently injected invisible medication into the cat.
At the end of three weeks, Jaycyon and his classmates will transition to a new classroom, such as “Tinker Town,” where they will learn about construction, or “Space City,” an homage to the nearby NASA space center.
On a daily basis, students have access to one of several outdoor spaces called a “back porch,” where families can also come and eat lunch together. These spaces also act as surrogate back yards for students, many of whom don’t have yards at home or access to parks. Students also have access to a sensory room with toys and soft mats, where they can take a break when they are overstimulated and practice skills to calm down.
Jefferson sits on nearly 20 acres of land, accessible via trails for students to explore with their teachers. (Alief returned the surrounding land back to its natural prairie state to help with climate-change related flooding.)
The educators at Alief say the district’s investment in a facility that encourages play-based learning has paid off. “What I see as a major difference is the children’s self-regulation, but also their confidence,” said the school’s principal, Kim Hammer, now in her 16th year leading an early childhood center. “A traditional pre-K setting is more teacher led and teacher directed,” she said. “Here it’s more teacher facilitated, so you see more of the children taking more initiative,” she added. “Children have autonomy, and children have much more choice.”
There is evidence that the new facility may be helping children progress. During the 2023-24 school year, 49 percent of students came in meeting vocabulary benchmarks. By the end of the year, 73 percent were at that level, Hammer said, a higher rate than previous years when the district’s pre-K programs were in traditional elementary schools. School officials say the themed classrooms help enhance children’s language skills, as children learn the vocabulary specific to that room. Attendance rates are high and holding steady, something that is uncommon in pre-K.
Despite the success and benefits of programs like Jefferson’s, educators agree there are challenges. A pre-K only facility adds an extra transition for students who, in traditional programs, might otherwise attend pre-K at their home elementary school.
Without more funding, revamped pre-K facilities are unlikely to spread fast. Many districts lack the money, partly because state and federal funding for pre-K is often less than for other grades. In Texas, for example, although the state now requires districts to offer full day pre-K, it only provides funding for half a day of pre-K. Alief has to cover the rest from local funds.
Although sustaining the building will be financially challenging in the long run, educators are determined to find a way to make it work for the benefit of the kids.
Back at the veterinary center on that fall morning, Jaycyon finally had a breakthrough. He had discovered something alarming about his patient, or “kitty,” as he had been named by the pre-kindergarteners, that would direct his next veterinary tactics.
“He burned himself in the kitchen!” he exclaimed.
How?
Jaycyon answered somberly: “He was cooking eggs.”
Contact staff writer Jackie Mader at (212) 678-3562 or mader@hechingerreport.org.
This story about early learning centers was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education, with support from the Spencer Fellowship at Columbia Journalism School. Sign up for the Early Childhood newsletter.
This week on the podcast universities failing to promote diversity will face funding cuts – so said The Times. We chat through the controversy building around the REF.
Plus we look at what the sector is asking for in the spending review, and consider the government’s push for lower-level, shorter apprenticeships.
With Shitij Kapur, Vice Chancellor and President at King’s College London, Jess Lister, Director (Education) at Public First, Debbie McVitty, Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Mark Leach, Editor-in-Chief at Wonkhe.
Universities UK submits to spending review
The barriers that must be removed for degree apprenticeships to meet NHS workforce targets
Higher education institutions have invested time, effort and money in level 7 apprenticeships
Societies that are humane are thoughtful about promoting equality, diversity and inclusion
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 editor@hechingerreport.org.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.