Tag: start

  • Head Start zeroed out in Trump’s preliminary budget plan

    Head Start zeroed out in Trump’s preliminary budget plan

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Head Start would be eliminated under a draft fiscal 2026 budget that the Trump administration is preparing to send to Congress, according to a preliminary budget planning document acquired by K-12 Dive’s sister publication Healthcare Dive.
    • The program is among other initiatives targeted for termination that support low-income families and children — including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the Community Services Block Grant — under the preliminary budget document for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
    • Even if sent to Congress as currently drafted, however, the proposals have a long road to travel before gaining congressional approval and being finalized. Still, advocates and policymakers are raising alarms, with one advocacy group — The Child Care for Every Family Network — calling the potential elimination of Head Start an “absolute disaster for families and [the] economy.”

    Dive Insight:

    The budget cuts would be in line with the Trump administration’s efforts to dramatically reduce the size of the federal government. For FY 2024, Congress funded Head Start at about $12.2 billion, the Community Services Block Grant at around $758 million, and LIHEAP at $4 billion.  

    HHS did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.

    Some Republicans in Congress and conservative organizations have criticized Head Start in the past as unsafe and ineffective at increasing children’s academic performances. Project 2025 — a blueprint for the current Republican administration issued during the presidential campaign by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank — recommended zeroing out the program.

    But the National Head Start Association, an advocacy organization that represents program leaders, families and children, points to research showing positive academic, social and economic returns on investment from Head Start.

    The program, which celebrates its 60th anniversary next month, serves nearly 800,000 infants, toddlers and preschool children from families with low incomes. More than 17,000 Head Start centers operate nationwide. A companion Early Head Start program provides prenatal services.

    The proposal to terminate Head Start “reflects a disinvestment in our future,” said Yasmina Vinci, executive director of NHSA, said in a Thursday statement. “Eliminating funding for Head Start would be catastrophic. It would be a direct attack on our nation’s most at-risk children, their well-being, and their families.”

    The Head Start system is already under fiscal strain, advocates say. Mass layoffs at HHS on April 1 led to the closing of five Office of Head Start regional offices: Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle. Those offices are to be consolidated into the five remaining offices in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Dallas, Kansas City and Denver. The regional offices provide guidance on federal policy, training and technical assistance to Head Start providers.

    However, in an April 3 announcement to Head Start grant recipients, Laurie Todd-Smith, HHS deputy assistant secretary for early childhood development, said the closures would not impact “critical services.” 

    Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a Wednesday statement that data shows the Trump administration issued nearly $1 billion less in federal grants to Head Start centers nationwide to date this year compared to the same period last year — a 37% decrease. 

    “So far this year, Trump has slow-walked $1 billion in funding from going out the door to Head Start programs, and we are beginning to see the devastating consequences: centers closing, kids kicked out of the classroom, teachers losing their jobs, and entire communities losing out,” Murray said.

    President Donald Trump is expected to release his proposed FY 2026 budget later this month or early next month, according to news reports. Congress will then debate the recommended allocations before sending appropriations bills to the president for signature. The federal fiscal year starts Oct. 1.

    Sydney Halleman, editor for Healthcare Dive, contributed to this story.

    Source link

  • Head Start Providers Shocked as Federal Office Serving Wisconsin Shuts Without Notice – The 74

    Head Start Providers Shocked as Federal Office Serving Wisconsin Shuts Without Notice – The 74


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

    Head Start child care providers in Wisconsin and five other Midwestern states were stunned Tuesday to learn that the federal agency’s Chicago regional office was closed and their administrators were placed on leave — throwing new uncertainty into the operation of the 60-year-old child care and early education program.

    “The Regional Office is a critical link to maintaining program services and safety for children and families,” said Jennie Mauer, executive director of the Wisconsin Head Start Association, in a statement distributed to news organizations Tuesday afternoon.

    The surprise shutdown of the federal agency’s Chicago office — and four others across the country — left Head Start program directors uncertain about where to turn, Mauer said.

    “We have received calls throughout the day from panicked Head Start programs worried about impacts to approving their current grants, fiscal issues, and applications to make their programs more responsive to their local communities,” Mauer said.

    The regional offices are part of the Office of Head Start in the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    In an interview, Mauer said there had been no official word to Head Start providers about the Chicago office closing. Some program leaders learned of the closing from private contacts with people in the office.

    “We have not seen official information come out” to local Head Start directors, who operate on the federal grants that fund the program, Mayer said. “It’s just really alarming. For an agency that is about serving families, I don’t understand how this can be.”

    The National Head Start Association issued a press release Tuesday expressing “deep concern” about the regional office closings.

    “In order to avoid disrupting services for children and families, we urge the administration to reconsider these actions until a plan has been created and shared widely,” the association stated.

    Katie Hamm, the deputy assistant secretary for early childhood development at HHS during the Biden administration, posted on LinkedIn shortly before 12 noon Tuesday that she had learned of reduction-in-force (RIF) notices to employees in the Administration for Children and Families earlier in the day.

    RIF notices appear to have gone to all employees of the Office of Head Start and the Office of Child Care in five regional offices, Hamm wrote, in Boston, New York, San Francisco and Seattle in addition to Chicago.

    “Staff are on paid leave effective immediately and no longer have access to their files,” Hamm wrote. “There does not appear to be a transition plan so that Head Start grantees, States, and Tribes are assigned to a new office. For Head Start, it is unclear who will administer grants going forward.”

    Hamm left HHS at the end of the Biden administration in January, according to her LinkedIn profile.

    Mauer said regional office employees “are our key partners and colleagues,” and their departure has left Head Start operators “incredibly saddened and deeply concerned.”

    Regional employees work with providers “to ensure the safety and quality of services and to meet the mission of providing care for the most vulnerable families in the country,” Mauer said.

    The regional offices provide grant oversight, distribute funds, monitor Head Start programs and advise centers on complying with regulations, including for child safety, she said. They also provide training and technical assistance for local Head Start programs.

    “The Regional Office is a critical link to maintaining program services and safety for children and families,” Mauer said. “These cuts will have a direct impact on programs, children, and families.”

    In addition to Wisconsin, the Chicago regional office oversees programs in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota.

    Head Start supervises about 284 grants across the six states in programs that  enroll about 115,000 children, according to Mauer. There are 39 Head Start providers in Wisconsin enrolling about 16,000 children and employing about 4,000 staff.

    The federal government created Head Start in the mid-1960s to provide early education for children living in low-income households. Head Start operators report that the vast majority of the families they serve rely on the program to provide child care so they can hold jobs.

    The regional office closings came two months after a sudden halt in Head Start funding. Head Start operators get a federal reimbursement after they incur expenses, and program directors have been accustomed to being able to submit their expenses and receive reimbursement payments through an online portal.

    Over about two weeks in late January and early February, program leaders in Wisconsin and across the country reported that they were unable to log into the system or post their payment requests. The glitches persisted for some programs for several days, but were ultimately resolved by Feb. 10.

    Mauer told the Wisconsin Examiner on Tuesday that so far, there have not been new payment delays. But there has also been no communication with Head Start operators about what happens now with the unexpected regional office closings, she said.

    “No plan for who will provide support has been shared, and the still-existing regional offices are already understaffed,” Mauer said. “I’m very nervous to see what happens. With no transition plan this will be a disaster.”

    In her statement, Mauer said the regional office closing was “another example of the Federal Administration’s continuing assault on Head Start” following the earlier funding freeze and stalled reimbursements.

    She said closing regional offices was undermining the program’s ability to function.

    “We call on Congress to immediately investigate this blatant effort to hamper Head Start’s ability to provide services,” Mauer stated, “and to hold the Administration accountable for their actions.”

    Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com.


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

    Source link

  • Head Start imperiled by HHS cutbacks, advocates say

    Head Start imperiled by HHS cutbacks, advocates say

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

    Early childhood education advocates predict devastating impacts on young children from a series of federal staff reductions and proposed budget cuts to programs supporting low-income families.

    Mass layoffs in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on April 1 led to the shuttering of five Office of Head Start regional offices:  Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle. The closed offices will be consolidated into the five remaining offices. 

    The regional offices provide federal policy direction, training and technical assistance to Head Start providers.

    “This restructuring will not impact the critical services you rely on, and we are here to ensure a seamless experience as we move forward together,” wrote Laurie Todd-Smith, HHS deputy assistant secretary for early childhood development, in an April 3 announcement to Head Start grant recipients. 

    The move is part of a broader restructuring in HHS that is to save $1.8 billion, according to an agency press release on March 27.

    The National Head Start Association, a nonprofit that represents children, families and educators, has urged the Trump administration to reconsider the office closures until a plan can be created and disseminated. “Closing these regional Head Start offices could create delays in essential program support and weaken the system that has successfully served millions of children for decades,” said NHSA in an April 1 statement.

    The Trump administration says spending cuts at HHS and across the federal government are needed to reduce the country’s deficit and eliminate fiscal bloat and waste in federal agencies. 

    The Head Start move comes just a few months after HHS agreed to improve monitoring and reporting activities based on a U.S. Government Accountability Office report. The report found a small portion of Head Start programs that were operating under interim management in recent years had faced challenges from low student enrollment, unqualified staff and unsafe facilities.

    Head Start, which celebrates its 60th anniversary this year, is a federally funded early childhood and pre-K program that serves infants, toddlers and preschool children from families with low incomes. It also provides prenatal services through Early Head Start.  

    In fiscal year 2023, the program was funded at $11.5 billion to serve 778,420 children and pregnant people in centers and through home-based programs, according to the Office of Head Start.

    Closure of the regional offices could put young children at risk of abuse and other safety threats, early childhood advocates said during a Thursday press call hosted by The Child Care for Every Family Network.

    “You can’t say you’re a champ of kids and then put kids at risk for abuse by gutting the very agency responsible for protecting America’s most vulnerable kids,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., during the press call. 

    The Head Start system was already in a precarious position earlier this year when the Trump administration froze federal funding in many agencies, asking that agency leaders assess how their fiscal programs conflict with President Donald Trump’s executive orders. 

    Even though the funding freeze was lifted just days later, NHSA said that even more than a week later, 52 Head Start grant recipients serving just under 20,000 children and families in 22 states, D.C. and Puerto Rico were still unable to access their already approved grant funding.

    Stability of the child care system

    Advocates are also concerned about stability of the broader child care and early childhood education infrastructure.

    The Republican-led Congress is considering budget cuts that could significantly reduce programs that low-income families rely on, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Social Services Block Grant.

    Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill, who was also on the press call, said all TANF and SSBG staff at HHS were laid off this week. “The mass layoffs for child care and Head Start programs are threatening the safety and care of children,” Davis said.

    Source link

  • Head Start is in turmoil

    Head Start is in turmoil

    In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson launched “Project Head Start,” a summer program intended to help children from low-income families prepare for school. Sixty years later, Head Start has expanded into a multi-billion program operating in all 50 states, serving preschoolers as well as infants, toddlers and pregnant women.

    But the program is facing serious challenges, such as recent disruptions in federal funding, and cuts among staffers who oversee the program. In a recent feature story for The Hechinger Report, reporter Anya Kamenetz delved into Head Start’s uncertain future. I asked Anya what she learned from her reporting. Her responses have been edited for length and clarity.

    Q: Head Start is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year, and has persevered through both Democratic and Republican presidential administrations. However, it seems to be uniquely vulnerable this year. What is happening that puts the program at risk?

    A: A lot of the federal staff has been fired. And Project 2025, which the Trump administration has been following closely, calls for eliminating the program altogether. (Editor’s note: this week, the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Head Start, placed staffers at five of Head Start’s 10 regional offices on administrative leave.)

    Q: Critics of Head Start say that the program is poorly run and that the money could be better spent at the local level. According to its supporters, why is Head Start still an important program?

    A: The program has always been severely underfunded, serving only a fraction of eligible children. The lapses in quality that we know about have come to light in part because the program has better oversight and higher quality standards than the existing patchwork of subsidized, nonprofit and for-profit programs otherwise available across the country. Head Start has been shown to improve long-term educational outcomes. In addition, lawmakers are threatening cuts to Head Start alongside cuts to programs that support families across the board, from food stamps to Medicaid

    Q: States and local communities are stepping in to expand their early childhood offerings. Did state officials share with you if they are ready to step in should Head Start be cut or if the funding shifts?

    A: Yes, a bright spot in my article was that in states like Vermont and New Mexico where they have been committed to expanding access to childcare, they are intending to keep this a priority even if federal funding shifts.

    Read the full story about the future of Head Start.

    This story about Head Start 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

  • Head Start, the federal child care program for low-income families, is turning 60 this year. Will it make it to 61?

    Head Start, the federal child care program for low-income families, is turning 60 this year. Will it make it to 61?

    NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Bright morning sun is streaming through her home’s windows as Sandra Dill reads a picture book about penguins to a room full of busy toddlers. While listening, the kids blow kisses, plop in a visitor’s lap, then get up to slide down a small slide.

    Dill has been running a family child care business from her home for 15 years, and every one of her 13 grandchildren has spent time here — currently it’s 20-month-old Nathaniel, who has a puff of curly hair and a gooey grin.

    “My older ones started to call it ‘grandma school,’” she said. Another one of her granddaughters, now a teenager, is returning this summer to help out.

    Four of Dill’s eight available slots are funded through Head Start. This is the federal-to-local program that funds child care and other support for the poorest families in America. (Regular Head Start serves children 3 to 5 years old; Early Head Start is for those under 3.) The program — which began right here in New Haven, Connecticut — is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year.

    It’s also never been so at risk: First a federal funding freeze hit providers, then a chunk of Head Start federal support staff were fired by the Department of Government Efficiency. On March 27, the Department of Health and Human Services announced it was cutting a further 10,000 jobs, and reorganizing the Administration for Children and Families, which administers Head Start. As of April 1, Head Start employees in five of the program’s 10 regions — Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle — had reportedly been laid off, according to a LinkedIn post that day from Katie Hamm, a former official with the federal Administration for Children and Families. Hamm said there does not appear to be a transition plan laying out how Head Start programs in those regions will receive funding and support. Project 2025, the conservative policy handbook organized by the Heritage Foundation, which the Trump administration has been following closely, calls for eliminating Head Start altogether.

    “I think it’s terrible,” Dill said. “I just can’t imagine. It’s already not enough, and if this happens, it’s going to affect a lot of families that are already struggling.”

    Ed Zigler, the “father of Head Start,” was the son of immigrants from Poland. His father was a peddler and his mother plucked chickens to make a little money, according to Walter Gilliam, executive director of the University of Nebraska’s Buffett Early Childhood Institute, who counted Zigler as his closest mentor.

    When Zigler was a child, his family made its way to a settlement house in Kansas City, Missouri; these community-based charities offered a two-generation approach, caring for and educating children while also teaching English and job skills to parents and connecting families with medical care and housing help.

    “That made a huge impact on his and his family’s life,” Gilliam 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.

    As a young psychology professor at Yale, Zigler was hired as an advisor to President Lyndon Johnson to help design family programs for the federal War on Poverty. In creating Head Start, he turned to the same two-generation model he grew up with.

    To date, Head Start has served nearly 40 million children. In fiscal year 2023, the Head Start program was funded to serve 778,420 children. The program has always been underfunded: In 2020 Head Start served barely 1 in 10 eligible infants and toddlers and only half of eligible preschoolers. It’s limited to families making under the federal poverty level, which is just $31,200 for a family of four.

    The sand table at Dill’s child care is an opportunity to explore shapes, colors and textures. Credit: Anya Kamenetz for The Hechinger Report

    Still, for many of the families who do manage to make it through the doors, the program is life-changing.

    “Head Start is in every community in America,” said Cara Sklar, director of early & elementary education policy at the D.C.-based think tank New America. “It’s the original two-generation program, with wraparound support for kids. It’s really held up as a model of quality in early learning.”

    The “wraparound support” for Dill’s Early Head Start families is funded by the United Way of Greater New Haven, and comes via a network for family child care educators called All Our Kin. The network helps mothers enroll in community college and apply for housing subsidies. Dill has had mothers who lived in their cars and one who was living with her mother “six to a room,” she said. She also does regular home visits with families to talk about children’s development and support parents in goals like potty training.

    Thanks to Early Head Start, a nurse, a mental health consultant and a nutritionist all help Dill keep the kids healthy and safe. And the program also provides extra funds she can use to get back up and running if, for example, the furnace needs fixing.

    But Head Start is now facing funding challenges that go far beyond a broken furnace. “The past month has been harrowing for child care providers,” said Carolina Reyes, director of Arco Iris Bilingual Children’s Center, a preschool in Laurel, Maryland, that is a Head Start partner, and also a member of the nationwide advocacy group MomsRising. 

    The first blow to Head Start in this administration was President Donald Trump’s January 27 executive order calling for a federal funding freeze. Since Head Start is a direct federal-to-local grant program, even temporary interruptions in funding can cause programs to close their doors.

    “ Programs like mine operate on razor-thin margins,” said Reyes. “I don’t have any reserves to pull from if funding is delayed or slashed.”

    Related: Is Head Start a failure?

    While funding for most programs has resumed, Joel Ryan, the executive director of the Washington State Association of Head Start, said in a recent press conference that as late as the week of Feb. 17, one in four of his programs still had trouble accessing the Head Start payment website. 

    That same week of the 17th, almost 70 Head Start staffers were pink-slipped in the federal government’s sweep of “probationary” employees — about one-fifth of the program’s workforce. One laid-off employee, who didn’t want to give his name because he is still fighting his dismissal and fears reprisal, said he spent five years as a contractor before switching to full time this past summer, which accounted for his probationary status. He wore many hats at Head Start, doing data analytics, working with grant recipients and serving as a liaison for state partners.

    “They say we’re bloated; we could have used two more full-time people,” he said.

    The cuts, he feared, will lead to further delays in programs getting the payments they rely on, not to mention the oversight that keeps kids safe.

    “I come from the private sector. I will find another job,” he said. “The issue isn’t us, it’s the children and the families. We’ve got all these people in poverty who are getting screwed over by what’s happening.” 

    A third blow came on February 25, when the House passed a budget resolution calling for $880 billion in cuts to discretionary spending programs over the next decade, with Medicaid the prime target, along with the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Head Start families overwhelmingly rely on these safety net programs. The White House’s gutting of the Department of Education also threatens many services for preschoolers, especially those in special education. (This process, which maps out the next fiscal year, is separate from the recent vote to fund the government until Sept. 30.)

    “This is going from the precipice of disaster to decimating the system,” Sklar said. “All the parts that help families, from Head Start to child care to food to health care, are all being destabilized at once.”

    Gilliam said that threats to eliminate Head Start are nothing new. After designing the program during the Johnson administration, Zigler was appointed to run it under the presidency of Richard Nixon. “Some folks told him that his job was to destroy, essentially, the program that he had created,” Gilliam said.

    Related: In 2024, Head Start programs are still funded by a formula set in the 1970s

    Head Start advocates said the program has been able to fight off political challenges in the past because it is widely distributed geographically and has bipartisan support.

    “I agree that Project 2025 is a real threat to Head Start, as well as to other programs that we all care about,” said Ryan, with the Washington State Head Start association.

    “But I will say this: We have great research. We have great data. We have a great track record. We have a lot of bipartisan support in Congress. And we have parent power.”

    By coincidence, the week the House passed its budget resolution, a group of 150 Head Start parents were on Capitol Hill lobbying as part of a group called Start Early, and they met with many Republican senators.

    Tommy Sheridan, the deputy director of the National Head Start Association, struck an almost defiantly optimistic tone after the visit to lawmakers: “We still believe and have seen indicators that this administration is supportive of Head Start. And Congress as well.”

    NaMaree Cunningham and her twin sister turned two on the day of our visit. Credit: Anya Kamenetz for The Hechinger Report

    Another potential bright spot is the growth of child care support and funding on the state level. Elizabeth Groginsky is New Mexico’s first cabinet secretary for the state’s new Early Childhood Education & Care Department, and she said the pandemic woke a lot of people up to the importance of early care and education.

    “People began to understand the impact that child care has on children’s development, families’ ability to work, the overall economy,” Groginsky said.

    Since 2020, New Mexico has gone through a major expansion in home visits, child care and preschool. Vermont has made similar moves, and New York and Connecticut are heading in that direction as well. Even the deep-red state of Kentucky has expanded access.

    What all of these state-level programs have in common is that they are much more widely available to middle-class families, rather than tightly targeted to families in poverty, as Head Start still is. Historically, with programs like Medicare and Social Security, universal access has meant durable support.

    Now those states are contemplating stepping in further if the federal government drops the ball.

    “Because the state has made such an impressive commitment to child care, we’re potentially in a better spot than others,” said Janet McLaughlin, deputy commissioner for Vermont’s Department of Children and Families. And Groginsky, in New Mexico, said firmly, “The governor and the legislature — I don’t think we’ll let New Mexicans go without. They’ll find a way.”

    Support for this reporting was provided by the Better Life Lab at New America.

    Contact editor Christina Samuels at 212-678-3635 or samuels@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about Head Start 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

  • Professional services staff need equal recognition – visibility in sector data would be a good start

    Professional services staff need equal recognition – visibility in sector data would be a good start

    Achieving recognition for the significant contribution of professional services staff is a collaborative, cross-sector effort.

    With HESA’s second consultation on higher education staff statistics welcoming responses until 3 April, AGCAS has come together with a wide range of membership bodies representing professional services staff across higher education to release a statement warmly welcoming HESA’s proposal to widen coverage of the higher education staff record to include technical staff and professional and operational staff.

    By creating a more complete staff record, HESA aim to deliver better understanding of the diverse workforce supporting the delivery of UK higher education. AGCAS, together with AHEP, AMOSSHE, ASET, CRAC-Vitae, NADP and UMHAN, welcome these proposals. We have taken this collaborative approach because we have a common goal of seeking wider recognition for the outstanding contributions and work of our members in professional services roles, and the impact they make on their institutions, regions, graduates and students.

    A matter of visibility

    Since the 2019–20 academic year, higher education providers in England and Northern Ireland have had the option to return data on non-academic staff to HESA. However, this has led to a lack of comprehensive visibility for many professional services staff. In the 2023–24 academic year, out of 228 providers only 125 opted to return data on all their non-academic staff – leaving 103 providers opting out.

    This gap in data collection has raised concerns about the recognition and visibility of these essential staff members – and has not gone unnoticed by professional services staff themselves. As one AGCAS member noted:

    Professional service staff have largely remained invisible when reporting on university staff numbers. Professional services provide critical elements of student experience and outcomes, and this needs to be recognised and reflected better in statutory reporting.

    This sentiment underscores the importance of the proposed changes by HESA, and the reason for our shared response.

    Who is and is not

    A further element of the consultation considers a move away from the term “non-academic” to better reflect the roles and contributions of these staff members and proposes to collect data on staff employment functions.

    Again, we collectively strongly support these proposed changes, which have the potential to better understand and acknowledge the wide range of staff working to deliver outstanding higher education across the UK. The term non-academic has long been contentious across higher education. While continuing to separate staff into role types may cause issues for those in the third space, shifting away from a term and approach that defines professional services staff by othering them is a welcome change.

    As we move forward, it is essential to continue fostering collaboration and mutual respect between academic and professional services staff. Challenging times across higher education can create or enhance partnership working between academic and professional services staff, in order to tackle shared difficulties, increase collaboration and form strategic alliances.

    A better environment

    By working in this way, we can create a more inclusive and supportive environment that recognises the diverse contributions of all staff members, ultimately enhancing outcomes for all higher education stakeholders, particularly students.

    Due to the nature of our memberships, our shared statement focuses on professional services staff in higher education – but we also welcome the clear focus on operational and technical staff from HESA, who again make vital contributions to their institutions.

    We all know that representation matters to our members, and the higher education staff that we collectively represent. HESA’s proposed changes could help to start a move towards fully and equitably recognising the vital work of professional services staff across higher education. By expanding data collection to include wider staff roles and moving away from the term “non-academic”, we can better understand and acknowledge the wide range of contributions that support the higher education sector.

    This is just the first step towards better representation and recognition, but it is an important one.

    Source link

  • Trump’s Columbia Cuts Start Hitting Postdocs, Professors

    Trump’s Columbia Cuts Start Hitting Postdocs, Professors

    When the Trump administration announced Friday it was cutting about $400 million in grants and contracts from Columbia University, it didn’t specify what exactly it was slashing. But news of the scope of the cuts has begun trickling out of the institution over the past couple of days.

    So far, much of the information about the canceled grants has come via social media, as neither the Trump administration nor the university have provided a comprehensive accounting of what’s being cut. The National Institutes of Health did say earlier this week that it was pulling more than $250 million in grants from Columbia, though the agency wouldn’t share more details. And it’s hard to tell whether specific cuts are part of the $400 million or a continuation of the Trump administration’s general national reduction of federal funding to universities, such as axing grants it deems related to diversity, equity and inclusion.

    On Tuesday, Joshua A. Gordon, chair of the university’s psychiatry department, emailed colleagues to tell them the National Institutes of Health had terminated nearly 30 percent of grants to Columbia’s medical school—including many within his own department.

    “All of our training grants and many fellowships have been terminated,” Gordon wrote in the email, which a postdoctoral research fellow provided Inside Higher Ed.

    Gordon wrote that he’s still working with university administrators “to find out the full extent of these terminations” and that “the institution is committed to identifying the resources that can be brought to bear to support the people and projects affected by the terminations.” He added, “We remain dedicated to ensuring that our trainees and early-career scientists have the support needed to continue their work and achieve their career goals.”

    The Trump administration said this unprecedented $400 million cut was due to Columbia’s “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” More cuts at Columbia and other universities could follow as Trump follows through on his pledge to crack down on alleged antisemitism and punish elite universities. Columbia has more than $5 billion in federal grants and contracts.

    Columbia postdocs and faculty have taken to social media to announce canceled grants, fellowships and funding for Ph.D. students, showing some of the individual impacts on people and research wrought by the Trump administration’s actions. They include nixed training for researchers of depression and schizophrenia and a grant that would’ve provided free mental health resources to K-12 students.

    Sam Seidman, a postdoc and a steward for the Columbia Postdoctoral Workers union, told Inside Higher Ed that, “as a Jew,” it’s “particularly outrageous” to hear the Trump administration justifying the cuts by saying it’s fighting antisemitism.

    Seidman said he found out Monday that his T32 grant, an NIH training fellowship for new scientists, had been canceled. “I certainly don’t feel protected,” he said.

    He said it’s clear the Trump administration doesn’t have an issue with antisemitism or even with Columbia specifically. Its issue, Seidman said, is with “public funding of science and it’s with public funding, period,” adding that “Columbia makes a convenient scapegoat.”

    In an emailed statement, a Columbia Irving Medical Center spokesperson said, “Columbia is in the process of reviewing notices and cannot confirm how many grant cancellations have been received from federal agencies” since Friday.

    The spokesperson said, “We remain dedicated to our mission to advance lifesaving research and pledge to work with the federal government to restore Columbia’s federal funding.”

    In a separate statement Wednesday, interim president Katrina Armstrong, herself a medical doctor, didn’t mention the cuts and instead said she stands by broad principles such as “intellectual freedom” and “personal responsibility.”

    “I have no doubt that the days and weeks ahead are going to be extremely difficult,” Armstrong said. “The best I can promise is that I will never stray from these principles and that I will work tirelessly to defend our remarkable, singular institution.”

    Marcel Agüeros, secretary of Columbia’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said, “It’s already looking very grim.”

    Agüeros said it’s a slow process to try to understand how the cuts are affecting such a large and decentralized university. But he said he has learned “it’s not just the kind of classic lab-based biomedical research that’s being impacted.”

    Like Seidman, he said the cuts don’t seem to be about the grants themselves or Columbia. Instead, Agüeros said, it’s “an assault on universities in general” and the concept of peer review that the grants went through.

    “It’s coming for you; it doesn’t really matter where you are or what you research,” Agüeros said

    Cut Off at the Knees

    In its Wednesday statement, the university medical center said that “from pioneering cancer treatments to innovative heart disease interventions and cutting-edge gene and cell therapies, research conducted by Columbia faculty has helped countless people live healthier, longer and more productive lives.”

    Seidman said his NIH grant was for research on family and biological risk factors that predispose kids to develop eating disorders, depression and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. He thinks university higher-ups are trying to find alternative funding but “haven’t been any more specific than ‘we’re looking.’”

    “It’s tragic, I mean these are lifesaving, potentially, interventions,” Seidman said. Yet the researchers developing them have been “cut off at the knees,” he said.

    Gordon Petty, a postdoc in Columbia’s psychiatry department, said his T32 training grant, which has also been canceled, was to study schizophrenia. He said he heard that the department is still dedicated to supporting him, “but it’s unclear where that money’s coming from.”

    Trump’s cuts appear to have also hit Teachers College of Columbia University, which is a separate higher education institution from Columbia with its own board. But it’s unclear if that’s part of the $400 million cut for allegedly not properly addressing antisemitism or part of nationwide cuts to grants perceived as being related to diversity, equity and inclusion. A Teachers College spokesperson said, “We are still sorting through the full impact on the college and will be in touch when we have more to say.”

    Prerna Arora, an associate professor of psychology and education at Teachers College, said she got an email Friday from a deputy assistant U.S. education secretary announcing the cancellation of a five-year Education Department grant. Arora said most of the funds went directly to graduate students training to become K-12 school psychologists serving children in New York City.

    The email, according to Arora, alleged that the grant funded “programs that promote or take part in initiatives that unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or another protected characteristic” or that “violate either the letter or purpose of federal civil rights law” or “conflict with the department’s policy of prioritizing merit, fairness and excellence in education.”

    “We already have students that are funded under this, and they are at the university and we are in the middle of our admissions cycle for next year,” Arora said. She said, “I’ve spoken to very scared and tearful students” who are afraid of what this means for their training and “for their future.”

    And, beyond the impact on college students, Arora lamented the loss of the grant’s free help to K-12 students and families. “We could’ve helped many children who need this,” she said.

    It’s unclear whether the Trump administration will restore the grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said after the announcement Friday that she had a “productive” meeting with Armstrong. Meanwhile, Columbia said in a statement that it’s “committed to working with the federal government to address their legitimate concerns.”

    Agüeros, with the AAUP, said Columbia has already “gone overboard in an attempt to silence any kind of dissent.” Its previous president called in the New York Police Department to remove a pro-Palestinian protest encampment last spring and publicly criticized and revealed investigations into her own faculty in front of Congress.

    “There’s this assumption that if we just go along with things we’ll escape somehow unscathed,” Agüeros said. But he noted the cuts still arrived.

    “What did all of that get us—all of the sort of compliance that was put in place? It got us nothing.”

    Source link

  • How R&D creates new skills and can jump start the economy

    How R&D creates new skills and can jump start the economy

    Skills England, the government’s new-ish arms length body exists to coordinate the work of employers, educators, and civic leaders to meet the skills needs of the country over the next decade. As the Secretary of State for Education states in the opening of Skill’s England’s inaugural report

    The first mission of this government is economic growth. Central to this mission is a skills system fit for the future. We need to harness the talents of all our people to unlock growth and break down the barriers to opportunity. Each and every young person and adult in the country must be able to learn the skills they need to seize opportunity. Businesses need a highly skilled workforce to draw on if they are to drive economic growth and expand opportunity in our communities.

    On the face of it the argument is compelling. The mission is to have a bigger economy. The method is to increase economic output in key industries. The means is to have people to deliver those outputs. And the result is a more productive economy and a rise in living standards.

    One of the challenges the government faces is that it has a limited set of tools. It can set incentives and regulation but in mass swathes of the economy it cannot set wages, tell businesses what to do, and for more than a decade no government has made the country significantly more productive.

    As the National Centre Institute of Economic and and Social Research argues one of the reasons the UK’s productivity is stuck is because the uneven distribution of skills also leads to the uneven distribution of clusters that can spin up economic activity. Plainly, if the country keeps producing similar graduates with similar skills the economy will end up in a similar place. It might not be just that we are training the wrong skills but that we’re thinking about graduate skills entirely wrongly.

    Supply and demand

    It is quite hard to work out what skills will free the country from its productivity trap.

    For example, the Department for Education provides a bulletin on occupations in demand and it makes for mixed reading for universities.

    82.5 per cent of the occupations which the Department believes are in critical demand do not require a degree level education. Critical demand is a composite measure which assesses outliers against seven indicators which “include the number of visa applications, online job adverts and annual wage growth.” The most critically in demand occupation is care work, followed by sales accounts and business development managers, and then metal working production and maintenance fitters.

    To be clear, this is a different analysis on whether those occupations benefit from someone having a degree in them. If you take a profession like childcare there are zero barriers to entry, zero licensing requirements, and in the informal childcare sector zero need for background checks. All things being equal, having nannies trained somewhere like Norland which produces highly qualified nannies is a net good for children and the economy.

    The professions that are the highest in demand do not require a university degree. Therefore, there is an argument that reducing the number of people with a university degree would not harm the economy overall. A version of this narrative is played out in the too many people go to university debate and the UK needs more apprentices debate. Whether either of these things are true, having more apprentices would seem to be a good thing, they don’t always consider how universities themselves create demand for new skills in the workforce.

    To put it plainly, universities don’t just supply skills, they create demand for them.

    Alignment

    This is because universities carry out research and one of the core purposes of research is to create products and services that can be adopted into the real economy.

    The social and political implications of the contraceptive pill, the media campaigns to reduce smoking, and the innovation in materials arising from the motorway signs developed at the Royal School of Art, demonstrate R&D from UK universities shapes the skills society needs in an unexpected way.

    This is a different kind of shaping of the skills landscape than the government. The government’s approach is top down: putting in place incentives, regulations, and investment, to create a different kind of labour market. Universities work from the bottom up by pursuing things that are interesting, turning ideas into reality, and then creating new kinds of work. This work then has to be serviced by new skills and new combinations of existing skills.

    Kate Black, the co-founder of University of Liverpool spin-out Meta Additive, couches her work in similar terms:

    It is amazing to be able to take my research which started life in a laboratory at the University and then translate it into the real-world, helping to create jobs and providing industry with smart manufacturing solutions.

    There are new skills and new kinds of work needed because of the work of universities. Clearly, it’s harder to predict the industries that are yet to emerge.

    Narratives

    Student fees cross subsidise research but this does not mean there is a good relationship between which students universities recruit and what research they should fund. This has led to the current arrangements where incentives encourage a broad programme mix, in turn encouraging a growth in student numbers, therefore requiring academics to teach students, and in part creating research across a broad portfolio. The incentives for funding research works against specialisation for the majority of institutions.

    This leads to a skills system that is led by student demand for places not the skills an economy needs. In turn, this limits the kind of research that takes place, which in turn limits the creation of new demand for skills.

    For example, Labour’s industrial strategy requires a workforce skilled in core sciences. The university recruitment landscape is working against having more people taking up those roles. The more numbers decline, the less likely universities are to provide those courses, and the more the UK’s R&D base will suffer, which will limit the creation of new jobs and demand for skills to fulfill them.

    This leaves an enormous policy conundrum. One option would be to designate programmes of critical importance which are allowed a permanent funding settlement to support R&D and skills development. This could be an increase in the teaching grant or additional hypothecated funding through the research councils. This would help the stability of the R&D and skills pipeline but it would be massively unpopular for some institutions, hasten the closure of non critical research fields, and it does not solve the problem that skills and research needs are unpredictable.

    The other solution is a more stable research funding settlement for universities that nudges toward de-coupling research funding from student recruitment. This would mean either more research funding to maintain the current system or fewer better funded projects. Again, not easy or cheap.

    Universities will respond to the incentives in front of them but the narrative is theirs to shape. Instead of talking about research, graduate jobs, and a graduate skills gap, the opportunity is to talk about how the economy really works. The current arrangement incentivises universities to continually tack their programmes, research, and offer to the funding in front of them. An alternative narrative is the investment in broad based curricula and research is the best insurance against an economy which is unpredictable, and the only opportunity to jump start an economy which is comatose. This requires long-term and predictable funding.

    Source link

  • Philadelphia Schools Could Start Before Labor Day for the Next 2 Years – The 74

    Philadelphia Schools Could Start Before Labor Day for the Next 2 Years – The 74


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

    Philadelphia students could head back to classes before Labor Day for the next two years, according to proposed academic calendars the district released Tuesday.

    The pre-Labor Day start for the 2025-26 and 2026-27 calendars will allow for longer spring and winter recesses as well as additional cultural and religious holidays throughout the year, district officials said this week.

    Superintendent Tony Watlington also confirmed Tuesday that district schools and offices will be closed on Friday for the Philadelphia Eagles celebratory Super Bowl parade.

    “We look forward to celebrating the Eagles’ victory as a community, and we hope that our students, staff and families will do so safely and responsibly,” Watlington said in a statement.

    The question of whether to start before or after Labor Day has rankled families and district leaders in recent years, in part because many Philly schools do not have adequate air conditioning. That has forced some buildings to close or dismiss students early due to excessive heat in the first week back.

    This school year, the first day back landed before Labor Day, and 63 schools without air conditioning dismissed students early, during the first week of classes. However, school started after Labor Day in 2023-24, and heat closures still impacted students’ learning time that first week.

    Watlington said at his state of the schools address this year that over the past three school years, the number of schools without air conditioning has shrunk from 118 to 57 thanks in part to a donation from Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts.

    Shakeera Warthen-Canty, assistant superintendent of school operations and management at the district, said their academic calendar recommendations this year are built off of a survey and several in-person feedback sessions.

    The majority of parents and caregivers who responded preferred a post-Labor Day start, the survey found. But students, teachers, school staff, and community members reported they overwhelmingly preferred starting the school year before Labor Day.

    Some 16,400 parents, students, school staff, principals, and community members responded to the survey the district sent out last September, Warthen-Canty said.

    Respondents also said they wanted more frequent breaks for longer durations to accommodate family vacations, as well as time to rest, support mental health, and prevent staff burnout.

    State law says districts must have a minimum of 180 student days, or a minimum of 900 instructional hours for elementary school students and 990 hours for middle and high school students. The district’s collective bargaining agreement with the teachers union also requires 188 teacher work days, as well as a minimum of 28 professional development hours.

    The district officials’ calendar recommendations will go to the school board for a vote before they are enacted.

    If approved, winter recess would be seven days in 2025-26 and eight days in 2026-27, while spring break would be five days both years.

    In addition to the five state and national holidays (Memorial Day, Independence Day, Christmas, Thanksgiving, and New Year’s Day), Philadelphia school district school holidays in 2025-26 and 2026-27 would include:

    • Labor Day
    • Rosh Hashanah
    • Yom Kippur
    • Indigenous Peoples Day
    • Veterans Day
    • Martin Luther King Jr. Day
    • Presidents Day
    • Lunar New Year
    • Eid al-Fitr
    • Good Friday
    • Eid al-Adha
    • Juneteenth

    This school year, both Indigenous Peoples Day and Veterans Day were school days.

    As for how the new calendar may interact with Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker’s commitment to “extended-day, extended-year” school: Deputy Superintendent Jermaine Dawson said this week the district has ensured any expansion of that program will work “alongside our calendar of school days.”

    This story was originally published at Chalkbeat, a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.


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

    Source link

  • Campus closures, mergers, cuts, and crises at the start of 2025 (Bryan Alexander)

    Campus closures, mergers, cuts, and crises at the start of 2025 (Bryan Alexander)

    Today, while Trump continues to flood the zone, I want to establish a
    sense of what the higher education baseline was before he cut loose. 
    As the new administration goes even more energetically after academia
    I’d like to share some data about our sector’s standing.

    Last year I tracked cuts and crises afflicting dozens of campuses.  I
    posted roughly every months, noting program cuts, institutional
    mergers, and campus closures, as well as financial crises likely to
    cause same: March 1March 20March 28, April, MayJuneJulySeptember, November. Today I’ll continue that line for the reasons I’ve previously given:
    to document key stories in higher education; to witness human suffering;
    to point to possible directions for academia to take.  In addition, I
    want to help paint a picture of the world Trump is starting to attack.

    Some caveats: I’m doing this in haste, between the political chaos
    and a stack of professional deadlines, which means the following will be
    more telegraphic than usual.  I may well have missed some stories, so
    please let me know in comments.

    Closing colleges and universities

    Philadelphia’s University of the Arts closed in 2024. Now different
    actors are angling for its physical remains.  Temple University purchased an iconic building, Quadro Bay bought another, and while more bids appear.

    Mergers

    Gannon University (Catholic, Pennsylvania) and Ursuline College (Catholic, Ohio) agreed to merge by this December.  The idea is to synthesize complementary academic offers and provide institutional stability, it seems.

    Seattle University (Jesuit, Washington state) and the Cornish College of the Arts (private, Washington) also agreed to merge.  As with the Lake Erie schools, one motivation is to expand curricular offerings:

    Emily Parkhust, Cornish’s interim president, said the deal opens new doors for the tiny school’s nearly 500 students.

    “This strategic combination will allow our students opportunities
    that we simply weren’t able to offer and provide at a small arts
    college,” she said. “Such as the opportunity to take business classes,
    computer courses, pursue master’s degree programs, engage in college
    sports — and even swim in a pool.”

    Financial problems also played a role: “Cornish declared it was undergoing a financial emergency in 2020, and this year, Seattle University paused hiring as it faces a $7.5 million deficit.”

    The Universidad Andres Bello (Universidad Andrés Bello; private, Chile) purchased Post University (for-profit, Connecticut).

    Campuses cutting programs and jobs

    In this series I’ve largely focused on the United States for the
    usual reasons: the sheer size and complexity of the sector; limited
    time. But in my other writing I’ve noted the epochal crisis hitting
    Canadian higher education, as the nation’s decision to cut international
    enrollment has struck institutional finances.   Tony Bates offers a good backgrounder.  Alex Usher’s team set up an excellent website tracking the resulting retrenchment.

    British higher education is also suffering, partly for the reasons
    that nation’s economy is hurting: negative effects of Brexit, energy
    problems stemming from the Ukraine war, and political fecklessness. For
    one example I find the University of Hull (public research) which is combining 17 schools into 11 and ending its chemistry program, all for financial reasons. Cardiff University (Prifysgol Caerdydd; public research) cut 400 full time jobs, also for financial reasons:

    Vice-Chancellor Professor
    Wendy Larner defended the decision to cut jobs, saying the university
    would have become “untenable” without drastic reforms.

    The job role cuts are only a
    proposal, she said, but insisted the university needed to “take
    difficult decisions” due to the declining international student
    applications and increasing cost pressures.

    Prof Larner said the
    university is not alone in its financial struggles, with most UK
    universities grappling with the “broken” funding system.

    Back in the United States, Sonoma State University (public university, part of California State University system) announced a massive series of cuts.

    “approximately 46 university faculty – both tenured and
    adjunct – will receive notice that their contracts will not be renewed
    for 2025-26. Additional lecturers will receive notice that no work will
    be available in fall 2025… Four management positions and 12 staff
    positions also will be eliminated.”

    The university will shut down a group of departments: “Art History,
    Economics; Geology; Philosophy; Theater and Dance; and Women and Gender
    Studies.”

    (These are the kind of cuts I’ve referred to as “queen sacrifices,”
    desperate moves to cut a school’s way to survival.  The term comes from
    chess, where a player can give up their most powerful piece, the queen.
    In my analogy tenured faculty represent that level of relative power.)

    There will be some consolidation (“The college also plans to merge
    the Ethnic Studies departments (American Multicultural Studies, Chicano
    and Latino Studies, and Native American Studies) into one department
    with one major”) along with ending a raft of programs:

    Administrative Services Credential in ELSE; Art
    History BA; Art Studio BFA; Dance BA; Earth and Environmental Sciences
    BA; Economics BA; Education Leadership MA; English MA; French BA;
    Geology BS; German Minor; Global Studies BA; History MA;
    Interdisciplinary Studies BA; Interdisciplinary Studies MA; Philosophy
    BA; Physical Science BA; Physics BA; Physics BS; Public Administration
    MPA; Spanish MA; Theatre Arts BA; Women and Gender Studies BA.

    Additionally, and unusually, SSU is also ending student athletics:
    “The University will be removing NCAA Division II athletics entirely,
    involving some 11 teams in total.”

    What lies behind these cuts?  My readers will not be surprised to learn that enrollment decline plays a role, but might be shocked by the decline’s size: “SSU has experienced a 38% decrease in enrollment.”

    More cuts: St. Norbert College (Catholic, liberal arts, Wisconsin) is planning to cut faculty and its theology department. (I posted about an earlier round of cuts there  in 2024.)  Columbia College Chicago (private, arts) will terminate faculty and academic programs.  Portland State University (Oregon) ended contracts for a group of non-tenure-track faculty.

    The University of New Orleans (public research) will cut $2.2 million of administration and staff.

    The University of Connecticut (public, land grant) is working on closing roughly two dozen academic programs.  According to one account, they include:

    master’s degrees in international studies, medieval
    studies, survey research and educational technology; graduate
    certificates in adult learning, literacy supports, digital media and
    design, dementia care, life story practice, addiction science and survey
    research; a sixth-year certificate in educational technology, and a
    doctoral degree in medieval studies.

    It’s not clear if those terminations will lead to faculty and staff reductions.

    Budget crises, programs cut, not laying off people yet

    There are also stories of campuses facing financial pressures which
    haven’t resulted in cuts, mergers, or closures so far, but could lead to
    those. Saint Augustine’s University (historically black, South Carolina) is struggling to get approval for a campus leasing deal, while moving classes online “to take care of deferred maintenance issues.”  SAU has been facing controversies and financial challenges for nearly a generation.

    The president of another HBCU, Tennessee State University, stated that they would run out of money by this spring.  That Higher Ed Dive article notes:

    TSU’s financial troubles are steep and immediate. An FAQ page on
    the university’s website acknowledges that the financial condition has
    reached crisis levels stemming from missed enrollment targets and
    operating deficits. This fall, the university posted a projected deficit of $46 million by the end of the fiscal year.

    The Middle States Commission on Higher Education agreed to hear an accreditation appeal from Keystone College (private, Pennsylvania), while that campus struggles:

    Keystone college front page 2025 Feb

    From the top of Keystone’s web page right now.

    The board of William Jewell University (private liberal arts, Missouri) declared financial exigency
    This gives them emergency powers to act. As the official statement put
    it, the move “enables reallocation of resources, restructuring of
    academic programs and scholarships and significant reductions in force.”

    Brown University (private research university, Rhode Island) is grappling
    with a $46 million deficit “that would grow to more than $90 million,”
    according to provost Francis J. Doyle III and Executive Vice President
    for Finance and Administration Sarah Latham.  No cuts are in the offing,
    although restraining growth is the order of the day. In addition,
    there’s a plan to increase one sort of program for revenue:

    the university will work to “continue to grow master’s
    [program] revenue, ultimately doubling the number of residential
    master’s students and increasing online learners to 2,000 in five
    years.”

    KQED reports
    that other California State University campuses are facing financial
    stresses, notably Cal State East Bay and San Francisco State
    University.  The entire CSU system and the University of California
    system each face massive cuts from the state’s governor.

    Reflections

    Nearly all of this is occurring before the second Trump
    administration began its work. Clearly parts of the American
    post-secondary ecosystem are suffering financially and in terms of
    enrollment.

    It’s important to bear in mind that each school’s trajectory is
    distinct from the others in key ways. Each has its history, its
    conditions, its competing strategies, resources, micropolitics, and so
    on. Each one deserves more exploration than I have time for in this
    post.

    At the same time I think we can make the case that broader national
    trends are also at work. Operating costs rise for a clutch of reasons
    (consumer inflation, American health care’s shambles, deferred
    maintenance being a popular practice, some high compensation practices,
    etc) and push hard on some budgets. Enrollment continues to be a
    challenge (I will return to this topic in a future post). The Trump
    administration does not seem likely to ameliorate those concerns.

    Note, too, that many of the institutions I’ve touched on here are not
    first tier campuses. The existence of some may be news to some readers.
    As a result, they tend not to get much media attention nor to attract
    resources.   It is important, though, to point them out if we want to
    think beyond academia’s deep hierarchical structures.

    Last note: this post has focused on statistics and bureaucracy, but
    these are all stories about real human beings.  The lives of students,
    faculty, staff and those in surrounding communities are all impacted. 
    Don’t lose sight of that fact or of these people.

    (Seattle University photo by Michael & Sherry Martin; thanks to Karen B on Bluesky, Karen Bellnier otherwise, Mo Pelzel, Peter Shea, and Siva Vaidhyanathan for links; thanks to IHE for doing a solid job of covering these stories)

    Source link