Tag: start

  • ‘We Didn’t Start the Fire’: Is student activism dead?

    ‘We Didn’t Start the Fire’: Is student activism dead?

    Welcome back to the HEPI blog. Our apologies if you have missed your daily dose of higher education policy debate being delivered to your inbox, but we have been busy working on something new. Following our recent HEPI survey, we were thrilled that in addition to readers using HEPI to stay up to date with the latest in higher education policy, over 70% of our readership use HEPI’s research as an evidence and information base. Many colleagues also draw on this to inform strategic planning, develop good practice, or influence governmental and regulatory policy. As such, we have revamped the HEPI website, making it easier for you to find the trusted, evidence-based research we provide. You can now explore our reports, blogs and events by policy area and use the improved search function to find everything you need. We encourage you to visit the new site, and in the spirit of enthusiastic debate, to let us know what you think.

    Today’s blog was authored by Darcie Jones, former Vice President of Education at the University of Plymouth Students’ Union and current HEPI Intern.

    We Didn’t Start the Fire by Billy Joel, a karaoke classic. But most importantly a 40-year list of crises and cultural touch points, many of which still present in 2025. The tale of generational fatigue led me to think about the role students play in inheriting challenges they didn’t ignite but are trying to fight. As a sabbatical officer, I often heard ‘our students aren’t activists or political’, suggesting a view of apathy towards student activism. So is student activism dead, or does it need a new lens?

    Public perception of student activism often falls within a stereotype: paint throwing, glued to the M5, and generally privileged. In some ways that isn’t false, those activists do exist. Iconic movements such as climate strikes and large-scale encampments often dominate the narrative. It takes activists like these to stand-up, utilise their privilege and be radical to create public discourse. However, such dramatic imagery can cultivate scepticism: are students genuinely passionate or merely troublemakers? Maybe it is possible they can be both.

    HEPIs report ‘There was nothing to do but take action’: The encampments protesting for Palestine and the response to them, documented ‘one of the most intensive periods of student protest since the Vietnam War.’ These encampments, born of frustration, helplessness and digital outrage, illustrated a moment when activism was unmistakably alive and visible on campuses. However, what happens to student activism when ‘radical activists’ take a break?

    What if student activism isn’t always headline worthy? What if it thrives quietly in the pages of student newspapers, or in the safe spaces built by student communities? Reframing of student activism recognises that while it can be revolutionary, student activism can also be impactful and behind the scenes.

    From investigative features on sector issues such as tuition fee hikes, to institutional procedural failures, student journalism shines a light where mainstream media may not. Written by (sometimes faceless) students, hard-hitting features highlight the feelings amongst the student community and utilises media presence to create institutional discourse and influence policy – all without having to leave their bedrooms. The importance of student newspapers in amplifying the voice of students on local or global issues can be seen sector wide, with The Tab, originally established at the University of Cambridge, now spanning across 29 UK universities.

    Community-led student spaces are an overlooked driver of cultural change. Student societies and support groups for those from marginalised backgrounds, such as LGBTQ+ societies, offer more than community. They lobby for inclusive institutional policies, host educational events and shape campus cultures from within. These groups offer a safe space for students to form authentic communities without marginalisation, in itself being a form of activism for students from certain cultures. Student groups show that impactful campaigning can be done with accessibility in mind, empowering silenced voices to speak up in ways that suit their needs.

    This is just a small example of the methods in which students portray activism within student communities. Overall, arguing that students ‘are not political’ erases all that students do to challenge political climates. Choosing to attend work over lectures, creating a student-led community larder to counteract student poverty, attending a pride parade – these are all political choices. This perspective broadens the activism spectrum: it is not just about visible spectacle – it is about sustained effort, relationship-building, and structural change in all forms.

    Moreover, it challenges the notion that activism is solely reactive. Instead, activism can be proactive and constructive, laying the groundwork for safer, more inclusive and better-informed environments.

    Therefore, student activism is not dead. It remains alive and evolving. Yes, fiery protests make headlines and are important to enact urgent change. But equally important are the quieter forms of resistance: the written word, shared personal experience, safe and inclusive spaces built one meeting at a time.

    Just as the fire ‘was always burning’, student activism continues – whether lighting bonfires or quietly tending embers in the corners of campus. Let’s not dismiss it when it is not loudly visible; instead, let’s recognise and foster it wherever it thrives.

    Source link

  • Flat Federal Funding Stymies Head Start as State Child Care Resources Diminish – The 74

    Flat Federal Funding Stymies Head Start as State Child Care Resources Diminish – The 74


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

    Despite having some of the most resources and economic support, a recent national study ranked Indiana’s early education system 42nd in the country — and second-to-last when it came to accessibility.

    The WalletHub story, shared earlier this week, is simply the latest confirmation for Hoosier parents that Indiana’s child care market is struggling. Experts, business leaders and politicians agree that Indiana needs more child care, but can’t seem to agree on the best way to meet the moment.

    Facing budgetary pressures and depressed revenue forecasts, state leaders opted to trim funding and narrow eligibility for early learning and child care resources earlier this year. Seats for state-funded preschool, known as On My Way Pre-K, have been halved while vouchers for subsidized child care have more 21,000 children on a waitlist.

    One federal program, Head Start Indiana, hopes to help close the gap left by vanishing state funding, but faces its own challenges with flat federal funding.

    “We are the quietest, most successful 60-year old program in the federal government’s history,” boasted Rhett Cecil, the organization’s executive director. “… (our programs) are going to support their families and children. They’re allowing families to work or get job training or further education. And our services — that child care and early education — are free for those families.”

    Just under 13,000 families in all 92 counties utilize the program, which receives roughly $181 million in federal funding annually. That budget line was briefly threatened by the Trump administration, which walked back proposed cuts in favor of flat funding — which does mean services will be lost as inflation and other costs eat into the bottom line.

    The second-term president also eliminated the federal Head Start office covering Indiana back in April — though the federal Administration for Children and Families announced it would dedicate one-time funding to Head Start locations earlier this week explicitly for nutrition, but not for other programming costs.

    Additional federal support could allow it to expand to meet the need following state cuts, leaders hope, and continue employing almost 4,000 Hoosiers.

    “Let’s say, hypothetically, we get $100 million more dollars. How many more teachers and classrooms could be opened?” Cecil mused. “How many kids could we serve off that waitlist?”

    Importance of child care

    Participating in and access to child care resources reaps benefits for young Hoosiers, such as better school readiness skills. Some national research has found that early education may also decrease future crime and could generate $7.30 for every one dollar invested.

    In Indiana, the shortage of child care options costs the state an estimated $4.2 billion annually, over a quarter of which is linked to annual tax revenue lost.

    The 2024 study from the Indiana Chamber of Commerce emphasized the need to free up parents, mostly women, who’ve left the workforce “as a direct result of childcare-related issues.”

    “There’s some data out there that one in four Hoosier parents leave their job over child care gaps, and it really impacts talent and workforce,” said David Ober, the chamber’s vice president of taxation and public finance. “It’s hindering economic momentum in the state and so it is a huge deal for us.”

    For the last few years, tackling the state’s child care crisis has been a top legislative priority for the organization, which represents the interests of thousands of Hoosier employers. Ober said the chamber is working to plan a child care summit later this year to identify potential solutions.

    According to Brighter Futures Indiana, average full-time weekly care costs families $181 per week — with even higher prices for infants and toddlers. That doesn’t factor in type of care or quality, and prices vary by community.

    Families can spend more on their young children’s care than on a college education — if it’s even available in their communities. Rather than pay the price, many Hoosier parents simply drop out of the workforce at the same time that employers are scrambling to hire talent.

    Ober highlighted recent legislative efforts to expand child care, including one that expanded a tax credit for employers directly providing their employees with child care resources. Other bills have tweaked staffing ratios and created a pilot program for so-called microcenters.

    But workforce remains a challenge, even for Head Start centers, earning its own legislative study carveout. Over 20% of Indiana’s child care workers left the field during the pandemic — a shock that “has not really fully healed,” Ober said.

    “If you ask any provider in the state, workforce is the hardest problem,” Ober said. “… How do you get educators and keep them? There’s so much more work to be done there and it’s challenging.”

    Traditional market forces struggle to balance affordability for parents against costs for child care, a gap sometimes covered by government subsidies.

    But Ober insisted that “child care is infrastructure,” especially for the businesses reliant upon employees who are parents. Changing funding is “going to just exacerbate underlying problems,” he added.

    “Those numbers are pretty stark,” Ober said. “And then when you add in changes at the state and the federal level, it creates new problems that we all have to come together and work on,” he concluded.

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


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

    Source link

  • the start of recovery or another false dawn?

    the start of recovery or another false dawn?

    Last week’s The PIE Live Asia Pacific event on the Gold Coast brought sector leaders together to ask a hard question: do recent announcements signal the start of broad recovery (for both the currently blessed AND the inexplicably damned) – or another false dawn? Hardly had delegates returned to their desks when a long-awaited government announcement landed in inboxes, setting fresh expectations.

    For those outside Australia, here’s a quick refresher: it’s been 454 days since the government first revealed plans to cap international student numbers. Four days ago, officials announced an increased National Planning Level – often referred to as a “soft cap” – for 2026.

    The intervening period included a federal election marked by damaging narratives: international students labelled as “cash cows”, unfairly blamed for systemic issues; education agents painted as “racketeers”; and fierce competition stoked between education sectors, sometimes even across providers. This turmoil has sown confusion and undermined confidence in Australia as a study destination.

    It’s important to remember Australia is far from alone in navigating complex policy shifts; as IEAA’s Phil Honeywood recently observed, “optimism [in Australia] is partly a reflection of the poor state of the sector in other study destination countries: the US, Canada and increasingly the UK.” 

    Yet, despite this turbulence, interest in Australia remains high. At the aggregate, student numbers appear stable – but the reality is far more uneven. Vocational education and training (VET) and English language (ELICOS) programs have seen sharp declines, forcing several established providers to close their doors. Higher education enrolments remain buoyed largely by Chinese students enrolling in leading public universities along the eastern seaboard, but this dynamic intensifies issues around market concentration. 

    Outside these major players, regional universities and independent higher education providers alike generally recognise the government’s current visa management tool – Ministerial Direction (MD) 111 is “less bad” than its predecessor MD107, though that’s hardly high praise. Crucially, MD111 has not yet been tested through a cycle which includes the major intake of the antipodean year – and neither will it now be given its own imminent replacement.

    Although replaced, the impacts of MD107 are still felt – many prospective students clearly understood the implications of those policy settings. That, irrespective of their preferred provider (whether university, independent higher education or other), their assured route to Australia study was via a public university with opportunities for transfer to their intended provider once onshore. This has created a secondary market onshore – one much larger and more nuanced than under normal policy settings. 

    Recruiting onshore presented a viable pathway to survival for providers unable to recruit with confidence offshore given de-prioritisation and subjective visa refusals (courtesy of MD107 and its partner MD106). However, it has also created a sizable opportunity for unethical behaviour and poaching by other bad actors.

    This week’s announcement of increased “National Planning Levels” for 2026 is a positive signal, but it falls short of providing certainty to many, especially independent VET and ELICOS providers still facing precarious futures. Crucially, many key elements remain unresolved, including the replacement of MD111 and the anticipated reintroduction of amendments to the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Bill.

    These frameworks will include determination as to who is considered “an agent”, for which students commissions may be paid, what powers the Minister holds over providers (including the unfettered personal ability to cancel a provider’s license outside regulatory oversight), and rules around student transfers onshore — all issues that directly affect providers and, ultimately, the students they serve.

    Many in the sector do genuinely welcome the headline increase in the 2026 caps as a sign of clearer direction and potential stability.  The planning underpinning the 2026 caps and exemptions is detailed and generally coherent – rectifying many of the deficiencies of the previous approaches (both the proposed legislation and then last-minute instrument in December). 

    Whilst some allocation numbers are yet to be finalised, the Department has indicated that the methodology for public universities remains a similar approach as 2025 (a holistic consideration of student volumes across 2019 to 2023) – although with the new ability to apply for a greater allocation if there is strategic engagement with South East Asia and/or there is adequate provision of student accommodation. The operations and “bidding process” for these extra places is awaited – although it’ll happen rapidly if the Department delivers on its intent to confirm final allocations by October.

    However, the much-criticised approach for allocation to independent providers continues into 2026 – where the formula perversely rewards providers who recruited en masse in 2023, regardless of studentsatisfaction and outcomes, institutional risk ratings or whether the student was poached from another provider with no visa process oversight.

    This is a particularly disappointing outcome for many quality providers. Some of the most egregious behaviours committed by bad actors and permitted by deficient policies continue unfettered whilst quality providers are penalised for continuing sound and ethical practices.

    The 2026 cap announcement is a welcome step, but it’s far from the journey’s end. It will mean little without swift clarity on ESOS amendments, visa policy reform, and the first tests of the 2026 planning levels. As well as the obvious headline figures, Australia’s critical KPIs includes the diversity and distribution of students (across geographies and providers), the linking of exceptional student outcomes and ethical provider behaviours to opportunities for growth and creating the enabling environment for a rich ecosystem of providers to co-exist.

    Australia’s choice is clear: act decisively now to rebuild trust offshore, or risk being remembered not for recovery, but for squandering a once-unrivalled position in the global student market.

    Source link

  • Trump administration pauses Head Start immigration restrictions

    Trump administration pauses Head Start immigration restrictions

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

    The Trump administration agreed Friday to temporarily pause enforcement of recent policy changes that restrict some education-related federal programs based on students’ immigration or citizenship status. 

    The agreement, filed in U.S. District Court for Rhode Island, was reached between the parties in a lawsuit brought last week by 20 states and the District of Columbia against multiple federal agencies, including the departments of Education and Health and Human Services. 

    Under the agreement, Head Start programs in those states won’t be required to verify the immigration or citizenship status of the children they enroll until at least Sept. 3, 2025. HHS, which administers Head Start, previously said the new policy requiring immigration status verification would take effect immediately. 

    The Department of Education, meanwhile, was set to enforce its new restrictions for some immigrants in programs like dual enrollment, adult education and career and technical training programs by Aug. 9. The Friday agreement would delay that by about a month. 

    As part of the agreement, states that sued cannot be held liable for admitting students without proper immigration status into the programs before Sept. 4. That means programs will not be retroactively penalized for enrolling all students regardless of their immigration status, as has been the norm for Head Start for decades. 

    “Today’s stipulation ensures that, for now, critical services will continue without disruption, and that families across New York and the nation will not be punished for seeking the help to which they are lawfully entitled,” the New York Attorney General’s office said in a Friday press release.

    New York led the states filing the original lawsuit, and arguments are expected on or after Aug. 20. The District of Columbia joined the suit as did these states: 

    • Washington
    • Rhode Island
    • Arizona
    • California
    • Colorado
    • Connecticut
    • Hawaii
    • Illinois
    • Maine
    • Maryland
    • Massachusetts
    • Michigan
    • Minnesota
    • Nevada
    • New Jersey
    • New Mexico
    • Oregon
    • Vermont
    • Wisconsin

    The U.S. Department of Education could not be reached for comment in time for publication. 

    Source link

  • 20 states sue over immigration restrictions for Head Start, other programs

    20 states sue over immigration restrictions for Head Start, other programs

    Dive Brief:

    • Twenty states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration Monday afternoon, challenging the administration’s decision earlier this month to restrict publicly funded programs — including those related to education — based on immigration status.
    • The lawsuit, led by New York, argues that the restrictions to previously inclusive programs like Head Start will hurt low-income families and lead to the “collapse of some of the nation’s most vital public programs.”
    • Seeking to block the changes in the short and long term, the states allege the U.S. Department of Education and three other federal agencies did not follow the required rulemaking process in issuing new immigration verification requirements.

    Dive Insight:

    In July 10 announcements, the Education Department said it will require immigration status verification for adult education services like dual enrollment and career training programs, while the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services mandated such verification for participation in Head Start programs.

    HHS said at the time that Head Start would be “reserved for American citizens from now on.″ An HHS spokesperson clarified to K-12 Dive on July 10 that children of green card holders will remain eligible for the program and said Head Start agencies will determine eligibility based on the immigration status of the child. Head Start has heretofore been open to any child eligible based on their age or their family’s low-income status, regardless of immigration status.

    However, the lawsuit filed Monday alleges that the policy changes will impact not only undocumented immigrants, but also people holding legal status, such as temporary workers, exchange visitors and those with student visas. The suit was filed in federal district court in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

    The state attorneys general filing the lawsuit also warned that even U.S. citizens and lawful residents could be denied services, since many low-income individuals lack government-issued identification.

    “For decades, states like New York have built health, education, and family support systems that serve anyone in need,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James in a press statement on Monday. “Now, the federal government is pulling that foundation out from under us overnight, jeopardizing cancer screenings, early childhood education, primary care, and so much more.”

    James and the coalition filing the lawsuit said the policies are already “causing significant disruption” as state programs are expected to comply immediately without the infrastructure they say is necessary to do so.

    “Some longstanding providers, including those serving children, pregnant patients, refugees, and other vulnerable populations, will not be able to comply under any timeline and are already facing the risk of closure,” James’ statement said.

    These changes have alarmed civil rights advocates — who say the changes will harm the very low-income children Head Start is intended to serve. The National Head Start Association, which represents Head Start workers, meanwhile, has said the Head Start Act has never required them to check the citizenship or immigration status of children prior to their enrollment in the 60 years of the program’s existence.

    Upon release of the policy change on July 10, the American Civil Liberties Union immediately threatened to expand an existing lawsuit over the Trump administration’s actions vis-a-vis Head Start to include “this new attack on Head Start.” In April, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the administration’s moves to gut Head Start by shuttering half of the regional Office of Head Start offices and laying off much of the federal offices’ staff.

    Plaintiffs in that lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington state, include parent groups and the Head Start associations of Washington, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

    “Implementation of this directive will create fear and confusion for immigrant families about enrolling their children in Head Start regardless of what their legal status may be. This will harm children and destabilize Head Start programs,” said Lori Rifkin, litigation director at the Impact Fund, in a statement on July 10. The Impact Fund, a public interest law group, is representing plaintiffs in the Head Start lawsuit alongside ACLU.

    “If the administration moves forward with publication of this notice, we will take legal action,” RIfkin said at the time.

    The Department of Education has not specified an implementation date for the new restrictions, but has said it “generally” wouldn’t be enforcing them before Aug. 9. HHS said its changes were effective immediately in its July 10 announcement.

    Source link

  • Head Start turns 60: Alumni reflect on lifelong impact of early learning

    Head Start turns 60: Alumni reflect on lifelong impact of early learning

    In the six decades of Head Start’s existence, it has served nearly 40 million children and their families. But supporters and alumni are quick to point out that the program for children from low-income families provides more than preschool opportunities. 

    “It is more than child care and early learning, it’s a lifeline for children and families in our communities who face the steepest hills to climb to achieve success in school and in life,” said Yasmina Vinci, executive director for the National Head Start Association, during a call last month with hundreds of supporters and advocates. The association represents program leaders, children and families. 

    Head Start serves children from various backgrounds

    In the mid to late 1960s when Head Start began, about 75% of the children served were not White, which is similar to these demographics from fiscal year 2023.

    “If we want to build a healthier, freer and more fair America, we have to start by giving every child a real shot, regardless of circumstances at birth, a head start in life, and that’s why programs like Head Start matter,” Vinci said.

    The call was held to rally opposition to an anticipated request from the Trump administration to eliminate Head Start in the fiscal year 2026 budget request. However, despite those reports, the program was not dropped in the top-line FY 2026 budget proposal released May 2. A more detailed budget proposal is expected within the next month.

    The Trump administration has been cutting spending across federal agencies to reduce what it considers waste and to give states more fiscal authority. Some Republicans in Congress and other critics have called Head Start unsafe and ineffective at boosting children’s academic performance.

    But NHSA and other Head Start supporters point to research and anecdotal stories demonstrating positive academic, social and economic returns from the long-time program

    When President Lyndon B. Johnson announced the launch of Project Head Start on May 18, 1965, he said rather than it being a federal effort, the program was a “neighborhood effort.”

    Head Start funded enrollment grew over past 60 years

    In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to dips in funded enrollment.

    Today, Head Start serves nearly 800,000 infants, toddlers and preschool children a year. More than 17,000 Head Start centers operate nationwide. A companion Early Head Start program provides prenatal services.

    As the 60th anniversary approached, K-12 Dive spoke with three women who spent their preschool years in Head Start programs in the 1970s. They reminisced about supportive teachers, tasty meals and favorite songs. They also shared how that educational foundation impacted their life journeys, including how they still hold connections to the program.

    Sonya Hill has vivid memories of attending Head Start as a preschooler in the 1970s in Orlando, Fla. Now director of the same program, she’s pictured greeting children after speaking to Orlando government officials about the services on Oct. 8, 2024.

    Sonya Hill

    Sonya Hill

    Sonya Hill’s connection to Head Start has been a full-circle experience — from her participation as a child living in Orlando, Florida, in the 1970s to her role today as director of the area’s same Orange County Head Start program. 

    Hill, 52, has vivid memories of her own Head Start experience. One of her favorite activities was when all the children held onto the ends of a colorful parachute. They would shake it and run under it. Another special moment came when her father, who worked in a bakery, visited her class for a special event featuring community helpers — and brought doughnuts for all the students. 

    Her favorite teacher, she said, was Shirley Brown. 

    Years later, right after graduating from South Carolina State University with a degree in social work in 1994, Hill was waiting to be interviewed for a job at a Head Start program. Somehow she hadn’t made the connection that this was the same program she had attended as a child. And then Brown walked around the corner.

    “I hugged her so hard. It was the same feeling of hugging her when I was in her Head Start classroom, and I couldn’t believe it,” Hill said. 

    Hill got the job, and for the past 30 years, she has worked in various roles there, eventually being named director in 2016.

    As leader of the program, she travels to the Florida state capital and to Washington, D.C, to advocate for Head Start services, telling lawmakers about former students who have gone on to college and careers.

    “I’m just thinking this is a program that has impacted so many people across the United States, but I know firsthand that Head Start works,” Hill said.

    She credits her childhood Head Start experience with helping her become the first in her family to graduate college and also to earn a master’s degree.

    Her family — which she notes extends today from her grandmother to children of her nieces and nephews — is “extremely proud” of her, Hill says, and she doesn’t take that lightly. “I know I have a lot of responsibility to my family, to my community,” Hill said. “Head Start truly gave me my foundation, and that’s why I’ve stayed here, because I owe so much to the program, and I get to see firsthand how it’s changed lives.”

    Toscha Blalock remembers enjoying the routines in the Head Start program she attended in the 1970s in western Pennsylvania. She is currently the chief learning and evaluation officer at Trust for Learning.

    Toscha Blalock

    Toscha Blalock

    As a young child growing up in the small town of Monessen, Pennsylvania, Toscha Blalock’s home life was fun and welcoming, but hectic. She lived with nine relatives, including her mother, Gloria Anderson, who had Blalock when she was a teenager. As the youngest, Blalock remembers the adults and her cousins caring for her by braiding her hair and playing games with her. Even at a young age, her family labeled her “the smart one.”

    But the family struggled financially, she said. Her mother, who had negative experiences as a student during desegregation efforts, sought out the area’s Head Start program for her daughter, determined that she would have a better education.

    As a Head Start student in the 1970s, Blalock loved reading books. She also enjoyed the school day routines of learning, meal time and napping. By the time Blalock was ready for kindergarten, she was reading above her age level. In 1st grade, when she wasn’t included in the highest level reading group, Blalock’s mother spoke to school administrators, and the young student moved to the higher level group.

    “There were a lot of experiences like that in the school. There was a challenging racial dynamic in the town, and I think that spilled into how children were treated,” said Blalock, 53.

    In high school, Blalock was one of only two Black students in her 89-student graduating class enrolled in college prep classes. 

    Source link

  • 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: [email protected].


    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