Thursday, November 20, 2025
MAGA Trump Influencers TARGET Gen Z in Extremist GOP TAKEOVER (Political Punk)
Study: California, Michigan, Kentucky and Missouri have increased per student public spending the most since the pandemic (Reason Foundation)
[Editor's note: Reason Foundation is a libertarian think tank. While this press release does not reflect our editorial position, we believe important information is in this report.]
Public school enrollment has dropped the most in Hawaii, New York, Mississippi, Oregon, and California, while teachers’ salaries decreased the most in North Carolina, New Mexico, South Carolina, and West Virginia.
Los Angeles (November 20, 2025)—California has increased per-student education spending the most in the nation since the COVID-19 pandemic, up 31.5% from $19,724 in 2020 to $25,941 per pupil in 2023. Since the pandemic, per-student spending has also grown by at least 15% in Michigan, Kentucky, Missouri, Hawaii, New Mexico, Arizona, Mississippi, and Alabama, according to a new Reason Foundation study.U.S. public schools received $946.5 billion in funding in 2023, with New York topping all states by spending $36,976 per student, followed by New Jersey at $30,267 per student. The other six states that spent over $25,000 per student were Vermont ($29,169), Connecticut ($28,975), Pennsylvania ($26,242), California ($25,941), Rhode Island ($25,709), and Hawaii ($25,485).
Idaho was the only state that spent less than $12,000 per student in 2023. Utah, Oklahoma and North Carolina spent less than $14,000 per student.
While public school spending is rising, enrollment has been falling significantly since the pandemic. From 2020 to 2023, public school enrollment dropped in 39 states, the Reason Foundation report shows.
With a 6% decrease, Hawaii has experienced the largest decline in public school students since 2020. Enrollment also decreased by more than five percent in New York, Mississippi, Oregon, and California, and four percent in New Mexico, New Hampshire, Illinois, West Virginia, Colorado, Kentucky, Washington, Rhode Island, and Michigan, Reason Foundation finds.
The pandemic and inflation also hit teachers’ salaries hard. From 2020 to 2022, the average teacher’s salary decreased by more than five percent in 38 states.
Teachers’ salaries declined the most from 2020 to 2022, the most recent year with complete data available, in North Carolina (−9.6%), New Mexico (−8.8%), South Carolina (−8.7%), West Virginia (−8.6%), and Mississippi (−8.2%). Only one state, Minnesota, increased teachers’ salaries after the pandemic, the study by Reason Foundation shows.
One thing siphoning money away from salaries is the rising spending on employee benefits, which includes teacher retirement plans and pension debt, health insurance, and other expenses.
In 2023, New Jersey’s employee benefit costs totaled $8,333 per student. In New York, the cost of benefits was $7,949 per student. Vermont and Connecticut also spent more than $7,000 per student on employee benefits. Employee benefit costs also exceeded $5,000 per student in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Wyoming, and Alaska.
Amid all the spending, students’ National Assessment of Educational Progress scores regressed from 2022 to 2024 in all but one category, and scores were worse in 2024 than in 2003.
The findings are part of Reason Foundation’s K-12 Education Spotlight. You can find an overview of these key findings here and detailed data from each state’s school finance system from 2002 to 2023 here.
Contact:
Kelvey Vander Hart
Communications Specialist, Reason Foundation
Cell: (515) 954-8256
Wednesday, November 19, 2025
Higher Education Labor United ("HELU") November 2025 Report
|
.png "Higher Ed Labor United Logo on a green background")
November 2025 HELU Chair's Message |
Billionaires and the ultra-wealthy have no place in setting the future agenda for higher ed. We – the students, community members, workers that actually make the campus work – do. |
Upcoming Events: |
|
Higher Ed Labor in the News: |
From the Blog: |
Michigan HELU Coalition hosts town hall for US Senate candidates |
In Michigan, the MI HELU coalition decided that we wanted to get ahead of the curve by providing candidates with a forum that focused exclusively on Higher Education and the challenges we are facing. |
|
Michigan November 7 Day of Action against Trump Compact |
Together, we’re fighting back against the demonization of higher ed and we won’t cave to governmental bullying to water down our education system with the goal of elimination. Our students deserve better, and so do we. |
Scholars for a New Deal for Higher Education (SNDHE) Continues Its Advocacy for Higher Education as a Public Good |
Founded in 2020 during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, Scholars for a New Deal for Higher Education (SNDHE) is a group of teachers and researchers committed to rebuilding our colleges and universities so that they can be a true public resource for everyone. |
|
.png)
Federal Cuts, State Consequences: How Washington Is Bleeding New York |
And now [New York is] being punished by a federal government that sees organized labor, public education, and social investment as threats instead of strengths. |
Mandate to end remote work disrupts working conditions at University System of Georgia |
Public protest and influencing public opinion is keeping UCW (CWA Local 3821) busy. Members have been fighting fiercely to Defend Remote Work at their state institutions. |
Want to support our work? Make a contribution. |
We invite you to support HELU's work by making a direct financial contribution. While HELU's main source of income is solidarity pledges from member organizations, these funds from individuals help us to grow capacity as we work to align the higher ed labor movement. |
Are Elite Neoliberals and Trump Singing from the Same Sheet of Music?
The silence of America’s elite is deafening. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, Yale professor and corporate leadership expert, does not hesitate to call it out. In a recent email, he warned that the nation’s corporate, academic, and religious leaders—once the backbone of moral and civic accountability—are now “smugly, safely, silently on the sidelines,” while authoritarian forces surge.
“Nope,” Sonnenfeld wrote, “but it’s high time for the neo whiners to get off their lazy, cowardly butts and follow the courageous path of activists across sectors and fields from the 1960s and 1970s. It took nine years to get the No Kings rallies going. Shameful.”
He recalls an era when activism cut across sectors: interfaith clergy, college presidents—from elite universities to small faith-based institutions and HBCUs—trade union leaders, professional associations, environmentalists, and human rights advocates all marched together. Blue state treasurers and attorneys general held corporations accountable; red state officials sometimes applied pressure from the opposite side. CEOs, Sonnenfeld reminds us, are mostly “hired hands, stewards of other people’s money” who respond to engaged stakeholders. Without pressure, they retreat into inaction.
Today, the chorus of accountability is eerily silent. Clergy barely speak out. University presidents remain cautious. Activists blog while the nation teeters. Sonnenfeld’s indictment is clear: where once there was collective courage, there is now passivity—an effective alignment with the very forces undermining democracy.
In practical terms, elite inaction has consequences. Trump and his allies wield influence not only through electoral politics but by exploiting institutional inertia. By failing to mobilize, elites—through default inaction—allow a political agenda that often mirrors their own neoliberal priorities to advance unchecked: deregulation, tax favoritism, corporate consolidation, and a shrinking social safety net.
Sonnenfeld’s challenge is urgent: Will today’s corporate boards, clergy, and academic leaders rise to the occasion, reclaim the moral authority they once wielded, and demand accountability from those they employ and fund? Or will the next generation of Americans grow up seeing democracy as a performance, not a lived responsibility?
The 1960s and 1970s were not perfect, but they demonstrated what cross-sectoral solidarity could achieve. Today, silence is complicity. In a nation at moral and political crossroads, elites cannot afford to play it safe. History is watching—and so is the rest of the world.
Defenders of the Higher Ed Business: How Lawyers Shield a Broken Industry
In the long decline of American higher education, a certain class of professionals has quietly prospered—lawyers who specialize in defending institutions from the consequences of their own behavior. These attorneys rarely appear in public debates over student debt, predatory recruitment, or collapsing regional colleges. Yet their fingerprints are everywhere: in courtroom strategies designed to run out the clock, in motions that narrow the rights of borrowers, in settlement agreements that mask wrongdoing without forcing structural reform. They are the legal custodians of an industry that has spent decades avoiding accountability.
The legal work is highly lucrative. In many cases, struggling institutions spend more on their attorneys than they do on direct student support. Colleges on the brink of closure still find six-figure retainers to fight state attorney general investigations or borrower defense claims. Public institutions use taxpayer dollars to shield themselves from transparency, all while students—particularly first-generation, low-income, and working-class students—absorb the losses. Attorneys in this sector are acutely aware of the harms their clients may have caused, yet their work consistently prioritizes institutional preservation over student restitution.
The history of this defense strategy is well documented. In 2011, federal courts began seeing cases from former students challenging institutions for misleading claims, untransferable credits, and failure to provide promised training. Courts often compelled arbitration, effectively removing class action rights and leaving individual students to pursue costly and complex proceedings alone. This pattern set a precedent: institutional defense relied on procedural tools rather than addressing substantive misconduct. Between 2012 and 2013, state supreme courts upheld arbitration clauses that stripped students of collective redress, signaling to institutions that strategic legal defenses could block accountability. Students’ claims of misrepresentation, fraud, and breaches of enrollment agreements were repeatedly forced into private arbitration. The courts emphasized procedural enforcement over consideration of the underlying harms, allowing institutions to continue operating without public scrutiny.
From 2015 to 2018, the Department of Education’s Inspector General documented widespread mismanagement of federal Title IV funds, showing that hundreds of millions in federal loans were issued to students at institutions that were later found to have misrepresented outcomes or violated federal regulations. Lawsuits brought by former students during this period, including allegations under the False Claims Act, were often dismissed or compelled to arbitration. Institutions were shielded, while borrowers were left with debt and limited recourse.
In 2018 and 2019, state attorneys general filed enforcement actions against multiple institutions for fraudulent recruitment practices and misrepresentation of accreditation status. In almost every case, institutions relied on their legal teams to secure procedural victories: dismissal of class action claims, enforcement of arbitration clauses, and delays in settlements. While regulators attempted to intervene, the structural power of corporate legal defense delayed, diluted, or obscured accountability. During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020–2021, students sued institutions for failure to provide adequate online instruction and for abrupt changes in course delivery. Defense attorneys successfully argued that enrollment agreements allowed these operational changes, resulting in widespread dismissal of student claims. Again, institutional defense won the day while students absorbed the financial and educational consequences.
From 2022 to 2025, the Borrower Defense to Repayment program and the SAVE Plan promised relief for students harmed by mismanaged institutions. Yet litigation and regulatory challenges have slowed implementation. Institutions and their attorneys have repeatedly used procedural maneuvers to contest forgiveness, compel arbitration, or delay repayments, leaving thousands of students in limbo while debt accumulates. Throughout this period, legal strategy has consistently prioritized institutional survival over student restitution. Arbitration clauses, procedural dismissals, and regulatory delay have allowed colleges and universities to maintain access to federal funds, complete mergers, or restructure under bankruptcy protection, all while leaving harmed students with debt, disrupted education, and minimal legal recourse.
These attorneys also help shape the narratives consumed by policymakers, journalists, and college trustees. Public-facing summaries often downplay institutional misconduct and amplify court decisions that limit student rights. They rarely acknowledge the emotional and financial devastation suffered by borrowers or the systemic risks created when institutions know their lawyers can absorb most of the blow. Instead, they champion a legal environment that treats higher education primarily as a business subject to claims risk, not as a public trust.
Justice, in this ecosystem, becomes a matter of resources. Students and former employees face a wall of corporate legal expertise, while institutions with long records of abuse continue to operate behind settlements and sealed agreements. Attorneys who could use their considerable skills to protect the most vulnerable instead use them to reinforce a system that extracts value from students and leaves them to fend for themselves once the promises fall apart.
The Higher Education Inquirer has long documented the College Meltdown: the closures, the debt, the failed oversight, and the human cost. But the meltdown is not only a story about administrators, investors, or federal agencies. It is also a story about the lawyers who defend the indefensible and who help maintain a higher education marketplace where accountability is optional and harm is routine. They may sleep well, but only because the consequences of their work are borne by others.
The question is not how they sleep at night. The question is how many more students will lose before the legal strategies that protect institutions are no longer enough to protect the industry itself.
Sources:
U.S. Department of Education, Borrower Defense to Repayment decision data, 2022–2025
Government Accountability Office (GAO), “For-Profit Colleges: Student Outcomes and Federal Oversight,” 2021
Department of Education Office of Federal Student Aid, Borrower Defense decisions, 2020–2025
State Attorneys General filings and enforcement actions against higher education institutions, 2018–2023
U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General, audits and reports on Title IV program compliance, 2015–2022
GAO report on arbitration clauses in for-profit colleges, 2018
These lawyers often frame their role as neutral, simply providing representation to clients who need it. But the nature of the representation matters. When institutions mislead students, inflate job-placement claims, push them into unaffordable debt, or fire whistleblowers who object to unethical practices, these firms defend the institution—not the student, not the truth, and certainly not the public interest. Litigation summaries and public communications frequently present a parallel universe in which colleges are the victims, regulators are overreaching meddlers, and students who seek restitution are opportunists or pawns of political forces.
The legal work is highly lucrative. In many cases, struggling institutions spend more on their attorneys than they do on direct student support. Colleges on the brink of closure still find six-figure retainers to fight state attorney general investigations or borrower defense claims. Public institutions use taxpayer dollars to shield themselves from transparency, all while students—particularly first-generation, low-income, and working-class students—absorb the losses. Attorneys in this sector are acutely aware of the harms their clients may have caused, yet their work consistently prioritizes institutional preservation over student restitution.
The history of this defense strategy is well documented. In 2011, federal courts began seeing cases from former students challenging institutions for misleading claims, untransferable credits, and failure to provide promised training. Courts often compelled arbitration, effectively removing class action rights and leaving individual students to pursue costly and complex proceedings alone. This pattern set a precedent: institutional defense relied on procedural tools rather than addressing substantive misconduct. Between 2012 and 2013, state supreme courts upheld arbitration clauses that stripped students of collective redress, signaling to institutions that strategic legal defenses could block accountability. Students’ claims of misrepresentation, fraud, and breaches of enrollment agreements were repeatedly forced into private arbitration. The courts emphasized procedural enforcement over consideration of the underlying harms, allowing institutions to continue operating without public scrutiny.
From 2015 to 2018, the Department of Education’s Inspector General documented widespread mismanagement of federal Title IV funds, showing that hundreds of millions in federal loans were issued to students at institutions that were later found to have misrepresented outcomes or violated federal regulations. Lawsuits brought by former students during this period, including allegations under the False Claims Act, were often dismissed or compelled to arbitration. Institutions were shielded, while borrowers were left with debt and limited recourse.
In 2018 and 2019, state attorneys general filed enforcement actions against multiple institutions for fraudulent recruitment practices and misrepresentation of accreditation status. In almost every case, institutions relied on their legal teams to secure procedural victories: dismissal of class action claims, enforcement of arbitration clauses, and delays in settlements. While regulators attempted to intervene, the structural power of corporate legal defense delayed, diluted, or obscured accountability. During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020–2021, students sued institutions for failure to provide adequate online instruction and for abrupt changes in course delivery. Defense attorneys successfully argued that enrollment agreements allowed these operational changes, resulting in widespread dismissal of student claims. Again, institutional defense won the day while students absorbed the financial and educational consequences.
From 2022 to 2025, the Borrower Defense to Repayment program and the SAVE Plan promised relief for students harmed by mismanaged institutions. Yet litigation and regulatory challenges have slowed implementation. Institutions and their attorneys have repeatedly used procedural maneuvers to contest forgiveness, compel arbitration, or delay repayments, leaving thousands of students in limbo while debt accumulates. Throughout this period, legal strategy has consistently prioritized institutional survival over student restitution. Arbitration clauses, procedural dismissals, and regulatory delay have allowed colleges and universities to maintain access to federal funds, complete mergers, or restructure under bankruptcy protection, all while leaving harmed students with debt, disrupted education, and minimal legal recourse.
These attorneys also help shape the narratives consumed by policymakers, journalists, and college trustees. Public-facing summaries often downplay institutional misconduct and amplify court decisions that limit student rights. They rarely acknowledge the emotional and financial devastation suffered by borrowers or the systemic risks created when institutions know their lawyers can absorb most of the blow. Instead, they champion a legal environment that treats higher education primarily as a business subject to claims risk, not as a public trust.
Justice, in this ecosystem, becomes a matter of resources. Students and former employees face a wall of corporate legal expertise, while institutions with long records of abuse continue to operate behind settlements and sealed agreements. Attorneys who could use their considerable skills to protect the most vulnerable instead use them to reinforce a system that extracts value from students and leaves them to fend for themselves once the promises fall apart.
The Higher Education Inquirer has long documented the College Meltdown: the closures, the debt, the failed oversight, and the human cost. But the meltdown is not only a story about administrators, investors, or federal agencies. It is also a story about the lawyers who defend the indefensible and who help maintain a higher education marketplace where accountability is optional and harm is routine. They may sleep well, but only because the consequences of their work are borne by others.
The question is not how they sleep at night. The question is how many more students will lose before the legal strategies that protect institutions are no longer enough to protect the industry itself.
Sources:
U.S. Department of Education, Borrower Defense to Repayment decision data, 2022–2025
Government Accountability Office (GAO), “For-Profit Colleges: Student Outcomes and Federal Oversight,” 2021
Department of Education Office of Federal Student Aid, Borrower Defense decisions, 2020–2025
State Attorneys General filings and enforcement actions against higher education institutions, 2018–2023
U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General, audits and reports on Title IV program compliance, 2015–2022
GAO report on arbitration clauses in for-profit colleges, 2018
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)