The Trump administration on Monday attempted to withhold $6.8 billion, a nationwide forecast of $6.8 billion, including at least $811 million from California.
The frozen funds account for less than 1% of California’s total education budget, but have an external cumulative effect. And they include dollars already described in terms of hired staff and planned programs. The confusion is substantial and state education leaders, including Supt. In Tony Thurmond’s public opinion leadership, he said on Monday evening that the issue was unfolding quickly.
“There have been many rumors about the Trump administration cutting funds for education, and now the rumors are real, so it’s worse than I imagined,” Thurmond said in a statement from the times. “Trump is illegally locking in the billions of dollars allocated by Congress to serve students this fiscal year.”
“This illegal activity will harm students from now on,” Thurmond added. “I can’t stand it!”
The administration has listed federally designated freeze programs. For example, Title III-A supports students studying English. Title IC helps overcome learning challenges for children of migrant workers. All funding was withheld from both programs.
The words of the federal lawsuit began to be fooled by the worrying school system on Monday afternoon. The notice was emailed to the Federal Department of Education and was 84 words in length. The amplification was not included, according to educators and supporters.
“Given the management changes, the department is considering funding for fiscal 2025. [Title I-C, II-A, III-A, IV-A, IV-B] No decisions have been made yet regarding the grant program and the submissions and awards for the upcoming grades,” the email began.
“The department will therefore not issue a grant award notice on July 1st that requires funding for these programs before completing its review.”
The notice states that “the department remains committed to ensuring that taxpayer resources are spent in accordance with the president’s priorities and the department’s statutory responsibility.”
According to the Institute for Learning Policy, the programs listed in the email account for more than 10% of federal spending at K-12 schools in 33 states.
The goal of freezing is not particularly surprising. All funds withheld are from programs that the administration wants to cut or eliminate. And their details, and their justification, are clearly spelled out in President Trump’s budget proposal for the upcoming federal fiscal year, which begins in October.
However, the Trump administration has frozen funds that Congress approved for the already ongoing fiscal year that began in October 2024. With federal, state and local budgets lined up, the money will reach the state on Tuesday and be spent as part of the district’s budget that begins Tuesday.
School districts expect to receive these funds allocated by the legislature, but generally they already employ people who are expected to implement these programs. Mostly it’s a long-standing effort.
The education department declined to comment late Monday. This introduces the Office of Management and Budget. The office also did not immediately comment.
However, the administration has already made the rationale for ending these efforts in its budget proposal, and was approaching Congress’ approval on Monday.
“To end the overreach from Washington and restore the legitimate role of national supervision in education, the Budget proposes eliminating misunderstood English acquisition programs that do not really emphasize the advantages of English through funding. [nongovernmental organizations] And the administration stated, “A historically low reading score for all students means that we need to unite using evidence-based literacy instructional materials to improve outcomes for all students.”
Advocates of English learners support “evidence-based literacy guidance,” but have problems with many of the rest of the administration’s claims, including claims that programs that support English students are divisive.
“We’re a coalition of English learners,” said Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians, a coalition of groups advocating for English learners. “And the majority of English learners are set to be in English only. These funds help students learn English.”
Hernandez said there are around 5 million English learners across the country who speak 100 different languages. There are around 1.1 million people in California.
Reductions to immigration education are justified in budget documents as eliminating “programs that undermine children’s academic success by promoting stability and consistency rather than from a single location.” These programs are extremely costly and encourage access to non-qualified non-citizens. [services] stripped of resources from American students. ”
The effectiveness of immigration programs is open to rational debate, but the claim that it promotes a lack of stability is difficult to spread reality on the ground.
The Los Angeles Unified School District uses this fund for academic support to provide stability and academic continuity for these students and their families.
The Nebraska program says it will “provide educational services that will help migrant children reduce obstacles resulting from repeated movements across district boundaries.”
For students aged 3-5, this includes “promoting and embedding interest in learning and filling the educational gap at home to prepare students for kindergarten” and “helping families find affordable kindergarten options.”
Fundraising freezes have become another area of conflict between the Trump administration and local educators, particularly in blue states and urban areas. But this funding pullback falls a lot in rural areas and red states if it stands.
Trump’s authority to withhold these funds will almost certainly be challenged in court. It is unclear whether it will survive scrutiny within the council.
Federal law allows the president to ask Congress for permission to keep funding down, but prohibits the administrative department from refusing to distribute dollars allocated to Congress. Congress is 45 days after such a request was made to approve the president’s actions. Otherwise, the money must be spent as originally intended.
Source link
