School districts, teachers unions sue over Trump's freeze on education funding
:
The new case comes as the US Department of Education has agreed to release about $1.3 billion in funding for after-school and summer programming, out of $6.8 billion withheld. No decision has been made yet about the rest of the money, a notice to states on Friday said.
Advertisement
The money released is for 21st Century Community Learning Centers, which include nonprofits such as the Boys & Girls Clubs that serve high-poverty, low-performing districts with after-school and summer programs. The frozen funds prompted alarm that those programs would have to shut down or significantly scale back in the coming weeks if the money remained frozen.
Get Rhode Map
A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The funds were released after 10
Rhode Island Education Commissioner Angélica Infante-Green said the state received $6.5 million from the released after-school funds, but the Department of Education 'hasn't provided any information about when — or if — the remaining Congressionally allocated education funds will be released.'
Advertisement
Rhode Island had
'Unnecessary delays and cuts to education funding for students are irresponsible,' Infante-Green said. 'Students and teachers in every school district in Rhode Island will be negatively affected.'
The funds that remain withheld support the
The Department of Education and Office of Management and Budget did not immediately comment on the new lawsuit. But OMB previously said it was withholding the funds, which are typically disbursed on July 1, in order to review whether the programs were spreading a 'radical leftwing agenda' including support for undocumented immigrants.
Miriam Weizenbaum, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said the administration would have to follow the appropriate federal procedures to seek to withhold money for that reason, which wasn't done here.
'You get more notice and opportunity to be heard with a speeding ticket,' Weizenbaum said.
The new lawsuit said the 'uncertainty' about the funds is 'causing significant anxiety and confusion among the Teachers Unions' members right before the start of the school year.'
'The Teachers Unions are under intense stress and pressure to help members determine exactly how their jobs will be affected,' the suit
said. 'Some members will be scrambling to find new jobs.'
If cuts take place, class sizes could grow, the lawsuit said, making it 'more difficult for teachers to effectively perform their jobs' and harder for districts to retain teachers.
The plaintiffs include the Anchorage School District in Alaska, the largest district in that state, along with two other Alaskan districts, the Cincinnati Public Schools, and large teachers unions in California, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, Rhode Island, Illinois, Ohio, and Texas.
Advertisement
Weizenbaum, who was previously a top litigator in the Rhode Island Attorney General's Office, said it's unclear if the judge in the separate case would making a ruling that affects all 50 states, or just the 23 states who sued, which would leave out some of the districts in the new case.
She said teachers unions also wanted to bring the separate suit in order to make sure their experience of what the funding cuts will bring is heard before the court.
'Their on-the-ground perspective needs to be before a court,' Weizenbaum said. 'This is a big hit across the country at all levels.'
Maribeth Calabro, the president of the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers, wrote in a declaration attached to the lawsuit that a wide range of jobs in Providence are funded with the withheld money, including instructional coaches, social workers, and behavioral specialists.
The withheld money 'has created widespread uncertainty about staffing levels, student support services, and professional development availability for the upcoming school year,' Calabro wrote.
She said Rhode Island's ability to teach the science of reading could be in jeopardy, along with Providence's compliance with a US Department of Justice settlement over properly teaching English to multilingual learners.
The group asked for a preliminary injunction to release the funding as the case is heard. A hearing date has not yet been set.
Steph Machado can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
The Democratic Pendulum
In this first year of his second term, President Donald Trump has claimed broad powers to unilaterally restructure much of how the U.S. government functions. Some of these assertions have gone completely unchallenged. Others have been litigated, and although lower courts have been skeptical of many of these efforts, the Supreme Court has been more approving. Trump has taken as much advantage of his new powers as he plausibly can, prosecuting his political enemies, firing independent agency heads, and dismantling federal agencies almost at a whim. One salient question now is: When and if the Democrats return to power, how much of Trump's damage can they undo? Let's assume, for the moment, that the Supreme Court acts in good faith—that its views on presidential power are without partisan favor, and that it doesn't arbitrarily invent carve-outs to rein in a Democratic president. What then? Even with such (unlikely) parameters, the outcomes of this thought experiment suggest few opportunities for a Democratic president to make positive use of these novel presidential powers. Most of the powers that Trump asserts are either preclusive (preventing something from happening) or negating (ending something that is already in process). Few of them are positive powers, allowing the creation of something new, and even those are not permanent—the next Republican president could likely reverse most Democratic initiatives, sending the country into a retaliatory spiral. Consider, as a first point of examination, the president's newly established power to restructure the federal workforce, as in the layoffs of more than 1,300 State Department employees, the dismissal of inspectors general, and the firing of independent agency members. Most recently, the Supreme Court authorized Trump to continue with his plan to dismantle the Department of Education, despite a statute mandating its creation. A future Democratic president, if so inclined, could seek to use that same authority to reverse some of what Trump has done. He could, for example, remove all of the Trump-appointed commissioners from the formerly independent agencies (such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labor Relations Board) and replace them with Democratic appointees whose views are more consistent with the president's. Peter M. Shane: This is the presidency John Roberts has built This new president could also attempt to reconstitute institutions that have been decimated, such as Voice of America, and restore the many State Department bureaus and functions that have been terminated. He could, presumably, re-create the Department of Education and restore the workforce at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. Even if attempted restorations are legal, however, they may not succeed in practice. Firing experts is much easier than hiring them. And given the uncertainties that Trump has created, our best and brightest might not willingly take positions in the federal government. Who wants a job that might last only four years? Meanwhile, across the government, a Democratic president could fire all of the employees who were hired by Trump and agreed to his loyalty requirements. The president could also use the same authority to significantly diminish the workforce at agencies whose functions he is less warm to. Many of the soon-to-be-hired ICE employees, for instance, might find themselves subject to a reduction in force under a new Democratic administration. To be sure, the Supreme Court, as it is currently constituted, might find a rationale to block the dismantling of the TSA or the Department of Homeland Security. But very few functions at DHS are statutorily mandated at the current level of activity, and there is no legal distinction between presidential authority over DHS and, say, the Department of Education. Likewise, a Democratic president could reinstate funding to several grant-making agencies that Trump has defunded. He could restore international-aid funding to USAID and authorize the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences to resume distributing grants to American recipients. All of the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health funding that has been pulled from basic research at major universities could be restored. Again, however, this is easier said than done—interrupted funding has likely permanently terminated some scientific inquiry and driven U.S.-based scientists overseas. International-aid programs that were suspended will be hard to rebuild. Some recent policy changes are more readily reversible. Transgender soldiers could be welcomed back into the military, for example. Forts can be renamed, and the U.S. can rejoin international organizations. Here, too, the harmful effects can be mitigated, but the prospect of a return of Trumpism down the line will resonate for a long time in terms of substantial losses of expertise, stability, and trust. Trump has also been aggressive in using federal funding as a means of encouraging his policy priorities in the private sector. Even when his efforts are resisted by the courts (such as his attempt to defund Harvard), his threats to federal funding have caused other institutions, such as the University of Pennsylvania, to change their policies or, in the case of the University of Virginia, dismiss their leaders. The same is true of his assault on big law firms; although his efforts have been legally stymied, their impact on major firms has already been significant. What could a Democratic president do with this power? Most obviously, the president could flip Trump's agenda on its head—denying federal funding to universities that lack DEI policies, for example, or ousting from federal contracts any conservative law firms that have provided pro bono services to disfavored causes, or whose partners played significant roles in the Trump administration. Perhaps most dangerous, a Democrat could reverse the changes at the Department of Justice, not in an effort to make it apolitical but in the hopes of serving friends on the left and punishing the Trump-affiliated right. The president could dismiss any pending cases against allies (as Attorney General Pam Bondi recently did for a Utah doctor who issued fake COVID-vaccination cards) and use their power to punish opponents—White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, the former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, and others could face the expense of criminal investigation. Conservative states such as Alabama and Texas could be investigated for civil-rights violations. Likewise, corporate officials who have caved to Trump, such as Shari Redstone of Paramount, have already been suggested as investigative targets. And the president could unilaterally issue subpoenas to almost any conservative-supporting institution—say, political consultants for evangelical-church organizations. A president could, perhaps, even attempt to end the nonprofit status of all religious organizations—though one suspects that this Supreme Court would not permit that step on religious-liberty grounds. One of the most significant assertions of presidential power Trump has made is that he can nullify a law—that is, that he can dispense with enforcing it based on his authority as chief executive. The prime example of this is his refusal to enforce the congressionally mandated ban on TikTok on the specious ground that he has national-security power to do so. Under this theory, almost any regulatory requirement could be suspended for being inconsistent with national security. A future Democratic president might, for example, dispense with limits on labor-union organizing on the grounds that the workforce is essential to national competitiveness. Export or import licenses could be manipulated to fund military activities. Or, to parallel Trump as much as possible, penalties against favored European enterprises could be waived as part of 'diplomatic negotiations,' and existing exemptions for disfavored nations could be ignored. The possibilities are almost as endless as a president's imagination. Ultimately, a Democratic president with the political will to use the levers of power left by Trump could at least partially restore the status quo ante and unilaterally impose certain changes as well—which a subsequent Republican president could then undo. What lies ahead, then, is a new era of pendulum swings, replacing the stability of the postwar governing consensus. Ahead is a cycle of retributive prosecutions and whipsaw funding decisions. America may see entire Cabinet departments alternatively created and closed every four years while the presidency goes from policy to anti-policy—enforcing DEI in one administration, perhaps, and prohibiting it in the next. The country would, in effect, return to the time before the Pendleton Act, when the entire federal workforce turned over with each successive administration, rewarding cronyism at the expense of expertise. Aziz Huq: The Court's liberals are trying to tell Americans something But in this new power arrangement, the Trump-aligned presidents will have the advantage. It takes only 20 minutes to dismiss 1,300 State Department employees; their expertise cannot be replaced in 20 years, much less a single presidential term. Other departments and agencies can never be fully restored. To cite a mundane example, in the first six months of Trump's second term, the DOJ has lost two-thirds of the experienced attorneys in the Federal Programs branch (which defends the government in civil court). Many resigned rather than have to defend Trump's initiatives. That level of destruction cannot be quickly fixed. What Trump and the Supreme Court have created is a ratchet of destruction. They have discovered that knocking things down is far easier than building them. And because the overall conservative project is to reduce the size of government, the structural advantage of destruction over creation is ineradicable. Even the most effective possible responses from a Democratic president (such as scaling down ICE to a bare minimum) come with their own set of problems. All of this might have been different had the Supreme Court stepped in to diminish or negate these new assertions of presidential power, but it has not. And so the pendulum will swing back and forth, but the long-term trend is toward an ever-diminishing federal government that does whatever a conservative Court will permit it to do. The prospect is not just sad—it is terrifying.
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Concerns over class sizes, layoffs loom over back-to-school
As Indiana schools prepare to welcome students in the coming weeks, teachers are bracing for larger class sizes thanks to uncertainty with education funding. The big picture: The Trump administration is withholding more than $5 billion in funding for K-12 programs pending a reevaluation "given the change in administration," according to the Department of Education. That comes on top of cuts to state property taxes that fund local governments, including school districts. Driving the news: Warren Township Schools start Thursday, with many following suit next week. What they're saying:"We've heard quite a bit of talk about potential reductions in force," Jennifer Smith-Margraf, president of the Indiana State Teachers Association, told Axios. Smith-Margraf said she's not aware of any layoffs, but knows some districts are choosing not to fill open positions as they wait to see what final openings and budget numbers look like. "It's been a good 15 years since we've really heard talk at this level about positions," she said. "Folks are really wondering about class size and caseloads and what that means for services for students." Why it matters: Research shows that even small reductions in class size can lead to gains in student achievement. Yes, and: Indiana just got back disappointing standardized test scores showing that students made little progress in English and language arts. Between the lines: Smith-Margraf says that teachers will also feel the squeeze of large classes in other ways. Providing extra classroom supplies is one of the first things that cash-strapped schools will cut, meaning teachers are often doing it themselves. "As families have to prioritize other things over school supplies … food, health care, making sure they have a roof over their head … educators have been digging deeper and deeper into their pockets to make up that gap," she said. Threat level: A smaller workforce could also mean larger ratios of students to school counselors, social workers and other positions. Flashback: Class size used to be something that teachers could negotiate in collective bargaining agreements, but that law changed in 2011. ISTA has unsuccessfully fought to win that right back in recent years. What we're watching: More than 20 governors have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for withholding the educational funding. The governors said the funding freeze has "caused chaos" in their states' educational systems.
San Francisco Chronicle
4 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Army secretary wants to move more quickly on an agreement for Hawaii live-fire training lands
SCHOFIELD BARRACKS, Hawaii (AP) — The U.S. Army's top civilian leader said Tuesday that he wants to move more quickly on an agreement that will allow the military to continue using the only large-scale live-fire training range for ground forces in Hawaii. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said he discussed the issue during a meeting with Hawaii Gov. Josh Green on Monday. The Army leases a key part of Pohakuloa Training Area on the Big Island from the state, and its contract to do so expires in 2029. It wants to be able to continue using the land so it can quickly send troops from Hawaii to Asia and the Pacific, something that is growing in importance as China becomes more assertive particularly regarding Taiwan, the self-ruled island that Beijing claims as its own territory. A May public hearing on whether to extend the lease generated hours of testimony against allowing the Army to stay. Many Native Hawaiians and environmental activists upset with the U.S. military's history of damaging Hawaiian lands with target practice and fuel leaks said they wanted the Army to return the land to the state. Driscoll told reporters the Army needs the Pohakuloa land, which sits on a rocky plateau about 6,200 feet (1,890 meters) above sea level between the Big Island's tallest volcanoes, Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. 'The world is changing. We all know this. The threat in Indo-Pacom is more real than ever before,' Driscoll told reporters, referring to the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, which overseas military operations in Asia and the Pacific. He said he wanted a more aggressive timeline 'to bake out these negotiations in the coming months, rather than waiting until 2027, 2028 and 2029.' 'This land matters to the United States Army. We have got to be able to train here.' Driscoll said. Driscoll said he asked Green's office for a list within the next few weeks of things the Army can do to help the community. 'What we are hoping to do is figure out ways where we, the Army, can continue to contribute to a community that has given so much to our Army and so much to our nation, while at the same time acknowledging the very real world threat that we are facing in the Indo-Pacific,' Driscoll said. The Army says other live-fire training areas in Hawaii are too small to accommodate battalions and brigades. And commanders say they wouldn't be able to deter potential adversaries in the Indo-Pacific if they have to spend extra time transporting troops to the region from U.S. mainland training ranges. Green said he spent significant time on Monday speaking with Driscoll and his team. "We will be exploring possibilities on the military leases together in the coming days and weeks, and he now better understands how important it is to us to work together for the good of Hawaii's people and our land, while we all work together protect our country,' Green said in a statement. U.S. Rep. Jill Tokuda, a Democrat whose district includes rural Oahu and the Big Island, has said she wants the military to help increase Hawaii's housing supply and bolster Hawaii's water and sewer infrastructure. Healani Sonoda-Pale, a community organizer with the Native Hawaiian sovereignty group Ka Lahui Hawaii, said the state needs to look at how the Army is managing these lands. She said it would be irresponsible for negotiations to bypass that process. 'There shouldn't be any backdoor discussions regarding these leases,' she said. Driscoll visited Hawaii during a Pacific trip that will also include stops in Australia and the Philippines. He spoke to journalists in front of two HIMARS rocket launchers, which are designed to deliver precision strikes to long-range targets. Hawaii-based soldiers with the 25th Infantry Division are due to receive 16 of the launchers, which the U.S. also supplied to Ukraine to help it defend against Russia's invasion.
