Latest news with #educationPolicy
The Guardian
14-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
US supreme court allows Trump to resume gutting education department
The US supreme court on Monday cleared the way for Donald Trump's administration to resume dismantling the Department of Education as part of his bid to shrink the federal government's role in education in favor of more control by the states. In the latest high court win for the president, the justices lifted a federal judge's order that had reinstated nearly 1,400 workers affected by mass layoffs at the department and blocked the administration from transferring key functions to other federal agencies. A legal challenge is continuing to play out in lower courts. The court's action came in a brief, unsigned order. Its three liberal justices dissented. A group of 21 Democratic attorneys general, school districts and unions behind a pair of legal challenges had warned in court papers that Trump's shutdown efforts threatened to impair the department's ability to perform its core duties. Created by Congress in 1979, the Department of Education's main roles include administering college loans, tracking student achievement and enforcing civil rights in schools. It also provides federal funding for needy districts and to help students with disabilities. Federal law prohibits the department from controlling school operations including curriculum, instruction and staffing. Authority over these decisions belongs to state and local governments, which provide more than 85% of public school funding. The department's Republican critics have portrayed the department as a symbol of bureaucratic waste, underlining the need for smaller federal government in favor of greater state power. In March, Trump sought to deliver on a campaign promise to conservatives by calling for the department's closure. 'We're going to be returning education, very simply, back to the states where it belongs,' Trump said on 20 March before signing an executive order to close the department to the 'maximum extent' allowed by law. Trump said that certain 'core necessities' would be preserved, including Pell grants to students from lower-income families and federal funding for disadvantaged students and children with special needs, though he said those functions would be redistributed to other agencies and departments. Trump in March directed that the department transfer its $1.6tn student loan portfolio to the Small Business Administration and its special education services to the Department of Health and Human Services. Although formally eliminating the department would require an act of Congress, the downsizing announced in March by US education secretary Linda McMahon aimed to slash the department's staff to roughly half the size it was when Trump took office in January. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Boston-based US district judge Myong Joun, an appointee of Democratic former president Joe Biden, concluded in a 22 May ruling that the mass firings would 'likely cripple the department'. He ordered the affected workers to be reinstated and also blocked the administration's plan to hand off department functions to other federal agencies. The plaintiffs, Joun wrote, are 'likely to succeed in showing that defendants are effectively disabling the department from carrying out its statutory duties by firing half of its staff, transferring key programs out of the department, and eliminating entire offices and programs'. The Boston-based first US circuit court of appeals on 4 June rejected the Trump administration's request to pause the injunction issued by the judge. In a court filing asking the supreme court to lift Joun's order, the justice department accused him of judicial overreach. The plaintiffs warned that mass firings at the department could delay the disbursement of federal aid for low-income schools and students with special needs, prompting shortfalls that might require cutting programs or teaching staff. They also argued in court papers that Trump's shutdown effort would undermine efforts to curb discrimination in schools, analyze and disseminate critical data on student performance, and assist college applicants seeking financial aid.
Reuters
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
US Supreme Court clears way for Trump to gut Education Department
WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump's administration to resume dismantling the Department of Education, part of his bid to shrink the federal government's role in education in favor of more control by the states. In the latest high court win for Trump, the justices lifted a federal judge's order that had reinstated nearly 1,400 workers affected by mass layoffs at the department and blocked the administration from transferring key functions to other federal agencies. A legal challenge is continuing to play out in lower courts. The court's action came in a brief, unsigned order. Its three liberal justices dissented. A group of 21 Democratic attorneys general, school districts and unions behind a pair of legal challenges had warned in court papers that Trump's shutdown efforts threatened to impair the department's ability to perform its core duties. Created by Congress in 1979, the Department of Education's main roles include administering college loans, tracking student achievement and enforcing civil rights in schools. It also provides federal funding for needy districts and to help students with disabilities. Federal law prohibits the department from controlling school operations including curriculum, instruction and staffing. Authority over these decisions belongs to state and local governments, which provide more than 85% of public school funding. The department's Republican critics have portrayed the department as a symbol of bureaucratic waste, underlining the need for smaller federal government in favor of greater state power. In March, Trump sought to deliver on a campaign promise to conservatives by calling for the department's closure. "We're going to be returning education, very simply, back to the states where it belongs," Trump said on March 20 before signing an executive order to close the department to the "maximum extent" allowed by law. Trump said that certain "core necessities" would be preserved, including Pell grants to students from lower-income families and federal funding for disadvantaged students and children with special needs, though he said those functions would be redistributed to other agencies and departments. Trump in March directed that the department transfer its $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio to the Small Business Administration and its special education services to the Department of Health and Human Services. Although formally eliminating the department would require an act of Congress, the downsizing announced in March by Education Secretary Linda McMahon aimed to slash the department's staff to roughly half the size it was when Trump took office in January. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, an appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden, concluded in a May 22 ruling that the mass firings would "likely cripple the department." He ordered the affected workers to be reinstated and also blocked the administration's plan to hand off department functions to other federal agencies. The plaintiffs, Joun wrote, are "likely to succeed in showing that defendants are effectively disabling the department from carrying out its statutory duties by firing half of its staff, transferring key programs out of the department, and eliminating entire offices and programs." The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 4 rejected the Trump administration's request to pause the injunction issued by the judge. The Justice Department in a court filing asking the Supreme Court to lift Joun's order, accused him of judicial overreach. The plaintiffs warned that mass firings at the department could delay the disbursement of federal aid for low-income schools and students with special needs, prompting shortfalls that might require cutting programs or teaching staff. They also argued in court papers that Trump's shutdown effort would undermine efforts to curb discrimination in schools, analyze and disseminate critical data on student performance and assist college applicants seeking financial aid.
Yahoo
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Oklahoma superintendent orders all districts to offer free meals, threatens sanctions
A school nutrition worker places sandwiches in bags in the cafeteria at Mayo Demonstration School in Tulsa on April 8, 2024. (Photo by Nuria Martinez-Keel/Oklahoma Voice) OKLAHOMA CITY — All public schools in Oklahoma must pay for free cafeteria meals for every student and exclude certain dyes and processed foods, the state's top education official ordered. State Superintendent Ryan Walters issued a mandate Monday that all districts adjust their budgets to include no-cost breakfasts and lunches in all public schools. Walters said districts already have enough state and federal funds to afford the expense, especially if they cut back on administrators' salaries. He threatened to audit, withhold state funding or penalize the accreditation of districts that don't comply, raising questions over whether he has exceeded the bounds of his authority. 'We need less administrators in our schools,' Walters said in a statement. 'We need to get taxpayers dollars to the students, not to grow bureaucracy.' No state law exists that requires districts to provide free meals to every student, nor are there legal provisions allowing the Oklahoma State Department of Education to sanction or audit a school for not doing so, according to a memo the Oklahoma State School Boards Association (OSSBA) sent out Monday. 'Local school boards maintain primary authority over district budgets, enabling them to make decisions based on local priorities and needs,' OSSBA executive director Shawn Hime wrote in the message. 'While some districts choose to use discretionary funds to offset meal costs for students not qualifying for free meals, this is strictly a local decision.' Walters also ordered the removal of 'ultra-processed' snacks, sugary drinks, processed meats, various food dyes and seed oils from school meals. It also forbids schools from serving foods that were grown with pesticides like glyphosate, an herbicide commonly used in agricultural production. The edict seeks to restrict schools from using artificial food dyes identified as blue 1 and 2, green 3, red 40, and yellow 5 and 6. Banned seed oils would include corn, canola, cottonseed, grapeseed and soy, according to a message Walters sent to public school parents. A recent executive order from Gov. Kevin Stitt, issued during a visit from U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., instructed other state agencies to review and potentially reduce the use of artificial food dyes, including red dye 40, in school meals. The Governor's Office did not return a request for comment on Walters' mandate. The state Education Department's announcement Monday claimed that families paid $42 million for school meals last year while administrator salaries increased by 14%. The agency did not answer a request from Oklahoma Voice to cite the source for either number. At least nine other states, including neighboring New Mexico and Colorado, have implemented universal free school meals. None of them did it without investing extra state money, said Chris Bernard, president and CEO of Hunger Free Oklahoma, an organization focused on expanding access to affordable, nutritious food. Walters did not request additional funds for school meals this year, nor did state lawmakers set any dollars aside for this initiative. The state Legislature increased public school funding by $26 million this year, but none of the money is specifically earmarked for school meals. Hunger Free Oklahoma has been advocating for legislation to expand free school meals, but Bernard said, 'We have never had the state Department (of Education) alongside supporting those bills with us.' 'There's not a way to feed every Oklahoma kid for free without additional investment,' Bernard said. Across Oklahoma, 256 districts already provide free meals to all students through a federal reimbursement program known as the Community Eligibility Provision, or CEP, according to a June report from Hunger Free Oklahoma. CEP supports free meals for 277,458 students in Oklahoma schools, about 40% of the state's student population, the organization found. The number of students and schools covered under CEP has more than doubled in recent years, especially after the U.S. Department of Agriculture expanded eligibility to Medicaid recipients in 2023. The cost gap between federal reimbursements and the price of food service is too wide for CEP to be financially viable for some schools, especially smaller districts whose local poverty levels put them at minimum eligibility, Bernard said. Hunger Free Oklahoma found 264 CEP-eligible districts don't participate in the program, though some students still might qualify for free or reduced-price meals based on their household income. Now, it's too late for those districts to change their mind, Bernard said. Walters issued his order a week after the yearly deadline passed to apply for CEP. State lawmakers won't have another chance to prioritize this issue in the state budget until next year, said Rep. Ellen Pogemiller, D-Oklahoma City. Pogemiller said she is happy to work toward the state superintendent's goal, but combined with the expired CEP deadline, 'the reality is that Walters' approach is an unfunded mandate.' Rep. Annie Menz, D-Tulsa, filed a bill this year that would have more districts apply for CEP. She said she was 'stunned and thrilled' to read Walters' mandate. 'I have filed and cosponsored legislation, cohosted bipartisan interim studies, published op-eds and held countless meetings all toward the goal of expanding the free lunch program in our schools, and I am glad someone in statewide leadership is finally listening to me,' Menz said in a statement. 'Hungry kids can't learn, and every child deserves access to healthy nutritious meals. I hope that going forward, Mr. Walters will be more collaborative with the Legislature to determine lasting budget solutions to make this program work for our kids.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
4 Ways Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful Bill' Will Make College More Expensive
President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' could reshape how millions of Americans pay for college. Among its most controversial changes are deep cuts to Pell Grants, the elimination of subsidized student loans, and the introduction of lifetime borrowing caps for both students and parents — primary pathways that make college more affordable for individuals and families. Be Aware: Read Next: While the changes are designed to reduce federal spending, here are four ways Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' will make college more expensive. The bill proposes slashing the maximum Pell Grant award by nearly 23%, dropping it from $7,395 to $5,710 starting in the 2026 to 2027 school year. That's nearly $1,700 less per year that low-income students can use to cover tuition, fees and living costs, leaving families to either borrow more or pay out of pocket. It also makes Pell Grants harder to qualify for. The required course load would jump from 24 to 30 credits per year, meaning students would have to take 15 credit hours per semester to receive the full award. Students enrolled less than half-time would lose access altogether. Find Out: Experts said these changes could disproportionately affect part-time students, working students and community college students, who often balance jobs and caregiving responsibilities with school. 'Increasing the credit hour requirement from 12 to 15 for Pell Grant eligibility will affect 25% or more of students at community colleges and technical schools,' said Tom O'Hare, a college planning coach at Get College Going. 'Extending the credit hours will lower access to financing resources, resulting in an extended timeline to complete their programs, a double financial hit for a family or individual.' The bill would impose lifetime borrowing caps on federal student loans: $50,000 for undergraduate students, $100,000 for graduate students and up to $150,000 for professional students, such as those in law or medical school. These caps mean that students who reach the limit before completing their degrees will be forced to turn to private loans, which often come with higher interest rates, fewer repayment protections and less flexibility than federal loans. The House and Senate versions differ slightly. The House would cap graduate borrowing at $100,000 total (or $150,000 for professional degrees). At the same time, the Senate allows a higher cap of $200,000 for professional programs but maintains the current undergraduate caps ($31,000 for dependent students and $57,500 for independent students). 'Families would need to look outside direct loan options, which could mean more borrowing in the private market,' said Jonathan Sparling, a director at CollegeWell, an educational platform that helps families plan and save for college. According to the U.S. Department of Education, 'private student loans can have variable or fixed interest rates, which may be higher or lower than the rates on federal loans depending on your circumstances.' The bill proposes eliminating subsidized federal loans for undergraduates, a key benefit that currently keeps borrowing costs lower. Right now, subsidized loans don't accrue interest while a student is in school, during grace periods, or in deferment, effectively saving borrowers hundreds or even thousands of dollars. 'In practical terms, the elimination of the interest subsidy would mean immediate accrual of interest after loan disbursement, adding to total costs,' Sparling said. This would directly increase the total amount students owe over the life of the loan. In addition, without this subsidy, students would leave school owing more than they do now before even making their first payment. The legislation would scrap current repayment options and replace them with just two: A standard fixed-payment plan and a new income-driven plan called the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP). Under RAP, borrowers would pay 1% to 10% of their income, with a minimum monthly payment of $10. While this may lower monthly payments for some, it extends the repayment timeline: Loan forgiveness wouldn't kick in until after 30 years of payments, compared to 20 or 25 years under many current plans. Dan Rubin, CEO of Yelo Funding, said income-driven repayment plans like SAVE (Saving on a Valuable Education) and PAYE (Pay As You Earn) have allowed millions of borrowers to manage their loan repayments. Getting rid of those options may negatively affect how people fund their education. 'Ending those options would remove the only federal safeguard that adjusts repayment to earnings,' Rubin said. 'Faced with the prospect of higher debt and fewer repayment protections, many students will be forced to delay, forgo or abandon their graduate studies altogether.' Editor's note: An earlier version of this post included a quote noting eliminating income-driven repayment plans allowed borrowers to manage their repayments. It's been updated to state how these plans benefit borrowers and the impact if they're eliminated with upcoming legislation. More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 These Cars May Seem Expensive, but They Rarely Need Repairs Mark Cuban Says Trump's Executive Order To Lower Medication Costs Has a 'Real Shot' -- Here's Why This article originally appeared on 4 Ways Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Will Make College More Expensive Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
4 Ways Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful Bill' Will Make College More Expensive
President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' could reshape how millions of Americans pay for college. Among its most controversial changes are deep cuts to Pell Grants, the elimination of subsidized student loans, and the introduction of lifetime borrowing caps for both students and parents — primary pathways that make college more affordable for individuals and families. Be Aware: Read Next: While the changes are designed to reduce federal spending, here are four ways Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' will make college more expensive. The bill proposes slashing the maximum Pell Grant award by nearly 23%, dropping it from $7,395 to $5,710 starting in the 2026 to 2027 school year. That's nearly $1,700 less per year that low-income students can use to cover tuition, fees and living costs, leaving families to either borrow more or pay out of pocket. It also makes Pell Grants harder to qualify for. The required course load would jump from 24 to 30 credits per year, meaning students would have to take 15 credit hours per semester to receive the full award. Students enrolled less than half-time would lose access altogether. Find Out: Experts said these changes could disproportionately affect part-time students, working students and community college students, who often balance jobs and caregiving responsibilities with school. 'Increasing the credit hour requirement from 12 to 15 for Pell Grant eligibility will affect 25% or more of students at community colleges and technical schools,' said Tom O'Hare, a college planning coach at Get College Going. 'Extending the credit hours will lower access to financing resources, resulting in an extended timeline to complete their programs, a double financial hit for a family or individual.' The bill would impose lifetime borrowing caps on federal student loans: $50,000 for undergraduate students, $100,000 for graduate students and up to $150,000 for professional students, such as those in law or medical school. These caps mean that students who reach the limit before completing their degrees will be forced to turn to private loans, which often come with higher interest rates, fewer repayment protections and less flexibility than federal loans. The House and Senate versions differ slightly. The House would cap graduate borrowing at $100,000 total (or $150,000 for professional degrees). At the same time, the Senate allows a higher cap of $200,000 for professional programs but maintains the current undergraduate caps ($31,000 for dependent students and $57,500 for independent students). 'Families would need to look outside direct loan options, which could mean more borrowing in the private market,' said Jonathan Sparling, a director at CollegeWell, an educational platform that helps families plan and save for college. According to the U.S. Department of Education, 'private student loans can have variable or fixed interest rates, which may be higher or lower than the rates on federal loans depending on your circumstances.' The bill proposes eliminating subsidized federal loans for undergraduates, a key benefit that currently keeps borrowing costs lower. Right now, subsidized loans don't accrue interest while a student is in school, during grace periods, or in deferment, effectively saving borrowers hundreds or even thousands of dollars. 'In practical terms, the elimination of the interest subsidy would mean immediate accrual of interest after loan disbursement, adding to total costs,' Sparling said. This would directly increase the total amount students owe over the life of the loan. In addition, without this subsidy, students would leave school owing more than they do now before even making their first payment. The legislation would scrap current repayment options and replace them with just two: A standard fixed-payment plan and a new income-driven plan called the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP). Under RAP, borrowers would pay 1% to 10% of their income, with a minimum monthly payment of $10. While this may lower monthly payments for some, it extends the repayment timeline: Loan forgiveness wouldn't kick in until after 30 years of payments, compared to 20 or 25 years under many current plans. Dan Rubin, CEO of Yelo Funding, said income-driven repayment plans like SAVE (Saving on a Valuable Education) and PAYE (Pay As You Earn) have allowed millions of borrowers to manage their loan repayments. Getting rid of those options may negatively affect how people fund their education. 'Ending those options would remove the only federal safeguard that adjusts repayment to earnings,' Rubin said. 'Faced with the prospect of higher debt and fewer repayment protections, many students will be forced to delay, forgo or abandon their graduate studies altogether.' Editor's note: An earlier version of this post included a quote noting eliminating income-driven repayment plans allowed borrowers to manage their repayments. It's been updated to state how these plans benefit borrowers and the impact if they're eliminated with upcoming legislation. More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 4 Affordable Car Brands You Won't Regret Buying in 2025 How Much Money Is Needed To Be Considered Middle Class in Your State? This article originally appeared on 4 Ways Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Will Make College More Expensive Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
