Kansas bill would drain funding that helps steer kids out of criminal justice system, advocates say

The One Heart Project works with kids in the criminal justice system.

The group provides counseling, mentorship and job training to help them develop social-emotional skills to create “healthy relationships that they need to navigate life successfully,” said the group’s founder and CEO, Steve Riach.

They are pretty good at what they do.

Riach said recidivism among kids before entering his programs typically hovers around 75%. But kids in his Texas, Kansas and Nebraska-based programs average around 18% recidivism, sometimes as low as 12% depending on the location.

Riach said his group is giving people a second chance.

“We’re seeing young men or young women that we’ve worked with 10 years ago who are now married and raising a family,” he said. “They’ve got their own children.”

Funding for programs like the One Heart Project could be murkier in Kansas if reworking certain grant funding passes.

The bill does a handful of things. It increases the amount of time kids can be jailed and allows Kansas to incarcerate more children, despite that jail time makes the behaviors worse.

It allows courts to sentence any child “to the custody of the secretary of corrections for an out-of-home placement” for a first-time offense, misdemeanor crimes and for children as young as 10, the Kansas Department of Corrections said.

But the bill also spends down a pool of grant money designed to fund programs that help kids. That grant money is currently used for dozens of programs, like One Heart Project. That pool of money would be drained to build new congregate care bed facilities. Kansas previously had programs like that, but they only successfully discharged kids 46% of the time.

That worries Brenna Visocsky, campaign director at Kansas Appleseed — a group that lobbies on foster care and youth justice issues. She said Kansas is taking money currently spent on successful programs and spending it on programs that have failed before.

“I never want to say something is impossible,” Visocsky said. “(But) it seems extremely close to impossible that we would be able to stand something up that’s better than what we had before.”

Congregate care facilities close

A by the Kansas Department of Corrections found that the previous congregate care facilities strategy, called Youth Residential Center II, failed to successfully help youth more than half the time. Only 14% of youth who left the facility went to lower-level placements.

YRCII facilities took kids between the ages of 10 and 22 with a history of aggressive, abusive, impulsive and other high-risk behavior. The 24-hour facilities were group homes that were supposed to teach children social skills, decision-making and addressing underlying problems. These facilities were supposed to get children back into the community.

Kansas then shifted to its current grant funding model where kids get treatment in their community.

Visocsky said YRCII facilities failed because they cost too much, failed too often, took kids out of their homes and didn’t offer enough therapeutic services. It’s possible the new program could do better, but Visocsky said she’s worried there isn’t enough money to fund quality programming.

The pool of grant money would completely run out by 2028, KDOC said.

Kansas lawmakers are more optimistic about the new proposal.

The bill passed with bipartisan support in the House and mostly along party lines in the Senate. It has a veto-proof majority. Foster care agencies and police are pushing for the bill, saying high-risk youth who are a danger to other kids are ending up in foster care.

Kristalle Hedrick, a former social worker and CEO of the Children’s Alliance, told lawmakers during the legislative process that this bill will strengthen prevention services.

Nonprofits who received juvenile justice money from Kansas say there isn’t enough money being spent to help kids up front, and some are seeing cuts to other services that could help kids, like sports leagues.

Hedrick said this bill creates treatment that is sorely needed. Some kids end up in youth detention while others need services at home. The state doesn’t have enough of the middle tier of treatment for kids who need something more but not too restrictive.

This does that.

“This bill supports a more flexible continuum that allows youth to receive the right level of care at the right time – particularly youth who present with complex behavioral needs but do not belong in either detention or foster care alone,” Hedrick said. “A stronger continuum improves outcomes (while) reducing reliance on costly, high-acuity placements.”

Social-emotional services

Moses Wyatt Jr. works with Jegna Klub, a nonprofit in the Kansas City area that got grant money from the state.

Wyatt said successful programs help kids build a brighter future and address social-emotional learning. That’s what his group does.

Jegna Klub teaches kids about multimedia production, like audio and video editing. It has podcast studios, partners with schools to broadcast sports games, and gets kids on the radio. Wyatt said it builds skills for kids thinking about getting into broadcasting, radio, TV, movies, journalism or any similar field.

He said kids need to be optimistic about the future because if they aren’t, they don’t care about their present. That’s why skill building is so important. But they won’t succeed unless they can process their emotions and react to situations differently, Wyatt said.

“Some of them can’t even name or understand their emotions,” he said. “I’m angry. I’m upset. I’m sad. I’m depressed. Like you got to be able to name that.”

Wyatt said he doesn’t think any kid is too high-risk for help. He said the highest-risk children need the most help.

Riach, with One Heart Project, still remembers when the retaining wall at his house needed work. One of the workers who came to fix it was a former One Heart kid. Juan had been incarcerated, he never knew his father and got into trouble.

But then he graduated from the One Heart program and was married with kids. He served as a mentor to his brother — who also spent time locked up and worked at the same company as Juan.

Juan told Riach that he never knew his dad, but that will be different for his kids. This was out in Texas, but the grant funds One Heart received helped them expand to Sedgwick County.

Without the funds, One Heart wouldn’t be in Kansas. If those funds weren’t available, “a whole bunch of kids’ lives would not have been transformed, and that would be tragic,” he said.

Future congregate care beds

The bill was amended in the Senate, so both chambers will need to agree to a final version before it’s sent to the governor.

Sen. Stephen Owens, a Republican representing , said he’s concerned about the youth justice money being emptied, but the proposed bill isn’t the problem.

Money sat in the youth justice fund for years, and prevented groups from being able to use it. In past years, the money was sent to the general fund to be spent on whatever the legislature wanted.

Future legislatures could always add back more money to the grant program, and the youth justice fund is just one of many sources of funding for crime prevention.

“If it is the will of the legislature and the governor to deplete this fund, I would much prefer it be utilized in ways (the bill proposes) because then it is at least being used to help juveniles,” Owens said. “Sweeping it to the general fund does nothing for the juvenile justice population in Kansas.”

This first appeared on and is republished here under a .

OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma Senate plan to has drawn mixed reactions in the week since Republican leaders unveiled it.

Groups representing active and retired educators, along with legislative Democrats, have opposed Senate Republicans’ idea to redirect $254 million that otherwise would supplement the Teachers’ Retirement System. GOP leaders said the pension system is in a strong position now that it’s 80% funded, and those extra funds could benefit urgent needs in public schools.

The plan wouldn’t take any money out of the Teachers’ Retirement System, and no retirees’ benefits would be reduced. It would place a $200 million limit on a yearly pension subsidy, called an apportionment, that has helped build up the retirement system over the past 23 years on top of regular state and employee contributions.

Doing so would free up $254 million — in a tight budget year — for a $2,500 teacher pay raise, extra school funding, expanded private school tax credits and more, Senate leaders said.

The thought of repurposing retirement funds, though, has drawn scrutiny from the state’s largest teacher union and a group representing retired educators.

Oklahoma Education Association President Cari Elledge equated the plan to mortgaging a teacher’s future for a salary increase today.

“We shouldn’t be having to be the ones who are funding our own raises,” she said.

Using money intended to benefit public school teachers to instead bolster private school tax credits also would be “very troubling,” she said. The Senate plan would put $25 million of the pension apportionment funds into the state budget for the Parental Choice Tax Credit, which helps families pay for private schooling.

Retirement funds shouldn’t be used to finance other budget priorities, especially when retirees haven’t had a cost-of-living increase to their benefits in six years, the .

“An 80% funded ratio is meaningful progress — but it is not full funding,” the organization wrote in a public statement. “Redirecting retirement dollars now risks reversing years of hard-earned stability.”

Senate leaders didn’t rule out the possibility of a cost-of-living increase if their plan succeeds. They would need support from the House for the proposal to meaningfully advance.

House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, stopped short of endorsing or rejecting the Senate idea. He said lawmakers, though, will have to someday decide what to do with the pension subsidy as the Teachers’ Retirement System inches closer to being 100% funded.

“At some point the subsidization of the pension systems, the TRS system, will need to go away,” Hilbert told reporters Thursday. “It’s just a question of is that (happening in) 2026, is that 2030, is that 2034? I think that’s the question we have to wrap our heads around as we make determinations on what is fully funded and when does that subsidy need to go away. It was never intended to be there forever.”

Much of the criticism for the funding plan stems from a misunderstanding, said Senate President Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, R-Tuttle. He said constituents who contacted Senate Republicans believed lawmakers planned to deduct from their pension paychecks.

“My wife is a retired teacher. I don’t get to go home at night if I’m trying to draw from her pension system. That’s not what we’re doing,” Paxton said.

Senate Minority Leader Julia Kirt, D-Oklahoma City, said she heard similar fears from constituents. Her office has been “flooded with calls” since the Republicans’ announcement.

Feedback on the proposal has been full of frustration, said House Minority Leader Cyndi Munson, D-Oklahoma City.

“Pitting retired teachers against active teachers is really not a good plan,” Munson said. “It’s not a popular idea.”

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oklahoma Voice maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janelle Stecklein for questions: info@oklahomavoice.com.

A group of Wisconsin parents, students, teachers, school districts and education advocates are suing the Legislature over the current school funding formula, arguing that the system does not meet the state’s obligation to provide educational opportunities to all students as required by the state Constitution. 

The was filed Monday evening in Eau Claire County Circuit Court by Madison-based nonprofit Law Forward and the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state’s largest teachers union.

The plaintiffs in the suit are led by the Wisconsin Parent Teacher Association and include five school districts, including Adams-Friendship Area School District, School District of Beloit, Eau Claire Area School District, Green Bay Area Public School District, Necedah Area School District, the teachers union of each respective district, eight Wisconsinites including teachers, parents, students and community members, as well as the Wisconsin Public Education Network. 

The lawsuit names the state Legislature, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg), and the Joint Finance Committee and its Republican and Democratic members. 

Jeff Mandell, co-founder of Law Forward, told reporters during a press call Tuesday that schools have been doing their best to fully prepare students to be productive and active members of society but that the current funding system is making it almost impossible. 

“These folks are not magicians. They are not Rumpelstiltskin. They cannot turn straw into gold, and we do not have what we need for our schools to thrive,” Mandell said. 

Mandell noted that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has previously considered the way schools are funded in the 2000 case Vincent v. Voight. 

The Supreme Court found in the Vincent v. Voight case, which was initiated by a group of Wisconsin students, parents, teachers, school districts, school board members, citizens and the WEAC president, that the state’s funding formula was constitutional. 

The majority opinion indicated that the Legislature had articulated that an equal opportunity for a sound basic education is “the opportunity for students to be proficient in mathematics, science, reading and writing, geography and history, and for them to receive instruction in the arts and music, vocational training, social sciences, health, physical education and foreign language, in accordance with their age and aptitude.” The opinion also concluded that as long as “the Legislature is providing sufficient resources so that school districts offer students the equal opportunity for a sound basic education as required by the constitution, the state school finance system will pass constitutional muster.”

Mandell said that in the 25 years since the ruling “things have gotten considerably worse, and we are at a point where, for many districts … they are on the verge of crisis.” 

The lawsuit lays out the difference between how Wisconsin schools were funded in the  1999-2000 school year versus the 2023-2024 school year. School funding 25 years ago was comprised of 53.7% state funds, 41.6% local funds and 4.7% federal funding; in 2023-24, the mix had changed to about 45% state, 43% local and 12% federal funding.

“The fault for this crisis lies not at the feet of students, parents, families, teachers, staff, administrators, school districts, or elected board members,” the lawsuit states. “The shortcomings of our public schools are directly traceable to the Legislature’s consistent failures to ensure adequate state funding of public schools and to legislate a rational school finance system that meets constitutional mandates.”

The lawsuit states that school districts across the state are “facing financial crisis” because of expiring federal funding and stagnating state dollars. 

The suit also details the state’s history of funding schools and the increasing reliance on property taxes through school referendums to try to keep up with costs. It also details the ways that the state’s school choice program, which was launched in the 1990s and has grown exponentially over the years, has reduced funding for public schools. 

Law Forward was at the helm of the 2024 lawsuit that ended with the Wisconsin Supreme Court declaring the state’s legislative maps an unconstitutional gerrymander and is in the process of the state’s Congressional maps. 

Mandell said the plaintiffs in the suit include a geographically diverse group to highlight how this is a statewide problem. He said it is possible that other districts will reach out about joining the case and they will “figure that out as we go.”

Joshua Miller, an Eau Claire Area School District parent, told reporters that “the dire need for adequate funding has been made clear to the lawmakers, but they have refused to hear our pleas” 

“The situation is sad, absurd, and it’s infuriating,” he said. “Wisconsin’s current school finance system is broken and this lawsuit, which I am proud to join, would be a way for the courts to force legislators to make a new system that works and actually meets the needs of the students of Wisconsin.” 

Tanya Kotlowski, a plaintiff in the case and superintendent for the Necedah Area School District, said her district is going to referendum for a third time this spring to help fund its operations. In April, the school district plans to ask voters to approve a four-year operational referendum that would provide a total of $5.8 million in order to maintain the district’s current level of educational programming as well as operate and maintain the district. 

Kotolowski noted that she and other school leaders have spent a lot of time advocating on behalf of their schools to lawmakers for additional funding. During the recent state budget cycle, school funding was one of the top issues held by the budget committee.

“Despite all of those efforts, the funding system has not kept up with the needs of our children and the needs of our current realities,” she said. “Our local referendum, some would argue or could argue, has been 100% funding that mandated legal, constitutional obligation.”

According to the lawsuit, the Necedah Area School District has directed over $6.6 million — all of its operational referendum revenue — to its special education fund over the past eight years.

Kotlowski said her district has been underfunded by $13 million for special education costs over the last decade, and that if funding had kept pace with inflation, the district wouldn’t need to go to referendum this year.

Mandell said that referendum requests used to be fairly rare and used when a school district had large projects.

“What we’re seeing now is a system where school districts have no choice but to go to referendum regularly to try to fund basic operations to keep the lights on and to keep payroll flowing, and it’s really a tremendous problem,” Mandell said. 

Referendum requests that allow schools to exceed state-imposed revenue caps through approval from voters became a part of Wisconsin’s school funding equation in the 1990s. Lawmakers implemented school revenue limit caps as part of an effort to control local property taxes. 

The revenue limits used to be tied to inflation, but that was ended in the 2009-11 state budget, leaving increases up to the decisions of state lawmakers and the governor, who have not provided predictable increases budget to budget.

The recent state budget did not invest any additional state dollars into school general aid, in part because lawmakers were upset with Evers’ 400-year partial veto in the prior state budget. The partial veto extended a $325 per pupil school revenue limit increase from two years to four centuries, giving, schools the authority to bring in additional dollars from state funds or property tax hikes. Without the state providing additional funding, many schools have turned to raising property taxes using the school revenue authority to help support their operational costs. 

“I understand there’s a big political debate about that veto, and about that mechanism, we don’t have a position on this. What we’re saying is that the school funding mechanism is not sufficient and is unconstitutional, even with that,” Mandell said.

The state budget did provide additional funding for special education reimbursement, but recent estimates show that the amount of funding will not be enough to provide reimbursement at the promised rates of 42% and 45%. Increasing special ed funding is part of ongoing negotiations between legislative leaders and Evers. 

The lawsuit comes as the legislative session is coming to a close. 

The state Assembly adjourned for the session last week and the Senate will wrap up next month, but the only bills with a chance of becoming law are those that have already passed the Assembly. 

Even if a deal arises out of the current negotiations on property taxes and school funding, Mandell said the problem identified in the lawsuit will still exist. He noted that a proposal from Evers included $450 million towards school general aids — an amount that is $2 billion less than what schools would get if inflationary increases had continued in 2009. Mandell said Evers is not named in the suit because it is the Legislature that is chiefly responsible for appropriating funds. 

“This is not a problem that arose overnight. It has developed over decades, and it’s not a problem that will be solved overnight,” Mandell said. “Any deal that the Legislature and the governor might reach… is not going to solve the problem.”

Mandell said that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit  are not looking for the court to decide on a specific amount of money that the state should provide to schools, but instead want the court to “fully explain and delve into how the finance system works, what the needs are, and to make some of those decisions.”

The lawsuit asks the court for a judgement that declares the Legislature hasn’t fulfilled and cannot “shirk” its constitutional obligation to fund schools at a sufficiently high level to “ensure that every Wisconsin student has an equal opportunity to obtain a sound basic education that equips them for their roles as citizens and enables them to succeed economically and personally in a tuition free public school where the character of instruction is as uniform as practicable.” It calls for the current funding system to be ruled invalid. 

The lawsuit calls for relief that will “establish a schedule that will enable the Court — in the absence of a superseding state law, adopted by the Legislature and signed by the governor in a timely fashion — to adopt and implement a new school finance system that meets all relevant state constitutional guarantees.” 

Mandell said, however, that it likely won’t be up to the court to decide exactly how the state should fund schools. 

“There are almost an infinite number of options for how the Legislature could do this, but what we’re asking the court to do is to look at it and say to the Legislature, not good enough…. then we do expect that the Legislature and the governor will do their jobs,” Mandell said. 

Mandell said that ideally a ruling would give lawmakers the opportunity to make changes in the next budget cycle. The budget process will kick off again in January 2027, after the state’s fall elections which will determine the make-up of the Senate and Assembly as well as choosing a new governor. 

If the Legislature and the governor don’t fix the problem, Mandell said, the court should step in again.

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: info@wisconsinexaminer.com.

This story was originally published by . for their newsletters.

For years, California schools have pushed to change the way the state pays for K-12 education: by basing funding on enrollment, instead of attendance. That’s the way 45 other states do it, and it would mean an extra $6 billion annually in school coffers.

But such a move might cause more harm than good in the long run, because linking funding to enrollment means schools have little incentive to lure students to class every day, released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. Without that incentive, attendance would drop, and students would suffer.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

If the Legislature wants to boost school funding, analysts argued, it should use the existing attendance-based model and funnel more money to schools with high numbers of low-income students, students in foster care and English learners.

When it comes to attendance, money talks, the report noted. For more than a century, California has funded schools based on average daily attendance – how many students show up every day. In the 1980s and ’90s, the state started to look at alternatives. A pilot study from that time period showed that attendance at high schools rose 5.4% and attendance at elementary schools rose 3.1% when those schools had a financial incentive to boost attendance.

This is not the time to ease up on attendance matters, the report said. Although attendance has improved somewhat since campuses closed during the pandemic, it remains pre-COVID-19 levels. In 2019, nearly 96% of students showed up to school every day. The number dropped to about 90% during COVID-19, when most schools switched to remote learning, but still remains about 2 percentage points below its previous high.

Attendance is tied to a host of student success measurements. Students with strong attendance tend to have higher test scores, higher levels of reading proficiency and higher graduation rates.

“It’s a thoughtful analysis that weighs the pros and cons,” said Hedy Chang, president of the nonprofit research and advocacy organization Attendance Works. “For some districts there might be benefits to a funding switch, but it also helps when districts have a concrete incentive for encouraging kids to show up.”

True cost of educating kids

Schools have long asked the Legislature to change the funding formula, which they say doesn’t cover the actual costs of educating students, especially those with high needs. The issue came up repeatedly at a recent conference of the California School Boards Association, and there’s been at least one recent bill that addressed the issue.

The , by former , a Democrat from the La Cañada Flintridge area, initially called for a change to the funding formula, but the final version merely asked the Legislative Analyst’s Office to study the issue. The bill passed in 2024.

A 2022 report by Policy Analysis for California Education also noted the risks of removing schools’ to prioritize attendance. But it also said that increasing school funding overall would give districts more stability.

Enrollment is a better funding metric because schools have to plan for the number of students who sign up, not the number who show up, said Troy Flint, spokesman for the California School Boards Association.

He also noted that schools with higher rates of absenteeism also tend to have higher numbers of students who need extra help, such as English learners, migrant students and low-income students. Tying funding to daily attendance — which in some districts is as low as 60% — brings less money to those schools, ultimately hurting the students who need the most assistance, he said.

“It just compounds the problem, creating a vicious cycle,” Flint said.

To really boost attendance, schools need extra funding to serve those students.

Switching to an enrollment-based funding model would increase K-12 funding by more than $6 billion, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Currently, schools receive about $15,000 annually per student through the state’s main funding mechanism, the Local Control Funding Formula, with an additional $7,000 coming from the federal government, block grants, lottery money, special education funds and other sources. Overall, California on schools last year, according to the Legislative Analyst.

Motivated by money?

Flint’s group also questioned whether schools are solely motivated by money to entice students to class.

“Most people in education desperately want kids in class every day,” Flint said. “These are some of the most dedicated, motivated people I’ve met, and they care greatly about students’ welfare.”

Josh Schultz, superintendent of the Napa County Office of Education, agreed. Napa schools that are funded through attendance actually have lower attendance than schools that are considered “basic aid,” and funded through local property taxes. Both types of schools have high numbers of English learners and migrant students.

“I can understand the logic (of the LAO’s assertion) but I don’t know if it bears out in reality, at least here,” Schultz said. “Both kinds of schools see great value in having kids show up to school every day.”

This article was and was republished under the license.

But the state’s request before the U.S. Department of Education has raised concerns by advocates who worry needy students could “lose both dedicated attention and resources” in Indiana and other states.   

Indiana joined Iowa this fall in asking the U.S. Department of Education for permission to merge their federal “Title” education grants – such as Title I to combat poverty and Title III to help English Language Learners — into one block grant for states and schools.

A similar attempt by Oklahoma is on hold after state Superintendent Ryan Walters resigned in September, while several state school leaders have asked U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to work with Congress to ease restrictions.

“Our goals…include less red tape for our people,” state Education Secretary Katie Jenner told the state school board. “We’re shifting towards…the flexibility to put the resources where they’re needed the most.”

At the same time, advocacy groups are shouting warnings that removing guardrails on the $30 billion in Title grants, created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” could lead to the country’s most needy students being left out.

In Indiana, officials have asked the U.S. Department of Education to pool the more than $350 million it receives in Title grants in the name of efficiency — to save time and millions of dollars now spent documenting how each dollar is used for specific groups of students.

Instead, the state wants the freedom to use the money for its main statewide education priorities — literacy, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) proficiency and reshaping high school education.

It’s also seeking freedom to spend federal School Improvement Grants — money now targeted at improving failing schools — to go instead toward state school choice goals.

Indiana would create an “innovation fund” with that money to help other schools nearby that students could choose instead. Such a fund would “better support a growing ecosystem of effective, innovative school models,” according to Indiana’s application.

“Students and families cannot wait — sometimes for years — for a chronically underperforming school to improve in order to receive access to high-quality instruction,” the application adds..

Both Iowa and Indiana’s request to the Education Department — with rulings expected early next year — “are expected to set a precedent for the scope of future waivers granted to other states,” the American School Superintendents Association

Indiana’s request, however, is raising concerns from several education advocacy groups — including The Education Trust, All4Ed, UnidosUS and the National Parents Union — that removing restrictions on the money will mean that students that most need extra help won’t get it.

“This approach fundamentally misunderstands — and threatens to undermine — the purpose of these targeted federal programs, which were created to address specific, documented gaps in support for vulnerable student populations,” the groups said in a . “When Indiana lists numerous state priorities without any specific commitments to individual student groups, it signals that these populations would lose both dedicated attention and resources under the proposed consolidation.”

Indiana’s request to the U.S. Department of Education to waive restrictions on the money goes beyond Iowa’s, said Nicholas Munyan-Penney, Assistant Director of P12 Policy at The Education Trust. Indiana is seeking leeway from restrictions both for the state and for individual schools and districts, while Iowa is asking for an exemption just for the state, he said.

“In its current form, Indiana’s is much more dramatic and wide-ranging in its scope and potential impact,” Munyan-Penney said.

Within Indiana, the Indiana State Teachers Association is also raising concerns.

“ISTA believes flexibility can be beneficial when paired with transparency, collaboration and a clear focus on student success,” the association . “However, we remain concerned about provisions in the waiver that could reduce input from educators and parents and divert critical resources from schools working to close opportunity gaps.”

The union also has concerns about shifting the School Improvement Grant money.

“The proposed waiver could redirect these funds to schools or programs that are not identified as low-performing, potentially diluting the impact on historically underserved students,” the union said.

And residents of Gary, a high-poverty city, also worry that the neediest students will be left out if guardrails are removed.

“When I hear…this waiver is about ‘cutting red tape,’ I don’t buy it,” Natalie Ammons, grandmother of three students in the Gary school district, testified last week in a webcast to Congressional staff. “It may be cutting something, but it’s not red tape — it’s cutting away the few protections families like mine have left.”

Asked for school officials who are seeking the waivers, the Indiana Department of Education did not suggest any. �鶹��Ʒ also requested a copy of feedback the department sought from residents and officials on the waiver, but the department did not provide it.

The goal of combining Title grants, which total about $30 billion a year nationally, have been a growing priority of Republican officials after a version of it was proposed in Project 25. Oklahoma and Iowa proposed merging them this spring, but concerns arose about what the U.S. Department of Education could legally allow.

Trump also put a hold on disbursing several Title grants to states this year before backing down.

In July, McMahon encouraging them “to seek creative and effective waivers for improving student academic achievement and maximizing the impact of Federal funds” and spelling out a waiver process.

Title I, which accounts for more than half of that money, is awarded to states and schools according to poverty levels and enrollment. All4Ed, estimates that more than two thirds of school districts receive some Title I money, though sometimes in low amounts if poverty is low.

Indianapolis Public Schools, for example, are scheduled to receive $15.7 million in Title I money next school year, while several smaller districts receive well under $100,000.

But suggests that in an attempt to right these inequities, those reforms often got it wrong. 

State school finance policies designed to close funding gaps between high- and low-income districts did not reduce racial and ethnic funding inequities and in some cases increased them, according to a study published Wednesday by the American Educational Research Association. 

“I was quite surprised. And depressed, frankly,” said Emily Rauscher, lead co-author and professor at Brown University. “My guess going into the study was that these income based school finance reforms that worked to reduce inequality of funding by income would also at least slightly help reduce racial inequality of funding.”

The U.S. is unique in that school district budgets are tethered to property taxes, meaning schools in wealthier communities automatically start with a larger pot of local funding. Since school desegregation efforts slowed after the 1980s, civil-rights minded policymakers have tried fixing this discrepancy between low-income districts that serve lots of students of color and rich districts that serve lots of white students by directing more money to districts with more low-income kids.

State funds are typically distributed through a formula, or set of formulas, that send money to districts. From there, districts send it to schools. Each state uses different criteria in their formulas, but most try to target at least a portion of their funds to school districts that enroll lots of students with greater needs and those that struggle to raise funds from property taxes. Sometimes, courts make them do it.

According to the , the number of states with co-called “progressive” funding systems — where high-poverty districts receive more per-student funding than low-poverty districts — more than doubled, from 13 states in 2012 to 28 in 2022. States such as New Mexico, Wyoming, California, and Colorado saw some of the largest gains in funding equity during this period. As it stands, more than half of the 48 states studied have at least a modestly progressive distribution of state and local funding, providing at least 5% additional funding to high-poverty districts. That is twice as many states as a decade ago.

But Rauscher and co-author Jeremy Fiel, a professor at Rice University, found that while these reforms narrowed funding gaps by income, they did not lessen — and sometimes widened — disparities by race and ethnicity. 

Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Center for Education Statistics, the researchers examined the effects of school finance reforms across the U.S. from 1990 to 2022. They found that such policies reduced school spending gaps between the highest- and lowest-income districts by over $1,300 per pupil on average. However, the reforms also increased the spending advantage of districts with low percentages of Black and Hispanic students—by $900 and $1,000 per pupil, respectively.

Reforms were more effective at reducing racial disparities in states where those inequities were already relatively modest. In contrast, reforms were less effective, or even regressive, in states with high levels of racial and economic segregation between school districts. In these more segregated states, reforms not only exacerbated racial and ethnic disparities but also failed to narrow economic gaps.

While the study did not pinpoint the exact reason for this, researchers posited that it may be driven by demographic and political processes related to implementation. Additionally, many funding reforms boosted spending broadly rather than targeting it, leading to minimal effects. Many court-ordered solutions, by contrast, stipulate that states must target racial and ethnic inequality. 

Notably, the funding reforms worked best at directing money to historically marginalized students in districts that were less segregated, likely a reflection of separate policies aimed at supporting students of color, low-income students and their families, Rauscher said. Moreover, the study showed that the biggest inequities exist between states – not within them.

Rauscher offered that it’s likely not random that states funding their education systems the least are also the ones with the highest concentration of students of color. And that’s exactly why, she said, the federal government needs to step up to fix it. 

For many school funding experts, this realization is not surprising. After all, while most states distribute funding relatively evenly by the racial and ethnic composition of districts, wealthier states still spend significantly more per pupil than poorer ones. And since these states tend to have higher shares of white students and lower shares of Black and Hispanic students, national disparities are bound to persist.

“The concentration of non-white students is in the lowest-funded states, and the concentration of white students is in the highest-funded states,” says Rebecca Sibilia, executive director of EdFund, a nonprofit that funds school finance research. “So when you compare the funding levels of a low-income school district in Mississippi that has a lot of Black and Hispanic students to a tawny suburb of Boston in Massachusetts where all the kids are white, you’re going to pick up a huge gap. It just distorts the amount of money when you’re comparing across the entire U.S.”

It’s worth noting, Sibilia says, that recent state funding reforms, like those in Tennessee, Colorado, Mississippi and Alabama, are poised to make a real difference. Tennessee’s model, adopted three years ago, directs more funding to students who need it most, including those living in high concentrations of poverty. It also accounts for students in small and sparsely populated districts, which formulas sometimes shortchange. Meanwhile, Alabama’s model — the newest in the country — includes additional funds for students with special needs, such as those with disabilities or who are English language learners.

“There’s no way that you’re going to change interstate funding differences, because people are so focused on schools in their communities, and because half of the money is coming from local property taxes,” she says. “The federal government can’t touch those dollars, so you have to focus within the state. And when you look at the effect of the intrastate reforms, you tend to see that they’re working.”

The new research comes against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the Education Department, eliminate policies aimed at increasing equity for students of color and significantly curb federal spending, including on long-standing programs like Title I and IDEA, which are the federal government’s two biggest levers for bolstering state education funding.

In other words, it’s a political environment not likely to prioritize issues of racial inequity.

“You’re never going to have a funding formula that says we’re going to add x hundreds of dollars per Black student in each state, because that’s just not a viable policy,” says Eric Hanushek, an economist and senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. “We’ve had these differences all along, and there’s no way that you’re going to suddenly get the federal government stepping in on overall spending differences between states.”

Rauscher says that given the political environment, she’s concerned that her research may be used in bad faith by policymakers who have no interest in closing racial gaps in education. 

Her message to them: “You are mortgaging the future of the country, because all these kids who are under-resourced in school are going to enter adulthood without adequate skills and training. It’s an ongoing battle. We’ve been here before.”

It’s been about six months since the U.S. Department of Education sent a “” letter to all schools that receive federal funding, warning them that they could risk losing this money if they promote what the department calls “pervasive and repugnant” racial preferences.

Despite the Trump administration threatening to withhold funding from Maine schools for allegedly violating federal rules against sex-based discrimination, no funding has been permanently taken away from public schools, so far.

In a , President Donald Trump told Maine Gov. Janet Mills during a February National Governors Association event at the White House that she must comply with his executive order barring transgender athletes from competing on women’s sports teams consistent with their gender identity. Otherwise, he warned, “you’re not going to get federal funding.”

In the wake of that, several federal agencies targeted Maine for its inclusive policies that allow transgender girls to play on girls sports teams. The Trump administration argued the policy is in violation of Title IX, the federal nondiscrimination law that bans sex-based discrimination, and opened several investigations into the Maine Department of Education (DOE). An investigation was also launched into the Maine Principal’s Association, which regulates school sports, and Greely High School in Cumberland after a state legislator posted a picture of a trans athlete from the school on her legislative Facebook page.

In April, the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that Maine had violated Title IX and referred their cases to the U.S. Department of Justice. In a , the federal Education Department also said it would simultaneously “initiate an administrative proceeding to adjudicate termination of MDOE’s federal K-12 education funding, including formula and discretionary grants.”

Last year, the Maine DOE received $183.9 million from the U.S. Department of Education, which of the federal funding the department received that year.

The is pending, according to the Maine Attorney General’s office, but neither federal agency withheld any funding from the Maine DOE as a result of their guilty finding, said Maine Deputy Attorney General Christopher Taub.

Withholding of federal education funding was one of the primary concerns as they introduced several bills aiming to restrict trans rights this past legislative session, .

Also this spring, several from Maine, many of which were challenged or walked back. For example, in April, Maine the U.S. Department of Agriculture for freezing school nutrition funding, which federal courts ordered the agency to restore.

The ruling marked Maine’s first legal victory in fighting the Title IX violation allegations, but other lawsuits are still pending.

The USDA, which never launched an official probe, is the only agency so far to withhold federal funding from Maine schools, the attorney general’s office confirmed. The funding was frozen on April 2, and restored by a federal judge’s order on April 11. to Mills announcing the freeze, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins wrote, “this pause does not impact federal feeding programs or direct assistance to Mainers; if a child was fed today, they will be fed tomorrow.”

But according to Jane McLucas, Maine’s child nutrition director, the agency froze roughly $2.75 million in funds that impacted various aspects of the school nutrition program. While reimbursement funds for the National School Lunch and School Breakfast programs were still accessible, money used to run those programs — including for the salaries of 12 state employees, as well as funding for office technology and oversight — was temporarily blocked, McLucas said. Also, funding for the Child and Adult Care Food Program, which provides food reimbursements to eligible children and adults in after school programs, child and adult day care centers, was also hit, with providers losing access to “cash in lieu” payments they use to buy food and to administrative funds that cover staffing costs.

Two months later, Maine also the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) after the agency canceled a $9 million grant to the Maine Department of Marine Resources. That grant had been awarded to restore tidal salt marsh habitat and protect coastal infrastructure from flooding. The lawsuit, which is also still pending, alleges that NOAA may have terminated the grant because of Maine’s alleged violation of Title IX, according to Danna Hayes, director of public affairs for the Maine Attorney General’s Office.

Nearly $50 million in federal funding has also been , as of May, including grants that were temporarily frozen and then restored, terminated or threatened. This funding was cut despite the USDA in March that the university system is in compliance with the Trump administration’s transgender policy.

How much of this funding was related to Title IX is unclear, and the university system declined to provide specifics on at least one grant that was withheld due to Title IX, then temporarily restored and ultimately terminated.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maine Morning Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lauren McCauley for questions: info@mainemorningstar.com.

Formed in 1969 by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a nonprofit authorized by Congress in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, PBS has been a staple for American families for decades. 

From its earliest days airing Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood and Sesame Street to iconic shows from the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s like Electric Company, Reading Rainbow and Bill Nye the Science Guy, PBS programming has taught children to understand and express their emotions, and helped them build foundational literacy, math and science skills. And since 1999, PBS Kids has brought beloved characters like Daniel Tiger and Arthur into American through shows and digital games. 

Today, PBS, along with NPR and funded by CPB faces an uncertain future after President Donald Trump signed a bill cutting earmarked for the Corporation.

public broadcasting has been under threat. In the 1990s, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, led efforts to . In 1969, Fred Rogers before Congress to protect $20 million in federal funding for the newly formed Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which the Nixon administration proposed cutting in half.

“I’m constantly concerned about what our children are seeing, and for 15 years I have tried, in this country and Canada, to present what I feel is a meaningful expression of care,” Rogers told then-Senator John O. Pastore. Rogers contrasted his approach with the animated “bombardment” and gun violence he saw on other networks.

Underscoring the importance of programs appealing to social emotional learning and mental health, Rogers won Pastore over. “Looks like you just earned the $20 million dollars,” Pastore concluded.

Over the years, PBS has remained a media source among Americans, especially for its children’s programming. As of 2024, more than 130 million people watch PBS via traditional television; nearly 60% of all U.S. television households watch PBS over the course of a year; and PBS Kids 15.5 million monthly users and 345 million monthly streams across PBS KIDS’ digital platforms.

Here’s a visual history of the milestones and iconic moments from the organization that has served generations of learners — as well as a glimpse into efforts to protect it over the years:

1969

Fred Rogers testified before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Communications to oppose proposed cuts to federal funding for public broadcasting. 

Sesame Street airs its episode in November 1969.

1970

The photos below capture behind-the-scenes moments from the first season of Sesame Street.

1971

1973

1986

’90s and Early 2000s

2005

2008

2009

Sesame Street turns 40. 

2011

2012

2013

2017

2025

The fight to fund continues. 

This story was originally published by . for their newsletters.

California after-school and summer programs will get some of their funding back after the federal government said on Friday that it would restore grants it had previously withheld. But the money is contingent on states complying with Civil Rights laws – a cudgel the White House has used in the past to crack down on diversity efforts.

“It’s a big relief,” said Heather Williams, director of policy and outreach for the California AfterSchool Network. “The funding freeze was very disruptive and there was a level of chaos. We’re hopeful that anyone that canceled or paused programs can jump back in.”

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

The U.S. Department of Education announced on June 30 – a day before the money was set to be released – it would not give out grant money for after-school programs, migrant education, English learners, professional development for teachers and other programs, pending a review of whether the programs were in line with President Donald �հ��ܳ���’s priorities. The funding freeze affected nearly every school in the state, particularly those that serve low-income children.

In all, the White House withheld nearly $7 billion in education funds, including about $800 million for California. The money had already been approved by Congress, leading California and 24 other states to . There’s been no ruling yet on that suit.

California was due $147 million in after-school grants. When the money didn’t come through, schools and nonprofits such as the YMCA, which also provide after-school and summer programs to children, had to lay off staff and cancel programs if they couldn’t find money to keep the programs going on their own.

On Friday, the White House sent an email to states saying that after-school grants would be released under the condition that schools not use the money “in any manner that violates the United States Constitution,” the Civil Rights Act or other laws. The U.S. Department of Education did not return emails seeking clarification.

Other grants, such as those for migrant students, remain frozen.

In the White House’s in schools, it often cited the Civil Rights Act as a , saying that initiatives that favor certain student groups are inherently discriminatory. Most schools in California have at least some diversity programs, whether it’s Cinco de Mayo celebrations, Black Student Unions or special graduation ceremonies for Native American students.

State education officials were not available for comment on Monday.

‘Urgent’ need to release all funds

In Humboldt County, school districts had to shuffle their budgets to keep summer programs open after the funds were frozen on July 1. Although it’s “a welcome relief” to have the money restored, it’s not close to being enough, said County Superintendent Michael Davies-Hughes.

Schools need all the money that’s been frozen, not just the after-school funds, he said.

“We need the whole package, urgently,” he said. “If we don’t have the money, we’ll have districts moving toward insolvency. I implore the federal administration to understand that these programs are not optional.”

Cutting federal grants hurts all students, he said, but especially those who are low-income because those students don’t have a lot of other options, he said. Federally funded summer programs help students stay on track academically and socially while their parents work; losing those programs has “an outsized detrimental effect on the most vulnerable students,” he said.

Meanwhile, schools are also contending with declining enrollment and other funding cuts.

“We’ve already trimmed the fat. Now we’re looking at limbs and organs,” Davies-Hughes said. “And we have to keep the organs.”

The release of after-school grant money is good news for this summer’s programs, but a bigger concern is next year, Williams said. The recent federal budget bill did not include after-school funding, and Trump has said he wants to eliminate the program next year.

Federal money is a relatively small but important part of California’s overall after-school funding. The state contributed more than $1.8 billion to after-school programs last year, which allowed most elementary students in California to attend after-school and summer programs for free or for steep discounts.

But high school programs are a different story. Federal grants are the only source of funding for high school after-school programs, which are a key part of career and technical education pathways.

This article was and was republished under the license.

In Kern County, the first rule in counting homeless students is not saying “homeless.”

Instead, school staff use phrases like “struggling with stable housing” or “families in transition.” The approach seems to have worked: More families are sharing their housing status with their children’s schools, which means more students are getting services.

“There’s a lot of stigma attached to the word ‘homeless,’” said Curt Williams, director of homeless and foster youth services for the Kern County Office of Education. “When you remove that word, it all changes.”

Largely as a result of better identification methods, Kern County saw its homeless student population jump 10% last year, to 7,200. Those students received transportation to and from school, free school supplies, tutoring and other services intended to help them stay in school. For the purposes of this data, the definition of homelessness is broader than .

The trend is reflected statewide. In the latest state enrollment data released last month, California had 230,443 homeless students — a 9.3% increase from the previous year. Some of the increase is due to the state’s ongoing housing shortage, but most of the increase is because of better identification, advocates and school officials said.

Homeless students face numerous obstacles in school. They have higher rates of discipline and absenteeism, and fare worse academically. Last year, only 16% of homeless students met the , some of the lowest scores of any student group.

“Schools can’t solve homelessness, but they can ensure the students are safe in the classroom and getting the education they need to get out of homelessness,” said Barbara Duffield, executive director of Schoolhouse Connection, a national homeless youth advocacy group. “That starts with identifying the child who’s homeless.”

Challenges of counting homeless students

Under the federal McKinney-Vento Act, schools are required to count their homeless students throughout the school year and ensure they receive services. Homeless students also have the right to stay enrolled in their original school even if they move.

For many years, schools struggled to identify homeless students. Under state law, schools must at the beginning of the school year asking families where they live — in their own homes, in motels, doubled-up with other families, in shelters, cars or outdoors.

Some schools were less-than-diligent about collecting the form, or reassuring families understood the importance. Often, homeless families were reluctant to submit the form because they were afraid the school might contact a child welfare agency. Immigrant families sometimes feared the school might notify immigration authorities. And some families didn’t realize that sharing quarters with another family — by far the most common living situation among homeless families – is technically defined as homeless, at least under McKinney-Vento.

A 2021 by former Assemblymember Luz Rivas, a Democrat from Arleta in the San Fernando Valley, sought to fix that problem. The bill requires schools to train everyone who works with students — from bus drivers to cafeteria workers to teachers — on how to recognize potential signs of homelessness. That could include families who move frequently or don’t reply to school correspondence.

The bill seems to have helped. Last year, the state identified 21,000 more homeless students than it had the previous year, even as overall enrollment dropped.

Still, that’s probably an undercount, researchers said. The actual homeless student population is probably between 5% and10% of those students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, according to the National Center for Homeless Education. In California, that would be a shortfall of up to 138,713 students.

Influx of funding

Another boost for identifying homeless students came from the American Rescue Plan, the federal COVID-19 relief package. The plan included $800 million for schools to hire counselors or train existing staff to help homeless students. Nearly all schools in California received some money.

About 120 districts in California won grant money through the McKinney-Vento Act, which last year dispersed about $15.9 million in California to pay for things like rides to school, backpacks, staff and other services. Districts are chosen on a competitive basis; not all districts that apply receive funds.

But those funding sources are drying up. Most of the pandemic relief money has already been spent, and President Donald �հ��ܳ���’s recently approved budget does not include McKinney-Vento funding for 2026-27.

The cuts come at a time when advocates expect steep increases in the number of homeless families over the next few years, due in part to national policy changes. Republican budget proposals include cuts to Medicaid, food assistance and other programs aimed at helping low-income families, while the immigration crackdown has left thousands of families afraid to seek assistance. For families living on tight budgets, those cuts could lead to a loss of housing.

And in California, the shortage of affordable housing continues to be a hurdle for low-income families. Even Kern County, which has traditionally been a less pricey option for families, has seen a as more residents move there from Los Angeles.

Joseph Bishop, an education professor at UCLA and co-author of a on homeless students nationwide, said the loss of government funding will be devastating for homeless students.

“California is the epicenter of the homeless student crisis, and we need targeted, dedicated support,” Bishop said. “Folks should be extremely alarmed right now. Will these kids be getting the education they need and deserve?”

Better food, cleaner bathrooms

In Kern County, identification has only been one part of the effort to help homeless students thrive in school. Schools also try to pair them with tutors and mentors, give them school supplies and laundry tokens, and invite them to join a program called Student Voice Ambassadors. There, students can tour local colleges, learn leadership skills and explore career options.

As part of the program, staff ask students what would make school more enticing — and then make sure the suggestions happen. At one school, students said they’d go to class if the bathrooms were cleaner. So staff improved the bathrooms. At another school, students wanted better food. They got it.

Williams credits the program with reducing absenteeism among homeless students. Two years ago, 45% of Kern County’s homeless students were chronically absent. Last year, the number dropped to 39% – still too high, he said, but a significant improvement.

“Without McKinney-Vento funds, the Student Voice Ambassador program would go away,” Williams said. “How will we keep it going? I don’t know.”

This article was and was republished under the license.

In 2020 and 2021, the COVID pandemic exposed weaknesses in the United States’ supply chain for key items in American households.

The Biden administration spent millions of dollars through the U.S. Department of Agriculture on new programs that helped farmers sell their produce to local schools, create produce boxes for households and provide more direct food access to their communities.

The Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) and Local Food for Schools (LFS) programs provided incentives for schools and community organizations to buy food from local farmers. They allowed states to create contracts with farmers so schools could purchase their foods and gave farmers the promise of a guaranteed sale when harvest time arrived.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

Now, with rocky trade partnerships and tariffs looming, President Donald �հ��ܳ���’s administration has for the programs, leaving farmers across the country heading into their growing season unsure who will buy their produce.

“We really figured out how to get local farm product into community spaces under LFS and LFPA,” said Thomas Smith, the chief business officer at the Kansas City Food Hub, a cooperative of farmers near the Kansas City area. “We were making our whole organization around meeting those new needs, because we believe in the government’s promise that they believe in local food.”

The Trump administration canceled about $660 million in funding for the programs that was to be paid out over the next few years. Through the programs so far, USDA has paid out more than to states and other recipients.

KC Food Hub took on the challenge of helping farmers, school districts and the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education work together to streamline the processes under the Biden-era programs. It was almost an instant success.

In 2024, the cooperative brokered more than $500,000 in sales for small farmers in the Kansas City region — more than the group had seen in its first five years of operation.

KC Food Hub hoped that the new partnerships would continue putting money back into farmers’ pockets and was aiming for over $1 million in sales for the farmers they represent. Now, they’re huddling with school districts across Kansas and Missouri to try and keep some of the contracts alive in the absence of the federal money.

How purchasing agreements relieve stress for small farmers

The local food programs were an extra pillar of support for small farmers across the country.

USDA show that since 1980, the number of farms across the U.S. has decreased from about 2.5 million to 1.88 million in 2024. Part of that struggle, Smith said, is like many small-business owners, farmers are forced to take on many different roles.

“What they really want to be doing is farming, knowing their soil, knowing their land,” Smith said. “But because there is no distributor like the Food Hub in most communities, they have to be business people, too. They have to be in the board meetings, meetings with school administrators. And that just puts so much stress onto the food system.”

Over the years, as small farms have dwindled and larger operations have consolidated agricultural production in the United States, the middle market and distributors like the Food Hub have phased out.

When it comes to large-scale distributors, there are plenty of places a farmer could turn to sell their products. But the return for that farmer when selling to a large distributor is much lower.

“You get pennies on the dollar,” Smith said. “No respect to your work, no respect for your worth.”

There are other USDA programs that dedicate money to states through their nutrition assistance programs and set aside funds for seniors and low-income families to from local farmers.

Studies show ripple effects through local economies when higher quantities of local food are purchased. A 2010 found that for every dollar spent on local food products, there is between 32 cents and 90 cents in additional local economic activity.

For Mike Pearl, a legacy farmer in Parkville, the programs pushed him to expand faster than he’d planned. Now, without the guarantee of those contracts, he’s scaling back his production plan for the year.

“If you think about it, it was an early game changer,” Pearl said. “We were able to, for the first

time … grow on a contracted basis for a fair price for the farmer, in a way that we never would have been able to do before.”

That encouraged Pearl to increase production and begin making upgrades before he felt completely ready to do so, he told The Beacon. New equipment, growing more produce and hiring more staff were all side effects of the local food purchasing agreements.

“I’m not sure that a lot of vegetable farmers were actually ready for it,” Pearl said. “I wasn’t prepared for it. But we made some changes to grow a bit more and do as much as we can on a short runway. We were set up for a perfect storm.”

Anything extra Pearl produces will be donated, as his farm is one of the largest donors of food in the Kansas City area. But other farmers are left with questions about what will happen with their crops — and their revenue.

It raises a question of trust that Maile Auterson has encountered throughout her life as a fourth-generation farmer in the Ozarks and the founder of Springfield Community Gardens, which facilitates local produce boxes and the LFS programs in the Springfield, Joplin and Rolla areas.

“We promised the farmers,” Auterson said. “The biggest insult to us is that we cannot follow through on the promises we made to the farmers that we had made with that money.”

The area her group serves was set to get $3 million in federal funds over the next three years. While Auterson is trying to fulfill some of those contracts, the trust that small farmers were building with the government through the program has been severed, she said.

“We talked the farmers into participating and scaling up specifically for this program,” Auterson said. “Then when we can’t follow through, the government has done what they were afraid the government would do, which would be to not look out for the small farmer. It’s a terrible moral injury to all of us.”

What’s next for small farmers and local food purchasers?

Smith said the Food Hub is in talks with its participating school districts — including Lee’s Summit, Blue Springs and Shawnee Mission — to continue their purchasing agreements even without the federal funds.

So far, even with the funding cancellation, 95% of 2024’s produce sales are set to be maintained through this year, Smith said.

“As small farmers, they can’t meet the streamlined industrial agriculture price points, but we can come close,” said Katie Nixon, a farmer and the co-director of New Growth Food Systems, which is affiliated with the West Central Missouri Community Action Agency.

“Our quality is usually a lot higher,” Nixon said. “Lettuce, for example, will last three weeks in the cooler, whereas lettuce coming from greenhouses in God knows where will last a week before they turn to mush.”

The Blue Springs School District saw a 40% increase in the use of its cafeteria salad bars after switching to local produce, Smith said. And school districts often find less waste and more savings, despite the slightly higher price when purchasing the produce, Nixon said.

Research shows that farm-to-school programs, like sourcing local produce and teaching kids about farming, resulted in students choosing healthier options in the cafeteria and eating more fruits and vegetables. Schools also saw an average 9% increase in students eating their meals from the school cafeteria when they participated in farm-to-school programming.

During �հ��ܳ���’s most recent Cabinet meeting at the White House, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kenendy Jr. said the administration is planning a massive overhaul of the federal school meals program.

“It’s going to be simple, it’s going to be user friendly. It is going to stress the simplicity of local foods, of whole foods and of healthy foods,” Kennedy . “We’re going to make it easy for everyone to read and understand.”

Auterson and Nixon feel that the cancellation of the program is retribution for those who benefited from policies and funds initiated during the Biden administration.

“They’re hurting everyone,” Auterson said. “Everyone is suffering from them being retributional.”

This first appeared on and is republished here under a .

A federal court has ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to restore funding to Maine, granting the state’s request for a temporary restraining order.

The ruling marks Maine’s first legal victory against federal sanctions imposed over its policies on transgender athletes — policies the Trump administration argues violate Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education. At issue is Maine’s decision to allow transgender athletes to participate in girls’ sports, which the federal government claims is unlawful under its interpretation of Title IX.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

After the USDA earlier this month, Attorney General Aaron Frey on Monday filed a complaint in U.S. District Court seeking to reinstate access to the money this Monday. Four days later, Judge John Woodcock Jr.  granted the emergency request, finding that Maine had shown it would suffer “irreparable harm” and that the USDA had failed to follow legally required procedures before halting the funding.

In a statement after the ruling, Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey said the order “confirms the Trump Administration did not follow the rule of law when it cut program funds that go to feed school children and vulnerable adults.”

“No one in our constitutional republic is above the law and we will continue to fight to hold this administration to account,” Frey said.

Unlike other federal agencies that opened civil rights investigations into Maine’s policies, the USDA acted without launching a formal probe. On April 2, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins that the department was freezing certain federal funds used for school administrative and technological functions. The move was based solely on the department’s view that Maine was out of compliance with Title IX, according to Rollins’ letter.

The U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services had separately found Maine in violation of federal law after short investigations. But the state has pushed back, insisting that its trans-inclusive policies are consistent with both Title IX and legal precedent.

In a to Bradley Burke, regional director of the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, Assistant Attorney General Sarah Forster cited court rulings affirming the rights of transgender athletes.

“Nothing in Title IX or its implementing regulations prohibits schools from allowing transgender girls and women to participate on girls’ and women’s sports teams,” she wrote. “Your letters to date do not cite a single case that so holds.”

Judge Woodcock’s ruling does not address the substance of the transgender athlete policy. Instead, it focuses solely on the federal government’s failure to follow due process.

“In ruling on the State’s request, the Court is not weighing in on the merits of the controversy about transgender athletes that forms the backdrop of the impasse between the State and the Federal Defendants,” Woodcock wrote. “The Federal Defendants froze the appropriated funds without observance of procedure required by law.”

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maine Morning Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lauren McCauley for questions: info@mainemorningstar.com.

But now the department she wants to lead has abruptly canceled more than $600 million in grants designed to prepare teachers, especially in high-need schools.

The cancellations include a $3.38 million grant to in Fairfield, Connecticut, where McMahon serves on the Board of Trustees. The funds supported a program focused on recruiting special education teachers and strengthening instruction in STEM subjects. 

The university was among 20 recent recipients of a Teacher Quality Partnership grant, a program that aimed to attract and prepare a more diverse educator workforce. In response to Biden administration priorities, several of the grantees targeted the funds — $70 million in 2024 — toward recruiting and training future educators from underrepresented communities. But now those goals put organizations at odds with the Trump administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

“Without warning all funds were swept, thus all employees on the grant were terminated without cause or warning,” Erin Ramirez, an associate professor at California State University Monterey Bay, said in an email.

Ramirez said her university’s $5.7 million grant was “illegally terminated.” The funds were supporting an alternative teacher preparation program that aimed to draw 1,350 residents of the central California region into teaching in their local school districts. The revocation of funds, including $3.76 million in scholarships, will result in larger class sizes, higher teacher turnover and “exacerbates existing workforce shortages and economic instability,” according to a summary Ramirez provided. 

In letters sent to grantees last week, Mark Washington, the department’s deputy assistant secretary for management and planning, said the cancelled grants were “inconsistent with, and no longer effectuates, department priorities” and could “unlawfully discriminate” based on race or other characteristics. 

In a , the department cited some of the activities it found objectionable, such as workshops on “building cultural competence” and an emphasis on social justice activism. Grantees have until March 12 to challenge the department’s decision.

Also among the cancellations were Supporting Effective Educator Development grants, which sought to train more highly effective educators. TNTP, a nonprofit that aimed to prepare almost 750 teachers to work in the Austin, Baltimore and the Clark County school districts, and , which worked to address a teacher shortage in New Orleans schools, were among those affected.  

“Not only does it feel like chaos, it just feels disheartening,” said Libby Bain, executive director of talent at New Schools for New Orleans, one of the organizations working on the grant. The funds supported nearly 300 high school students in nine schools who were earning credit toward an education major in college. Schools might have to cancel summer school, she added, because the grant also paid for the aspiring teachers to work as tutors to gain extra experience.

“They’re going into a field that already feels hard to go into,” Bain said. “Now this thing that they were so excited about at 17 or 18 is being taken away.”

Three-year grants were last and would have ended in September. The department is arguing that under , it has a right to terminate grants early if they are no longer in line with the administration’s goals. But some grantees say they plan to appeal, and Julia Martin, director of policy and government affairs at the Bruman Group, a Washington law firm, added, “We’ll likely see some litigation.”

‘The next generation of teachers’

Both grant programs help lower the cost of becoming a teacher through scholarships and stipends that help defray housing expenses, especially for teacher education students completing their training in higher-priced urban areas. The universities and nonprofits often focus on recruiting teachers for math, special education and other hard-to-fill subject areas. The grants also pay for research staff who evaluate which aspects of preparation programs, like having a mentor, are more likely to keep novice teachers in the field.

“I have a lot of concerns over what’s going to happen to aspiring teachers in areas where we already had local teaching shortages,” said Kathlene Campbell, CEO of the National Center for Teacher Residencies, which had a $6.3 million grant that was cancelled. 

The center was working with 13 organizations, including several historically Black colleges and universities, in four states. Some students might not complete their program if they can’t cover tuition and fees on their own, Campbell said. She was still collecting data on how many staff members have lost their jobs because of the cuts. 

“If we lose the people who are preparing the next generation of teachers, as well as a significant portion of aspiring teachers, we could see a really big problem in a couple of years,” she said.

Such programs seek to respond to multiple challenges in K-12 classrooms. Over 400,000 teaching positions last year were either unfilled or were staffed by someone without the proper credentials, according to the .  

The nation’s public schools also continue to grow more racially diverse. By 2030, Hispanic students are projected to make up a third of enrollment. Between 2012 and 2022, the percentage of white and Black students in the nation’s classrooms fell, while there was an increase in Asian students and those of two or more races. A diverse teacher workforce has been shown to have positive effects on students, including higher math and reading , regardless of students’ race. Black students matched with Black teachers are also more likely to and less likely to be identified for .

The education department’s move to pull funding for the programs came ahead of its Friday “” letter putting districts on notice that any efforts that could be perceived as encouraging DEI would not be tolerated. 

In the letter, Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights, discouraged schools “from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.” And he encouraged those who think any programs or activities violate laws against discrimination to file a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights.

Campbell, with the teacher residency organization, said there’s a misunderstanding over how the programs view diversity.

“Individuals who come from a different socioeconomic status are now able to become teachers when they didn’t think they could afford to do so,” she said.

And Stephanie Cross, an assistant professor who was preparing teachers to work in Atlanta Public Schools, said her program didn’t discriminate against anyone who wanted to be in the program based on race.

The department’s DEI purge — in keeping with President Donald �հ��ܳ���’s inauguration day — explains why officials turned against the grant programs, but some observers also question whether they offered taxpayers a good return on their investment. Chad Aldeman, who conducts research on teacher workforce issues, said the Teacher Quality Partnership and the Supporting Effective Educator Development programs “aren’t exactly screaming cost-effectiveness.” One Teacher Quality Partnership grant for aimed to prepare 60 teachers and administrators in South Carolina. 

“With this kind of money, the more effective route would probably be paying people directly,” he said. “My preference would be paying in-service teachers who demonstrate strong results and are serving in hard-to-staff roles, rather than focusing on the supply side.”

But Bain, in New Orleans, said higher pay alone might get people into teaching, but won’t necessarily keep them there.

The cancellation of the grants also seems to contradict other signals from the new administration and �հ��ܳ���’s supporters in Congress. Trump nominated former Tennessee education chief Penny Schwinn, who has championed “grow-your-own” teacher preparation initiatives, to serve as deputy education secretary.

Tennessee was the first state to implement a teacher apprenticeship program registered with the Department of Labor. Forty-four states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have . At the time, the effort would “remove barriers to becoming an educator for people from all backgrounds.”

And during McMahon’s hearing last week, Sen Tommy Tuberville, an Alabama Republican, focused on getting more teachers in the classroom. 

“We need teachers,” he said. “We need people in the classroom teaching these kids. Hold them accountable and put more money in the teachers and less money in administrators. I think we’d be a heck of a lot better off.”

Disclosure: Chad Aldeman, who writes about school finance and teacher compensation, is a regular contributor to �鶹��Ʒ.

It’s official: After months of voicing concerns about the effects of cellphones on student mental health and learning, Gov. Kathy Hochul proposed a $13.5 million plan to help districts implement a ban.

Hochul said her plan would help create a “distraction-free” learning environment during the school day. The money aims to help cover associated costs that districts might incur, such as paying for digital pouches that lock devices or additional staff to collect phones each day. Covering the potential costs was one of the issues that forced New York City to put the brakes on its own ban, and it remains to be seen how far the governor’s proposed allocation will go.

On Tuesday, Hochul included the proposal in her $252 billion state 2026 budget, which would send $37.4 billion to schools across the state — , or 4.7%, from the prior year’s budget. It builds on focused on affordability outlined by Hochul during her State of the State address last week.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

The governor’s budget proposal marks the start of negotiations with lawmakers over how the state should allocate its funding for the next fiscal year, which begins in April.

Under Hochul’s cellphone proposal, students would be required to disconnect from devices from “bell to bell,” including during class time, lunch, and in the hallways. The policy would go into effect at the start of the next school year, with districts able to decide the specifics of how they would store phones and ensure compliance, according to Hochul’s office.

“Our kids will finally be free from the endless disruptions of social media and all the mental health pressures that come from it,” she said during her speech at the State Capitol.

Students with disabilities, as well as others who rely on digital devices for medical reasons or translation purposes, would be allowed exemptions from the policy.

In New York City, the Education Department appeared poised to implement on student cellphone use in schools last summer but later after intervention by Mayor Eric Adams.

Jenna Lyle, a spokesperson for the Education Department, said Tuesday that the department was “looking forward to partnering with the Governor” on the issue.

“The feedback we have heard from our school communities has been clear: access to cell phones in the classroom distracts from learning, divides attention, and significantly impacts our students’ mental health,” she said in a statement. “Following our engagement with parent leadership groups last spring, in partnership with the Health Department, we’ve been working on an evaluation to better understand both how schools are implementing policies to restrict cell phones, and lessons learned from those implementations.”

Currently, the city’s schools can over whether and how to restrict student cellphone use. At the end of last school year, about 350 schools already had bans in place, with an additional 500 planning to implement them this year, city officials previously said. Some schools provide students with locking Yondr pouches, while others collect phones or employ alternative strategies.

Those pouches, though, can cost schools $30 per student in the first year, according to the company. Yondr CEO Graham Dugoni noted the company offered “volume discounts” in a statement and praised Hochul’s proposed cellphone ban.

“We look forward to supporting more school communities across New York in creating successful phone-free learning environments,” he said.

Adams, who has expressed some concerns about adopting a citywide policy on the issue, previously told reporters that the city would comply with any state mandate.

NYC could lose out under school funding formula proposal

Hochul’s proposed budget also called for updates to the state’s school funding formula, an issue expected to take center stage in education budget discussions this year. Known as Foundation Aid, the formula was originally created in 2007, and in some cases relies on decades-old data to determine how much funding is sent to school districts.

For years, advocates, lawmakers, and other education officials have to the formula, with some arguing it requires . But the governor’s proposed updates — which were among the suggestions put forward by the state’s Board of Regents and issued by the Rockefeller Institute — could potentially result in New York City receiving a smaller funding increase, advocates warned Tuesday.

For one change, Hochul called for replacing the 2000 Census poverty rate with the most recent Census Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, or SAIPE, data. The formula should also stop using federal free- and reduced-price lunch eligibility as a basis for measuring student need, the governor said, instead switching to broader “economically disadvantaged” student counts.

“This will ensure that state dollars go to students who need them the most,” Hochul said.

But according to the more than 300-page report issued by the Rockefeller Institute last month, switching from the 2000 Census Bureau poverty count to three-year average SAIPE data would decrease New York City’s Foundation Aid funding by a projected $392 million. (The city’s schools would still see an overall increase to Foundation Aid funding.)

Kim Sweet, executive director of the nonprofit group Advocates for Children of New York, said even when combined with the swap to using economically disadvantaged student counts, the proposed changes would result in less overall funding for New York City schools.

“The current federal poverty threshold for a family of four is just $32,150,” she said in a statement. “Trying to make ends meet on $30,000 means something very different for a family in New York City than elsewhere in the State.”

Hochul’s proposal did not include several changes to the formula sought by city advocates and officials, such as additional funding for , or extra dollars to implement the state’s for New York City schools.

The city’s Education Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on how the proposed changes were expected to impact local schools.

The governor’s budget proposal would also modify the formula to send additional aid to low-wealth school districts, as well as ensure that every district receives an annual increase of at least 2%, state officials said. The proposed modifications would result in an increase to Foundation Aid of roughly $1.5 billion, or 5.9%, according to officials.

Early college funding, free school meals, and other proposals

Hochul’s other proposals included establishing a $64.6 million “College in High School Opportunity Fund,” allocating $340 million for universal free school meals, increases in funding for child care programs, and more.

The proposed “College in High School Opportunity Fund” would seek to build institutional support for the model, which provides high school students with a chance to take college courses and receive additional mentorship opportunities while earning their diplomas. Across the country and the state, the model has seen success at improving college matriculation rates and other measures of academic achievement among high school students.

As she unveiled her budget proposal, Hochul also addressed concerns about the “cloud of uncertainty” posed by President Donald �հ��ܳ���’s administration, as the president vowed to slash federal funding during his campaign.

“Changes at the federal level will create new challenges for our state,” Hochul said, warning Republicans could cut “critical funding streams for Medicaid, education, child care, utility assistance,” and more.

“Those who are hurt need to raise their voices, and direct that anger at Washington, and push their members of Congress to fight for them,” she said. “Because New York and other states will simply not be able to shoulder these costs on our own.”

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

New York’s school funding formula relies on outdated information and “reflects an antiquated concept of what public school districts are expected to do.”

That’s according to a more than 300-page report released this week by the Rockefeller Institute of Government, a public policy think tank based at SUNY. As part of between Albany lawmakers and Gov. Kathy Hochul, the state charged the organization with issuing a set of recommendations to revise Foundation Aid, the formula that sends roughly $24.9 billion to school districts — including more than $9.5 billion to New York City schools.

First implemented in 2007, Foundation Aid uses decades-old data to calculate district needs, like relying on figures from the 2000 Census to measure student poverty. Other factors that impact district spending, including the number of students living in temporary housing, don’t weigh into the current formula at all. (Foundation Aid only received from the state in recent years — following a lengthy fight from education advocates.)

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

Though the institute’s recommendations are not binding, its proposals could influence debates over how to update the formula when lawmakers return to Albany in January.

State Sen. Shelley Mayer, a Democrat who chairs the senate’s education committee, stressed that “any determinations about how to change the formula will rest with the Legislature and Governor.”

“The Rockefeller Institute’s report offers a set of recommendations –– some good, some concerning –– to begin a robust conversation about how to fix the Foundation Aid Formula,” Mayer said in a Tuesday statement. “Further, we are not limited by what is proposed in the Rockefeller Institute’s report.”

Read the Rockefeller Institute’s report .

Recommendations: School funding formula needs ‘significant change’

In its report, the Rockefeller Institute called for “significant change” to the formula. Schools today provide far more services than when the formula was initially created, the organization noted, pointing to mental health support at school, language instruction for English learners, and a growing reliance on schools as a “community hub.”

The recommendations include modifying how the formula accounts for inflation, changing and updating the data used to determine student poverty, and establishing more nuanced calculations for funding based on students with disabilities, among other changes.

One of its suggestions is already getting pushback from some lawmakers and the governor: phasing out 50% of “save harmless,” or “hold harmless,” a policy that shields districts with declining enrollment from losing funding.

During the last budget cycle, Hochul sought to effectively end that provision, but the proposal was rebuffed by state lawmakers.

In a statement on Tuesday, a spokesperson for Hochul’s office distanced the governor from the Institute’s proposal to phase out the policy.

“As we craft the upcoming Executive Budget, the Governor believes we should avoid proposals that would negatively impact school budgets, such as eliminating the hold-harmless provision of the Foundation Aid formula,” the spokesperson said.

Reactions: Formula needs overhaul, not tweaks, some argue

Some observers worry that the institute’s proposals don’t go far enough to overhaul the formula, and fail to account for major issues impacting New York City schools.

Michael Rebell, executive director of the Center for Educational Equity at Columbia University’s Teachers College and the lawyer who led the landmark case against the state that paved the way for Foundation Aid, argues it isn’t enough to change aspects of the formula. He believes the state’s current approach falls to provide a “sound basic education.”

“We need a process that takes a totally new look at what students need in 2024 and 2025, not tweaking and patching up something that was written in 2006,” he said. “If you’re not looking at the overall impact of whether kids in every district are getting a fair shot — are getting the opportunity for sound basic education — what have you accomplished?”

Some advocates expressed mixed feelings about the report, noting it did not address several key concerns in New York City, including schools’ needs to help students in temporary housing. In New York City the number of students experiencing homelessness grew to last school year.

“We are disappointed that there are no recommendations to add weights for students experiencing homelessness and students in foster care so that schools can better meet their needs; to provide per pupil funding for 3-K and pre-K students; or to help NYC meet the new class size limits required by state law,” said Kim Sweet, executive director of Advocates for Children, in a statement.

State Sen. John Liu, a Queens Democrat who chairs the Senate’s New York City education committee, echoed concerns about the report’s exclusion of the city’s class size reduction mandate.

“This absolutely must be considered to provide our school kids a constitutionally required, sound, basic education,” he said in a statement.

Impacts: How proposals could affect NYC schools remains unclear

It’s difficult to determine how the report’s proposals might impact students in a particular school district, because they cannot be considered in isolation from one another, Rebell said.

For example, a recommendation that the formula stop using federal free- and reduced-price lunch eligibility as a basis for measuring student poverty might result in less funding for New York City schools, he said. At the same time, a proposal to update how the formula accounts for differing costs between regions could mean more state funding for the city’s students.

And with the state under no obligation to adopt any or all of the Rockefeller Institute’s recommendations, it remains unclear what the report might mean for students.

“I can look at aspects of this formula and say, ‘This would help New York City. That would hurt New York City,’ but that’s not the way to do it,” Rebell said. “The way to do it is: What do kids in New York City need? What do kids in these rural districts need? How can we put together a package that’s responsive to all of it?”

The city’s Education Department and teachers union were both reviewing the report.

“We are continuing to review the report and the impacts of its proposals, and look forward to working with the Governor and the legislature moving forward,” Education Department spokesperson Jenna Lyle said in a statement.

Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers, said, “Some ideas sound promising. Others are cause for concern.”

He was focused, he said, “on what changes need to take place if we are to better support our city’s students, educators, and school communities.”

Looking ahead: Formula need regular updates, report says

Regardless of how state officials choose to update Foundation Aid, the Rockefeller Institute noted more regular revisions to the school funding formula are critical. The report noted student populations and needs, state learning standards, and other measures of academic achievement are all subject to change each year.

“Assuming state policymakers enact some of the recommendations quickly, they should not wait another 17 years to examine the Foundation Aid formula for additional needed revision,” the report said. “An essential part of this reform effort should be a commitment to revisit the Foundation Aid formula every three to five years.”

Julian Shen-Berro is a reporter covering New York City. Contact him at jshen-berro@chalkbeat.org.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

COLUMBIA — Citing multiple late audits, reports of possible misspending and the potential to lose federal aid, the state Board of Education agreed Tuesday to take control of Jasper County School District’s finances.

Unlike a state takeover of a school district, which allows the state superintendent to fire the local school board and make decisions in its place, financial control gives the state Department of Education the district’s purse strings but no other decision-making power, a department attorney told the board Tuesday.

“This is essentially like helping them complete their homework,” said board member Chris Hanley, a family doctor in Summerville.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

The state will remain in control of Jasper County schools’ finances at least through June, the end of the fiscal year. However, the state can retain control for as long as necessary to get the district back into fiscal shape.

of the countywide district’s 2,600 students live in poverty. It receives about $21,000 per pupil this school year, with just over a third of that coming from state taxes and 11% from federal aid, according to the latest estimates from the state .

Having control of the finances will allow state officials to intervene and ready the district for state- and federally required audits, which haven’t been done since 2022. The district has contracted with an auditing firm but has not taken any more steps to prepare for auditors to come in and review the district’s finances, said Daniel Haven, a fiscal analyst for the education department.

State officials will also train the district’s financial workers to better track the district’s money and be prepared for upcoming reviews. And the state will help find and train a permanent chief financial officer, since the district has had someone in charge in only a temporary capacity for the past year.

In Jasper County School District’s case, the move came after years of missed deadlines for district-wide audits.

“They need our help,” Haven told the board.

The district, located in South Carolina’s southern tip bordering Georgia, first missed its deadline in December of 2022, prompting the state to put the district on fiscal watch, the lowest of three escalating tiers.

The district turned in that year’s audit and a plan to avoid missing the deadline again. But come 2023, the district again failed to complete an examination of its finances, moving its status to the next tier, fiscal caution.

It submitted another plan to avoid further problems to the state, but state officials declined to accept it until they had the 2023 audit.

Meanwhile, in July, that district officials spent $228,000 on travel and lodging during the prior 3½ years. That same month, the board voted to put then-Superintendent Rechel Anderson on paid administrative leave. The board fired Anderson in October without giving a reason, .

By August, state officials learned that the district had no timeline to complete its audit and the potential to lose federal funding because of the unfinished review, Haven said.

Because of that, state Superintendent Ellen Weaver declared a financial emergency in the district, the highest level of scrutiny from the state. She also called for an investigation by the state Inspector General’s Office for any signs of potential financial waste, misconduct or law-breaking, according to an August letter.

That investigation will continue during the state’s control over the district, Haven said.

As of Tuesday, the district had not submitted its 2023 audit. State officials had not received the district’s 2024 audit by the Monday deadline, Haven said, though districts are allowed to continue submitting without penalty .

A spokesman for the district said it welcomes the agency’s help.

“They will provide guidance and expertise to help us resolve the delays in delivering our 2023 and 2024 financial audits,” Travis Washington said in a statement Wednesday to the SC Daily Gazette. “Additionally, they will assist us in the search for a permanent finance director and help improve our financial practices to ensure quality and efficiency within our finance department.”

The Jasper County district is one of three school districts in danger of a full state takeover, based on its financial and academic performances, a spokesman has said previously. A district is eligible for takeover if the district consistently receives scores of “unsatisfactory” on its annual report cards, if its accreditation is denied, or if the superintendent decides the district’s turnaround plan is insufficient, .

Jasper County schools have not met that criteria, though the district is on the state department’s radar. Four of Jasper County’s six schools were rated average during the 2023-2024 school year. One was below average, and one was unsatisfactory, the lowest possible grade.

Two rural school districts remain under total state control.

Williamsburg County’s local board is , so long as they get state education department approval, in the first step toward moving decision-making powers back to the board. Allendale County remains under complete control, with no clear timeline as to when local leaders might be able to make decisions again.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. SC Daily Gazette maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Seanna Adcox for questions: info@scdailygazette.com. Follow SC Daily Gazette on and .

Some of Michigan Democrats’ long-sought reforms could come to fruition by the end of the year.

The party wants to use its lame duck session to by making financial audits and individual expenditures available to the public. Also on the table is a bill that would to the schools they run.

– the state was among the first in the nation to pass laws allowing them. They were pitched as a tool of innovation in public education and a means to give parents more school options. .

Michigan’s charter schools, which are also known as public school academies, faced legal challenges early on from opponents who contended that charters weren’t public schools and shouldn’t receive public funding.

Charters must follow state and federal education law.

Charter schools often hire for-profit education management organizations, or EMOs, to run the entire operations of a school, or handle specific tasks like finance or human resources.

The private EMOs are not subject to the same public information laws as traditional public schools. Unlike traditional public schools, for instance, charter schools often aggregate their expenditures into a single line item for “purchased services,” which can make it difficult to track their spending.

Democrats have been skeptical of for-profit EMOs, saying they pocket tax dollars instead of investing the funds in classrooms. Republicans have opposed efforts to increase transparency in charters’ operations, however, arguing it could hinder the schools’ growth.

The history of charter schools in Michigan is long and complex. Here is a timeline of some major events:

This story was originally published at Chalkbeat, a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

Texas is clawing back more than $607 million per year in federal funding for special education services, a move local school district officials say will likely worsen already strained budgets for students with disabilities.

The School Health and Related Services (SHARS) program provides hundreds of school districts critical funding for special education services, reimbursing them for counseling, nursing, therapy and transportation services provided to Medicaid-eligible children.

More than 775,000 students receive special education services in Texas, according to the Texas Education Agency. It is not as clear how many of them are eligible for Medicaid, though school district officials say many of the kids who directly benefit from SHARS come from low-income families.

But in the last year, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, which manages the program at the state level, began imposing strict limitations on the types of services for which school districts are able to request federal reimbursement. The changes have accumulated into a $607 million slashing to the money school districts typically expect to receive under SHARS per year, according to health agency estimates.

Bewildered by the sudden changes, school district officials and special education advocates say little has been communicated about why these drastic changes are happening.

“We’re seeing an increased number of students that need more and more individualized care,” said Katie Abbott, special education director for a coalition of six East Texas school districts. “And yet, what are we doing?”

In response to their concerns, Texas has blamed the feds.

A found that Texas was improperly billing for services not allowable under the SHARS program. The report concluded the state would need to return almost $19 million, a fraction of the $607 million currently being left behind. It also required that the Texas health commission work to ensure it was complying with federal guidelines.

Afterwards, the commission submitted “every possible denial and request for the opinion to be overturned” but was unsuccessful, the agency told The Texas Tribune. The recent changes reflected an attempt to bring the state back into compliance, according to the commission.

But federal appeals officers, last year, said Texas produced “nothing at all” to dispute investigators’ findings that the state billed for unallowable services. The ruling also condemns the state for attempting to submit evidence after the deadline to do so had already passed.

Further, federal officials dispute the notion that Texas is being required to make certain changes to the SHARS program. In a statement to the Tribune, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services made clear that as long as states work within “broad federal parameters,” they have autonomy to make decisions about their programs.

School district officials say Texas has resorted to overcorrecting problems identified by the audit, flouting expectations from the federal government that the state administers the program using the least restrictive means possible.

Many school districts are formally appealing the funding cuts with the state, while other rural districts have decided to exit the SHARS program altogether because of the administrative burden recent changes have created. Those that remain are holding out hope that lawmakers will decide in next year’s legislative session to help fill the financial gaps left in special education services — a lofty expectation for a state with a poor track record in both and .

“We’re talking about our most vulnerable kids,” said Karlyn Keller, division director of Student Solutions and School Medicaid Services for the Texas Association of School Boards. “We can’t afford to continue to make these huge clawbacks in funding when we’ve got kids that need the service.”

‘Faces of kids’

With the slashing to SHARS funding, the Texas Education Agency estimates the deficit between school districts’ special education expenses and revenue from federal and state money will grow to roughly $1.7 billion per year.

Students with disabilities make up a little less than 10% of the Shiner school district’s 700 student population. Factoring in the recent changes to the SHARS program, the rural school district located east of San Antonio can expect to lose more than $79,000, according to state health agency data.

Superintendent Alex Remschel says the loss will eventually hurt the Shiner school district’s ability to recruit and retain personnel who work to administer the one-on-one, small group special education services their students need. The district currently has three special education teachers and about a half-dozen aides who support them in the classroom. The district shares special education resources with eight other districts as part of a cooperative, which Remschel said had to dip into its fund balance this year to fill the gaps left by the SHARS reductions.

“When I look at the dollars that we have, I see faces of kids,” Remschel said. “And I don’t think that the people that are making these decisions see the faces of kids and how kids are impacted, and that’s what tears at my heart the most.”

Jason Appelt, executive director of the special education cooperative the Shiner school district is a member of, questions Texas’ decision not to take full advantage of the money being provided by the federal government. In total, the special education cooperative’s nine rural districts work with about 900 students.

In previous years, the group received about $1 million in SHARS funding, Appelt said, a number that has since been cut in half. SHARS revenue makes up nearly a fifth of the cooperative’s budget.

“We didn’t have any way to plan for this,” Appelt said. “Our districts are very fiscally conservatively minded. So if something doesn’t change with this, it’s gonna be really tough on all these districts, because there’s not too many other places to cut from.”

Larger and wealthier school districts also say they are feeling the effects of changes to the SHARS program. Of the Katy school district’s approximately 96,000 student population, nearly 18% receive special education services, said Gwen Coffey, the assistant superintendent for special education. The district will experience a cut of almost $8 million, according to the state.

Coffey also said the health commission has made participation in the program more difficult in recent years with constant “changing and shifting and adjusting,” resulting in more documentation and paperwork for staff whose workloads are already full. She said the agency does not seem to understand exactly what it’s asking of school districts.

On Oct. 1, for example, the state health agency overhauled the way school districts can bill for personal care services provided to students in a group setting — like bathing, dressing and feeding — which districts interpret as requiring second-by-second documentation of how and when they’re assisting students. Districts say the change is not feasible considering instructors typically are busy with helping multiple children at once.

“I think the bigger question that we all have is, why? Why is it being changed? What’s the purpose?” Coffey said. “Because if the purpose of the Health and Human Services Commission is to ensure that funding and services are being delivered to those students who require them right in a timely and efficient manner, then how does this accomplish that?”

Succumbing to fear

Kami Finger, who serves as assistant superintendent for school support and special services at the Lubbock school district, said ongoing cuts and changes to the SHARS program indicate a “cultural issue” in Texas where instead of maximizing reimbursement dollars available to the state, the state health agency is succumbing to fear because of the federal audit.

“We’re too fearful that we’re not going to do it the right way to begin with,” said Finger, whose district is losing more than $5.4 million from the funding cuts, according to state estimates. “All of that’s coming together at the same time, creating this very precarious situation for district administrators to make decisions about what least effective programs and services we may have to strategically abandon as a result of that.”

The was conducted from October 2010 through September 2011 and zeroed in on the Austin and Dallas school districts. It concluded that overbilling occurred because Texas “did not always follow its policies and procedures to ensure that the costs claimed for direct medical services were accurate and supported.”

In an appeal decision issued last October, federal officials further concluded that Texas had “multiple opportunities” during the process to present evidence disputing investigators’ earlier findings but failed to do so — until after the time to submit evidence had expired.

“The Board therefore will not reconsider its decision to address an issue that could have been but was not raised earlier,” one part of the ruling states.

MSB School Services is a vendor that provides consulting and support to roughly half of participating school districts in the Texas SHARS program and has also worked with schools in other states administering the program.

While acknowledging there were problems with the program as identified in the audit, Tabbatha Callaway, CEO of MSB School Services, said she has yet to see any documentation from the state suggesting that Texas was required to make funding cuts as drastic as it has. Instead, she said, the health commission has done “a phenomenal job of, at this point, making this seem hard and complicated.”

She also said Texas school districts possess the documentation that likely would have helped the state in its response to the audit. But she said the commission has not taken steps to work with school districts.

“We’ve tried really hard to get them to meet with us, have conversations, figure out what’s going on, and we haven’t been able to gain the traction necessary to understand the issues,” Callaway said. “What I can say is that there are solutions to recover these dollars, and they need to be looked at.”

The state health agency said in a statement it is working with state education officials to ensure school districts are up to date on SHARS and conducts annual meetings and training to ensure awareness. In working to identify “a greater need” for transparency and support, the agency said it recently created a Medicaid resource and training team for participating SHARS districts.

However, with drastic changes having already gone into effect, many school district officials are reconsidering whether participating in the program is worth it, while some rural school districts that didn’t receive significant funding from SHARS are dropping out, said Keller of the Texas Association of School Boards.

“If you’re counting on these kinds of programs to help you fund and then they go away after the fact, then you’re left in very dire straits,” Keller said. “They’re just making the decision that they’re not going to participate. They’d rather have to figure it out and know that they have the funding than guess and then be caught short.”

Legislative intervention

School districts and special education advocates are still holding out hope the Legislature will step up by increasing funding for special education services and to a special education funding model based on the individual needs of a student rather than how much time a child spends in a special education setting. This could help school districts cover some of the personal care services students need, advocates say.

But increases to public school funding have been difficult to come by in the last year as those dollars have been wrapped up in Gov. ’s for a school voucher program, which would allow parents to use taxpayer dollars to fund their children’s private school tuition.

Texas also has a poor track record in administering federally mandated special education services. The state was previously fined for slashing funding for students with disabilities in a way that violated the Individual with Disabilities Education Act. Later, federal officials that Texas failed to prove it did enough to overhaul its special education system.

Neither the political terrain nor the state’s recent history with special education has stopped advocates from trying to be optimistic, however.

“I feel like special education funding is one of the very few, if not the only thing in education policy that all of the legislators agree on,” said Andrea Chevalier, director of Governmental Relations for the Texas Council of Administrators of Special Education.

Rep. , the Democrat vice chair of the House budget committee, said after a recent legislative hearing where state health officials explained their rationale for changes to the program, she is working with other legislators to determine whether the state is “over-course correcting” in a way that further harms school district funding.

She is also advocating for more communication and transparency, as well as making sure school districts aren’t losing out on dollars while they’re appealing the state health agency’s decision to cut funding.

Katie Abbott, special education director for the coalition of six rural East Texas school districts that share special education resources, said more funding “would be very much appreciated,” but the services that SHARS has helped schools fund are still required — with or without the additional help.

“We’re passionate about what we do for kids, so I don’t see services stopping,” Abbott said. “It’s just squeezing blood out of a turnip to figure out how to make that happen.”

Disclosure: Texas Association of School Boards has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete .

This article originally appeared in , is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

The amount of money spent on special education students in Washington varies widely by district.

That’s according to a new analysis of state data from July 2022 to June 2023 of Washington districts where there are over 2,500 students. According to the data, the amount each district spends per special education student ranges from $8,708 in Goldendale School District to $33,056 in Bellevue School District.

“Historically, our tendency is to look the other way on special education spending,” said Marguerite Roza, director of Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University, . “It hasn’t gotten the same kind of scrutiny that other elements in the school district budget have.”

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

Special education is also consuming a rising share of Washington’s public education budget, now making up over 14.5% of that spending as of the most recent fiscal year, according to the Edunomics Lab analysis. That can force cuts elsewhere, Roza said.

Washington has of a district’s population that can receive special education funding. Some lawmakers and advocates have pushed for the Legislature to end the cap entirely, as many districts have identified more special education students than they’re funded for.

Both candidates running for superintendent of public instruction are also calling for more special education spending.

But there are concerns about how eliminating the cap could raise overall state spending. Legislators who have resisted the idea have said it would require scaling back in other areas.

More spending on special education doesn’t necessarily mean better academic outcomes for students, said Roza. That’s based on state-by-state comparisons by Edunomics Lab, which found that identifying more students with disabilities or increasing special education staff were not associated with better reading outcomes.

, specific learning disabilities, includes children who are dyslexic or have other neurological differences that interfere with their ability to process language.

More spending on special education per student doesn’t directly correlate with the number of special education students in a district, either. Instead, more spending on special education often tracks with district size, likely because larger districts use a standardized approach to serving special education students, Roza said.

The Edunomics Lab analysis found that instead of spending on special education specifically, what improved reading outcomes for students with disabilities was spending more on reading instruction for all students, regardless of disability.

To ensure districts are getting the most out of their money, the lab’s researchers recommend districts scrutinize their special education budgets and compare their costs and outcomes to their peers.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Bill Lucia for questions: info@washingtonstatestandard.com. Follow Washington State Standard on and .

Over the last three years, Maui Waena Intermediate has invested nearly $300,000 in Covid-19 relief funds in its after-school program, hiring more staff and adding new programs to help students recover academically and socially from the pandemic.

The Valley Isle school’s extracurricular offerings have been a big draw for students, and class attendance has been steadily improving.

“They’re more connected and they want to come to school,” said Jennifer Suzuki, Maui Waena’s media teacher and after-school coordinator.

But while the increased after-school offerings may be drawing more kids to campus, the infusion of pandemic-era funding hasn’t achieved its primary goal: improving academic achievement. Only 26% of students at the school were proficient in math in the 2023-24 school year — the same as the year before, and a slight dip from the year before that.

Maui Waena’s struggles are reflective of a broader challenge in the state. Academic test scores in Hawaii have essentially flatlined for the last three years, despite an infusion of over $600 million in federal support to help schools address pandemic-era challenges, including learning loss.

Test scores released last month showed that 52% of Hawaii students were proficient in language arts last year, compared to 54% in the 2018-19 school year. Approximately 40% of students were proficient in math, down from 43% before the pandemic.

Advocates have been calling for years for the Hawaii Department of Education to provide greater detail about how schools are spending Covid relief funds. With funding ending this fall, a bigger concern is emerging over the lack of information about what the federal investment has achieved.

Principals say federal funds have supported student learning by enabling schools to purchase new curricula, hire more staff and expand access to tutoring and after-school programs. But there’s little information on what initiatives have resulted in the greatest student improvements, even though school leaders will likely need to convince lawmakers next year that the state should spend its own money to continue pandemic-era programs.

The DOE said in 2021 that it would fund a  to assess how different strategies helped middle school students recover from the pandemic, but spokesperson Nanea Ching said the initiative hasn’t been started. She did not say if the department still plans to move forward with the study.

In some cases, it’s too early to tell which federal investments drove the greatest gains in student learning during the pandemic, said Ash Dhammani, a policy data analyst at the . The long-term effects of programs from the pandemic may also depend on whether schools can use state funding to replace federal funds, he added. 

“It’s really important to highlight now, are we doing right by our students,” Dhammani said, “and did we do enough with this one-time money?” 

Covid Funds Spent On Variety Of School Needs

Hawaii schools experienced a smaller drop in student achievement during the pandemic than most states, but it’s concerning that progress has stalled in recent years, said David Sun-Miyashiro, executive director of HawaiiKidsCAN.

Improving student achievement was already a major issue in Hawaii before the pandemic. In early 2020, former superintendent Christina Kishimoto  of Hawaii students to achieve proficiency in math and reading by the end of the decade. Some educational advocates deemed her plan as overly ambitious but recognized that schools needed to progress at a faster rate.

A revised DOE plan calls for 65% of Hawaii students to achieve proficiency in reading and 50% in math by 2029.

In a Board of Education meeting last month, DOE Assistant Superintendent Elizabeth Higashi said Hawaii is following a national pattern of states seeing small to no improvements in academics. Attendance remains a challenge for some Hawaii schools, she said, which also reduces students’ learning time. Roughly a quarter of students were chronically absent from school last year.

In the final round of federal Covid relief funding, DOE received over $412 million to spend between 2021 and 2024. The DOE had to spend at least a quarter of the funds to address learning loss and support after-school and summer programs, but school leaders received a large degree of freedom on how to spend the remaining dollars.

Compared to other states, Dhammani said, Hawaii has done a good job of publishing  on the status of its federal funds, although the spending categories referenced in the monthly reports could be more detailed.

Some federal funds supported statewide initiatives, like free summer school classes, professional development for teachers and tutoring for middle school students. Complex areas also received nearly $170 million for individual school efforts to improve attendance and support academic and mental health needs.

For example, Kaneohe Elementary hired a social worker to support struggling families, while Keelikolani Middle School created an attendance arcade where students could play games before school and receive rewards for coming to class on time. 

“The funds were like a godsend,” said Keelikolani Middle School Principal Joe Passantino. Since 2021, the school has surpassed its pre-pandemic state test scores in both math and reading.

But while principals say federal funds helped students recover from the effects of online learning, it’s been harder to track which strategies were most effective, especially when statewide academic progress has slowed in recent years.

For example, Sun-Miyashiro is interested in how the department funded tutoring programs during the pandemic and if schools were able to reach students who were struggling the most.

“It would be great to have data linked with activities and then be able to show how that had a meaningful impact,” Sun-Miyashiro said.

With so many different uses for federal relief funds, it’s hard to determine which programs have resulted in the greatest success, Deputy Superintendent of Academics Heidi Armstrong said. In some cases, she added, investments in initiatives like new reading curriculum or regular screeners for students’ academics and mental health can benefit schools even after the federal funds expire.

“It’s very difficult to separate each one of those to say, this is what got us back to pre-pandemic levels, because there’s so many factors involved,” Armstrong said. “We are working very diligently to ensure that we continue on this trajectory.” 

What Happens When Pandmic Funds Run Out?

While tracking the impact of federal dollars has been difficult, school administrators say the funding has been critical in connecting students with additional staff and resources that didn’t exist before the pandemic. Some are now worried that they won’t be able to sustain vital programs unless the state steps in with additional support.

At Lanakila Elementary, math and reading scores have met or surpassed their pre-pandemic levels. Using federal relief funds, principal Kerry Higa hired five additional teachers who could provide more individualized support to students by working with them in small groups.

The additional staff positions alone can’t account for the improved scores, Higa said, but having more quality teachers on campus has gone a long way, especially as students struggled to communicate and express themselves as they returned to in-person learning.

But as federal funds expire this year, the school has been unable to keep one of its teachers on staff, Higa said. He’s worried that other statewide programs, like free summer school, could also come to an end and provide fewer opportunities for his students to learn outside of class.

DOE received just over $20 million from the Legislature to replace federal funds and  in 2025 but will need to request more money to sustain the program in the future. Over the past three years, DOE spent roughly $40 million in federal funding on summer programs.

The state may be able to fill in some funding gaps for programs like summer school and tutoring, Sun-Miyashiro said, but the department will need to make a strong case for continuing these initiatives during the 2025 legislative session.

Deborah Bond-Upson, president of Parents for Public Schools of Hawaii and interim director of the Hui for Excellence in Education, said she’s worried about what the end of federal funding could mean for students. But she’s interested in tracking how the pandemic-era investments in professional development and technology for schools will serve students in the coming years.

Civil Beat’s education reporting is supported by a grant from Chamberlin Family Philanthropy.

Civil Beat’s community health coverage is supported by , Swayne Family Fund of Hawaii Community Foundation, the Cooke Foundation and .

DUMAS — The Dumas School District’s steep enrollment decline is feeding local residents’ frustration with district leadership and raising fears they will lose their schools.

The district, which serves parts of Desha, Drew and Lincoln counties, counted 838 students as of Aug. 30, according to data provided by Superintendent Camille Sterrett. That’s a 13% drop from last school year and an 18% drop since 2021.

Dwindling enrollment also means lost revenue — more than $7,000 per student, according to the superintendent — to a district already struggling financially.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

“If [the district] loses students at the exponential rate it’s losing them, we will not have a school system in five years,” local physician Dr. Sarah Franklin told the school board at its June 25 meeting.

Franklin is among the many local residents alarmed at the precipitous enrollment decline — which outpaces the city’s population decline — and what it portends for the future of the district and its students.

“Do you see that there’s a problem?” Franklin’s husband, AJ Franklin, asked district leadership at the June meeting. “Or do y’all just say, ‘Well, every day of the week, this is just going to happen [and] inevitably Dumas is going to fade to nothing?’”

“We all see that problem, and that problem is discussed at school board meetings,” Board President Alan Minor replied.

Dumas residents’ fears are shared by families in small districts across Arkansas that face consolidation or state takeover when they can’t find a way to survive.

Arkansas’ rural schools struggle with a myriad of challenges, including attracting and retaining educators to regions with fewer economic opportunities and lower wages than more populous communities. Declining populations complicate district finances because most funding comes from the local tax base and per-student state funding.

Dumas and the state’s southeast region have seen steady population declines for years, U.S. Census data shows, but changes in state law have also made it easier for parents to move their children to private schools and other public school districts.

While some former Dumas students have gone to private schools or been homeschooled thanks to the school voucher program created through the of 2023, several have transferred to other public school districts bordering Dumas, including DeWitt, McGehee and Star City.

The LEARNS Act mostly eliminated a cap on public school transfers, which made it easier for families to put their children in school districts in which they do not live, Sterrett said.

According to data from each district obtained via the state’s Freedom of Information Act, DeWitt, McGehee and Star City enrollment numbers are similar or slightly higher than Dumas, but none saw a triple-digit enrollment drop in one year in the past three school years, as Dumas did. Star City has gained students every year for the past three years.

Enrollment declines also have made the Dumas district more racially segregated as white and Hispanic students have left while Black students remain, said Kitty Greenup, who was a paraprofessional in the district for 27 years before retiring this year. Greenup was appointed to the school board in July.

The district’s student population was 68% Black, 17% white and 13% Hispanic as of 2023. The remaining 2% were Asian, Native American and multiracial students, according to . As of Aug. 30, the district’s students were 75% Black and 23% white with Hispanic students in both populations, according to enrollment data.

“[There’s been] not only white flight, but we’ve had brain drain as well, where it seems like everybody who could get out of the district did,” Greenup said. “This has been going on in earnest for probably the last five years.”

In handed out at the June meeting in response to pre-submitted questions, Sterrett and the board said they have “absolutely no control” over parents’ decisions to send their children elsewhere.

Such responses have not quelled public concern, especially in the wake of recent layoffs aimed at addressing funding shortfalls.

’A matter of time’

, the school board approved cutting 19% of district employees, closing its K-2 school (Central Elementary) and consolidating all elementary grades into Reed Elementary, which previously housed only grades 3-5.

The and school closure were recommended by Norman Hill, who until June 30 was interim director of the Southeast Arkansas Education Service Cooperative. The state Department of Education tapped him last year to review the Dumas district’s finances.

A comparison of the district’s active contracts for the and school years shows a reduction of 39 positions, including 22 teachers, five paraprofessionals, four custodians and four food service workers.

Staff cuts saved the district $1.2 million in salaries and fringe benefits, Hill said, and closing the lower elementary school saved about $150,000. He also said some of the positions had already been vacant due to resignations and retirements.

Both elementary schools earned an “F” ranking from the state education department . The middle and high schools received a “D.”

The school closure, employee cuts and poor rankings have prompted many Dumas residents to vent their frustration during board meetings and voice distrust of Sterrett, who became superintendent in July 2022.

Sterrett has defended the cuts and said they had been building for at least a decade.

“There should have been a change years ago,” she said in June.

The cuts allowed the district to keep what remains of a $2 million private trust fund to use as needed, Hill said. Without the layoffs and school closure, the district would have drained the remaining $1.2 million from the fund, part of a deceased Dumas couple’s , and had no operating funds left by the end of the school year, he said.

“If we hadn’t made the cuts, it would have been a matter of time before the state shut [the district] down because they didn’t have the money,” Hill said.

Hill told the public at the Aug. 27 school board meeting that the trust fund was the sole reason the district did not close last year.

Concerned citizen Lonzell Dodds said this was news to him.

“I don’t know why that’s been so hard to answer,” he said.

‘Blank check’ concerns

, the board authorized Sterrett to transfer an unspecified amount of money from the district’s building fund and the private trust fund into the — the fund that covers district operations, debt service and teacher salaries — in order to balance district revenues and expenditures.

Audience members voiced discomfort with the board’s unanimous vote. The need for financial solvency doesn’t mean boards should give administrators “a blank check,” Dr. Franklin said.

Asked if the district has ever been audited other than by the annual required review by Arkansas Legislative Audit, Sterrett said, “We do what’s required.”

Allison Chambers, who taught high school science before resigning in May, stormed out of the meeting and later said she was upset that Sterrett and the board showed “absolutely no interest” in the public’s concerns.

“They seemed to be more worried about controlling their narrative and what they wanted you to believe about this district than actually speaking truths,” Chambers said.

sent by education department fiscal services employee Jason Miller noted a “steady decline” in the district’s various funds since 2021. The district’s building fund and net legal balance dropped by $1.8 million and $1.5 million, respectively, from June 2021 to June 2024, according to the email. Meanwhile, the student population fell by more than 200 students.

“Looks like they have been making transfers to simply operate,” Miller wrote.

Sterrett’s “blank check” closed a roughly $1.16 million hole in the district’s budget, created when it spent that much more than it received last year, according to Hill. The superintendent transferred more than $357,000 from the building fund and about $800,000 from the trust fund to shore up the net legal fund balance, he said this month.

More cuts?

The LEARNS Act — which raised the state’s minimum teacher pay to $50,000 a year and guaranteed minimum $2,000 raises to those already earning above that — added to the Dumas district’s financial strain in the 2023-24 school year, Hill said.

The state helped districts pay for the salary increases, but it still wasn’t enough to stave off Dumas’ layoffs and other spending cuts, he said.

The Department of Education gave the Dumas district $1,075,667 for teacher salaries and benefits for the 2023-24 school year. Districts will receive the same amount for the 2024-25 school year the year prior.

Hill said these amounts were based on the number of teachers in each district and their salaries before the mandatory raises: the less experienced a district’s teachers were, the more money the state provided to meet the increases.

Dumas was among the minority of districts that received more than $1 million, and Hill said this was because it had more early-career teachers.

The LEARNS financial aid didn’t alleviate the district’s financial struggles last year, Hill said, but it should this year because the money now supplements fewer teachers’ salaries, allowing the declining state and local tax revenue to go toward operating expenses instead of salaries.

The district’s financial situation remains precarious but will become clearer as this school year progresses, Hill said.

“It’s going to depend on two things: whether our figures were correct and whether they end up losing any more students … If they keep losing students, they’ll have to make more cuts,” Hill said.

The layoffs and other financial cuts came as a shock to employees and parents, Hill said, because the district didn’t take the incremental steps needed to counter declining revenue and rising expenses during the eight-year tenure of Sterrett’s predecessor.

Sterrett and the board have attributed the loss of students and consequent drop in per-pupil funds to the as a whole.

Community members say the enrollment drop has outpaced the regional one and the comparison is not fair.

U.S. Census data shows Desha County, where Dumas is the largest city, lost 12.4% of its population between 2010 and 2020, and Dumas lost 15% of its residents, leaving the city population just over 4,000.

Population declines tend to come with , which further discourage people from moving to the area.

Former school nurse Isierene Brown said Dumas citizens to draw people in.

’Too much division’

All the explanations have done little to cool long-simmering discontent or lessen the disconnect felt by employees and parents, who cited a litany of complaints.

“I’m still just reeling that I’ve given 25 years of my life to this district and they can do me like this,” said Brown, who was three years away from qualifying for retirement benefits when the district laid her off.

Chambers and former high school English teacher Jala Patterson, who resigned in March, both said the district should have supported them enough to keep them from resigning.

They said the district does not conduct monthly safety drills, which , and administrators do not observe teachers’ job performances. They also cited faulty intercom systems that jeopardize faculty and student safety.

Patterson noted the district failed to provide enough textbooks for an Advanced Placement class until the school year was almost over.

“We’re so concerned with raising test scores, but lacking essential resources,” Patterson wrote in to Arthur Tucker, executive director of curriculum and instruction. “…Please. Please help me help my students.”

District leadership has “just written all of the kids off,” Chambers said.

“When I started [teaching there], I was told, ‘Most of these aren’t going to college, so don’t expect a lot,’” she said. “Instead of ensuring that kids are getting an education so that they can be productive members of society, with or without a degree, they are being dumbed down.”

The way the school board handles public comments at its meetings also feeds the dissatisfaction.

Are’Osha Bynum, a mother of a kindergartener, told Minor after the August meeting that the board’s responses to public comment come off as “shutting down and having an attitude” and positioning themselves as “against us instead of trying to help us.”

The school board requires audience questions to be submitted in advance. Some audience members responded negatively in June when Minor asked for public comment to be limited.

“We can do that, but if you want to get to the bottom of this and get this thing back on the right track, I think you need to listen,” Dodds said.

From the second row of the audience, Brown added, “If you don’t want to listen, get off the board.”

Dr. Franklin said frustrations with district leadership led her family to remove their children from the district and homeschool them.

Dodds, Patterson and others have said Sterrett and the board don’t seem to understand the gravity of the district’s problems.

Minor said frustrated meeting attendees don’t seem to understand that “not everyone can get their way.”

“There’s too much division and not enough communication,” Minor said after the August meeting.

Sterrett declined an in-person interview about issues raised by others. She also did not answer an emailed list of questions.

Dumas resident Onie Norman agreed that the area’s overall decline is concerning, but unlike Brown, she said she believes Sterrett has done her job as best she can and the school district isn’t responsible for retaining city residents.

“They’re disappointed [in the district], but they don’t stay and try to help improve it,” Norman said.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com. Follow Arkansas Advocate on and .

According to a survey of more than 3,000 teachers conducted by AdoptAClassroom.org, a nonprofit crowdfunding platform, teachers received a median classroom school supply budget of $200 last school year – an amount that 93% of the respondents said was not enough to cover their in-class needs.

Many teachers choose to subsidize the remainder of the costs, but it comes at a steep price. Out-of-pocket spending among teachers has increased by 44% since 2015, the survey found, with teachers reporting that they spent an average of $860 of their own money on supplies and other expenses during the 2022-2023 school year.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

“Teachers spend their classroom supply budget fast,” Melissa Hruza, Vice President, Marketing & Development at AdoptAClassroom.org, told �鶹��Ʒ. “Even though they are willing to provide basic items like food and supplies for their students, their ability to pay for it is decreasing.”

One big reason: teacher pay has failed to keep up with the sky high rate of inflation in recent years. Adjusted for inflation, teachers are making $3,644 less than they did a decade ago, according to the National Education Association.

Communities and parents appear to be recognizing the challenges teachers face. AdoptAClassroom.org said its site has received more donations to teachers for the 2024-2025 back-to-school season than last year.

“Comparing July and August 2024 to the same period in 2023, the number of contributions to educators on AdoptAClassroom.org is currently up 13% from 2023 to 2024 so far this year,” Hruza said. “There’s also been a 9% increase in the number of both new fundraisers and total number of teachers with active campaigns.”

GoFundMe has seen a similar bump. So far this year, more than $12 million has been raised for K-12 education on the crowdfunding platform. In 2023, total funds raised for educators reached over $24 million — a 7% increase from the previous year.

“[P]eople don’t always see the hidden costs that end up on teachers’ hands, like providing additional resources for students who can’t afford small items like pencils,” Shawn An, a first-year earth and environmental science teacher at Julius L. Chambers High School in Charlotte, North Carolina, told �鶹��Ʒ.

To ensure he and his students were fully prepared for this school year, An launched a GoFundMe campaign called A Classroom for Future Scientists, with a goal to raise $1,000. He ended up receiving $1,045 in donations.

“What this funding created is the opportunity for me to bring the basic necessities into the classroom I need to succeed, like organizers and writing utensils to grade with,” An said. “It’s helped me create a space where I can be efficient and to find resources for students to engage in the work we’re asking them to do.”

Lightening the load

To help teachers afford the supplies they need, GoFundMe launched its own fundraising initiative called the Education Opportunity Fund. Since the fund’s launch in 2020, GoFundMe has raised more than $240,000 and has distributed more than 550 grants to teachers in order to help them afford classroom supplies and other educational resources, Leigh Lehman, GoFundMe director of communications, told �鶹��Ʒ.

“The grants were an additional step to offer help to educators and lighten their load a bit, and there are still grants available for teachers who are in need,” Lehman said.

Grants of can be put toward common classroom items like school supplies, books and class decorations. Funds can also be used for other educational resources or items like field trips, playground equipment, updated technology and extracurricular activities.

Similar to GoFundMe’s grant initiative, AdoptAClassroom.org provides funding through their Spotlight Fund Grants program. This program targets classroom initiatives that address things like social-emotional wellness, Indigenous language, arts, STEM education and racial equity. Eligible teachers can apply for grants of $750 or more on AdoptAClassroom.org.

“People all around the country want to find ways to help more teachers,” GoFundMe’s Lehman said. “They understand there is a gap in funding and that teachers are incredibly stressed.”

Keeping kids engaged

Hana Syed Khan, a fourth grade teacher in New Jersey’s South River Public Schools district, started her own GoFundMe campaign, A Classroom Built on Kindness, in August to support her efforts to make her classroom “as useful, accessible and hands-on as possible.”

Entering her fifth year of teaching at a new school in a new district, Syed Khan knew she had to be more creative with the amount of classroom space she has, materials needed and the resources available.

Her campaign raised $1,920 in funds, which she used to purchase a spin-the-wheel device, a carpet for reading time, books for the classroom library and the classroom staple Better Than Paper.

“The [kids] want to touch everything, and they should be able to. It’s their room,” Syed Khan told �鶹��Ʒ.

Through sharing via family group chats, her husband’s LinkedIn account, word-of-mouth and other social media platforms, like and , Syed Khan said she “feels fortunate to have set up the fundraiser and leverage community support for her classroom.”

She plans to keep her fundraiser open to donations so she can continue to afford classroom activities and incentives with hopes to keep students engaged through the year.

“Students in this district suffer from chronic absenteeism, which may stem from lack of transportation, parents’ schedule or a lack of motivation for themselves,” Syed Khan said. “Classroom incentives, like parties at the end of the month, are a really big part of what I want to use the funds for next.”

Drawing from his own school experience, An said he understands that many of his students face challenges outside of the classroom. Bringing smaller tools and supplies like writing utensils and paper to class is not the first thing on their mind.

“That can be a real barrier for students to access what teachers are asking them to do,” An said. “Using the donations to directly address those barriers helps students stay engaged to do their best in the classroom.”

He used a portion of the donations he has raised to purchase a rolling cart that allows for easy access to classroom supplies.

An and Syed Khan hope their efforts inspire other teachers to overcome the fear of asking for help. For Syed Khan, it was difficult to find the right words for the campaign and the video she included to go along with it. She wanted to ensure her classroom needs were as clear as possible to potential donors.

“Trying to figure out what to say to grab people’s attention was the most challenging part,” Syed Khan said.

“It definitely wasn’t easy,” she said. “But when people see someone speaking and explaining what the funds will be used for, it can attract many people because they see a real human.”

An experienced similar doubts about asking for help. He credits his family for providing feedback on his campaign narrative and helping him to frame his message.

“My family and I went through a co-writing process to get the point across that this was me, just as a person, asking a personal favor of people who were available,” An said.

GoFundMe currently hosts webinars for educators and education-related organizations to help them learn how to effectively fundraise. They’ve also updated their with tips for teachers to share their campaign and keep communities engaged.

“Seeing more teachers turn to external sources of funding to help support their students’ needs is definitely eye-opening,” An said. “It highlights the fact that not as much care is funneled into education as I think it should be.”

A coalition of more than 100 New York organizations is urging the state to overhaul its nearly two-decade-old school funding formula.

The organizations, which previously joined forces to raise alarm over school programs that were put at-risk by the expiration of billions of dollars of federal pandemic stimulus funds, are now turning their attention to the state’s Foundation Aid formula.

In , issued on Monday, they called for a revision to how the formula accounts for student poverty, added funding for and the foster care system, increased support for students with disabilities and English language learners, and new funds for preschool students, as well as extra money to implement the state’s for New York City schools, among other changes.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �鶹��Ʒ Newsletter

First implemented in 2007, the state’s formula is to meet student needs, many education experts and politicians agree. As part of a state budget agreement earlier this year, the Rockefeller Institute is conducting a study on how to revise the formula, which sends roughly $24.9 billion to school districts — including more than $9.5 billion to New York City schools.

Though Foundation Aid just recently for the first time, it relies on decades-old data to calculate some metrics of district needs. Other factors, such as the number of students living in temporary housing, don’t weigh into the current formula at all.

“Gov. Hochul and the state legislature deserve a lot of credit for fully funding Foundation Aid,” said Randi Levine, policy director of the nonprofit group Advocates for Children, one of the organizations that signed onto the statement. “But the formula was developed more than 15 years ago … and doesn’t address the current needs of students and schools. We think the time has come to make changes to this outdated formula and ensure it reflects the needs of today’s students and schools, with particular attention to students who need the most support.”

Some question state’s approach to updating school funding formula

Advocates have also called for the state to overhaul the base model the formula uses to determine funding, arguing it isn’t responsive to the needs of large, urban districts like New York City. Known as the “successful school district model,” the base of the formula is currently calculated using the average per-pupil funding from a subset of school districts that perform well on standardized state exams.

As part of its study, the Rockefeller Institute held a series of public hearings over the summer to solicit testimony on the current formula, and has been tasked with issuing recommendations by Dec. 1.

But some have over the state’s current approach to updating the formula, noting the Rockefeller Institute’s recommendations are not binding, and tasked the institute with developing a formula that is “fiscally sustainable for the state, local taxpayers, and school districts.”

“The key question should not be what is fiscally sustainable, but what our schools and students need to get a high quality education today,” Levine said. “This process could have major implications for students and schools in New York City and around the state, and it is essential that we get it right.”

Arlen Benjamin-Gomez, executive director of EdTrust-New York, added that the Rockefeller Institute has been given just months to conduct its study and issue recommendations.

“We are really concerned about the aggressive timeline, and that the stakeholder engagement was done at a time when folks just aren’t around,” she said. “I went to the New York City hearing and testified in front of a big, empty high school auditorium, because it was the middle of summer.”

During the last budget cycle, Hochul also introduced a tweak that adjusted how the formula accounts for inflation. That change led to the city missing out on roughly $120 million, though total state funding still increased for the year, according to city officials.

Though the city and state contributed roughly equal funding to New York City schools in the 2001-02 school year, advocates and city officials have noted that balance has shifted significantly in the two decades since. Today, the state contributes just over a third of the Education Department’s budget — meaning the city is shouldering a greater share of education spending, as overall costs have risen significantly over time.

Some of the changes the organizations are calling for echo suggestions voiced by the city’s Education Department. During the in Manhattan, schools Chancellor David Banks said the state should work to create a “more effective and equitable” school funding formula.

“Even with full funding, the Foundation Aid that we’re receiving has not kept pace,” Banks said, citing new challenges facing the city’s schools — including an influx of migrant students and expanded costs associated with services added over the past two decades, like 3-K and pre-K. “It is not nearly enough to support our students in the educational experience that they deserve.”

He called on the state to review the successful school district model, and to implement four specific changes: Providing funds for students in temporary housing and the foster care system, increasing weights for students with disabilities, updating regional cost calculations, and designating dollars to support the implementation of the state’s class size mandate.

Concerns over the formula are not unique to New York City, according to Marina Marcou-O’Malley, co-executive director of the Alliance for Quality Education, another group that signed onto the Monday statement.

“The same concerns exist in every school district in the state that we have talked to,” she said.

Marcou-O’Malley noted she was alarmed during last year’s budget cycle to see the governor discussing changes that would result in some districts receiving less funding, despite Hochul continuing to point to her administration fully funding Foundation Aid.

“You can’t have it both ways,” she said. “You’re either going to fully invest in education and sustain that, or you’re going to be cutting education.”

In total, more than 110 organizations signed onto the Monday statement calling for the formula to be overhauled.

“It’s rare in education that so many folks are so aligned,” Benjamin-Gomez said. “Everybody agrees that this formula is outdated and needs to be updated.”