School districts, teachers unions sue over Trump's freeze on education funding
:
The new case comes as the US Department of Education has agreed to release about $1.3 billion in funding for after-school and summer programming, out of $6.8 billion withheld. No decision has been made yet about the rest of the money, a notice to states on Friday said.
Advertisement
The money released is for 21st Century Community Learning Centers, which include nonprofits such as the Boys & Girls Clubs that serve high-poverty, low-performing districts with after-school and summer programs. The frozen funds prompted alarm that those programs would have to shut down or significantly scale back in the coming weeks if the money remained frozen.
Get Rhode Map
A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The funds were released after 10
Rhode Island Education Commissioner Angélica Infante-Green said the state received $6.5 million from the released after-school funds, but the Department of Education 'hasn't provided any information about when — or if — the remaining Congressionally allocated education funds will be released.'
Advertisement
Rhode Island had
'Unnecessary delays and cuts to education funding for students are irresponsible,' Infante-Green said. 'Students and teachers in every school district in Rhode Island will be negatively affected.'
The funds that remain withheld support the
The Department of Education and Office of Management and Budget did not immediately comment on the new lawsuit. But OMB previously said it was withholding the funds, which are typically disbursed on July 1, in order to review whether the programs were spreading a 'radical leftwing agenda' including support for undocumented immigrants.
Miriam Weizenbaum, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said the administration would have to follow the appropriate federal procedures to seek to withhold money for that reason, which wasn't done here.
'You get more notice and opportunity to be heard with a speeding ticket,' Weizenbaum said.
The new lawsuit said the 'uncertainty' about the funds is 'causing significant anxiety and confusion among the Teachers Unions' members right before the start of the school year.'
'The Teachers Unions are under intense stress and pressure to help members determine exactly how their jobs will be affected,' the suit
said. 'Some members will be scrambling to find new jobs.'
If cuts take place, class sizes could grow, the lawsuit said, making it 'more difficult for teachers to effectively perform their jobs' and harder for districts to retain teachers.
The plaintiffs include the Anchorage School District in Alaska, the largest district in that state, along with two other Alaskan districts, the Cincinnati Public Schools, and large teachers unions in California, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, Rhode Island, Illinois, Ohio, and Texas.
Advertisement
Weizenbaum, who was previously a top litigator in the Rhode Island Attorney General's Office, said it's unclear if the judge in the separate case would making a ruling that affects all 50 states, or just the 23 states who sued, which would leave out some of the districts in the new case.
She said teachers unions also wanted to bring the separate suit in order to make sure their experience of what the funding cuts will bring is heard before the court.
'Their on-the-ground perspective needs to be before a court,' Weizenbaum said. 'This is a big hit across the country at all levels.'
Maribeth Calabro, the president of the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers, wrote in a declaration attached to the lawsuit that a wide range of jobs in Providence are funded with the withheld money, including instructional coaches, social workers, and behavioral specialists.
The withheld money 'has created widespread uncertainty about staffing levels, student support services, and professional development availability for the upcoming school year,' Calabro wrote.
She said Rhode Island's ability to teach the science of reading could be in jeopardy, along with Providence's compliance with a US Department of Justice settlement over properly teaching English to multilingual learners.
The group asked for a preliminary injunction to release the funding as the case is heard. A hearing date has not yet been set.
Steph Machado can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Trump targets Duke University amid DEI crackdown
The Department of Education under Secretary Linda McMahon on Monday launched a civil rights investigation into Duke University. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo July 29 (UPI) -- The Department of Education has launched a civil rights investigation into Duke University amid the Trump administration's crackdown on higher-learning institutions as it seeks to rid the private and public sector of diversity, equity and inclusion policies. The civil rights investigation was launched Monday into not only Duke but its law journal for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by allegedly discriminating against students based on race. The investigation coincides with the departments of Education and Health and Human Services sending a joint letter to Duke University outlining their "shared concerns" about its use of race in its hiring, admissions and scholarship decisions. "If Duke illegally gives preferential treatment to law journal or medical school applicants based on those students' immutable characteristics, that is an affront not only to civil rights law, but to the meritocratic character of academic excellence," Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. "Blatantly discriminatory practices that are illegal under the Constitution, anti-discrimination law and Supreme Court precedent have become all too common in our education institutions. The Trump administration will not allow them to continue." Diversity, equity and inclusion, known as DEI, is a conceptual framework that promotes fair treatment and full participation of all people. It has been a target of conservatives who claim it focuses on race and gender at the expense of merit. Since returning to the White House in January, President Donald Trump has sought to remove DEI from the federal government and has threatened to revoke federal funding from several universities, including Harvard, over their alleged DEI programs. Dozens of schools have been the target of Trump administration civil rights investigations over DEI policies and practices. It has also launched investigations into schools over allowing transgender students to compete in women's sporting competitions, for not protecting Jewish students amid pro-Palestine protests and for providing migrants with scholarship opportunities denied to out-of-state Americans. Several of the schools have reached multimillion-dollar settlements with the Trump administration to resolve the civil rights investigations, including Columbia, which, earlier this month, agreed to pay $200 million to the federal government and end its DEI policies. The investigation launched Monday accuses Duke's law review of awarding extra points in its editor application process to personal statements that explain how the applicant's membership in an underrepresented group promotes diverse voices. In the joint letter from the Department of Education and HHS, they accuse Duke University School of Medicine of employing practices that "include illegal and wrongful racial preferences and discriminatory activity in recruitment, student admissions, scholarships and financial aid, mentoring and enrichment programs, hiring, promotion and more." No specifics were given. "The immediate request is simple: Review all policies and practices at Duke Health for the illegal use of race preferences, take immediate action to reform all of those that unlawfully take account of race or ethnicity to bestow benefits or advantages and provide clear and verifiable assurances to the government that Duke's new policies will be implemented faithfully going forward," the letter said. The departments called on the school to form a committee to carry out the Trump administration's request over a six-month period. Duke has 10 days to respond, it said. The departments said federal funding to the school was at risk.
NBC News
6 hours ago
- NBC News
E.U.'s $250 billion-per-year spending on U.S. energy is unrealistic
BRUSSELS — The European Union's pledge to buy $250 billion of U.S. energy supplies per year is unrealistic because it would require the redirection of most U.S. energy exports towards Europe and the EU has little control over the energy its companies import. The U.S. and EU struck a framework trade deal on Sunday, which will impose 15% U.S. tariffs on most EU goods. The deal included a pledge for the EU to spend $250 billion annually on U.S. energy — imports of oil, liquefied natural gas and nuclear technology — for the next three years. Total U.S. energy exports to all buyers worldwide in 2024 amounted to $318 billion, U.S. Energy Information Administration data showed. Of that, the EU imported a combined $76 billion of U.S. petroleum, LNG and solid fuels such as coal in 2024, according to Reuters' calculations based on Eurostat data. More than tripling those imports was unrealistic, analysts said. Arturo Regalado, senior LNG analyst at Kpler, said the scope of the energy trade envisioned in the deal 'exceeds market realities.' 'U.S. oil flows would need to fully redirect towards the EU to reach the target, or the value of LNG imports from the US would need to increase sixfold,' Regalado said. There is strong competition for U.S. energy exports as other countries need the supplies — and have themselves pledged to buy more in trade deals. Japan agreed to a 'major expansion of U.S. energy exports' in its U.S. trade deal last week, the White House said in a statement. South Korea has also indicated interest in investing and purchasing fuel from an Alaskan LNG project as it seeks a trade deal. Competition for U.S. energy could drive up benchmark U.S. oil and gas prices and encourage U.S. producers to favor exports over domestic supply. That could make fuel and power costs more expensive, which would be a political and economic headache for U.S. and EU leaders. Neither side has detailed what was included in the energy deal — or whether it covered items such as energy services or parts for power grids and plants. The EU estimates its member countries' plans to expand nuclear energy would require hundreds of billions of euros in investments by 2050. Its nuclear reactor-related imports, however, totalled just 53.3 billion euros in 2024, trade data shows. The energy pledge reflected the EU's analysis of how much U.S. energy supply it could accommodate, a senior EU official said, but that would depend on investments in U.S. oil and LNG infrastructure, European import infrastructure, and shipping capacity. 'These figures, again, are not taken out of thin air. So yes, they require investments,' said the senior official, who declined to be named. 'Yes, it will vary according to the energy sources. But these are figures which are reachable.' There was no public commitment to the delivery, the official added, because the EU would not buy the energy — its companies would. Private companies import most of Europe's oil, while a mix of private and state-run companies import gas. The European Commission can aggregate demand for LNG to negotiate better terms, but cannot force companies to buy fuel. That is a commercial decision. 'It's just unrealistic,' ICIS analysts Andreas Schröder and Ajay Parmar said in written comments to Reuters. 'Either Europe pays a super high non-market reflective price for U.S. LNG or it takes way too much LNG volumes, more than it can cope with.' U.S. production The United States is already the EU's top supplier of LNG and oil, shipping 44% of EU LNG needs and 15.4% of its oil in 2024, according to EU data. Raising imports to the target would require a U.S. LNG expansion way beyond what is planned through 2030, said Jacob Mandel, research lead at Aurora Energy Research. 'You can add on capacity,' Mandel said. 'But if you're talking about the scale that would be necessary to meet these targets, the $250 billion, then it's not really feasible.' Europe could buy $50 billion more of U.S. LNG annually as supply increases, he said. Replacing Russia The EU has said it could import more U.S. energy as its plan advances to end Russian oil and gas imports by 2028. The EU imported around 94 million barrels of Russian oil last year — 3% of the bloc's crude purchases — and 52 billion cubic meters (bcm) of Russian LNG and gas, according to EU data. For comparison, the EU imported 45 bcm of U.S. LNG last year. Higher EU fuel purchases would, however, run counter to forecasts for EU demand to decline as it shifts to clean energy, analysts said. 'There is no major need for the EU to import more oil from the U.S., in fact, its oil demand peaked a number of years ago,' Schröder and Parmar said.
Forbes
16 hours ago
- Forbes
The Domino Effect Of Gutting Education On Economic Mobility
Education is the cornerstone for better health outcomes and lifetime economic security. As AI advances, unequal access to quality education risks widening disparities further CLOSE-UP OF DOMINOES ARRANGED AGAINST BLUE BACKGROUND As another school year looms and millions of American children ready their backpacks for a new classroom, the department tasked with ensuring every child receives an equitable education faces an existential threat. The proposed dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education, made easier this month by a Supreme Court ruling in the Trump Administration's favor, is more than administrative tinkering — it is a seismic shift with profound consequences for society. The foundation of a healthy democracy and economy is built on accessible, high-quality public education, and destabilizing this core institution brings cascading impacts across all facets of American life. Without federal oversight from the Department of Education, essential programs would fragment or vanish altogether. Students in low-income communities who are disproportionately Black, Hispanic and Indigenous would be stripped of protections and funding that help close wide achievement gaps. These students already face persistent barriers of underfunded schools, less experienced teachers and reduced access to rigorous coursework compared to their white peers. Important federal statutes such as Title 1 (schools with a higher proportion of low-income students) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which currently ensure resources flow to schools serving students experiencing poverty and disabilities; could erode or disappear, jeopardizing the futures of millions. It's worth noting that 90% of U.S. students and 95% of students with disabilities access public schools — a system the Department of Education was designed to protect. The economic ramifications are stark. In the 2021–2022 fiscal year, government spending across all levels on K-12 education was around $880 billion, representing slightly more than 3.5% of GDP. The return on this investment is indisputable: research has shown that for every dollar spent on early childhood education, yields are upwards of 10x the return on investment when factoring in increased tax revenue and reduced welfare dependence. The poverty rate among individuals who did not graduate from high school in 2023 was more than 25%, more than five times the rate of those with a bachelor's degree or higher. High school graduates experience more stable employment, higher earnings, and dramatically lower rates of welfare usage. Spending cutbacks and the dissolution of federal oversight would slash these gains, increasing costs across public health, welfare and criminal justice systems. The dismantling of the Department of Education also compounds pre-existing inequities. Seventy years after Brown v. Board of Education, Black and Latinx students still attend schools with higher shares of students in poverty, fewer material resources and poorer graduation and college attainment rates. The odds are stacked against them — children from the lowest income families are far less likely to enroll in or graduate from four-year colleges and more likely to be incarcerated, keeping the ladder to middle-class stability out of reach. By gutting federal programs that relieve some of these burdens, the path to upward mobility becomes steeper and even more exclusive. We must also recognize that these threats to our existing education system come at a moment of rapid technological change. While artificial intelligence has the potential to personalize learning and streamline tasks for educators, it also risks amplifying existing inequities if students, particularly those from underfunded districts, are left behind due to lack of access to reliable technology — or worse yet, lose the foundational skills and critical thinking that effective educators foster. For those already facing obstacles, the absence of robust public education could transform AI's promise from uplifting to deepening disadvantage. The impacts of gutting education policy and funding do not stop at the classroom door. Education remains closely linked to health and lifetime earnings. Individuals with more education report better physical and mental health, lower rates of chronic conditions and longer life expectancies. Conversely, those with less education face not only diminished income, but also worsening health outcomes and heavier reliance on strained social safety nets. A collapse of federal support for education will echo through hospitals and social services, burdening society and creating financial fallout across generations. To witness the Department of Education facing an existential threat when children are sharpening pencils and teachers are redecorating classrooms is a bitter irony. Our present moment is not a single domino tumbling. It is a tableful toppling in sequence — education, the economy, racial justice, health and technological opportunity — falling faster, each impact making it harder for the next generation to rise. Dismantling our country's education agency is not the path to a better future. It is the deliberate unraveling of the social infrastructure that anchors American opportunity. When the last domino falls, rebuilding will be incalculably harder than protecting what we have now.
