&w=3840&q=100)
Rural schools in US struggle as Trump admin cuts mental health grants
In parts of rural upstate New York, schools have more than 1,100 students for every mental health provider. In a far-flung region with little public transportation, those few school counsellors often are the only mental health professionals available to students.
Hennessey Lustica has been overseeing grant-funded efforts to train and hire more school psychologists, counsellors and social workers in the Finger Lakes region, but those efforts may soon come to end a casualty of the Trump administration's decision to cancel school mental health grants around the country.
Cutting this funding is just going to devastate kids, said Lustica, project director of the Wellness Workforce Collaborative in the Seneca Falls Central School District. The workforce that we're developing, just in my 21 school districts it's over 20,000 kids that are going to be impacted by this and not have the mental health support that they need.
The $1 billion in grants for school-based mental health programs were part of a sweeping gun violence bill signed by President Joe Biden in 2022 in response to the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. The grants were meant to help schools hire more psychologists, counsellors and other mental health workers, especially in rural areas.
Under the Biden administration, the department prioritised applicants who showed how they would increase the number of providers from diverse backgrounds, or from communities directly served by the school district. But President Donald Trump's administration took issue with aspects of the grant programmes that touched on race, saying they were harmful to students.
We owe it to American families to ensure that taxpayer dollars are supporting evidence-based practices that are truly focused on improving students' mental health, Education Department spokesperson Madi Biedermann said.
School districts around the US cut off training and retention programmes
Lustica learned of her grant's cancellation in April in a two-page letter from the Education Department, which said the government found that her work violated civil rights law. It did not specify how.
Lustica is planning to appeal the decision. She rejected the letter's characterisation of her work, saying she and her colleagues abide by a code of ethics that honours each person's individuality, regardless of race, gender or identity.
The rhetoric is just false, Lustica said. I don't know how else to say it. I think if you looked at these programmes and looked at the impact that these programs have in our rural school districts, and the stories that kids will tell you about the mental health professionals that are in their schools, it has helped them because of this programme.
The grants supported programmes in districts across the country. In California, West Contra Costa Unified School District will lose nearly $4 million in funding. In Alabama, Birmingham City Schools was notified it would not receive the rest of a $15 million grant it was using to train, hire and retain mental health staff.
In Wisconsin, the state's Department of Public Instruction will lose $8 million allocated for the next four years. The state had used the money to boost retention and expand programmes to encourage high schoolers to pursue careers in school-based mental health.
At a time when communities are urgently asking for help serving mental health needs, this decision is indefensible, state superintendent Jill Underly said in a statement.
In recent House and Senate hearings, Democrats pressed Education Secretary Linda McMahon on the end of the grants and the impact on students. McMahon told them mental health is a priority and the grants would be rebid and reissued.
Anyone who works or spends time with kids knows these grants were funding desperately needed access to mental health care services, American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said in a statement. Cancelling the funding now is a cruel, reckless act that puts millions of children at risk.
Grant programmes put more mental health specialists in schools
The strains on youth mental health are acute in many rural school districts.
In one upstate New York district, half the students have had to move due to economic hardship in the last five years, creating instability that can affect their mental health, Lustica said. In a survey of students from sixth through 12th grade in one county, nearly half reported feeling sad or depressed most of the time; one in three said their lives lacked clear purpose or meaning.
We've got huge amounts of depression, huge amounts of anxiety, lots of trauma and not enough providers, Lustica said. School is the place where kids are getting a lot of the services they need.
Some families in the region are unable to afford private counselling or are unable to get their children to appointments given transportation challenges, said Danielle Legg, a graduate student who did an internship as a school social worker with funding from the grant programme.
Their access to mental health care truly is limited to when they're in school and there's a provider there that can see them, and it's vital, Legg said.
In the past three years, 176 students completed their mental health training through the programme Lustica oversees, and 85 per cent of them were hired into shortage areas, she said.
The programme that offered training to graduate students at schools helped address staffing needs and inspired many to pursue careers in educational settings, said Susan McGowan, a school social worker who supervised graduate students in Geneva City School District.
It just feels, to me, really catastrophic, McGowan said of the grant cancellation. These positions are difficult to fill, so when you get grad students who are willing to work hand in hand with other professionals in their building, you're actually building your capacity as far as staffing goes and you're supporting teachers.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Mint
26 minutes ago
- Mint
Donald Trump may name a ‘shadow' Fed Chair by September; what happens to Jerome Powell? Analysts decode
US President Donald Trump has said that he will announce a successor to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell as early as this summer even as the Fed chair's tenure is set to be over next May. A Wall Street Journal report on Wednesday said that Trump could name the next Fed chair by September or October, or as early as this summer. With Powell having nearly 11 months left until the end of his term, Trump remains frustrated as he continues to criticise the Fed chair's move of not cutting interest rates despite muted inflation. However, announcing the name of the next Fed chair this far in advance would be a surprising development in the 111-year history of the US. Donald Trump may name a 'shadow' Fed chair At the White House on Wednesday, National Economic Council head Kevin Hassett said that the next Fed chair is not going to be Jerome Powell. "I think the President will choose the person that he likes, and it's not going to be Jay Powell," Hassett said. Hasset, along with three others — former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, current Fed Governor Christopher Waller, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — are among the top contenders for the post of the American central bank's head, according to reports. Also Read | Trump considers naming next Fed chair early in bid to undermine Powell The person, if Trump goes ahead with the appointment right now, could act as a 'shadow' Fed chair — an idea Scott Bessent first floated in 2024 before he became the Treasury Secretary. What happens to Jerome Powell? Some analysts see Trump's naming of the next Fed chief as an effort to influence monetary policy through a "shadow" Fed chair even before Powell leaves office in May 2026. According to former Fed officials and academics cited by Fed, the move could also mean that the economic uncertantly that has prevailed after Trump took office could intensify. 'It's an absolutely horrible idea,' Alan Blinder, who served as the No. 2 official at the Fed during the mid-1990s, was quoted as saying by CNN. A shadow Fed chair may mean that markets could be put in an uncertain position if two powerful voices say the opposite about the monetary policy, he said. 'If they're not singing from the same playbook, which seems likely, this is just going to cause confusion in markets,' Blinder told CNN. Greg Valliere, chief US policy strategist at AGF Investments, made similar comments, according to the report of the news outlet. 'This is a terrible idea, sure to annoy and confuse financial markets if there are two Fed Chairs,' he said. RSM chief economist Joe Brusuelas warned that naming a shadow Fed chair this early could cause a spike in interest rates — undermining the very goal that Trump is trying to achieve. 'Undermining Powell is in no one's best interest as it will almost certainly translate to a weaker dollar and rising rates,' he was quoted as saying by CNN. White House denies reports The White House on Thursday dismissed reports of Donald Trump naming a Fed chair so soon to replace Jerome Powell next year. 'No decisions are imminent, although the president has the right to change his mind,' AFP quoted a White House official as saying. 'The president has many good options to nominate as the next Federal Reserve chairman,' the official added.
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
28 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump hails ‘giant win' as Supreme Court limits judges' ability to block executive orders
Trump hails 'monumental victory' after Supreme Court curbs nationwide injunctions that have slowed his agenda. read more President Donald Trump claimed a 'GIANT WIN' Friday as the US Supreme Court curbed the power of lone federal judges to block executive actions. 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard,' Trump said on Truth Social, adding that he would hold a news conference at the White House at 11.30 am (1530 GMT). 'It has been an amazing period of time, this last hour. There are people elated all over the country… In recent months, we have seen a handful of radical Left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the President to stop the American people from getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers. That was a grave threat to democracy…We had been hit with more nationwide injunctions than were issued in the entire 20th century together…'he said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD #WATCH | As US Supreme Court limits judges' power to block birthright citizenship order, US President Donald Trump says, "It has been an amazing period of time, this last hour. There are people elated all over the country... In recent months, we have seen a handful of radical… — ANI (@ANI) June 27, 2025 Earlier today, the US Supreme Court handed Trump a major victory by curbing the power of lone federal judges to block executive actions. In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by lower court judges 'likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.' The top court did not immediately rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. With inputs from agencies


Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Propaganda machine': Gavin Newsom sues Fox News for $787M over call with Trump; cites edited video
Gavin Newsom (AP), Fox News (Fox News) California Governor Gavin Newsom on Friday sued Fox News, accusing the network of deliberately misrepresenting his recent phone call with President Donald Trump. The suit, lodged in Delaware where Fox is based, seeks at least $787 million in damages and calls for a court order to stop the network from airing or publishing content that falsely claims Newsom lied about the conversation. The lawsuit centers on a segment from Fox News host Jesse Watters, which allegedly featured a deceptively edited video of Trump to back claims that Newsom had misled the public. The governor's legal team argues that the coverage was not only inaccurate but also intentionally damaging, regarding Trump's recent decision to deploy National Guard troops to Los Angeles. Newsom has increasingly taken a confrontationalist approach ever since Trump sent troops in LA this month amid his administration's immigration crackdown. Newsom's lawyers also sent a five-page letter to the media house summarizing the lawsuit, filled with sharp attacks on the network's integrity and mocking remarks about Trump's mental sharpness, reported Politico. 'It is perhaps unsurprising that a near-octogenarian with a history of delusionary public statements and unhinged late-night social media screeds might confuse the dates,' the lawyers wrote. 'But Fox's decision to cover up for President Trump's error cannot be so easily dismissed.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Eat 1 Teaspoon Every Night, See What Happens A Week Later [Video] getfittoday Undo The letter also stated that the governor was ready to drop the suit if Fox retracts its claim and the host Jess Watters renders an on air apology. The amount sought by Newsom is nearly the same $787.5 million in damages that Fox News paid Dominion Voting Systems in 2023 to settle a high-profile defamation case involving false claims about the election. His lawsuit comes at a time when President Trump has also launched multiple legal battles against major media outlets and corporations, many of which have ended in multi-million dollar settlements. 'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences, just like it did in the Dominion case,' Newsom told Politico in a statement. 'Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine.' Newsom says his last phone call with Trump lasted about 16 minutes and took place on June 7, just one day before Trump ordered 2,000 troops to Los Angeles, despite Newsom's objections, to respond to ongoing protests. On June 8, Newsom spoke about the phone call on MSNBC. However, on June 10, Trump told reporters he had spoken with Newsom 'a day ago,' suggesting the call happened the same day 700 US marines were sent to Los Angeles. Newsom quickly disputed that timeline in a post on X, rejecting Trump's statement. 'There was no call. Not even a voicemail. Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn't even know who he's talking to,' Newsom said in the post. That evening, Jesse Watters aired a shortened version of Trump's comments and questioned, 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?' At the same time, he displayed a screenshot of the president's call log, provided by Fox host John Roberts, which actually confirmed Newsom's account that their last conversation took place on June 7. The lawsuit accuses Fox News of intentionally misrepresenting the dispute between Newsom and Trump to damage Newsom's political future. His legal team argues the coverage meets the standard for defamation and could hurt his support with voters and donors. They also claim Fox's actions violated California's unfair competition law by engaging in deceptive business practices.