Rep. Rick Allen reads to children, responds to Department of Education staff cuts
AUGUSTA, Ga. (WJBF) – Georgia Congressman Rick Allen read to students at Lamar-Milledge Elementary School on Wednesday for National March Into Literacy Month and shared his thoughts on recently announced job cuts to the Department of Education.
Allen said teachers are aware of the best way to educate students and added that the federal government will continue to fund education and assist teachers.
'We know parents want to get more involved in their children's education. We know that parents were not happy with the decisions that came from the Department of Education,' said Allen. 'Every state's different, every community is different, and it's important, and of course school choice is a 80/20, polls 80/20 and again. I think the book said that the spotted animal found its place. Well, students are the same way.'
Allen said children who are not reading proficiently by the third grade are less likely to graduate from high school on time, which is part of the reason he wanted to focus on literacy while out of session this week.
'I'm trying to promote literacy and really motivating young people to read, because that's really the key to education,' said Allen. 'Obviously, reading skills, math and others, but mainly reading is. And the reason for that is if you're not reading at a third-grade level, when you finish the third grade, you're not you're likely not to graduate from high school.'
Students at Lamar-Milledge Elementary School also received books at the event.
Photojournalist credit: Dania Alawir
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
14 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump's war against DEI isn't going so well in Virginia
Apparently when President Trump says 'illegal DEI,' he means lawful and common-sense efforts to integrate public schools. At least, that's the takeaway from the Department of Education's new investigation against Fairfax County Public Schools. Trump officials claim Fairfax County violated federal law when it adopted an admissions policy designed to 'change the demographic make up' of its most competitive high school. This theory, which equates integration with segregation, dates back to Barry Goldwater, who remarked in 1964 that 'the Constitution is color-blind … and so it is just as wrong to compel children to attend certain schools for the sake of so-called integration as for the sake of segregation.' It seems Trump agrees. Unfortunately for him, the Supreme Court does not. Just last year, the court declined to overturn a ruling for Fairfax County. As I explained at the time, that decision made sense. Even as the Supreme Court has shifted hard right, decades of conservative case law — including from Chief Justice John Roberts — condone racial goals such as diversity, equality and inclusion. The new investigation tracks Trump's disregard for courts and his tendency toward bluster over substance. But in important respects, it also exposes that Trump's war on DEI lacks any moral and legal basis. Some context is helpful. For decades, Black advocates sought to desegregate Thomas Jefferson High School, one of the nation's top-ranked public schools. As recently as 2012, the NAACP filed a civil rights complaint alleging that the school's admissions policies discriminated against African American and Hispanic students and students with disabilities. Things shifted in 2020. As racial justice protests erupted across the globe, local leaders grappled with the fact that in a county with roughly 100,000 Black residents, Thomas Jefferson High School admitted so few Black students that the number was too small to report. The state convened a task force to examine the causes of this ongoing exclusion at Thomas Jefferson and other Virginia schools. Following a series of hearings, the board revised the school's admissions process, eliminating a $100 application fee and a standardized testing requirement. Contrary to ongoing claims that the new policy compromised 'merit,' the board raised the minimum GPA for admission from 3.0 to 3.5 and added an honors course requirement. The new policy also implemented a holistic evaluation that included new 'experience factors,' such as whether the applicant qualified for reduced meals or is an English language learner. The updated process also ensured that each middle school receive a number of seats equal to 1.5 percent of its eighth-grade class. The school board resolved that '[t]he admission process must use only race-neutral methods that do not seek to achieve any specific racial or ethnic mix, balance or targets.' This means that admissions officials are not told the race, ethnicity, sex or name of any applicant. In Supreme Court parlance, the entire admissions process was 'colorblind.' The new process produced promising results. In its inaugural year, Thomas Jefferson High School received 1,000 more applicants than the prior cycle. This larger applicant pool also 'included markedly more low-income students, English-language learners, and girls than had prior classes at TJ.' Consistent with the heightened GPA requirement, the admitted class's mean GPA was higher than in the five preceding years. The new process also yielded greater racial diversity. Black students comprised 10 percent of the applicant pool and received nearly 8 percent of offers and Hispanic students comprised 11 percent of the applicant pool and received over 11 percent of offers. The overall percentage of Asian American students decreased from the preceding year, but Asian Americans continued to enjoy the highest percentage yield of all racial groups. And as the Fourth Circuit detailed, Asian American students from historically underrepresented middle schools 'saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020.' In short, Thomas Jefferson High School adopted a 'race-neutral' process to pursue a set of goals that included increasing Black and Hispanic representation. This is the precise type of practice the Trump administration denigrates as 'illegal DEI.' Efforts to promote racial diversity do constitute DEI. But they are far from illegal. In fact, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard — the 2023 decision striking down Harvard University's formal consideration of applicant race — supports most of the DEI policies Trump now targets. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts deemed Harvard's underlying goals as 'worthy' and 'commendable.' Justice Brett Kavanaugh made the point more directly; writing for himself, Kavanaugh noted that 'racial discrimination still occurs and the effects of past racial discrimination still persist' and that 'universities still can, of course, act to undo the effects of past discrimination in many permissible ways that do not involve classification by race.' The actions of the high school square with Kavanaugh's call for policies that attend to race but do not differentiate between individual students on this basis. This should short-circuit the Department of Education's investigation against Fairfax County. But it is unlikely to stall Trump's desire to outlaw integration. The Pacific Legal Foundation, which initiated the lawsuit against Fairfax County and remains a force on the right, wants to revive Goldwater's hostile approach to integration. Consider the following FAQ on Pacific Legal's website: 'schools may use or not use standardized tests, essays, interviews, or auditions, as long as their reasons for using or not using them are not racial.' By this logic, a high school could lawfully eliminate an admissions fee if motivated by public relations concerns, but it would be unlawful to take that same action if done to decrease racial barriers that exclude low-income Black and Hispanic students. Now consider higher education. Per Pacific Legal, Harvard University could eliminate admissions preferences for the children of alumni and wealthy donors if done to appease alumni pressure. But it would be unlawful for Harvard to take the same action if the goal is increasing the number of Asian American students or mitigate unearned racial preferences that flow to wealthy white applicants. The upshot is that affirmative efforts to reduce racial inequality — everything Trump dubs 'illegal DEI' — remain legal and morally just. So, at least for now, integration does not equate to segregation. Jonathan Feingold is an associate professor at Boston University School of Law. He is an expert in affirmative action, antidiscrimination law, education law, and critical race theory.
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
A New Social Security Garnishment Is Set to Begin This Summer -- but There Are 2 Legal Ways Most Retirees Can Avoid It
Getting as much as possible out of Social Security isn't a luxury for most retirees -- it's an absolute necessity. This summer, the Trump administration will begin garnishing up to 15% of Social Security benefits for delinquent federal student loan borrowers. Two perfectly legal solutions exist that may allow a majority of tardy federal student loan borrowers to avoid having their Social Security checks garnished. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › For most retirees, Social Security isn't just income that's deposited into their checking or savings account on a monthly basis. It represents a financial lifeline that many would likely struggle to make do without. In 2023, Social Security was responsible for lifting 22 million people above the federal poverty line, some 16.3 million of whom were adults aged 65 and above. Meanwhile, 23 years of annual surveys from national pollster Gallup find that up to 90% of retirees require their monthly benefit, to some degree, to make ends meet. Getting as much out of Social Security isn't a luxury -- it's often a necessity. But beginning sometime this summer, select retirees can expect their Social Security checks to shrink by up to 15%. For some of these beneficiaries, it's income they simply can't afford to lose. For well over six decades, the federal government has played a role in subsidizing and guaranteeing student loans. As of April 2025, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) notes that 42.7 million Americans had a cumulative $1.6 trillion in federal student loans outstanding. However, the collection of federal student loan repayments was halted during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020) and was simply never lifted. According to the DOE, more than 5 million borrowers haven't made a payment in 360 days, and another 4 million are between 91 and 180 days late on their monthly payments. While higher education student loans may sound like something that affects relatively younger Americans, they've become a prominent issue for retirees. Whereas the aggregate number of student loan borrowers under the age of 62 has declined by 1% from 2017 to 2023, the number of student loan borrowers aged 62 and above has surged 59% to approximately 2.7 million over the same period, based on data from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Per the CFPB, an estimated 452,000 of these senior borrowers have defaulted on their federal student loans and are likely receiving Social Security benefits. Since President Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has targeted perceived government fraud and is aiming to make federal operations more efficient. One of the many changes under Trump, vis-à-vis the Social Security Administration (SSA), is the reimplementation of Social Security garnishments for delinquent federal student loan borrowers. Beginning "sometime this summer," per Trump's administration, tardy borrowers receiving a Social Security benefit -- this applies to all types of beneficiaries (retired workers, survivors of deceased workers, and workers with disabilities) -- could see their payouts garnished by up to 15%. The one caveat to this garnishment is that recipients must be left with at least a $750 monthly Social Security benefit. Thus, if your normal payout is $825 per month, the maximum garnishment would be $75 per month instead of the flat 15%. Additionally, the Trump administration isn't planning to offer delinquent federal student loan borrowers a 65-day warning prior to potential garnishment, as has been customary in the past. Rather, communications sent out provide just 30 days' notice that garnishments are possible if borrowers are still in default. According to the CFPB, 37% of the Social Security beneficiaries who have a federal student loan outstanding (delinquent or not) currently rely on their monthly check from America's leading retirement program for 90% (or more) of their income. Even a 15% garnishment for defaulted borrowers in this category has the potential to be financially devastating. It goes without saying that the easiest way to avoid this new garnishment by the Trump administration is to not be in default on your federal student loan(s). But for the roughly 452,000 Social Security retirees set to be impacted by this change in policy, there are two under-the-radar yet perfectly legal solutions that should allow a majority to avoid having their payouts garnished. To begin with, some of these defaulted borrowers may qualify for the Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) discharge program, which cancels federal student loans and stops forced collections. As the CFPB pointed out in a January research report, the DOE entered into a data-matching agreement with the SSA in 2021 to automate the TPD eligibility and federal student loan cancellation processes for beneficiaries who become disabled prior to reaching full retirement age (currently age 67 for anyone born in or after 1960). However, this TPD application process is failing Social Security beneficiaries who become permanently disabled after they reach full retirement age. The CFPB notes that the onus of applying for a TPD discharge of their federal student loans and/or garnishment falls onto aged beneficiaries. Census survey data shows that approximately 22% of Social Security recipients with federal student loans report having a permanent disability, per the CFPB's report. Social Security retirees currently in default on their federal student loan(s) can also potentially avoid having their monthly check garnished by applying for a financial hardship with the DOE. Defaulted borrowers will be required to provide documentation of their income and qualifying expenses to the DOE. If an individual's qualifying expenses are larger than their documented income -- especially pertaining to a possible 15% garnishment of their Social Security payout -- the DOE will likely grant a financial hardship exemption. Based on data from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking, the CFPB estimates that a whopping 82% of Social Security beneficiaries currently in default on their federal student loans would qualify for the hardship exemption -- in other words, their qualified expenses would exceed their documented income. Yet, a 2015 Government Accountability Office report found that fewer than 10% of Social Security recipients with forced federal student loan collections applied for a hardship exemption. If delinquent borrowers were to simply apply for this financial hardship with the DOE, a majority would likely be granted it. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. A New Social Security Garnishment Is Set to Begin This Summer -- but There Are 2 Legal Ways Most Retirees Can Avoid It was originally published by The Motley Fool
San Francisco Chronicle
2 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Now that Musk has turned his chainsaw on Trump, what happens to all the government data he accessed?
For anyone who's seen the quintessential slasher classic 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,' the destructive power of a man wielding a chainsaw is the indisputable stuff of nightmares. But the same could easily be said about this year's remake featuring Elon Musk, where the dancing chainsaw slasher reenacted, for Conservative Political Action Conference theatergoers, a scene eerily reminiscent of the original. I'm thinking, specifically, of that unforgettable final scene, where Leatherface fades to black swinging his gas-powered murder weapon wildly through the air as he helplessly watches his last potential victim make her last-minute daring escape, dangling from the back of a stranger's pickup truck. Social Security? Gutted. Veterans programs? Gutted. Alzheimer's, cancer and climate research? Gutted. School lunches, Head Start, the entire Department of Education? All gutted. Air safety, food safety, consumer protections? Gutted. Gutted. Gutted. Museums, libraries, hospitals, childcare? You get the drift. And what about all those thousands of federal workers whose jobs were cut? It'll take us years to recover from these self-inflicted wounds. Not to mention the generational damage wrought to our standing in the global community by what is possibly Musk's proudest personal achievement: the decimation of America's foreign assistance programs feeding starving children, combating human trafficking, fighting malaria and reducing the transmission of HIV. All summarized, of course, by the heartless tweet: 'We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.' While the long-term consequences of these actions may be difficult to gauge, conservative estimates are measured in the tens of thousands. But now, apparently, our modern-day Leatherface has turned his power tool on the guy who gave him the chainsaw in the first place. Even implying that his former boss was involved in the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking conspiracy, and has since conspired to bury the evidence that would expose Trump's connections to Epstein's decades-long criminal activities — sort of hard to put that toothpaste back into the tube, wouldn't you say? At first glance, this appears to have all the makings of an Ultimate Fighting Championship bout, fought in the middle of a monster truck rally. This calls to mind the 1990s Claymation TV show 'Celebrity Deathmatch,' where preposterously paired big-name personalities (Hillary vs. Monica? Prince Charles vs. Prince?) fought to the death. Promises to be one hell of a show! What America may be in danger of losing sight of in the ensuing spectacle is the real threat to our national security posed by the world's richest man, who, until quite recently, enjoyed unfettered access to everything the government knows about you. Never before has the data your federal government collects about every American been consolidated into a single database. It has always, religiously, been 'siloed' into disconnected data systems — some at the Treasury Department, some at the Education Department, some at the Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Administration, among other agencies — but always carefully stored and guarded by the separate entities collecting the data. The New York Times, for example, recently published a comprehensive story detailing 314 specific personal details your government potentially knows about you. I suggest giving that a read. A week ago, this casual observer would have assumed these two men, Trump and Musk, were acting with a single motive. Assembling the master data that could make possible Trump's ambitions for sweeping dictatorial powers, and for Musk's ambitions. The sheer volume of data, of course, far outstrips anything that social media titans like Mark Zuckerberg or Musk could legally monetize. And, in any event, certainly not the quid pro quo one might expect for a $288 million campaign contribution. Musk seemed, instead, to be carving himself a unique role in a near-future authoritarian oligarchy, as the undisputed Richelieu to Trump's Louis XIII. But, alas, that was not to be. What is to be, is the shocking revelation that a man who just days ago was given the ceremonial key to the White House — and in the weeks prior, the key to just about every federal government data base — has now cut all ties, and who we know talks regularly with Vladimir Putin, with whom he enjoys a reportedly friendly relationship, is now a free agent. Did Musk take the data with him? To me, the answer seems obvious. The way his pot-smoking 'college dropouts' sauntered into agency after rarified government agency, enjoying open access to virtually anything they wanted — and then they were called out by a whistleblower for uploading huge troves of data to an unsecured server. Within minutes, after Russian hackers had apparently been tipped off, they tried to download it using the correct passwords. We are told that in the end, the Russians were unable to access the data. Whether or not that denial is accurate and truthful, however, again, what should be obvious is that Musk's team successfully spirited your personal information from secure government databases to god knows where. That is the reality to which we wake today, and now every day. Let's hope that after those two Claymation figures have beaten the clay out of each other, someone comes up with a plan to clean up the mess they made. Before it's too late. Brett Wagner, now retired, served as professor of national security decision making for the U.S. Naval War College and adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
