Latest news with #DepartmentofEd
Yahoo
10-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's dismantling of Education Department gives states 'green light' to pursue voucher programs
A growing number of red states have expanded their school voucher programs in recent years, a trend that is likely to only spike further amid a push led by President Donald Trump's administration to return education 'back to the states.' Conservative education activists have long lauded such programs as a way to give greater control to parents and families. But public education advocates warn that the expansion of these voucher programs presents further risk to the broader school system as it faces peril from Trump's dismantling of the Department of Education. 'Many states came into this administration with a track record of trying to privatize education, and I think they see this move to dismantle and defund the Department of Ed and President Trump's support of school privatization as a green light to be more expansive in their approach moving forward,' said Hilary Wething, an economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute who closely studies the impact of voucher programs on public education. Just last week, Texas enacted a statewide private school voucher program, becoming the 16th state to offer some form of a universal school choice program. In private school voucher programs, families can receive a certain amount of public money to use toward private K-12 school tuition or school supplies. In some states, such programs have previously come with limitations, including narrow eligibility, such as private schools that can accommodate families with children who have special needs or families that are below certain income levels. Proponents of the program in Texas and others like it dub it a 'universal voucher' program because it has no restrictions on who is eligible. Under the program, any family in the state may receive about $10,000 to pay for their children's K-12 private school education. Texas' program will launch in the 2026-27 school year. Statewide voucher programs are far from a new phenomenon. But they have exploded in recent years amid a growing political effort by conservatives at the local, state and federal levels to boost 'school choice' — the notion that parents should have far more options than only their neighborhood public schools. Sixteen states offer at least one voucher program that has universal eligibility, while another 14 offer voucher programs with eligibility requirements, according to the Education Law Center, a public education advocacy group that is critical of voucher programs. At least three states, Texas, Idaho and Tennessee, have enacted their universal programs this year, while in another eight states, attempts by conservative lawmakers to create new voucher programs or expand existing ones stalled or failed, according to the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union. 'Even though this is not a new explosion of voucher laws, this year continues the explosion of vouchers … and even though the USDOE [dismantling] isn't necessarily the one driving force, it's definitely connected,' said Jessica Levin, the litigation director at the Education Law Center, which is assisting with lawsuits challenging Trump's moves to dismantle the Department of Education. 'The bottom line is that this is a concerted strategy on the part of those who want to defund and dismantle public schools and privatize public education.' The most prominent argument made by critics of voucher programs is that they take public money that would have otherwise been allocated to help fund public schools and deliver it to private schools. Private schools, they note, do not face most of the accountability requirements that public schools do under federal laws. For example, private schools retain the ability to refuse admission to students, are not required to provide individualized education plans to children with learning disabilities and are not required under law to provide disabled students or students facing disciplinary measures certain protections or due process rights. At the same time, funding formulas for public schools are predominantly based on enrollment numbers. So, as students flee public schools — even if in just small numbers — overall funding decreases. 'The students who remain in public schools lose resources,' Levin said, while 'voucher students lose rights.' Meanwhile, Levin explained, voucher-driven pupil departures from public school means 'you're now concentrating higher-need, higher-cost kids in public schools that now have less funding.' Those situations are now compounded by Trump's moves to wind down the Education Department, which experts have said will further upend civil rights enforcement in schools as well as the distribution of billions of dollars to help impoverished and disabled students. U.S. Department of Education spokesperson Savannah Newhouse said in an email to NBC News that 'President Trump and Secretary [Linda] McMahon believe that our nation's students will thrive when parents are given the freedom to choose a school setting that best fits their child's academic needs.' Newhouse added that the administration 'will provide states with best practices on how they can expand educational opportunities and empower local leaders to implement customized policy that will benefit their communities the most.' While some states have had voucher-like programs allowing families to use public money for parochial education dating back more than 100 years, modern voucher programs have been around for about 30 years, having launched in large part in the 1990s amid a grassroots conservative movement to increase options for parents unhappy with their local public schools. But the Covid-19 pandemic emerged as a flashpoint for conservative education activists, who utilized widespread anger among parents unhappy with school closings and remote learning as a launchpad for new and expanded voucher programs across the nation. School voucher proponents say the programs maximize choice for parents, who can use the funds to subsidize the cost of expensive private schools, which, they argue, deliver better outcomes for students. Supporters have also touted the programs as offering a market-based approach that helps promote the best schools and have argued that they have the potential to benefit low-income families or families with uniquely few options for public school. Tommy Schultz, the CEO of the American Federation for Children, a conservative group that advocates for school voucher programs, told Fox News this week that universal voucher programs like the one enacted in Texas give parents 'education freedom.' He praised a similar program that Florida expanded in 2023, claiming it had caused the state's public schools to 'have gotten better.' Schultz denied that Texas' program, or ones like it, would result in fewer resources for public schools, calling that 'the same argument for 30 years' by public education advocates. Andrew Mahaleris, a spokesperson for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, said in an email that the Republican 'made education freedom a priority because no one knows the needs of their child better than a parent.' 'When it comes to education, parents matter, and families deserve the ability to choose the best education opportunities for their children,' Mahaleris added. 'The Governor signing school choice into law is an unprecedented victory for Texas families, students, and the future of our great state.' But critics point to examples showing that universal school voucher programs are disproportionately used by wealthy families whose children are already enrolled in private schools, or that children in rural areas with few schools have limited options to put the money to use. They also point to studies that refute the claim that private schools deliver better outcomes for students. In addition, enrollment in private schools, even with a voucher to help cover the cost, can still be prohibitively expensive for low-income families, they said. Wething, of the EPI, said analyses have shown that between 60% and 90% of students who take advantage of universal-eligibility voucher programs across the U.S. were already enrolled in private school when they participated in the programs. She warned of the harms she said programs like the one in Texas posed. 'As soon as you get rid of income limits or carveouts for, say, only low-income families or only students with disabilities, you basically open the gates for students who are already attending private school, or who already have enough income to attend private school, to now use state funding to subsidize their private school,' she said. 'It's kind of the next step in what we think of as this voucher evolution.' This article was originally published on
NBC News
10-05-2025
- Business
- NBC News
Trump's dismantling of Education Department gives states 'green light' to pursue voucher programs
A growing number of red states have expanded their school voucher programs in recent years, a trend that is likely to only spike further amid a push led by President Donald Trump's administration to return education 'back to the states.' Conservative education activists have long lauded such programs as a way to give greater control to parents and families. But public education advocates warn that the expansion of these voucher programs presents further risk to the broader school system as it faces peril from Trump's dismantling of the Department of Education. 'Many states came into this administration with a track record of trying to privatize education, and I think they see this move to dismantle and defund the Department of Ed and President Trump's support of school privatization as a green light to be more expansive in their approach moving forward,' said Hilary Wething, an economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute who closely studies the impact of voucher programs on public education. Just last week, Texas enacted a statewide private school voucher program, becoming the 16th state to offer some form of a universal school choice program. In private school voucher programs, families can receive a certain amount of public money to use toward private K-12 school tuition or school supplies. In some states, such programs have previously come with limitations, including narrow eligibility, such as private schools that can accommodate families with children who have special needs or families that are below certain income levels. Proponents of the program in Texas and others like it dub it a 'universal voucher' program because it has no restrictions on who is eligible. Under the program, any family in the state may receive about $10,000 to pay for their children's K-12 private school education. Texas' program will launch in the 2026-27 school year. Statewide voucher programs are far from a new phenomenon. But they have exploded in recent years amid a growing political effort by conservatives at the local, state and federal levels to boost 'school choice' — the notion that parents should have far more options than only their neighborhood public schools. Sixteen states offer at least one voucher program that has universal eligibility, while another 14 offer voucher programs with eligibility requirements, according to the Education Law Center, a public education advocacy group that is critical of voucher programs. At least three states, Texas, Idaho and Tennessee, have enacted their universal programs this year, while in another eight states, attempts by conservative lawmakers to create new voucher programs or expand existing ones stalled or failed, according to the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union. 'Even though this is not a new explosion of voucher laws, this year continues the explosion of vouchers … and even though the USDOE [dismantling] isn't necessarily the one driving force, it's definitely connected,' said Jessica Levin, the litigation director at the Education Law Center, which is assisting with lawsuits challenging Trump's moves to dismantle the Department of Education. 'The bottom line is that this is a concerted strategy on the part of those who want to defund and dismantle public schools and privatize public education.' The most prominent argument made by critics of voucher programs is that they take public money that would have otherwise been allocated to help fund public schools and deliver it to private schools. Private schools, they note, do not face most of the accountability requirements that public schools do under federal laws. For example, private schools retain the ability to refuse admission to students, are not required to provide individualized education plans to children with learning disabilities and are not required under law to provide disabled students or students facing disciplinary measures certain protections or due process rights. At the same time, funding formulas for public schools are predominantly based on enrollment numbers. So, as students flee public schools — even if in just small numbers — overall funding decreases. 'The students who remain in public schools lose resources,' Levin said, while 'voucher students lose rights.' Meanwhile, Levin explained, voucher-driven pupil departures from public school means 'you're now concentrating higher-need, higher-cost kids in public schools that now have less funding.' Those situations are now compounded by Trump's moves to wind down the Education Department, which experts have said will further upend civil rights enforcement in schools as well as the distribution of billions of dollars to help impoverished and disabled students. U.S. Department of Education spokesperson Savannah Newhouse said in an email to NBC News that 'President Trump and Secretary [Linda] McMahon believe that our nation's students will thrive when parents are given the freedom to choose a school setting that best fits their child's academic needs.' Newhouse added that the administration 'will provide states with best practices on how they can expand educational opportunities and empower local leaders to implement customized policy that will benefit their communities the most.' While some states have had voucher-like programs allowing families to use public money for parochial education dating back more than 100 years, modern voucher programs have been around for about 30 years, having launched in large part in the 1990s amid a grassroots conservative movement to increase options for parents unhappy with their local public schools. But the Covid-19 pandemic emerged as a flashpoint for conservative education activists, who utilized widespread anger among parents unhappy with school closings and remote learning as a launchpad for new and expanded voucher programs across the nation. School voucher proponents say the programs maximize choice for parents, who can use the funds to subsidize the cost of expensive private schools, which, they argue, deliver better outcomes for students. Supporters have also touted the programs as offering a market-based approach that helps promote the best schools and have argued that they have the potential to benefit low-income families or families with uniquely few options for public school. Tommy Schultz, the CEO of the American Federation for Children, a conservative group that advocates for school voucher programs, told Fox News this week that universal voucher programs like the one enacted in Texas give parents 'education freedom.' He praised a similar program that Florida expanded in 2023, claiming it had caused the state's public schools to 'have gotten better.' Schultz denied that Texas' program, or ones like it, would result in fewer resources for public schools, calling that 'the same argument for 30 years' by public education advocates. Andrew Mahaleris, a spokesperson for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, said in an email that the Republican 'made education freedom a priority because no one knows the needs of their child better than a parent.' 'When it comes to education, parents matter, and families deserve the ability to choose the best education opportunities for their children,' Mahaleris added. 'The Governor signing school choice into law is an unprecedented victory for Texas families, students, and the future of our great state.' But critics point to examples showing that universal school voucher programs are disproportionately used by wealthy families whose children are already enrolled in private schools, or that children in rural areas with few schools have limited options to put the money to use. They also point to studies that refute the claim that private schools deliver better outcomes for students. In addition, enrollment in private schools, even with a voucher to help cover the cost, can still be prohibitively expensive for low-income families, they said. Wething, of the EPI, said analyses have shown that between 60% and 90% of students who take advantage of universal-eligibility voucher programs across the U.S. were already enrolled in private school when they participated in the programs. She warned of the harms she said programs like the one in Texas posed. 'As soon as you get rid of income limits or carveouts for, say, only low-income families or only students with disabilities, you basically open the gates for students who are already attending private school, or who already have enough income to attend private school, to now use state funding to subsidize their private school,' she said. 'It's kind of the next step in what we think of as this voucher evolution.'
Time Magazine
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Time Magazine
Public Education Makes Economic Sense
The Trump Administration is attempting to dismantle the Department of Education. This is an expensive mistake the United States simply cannot afford. Of course, as the most recent former Secretary of Education, a product of a public school system, and a lifelong public educator, I have a unique insight into the value the department brings to our country. But beyond this experience, I understand that education must be a public good, not only because of the moral imperative, but because it makes economic sense. With the dissolution of the Department of Education and increased pressures to privatize K-12 education, there are valuable lessons to be learned from the devastating impact for-profit interests had on higher education. When I was Secretary of Education, one of the most glaring problems that needed attention was the runaway costs and poor return on investment of many for-profit higher education institutions. Students were being sold a false pathway to prosperity from these for-profit colleges, which were often only interested in profits. When students completed the programs, many of them were saddled with debt but little or no increased earning potential. In fact, many of these predatory for-profit education institutions were not even worried about completion for the students, just recruiting and engaging them in debt. At the Department of Education, we worked to expose the poor performance of for-profit colleges, identify illegal practices, and discharge the billions in debt to those we believed were taken advantage of, especially the first generation college victims and the veterans whose military benefits were being targeted by these institutions. Our borrower defense work helped prevent taxpayer dollars from going to these institutions in the form of PELL grants while also preventing hard-working Americans from having their income go to predatory schools that provide little value. While not all for-profit institutions followed this playbook, our efforts to stop the bad actors saved students, and our country, money. Many of them shut down during my time at the Department of Ed. I worry that closing the Department will open the gates to allow irresponsible for-profit schools to appear, not only in higher education, but also in the K-12 space as well. Imagine if for-profit K-12 schools popped up across the country where, by design, the primary focus was making money. Imagine if these for-profit schools saw students as a potential to bring in federal or state dollars. Would it be a good business plan to admit students that cost more to educate? Unfortunately, the answer is no. What we are seeing in numerous states already is the use of public school dollars going toward for-profit K-12 schools. In my visits to states, I have already heard from superintendents that the students furthest from opportunity and academic success are less desirable for these schools because it is harder to make a profit. If this continues, we will have increased gaps between our public and private schools and this will cost our country more to remediate, than it would be to prevent such gaps in the first place. Removing the Department of Education eliminates the regulatory and oversight capability to ensure a quality public education for all. Indeed, one of the most clear reasons why public education makes economic sense is because it helps us establish a future workforce that is able to compete in the AI, cybersecurity, and clean energy races necessary for us to maintain global competitiveness. And public education also allows us to avoid needing to import talented workers from other countries. As the son of Puerto Ricans who came to the mainland looking for opportunities for their children, I had only what the local neighborhood public school provided. Despite being in an economically disadvantaged community and attending schools with the greatest levels of need, my public school experience allowed me to gain the skills and confidence needed to go on to advise the President of the United States. My story should not be special or unique. There are millions of students with untapped potential that need their public school in order for their God-given gifts to be realized. With approximately 50 million students across the country, it will be the success of our public schools that determines if our country can reach its potential in the development of college and career pathways that are needed in the next decade. For instance, there has been a renewed focus on manufacturing, building, and creating here in America from both sides of the aisle. We must look at our public schools as the foundation of our 'Made in America' efforts. Whether it's advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity, microchip development, advancing research on artificial intelligence, or finding scientific cures for cancer, Alzheimer's, or the potential next pandemic, a strong public education sector will serve as the foundation on which our country will grow–or not grow. A crumbling foundation cannot hold skyscrapers—or factories. Dismantling the Department of Education will make it more likely that public school funding and equity of access will not be consistent across the country. Like my experience, it takes a great public school to bring out the best in our students, and country. While as former State Commissioner of Education in Connecticut, I value states' rights and independence in terms of educational responsibility, weakening the federal role would make it less likely that states can learn from one another and advance our country against competing countries like China. Without a federal education department, it will become increasingly common for states to try to solve issues without learning from other states that are spending resources trying to solve the same issues. Not only is this incongruity an inefficient use of research resources, it can become an issue of national security on two fronts. One, a weak foundation will not prepare tomorrow's inventors, engineers, and scientists. Nor will it provide the skilled workforce that will ensure a robust economy that is less dependent on other countries for goods. Two, we will need to rely on talent from other countries to come here and solve our problems. We cannot be the greatest country if our success depends on talent from other countries as opposed to developing our own talent pipelines—together. When I served as Commissioner, the average cost of educating a student in Connecticut was approximately $13,000. However, the cost of incarcerating an individual was $50,000. If that does not make the case for the 'economic sense' of public education, nothing else will. And as a former school principal and district leader, I understand how not investing in early childhood education which provides students with a strong learning foundation ends up costing more money in reading interventions later. Indeed, we can either pay to support our young people now or pay more to address bigger issues later. An investment in education helps ensure that our students of today will be productive and contributing members of society tomorrow. A good public education opened doors for me, an English learner from an economically disadvantaged classification to receive multiple degrees, serve in government, and contribute to the economy by paying taxes. Investing in education, and our students, ensures economic viability for our communities, states, and country. What excites me most about the next era of education is that we are at the doorstep of a transformation that includes college and career planning. Recognizing that many high skill and high paying careers are needed in the next decade, our public schools are ripe to become the fertile ground on which the seeds of innovation will grow. Are we going to meet this moment, or revert to a for-profit scenario where a few millionaires will reap the benefits and the public good is whittled down to protecting the status quo? If the latter happens, our students lose, and our country loses. Ensuring a strong public education makes economic sense. It levels the playing field so that a student in rural Kentucky has the potential to reach her God-given talents, or that a student with disabilities from Florida doesn't fall through the cracks. Public education provides access, equity, and affordability—and it must remain a public good. The difficult truth is that dismantling public education would hurt our students in red states even more than blue states. Our 9 million students in rural communities stand to lose more since they rely solely on their neighborhood schools and don't have as many options. They deserve an education that prepares them for whatever their dreams are. Imagine the lost potential of this country if we take that away. We are at a fork in the road. Will we protect public education or will we let it fall victim to crony capitalism? Will it continue to be the great equalizer that allowed countless ordinary Americans to do extraordinary things for the world, or will it be the holding place for the have-nots in an increasingly polarized country? I never bet against public schools and the educators who preserve its intention. And for those who lament that public education is too expensive, I ask them to think about what it would cost us if we didn't have it.
Yahoo
16-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
If the Department of Education goes away, what does that mean for Fort Bragg-area schools?
Weeks before the Department of Education announced it would fire employees, Cumberland County Schools Superintendent Dr. Marvin Connelly Jr. cautioned local leaders to brace for the impacts. The change could be worrisome in an area reliant on funding for military-connected students. Connelly told local leaders during a Feb. 7 meeting that "the potential dismantling of the Department of Ed" could mean funding from federal programs goes away. With Fort Bragg considered federal property, several bordering counties qualify for impact aid, which 'assists local school districts that have lost property tax revenue due to the presence of tax-exempt Federal property, or that have experienced increased expenditures due to the enrollment of federally connected children,' according to the Department of Education. The funding is divided into four categories: federal property, basic support, children with disabilities and construction grants. The Department of Education announced Tuesday that it was cutting its workforce nearly in half. "The president's mandate, as directed to me clearly, is to shut down the Department of Education, which we know we'll have to work with Congress to get that accomplished, but what we did today is to take the first step of eliminating what I think is bureaucratic bloat," U.S. Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon told Fox News's Laura Ingraham on Tuesday. Rep. David Rouzer, a Republican from North Carolina whose district includes most of Fayetteville, filed a bill earlier this year that proposes dismantling the department and reallocating its funds to states. During the Feb. 7 meeting between the Cumberland County Board of Commissioners and Board of Education, Connelly said the national School Superintendents Association warned there could be impacts to programs for low-income families, military impact aid and special education. 'If there should be a significant reduction in federal funds, we have got to have fund balance to sustain those programs,' Connelly told the elected officials. The Fayetteville Observer contacted local school districts last week to ask how much impact aid they receive and what the funds currently go toward. Impact Aid Cumberland County Schools receives is determined by the number of students who have a parent or guardian on active duty in the military; live in federal low-income housing or on federally owned property; or live with a parent or guardian who works on federal property, a spokeswoman said. Cumberland County Schools had 12,132 federally connected students during fiscal year 2024, of which 8,001 were military-connected, Renarta Moyd, a CCS spokeswoman, said March 7. For fiscal year 2025, 11,769 students are federally connected, of which 7,859 are military-connected, she said. Moyd said that in FY2024, Cumberland County Schools received more than $4.69 million in impact aid for students who are military and federally connected. A $298,362 portion of those funds was also received for children with disabilities. For fiscal year 2024, Cumberland County Schools has received more than $2.1 million for military and federally connected students and $84,392 for children with disabilities. Moore County received $937,043 in impact aid funds for fiscal year 2023, and had 2,583 military-connected children enrolled in 2023 to 2024, a spokesman said. 'In Moore County Schools, which is among the lower-funded districts in North Carolina yet ranks in the top 10 for Grade Level Proficiency and Career and Technical Education (CTE) credential attainment, Impact Aid is crucial,' MCS spokesman Charles Batchelor III said in a March 12 email. Batchelor said the funds support the district's military-connected student population through: • Online enrollment to facilitate a smooth transition for service members' children in schools by allowing for pre-move registration. • Nationally recognized Student2Student Programs that help new students, including military families, by connecting them with peers who are also military-connected. • Helping fund student support services jobs, school security and the district's military family liaison. • Technology enhancements. There are at least 1,098 military-connected students, Hoke County Schools spokeswoman Alison Jones said March 10. Jones said the numbers rely on parent participation, and, as a result, the data may not give a full accounting of military-connected students. 'The funds we receive from Impact Aid typically go towards supporting our exceptional children program, classroom support, and extracurricular activities — many of which specifically benefit our military-connected students,' Jones said. Staff writer Rachael Riley can be reached at rriley@ or 910-486-3528. This article originally appeared on The Fayetteville Observer: Could impact aid go away for Fort Bragg area schools?
