Latest news with #ElementaryandSecondaryEducationAct
Chicago Tribune
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Indian Prairie District 204 board OKs applications to state board of education for funding waivers for three schools
Following school board approval on Monday, Indian Prairie School District 204 is applying to the Illinois State Board of Education to have three of its schools — Brookdale, Gombert and McCarty elementary schools — designated as Title I schoolwide, a designation for schools with high percentages of low-income students, next school year. Title I funding helps schools pay for resources meant to improve students' education and help ensure they meet state academic standards, according to the state board. Brookdale, Gombert and McCarty all have percentages of low-income students between 20% and 39%, per a memo from the district's Deputy Superintendent Louis Lee that was part of Monday's meeting agenda, so the district is going through a waiver process with the state to allow the schools to obtain schoolwide status, which allows them to use the funding they receive for all students in the building, regardless of income level. Schools with low-income student populations above 40% qualify for the schoolwide designation automatically. But schools with at least 20% but less than 40% low-income students can also operate as schoolwide Title I programs if they apply for and receive a waiver from their state educational agency, in this case the Illinois State Board of Education, according to the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Two other elementary schools in the district, Georgetown and Longwood, have had the schoolwide designation, meaning their low-income student population was at or above 40%, since the 2018-19 school year, a district spokesperson said, and are being designated as such for the 2025-26 school year as well. Title I, Part A is part of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. It provides additional financial assistance to school districts for children coming from low-income families, with the goal of closing 'educational achievement gaps by allocating federal funds for education programs and services.' Title I allocations are based primarily on local education agencies' poverty estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, and then are allocated within each local agency to schools based on their poverty rates, commonly measured by the number of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Title I funding is provided by the federal government to the state, which then disburses it to the schools, Lee said. But which schools qualify for Title I funding can change from year to year based on enrollment. Gombert and McCarty have received Title I funding since the 2018-19 school year, according to a district spokesperson. McCarty's percentage of low-income students used to be over 40%, but has recently decreased, Lee said. And the district is applying for a waiver for Brookdale for the first time this year. In their applications, school districts need to provide rationale for why a school needs a schoolwide waiver. For Brookdale, for example, the district noted that the school now qualifies for Title I funding because it is seeing rising numbers of low-income students. Gombert was previously supported by targeted funds, but has had schoolwide status for several years, and the district said in its application that, since receiving Title funding, 'the growth of students has been significant due to the added layers of intervention across the school and support provided to families.' McCarty previously had a schoolwide designation, and the district wrote that continued schoolwide status is still needed to improve academic achievement and support social-emotional learning. Lee said there are a number of reasons low-income student populations in schools vary from year to year and are part of overall changes in the student body, like slight declines in district enrollment and increasing ethnic diversity. But he sees supporting a diverse student body as part of the district's strength. According to ISBE, last year Indian Prairie received just over $2.2 million districtwide in Title I, Part A funding and funding for neglected and delinquent children, which goes toward schools with high percentages of children from low-income families and to educational programs for children in state-operated institutions or community day programs, respectively. The Title I funding is reimbursement-based, and the district files expense reports quarterly, according to a district spokesperson. Title I funding provides the schools that receive it with additional funding on top of what they'd receive already, which can go toward things like arts and social-emotional learning programs or to pay for additional staff in a school to work with students in smaller groups, Lee said. And they have flexibility in how they spend it, he said. A school's leadership can determine how they use the Title I funding, though Lee said at Indian Prairie all the Title I schools meet regularly to share ideas about what kind of programming is and isn't working. Now, after obtaining board approval on Monday, the applications for the three schools' waivers will be submitted to the Illinois State Board of Education. The United States Department of Education released Title I, Part A funding on May 14, according to a state board spokesperson, and the state agency is in the process of releasing its allocations.
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Former Dallas ISD Superintendent Nolan Estes dies at 94
The Brief Former Dallas ISD Superintendent Nolan Estes died over the weekend at 94-years-old. Estes served as Dallas ISD superintendent for 10 years, where he was known for his desegregation efforts. He was eventually appointed as associate U.S. commissioner of education where he implemented an act that provided federal funding to public schools. DALLAS - Former Dallas ISD Superintendent Nolan Estes died over the weekend, the district announced. What we know Estes died on Saturday at the age of 94. His cause of death has not been publicly released. The backstory Estes began his career as a math and science teacher in Waco before making his way through various leadership positions that eventually led him to Washington, D.C. There, he worked under President Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson was impressed by Estes' success in education and appointed him associate U.S. commissioner of education. In that role, Estes helped implement the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provided federal funding to public schools. Estes served as Dallas ISD superintendent from 1968 to 1978. During his tenure, he was recognized for leading the district through desegregation efforts and for launching new schools and learning centers. What they're saying In a statement, Dallas ISD called Estes "a transformative leader in education, visionary educator, civil rights advocate, and deeply respected member of our community." What we don't know The cause of death has not been released. The Source Information in this article comes from social media posts made by Dallas ISD.
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contributor: Trump is cutting the funding that ensures funds are well spent
Donald Trump's first term as president was characterized by an unprecedented volume of false and misleading statements — exceeding 30,000, according to multiple news organizations. As he advances through the first 100 days of his second term, his administration appears to be intensifying this pattern, amplifying a misinformation apparatus to justify his actions and policy changes. As he does so, he is also dismantling the government's ability to evaluate its own policies, replacing credible evidence with propaganda. The second Trump administration is systematically eliminating funding and personnel for oversight and evaluating programs. This threatens our ability to make informed, evidence-based decisions about policies and programs, leaving the public vulnerable to unchecked misinformation and ineffective governance. When the process or mechanism for systematically and objectively measuring what is working and what is not, what needs to be improved, and what we should replicate in other places and with other people is dismantled, the public will no longer have access to critical information and data. The gathering and reporting of credible evidence to inform policy decisions was introduced as part of the Great Society legislation when programs under the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, sponsored by Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, were required to be evaluated. Since then, evaluation has been key in shaping effective government programs. Its importance was reinforced in 2019 with the passage of the Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, signed by President Trump. This act required each government agency to develop evaluation policies outlining their priorities and practices under the appointment of a chief evaluation officer. During his first two months back in office, the Trump administration has executed an 'evidence drain' by eliminating or drastically cutting back on important research and evaluation programs. The Institute of Education Sciences has been virtually eliminated; only three staff members remain at the National Center for Education Statistics; and just over 20 personnel are left to execute the vital functions of the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Before Trump's cuts, these offices employed more than 180 people. The administration's cuts to research funding have received more attention, and indeed, research is essential to medical and technological advancement. But cuts to evaluation take a serious toll as well. Evaluation studies inform us about our national performance. With accurate, carefully designed studies, we may thoughtfully modify programs and policies to improve their performance and wind down those that we learn are not working well. Prudently constructed studies that produce nuanced answers to these and other questions have been commissioned by our government for more than 60 years to address timely and relevant questions, such as those we should be studying right now: What happens when social services are cut? To whom and where are these cuts having the most significant impact? How does shifting federal student loan programs from the Department of Education to the Small Business Administration affect access to these programs? The public needs to know and understand the implications of cutting evaluation budgets and federal evaluation offices. Without sound evidence to counter or support claims made by public officials, we, the public, risk having access only to false information, which is now regularly pushed on unchecked social media and news outlets. That is why it is so dangerous for the public and so opportunistic for an administration moving toward authoritarianism to cut these studies with a chainsaw. Fringe individuals with questionable professional credibility have politicized research studies by rebutting well-established findings and spreading disinformation, as we have seen with vaccine effectiveness and safety. The Trump administration has just hired one of these people to study the already discredited link between vaccines and autism. Spending tax dollars on this kind of 'research' is an unquestionable waste of resources and a direct effort to continue pushing misinformation to the public, making it more difficult to discern fact from fiction. We should also be deeply concerned that the current administration will hire equally unqualified and questionably positioned individuals to evaluate the outcomes of its cavalier cuts to funding and personnel. We must continue to conduct sound evaluation studies of our programs and policies and provide the public with credible information to inform our national, local and kitchen table discussions. Many states and philanthropic organizations support such efforts. They should increase their commitments to this vital work. To ensure honest appraisals that counter misinformation, we must, as a public, question the quality and accuracy of evidence used to support value-based assessments of what policies and programs are being 'well' implemented and doing 'good' for the American people. This is central to the survival of our increasingly fragile democracy. Christina Christie is the dean of the UCLA School of Education and Information Studies. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
11-04-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Trump is cutting the funding that ensures funds are well spent
Donald Trump's first term as president was characterized by an unprecedented volume of false and misleading statements — exceeding 30,000, according to multiple news organizations. As he advances through the first 100 days of his second term, his administration appears to be intensifying this pattern, amplifying a misinformation apparatus to justify his actions and policy changes. As he does so, he is also dismantling the government's ability to evaluate its own policies, replacing credible evidence with propaganda. The second Trump administration is systematically eliminating funding and personnel for oversight and evaluating programs. This threatens our ability to make informed, evidence-based decisions about policies and programs, leaving the public vulnerable to unchecked misinformation and ineffective governance. When the process or mechanism for systematically and objectively measuring what is working and what is not, what needs to be improved, and what we should replicate in other places and with other people is dismantled, the public will no longer have access to critical information and data. The gathering and reporting of credible evidence to inform policy decisions was introduced as part of the Great Society legislation when programs under the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, sponsored by Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, were required to be evaluated. Since then, evaluation has been key in shaping effective government programs. Its importance was reinforced in 2019 with the passage of the Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, signed by President Trump. This act required each government agency to develop evaluation policies outlining their priorities and practices under the appointment of a chief evaluation officer. During his first two months back in office, the Trump administration has executed an 'evidence drain' by eliminating or drastically cutting back on important research and evaluation programs. The Institute of Education Sciences has been virtually eliminated; only three staff members remain at the National Center for Education Statistics; and just over 20 personnel are left to execute the vital functions of the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Before Trump's cuts, these offices employed more than 180 people. The administration's cuts to research funding have received more attention, and indeed, research is essential to medical and technological advancement. But cuts to evaluation take a serious toll as well. Evaluation studies inform us about our national performance. With accurate, carefully designed studies, we may thoughtfully modify programs and policies to improve their performance and wind down those that we learn are not working well. Prudently constructed studies that produce nuanced answers to these and other questions have been commissioned by our government for more than 60 years to address timely and relevant questions, such as those we should be studying right now: What happens when social services are cut? To whom and where are these cuts having the most significant impact? How does shifting federal student loan programs from the Department of Education to the Small Business Administration affect access to these programs? The public needs to know and understand the implications of cutting evaluation budgets and federal evaluation offices. Without sound evidence to counter or support claims made by public officials, we, the public, risk having access only to false information, which is now regularly pushed on unchecked social media and news outlets. That is why it is so dangerous for the public and so opportunistic for an administration moving toward authoritarianism to cut these studies with a chainsaw. Fringe individuals with questionable professional credibility have politicized research studies by rebutting well-established findings and spreading disinformation, as we have seen with vaccine effectiveness and safety. The Trump administration has just hired one of these people to study the already discredited link between vaccines and autism. Spending tax dollars on this kind of 'research' is an unquestionable waste of resources and a direct effort to continue pushing misinformation to the public, making it more difficult to discern fact from fiction. We should also be deeply concerned that the current administration will hire equally unqualified and questionably positioned individuals to evaluate the outcomes of its cavalier cuts to funding and personnel. We must continue to conduct sound evaluation studies of our programs and policies and provide the public with credible information to inform our national, local and kitchen table discussions. Many states and philanthropic organizations support such efforts. They should increase their commitments to this vital work. To ensure honest appraisals that counter misinformation, we must, as a public, question the quality and accuracy of evidence used to support value-based assessments of what policies and programs are being 'well' implemented and doing 'good' for the American people. This is central to the survival of our increasingly fragile democracy. Christina Christie is the dean of the UCLA School of Education and Information Studies.
CBS News
03-04-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Trump administration threatens public schools' federal funding over DEI initiatives
Washington — The Department of Education warned state education commissioners Thursday that federal financial assistance for their K-12 schools may be at risk unless they confirm they're complying with "antidiscrimination obligations," including getting rid of diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The Education Department said it has sent letters to state commissioners overseeing K-12 state education agencies giving them 10 days to sign and return a certification attesting their compliance with federal civil rights law. The document, titled in part "Reminder of Legal Obligations Undertaken in Exchange for Receiving Federal Financial Assistance," notes that federal funds are conditioned on that assurance that education entities will comply with federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination. It warns that the use of diversity, equity and inclusion programs, or DEI, is not allowed. "The use of certain DEI practices can violate federal law. The continued use of illegal DEI practices may subject the individual or entity using such practices to serious consequences," including potential litigation and eliminating federal funding, the certification states. The document specifically references funding awarded under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which directs money to local school districts. "Federal financial assistance is a privilege, not a right," Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement. "When state education commissioners accept federal funds, they agree to abide by federal antidiscrimination requirements." Trainor claimed that schools are flouting these obligations, including by continuing DEI practices. Federal funding represents a relatively small portion of funding for most public schools, about 14% of funding for public K-12 schools in the U.S., according to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data. But some states rely more heavily on federal funding than others. The Pew Center points out that New York schools receive just 7% of their funding from the federal government, while Mississippi's schools rely on the federal government for 23% of their funding. The notice from the Education Department follows a "Dear Colleague" letter that Trainor sent in February that he said was to "clarify and reaffirm the nondiscrimination obligations" of schools and other entities that receive federal assistance from the department. "The department will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this nation's educational institutions," he wrote. "The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent." Trainor highlighted DEI programs in his letter, and said he aimed to provide notice of the Education Department's interpretation of federal law. The warning to state education agencies comes as part of the Trump administration's broader crackdown on DEI initiatives. President Trump signed an executive order on his first days back in the White House ending DEI programs within the federal government and directed the removals of agency workers who worked on the practice.
