Latest news with #TeacherQualityPartnershipProgram
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Divided Supreme Court sides with Trump to block teacher grants
A divided Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration by allowing officials to block $65 million in teacher development grants frozen over concerns they were promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices. The 5-4 emergency ruling, for now, lifts a lower order that forced the Education Department to resume the grants in eight Democratic-led states that are suing. Five of the court's six conservatives sided with the administration to grant the request. Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's three liberal justices dissented. The decision is not a final ruling in the case, and the dispute could ultimately return to the Supreme Court. Friday's order enables the administration to keep the grants blocked until any appeals are resolved. 'Respondents have represented in this litigation that they have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running. So, if respondents ultimately prevail, they can recover any wrongfully withheld funds through suit in an appropriate forum,' the majority said it its unsigned ruling. In February, the administration began canceling disbursements under two federal education grants aimed at developing educators and combatting teacher shortages: the Teacher Quality Partnership Program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development Program. Officials have cast the freezes as part of the administration's broader crackdown on DEI, and it also comes as Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon look to effectively gut the department. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, an appointee of former President Obama who serves in Boston, issued a March 10 temporary restraining order mandating the administration immediately resume the grant programs in the eight states. The Trump administration's Supreme Court emergency appeal comes after a three-judge panel on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift Joun's ruling. The chief justice did not explain his dissent, but the court's three liberals chastised the majority for getting involved at the early stage of the case. 'The risk of error increases when this Court decides cases—as here—with barebones briefing, no argument, and scarce time for reflection,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a two-paragraph solo dissent. 'Sometimes, the Court must act in that way despite the risk. And there will of course be good-faith disagreements about when that is called for,' she continued. 'But in my view, nothing about this case demanded our immediate intervention. Rather than make new law on our emergency docket, we should have allowed the dispute to proceed in the ordinary way.' In a much lengthier dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said it was 'beyond puzzling' that the majority viewed the dispute as an emergency. 'This Court's eagerness to insert itself into this early stage of ongoing litigation over the lawfulness of the Department's actions—even when doing so facilitates the infliction of significant harms on the Plaintiff States, and even though the Government has not bothered to press any argument that the Department's harm‐causing conduct is lawful—is equal parts unprincipled and unfortunate. It is also entirely unwarranted,' Jackson wrote. The administration has filed a series of such emergency applications urging the justices to rein in lower courts that have blocked Trump's policies. 'Beyond the systemic, irreparable constitutional harm to the Executive Branch from judicial arrogation of executive functions as to how and when agencies will disburse or cancel grants, even the court of appeals acknowledged that the government 'may incur some irreparable harm if it cannot recoup this money,'' the Justice Department wrote in court filings. The states, whose lawsuit alleges applicable regulations don't permit the administration to stop the grant programs, noted the lower ruling is temporary and normally not appealable. 'The district court acted appropriately in granting a narrow and time-limited restraining order while it proceeds to a prompt ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction. There is no sound basis for this Court to stay or vacate that order,' the states wrote. Led by California, the coalition also comprises Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin. Their lawsuit now returns to the trial court, where Joun is mulling whether to grant a longer injunction after holding a hearing last Friday. But the five justices in the majority cast doubt on the future of the lawsuit, saying Joun lacks jurisdiction. And it is just one of two lawsuits challenging the frozen teacher grants. A similar case filed by private education groups remains at a midlevel appeals court. The new ruling marks the Supreme Court's second emergency decision implicating the second Trump administration's sweeping efforts to cut aspects of federal spending. In March, the court in a 5-4 decision rejected the administration's request to freeze $2 billion in foreign aid payments. Updated 5:04 p.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
04-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Divided Supreme Court sides with Trump to block teacher grants
A divided Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration by allowing officials to block $65 million in teacher development grants frozen over concerns they were promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices. The 5-4 emergency ruling, for now, lifts a lower order that allowed the Education Department to resume the grants in eight Democratic-led states that are suing. Five of the court's six conservatives sided with the administration to grant the request. Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's three liberal justices dissented. The decision is not a final ruling in the case, and the dispute could ultimately return to the Supreme Court. In February, the administration began canceling disbursements under two federal education grants aimed at developing educators and combatting teacher shortages: the Teacher Quality Partnership Program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development Program. Officials have cast the freezes as part of the administration's broader crackdown on DEI, and it also comes as Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon look to effectively gut the department. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, an appointee of former President Obama who serves in Boston, issued a March 10 temporary restraining order mandating the administration immediately resume the grant programs in the eight states. The Trump administration's Supreme Court emergency appeal comes after a three-judge panel on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift Joun's ruling. The administration has filed a series of such applications urging the justices to rein in lower courts that have blocked Trump's policies. 'Beyond the systemic, irreparable constitutional harm to the Executive Branch from judicial arrogation of executive functions as to how and when agencies will disburse or cancel grants, even the court of appeals acknowledged that the government 'may incur some irreparable harm if it cannot recoup this money,'' the Justice Department wrote in court filings. The states, whose lawsuit alleges applicable regulations don't permit the administration to stop the grant programs, noted the lower ruling is temporary and normally not appealable. 'The district court acted appropriately in granting a narrow and time-limited restraining order while it proceeds to a prompt ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction. There is no sound basis for this Court to stay or vacate that order,' the states wrote. Led by California, the coalition also comprises Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin. Their lawsuit now returns to the trial court, where Joun is mulling whether to grant a longer injunction after holding a Friday hearing. And it is just one of two lawsuits challenging the frozen teacher grants. A similar case filed by private education groups remains at a mid-level appeals court. The new ruling marks the Supreme Court's second emergency decision implicating the second Trump administration's sweeping efforts to cut aspects of federal spending. In March, the court in a 5-4 decision rejected the administration's request to freeze $2 billion in foreign aid payments.
Washington Post
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Gutting the Education Department abandons America's past, present, future
The executive order to dismantle the Education Department is a severe blow to U.S. democracy and international competitiveness. High-quality public education is crucial for a functioning democracy because it cultivates informed citizens and critical thinking. Plus, the United States' global education ranking would surely decline without high academic standards and guarantees of equal access. Raising academic standards for all students and holding schools accountable by measuring their achievement are central to promoting excellence in our nation's schools. Having worked in the Education Department for more than 35 years as a program officer, I know first-hand the breakthrough achievements of the agency and its staff. One example is how every school district receiving federal funds must have a publicly available school report card so people can identify areas of weaknesses and develop school improvement plans. A quick look at the department's latest national report card shows that U.S. fourth- and eighth-graders are not making enough progress to regain ground lost during the pandemic — especially in reading. In 2024, the percentage of eighth-graders achieving their grade's basic-level reading skills was the lowest since 1992, when the assessment was started. The percentage of fourth-graders achieving their basic reading level was its lowest in 20 years. Facilitating high-quality teaching has always been a priority for the Education Department. This includes education research, which is readily available through the department's What Works Clearinghouse. The department has also become a valuable information resource for prospective college students who want to find high-quality universities, teachers and administrators who seek guidance on best practices, and technical assistance for low-performing schools. The Education Department also provides grant funding for leading-edge programs, including Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration grants, the Full Service Community Schools Program and the Teacher Quality Partnership Program. Title I provides much-needed resources to school districts and eligible private schools with high percentages of children from low-income families. The Office of Student Financial Assistance awards more than $120 billion a year in grants, work-study funds and low-interest loans. Many countries with high-quality schools have strong national ministries of education. For example, China's national curriculum requires students to start learning English as early as kindergarten. In Greece, public education from preschool to university level is a constitutional right. Countries such as Germany, Norway, Austria, Finland, Iceland, Poland and Argentina provide college education for their citizens tuition-free. To ensure America's success, we need a national agency to maintain high expectations for public education working in partnership with private schools. Mary E. Moran, Litchfield, Illinois Dismantling the Education Department would not significantly reduce government inefficiency — but it would effectively abandon millions of students. If we hand full control of education to the states without federal safeguards, we risk turning it into a privilege instead of a right. And for people like me, as well as the young students I teach, that's not an abstract policy discussion. It is survival. At 4 years old, I was diagnosed with autism. I could not read, write or speak, even to say my own name. My family fought an exhausting legal battle to secure my right to an education. They sacrificed their financial stability and peace of mind, even to the point of living in a house where rain leaked through the roof, just to ensure I had access to the basic education that every child deserves. Without the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, which is enforced by the Education Department, I wouldn't be able to share my story, much less teach others. As an English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher, I see that same fight play out every day. Millions of English learners rely on programs that depend on the Office of English Language Acquisition. Without it, states could slash ESL funding, leaving immigrant and bilingual students without the resources they need to integrate, learn and thrive. The federal government exists to ensure states don't leave vulnerable students behind. Without its funding and enforcement, special education services, ESL programs, equitable funding and even basic accountability could become optional. The argument for dismantling the Education Department often relies on the idea that states know how to best educate their own students. If that were true, why would we continue to see significant educational disparities — across scores, quality and access — across state lines? The question is not whether states can do better, but whether they will. If states alone could fix education, we wouldn't see students with disabilities denied services. We would not see English learners left without support. And we certainly wouldn't see an education system where Zip codes determine opportunity. Education is not a game. It's a civil right. And without federal oversight, we risk taking a giant step backward, leaving millions of students without the protections they need to succeed. Brendan Tighe, Atlanta Not much has amused me in the news lately, but as a veteran educator, I laughed out loud when I read remarks by Republicans including Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana and Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders supporting President Donald Trump's efforts to get rid of the Education Department. Louisiana and Arkansas are both near the bottom of almost any state-by-state education ranking. I would take any opinions about how to improve education from people in charge of those states with a grain of salt — or maybe a whole teaspoon. What's not funny is the trepidation I hear from my former special education colleagues and parents of public school students, wondering how these misguided ideasare going to affect the future of public education, which is a cornerstone of our nation's past achievements and future success. Theresa Early, Colorado Springs As an educator, I read about President Donald Trump's executive order to close the Education Department with great alarm. Although the department seems to have lost some of its primary focus over the years, it should be improved and reformed, not abolished. Without national education standards, poor states will fall further behind those with the money to pay for better educational institutions and teachers. Also, disadvantaged students nationwide will not be able to receive adequate public education and will probably face greater challenges in preparation for our highly specialized, competitive, information-laden and technical world. This will only perpetuate the growing economic and educational divide in the United States. In the prescient words often attributed to former Harvard University president Derek Bok: 'If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.' I shudder thinking about our nation's future. Michael Pravica, Henderson, Nevada I earned a PhD supported by government grants. My politics were formed by protesting the Vietnam War and have remained left of center as I have aged. Logically, I should have a knee-jerk reaction against President Donald Trump's assault on the Education Department. However, I find myself struggling to rise to the defense of an institution and policies that, over the past two generations, have produced an electorate that resulted in Trump's presidency — twice. Trump's election might be the only reason to rethink American education. James Morentz, Bethesda As President Donald Trump does his best to eliminate the statutorily constituted Education Department and, in Education Secretary Linda McMahon's words, 'free future generations of American students and forge opportunities for their success … [by] sending education back to the states where it so rightly belongs,' it might be useful to remember just how involved our national government has been in public education for the past 240 years. Thomas Jefferson led the committee behind the Land Ordinance Act of 1785, which provided the basis for organizing the territories north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi. This law provided the first mechanism for funding public education using national financial resources. The ordinance provided that when the territories were organized and given self-governing rights, the 16th section in every six-mile square township was to be used to support public education. Here was our national government, two years before our Constitution was drafted, telling soon-to-be-states how to support public education. In the early 19th century, some educators and lawmakers began advocating for greater federal involvement in U.S. education, promoting the idea of a national, standardized 'common school' system to aid the nascent public schools that were so haphazardly established and funded across the country. After the end of the Civil War, during Reconstruction, the federal government became more involved by creating a non-Cabinet-level Education Department. Defending the measure, Illinois Board of Education President Samuel W. Moulton, a Democrat, offered an analogy: Just as the Agriculture Department, which had begun operations in 1862, showed farmers how to increase their crop yields through better practices, so could the Education Department demonstrate to the states the best ways to educate their students. Different administrations have housed federal oversight of education in different departments, including the Interior Department In 1980, it became an independent department once more. The Education Department has never done everything perfectly. However, it's important to remember that our country has a long and honorable history of national involvement in and support of public education at the local level — a history that was originated and embraced by the very individuals we know today as the country's Founders. James Currie, Alexandria
Boston Globe
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Trump asks Supreme Court to let him cancel grants to teachers
The Education Department last month sent grant recipients boilerplate form letters ending the funding, saying the recipients were engaged in activities 'that violate either the letter or purpose of federal civil rights law; that conflict with the department's policy of prioritizing merit, fairness, and excellence in education; that are not free from fraud, abuse, or duplication; or that otherwise fail to serve the best interests of the United States.' Advertisement Judge Myong J. Joun of the US District Court in Massachusetts temporarily ordered the grants to remain available while he considered a suit brought by California and seven other states challenging the terminations. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up On Friday, the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, rejected a request from the Trump administration to pause Joun's order, saying the government's arguments were based on 'speculation and hyperbole.' In temporarily blocking the cancellation of the grants, Joun said he sought to maintain the status quo. He wrote that if he failed to do so, 'dozens of programs upon which public schools, public universities, students, teachers, and faculty rely will be gutted.' On the other hand, he reasoned, if he did pause the Trump administration action, the groups would merely continue to receive funds that had been appropriated by Congress. In the administration's emergency application in the Supreme Court, Sarah M. Harris, the acting solicitor general, said Joun's order was one of many lower-court rulings thwarting government initiatives. 'The aim is clear: to stop the executive branch in its tracks and prevent the administration from changing direction on hundreds of billions of dollars of government largesse that the executive branch considers contrary to the United States' interests and fiscal health,' she wrote. She added, 'Only this court can right the ship — and the time to do so is now.' Advertisement The case followed the Trump administration's termination of more than $600 million in grants for teacher training in February, as part of its crackdown on efforts related to diversity and equity. The Education Department claimed the funding was being used 'to train teachers and education agencies on divisive ideologies' like social justice activism and anti-racism. It came amid broader upheaval in the department that reached a climax this month, when Trump instructed the education secretary, Linda McMahon, to begin shutting down the agency altogether, though it cannot be closed without the approval of Congress. The raft of cuts to training grants had decimated two of the department's largest professional development programs, known as the Supporting Effective Educator Development program and the Teacher Quality Partnership Program. The initiatives offered competitive grants that helped place teachers in underserved schools — like low-income or rural regions — and addressed teacher shortages. Among their goals was to develop a diverse educational workforce. In New York, for example, officials said that public university systems had been granted more than $16 million to support students in graduating from teaching programs — who would then help to fill spots in tough-to-staff areas, such as math and special education. The lawsuit filed this month challenging the cuts came from a coalition of eight attorneys general, including those for New York and Massachusetts. It argued that the cuts would destabilize both urban and rural school districts, forcing them to hire 'long-term substitutes, teachers with emergency credentials, and unlicensed teachers on waivers.' 'This will harm the quality of instruction and can lead to increased numbers of students falling short of national standards,' the attorneys general wrote. Advertisement If the cuts were allowed to continue, the group contended, public school students and their teachers-in-training would suffer 'immediate and irreparable harm.' This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump administration goes to Supreme Court to block teacher preparation grants
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court Wednesday to allow it to block federal teacher preparation grants that lower courts have ordered resumed. It is the latest instance of the administration urging the justices to rein in federal district judges that have blocked aspects of President Trump's sweeping agenda. 'This Court should put a swift end to federal district courts' unconstitutional reign as self-appointed managers of Executive Branch funding and grant-disbursement decisions,' acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in the application. The emergency appeal comes after lower courts agreed to a request from eight Democratic state attorneys general to resume grant disbursements under the Teacher Quality Partnership Program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development Program in their states. Both programs support teacher development. The Trump administration sought to cut off the funds last month amid a broader effort to shutter the Education Department, but the states contend that applicable regulations don't allow the Trump administration to stop the funding. The Justice Department has warned that, if the lower rulings stand, it will force the federal government to immediately pay out $65 million to the eight states that can't be recovered if their legal challenge ultimately fails. 'The aim is clear: to stop the Executive Branch in its tracks and prevent the Administration from changing direction on hundreds of billions of dollars of government largesse that the Executive Branch considers contrary to the United States' interests and fiscal health,' the application reads. By default, the request goes to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, former President Biden's sole appointee to the court who handles emergency appeals arising from the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Jackson set a Friday afternoon deadline for the Democratic-led states to respond to the Trump administration's request. She could then rule on the application alone or refer it to the full court for a vote. It is one of two challenges to the Trump administration's freeze of teacher preparation grants. A separate lawsuit filed by private education groups, which also seeks to resume a third grant program, remains in the lower courts. The case also marks the third pending emergency appeal at the Supreme Court brought by the Trump administration. The administration has also asked the justices to narrow a series of nationwide blocks on Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship and to lift another judge's order to reinstate more than 16,000 federal probationary employees. The court has already declined two previous emergency applications from the administration. In a 5-4 decision, the justices refused to allow the administration to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid payments earlier this month, and earlier, they punted a demand to greenlight Trump's firing of an independent agency leader until the case became moot. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
