Statement from the faculty at Teachers' College, Columbia University

 To read, to share: 

While this week’s education news has been dominated by Columbia, previous weeks focused on the K-12 landscape. Developments included the appointment of a Secretary of Education with no education expertise, unable even to correctly identify the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) - one of our nation’s largest pieces of federal education and civil rights legislation, which she is charged by Congress to administer. The administration laid off half of the Department of Education’s workforce. The firings have all but shuttered the more than 150 year old National Center for Education Statistics, on which countless areas of education research, including “The Nation’s Report Card” via the National Assessment of Educational Progress and studies that focus on measuring equity, rely. These are the staffpeople who ensure that Congressionally-approved funds for Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (for children living in poverty), the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for disabled students, and federal financial aid to higher education make their way to their intended students, families, and communities. Major staff reductions at the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights intentionally impede this division from ensuring equitable treatment of children in our nation’s schools.

As in higher education, the Trump administration not only seeks to usurp the Congressional power of the purse but does so in the name of false and misleading representations of the state of our educational institutions. Whatever claims to the contrary, American public education is governed chiefly by state constitutions and local school districts. They decide what students learn, how teachers teach, and how student success is measured. When, for example, executive orders seek to disregard that law and tradition, we applaud leaders who, like Maine Governor Janet Mills, respond with “See you in court!”.

As experts on teaching and learning, we know that the most profound moments of learning are usually uncomfortable, as they may lead people to question taken-for-granted assumptions about themselves and the society they inhabit. The goal of good teaching is not to eliminate that discomfort, but to give it a productive use. The barrage of Executive Orders, threats to the Department of Education, and mandates such as the March 13 letter are aimed at restricting discourse and generating fear in teachers and students, especially those most vulnerable: non-US citizens, racially or ethnically minoritized populations, gender and sexually diverse and expansive people, and disabled people. Teaching and learning are much more difficult when one is afraid, and pedagogy can easily turn to rote memorization and repetition in order to avoid controversy.

While the White House accuses elementary and secondary schools as well as higher education of indoctrinating students, against the evidence, what we see is an attack on the capacity for criticism — paving the way for authoritarianism and fascism. The idea that directing criticism at the US or its geopolitical allies is un-American runs counter to much of the history of this nation. As James Baldwin once stated, “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” It is extremely hard, if not impossible, for people of any age to do the difficult work of learning, of understanding multiple perspectives on an issue, of offering counterpoints to commonly assumed views, when people are scared of losing their livelihoods and/or their visas, being arrested or deported, or being deemed enemies of the state by the highest office in the land.

As educators and researchers concerned with justice and equity, we cannot stay silent. 

Our local districts deserve better than this

Flag in a school I was in last week

 I was in a local district budget hearing when the news broke last week that half the U.S. Department of Education was being laid off. It was within minutes of a school committee member asking the question that is getting asked in every school budget discussion I've been to this year--what about federal grants?--and so the timeliness was quite something.

"Are you kidding?": we're not making up total losses in federal funding from the state budget

One of the questions that has been swirling quite a bit lately has been: if all the federal money vanishes, can (or can't) the state make up the difference. 

Let me note here that my frame of reference here is Massachusetts, so your local results may vary, but I do think that Governor Healey's response when asked this question--"Are you kidding?"--was accurate. I'm not saying we can't do anything, but I do think the scope of what is supported by federal funds is something that may be a lot to wrap our heads around.

To read this week

Smith College Palm House

• The former principal deputy under secretary at the US Department of Education explains what the Department, the "least understood and most efficient cabinet agency," actually does.
  
  
• Excellent coverage from The Hechinger Report on Ryan Walter's one man crusade in Oklahoma. This particularly does a nice job of talking to practicing Christians who don't want it to be the state religion. 
  
  
• AI is still completely and massively failing to give accurate information. 
  
  
• Students at Department of Defense schools around the globe are continuing to protest.
  
  
• I really appreciated Jim McDermott's ode to what universities can do.

The word for this is bullying

 I highly recommend ProPublica's work with the Bangor Daily News on SIX federal agencies investigating Maine. 

Some view Maine as a test case for how the Trump administration may try to force its policies on states, regardless of existing state laws. In public comments, residents have invoked the state’s motto to rally Mainers: “Dirigo,” Latin for “I lead.”

“It’s Maine now, but what state is it going to be next? This is not just a Maine issue, but Maine spoke up. So right now, it’s, ‘Let’s make an example out of Maine,’” said Kris Pitts, executive co-director of the nonprofit MaineTransNet.

Halving the Department of Education

 Reductions in force are established processes for cutting positions in a workforce. The federal government has a series of regulations that oversee how this happens. 

Those have yet to be followed for the cuts last night at the Department of Education; thus, while the press release calls it a "reduction in force," it isn't clear that it is. While I have yet to see legal action, I'd expect it. 

You can read about the cuts in The Hill; K-12 Dive; NPR; EdWeek; New York Times.

Besides many, many people who care a lot about public education, and in many cases, have been doing their jobs for years, losing their jobs (which, to be clear, is bad enough!*), what does this mean?

Someone from the Department shared a list of who had been cut last night on Bluesky, and James Murphy of Ed Reform Now posted an analysis of who is gone. While the largest number of employees have been cut from FAFSA (insert the hollow laugh of the parent of a college student), by percentages of total employees compared to 2024, the big hits are the Office of Civil Rights and the Institute of Education Sciences: 

from James Murphy's post here 

I think just "FAFSA" alone is concerning, but note that some of that office's duties are ensuring that funding for higher education through student aid is used in ethical ways.

The Office of Civil Rights is of course what ensures schools protect and preserve students' civil rights; that's race, gender, special education, language, and more. While we've already seen signs of the office being weaponized (as I warned about in November), they have a VERY legitimate function. With an even smaller office, the prioritization of the ideological use of the office, one assumes, will take priority over families who need the OCR to work to ensure their students are appropriately treated by their schools.

IES is one of the quiet functions that few know exists, but many have used. If you've seen (or said) anything comparing one state to another on educational outcomes, or cited state education spending, or any of many, many other data points, you used IES. The New York Times has a useful piece on this, as well as the research funded by the Department, today. The lack of accountability--for states! for the country!--is not good here. 

Program Administration also worries me. While school districts have the big grants for the current year now, those granting systems don't run themselves, and that, plus a lot of other Department functions take people doing things. It's that sort of thing--the dribbles of "wait, no one is doing that??" that I will say I dread.

Now we have half as many people doing this work. And I have to say that I have little confidence that the cut was done in any way that ensures the functions we need are served. 

______________________

*If you lost your job yesterday, I am sorry. Your work is valuable and valued.

Just to offer: MASC did a Learning Lunch in January on what the U.S. Department of Education does (and what it means for districts) and you can find the video here. 

And what does this mean?

 Good thread here from Stephen Sawchuk on what having a half a Department may look like