You know those websites that exist to answer a single question? "Is it Christmas?" is a classic; there was (is?) "Is Henry Kissinger Dead?" for another. I've wondered for the past week or so if someone should grab "Is there a U.S. Department of Education?" given the state of the news.
The answer (as of this blog post) is:
YES
Need a reason to call Congress today?
Yesterday, the United States Department of Agriculture cut two programs for the current fiscal year: one, the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program, that nationally is about $500M, provides support for local food banks; and the Local Food for Schools program, that nationally funds $660M for schools. Both were the result of a December expansion of prior programs to provide for locally-grown, minimally-processed food from local farmers to go to local food banks and schools.
Per Politico, USDA:
...confirmed that funding, previously announced last October, “is no longer available and those agreements will be terminated following 60-day notification.”
The spokesperson added: “These programs, created under the former Administration via Executive authority, no longer effectuate the goals of the agency. LFPA and LFPA Plus agreements that were in place prior to LFPA 25, which still have substantial financial resources remaining, will continue to be in effect for the remainder of the period of performance.”
I personally fail to see which aspects of USDA's goals aren't "effectuate[d]" through funding local farmers to provide healthy food for the hungry.
In Massachusetts, this is $12.2M. Asked yesterday about it, Governor Healey's response was a harbinger of where we're at here:
When she was asked whether the state had a plan to backfill that loss of federal support, Healey, flanked by Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll, state Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Middlesex/Norfolk, and House Speaker Ronald J. Mariano, D-3rd Norfolk, didn’t mince words.
“Are you kidding?” she shot back.
“I think people have got to understand the scope of what we’re talking about here ... the scope is so vast when you’re talking about federal funding,” she said. “We’re talking about tens of billions of dollars,” she continued.
Healey’s $62 billion budget proposal for the new fiscal year that starts July 1 is premised on more than $16 billion in assistance from Washington.
That money funds a host of programs, including MassHealth, as Medicaid is known in the Bay State, as well as public education.
“And that’s not even accounting for the funding that doesn’t even come to us,” Healey continued. “There’s money that comes directly to not-for-profits, and to organizations and to school districts directly that is also subject to just being cut completely. So, the numbers are so huge that there is no way the state can begin to fill the void and pick up the tab.”
It is important to note that even Massachusetts, even with $8B in the rainy day fund, does not have the capacity to make up for the full weight of federal funding. We could try; we could do some things; we cannot do it all.
Something to complain to your reps and senators about. in particular because this is the first time we've seen USDA funding for school nutrition cut or frozen. That does not bode well.
Craven: "due credit and praise" to Johnston
March 28 is his last day
finalists will be selected by board members on search committee (four)
new commissioner for July 1
Secretary Pat Tutwiler is willing and able to serve "on top of his responsibilities" as Secretary
will not accept additional compensation
Secretary makes appointment on recommendation of a 2/3rd vote
effective March 29, 2025
Motion, second
Hills: not in support of this
think Tutwiler "would make an outstanding commissioner"
soft power, hard power
"has to do with the structure that has been set up in the laws over the past year"
"there are several different statutes that this would be in violation of"
"at some point, it actually matters what's written in the statute"
Mohamed: "if it doesn't violate statute, I think it violates principles of good governments"
"don't think a person can serve as supervisor of himself"
will vote no on this item
Tutwiler: Commissioner doesn't report to the Secretary; the Commissioner reports to the Board
(on which the Secretary serves)
Moriarty: comfortable with this and support it
"I don't think the secretary as it exists in statute is that old"
"I think it's a novel question, not one that" has a history
Johnston receiver while at the Department (but he didn't report to himself; it both positions he reported to the Commissioner)
"and if it's a mulligan, we correct it at our next meeting"
Stewart asking if it's legal for him not to take compensation
Motion to recommend to the Secretary that he appoint himself acting commissioner (the Secretary appoints upon a 2/3rd recommendation from the Board)
7-2-1, 2/3 vote as required (Hills and Mohamed opposed, Tutwiler abstains)
motion passes
No one asked me but speaking as always only for me:
Just saying up front: I'm not planning on liveblogging public comments. The news tonight is the question of acting Commissioner. Agenda is here. Note that the regulations proposed have been updated since the last meeting; they can be found here.
Updating as we go
Note that added to the special Board of Ed meeting for Monday night--set to take further public comment on the proposed changes to the regulations on CTE admission--is appointment of an acting commissioner.
I don't know that it's been generally circulated as yet, but current Acting Commissioner Russell Johnston is leaving at the end of March. As the Board's next regular meeting is March 25, it's more timely to make that appointment now.
No clue from the posting as to who is being tapped on that one.
...and I admit that I am skimming, but this is what they have on education:
 |
| Also, let's talk about how dumb this Y axis is. The bottom is 22,500. The change is not nearly as dramatic as it looks, and let's consider why the city would be exaggerating it. |
...plus a map of where the schools are.
I think, for a district that approaching where it was in enrollment when it closed eight school buildings, we probably need more than that.
The FAQ released last Friday by the United States Department of Education on race in schools earned a 'softened tone' headline from the Washington Post (that's a gift link), which is fair, but I also want to note what they do NOT say.
Here's the response to question 14, which is about consequences of not following their guidance and decisions:
If OCR determines that a school failed to comply with the civil rights laws that it enforces, OCR will contact the school and will attempt to secure its willingness to negotiate a voluntary resolution agreement. If the school agrees to resolve the complaint, OCR and the school will negotiate a written resolution agreement to be signed by the school that describes the specific remedial actions it will take to address the area(s) of noncompliance identified by OCR. OCR will monitor implementation of the resolution agreement’s terms. If a school is unwilling to negotiate a resolution agreement, OCR will inform the school of the consequences, which may result in OCR initiating enforcement through administrative proceedings or referring the case to the Department of Justice for judicial proceedings.
Do you notice what that does not say?
We will take away your Title I funding. We will take away your IDEA funding.
I'm not sure who they've hired or not--they also have this "be a snitch and report your district"* portal still up--but it looks like maybe a lawyer looked at this one.
__________________
*obligatory: gosh wouldn't it be a shame if it were flooded with silly nonsense from faked email addresses?
