Executive orders on education

 This afternoon, Donald Trump signed an executive order: 

...to prohibit federal funds from going to K-12 public schools that teach critical race theory (CRT) or gender issues.  

Politico had "it's coming" coverage earlier today which you can find here.  

This is of course the same sort of "we piled a lot of words on top of each other" thing we saw earlier this week with the Office of Management and Budget funding freeze. 

I would say the questions this opens are two:

1. How are they going to enforce it?
   Public education in the United States (as, amusingly, Trump himself as noted) largely the province of the state and then local districts. The federal government doesn't have that much power, or, relatively speaking, that much money with which to get schools to do much of anything. Also, most of that money--think of the title grants or IDEA--is tied directly to federal legislation that requires particular things IN THE LAW to be done or happen for the money to be distributed. He can't just make up new rules for the money.
   
   The one concern I have, which I think I have flagged here before, is the possible weaponization of the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education. OCR has investigatory powers, and yesterday, they opened an investigation into the Denver Public Schools over a gender-neutral bathroom that that was put in due to student request.* If they're starting that, we could see what essentially is ongoing harassment of those who are protecting student rights. 
2. How much are states/districts/schools going to obey in advance?
   As I said the week of the election, the empowerment of people who do want to discriminate against others is one of the larger dangers to schools under Trump. The people in power are coming after those historically disempowered, and now you can, too!
   Education also tends to be a very compliance based system--and not only for students!--and state agencies, districts, and schools are going to have to resist the tendency to just go along with what the person seemingly in charge says. 

Of course, this also doesn’t look like closing the Department of Education, either, does it. 

And yes, for sure, expect lawsuits on this one, too. 

________________________
*I suspect the story is here: "at least one East High parent had raised concerns at a Denver school board meeting."
Hmmhm.

pushing back works sometimes

 This is just breaking now, as evidenced by how short the CNN piece is, but for now, it looks like pushing back may have worked. 

What a day: on the federal freeze

via GIPHY

What a day, huh? The freeze on federal funds--which itself was frozen by court til Monday order minutes before it was to go into effect last night--was the classic Trump administration "we threw out this big thing and have no ability to manage details like which programs it impacts" maneuver. 

You may have caught the midday memo that specified that, for example, Head Start and SNAP were not included in the freeze. 

Last night, DESE shared with districts the following (CCSSO is the Council of Chief State School Officers): 

CCSSO received the following statement this afternoon from Madison “Madi” Biedermann, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications and Outreach at the U.S. Department of Education:

“The funding pause directed by the January 27, 2025, OMB memorandum only applies to discretionary grants at the Department of Education. These will be reviewed by Department leadership for alignment with Trump Administration priorities. The temporary pause does not impact Title I, IDEA, or other formula grants, nor does it apply to Federal Pell Grants and Direct Loans under Title IV, HEA. The Department is working with OMB to identify other programs that are not covered by the memo.”

For those a bit up on federal funding, what is of concern here is that, yes, federal grants are "forward funded" in July and October, but then they are drawn down over the course of the year. As AASA notes in their updated post:

We want to clarify that while states are fully allocated their forward funded programs on July 1 and October 1, the actual drawing down for these funds is continual throughout the year. 

Let me note very specifically that while the various updates appears to have excepted most of the education grants, the big one that no one has yet commented on is school nutrition. As EdWeek writes: 

The School Nutrition Association, meanwhile, is asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture “to provide more detail on the extent to which this freeze will impact the programs” that provide federal support for students to eat healthy meals at school, Diane Pratt-Heavner, the group’s spokesperson, said on Tuesday afternoon.

If the pause eventually takes effect and funding for school meals does stop flowing, districts will immediately wonder whether they’ll get retroactive payments from the federal government once the pause ends, Thomas said.

“Those programs are running on paper-thin margins,” Thomas said. “Districts have to pass a balanced budget and so, if the meals program goes in the red, they’re going to have to pull money from elsewhere.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the school lunch program, didn’t answer questions from Education Week in time for publication.

I fear that there may be some confusion in Massachusetts and other states that have implemented universal free school meals; the state funding is SUPPLEMENTAL to federal funding on which districts still depend. In Massachusetts, school meals are funded: 

1. First, by the United States Department of Agriculture for meals for students eligible for free or reduced price lunch.
   In districts with high rates of poverty, including most (all?) of our city school districts, this funding is feeding ALL students, regardless of their own finances, through community eligibility. That means the highest need districts are feeding kids almost entirely through federal funds.
   
   
2. Then, through supplemental funding from the state, which fills the gap for districts not using community eligibility to feed all kids (because the finances don't work to support that) by reimbursing districts not using community eligibility. 

Thus, no, Massachusetts and other states that have committed to feeding all kids are not immune to this concern.

I was asked yesterday what the state's plan is for covering this if we lose USDA funding. As far as I know, there isn't one. 

If you haven't called your Congresspeople, please do. 
Pro tip: call their local office. Fewer people do. 

January Board of Ed: vision

 high dosage tutoring in early literacy
this was much more lengthy but we also were getting updated information on federal funding, so I tuned out for parts of it

5 providers in 46 districts
16,958 student seats (which may have been more than one student)

statistically significant gains in 2023-24

MBAE now testifying about the Ignite (they're a vendor) online tutoring through the One8 grant

and there was a video of that tutoring

There is a lot of data being shared here on slides with teeny text

attendance matters; closes literacy gaps more effectively
I also just want to note that the text in all of these slides is way too small

Chelsea and Walpole testifying about their experiences

One8 person: "we were skeptical...the last thing we want to do is put more kids in front of a computer"
"if schools are on green rated science of reading curriculum because you're wasting your money if schools aren't on green rated science of reading curriculum"
"the results are astounding"

Hills asks about scaling up; staffing 
put aside money to "continue the data runs"

Moriarty argues "there is a model here" for the long haul
"this is expensive"
"this expenditure represents a percentage point or two" but seems to represent
encourage school committees "to adopt this cost on a long term"
"it should be as much embedded in a school district's budget as a football team"
districts having the slightest idea of what local school districts are actually struggling with for budgets for starters might be useful 

and now on literacy launch

January Board of Ed: use of time out

link to memo 

used by 40% of public school districts; 60% of out of district programs use such spaces

regulation prohibits a student not being able to leave a space

U.S. Ed updated policy; some practices could be considered discriminatory against populations of students 

MA has been working on for several years

encourage schools and districts to use other approaches rather than time out rooms

DESE increased monitoring as well as competitive grants; most used for PD, supplies and materials

last year, DESE created a working group for potential regulatory updates

goal is maximize amount of time students spend learning with their peers; overuse or inappropriate use may cause academic loss or trauma to students

reducing or eliminating and strategies that result in seclusion is in best interest of students and school communities

safeguarding students and staff

DESE provides technical assistance or formal corrective action as necessary to districts

regulation centers on "what are we allowing?"

January Board of Ed: competency determination

 here is the backup

Curtin: today is "purely for discussion"

January Board of Ed: vocational admission

 admission to career and technical education
West: three meetings of subcommittee so far

possible approaches to admission revision

understanding by process of learning about, apply to and enroll in schools

vocational schools "struggle to gain access" to middle school students
application process is resource intensive for sending as well as vocational districts
schools have their own processes and regional agreements

often see disparities between applicants and admitted students
looked a specific selection criteria; which ones play most significant role in creating disparities
can now task DESE with draft revisions in this area
"may be even to review and send out for public comment" in February

based on what recommendations?

West: fairly naturally from our conversation
"any selective criteria need to be essential to the success of the school if they are having any disparate impact" on protected classes
that's my emphasis
for example: evaluative interview that is rated
could there be a broader way of expressing interest?

Moriarty speaks of visiting a school during the eighth grade visit