On Monday, the Trump administration is expected to receive $6.8 billion in education funding nationwide, including at least $811 million from California – Congress grants to promote teacher training, after-school curriculum and classroom technology, and help students who learn English and students from immigrant families.
Although frozen funds are less than 1% of California’s total education budget, they have an external cumulative effect. They involve dollars that have been resolved based on the employees employed and the plans of the plan. Interference will be substantial, including SUPT’s state education leaders. Tony Thurmond said in public guidance that these issues emerge immediately.
“There are many rumors about the Trump administration cutting education funds, and now the rumors have become a reality, which is worse than we think,” Thurmond said in a statement to the Times. “Trump illegally seized billions of dollars this fiscal year to serve students.”
“This illegal action will harm students from now on,” Thurmond added. “It cannot stand it!”
The government lists the freezing program through its federal name: Title III-A, for example, supports students who study English. Title IC helps overcome learning challenges for immigrant workers’ children. Both plans withheld all funds.
News of federal action began to raise concerns in the school system Monday afternoon. The notice, in an email from the Federal Department of Education, was 84 words in length, and according to education officials and advocates, did not magnify:
“In light of changes in the administration, the department is reviewing funding for fiscal 2025 [Title I-C, II-A, III-A, IV-A, IV-B] Grants programs and decisions have not been made on submissions and awards for the upcoming school year. ”
“As a result, the department will not issue a reward notice for these programs on July 1 before completing the review.”
The notice concluded: “The ministry remains committed to ensuring taxpayer resources are spent on the President’s priorities and the department’s statutory responsibilities.”
According to the Institute for Learning Policy, the plans pointed out in the email account for more than 10% of K-12 schools spending in 33 states.
The freeze target is not particularly surprising – all funds withheld are from plans the government wants to cut or eliminate. These details and the reasons for them – the next federal fiscal year is clearly articulated in President Trump’s budget proposal, which will begin in October.
However, the Trump administration is freezing funds approved by Congress for fiscal year beginning in October 2024. The money will arrive in state on Tuesday due to the way federal, state and local budgets are queued and will be spent on the budget for the district’s fiscal year that begins Tuesday.
School districts – according to their expectations, they will receive these funds from Congress grants – usually have people who are expected to execute these plans; many are long-term efforts.
The Education Department declined to comment later on Monday – Asked with the Office of Management and Budget. The office also did not immediately comment.
However, the government has clarified its reasons for ending those efforts in its budget proposal, which gradually approaches Congress approval on Monday.
“To end Washington’s overextension and restore the due role of state oversight in education, the budget suggests eliminating the wrong English language acquisition program that actually emphasizes the primacy of English through funding [nongovernmental organizations] “The state encourages bilingualism. The historically low reading scores for all students mean that the state and community need to use evidence-based literacy teaching materials to unite classrooms (rather than split) to improve outcomes for all students,” the government said.
Advocates of English learners support “evidence-based literacy teaching,” but raise questions about most of the government’s remaining claims, including claims that programs to help students learn English are split.
“We want our students to master English so they can get an English education,” said Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians, a group coalition that advocates for English learners. “Most English learners are in an English-language environment. These funds help students learn English.”
Hernandez said about 5 million English learners nationwide speak 100 different languages in California.
In the budget document, the cuts to immigration education make sense because “projects that harm children’s academic success by encouraging actions from a geographical location rather than stable and consistent actions. These programs have not proven to be effective, are very expensive, and encourage unqualified unqualified access, [services] strip resources from American students. ”
The effectiveness of immigration programs is open to reasonable debates, but it encourages the lack of stable assertions that are difficult to align with reality.
The Los Angeles Unified School District uses this funding to support academically, providing stability and academic continuity to these students and their families.
The Nebraska program describes itself as “providing educational services to immigrant children to help reduce barriers to repeated actions across school district borders.”
For students aged 3 to 5, this work includes “promoting an interest in learning and filling gaps in family education to prepare students for kindergarten” and “helping families find affordable preschool options.”
The frozen funds have become another area of conflict between the Trump administration and local educators, especially in blue states and urban areas. However, such callbacks (if any) will also fall seriously in rural areas and red states.
Trump’s power to withhold these funds will almost certainly be challenged in court. It is not clear whether it will be reviewed within Congress.
Federal law prohibits the executive from refusing to allocate dollars from Congress to Congress, although the president can ask Congress to allow holding funds. Congress made a request to approve the president’s lawsuit 45 days after it was filed. Otherwise, the money must be spent as originally intended.
