Category: Education Policy & Funding

  • Funding technology initiatives in uncertain times

    Funding technology initiatives in uncertain times

    Key points:

    Recent policy shifts have caused significant uncertainty in K-12 education funding, especially for technology initiatives. It’s no longer business as usual. Schools can’t rely on the same federal operating funds they’ve traditionally used to purchase technology or support innovation. This unpredictability has pushed school districts to explore creative, nontraditional ways to fund technology initiatives. To succeed, it’s important to understand how to approach these funding opportunities strategically.

    How to find funding

    Despite the challenges, there are still many grants available to support education initiatives and technology projects. Start with an online search using key terms related to your project–for example, “virtual reality,” “virtual field trips,” or “career and technical education.”

    Explore national organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or Project Tomorrow and consider potential local funding sources. Local organizations such as Rotary or Kiwanis clubs can be powerful allies in helping to fund projects. The local library and city or county government may also offer grants or partnership opportunities. Schools should also reach out to locally-headquartered businesses, many of which have community outreach or corporate social responsibility goals that align with supporting local education.

    Colleges and universities are another valuable resource. They may be conducting research that aligns with your school’s technology project. Building relationships with these institutions and organizations can put your school “in the right place at the right time” when new funding opportunities arise.

    Strategies to win the grant

    Once potential funding sources are identified, the next step is crafting a compelling proposal. Consider the following strategies to strengthen your application.

    1. Focus on the “how and why,” not just the “what.” If your school is seeking funds to buy hardware, don’t simply say, “Here’s what we want to buy.” Instead, frame it as, “Here’s how this project will improve student learning and why it matters.” Funders want to see the impact their support will have on outcomes. The more clearly a proposal connects technology to learning gains, the stronger it will be.

    2. Highlight the research. Use evidence to validate your project’s value. For example, if a school plans to purchase virtual reality headsets, cite studies showing that VR improves knowledge retention, engagement, and comprehension compared to traditional instruction. Demonstrating that the technology is research-backed helps funders feel confident in their investment.

    3. Paint a picture. Bring the project to life. Describe what students will experience and how they’ll benefit. For example: “When students put on the headset, they aren’t just reading about ancient civilizations, they’re walking through them.” Vivid descriptions help reviewers visualize the impact and believe in your vision.

    Eight questions to consider when applying for a grant

    Use these guiding questions to sharpen your proposal and ensure a strong foundation for implementation and long-term success.

    1. What is the goal? Clearly define what students will be able to do as a result of the project. Use action-orientated language: “Students will be able to…”
    2. Is the technology effective? Support your proposal with evidence such as whitepapers, case studies, or research that can demonstrate proven impact.
    3. How will the technology impact these specific students? Emphasize what makes your school or district unique, whether it’s serving a rural, urban, or high-poverty community and how this technology addresses those specific needs.
    4. What is the scope of the application? Specify whether the project involves elementary school, secondary school, or a specific subject or program like a STEM lab.
    5. How will success be measured? Too often schools reach the end of a project without a plan to track results. Plan your evaluation from the start. Track key metrics such as attendance, disciplinary data, academic performance, or engagement surveys, both before and after implementation to demonstrate results.
    6. What are your budgetary needs? Include all associated costs, including professional development and substitute coverage for teacher training.
    7. What happens after the grant is over? If you plan to use the technology for multiple years, apply for a multi-year grant rather than assuming future funding will appear. Sustainability is key.
    8. How will success be celebrated and communicated to stakeholders? Share results with the community and stakeholders. Host events recognizing teachers, students, and partners. Invite local media and highlight your funding partners–they’re not just donors, but partners in student success.

    Moving forward with confidence

    Education funding will likely remain uncertain in the years ahead. However, by being intentional about where to look for funds, how to frame proposals, and how to measure and share impact, schools can continue to implement innovative technology initiatives that elevate teaching and learning.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • A smarter way to manage public dollars

    A smarter way to manage public dollars

    Key points:

    For public school districts across Florida and much of the country, employee benefits–particularly health insurance–are among the largest and fastest-growing budget line items. But too often, decision-makers in these districts manage benefits with incomplete information, little visibility into vendor practices, and limited tools for addressing escalating costs.

    Part of the problem is the complexity of the healthcare delivery system itself. The supply chain encompasses numerous moving parts, making cost drivers challenging to identify. While not intentional, school districts need to both educate and empower their agents and their team of specialists to peel back the layers that create added costs. Districts must also be willing to look inward.

    One of the real secrets to cost containment is transparency. A committed school district that wants to take control of its program must first understand its strengths and weaknesses, then fill gaps with specialists who can uncover hidden costs–an ongoing, vigilant effort that reveals the actual sources of waste and inefficiency. These efforts include transparent procurement and optimizing deal tension, as well as pharmacy contract negotiation, claims repricing, claims redirection, and more. Only then can districts make informed, strategic decisions that control costs and improve outcomes.

    The cost of opaque processes

    The result is a system that too often lacks meaningful transparency. School boards are presented with insurance renewals but not the data behind cost increases, insights into why claims costs are as they are, or guidance on how to contain them. Carriers field calls from district employees, but little to no reporting is returned to help the district understand what’s driving service demand. Without actionable data and intelligence, many districts default to passive renewals, accepting annual rate hikes without a clear strategy to contain costs or improve the employee experience.

    Building a foundation for smart decision‑making

    It doesn’t have to be this way. True transparency–in procurement, data, and intelligence–is not just a matter of regulatory compliance; it’s the foundation for smarter decision-making, better benefits engagement, and long-term cost control. When school districts gain access to previously unavailable data and unfiltered insights into how their benefits programs are performing, they can better serve their educators and protect their budgets.

    One example is call utilization data. Many school boards have no visibility into how often–and why–their employees contact their insurance carriers. Without this insight, they may not realize, for instance, that a large number of calls could pertain to prescription benefit confusion–something they could address through targeted employee education or plan redesign. Transparency in that data enables the district to act rather than react. It transforms benefits management from a cycle of guesswork into a proactive strategy, where decisions are driven by real needs rather than assumptions.

    Beyond call utilization, pharmacy and provider network fees can quietly escalate into six- or seven-figure losses if not monitored. Pharmacy contracts in particular demand negotiation by seasoned experts who understand the contractual nuances and levers that drive real savings. Ideally, a benefits partner will have a pharmacy benefits consultant or Doctor of Pharmacy on staff to review contracts and formularies line by line. Likewise, provider network claims and therapies must be benchmarked against competitive pricing. Transparency in these areas unleashes competition, and competition drives costs down.

    Operationalizing and incentivizing transparency leads to cost containment

    When a school district commits to operationalizing and incentivizing transparency, it can start to regain control of its costs. This process begins with examining the bigger picture of why and how the health-delivery supply chain can be leveraged or disintermediated to produce better outcomes. District leaders realize they have the power to effect change. Superintendents, HR, and finance departments can work in unison to embed transparency by empowering and incentivizing their benefits consultants to focus on solutions that reduce the district’s costs. This includes aligning agent compensation models with the district’s cost-containment roadmap.

    Equally important is how this transparency gets operationalized. Most small- to mid-sized school districts don’t have the staff or resources to analyze claims trends, facilitate wellness programs, or manage a complex benefits ecosystem. That’s why some are turning to outside partners to act as an extension of their internal team–not just as benefits brokers but as collaborative advisors who help design, implement, and maintain smarter benefits strategies. The difference is night and day: Instead of a transactional approach focused solely on renewals, these partners bring a year-round, data-driven mindset to benefits administration.

    Reclaiming control through radical transparency

    Ultimately, it’s about control. For too long, many public entities have ceded control of their benefits strategy to intermediaries operating behind closed doors. Radical transparency flips the script. It empowers school districts to take ownership of their benefits programs to lower costs and improve outcomes for the people they serve.

    That change doesn’t happen overnight. It starts with asking better questions:

    • Do we receive actionable data on employee engagement and utilization, and are we using it to drive measurable change?
    • Is our procurement process fully competitive and transparent, or are outdated practices perpetuating the status quo?
    • Do we have the tools and thought leadership from our broker to act on these insights?
    • Is our broker delivering transparent, cost-containment strategies, and are those solutions proven to reduce expense?
    • Are we empowered by a partnership structured around ROI?
    • Are we incentivizing our broker and vendor partners to prioritize ROI, transparency and ongoing savings?
    • Is our internal team contributing to transparency, data analysis and ROI? If not, what organizational changes are needed?

    The answers may be uncomfortable, but they’re necessary for reclaiming control. And in today’s fiscal climate, where every dollar matters and expectations for good governance are higher than ever, doing what’s always been done is no longer good enough.

    Transparency is more than a buzzword. It’s a path to fiscal responsibility, employee trust, and strategic clarity. And for public school districts facing mounting healthcare costs, it may be the smartest investment they can make.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Why should we care about cuts to funding for science education?

    Why should we care about cuts to funding for science education?

    Key points:

    The Trump administration is slashing the funding for new projects focused on STEM education and has terminated hundreds of grants focused on equitable STEM education. This will have enormous effects on education and science for decades to come.

    Meaningful science education is crucial for improving all of our lives, including the lives of children and youth. Who doesn’t want their child or grandchild or neighbor to experience curiosity and the joy of learning about the world around them? Who wouldn’t enjoy seeing their child making careful observations of the plants, animals, landforms, and water in their neighborhood or community? Who wouldn’t want a class of kindergartners to understand germ transmission and that washing their hands will help them keep their baby siblings and grandparents healthy? Who doesn’t want their daughters to believe that science is “for them,” just as it is for the boys in their classroom?

    Or, if those goals aren’t compelling for you, then who doesn’t want their child or grandchild or neighbor to be able to get a well-paying job in a STEM field when they grow up? Who doesn’t want science itself to advance in more creative and expansive ways?

    More equitable science teaching allows us to work toward all these goals and more.

    And yet, the Department of Government Efficiency has terminated hundreds of grants from the National Science Foundation that focused squarely on equity in STEM education. My team’s project was one of them.  

    At the same time, NSF’s funding of new projects and the budget for NSF’s Education directorate are also being slashed.

    These terminations and drastic reductions in new funding are decimating the work of science education.

    Why should you care?

    You might care because the termination of these projects wastes taxpayers’ hard-earned money. My project, for example, was 20 months into what was intended to be a 4-year project, following elementary teachers from their teacher education program into their third year of teaching in classrooms in my state of Michigan and across the country. With the termination, we barely got into the teachers’ first year–making it impossible to develop a model of what development looks like over time as teachers learn to engage in equitable science teaching.

    You might care because not funding new projects means we’ll be less able to improve education moving forward. We’re losing the evidence on which we can make sound educational decisions–what works, for whom, and under what circumstances. Earlier NSF-funded projects that I’ve been involved with have, for example, informed the design of curriculum materials and helped district leaders. Educators of future teachers like me build on findings of research to teach evidence-based approaches to facilitating science investigations and leading sense-making discussions. I help teachers learn how they can help children be change-makers who use science to work toward a more just and sustainable world.  Benefits like these will be eliminated.

    Finally, you might care because many of the terminated and unfunded projects are what’s called NSF Early Career Awards, and CAREER program funding is completely eliminated in the current proposed budget. CAREER grants provide crucial funding and mentoring for new researchers. A few of the terminated CAREER projects focus on Black girls and STEM identity, mathematics education in rural communities, and the experiences of LGBTQ+ STEM majors. Without these and other NSF CAREER grants, education within these fields–science, engineering, mathematics, data science, artificial intelligence, and more, from preschool through graduate school–will regress to what works best for white boys and men.

    To be sure, universities have some funds to support research internally. For the most part, though, those funds are minimal. And, it’s true that terminating existing projects like mine and not funding new ones will “save” the government some money. But toward what end? We’re losing crucial evidence and expertise.

    To support all children in experiencing the wonder and joy of understanding the natural world–or to help youth move into high-paying STEM jobs–we need to fight hard to reinstate federal funding for science and science education. We need to use every lever available to us–including contacting our representatives in Washington, D.C.–to make this happen. If we aren’t successful, we lose more than children’s enjoyment of and engagement with science. Ultimately we lose scientific advancement itself.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • How the FY25 funding freeze impacts students across America

    How the FY25 funding freeze impacts students across America

    This press release originally appeared online.

    Key points:

    Communities across the nation began the budget process for the 2025-2026 school year after Congress passed the FY25 Continuing Resolution on March 14, 2025. Historically, states receive these funds on July 1, enabling them to allocate resources to local districts at the start of the fiscal year. 

    Even though these funds were approved by Congress, the Administration froze the distribution on June 30. Since that time, AASA, The School Superintendents Association, has advocated for their release, including organizing hundreds of superintendents to meet with offices on the Hill to share information about its impact, the week of July 7.  

    On July 16, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced that Title IV-B or 21st Century funds (afterschool funds) would be released. AASA’s Executive Director issued a statement about the billions of dollars that remain frozen. 

    To gather more information about the real-world effects on students across America, AASA conducted a survey with its members. 

    From July 11th to July 18th, AASA received responses from 628 superintendents in 43 states.

    Eighty-five percent of respondents said they have existing contracts paid with federal funds that are currently being withheld, and now have to cover those costs with local dollars.

    Respondents shared what will be cut to cover this forced cost shift: 

    • Nearly three out of four respondents said they will have to eliminate academic services for students. The programs include targeted literacy and math coaches, before and after school programming, tutoring, credit recovery, CTE and dual enrollment opportunities.
    • Half of respondents reported they will have to lay off teachers and personnel. These personnel include those who work specifically with English-language learners and special education students, as well as staff who provide targeted reading and math interventions to struggling students.
    • Half of respondents said they will have to reduce afterschool and extracurricular offerings for students. These programs provide STEM/STEAM opportunities, performing arts and music programs, and AP coursework. 
    • Four out of five respondents indicated they will be forced to reduce or eliminate professional development offerings for educators. These funds are used to build teachers’ expertise such as training in the science of reading, teaching math, and the use of AI in the classroom. They are also used to ensure new teachers have the mentors and coaching they need to be successful.  

    As federal funding is still being withheld, 23 percent of respondents have been forced to make tough choices about how to reallocate funding, and many districts are rapidly approaching similar inflection points.  

    Notably, 29 percent of districts indicated that they must have access to these funds by August 1 to avoid cutting critical programs and services for students. Twenty-one percent of districts will have to notify parents and educators about the loss of programs and services by August 15.  

    Without timely disbursement of funding, the risk of disruption to essential educational supports for children grows significantly.

    As one superintendent who completed the survey said, “This isn’t a future problem; it’s happening now. Our budget was set with these funds in mind. Their sudden withholding has thrown us into chaos, forcing drastic measures that will negatively impact every student, classroom, and school in our district. We urgently need these funds released to prevent irreparable harm to our educational programs and ensure our students get the quality education they deserve.” 

    Latest posts by staff and wire services reports (see all)

    Source link

  • Federal judge blocks Trump’s Education Dept. shutdown, orders reinstatement of laid off staff

    Federal judge blocks Trump’s Education Dept. shutdown, orders reinstatement of laid off staff

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    A federal judge on May 22 issued a preliminary injunction blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order to shut down the U.S. Department of Education and said the agency must reinstate the employees who were fired as part of mass layoffs.

    After U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced the agency’s plans in March to slash its workforce by roughly half, she called it a first step in getting rid of the agency. Trump followed days later with his executive order aiming to eliminate the department, a move he has long wanted.

    But only Congress can actually eliminate the department, and the administration’s attempt at getting around that influenced U.S. District Judge Myong Joun’s Thursday ruling.

    The Trump administration argued that they implemented agency layoffs to improve “efficiency” and “accountability,” the Massachusetts judge wrote, but then said: “The record abundantly reveals that [the administration’s] true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute.”

    Joun added: “A department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all. This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the Department’s employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the Department becomes a shell of itself.”

    Within hours of the Joun’s ruling, the Trump administration filed an appeal.

    “This ruling is not in the best interest of American students or families,” Madi Biedermann, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications, wrote in a statement.

    Calls for the injunction came from lawsuits filed by the Somerville and Easthampton schools districts in Massachusetts along with the American Federation of Teachers, other education groups, and 21 Democratic attorneys general.

    They argued that the gutting of the department rendered the agency incapable of performing many of its core functions required by Congress.

    For example, all of the attorneys from the agency’s general counsel office who handle grants for K-12 schools and grants under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, had been fired. The dismantling of the Office for Civil Rights made it difficult to enforce civil rights protections. The department’s Financial Student Aid programs, which provide financial assistance to almost 12.9 million students across approximately 6,100 postsecondary educational institutions, were also hampered.

    Trump’s executive order instructed McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities” to the “maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”

    At the same time, the order said McMahon should ensure “the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

    Trump said he would move the agency’s student loan portfolio to the Small Business Administration, and the Department of Health and Human Services would replace the Education Department’s role in “handling special needs.”

    Before the layoffs, the Education Department was the smallest of the 15 cabinet-level departments in terms of staffing, according to the judge, with around 4,100 employees. And the plaintiffs said the agency was strained meeting its obligations even then.

    The ruling was not based on the employees’ job rights, but rather how the agency was able to fulfill its obligations.

    “It’s not about whether employees have a right to a job,” said Derek Black, a University of South Carolina law professor. “It’s about whether the department can fulfill its statutory obligations to the states and to students.”

    The case made by former department employees, educational institutions, unions, and educators, Joun wrote, paints “stark picture of the irreparable harm that will result from financial uncertainty and delay, impeded access to vital knowledge on which students and educators rely, and loss of essential services for America’s most vulnerable student populations.”

    American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten heralded the judge’s ruling, calling it “a first step to reverse this war on knowledge and the undermining of broad-based opportunity.”

    But Biedermann, from the Education Department, said the ruling was unfair to the Trump administration.

    “Once again, a far-left Judge has dramatically overstepped his authority, based on a complaint from biased plaintiffs, and issued an injunction against the obviously lawful efforts to make the Department of Education more efficient and functional for the American people,” she said in a statement.

    Chalkbeat national editor Erica Meltzer contributed reporting.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    For more news on federal policy, visit eSN’s Educational Leadership hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • White House order prioritizes AI in schools

    White House order prioritizes AI in schools

    Key points:

    • The Trump administration is elevating AI programs in K-12 education
    • The human edge in the AI era
    • Report details uneven AI use among teachers, principals
    • For more news on AI in education, visit eSN’s Digital Learning hub

    A new executive order signed by President Trump takes aim at AI policies in K-12 education by “fostering interest and expertise in artificial intelligence (AI) technology from an early age to maintain America’s global dominance in this technological revolution for future generations.”