Tag: Maines

  • A Setback for Maine’s Free Community College Program

    A Setback for Maine’s Free Community College Program

    The Maine Legislature’s budget-writing committee voted last week in favor of ending the state’s free college program, to the great disappointment of community college leaders.

    The move by Democrats on the Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee contradicts Governor Janet Mills’s proposal earlier this year to make the program a permanent fixture. The free college program, which Mills initially put forward, went into effect in 2022 to support students affected by the pandemic. It originally covered two years of community college tuition for anyone who graduated high school between 2020 and 2023, after other forms of aid were applied. Though created with one-time funding, the program enjoyed strong bipartisan support and was extended in 2023 to include the Classes of 2024 and 2025. Students have a certain amount of time to enroll; for example, 2025 graduates have to start college no later than the 2027–28 academic year to take advantage of the program.

    Since the program began, Maine’s community college enrollment has surged—enrollment of all degree-seeking students in the system jumped from 11,308 in 2022 to 14,278 in 2024. A total of 17,826 students have participated in the program since it started, according to data from the Maine Community College System. Many hoped, and expected, the program would continue.

    But the Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee’s proposal would give the community college system $20 million over two years to help current participants finish their studies before winding down the program for good, Maine Public Radio reported. The recommendation comes as Maine faces a lean budget year, with federal funding for the state hard to predict. President Donald Trump threatened to cut Maine’s federal funds after a tense exchange with Mills in February over his executive order barring transgender athletes from competing on the teams that match their gender identity.

    Maine representative Michael Brennan said at the committee meeting last week, “We’ve had to make hard decisions about what we think we can afford and not afford,” though he called the free college program “tremendously successful.”

    Senator Peggy Rotundo, co-chair of the Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee, emphasized in a statement to Inside Higher Ed that state lawmakers are honoring their commitment to fund students who graduated in 2025 and expected to receive the program’s support. She implied the program could still be made permanent in the future.

    “When considering what comes next, our focus is on ensuring this program’s long-term sustainability,” she wrote. “The Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee is seeking additional data and evaluation from the community college system to inform a responsible, future-focused approach. In a tough budget year, we have a duty to balance expanding opportunity with fiscal responsibility—and that means looking ahead to build a durable model that can serve Maine students for years to come.”

    The decision to nix the program isn’t set in stone—the state budget still needs to make its way through the state House and Senate and finally to the governor’s desk. But state legislators indicated they plan to wrap up the budget by today.

    David Daigler, president of the Maine Community College System, wrote a letter to the system’s Board of Trustees on Saturday expressing “deep disappointment” over the committee’s vote. He told the board it’s “highly unlikely” there will be any major changes to funding for the free college program at this point.

    “Ultimately, the committee’s vote reflects the state’s challenging financial situation, which made it hard to get support even though Free College is a very popular, effective program that directly benefits Maine families, students, and employers,” Daigler said in the letter. “You can be certain that we will build on the momentum of this program to emerge stronger, wiser, and re-dedicated to providing an affordable, accessible education to Mainers looking to improve their lives.”

    In February, Daigler and community college staff members advocated for the program before the committee. Multiple students also spoke out in support, some arguing they wouldn’t have attended college without the program.

    Brianna Michaud, a health-science student at Southern Maine Community College, told the budget-writing committee she considered not going to college because, despite her working two jobs, her family couldn’t afford it. Then she heard about the free college program.

    “As a first-generation college student who’s entirely responsible for paying off their education, the Maine free college scholarship is the reason why I’m able to put my hard work and dedication toward fulfilling my purpose in life, which is to help others,” said Michaud, who plans on becoming a pediatric occupational therapist.

    Payson Avery, a student representative at Southern Maine, said he graduated high school in 2020, during the height of the pandemic, and didn’t know what to do. He felt like his grades senior year didn’t show his potential. After two years, while working at a restaurant, he decided to take the state up on its free college offer. Now he has plans to attend the University of Maine at Farmington to major in education, he told the committee.

    “Without this program, I’m not sure I would have been able to make it to this point,” he said.

    Source link

  • Trump administration moves to cut off Maine’s federal K-12 funds

    Trump administration moves to cut off Maine’s federal K-12 funds

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The U.S. Department of Education on Friday moved to terminate federal K-12 funding for the Maine Department of Education, following through on its promise to cut off the state and ultimately others if they do not enforce Title IX so as to keep transgender students from girls’ locker rooms, restrooms and athletic teams. 

    The move marks the first time the Trump administration has officially initiated a cut in federal funding to a state K-12 school system over civil rights violations.

    The department at the same time referred its Title IX investigation of Maine to the U.S. Department of Justice for enforcement — after multiple threats that it would do so if the state did not sign onto a resolution agreement within 10 days of the agency finding Maine in violation of Title IX.  

    “The Department has given Maine every opportunity to come into compliance with Title IX, but the state’s leaders have stubbornly refused to do so, choosing instead to prioritize an extremist ideological agenda over their students’ safety, privacy, and dignity,” said Craig Trainor, acting assistant education secretary for civil rights in an April 11 statement. 

    Gov. Janet Mills “would have done well to adhere to the wisdom embedded in the old idiom — be careful what you wish for,” Trainor said. “Now she will see the Trump Administration in court.” 

    Mills has maintained since the investigation’s launch that the state is not in violation of Title IX. The governor has said the federal investigation is “not just about who can compete on the athletic field,” but rather “about whether a President can force compliance with his will, without regard for the rule of law that governs our nation. I believe he cannot.”  

    A swift investigation

    The directed investigation — meaning one initiated without a public complaint — was initiated by the department on Feb. 21 and concluded less than a month later in March. The move was precipitated by a public spat between Mills and Trump in February over the state’s transgender athlete policies, during which Mills threatened to see Trump in court. 

    The day the investigation was launched, alongside a nearly identical one into Maine by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also over Title IX, Mills said the outcome was “all but predetermined.” 

    Indeed, the investigation’s directed nature, quick turnaround time, high stakes attached, and referral to the Department of Justice — which traditionally has been reserved for egregious cases — has raised eyebrows in the education civil rights community. 

    The seemingly targeted, quick and aggressive enforcement strategy marks a significant shift from education civil rights enforcement under past administrations. Investigations traditionally took months or years, involved interviews and other investigative tools, and concluded with a negotiation with schools to bring them into compliance with federal law. Resolution agreements often included changes to school district operations like conducting climate surveys or hiring or training staff to ensure all students have access to an equal education. 

    Resolution agreement rebuffed

    In this case, however, the administration gave Maine 10 days to sign a draft resolution agreement that would change state and district policies to define “females” by “a reproductive system with the biological function of producing eggs (ova),” and “males” by having “a reproductive system with the biological function of producing sperm.” “Gender” would be the same as “sex” under the agreement.

    The draft agreement also would have required the state to apologize to each cisgender girl impacted by the state’s transgender female athlete policy “for allowing her educational experience and participation in school sports to be marred by sex discrimination.” 

    After the state refused to sign the agreement, the department warned officials on March 31 that it would send the case to the Department of Justice by April 11. 

    “Under prior administrations, enforcement was an illusory proposition. No more,” said Trainor in a March 31 statement.  “The Trump-McMahon Education Department is moving quickly to ensure that federal funds no longer support patently illegal practices that harm women and girls.” 

    While cutting off states or districts from funds was always within the Education Department’s power, it was a stick that was rarely used in past administrations, and especially not over Title IX, according to the Association of Title IX Administrators. 

    Within three months under this Trump administration, the department has threatened the cancellation of more than $9.5 billion for Ivy League universities over alleged Title VI and Title IX violations related to alleged antisemitism and LGBTQ+ policies, threatened some 60 colleges and a handful of districts with additional loss of funding over allegations of antisemitism, and promised that “this is only the beginning.”  

    Source link

  • Maine’s censure of lawmaker for post about trans student-athlete is an attack on free speech

    Maine’s censure of lawmaker for post about trans student-athlete is an attack on free speech

    Citizens elect representatives to advocate zealously on their behalf, empowering officials to vote according to their conscience and express themselves freely on controversial topics. That’s why the Maine House of Representatives’ recent actions are so alarming — withdrawing an elected representative’s right to speak or vote on the House floor for refusing to take down a Facebook post. 

    Three weeks ago, Representative Laurel Libby of Maine’s 64th District posted on Facebook that a high school athlete won first place in girls’ pole vaulting at the Class B state championship after having competed the year before in the boys’ event and finishing in a tie for fifth place.

    Libby’s post is constitutionally protected. She was speaking out about the policy in her state, set by the Maine High School Principals Association, that a high school athlete may participate in competitions for the gender with which they identify. Her post was also part of a nationwide debate. Maine Governor Janet Mills and President Trump have publicly sparred over the president’s executive order proposing to cut off education funding if states do not ban transgender athletes from competing in girls’ sports. 

    But just days after Libby’s post, the Maine House speaker and majority leader demanded she take it down. When she refused, the majority leader introduced a censure resolution — to be heard in the House the next day — because Libby’s post had included photos and the first name of the student, who is a minor. Libby sought to defend herself in the hastily called House vote, but was repeatedly cut off. The censure resolution passed 75-70 on a party-line vote. 

    If all the censure did was express disapproval of Libby’s actions, that would be one thing.

    A state legislative body is entitled to express displeasure with a member’s actions, which by itself does not violate the First Amendment, as the Supreme Court recently ruled.

    But in Libby’s case, the Maine House went further, much further. When Libby refused to apologize for her protected speech, the House speaker declared she would be barred from speaking on the House floor or voting on any legislation until she capitulated. Thus, the House majority party has precluded Libby from doing her job and effectively disenfranchised her constituents, end-running Maine constitutional provisions that say a representative cannot be expelled absent a two-thirds vote or recall election. 

    These actions are a clear example of retaliation based on constitutionally protected speech and amount to removal of an elected representative essentially because the House majority disagrees with her views or how she chose to express them. Sixty-nine years ago the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state legislature could not refuse to seat a duly elected member because of his public statements about the Vietnam War: “The manifest function of the First Amendment in a representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy.” 

    This is still the law. Under the constitution, the Maine House cannot censor Libby as it has done.

    Source link