Tag: Preliminary

  • Education Department takes a preliminary step toward revamping its research and statistics arm

    Education Department takes a preliminary step toward revamping its research and statistics arm

    In his first two months in office, President Donald Trump ordered the closing of the Education Department and fired half of its staff. The department’s research and statistics division, called the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), was particularly hard hit. About 90 percent of its staff lost their jobs and more than 100 federal contracts to conduct its primary activities were canceled.

    But now there are signs that the Trump administration is partially reversing course and wants the federal government to retain a role in generating education statistics and evidence for what works in classrooms — at least to some extent. On Sept. 25, the department posted a notice in the Federal Register asking the public to submit feedback by Oct. 15 on reforming IES to make research more relevant to student learning. The department also asked for suggestions on how to collect data more efficiently.

    The timeline for revamping IES remains unclear, as is whether the administration will invest money into modernizing the agency. For example, it would take time and money to pilot new statistical techniques; in the meantime, statisticians would have to continue using current protocols.

    Still, the signs of rebuilding are adding up. 

    Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

    At the end of May, the department announced that it had temporarily hired a researcher from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative think tank, to recommend ways to reform education research and development. The researcher, Amber Northern, has been “listening” to suggestions from think tanks and research organizations, according to department spokeswoman Madi Biedermann, and now wants more public feedback.  

    Biedermann said that the Trump administration “absolutely” intends to retain a role in education research, even as it seeks to close the department. Closure will require congressional approval, which hasn’t happened yet. In the meantime, Biedermann said the department is looking across the government to find where its research and statistics activities “best fit.”

    Other IES activities also appear to be resuming. In June, the department disclosed in a legal filing that it had or has plans to reinstate 20 of the 101 terminated contracts. Among the activities slated to be restarted are 10 Regional Education Laboratories that partner with school districts and states to generate and apply evidence. It remains unclear how all 20 contracts can be restarted without federal employees to hold competitive bidding processes and oversee them. 

    Earlier in September, the department posted eight new jobs to help administer the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also called the Nation’s Report Card. These positions would be part of IES’s statistics division, the National Center for Education Statistics. Most of the work in developing and administering tests is handled by outside vendors, but federal employees are needed to award and oversee these contracts. After mass firings in March, employees at the board that oversees NAEP have been on loan to the Education Department to make sure the 2026 NAEP test is on schedule.

    Only a small staff remains at IES. Some education statistics have trickled out since Trump took office, including its first release of higher education data on Sept. 23. But the data releases have been late and incomplete. 

    It is believed that no new grants have been issued for education studies since March, according to researchers who are familiar with the federal grant making process but asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation. A big obstacle is that a contract to conduct peer review of research proposals was canceled so new ideas cannot be properly vetted. The staff that remains is trying to make annual disbursements for older multi-year studies that haven’t been canceled. 

    Related: Chaos and confusion as the statistics arm of the Education Department is reduced to a skeletal staff of 3

    With all these changes, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to figure out the status of federally funded education research. One potential source of clarity is a new project launched by two researchers from George Washington University and Johns Hopkins University. Rob Olsen and Betsy Wolf, who was an IES researcher until March, are tracking cancellations and keeping a record of research results for policymakers. 

    If it’s successful, it will be a much-needed light through the chaos.

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or [email protected].

    This story about reforming IES was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Preliminary Injunction Halts Dismantling of the Department of Education (Todd Wolfson, AAUP)

    Preliminary Injunction Halts Dismantling of the Department of Education (Todd Wolfson, AAUP)

    We got great news yesterday: In a suit we brought with Democracy Forward, the AFT, and other allies in the labor movement, a district court in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction halting the Trump administration’s unlawful effort to dismantle the Department of Education. 

    The massive reduction in force proposed by the administration would decimate crucial services the department provides to families across the country, severely limit access to education, and eviscerate funding for HBCUs and tribal colleges.

    We can’t do this work without your support. Will you become a member or make a donation to the AAUP Foundation today?

    Here’s some background on the case. In March, after having repeatedly expressed a desire to eliminate the Department of Education, the Trump administration announced a reduction in force that would cut its staff in half. Recognizing that the department was created by an act of Congress and was mandated to carry out a number of statutorily required programs, the administration claimed that it was not trying to eliminate the department but rather was seeking to improve “efficiency” and “accountability.”

    The court definitively rejected this claim, saying that the “defendants’ true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute. . . . 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.”

    The court also highlighted the impact of the cuts on students, educational institutions, and unions. For example, the court found that “higher education is also likely to become more expensive for students” as the staffing cuts “will put federal funding for Pell grants, work-study programs and subsidized loans at risk, reducing the pool of students able to attend college and posing an existential threat to many state university systems such as those intended to serve first generation college students.”

    The court found that the administration had violated two clauses of the US Constitution, and that its actions were beyond its authority as well as arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, the court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the department to reinstate staff and resume operations disrupted by the cuts.

    Perhaps because of skepticism about the administration’s willingness to follow directives of the judiciary, the court specifically required that the administration provide notice of this order of preliminary injunction within twenty-four hours to all its officers, and that it “file a status report with this Court within 72 hours of the entry of this Order, describing all steps the Agency Defendants have taken to comply with this Order, and every week thereafter until the Department is restored to the status quo prior to January 20, 2025.”

    What’s next: It is almost certain that the administration will appeal this decision and will likely seek to have the preliminary injunction stayed by the court of appeals while the case is pending.

    Trump’s agenda is a clear path to setting America back in quality and fairness in education. The AAUP will continue to stand up against these attacks and fight for a higher education system that serves all Americans. We can’t do it without you.

    Please join us as a member or make a donation today!

    In solidarity,
    Todd Wolfson, AAUP President
    Veena Dubal, AAUP General Counsel

    Source link

  • Head Start zeroed out in Trump’s preliminary budget plan

    Head Start zeroed out in Trump’s preliminary budget plan

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Head Start would be eliminated under a draft fiscal 2026 budget that the Trump administration is preparing to send to Congress, according to a preliminary budget planning document acquired by K-12 Dive’s sister publication Healthcare Dive.
    • The program is among other initiatives targeted for termination that support low-income families and children — including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the Community Services Block Grant — under the preliminary budget document for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
    • Even if sent to Congress as currently drafted, however, the proposals have a long road to travel before gaining congressional approval and being finalized. Still, advocates and policymakers are raising alarms, with one advocacy group — The Child Care for Every Family Network — calling the potential elimination of Head Start an “absolute disaster for families and [the] economy.”

    Dive Insight:

    The budget cuts would be in line with the Trump administration’s efforts to dramatically reduce the size of the federal government. For FY 2024, Congress funded Head Start at about $12.2 billion, the Community Services Block Grant at around $758 million, and LIHEAP at $4 billion.  

    HHS did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.

    Some Republicans in Congress and conservative organizations have criticized Head Start in the past as unsafe and ineffective at increasing children’s academic performances. Project 2025 — a blueprint for the current Republican administration issued during the presidential campaign by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank — recommended zeroing out the program.

    But the National Head Start Association, an advocacy organization that represents program leaders, families and children, points to research showing positive academic, social and economic returns on investment from Head Start.

    The program, which celebrates its 60th anniversary next month, serves nearly 800,000 infants, toddlers and preschool children from families with low incomes. More than 17,000 Head Start centers operate nationwide. A companion Early Head Start program provides prenatal services.

    The proposal to terminate Head Start “reflects a disinvestment in our future,” said Yasmina Vinci, executive director of NHSA, said in a Thursday statement. “Eliminating funding for Head Start would be catastrophic. It would be a direct attack on our nation’s most at-risk children, their well-being, and their families.”

    The Head Start system is already under fiscal strain, advocates say. Mass layoffs at HHS on April 1 led to the closing of five Office of Head Start regional offices: Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle. Those offices are to be consolidated into the five remaining offices in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Dallas, Kansas City and Denver. The regional offices provide guidance on federal policy, training and technical assistance to Head Start providers.

    However, in an April 3 announcement to Head Start grant recipients, Laurie Todd-Smith, HHS deputy assistant secretary for early childhood development, said the closures would not impact “critical services.” 

    Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a Wednesday statement that data shows the Trump administration issued nearly $1 billion less in federal grants to Head Start centers nationwide to date this year compared to the same period last year — a 37% decrease. 

    “So far this year, Trump has slow-walked $1 billion in funding from going out the door to Head Start programs, and we are beginning to see the devastating consequences: centers closing, kids kicked out of the classroom, teachers losing their jobs, and entire communities losing out,” Murray said.

    President Donald Trump is expected to release his proposed FY 2026 budget later this month or early next month, according to news reports. Congress will then debate the recommended allocations before sending appropriations bills to the president for signature. The federal fiscal year starts Oct. 1.

    Sydney Halleman, editor for Healthcare Dive, contributed to this story.

    Source link

  • Preliminary Injunction Issued Against DEI Provisions in Two Executive Orders

    Preliminary Injunction Issued Against DEI Provisions in Two Executive Orders

    by CUPA-HR | February 24, 2025

    On February 21, a U.S. district judge issued a preliminary injunction against portions of two of the Trump administration’s executive orders regarding DEI programs. The decision, issued in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, blocks federal agencies from taking action to withhold federal funding from federal contractors that conduct programs or initiatives related to DEI.

    Broadly speaking, “EO 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferences” and “EO 14173: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” state that DEI and DEIA programs and initiatives violate federal civil rights law, and therefore terminate all DEI programs throughout the federal government. EO 14173 orders federal agencies to incorporate clauses in all federal contracts requiring each funding recipient to attest to compliance with all federal antidiscrimination laws and affirm that it does not operate any DEI programs.

    The preliminary injunction strikes down three separate provisions across these executive orders:

    • EO 14151 requires the federal government to terminate all equity-related grants or contracts within 60 days (known as the “Termination Provision”).
    • EO 14173 requires that every grant recipient or federal contractor affirm its compliance with all federal antidiscrimination laws and that it does not operate any DEI programs (known as the “Certification Provision”).
    • EO 14173 directs the attorney general, in consultation with other relevant agencies, to promulgate a report with recommendations to enforce civil rights laws and encourage the private sector to end DEI practices. The report is required to identify “the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners in each sector of concern.” It also requires each agency to identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations as a way to deter DEI programs or principles. The EO lists institutions of higher education with endowments over $1 billion as potential targets for the civil compliance investigations (known as the “Enforcement Threat Provision”).

    The National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the mayor and city council of Baltimore, Maryland, challenged these three provisions, arguing that they violate free speech rights under the First Amendment and are unconstitutionally vague — violating the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs additionally alleged four types of irreparable harm: threat of loss of funds, uncertainty regarding future operations, loss of reputation, and chilled speech.

    The court ultimately ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their constitutional complaints and adequately demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of irreparable harm. The decision concluded that EO 14173 offers no guidance or notice of what the government now considers illegal DEI, and that plaintiffs showed “substantial evidence of the risks of such arbitrariness,” and that by “threatening the private sector with enforcement actions based on those vague, undefined standards, the Enforcement Threat Provision is facially unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.”

    The preliminary injunction means that federal agencies may not:

    • pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel or terminate any awards, contracts or obligations, or change any current obligation terms on the basis of the Termination Provision;
    • require any contractor to make any certification or other representation pursuant to the Certification Provision; or
    • bring any enforcement action under the False Claims Act in relation to the Enforcement Threat Provision.

    The injunction does not speak to actions that federal agencies may have already taken in response to both executive orders. Nonetheless, the Trump administration will likely appeal the ruling. Given that the policies raised in these executive orders will hold widespread implications for federal contractors in the higher education community, CUPA-HR will continue to share further developments.



    Source link

  • Preliminary results show essentially flat state test scores

    Preliminary results show essentially flat state test scores

    New Mexico students made tiny gains in literacy and dipped slightly in math proficiency last school year, according to preliminary results released Sept. 19 by the Public Education Department.

    Notably, the results look slightly more favorable than those in data also released Sept.19 by the Legislative Education Study Committee, which showed 2023-24 scores flat. PED attributed the discrepancy to an error PED discovered on the data earlier this week.

    Regardless, the results show that a large majority of the state’s public education students continue to fall short of grade-level proficiency. This suggests that New Mexico will remain close to the bottom nationally in student achievement.

    The PED results do not include detailed demographic or grade-level breakdowns. Those results will be released on Oct. 4. 

    According to the PED, 39 percent of K-8 and 11th-grade students scored proficient or better on state literacy assessments, compared to 38 percent in 2023, and up from 34 percent in 2022. The LESC results showed that the literacy proficiency rate was flat at 38 percent.

    In math, PED data show 23 percent of students in grades 3-8 and 11 proficient. That’s down one percentage point from 2023 and two points down from 2022. LESC numbers showed 22 percent proficient in 2024.

    In grades 5, 8 and 11 science, scores were up three percentage points, from 34 percent proficient last year to 37 percent proficient in 2024.

    Source link