Tag: State

  • Portland State agrees to reinstate 10 laid-off faculty members

    Portland State agrees to reinstate 10 laid-off faculty members

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • Portland State University agreed to reinstate 10 non-tenure-track faculty members it laid off last year, though the institution’s president argued that officials still believe the reductions “were necessary and appropriate.” 
    • The decision follows a November ruling from an independent arbitrator that ordered the public university to reinstate the laid-off employees and concluded that the administrators had violated their collective bargaining agreement. 
    • However, Portland State President Ann Cudd said in Tuesday’s announcement that the university still must close a $35 million deficit over the next two years. “These reinstatements do not change that reality,” Cudd added. 

    Dive Insight: 

    University officials originally announced the layoffs in December 2024, notifying 17 non-tenure-track faculty members that they would be let go in June. At the time, officials said the changes were due to “changes in their departments’ programmatic and curricular needs.” 

    The announcement came as part of a larger effort to trim $18 million from the university’s budget by the end of the last fiscal year. Portland State also revamped administrative and academic structures and sent retirement offers to employees to plug the budget hole, according to Oregon Public Broadcasting.   

    In May, the executive committee of the American Association of University Professors’ Portland State chapter approved sending grievances from 10 laid-off faculty members to arbitration. The other seven did not contest their layoffs. 

    On Tuesday, Cudd pushed back on the arbitrator’s findings, asserting the layoffs were conducted in “good-faith” and complied with the employees’ collective bargaining agreement. 

    “Nonetheless, we’ve decided the best step forward for our campus at this time is to comply with the arbitrator’s order,” Cudd said. 

    A university spokesperson said in an email Thursday that details about the “timeline and back pay are under negotiation.”

    The university has been attempting to remedy a budget shortfall following steep enrollment declines. 

    Portland State enrolled 19,951 students in fall 2024, down 21.2% from five years earlier. Along with the resulting decrease in tuition revenue, the university receives less money from the state because appropriations are partly based on the number of degrees and credentials it confers to Oregon residents. 

    According to the arbitrator’s findings, the driving force behind the layoffs was Portland State’s budget shortfall at the time. Because of that, the university was obligated to follow a “lengthy process” that includes declaring financial exigency. 

    But the university instead said curricular changes had driven the reductions — a reason that requires a less intensive process for layoffs. But the arbitrator said even if that had been the proper avenue, the university hadn’t followed the necessary steps to lay faculty off under that process either. 

    Moreover, the arbitrator found the university “redistributed” work performed by the laid-off faculty members. 

    For instance, the university offered some of the laid-off employees adjunct positions to teach the same courses they previously taught full time — but generally without benefits or the same level of pay. It also hired other adjunct faculty to cover their previous courses. 

    “This has reduced the employment cost to the university for the same, or expanded courses, to be taught,” the arbitrator said. 

    Portland State initially refused to reinstate the faculty members, arguing that the arbitrator’s decision exceeded her authority, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. Portland State employees had been pushing the university to comply with the order, with over 260 signing a petition for the laid-off faculty members’ reinstatement as of this week. 

    Recently, Portland State’s trustee board recently approved a plan to reduce spending by $35 million over the next two years through changes to academic programs, faculty composition and administrative structures.

    Source link

  • Former Emporia State Pres. to “Find Waste” at Kansas Colleges

    Former Emporia State Pres. to “Find Waste” at Kansas Colleges

    Last week, Kansas legislative leaders met in a Statehouse committee room with a broad agenda item—to approve a higher ed budget consultant.

    Neither the name nor proposed pay for this consultant was listed. The person Republican leaders were planning to hire didn’t become clear until House Speaker Dan Hawkins began talking at the meeting.

    “We have an opportunity,” Hawkins told fellow members of the Legislative Coordinating Council, according to a video the Legislature posted. “One of the presidents of a university has retired. He has intimate insight into the higher ed budget arena. And, certainly, as everybody knows, we have to be very careful and prudent with the dollars in our budget.”

    “We really need to cut $200 million from our budget,” Hawkins said, adding that the consultant would help “find efficiencies—find any waste that we can find.”

    Within eight minutes—including brief objections from Democratic leaders in the room, one of whom said he was relying on “context clues” to guess whom the hiree would be—the lawmakers voted 5 to 2 to give Hawkins the power to hire this consultant. And, as The Kansas Reflector confirmed after the meeting, Hawkins is indeed planning to hire Ken Hush, who retired as president of Emporia State University last month, at a rate of $10,000 per month. Hush’s leadership of his own institution was controversial, including budget problems, tenured faculty layoffs and enrollment declines.

    Tom Day, Kansas’s director of legislative administrative services, told Inside Higher Ed in an email, “We are currently in communication with Mr. Hush putting a contract together,” and there are no documents showing what his “scope of work” will be. But Day said the payment will be “$50,000, over a 5-month period.” Hawkins gets to sign off on the final contract.

    Republicans’ hiring of Hush, who the Reflector noted is Hawkins’s former fraternity brother, to give advice on cutting other universities’ budgets has elicited criticism from those who say he wasn’t good at running one institution and suggest he’s benefiting from his political connection.

    “Ken Hush’s hiring was a sole-source backroom deal to give an old frat brother—who has a proven track record of being unable to run a university—a job,” Dinah Sykes, leader of the Senate Democrats, said in a statement.

    Under Hush’s leadership, Emporia State garnered national controversy after it laid off tenured faculty, saw a 12.5 percent enrollment plunge the next academic year and then defended its general counsel for writing a bill to eliminate tenure protections across public institutions statewide. The top administrator of the Kansas Board of Regents accused the university of breaking the board’s policy requiring preapproval of legislative proposals.

    (Emporia State spokesperson Gwen Larson said last year that its top lawyer’s “submission of this bill” was “a surprise to the university,” but defended his right to submit it to lawmakers. Hush had appeared to ask legislators to support such legislation a week before it appeared. The bill failed.)

    A lawsuit filed against Emporia State officials during Hush’s presidency also continues, despite his departure.

    In 2022, Emporia State abruptly told 33 employees—30 of whom were faculty members, 23 of them tenured professors—they were losing their jobs. The Board of Regents approved these layoffs under a policy that cited “extreme financial pressures” and declared, “Any state university employee, including a tenured faculty member, may be suspended, dismissed, or terminated.” Eleven tenured professors sued, saying they weren’t given due process.

    In addition, the American Association of University Professors placed Emporia State’s administration on its censure list and condemned it for “unilaterally terminating the appointments of 30 tenured and tenure-track faculty members.” Matthew Boedy, president of the Georgia Conference of the AAUP, was one of the three investigative committee members who wrote that report.

    “If the Kansas Republican lawmakers want to cut spending and gut higher education, they found their man in Ken Hush,” Boedy said. “He did exactly that at Emporia State by firing many a professor and upending the school in many ways.”

    Boedy added, “The ways in which Mr. Hush went about decimating Emporia State—if that’s to be replicated across the entire state, I would not want to be a student or professor in Kansas anymore.”

    But Larson, the university spokesperson, said this week that Emporia State “began to show material results of its turnaround” last fall. Among other things, she said, it eliminated a $19 million deficit, reduced deferred maintenance by 20 percent, saw enrollment rise 6 percent and went from a negative to a stable Moody’s rating.

    The Reflector reported that the Legislature gave the university $18 million in total “bailouts” in 2023 and 2024 as enrollment declined. Upon his retirement, Hush announced he was donating about $1.4 million, equivalent to the last four years of his salary, to the university.

    It’s unclear what kind of advice Emporia State’s former president will give lawmakers and what Republican lawmakers are looking to cut from universities. But their comments may give a clue.

    ‘Questionable Spending’

    During last week’s meeting, Senate president Ty Masterson expressed a general need to cut costs, partly because of the Legislature’s tax cuts.

    “All the stimulus money that happened through COVID … it’s now all dried up, it’s all gone,” Masterson said. “So we have to manage our budget back down to something that is normal. We’re also in a climate where some of the tax cuts that we were able to get through are being implemented, so I think it would be wise to bring on a consultant in that area.”

    But Blake Carpenter, the House speaker pro tem, said he’s targeting what he referred to as “questionable spending.” The Republican said he and his staff found around $100 million worth of this spending over the legislative interim period.

    Carpenter’s definition of questionable spending includes subjects conservatives have railed against. He listed just three examples: “$75,000 in travel reimbursements to a vanilla bean manufacturing tour guide in Africa,” “$96,000 to a nutritionist guru specializing in vegan cookbooks” and “$111,000 to a social justice headhunting firm specializing in placing executives into leadership positions in nonprofits.”

    “If we’re able to find about $100 million just on our own over the interim, with my staff and I looking through these line items, then I think it makes a lot of sense for us to hire an executive who has run one of these universities,” he said. “They know how they operate … I think the $100 million at this point is scratching the surface and we need to continue to dig.”

    (Carpenter, Masterson and Hawkins didn’t respond to requests for comment this week. Inside Higher Ed was unable to reach Hush.)

    Sykes, the Senate Democratic leader, objected during the meeting to hiring a consultant. “All the talk we have about finding efficiency in government … I think we keep growing government … and to pay $10,000 a month,” she said.

    “The first that I saw of this was when it was on the agenda item last night,” Sykes said.

    She continued her denunciation in a statement following the meeting. “Republicans’ hiring of Ken Hush is a part of a larger problem with the Legislative Coordinating Council of issuing no-bid contracts,” she said, adding that Republicans on that council “have been dealing out sole-source contracts left and right, acting like kids in a candy store.” She said Hush’s Emporia State presidency “was fraught with failures.”

    “If Hush can’t even create a proper plan for the ‘realignment’ of a single university, how could he ever properly identify areas of all of the state’s universities’ budgets to be cut?” Sykes asked.

    Mallory Bishop, past president of the Emporia State Faculty Senate, said Hush’s actions at the university shouldn’t be replicated across the state now because it’s too early to tell whether they turned the institution around.

    “He just ended his tenure a month ago,” said Bishop, a clinical instructor and program director at Emporia State.

    “Was it triage or was it just severing limbs?” she said. “I don’t know.”

    Source link

  • State Lawmakers Enacted 21 Censorship Bills in 2025

    State Lawmakers Enacted 21 Censorship Bills in 2025

    Last year was a record-setting one for education censorship; more than half of U.S college and university students now study in a state with at least one law or policy restricting what can be taught or how college campuses can operate, according to a new report from PEN America, a nonprofit that advocates for campus free speech and press freedom.

    Last year, lawmakers in 32 states introduced a combined 93 bills that censor higher education. Of those, 21 bills were enacted across 15 states: Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

    “Censorship is, sadly, now an intractable reality on college and university campuses, with serious negative impacts for teaching, research, and student life,” Amy Reid, program director of Freedom to Learn at PEN America, said in a news release. “With threats of formal sanctions and political reprisals coming from both state and federal governments, campus leaders and faculty feel they have no choice but to comply, and are increasingly acting preemptively out of fear. Politicians are expanding a sweeping web of political and ideological control over higher education in American campuses, reshaping what can be taught, researched, and debated to fit their own agenda. That’s dangerous for free thought in a democracy.”

    The report highlighted Ohio’s Senate Bill 1, a sweeping higher education bill that mandated institutional neutrality on “any controversial belief or policy,” established a post-tenure review policy, banned DEI initiatives and required institutions to demonstrate “intellectual diversity.” It also called out Indiana’s House Bill 1001, Ohio’s House Bill 96 and Texas’s Senate Bill 37, which all curb or eliminate faculty senates’ decision-making power.

    Fourteen of last year’s 21 enacted bills contain gag orders, which PEN defines as direct censorship. Seven of those laws apply to higher education (the others apply only to K–12 education). In addition to the enacted laws, PEN documented five gag-order policies set by state or university system boards, including Texas Tech’s rules that effectively ban teaching on transgender topics and Texas A&M’s weaponized ban on teaching race or gender “ideology.”

    Most of the proposed bills introduced last year contained some kind of indirect censorship, the PEN report states. It divides such bills into six categories: curricular control; tenure restrictions; institutional neutrality mandates; accreditation restrictions; diversity, equity and inclusion bans; and governance restrictions.

    “Our research shows that legislators are more frequently adopting indirect means to achieve their end goal of censoring higher education, effectively expanding their web of control over the sector in numerous directions,” the report states. “Indirect censorship measures exploded in popularity, with state legislators introducing more than twice as many of them as they did educational gag orders (78 vs 33).”

    In total, state lawmakers passed 20 out of 78 bills that contained indirect censorship—some of which also included gag orders. The 26 percent rate of passage is “remarkably strong,” the report states. Among the new laws are Indiana’s aforementioned HB 1001; Idaho’s Senate Bill 1198, which prohibits faculty from making “critical theory” courses a requirement for majors or minors; and Kansas’s Senate Bill 78, which allows institutions to sue their accreditor if punished for following state law—useful primarily because several of Kansas’s state laws violate accreditors’ academic freedom standards.

    The PEN report also covers federal pressure to censor colleges and universities. In 2025, the Departments of Justice and Education launched more than 90 investigations into alleged Title VI violations. The Trump administration targeted $3.7 billion in research funding and Trump signed 19 executive orders related to education, including an order to end DEI initiatives at colleges and universities. Also last year, the administration suggested 38 universities should be suspended from federal research partnerships because of their hiring practices.

    “The administration frequently justifies its actions in the name of protecting free expression, but the record shows its aim is to censor speech and exert control over the circulation of ideas,” Jonathan Friedman, the Sy Syms managing director of U.S. free expression programs at PEN, said in the news release. “The ‘viewpoint diversity’ they are pushing is not a value-neutral proposition about true debate or diversity of thought, or even free speech. It’s just a coded phrase being used to censor certain progressive ideas, while promoting conservative ones. The apparent aim is to turn colleges and universities into mouthpieces for the government. That’s not what our higher education institutions are supposed to be.”

    Source link

  • Cutting costs without cutting corners

    Cutting costs without cutting corners

    Key points:

    With the end of federal COVID-19 emergency funding and the inherent volatility of state income tax revenues, California school districts are in an era of financial uncertainty. Fortunately, Jurupa Unified School District is already several years into the process of finding ways to track and control expenses while still supporting teachers and staff so they can provide the best possible educational experience for our students. Here’s how we’re making staffing and payroll processes more efficient, starting with the perennially challenging extra duty.

    Getting a handle on extra duty

    In addition to our salaried staff, we have a number of part-time, hourly, and what we call “extra duty” assignments. Because a significant amount of our funding comes from grants, many of our assignments are temporary or one-time. We fill those positions with extra duty requests so we’re not committed to ongoing payroll obligations.

    For many years, those extra duty requests and time cards were on paper, which meant the payroll department was performing redundant work to enter the information in the payroll system. The request forms we used were also on paper, making it very difficult to track the actual time being used back to the request, so we could be sure that the hours being used were within the limitations of the request. We needed a better control mechanism that would help school sites stay within budget, as well as a more formal budget mechanism to encumber the department and site budgets to cover the extra duty requests.

    Budgeting can get very complicated because it’s cross-functional. It includes a position-control component, a payroll component, and a financial budgeting component. We needed a solution that could make all of those universes work together. The mission was either to find a system or build one. Our county office started a pilot program with our district to build a system, but ultimately decided against continuing with this effort due to the resources required to sustain such a system for 23 county districts. 

    Our district engaged in a competitive process and chose Helios Ed. Within six months, our team developed and launched a new system to address extra duty. Since then, we have saved more than $100,000 in staffing costs, time expenses, and budget overruns because of the stronger internal controls we now have in place.

    A more efficient (and satisfied) payroll department

    Eliminating redundant data entry and working with data instead of paper has allowed us to reduce staffing by two full-time equivalents–not through layoffs, but through attrition. And because they have a system that is handling data entry for them, our payroll department has more time to give quality to their work, and feel they are working at a level more aligned to their skills.

    Finding efficiencies in your district

    While Jurupa Unified has found efficiencies and savings in these specific areas, every school district is different. As many California district leaders like to say, we have 1,139 school districts –and just as many ways of doing things. With that in mind, there are some steps to the process of moving from paper to online systems (or using online systems more efficiently) that apply universally.

    1. Sit down and identify your objectives. What are the critical components that you must have? 
    2. Make the decision to make or buy. When COVID first hit, Jurupa Unified created its own invoice-routing system through SharePoint. We’ve also built an excursion request process in PowerApps that handles travel, conferences, and field trips. As our county office found out, though, when you’re bringing a number of functionalities together, it can make more sense to work with a vendor you trust.
    3. If you choose to buy software, be certain that it can do precisely what you need it to. If a vendor says they can develop a functionality along the way, ask to see the new feature before you buy.
    4. Be certain the vendor will be responsive. When it comes to a function such as payroll, you’re dealing with people’s livelihoods, and you need to know that if there’s something wrong with the system, or if you need help, that help is just a phone call away.

    Putting in a new payroll management system has made an enormous difference for our district, but it’s not the end of our cost-cutting process. We’re always looking at our different programs to see where we can cut back in ways that don’t impact the classroom. Ultimately, these changes are about ensuring that resources stay focused where they matter most. While budgets fluctuate and funding streams remain unpredictable, my team and I come to work every day because we believe in public education. I’m a product of public education myself, and I love waking up every day knowing that I can come back and support today’s students and teachers.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Supreme Court weighs state restrictions on transgender student athletes

    Supreme Court weighs state restrictions on transgender student athletes

    The U.S. Supreme Court heard back-to-back oral arguments Tuesday over two cases that could determine whether transgender women and girls can play on sports teams aligning with their gender identity. 

    The two lawsuits center on two states, Idaho and West Virginia, that have banned transgender women and girls from such teams. Idaho was the first state to implement such a restriction in 2020, and 26 other states have since passed similar laws. 

    The student in each lawsuit alleges that their state’s restriction violates their 14th Amendment guarantee to equal protection under the law. One of them also contends that the restriction violates Title IX, the sweeping federal law banning sex-based discrimination in federally funded colleges and K-12 schools. 

    Conservative politicians have championed these policies, including President Donald Trump. 

    Early in his second term, Trump signed an executive order that threatened to pull federal funding from and open investigations into colleges and K-12 schools that allow transgender women and girls to play on sports teams aligning with their identities.

    Comments of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Tuesday and their past rulings suggest that those justices may be reluctant to strike down state laws restricting transgender students’ participation in college and K-12 sports. 

    Last year, the conservative majority upheld a Tennessee law barring transgender teenagers in the state from accessing puberty blockers and hormone treatments. And Brett Kavanaugh, one of the conservative justices, voiced concerns Tuesday about allowing transgender women and girls to play on the same teams as their cisgender peers. 

    “One of the great successes in America for the last 50 years has been the growth of women and girls sports,” Kavanaugh said. 

    He added that “a variety of groups” have argued that allowing transgender women and girls to participate on such teams will reverse that success. “For the individual girl who does not make the team, or doesn’t get on the stand for the medal, or doesn’t make all-league, there’s a harm there,” Kavanaugh said. “We can’t sweep that aside.” 

    Lawyers defending the state bans made similar comments. In defense of West Virginia’s law, state Solicitor General Michael Williams argued that “biological sex matters in athletics in ways both obvious and undeniable.” 

    Allowing students to participate on teams aligning with their gender identity turns Title IX into a law “that actually denies those opportunities for girls,” Williams said. 

    Meanwhile, lawyers for the two transgender students suing over the state policies argue that the bans deny them their constitutional rights. 

    Joshua Block, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union representing the student contesting the West Virginia law, argued that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and Title IX are meant to “protect everyone.” 

    In that case, West Virginia v. B.P.J., Becky Pepper-Jackson, now a high school student, and her mother sued the state in 2021 over its ban on transgender girls participating in girls’ sports. 

    Pepper-Jackson has identified as a girl since 3rd grade and takes puberty blockers. She won a narrow district court injunction in July 2021 that blocked West Virginia from applying the law to her, though the judge ended up ruling in favor of the state. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in 2023 allowing her to participate in girls’ sports again.  

    Block argued that if there are no “physiological differences” between Pepper-Jackson and other girls, there is no reason to exclude her from girls’ sports teams. 

    “West Virginia’s law treats BPJ differently from other girls on the basis of sex, and it treats her worse in a way that harms her,” Block said. 

    In the other case, Little v. Hecox, Boise State University student Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman, sued the state of Idaho in 2020 over its statute, arguing that it violated her constitutional rights by discriminating against transgender women. 

    Hecox, who receives hormone therapy to suppress testosterone and increase estrogen, scored a victory when a federal judge blocked the law in 2020. Afterward, she tried out for Boise State’s NCAA track and cross-country teams but wasn’t fast enough to make them, so she joined the university’s club soccer and running instead. 

    Source link

  • SHEEO Releases Annual State Priorities Survey

    SHEEO Releases Annual State Priorities Survey

    Affordability has always been a buzzword for lawmakers on Capitol Hill, but polling shows that it’s becoming increasingly popular among state higher education agencies as well.

    According to the latest annual State Priorities survey from the State Higher Education Executive Officers, college affordability jumped from the sixth-most-important policy issue among higher ed executives in 2025 to the second most this year.

    SHEEO researchers emphasized that affordability has “consistently [been] among the top priorities” for the roughly 45 state executives surveyed each year; the average score from respondents this year only increased 0.1 points on a 1-to-5 scale. Nonetheless, they agreed that the increase represents a significant and timely change—one that was likely influenced by the political climate in Washington.

    “Affordability is the key overarching issue for policymakers heading into the 2026 midterm election, and state higher education leaders are certainly not immune from pressure to lower costs,” said Tom Harnisch, SHEEO’s vice president for government relations. “So there’s going to be, I foresee, continued legislative efforts to hold the line on tuition, make increased investments in financial aid and address other areas that are related to college costs.”

    The increased focus on affordability has also been reflected in state legislation; 33 states indicated that they had instituted a tuition freeze and/or limit in at least one public higher education sector in the past five years. Another 20 have considered legislation to create or expand statewide promise programs, which provide free or significantly reduced college tuition for eligible students.

    But state systems still have work to do to address public concerns. Roughly 60 percent of all adults say cost is the biggest barrier preventing students from enrolling in or completing a postsecondary degree, according to a report from the left-leaning think tank New America.

    Other key policy issues include economic and workforce development (which held its place at No. 1), higher education’s value proposition (No. 3), and college completion/student success (No. 5), the SHEEO survey shows. A topic that had not previously been included in SHEEO surveys also gained prominence this year: state impacts from federal policy changes, which placed sixth on the list of 25 issues.

    Collectively, Harnisch said, this year’s results, and the relatively consistent results of recent years, reflect a slow but steady transition concerning who is responsible for bearing the cost of college.

    “It just shows the overarching cost shift from states to students, and associated with that cost shift is the need for students to get a job, to help pay for their education and associated student debt,” he explained. “These are all downstream effects of that.”

    SHEEO researchers also noted that while state budgets for higher ed range widely, funding has declined over all since the COVID-19 pandemic and its “record state budget surpluses.” The major funding cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will likely only make higher education budgets tighter, they added.

    “Many states with biannual budgets set them in 2025, so they will not be in budget sessions again until 2027. But those states that do have budgets in 2026 are more likely to face changes, and higher education is often most vulnerable to those changes,” Harnisch said. “So as more states have budget shortfalls, revenue growth is softening and there’s increased competition for limited state funding, states are going to be increasingly challenged on the affordability front.”

    Still, despite looming budget cuts, “unstable federal funding streams and intensifying state and federal political pressures,” SHEEO says there are reasons for optimism.

    Concerns about completion of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid dropped nine spots to the 18th-most-important issue for higher leaders this year. And despite the looming predictions of a major demographic cliff, which is slated to take effect in 2026, enrollment declines dropped from the seventh-most-important issue in 2025 to 16th most important this year.

    If anything, SHEEO hopes that enrollment will continue to climb as students pursuing eligible short-term education and training programs gain access to Pell Grants for the first time starting on July 1, under a new program called Workforce Pell.

    “[The year] 2026 holds a lot of unknowns as we look to see what state legislators will prioritize and how changes at the federal level will impact states,” Harnisch said in a news release about the report. But as “economic and workforce development continues to be top of mind, and with the implementation of Workforce Pell rolling out later this year, we’re optimistic that states will continue to make advances in addressing workforce needs.”

    Source link

  • Iowa first state awarded ESEA waiver under Trump administration

    Iowa first state awarded ESEA waiver under Trump administration

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Iowa became the first state approved for a waiver for certain federal education regulations that will allow the state to have greater decision-making in academic programming and fiscal management, according to a Wednesday announcement by Iowa leaders and U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon. 
    • The state’s waiver allows the Iowa Department of Education to combine four federal funding streams into one and will reduce compliance costs by $8 million, according to a U.S. Department of Education statement announcing the waiver. 
    • The application for waivers under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was announced last year and aligns with the Trump administration’s goal of reducing the federal education footprint. However, some policymakers and disability rights groups are concerned that the waivers would reduce state and district accountability for federal requirements and add to educational inequities.

    Dive Insight:

    At a press conference at Broadway Elementary School in Denison, Iowa, on Wednesday, McMahon praised the state’s ESEA waiver as the “groundbreaking first step that gives state leaders more control over federal education dollars.”

    Iowa’s waiver applies to the state activities funds set-aside under: 

    • Title II, Part A — Supporting effective instruction.  
    • Title III, Part A — English language acquisition. 
    • Title IV, Part A — Student support and academic enrichment. 
    • Title IV, Part B — 21st Century Community Learning Centers. 

    ESEA, also known as the Every Student Succeeds Act — a decades-old law last updated by Congress in 2015 — details statewide K-12 accountability and assessment requirements, among other provisions. Other presidential administrations have offered and granted ESEA flexibilities.

    The Education Department has also approved Iowa’s application for Ed-Flex authority, which allows the state to grant waivers to districts from certain federal requirements without first having to submit individual waiver requests to the federal Education Department.

    “This approval cuts through federal red tape, eases compliance burdens for districts and empowers them to implement strategies that best meet the needs of their students,” McMahon said.

    Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, speaking at the press conference, said the state is “confident that we can do even more by reallocating compliance resources. Iowa will begin shifting nearly $8 million and thousands of hours of staff time from bureaucracy to actually putting that expertise and those resources in the classroom.”

    Specifically, the state wants to invest in increasing student achievement, building professional development resources, strengthening teacher recruitment and retention, supporting local ESEA flexibilities and modernizing fiscal reporting, according to Reynolds and McKenzie Snow, director of the Iowa Department of Education.

    “​​States are best positioned to serve families, and we’re committed to reduce the barriers that stand in the way,” Reynolds said.

    Even as the Education Department is working with six other states on waiver requests, there is opposition to these flexibilities from those concerned they potentially violate the intention of ESEA’s accountability framework, sidestep rules on funding formulas, and lead to a reduction of high standards for student performance. 

    In September, a coalition of 24 disability rights organizations urged the Education Department to deny any state or district requests to waive accountability and assessment requirements, because the standards help set high expectations for all students, including those receiving special education services.

    “Any action to subvert federal law through waivers that illegally promote or support the block granting of ESSA funds would have lasting negative impacts on students, families, educators, and the future of millions of children with disabilities,” the coalition said in a letter to McMahon.

    Source link

  • Morgan State says cut the cameras, stop the presses

    Morgan State says cut the cameras, stop the presses

    Sourcing is one of the most foundational skills any journalist learns. But at Morgan State University, the student press is effectively barred from speaking to faculty or staff without prior approval. In other words, for student journalists writing about their own university, basic sourcing is banned unless exceptions are made at the whim of an administrator.

    MSU has historically encouraged media to coordinate requests for such interviews through its Office of Public Relations and Strategic Communications. But on Nov. 13, OPRSC Director Larry Jones escalated the university’s suggestion into a demand in an email to the school community, specifically targeting student media with new requirements.

    Now reporters from The MSU Spokesman, BEAR TV, and WEAA 88.9 FM must clear all interviews involving the university or its operations with the OPRSC. Even more astonishingly, the same rule applies even if the interview request doesn’t directly relate to university matters, but nonetheless occurs on campus.

    Journalism doesn’t come with a permission slip.

    The new directive didn’t stop there. Any filming not sponsored by the university that takes place on campus is now subject to a “comprehensive review and approval process” by the university’s communications office.

    FIRE’s Student Press Freedom Initiative teamed up with the Society of Professional Journalists to remind MSU of the student press’s rights to speak to sources and report on campus-related news. It should not have to be said, but journalism doesn’t come with a permission slip.

    Questions unasked

    The plain language of MSU’s policy prevents student journalists from merely asking school-affiliated sources to answer questions, even though such requests are themselves protected expression. The policy suppresses this speech before it can even occur — a textbook example of prior restraint, which the Supreme Court has called “the most serious and least tolerable infringement” on free speech.

    A university afraid of questions is a university afraid of answers. 

    Questions unasked are questions unanswered. Faculty and student employees, who would speak in their private capacity on topics of public concern, have the right to share their views. If public university employees don’t present themselves as representing the university, and are speaking about newsworthy issues, their statements are generally protected speech. MSU can tell employees not to speak on behalf of the university, but it can’t issue a blanket ban on employees’ ability to speak with the press. Now, however, faculty and staff cannot offer their own opinions in response to a student media request.

    These restrictions are rarely valid, which is why many of the colleges and universities that SPFI has contacted have rolled back such policies. But MSU is not one of them, at least not yet. And this is really not a good look because a university afraid of questions is a university afraid of answers.

    B-roll blackout 

    MSU pulls campus filming into its restrictive policy, too. Both professional and student newsrooms across the country gather video footage to support their storytelling, a practice that is increasingly common due to the widespread availability of smartphones and social media. B-roll, or supplementary video footage used to add context to a story — such as an establishing shot of the university campus or a scene of students studying in the library — cannot be filmed at all if the shots include any of MSU’s outdoor areas, at least not without OPRSC approval. The same goes for filmed interviews. 

    Morgan State University: Public Calls on Morgan State University to Punish Faculty for Charlie Kirk Comments

    The public has called on Morgan State University to discipline faculty for exercising their free speech rights when commenting on public issues.


    Read More

    But breaking news doesn’t wait to happen until an administrator has reviewed and approved a film request. Open, outdoor areas of a university are generally public fora, where student expression is at its most protected. Instead of enhancing students’ newsgathering or teaching them how to be better reporters, the school is instead delaying, if not outright suppressing, multimedia journalistic efforts along with faculty interviews. 

    By targeting the student press specifically, MSU is sending a clear message that it doesn’t want its student journalists addressing questions about important campus issues to those most personally affected by them. That message runs counter to the very fundamentals of journalism. The result, possibly by design, will be that many stories will likely die on the vine for lack of sunlight. And even for those that survive, they’d better not include video footage unless an administrator signs off first. That’s not media policy. It’s message control.

    Source link

  • How a legal group’s anti-LGBTQ policies took root in school districts across a state

    How a legal group’s anti-LGBTQ policies took root in school districts across a state

    by Kathryn Joyce, The Hechinger Report
    January 6, 2026

    The West Shore school board policy committee meeting came to a halt almost as soon as it began. As a board member started going over the agenda on July 17, local parent Danielle Gross rose to object to a last-minute addition she said hadn’t been on the district’s website the day before.

    By posting notice of the proposal so close to the meeting, charged Gross, who is also a partner at a communications and advocacy firm that works on state education policy, the board had violated Pennsylvania’s open meetings law, failing to provide the public at least 24 hours’ notice about a topic “this board knows is of great concern for many community members interested in the rights of our LGBTQ students.” 

    The committee chair, relentlessly banging her gavel, adjourned the meeting to a nonpublic “executive session.” When the committee reconvened, the policy was not mentioned again until the meeting’s end, when a lone public commenter, Heather Keller, invoked “Hamlet” to warn that something was rotten in the Harrisburg suburbs. 

    The proposed policy, which would bar trans students from using bathrooms and locker rooms aligned with their gender identity, was a nearly verbatim copy of one crafted by a group called the Independence Law Center — a Harrisburg-based Christian right legal advocacy group whose model policies have led to costly lawsuits in districts around the state.

    “Being concerned about that, I remembered that we don’t partner with the Independence Law Center,” Keller said. “We haven’t hired them as consultants. And they’re not our district solicitor.” 

    To those who’d followed education politics in the state, Keller’s comment would register as wry understatement. Over the past several years, ILC’s growing entanglement with dozens of Pennsylvania school boards has become a high-profile controversy. Through interviews, an extensive review of local reporting and public documents, In These Times and The Hechinger Report found that, of the state’s 500 school districts, at least 20 are known to have consulted with or signed formal contracts accepting ILC’s pro bono legal services — to advise on, draft and defend district policies, free of charge.* 

    But over the last year, it’s become clear ILC’s influence stretches beyond such formal partnerships, as school districts from Bucks County (outside Philadelphia) to Beaver County (west of Pittsburgh) have proposed or adopted virtually identical anti-LGBTQ and book ban policies that originated with ILC — sometimes without acknowledging any connection to the group or where the policies came from. 

    In districts without formal partnerships with ILC, such as West Shore, figuring out what, exactly, their board’s relationship is to the group has been a painfully assembled puzzle, thanks to school board obstruction, blocked open records requests and reports of backdoor dealing. 

    Although ILC has existed for nearly 20 years, its recent prominence began around 2021 with a surge of “parents’ rights” complaints about pandemic-era masking, teaching about racism, LGBTQ representation and how library books and curricula are selected. In many districts where such debates raged, calls to hire ILC soon followed. 

    In 2024 alone, ILC made inroads of one kind or another with roughly a dozen districts in central Pennsylvania, including West Shore, which proposed contracting ILC that March and invited the group to speak to the board in a closed-door meeting the public couldn’t attend. (ILC did not respond to multiple interview requests or emailed questions.)

    On the night of that March meeting, Gross organized a rally outside the school board building, drawing roughly 100 residents to protest, even as it snowed. The board backed down from hiring ILC, but that didn’t stop it from introducing ILC policies. In addition to the proposed bathroom policy, that May the board passed a ban on trans students joining girls’ athletics teams after they’ve started puberty and allowed district officials to request doctors’ notes and birth certificates to enforce it. 

    To Gross, it’s an example of how West Shore and other school boards without formal relationships with ILC have still found ways to advance the group’s agenda. “They’re waiting for other school boards to do all the controversial stuff with the ILC,” Gross said, then “taking the policies other districts have, running them through their solicitors, and implementing them that way.” (A spokesperson for West Shore stated that the district had not contracted with ILC and declined further comment.)

    “It’s like a hydra effect,” said Kait Linton of the grassroots community group Public Education Advocates of Lancaster. “They’ve planted seeds for a vine, and now the vine’s taking off in all the directions it wants to go.” 

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education. 

    ILC was founded in the wake of a Pennsylvania lawsuit that drew nationwide attention and prompted significant local embarrassment. 

    In October 2004, the Dover Area School District — situated, like West Shore, in York County, south of Harrisburg — changed its biology curriculum to introduce the quasi-creationist theory of “intelligent design” as an alternative to evolution. Eleven families sued, arguing that intelligent design was “fundamentally a religious proposition rather than a scientific one.” In December 2005, a federal court agreed, ruling that public schools teaching the theory violated the U.S. Constitution’s establishment clause. 

    During the case, an attorney named Randall Wenger unsuccessfully tried to add the creationist Christian think tank he worked for — which published the book Dover sought to teach — to the suit as a defendant, and, failing that, filed an amicus brief instead. When the district lost and was ultimately left with $1 million in legal fees, Wenger found a lesson in it for conservatives moving forward.

    Speaking at a 2005 conference hosted by the Pennsylvania Family Institute — part of a national network of state-level “family councils” tied to the heavyweight Christian right organizations Family Research Council and Focus on the Family — Wenger suggested Dover could have avoided or won legal challenges if officials hadn’t mentioned their religious motivations during public school board meetings. 

    “Give us a call before you do something controversial like that,” Wenger said, according to LancasterOnline. Then, in a line that’s become infamous among ILC’s critics, Wenger invoked a biblical reference to add, “I think we need to do a better job at being clever as serpents.” (Wenger did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

    The following year, in 2006, the Pennsylvania Family Institute launched ILC with Wenger as its chief counsel, a role he remains in today, in addition to serving as chief operating officer. ILC now has three other staff attorneys and has worked directly as plaintiff’s attorneys on two Supreme Court cases: one was part of the larger Hobby Lobby decision, which allows employers to opt out of employee health insurance plans that include contraception coverage; the other expanded religious exemptions for workers.

    ILC has financial ties and a history of collaborating with Christian right legal advocacy behemoth Alliance Defending Freedom, including on a 2017 lawsuit against a school district outside Philadelphia that allowed a trans student to use the locker room aligned with their gender. ILC has filed amicus briefs in support of numerous other Christian right causes, including two that led to major Supreme Court victories for the right in 2025: Mahmoud v. Taylor, which limited public schools’ ability to assign books with LGBTQ themes; and United States v. Skrmetti, which affirmed a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors. In recent months, the group filed two separate amicus briefs on behalf of Pennsylvania school board members in anti-trans cases in other states. In both cases, which were brought by Alliance Defending Freedom and concern school sports and pronoun usage, ILC urged the Supreme Court to “resolve the issue nationwide.”

    In lower courts, ILC has worked on or contributed briefs to lawsuits seeking to start public school board meetings with prayer and to allow religious groups to proselytize public school students, among other issues. More quietly, as the local blog Lancaster Examiner reported — and as one ILC attorney recounted at a conference in 2022 — ILC has defended “conversion therapy,” the broadly discredited theory that homosexuality is a disorder that can be cured.

    To critics, all of these efforts have helped systematically chip away at civil rights protections for LGBTQ students at the local level, seeding the policies that President Donald Trump’s administration is now trying to make ubiquitous through executive orders. And while local backlash is building in some areas, activists are hindered by the threat that the ILC’s efforts are ultimately aimed at laying the groundwork for a Supreme Court case that could formalize discrimination against transgender students into law nationwide. 

    But ILC’s greatest influence is arguably much closer to its Harrisburg home, in neighboring Lancaster and York counties, where nine districts have contracted ILC and at least three more have adopted its model policies. 

    In Lancaster’s Hempfield district, it started with a 2021 controversy over a trans student joining the girls’ track team. School board meetings that had already grown tense over pandemic masking requirements erupted in new fights about LGBTQ rights and visibility. In the middle of one meeting, recalled Hempfield parent and substitute teacher Erin Small, a board member abruptly suggested hiring ILC to write a new district policy. The suddenness of the proposal caused such public outcry, said Small, that the vote to hire ILC had to be postponed.

    But within a few months, the district signed a contract with ILC to write what became Pennsylvania’s first school district ban on trans students participating in sports teams aligned with their gender identity. Other ILC policy proposals followed, including a successful 2023 effort to bar the district from using books or materials that include sexual content, which immediately prompted an intensive review of books written by LGBTQ and non-white authors. (The Hempfield district did not respond to requests for comment.)

    In nearby Elizabethtown, the path to hiring ILC began with a fraudulent 2021 complaint, when a man claimed, during a school board meeting, that his middle schooler had checked out an inappropriate book from the school library. Although it later emerged that the man had reportedly used a fake name and officials found no evidence he had children attending the school, his claim nonetheless sparked a long debate over book policies, which eventually led to the district contracting ILC as special legal counsel in 2024. Two anti-trans policies were subsequently passed in January 2025, and a ban on “sexually explicit” books, also based on ILC’s models, was discussed this past spring but has not moved forward to date. (The Elizabethtown district did not respond to requests for comment.)

    Across the Susquehanna River in York County — where five districts have contracted ILC and two more have considered or passed its policies — the group’s influence has been broad and sometimes confounding. In one instance, as the York Dispatch discovered, ILC not only authored four policy proposals for the Red Lion Area School District, but ILC senior counsel Jeremy Samek, a registered Pennsylvania lobbyist, also drafted a speech for the board president to deliver in support of three anti-trans policies, all of which passed in 2024. (The Red Lion district did not respond to requests for comment.)

    The same year, South Western School District, reportedly acting on ILC advice, ordered a high school to cut large windows into the walls of two bathrooms that had been designated as “gender identity restrooms,” allowing passersby in the hallway to see inside, consequently discouraging students from using them. (The district did not respond to requests for comment, but in a statement to local paper the Evening Sun, school board President Matt Gelazela cited student safety and said the windows helped staff monitor for vaping, bullying and other prohibited activities.)

    ​​In many districts, said Lancaster parent Eric Fisher, ILC’s growing relationships with school boards has been eased by the ubiquitous presence around the state of its sister organizations within the Pennsylvania Family Institute, including the institute’s lobbying arm, voucher group, youth leadership conference and Church Ambassador Network, which brings pastors from across Pennsylvania to lobby lawmakers in the state Capitol. 

    As a result, said Fisher, when ILC shows up in a district, board members often are already familiar with them or other institute affiliates, “having met them at church and having their churches put their stamp of endorsement on them. I think it makes it really easy for [board members] to say yes.” 

    But in nearly every district that has considered working with ILC, wide-scale pushback has also followed — though often to no avail. In June 2024, in Elizabethtown — where school board fights have been so fractious that they inspired a full-length documentary — members of the public spoke in opposition to hiring ILC at a ratio of roughly 5 to 1 before the board voted unanimously to hire the group anyway. 

    In the Upper Adams district in Biglerville, southwest of Harrisburg, the school board voted to contract ILC despite a cacophony of public comments and a 500-signature petition in opposition. 

    In Lancaster’s Warwick district, the school board’s vote to hire ILC prompted the resignation of a superintendent who had served in her role for 15 years and who reported that the district’s insurance carrier had warned the district might not be covered in future lawsuits if it adopted ILC’s anti-trans policies. 

    Since then, Warwick resident Kayla Cook noted during a public presentation about ILC this past summer, the mood in the district has grown grim. “We do not have any students at the moment trying to participate [in sports] who are trans. However, we have students who simply have a short haircut being profiled as being trans,” Cook said. “It’s tipped far into fear-based behaviors, where we are dipping our toes into checking the student’s body to make sure that they’re identifying as the appropriate gender.” (A district spokesperson directed interview requests to the school board, which did not respond to requests for comment.)

    But perhaps nowhere was the fight as fraught as in Lancaster’s Penn Manor School District, which hired ILC to draft new policies about trans students just months after the suicide of a trans youth from Penn Manor — the fifth such suicide in the Lancaster community in less than two years. 

    Before the Penn Manor school board publicly proposed retaining ILC, in June 2024 — scheduling a presentation by and a vote on hiring ILC for the same meeting — district Superintendent Phil Gale wrote to the board about his misgivings. In an email obtained by LancasterOnline, Gale warned the board against policies “that will distinguish one group of students from another” and passed along a warning from the district’s insurance carrier that adopting potentially discriminatory policies might affect the district’s coverage if it were sued by students or staff.

    In a narrow 5-4 vote, the all-Republican board declined to hire ILC that June. But after one board member reconsidered, the matter was placed back on the agenda for two meetings that August. 

    Members of the community publicly presented an open letter, signed by roughly 80 Penn Manor residents, requesting that, if policies about trans students were truly needed, the district establish a task force of local experts to draft them rather than outsource policymaking to ILC. One of the letter’s organizers, Mark Clatterbuck, a religious studies professor at New Jersey’s Montclair State University, said the district never acknowledged it or responded. (Maddie Long, a spokesperson for Penn Manor, said the district could not comment because of the litigation.) 

    That February, Clatterbuck’s son, Ash — a college junior and transgender man who’d grown up in Penn Manor — had died by suicide, shortly after the nationally publicized death of Nex Benedict, a nonbinary 16-year-old in Oklahoma who died by suicide the day after being beaten unconscious in a high school girls’ bathroom.

    In the first August meeting to reconsider hiring ILC, Clatterbuck told the Penn Manor board, through tears, how “living in a hostile political environment that dehumanizes them at school, at home, at church and in the halls of Congress” was making “life unlivable for far too many of our trans children.”

    Two weeks later, at the second meeting, Ash’s mother, Malinda Harnish Clatterbuck, pleaded for board members talking about student safety to consider the children these policies actively harm. 

    “ILC does not even recognize trans and gender-nonconforming children as existing,” said Harnish Clatterbuck, a pastor whose family has lived in Lancaster for 10 generations. “That fact alone should preclude them from even being considered by the board.”

    Her husband spoke again as well, telling the board how Ash had frequently warned about the spread of policies that stoke “irrational hysteria around” trans youth — “the kind of policies,” Mark Clatterbuck noted, “that the Pennsylvania-based Independence Law Center loves to draft.” 

    Reminding the board that five trans youth in the area had died by suicide within just 18 months, he continued, “Do not try to tell me that there is no connection between the kind of dehumanizing policies that the ILC drafts and the deaths of our trans children.” 

    But the board voted to hire ILC anyway, 5-4, and in the following months adopted two of ILC’s anti-trans policies.

    Related: Red school boards in a blue state asked Trump for help — and got it

    In anticipation of such public outcry, some school boards around Pennsylvania have taken steps to obscure their interest in ILC’s agenda. 

    Kristina Moon, a senior attorney at the Education Law Center of Pennsylvania, a legal services nonprofit that advocates for public school students’ rights, has watched a progression in how school boards interact with ILC. 

    When her group first began receiving calls related to ILC, around 2021, alarmed parents told similar stories of boards proposing book bans targeting queer or trans students’ perspectives, or identical packages of policies that included restrictions about bathrooms, sports and pronouns. 

    “At first, we would see boards openly talking about their interest in contracting with ILC,” said Moon. But as local opposition began to grow, “board members stopped sharing so publicly.” 

    Instead, Moon said, reports began to emerge of school boards discussing or meeting with ILC in secret.

    In Hempfield, in 2022, the board moved some policy discussions into committee sessions less likely to be attended by the public, and held a vote on an anti-trans sports policy without announcing it publicly, possibly in violation of Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act, as Mother Jones reported.

    In Warwick, in 2024, several board members admitted meeting privately with ILC’s Randall Wenger, according to LancasterOnline. 

    Across the state, in Bucks County, one Central Bucks school board member recounted in an op-ed for the Bucks County Beacon how her conservative colleagues had stonewalled her when she asked about the origins of a new book ban policy in 2022, only to have the board later admit ILC had performed a legal review of it “pro bono,” as PhillyBurbs reported.

    Subsequent reporting by the York Daily Record and Reuters revealed the board’s relationship with ILC was more involved and included discussions about other policies related to trans student athletes and pronoun policy. (Both Central Bucks’ books and anti-LGBTQ policies were later cited in an ACLU federal complaint that cost the district $1.75 million in legal fees, as well as in a related Education Department investigation into whether the district had created a hostile learning environment for LGBTQ students.)

    But the sense of backroom dealing reached an almost cartoonish level in York County, where, in March 2024, conservative board members from 12 county school districts were invited to a secret meeting hosted by a right-wing political action committee, along with specific instructions about how to keep their participation off the public radar. According to the York Dispatch, the invitation came from former Central York school board member Veronica Gemma, who (after losing her seat) was hired as education director for PA Economic Growth, a PAC that had helped elect 48 conservatives to York school boards the previous fall. (Gemma did not respond to interview requests.)

    Gemma’s invitation was accompanied by an agenda sent by the PAC, which included a discussion about ILC and how board members could “build a network of support” and “advance our shared goals more effectively countywide.” The invitation also included the admonition that “confidentiality is paramount” and that each district should only send four board members or fewer — to avoid the legal threshold for a quorum that would make the meeting a matter of public record. 

    “Remember, no more than 4 — sunshine laws,” Gemma wrote. 

    In the wake of stories like these, Wenger’s 2005 suggestion that conservatives “become as clever as serpents” in concealing their intentions became ubiquitous in coverage of and advocacy against ILC — showing up in newspaper articles, in editorials and even on a T-shirt for sale online. 

    “I think it’s very obvious,” reflected Moon, “but if something has to be taking place in secrecy, I’m not sure it can be good for our students.” 

    But the lack of transparency shows up in subtler ways too, in the spreading phenomenon of districts adopting ILC policies without admitting where the policies come from. That was the case in Eastern York in 2025, where board members who had previously lobbied for an ILC pronoun policy later directed their in-house attorney to write an original policy instead, following the same principles but avoiding the baggage an ILC connection would bring.

    In Elizabethtown (which did contract ILC), one policy was even introduced erroneously referencing clauses from another district’s code, in an indication of how directly districts are copy-pasting from one another.

    In 2025, ILC attorney Jeremy Samek even seemed to acknowledge the trend, predicting that fewer districts might contract ILC going forward, since the combination of Trump’s executive orders on trans students and the general spread of policies similar to ILC’s meant “it’s going to be a lot easier for other schools to do that without even talking to us.” 

    Related: Probes into racism in schools stall under Trump 

    In the face of what appears like a deliberate strategy of concealment, members of the public have increasingly turned to official channels to compel boards to disclose their dealings with ILC. Mark Clatterbuck did so in 2024 and 2025, filing 10 Right-to-Know requests with Penn Manor for all school board and administration communications with or about ILC and policies ILC consulted on and any records related to a set of specific keywords.

    Thirty miles north, three Elizabethtown parents sued their school board in the spring of 2025, alleging it deliberately met and conferred with ILC in nonpublic meetings and private communications to “circumvent the requirements of the Sunshine Act.”

    In both cases, and more broadly in the region, ILC critics are keenly aware that, by bringing complaints or lawsuits against the group or the school boards it works with, they might be doing exactly what ILC wants: furthering its chances to land another case before the Supreme Court, where a favorable ruling could set a dangerous national precedent, such as ruling that Title IX protections don’t cover trans students. 

    “They’re itching for a case,” said Clatterbuck. To that end, he added, his pro bono attorneys — at the law firm Gibbel Kraybill & Hess LLC, which also represents the Elizabethtown plaintiffs pro bono — have been careful not to do ILC’s work for it. 

    Largely, that has meant keeping the cases narrowly focused on Sunshine Act violations.

    But in both cases, there are also hints of the larger issue at hand — of whether, in a repeat of the old Dover “intelligent design” case, ILC’s policies represent school boards imposing inherently religious viewpoints on public schools. After all, ILC’s parent group, the Pennsylvania Family Institute, clearly states its mission is to make Pennsylvania “a place where God is honored” and to “strengthen families by restoring to public life the traditional, foundational principles and values essential for the well-being of society.” And in 2024, the institute’s president, Michael Geer, told a Christian TV audience that much of ILC’s work involves working with school boards “on the transgender issue, fighting that ideology that is pervasive in our society.” 

    In the Elizabethtown complaint, the plaintiffs argue that district residents must “have the opportunity to observe Board deliberations regarding policies that will affect their children in order to understand the Board members’ true motivation and rationale for adopting policies — particularly when policies are prepared by an outside organization seeking to advance a  particular religious viewpoint and agenda.” 

    The public has ample cause to suspect as much. Five current and former members of Elizabethtown’s school board are connected to a far-right church in town, where the pastor joined 150 other locals in traveling to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021. Among them were current board members Stephen Lindemuth — who once preached a sermon at the church arguing that “gender identity confusion” doesn’t “line up with what God desires” — and his wife, Danielle Lindemuth, who helped organize the caravan of buses that went to Washington. (Stephen Lindemuth replied by email, “I have no recollection of making any judgmental comments concerning LGBTQ in my most recent preaching the past few years.” Neither he nor his wife were accused of any unlawful acts on Jan. 6.)

    Another board member until this past December, James Emery, went through the church’s pastoral training program and in 2022 served as a member of the security detail of far-right Christian nationalist gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano. 

    School board meetings in Elizabethtown have also frequently devolved into religious battles, with one local mother, Amy Karr, board chair of Elizabethtown’s Church of the Brethren, recalling how local right-wing activists accused ILC’s opponents of being possessed by demonic spirits or a “vehicle of Satan.” 

    In Penn Manor, Clatterbuck similarly hoped to lay bare the “overtly religious nature” of the board’s motivation by including in his Right-to-Know requests a demand for all school board communications about ILC policies containing keywords like “God,” “Christian,” “Jesus,” “faith” and “biblical.” 

    For nearly a year, the district sought to avoid fulfilling the requests, with questionable invocations of attorney-client privilege (including one board member’s claim that she had “personally” retained ILC as counsel), sending back obviously incomplete records and protestations that Clatterbuck’s keyword request turned up so many results that it was too burdensome to fulfill. Ultimately, Clatterbuck appealed to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records to compel the board to honor the request. 

    This fall, Clatterbuck received a 457-page document from the board containing dozens of messages that suggest his suspicions were correct. 

    In response to local constituents writing in support of ILC — decrying pronoun policies as a violation of religious liberty, claiming “the whole LGBTQ spectrum is rooted in the brokenness of sin” and calling for board members to rebuke teachers unions in “the precious blood of Jesus” — at least three board members wrote back with encouragement and thanks. In one example, board member Anthony Lombardo told a constituent who had written a 12-page message arguing that queer theory is “inherently atheistic” that “I completely agree with your analysis and conclusions.” 

    When another community member sent the board an article from an evangelical website arguing that using “transgendered pronouns … falsifies the gospel” and “tramples on the blood of Christ,” board member Donna Wert responded, “Please know that I firmly agree with the beliefs held in [this article]. And please know that heightened movement is finally being made concerning this, as you will see.” 

    To Clatterbuck, such messages demonstrate the school board’s religious sympathies, as well as how Christian nationalism plays out at the local level. While national examples of Christian right dominance, like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Crusader tattoos or Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s “Appeal to Heaven” flag, get the most attention, Clatterbuck said, “this is what it looks like when you’re controlling local school boards and passing policies that affect people directly in their local community.” 

    But the local level might also be the place where advocates have the best chance of fighting back, said Kait Linton of Public Education Advocates of Lancaster.

    Speaking ahead of a panel discussion on ILC at Elizabethtown’s Church of the Brethren last June — one of several panels PEAL hosted around Lancaster in the run-up to November’s school board elections — Linton emphasized the importance of focusing on the “hyperlocal.”

    “With everything that’s happening at the national level,” Linton said, “we find a lot of folks get caught up in that, when really we have far less opportunity to make a difference up there than we do right here.”

    PEAL’s efforts have been matched by other groups at the district level, like Elizabethtown’s Etown Common Sense 2.0, which local parent and former president Alisha Runkle said advocates against the sort of policies ILC drafts and also seeks to support teachers “being beaten down and needing support” in an environment of relentless hostility and demands to police their lesson plans, libraries and language. 

    They’re also reflected in the work of statewide coalitions like Pennsylvanians for Welcoming and Inclusive Schools, which helps districts share information about ILC policies — including a searchable map of ILC’s presence around the state — and resources like the Education Law Center, which has sent detailed demand or advocacy letters to numerous school districts considering adopting ILC-inspired policies. 

    This past November, that local-level work resulted in some signs for cautious hope. In Lancaster County’s Hempfield School District — one of the first districts in the state to hire ILC — the school board flipped to Democratic control. Among the new board members are Kait Linton and fellow PEAL activist Erin Small. 

    Across the river, in West Shore, the departure of three right-wing board members — one who resigned and two who lost their elections — left the board with a new 5-4 majority of Democratic and centrist Republican members. After the election, the board promptly moved to table three contentious policy proposals, including the anti-trans bathroom policy the board had copied from ILC and a book ban policy that drew heavily on ILC’s work. 

    While in other Lancaster districts — including Elizabethtown, Warwick and Penn Manor — school boards remained firmly in conservative control, there are also signs of growing pushback, as in Elizabethtown, where Runkle noted the teachers union has recently begun challenging the board during public meetings and local students have gotten active protesting book bans.

    Similar trends have happened statewide, said the Education Law Center’s Kristina Moon, who noted that voters “were so concerned about the extremist action they saw on the boards that it was kind of a wake-up call: that we can’t sleep on school board elections, and we need to have boards that reflect a commitment to all of the students in our schools.” 

    While reports of ILC’s direct involvement with school boards seem to have waned in recent months, said Moon, that “does not mean the threat to our public schools is over. We see continued use of those discriminatory policies by school boards just copying the policy exactly as it was adopted elsewhere. And it causes the same harm in a district, whether the district is publicly meeting with ILC or not.” 

    Plus there are now Trump’s anti-trans executive orders, which have spread confusion statewide. And just this December, a legal challenge brought by another Christian right law firm, the Thomas More Society, is challenging the authority of Pennsylvania’s civil rights commission to apply anti-discrimination protections to trans students in public schools. 

    As a consequence, the Education Law Center has spent much of the past year trying to educate school and community leaders that executive orders are not the law itself, and they cannot supersede case law supporting the rights of LGBTQ students. 

    “We’re trying to cut through the noise,” Moon said, “to ensure that schools remain clear about their legal obligations to provide safe environments for all students … so they can focus on learning and not worrying about identity-based attacks.”

    *Correction: At least 20 of Pennsylvania’s 500 school districts are known to have consulted with or signed formal contracts accepting the ILC’s pro bono legal servicesThis story previously reported 21.

    Contact editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965, via Signal at CarolineP.83 or on email at [email protected]

    This story about Independence Law Center was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education, in partnership with In These Times. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter. Sign up for the In These Times weekly newsletter.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/clever-as-serpents-how-a-legal-groups-anti-lgbtq-policies-took-root-in-school-districts-across-a-state/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=114185&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/clever-as-serpents-how-a-legal-groups-anti-lgbtq-policies-took-root-in-school-districts-across-a-state/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • All Eyes on Florida As State Gets One Step Closer to Nixing Vaccine Mandates – The 74

    All Eyes on Florida As State Gets One Step Closer to Nixing Vaccine Mandates – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    A week after Florida health officials brought the state one step closer to abolishing childhood vaccine mandates, pediatricians, parents and advocates are expressing alarm over the ramifications. 

    If such a change goes into effect, “pediatric hospitals will be overwhelmed with [childhood] infections that have virtually been non-existent for the last 40 years,” said Florida-based infectious disease specialist Frederick Southwick. Southwick attended a Dec. 12 public comment workshop on the issue hosted by the Florida Department of Health. 

    “We’re in trouble right now,” he added, pointing to falling vaccine rates and the likelihood that some diseases could become endemic. “We’re getting there, and this [ending the mandate] would just do-in little kids.”

    The session delved into the proposed language the department has drafted for a rule change that would do away with vaccine mandates for four key immunizations: varicella, more commonly known as chickenpox; hepatitis B, pneumococcal bacteria and Haemophilus influenzae type B, or HiB. Currently, children cannot attend school in Florida without proof of these four immunizations, among others, including the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. 

    Although Florida is not considering removing the mandate for the MMR vaccine, health experts see the move it is contemplating as eroding childhood immunization generally. It comes when more than 300 people are being quarantined in South Carolina because of a burgeoning measles outbreak.

    Rana Alissa is the president of the Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. (American Academy of Pediatrics)

    Rana Alissa, president of the Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, was also in attendance to express her concerns. She told The 74 this week that thanks to the success of vaccines, she’s never had to treat some of these “horrible diseases,” including HiB, which can lead to meningitis.

    “Don’t make our kids — Florida’s kids — guinea pigs to teach me and my classmates and other pediatricians how to manage these diseases,” she implored.

    Tallahassee parent Cathy Mayfield lost her 18-year-old daughter, Lawson, to meningitis in 2009, a few months before she was supposed to leave for college and just before she was due for a booster shot. (At the time, the booster was not recommended until college, according to Mayfield.)

    “You just don’t realize until it happens to you,” she said.

    She hopes others will learn the importance of vaccinating their own kids from her family’s story. 

    Cathy Mayfield, and her daughter, Lawson, who died in 2009 from meningitis. (Cathy Mayfield)

    “All the information I learned through our tragedy about vaccinations made me very supportive of the safeguards [they] offer,” she said.

    “You’ve also got to realize,” Mayfield added, “that your decisions affect your community, and that’s something I think has gotten lost in … all this conversation and hesitancy about vaccinations.”

    Equating vaccine mandates to slavery

    The workshop, which was announced the day before Thanksgiving, was held in Panama City Beach, in the Florida Panhandle, far from the state’s main population centers. About 100 people showed up to the session, which was characterized by attendees as heated but civil. Northe Saunders, president of the pro-vaccine advocacy organization American Families for Vaccines and who was there, estimated that about 30 people spoke in favor of keeping the current vaccine mandates, while approximately 20 spoke in opposition.

    Some speakers opposed to vaccine mandates included conspiracy theories in their arguments, according to news reports and numerous people present at the workshop, echoing language heard from the federal government since Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a long-time vaccine skeptic, took over the Department of Health and Human Services.

    One attendee argued that giving children multiple jabs in a 30-day period “accounts to attempted murder,” according to NBC News. A number of others questioned if this year’s reported measles outbreaks, which resulted in the deaths of two school-age, unvaccinated children in Texas, had actually occurred.

    Florida leaders’ desire to become the first state to end all vaccine mandates was announced in September by its surgeon general, Joseph A. Ladapo, standing beside Gov. Ron DeSantis in the gym of a private Christian high school. In sharing their plan, Ladapo claimed that “every last [mandate] is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery.” 

    Only four vaccines are mandated through a Department of Health rule and are therefore under Lapado’s purview. The remaining nine, which in addition to the MMR shot include polio, are part of state law and can only be changed through legislative action. 

    Experts told The 74 this is a much more difficult feat, one that state legislators — even conservative ones — don’t seem to have an appetite for. Richard Hughes, a George Washington University law professor and leading vaccine law expert, said such a legislative attempt would “warrant legal action.”

    ‘We really need to turn this around’ 

    The debate in Florida and other states over mandatory childhood immunization comes as the country teeters on the edge of losing its measles elimination status. This year alone has seen nearly 2,000 confirmed cases, the most since 2000, when measles was declared eliminated in the U.S. by the World Health Organization. Just over 10% of cases have led to hospitalization. The current South Carolina outbreak has infected at least 138 people, and among those forced to quarantine are students from nine schools. 

    Significant educational implications from the outbreaks emerged in a new study by the Annenberg Institute at Brown University, which found that absences increased 41% in a school district at the center of the West Texas outbreak, with larger effects among younger students.

    The spread of measles is also a warning of the ramifications of dropping vaccine rates, according to William Moss, executive director at Johns Hopkins’ International Vaccine Access Center.

    “Measles often serves as what we [call] the canary in the coal mine,” he said. “It really identifies weaknesses in the immunization system and programs, because of its high contagiousness.”

    “Unfortunately, I see a perfect storm brewing for the resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases,” he added, “… We really need to turn this around.”

    Earlier this week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention got rid of a recommendation that all newborns receive the hepatitis B vaccine, and in the preceding months changed policies surrounding the measles, mumps, rubella and varicella (chickenpox) combination vaccine and this year’s COVID 19 booster — all based on recommendations from an advisory committee hand-picked by Kennedy. The universal birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine, in place for decades, was credited with nearly eliminating the highly contagious and dangerous virus in infants.

    Lynn Nelson, the president of the National Association of School Nurses, fears that other, more conservative states will now look to Florida as an example.

    “We already have seen outbreaks all over, and they’re only going to escalate if you have an area of the country whose herd immunity levels slip down further than they already are, which I think will happen if those [anti-mandate rules] come into effect,” she said. “That, in combination with some of the other misinformation that’s coming out, people will feel validated in decisions not to immunize their children.”

    Florida’s Department of Health appears to be moving ahead to end requirements for the four vaccines it controls, despite a recent poll indicating nearly two-thirds of Floridians oppose the action. Proposed draft language presented at the Dec. 12 workshop would also allow parents to opt their kids out of the state’s immunization registry, Florida SHOTS, and expand exemptions. 

    Currently, all 50 states have vaccine requirements for children entering child care and schools. Parents across the country are able to apply for exemptions if their child is unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons and most states — including Florida — also have religious exemptions. Part of the proposed changes presented at the Dec. 12 meeting would add Florida to the 20 states that additionally have some form of personal belief exemptions, further widening parents’ ability to opt their kids out of routine vaccines. 

    The public comment period remains open through Dec. 22, after which the department will decide whether or not to move forward with the rule change. In the interim, advocates are pushing state health officials to conduct epidemiological research around the impact of removing the vaccine mandates and studies on the potential economic costs. Florida is heavily reliant on tourism and out-of-state visitors. 

    Without that information, pro-vaccine advocate Saunders said these critical public health care decisions will be made “at the whim of an appointed official.” 

    “The nation,” he added, “is looking at Florida.”


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link