From left, U.S. Reps. Frederica Wilson of Florida and Gwen Moore of Wisconsin, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon and U.S. Rep. Mark Takano of California, at a press conference outside the U.S. Department of Education organized by House Democrats. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — A press conference by a dozen U.S. House Democrats outside the U.S. Department of Education took an unusual turn on Wednesday when the subject of their criticism — Education Secretary Linda McMahon — unexpectedly joined them.
The Democrats had met with the Trump administration appointee a few minutes earlier to press her about the sweeping shifts at the U.S. Department of Education, where she and President Donald Trump are seeking to dismantle the agency.
The lawmakers told reporters that at the scheduled meeting, they questioned McMahon on how the department could carry out its primary responsibilities when the agency continues to see dramatic changes. That includes mass layoffs that hit core units and an executive order from Trump calling on the secretary to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the department to the maximum extent she legally can.
Only Congress, which established the 45-year-old department, has the power to abolish it.
The Democrats said they were grateful that McMahon met with them but dissatisfied with and even alarmed by the secretary’s responses, especially on a timeline for closing the agency.
“It’s very apparent that the secretary is treating this as a corporate restructuring, and we want to be clear that the education of our children is not a corporate enterprise — it is how we move this country forward,” Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico said.
“It’s very clear that the (reduction in force), the firing of probationary staff, the so-called restructuring that’s happening — when we asked for a plan multiple times in this meeting, we were told there is not a plan yet,” she added.
The secretary arrives, and leaves
As the Democrats spoke, McMahon emerged from the building, accompanied by aides, and joined them at their lectern emblazoned with a U.S. House of Representatives logo.
She reiterated that “funding from the United States government will continue through the programs that have already been established” and said she looked forward to continuing to work with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
After her remarks, Rep. Mark Takano pressed McMahon on when she would close the department.
“Well, we’ve had our discussions already, so thank you all very, very much for coming,” McMahon replied, proceeding to walk back into the building.
“You see, she’s not answering the question when she’s going to shut down the department,” Takano, of California, said as the secretary walked away.
Barred from building
Wednesday’s meeting came after Takano and other Democratic lawmakers were blocked from entering the building in February while trying to meet with Denise Carter, acting Education secretary at the time, over Trump’s plans to dismantle the agency.
The California Democrat had led dozens of others in writing a letter to Carter and requesting a meeting over those efforts.
A day after Trump signed the executive order surrounding the department, he announced that special education services would be transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services and that the Small Business Administration would be handling the student loan portfolio.
The department has not taken any steps to move either — both of which would require acts of Congress and raise a slew of logistical questions.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano, a California Democrat, speaks at a press conference outside the U.S. Department of Education headquarters on Wednesday, April 2, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland said “the idea of dismembering the department and then parceling it out to other agencies and departments does not give us a lot of confidence or hope in what’s happening.”
The lawmakers said McMahon repeatedly stressed during the meeting that she plans to abide by federal law and would look carefully at what she’s legally allowed to do before moving any functions of the department.
Yet Rep. Greg Casar of Texas said he and the group “became more and more alarmed as the meeting went on,” noting that “current law won by so many Americans in this democracy, is that all kids deserve a decent education, that the money goes to your kid if they’re in need, the money goes to your kid no matter their race or their background or their neighborhood, and they want to change that.”
The lawmakers who met with McMahon included: U.S. Reps. Terri Sewell of Alabama; Takano; Frederica Wilson of Florida; Raskin and Sarah Elfreth of Maryland; Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire; Stansbury; Casar, Julie Johnson and Veronica Escobar of Texas; Don Beyer of Virginia; and Gwen Moore of Wisconsin.
The state superintendent and education officials in northeast Wisconsin are calling on the Legislature’s Republican-controlled budget committee to boost funding to K-12 schools in the next two-year state budget.
In March, the Department of Public Instruction announced its first planning grants to four Wisconsin districts to start recovery schools, specifically designed to help students with substance use disorders.
The heads of the Universities of Wisconsin system and the state Department of Corrections faced critical questions from Republican state lawmakers Tuesday over requests for new state funding.
State Superintendent Jill Underly was reelected Tuesday, beating educational consultant Brittany Kinser to continue leading Wisconsin's Department of Public Instruction.
The boy previously seemed to be improving, and UW health officials announced in mid-January that he had been upgraded to good condition. Since then, things have taken a turn for the worse.
State Superintendent Jill Underly won a second term in office Tuesday evening. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
Incumbent Jill Underly, who had the backing of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, won a second term as state superintendent on Tuesday, defeating education consultant and Republican-backed candidate Brittany Kinser.
“I’m just deeply honored and humbled for the trust you have placed in me to continue as state superintendent for public instruction,” Underly told supporters at her Election Night party. “This victory belongs to all of us who believe in the power of public education, but for every educator, family, and most importantly, kids across our state.”
The Associated Press called the race at 10:05 p.m. with Underly leading by more than 5 points and with more than 80% of the votes counted.
Kinser’s campaign released a statement shortly before 10:30 p.m. in which she acknowledged the result was “not the outcome I had hoped for.”
“Our kids’ future shouldn’t rest on the politicization of our education system, but on the belief that our kids deserve so much better than they currently receive,” she said.
The state superintendent, a technically nonpartisan position, is responsible for providing guidance for the state’s 421 public school districts, leading the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) — an agency responsible for administering state and federal funds, licensing teachers and developing educational curriculum and state assessments — and also holds a position on the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents.
Underly received the endorsement from Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), the state’s largest teachers’ union, and AFT-Wisconsin. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin contributed over $850,000 to her campaign. While Underly had the backing of the state Democratic party, Democrat Gov. Tony Evers refused to endorse in the race.
WEAC said in a statement that the “victory inspires the public school educators who work with students every day to be even more visible and more involved in education policy deliberations to solve staffing shortages and the state funding crisis that forces communities to referendum every year to keep the schoolhouse doors open” and that the result is a rejection of “the school voucher lobby in favor of educators, so all students – no exceptions – have the opportunity to learn without limits and unlock their dreams.”
Kinser had never worked in a traditional Wisconsin public school and received criticism during the campaign for never holding a Wisconsin teachers’ license and allowing her administrator’s license to lapse, though she eventually updated it. She had also worked mostly in charter school circles in recent years, including as principal and executive director of Rocketship schools in Milwaukee and as a leader of the City Forward Collective, a Milwaukee-based advocacy group that has lobbied in favor of increasing funding for the state’s voucher program.
Brittney Kinser prepares to addresses the media and supporters the April 2025 election results come in. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
With her background, Kinser, who describes herself as a moderate, found support from Republicans and school choice advocates, receiving over $1.6 million in contributions from the Republican Party of Wisconsin.
While decisive, Underly’s victory was by a narrower margin than her first election in 2021, while Kinser did better than past DPI candidates who have run with the backing of the state’s powerful school choice lobby.
Underly said her takeaway from the closeness of the race is that “we need to just communicate better.”
Throughout the campaign, Underly faced criticism from her opponent, Republicans and others for her recent approval of changes to state testing standards and poor communication with school districts.
“There’s a lot that goes on at the agency that I think in years past, maybe state superintendents took for granted, but I think it’s important that we are communicating more,” Underly told the Wisconsin Examiner.
Underly said that the agency is working on rebuilding its relationship with legislators.
“The Legislature and the relationship with the state superintendent hasn’t always been that great…,” Underly said. “We meet with them frequently. We meet with the governor’s office quite frequently also. I’m just going to go back to the fact that I hope that we all want the same things, regardless of where we are on the political spectrum.”
Underly said that she also respected Evers’ decision not to endorse in the race and that her working relationship with his office is “fine.”
Throughout her campaign, Underly defended her decisions during her first term and said that she has served as “the No. 1 advocate for public education” and will continue to do so. Prior to being elected to the top DPI position, Underly worked as assistant director in DPI. She also previously served as a principal and superintendent of the Pecatonica Area School District and taught in public schools in Indiana.
Underly leaned on her advocacy for public schools while making the argument for her reelection. She introduced a budget request for the state that would have invested over $4 billion in public education, saying that it’s what schools deserved. Republicans and Evers both said it was too large.
Democratic lawmakers said Underly’s victory is a sign of Wisconsinites’ support of public schools and will hopefully bode well for the future of securing improved funding for public education.
Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) told the Wisconsin Examiner that Underly’s victory was a vindication of her first term in office.
“She’s had to make do with some really tough choices, and she’s done a great job for kids and for teachers,” Hesselbein said.
“We know public schools unite communities, and when we have strong public schools, we have strong communities,” Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison) said. “We’ve got a state superintendent who’s going to be looking out for every learner in our state, and so I’m also looking forward to the transparency and accountability that will come with ensuring that public dollars are for public schools.”
Hong said that the lack of communication between Republican lawmakers and Underly is the fault of lawmakers who are not interested in meeting the needs of students. She said that Underly’s win and “Republicans needing to answer to their communities who care about their public schools again” could encourage them to work across the aisle. She noted that Wisconsinites have repeatedly raised their property taxes to ensure schools have funding in lieu of reliable state investments.
Hong also said that she thought Underly’s victory showcased that “public dollars going to private schools was a deep concern for a lot of Wisconsinites.” During her campaign, Underly criticized her opponent for her lobbying for and support for Wisconsin’s school choice programs. She also expressed her opposition to the growth of those programs, saying it is not sustainable for the state to fund two school systems and that she would oppose dedicating more money to private school vouchers.
Underly said it’s clear that her opponent “cares about kids and she cares about kids learning,” and that something she would take away from the race is that “we all want the same things. Ultimately, we want kids to be successful.”
Children at The Playing Field, a Madison child care center that participates in the federal Head Start program. (Courtesy of The Playing Field)
Head Start child care providers in Wisconsin and five other Midwestern states were stunned Tuesday to learn that the federal agency’s Chicago regional office was closed and their administrators were placed on leave — throwing new uncertainty into the operation of the 60-year-old child care and early education program.
“The Regional Office is a critical link to maintaining program services and safety for children and families,” said Jennie Mauer, executive director of the Wisconsin Head Start Association, in a statement distributed to news organizations Tuesday afternoon.
The surprise shutdown of the federal agency’s Chicago office — and four others across the country — left Head Start program directors uncertain about where to turn, Mauer said.
“We have received calls throughout the day from panicked Head Start programs worried about impacts to approving their current grants, fiscal issues, and applications to make their programs more responsive to their local communities,” Mauer said.
The regional offices are part of the Office of Head Start in the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
In an interview, Mauer said there had been no official word to Head Start providers about the Chicago office closing. Some program leaders learned of the closing from private contacts with people in the office.
“We have not seen official information come out” to local Head Start directors, who operate on the federal grants that fund the program, Mayer said. “It’s just really alarming. For an agency that is about serving families, I don’t understand how this can be.”
The National Head Start Association issued a press release Tuesday expressing “deep concern” about the regional office closings.
“In order to avoid disrupting services for children and families, we urge the administration to reconsider these actions until a plan has been created and shared widely,” the association stated.
Katie Hamm, the deputy assistant secretary for early childhood development at HHS during the Biden administration, posted on LinkedIn shortly before 12 noon Tuesday that she had learned of reduction-in-force (RIF) notices to employees in the Administration for Children and Families earlier in the day.
RIF notices appear to have gone to all employees of the Office of Head Start and the Office of Child Care in five regional offices, Hamm wrote, in Boston, New York, San Francisco and Seattle in addition to Chicago.
“Staff are on paid leave effective immediately and no longer have access to their files,” Hamm wrote. “There does not appear to be a transition plan so that Head Start grantees, States, and Tribes are assigned to a new office. For Head Start, it is unclear who will administer grants going forward.”
Hamm left HHS at the end of the Biden administration in January, according to her LinkedIn profile.
Mauer said regional office employees “are our key partners and colleagues,” and their departure has left Head Start operators “incredibly saddened and deeply concerned.”
Regional employees work with providers “to ensure the safety and quality of services and to meet the mission of providing care for the most vulnerable families in the country,” Mauer said.
The regional offices provide grant oversight, distribute funds, monitor Head Start programs and advise centers on complying with regulations, including for child safety, she said. They also provide training and technical assistance for local Head Start programs.
“The Regional Office is a critical link to maintaining program services and safety for children and families,” Mauer said. “These cuts will have a direct impact on programs, children, and families.”
In addition to Wisconsin, the Chicago regional office oversees programs in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota.
Head Start supervises about 284 grants across the six states in programs that enroll about 115,000 children, according to Mauer. There are 39 Head Start providers in Wisconsin enrolling about 16,000 children and employing about 4,000 staff.
The federal government created Head Start in the mid-1960s to provide early education for children living in low-income households. Head Start operators report that the vast majority of the families they serve rely on the program to provide child careso they can hold jobs.
The regional office closings came two months after a sudden halt in Head Start funding. Head Start operators get a federal reimbursement after they incur expenses, and program directors have been accustomed to being able to submit their expenses and receive reimbursement payments through an online portal.
Over about two weeks in late January and early February, program leaders in Wisconsin and across the country reported that they wereunable to log into the system or post their payment requests. The glitches persisted for some programs for several days, but wereultimately resolved by Feb. 10.
Mauer told the Wisconsin Examiner on Tuesday that so far, there have not been new payment delays. But there has also been no communication with Head Start operators about what happens now with the unexpected regional office closings, she said.
“No plan for who will provide support has been shared, and the still-existing regional offices are already understaffed,” Mauer said. “I’m very nervous to see what happens. With no transition plan this will be a disaster.”
In her statement, Mauer said the regional office closing was “another example of the Federal Administration’s continuing assault on Head Start” following the earlier funding freeze and stalled reimbursements.
She said closing regional offices was undermining the program’s ability to function.
“We call on Congress to immediately investigate this blatant effort to hamper Head Start’s ability to provide services,” Mauer stated, “and to hold the Administration accountable for their actions.”
In the wake of sweeping federal funding cuts by the Trump Administration in recent weeks, U.S. Department of Agriculture grants that fund tribal colleges and universities in Wisconsin and beyond have vanished.
A yard sign urging voters to vote 'Yes' on a referendum request for Ashwaubenon School District in 2024 when a record number of schools went to referendum. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.
As Wisconsin school districts seek permission this week from voters to spend more than $1.6 billion for operational and building costs, state lawmakers are looking for ways to address the issue of schools’ growing reliance on referendum requests.
Voters across the state are deciding this spring on a total of 94 referendum requests including some in February and many in the upcoming April 1 elections. According to the Wisconsin Policy Forum, it’s the most ever between January and April in a non-presidential or midterm election year and it’s the continuation of an ongoing trend.
Republicans have introduced three proposals for new limitations on the referendum process in reaction to Milwaukee Public Schools’ successful request last year, with lawmakers saying the proposals would increase fairness and transparency for voters and taxpayers. However, one Democratic lawmaker and other stakeholders said the proposals would limit local control and don’t address the structural financial issues that drive school districts to go to referendum.
Eliminating ‘recurring’ referendum requests
A bill coauthored by Rep. Cindi Duchow (R-Town of Delafield) and Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield) would eliminate referendum questions that allow permanent operational funding increases and would limit other referendum requests to cover no more than a four-year period.
Duchow said in an interview with the Wisconsin Examiner that she doesn’t think there is a problem with school districts going to referendum and called them the “perfect tool” to allow local residents to make funding decisions. But she doesn’t think funding increases sought through a referendum should be permanent — or, in legislative terminology, “recurring” year after year.
The referendum option was created for schools in 1993 as a part of legislation that put limits on schools’ ability to raise revenue by increasing property taxes.
Anne Chapman, research director for the Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials Association (WASBO), said in an interview that the idea behind the legislation was that property taxpayers would be protected and the state would take care of school districts financially in return. From 1993 to 2010, revenue caps — the limit on how much districts could raise without voters’ permission — were tied to inflation. The inflationary increases were eliminated in 2009 and state funding has not filled the gap to give schools an inflationary increase.
According to WASBO, general school district revenues have lagged the rate of inflation for a decade and a half. If funding had kept up with inflation, districts would be getting $3,380 more per pupil in 2025.
Wisconsin schools also only receive funding for about a third of their special education costs and many are drawing from their general funds to keep up with providing expensive federally and state mandated services to students with disabilities. Districts are also dealing with declining enrollment, which results in lower funding for a district as there are fewer students even if fixed costs such as maintaining facilities may not fall.
School officials and advocates have pointed out that many districts are relying heavily on referendum requests to meet costs (even to keep schools open), saying the trend is untenable. Mauston School District is one example as school leaders were considering dissolving the district after two failed referendum requests until voters finally approved a request in February.
Chapman noted that when a referendum fails it can result in a school deferring maintenance, increasing class sizes and cutting staff, AP programs, language, support staff for special education, nurses, librarians, athletics and “all the things that kids need to kind of stay engaged in school.”
Dale Knapp, director of Wisconsin-based research organization Forward Analytics, said in 2023 that he didn’t “think the lawmakers who created this law envisioned referenda being relied on this much.”
“Maybe the answer after 30 years of the limits is an in-depth review of the law to see how it can be improved to continue protecting taxpayers and ensure adequate funding of our schools,” Knapp said.
Duchow, however, said that the state is providing “plenty of money” to schools.
“If they want a new gym, that’s on them. I’m not here to build you a new gym. The people who live in that community should make that decision,” Duchow said. She also said there are some schools that probably need to consolidate and others that need to close.
While school districts do go to voters to fund building costs, many are also going to referendum for “operational” (and often recurring) costs and as a way to keep up with staff pay, afford educational offerings and pay utility bills.
Duchow said recurring referendum questions are unfair. She said lawmakers in the caucus have been discussing changing the policy for a while. A similar proposal was introduced in 2017.
“We are looking at declining enrollment around this state, and how do we know what we really need 10 years from now?” Duchow said. “The Milwaukee referendum never goes away, so 10 years from now, we have less students in Milwaukee and we need the same amount of money? We have more technology coming in, which means we probably need less teachers.”
Duchow said Milwaukee’s $252 million operating referendum, which was the second largest school operating request in state history, was the “catalyst” for her bill.
Republican lawmakers and other state leaders have been highly critical of the request, which the district said was needed to fund staff pay and educational programming and voters narrowly approved. The criticism grew louder after the district’s financial crisis that resulted in the resignation of the superintendent and audits launched by Gov. Tony Evers.
“Enough is enough. MPS is a disaster. We have the worst reading scores in the nation, and all they do is scream they need more money,” Duchow said. “Money is obviously not the answer.”
Even with declining enrollment, the Milwaukee Public School District is the largest district in the state with 65,000 students enrolled, according to the 2024-25 enrollment data from DPI. This is over 2.5 times as many students as the next largest district in Wisconsin, Madison Metropolitan School District.
MPS students are also more likely to face significant challenges. More than 20% of students in the district have a disability, more than 80% are economically disadvantaged and 17.5% are English language learners. Statewide about 40% of students are economically disadvantaged, 15.7% are students with disabilities and 6.92% are English language learners.
Chapman said students with higher needs often incur higher costs for districts.
Duchow said that putting a four-year limit on referendum requests for recurring funds gives communities the ability to react to changing circumstances and that school districts should justify to voters why they need the funds. She said she would be open to discussing a different limit when it comes to nonrecurring referendum requests.
“It’s also not fair that everybody could vote for that referendum and then decide, hey, this is really too expensive. I can’t afford these property taxes and then they move out, and I’m still there paying the referendum,” Duchow said.
Duchow said she hadn’t yet spoken with any school district leaders when she was interviewed by the Examiner in early March, but planned to reach out before a public hearing on the bill.
“I’m sure I can already tell you how the schools are going to feel. The schools are going to feel they want their recurring referendum, just like we want your boss to give you a 20% raise every year without you justifying why you should get it,” Duchow said. “That’s what the schools want, too. I don’t blame them. I would, too, but we can’t do that to our taxpayers.”
According to the Wisconsin Eye on Lobbying website, the Wisconsin Education Association Council has registered against the bill, while the Wisconsin REALTORS Association has registered in favor.
Lawmakers have added new restrictions to school referendum requests before. The 2017-19 state budget limited scheduling of a referendum requests to only two per year and only allowed them to be held on regularly scheduled election days.
“It used to be that referendums could be called by a school district at any time, but the Legislature said… we don’t want you to have the option to run so many referendums,” Chapman said.
Chapman noted in an interview that recurring referendum requests pass at lower rates than other types because it is harder to convince taxpayers. She said voters “know how to handle this” and lawmakers shouldn’t further reach in to restrict district’s options.
“Some districts and some communities want a recurring referendum,” Chapman said. “School districts have the option of asking for recurring and sometimes they do and voters sometimes approve them because they’re asking to fill structural budget holes that are never going to go away. They’re asking for basic operating dollars that they’re going to need in four years.”
A recent Marquette Law School poll found that Wisconsinites are becoming increasingly concerned with holding down property taxes since 2018 and less favorably inclined toward increasing funding for K-12 public schools.
Chapman noted that districts also often make nonrecurring referendum requests for recurring costs because they are an easier ask, though this places districts in another difficult position.
“As soon as you go to nonrecurring referendum in this environment with grossly inadequate state funding and state policies to support schools financially, you are now going to be in your own personal fiscal cliff,” Chapman said. “You’re going to have to go again, and probably for more, because your costs have gone up and funding does not keep up with inflation.”
Bills meant to provide ‘fairness,’ ‘transparency’
Lawmakers, concerned about the MPS referendum, requested a Legislative Fiscal Bureau memo last year that found some school districts in Wisconsin could see a decrease in state aid after the MPS referendum due to the way that equalization aid is calculated.
Equalization aid acts as a form of property tax relief, according to the Wisconsin School Business Officials Association. The amount of aid a district receives from the finite pot of money distributed by the state is determined by a formula that depends on a district’s property wealth, spending and enrollment.
Spending triggered by referendum requests is one factor in determining districts’ equalization aid, and Milwaukee — like other districts with low property wealth per pupil compared to the rest of the state — will receive more state aid per pupil than other districts with higher property wealth per pupil as a result of its increased spending from the referendum.
Chapman noted, however, that all 148 referendum requests for operating expenses in 2024 affect the share of equalization aid districts receive. She also emphasized that it’s not the only factor affecting the amount of aid districts get.
“Some districts have increasing enrollment, which means they’re going to pull more money away from Milwaukee.” Chapman said. “There’s all of these factors that affect every single district, and they intertwine with each other.”
Republicans viewed Milwaukee’s referendum as taking too much from other districts.
“Is it fair to the students, parents and taxpayers in Waukesha, Madison, Wautoma and others suffer without having the right to cast a vote?” the bill authors Rep. Scott Allen (R-Waukesha) and Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) asked in a memo. “Local school referendums should not have a significant negative impact on other districts. Simple fairness demands this type of thinking.”
The lawmakers’ bill would exclude any district referendum request worth more than $50 million from being considered when determining equalization aid. The effect of the bill would be that districts that pass a large referendum would have their aid eligibility reduced, leaving local taxpayers to pay more of the cost. The bill would only apply to districts below a certain property wealth value.
Chapman said the bill would penalize districts for being larger and having lower property wealth and is an example of lawmakers trying to micromanage local entities.
A final bill introduced by Allen and Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) would require that tax impact information be added to ballots. Currently, referendum ballot questions are required to include the dollar amount of the increase in the levy limit.
Under the bill, referendum questions would also need to include the estimated interest rate and amount of the interest accruing on the bonds, any fees that will be incurred if the bonds are defeased and a “good faith estimate of the dollar amount difference in property taxes on a median-valued, single-family residence located in the local governmental unit that would result from passage of the referendum.”
Proposal criticisms
Freshman Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) said he wasn’t inclined to support a ban on recurring referendum requests given the inconsistency in state funding.
“We go through this sort of toxic [state] budget cycle every two years and districts have to levy, and they don’t even know what to plan for, so recurring referendums are obviously a response to that,” Phelps said.
Phelps said the question of fairness is relevant when talking about the referendum process, but the framing of the Republican proposals is misguided, given the state’s over $4 billion budget surplus.
“It is not fair to taxpayers that, depending on what school district you live in, you might have an astronomical property tax bill just to keep that district running. That’s not fair,” Phelps said. He said the state of Wisconsin is “underfunding public schools and not using the taxes people already paid.”
Derek Gottlieb, an associate professor at the University of Northern Colorado and senior research director for School Perceptions, an education research firm, said Republicans appear to be “operating on behalf of the taxpayers across the state who have voted no on school referendums and yet lost and so had their taxes raised anyway.”
“Suddenly, because so many [referendum requests] are passing, homeowners, taxpayers who don’t want to have their taxes raised are saying that this is unfair or we shouldn’t have to have our taxes raised just because everybody in our community wants to raise our taxes and Republicans are coming to the defense of those folks,” Gottlieb said.
According to the Wisconsin Policy Forum, while the number of requests continues to rise, approval rates have started to decline with the 66.2% approval rate in 2024 being the lowest in a midterm or presidential election year since 2012.
Gottlieb said some of the concerns raised by lawmakers are valid. For example, he said the current terms used to describe referendum questions are “obscure” and unclear.
“Why not just say a permanent referendum and a temporary referendum?” he asked. “You could do a lot to increase the transparency of what people are voting on if you made that little language change.”
Gottlieb also said that he does have “sympathy” for those who don’t think there should be permanent funding requests, but acknowledged that this would have consequences for districts because it removes predictability in planning.
However, he said he doesn’t agree that the potential for people to move out of a community or into a community in the future should be the deciding factor in funding decisions.
“That’s a basic feature of any community anywhere,” he said.
The argument that “it is not a legitimate exercise of public governmental power to make a decision for a community, given the fact that the community will change in the future…is ridiculous,” Gottlieb said. “If that were the case, it would make all public decisions fundamentally illegitimate.”
The increasing number of referendum requests, Gottlieb said, is a sign that revenue limits are set too low, at an amount that is unacceptable to community members. He noted that when operational referendum requests fail, the schools typically cut theater arts, advanced placement coursework, second language instruction, foreign language instruction and other programs that aren’t required by the state.
Chapman called the proposals a “BandAid” on the issues districts are facing that “isn’t even really fixing the problem.”
“[If] legislators really wanted to protect taxpayers and make sure schools have what they need, they would do something like keep revenue limits inflationary [and] significantly improve the funding for special education, which would help every single kid,” Chapman said.
In his veto message, Evers said that even while "reasonable minds can disagree" over how to measure academic achievement, he objects to "the Legislature's attempts to undermine the constitutional authority and independence" of the DPI superintendent.
Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a Republican bill that would have undone recent testing standards changes. Evers talks to reporters at a WisPolitics. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.
Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a Republican bill Friday that would have undone recent changes to Wisconsin’s state testing standards — taking the state back to those used in 2019 and tying the standards to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
Lawmakers introduced the bill after changes were approved by state Superintendent Jill Underly last year, who said the changes would better align tests with educational standards and were developed with the help of teachers and other stakeholders as a part of a standard process. However, lawmakers accused Underly of lowering standards for kids. Evers had criticized the process for the changes as well, saying that there should have been better communication between Underly and other stakeholders.
Evers said in his veto message for AB 1 that while he has criticized the processes for the recent changes, he vetoed the bill because he objects to lawmakers “attempts to undermine the constitutional authority and independence of the state superintendent.”
Evers noted that the state superintendent is responsible for supervising public schools under the Wisconsin State Constitution and the Legislature is overstepping, and lawmakers had opportunities to provide input to the review and revision. The bill, he said, would “essentially strip control over school scoring and standard metrics away” from the superintendent and give it to the Legislature.
Underly said in a statement that she commends the veto. She said the bill was “deeply flawed as it relied on the NAEP – a federal assessment that is currently being cut by the federal government and is not aligned to Wisconsin’s rigorous standards – to influence local school policies. Most importantly, it undermined the authority of the state superintendent as outlined in Wisconsin’s Constitution.”
Lawmakers used the veto as an opportunity to criticize Evers and incumbent Superintendent Jill Underly — and to call on Wisconsinites to vote her out of office next week. Underly is running for her second term and faces education consultant and school choice advocate Brittany Kinser, who has cited the changes as a reason that she entered the race, on Tuesday.
Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu said in a statement that Evers “failed” students by vetoing the legislation.
“In January, the governor slammed State Superintendent Underly for lowering standards, but when he had a chance to fix it he chose politics over students,” LeMahieu said. “If 2025 is going to be the ‘Year of the Kid,’ Wisconsin voters will have to make changes at the Department of Public Instruction.”
Kinser said in a statement that “the decision to restore high standards now rests in the hands of Wisconsin voters” and she would “restore high standards” if elected.
The state Department of Public Instruction sets the direction of public education in Wisconsin. Here’s what the agency and the state superintendent do.
From left, Olivia Sawyer and Jeremy Bauer-Wolf protest the U.S. Education Department’s mass layoffs during a "honk-a-thon" and rally March 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — Two separate coalitions of advocacy and labor groups each filed suit against the Trump administration Monday over its sweeping efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education.
The National Education Association, NAACP, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Maryland Council 3 and public school parents filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to “immediately halt” the administration’s attempts to shutter the agency.
Meanwhile, the American Federation of Teachers, its Massachusetts chapter, AFSCME Council 93, the American Association of University Professors, the Service Employees International Union and two school districts in Massachusetts sued the administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Monday over the executive order and recent mass layoffs at the department.
NEA’s complaint argues that “if allowed to stand,” the Trump administration’s actions will “irrevocably harm” the groups, “their members and PK-12 and postsecondary education across the United States.”
The union notes that the administration “has taken drastic, escalating steps to incapacitate the Department, including cancelation of $1.5 billion in grants and contracts for the performance of core functions and mass layoffs of half its workforce.”
It adds that “these actions are unconstitutional and violate Congress’s directives in creating the Department and assigning it specific duties and appropriations,” per the complaint.
AFT’s complaint points out that “the mass removal of the individuals who do the work of the Department means that the Department will be unable to perform its statutorily mandated duties, including effectively distributing funds for students with disabilities and providing support and technical assistance to parents, families, and states to ensure those services are provided most effectively; protecting students’ civil rights; and providing financial aid for students seeking higher education.”
AFT argues that the executive order and the department’s “final mission,” including the mass layoffs, “are unlawful and harm millions of students, school districts, and educators across the nation.”
Trump actions
President Donald Trump last week directed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the department to the maximum extent that is legally permissible.
Only Congress, which established the 45-year-old department, has the power to abolish it.
The following day, Trump announced that some of the department’s key responsibilities — including its handling of the massive student loan portfolio and special education services — would be housed in the Small Business Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services, respectively.
The president also said HHS would handle “nutrition programs,” though it was unclear what he was referring to as the Department of Agriculture manages school meal and other major nutrition programs.
NEA slams ‘gutting’ of department
In a Monday statement, NEA’s president Becky Pringle said “gutting the Department of Education will hurt all students by sending class sizes soaring, cutting job training programs, making higher education more out of reach, taking away special education services for students with disabilities, and gutting student civil rights protections.”
“Parents, educators, and community leaders know this will widen the gaps in education, which is why we will do everything in our power to protect our students and their futures,” Pringle said.
Prior to the executive order, the agency already saw significant changes in the weeks since Trump took office, including mass layoffs, contract cuts, staff buyouts and major policy changes.
The department also announced earlier this month that more than 1,300 employees would be cut through a “reduction in force” process, calling into question how those mass layoffs would affect the agency’s abilities to carry out its main responsibilities.
The cuts prompted a lawsuit from a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general — who are trying to block the department from implementing the “reduction in force” action and Trump’s “directive to dismantle the Department of Education.”
White House, ED reaction
“The NEA and NAACP have done nothing to advance the educational outcomes of America’s students and the latest NAEP scores prove that,” Harrison Fields, White House principal deputy press secretary, said in a statement shared with States Newsroom.
“Instead of playing politics with baseless lawsuits, these groups should ditch the courtroom and work with the Trump administration and states on improving the classroom,” Fields said.
“As President Trump and Secretary McMahon have made clear, sunsetting the Department of Education will be done in partnership with Congress and national and state leaders to ensure all statutorily required programs are managed responsibly and where they best serve students and families,” Madi Biedermann, a spokesperson for the Education Department, said in a statement to States Newsroom.
“The U.S. Department of Education continues to deliver on all programs that fall under the agency’s purview, including vigilantly enforcing federal civil rights laws in schools and ensuring students with special needs and disabilities have access to critical resources,” Biedermann added.
President Donald Trump announces a proposed shift of Education Department programs to the Small Business Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services during a press availability in the Oval Office on March 21, 2025. (Source: White House livestream)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Friday that the U.S. Small Business Administration would handle the student loan portfolio for the slated-for-elimination Education Department, and that the Department of Health and Human Services would handle special education services and nutrition programs.
The announcement — which raises myriad questions over the logistics to carry out these transfers of authority — came a day after Trump signed a sweeping executive order that directs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the department to the extent she is permitted to by law.
“I do want to say that I’ve decided that the SBA, the Small Business Administration, headed by Kelly Loeffler — terrific person — will handle all of the student loan portfolio,” Trump said Friday morning.
The White House did not provide advance notice of the announcement, which Trump made at the opening of an Oval Office appearance with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
The Education Department manages student loans for millions of Americans, with a portfolio of more than $1.6 trillion, according to the White House.
In his executive order, Trump said the federal student aid program is “roughly the size of one of the Nation’s largest banks, Wells Fargo,” adding that “although Wells Fargo has more than 200,000 employees, the Department of Education has fewer than 1,500 in its Office of Federal Student Aid.”
‘Everything else’ to HHS
Meanwhile, Trump also said that the Department of Health and Human Services “will be handling special needs and all of the nutrition programs and everything else.”
It is unclear what nutrition programs Trump was referencing, as the U.S. Department of Agriculture manages school meal and other major nutrition programs.
One of the Education Department’s core functions includes supporting students with special needs. The department is also tasked with carrying out the federal guarantee of a free public education for children with disabilities Congress approved in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.
Trump added that the transfers will “work out very well.”
“Those two elements will be taken out of the Department of Education,” he said Friday. “And then all we have to do is get the students to get guidance from the people that love them and cherish them, including their parents, by the way, who will be totally involved in their education, along with the boards and the governors and the states.”
Trump’s Thursday order also directs McMahon to “return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”
SBA, HHS heads welcome extra programs
Asked for clarification on the announcement, a White House spokesperson on Friday referred States Newsroom to comments from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and heads of the Small Business Administration and Health and Human Services Department.
Leavitt noted the move was consistent with Trump’s promise to return education policy decisions to states.
“President Trump is doing everything within his executive authority to dismantle the Department of Education and return education back to the states while safeguarding critical functions for students and families such as student loans, special needs programs, and nutrition programs,” Leavitt said. “The President has always said Congress has a role to play in this effort, and we expect them to help the President deliver.”
Loeffler and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said their agencies were prepared to take on the Education Department programs.
“As the government’s largest guarantor of business loans, the SBA stands ready to deploy its resources and expertise on behalf of America’s taxpayers and students,” Loeffler said.
Kennedy, on the social media platform X, said his department was “fully prepared to take on the responsibility of supporting individuals with special needs and overseeing nutrition programs that were run by @usedgov.”
The Education Department directed States Newsroom to McMahon’s remarks on Fox News on Friday, where she said the department was discussing with other federal agencies where its programs may end up, noting she had a “good conversation” with Loeffler and that the two are “going to work on the strategic plan together.”
U.S. President Donald Trump stands with Secretary of Education Linda McMahon after signing an executive order to reduce the size and scope of the Education Department during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House on March 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — In a sweeping executive order signed Thursday, President Donald Trump called on Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the U.S. Education Department.
Trump signed the order at a major White House ceremony, flanked by children seated at desks. It directs McMahon to “return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”
Trump spoke to an audience packed with top GOP state officials, and he cited Republican Govs. Greg Abbott of Texas, Mike Braun of Indiana, Ron DeSantis of Florida, Bill Lee of Tennessee, Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Brad Little of Idaho, Jim Pillen of Nebraska and Mike DeWine of Ohio.
“After 45 years, the United States spends more money in education by far than any other country and spends, likewise, by far, more money per pupil than any country, and it’s not even close, but yet we rank near the bottom of the list in terms of success,” Trump said at the brief ceremony.
GOP Reps. Tim Walberg of Michigan and Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, the respective current and former chairs of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, were also in attendance.
The children each signed their own individual executive orders, proudly displaying them alongside Trump.
The order, which is sure to draw legal challenges, “also directs that programs or activities receiving any remaining Department of Education funds will not advance DEI or gender ideology,” referring to diversity, equity and inclusion.
Widespread reports ahead of the signing drew intense blowback from leading education groups, labor unions and congressional Democrats.
Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, noted that the department “was founded in part to guarantee the enforcement of students’ civil rights” in a statement Thursday.
“Legality aside, dismantling (the department) will exacerbate existing disparities, reduce accountability, and put low-income students, students of color, students with disabilities, rural students, and English as a Second Language (ESL) students at risk,” the Virginia Democrat added.
Title I, IDEA funds
The department’s many responsibilities include administering federal student aid, carrying out civil rights investigations, providing Title I funding for low-income school districts and guaranteeing a free public education for children with disabilities via the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.
Following the signing, McMahon clarified in a statement that “closing the Department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them — we will continue to support K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others who rely on essential programs.”
“We’re going to follow the law and eliminate the bureaucracy responsibly by working through Congress to ensure a lawful and orderly transition,” McMahon said.
Linda McMahon, President Donald Trump’s nominee at the time to be secretary of Education, testifies during her Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee confirmation hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Feb. 13, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Trump’s long-held campaign promise to move education “back to the states” comes despite much of the funding and oversight of schools already occurring at the state and local levels. The department also legally cannot dictate the curriculum of schools across the country.
Congress has the sole authority to shut down the department, and any bill to completely close the agency would face extreme difficulties getting through the narrowly GOP-controlled Senate, with at least 60 senators needed to advance past the filibuster.
However, it could be possible for the administration to take significant actions short of closure, such as moving some Education Department functions to other agencies.
The agency has an annual budget of $79 billion in discretionary spending, or funds appropriated yearly by Congress.
Earlier in March, the department announced that more than 1,300 employees would be cut through a “reduction in force” process — sparking concerns across the country over how the mass layoffs would impact the agency’s abilities to carry out its core functions.
A U.S. Department of Education employee leaves the building with their belongings on March 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
The department had 4,133 employees when Trump took office, but the cuts brought the total number of workers remaining down to roughly 2,183.
A group of 21 Democratic attorneys general quickly sued over that effort and asked a federal court in Massachusetts to block the department from implementing the “reduction in force” action and Trump’s “directive to dismantle the Department of Education.”
Lawsuit incoming
Opponents of the closure said it’s one more example of how Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, head of the temporary U.S. DOGE Service, are seeking to destroy the federal government as they reduce the workforce and spending.
From left, Olivia Sawyer and Jeremy Bauer-Wolf protest the U.S. Education Department’s mass layoffs during a “honk-a-thon” and rally March 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)
“Donald Trump and Elon Musk have aimed their wrecking ball at public schools and the futures of the 50 million students in rural, suburban, and urban communities across America, by dismantling public education to pay for tax handouts for billionaires,” said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, in a Wednesday night statement.
“Now, Trump is at it again with his latest effort to gut the Department of Education programs that support every student across the nation,” added Pringle, who leads the largest labor union in the country.
“If successful, Trump’s continued actions will hurt all students by sending class sizes soaring, cutting job training programs, making higher education more expensive and out of reach for middle class families, taking away special education services for students with disabilities, and gutting student civil rights protections,” she said.
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, one of the largest teachers unions in the country, kept her response to reports of the forthcoming order succinct.
Keri Rodrigues, president of the National Parents Union, speaks at a rally on Friday, March 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C, protesting the U.S. Education Department’s mass layoffs and President Donald Trump’s plans to dismantle the agency. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — Dozens gathered Friday outside the U.S. Department of Education to protest the ousting of more than 1,300 employees and President Donald Trump’s plans to dismantle the agency.
As the fate of the 45-year-old department hangs in the balance following the cuts this week, demonstrators held signs at a rally outside of the Education Department headquarters with slogans including “Educate Don’t Eliminate” and “WWE: We Want Education,” a reference to Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s World Wrestling Entertainment background.
“These cuts — this isn’t just about a department and a building — this is about federal streams of money that help students live (up to) their full potential,” said Kim Anderson, executive director of the National Education Association, the country’s largest labor union.
“This agenda is about cutting funding and shipping it to private schools, it is about vouchers, make no mistake about it,” Anderson said. “It is about dismantling public education so that children cannot get what they deserve.”
Antoinette Flores, who worked for the U.S. Department of Education during the Biden administration, protests the agency’s mass layoffs during Friday’s “honk-a-thon” and rally. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)
Trump has repeatedly pledged to shutter the agency, and McMahon confirmed this week that the sweeping cuts marked the first step in that process.
The president alone does not have the authority to close the department, and such an effort would need congressional approval.
‘Fight back’
Following a “honk-a-thon” on Independence Avenue, Sen. Mazie Hirono told the crowd that Trump and billionaire White House adviser Elon Musk “think that they can take a chain saw to government agencies, and they’ve been slashing and burning and firing thousands of people for no cause, and just recently, of course, they got to the Department of Education.”
Trump and Musk have taken significant steps to reduce federal government spending and go after what they see as waste, with the Education Department marking a major target of those efforts.
“But we are all here to fight back because this is no time to be sitting back thinking that other people are going to fight the battles for us,” the Hawaii Democrat said. “No, we are in it together.”
A demonstrator stands outside the U.S. Education Department in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)
The rally came as department leaders announced this week that they would be cutting a substantial number of the agency’s staff, prompting concerns over how the department could carry out its responsibilities when roughly halving its workforce.
The layoffs make huge cuts to the Office for Civil Rights, Office of Federal Student Aid and Institute of Education Sciences, among other units, according to the nonprofit Education Reform Now, which advocates for more resources for education.
Fulfilling responsibilities
Some of the department’s many responsibilities include administering federal student aid, enforcing civil rights cases, providing Title I funding for low-income school districts and guaranteeing a free public education for children with disabilities via the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.
Molly Cronin, a special education teacher in Virginia, holds a sign that reads: “Linda has no I.D.E.A.” — referencing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. During a recent interview on Fox News, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon could not answer what the acronym stood for when asked. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)
Through a spokesperson, the department said Thursday its core responsibilities would not be impacted by the cuts.
But protesters Friday worried about the path to dismantling the department.
Molly Cronin, a special education teacher in Virginia, told States Newsroom that “if IDEA is not protected, if Title I is not protected, if Head Start is not funded, our most vulnerable children are going to be failed by the system, and we have a duty as educators to protect all students.”
Cronin, a member of the National Education Association who serves on the board of her local union, said one of the biggest misunderstandings about the agency “is that people think that the federal department is in control of the states and states’ curriculum and programs and all of that, when, in fact, that’s not true.”
Trump has vowed to shut down the department in his quest to move education “back to the states,” despite much of the funding and oversight of schools already occurring at the state and local levels. Legally, the federal government cannot control the curriculum of schools.
Legal challenges to the sweeping cuts are already taking shape, after 21 Democratic attorneys general sued the Trump administration Thursday over the efforts.
Prior to the mass layoffs, the department already witnessed dramatic downsizing in the weeks since Trump took office, with major contract cuts and staff buyouts.
Cuts make mission harder
Antoinette Flores, who worked for the Education Department during the Biden administration, said she knows many of the people harmed by the layoffs.
“These are colleagues, these are friends, these are dedicated public servants that help students, and it’s devastating to see what’s happening.”
Flores, who focuses on higher education, told States Newsroom the massive cuts are “going to make it much more challenging for students to receive grants and loans that they’re entitled to.”
Rather than go after inefficiencies in the federal government, as Trump and Musk have said is their goal, Flores said a smaller federal workforce would actually “increase fraud, waste and abuse.”
The complaint asks the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to block the department from implementing the “reduction in force,” or RIF, action and President Donald Trump’s “directive to dismantle the Department of Education.”
Attorneys general in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Wisconsin signed onto the suit.
The group said the RIF is “equivalent to incapacitating key, statutorily-mandated functions of the Department, causing immense damage” to their states and educational systems.
Leaders at the 45-year-old agency said Tuesday they would be cutting a substantial number of the agency’s staff, prompting concerns over how the department could carry out its responsibilities when roughly halving its workforce.
The attorneys general argued that the “massive RIF is not supported by any actual reasoning or specific determinations about how to eliminate purported waste in the Department — rather, the RIF is part and parcel of President Trump’s and Secretary (Linda) McMahon’s opposition to the Department of Education’s entire existence.”
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes told reporters in Phoenix Thursday morning that the Department of Education cuts would be devastating to Arizona’s public school students, but especially to those who live in rural areas and who have learning disabilities.
“This is part of a deliberate effort to dismantle public education in this country,” Mayes said. “It is going to hurt students, families and schools, especially in rural areas that rely on federal support. And let us be clear, there is absolutely no way that the Department of Education can perform its legal obligations with half the workforce.”
Madi Biedermann, a spokesperson for the department, said in a written statement to States Newsroom that the agency’s RIF “was implemented carefully and in compliance with all applicable regulations and laws,” and “they are strategic, internal-facing cuts that will not directly impact students and families.”
Some of the department’s core functions include administering federal student aid, enforcing civil rights cases, providing Title I funding for low-income school districts and guaranteeing a free public education for children with disabilities via the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.
Biedermann said the cuts would not impact employees working on the student aid application, student loan servicing and Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA, Title funds. No workers in the Office of Special Education Programs or the Rehabilitation Services Administration who serve children with disabilities were impacted, she wrote.
She said the department’s Office for Civil Rights “will continue to investigate complaints and vigorously enforce federal civil rights laws.”
But according to an analysis by the nonprofit Education Reform Now, which advocates for more resources for education, based on data from the union representing Education Department workers, the layoffs make huge cuts to the Office for Civil Rights, Office of Federal Student Aid and Institute of Education Sciences, among other units.
Closing the department
Shortly after the announcement of the layoffs, McMahon confirmed to Fox News that the cuts were the first step on the road to shutting down the department.
McMahon said Trump’s “directive to me, clearly, is to shut down the Department of Education” and saw the layoffs as the first step toward eliminating what she sees as “bureaucratic bloat.”
Trump campaigned on a promise to shutter the agency in his quest to move education “back to the states” — despite much of the funding and oversight already occurring at the state and local levels.
The department has also been a major target of Trump and billionaire White House adviser Elon Musk’s efforts to slash federal government spending and eliminate what they see as waste.
Arizona Mirror reporter Caitlin Sievers contributed to this report.
Federal funding for Wisconsin library systems might be at risk after President Donald Trump ordered the elimination of an agency that provides financial support to libraries nationwide.
Login
