Holstein cows milking at a dairy in Idaho, July 20, 2012 (Photo by Kirsten Strough/U.S. Department of Agriculture).

WASHINGTON – School cafeterias moved one step closer to consuming whole milk again after the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution Monday to reintroduce dairy into school lunches.

The bill passed the Senate unanimously in November and now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk.

The bipartisan effort – which passed the House by voice vote – came after whole milk was banned from school meal programs for more than a decade as part of broader efforts to curb childhood obesity.

Under the bill, schools participating in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National School Lunch Program would be able to offer “flavored and unflavored, organic or non-organic, whole, reduced-fat, low-fat, and fat-free fluid milk and lactose-free fluid milk,” as well as “non-dairy beverages that are nutritionally equivalent to fluid milk and meet nutritional standards established by the Secretary.”

The bill would also exempt milk fat from being considered saturated fat because it applies to the “allowable average saturated fat content in a meal” served in schools.

This solution allows parents and guardians, in addition to doctors, to provide a written declaration that their student will receive a dairy-free milk substitute.

Sense. GOP Roger Marshall of Kansas and Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania, along with Democratic Sens. Peter Welch of Vermont and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, introduced a measure in January in the Senate.

Republican Glenn “GT” Thompson of Pennsylvania and Democrat Kim Schrier of Washington state contributed appropriate legislation in the Chamber.

“An essential building block”

During Monday’s debate, Thompson, who chairs the House Agriculture Committee, said the bill’s goal is to “restore students’ access to a wide range of dairy products, providing them with the nutrients they need to learn and grow.”

Thompson stated that “milk is an essential component of a well-formed and balanced diet, providing 13 essential nutrients and numerous health benefits,” but “unfortunately, outdated and outdated federal regulations have placed restrictions on the types of milk students have access to in school meals.”

Thompson pointed out that the bill “does not require any student to drink or require any school to serve whole milk” and instead “simply gives schools the flexibility to serve a wider variety of milk in the school cafeteria.”

But Republican Bobby Scott, the ranking member of the House Education and Labor Committee, voiced his opposition, saying that while the bill “makes some improvements to the whole milk debate, including better options for students seeking dairy-free alternatives,” he remains “disappointed that the bill overall will make school meals less healthy.”

The Virginia Democrat said the bill “contradicts the dairy industry’s stated commitment to ensuring students have access to the healthiest dairy products” in accordance with USDA and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services dietary guidelines.

Praise for the dairy industry

The top five states for milk production in 2023 are California, Wisconsin, Idaho, Texas and New York, According to Economic Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture.

Michael Dykes, president and CEO of the International Dairy Foods Association, celebrated the House of Representatives’ passage of the bill, which he called “a decisive victory for children’s health and the dairy community, which has been fighting for more than a decade to restore whole milk and 2% milk to our nation’s students.”

Dykes urged Trump to sign the bill so that the USDA “can begin working with state governments and school districts across the country to implement this law.”

Penn Wood High School in the William Penn School District in Lansdowne, Delaware County, June 15, 2023 (Amanda Berg as Capital-Star)

Tucked away in the code bill passed with the state’s 2025-2026 budget is a provision that would provide one school district with $5 million, on top of the typical formulas used to allocate funds among Pennsylvania school districts.

The bill did not name the county, but specified that the money be given “in a second Class A county that has a 2021-2022 daily membership of more than 5,590 to less than 5,595.”

It could only be William Penn of Delaware County, represented by House Speaker Joanna McClinton (Philadelphia).

William Penn has been struggling financially for years and was one of six school districts to cite a lawsuit that led to the 2023 invalidation of Pennsylvania’s method of giving money to schools. The Commonwealth Court found it unconstitutional.

According to Jennifer Hoff, who serves on the School’s Board of Directors. William Penn and chairs its Budget and Finance Committee, district officials have asked lawmakers to advocate for additional funding — as they do every year — during negotiations for the latest state budget.

Hoff said William Penn needed money even more than usual this year because the state budget impasse forced the district to borrow and take on interest to make up for delayed Commonwealth funding.

“William Penn has long fought and defended itself on funding issues,” Hoff said. “We have to be properly financed. That’s what caused the problem and that’s what perpetuates the problems. It’s more expensive to be poor than to be rich. Insurance rates are going up and borrowing is more expensive. That’s where William Penn is. We never get ahead, and it’s a government-made problem.”

At least more than two dozen other school districts also took out loans and incurred interest, according to the report Pennsylvania State Education Association.

Asked why the William Penn School District received additional funding, Beth Rementer, spokeswoman for the House Democratic Caucus, said in a statement: “The guiding principle of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives has always been and always will be helping the least advantaged. The scope of activities represented by our leaders overlaps some of the poorest areas. Maybe that’s a good thing.”

Rementer did not respond to follow-up questions about whether specific issues make William Penn’s financial needs higher than other districts.

Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg, a senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center who represented William Penn in the case that led to the creation of the adequacy formula, provided some clarity about the district’s unique needs.

William Penn was recently found is struggling with a $9.2 million deficit after record-keeping problems and an inadequate budget were revealed. That prompted the school district to consider staff reductions, including administrators and academic interventionists who work one-on-one with struggling students.

“I think context matters,” Urevick-Ackelsberg said. “This is a district that has ruled against the state for unconstitutional underfunding, and their budget situation, if anything, is even worse than previously thought… This has been a disaster for them.”

Deirdre Abrahamsson, a spokeswoman for William Penn, said the district has taken steps to ensure similar accounting problems do not arise again.

“We have implemented new internal controls and updated financial procedures to standardize record keeping and documentation,” she said. Staff received training in purchasing, payroll and budget reporting to ensure consistency and compliance across all schools and departments. Oversight and accountability were also increased, with more recurrent internal reviews and closer collaboration between the business office, administrators and auditors.

According to school board member Hoff, the district is still deciding what to do with the $5 million from the state.

The money is likely to be used to expand mental health education programs and services. Because the funds are a one-time cash infusion rather than recurring revenue, the district is cautious about allocating them to recurring costs such as staffing costs, Hoff said.

Kayla Anderson, a spokeswoman for Gov. Josh Shapiro, who was a key negotiator for both the 2024-25 and 2025-26 budgets, did not respond to specific questions from the Capital-Star.

However, in a statement it said that the latest spending plan “takes seriously the need to provide dollars to schools that need them most to ensure that every Pennsylvania student has access to an appropriate and equitable education. The final budget agreement was the result of thoughtful and thoughtful negotiations with all leaders on both sides.”

Additional funding as part of Capitol compromise

This is the second year in a row that the state budget has included additional funding for school districts represented by House leadership members.

Last year, in the wake of the lawsuit, Democratic lawmakers pushed for adjustments to an adequacy funding formula designed to lend a hand disadvantaged schools. This ultimately led to the creation of 11 school districts receiving an additional $14 million per year – all represented by members of the Democratic Chamber, including members of the management. One of them was William Penn.

Democratic lawmakers said the move was the result of a compromise with Senate Republicans, who successfully pushed for changes to the adequacy formula that resulted in dozens of school districts — including 11 — receiving less funding than Democrats had hoped.

The compromise, they say, protects districts that actually need the money and are vital to House Democrats whose votes were crucial to passing the budget and ensuring the adequacy formula was implemented at all.

All 11 districts that received additional funding felt the changes to the adequacy formula proposed by Republicans. However, according to an Capital-Star analysis.

“There are 500 school districts across the commonwealth, and each has its own definition of what fair funding means,” Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman (R-Indiana) said in a statement. “For years, our Commonwealth of Nations has been dealing with formulas designed to bring about greater ‘fairness’, but there is no universally agreed definition of fairness. As we continue to fulfill our responsibility to support the educational opportunities of all Pennsylvania children, the issue of allocating dollars within an adequacy framework remains a topic of conversation. “

Urevick-Ackelsberg believes Democrats in the House of Representatives, led by McClinton, have shown they are in good faith advocating for better funding for K-12 elementary and middle schools throughout Pennsylvania, including rural areas represented primarily by Republicans.

“If I were to judge Speaker McClinton honestly, I think I would say that she is a really good advocate for increasing school funding. And I think that by any reasonable measure, this caucus has repeatedly approved both fiscal reforms and more aggressive funding increases, but has not passed both,” Urevick-Ackelsberg said.

While he would prefer broader changes to Pennsylvania’s school funding model that would lend a hand more schools, Urevick-Ackelsberg believes the $5 million for William Penn is a necessary expense for a district in crisis.

“William Penn is in a pretty unique position because the district, which was the lead plaintiff in the school funding dispute and which entered a judgment against the state, is facing an acute disaster,” he said. “I don’t think there’s any conclusion to be drawn other than to say we need to get this money out to all school districts more quickly.”

Originally, a seven-year plan to raise the state budget for struggling districts by $5.4 billion was presented by a committee of lawmakers and members of the Shapiro administration. They were charged with developing the plan in 2023 before the Commonwealth Court ruled that the state’s school funding formula was unconstitutional.

But lawmakers extended that deadline to nine years under pressure from the GOP Senate majority.

“We are not solving the problem as quickly as we need to,” Urevick-Ackelsberg said. “If you are a child starting kindergarten, you will be in ninth grade before schools start receiving adequate funding.”

The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education building pictured in November 2024 (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON – A lawsuit coalition seeking to block President Donald Trump’s efforts to disband the U.S. Department of Education expanded its Tuesday lawsuit to include objections to recent interagency agreements aimed at shifting the department’s responsibilities to other Cabinet-level agencies.

The Alliance of Labor Unions and School Districts also added a major disability rights group to its ranks in an amended complaint that details how the Nov. 18 department announcement of six interagency agreements could harm students.

The agreements to transfer several education-related responsibilities to four other departments were met with swift backlash from Democratic officials, unions and interest groups, who questioned the legality of the transfer and expressed concerns about the harm to students, families and schools as a result.

“Dispersing Department of Education programs among agencies without education expertise or key agency infrastructure will reduce the effectiveness and efficiency of those programs and prevent the type of synergy Congress intended to achieve by consolidating federal education activities into a single Cabinet-level agency,” wrote the coalition, represented by the legal group Democracy Forward corrected complaint.

The expanded lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for what it calls the administration’s “unlawful efforts to disband the Department of Education,” pointing to interagency agreements, mass layoffs at the department earlier this year and the implementation of an executive order that called on Education Secretary Linda McMahon to facilitate the closure of her own department.

The Department for Education clarified in fact sheets on contracts with the Departments of Labour, Home Affairs, Health and Social Care and said it would “maintain all statutory responsibilities and continue to oversee these programmes”.

Department of Education axe

Trump tried to throw an ax at the 46-year-old department, saying he wanted to send education “back to the states.” Much of school funding and oversight already occurs at the state and local levels.

The original lawsuit, filed in March this year Massachusetts federal courtwas brought by the American Federation of Teachers, its Massachusetts chapter, AFSCME Council 93, the American Association of University Professors, the International Union of Service Employees and two Massachusetts school districts.

Tuesday’s filing added The Arc of the United States, an advocacy group for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, as a plaintiff.

At the beginning of this year, the case was combined with another March lawsuit related to Democratic attorneys general in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington State and Wisconsin.

“It’s no surprise that blue states and unions are more concerned about preserving DC’s bureaucracy than about giving parents, students and teachers greater control over education and improving the efficient delivery of funds and services,” Madi Biedermann, a department spokeswoman, said in a statement shared with States Newsroom.

The Supreme Court put a fleeting spotlight on Trump’s plan

In May, a federal judge in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction in a consolidated case, blocking the administration’s efforts, including reducing efforts at an agency that was gutting over 1,300 employeesTrump’s executive order calling for McMahon to facilitate closing your own department and directive to transfer some services to other federal agencies.

AND federal appeals court it upheld that order in June, prompting the administration to ask the Supreme Court to intervene.

The nation’s highest court in July temporarily suspended lower court orders, allowing the administration to continue its liquidation efforts for now.

A U.S. Department of Education regulation, scheduled to go into effect in July 2026, would give the secretary broad discretion to decide which organizations qualify for the student loan forgiveness program for borrowers entering public service. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A fresh U.S. Department of Education regulation narrowing eligibility for a key student debt relief program for public employees has faced powerful opposition from supporters who say the regulation is an attempt to target organizations whose missions do not align with President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Under the final regulation, which is expected to enter into force in July, employers who participate in them those engaging in “unlawful activities with a substantial illegal purpose” will be excluded from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which aims to encourage college graduates to pursue careers in public service.

The final rule’s language, which focuses on issues such as gender-affirming care and illegal immigration, also raised concerns that it was designed to enforce Trump administration priorities.

At least three lawsuits filed by Democratic attorneys general, cities, labor unions and nonprofit advocacy groups claim the regulation is too vague and exceeds the department’s authority.

The rule would harm not only the institutions that benefit from the program, but also public service workers themselves, Winston Berkman-Breen, legal director at the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, told States Newsroom.

“It’s not just about the macro effect of whether these organizations, including governments, will be able to do their job,” he said. “This rule is going to be really, really detrimental to the individual financial health and security of borrowers and their households, and we’re already kind of witnessing that.”

The organization is representing a coalition of cities, nonprofit advocacy groups and labor unions in one of the lawsuits over the ordinance.

Here’s a closer look at this policy and what it means for borrowers and employers:

What is Public Service Loan Forgiveness?

Congress created the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program in 2007 under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act to encourage people to pursue careers in public service.

PSLF forgives remaining student debt for borrowers after they make 120 qualifying monthly payments while working for a qualifying employer.

How will regulation work?

The department’s final rule–which results from March executive order — is forward-looking only, meaning employees will not lose any credits earned before the July 1, 2026 effective date.

Under this policy, the Secretary of Education may do so define “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the employer engaged in “illegal activity and therefore the organization has a substantial illegal purpose.”

Affected employers can either reapply to qualifying employer status after 10 years or attempt to regain eligibility within a shorter period of time if they implement a “corrective action plan,” which requires approval from the Secretary.

Activities that could disqualify the employer according to departmentswitch on:

• “Aiding” illegal immigration or “illegal discrimination”
• Providing gender-affirming care
• Supporting terrorism or “engaging in violence to obstruct or influence federal government policy.”
• Child Trafficking in Various States ‘For Freedom from Lawful Parents’
• Violation of state law

What is the debate about?

While the administration has characterized the rule as an attempt to punish “criminal activity,” Democratic supporters and officials see it as a way to target organizations that are not aligned with the administration’s goals.

“The grounds for disqualification in the Secretary of Education final regulations clearly demonstrate involvement in activities with which the administration disagrees or that are inconsistent with its agenda,” Berkman-Breen said.

He cited supporting immigrant communities, gender-affirming care, transgender rights, diverse hiring, teaching the correct portrayal of racial history in this country and the right to peaceful protest as examples.

Berkman-Breen said these actions are “very clearly something that administrations in other parts of the government have already attacked in civil society and in states and local communities, but now they are bringing this kind of attack to the public service loan forgiveness program.”

In response to a request for comment, the department released a statement from Education Undersecretary Nicholas Kent, who said it was “unacceptable for the plaintiffs to defend” what he described as “criminal activity.”

“This is common sense reform that will stop taxpayers’ money from subsidizing organizations involved in terrorism, child trafficking and transgender procedures that cause irreparable harm to children,” he said. “The final rule is crystal clear: The Department will enforce it neutrally, without regard to the mission, ideology, or population an employer serves.”

What impact will this have on employers?

Michele Zampini, associate vice president for federal policy and advocacy at the Institute for College Access & Success, said the final rule would divert nonprofits’ ability to focus on their mission and hamper their ability to retain staff and attract fresh ones.

The final rule “will have the effect of putting many nonprofits doing really important work in their communities on the defensive, whether they are on the defensive defensively, trying to avoid conflict with the administration, or whether they are already in some sense of a situation where the administration has targeted them,” she said.

Zampini, whose group aims to enhance affordability, accountability and equity in higher education, added that the program was critical in attracting talent to service-oriented jobs.

“PSLF largely enables people to take lower-paying jobs in exchange for the ability to manage their debt over time,” she said. “If people don’t have the opportunity, or even if they feel like they don’t have the opportunity or are afraid they won’t have the opportunity, it makes it much more difficult to attract people to these roles.”

What legal challenges have arisen against this policy?

The administration already faces several lawsuits over the final rule, with critics calling on federal courts to roll back the policy and declare it “unlawful.”

The contenders include a host of cities, unions and nonprofit advocacy groups that filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts federal court on November 3.

Other lawsuit was filed on the same day in the same federal court by Democratic attorneys general in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state, and Wisconsin.

Four non-profit support groups as well filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on November 4 against the administration over this provision.

On November 17, 2025, the House Education and Health Committees held a joint hearing on introducing cell phones in schools, but ultimately reached no conclusions. (Whitney Downard/Pennsylvania Capital Star)

School districts across the commonwealth may soon need to consider policies regarding silent alarms and cell phone operate in their buildings.

The state House of Representatives committees on education and health held a joint, two-hour hearing on Monday for information purposes, without considering any specific legislation. However, lawmakers did not appear to reach consensus on any of the issues, instead emphasizing the need for parental involvement and parental rights.

Nearly a dozen parents from across the state urged lawmakers to support a ring-to-ring cellphone ban, part of a 3,000-member coalition called “PA Unplugged.” The group is trying to implement a no-phone policy statewide.

“Bell to bell,” as used at the committee meeting, meant a political ban from the first bell in the morning until the last bell in the afternoon – with no exceptions for study halls or lunch.

“If children are so worried about contact with their parents, they don’t necessarily pay attention to the adult in the room who has been trained to provide information about what happens next and what children should do to stay safe,” Katie Talarico, an Allegheny County mom, told the Capital-Star. “We definitely believe that even in the most extreme situation, it is best not to have a cell phone.”

Talarico said dozens or even hundreds of children calling their parents could clog phone lines, hampering law enforcement’s work. She further stated that “it’s not good for emotional development either.”

“Children need opportunities to practice independence skills,” she said. “Sometimes I wish I could interact with the kids and find out, ‘How did this test go?’ But at some point we have to let the kids learn to solve these problems on their own.

House members who are parents, both Republicans and Democrats, had differing views, with some recalling the 9/11 attacks and the relief of a quick call from their children.

“Unfortunately, as someone who experienced 9/11 as a young person, and as a parent who witnessed numerous school shootings across the country, the thought that I may never hear my child’s voice for the last time weighs heavily on me,” said Rep. Danielle Friel Otten, D-Chester.

Ground effects

Some teachers, administrators, researchers and security staff testifying before the committees detailed the negative consequences of cellphone operate in the classroom, including cyberbullying and organizing school viral fights.

Beth Sanborn, president of the Pennsylvania Association of School Resources Offices and school safety coordinator for Montgomery County, said students even ordered food and let delivery people through secured doors with cell phones.

“The no-phone policy is not about punishment. It’s about protection,” Sanborn said.

Regarding parental safety concerns, Sanborn stressed that “there is no contingency plan anywhere that covers students using a cell phone” to notify parents and stated that a lack of contact does not mean a child is unsafe.

Mitch Prinstein, chair of the American Psychological Association’s psychology division, said data suggests high school students spend a third of every hour on devices that “probably” hinder learning.

“It’s not surprising that a child’s device at school leads to their poor academic performance. But what’s more surprising is that a child’s device use is also associated with poor academic performance for the students sitting behind them,” Prinstein said.

He also spoke about concerns about the misuse of AI by teenage adults, particularly in applications focused on well-being or therapy. He said some parents gave their child a smartwatch or simply used a school email address to stay in touch throughout the day – although such communications may be subject to disclosure laws.

Lisa Graham, a school counselor in the Seneca Valley School District in Butler County, said the number of cyberbullying incidents at her school dropped after her school implemented a bell-to-bell cellphone ban.

“Because students are not filling their free time with phones, they are developing social and communication skills,” Graham said. “They make new friends, and this increased connection promotes a greater sense of belonging at school and benefits their mental health.”

Silent alarms and responses in emergency situations

Another group of House members also considered a bill Monday that would force districts to “consider” whether to invest in silent alarm system that can notify law enforcement in an emergency.

Named “Alyssa’s Law” House Bill 634 was inspired in part by the death of Alyssa Alhadeff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida in 2018.

Silent alarms — including wearable versions or mobile apps — can be customized for a variety of purposes, such as one press for behavioral assistance or multiple hits for an dynamic shooter.

“When seconds count, immediate notification can save a life,” said David Lash, president of the Pennsylvania Chiefs Association and chief of police for the Northern York County Regional Police Department.

Alyssa’s Law, named after the Parkland shooting victim, would require panic alarms to be installed in school buildings

Lash said two of the seven counties in his service area had such systems, but the “most sophisticated” was probably in Delaware County. The Delaware County School Alert System (DelPASS) is on there. throughout the district and integrates law enforcement.

Lash added that such systems are not replacements and continued to encourage people to call 911 with further details. But “pressing a button in a classroom that goes directly to the 911 emergency center will send officers to the scene.”

An unknown number of districts have funded such alarms using school safety grants from the Pennsylvania Crime and Delinquency Commission, said Heather Masshardt, deputy director of the school safety and security group.

Masshardt said she could not provide details “due to precautions and data security requirements under the Pennsylvania Public School Code.” As much as $127 million has been made available for public, charter and private schools, which can also be spent on cybersecurity and other purchases. The latest budget increased those dollars by an additional $120 million.

The current grant funding structure allows schools to fund silent alarms after meeting other safety requirements, such as having exterior doors unsupported and closed or having a buzzer at public entrances.

The committees did not indicate further steps on any of the topics and adjourned the deliberations without a vote.

Children playing with colorful wooden blocks. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Funding for dozens of Head Start programs hung in the balance as the government shutdown continued Monday with no end in sight.

According to the National Head Start Association, if an agreement is not reached to end the ongoing funding pause that began Oct. 1, more than 65,000 children enrolled in 140 community-based Head Start programs in 41 states and Puerto Rico will not receive federal grants as of Nov. 1. The federal government spent about $12.3 billion on the program in fiscal year 2025.

Community programs receiving Head Start funding have different start dates for grant availability.

Head Start helps fund approximately 1,600 community programs that have served over 790,000 children in the 2023–2024 program year.

The program is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the agency’s employees who would pay these awards are currently on furlough due to the suspension of operations.

Six programs serving 6,525 children did not receive funding on October 1 and are already relying on external resources and local funds to stay afloat. If the shutdown continues last Friday, another 134 programs that serve 58,627 children will lose federal grant funding.

Head Start provides early education, nutritious meals, health screenings, and other support services to low-income families.

It is a discretionary program and is subject to congressional approval each year, making it particularly vulnerable to a government shutdown.

“It creates so much instability,” Tommy Sheridan, deputy director of the National Head Start Association advocacy group, told States Newsroom. “And while we are hopeful and will do everything we can to minimize the immediate impact on children and families, no matter what, the impact will be long-term.”

Lockdown impasse

The shutdown began on Oct. 1, at the beginning of the fiscal year, when Congress failed to allocate money for federal programs.

Democrats voted against bills that would temporarily reopen government operations, asking Republicans to negotiate a solution to expiring tax credits for health insurance premiums purchased through the Affordable Care Act platform. Republicans refused to negotiate during the government shutdown, leading to a stalemate.

In a statement on Monday, Emily Hilliard, an HHS spokeswoman, blamed Democrats for the looming funding shortfall.

“More than 58,000 children could lose access to Head Start funding and programs on November 1 solely because of a Democrat-led government shutdown,” she wrote.

Hilliard added that “the Trump administration is committed to reopening the government to the American people.”

“Collateral Damage”

Sheridan criticized the political landscape that will likely lead to a lack of funding.

“I can’t emphasize enough – this is purely due to politics,” Sheridan said. “It has nothing to do with Head Start not being an effective program or people in Congress and the administration not supporting Head Start.”

He pointed to the “strong bipartisan support” the program has received since its launch in 1965.

“This is just collateral damage in a larger fight that will harm working families and children,” Sheridan added.

Sheridan noted that “if programs don’t have access to federal resources, generally speaking, they can try, depending on the size of the program, to stay open for a period of time, but essentially they will use other funds and then they will recoup those costs in the future, sort of an accounting maneuver, to be able to continue operating the programs.”

He added: “That’s why we see so many programs either closing or needing to be reconsidered or things like that, and that’s why … we just urge Congress and the administration to stop making children and families a side effect of political fighting.”

Implications for local Head Start programs

For programs that must close due to loss of federal funding, Sheridan pointed to several impacts.

Children will lose access to hearty meals and other resources. Families would be deprived of affordable childcare options, forcing some people to quit their jobs or reduce their hours. Community members may feel economic impacts if workers working in Head Start programs lose paychecks or jobs.

“We also have community partners that we rely on for services, and they rely on us for business — small businesses, contractors, suppliers, other small businesses and things like that — but they rely on their Head Start contracts and if we can’t pay their bills, they can’t count on us for what they need either,” he said.

The program is already developing

Under President Donald Trump, the program was in chaos even before the government shutdown, including: delays in accessing approved grantsclosing of regional offices and layoffs at HHS Office of Head Start.

This office too he told grant recipients in March that it would “not approve the use of federal funds for any training and technical assistance (TTA) or other program expenditures that promote or participate in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.”

Federal judge in September temporarily blocked the administration a directive that aimed to prevent immigrants living in the United States illegally from accessing Head Start programs.

Meanwhile, Trump Budget proposal for 2026 calls for maintaining Head Start funding at approximately $12.3 billion from the previous fiscal year.

The Senate Appropriations Committee in July, it passed an annual bill to fund HHS, including Head Start, and allocated $12.4 billion to the program, roughly An enhance of $85 million.

The relevant panel in the House also approved an HHS funding bill consistent with the Act in September administration request maintaining Head Start funding at $12.3 billion in fiscal year 2026.

Sheridan noted that the program has already operated in the face of challenges such as natural disasters, the Covid-19 pandemic and previous government shutdowns.

“Our programs are absolutely committed, hopeful and work tirelessly to minimize the impact on children and families, but we cannot run a program based on hope and goodwill alone,” he said. “We need Congress and the president to come together to keep classrooms open and ensure that Head Start funding stays in line with the rising costs we have seen over the last year.”

House Democrats want to find common ground with Republicans on public cybersecurity schools. (Stock photo: Getty Images)

Amid an ongoing budget impasse, Democratic House lawmakers have offered Republicans a compromise that sees public online schools as a lifesaver for parents whose children are struggling in classic schools.

The Commonwealth’s 14 taxpayer-funded cybersecurity statutes have come under scrutiny for soaring bank balances and questionable spending under a funding system that has not been updated since online services were allowed a quarter of a century ago.

A bill passed in the House earlier this month and pending in the Senate includes a recent method for calculating the amount school districts must pay for each student enrolled in a cyber charter. This would save an estimated $173 million across the commonwealth’s 500 public school districts, according to the House Democratic Caucus.

Susan Spicka, director of the public school advocacy group Education Voters PA, said it would be a significant achievement, even though the cost reductions are a fraction of what a single statewide tuition rate would achieve.

“Is this all we need? Absolutely not. But is it a step in the right direction? Yes,” Spicka said. “It’s very out of the norm for Pennsylvania to say that we’re taking a serious look at these cyber cards and taking a significant step to make the system for financing them a little bit more rational.”

Tim Eller, director of branding and government relations for Commonwealth Charter Academy, the state’s largest cyber school, said the reduction would be equivalent to a 21% reduction in the school’s $500 million budget. He believes the impact will be significant.

“Would it change us completely? I don’t think it would completely change us,” Eller said, adding that CCA, which has about 34,000 students, would handle the change better than smaller cyber schools. “You can’t lose $100 million and continue as is.”

House Education Committee Chairman Peter Schweyer (D-Lehigh) said the main problem with online schools is that tuition has little relationship to the actual costs of running online schools.

“There are things that school districts pay for and cyber schools get reimbursed for and no one can explain why,” Schweyer said, noting that costs such as property maintenance and athletic programs are not included in online charters.

Senate Education Committee Chair Lynda Schlegel Culver (R-Northumberland) was not available for an interview this week. A Culver spokesman said the proposal was not approved and that Culver supports fully funding all public school options so parents can choose the best education for their children.

Under the Commonwealth’s charter school laws, public school districts must pay for each student attending a charter school the same amount they pay for students in their own buildings.

Because each district in Pennsylvania sets its own budget and per-pupil spending rate, a single charter school can receive a wide range of tuition from each school to which it attracts students.

Amounts ranged from $6,975 to $25,150 for elementary students and $18,329 to $60,166 for special education students.

One of Gov. Josh Shapiro’s education priorities when he unveiled his $51.6 billion budget plan in February was to establish flat statewide tuition for cyber charter schools. His office estimated it would save school districts $600 million that could be spent on programs in classic schools.

This plan was also part of Shapiro’s 2024-2025 spending proposal, but Republican Auditor General Timothy DeFoor has since released the results a three-year financial audit of five cybersecurity charters. It showed budget reserves that increased by 144% and “unusual” spending practices, such as paying bonuses to teachers and the purchase of 21 physical properties by CSW.

Republicans, whose approval in the Senate is needed to pass the budget, strongly oppose Shapiro’s flat-tuition proposal, saying it would hurt cybersecurity laws and limit parents’ choices about where to send their children for public education.

“If we can’t reach consensus on a flat rate, can we at least agree that we shouldn’t spend money on things cyber schools don’t need?” Schweyer said, adding that cyber studies students have the right to participate in extracurricular activities in the districts where they live.

When the House passed its latest budget plan earlier this month, it approved it as well Senate Bill 315. The legislation, introduced by Culver as a bill to make career and technical education funding more predictable, was amended in the House to include recent categories of expenses that school districts could deduct from cyber charter tuition.

“We do not reimburse cyber schools for any bus transportation,” Schweyer said. “We’re creating new deductions based on things that cyber schools don’t provide.”

These would include tuition fees for non-special education students, costs of tax assessment and collection services, 60% of student operating costs, and 60% of building operation and maintenance costs.

Dylan Wyatt, director of advocacy for the Pennsylvania School Business Officials Association, said additional deductions are a good first step.

“I think a lot of districts were hoping that some type of flat rate bill would be passed, knowing that it would be a difficult task for our Legislature,” he said.

If passed, the deductions would replace the $100 million refund for community college tuition that was included in the last budget. Because the amount each district received was based on the number of charter school students, some would receive more relief if the reimbursement remained in place.

However, Wyatt added that if the remainder of Shapiro’s education proposal becomes part of the final budget, most districts will be in a better financial position after the deduction.

Shapiro’s proposal includes $526 million in Ready to Learn block grants, which are used to distribute funds to the state’s most underfunded school districts. So-called adequacy funding was included in the latest 2023 budget following a court ruling that found the state’s reliance on property taxes to fund education was unconstitutional.

He also called for a $75 million enhance in basic education funding and $40 million in special education funding. Both budget bills passed in the Democratic-led House included all three increases, while the Senate proposals provided for lump-sum funding for education.

“If we see … what the governor has proposed in addition to cybersecurity deductions, most school districts would be in a better position,” Wyatt said.

A boy plays with a wooden puzzle with numbers. These types of sensory activities are often used in special education classrooms. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Proposed mass layoffs at the U.S. Department of Education have raised concerns among disability advocates and Democratic lawmakers over the potential impact on millions of workers disabled students.

Advocates warn that the department cannot perform its legally authorized functions of special education and support services at the staffing levels proposed by President Donald Trump’s Reductions in Workforce (RIF) proposal.

The agency is also reportedly considering approx transfer of special education programs to another department.

“If we’ve learned anything this year, it’s that the fight is just beginning,” Rachel Gittleman, president of Local 252 of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents Department of Education workers, told States Newsroom. “And we will do everything in our power to fight illegal layoffs and department closures, but this is just the beginning.”

Earlier this month, the Trump administration took another crack at the department amid the ongoing government shutdown, effectively eliminating key units serving students with disabilities. The offices concerned manage $15 billion in formulary and discretionary grant programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), provides guidance and support to families and states, and investigates complaints of disability discrimination, among other things.

Although a federal judge did temporarily blocked the administration from carrying out the dismissals, the ruling provides only short-term relief as the legal proceedings unfold.

The administration decided to make layoffs 465 department employeesincluding 121 at the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation, or OSERS, 132 at the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, or OESE, and 137 at the Office of Civil Rights, or OCR.

The layoffs also affected the Secretary’s Office, the Communications Office and the Post-Secondary Education Office.

“You can’t look at it in a silo,” Gittleman said. “When you think specifically about special education, you also have to consider the fact that OESE, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, also saw an almost full RIF.”

Gittleman called the Office for Civil Rights “a place that provides families a place to go to get help when students are denied access to an education because of their disabilities.”

“This was also almost completely destroyed,” she added. “So you’re undermining these programs in many ways because … children with disabilities benefit from OESE programs, OCR assistance, and OSERS programs.”

These three units has already been hit with a separate set of departmental exemptions earlier this year.

Parents as advocates

Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc of the United States, an advocacy group for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, said that while IDEA has not changed and the rights of children with disabilities remain in place, the government’s ability to enforce and implement those rights has deteriorated.

OSERS is responsible for managing and supporting IDEA, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary and guarantees free public education for students with disabilities. The OSERS umbrella unit includes the Office of the Deputy Secretary, the Office of Special Education Programs, and the Rehabilitation Services Administration.

“It’s taking knowledge away from U.S. Department of Education employees in the Office of Special Education Programs – the law is complex, the mix of federal law and state law is complex – you need a trusted source of accurate information, so I think that’s going to make it much more difficult to implement this law,” Neas told States Newsroom.

According to the IDEA Institute, 7.5 million students in the United States received services through IDEA in the 2022–2023 school year National Center for Education Statisticsfederal agency.

Neas encouraged parents to “know your rights” and “understand what the law does and does not do for your child and not take no for an answer.”

She said parents “really need to be well-versed in what the law requires schools to provide for their children” and “must insist that the law is applied faithfully because they are the ones who will be on the front lines trying to achieve this.”

‘Amazed’

Jacqueline Rodriguez, CEO of the National Center for Learning Disabilities, said RIFs would “prevent” the Office of Special Education Programs “from meeting its statutory requirements.”

Rodriguez, whose organization advocates for people with learning and attention difficulties, said: “We have hundreds of staff doing this type of work – the statutory requirements include monitoring, compliance, guidance and support – it’s not just about pressing a button and providing funding.”

She also noted that interest groups, including hers, are “baffled” by the mass layoffs of special education staff because of the contrast with Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s previous assurances to both Rodriguez and Congress about supporting students with disabilities.

“I’m not surprised that the administration tried to eliminate something that was required by law,” she said. “But I’m amazed that the secretary sat and testified in Congress during the confirmation hearing. She did it during the oversight hearing. She sat in front of me and said, ‘No, Jackie, this administration supports children with special needs.’ We will always be good supporters. You don’t have to worry. “

Just days after layoff notices were sent, McMahon took to social media downplay the consequences of downtime in her department.

Two weeks after schools closed, “millions of American students continue to attend school, teachers are paid, and schools continue to operate as normal,” McMahon wrote.

The Secretary added that she “affirms what the President has said: the federal Department of Education is unnecessary and we should return education to the states.”

McMahon also specified that “RIF has no impact on any education funding, including special education funding.”

Rodriguez said McMahon’s post shows the secretary believes “the status quo is completely reasonable – even though we know it is not – and deprives a disabled child of any opportunity to actually benefit from a legal education.”

“I cannot be polite and show professional respect because for the last 10 months no respect or respect has been shown to children with disabilities,” she added.

Groups advocating for students with disabilities are united in their opposition, Rodriguez continued.

“Organizations of disabled people across the country are united, we all talk to each other,” she said. “We are all working together and in agreement, step by step.”

Democrats in Congress fiercely oppose the cuts

Meanwhile, multiple Democratic lawmakers expressed outrage and concern about the department’s RIFs this month in two separate letters to the administration.

Reps. Lucy McBath of Georgia, Mark DeSaulnier and Lateefah Simon of California led dozens of others Democrats in the House of Representatives in an Oct. 17 letter to McMahon and White House Budget Director Russ Vought expressing their “strong opposition” to the layoffs and urging them to “immediately reverse course and rescind the notices of termination given to these employees.”

In another letter to McMahonThirty-one members of the Senate Democratic Caucus wrote Monday that “punitive, reckless actions like these latest firings demonstrate how President Trump and … Vought are gloating about the government shutdown they caused and treating students like political pawns,” adding: “It’s outrageous — and categorically unacceptable.”

The letter was led by Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, along with: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York; Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee; and Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees funding for the Department of Education.

Some Philadelphia daycare owners say they are dipping into their savings and taking out loans to stay in business during the budget impasse. (Photo: Rachel Woolf for Chalkbeat)

This history was originally published by Chalkbeat. Register Chalkbeat’s free Philadelphia newsletter to keep up with the city’s public school system

For more than three months, Lisa Smith taught several federally funded preschool classrooms at the Amazing Kidz Academy Early Learning Centers in Philadelphia without receiving compensation.

More than 100 children at Smith’s preschool benefit from the state’s Pre-K Counts program, which aims to provide free early learning to lower-income families and children who may be learning English or have special needs.

But as the state budget impasse continues for more than 100 days, Smith and dozens of other Philadelphia providers that directly participate in the program are still waiting for funds, forcing some to consider furloughing staff and closing classrooms, supporters say. Last fiscal year, approximately 150 Philadelphia preschools provided space in Pre-K Counts, serving 5,000 students.

For Smith, the budget impasse meant siphoning thousands from her personal savings and drawing more from her line of credit to keep the daycare afloat. As of this month, the state owes her company more than $300,000 for the Pre-K Counts program.

“Who can run a show for months without money?” Smith said. “Not adopting a budget to fund these programs and expecting us to fund them for so long – that’s disgraceful.”

In Philadelphia, some preschool spaces are managed by the school district, which is already forced to do so borrow up to $1.5 billion to supplement funds from the state budget.

Tyrone Scott, director of government and external affairs for Philadelphia-based First Up, said providers who contract with the district are receiving facilitate with costs and are now in a more stable financial situation.

But for dozens of preschools that have direct contracts with the state, providers and advocates say the budget impasse has pushed an already strained business model to the brink — and even a modern public loan program doesn’t provide full relief.

Lawmakers propose waiving interest for the Pre-K Counts loan program

At the state Capitol, lawmakers appear to be moving on key budget issues like school funding and Medicaid. Pennsylvania has become the only state in the country without a final state budget for the fiscal year.

Although the House is controlled by Democrats adopted a modern budget on Wednesday evening which includes a 5% spending enhance, the Republican-controlled Senate rejected the spending enhance and did not vote on the proposal.

Government officials have recently proposed some support measures, including: modern public loan program for Pre-K Counts providers. This program, called a bridge loan, allows lenders to borrow funds to cover business costs provided they agree to repay the loan with interest at the rate of 4.5% within 15 days of the disbursement of state funds.

But Scott said the interest rate and compact repayment period of the loan concerned some providers.

“It’s still something people are concerned about,” Scott said. “They want to help children, they want to serve families, but they just need money.”

On Wednesday, the Senate passed a bill that would allow the Treasury to waive interest for early childhood education providers and certain other programs that would qualify for bridge loans. Republican lawmakers presented it as a solution to the financial crisis, which they blame on Democrats.

However, some Democratic lawmakers opposed the legislation, arguing that the state treasury did not have the authority to create the lending program. The House has not yet voted on the bill.

Meanwhile, some providers say they are running out of reserve funds.

Earlier this week, Mercedes Fleet, which runs Bright Little Scholars early childhood education center in Northeast Philadelphia, sent a letter informing parents that if the state budget is not passed by the end of the month, the preschool will have to close its Pre-K Counts classroom until funds are released.

“I can’t go to the owner and say, ‘Hey, the budget didn’t pass, I can’t pay you,’” Fleet said. “You can’t expect people to come to work and not know when they’re going to get paid.”

As for Smith, she said she applied for a bridge loan on Monday and has not yet found out if she has been approved. She hopes that she will be able to get money to maintain the kindergarten.

“I don’t want to close these classes,” Smith said. “I don’t want to do this to families. Parents rely on us. They need us.”

She calls lawmakers almost every day, asking them to pass the budget and get her and her industry out of this financial mess.

Rebecca Redelmeier is a reporter at Chalkbeat Philadelphia. He writes about public schools, early childhood education and issues affecting students, families and teachers throughout Philadelphia. Contact Rebecca at rredelmeier@chalkbeat.org.