Written by: ANDREW WEGLEY, Lincoln Journal Star
The U.S. Department of Education this week froze about $28.6 million in federal grants meant to help fund efforts to boost student achievement across Nebraska, improve language skills for English learners, and help pay for after-school programs in low-income areas.
President Donald Trump’s administration notified states this week that the federal government would withhold nearly $7 billion in grant funds states were supposed to receive Tuesday, including millions set aside for the Cornhusker State, a spokesman for the Nebraska Department of Education confirmed Wednesday.
Trump officials told the state the feds are “reviewing” funding for five grant programs that Congress already approved and would withhold the funds until the review is finished. In a notice to the Nebraska Department of Education, federal officials said the Trump administration “remains committed to ensuring taxpayer resources are spent in accordance with the president’s priorities and the (U.S. Education) Department’s statutory responsibilities.”
The move freezes five grants Nebraska was supposed to receive Tuesday, including about $11.4 million for a program focused on boosting student achievement by funding teacher training and increasing low-income and minority students’ access to effective teachers.
Two other programs that were expected to receive about $10 million combined include programs to support migratory children and improve the education of English learners, who make up about 9% of Nebraska’s K-12 student population. Trump officials also froze $6.6 million in grants meant to improve conditions in Nebraska schools and help fund after-school programs in low-income areas.
The move surprised Nebraska’s congressional delegates and left school leaders in flux Wednesday as they sought answers to crucial questions over how long the funding freeze would last — and what the state will do if the money never arrives.
“If this becomes permanent, it would be catastrophic,” said Tim Royers, the president of the Nebraska State Education Association, the state teachers union. “There’s no other way to say it.”
He said the programs Trump officials have targeted “are some of the most direct, one-on-one services that some of our most vulnerable kids receive.”
He pointed to the English learning services, math and reading interventions for struggling students and the after-school programs that ensure “kids have spaces they can go if there’s not adults at home so they can continue to get support and food, among other things.”
“I mean, this is bread-and-butter stuff in terms of how we serve our kids,” he said.
Royers and others warned the timing of the move could make it particularly hard on Nebraska school districts to account for the unexpected loss of funds, which he said pay for “countless positions” that districts have already signed binding contracts to fill.
The move comes as school districts finalize their budgets for the next school year and two months after the state finalized its own budget that required lawmakers to withdraw $137 million from Nebraska’s cash reserve to narrowly balance the state’s books.
“I have a lot of faith in our state, and hopefully, we would find a way to support those programs,” said Bret Schroder, the superintendent of Schuyler Community Schools, where nearly half of students are learning English. “But I also think we would have to make adjustments.”
The Trump administration offered states no timeline for when its review of the grants might end — leaving uncertainty that Schroder said makes it hard to know what to do.
He said the district in Schuyler, which relies on the federal dollars to help fund English proficiency courses and after-school programs, spends efficiently and, for now, has adequate staffing to meet the community’s needs.
But, he said, this week’s funding freeze “would create an issue” if it’s not resolved.
“The first and last rule we always ask ourselves is, ‘Will this help our kids? Is this what’s best for our kids and for the education of our kids? For the safety of our kids?’” Schroder said. “And these funds being frozen or taken away is not what’s best for our kids. That’s just the bottom line.”
The frozen funds are unrelated to the millions of dollars in cuts included in the domestic policy bill the U.S. Senate narrowly sent back to the House on Tuesday.
Instead, the funds were appropriated by Congress and approved by Trump in March as part of a broader funding bill. The move to freeze the funds came without congressional approval and appeared to come as a surprise to Nebraska’s federal delegates.
A spokesman for Rep. Mike Flood of Nebraska’s 1st Congressional District said it was “not immediately clear as to why funds weren’t disbursed” and that Flood’s team is “taking a look at this to examine it further.”
Meanwhile, Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, who has made education funding a central priority of his administration, celebrated the move. In a statement, he said he is “grateful to President Trump — for working to return education back to the states and parents.”
“The funds in question represent less than one-half percent of total funding devoted to the education of Nebraska’s kids,” the governor said. “It’s important that we continue to focus on our students and support our teachers and not finance ideological agendas that don’t contribute to or enhance classroom outcomes.”
But program leaders argued the cuts will harm Nebraska’s most vulnerable kids.
Megan Addison, the executive director of Collective for Youth, a nonprofit that coordinates after-school and summer programs for about 6,000 students across 42 of Omaha’s poorest schools, said the loss of funding may ultimately mean a loss of programming for some.
For students, she said, that could mean one less after-school meal, the loss of a safe place to go before their parents get off work and a lack of educational programming after hours.
“It’s good for everybody,” she said. “It’s good for working families. It’s good for the kids in it. It helps decrease juvenile crime. I mean, there’s no losses here.
“So that’s even the more frustrating part of it — it’s a good program.”
