Federal Budget Proposal: Understanding the Potential Impacts on Education Funding

Federal Budget Proposal: Understanding the Potential Impacts on Education Funding

by | May 14, 2025 | School Finance

On May 2, the Trump Administration took its first formal step in the federal budget process by submitting its “skinny budget” proposal to Senator Susan Collins, Chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. This initial outline gives education leaders their first glimpse into potential funding changes that could affect school districts nationwide beginning this fall.

A skinny budget serves as a preliminary framework, communicating presidential priorities to Congress without offering comprehensive details. While significant as a statement of intent, it is important to remember that this document is non-binding. Constitutional authority for federal spending remains with Congress – a point Senator Collins herself emphasized when noting, “[u]ltimately, it is Congress that holds the power of the purse.”

The proposal arrives amid early signs of disagreement between Congressional Republicans and the White House. Senator Collins has already expressed “serious objections” after her initial review, suggesting a potentially complex negotiation process ahead.

The current proposal outlines a substantial $12 billion reduction in education funding – representing a 15% cut to discretionary education spending compared to the 2025 budget. For school districts already managing tight budgets, the specific reductions include:

• Title I: $4.5 billion reduction
• English Language Acquisition: $890 million reduction
• Adult Education: $729 million reduction
• Migrant Education: $428 million reduction
• Preschool Programs: $315 million reduction
• Department of Education Administration: $127 million reduction
• Office for Civil Rights: $49 million reduction

Not all programs would see cuts. IDEA funding would remain flat, while charter schools would receive a $60 million increase.

Beyond the raw numbers, the proposal introduces significant structural changes to how federal education dollars would be distributed. A new “K-12 Simplified Funding Program” would consolidate 18 separate competitive and formula grant programs into a single formula grant. Similarly, seven separate IDEA programs would be combined into one.

These consolidations would fundamentally alter how districts apply for and receive federal education funds, potentially creating both administrative challenges and opportunities during implementation.

School finance officers should be aware that the education budget represents only part of the potential fiscal impact on schools. The proposal exists within a broader context of competing priorities and fiscal constraints:

School nutrition programs administered by the USDA have already seen $1 billion in reductions, with further cuts possible if proposed SNAP eligibility restrictions are implemented. These changes could directly affect school meal programs and the students who depend on them.

Perhaps most concerning for districts serving students with disabilities, Medicaid – which currently provides $7.5 billion annually for school-based health services, including significant support for related services – faces potential cuts as the House Energy and Commerce Committee works to identify $880 billion in healthcare spending reductions.

Meanwhile, the administration has proposed increases to military and border security spending, while simultaneously working with Congressional Republicans to extend expiring tax cuts. The Congressional Budget Office estimates these tax extensions would reduce federal revenue by approximately $4 trillion over a decade, intensifying pressure for spending cuts elsewhere.

The administration has set an ambitious goal of July 4, 2025, for budget passage. If this timeline holds, districts could begin feeling funding impacts in fall 2025 with the federal fiscal year beginning October 1.

What does this mean for your district?

The budget proposal marks only the beginning of what will undoubtedly be a complex negotiation process. While the proposed education cuts are significant, history suggests the final budget passed by Congress may differ substantially from this initial outline.

For now, education leaders should focus on understanding these potential changes while continuing their normal operations and planning. As budget negotiations progress toward the July 4 target date, clearer information about impacts on specific programs and district-level funding should emerge.

 

 

 

 

OEC Reaffirms Family Hiring Restrictions, Expands Definition to Include Domestic Partners

OEC Reaffirms Family Hiring Restrictions, Expands Definition to Include Domestic Partners

by | Apr 17, 2025 | General, Labor and Employment

In their first formal advisory opinion of the year, the Ohio Ethics Commission (OEC) expanded the definition of family member to include domestic partnerships. A “domestic partner” includes a person who is living with the public official or employee in a common law marital relationship or who is otherwise cohabiting with the public official. In this context, “cohabitate” means a romantic/intimate relationship. Following this expansion, the Commission’s definition of a “member of a public official’s family” includes but is not limited to: (1) grandparents; (2) parents and step-parents; (3) spouses; (4) children and step-children; (5) grandchildren; (6) siblings; (7) any person related by blood or marriage that resides in the same household as the public official; (8) and domestic partners.

Ohio’s Public Contract Law prohibits public officials from using their authority or influence to secure a contract in which they, a member of their family, or any of their business associates has an interest. Additionally, conflict of interest laws prohibit public officials from using their authority to secure anything of value for family members who are seeking employment with, or are employed by, the same public agency, and from soliciting or accepting anything of value that may manifest in a substantial and improper influence upon the public official.

These laws create several general family hiring restrictions. Notably, public officials cannot:

  • Directly hire members of their family or vote to authorize the employment of a family member;
  • Recommend, nominate, or use their position in any way to secure a job for a family member;
  • Participate in a decision to give a family member a raise, promotion, job advancement, overtime pay or assignments, favorable performance evaluations, or other things of value related to employment; or
  • Use their official position, formally or informally, to impact the decisions or actions of other officials or employees in matters that could affect their family member’s interest in their individual employment.

The Ohio Ethics Commission has advised that this does not amount to a “no-relatives” policy. Provided the school official is sufficiently detached from all employment decisions involving their family member, Ohio’s Ethics laws do not absolutely bar family members from working for the same school district. However, their obligation to remain impartial goes beyond the initial hiring process.

Even if the decision does not directly affect the public official’s family member, they may be prohibited from weighing in on certain actions involving lay-offs or terminations. For example, if a district needed to reduce their staff and one of the official’s family members worked in a department targeted for lay-offs, the public official should refrain from weighing in on those decisions. Even if they are not directly advocating for their family member to keep their position, the official’s actions could still “affect their family member’s interest in their individual employment” as the decision to lay off a different employee indirectly decreases the chances the family member will be affected by the lay-off.

The prohibitions of O.R.C. 102.03 serve the public interest in impartial government by preventing the creation of a situation which may impair the objectivity and impartiality of a public official in a matter affecting themself or a related party. Even if the public official is acting in good faith, the nature of the family relationship alone is enough to call into question the impartiality of their decision, and has the potential to undermine the public’s faith in the district. Prior to taking any employment-related action, district officials who have family members working in the same district need to consider whether the particular decision, even if it relates to another employee, could indirectly improve their family member’s own employment prospects.

 

 

Social Security Fairness Act Brings Relief to Millions of Public Sector Workers

Social Security Fairness Act Brings Relief to Millions of Public Sector Workers

by | Jan 16, 2025 | General

In late December Congress passed, and on January 5 President Biden signed into law, the Social Security Fairness Act (H.R. 82). This is the first significant expansion of Social Security benefits in over 20 years. This landmark legislation repeals two long-standing provisions that had reduced benefits for former government workers. Specifically, retirees who worked for an extended time in both a Social Security covered position and a public pension position, as well as their survivor beneficiaries, are impacted.

The law eliminates both the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) from 1983, and the Government Pension Offset (GPO) from 1977. These provisions had previously reduced Social Security benefits for public sector workers who also received public pensions, with some retirees experiencing benefit reductions of up to 50% or more.

This change particularly benefits three million retired public servants like police officers, firefighters, and teachers in states with public pension systems. In Ohio alone, nearly a quarter million residents will see their benefits restored to full levels. Ohio has one of the highest number of beneficiaries who will see increased benefits due to the state’s robust public pension systems.

The Social Security Administration estimates that affected recipients, including survivor beneficiaries, could see average increases of nearly $1,200 per month. Current retirees may be eligible for payments retroactive to the 2024 benefit year.

While the act received strong bipartisan support, it has faced some criticism regarding its fiscal impact. The legislation is projected to add $195 billion to the federal deficit over the next decade. However, supporters note that given the vast scale of the Social Security program, this increase only accelerates the Trust Fund’s projected depletion date by approximately six months.

This reform represents a significant victory for public sector workers who have long advocated for fair treatment in their retirement benefits, though it does not address the broader challenges facing Social Security’s long-term solvency.

 

 

On the Call: Revocation of Consent

by | Dec 10, 2024 | Special Education

In this episode, Jeremy and Erin cover the complexities of revocation of consent under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They discuss what happens when parents choose to revoke consent for special education services, using a recent Missouri case as an example to explore the legal and practical implications. The episode includes strategies for helping parents understand the all-or-nothing nature of revocation while addressing their concerns in a way that prioritizes the child’s needs.

 You can listen to other episodes here or wherever you get your podcasts. Look for new episodes on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month.

Listen to the “Definition of Parent” episode Jeremy and Erin reference in this episode here.

 

On the Call: Administrative Law and Special Education

by | Sep 10, 2024 | Special Education

Given the scale of federal regulations and their importance to several laws related to special education, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright may leave you feeling caught in the undertow of uncertainty. Have established “rights” found in regulations – such as service animals under the ADA, public funding for IEEs under IDEA, FAPE under 504 – been tossed out by the Court? In this episode Jeremy and Erin discuss how the standard for administrative law has changed from Chevron to today and break down a case from Alabama that demonstrates how judges may approach challenges to the IDEA in a post-Chevron world. By explaining the role and impact of federal regulations going forward and how districts can continue to ensure compliance, Jeremy and Erin will help you chart a course to calmer shores.

You can also listen here or wherever you get your podcasts. Look for new episodes on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month.