Billions of Dollars For Ed Tech in School Are Now in Jeopardy
A federal appeals court has thrown more than
$2 billion in annual funding for internet connectivity for schools and libraries into legal jeopardy.
The funding mechanism for the Universal Service Fund, or USF, which finances the E-rate, amounts to a “misbegotten tax” and therefore unconstitutional, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 9-7 last month.
The decision “could lead to cutting off broadband access for tens of millions of students, educators, and library patrons,” said the Education Networks and Libraries Coalition that includes more than a dozen education organizations.
The lawsuit was brought against the Federal Communications Commission, which oversees the USF, by the watchdog group Consumers’ Research.
Financed by fees on some telecommunications services, the USF funds programs that provide telecommunications services to schools, libraries, rural hospitals, those in poverty, and people living in remote rural areas. In 2022, the programs disbursed more than
$7.4 billion, including about $2 billion for the E-rate.
“Each program has a laudable objective,” Judge Andrew Oldham, who was nominated to the 5th Circuit by former President Donald Trump, wrote for the majority. But he added that the telecommunications fees unconstitutionally delegate congressional taxing authority to the FCC.
Under that logic, Oldham argued, Congress could fund major health programs “without taxing anyone. It could simply allow hospital executives to set the Medicare-Medicaid budget, then have [the Department of Health and Human Services] rubber-stamp the hospitals’ health care taxes, which could then be passed through to consumers’ hospital bills,” he wrote.
The court is dominated by judges nominated by Republican presidents. Three Republican nominees joined four nominees of Democratic administrations in a dissent.
There will be no changes to USF programs until the court’s mandate goes into effect on Sept. 16, an FCC spokeswoman said. In the meantime, the Biden Administration could appeal the decision.
If the ruling results in the end of the E-rate program, it could be “disastrous for schools,” said Keith Krueger, the executive director of the Consortium for School Networking.
Biden Administration’s Title IX Rule Takes Effect Amid a Confusing and Shifting Legal Landscape
A leaderboard might come in handy to keep track of all the legal maneuvering that’s going on with the Biden administration’s new Title IX regulation that expands protections for LGTBQ+ students.
It did take effect Aug. 1—in a confused and patchwork fashion as injunctions have blocked it in about half the states as well as at some schools in other states. It also takes effect as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs an emergency request from the administration to partially limit those injunctions and allow most of the rule to take effect across the country.
The U.S. Department of Education regulation clarifies for the first time that the 1972 federal statute protects students based on sexual orientation and gender identity. And it expands protections for pregnant and postpartum students, offers stronger language about retaliation, and sets out new grievance and due-process procedures.
The regulation has been challenged by 26 states as well as individual school districts, students, and private groups. Most of those challenges center on the law’s revised definition of sex discrimination to include gender identity.
Federal district courts have issued preliminary injunctions in recent weeks that block the rule in 22 states. One injunction also blocks it at any school attended by any child of the member of Moms for Liberty or two other challenging groups. Meanwhile, one federal district judge has rejected the request for a preliminary injunction, in a suit brought by four conservative-leaning states—Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. But a federal appeals court intervened and blocked the rule in those states at least pending further briefing.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar late last month asked the high court to allow most of the Title IX rule to take effect Aug. 1, even as the Biden administration went along with pausing some challenged provisions that touch on gender-identity discrimination.
One deals with restrooms, locker rooms, and other sex-separated spaces in education. The other involves an update to the definition of “hostile environment harassment” to include harassment based on gender identity.
Both Vice Presidential Nominees Show Interest In Education—From Different Perspectives
They both hail from the Midwest. And they both have demonstrated interest in education policy. But based on their track records, nobody would confuse the two nominees for vice president of the United States on their vision for education.
As governor of Minnesota, Democrat Tim Walz has negotiated increases to school funding and made Minnesota one of the handful of states with universal free school meals for students.
Last year, he signed a sweeping education budget law to increase spending for K-12 schools by $2.3 billion. The law also made school employees eligible to collect unemployment benefits during the summer when schools are closed.
Before he went into politics, education was Walz’s career. He worked as a high school teacher in Nebraska and as a social studies teacher and football coach in Minnesota. His wife, Gwen Walz, was also teacher and then a district administrator.
Kamala Harris’ running mate was known for hosting “Jeopardy!”-style tournaments and inviting other teachers to debate him on current events. He offered to serve as the first faculty adviser to the newly formed gay-straight alliance at his Minnesota high school in the mid-1990s, according to the Washington Post.
In contrast, Republican JD Vance has gone after “left-wing domination” in colleges and universities and criticized schools for “CRT indoctrination.”
He’s used his platform as a U.S. senator from Ohio to target affirmative action in college admissions; diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in both K-12 schools and higher education; and China’s influence in colleges. And during his 2022 Senate campaign, Vance, who shares the GOP ticket with Donald Trump, went after schools for their COVID-19 policies.
In his short time in the Senate, Vance has sponsored three education-related bills, all of which are specific to higher education. One would establish stricter requirements for colleges and universities contracting with or accepting donations from “foreign entities.” Another would ban public colleges and universities from employing undocumented immigrants. And the third, introduced before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned affirmative action, would have established an office of the inspector general for unlawful discrimination in higher education.
Measles Outbreaks Soaring, Especially Among Children
Call it the return of the measles. Once eradicated in the United States, the disease is making a comeback, particularly among unvaccinaed children.
An outbreak in Oregon is the latest of 13 such clusters and 188 total cases so far this year emerging in 25 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
That’s more than triple the measles outbreaks in all of 2023. More than two-thirds of those who contracted measles so far in 2024 have been 19 or younger. As of June, whooping cough cases have also tripled compared to the same time last year, according to the CDC.
Overwhelmingly, the outbreaks have been spread among unvaccinated children and adults. CDC data show 36 states and the District of Columbia now have vaccination rates below the 94 percent threshold for herd immunity.
Measles is significantly more contagious than COVID-19. Nine out of 10 unvaccinated people exposed to the disease will catch it.
“We’re seeing more reluctance [to immunize students] on all of the vaccine-preventable diseases, not just flu and COVID,” said Kate King, the president of the National Association of School Nurses and a school nurse in the Columbus, Ohio, city schools. “Politicization of vaccines has added another layer to vaccine hesitancy.”
Measles was one of the biggest public health successes of the last century. Infections dropped from nearly a half-million each year in 1960, before the vaccine was developed, to less than 100 in 2000, when it was declared eradicated in the United States.
Flare-ups of previously contained childhood diseases like measles and whooping cough have become more common and more costly for districts. A 2023 measles outbreak in Washington state cost schools and local health agencies more than $1 million to contain.
Parents who are reluctant to vaccinate often overestimate the risk of vaccine side effects and underestimate their effectiveness, King said.
Parent-Rights Law Produces Drop in Health Screenings
Maybe lawmakers thought about it. Maybe they didn’t think of all the ramifications. But since the North Carolina legislature passed its version of a parents’ bill of rights last year, routine health screenings of students have declined precipitously.
In the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system, for example, vision screenings dropped 65 percent among students. Dental screenings fell 82 percent, and hearing screenings decreased by a similar margin following passage of the measure.
As a result, district officials are asking state legislators to amend the law.
“Those screenings are often the first indicator that there’s some sort of health issue that may affect learning,” said Stephanie Sneed school board chair, who noted that she started wearing glasses as a child as a result of a vision screening at school.
“There is a very concerning amount of students who are now not receiving the screenings they would typically receive,” she said.
The law took effect last August after the Republican-controlled legislature overrode the veto of Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat.
The controversial statute requires parents to be notified if their child asks to use a different name or pronouns in school as well as prohibits “instruction on gender identity, sexual activity or sexuality,” in K-4. The law, however, does not define what counts as that kind of instruction.
The legislation also requires parents to opt in if they want their children to receive health screenings at school. Previously, students received such screenings unless parents chose to opt their child out.
If parents do not submit forms opting in for health screenings and/or sex education, students do not receive them by default.
“What I’ve heard from my constituents is it’s not that they have an opposition to their children receiving these types of screenings,” Sneed said. “If they want their kids to receive these screenings, in the past, they haven’t had to sign any forms, so they may not be paying attention to them.”
