In a News Putting the legislation, the chairman of the Budget Loan Committee, the Republican Tom Cole of Oklahoma, said: “Change does not come from the preservation of the status quo – it comes from making a bold, disciplined choice.”
And Third Senate’s suggestionIt would make minor cuts, but largely maintains funding.
Quick reminder: Federal funding is a relatively small share of school budgets, approximately 11%, although cuts in low -income areas can still be painful and destructive.
Blue congressional schools can lose more money
Researchers in the liberal troop new America I wanted to know How the impact of these proposals can vary depending on the policy of the congress congress, which receives the money. They found that Trump’s budget would take an average of about $ 35 million from the K-12 schools in each area, and those led by the Democrats lose a little more than those led by Republicans.
The chamber’s proposal would make deeper, more partisan cuts, with the regions represented by the Democrats losing an average of about $ 46 million and the Republican areas losing about $ 36 million.
The Republican leadership of the Chamber of Budget Credit Committee, which is responsible for this budget proposal, did not respond to a NPR request for a comment on this guerrilla division.
“In several cases, we had to make some very difficult solutions,” said reporter Robert Aderholt, R-Ala. “Americans have to prioritize as they sit around their kitchen tables for the resources they have in their family. And we have to do the same.”
The Senate’s proposal is more measured and would leave the status quo largely intact.
In addition to the work of New America, the Institute of Liberal Learning Policy created this instrument Compare the potential impact of the Senate bill with the President’s proposal.
High poverty schools can lose more than low poverty schools
Trump and Chamber’s proposals would be disproportionately hurt high poverty schools according to Analysis by liberal-clogged EdtrustS
In Kentucky, for example, Edtrust estimates that the president’s budget may cost state-owned poverty in state poverty to a student per student, almost three times more than what would cost his richest areas.
The cuts are even steeper in the house’s proposal: schools with the highest poverty in Kentucky can lose $ 372 per student, while schools with the lowest poverty can lose $ 143 per child.
The Senate bill will reduce much less: $ 37 per child in state schools in unstable poverty against $ 12 per student in their lowest poverty areas.
Researchers of New America have come to similar conclusions in the study of congress regions.
“The lowest income congress areas will lose one and a half times more funding than the richest congress regions according to Trump’s budget,” says Zahava Stadler in Nova America.
The chamber’s proposal, Stadler says, will go further, the imposition of Trump’s budget is not on share.
“The budget of the house is doing something new and scary,” says Stadler, ‘which is open to funding for students in poverty. This is not something we see everS “
Republican leaders of the Budget Loan Committee did not respond to the NPR’s requests for a comment on the huge impact of their proposal on low -income communities.
The Senate proposed a modest increase to Title I for next year.
Schools per majority of minorities can lose more than mostly white schools
Just as the president’s budget will hit high poverty schools hard, New America has found that this will also have a huge impact on congress areas where schools serve mostly colorful children. These areas would lose almost twice as much funding than mostly white areas, in what Stadler calls “a huge, huge discrepancyS “
One of the few engines of this discrepancy is the White House decision to terminate all funding for trainees in English and Migrant studentsS In budget documentThe White House justifies the cutting of the first by arguing the “Demophist of the English Prima.
According to the Chamber’s proposal, according to Nova America, congress regions that mainly serve white students will lose an average of about $ 27 million, while areas with schools that serve mostly colorful children will lose more than twice as much: nearly $ 58 million.
The Edtrust data tool tells a similar story, a state by the state. For example, according to the budget of the president, the school areas of Pennsylvania, who serve the most colorful students, would lose $ 413 per student. The areas that serve the least colorful students would lose only $ 101 per child.
The findings were similar to the house’s proposal: reducing $ 499 per student in Pennsylvania areas who serve the most colorful students over $ 128, shortening a child in predominantly white areas.
“It was the most surprising to me,” says Edter Morgan. “Overall, the proposal of the house is really worse (from Trump’s budget) for high poverty areas, areas with a high percentage of students of colors, urban and rural areas. And we didn’t expect to see that.”
Trump and the Chamber’s proposals share a common denominator: the belief that the federal government should spend less on the nation’s schools.
When Trump promised“We will return education very simply back to the United States in which it belongs,” which apparently included a scathing part of the federal role and in the funding of schools.
