Trump administration facing multiple lawsuits
When it became clear that the Trump administration would issue an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education on March 20, Alameda Unified School District Superintendent Pasquale Scuderi immediately issued a statement.
“While the department cannot be closed without the approval of congress,” Scuderi wrote, “today’s proposed and forthcoming order is, like those issued previously, understandably sparking confusion and serious concern for many.“
Multiple lawsuits were immediately filed against the Trump administration after the president signed the executive order last week. One of the suits was filed by a coalition representing the National Education Association—America’s largest union—along with the NAACP and other advocacy groups, and public school parents and families. Another lawsuit was filed by the American Federation of Teachers, along with other public school districts and organizations. That suit asks for the order to be halted and the actions to be declared illegal.
Even before those suits were filed, AUSD Superintendent Scuderi wrote that his aim in offering a statement was to “strike a difficult, but hopefully effective, balance between putting the potential impact of this move in context relative to our local conditions, without downplaying the significant effects it could have outside our district, or on us directly further down the line.”
The superintendent noted, “This week we have been working on communications that detail both the amount of federal dollars AUSD receives annually, and where we apply those funds. Federal categorical dollars make up only 3% of AUSD’s overall annual budget, yet significant reductions in those funds would no doubt be impactful.” He stated that the district would “hold and update the communications we had planned to send out late this week to see what else we learn in the next day or two and add additional details for our community.”
Scuderi’s statement continued as follows:
“The dissolution of the federal education department on the whole is, broadly in my view, a very bad idea. However, its closure would not in itself automatically cut the funding the department currently distributes to underserved students and specific student groups, including students with disabilities.
“Again, this is not to downplay or trivialize the magnitude of this proposition, but we have to at least note, for context, that there would be some remaining levels of protection for these resources despite the intense and aggressive overtures we are witnessing from D.C.
“Many of us in education do worry however that even if congress preserves funding, if the Department of Education is dismantled, finding new mechanisms to distribute those funds through another agency or department could bring a big margin of confusion, delays, and even potential reductions that will surely not benefit students and families.
“A growing number of districts in California are also presently dealing with financial stress from non-federal factors and now have to contemplate the potential ramifications of this federal direction. AUSD is in a comparatively more secure position because of our community and team, and therefore we are positioned to navigate the federal uncertainties in question from a place of greater stability.
“We operate in a generous community that has passed two education parcel taxes and a major facilities bond in the past five years. We benefit from a commitment seen in our classrooms and schools and departments, and on our school board, that has made that level of local support possible.
“We continue to make long-term resource management a strategic priority that is analyzed in some form daily.
“And while we will likely not be without problems to solve, nor be fully immune to the potential downstream impact of erratic political decision making, I genuinely believe that we will manage whatever comes our way, collectively, in ways that preserve our commitment to educating all of our kids in a manner that remains unapologetically inclusive.”
