Episode 118: The Devastating Impact of Project 2025 on Marginalized Learners and Special Education

In this episode, Dr. Amitra Berry dives deep into the last two key issues of Project 2025 - the proposed elimination of Title I funding and the restructuring of special education funding. She explains how these changes would have a devastating impact on students of color, LGBTQ students, and students from low-income families, further exacerbating existing educational inequities. Dr. Berry emphasizes the racist, genderist, and classist nature of these proposals and the broad societal implications if they were to be implemented.

Transcript

Unknown: 0:03

If you're a parent, teacher or school leader and you're sick and tired of the frustration, anger and unfair treatment of children at high risk in our public schools, then perhaps it's time for all of us to do something about it. In this podcast, Dr amitra Berry brings you tips, tools, strategies and tactics to build successful solutions while touching, moving and inspiring all of us to transform our schools so that every child thrives. Here's your host. Dr Berry,

Dr Almitra Berry: 0:41

welcome back equity wars. Thanks for tuning in to today's episode of the 3e podcast. I am continuing on with our assignment to evaluate the impact of project 2025 on public education and marginalized learners today. So let's get back to that. For those of you just tuning in to the biggest educational equity issue of 2024 presidential election, and frankly, everything else down ticket. Let me give you just a little bit of a background on Project 2025 those of you who've been listening quick review. So project 2025 is coming out of the Heritage Foundation and several other very right wing extreme conservative groups. They say conservative, I say extreme. It is a policy blueprint. And if you watched any thing like the DNC convention, you'll notice they came out with this giant 900 page book. Yes, the book itself, the whole policy is over 900 pages. But I'm focusing just on the 44 pages that deal with reshaping education in America, big plan is that they want to eliminate the Department of Education, and that plays a crucial role in our children's education. So I recently did a short on social media. It only went out on social media, not on podcast, but and the you watch that if you want to Trump, floated the idea of appointing the founder of moms for liberty. You know, the crazy group that's banning books and doing some other things in schools. Her name is Tiffany justice. I don't know if she made up that last name or what, but just she is a far right far, far right Maga zealot, and he wants to make her secretary of education. So if you didn't see that, check out patreon Tiktok or threads for that quick like, I think it's like a five minute short anyhow, previously discussed on the podcast in episode 107 we did a broad overview. I did a broad overview of what's in Project 2025 and I originally wanted to do 12 different episodes, one topic per episode, but there just wasn't enough time. There's so much going on right now. So 108 I gave you the eliminating the Department of Education and how they plan to reduce or eliminate federal data collection. Really important for you school leaders that are out there in episode 111 I discussed the changes to curriculum. Hello, curriculum, people you need to listen to that one and the increased emphasis on what they are calling fundamental subjects, listen to episode 111 in episode 112 I went into vouchers and how they plan to privatize huge elements of public education. In 114 I talked about civil rights and how they will reduce and eliminate civil rights enforcement. Getting rid of the Department of edge, Department of Education does a lot to civil rights for our students, and the way they plan to change student discipline, and then not in a good way. You want to talk about the school to prison pipeline. Check out Episode 114 in episode 116 we had a guest host PIP Christina Pipkin, and she covered parental rights and LGBTQ student protection. So I encourage you to listen to that and encourage Pip, because we want to keep hearing from her. Now today, early voting has already started in most states. Today, we're getting the last of these deep dives. Last two issues. Issue Number 11 is the proposal to phase out title one funding and to restructure special education funding. And then issue number 12 actually, issue number 11 is the title one funding. Issue number 12 is special education funding. Sorry, let me fix that. And then, of course, we're going to talk about the disproportional impact to marginalized students, including our students of color, LGBTQ students and students living. Of course, we're talking Title One students of low income. So let's start with title one funding. What happens? Well, let's talk about what title one does. So many of us have heard the term Title One is really a cornerstone of federal education policy, and it provides resources, financial typically, but we It can only be used certain ways, and it only goes to schools that serve high concentrations of low income students. Now, different states handle the allocation of that funding different ways, but. Which Title One is for students of low income, and a wide range of initiatives come out of that. All of them are designed to boost academic achievement for students who essentially students who qualify for free and reduced lunch. That's where your title one number comes from. In my work as a consultant, I've worked with schools who provide reading or math interventions, to hire interventionists to provide those services. It may be after school programs that provide intervention services. It's the instructional materials to provide instruction for intervention for students who qualify for free and reduced lunch. Now, why is this so important? Historically, there is a significant correlation, a connection between family income and academic achievement and poverty low income is second only to being black when it comes to an academic achievement gap. So you can just imagine if you're black and title one, okay, double whammy there, and so by targeting this money to students who are income disadvantaged, it plays a really vital role in our effort to close that persistent achievement gap. So what happens if they get their way, if Trump wins the White House, God forbid? What's the consequence of eliminating Title One, or what they plan to do with it. So first and foremost, they they're talking about phasing it out. That's what the plan says. They will phase it out over 10 years. If you believe that, if you trust that, they will take 10 years. Let me sell you some beachfront property in I don't know, Idaho.

Unknown: 6:42

I don't see a phase out. They're

Dr Almitra Berry: 6:45

going to be pretty extreme, but what will happen is $18 billion in federal education funding will go away in the form that we now know it. So what happens? $18 billion we're going to see if that cut, that type of cut, would lead to broader, wider educational disparities. Schools are going to struggle to maintain programs and services. If you're a school leader or even a classroom teacher, and you know that you receive title one funding, think about where that money goes. We can see teacher layoffs because there are positions that are funded or supported through title one funding, we can see increased class sizes, because in some districts, Title One funds are used to reduce class sizes. And of course, you lose teachers. You got more kids in the same number of classrooms, or Yeah, same number of kids, fewer teachers, so fewer classrooms, bigger, bigger numbers of children and get my my number straight there, we'd also see the elimination of a lot of those support programs that our students rely on in order to succeed so close to home. Take this down to your local level. Check out your school's title one funding. If you're a parent and your child qualifies for free and reduced lunch, you need to start asking questions. How much title one funding is going to your school, your classroom, your child, how is it being used? And think about what the impact would be. Ask questions to your school board. If that funding were to go away, what would happen to your child in your school, if you're a teacher, what would happen to your position, particularly if you're an interventionist, whose position is funded by Title One. And of course, as I mentioned, that correlation between low income and race, particularly students who are black and Latino. Secondly, but black mostly. Title One, of course, is not going to be felt equally across all communities. There are some schools in some school districts where all schools are Title One schools. There are some whole title one schools. That might be the only title one school in a district, but our low income students, are students who qualify for free lunch. They are the primary beneficiaries of Title One programs, those academic supports, the interventions, the early interventions or prevention programs,

Unknown: 9:12

those go away,

Dr Almitra Berry: 9:15

students of color, oh, social supports as well, because there are some places who fund the social emotional support programs counselors with that title one funding as well. Okay, so students of color who are more likely to attend a title one school because our the historic and ongoing socioeconomic disparities, basically it's de facto redlining. Those would be hit particularly hard. And it's not just urban schools, they like to put urban as a label on to say of color and and low income, but our rural schools, our rural communities who have smaller school districts and maybe more. GRANT on title one funding, those are both going to be hit where you have limited local resources, a limited tax revenue, tax base, again, particularly in those rural areas, there are some severe challenges that are faced in maintaining educational equity. All right, that's title one. Number two is special education. Last issue of project 2025. Is their plan to restructure special education funding. So currently, idea the individuals with disabilities in Education Act Special Ed works to guarantee services for students who have identified disabilities. The other part of that is that idea provide crucial federal oversight, accountability, right? And if you live in a state that where the state, like I do in Texas, who've ever gotten in trouble about what's going on with special education? You'll know it's a big deal that federal oversight is crucial to our children. So the current map, the current model, makes sure that it doesn't matter where a child lives, a child has a right to a free and appropriate public education that is tailored to their needs. That's the language you want to remember. We call it a FAPE, free and appropriate public education. So if you ever hear somebody talking about a FAPE, this is for parents especially. That's what they're saying. It needs to be a least restrictive environment. It should be free, it should be public appropriate. Okay, so this is what you're entitled to, a child with disabilities is entitled to, and the issue of oversight, we don't want to minimize that. That accountability, making sure that schools and districts meet standards, specific standards, and serving students with disabilities. So again, in episode 114 I talked about the reduction of civil rights enforcement if you are a parent of a child with special needs, if you are a leader or teacher in a school where you're serving students with disabilities, that would probably be almost every educator who listens to this podcast. If you are a school board member, you need to go back and listen to that. And I would really strongly encourage you to read all 44 pages. All 44 it's not that much, 44 pages of project 2025 I think chapter two. I keep wanting to say Chapter Two for the 44 pages on education, it's a chapter schools would also schools and districts and parents would lose the mechanisms. Let me back that up, parents would lose the mechanisms to challenge school districts that fail to provide services. So

Unknown: 12:51

think about that. There's no accountability.

Dr Almitra Berry: 12:56

You are losing rights to for losing civil rights to to to enforce what your child is entitled to. And as parents, you are losing the ability, even the mechanisms, the way to go about challenging a school district that is not serving your child's needs. Okay? They suggest instead, here's what they want to do. Project 2025 would convert IDEA funds, that special ed money to block grants or Educational Savings accounts or esas. So the school choice mechanism is what they call an ESA they say it's a way for parents to get the money that is allocated for their child services, and you can take that money and do whatever educationally you want to do with your child. So typically, in many states, that's a portion of the per pupil state funding that would have gone to public school systems. So they're saying that now the federal money, the idea money that pays for your child services or supports your child services would go to a parent in an ESA to follow the child. You could use the ESA for private school tuition, for homeschooling, materials, online courses, tutoring, therapy, educational therapy, whatever those approved educational services are now, esas are a little more flexible and how they can be spent, not like a voucher. The voucher goes to a private school, right? So a little bit different. In 14 states they have implemented ESA programs. By the way, they're all red states, and the criteria for eligibility varies from state to state. Some restrict them to only to students with specific needs, others have a universal eligibility. Anybody can get an ESA, pull your kid out of public school and use that money for whatever you want. So proponents of ESA say that it empowers parents and it increases educational options. Critics like me, I say. Okay, it diverts funds from public schools. I'm in the camp of the critics, and I discussed this in episode 112 the essays and vouchers, the change in funding as proposed in Project 2025, would reduce the federal role in sped. That's going to lead to a as we can see already, from 14 states that he have esas and there's no consistency. A patchwork system, quality and availability of services will vary, not just from state to state, but maybe locality to locality. There are already tremendous discrepancies in services right now, even from district to district within a state, so altering how special education services are provided

Unknown: 15:44

by by

Dr Almitra Berry: 15:46

essentially giving parents the money, and in many cases, for students, it wouldn't be enough money to provide the services the child needs, because we get, sort of like getting a discount when you buy in bulk, when the Children are in a public school system, okay? And again, accountability. Accountability is key. Here we look at sort of big picture negative outcomes, whether it's the sped funding or the title one funding, when we reduce federal oversight, we risk losing accountability and providing services to the children who are most at risk. Provision gaps of achievement, gaps of being overlooked. We can see growing disparities in the quality of special education. Some states might invest more heavily in those services other states might not right right now, if you look at the way funds are allocated per pupil spending from state to state, there are huge differences, but weakening the legal protections on top of all of this, the legal protections that are currently afforded to students with disabilities and their families under IDEA is tantamount to what I would call educational malpractice. It's wrong. It's just wrong. And like every other issue that I've covered in regards to project 2025 the impact of these two proposals on our marginalized learners is the epitome of racism, genderism and

Unknown: 17:25

classism. Let me back that up, racism

Dr Almitra Berry: 17:31

students of color. Students of Color often face multiple layers of disadvantage in the education system. They are more likely to attend an underfunded school. Black students are more likely to be identified as having intellectual disabilities compared to other racial or ethnic groups.

Unknown: 17:48

That's racism. Folks, black students

Dr Almitra Berry: 17:51

are over two times more likely to receive special education services for emotional disturbance than students from other racial and ethnic groups. Again, that's racism, folks. Black students are more likely to be labeled as having behavioral disorders compared to their white peers. Again, that's racism, folks. And while there is some consist inconsistency as you look at data from from state to state or district to district, there is still significant evidence of over representation of students of color in the category of specific learning disabilities, teachers, you know what I'm talking about. There's a category called Other health impairment, and that includes Attention Deficit Disorder, ADD or ADHD, that category as well. Shows over representation of students of color, broadly students of color. So the combined effect of losing both Title One funds and the current idea structure will exacerbate existing educational inequities and further widen achievement and provision gaps. And in case you missed that, the fine detail in there over representation tends to be more pronounced in subjective disability categories that are open to interpretation, you know, emotional disturbance, intellectual disability, and then There's also under identification, which is still a disproportionality of black students with autism. So disproportionality is not just about identification, it extends to placement in more restrictive educational settings. If you are labeled as having a behavior disorder, you are placed in a more restrictive educational setting, and that means we have higher rates of disciplinary actions for students of color with disabilities, because, again, this is very subjective and interpretive. Keep in mind what I covered in episode 114 about civil rights protections and the change in how discipline will be handled under Project 2025. I. All of that, folks racism, I also said It's the epitome of genderism. So let's look at LGBTQ students real quick. Here for for LGBTQ students, the loss of federal protections and oversights are harmful. Again, episode 116 PIP covers the issue of student protections, or loss of student protections, there is the potential. They have made it quite possible for increased discrimination in school choice programs that might be implemented to replace some current structures. Again, if you have someone like Tiffany justice for moms for liberty, who's in charge, who is the Secretary of Education, what they're doing right now is attacking these students very specifically so there being no consequence for discriminating against students because of their gender, gender identity or their sexual preference, and then mental health services and support services for LGBTQ students, which are crucial,

Unknown: 21:01

could be at risk of cuts or elimination. There's your genderism and

Dr Almitra Berry: 21:08

then classism. We've taught title one so students who live in low students of low income families, they stand to lose the most particularly from these last two changes, the elimination of targeted assistance programs funded by Title One could remove some critical supports that help these students succeed, at the same time, reducing access to quality sped services special education services can further limit opportunities for students with with disabilities who come from low income backgrounds. So that would widen what is already a significant opportunity gap. When you look at that intersectionality of race and poverty, race and low income, these students are doubly marginalized. We are looking at devastating, life altering impacts on their academic achievement, on their mental health, on their life trajectories. This impacts all of us, all of us. There are broad societal implications here. Sure, when it comes to educational equity, we have a long way to go. Our schools are not perfect. Progress is not what it should have been, but at least we were moving in the right direction,

Unknown: 22:23

were that not so there

Dr Almitra Berry: 22:26

would be no need for this racist, genderist, classist proposal that is project.