How The Dept. of Education Can Be Saved From Trump Assaults - And Why It Must Be

Dec 10

LISTEN TO THE EPISODE

Louis Freedberg: 0:02
Welcome to Education on the Line, a podcast series focused on the latest threats to public education and strategies for confronting them. I'm Louis Freedberg, host of the podcast. The Trump administration seems intent on dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. Two weeks ago, it announced an aggressive plan of outsourcing the major functions of the department to other departments, notably the Labor Department, but HHS is involved, State Department is involved, raising lots of questions as to how that's going to work or if it's going to work at all. And this is in addition to massive layoffs that have been going on since March and accelerated during the shutdown. To discuss these efforts, I'm pleased to welcome two guests who are leading the effort to try to reverse the Trump administration's efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. First, I'm glad to have with us Skye Perryman. She's president and CEO of Democracy Forward, a nonpartisan national legal advocacy, a nonpartisan national legal advocacy organization she helped found and has led for the past five years. She was previously Chief Legal Counsel for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, where she oversaw legal strategies that resulted in historic advancements in access to health care for women. She also co-chairs We Hold These Truths, a new initiative to provide civic education to the American public. Most relevant for this podcast is that Democracy Forward most relevant for this part again. Most relevant for this podcast is that Democracy Forward filed a lawsuit on behalf of two districts, several labor unions representing teachers, the American Association of University Professors, the Service Employees International Union, and also the ARC of the United States, which represents people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Also joining us will be Randi Weingarten, and she'll jump on later in the podcast. She, as most of you will know, is president of the American Federation of Teachers. But first, we're going to start with Skye Perriman from Democracy Forward. Welcome, Skye. Let me just start. You, uh Democracy Forward is taking on so many issues regarding what the Trump administration is doing. Why did you think this was an important issue to take on? The Department of Education.
Skye Perryman: 2:53
Well, education is such a cornerstone of our society, and that's not a talking point. That's the reality. Schools are not just places where people learn and where we're able to build citizens in the United States and people that grow and thrive, but they're also real incubators of community. Our public schools in this country provide a range of services to children, not just in the educational space, but also with respect to their wellness, their social and emotional health. It is just such a cornerstone of our nation as a whole. And unfortunately, both in Project 2025 and in this administration, we're seeing real concerted efforts to undermine and decimate public education in this nation. And we consider that one of the pre-eminent threats to democracy.
Louis Freedberg: 3:47
this lawsuit that you filed to try to stop the Trump administration's efforts to dismantle the Department of Education was just one of a number of lawsuits you filed regarding education. Could you just fill us in on what some of the others were or are?
Skye Perryman: 4:06
Well, certainly we're trying to keep the Department of Education working for the American people and working for American children. And so that's what this latest step is in a lawsuit where we prevailed, you know, earlier this year. , we have had to file cases against the Department of Education's so-called dear colleague letter policy, where we have won in front of a judge that President Trump himself appointed to the federal bench. , that policy would have threatened funding for educatin both for K-12 education as well as for higher education colleges and universities, if those institutions did not align with the president's views of the civil rights laws. in the United States, we have a First Amendment and we have laws that protect educational institutions as well as all of us from having to spew a party line of the president. And so we've we've been pleased that we prevailed in that case and that and that educational institutions are getting funding. We had to sue to stop the president's impoundment of over six billion dollars of public school funds earlier this year. As a result of that litigation, we were able to get funds returned. The administration backed off of its withholding of those funds in public education and public schools across the country or funded this year because of that work. And then we're also have our eyes on higher ed. it's not just the dear colleague letter case, but this is an administration that's trying to bully colleges and universities. And people may think, well, that's not my college or my university, or I don't want to go to college or university. What does this mean for me? When you have an administration that's bullying centers like the University of California system that is responsible for life-saving research and health and programs, , you real know, innovation, it's a real threat to everyone, both folks that care and value higher education in college and universities in this country, and those who benefit from so much of the research. And so we uh prevailed recently in court um securing of court order, preventing the Trump administration from trying to bully, as one example, the University of California system. So those that's just a smattering of some of the work. We've we filed other cases as well, but I think that's a good um indication of just how robust uh the attacks are right now on education in this country, and um how proud we are of the response of people and communities and educators uh stepping forward to be part of the solution.
Louis Freedberg: 6:42
Sky, I think there's a narrative that has emerged is that all these lawsuits get filed against the Trump administration, they win in lower courts, it goes to the Supreme Court, and then it's overturned. And I think a lot of people think this league these legal strategies are not really effective. You've just pointed to several cases where you actually had an impact and reversed actions of the Trump administration.
Skye Perryman: 7:13
Absolutely. you look, these strategies are incredibly effective. And at the same time, we have some disappointments because of how the Supreme Court has used what it's called its shadow docket or its emergency docket. But let's talk first of all about how they're effective. Right now, you know, millions, hundreds of millions of Americans' lives are being made better and are being protected because of federal court orders that are in place right now that we have forced the administration to comply with, whether that is people that are getting their SNAP benefits, their nutritional benefits, whether that is folks that are benefiting from programs like Meals on Wheels and small business programs across the country that the president sought to decimate, that we have had to go in and stop, or whether it's public school kids that are going to funded schools because we were able to get into court and stop the overreach. People are being protected every day by court orders. , in many instances, what is happening in the courts is the act of litigating, the act of showing up in court and suing the administration, and the fact that the public then talks about that and people pay attention and they start asking questions and calling and saying, what is happening with my school? What is happening in my community? That is actually creating the pressure needed to really achieve some real change. That's what happened with the $6 billion of funds that the president improperly impounded. Getting into court and pushing that issue was something that enabled the administration. The administration sort of backed off it and may enabled people and communities to have what they need. In other cases, the cases aren't going to the Supreme Court anytime soon, like the dear colleague letter case, where we um secured a court order. The government is appealing, but they're appealing slowly and these things aren't going up to the Supreme Court quickly. In some cases, we win court orders and the government doesn't appeal at all. And those court orders remain in place. And then you have the cases that do go to the Supreme Court. And what is important to recognize right now is that the Supreme Court has not found that what the Trump administration has done to the Department of Education is lawful. It is actually not found that what the Trump administration has done to anything affecting education is lawful. What it has done is it has paused one of the lower court orders that we secured and that was upheld on appeal that prevented the decimation of the Department of Education. And so that has created some harm because that court order that we secured is not in place right now. But we remain confident that the case is going to succeed on the merits. We're vigorously litigating it. That is what this next step is in the lower courts. We will secure more court orders. And then ultimately the Supreme Court will either have to take the case on the merits and decide the case, which we are confident that the government has broken the law and we will prevail, or they have to decline to take the case on the merits and their shadow docket decisions go away. So it's deeply unsatisfying for lots of people that every day are watching these lines. But the bottom line is this has been the largest and most successful affirmative litigation effort against a president in United States history because of how unlawful the president is operating. And we just need to continue to pursue these strategies.
Louis Freedberg: 10:51
To not send these programs to other departments because they have already started doing that, I gather.
Skye Perryman: 11:00
Right. So we want to do a few things. One, we want to make clear to the American people that it is not acceptable, it is unlawful, and it is wrong when you have a president that is seeking to decimate institutions put in place, right? That the people through their elected representatives put in place in order to serve students across the country. That is number one. And what that means, it takes many forms. I mean, one is there is not a legal basis for the termination and the firings, the indiscriminate firings of a number of officials within the Department of Education. The courts have seen it that way, by the way. Every court that has considered the issue and actually looked at the issue on the merits has found that what the president has done is likely unlawful. The Supreme Court paused the court order, but didn't say anything about the merits of the case, didn't let the American people know what it was thinking. So, on the one hand, we do believe that those are unlawful firings and terminations. We also believe that it is unlawful that the president has taken functions that are supposed to exist within the Department of Education per Congress and has just decided to put them elsewhere where he perceives maybe that there are more people that are loyal to his agenda. That's not how American government and American democracy is supposed to work. So our case is really seeking to limit that harm, seeking to win those court orders and establish that legal precedent. But fundamentally, we want to make sure that people in communities across this country and that school children are getting the services that they need from the Department of Education, are getting what they need. And that's been the focus of so much of our litigation, including this.
Louis Freedberg: 12:40
I'm going to ask Randi Weingarten about this, who is probably even closer than you are in terms of what the Department of Education actually does and how it affects teachers across America. Right. But and this has been one of the, how shall I say, false narratives that the Trump administration has projected that somehow the federal government is controlling education. Really, education is run by local school districts and states, but even more so at the local level. And the notion that the federal government and the department of education is controlling education in schools around America is just not what is what is happening.
Skye Perryman: 13:21
I mean, the only the only, you know, the only truth to that is that this president wants to overstep, and this president wants to seek to control education across the country, going so far as to say that he wants to deprive public schools of funding if they don't agree with his version of civil rights history or civil rights law. So it's this administration that is trying to unlawfully wield power and overreach into um areas that it should not. And that's what a lot of our cases and our work is about.
Louis Freedberg: 13:52
Then if education is really controlled at a local level, that's where and at state level does it really make much difference then if we have a department of education or if it's going to other departments as long as the money is flowing and and some people might say, well, we don't really need these bureaucracies anyway. I mean, on both sides of the political island.
Skye Perryman: 14:17
Yeah, look, the department of education matters. It's something that Congress has recognized that matters, it's something that people have recognized that matters. And you see the stories, and we tell a lot of stories in our um legal filings. These are sworn accounts that people document about the harms that they are experiencing because of programs that the president is trying to decimate, because of standards that the president is trying to undermine. And so it's really important that we have, you know, a federal government that's supporting people and that's supporting public education in this country. That is why the Department of Education was founded. That doesn't mean that the Department of Education is perfect. That doesn't mean that any institution within the federal government is perfect. But in a democracy, in a free country, um those imperfections get worked out by the people. And that's something that Congress has to step in and fix. It's something that the president can step in and do some things about within uh the lawful bounds of the administration's power. And the problem here is this is an administration that is running roughshod over all of those laws and protections and norms. They're trying to take power away from the people, and they're trying to take power away from Congress. And that's why we've had to be in court so much.
Louis Freedberg: 15:31
Before I let you go, and we're going to then turn to Randi Weingart, and we'll talk about this in greater detail as to why the Department of Education is necessary. What are the next steps now with this lawsuit? And you are representing some school districts as well in uh Massachusetts. Yeah.
Skye Perryman: 15:48
Yeah, our team at Democracy Forwards is representing a broad coalition. we have filed our amendment and we're um gonna wait to hear the court will um the court will will look at the arguments that we're making. We will start um litigating these things vigorously. We hope that we will be able to secure, as we have in the past, court orders that will help um the communities that are affected and the school districts that are affected here. And um, and that's that's sort of how this process plays out. The important thing is while this process is playing out, the courts are not the silver bullet here. It's the people. And so one of the most important things is that we be working with our clients, working with folks like Randi and others to be sure that we're informing the people about what is going on, um, who is taking steps to ensure that people's rights are protected, and what individual Americans can do. And we're seeing people speak out, push back. We need people writing their members of Congress, holding everyone in elected office accountable for what has been a real generationally challenging and generationally significant um effort by this administration to run roughshod over the American people and over public education in this country.
Louis Freedberg: 16:57
When is what's the next step now?
Skye Perryman: 16:59
We'll be waiting for the next uh the next sort of stages in the in we'll be waiting for the next stages in the case of the federal district. You know, we move pretty quickly. So uh we move pretty quickly. So we'll definitely be able to come back and keep you posted.
Louis Freedberg: 17:15
Thank you so much. Uh we've been talking with Sky Perriman, who is president and CEO of Democracy Forward. We really appreciate you joining us today. Thanks. I'm very pleased to have with us Randi Weingarten to jump in on the conversation. Most, if not all of you will know that she is president of the American Federation of Teachers and one of the most prominent advocates for the teaching profession in the nation. She is a lawyer by training, but uh also a teacher who taught high school classes in law, political, science, and history for several years. She has been president of the AFT since 2008. The AFT has 1.8 million members. So pleased to have you with us, Randi Weingarten.
Randi Weingarten: 18:04
It's great. So great to be with you. Thank you, Lewis.
Louis Freedberg: 18:08
Well, I just wanted to start. Uh we're going to be talking about this lawsuit that you have joined or you have filed, that Democracy Forward is filed on your behalf, and many other unions and some school districts. , you have a legal training, you're trained as a lawyer, but you also were a teacher. And I gather you became a teacher after you got your law degree. That's that's kind of an unusual uh uh pathway. Just tell us a little bit about how that happened.
Randi Weingarten: 18:43
Well, I I was working for the UFT at the time, the teachers' union in New York City. I had left a big law firm to work um as a union labor lawyer, and it appeared that I was gonna be there for quite a while, um, given you know what I mean it appeared like it was a good fit. And both the leadership of the union and I really thought that you had to really be able to close your eyes and and do what your members were doing. You know, you couldn't do every single job. Like I was not gonna be a bus driver, um, although I do love driving cars, but driving horses I thought was a little bit above my pay grade. , but I thought that you that know, if I had some training and and had some good stewardship, my mother had taught for 29 years, and I thought that I could that I really wanted to teach. I taught in law school, I taught legal writing, and I had been an adjunct. But I wanted to teach high school, and I wanted to be able to close my eyes and really understand what my members what members were doing and going through and the stress. And the strains that you can only really understand if you do the work. And so I tease that it took longer to actually get my teaching credentials and get my certification than it took to go to law school and take the bar exam. But I taught at Clara Barton High School in Brooklyn, New York, for six years, both part and full-time, as I was doing my job as a as the uh counsel to the teachers union in New York City. I loved it. It was my most favorite of all the different jobs that I've done in my life. It was the most favorite job I've had. And it's and I'm still actually on an unpaid leave from that job since literally, I think, 1997.
Louis Freedberg: 20:49
Okay. Well, let us know when you go back.
Randi Weingarten: 20:52
Well, here's spoiler alert. I am going to teach, I'm going to be, I'm going to teach a college course at CUNY this coming year. and because I really want to be able to teach. So I'm going to be a member of two of my unions, uh, the UFT and the Professional Staff Congress.
Louis Freedberg: 21:13
Well, okay, so you this is maybe the good jumping off point to to talk about this lawsuit. Education, as we were just talking with Sky Perriman, is a local function. It's teachers in the classroom or professors in lecture halls and so on. We have this Department of Education, which the Federal Trump administration has been saying controls education, so it needs to be dismantled. But why is it important to save the Department of Education given that what what percentage could you put on it? 80-90%? of what happens in schools is not shaped by the federal government or the Department of Education. Right.
Randi Weingarten: 22:06
Well, let me let me use this analogy. The federal government, for example, can't it doesn't do much about prices. You know, it you know, unless you you have know a situation like during war where prices are fixed in some way, form, or manner, most of the time the federal government doesn't have much control about prices. But yet last year in 2024, and now over and over again, the issues of affordability are front and center. And and people in America want its government to actually deal with issues that are really pertinent in terms of people in America, meaning prices and and and that becomes something that's really important. The same is true in terms of schooling, the federal government's role in schooling. The federal government never controlled schools, never controlled schools. Schools are a state responsibility and a local responsibility. The only schools actually the federal con um government has some control over are the schools on military bases or the schools on Indian reservations on federal land. But what the federal government has done since the Brown versus Board of Education case and the Plyler versus Doe case, which both cases taken together gave a constitutional right for young people to have an education, an equal education, have real opportunity. They both construed the 14th Amendment in that manner. So this so what the federal government is supposed to do is actually try to help make sure each and every child, whether they're an American citizen or not, has a right, a vehicle, a pathway to a decent education. And so that's what it's supposed to do. So when you say that you're not going to do that anymore, then you're basically walking away from children's future. So my view is we have to get, I don't care which government it is, I don't care if it's Reagan or Trump or Clinton or Biden. Our job is to get them to actually care about kids in a serious way and make sure that kids have a decent education. Not that they provide it themselves, but give us the funding to equalize things. Give us the funding for career tech ed. Make sure that higher education is affordable, help kids with disabilities not go back into the closet. Make sure they have the the funding that they need. But also when parents have a question or are not getting the education their kids need, make sure that somebody's answering the phone. So so you can you can have many different structures for doing this. In fact, my predecessor, Al Shanker, didn't want there to be a separate Department of Education. He thought it was better if education was housed with families in Health Education and Welfare. But President Carter made a different decision. And so what we're talking about is we do not want the function to go away with the form. And right now, what's happened in this new dismantling, it's getting rid of both all the obligations and the responsibilities that the government should have to kids who are marginalized or underprivileged.
Louis Freedberg: 26:10
For your members out there, the teachers and particularly the people who are in decision-making positions, and you know there's negotiations going on across the country right now with your unions and teachers, and I've just been reporting on a strike in the West Contra Costa Unified School District. The issue of funding is front and center. They're concerned about whether some of these funds will be cut off, Title I, Special Ed, and so on. Now, my understanding is right now the Trump administration has not said they're gonna cut those funding, those funds. But what are your concerns in terms of one, the the potential loss of those funds and also whether they will make it to the school districts in a in a way in a timely fashion?
Randi Weingarten: 27:05
So when you essentially disappear, all the people who are responsible for getting the funding out there, what happens if the funding doesn't get out there? Who do you talk to to try to compel it? You know, you could go to court, as we've done any number of times. But when somebody says, a judge says, okay, Linda McMahon, get those funds out there. And Linda McMahon says, Oh, I don't control it anymore. It's controlled in, you know, in labor, the Labor Department, like it becomes something that makes it almost impossible to have accountability and transparency for um what is a substantial amount of money that goes directly to kids in school districts. So when you talk about, for example, individuals with disabilities or kids who get Title I money, right now that money goes directly to schools to do various different programs. It's formula driven in that kind of way. My concern is where's the accountability, where's the transparency if we have no idea who's handling the money. And and all of a sudden it doesn't show up in one district, but it shows up in another district. It's walking away from responsibility and their obligations to kids. And then who's the one who's actually trying to sue? Parents don't normally, you they know, don't have a democracy forward that they can just put, you a whole know, bunch of money together to get a lawyer to go into court. We part of this is also, you who who actually know, has the funding and the support and the resources to make sure that kids get the money they deserve.
Louis Freedberg: 29:00
We're talking with uh Randi Weingarten, who is president of the American Federation of Teachers. For those of you who have just tuned in. Randi, I just wanted to ask you about one issue that's I think is a lot of concern, and that is special education funding uh around the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. What seems, I don't know whether this is notable, but the Trump administration has been silent on whether they're gonna move that out of the Department of Education. Do you think that is just a matter of time, or what is what is your sense of what's gonna happen with that? There's this Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, OSERS, which I gather is the main office that is still in the department.
Randi Weingarten: 29:51
I think it's a matter of time. I think their policy, their philosophy is simply to get rid of, to not make it more efficient, but just eviscerate, get rid of the federal role. I mean, it it's it's an abandonment of children. I think that the reason they didn't do it yet is because the you know their the special ed um parents in America um have their number and are um and are organized pretty effectively and have and and they and we have kind of blown the whistle about this for the last few months. And I also think that um that that there is such an a deep irony and travesty that the place they would have put it is in human health and human services. And you think, for example, about the antipathy that Robert Kennedy Jr. seems to have for kids who are on the spectrum. That how do you, you how know, would you even think about putting kids with special needs in a place where there's such great antipathy to those children? We we need a federal government that actually doesn't run schools, but that cares about our kids and cares about the future. And that's what we're saying over and over again. Don't run any schools. We don't want you running any schools. I mean, we agree with Donald Trump that it should be local and state governments that run schools. And frankly, we we think that there's too much politics in and around schools. So we agree on some of these fundamental issues.
Louis Freedberg: 31:44
Randi Weingarton, in terms of this lawsuit, how confident are you that this will have an impact? And just to clarify, are you trying to get the the these functions either returned to the Department of Education or retained there and get the layoffs restored or or undone, should I say?
Randi Weingarten: 32:08
Look, we we started this lawsuit a while ago, and we won on the uh local level, the federal court level, the district, the trial court level, and we won in appeal. The the key here for us is to make sure that the functions stay intact. We understand that the federal government has a right to make things more efficient. We agree that they should make things more efficient. So this is not uh an attempt to freeze everything in place, but the but when you basically fire half the people in a department and now um move virtually everything out of the department, then it is evisceration. It's not an effective functioning. So our goal is an effective functioning of the services that individual children see and that districts see, and that that the these formulas on you know for kids with disabilities, having somebody at the at somewhere in the federal government, if a parent has a question to answer that question, that's our goal. And that's why I think that the courts below basically agreed with us. The reason that this complaint is an amended complaint instead of a new complaint is because it was the Supreme Court's shadowy docket that lifted the injunction and and made us actually go back to court on the merits of the argument. The injunction was there because the courts believed that we were right, but the Supreme Court, without opinion, lifted that injunction. So it's as if we had to not start over, but amending what we had already done because the Department of Education basically dismantled it.
Louis Freedberg: 34:26
So now the argument is around the merits, right?
Randi Weingarten: 34:29
Is that that yes, now the argument is around the merits. And in a normal court of law, in a normal situation, I I know we're not in a normal situation, we would win hands down because these functions were um were uh legislated by the Congress over the course of time. It's the 50th anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. It predates the Department of Education. The Title I, the education, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, predates the Department of Education. These are funds that were supposed to go in a very specified manner directly to children to help them get an equal education. That is what I am worried about.
Louis Freedberg: 35:25
Last question. What are you seeing? Are you seeing any potential for bipartisan support on this in terms of the Department of Education? Certainly, special ed has been a major issue. Uh and a bipartisan issue, a lot of support. I mean, special ed it's not a you know, kids with disabilities are it affects everyone.
Randi Weingarten: 35:49
Well, it's I would say the same is true in terms of Title I. If you look at what happened in Mississippi and their reading programs, Mississippi gets more money from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in Title I than most states. It it pays for almost 20% of its state education budget as opposed to New York City or New York State, where Title I pays for about 7%. So this funding, whether it's for kids with disabilities or kids who are poor, it's it doesn't disproportionately go to blue states. It disproportionately goes to red states. So yes, there should be bipartisan support, as there was this summer when, I don't know, out of nowhere, Linda McMahon just, you know, cut all sorts of programs for after school and summer school. And there was a lot of bipartisan support to put it back, and we got it put back by the end of July, so I think there's bipartisan support But this is the problem. Why should we be spending our time fighting for funds that Congress already appropriated, as opposed to us spending our time actually educating children? We would rather be spending our time doing the professional development, doing the work we need to do to educate kids, to make sure that best practices are spread, to be in schools, actually helping kids learn.
Louis Freedberg: 37:26
Well, that's where we started this conversation with you, an appropriate place to end it. I want to thank Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, for joining us today. Thank you for your work and thank you for joining us.
Randi Weingarten: 37:42
Thank you so much. Thank you for covering this talk.
Louis Freedberg: 37:44
I must say one of the encouraging aspects of this conversation was to be reminded that these legal strategies have made a difference and have resulted in concrete victories on the education front. So it is easy to slide into despair that uh the Supreme Court will overturn everything. But as Sky Perryman pointed out, most of the defeats have been to staying the lower court's decisions rather than overturning them.
Louis Freedberg: 38:17
On that note, we have to bring this episode of education on the line to a close. I want to thank our guests, Sky Perriman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, and Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. Our producer is Coby McDonald, and our advisor is Pedro Noguera, Dean of the USC Rossier School of Education. Also, thanks to our sponsors, the Hewlett Foundation and School Services of California. Please let us know your concerns about what impact changes at the U.S. Department of Education are having on your district or might have. Please write to us by going to our website. Please write to us by going to our website at educationontheine.com. That's educationontheine.com. And please subscribe to Education on the Line. And please subscribe to Education on the Line wherever you get your podcasts.
Louis Freedberg: 39:13
I'm Louis Freedberg. Thanks for joining us.

Cut staff at the U.S. Education Dept. in half, and send programs they were overseeing to multiple other departments -- what could that possibly go wrong for students and schools? To examine what is at stake, veteran education journalist Louis Freedberg sits down with Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, and Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, both of whom are at the forefront of efforts to save the Dept. of Education from extinction by the Trump administration.

Democracy Forward is now in court on behalf of the AFT and numerous other labor organizations and school districts. Both Perryman and Weingarten argue that, far from being ineffective, lawsuits against the Trump Administration, especially when it comes to education, have been far more effective than is generally believed. But, they say, it will also take a multi-pronged effort around the nation to put pressure on elected representatives to save programs and funding that they say disproportionately benefit children and schools in "red" states.

If you care about federal funding for schools, the fate of special education, and having a federal government that supports schools instead of attacking them, you’ll find a clear roadmap of what’s happening, why it matters, and what can be done.

Key Topics Covered: