In a press release announcing the legislation, the chairman of the Chamber’s credit committee, the Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole, said: “The change does not come from the status quo – this has just made daring and disciplined choices.”
And the third proposal, from the Senate, would make minor cuts but largely maintain funding.
A rapid reminder: federal funding constitutes a relatively low share of school budgets, around 11%, although cut in low -income districts can always be painful and disruptive.
Schools of the Blue Congress districts could lose more money
Researchers from the New America Liberal Reflection Group wanted to know how the impact of these proposals could vary depending on the Congress District Policy receiving money. They found that Trump’s budget has an average of $ 35 million in K-12 schools from each district on average, those led by Democrats losing a little more than those led by the Republicans.
The chamber’s proposal would make deeper and more partisan cuts, the districts represented by Democrats losing an average of around $ 46 million and the districts led by Republicans losing about $ 36 million.
The republican management of the Chamber’s credit committee, which is responsible for this budget proposal, has not responded to a request for NPR comments on this partisan fracture.
“In several cases, we had to make very difficult choices,” said representative Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., A high-level republican of the credit committee, during the increase in the bill. “Americans must make priorities when seated around their cooking tables on the resources they have within their family. And we should do the same. “
The Senate proposal is more moderate and would leave the status quo largely intact.
In addition to the work of New America, the Liberal-learning Policy Institute created this tool to compare the potential impact of the Senate bill with the president’s proposal.
High break schools could lose more than low -poverty schools
The Trump and House proposals would disproportionately harm school districts on high pause, according to an analysis of the Liberal EDTRUST.
In Kentucky, for example, Edtrust estimates that the president’s budget could cost $ 359 per student to the highest school districts in the state, almost three times what it would cost his richest districts.
The cuts are even steep in the home proposal: Kentucky’s highest schools could lose $ 372 per student, while their lowest schools could lose $ 143 per child.
The Senate bill would reduce much less: $ 37 per child in the highest school districts of the State against $ 12 per student in its lowest districts.
New America researchers arrived at similar conclusions when studying congress districts.
“The districts of the least at income congress would lose funding once and a half of funding than the richest congress districts in Trump’s budget,” said Zahava Stadler of New America.
The proposal of the house, says Stadler, would go further, imposing a Trump budget cup does not do on title I.
“The budget of the house is doing something new and frightening,” says Stadler, “that is to say openly target the financing of poverty students. This is not something we see Never. “”
The republican leaders of the Credit Committee of the Chamber did not respond to requests for comments from the NPR on the impact of their proposal on low -income communities.
The Senate has proposed a modest increase in title I for next year.
The majority minority schools could lose more than white schools mainly
Just as the president’s budget would harm schools hard on High Pause, New America noted that it would also have an oversized impact on congress districts where schools are mainly used for colored children. These districts would lose almost twice as much funding as white predominance districts, in what Stadler calls “a huge and enormous disparity. “”
One of the many engines of this disparity is the White House’s decision to end any funding for learners in English and migrant students. In a budgetary document, the White House justified the reduction of the first by arguing that the program “estimates that the English primacy. … Historically low reading scores for all students and communities must unite – no division – classrooms.”
According to the chamber’s proposal, according to New America, congress districts which mainly serve white students would lose around 27 million dollars on average, while districts with schools that serve mainly in color would lose more than twice more: almost 58 million dollars.
Edtrust’s data tool tells a similar story, State by State. For example, as part of the president’s budget, Pennsylvania’s school districts which serve the most colored students would lose $ 413 per student. The districts that serve the fewer colored students would only lose $ 101 per child.
The results were similar for the room proposal: a cup of $ 499 per student in the Pennsylvania districts which serve the most colored students compared to a cup of $ 128 per child in the white predominance districts.
“It was the most surprising to me,” said Ivy Morgan from Edtrust. “Overall, the proposal of the house is really worse (that the Trump budget) for high pause districts, the districts with high percentages of colored students, cities and rural districts. And we did not expect to see it.”
The Trump and House proposals share a common denominator: the conviction that the federal government should spend less on the country’s schools.
When Trump is committed, “we are going to return to studies very simply in the United States where it belongs”, which apparently included the reduction of some of the federal role in funding schools.
