Federal Funding Cuts to Stratford Schools

Multiple Programs on the Chopping Block

Where will your tax dollars go?

By Barbara Heimlich
Editor

Connecticut schools are facing federal funding threats – the State of Connecticut has been given less than two weeks to ditch diversity, equity and inclusion programs (DEI), or risk losing federal funding, the latest move in the Trump administration’s attack on DEI.

Ironically, on Valentine’s Day the U.S. Department of Education notified school districts that they must stop using “race preferences and stereotypes as a factor in their admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, sanctions, discipline, and beyond.”

According to Patrice McCarthy, Executive Director of the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, the memo was the latest in what she described as a “fire hose of letters” coming out at the federal level.  “It’s chaos,” she said. “It’s an effort to create chaos.”

The letter gives schools 14 days from February 14th (February 28^th) to comply, citing the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision barring race as a factor in college admissions as justification for the new interpretation of federal anti-discrimination law. “Institutions that fail to comply with federal civil rights law may, consistent with applicable law, face potential loss of federal funding,” according to the letter.

In regards to the letter, McCarthy noted: “The only thing we know is there is great uncertainty about the validity and possible application of the many Executive Orders. Connecticut school districts are focused on maintaining a school environment that is safe and welcoming to all students.”

“The state Department of Education is currently reviewing the letter,” said Matthew Cerrone, Director and spokesperson for the Office of Communications and Community Partnerships, in an email on Wednesday. Cerrone plans to communicate with districts upon completion of the review. 

McCarthy made it very clear that “despite this mandate from Washington, schools in Connecticut are committed to making sure that all students and staff feel safe, that they feel they belong, and feel there’s a culture in the school that supports all students, and whatever we call that might not be the critical issue, but supporting students and staff is the critical issue,” she said.

This does not mean that schools would be brushing off the news, especially when threatening funds raised the stakes higher than the existing executive order, which was already affecting education institutions in Connecticut.

Last week, federal officials, as part of the DEI crackdown, stripped Sacred Heart University of a $3.38 million grant that would have funded up to 80 teaching positions over the next five years for a teacher residency program.

“That grant was specifically in place for high needs districts and for critical areas like special education and STEM education, so that’s an example now of a pipeline that we would have had, when we have a critical teacher shortage,” said Democratic state Sen. Sujata Gadkar-Wilcox at a special education press conference Wednesday.

“What happened with the Sacred Heart grant exacerbated the fear that Connecticut schools could lose much-needed funds,” McCarthy said.”It would be devastating. There are funds that go to local districts; there are funds that go to the state of Connecticut.”

Like the Trump administration’s efforts to freeze federal funding, the specifics of what exact programs are targeted and how different districts and education institutions would be impacted by the latest letter is still not clear, even to those that are on the receiving end of the letter.

According to the letter, American educational institutions have “toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism’, and describes discrimination against white and Asian students, through race-based admissions preferences, financial aid, hiring, training, and other institutional programming. Proponents of these discriminatory practices have attempted to further justify them—particularly during the last four years—under the banner of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (‘DEI’), smuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline.”

Fran Rabinowitz, executive director of the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents, said it seemed as though the federal administration was blanketing DEI in a way that misinterpreted its actual meaning and goals.

“I think all of us feel strongly that our diversity, equity and inclusion is just about respect for children, respect for human beings, whoever they are,” she said. “And we will continue to see it that way.”  DEI within K-12 schools didn’t always take shape through specific programs or initiatives like the letter describes, but rather as overarching principles.

“It’s making sure that there are opportunities available to all students, regardless of their race or their financial status,” McCarthy said. “To be able to take, to enroll in advanced level programs, to have the support they need socially and emotionally, to learn how to interact with their peers in a civil manner, even if they may have very different perspectives on an issue. So it’s not like there’s a course in DEI.”

That made it all the more difficult to figure out what specifically could be a target, and just how high the risk of losing funds was. “It’s just so broad,” McCarthy said. “If we knew what we had to be compliant with, then it’d be easier.”

Despite the risk, McCarthy said she still didn’t foresee diverse hiring tactics or programs in Connecticut that encourage certification to end. “Districts want to hire the most qualified staff, and that includes individuals that represent the diversity of the student body, and so they’re going to continue to do that.”

Since Trump’s DEI executive order, many districts and education advocates have reaffirmed their commitment to supporting all students, and McCarthy and Rabinowitz both said they did not expect that to change either.

“I’m equally committed to the fact that we have a moral position to respect every child we serve and ensure that there is safety and support for every child and adult in our school community, regardless,” Rabinowitz said, and expected the same from superintendents, even with concerns about the letter and a funding loss.

How a federal funding loss could impact a district would depend on where exactly that loss was, which the letter does not specify, so they couldn’t necessarily anticipate what to prepare for. “Right now… I think there’s a lot of fear and interpretation of what can happen, but it’s kind of a wait and see, and see what the letter of the law is.”

All school districts, all public schools, rely heavily on federal funding support, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act grant, or Title 1, 2, and 3 funds, which support underserved students, teachers, and English learners. Losing those “would create significant gaps for schools, from funding teacher positions and programs to resources that the district provides directly through those programs.

While the letter focuses mainly on race, special education is also a concern in education circles with the federal government’s DEI directives.

“Of course it’s worrisome, of course we’re paying attention to it,” said Speaker of the House Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, at a press conference Wednesday where he and other Democratic Connecticut lawmakers announced they will appropriate $40 million for special education expansion.

“We’re putting down a marker for an area where we think that the federal government shortfall is gonna be significant as well,” said State Sen. President Martin Looney at the press conference. “We expect that the component of special ed paid by the federal government is going to be declining, so that challenge is going to be on us as well, both this year and in the next biennium.”

Twenty-one Connecticut school districts lost vital federal funding when in September, just three weeks before the 2025 Title I funding cycle began on October 1^st, they were notified that School districts with fewer than 2% of students living in poverty do not qualify for any Title I funding, which is based 2023 census data.

School districts use federal Title I grants to fund teaching positions, summer school programs and more to support children from low-income families with educational services that they need. With the funding being contingent on the number and percentage of children in poverty in the town/city a district is located, this funding can be whipped away if that drops below the threshold.

Currently, a district is eligible for the funding based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, a program that collects data annually from a variety of state, federal and county agencies “to determine the number of children in poverty in a given community,”

However, with President Donald Trump’s January 27th announcement of a federal funding freeze — temporarily blocked by a federal judge and then rescinded by the administration two days later — the whole Title I program, like much federal funding, has become a political football.

The federal government offers three different types of Title I grants for districts that are based on how many children, ages 5-17, from low-income families are living in the town/city they are located in. So, districts that are in a community that has a larger population of these children will get a larger Title I grant.

CT school district Title I funding

Here is how federal funding to support children in poverty changed from year to year in Connecticut school districts.

District                                      2024                        2025                       Percent change

Achievement First Bridgeport    $849,504                   $860,525                 1.3%

Ansonia School District           $1,047,257                   $972,372                −7.2%

Bridgeport School District     $14,048,071              $14,087,598                 0.3%

Fairfield School District             $393,315                    $356,791                −9.3%

Milford School District               $690,324                    $688,060                −0.3%

Park City Prep                          $246,993                    $285,277                15.5%

Shelton School District              $677,374                    $280,749              −58.6%

Stratford School District         $1,857,779                 $1,757,389                −5.4%

Source Connecticut Department of Education

Not all the Title I funding information was negative. While a good number of Connecticut school districts saw their Title I funding amounts decrease from 2024 to 2025, others got funding increases. Bridgeport, for example, saw its funding increase from about $14,048,000 in 2024 to $14,088,000 for 2025, and Bloomfield saw its Title I funding jump $45,328 between those two years.

What to expect in 2026? School districts do not know yet how much Title I money they will be getting in 2026, a lack of information that made the threatened federal funding freeze even more upsetting.

Districts have gotten an indication of future funding, however. On December 19th, all Connecticut school districts got access to the 2023 census data from which the Title I 2026 funding amounts will be calculated. The census data shows that statewide, the poverty rate of children ages 5-17 increased from 11.42 percent in 2022 to 12.34 percent in 2023.

School districts were encouraged by the state to review their census data and are allowed to challenge the data if they believe there are non-statistical errors. Districts have until March 17th to make their case.

Jennifer Murrihy, the Connecticut State Department of Education’s Title I director, said school districts should be be prepared for their Title I funding to rise and fall due to demographic changes.

She said districts should be asking, “How can we make ourselves prepared for that?” and “What is the contingency that we can put into place?”

Having these conversations can help districts with “more intentional programming, effective use of their dollars and potentially no surprises,” she said.