Some education departments in Democrat-controlled states have begun to push back against the Trump administration’s calls to end diversity, equity and inclusion practices in schools. But Connecticut leaders seem to be taking a more deliberative approach — a response some advocates are beginning to question. The issue came to a head late Thursday, when the U.S. Department of Education sent a letter calling on state education officials across the country to “certify their compliance with their anti-discrimination obligations in order to continue receiving federal financial assistance.” In other words, federal officials told state education departments to end activities that promote DEI or risk losing federal funds. Specifically, the letter threatened to pull back Title I, which provides funding to support school districts with high concentrations of students from low-income backgrounds. The letter instructed state leaders to respond within 10 days. “Federal financial assistance is a privilege, not a right,” Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the Education Department, wrote in Thursday’s letter. “Unfortunately, we have seen too many schools flout or outright violate these obligations, including by using DEI programs to discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another based on identity characteristics.” It took over 24 hours for the Connecticut State Department of Education to communicate to district superintendents regarding the letter. Late Friday afternoon, the department sent a message to districts that read, in part: “Please know that the CSDE is carefully reviewing the requested certification and will provide you with further information/instruction early in the upcoming week.” That response contrasted with what leaders in New York and California had to say Friday. In a letter to the federal education department, New York’s Deputy Education Commissioner Daniel Morton-Bentley declined to provide further certification, saying the state’s school system “has and will comply” with federal anti-discrimination laws. “[New York State Education Department] is unaware of any authority that USDOE has to demand that a State Education Agency agree to its interpretation of a judicial decision or change the terms and conditions of NYSED’s award without formal administrative process,” Morton-Bentley wrote. “We understand that the current administration seeks to censor anything it deems ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’. But there are no federal or state laws prohibiting the principles of DEI.” In California, a spokesperson from the state education department also criticized the measure, calling it “yet another attempt to impose a national ideology on local schools by threatening to withhold vital resources for students,” according to a report in the Los Angeles Times. Sarah Eagan, executive director for the Center for Children’s Advocacy and former head of Connecticut’s Office of the Child Advocate, said it’s “imperative” for state education leaders to “have a strong and visible presence on these directives, with very very timely outreach.” Connecticut’s deliberative approach has grown frustrating for other advocates who say it’s the state’s responsibility to set the tone for schools. Attorney Andrew Feinstein, with Special Education Equity for Kids, wrote a letter to state officials Thursday evening, calling for the department to issue a statement challenging the legality of the orders. “The statement should say that the state Department of Education and the Attorney General will litigate the issue on behalf of any district that faces any funding cutoff due to this alleged policy,” Feinstein wrote. “The time for partial compliance and lying low is over. Connecticut needs to take a strong stand now.” In an interview with The Connecticut Mirror Friday, Feinstein said, “There is nothing in the law that gives plenary authority to the Department of Education officials to decide to withhold funds based on their view of morality, or racism, or whatever their view is.” The Trump administration “has achieved through voluntary compliance what they could never achieve through legal means and that’s the heart of my concern about the state Department of Education’s [lack of] response to this,” Feinstein said. Patrice McCarthy, executive director with the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, said she saw the state’s approach as “a strategy question.” “Everyone needs has to make a judgment call about how to address these kinds of issues,” McCarthy said. “Do you make yourself more of a target as a state if you are too aggressive in how you push back as opposed to simply saying, ‘We’re in compliance with the executive orders. We don’t discriminate in our programs. Just because they’re called diversity, equity and inclusion doesn’t mean that they’re targeted for only certain students.’ That’s really a strategy question.” A spokesperson for Gov. Ned Lamont’s office deferred a request for comment to the state’s Education Department Friday. In recent weeks, the governor has said Connecticut will step in if needed. But Lamont has also expressed doubt that the state would be able to make up the full difference if federal education funding slows down. “We prioritize education, but if feds cut $550 million out of education going to each and every one of our communities, we’re going to do what we can to help the most vulnerable,” Lamont said at a news conference in March. “I’m not positive we can make up all that shortfall, but we’re going to do everything we can.” Connecticut received about $553 million in federal funding for education during the 2023-2024 school year, according to School and State Finance Project. About half of that funding goes toward Title I and special education through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, also known as IDEA. Only 7% of the state’s total education funding comes from the federal government. But towns and cities with higher concentrations of low-income students rely more heavily on those grants. Cities like Waterbury, Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport would be disproportionately affected if there’s a pullback of Title I funds. ...read more read less