Rural school districts — already beset with financial struggles — are furiously scrambling to save a century-old funding source that Republican lawmakers last month eliminated from the federal budget. 

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, which has been approved almost continuously since 1908, is intended to compensate rural counties that have large swaths of non-taxable national forest land. Last year, the bill brought nearly $40 million to 39 California counties, funding everything from after-school programs to school roof repairs. 

The  that, because of lower enrollment, receive less money from the state than their urban and suburban counterparts yet tend to have large numbers of high-needs students and higher costs, such as providing bus service to remote areas.

In December, amid the flurry of last-minute budget negotiations, the bill died in the House after House Speaker Mike Johnson did not put it forward for a vote. The bill’s original sponsors hope to reintroduce it in the next few weeks in a last-ditch effort to get it passed before the final budget deadline in March.

It’s a longshot, but school officials are renewing their fight because the loss of those funds could have deep repercussions for rural school districts.

“It might not seem like much, but it’s real money for us,” said Allan Carver, superintendent of schools for Siskiyou County, which last year received $4.3 million from Secure Rural Schools. “If it was to go away, there would be a hole in our budget that would have an undeniable impact on children.”

GOP promises to cut federal spending

Republican Congressional leaders did not respond to interview requests from CalMatters. But , they have vowed to reduce government spending, including . President-elect Donald Trump has also proposed eliminating the U.S. Department of Education and making other cuts to schools. His advisor, Elon Musk — whom Trump recently named head of a yet-to-be-created Department of Government Efficiency — has been outspoken in his desire to cut federal programs.

That’s been frustrating for rural residents, many of whom supported Trump in November and feel Secure Rural Schools is neither a partisan issue nor a government handout. 

“This is not a ‘gift’ of Congress,” said Lonnie Hunt, a retired judge from rural Texas who’s head of the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition. “It’s a pact made more than 100 years ago between the government and local communities. If the federal government had not made this deal, they’d never have been able to create the National Forest Service.”  

“Yet somehow it’s been lost in the politics,” Hunt added. “It’s a shame that rural America is being victimized here. And I’m pointing fingers in all directions, not just one side.”

Mold and layoffs in Trinity County

Secure Rural Schools dates from the creation of the National Forest Service in the early 20th century, when the federal government set aside millions of acres of land for logging. Because that land was removed from the local tax rolls, nearby communities were left with budget shortfalls — and few options to make up the cash. To compensate, the federal government agreed to share a portion of timber profits with those areas. When the logging industry started to decline in the 1990s, the government started augmenting the payments through the modern version of Secure Rural Schools.

Congress gave these counties $35.8 million for rural schools last year — but no more is coming

In 2024, these 39 California counties received money through the Secure Rural Schools program because they have National Forest Service land.

The money goes to counties that have National Forest Service land, where it’s divided between schools and public works. California, with nearly 21 million acres of national forest, receives far more than any other state. And within California, Trinity County receives the second-highest amount – $3.5 million last year. 

Located in the mountains of northwest California, Trinity County spans 3,208 square miles and is more than twice the size of Rhode Island. About 80% of it is owned by the federal government, which means it has limited ability to raise money through local tax measures. Due in part to the decline in logging, it’s also one of the poorest counties in the state, with a , compared to 12% statewide.

Trinity Alps Unified, the largest district in the county, received about $600,000 from Secure Rural Schools last year, about 5% of its overall budget. That money was crucial for paying for things like teachers’ aides, art and music programs, field trips and after-school programs, Superintendent Jaime Green said. 

Local residents know all too well what could happen without Secure Rural Schools. In 2016, the only other time in recent memory the bill didn’t pass, Trinity County school districts didn’t have money to make basic repairs to school buildings, leading to dangerous outbreaks of toxic mold at numerous campuses. Students’ and teachers’ lives were disrupted by school closures, and the state had to spend more than $50 million to help districts rebuild. 

This time, Green is warning that the district may have to eliminate seven jobs, leading to bigger class sizes and fewer enrichment programs. He worries that the students who need the most help will suffer the worst impacts.

“We’re an impoverished county, and the only way to reverse that pattern of poverty is through education,” Green said. “Cutting funding hurts kids. We have to be realistic about that.”

Keeping the pressure on

Green and other rural superintendents have traveled to Washington, D.C. almost a dozen times in the past year or so to lobby for Secure Rural Schools. Their work paid off, at least in the Senate, where the bill passed unanimously.

Green and his colleagues plan to keep the pressure on through emails and phone calls to Republican leadership, in hopes of convincing them to support rural schools even as they face pressure from Musk and Trump to slash federal spending.

Sonoma County Supervisor James Gore, president of the National Association of Counties, has also been persistently lobbying for Secure Rural Schools. He said there’s usually some last-minute wrangling before the bill passes, but this year “was vastly different.”

“Every time it comes up, all the cowboy hats show up” to advocate for the bill in Washington, D.C., he said. “This year we had a lot of momentum and we thought we’d get it over the hump. It was a gut punch when it didn’t go through. We were shocked, to be honest.”

Rural areas’ lack of population and money often means that politicians overlook residents’ needs in those areas, Gore said. Likewise, few people outside of rural areas would hear about the impact if programs are cut, he said. None of the House Republican leaders, including Johnson, party leader Rep. Steve Scalise and House Majority Whip Rep. Tom Emmer, represents areas that receive Secure Rural Schools funding. None of the three responded to requests for comment.

“It’s a catastrophe that no one knows about,” said Gore, referring to the bill’s failure. “But we have an absolute responsibility to these small towns, who are the stewards of these largely unmanned federal lands.”

The last Secure Rural Schools payment was in April. Even if Congress returns to funding the bill next year, even one missed year of payments may leave an impact, superintendents said. Children will have fallen behind academically and teachers will have lost their jobs. In small communities where jobs are scarce, layoffs can have a disproportionate impact, sometimes leading to families moving out of the area entirely.

“In the past, we’d go through the motions but we always got it solved by the buzzer,” Hunt said. “This year we’re past the buzzer and we’re in OT. But we won’t quit.”

This was originally published on .

There are still pockets of layoffs due to unique local circumstances, but they are by no means widespread. 

Still, widespread staff reductions seem very likely to happen in the very near future. Marguerite Roza at the Georgetown Edunomics Lab the expiration of federal relief funds in September 2024, combined with unprecedented , a “perfect storm” for school budgets. 

As a result, it’s likely that school districts will have to trim their staff in the next two to three years. No one knows exactly when the storm will hit or how bad it will be, but I estimate it could easily result in 136,000 fewer teacher jobs. 

Where will layoffs hit the hardest? This question is easy to answer at a high level: The districts most at risk will be those that have lost the most students and those that got the most ESSER money. Those tend to be large, urban, high-poverty districts.

Education Resource Strategies took look at which states are most at risk, starting with how much the ESSER money represented compared with their typical education budget. Assuming that districts spent the federal money evenly over the entire grant period, this figure ranged from 4% to 5% in states like New Jersey, Connecticut, Colorado and Utah, and up to 12% to 17% in states like Alabama, New Mexico, Louisiana and, especially, Mississippi. 

But state-level data are not sufficient to drill down to find districts most at risk. While some places received no ESSER funds at all, the highest-need districts saw influxes totaling up to 40% of their annual budgets.

So, to get a more precise estimate, I looked at staffing ratios and how they have changed over time. About three-quarters of school districts across the country have reduced their student-teacher ratios over the course of the pandemic. That is, they have more staff per student than they used to. For this analysis, I looked to see how many teachers a district would lose if they went back to the same staffing ratio it had in 2018-19. 

Take Chicago as an example. According to the , its student-teacher ratio shrunk from 16.5 students per teacher in 2018-19 to 14.5 in 2021-22. Over this three-year period, it added 5% more teaching staff even as student enrollment dropped 8%. For Chicago to go back to the same staffing ratio it had just a few years ago, it would need to shrink by 2,873 teachers. 

Districts Most at Risk for Teacher Layoffs

All told, if every district in the country went back to the same staffing ratio it had in 2018-19, the nation would lose 136,000 teaching positions. 

Districts wouldn’t have to lay off all those teachers; they could start by letting attrition and slower hiring rates reduce their employee headcount. If state budgets , that might allow many places to avoid, or at least limit, the number of layoffs. 

But it’s also possible that my 136,000 estimate is on the low side. For one thing, districts tend to protect full-time classroom teachers from layoffs, especially higher-paid veterans. That means they would need to many more junior teachers and other part-time employees to make up the difference. Given the makeup of the teacher workforce, that would have devastating effects on diversity efforts aimed at bringing more young Black and Hispanic educators into the workforce. 

In one historical parallel, schools lost of teachers from 2009 to 2010 as the Great Recession began to hit school district budgets. When that happened, it wiped out a decade’s worth of staffing gains as schools a total of 364,000 jobs. 

So, when might layoffs hit schools? At the moment, the economy looks quite strong. Inflation is , and the is as strong as it’s ever been. But the last and biggest pot of federal relief money, $122 billion in ESSER III funds, expires at the end of September 2024, and Congress has given no signs that it will extend that deadline, let alone authorize additional funding to soften the decline. 

So school districts mustn’t get complacent. Large urban districts with high concentrations of poverty will likely need to downsize. Districts that spent less of their COVID relief money on labor will be less at risk of needing to make big layoffs. Districts that are packing a higher share of their spending into this final year are especially vulnerable to hitting a big fiscal cliff. 

There are a lot of uncertainties about the exact timing and magnitude of the impact, but districts will have to scale back their budgets in the coming years. By my estimates, that could mean as many as 136,000 fewer teachers.