As the Trump administration executes its broad plan to reverse diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices across U.S. institutions, K–12 education has emerged as the next battleground. This shift comes after institutions like CU Boulder cut or renamed DEI departments out of fear of losing federal funds. Now, public schools — including those in Colorado — face similar threats.
Last week, Colorado Education Commissioner Susana Cordova refused to sign a federal certification form requiring school districts to affirm they have eliminated DEI programs. The Trump administration’s mandate, critics say, overreaches federal authority and misapplies a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
The decision places more than $1.27 billion in federal education funding at risk statewide — including about $10.5 million in the Boulder Valley School District for programs supporting special education, low-income students and school nutrition.
“We agree with the commissioner’s rationale,” said BVSD Superintendent Rob Anderson in an emailed statement. “As we are seeing across the nation, many other commissioners are coming to the same conclusion.”
A shifting federal standard — and legal uncertainty
At the center of the dispute is a new interpretation of Title VI — the federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination in programs receiving federal aid.
On Feb. 3, the U.S. Department of Education announced it had sent letters to state education commissioners requesting they certify compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act — and confirm their adherence to the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended the use of race in college admissions.
The department now argues that DEI programs violate Title VI, making continued federal funding a potential breach of contract.
Colorado, along with states like New York and Minnesota, has rejected the directive. In a letter to district leaders, Cordova noted that Colorado schools already certify Title VI compliance as part of their federal grant process — and that the state remains in compliance based on civil rights assurances already submitted to the Department of Education.
Legal experts say the administration’s argument stretches the Harvard decision beyond its intended scope. The ruling applied to higher education admissions — not K–12 DEI programming — and its relevance to public schools remains untested.
The federal government has already acted in one state: In Maine, funding for school meals was frozen after the state refused to change policies allowing transgender athletes to compete in female sports. A judge later put that action on hold while litigation is pending.
How much funding is at stake for BVSD?
BVSD, which is heavily funded by local property taxes, has been heading in the direction of becoming fully funded locally. But for now, federal grants remain essential to key student services.
The district receives more than $10.5 million in federal funding each year, including support for six Title I schools, special education through IDEA grants and food services — at least 28% of which is federally funded.
Some experts believe Title I funds for next year are likely protected under the current federal budget. But if the administration argues that existing contracts have been breached, the legal and financial consequences are unclear — especially for IDEA grants, which make up the largest share of federal support for K–12 schools.
So far, federal officials have not indicated whether those grants could be targeted.
Preparing for uncertainty
At a school board meeting last week, BVSD Chief Financial Officer Bill Sutter previewed the district’s 2025–26 preliminary budget, highlighting efforts to build financial buffers. That includes a fund for “Differentiated School Support,” a district equity initiative launched in 2021 to direct additional resources to schools based on student need.
The fund began the 2023–24 school year with $17 million, seeded largely by federal COVID-19 relief dollars. Another $4 million was added for next year, after the district spent about $5 million from the fund this year.
The fund provides $500–$750 per student at high-need schools, based on factors like English language learning, free and reduced-price lunch eligibility, and special education enrollment. Mid-tier schools receive $100–$150, and all others receive $50–$75 per student.
According to district spokesperson Randy Barber, that money could be tapped to offset potential federal losses.
“We’ll be checking our pockets,” he said, to find ways to close the gaps if they emerge.
‘Excellence through equity’
Equity has been central to BVSD’s recent strategic vision, promoted through the district’s tagline: “Excellence through equity.” The district has focused on reducing the achievement gap and addressing disproportionate discipline rates.
Latino students, who make up a significant share of the student population at Title I schools, have historically faced higher rates of suspension than white peers. This year, Latino students accounted for 43% of suspensions districtwide, up from 34.9% in 2020, according to public data.
Five out of BVSD’s six Title I schools — Sanchez, Columbine, Pioneer, University Hill and Justice High — serve majority Latino student populations. Sanchez Elementary spent more than $23,000 per student last year, nearly $5,000 above the district average. That investment reflects both federal grant support and targeted equity funding.
The district has also launched a series of advisory groups focused on equity, including the Equity Council, the Latino Parent Advisory Committee, the Youth Equity Council and the Parents of Color Council. These groups have played a role in shaping and recommending new programs, including efforts to increase staff diversity.
While BVSD has received praise for these efforts, some have expressed disappointment in continued practices they believe to be discriminatory.
Shrinking enrollment adds pressure
Enrollment continues to decline across the district, creating additional budget strain. Next year’s projected enrollment is 27,763 — down 150 from the current year. That figure reflects a new state funding formula that calculates enrollment using a four-year average rather than five, a change that disproportionately affects districts already losing students.
How and when the federal government will move forward with potential funding cuts remains uncertain. But district leaders can make changes to the proposed budget before it is finalized in June.