Trump administration cuts $106 million in unspent COVID relief from Massachusetts schools

Just two districts account for the majority of the unspent funds: Springfield, with about $47 million remaining, and New Bedford, with about $15 million. Eighteen other districts were affected, including Fitchburg, Everett, Revere, and Boston.

The funds largely went to high-poverty districts like the Gateway Cities, and those districts also have the bulk of the unspent funds.

New Bedford Superintendent Andrew O’Leary said in an interview his district could spend down its limited reserves to protect as many projects as they can, but two major projects — an HVAC system and a school-based health center — are in jeopardy of being eliminated.

“This application of funds is closing gaps that haven’t been addressed in other means,” O’Leary said. “To see those pulled away, inherently given the progressive allocation of these ESSER funds, is inherently targeting the neediest students.”

However, O’Leary said he believes the funds will be restored in the face of state and district pushback, as the letter is “contradictory and I don’t think it will hold up to scrutiny.”

The primary deadline to use the funds was Sept. 30, and the vast majority have been spent. But districts were granted “late liquidation” extensions for things like paying contractors, as long as the money was obligated. Education Secretary Linda McMahon “reconsidered” those extensions, according to a letter she sent to state school officials.

“By failing to meet the clear deadline in the regulation, you ran the risk that the Department would deny your extension request,” McMahon wrote. “Extending deadlines for COVID-related grants, which are in fact taxpayer funds, years after the COVID pandemic ended is not consistent with the Department’s priorities and thus not a worthwhile exercise of its discretion.”

The terminated funds are estimated to affect more than $2 billion across the country. But they’re limited to certain types of spending, with districts already barred under President Biden from using postdeadline funds to pay for staff. That means the impact is primarily on district contractors and vendors, noted Marguerite Roza, director of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University. Districts could have included clauses in contracts letting them out of their payments in situations like this.

Not every state is as affected by the change. Rhode Island, which received more than $373 million in ESSER funds from the American Rescue Plan Act, spent nearly all the funds by the deadline, according to Victor Morente, the spokesperson for the state’s Department of Education. Morente said no extension requests were made, but $313,000 was forfeited in September by districts that did not spend all of their money by the deadline.

“Rhode Island was not impacted to the same degree as other states because of our aggressive approach to investing federal resources,” Morente said.

“At a time when students are still struggling to recover from the pandemic, we need to be doing everything we can to address learning loss and the youth mental health crisis,” Healey said in a statement. “Instead, President Trump suddenly ripped away more than $100 million in funding that is supposed to go right to Massachusetts students and schools.”

But the Education Department will still consider extensions for individual projects, according to the letter.

Projects affected by the termination in Massachusetts include mental health supports, math tutoring, and school security and air quality improvements, according to the state news release.

Two private religious schools, Holyoke’s Mater Dolorosa and Chicopee’s Saint Stanislaus, were also affected by cuts to a separate “Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools” program.

“We are not back yet from the pandemic,” said state Education Secretary Patrick Tutwiler in a statement. “The Trump administration’s outrageous and cruel decision, in which we received notice of a new arbitrary deadline, will have real harm to our students and their learning and wellbeing.”

Keri Rodrigues, president of the National Parents Union, called the decision an “act of educational sabotage” in a separate news release.

“These are dollars that were already in the pipeline — funds our schools were depending on for mental health supports, tutoring, clean air in classrooms, and school safety upgrades,“ Rodrigues said. “Stripping these away with no warning isn’t just bad policy — it’s an all-out assault on the future of our kids.”

The loss of residual funds could worsen the budget crunches affecting districts around the state struggling with inflation and other rising costs.

Researchers have calculated that while academic recovery from the pandemic has been very limited, the situation in America’s schools would be even more dire without the relief funds.

Because it was one-time funds, districts spent much of the money on one-time purchases, like building upgrades, HVAC systems, and new school buses, according to prior Boston Globe reporting. Other money went to temporary tutoring programs, teacher training, and summer and vacation learning.

Springfield Public Schools, which is losing the most money, was allocated nearly $250 million in relief funds, according to state data. That means about one-fifth of the district’s funds are being zeroed out.

Springfield leaders did not specify what plans were affected by the cuts, but in a news release said they have used ESSER funds for one-time investments like HVAC installations and outdoor learning spaces, with “many of these projects . . . close to being done.” The city will work with the state to try to secure the federal money, and district operations are not affected, the leaders said.

“The decision to cut off money already promised to our school district to benefit our students is wrong,” Mayor Domenic Sarno said. “These are not frivolous projects, but one-time capital improvement projects that will greatly benefit our students and faculty.”

O’Leary, the New Bedford superintendent, said the decision punishes districts “that took a deliberate approach to avoid a fiscal cliff.”

“It’s a model of inequity, a model of inefficiency, and it should be forcefully rejected,” he said.

Globe staff writer Steph Machado contributed to this report.

Christopher Huffaker can be reached at christopher.huffaker@globe.com. Follow him @huffakingit.