The White House
Beth Ann Rosica: The inevitable federal-state showdown on education
Several elite universities are currently in a face-off with the Trump administration over recent mandates and withholding federal funds, and it is likely only a matter of time before this battle becomes local.
Last week, per a request from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), Pennsylvania certified its compliance with the Civil Rights Act. But that action was evasive in some ways, and as such, may not be enough.
On April 3, 2025, the DOE under President Trump sent a letter to states, requiring a certification of compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Whereas the Biden administration not only supported but encouraged Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices, this administration considers these programs discriminatory under Title VI.
“Given the text of Title VI and the assurances you have already given, any violation of Title VI — including the use of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (“DEI”) programs to advantage one’s race over another — is impermissible. The use of certain DEI practices can violate federal law. The continued use of illegal DEI practices may subject the individual or entity using such practices to serious consequences…”
On April 9, 2025, Pennsylvania Executive Deputy Secretary of Education Angela Fitterer, did not sign the document as requested, but instead sent a letter to DOE indicating its compliance with the Civil Rights Act. Notably, there was not a single mention of DEI practices or policies.
Fitterer’s letter also asserts all school districts are in compliance, despite the fact that PDE did not request certifications from the districts.
“Likewise, the Department affirms that all of Pennsylvania’s LEAs [local education agencies] have previously certified, on multiple occasions, that they comply and will continue to comply with Title VI. Those certifications also remain in effect.”
Fitterer did not return two requests for comment regarding the signed certification.
It remains to be seen whether PDE’s letter will be sufficient to meet DOE’s requirements, and given the current standoff with the universities, it may take some time to attract any attention.
However, based on a subsequent letter from Pennsylvania’s Acting Secretary of Education Carrie Rowe, PDE does not believe DOE followed the proper process to require the elimination of DEI practices.
“To the extent USDE’s request sought certifications from SEAs or LEAs going beyond the legal obligation to comply with Title VI, PDE views such a request as an attempt to change the terms and conditions of federal award without formal administrative process,” writes Rowe in her letter addressed to “partners in education.”
Rowe argues DOE not only circumvented the appropriate process to mandate the elimination of DEI practices but does not clearly articulate what constitutes DEI, referring to it as a “nebulous concept.”
Yet, the “nebulous concept” of DEI is alive and well in Pennsylvania public schools — PDE knows and encourages it. This is likely why PDE did not address DEI practices in its letter — avoidance is a strategy.
Late last year as a result of legal action, PDE rescinded its Culturally-Relevant and Sustaining Education (CR-SE) Program Framework Guidelines. The DEI-heavy guidelines were modified and are no longer required — only encouraged — as per a settlement agreement.
Even though the DEI framework is no longer required, many school districts, particularly in Southeastern Pennsylvania, are still following it. Several districts acknowledged in prior requests for comment they were not making any changes to their professional development plans as a result of the new recommendations.
Recently, several school districts publicly stated they are prepared to risk federal funds as a result of not complying with the federal mandates.
In February, after DOE issued a “Dear Colleague” letter, Springfield Township School District doubled down on their commitment to DEI in a letter to the community. The superintendent cited only two percent of the overall district budget comes from federal funding, and they are prepared to lose the money rather than comply.
Similarly, Lower Merion School District posted a statement on their website in February acknowledging the executive orders related to education and how they may raise “concerns and questions among our students, staff and families.”
In the statement signed by the acting superintendent and all nine board members, the district is steadfast in its commitment to adhere to the previously enacted policies.
“We stand by and intend to uphold our Policies, which have been approved and revised over time by our locally elected Board of School Directors, and which reflect the values of our community.”
Likewise, the Great Valley School District remains committed to its DEI practices, including an “Equity Review and Plan” and a “Council for Diversity and Inclusion.”
Regardless of the executive orders and mandates by the Trump administration, and based on the districts’ statements and assertions, many school districts are still actively engaging in DEI practices.
Jeffery Sultanik, an attorney with Fox Rothschild who represents over 100 school entities in the state, said as much in an interview with the Inquirer.
“I suspect that many K-12 districts in Pennsylvania are trying to quietly conduct their business without drawing too much attention to a federal government algorithm,” said Sultanik.
Based on many of the districts’ outward statements and others’ continued practices, it looks like the Commonwealth is heading for a legal battle with the Trump administration.
The state is neither requiring nor encouraging districts to comply with the elimination of DEI practices in schools. In fact, quite the opposite is true. PDE is basically telling districts not to worry about the federal mandates, so most of them are following suit. A few brazen districts already publicly announced their refusal to comply.
Ironically, these are the same school districts who willingly complied with the Biden administration orders, including extended school closures and forcibly masking of children. Now, when districts ideologically disagree with President Trump, they choose to rebel and turn away federal funds — the same federal funds they were afraid to lose if they failed to mandate masks and school closures.
It seems only a matter of time before DOE and the Trump administration opens an investigation into Pennsylvania and specific school districts for failing to address and eliminate programs and practices that discriminate against students and teachers based on race, color, and national origin.
Beth Ann Rosica resides in West Chester, has a Ph.D. in Education, and has dedicated her career to advocating on behalf of at-risk children and families. She covers education issues for Broad + Liberty. Contact her at barosica@broadandliberty.com.
Angela Fitterer’s approach, aligns with a deflection and strategic ambiguity technique. She sidestepped a direct confrontation — the explicit demands of the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) mandate to certify the elimination of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices—while maintaining a position that appears compliant… but she very deliberately avoided committing to those substantive changes.
She wants to avoid the Trump Administration’s framing of the issue. She is like a toddler caught lying. It is foolish to think she or any others practicing her religion are going to act rationally or be reasonable. Stop being nice to them. Thank you for your hard work.
Well in these, and other PA school districts, funding comes directly from school taxes homeowner’s pay weather they have kids in school or not. Too bad more taxpayers don’t get out and vote and take control of the school boards.
Once again the resident Libertarian hypocrite shows her true self. As a Libertarian she wants as little government regulation as possible, except when it comes to her conservative political beliefs. She claims that DEI discriminates against students and teachers based on race, color, and national origin. Yet she can’t give any actual real world examples.
Example 1: U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (June 2023) that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina’s use of race-based affirmative action in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Critics argued that these DEI-related policies discriminated against white and Asian applicants by holding them to higher admissions standards compared to Black and Hispanic applicants, even when academic qualifications were similar. The Court found that such policies relied on racial stereotypes and lacked a clear endpoint, operating as illegal discrimination. Following the ruling, the U.S. Department of Education issued guidance in February 2025 directing schools to end race-based preferences in admissions, scholarships, and other programs, reinforcing claims that such DEI practices were discriminatory.
Example 2: The grouping of LGBTQIA+ into a single category is irrational and inherently discriminatory. The individual components—lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and the catch-all “+”—represent distinct identities, experiences, and conflicting realities. For instance, the “T” (transgender) can clash with “L” (lesbian) and “G” (gay) when gender identity challenges sexual orientation. A lesbian attracted to biological females might not align with trans women identifying as female, creating tension within the coalition. The “+” further muddies things, acting as a vague umbrella for any identity not explicitly listed, which can dilute clarity and coherence. This grouping is an intentional Marxist construct to push social disruption. Marxist frameworks often emphasize class struggle and dismantling established power structures, including traditional societal norms around family, gender, and sexuality. By intentionally grouping these disparate identities under one irrational banner was a strategic move to unify diverse grievances against “former mores,” amplifying their collective impact. Well-meaning individuals are tools for Marxist leaders because they mindlessly adopt this LGBTQIA+ framework without questioning its underlying goals, advancing a broader agenda of societal upheaval.
I said real world examples, not your personal conspiracy theories. The current Supreme Court has shown its bias time and time again in matters including abortion, voting rights, and Presidential immunity. Example number two is your personal belief, not the real world the rest of us live in. which is made clear by this statement, “This grouping is an intentional Marxist construct to push social disruption.”
Hahahahaha… Example #1 is a Supreme Court case named Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (June 2023). That’s not the real world? Hahahahahahahaha.
Given the level of bias in the Supreme Court, especially Justice Clarence Thomas openly signaling that he wants to relitigate past SCOTUS rulings he does not agree with. Along with their recent decision that President cannot be held accountable when they break the law. No one in America is above the law and that should not include the President. So yes, there is bias.
Students for Fair Admissions is nothing more than a conservative group with an agenda and all of their clients in the suit were anonymous. So no one knows if any of the clients have been discriminated against.
.