Federal payments to rural schools that lapsed more than a year ago are on track to resume鈥攂ut they鈥檇 only be guaranteed through 2026, and they may come too late for some schools to reverse cuts they made during the delay.
The U.S. House on Dec. 9 and sent it to President Donald Trump, who鈥檚 expected to sign it soon.
The latest iteration of the program allocates roughly $250 million in annual formula funds鈥攁s well as two years of back pay鈥攆or counties to pay for road improvements and help school districts that lose revenue from being on federally owned national forest land.
The 650-student Trinity Alps district in northern California will now be able to replenish reserves, pay back debts, and cancel any layoffs that might have been necessary early next year, said Jaime Green, the district鈥檚 superintendent, who鈥檚 spent years advocating on Capitol Hill for rural education.
鈥淚t took too long,鈥� said Green, who retired this week after eight years in the role and 30 working for public schools.
But for the moment, he鈥檚 not sweating the delay: 鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 matter how long it takes if the kids are getting what they need.鈥�
Many rural districts managed to scrape by without these dollars up until now, Green said. But some may still suffer lasting damage from the delay to a small but crucial funding stream. Some have already , , and , citing the gap in federal support among other factors. Enrollment declines and other financial pressures nationwide continue to squeeze state and local budgets.
And the federal funding for schools near forest lands could lapse again in a year if Congress again moves too slowly.
The precarity of the program came as a surprise to Braeli Payne, a senior at Pima High School in Arizona, who joined her school district鈥檚 superintendent on Capitol Hill in October to advocate for extending Secure Rural Schools legislation. The continued absence of the funds would have threatened her district鈥檚 dual-credit offering at a local community college, where Braeli is already well on her way to an associate鈥檚 degree.
鈥淭his has definitely helped me not be so naive about things around me, and to understand where things come from,鈥� Braeli said. 鈥淣ot everything is given for free.鈥�
Rural districts scrambled for a year to encourage Congress to renew the funding
Federal law dating to the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt began requiring timber companies on federal lands to share a portion of their profits with local governments to support road repairs and school operations. But increasingly tight environmental restrictions in recent decades have caused those payments to dry up in many places as timber operations have shrunk and related revenues have fallen.
Lawmakers passed the Secure Rural Schools Act in 2000 to offer an alternative revenue source. But the law only guarantees funds for two years at a time, and Congress has twice failed to extend it in time to keep payments鈥攚hich come from the U.S. Forest Service鈥攆lowing. The last time Congress didn鈥檛 pass a timely extension was December of last year.
The Senate in June voted to approve the reauthorization. But the House dropped it at the last minute from legislative packages several times, including that Congress approved in July.
District leaders and advocates scrambled all year to keep the funding on lawmakers鈥� radars.
Finally, the legislation passed the House this week in a 399-5 vote.
鈥淲e came together as rural communities, we voiced our concerns and opinions, and I felt like we were heard,鈥� said Braeli from Arizona.
In the absence of the Secure Rural Schools option, counties had to revert to collecting their share of timber companies鈥� local profits. But in some cases, that meant taking a huge loss.
In Oregon, for instance, timber revenue in six counties amounted to less than 10 percent of what they would have received from Secure Rural Schools, according to an Education Week analysis of . Fifteen more counties saw at least a 50 percent drop.
In Washington state鈥檚 Skamania County, national forests make up 80 percent of the land, and non-taxable state and local government property makes up the vast majority of the remainder, leaving schools with little property tax revenue to tap. The lapse in Secure Rural Schools funding cost the county $830,000.
This fall, the Stevenson-Carson district there cited the Secure Rural Schools funding as it . Close to 50 6th graders moved to the local elementary school and more than 100 7th and 8th graders shifted to the nearby high school. Ten staff members lost their jobs.
Federal funding concerns remain as Congress debates appropriations
While they鈥檙e buoyed by the renewal of Secure Rural Schools funding, rural school leaders are still wary about broader prospects for federal funding.
Trump has proposed eliminating the Education Department鈥檚 Rural Education Achievement Program grants and consolidating a portion of their $220 million annual funding into a K-12 block grant for states to spend as they please. Republican House lawmakers more recently have advanced an appropriations package that preserves REAP but slashes 25 percent from the $18 billion Title I program for low-income students on which districts in all geographies depend.
The protracted federal shutdown this fall delayed critical Impact Aid payments to hundreds of school districts that intersect with federal property, many in rural communities.
And federal capacity to manage congressionally mandated programs is also in doubt. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, where Secure Rural Schools is housed, has through layoffs and proposed reorganizations.
Meanwhile, Education Department staffers who work on programs for rural schools were among those who received layoff notices in October. Congress in November restored those jobs at least through late January. But the administration has since announced it鈥檚 shifting those programs to the Department of Labor鈥攁 move 20 states have already challenged in court.
Rural school districts are also facing increasing pressure from lawmakers in some states to consolidate, merge, or even close altogether. Research shows school closures aren鈥檛 guaranteed to save money鈥攁nd they can be devastating to communities where schools are among their largest employers and most prominent community hubs. There can also be academic consequences for students when their schools close.
And Secure Rural Schools鈥� long-term fate isn鈥檛 assured. Some lawmakers want to extend it for a longer period next time around. Others say the federal government and, as a result, timber revenues that can flow to schools.
Either way, if Secure Rural Schools funding lapses again, the rural counties that depend on it won鈥檛 have access to the limited, alternative revenue they鈥檝e traditionally been able to collect when that happens: Congress earlier this year passed legislation that , instead of county coffers.
In the meantime, Green is relieved that his district didn鈥檛 make panicked cuts, he said: 鈥淥nce you lay people off in education, they often don鈥檛 come back.鈥�
