In a news release heralding the legislation, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Republican Tom Cole of Oklahoma, said, “Change doesn’t come from keeping the status quo—it comes from making bold, disciplined choices.”

And the third proposal, from the Senate, would make minor cuts but largely maintain funding.

A quick reminder: Federal funding makes up a relatively small share of school budgets, roughly 11%, though cuts in low-income districts can still be painful and disruptive.

Schools in blue congressional districts could lose more money

Researchers at the liberal-leaning think tank New America wanted to know how the impact of these proposals might vary depending on the politics of the congressional district receiving the money. They found that the Trump budget would subtract an average of about $35 million from each district’s K-12 schools, with those led by Democrats losing slightly more than those led by Republicans.

The House proposal would make deeper, more partisan cuts, with districts represented by Democrats losing an average of about $46 million and Republican-led districts losing about $36 million.

Republican leadership of the House Appropriations Committee, which is responsible for this budget proposal, did not respond to an NPR request for comment on this partisan divide.

“In several cases, we’ve had to make some very hard choices,” Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., a top Republican on the appropriations committee, said during the full-committee markup of the bill. “Americans must make priorities as they sit around their kitchen tables about the resources they have within their family. And we should be doing the same thing.”

The Senate proposal is more moderate and would leave the status quo largely intact.

In addition to the work of New America, the liberal-leaning Learning Policy Institute created this tool to compare the potential impact of the Senate bill with the president’s proposal.

High-poverty schools could lose more than low-poverty schools

The Trump and House proposals would disproportionately hurt high-poverty school districts, according to an analysis by the liberal-leaning EdTrust.

In Kentucky, for example, EdTrust estimates that the president’s budget could cost the state’s highest-poverty school districts $359 per student, nearly three times what it would cost its wealthiest districts.

The cuts are even steeper in the House proposal: Kentucky’s highest-poverty schools could lose $372 per student, while its lowest-poverty schools could lose $143 per child.

The Senate bill would cut far less: $37 per child in the state’s highest-poverty school districts versus $12 per student in its lowest-poverty districts.

New America researchers arrived at similar conclusions when studying congressional districts.

“The lowest-income congressional districts would lose one and a half times as much funding as the richest congressional districts under the Trump budget,” says New America’s Zahava Stadler.

The House proposal, Stadler says, would go further, imposing a cut the Trump budget does not on Title I.

“The House budget does something new and scary,” Stadler says, “which is it openly targets funding for students in poverty. This is not something that we see ever.”

Republican leaders of the House Appropriations Committee did not respond to NPR requests for comment on their proposal’s outsize impact on low-income communities.

The Senate has proposed a modest increase to Title I for next year.

Majority-minority schools could lose more than mostly white schools

Just as the president’s budget would hit high-poverty schools hard, New America found that it would also have an outsize impact on congressional districts where schools serve predominantly children of color. These districts would lose nearly twice as much funding as predominantly white districts, in what Stadler calls “a huge, huge disparity.”

One of several drivers of that disparity is the White House’s decision to end all funding for English language learners and migrant students. In one budget document, the White House justified cutting the former by arguing the program “deemphasizes English primacy. … The historically low reading scores for all students mean States and communities need to unite—not divide—classrooms.”

Under the House proposal, according to New America, congressional districts that serve predominantly white students would lose roughly $27 million on average, while districts with schools that serve mostly children of color would lose more than twice as much: nearly $58 million.

EdTrust’s data tool tells a similar story, state by state. For example, under the president’s budget, Pennsylvania school districts that serve the most students of color would lose $413 per student. Districts that serve the fewest students of color would lose just $101 per child.

The findings were similar for the House proposal: a $499-per-student cut in Pennsylvania districts that serve the most students of color versus a $128 cut per child in predominantly white districts.

“That was most surprising to me,” says EdTrust’s Ivy Morgan. “Overall, the House proposal really is worse [than the Trump budget] for high-poverty districts, districts with high percentages of students of color, city and rural districts. And we were not expecting to see that.”

The Trump and House proposals do share one common denominator: the belief that the federal government should be spending less on the nation’s schools.

When Trump pledged, “We’re going to be returning education very simply back to the states where it belongs,” that apparently included scaling back some of the federal role in funding schools, too.