Released this month, the shows the number of students with disabilities spending much of their days in general education classrooms grew by 25% between 2012 and 2024. The largest growth came in the population spending 80% or more of their school days in inclusive settings, in accordance with a federal civil rights law enacted more than 50 years ago.

But the rigorous monitoring and technical assistance provided by the federal Department of Education鈥檚 Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services are at risk amid severe staff cuts, reduced state visits and the office鈥檚 shift to another agency, say lawmakers who requested the report.

鈥淚鈥檓 glad this report was delivered, and was heartened to see a significant increase in the number of students with disabilities being placed in general education classrooms for much of their day,鈥� U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, wrote in an email to 社区黑料. 鈥淏ut this report makes plain that progress is not being made equally in all places 鈥� and that it would be extremely foolish to move oversight over special education programs out of the Department of Education to other agencies that lack the expertise and experience to close those gaps.鈥�

Sens. Kaine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont requested the report as part of a broader examination of where students with disabilities receive their education. In 2025, Kaine was among a group of senators who U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon鈥檚 proposal to shift special education out of the Department of Education as a move that will 鈥渞everse decades of progress in how we support students with disabilities and their families.鈥澛�

On June 16, the move was formalized with . The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to requests for comment, but in the agreement the agency鈥檚 director, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., described the move as a 鈥減artnership鈥� that will eliminate bureaucracy, save money and 鈥渄eliver more effective support for individuals with disabilities and their families.鈥澛�

Under the 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, children with disabilities must be educated alongside their non-disabled peers whenever appropriate. The law aligns with research that shows positive outcomes from inclusive educational practices. A foundational by the National Center on Educational Outcomes found that up to 85% of special education students can meet the same achievement standards as other students if they are given specially designed instruction, access, support and accommodations.

also shows that students with disabilities in inclusive general ed classrooms do better academically and socially, pursue postsecondary education, and are more likely to get a competitive job and live independently.

Disabilities studied in the GAO report include autism, hearing impairment, visual impairments, orthopedic impairments and intellectual impairments among others.

The report shows modest but steady gains in national inclusion rates, but progress was uneven. In 42 states and the District of Columbia the number of students with disabilities spending at least 40% of their time in mainstream classrooms increased, but in North Dakota and Nevada that share of students decreased by about 3%. Inclusion rates also went down in Minnesota, Alabama, Ohio and Georgia over the 12-year period.听

Educators in some states pointed to district staffing shortages to explain why some students with disabilities who require an aide have not joined general education peers. Others noted that a school鈥檚 success largely depends on its leadership.

鈥淸School culture] is the No. 1 issue,鈥� a school official told GAO investigators. 鈥淭he [principal] is the most powerful benefit or hindrance to inclusion. Unfortunately, a lot of principals do not have special education background or depth of knowledge in special ed.鈥�

Advocates worry that moving special education services to HHS will erode a core element of the IDEA.

鈥淚t鈥檚 a very real separation,鈥� said Jennifer Coco, interim executive director of the New York-based Center for Learner Equity. 鈥淲hat will make inclusion happen is setting an expectation that students with disabilities are students first. We start with the presumption that they’re going to be in the general education classrooms being taught by general ed teachers.鈥� 

Until this year, the federal Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services has visited and monitored 10 states a year to ensure that the IDEA is being enforced and to offer support and assistance where it is not. Those state visits are expected to drop to two per year, Coco said, which means less insight into how students are being educated and less support at the state and district levels.

鈥淎ll of the foundational pieces at the federal level that drive the results we see in this report have been dismantled,鈥� she said. The Department of Education鈥檚 staff cuts and decision to move special education services is 鈥減ulling the rug out from underneath all of us in terms of how we’re going to sustain the progress that this report shows us.鈥�

Advocates are also concerned that by housing special education services in HHS 鈥� whose director drew criticism with his that children with autism 鈥渨ill never pay taxes鈥� 鈥� will add stigma for students with disabilities.

鈥淚t matters who’s overseeing special education,鈥� said Lisa Mosko Barros, founder of the California-based advocacy organization Speducational. 鈥淭he tone they set matters.鈥� Kennedy鈥檚 remarks about people with autism indicate a 鈥渕indset that is concerning,鈥� Barros added. 鈥淚t’s like enlisting the support of a hospital to oversee a school district.鈥�

But now, some offices that handled the hundreds of inquiries that pour in each month 鈥� from parents, reporters and watchdog groups 鈥� have either been eliminated or have no remaining employees, according to a by the agency鈥檚 inspector general.

A FOIA group within the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, for example, had eight employees before President Donald Trump took charge in January 2025. After staff reductions, none remained, the report showed. 

Those cuts have further jammed an already clogged system. A review by 社区黑料 of publicly available shows that out of the more than 4,900 requests the Education Department has received since February 2025, only 3% have been granted in full or in part as of last week. The department doesn鈥檛 carry the largest backlog of requests, according to . But its own annual , released earlier this year, said it was unable to reduce a backlog that makes up over 86% of pending requests.听

Officials blamed their lack of responsiveness on an increase in requests, the department鈥檚 downsizing and the 43-day government shutdown last year. Experts, including a former FOIA official, say the administration鈥檚 push to eliminate the department has especially hampered the public鈥檚 ability to understand the inner workings of the agency.

鈥淭he people who remain at the Department of Education are either not subject matter experts in the relevant issue or they’re massively overworked trying desperately to do the jobs of all of their departed coworkers,鈥� said Jill Siegelbaum, who spent 15 years as the agency鈥檚 senior FOIA attorney.听

With the department offloading key offices to other agencies, hunting down records could become even more difficult, she said. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who will take responsibility for special education, has also .

鈥淣o one is going to have any idea what agency has which responsive records,鈥� said Siegelbaum, now a partner with Sligo Law Group. 鈥淎ll of this adds up to a nightmare for FOIA requesters.鈥�

Those include parents whose children aren鈥檛 receiving the services they鈥檙e entitled to, news outlets covering fast-moving stories in their local schools and student loan borrowers trying to make sense of what they owe after all the changes to in recent years.

The requests frequently become .

In one example, a reporter from the New Bedford Light in Massachusetts asked for civil rights data from the local school district in 2021. The request is still pending, but the reporter has since moved on, according to the outlet鈥檚 executive editor.

In early 2023, Callie Oettinger, a special education advocate in Virginia, requested documents from the Office for Civil Rights related to its oversight of Fairfax County Public Schools during the pandemic. After an OCR investigation, to make up for the services students with disabilities didn鈥檛 receive during school closures. 

Oettinger wanted to ensure OCR was holding the district accountable, but two years later, she hasn鈥檛 received a response. She recently talked to a mom who is still trying to get services for her child as part of that agreement. 

鈥淲e鈥檙e six years past COVID,鈥� she said. 鈥淜ids needed help years ago.鈥� 

In March 2025, 社区黑料 asked for submissions to the department鈥檚 short-lived tip line for examples of diversity, equity and inclusion activity in public schools. The department had to shut down the portal as the result of litigation, but the request is still pending. In all, 社区黑料 has submitted 20 requests since the current administration took office. Seventeen have not been processed and three cases were closed because they were duplicates. A separate request to the Office of Inspector General was fulfilled within four weeks. 

FOIA wasn鈥檛 meant for 鈥渉istorical purposes,鈥� said Jon Maier, senior litigation counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. 鈥淚t’s a public disclosure statute that’s designed to get information into the hands of the American public.鈥� 

The left-leaning watchdog group sued seeking records from the Department of Government Efficiency, which oversaw widespread layoffs and cancelled contracts. Requesters can sue if they haven鈥檛 received a response in 20-30 days. The department鈥檚 current wait time for simple requests , but many take much longer.

鈥淭hat these preposterous delays are acceptable goes directly against the purpose of FOIA,鈥� Maier said. The backlog is only likely to grow. 鈥淲hen the government isn’t telling you what it’s doing there will only be more FOIA requests.鈥�

鈥業gnoring FOIA officers鈥�

In addition to tallying the staff cuts, the inspector general鈥檚 office hoped to evaluate the agency鈥檚 ability to process requests. But the department refused to turn over all the information its internal watchdog requested and declined to 鈥減ermit unrestricted access to its staff,鈥� said Catherine Grant, a spokeswoman for that office. 鈥淲e were unable to make definitive determinations in several areas, including major activities,鈥� like FOIA requests.

In the largest share of open cases, roughly 41% of them, a FOIA officer has sent the request to the office that is likely to have the records, but is still waiting, often months later, for a response.

Lauren Harper, an expert on government secrecy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, wasn鈥檛 surprised. 

If the department is 鈥渟tonewalling the inspector general鈥檚 office, it’s an extremely safe bet that they’re absolutely ignoring FOIA officers who are asking for information,鈥� she said. 

The logs also show:

• Since February 2025, 37% of FOIA requests have been closed, but the majority of those were either withdrawn or were invalid requests to begin with. 

• During the current Trump administration鈥檚 first 16 months in office, the department received an average of 295 requests per month. During that same window under President Joe Biden, from February 2021 through May 2022, the department received an average of 185 requests a month. 

• Many requests submitted during the Biden administration and even Trump鈥檚 first term still haven鈥檛 been processed. For fiscal year 2023, 23% are stuck in that 鈥渞equest for docs sent鈥� category. 

鈥楩ind funding elsewhere鈥�

Problems with the federal government鈥檚 FOIA system are longstanding. The law, which turned 60 on July 4, has always been 鈥渦nderfunded,鈥� Siegelbaum said.听

鈥淐ongress doesn’t appropriate funding for FOIA, so you have to find funding elsewhere,鈥� she said. 鈥淪ometimes it has to struggle to get attention, to get the appropriate resources, both in terms of money and staff at the Department of Education.”

Comparing the handling of FOIA requests from one administration to the next isn鈥檛 a simple math problem. Each new team inherits requests that were still pending when the department changed hands. Clearing out the backlog was a priority for Mitchell Zais, former deputy education secretary during Trump鈥檚 first term.

鈥淎s I recall, we were able to hire some temporary staff,鈥� he said in an email. 鈥淎s a consequence, we made significant progress, but not as much as I would have liked.鈥�

In 2024, the conservative Defense of Freedom Institute, where Zais is a board member, analyzed the department鈥檚 FOIA logs, concluding that the response rate was higher during the first three years of Trump鈥檚 first term than during the same period under Biden, 67% to 48%. 

The analysis also showed that during Zais鈥� tenure, the department was quicker to respond to liberal groups it disagreed with, like American Oversight and the Center for American Progress, than the Biden administration was to conservative advocates and think tanks, including Parents Defending Education and the America First Policy Institute.

Zais suggested that while he was there, some requests 鈥渨ere made with an eye toward harassing the department 鈥� rather than generally seeking information that could be legitimately used for any positive purpose.鈥�

But Harper, at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, that whether or liberal groups are flooding the system, the onus is on the government to respond in a more timely manner. The current administration, she said, has been especially hostile toward releasing information, and staff working on FOIA requests have been among the first to go at agencies the administration is 鈥渋nterested in eliminating.鈥�

Last year, the administration put in the U.S. Agency for International Development on leave before shutting down the agency entirely. Trump has the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which for releasing a memo about .

In addition to mass firings at the Education Department, active litigation contributes to the growing backlog of requests, officials said. According to its FOIA report, the agency is facing 57 FOIA-related lawsuits, which have 鈥渘egatively impacted the department鈥檚 ability to keep pace with other requests.鈥� Last week, civil rights groups filed two more FOIA-related lawsuits, one about the department鈥檚 failure to release data on cases and another seeking .

ProPublica in February for failing to release information including civil rights investigations. In April, the to the complaint, acknowledged it received the requests and said its search for records is 鈥渙ngoing.鈥�

鈥楶roactively鈥� posting records

Harper gave the department credit for posting up-to-date FOIA logs, something other agencies haven鈥檛 always done. The department, however, between December 2023 and mid-2025.

Officials reported that they鈥檝e taken actions to improve turnaround times on requests, like training staff across the agency and 鈥減roactively鈥� posting frequently requested records. These include student loan data and a list of involving accusations of antisemitism.

As McMahon moves forward with splitting up the department, spokeswoman Savannah Newhouse said the agency is 鈥渃omplying with all applicable laws and looks forward to restoring excellence in American education through these critical partnerships.鈥�

, agencies that are 鈥渞eorganizing, terminating or transferring offices or functions鈥� have to work with the National Archives and Records Administration and the receiving agency to ensure records don鈥檛 get lost in the process. 

鈥淭his all requires a lot of communication,鈥� Harper said. She emphasized that the National Archives hasn鈥檛 been spared from or . 鈥淩estructuring has not happened on the scale that it’s happening now. It’s truly a perfect storm.鈥�

Federal teams charged with making sure states are doing right by students with disabilities appear to have visited fewer than half of the states originally scheduled for review in 2025 and 2026.

That information comes from U.S. Department of Education documents compiled and analyzed by the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, a group that supports students with disabilities and their families, as well as additional review by Chalkbeat of publicly available monitoring schedules.

If federal reviews of state special education systems continue at this pace, each state would be reviewed only once every 25 years, COPAA said in a . That would mean many students would go their entire school careers without federal oversight of state systems.

鈥淭he new administration has quietly rolled back their state oversight,鈥� said Chris Roe, COPAA director of state policy. 鈥淲e are worried that this sends a signal to states and eventually to local schools that this is not important, and they don鈥檛 need to be concerned about it.鈥�

Drawing on nearly a dozen state monitoring reports based on reviews that started under the Biden administration, the COPAA report also raises concerns about states鈥� capacity to adequately monitor school districts鈥� compliance with special education requirements as the Trump administration pledges to 鈥渞eturn education to the states.鈥�

The Trump administration has taken steps to dismantle the Education Department by assigning key duties to other federal agencies. Most recently, the department announced that , a change that has drawn and some bipartisan skepticism.

U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a Republican who chairs the Senate education committee, has on that change later this month. By itself, a committee vote won鈥檛 reverse the Trump administration鈥檚 actions, but a vote against it would represent the strongest formal objection from Congress to date.

COPAA opposes having another government agency handle special education oversight. The group鈥檚 report calls on Congress to intervene.

A spokesperson for the Education Department said COPAA鈥檚 鈥渆ntire premise is false,鈥� without describing any specific errors in the findings. The department pointed to 鈥� the same ones that COPAA reviewed for its analysis 鈥� as evidence the department continues to keep tabs on states.

Citing previous remarks by Education Secretary Linda McMahon, the spokesperson said the partnership between Health and Human Services and Education would improve coordination and benefit families and students, and 鈥渆nsure states are in compliance with federal law.鈥�

鈥淪tudents will not lose any rights, including their right to a Free Appropriate Public Education,鈥� the unnamed spokesperson said. 鈥淣o agreement can alter the rights that students with disabilities are afforded under federal law.鈥�

But Roe said the flaws identified in the monitoring reports show that students and families might struggle more to defend their rights without federal involvement.

Meanwhile, Politico this week to meet their goals for serving students with disabilities.

鈥淲hen they say let鈥檚 return education to the states, there鈥檚 an assumption that states will backfill those responsibilities,鈥� Roe said. 鈥淭he case that that is not going to happen is pretty strong.鈥�

Federal oversight finds gaps in special education protections

The Biden administration had previously urged states to take more responsibility for ensuring school districts meet their special education obligations. But according to monitoring reports, auditors repeatedly found shortcomings.

These included lax fiscal oversight; limited supervision of school district practices; states allowing districts to pick which student files they wanted reviewed; states not investigating parent complaints in a timely manner; and states either not informing parents of their rights or giving them incorrect information.

Roe said this system isn鈥檛 perfect. COPAA鈥檚 reviews of federal monitoring efforts over the years have found many cases where auditors identified problems, but there was limited follow-up and the problems continued. Nonetheless, the reports provide an important tool for advocates and lawmakers to press for changes, he said.

鈥淲ithout them, we definitely face more of an uphill battle to getting systems in place to support our students,鈥� Roe said.

The Education Department spokesperson said the department is 鈥渙n track鈥� to complete monitoring visits to all states by 2028, in keeping with a schedule established in 2022.

However, the spokesperson did not provide a schedule that showed how monitoring teams would visit roughly half the states in the next two years. The identifies only four states, Puerto Rico, and a few Pacific island territories for monitoring during the 2025-26 cycle and none thereafter. One of those states, Georgia, was supposed to be reviewed this spring, but monitoring visits have been pushed back to the fall, the department said.

During the Biden administration, the Education Department set a goal of monitoring 10 states a year, creating a five-year cycle for regular monitoring, in addition to off-cycle visits to address specific issues. COPAA found the Education Department monitored eight states in 2023 and 10 in 2024. A shows the department previously had plans to monitor nine states plus the territories in the 2025-26 cycle, and another 10 the next year.

It鈥檚 not clear why states previously identified for monitoring were removed from the schedule. However, the Education Department has laid off large numbers of workers. A published last month raised questions about whether the department could carry out its responsibilities at current staffing levels.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at .

We deeply understand how the U.S. Department of Education protects and supports children with disabilities. Laurie served as the director of the Office of Special Education Programs in the first Trump administration. Stephanie led that office in the George W. Bush administration. We both agree that the federal department is key to ensuring every child deserves a fair chance to get a quality education and the opportunity to reach their full potential.

That is why we oppose moving the office that oversees special education to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. We are concerned this step, announced last month, is being driven by a broader push to close the Education Department, rather than by clear evidence that it would improve services for children.

The proposals to dismantle the department are framed as 鈥渞eturning education to the states.鈥澛燳et this proposal simply splits federal education responsibilities across multiple agencies, separating expertise that is meant to work together. It risks placing education decisions for children with disabilities in an agency primarily built for health programs聽and shifting oversight of school-age programs to agencies whose core mission is not K-12 learning.

These changes won鈥檛 reduce bureaucracy or empower states. They would add confusion, duplicative processes and hurdles, and inconsistent guidance across agencies. That creates a more fragmented system that is harder for parents, school districts and states to navigate, especially when families are already working to secure timely evaluations, services and coordinated support.

We recognize that the education system is not perfect, and improvement is needed. But meaningful reform must be grounded in facts about how the system actually works and the role the federal government plays within it.听

States and local school districts already control the vast majority of education decisions. The federal department does not set curriculum, determine reading lists, decide how subjects are taught or control teacher certification.

What it does is less visible but critically important. It distributes and oversees federal education funding, provides technical assistance to states and districts and ensures accountability when the rights of students are not upheld.

Breaking up the department will affect all students, families and educators. It also carries an outsized risk for children with disabilities, because services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act depend on clear accountability, coordinated implementation and accessible pathways for families when something goes wrong.

More than 8 million students with disabilities (15% of all students) require and currently have the right to special education services. We are talking about children with dyslexia, autism, Down syndrome and other disabilities. These are children who can learn and grow up to become productive members of their communities and taxpayers 鈥� if they get the support they need.

They are also kids who, until 50 years ago, were largely excluded from public schools. Most people don鈥檛 know that it was federal action, through the enactment of Public Law 94-142 in 1975, that established the right for children with disabilities to attend public schools and receive a free, appropriate public education. That federal role is intrinsic to the success of children with disabilities. It provides essential oversight and technical assistance to states who are not otherwise equipped to implement the law and protect the rights of children with disabilities.

Dismantling the federal role in special education is rolling the dice for children with disabilities. Any breakdown in the system has devastating effects. When learning is delayed, the impact compounds; each missed milestone makes it harder to catch up, creating a ripple effect that can last for years.

For as long as we can remember, special education has had broad support. While we both worked in Republican administrations, we know that families, regardless of party or ideology, want the same thing: a school system that helps every child learn, belong, and succeed. Leaving parents and educators to fend for themselves, without the support they need to navigate a complex system, is not what they are asking for and is not what students need.

This is a moment for parents, families, educators and community members across the political spectrum to pay close attention and speak up. Every person who cares about children has a responsibility to truly understand what is being proposed, ask practical questions about how services and accountability would work, and share your perspective and concerns with state and federal policymakers.

Children need adults to protect consistent support and clear rights. The time to act is not tomorrow. It is today.

The U.S. Department of Education may no longer be able to fully support students, it says in an internal report that lays bare the full extent of the Trump Administration鈥檚 first round of government cuts.

The department lost about 40% of its staff from the day Trump was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2025 through March 31, 2025, but certain subdepartments were hit harder, according to the report released last week. The Office of English Language Acquisition, which served immigrant students, was gutted, leaving one employee, according to . The department also terminated contracts and grants totaling roughly $2 billion. 

Although the report was internal, conducted by the education department鈥檚 Office of Inspector General, it is incomplete. Department staff did not comply with all the inspector general鈥檚 requests and cancelled interviews. As a result, the report says that many of its key findings are not definitive and that the total number of layoffs, the impact of those cuts, and the reasons for terminating certain contracts and grants remain unclear.   

The report also says that because of the cuts, the education department may no longer be able to administer Congressionally appropriated dollars or oversee federal education law, including the distribution of financial aid, investigations and data analyses. 

鈥淎ccording to the Department of Education’s own inspector general, the rapid elimination of nearly 1,600 staff, including those responsible for teacher training, student mental health programs, and legally required oversight functions, raises serious questions about whether the department can still meet its obligations to students,鈥� said Kindra Britt, director of communications and strategy for . 鈥淭hese are not bureaucratic losses; they have real consequences for real kids.鈥�

The report only includes cuts through March 31, 2025, and the education department has continued to cut staff and terminate grants and contracts since then. A number of grants have also been restored . The Trump Administration has slowly transferred many education services to other federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Treasury Department. This year, the sole remaining staff member supporting English language acquisition elsewhere in the department and the work was transferred to the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. That office is now managed, in part, by the .

鈥淭he Department of Education is focused on returning education to the states while preserving critical funding and reducing unnecessary bureaucracy that can slow support to students and families,鈥� wrote Kirsten Baesler, assistant secretary of the department鈥檚 elementary and secondary education office. 鈥淓nglish Learners should never be treated as a siloed program, set aside as an afterthought.鈥� 

In a statement, Scott Roark, a public information officer with California Department of Education, said the state remains focused on helping students, regardless of the administration鈥檚 efforts to 鈥渄isrupt services and safeguards鈥� and to 鈥渋mpose a national ideology on local schools.鈥� He said schools directly impacted by these disruptions should contact the state鈥檚 education department for help. 

Is the U.S. Education Department more efficient? 

Soon after his inauguration, Trump signed executive orders and directives which proposed ways to make government more efficient. The U.S. Education Department, spurred on by those orders, sent out offers to all federal employees saying they could resign and stay on payroll for a few months. Later, in March 2025, the department began laying off workers.   

The cuts were uneven across the education department鈥檚 17 offices, according to the Inspector General鈥檚 recent report: The Institute of Education Services, which conducts research, and the Office of the Under Secretary, which oversees many higher education programs, lost over 80% of their employees, much like the Office of English Language Acquisition. The 14 employees in the Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs were untouched. The Office of Inspector General is an independent entity and did not review itself.

Whether those cuts have created any efficiencies is up for debate.

Sharon Bonney, the chief executive of , a national organization representing adult education programs, said she primarily interacts with the education department’s Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, which lost about 30% of its staff in the first few months of 2025, according to the report.

鈥淚 haven鈥檛 seen them miss a beat. I have seen more efficiencies,鈥� said Bonney. 鈥淚n the past I would send an email, it would take three weeks to respond to, and now, two hours later, I have a response.鈥�

For Edgar Lampkin, the chief executive of the California Association for Bilingual Education, the effects have been 鈥渄evastating.鈥� 

California still struggles to serve its more than 1 million English language learners, in bilingual education, and recent efforts to improve California鈥檚 bilingual education have received .

Lampkin鈥檚 association, along with the advocacy coalition , has long received federal grants, sometimes totaling as much as $1 million annually, to train bilingual teachers across the state. 鈥淭hose grants are gone,鈥� he said 鈥� and the Trump Administration won鈥檛 see the full impacts of its actions, he added. 鈥淭he effects of education are normally 10 plus聽years ahead.鈥澛�

This article was and was republished under the license.

The fate of Gov. Gavin Newsom鈥檚 proposal to shift control of the California Department of Education from the state superintendent of public instruction to a new education commissioner answering to future governors and the State Board of Education will become clearer within the next week.

Supporters and opponents disagree not only on the merits of the proposal but also on how it should move forward.

Ted Lempert, president of Children Now and a leading advocate for the change, expects the plan to be included in Newsom鈥檚 2026-27 budget package, with final details negotiated between the governor and legislative leaders before the July 1 budget deadline. 

Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-San Diego, believes that , which he co-authored, will become the vehicle for enacting an alternate version of Newsom鈥檚 reorganization concept, with passage after lawmakers return from their summer recess.

And David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association, hopes that CTA鈥檚 opposition helps to kill the concept within the next week or so. 

鈥淭he undemocratic nature of this (Newsom鈥檚 approach) is just something that鈥檚 impossible to get around,鈥� he said.

Newsom鈥檚 hardly novel idea

Newsom鈥檚 proposal is neither new nor radical. A majority of states have a governance structure in which the governor or the state board of education appoints the chief education officer responsible for running the state鈥檚 education bureaucracy. Today, only 12 states elect their state superintendent, down from 33 a century ago.

Numerous commissions and studies have urged California to realign its education governance structure under an experienced education manager 鈥� the equivalent of secretaries running other state departments.  

California鈥檚 current and three previous elected state superintendents have been legislators without a background in running a complex education system. Electing a superintendent every four years 鈥渃reates incentives鈥� to overstate positive data and potential reforms to enhance their reelection, concluded  released in December by Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), a nonprofit research institute based at Stanford University.

The PACE authors criticized the lack of coherence and weak accountability when governors and legislators create educational programs and reforms, but then lack the authority to implement them, which is the state superintendent鈥檚 job. 

PACE recommended appointing an education executive as the first step toward a broader realignment of the state鈥檚 education governance system. Newsom embraced that recommendation in his proposed state budget in January.  

鈥淚t鈥檚 time to modernize the management of our educational system,鈥� he said in his State of the State speech to the Legislature in January. 鈥淚 believe that鈥檚 an important and long overdue reform.鈥�

Newsom is proposing to make the switch through the budget process, as part of a massive trailer bill accompanying the 2026-27 budget, which will be completed within the next week. That process would short-circuit the legislative process of proposing legislation that each house of the Legislature would consider and amend after public hearings.

That is one reason Goldberg of CTA dismisses the proposal as undemocratic. Another is that it would defy the will of the public one month after people voted for a constitutional office with ballot language that said the state superintendent 鈥渉eads the Department of Education and carries out policies set by the State Board of Education.鈥�

Goldberg noted that voters have repeatedly rejected efforts to weaken the office of the superintendent. Four times in the past century, voters have rejected initiatives to abolish the state superintendent position, the last in 1968. 

But Newsom is proposing to restructure the position, not eliminate it. State superintendents would remain the chief advocates for policies and cite their election as evidence that voters support those positions.

Newsom envisions future state superintendents as a coordinator of education, from early to higher education. They would become a voting member of the State Board of Education and the community colleges鈥� Board of Governors, in addition to existing roles as a UC regent and CSU trustee.

CTA and other opponents have characterized the plan as a power grab by Newsom and the Legislature, even though Newsom, in his last months in office, would not benefit from any of the changes.

CTA historically has played a central role in the election of the state superintendent, combining its campaign resources with the organizational strength of its more than 300,000 members. No candidate has been elected without CTA鈥檚 support since former State Superintendent Bill Honig鈥檚 reelection in 1990. 

If San Diego Unified trustee Richard Barrera, who beat out three prominent Democratic legislators in the open primary this month, prevails in November, he would be the fifth straight CTA-backed superintendent. 

Confusing lines of authority

What鈥檚 been lost in the debate, said Lempert, is that Newsom and legislators would be fixing the mistakes of a cumbersome and fractured oversight authority that they have created by statute over decades.

The PACE report cited California鈥檚 complex system of identifying hundreds of districts that need academic assistance. With the state Department of Education, county offices of education and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, a small agency, all dividing responsibilities, districts have found the assistance inconsistent and sometimes confusing. 

Lempert also points to the state鈥檚 conflicting and ambiguous responses to the Covid pandemic for creating frustration among districts and parents. Critics of the current system point to the uneven rollout of multibillion-dollar investments in transitional kindergarten, expanded learning programs and community schools.

In the future, an education commissioner would coordinate new programs, but ultimately, Lempert said, 鈥渢he buck stops at the governor,鈥� who would be 鈥渦ltimately responsible for the implementation.鈥�  

Uncertain future for legislation

Assemblymember Alvarez was also dissatisfied with running the realignment through the budget process. So he and Assemblywoman Darshana Patel, who chairs the Assembly Education Committee and is also from San Diego, created AB 2117 to flesh out Newsom鈥檚 plan and give the Legislature more say.

The bill would: 

• Require Senate confirmation of the new education commissioner鈥檚 appointment; 
• Require independent evaluations of major education investments, such as community schools, that cost more than $500 million annually;   
• Redefine the elected state superintendent鈥檚 role as an independent evaluator of the effectiveness and efficiency of state education programs; and
• Replace four governor-appointed members of the State Board of Education with members appointed by the Legislature.

The Assembly easily passed the bill last month; the Senate must also approve it by July 2 for it to move forward. Alvarez said last week that he fully expects it will, notwithstanding Newsom鈥檚 preference for backroom negotiations.

Lempert鈥檚 Children Now collected signatures from leaders of 950 organizations and advocacy groups  that calls for the realignment plan. 

鈥淏y making this long overdue change this year, we can do right by kids and bring California in line with other states,鈥� the statement says.

Signers include the California School Boards Association, the Association of California School Administrators, the California County Superintendents and the California Association of School Business Officials.

Lempert and Newsom can argue that those most familiar with the state education bureaucracy are most in support of changing it.

This was originally published on .

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, a member of the House education committee, filed three articles of impeachment against McMahon, noting the secretary鈥檚 鈥渨illful intent to unilaterally dismantle and eliminate the Department of Education.鈥�

Bonamici a week ago, prompting a swift response from McMahon defending her track record.

鈥淚t speaks volumes that House Democrats think an impeachable offense is working to improve student outcomes and reduce the federal bureaucracy,鈥� she .

The resolution accuses McMahon of compromising the ability of the department to fulfill its duties. That鈥檚 also the conclusion that the department鈥檚 Inspector General reached in released Wednesday detailing how the administration has slashed the agency鈥檚 staff by 40% and canceled billions of dollars in grants and contracts. 

McMahon has been forced to backtrack. The department currently has several job openings posted, including and .

Democrats have introduced articles of impeachment against multiple members of President Donald Trump鈥檚 cabinet, including Health and Human Services Secretary and Defense Secretary . But historically the attempts have rarely succeeded. Two years ago, the House impeached Biden Homeland Security for what members said was a failure to stop migrants from crossing the border, but the Senate dismissed the two articles against him.  Before him, the last cabinet member to be impeached was William W. Belknap, secretary of war under President Ulysses S. Grant, on , in 1876. 

Critics of Betsy DeVos, Trump鈥檚 first education secretary, called for her to and some groups advocating impeachment. But lawmakers never took formal steps to do so. A federal judge, however, held her in 2019 and fined her $100,000 when she continued student debt collections in violation of a court order. The department .

While some Republicans have also been critical of McMahon, Rep. Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the education committee, called the action 鈥減olitical theater.鈥�

鈥淪ecretary McMahon is doing exactly what voters elected President Trump to do: rein in a bloated bureaucracy and put students, parents, and taxpayers first,鈥� he said in a statement.

The effort is also largely 鈥渟ymbolic鈥� and unlikely to succeed, said Jeffrey Henig, a professor emeritus at Teachers College, Columbia University. 

鈥淪ymbolism can be important, and a case can be made for using this as a way to draw attention to the dismantling of the department,鈥� he said.

The resolution says McMahon has 鈥渄ecimated鈥� the agency and 鈥渃reated a culture of fear and chaos鈥� that has harmed education programs.

Specifically, the articles of impeachment are:

1. Willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law

The text cites McMahon鈥檚 actions to transfer responsibilities, which under law rest with the Education Department, to other agencies. Just last week, she announced that the office overseeing special education would move to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Civil Rights would transfer to the Justice Department.

2. False statements before Congress

The resolution accuses McMahon of lying to Congress during her confirmation hearing that she would follow the law in disbursing education funds appropriated by Congress. Instead, the text reads, she has defended the cancellation of several research contracts and discontinued grants for programs like community schools.

3. Breach of public trust

Again focusing on funding, the resolution states that the administration held up payments for services like migrant education and afterschool care and put 鈥渃ritical鈥� K-12 programs at risk.

Bonamici said parents, especially those of students with disabilities are “distraught” over splitting up the department. “They are asking us to take action to stop these illegal transfers,” she said. “To them I say, ‘We hear you.’ “

Michael Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative think tank, suggested McMahon鈥檚 actions aren鈥檛 grounds for impeachment.

鈥淭he race to the bottom continues, in this case regarding the definition of 鈥榟igh crimes and misdemeanors,鈥� ” he said. 鈥淭his is just politics, but I can appreciate that Congressional Democrats don’t feel like they have any other recourse right now.鈥� 

When she negotiates with school officials, she often leans on a from the federal government that such 鈥渋nformal removals鈥� 鈥� like repeatedly asking a parent to pick up their child early 鈥� could violate a student鈥檚 rights. 

鈥淭hey鈥檙e denying them access to education,鈥� she said. Parents need that guidance, she added, 鈥渂ecause most families can鈥檛 afford attorneys and years of litigation.鈥�

That Biden-era document was a of the two offices within the U.S. Department of Education that oversee special education and civil rights and drew attention to that had long gone under the radar. But with Secretary Linda McMahon鈥檚 announcement last week that staff in those offices will be sent to separate agencies 鈥� special education to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office for Civil Rights to the Department of Justice 鈥� educators and attorneys worry the split will lead to crossed wires for students with disabilities. 

鈥淲hen school districts have to navigate rules from separate federal departments, it will make it even more challenging to manage a single student’s behavior,鈥� said Jessica Saum, a special education administrator in Arkansas鈥� Cabot Public Schools, north of Little Rock. Special education programs and civil rights enforcement 鈥渁re completely intertwined in practice. I do not see how schools and districts can cleanly separate a student’s behavioral needs from their civil rights.鈥�

Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Louisiana Republican who chairs the education committee, has promised to schedule a vote next month to from moving special education to HHS. Parents say they鈥檙e concerned that their children鈥檚 disabilities would be viewed from a medical perspective. 

鈥淚 don’t want my son to be fixed. I want him to be educated,鈥� said Courtney Hansen, a Colorado mom whose son has Down Syndrome. Like Frohling, she was among the hundreds of parents and advocates who joined a with department staff to voice their opinions on the administration鈥檚 plans to relocate oversight of special education. A medical model, Hansen said, is 鈥渨hat the disability rights movement has been trying to get away from for the past 50 years.鈥�

But Cassidy, who has been critical of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., still wouldn鈥檛 keep special education and civil rights in the same agency. He thinks the Department of Labor is a better home for special education.  

In addition to the guidance on discipline, the department鈥檚 special education officials worked with OCR in 2016 on a clarifying that students with ADHD were eligible for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Until then, those students were often 鈥渙verlooked because they were bright, quiet, passing classes or not creating obvious discipline problems,鈥� said Jon Thomas, a Fairfax, Virginia, counselor who works with students who have ADHD. The condition, he said, 鈥渞arely shows up as one clean problem. It’s a kid who’s behind in reading, getting written up for impulsivity, leaning on a parent to hold the homework together, and missing instruction because nobody connected the dots. Split the agencies, and you split that dot-connecting job in half.鈥�

鈥楽harper teeth鈥�

The with HHS and DOJ were the latest attempts by the Trump administration to break up and ultimately phase out the Education Department. The DOJ would also handle complaints related to . In her about the move, McMahon said the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and the Office for Civil Rights will 鈥渃ontinue to partner together.鈥� She promised that the move would 鈥渂reak down the bureaucratic barriers and strengthen the coordination of resources.鈥�

Some advocates agree with her. Marilyn Muller, a whose daughter has dyslexia, is 鈥渃autiously optimistic鈥� that moving oversight of special education and civil rights out of the Education Department would 鈥渇inally deliver real accountability,鈥� she . 鈥淭oo many families have waited years for states and local districts to follow the law.鈥�

The Department of Justice, she wrote, has 鈥渟harper teeth.鈥� 

But that鈥檚 what some parents and advocates worry about. Relationships with district officials over special education services are already adversarial. In the District of Columbia Public Schools, an OCR investigation recently concluded that parents were often forced to sue to get services for their children. Putting DOJ, the federal government鈥檚 primary law enforcement agency, in charge could make the process even less collaborative, Hansen said.

Others say it鈥檚 unlikely that the DOJ will make progress on a backlog of OCR complaints when it, too, has experienced . 

鈥淭here has already been a dramatic drop in the number of cases OCR is taking and resolving,鈥� particularly disability complaints, said Matt Cohen, a Chicago-based civil rights attorney who specializes in cases involving students with disabilities. 鈥淎s would be true when any organization is uncoupled, collaboration, coordination and consistency will be far more difficult.鈥�  

Among the complaints OCR is acting on, officials that it鈥檚 investigating the New Home Independent School District in Texas, south of Lubbock, for canceling a life skills class for students with disabilities. In May, it opened an investigation into the for its plans to move some services for students with disabilities to a central location this fall rather than keep them in general education classrooms. 

OCR also spent a year probing the D.C. Public Schools鈥� special education system, but a from the Government Accountability Office, a watchdog agency, found that OCR dismissed 90% of the 7,000 cases it says it resolved between March and September last year.

OCR鈥檚 most shows it received 22,687 complaints in fiscal year 2024, with more than 8,400 focusing on disabilities. But the public has no way to know how many complaints OCR, under McMahon鈥檚 leadership, is currently investigating because the website with that information since the Trump administration took office. 

鈥楥hange does need to happen鈥�

Even before staff departures, the DOJ鈥檚 civil rights division 鈥渢raditionally handled a much lower volume of cases,鈥� said Johnathan Smith, managing director of education and federal strategic advocacy at the National Center for Youth Law. He previously served as a deputy assistant attorney in that division. 鈥淚t is not clear that there is the infrastructure to meaningfully handle such a high volume of complaints.鈥�

Rob Harris, a Colorado father filed several complaints with OCR during the first Trump and Biden administrations, because his daughter, who is blind, wasn鈥檛 receiving services written into her individualized education program, like a cane and materials in Braille. But OCR never took any action.

He told 社区黑料 that he 鈥渆nded up bailing the school system鈥� and now homeschools his children, while also serving as a 鈥渇acilitator鈥� in meetings between parents and educators to develop students鈥� special education plans, especially those related to job coaching and transition plans after high school.

鈥淚 really want to make sure that students receive the services that they’re entitled to,鈥� he said. 

That鈥檚 what he when he gave his three-minute statement on the January call with parents and advocates. Like several parents and advocates who participated, he said no one voiced support for moving oversight of special education to HHS. 

鈥淚t might not be the change that we wanted,鈥� he said, 鈥渂ut change does need to happen.鈥�

Federal officials Tuesday that the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services will move to the Department of Health and Human Services, while the Office for Civil Rights will shift to the Department of Justice. It鈥檚 a decision that鈥檚 been in the making for more than a year, as the administration has attempted to dismantle the Education Department .

At a press conference Tuesday, senior department officials as new partnerships between the agencies. The officials said the changes won鈥檛 impact or reduce students鈥� rights, but instead improve efficiency. Senior department officials participated in the briefing on the condition that the speakers wouldn鈥檛 be identified by name. Education Secretary Linda McMahon did not take part.

Both the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and the Office for Civil Rights will retain some original functions, according to federal . But many specifics, such as staffing decisions and timelines, are still under discussion, the officials said. 

Special education advocates have protested that moving programs, including civil rights oversight, out of the Education Department will harm students with disabilities. 

In a  Tuesday, McMahon acknowledged that too many families must still fight for timely and appropriate special education services for their children. She said the changes will 鈥渂reak down bureaucratic barriers and strengthen the coordination of resources to improve programs.鈥�

鈥淚t should not require herculean effort to obtain what the law guarantees,鈥� McMahon said. 鈥淎s the Trump administration scales back federal micromanagement when it hinders success, we are equally committed to bolstering the efficacy of federal oversight where it is essential.鈥�

The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services oversees the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a landmark set of statutes that guarantee more than 8 million children with disabilities the right to attend public school. Critics say moving responsibility to HHS means taking oversight away from experts in specialized instruction and handing it to an agency ill-equipped to administer non-medical programs.

鈥淢oving IDEA oversight into HHS pushes students with disabilities toward a medical model, where disability is treated as a diagnosis to manage instead of a natural part of human life,鈥� Robyn Linscott, a director at The Arc of the United States, said in a Tuesday press release. 鈥淲hen that mindset drives education decisions, students are more likely to be segregated, underestimated or treated as separate from the school community.鈥�

The Education Department the special ed office already overlaps with HHS programs for people with disabilities.

The Office for Civil Rights has been a key avenue of relief for parents unable to get services for their children through complaints filed with their state, mediation, administrative hearings or due process cases. Families in states lacking local enforcement of special education complaints depend on OCR to investigate discrimination.

McMahon said in her statement that the partnership between OCR and the Justice Department will provide more responsive and coordinated enforcement of civil rights laws.

鈥淥CR and DOJ will combine their expertise and capacity to bolster evaluation, investigation, resolution of complaints and, above all, enforce critical protections for all students,鈥� she said.

Senior education department officials said during Tuesday鈥檚 press conference that OCR will refer complaints to the Justice Department for evaluation, investigation and resolution. The agency will still be in charge of case settlements, civil rights data collection and state assistance, and will make final determinations on whether to pursue action by referring cases to the Justice Department for enforcement.

Though McMahon said the moves will improve student and family outcomes, The American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents 2,000 Education Department staffers, said the shift is breaking down government processes instead of streamlining them. 

鈥淭his isn’t efficiency 鈥� it’s chaos. Previous interagency agreements divvying up both P-12 and higher education programs to other federal agencies have led to massive delays in congressionally mandated funding and confusion for federal employees and the public alike,鈥� union President Rachel Gittleman said in an emailed statement. 鈥淭hat’s an insult to the millions of students and families who rely on these services and the taxpayers who count on federal oversight to prevent waste, fraud and abuse.” 

The Trump administration is using interagency agreements to circumvent to close the Education Department, a move that House members have warned would 鈥渃reate inefficiencies鈥� and 鈥渃ause delays and administrative challenges.鈥� When the Department of Labor picked up career and technical education last year, for example, some states had to wait months to access millions of dollars in funding.

Supporters of the proposal argue that programs like MEGA reflect a broader recognition that states and local communities are often better positioned than Washington to understand the unique challenges facing their schools. Rather than maintaining fragmented federal programs with rigid compliance structures, decentralization efforts seek to give states more authority to innovate, coordinate resources and tailor solutions to regional realities.

The MEGA proposal therefore illustrates both the promise and the responsibility that accompany decentralization. Returning authority to states creates opportunities for more responsive and adaptive governance, but it also places responsibility squarely on state leaders to produce measurable results for children and families.

Decentralization alone does not guarantee success.

For decades, critics of centralized education policy argued that federal mandates often produced bloated compliance systems and procedural requirements disconnected from local realities. Washington became increasingly skilled at regulating inputs while struggling to improve long-term outcomes. 

Yet granting states more autonomy does not automatically produce effective governance.

A state can possess broad authority and still oversee failing schools, collapsing civic trust and stagnant upward mobility. Debates over parental rights, curriculum transparency, school choice and cultural accountability have become central to education politics in many states. Those issues matter. Parents should have meaningful authority over their children鈥檚 education, and communities deserve institutions that reflect local needs and values.

But education policy cannot become merely a politics of resistance. It must also become a politics of construction.

The real test of decentralization is whether states can build institutions that work.

Today, educational inequality remains profoundly geographic. In many parts of the country, a child鈥檚 ZIP code predicts educational achievement, workforce readiness, family stability and future earnings with alarming consistency. Some communities consistently produce mobility and strong civic outcomes. Others remain trapped in cycles of decline.

This is no longer simply a federal problem. It is increasingly a problem of state capacity.

Too many states spent decades demanding greater autonomy without building the institutional sophistication required to govern effectively once power returned to them. Many accountability systems still operate as relics of the old compliance era. They measure standardized-test averages and graduation statistics while failing to answer the question parents actually care about: Are children prepared to flourish as adults?

Any serious education agenda should focus less on bureaucratic processes and more on long-term human outcomes.

States should begin measuring mobility itself. That means tracking educational opportunity and life outcomes geographically鈥攑articularly at the ZIP-code level鈥攁nd identifying which communities consistently produce upward mobility and which do not.

The purpose of these measures is not to create another compliance regime, but to identify which communities are successfully helping children transition into stable adulthood.

Such systems could include measures such as:

• Early literacy and numeracy rates 
• Chronic absenteeism 
• Access to tutoring, mentoring and after-school programs聽
• Participation in career and technical education 
• Youth employment and apprenticeship participation 
• Postsecondary completion 
• Workforce participation 
• Family stability and parental involvement 

Examples of effective state-level reform already exist. Mississippi, once ranked near the bottom nationally in educational performance, has posted significant gains in early literacy after implementing statewide reading reforms, teacher training initiatives and evidence-based intervention strategies. Other states have increasingly aligned community colleges, workforce-development systems and career education with regional labor-market needs.听

These efforts remain uneven, but they demonstrate that state-led governance can produce measurable improvement when institutions are coherent and focused on outcomes.

States should not fear this kind of measurement or experimentation. Properly designed, it strengthens decentralization rather than weakens it. A governor in Wisconsin may understand the needs of manufacturing communities better than federal officials in Washington. Rural Appalachia faces different challenges than suburban Texas. States can align workforce systems, transportation policy, public safety and education in ways national bureaucracies often cannot.

That flexibility is precisely why decentralization matters. But flexibility without accountability becomes little more than fragmentation.

Decentralization is a governing framework, not a substitute for governing.

The central questions are straightforward: Can states build integrated longitudinal data systems that actually track outcomes over time? Can they identify which neighborhoods consistently trap children in educational failure? Can they align K鈥�12 education with workforce demand and civic formation? Can they distinguish between symbolic politics and measurable improvement? 

Those are the priorities that matter now.

Americans increasingly distrust centralized institutions, but distrust alone does not build flourishing communities. Strong families, strong schools and strong civic institutions require operational excellence, not merely political rhetoric.

The country stands at another inflection point in education governance. The argument for returning greater authority to states has gained substantial momentum. The next challenge is proving that states can use that authority wisely.

Decentralization was never meant to be an escape from responsibility. Properly understood, it is a demand for greater responsibility 鈥� closer to the people, more responsive to local conditions and ultimately more accountable for results.

If states cannot deliver upward mobility, civic stability and educational competence, then the case for decentralization weakens. But if they can, this may yet become one of the great renewal stories of American public life.

In the past year, major contracts for the federally funded Comprehensive Centers and Regional Educational Laboratories have been canceled, then reinstated. Calling the structure of Comprehensive Centers 鈥渄uplicative鈥� and 鈥渃onfusing,鈥� the U.S. Department of Education solicited public comment on a redesign. The 2027 budget proposal released by the White House in April zeros out both Comprehensive Centers and RELs entirely.听聽

Watching this unfold with concern are state education agencies鈥攖he primary recipients of this expertise on how to comply with federal laws and improve education outcomes. We recently interviewed state agency leaders in 14 states to hear about their experience with federal technical assistance: What works? What doesn鈥檛? What can they not afford to lose? Our sample is not nationally representative, and the Department of Education is conducting its own broader need-sensing. But offers a ground-level view that can help inform the choices ahead. 

Leaders most often named three functions of federal technical assistance as valuable and not easily replaced.  

The first: providing specialized expertise to help implement the most effective instructional practices. Smaller agencies, in particular, lack staff experts on topics such as evidence-based literacy instruction or supporting students with dyslexia. They also lack the resources to evaluate whether changes in practice are occurring in schools. 鈥淚 can count on one hand the number of PhDs we have, and I think it鈥檚 two,鈥� one leader told us. 鈥淲e just don鈥檛 have the capacity to dig into the issues that we know we want to.鈥� 

The second was cross-state networking. Technical assistance providers often broker connections between individuals in similar roles across state lines, connections that leaders would not have made on their own. This creates opportunities to learn from one another and exchange promising practices. 鈥淚t is completely a siloed job out here in our region,鈥� one said, 鈥渁nd having access to [other] people who are doing the work is the biggest benefit.鈥�  

The third was providing authoritative guidance on compliance with federal law that is specific to states鈥� own systems, staff and rules. This function matters especially in the context of efforts to give more autonomy to states. If states are going to take on greater responsibility for how federal education funds are spent, they will need timely, expert help navigating complex requirements in federal laws 鈥� which remain in place even as other aspects of education policy are largely 鈥渞eturned to the states.鈥� 

Given the restructuring and budget proposals, there is real uncertainty about what technical assistance will look like when the dust settles. Leaders we spoke with provided caveats about some of the ideas that have been floated and suggested improvements they would like to see. 

Some expressed frustration with bureaucratic delays in Education Department processes 鈥� particularly around selecting providers and initiating new projects. Yet they were still skeptical about the idea of giving each state funds to contract for its own technical assistance. 鈥淚f I鈥檝e got a million bucks, and I want to build this thing, requests for information go out today, it鈥檚 likely the first opportunity that that work begins is probably at least a year out,鈥� one leader said. 鈥淭his is state procurement; that鈥檚 the rule, not the exception.鈥�  

State leaders also worried that direct contracting would fragment the national expertise and cross-state coordination a federal system provides. They preferred centralized systems more responsive to states鈥� priorities over a mandate to 鈥渄o it yourself.鈥� 

The ongoing push to hand education functions to other agencies, some leaders cautioned, would result in more complexity, not less. 鈥淚nstead of having five contacts at ED, we鈥檙e going to have two contacts at the Department of Labor鈥� [another at] Health and Human Services鈥� [another at] Commerce,鈥� one said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 actually think it鈥檚 going to create more efficiencies.鈥� 

Other state agency leaders wanted the federal government to lead more boldly on evidence-based practices. The Department of Education, one told us, 鈥渉as never really put their stake in the ground on what is good instruction, what is good assessment, what are good materials.鈥�  

In all, the state leaders we interviewed would welcome reforms that cut red tape and give them more voice in shaping the support they receive. At the same time, they wanted to retain an infrastructure that can deliver specialized research support, cross-state leadership, and state-specific compliance guidance.  

As the decision point nears, their experience offers a roadmap for getting the details right 鈥� one grounded in the daily realities of running a state education system.

But one line in the department’s own should give parents and policymakers pause. It says the department “would not establish goals and performance indicators” for the MEGA program. 

If Washington wants to throw a sprawling set of K-12 priorities in one pot, it needs to say how taxpayers are supposed to know whether the meal was worth the bill.

At its heart, MEGA would consolidate programs into a single state formula grant, with at least 25% reserved for literacy and 25% for mathematics.

That matters because the programs include support for teacher development, after-school programs, state assessments, homeless students, rural schools, school safety, magnet schools, civics, arts education and family engagement. 

All are important programs that are being compressed into a budget that sets aside huge chunks for reading and math and leaves less room for everything else. And once those line items disappear into a single grant, the public will have a harder time seeing what states funded, what they skipped and what any of it bought.

That is a strange place to economize, because the federal cost of keeping score is tiny. Public schools spent $818.2 billion in current expenditures in fiscal year 2023, according to the latest . Before any of the proposed cuts take effect, the main federal testing-and-data lines totaled , , and . That is $694.8 million all told, or about 85 cents for every $1,000 schools spend.

And yet that sliver buys some of the most important information in American education. As Robin Lake wrote, the newest were alarming and pandemic recovery remains uneven. 社区黑料’s interactive on widening achievement gaps shows lower-performing students falling further behind in nearly every state. These are precisely the kinds of problems that become visible only because the federal government mandated metrics.

To be fair, federal education policy has accumulated layers of programs, rules and paperwork; and there is a legitimate argument for giving states more discretion. But even stronger advocates of local autonomy than I have argued for a truer national yardstick so that flexibility does not become opacity. Simpler funding and clearer public evidence belong together.

The Department’s own documents underscore this contradiction. Under the MEGA proposal, states and districts would still be expected to meet federal reporting requirements under . But the new grant itself would arrive without its own goals or indicators, even as the administration describes it as an “evidence-based” investment in literacy and numeracy. 

Some of the programs being consolidated currently have specific purposes and, in some cases, performance measures of their own. , for instance, are explicitly targeted to literacy and report performance information. Under MEGA, that specificity would give way to a much broader grant with no specified performance indicators.

This is especially hard to justify because the budget would not only merge programs but also hollow out dedicated measurement lines. A federal line for state assessments would even as states are still expected to keep testing and reporting. The budget would cut federal education statistics from and reduce NAEP and the National Assessment Governing Board from . 

MEGA is still only a budget request, and Congress rejected similar cuts last year. But proposals like this matter because they reveal what Washington now considers the tiny slice of education spending focused on accountability as dispensable. Programs such as school safety, rural education, homeless students and family engagement would have to compete inside the unreserved share of MEGA. 

If the administration believes states can do more with fewer federal silos, then it should welcome a short public scorecard showing where the money went and what improved.

That scorecard need not be complicated. Congress could require states to publish their MEGA plans in a common format and report a short, comparable set of outcomes for reading, math, attendance, graduation and subgroup performance. None of that would prevent flexibility. It would simply ensure that outcomes remain visible. No one should have to reverse-engineer state budgets to find out whether a grant marketed as a literacy investment actually strengthened reading outcomes.

The administration says MEGA would move decision-making closer to home. Fine. But if the money moves closer to home, the metrics should move with it. Policymakers and researchers need a short public scorecard and a common reporting template. If MEGA is going to remake federal schooling, it can do what schools ask of children every day. Namely, show your work.

A private meeting between the Senate education committee and Education Secretary Linda McMahon was canceled Wednesday after Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, a Democrat, invited the press to listen in. 鈥淚 was unwilling to accept the notion that the discussion of matters of this magnitude, that matter so much to Virginians, could only be behind closed doors,鈥� he told reporters.

He said he was willing to back down if the secretary would commit to appearing before the committee within the next six weeks. In December, Democrats to participate in a hearing to discuss efforts to shut down the Department of Education, but that hasn鈥檛 happened. Following passage of the 2026 budget in January, Congress asked to meet regularly with officials for updates on the interagency agreements with other agencies, but Kaine added that he鈥檚 unaware if those have taken place.

鈥淚n my view,鈥� he said, 鈥渢he secretary and other leaders have pursued a strategy that is unlawful in taking programs within the Department of Education that are statutory in nature and sort of willy nilly ending them, shrinking them or handing them over to other agencies.鈥�

In , GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy, chair of the committee, said 鈥淒emocrats will not dictate the terms of today鈥檚 meeting and have lost the chance to speak to the Secretary today.鈥�

McMahon hasn鈥檛 appeared before the committee since her confirmation hearing over a year ago. On X, : 鈥淚t鈥檚 disappointing that instead of a productive conversation about the state of our nation鈥檚 students and the steps we鈥檙e taking at the Department of Education to reverse this trend and break up the bureaucracy, this became about producing another media clip for MSNBC.鈥�

It was only three months ago that Congress the Trump administration鈥檚 last attempt to slash education spending and roll an array of programs into a block grant.

From the reception that some members of the Senate Appropriations Committee gave U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon on Tuesday, it appeared not much has changed. 

Both Republicans and Democrats grilled the secretary over the Trump administration鈥檚 plan to cut funding for rural schools and programs that help low-income students enter and complete college. 

Consolidating $220 million for rural education with 16 other programs 鈥� including literacy grants, education for homeless students and afterschool programs 鈥� into a $2 billion Make Education Great Again grant program would 鈥渦ndermine the goals of helping our K through 12 schools,鈥� Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the committee, told McMahon. 鈥淧rotecting rural schools and rural communities has always been one of my top priorities.鈥� 

Throughout the two-hour hearing, McMahon defended the president鈥檚 $76.5 billion , saying that although 鈥渋t is a reduction,鈥� the block grant proposal 鈥� a long time goal for conservatives 鈥� would give states more say over how to spend federal dollars. The so-called MEGA grant program will prioritize reading and math, McMahon said, and 鈥渦nleash momentous opportunity for every child to realize their God-given potential.鈥�

The budget would maintain funding for Title I, serving high-poverty schools, at $18.4 million, and boost spending for students with disabilities by over $500 million. 

But the proposal includes a 35% cut to the Office for Civil Rights and eliminates some programs completely. Those include $428 million in services for migrant children and what is known as TRIO, a batch of programs that prepare students for higher education as early as middle school. 

鈥淚 oppose the administration’s proposal to 鈥� eliminate a program that enjoys robust support and has made such a difference in the lives of children,鈥� Collins said, noting that three of her staff members would not have attended college without TRIO.

She was among the six Republicans and six Democrats who sent McMahon earlier this month objecting to how the department has altered two of the TRIO grants to direct students toward the workforce instead of college. 

鈥淐ollege is not the only solution for everyone,鈥� McMahon told the members.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, cited data showing that low-income, high school students who participate in Upward Bound are more than twice as likely to earn a bachelor鈥檚 degree by age 24 than their peers who don鈥檛 participate. 

鈥淭he stats from these programs are pretty damn impressive,鈥� he said. 

Even Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, who has authored that would eliminate the Education Department, called TRIO a “sensitive area鈥� and urged McMahon to consider the committee鈥檚 concerns. 

Other Republicans praised the secretary for continuing efforts to shut down the department in the face of extensive criticism.

鈥淵ou are so cool, literally and figuratively,鈥� said Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana. 鈥淭hey call you names, and you just ignore them.鈥�

鈥�50 years of progress鈥�

To some Democrats, McMahon has also turned her back on parents who don鈥檛 want to see special education offloaded to another agency. The secretary said her team still hasn鈥檛 decided what would happen to programs that fall under the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Some might go to the Department of Labor, while others could go to the Department of Health and Human Services, she said.

鈥淚’ve gotten a petition from thousands of parents, educators, advocates who are concerned that will really undermine 50 years of progress in making sure the rights of children and students with disabilities are met,鈥� said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, ranking member of the committee.

Both Murray and Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut clashed with McMahon over the way her staff has handled civil rights enforcement. 

鈥淗ow do you defend that not a single child in Connecticut got a positive resolution from the Department of Education for their discrimination claims?鈥� Murphy asked her. 鈥淪eventy of them had disability claims.鈥�

While he鈥檚 not on the committee, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent, released a calling McMahon鈥檚 OCR 鈥渢he least productive in over a decade.鈥� The document notes that the office reached 鈥渮ero resolution agreements for students facing serious traumatic incidents including sexual harassment, sexual violence, seclusion, restraint, racial harassment and discriminatory school discipline.鈥�

He cited a January government watchdog report showing that putting OCR staff on paid leave last year, after she tried to fire them, cost taxpayers at least $38 million. 

McMahon insisted that the administration was ramping up efforts to address such complaints and seemed confused that the president calls for a $49 million cut to OCR, bringing the budget to $91 million.

鈥淭hat’s a floor number,鈥� she said. 鈥淗opefully we’ll have the ability to increase that number.鈥�

She ordered OCR staff on leave to return in December to address a backlog of cases, and is supervisors and attorneys for regional offices. An internal memo, shared with 社区黑料, shows the regional directors would go to Denver, Seattle and the D.C. offices. But according to an OCR attorney, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation, there have been 鈥渓ots of departures鈥� among those McMahon brought back. 

鈥極verdue for a debate鈥�

Some who watched the exchanges between McMahon and the committee Tuesday were struck by the level of bipartisanship over the TRIO program.

鈥淚t shows the kind of Congressional support these programs have built up over many years, and the strong constituencies they have behind them,鈥� said Maureen Tracey-Mooney, associate director of FutureEd, a Georgetown University think tank. Previously, she led K-12 policy development for the Biden White House.

She added that the programs that McMahon aims to wrap into the MEGA program 鈥渇ocus on the most vulnerable student groups.鈥� 

Those would include students who need after-school care and are currently served by the 21st Century Community Learn Centers program. 

鈥淲hat do you do once they leave the classroom when they’re so young and they can’t obviously take care of themselves at home?鈥� asked Republican Sen. Shelley Capito of West Virginia.

McMahon responded that it would be up to states to decide whether after-school programs are a priority for them.鈥淲e’re certainly overdue for a debate about how to best support our nation’s students,鈥� Tracey-Mooney said. 鈥淏ut I think we are unlikely to see a rigorous engagement in Congress with these ideas through the budget process.鈥�

Last fall, U.S. Department of Education officials that transferring major K-12 programs to the Department of Labor would be 鈥渕ore difficult鈥� than its earlier move of career-and-technical education programs to that agency.

They鈥檙e not even going to try this year. 

To the relief of state leaders and education advocates, the department told education chiefs Friday that they would continue to access millions of dollars in Title I and other 鈥渇ormula鈥� grants under the Every Student Succeeds Act through the system that鈥檚 already familiar to state staff. 

鈥淲e have heard your concerns,鈥� Kirstin Baesler, assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education, told chiefs on Friday. The pause on handing that responsibility over to the Labor Department means districts won鈥檛 need to worry about funds arriving in time to plan for next school year 鈥� a situation that caught schools off guard last summer when the administration held up funding for a month.

Sticking with the Education Department鈥檚 system, Baesler wrote, would give everyone involved 鈥渕ore time to collaborate on procedures, processes and training to ensure states are set up to successfully receive and draw down formula funds.鈥� 

In recent weeks Education Secretary Linda McMahon and former Labor Secretary Lori Chavez DeRemer have jointly announced four smaller grant competitions related to , school leadership, and charter schools. Those funds will flow through a Labor Department grant platform. But some observers suggest the department鈥檚 decision to hang on to its largest K-12 program is an acknowledgement that the transition hasn鈥檛 been smooth. Title I serves roughly 25 million students.

鈥淭hat’s an important milestone to miss and a sign that the partnership has been rocky and poorly executed,鈥� said Braden Goetz, a senior policy adviser at New America, a left-of-center think tank. He previously directed the policy and research team focusing on career, technical and adult education at the Education Department, the first office to be transferred to the Labor Department.

State officials reported numerous complications last year in trying to access CTE funds, like error messages in the system. The Illinois State Department of Education waited several weeks to get its funding and spokeswoman Lindsay Record said communication from the Department of Labor often came 鈥渨ith little notice and without the benefit of the Department of Education鈥檚 expertise in overseeing education programs.鈥�  

States don鈥檛 want a repeat of that situation when they try to pull down roughly $28 billion in funds this summer. 

Competitive grants, like the ones McMahon and Chavez-DeRemer recently announced, are one thing. But Title I and other formula programs for all states 鈥渁re a different, and much larger and more essential, responsibility altogether,鈥� said Amy Loyd, president and CEO of All4Ed, an advocacy group. 

The Rhode Island Department of Education was another agency that experienced difficulties using the Labor Department鈥檚 system last year. Spokesman Victor Morente said Commissioner Ang茅lica Infante-Green appreciates Baesler allowing 鈥渁dditional time for preparedness鈥� with the formula funds, but added that 鈥渇urther clarity on how the new interagency plans will be implemented is absolutely necessary to avoid disruption and confusion related to funding concerns.鈥�

Along with state officials, staff within the Education Department “persistently communicated” to leaders that moving to Labor’s grant system “would cause significant problems for states and students,” said Rachel Gittleman, president of the union representing department employees.听

Baesler said she would discuss the matter further with chiefs when she meets with them virtually May 7.

House committee vote

Congress also expressed concerns last year with the batch of 鈥渋nteragency agreements鈥� McMahon has initiated as she works to eliminate the department. Members warned that the actions would 鈥渃reate inefficiencies鈥� and 鈥渃ause delays and administrative challenges.鈥�

The agreements are illegal according to a group of states and districts that have the dismantling of the department. But on Tuesday, the House education committee took the first step toward writing those agreements into law. 

The Republican majority passed a bill that formally moves adult education programs to the Labor Department. Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan, who chairs the committee, said the move makes it easier for adults to 鈥渕ove from basic skills to training to employment within a more coordinated system.鈥�

Goetz disagreed. In , he said taking the program out of the Education Department changes it into 鈥渁 funnel to low-wage jobs鈥� and turns it over to those without expertise in reading and math.

Even so, aside from Baesler鈥檚 Friday announcement, he doesn鈥檛 expect the administration to slow down its work to distribute education programs to other agencies. Chavez-DeRemer鈥檚 resignation this week, following that she used Labor funds for personal trips and had an affair with an employee, could even accelerate the process, he said.

Savannah Newhouse, a spokeswoman for the Education Department, dismissed the idea that Chavez-DeRemer鈥檚 actions got in the way of carrying out President Donald Trump鈥檚 executive order to shut down the department. 

鈥淪uggesting one departure would affect these partnerships misunderstands how they鈥檙e structured,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hese partnerships are with agencies best equipped to manage federal education programs without disruption.鈥�

Still, she appreciated the reason the Carter administration summoned her father to the nation鈥檚 capital. , a prominent researcher who focused on school integration, was part of a team tasked with creating a new cabinet-level education agency. 

was to bring all of the various education programs scattered across multiple departments under one roof.

鈥淚 remember the sense of fervor and purpose that surrounded the work that they were doing,鈥� she said. 

Almost 50 years later, Miles leads Education Resource Strategies, an organization that helps districts make sense of regulations tied to department funds. She鈥檚 quite familiar with complaints that those rules are confusing and can make spending money difficult, but the grumbling hasn’t changed her view about the department鈥檚 original mission. 

鈥淧art of the federal role,鈥� she said, 鈥渋s to be a safeguard for the nation in the stewardship of those dollars.鈥�

Such requirements are at the center of a long-running debate over the department鈥檚 existence. With her most recent announcement that the Treasury Department would , Education Secretary Linda McMahon is reversing history and redistributing her department鈥檚 major responsibilities across the federal government. K-12 programs are going to the Labor Department, while the Department of Health and Human Services is expected to absorb special education.

Like President Donald Trump, McMahon dismisses her staff鈥檚 oversight functions as unnecessarily burdensome and says parceling out the department鈥檚 functions will . Washington should 鈥済et out of the way,鈥� she said in January when she granted Iowa a waiver to blend some federal funds into a block grant.

But others say those rules ensure that schools spend the money the way Congress intended. 

鈥淭he more flexibility you have, the more you run the risk that people may take advantage of that flexibility,鈥� said Vic Klatt, who worked at the department during George H.W. Bush鈥檚 administration and then spent several years working on education policy for House Republicans. 

鈥楯ust very loose鈥�

During a , McMahon defended her actions and described the Education Department as a mere 鈥減ass-through鈥� agency for funds Congress appropriates. Before the department was established, programs like Title I for low-income students and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 鈥渨ere handled very well,鈥� she said.  

But that wasn鈥檛 what civil rights advocates found when they took an extensive look at how districts spent the funds. An often-cited example from their report was how the Claiborne Parish schools in Louisiana used Title I funds, meant to improve achievement among educationally 鈥渄eprived children,鈥� to build two Olympic-sized swimming pools at Black schools.

A school in Oakland, California, used the money for an exercise program to 鈥減revent heart trouble鈥� and increase the 鈥渇low of blood to the brain,鈥� the report found. When parents asked if the funds might be better used to teach their kids to read, school officials told them that the P.E. program would improve the students鈥� reading skills.

鈥淚t was just very loose,鈥� said Nora Gordon, a Georgetown University professor who has written extensively about the history of Title I. 鈥淭hey weren鈥檛 breaking the law at the time, but they were violating the spirit of the law.鈥�

Title I was meant to be supplemental. Districts had to 鈥渟ign an assurance鈥� that they wouldn鈥檛 cut their own spending when they received Title I funds, the report said, but there were no penalties for doing so. Audits uncovered numerous examples of districts using Title I to pay for general expenses that should have been covered with state and local funds, like building classrooms and stocking libraries with books at Black schools. 

When Congress amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act , members wrote a 鈥渟upplement, not supplant鈥� provision into the law 鈥� three words that have generated immense confusion through the years. The rule has prompted countless 鈥済uidance鈥� documents that can be equally confusing and spawned a cottage industry of consultants and lawyers who advise districts how to avoid mistakes.听

The department, for example, presumes that districts are supplanting if they used state or local funds to cover an expense in the previous year or if they鈥檙e spending federal funds on something the state mandates, like teacher training in the science of reading. 

Some argue that the department has gone so overboard with requirements for documentation that states and districts worry more about compliance than whether the students those programs are meant to help are making any progress. 

In 2006, an Office of the Inspector General review found almost 588 requirements related to the No Child Left Behind Act 鈥� so many that a manual describing states鈥� and districts鈥� responsibilities only included about 60% of them. The Inspector General questioned whether all those rules were necessary.听

鈥淪ure, there is flexibility in how you spend federal dollars,鈥� said JoLynn Berge, deputy superintendent and chief financial officer at the Northshore School District near Seattle. 鈥淏ut you really have to be this high-level expert to understand how to comply with the rules.鈥�

Lucky for Northshore, she is. She previously oversaw district finances for the Seattle Public Schools and before that, worked for the Washington state superintendent鈥檚 office, where she monitored districts鈥� use of federal dollars. She sees value in the push for flexible block grants instead of holding funds for different programs 鈥渋n these little buckets,鈥� each with their own rules. 

鈥淵ou have to trust that people are going to do things right,鈥� she said. There will always be 鈥渂ad actors,鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut that鈥檚 what you have auditors for.鈥�

For some district leaders, procurement rules 鈥� those governing how districts purchase everything from tutoring services to software programs 鈥� are a common frustration. To use federal funds, like those for kids with disabilities, a district has to conduct a bidding process.

But that timeline can stretch out for weeks and cause delays in students getting the help they need, said Jay Toland, chief financial officer for the Cumberland, North Carolina, district.

鈥淪ometimes we might have to do something on the fly with exceptional children,鈥� he said, like hiring a speech pathologist. 鈥漌e’re still providing those services; we just have to find another funding source.鈥�

鈥楻颈蝉办-补惫别谤蝉别鈥�

According to McMahon, states and districts should have more say over how they spend federal dollars. During the extended government shutdown last fall, her team took to social media to mock the department鈥檚 oversight role.

鈥淲e might be away from our desks attending strategic assessments, creating more red tape and doing nothing to improve student outcomes,鈥� said the post, signed 鈥渂ureaucratically yours.鈥� 

But the Education Department isn鈥檛 the only agency that asks districts to complete tedious administrative tasks, and many of those will stay in place whether the department exists or not. 

The requirement that school staff document they spend on a federal grant, for example, comes from the Office of Management and Budget. 

States are known for layering their own rules on top of the federal guidelines. Jeremy Vidito, chief financial officer for the Detroit schools, previously worked in California and Louisiana, but called Michigan 鈥渢he most restrictive place鈥� he鈥檚 worked when it comes to spending federal dollars. 

鈥淭hey must approve all travel and conferences in advance. They approve service vendors and materials,鈥� he said. 鈥淎t this point, we know what they will and won’t approve, so we don’t try to do anything creative.鈥�

The public also has expectations for how districts spend that money. 

The law requires districts to spend Title I in schools with poverty rates of 75% or higher, and they can direct funds to schools with much lower poverty rates if they have some left over. Berge, in the Northshore district, described it as 鈥減eanut buttering鈥� the funds around to keep everyone happy. Legally, leaders could concentrate that money in just the poorest schools, but pushback from the community would be intense. 

鈥淭he federal government doesn’t prohibit you from doing that. You’re just dealing with local politics,鈥� said Marguerite Roza, who directs the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University and advises districts nationwide on budget and spending issues. 

With achievement gaps wider since the pandemic, and low-performing students continuing to lose ground, she challenges districts to rethink how they spend Title I. But district officials, she said, are a 鈥渞isk-averse鈥� group and tend to stick with spending plans that state officials and auditors have signed off on in the past. 

In conversation with a group of districts last fall, she proposed that they use all of their Title I funds to pay non-teaching staff members, like instructional coaches and assistant principals, to work as tutors for low-income students. One leader from a midsized Midwestern district said the idea wouldn鈥檛 work because Title I instructors must be certified teachers. Roza reminded her that tutoring isn鈥檛 core instruction. 

鈥淪o this was actually a non-issue,鈥� she said. 

California provides another example of how districts can get locked into misconceptions about what鈥檚 allowed. In 2012, advocates for arts education found that districts were reluctant to use Title I funds for the arts even though the U.S. Department of Education encouraged it. A 鈥渃ulture of 鈥榝ear of reprisal鈥� seemed to permeate the Title I world,鈥� . 

It took a letter from the state education department and extra assurance from a federal official to convince districts it was OK. Klatt, the retired Congressional staffer, is among those who predict that even if some federal rules disappear, district leaders will likely still manage those funds like nothing has changed.

鈥淚t鈥檚 hard to break that mold,鈥� he said.

But there鈥檚 another reason, experts say, why those spending federal dollars might not be able to tell much difference between this administration and those that came before. Other than granting the Iowa waiver, which observers say was not a significant change, McMahon has mostly reiterated what the law already allows. 

In January, she released a letter highlighting the way schools can use Title I funds for improvements (on the books since 1978) and blend federal grants with state and local funds (added in 1994). She鈥檚 made similar announcements about 鈥渆xisting鈥� flexibilities related to , transferred to the Labor Department last year. 

If anything, Klatt doesn鈥檛 buy McMahon鈥檚 argument that moving K-12 programs there is a way to lighten the bureaucratic load. After all, it鈥檚 the agency that enforces strict rules related to and . 

鈥淎lmost everybody at the Labor Department,鈥� he said, 鈥渋s involved in some kind of regulatory activity.鈥� 

Sacramento City Unified and La Mesa-Spring Valley school districts and Taft College in California are among six educational institutions in the U.S. that had civil rights settlements terminated by the U.S. Department of Education on Monday, according to the 

The agreements, negotiated by previous administrations, were meant to uphold protections for transgender students. Now that they have been terminated, the colleges and school districts are no longer obligated to continue measures such as faculty training or allowing students to use the bathrooms, names or pronouns that align with their gender identity, the Associated Press reported.

The termination of the agreements is an effort to enforce President Donald Trump鈥檚 executive order that the government recognize only a person鈥檚 sex assigned at birth. 

In Sacramento City Unified, that means the district will no longer have to abide by a 2024 settlement that requires it to provide training on Title IX policies to school administrators, teachers guidance counselors and school resource officers, according to the  

The settlement stems from a 2022 complaint by a transgender student who said a teacher refused to use his preferred pronouns and that an administrator also referred to him incorrectly. The Office for Civil Rights, under the Biden administration, agreed with the student and directed the school district to take corrective measures, according to The Bee.

Sacramento City Unified said Monday it 鈥渞emains committed to the support of our LGBTQ+ students and staff.鈥�

The district won鈥檛 decide whether to rescind the policies until it learns whether it will impact its federal funding, according to The Bee. The district faces a $170 million budget deficit and threats of state takeover.

La Mesa-Spring Valley Unified Superintendent David Feliciano told the  that the decision would have no effect on district policies and procedures.

鈥淲e remain committed to ensuring a safe and supportive learning environment for all students,鈥� he said.

Iowa鈥檚 governor said the approval would result in less time spent on administrative duties, allowing educators to put more resources and time back into the classroom.

Other states have pointed to the of having flexible accountability and assessment systems that reflect local priorities, foster innovation and empower local decision-making, rather than adhering strictly to federal mandates. But some education leaders, such as the , worry that if states ultimately establish 50 distinct accountability and improvement models, students鈥� access to learning accommodations and opportunities will vary based on where they live and learn. Academic outcomes can depend on the availability of tutoring, advanced coursework and enrichment, special education services, assistive technology and other supports.

As states consider the opportunities that waivers present for greater flexibility in using federal funds, they should consider lessons from the recent past. The pandemic-era Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds were a lifeline for schools, but they also exposed critical gaps in states’ approaches to innovation and evaluation. While ESSER funds enabled rapid response and recovery, the program lacked robust provisions for evaluating which strategies worked and why. As a result, there is limited evidence about which interventions 鈥� such as summer school, tutoring or targeted supports 鈥� were the most effective. 

For the department and states, the lesson is clear: Rigorous evaluation and continuous improvement must be embedded in the waiver and experimentation process from the start. States should clearly show how their plans connect to better student outcomes, and the department should assist them in these efforts. With more flexible financial strategies in place, states could find new ways to combine funds to reach their goals and learn from one another as they develop innovative approaches. Most importantly, however, states should ensure their investments include research and evaluation components, so they know what works and what does not.

Even as it cedes some control, the department has an important role to play in ensuring the following elements are in place: 

1. Purposeful Experimentation: States should be empowered to innovate, but with the expectation that they will rigorously evaluate new approaches and share what they learn. This will help ensure that successful strategies can be replicated and adapted elsewhere. Existing investments can be used toward these goals. For example, the Regional Educational Laboratories, the Comprehensive Center Network and the Educational Innovation and Research program help schools build their data-using skills and provide guidance on evidence-based practices.
2. Capacity Building: Many states will need expert guidance to design and implement effective reforms. Federal investment should focus on making lasting improvements, not just short-term fixes. The comprehensive network, for example, is a government-funded organization of regional centers that help states design, test and strengthen new ideas and strategies, and guide policymakers, state education agencies and educators in building the skills needed to improve teaching and learning.
3. Collaboration Over Isolation: The government should continue to facilitate collaboration among states, ensuring that innovations and lessons learned are shared widely. This may be done by providing insight on how to launch and sustain new programs and develop continuous improvement strategies, or by strengthening ongoing cross-state work through grants, technical assistance, conferences and national networks that help align standards, share data and improve student outcomes.

States have always been constitutionally responsible for providing public education, though federal policy 鈥� since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was enacted in 1965 鈥� has incentivized states to serve disadvantaged students and promoted greater consistency in educational quality nationwide. 

Now, the department is signaling a willingness to let states experiment. But to avoid repeating the missed opportunities of ESSER, federal and state leaders must prioritize evaluation, capacity building and collaboration. Only then can the flexibility presented through these waivers lead to lasting improvements in educational excellence. 

After a , the department鈥檚 Office for Civil Rights said the district must create a new division focusing on students with disabilities, improve transportation services for those students, and take steps to better identify and accommodate their needs.

鈥淭he district must take immediate action to remedy their violations and protect the rights of current and future students to a free and appropriate public education,鈥� Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey said in a statement. 

The proposed resolution agreement also requires the district to train staff, including bus drivers, on any updated policies. If officials don鈥檛 agree to the terms, OCR 鈥渕ay initiate enforcement,鈥� the announcement said. 

The district, which said from the outset that it would cooperate with the department, is 鈥渃arefully reviewing鈥� the findings, a spokesman said, adding that OCR makes important points about providing clear information to parents and getting their children to and from school. 

Neither the department nor the district, however, has made the full results of the investigation available.

With OCR largely focusing its resources on investigating districts that allow students to compete in sports or use bathrooms based on gender identity, the D.C. investigation is one of the few disability-related cases it has launched and completed since President Donald Trump returned to office. A from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which sparked the probe, found that the district has one of highest rates of special education complaints in the nation. An advisory committee to the commission determined that young children in the district were under-identified for special education services or accommodations for disabilities and that parents were often encouraged to file lawsuits in order to get their children help. 

鈥淭hat obviously favors those who have means, can hire an attorney and know how to get through the system,鈥� said Craig Leen, former vice chair of the advisory committee. A civil rights attorney who served in the Labor Department during Trump鈥檚 first term, he also struggled to get services for his daughter. Now a senior at a charter school in the district, she has autism and an intellectual disability.

The bus was often late or didn鈥檛 arrive at all, creating disruptions to his daughter鈥檚 routine, Leen said. Since the investigation began, he said he鈥檚 seen improvements. The bus comes on time, and to keep parents updated, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education, which oversees transportation for students with disabilities in both DCPS and charter schools in the city, is developing a bus .

The district, according to the spokesman, is working with the state agency to 鈥渋mprove real鈥憈ime visibility into bus delays to make certain students do not lose instructional time or access to required services.鈥�

Leen said he鈥檚 not concerned about Education Secretary Linda McMahon鈥檚 plans to transfer OCR or the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services to another federal agency as she continues efforts to phase out the department. 

鈥淢y main concern is that they have a designated agency addressing special education,鈥� he said. 

Many of the advisory committee鈥檚 recommendations were based on testimony from Maria Blaeuer, director of programs and outreach with Advocates for Justice and Education, Inc., The organization trains parents and provides to families who haven鈥檛 been able to get services for their children.

The organization is 鈥渢hankful that OCR is paying attention to the many challenges that students with disabilities in the District of Columbia are facing,鈥� Blaeuer said. But she added that it would be premature to comment on the department鈥檚 announcement 鈥渨ithout access to the actual determination鈥� or until a resolution has been reached.

In total, 142 former staffers across six government agencies filed last month, arguing that the Trump administration appeared to target specific employees rather than carry out the reductions in an objective way.

鈥淚t’s very clear that this wasn’t a dispassionate, neutral workplace reorganization,鈥� said Jill Siegelbaum, a partner with Sligo Law Group, which brought the lawsuit with Lawyers for Good Government and the D.C. Law Collective. 鈥淚ndividuals were called unpatriotic. They were called lazy. There were all sorts of disparaging statements made about these individuals.鈥�

In her letter to staff put on leave last year, McMahon said the terminations had nothing to do with . But to , she characterized the problem as 鈥渂ureaucratic bloat鈥� and said that under her leadership, the department had kept 鈥渁ll of the right people, the good people.鈥� President Donald Trump many of the employees cut at the department 鈥渄on鈥檛 work at all鈥� and 鈥渘ever showed up to work.鈥� 

The action adds to mounting lawsuits over the mass layoffs. brought by Democratic-led states and school districts last year, officials argued that the reductions have left the department without adequate staff to do the work mandated by Congress. Last week, advocates for victims of sexual assault in a letter that the Office for Civil Rights didn鈥檛 resolve any complaints of sexual harassment or violence in 2025. Department officials say that the layoffs were necessary to cut red tape and give more control to the states.

In this latest case, the former employees say the administration denied their due process rights. The Education Department did not respond to questions about the case.

Denise Joseph, who lost her position in the Office of Postsecondary Education, found herself at odds with the new administration because of her work on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

鈥淚 helped people get promotions. I helped protect the people from getting fired. I just mentored a lot of people,鈥� she said. 鈥淎nd I’m a Democrat, and so I don’t think they wanted someone like me.鈥�

She now runs a tutoring service and works part time for Kodely, a company that provides afterschool and summer programs. She also recently launched a campaign for a seat on the Charles County, Maryland, school board. 

Other Education Department plaintiffs include those who worked on special education, data collection, and career and technical education. Like Joseph, they have all filed an appeal to the government鈥檚 Merit Systems Protection Board, originally meant to be an independent body. The Trump administration has moved to weaken protections for career staff. According to the , the board has to adopt the government鈥檚 reasons for the employee鈥檚 dismissal and can no longer seek an outside review by a judge. 

The employees are 鈥渇aced with the potential harm of having their case heard by a completely captured administrative process,鈥� the complaint says. Plus, the attorneys argue, the board is so overwhelmed because of the layoffs that few appeals have progressed beyond initial steps.

When federal employees are fired 鈥渇or cause,鈥� the government is required to , like giving them advance notice and allowing them to respond to the reasons for their dismissal. 

Those steps protect the employees before they lose their benefits, Siegelbaum said. But the Education Department and the other agencies 鈥� Justice, State, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and USAID 鈥� didn鈥檛 follow that process. According to the complaint, the agencies also relied on incorrect data when deciding who to cut. For example, Deborah Fisher, who worked for the State Department, had 39 years of federal service, but her layoff notice reflected only about 20 years.

Loyalty question

The administration holds that the president should have more say over the federal workforce and be able to replace staff with those more politically aligned. Those were the goals outlined in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation document that Russell Vought spearheaded before he became director of the Office of Management and Budget.

He introduced a new hiring plan that included the question: 鈥淗ow would you help advance the President鈥檚 Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role?鈥� Unions representing federal employees in November, arguing that the 鈥渓oyalty question鈥� compels applicants to praise Trump鈥檚 policies or risk being punished for giving an honest answer.

In a separate move, the administration issued a that reclassified thousands of jobs across the government as 鈥減olicymaking positions鈥� without civil service protections. Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal group that has challenged many of Trump鈥檚 policies, is over the regulation. 

Some experts say choosing federal employees based on partisanship is disruptive and can ultimately hurt the schools and students the department is meant to serve. Presidents already have to make 4,000 political appointments, and many don鈥檛 even stay for the full four years of an administration. The new rule potentially creates thousands more political positions, said Jenny Mattingley, a vice president at the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service. 

鈥淓very political administration would probably want to see responsiveness to their policies,鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut with all that swirl and chaos, the people who suffer are the Americans on the ground who need those services.鈥�

But they didn鈥檛 do anything to stop it. 

On Monday, Education Secretary Linda McMahon continued down that path, announcing that she鈥檒l hand over school safety and family engagement programs to the as part of her ongoing effort to 鈥渂reak up鈥� federal bureaucracy through interagency agreements.

鈥淏y leveraging HHS鈥檚 extensive emergency preparedness capabilities, we are creating a stronger foundation for supporting students and strengthening the safety of the school building,鈥� she said in a statement.

The move affects programs under the Office of Safe and Supportive Schools, including grants that help schools respond to traumatic events like school shootings and natural disasters. Full-Service Community Schools, Promise Neighborhoods, family engagement centers and Ready to Learn, which funds educational TV for preschoolers, are also part of that office.

Critics were quick to argue that the secretary is creating more complexity for schools and teachers. 鈥淣othing about this is better for kids,鈥� said Vito Borrello, executive director of the National Association for Family, School and Community Engagement. 鈥淚t’s inefficient. It’s chaotic.鈥� 

McMahon began transferring major education programs to other agencies last summer by moving career and technical education programs to the . She has told advocates for students with disabilities that 鈥渘othing shall remain鈥� at the department. The Labor Department will also assume responsibility for , including Title I, the department鈥檚 largest K-12 program. 

Democrats tried to insert binding language into the appropriations law that would stop McMahon from using these agreements to dismantle the agency. But Republicans balked. In a compromise, lawmakers attached a note calling for biweekly meetings with the department and saying they were worried that what McMahon is doing 鈥渨ill create inefficiencies, result in additional costs to the American taxpayer, and cause delays and administrative challenges.鈥�

At the time, Savannah Newhouse, a spokeswoman for the department, said officials aim to provide 鈥減roof of concept that interagency agreements provide the same protections, higher quality outcomes, and even more benefits for students, grantees and other education stakeholders.鈥� The next step, she added, is getting Congress to 鈥渃odify these partnerships.鈥�

Education advocates were relieved that Congress rejected drastic cuts to education programs proposed by President Donald Trump and House Republicans. But the question is 鈥渨hat happens to the funding and who is administering these programs,鈥� said Emily Merolli, a partner with the Sligo Law Group, and a former member of the department鈥檚 general counsel鈥檚 office.

A coalition of states and districts over mass layoffs at the department last year and amended their complaint to challenge the interagency agreements as well. But Merolli said the court may ultimately have to look at whether there have been any 鈥渄ownstream harms鈥� from offloading programs to different agencies.

Family advocates

The K-12 programs affected by this latest action have already seen disruption since President Donald Trump took office. 

Last May, the department grant, roughly $23 million that supported educational programming like Sesame Street and Reading Rainbow.  In September, the department canceled grants to five statewide family engagement centers serving six states. The centers each received $1 million annually to support districts in reaching underserved families. 

As with McMahon鈥檚 decision to cancel other grants and contracts, the centers were told their work was no longer a priority for this administration, which has aimed to eliminate programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion.

Borrello decried the decision in his November newsletter, saying that schools can鈥檛 support families 鈥渨ithout a foundation of relational trust which is cultivated through honoring the diverse cultures and values of the families served. There is nothing controversial about this.鈥�

Then in December, McMahon canceled remaining Full-Service Community Schools grants, totaling $60 million, to 18 grantees. They included two grants, a combined $18.5 million, to ACT Now Illinois, a statewide afterschool provider network. The organization and has been in negotiations with the department over restoring the grants.

To respond to increases in students鈥� mental health needs, the 2,300-student Herrin school district in southern Illinois used the money to hire a social worker for each of its five schools. 

鈥淲e really need somebody to advocate not just for the students, but for the families as well,鈥� said Valerie Clodi, the district鈥檚 director of development. 

The district also on school supplies for students, free STEM-focused events for families and expanded career pathways programs. Schools saw drops in chronic absenteeism, Clodi said, and increases in performance among high schoolers on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, an assessment that the state accepts as an indicator of readiness for college. But after next week, the team of five family advocates will be down to one. An assistant who helped families who need housing or other resources also left. 

Clodi said she could see an overlap between HHS and community schools when it comes to focusing on students鈥� mental health. But 鈥渢hat’s just one pillar鈥� of the model, she said. 

Borrello called the move to HHS 鈥渢he best worst-case scenario鈥� and better than moving the programs to the Labor Department. But he noted that putting family engagement programs and K-12 under two separate agencies could undermine efforts to get parents more involved in their children鈥檚 education.

鈥淭his couldn’t come at a worse time,鈥� he said. 鈥淪cores are beginning to improve and now we do this.鈥� 

This would be a mistake.

Students and families cannot afford to wait. Scores on the 2025 National Assessment of Educational Progress, and, attendance and engagement are all at historic lows, confirming what educators and many families already knew: Student performance and well-being continue to decline. Those learning losses will continue to have profound impacts both on the students themselves and on the nation鈥檚 broader economic prosperity. Meanwhile, decades of top-down reform efforts have yielded disappointingly little improvement, despite massive investments and constant policy churn.

State policymakers have a better path forward, one that doesn’t depend on federal direction: creating the conditions for bottom-up innovation to emerge, spread and scale within their own education systems.

As the Hoover Institution’s has documented, the current education infrastructure actively prevents innovation from emerging, spreading and generating measurable improvements in learner outcomes. Years of investment in top-down innovation and reform have yielded many lessons but little actual progress.

A new white paper from the Hoover Institution reveals why this approach matters. 鈥�,鈥� synthesizes decades of evidence on education innovation, as well as organizational, network and diffusion theory. By dividing the growth of innovation into three clear phases 鈥� start, spread, and sustain 鈥� the paper鈥檚 framework illustrates clear actions and decision points in which policymakers and education leaders can either help or hinder innovation.  

We know that the most scalable and sustainable improvements emerge from the needs and problems that practitioners define and from the solutions they help develop. Yet, as a finds, it remains “very rare for an innovation to get diffused within a school and it is much rarer that it gets diffused between schools.”

The framework identifies obstacles that prevent good ideas. At the earliest stages where bottom-up ideas might start, rigid bureaucracies foster risk-averse cultures among educators. Decades of emphasis on standardized test scores have conditioned teachers to avoid failure, making new initiatives seem high-risk, low-reward. Many principals preemptively block innovation due to perceived regulatory barriers even though research shows these barriers are often negotiable or misunderstood.

When innovations do emerge, they struggle to spread. Teachers attempting to implement new practices face unfamiliar partnerships with district administrators, intermediaries and policymakers; they receive little preparation or support for managing these relationships. Schools, already overwhelmed with mandates and regulations, lack the basic administrative infrastructure and tools to disseminate ideas effectively. 

Perhaps most critically, the education sector lacks a robust knowledge ecosystem to capture what works, determine when replication is more sensible than adaptation and analyze whether and how an innovation fits in different local contexts.

At the scale phase, accountability systems emphasizing narrow metrics actively discourage ambitious teaching. Policymakers tend to be 鈥渇ailure-avoidant, linear thinkers鈥� while innovations need trial-and-error cycles. The bias toward quick wins denies innovations time to demonstrate impact.

The result? A system where constant informal change happens in classrooms daily, but meaningful and potentially impactful innovations rarely spread beyond individual teachers or schools, and students’ outcomes continue to stagnate or decline.

The good news is state legislatures don’t need permission from Washington to address these barriers. The framework identifies specific policy levers that state lawmakers control:

• Invest in knowledge ecosystems. Bottom-up innovations often fail to expand, not because they don’t work, but because there’s no infrastructure to capture what works, why it works and how to adapt it to new contexts. States should fund networks connecting innovative practitioners, support rapid-cycle evaluation and incentivize “fail-forward” learning. Most knowledge sharing networks are led by intermediaries, such as NASBE and KnowledgeWorks鈥檚,听 , in Michigan and NHLI鈥檚. One state example comes from Nevada, where the Department of Education and the Center for the Future of Learning jointly lead the to support pilots, create tools for community engagement, and develop case studies to inform practice.

• Genuinely engage educators in policymaking. Innovations spread when they align with teachers’ values and address immediate classroom needs. Yet teachers are routinely shut out of policy development. States should remove procedural barriers and invest in the time and capacity needed for front-line educators to shape policy, not token teacher advisory councils, but an authentic partnership. Examples such as Georgia’s brings 21 classroom teachers annually into direct engagement with state and federal policymakers; and North Carolina’s has graduated over 800 fellows who continue to influence education policy statewide.听

• Support flexible implementation. Innovations that require strict fidelity struggle to spread; those that offer clear principles with room for local adaptation thrive. State policy should embrace “tight-but-loose” frameworks that maintain core commitments while allowing schools to adapt. Part of this flexibility entails states offering stronger scaffolds for novice teachers while giving more seasoned practitioners greater latitude to exercise professional judgment. Since 2016, has taken this approach for supporting personalized, competency-based change.

• Provide adequate, sustained resources. Unlike businesses, which can attract investment capital, educators must develop their own infrastructure before scaling. Federal funding historically has been scarce and short-term as in the case of the grants. School-level innovators often come to rely聽 on local or regional education foundations to provide seed funding for new models. In 2015, for example, the Nellie Mae Education Foundation to support innovation efforts across five New England school districts. For over a decade, North Carolina has offered smaller innovation grants as part of its ongoing and New York State offers that develop, implement, and share innovative programs. Generous and sustained support can rarely be counted on, but states can fill this gap by ensuring innovations have the financial runway needed to develop tools, train educators and demonstrate impact over time.

Do we want to spend another session waiting for Washington to solve problems it hasn’t solved in decades? Or are we ready to build infrastructure that enables teachers and school leaders 鈥� the people closest to students 鈥� to innovate, learn and improve?

The evidence is clear. Bottom-up innovation, when properly supported, can transform education. States have the authority and the tools to create supportive conditions. What they need now is political will. 

Our students can’t wait for federal certainty. State policymakers should give them something better: a system designed to foster, capture and spread the innovations that will actually improve their learning. The framework exists. The session is starting. It’s time for states to lead.

Over $120 billion in federal were expiring, leaving school leaders and tutoring providers uncertain whether programs would continue. The incoming administration was focused on slashing Department of Education spending, not issuing new grants. 

鈥淲e didn’t know if this administration would put anything into education,鈥� said Loeb, a Stanford University professor who . 鈥淲e were worried that all of the experimentation that had been going on and that access to tutoring would drop precipitously.鈥� 

That didn鈥檛 happen.

When researchers, district leaders and tutoring providers convened earlier this month in Washington, it was clear that worries over tutoring being nothing more than a pandemic fad had turned to optimism. A growing number of states expect districts to integrate tutoring into the school day and have committed funding and staff to make it happen. Several require tutoring for students scoring below grade level and are vetting providers so districts don鈥檛 have to. And in a recent round of literacy , totaling $256 million, federal education officials signaled that access to tutoring should be a fixture in the nation鈥檚 schools. 

鈥淗igh-dosage tutoring has evolved from a concept into a proven, evidence-based strategy and then into a reality for thousands of students in thousands of schools,鈥� Kirsten Baesler, assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education, told attendees at the annual Accelerate conference. 鈥淚t is a foundational strategy for improving student outcomes.鈥� 

Even before the new federal grants were announced, a by Loeb鈥檚 team showed that nearly half of all states either offer tutoring grants or use their school finance formula to help districts pay for programs. 

Arkansas, which she described as 鈥渟trategic and ambitious,鈥� is one example. Its 2023 LEARNS Act created two tutoring programs.

One provides grants to . To measure the return on investment, the state鈥檚 now flags whether a student receives tutoring during the school day.

鈥淚f policymakers want results, they have to invest in the structures to get those results,鈥� Amy Counts, director of curriculum projects at the state education agency, said during one of the Accelerate sessions. 

Another Arkansas initiative up to $1,500 to spend on tutoring if their children don鈥檛 meet reading standards. Initially, teachers weren鈥檛 fond of the idea that families received the extra money instead of schools.

鈥淭hey didn鈥檛 push the program because of that. But we said, 鈥業f you help parents use that program, that benefits you,鈥� 鈥� Counts said. The other challenge, she said. was that some parents of struggling readers wouldn鈥檛 spend the money 鈥渂ecause they’ve never had to engage in securing services for their child.鈥�

To Accelerate President Nakia Towns, the federal grants represent an important shift. 

鈥淟ook Mama, we made it,鈥� she told attendees.

Accelerate received one of those 24 grants to work with the Oklahoma State Department of Education. They鈥檒l test how factors like group size, the frequency of sessions and whether tutoring is delivered virtually or in person affects results. 

Seven of the awards went directly to state education agencies that are working to scale up tutoring programs, especially in rural areas. Loeb鈥檚 team, for example, will evaluate Arkansas鈥� efforts to , a virtual program. The study will also compare results when tutors are college students versus trained educators.

鈥業mportant step forward鈥�

Accelerate has launched some of that state-level activity through its , and this legislative session, CEO Kevin Huffman is tracking 12 tutoring-related bills in eight states. They include:

• A that would require high-impact tutoring for students with a reading or math 鈥渄eficiency.鈥�

• A to establish a competitive grant program for tutoring.

• An that would require for students scoring at the lowest levels in math and reading. The Senate passed the bill, but it鈥檚 still pending before a House education committee.

• A that would expand an existing program for elementary students through eighth grade.

鈥淎ll of this feels like an important step forward,鈥� Huffman told 社区黑料. At the conference, he said 鈥渕omentum is different鈥� because states aren鈥檛 supporting tutoring just because they have one-time federal dollars to spend.

One policy expert recently questioned whether tutoring has produced 鈥渢oo little bang for too much buck.鈥� In , Michael Petrilli, president of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute, said he hasn鈥檛 been able to 鈥渕uster much enthusiasm鈥� for tutoring and suggested that it has been an insufficient way to address the 鈥渄isastrous aftermath of COVID-era school closures.鈥�

Loeb agreed that while pandemic relief funds allowed states and districts to test different models, those early examples didn鈥檛 always produce gains. Some states and districts moved too fast, and implementation challenges, like infrequent sessions and high turnover of tutors, hindered students鈥� progress. Research shows that a mismatch between the material tutors cover and the curriculum in students鈥� regular classes can also contribute to poor results.

鈥淪ome of it worked, and some of it didn’t,鈥� Loeb said. 

But during this month鈥檚 event, Antoinette Mitchell, state superintendent for the District of Columbia, said investments in tutoring have paid off. Her office, which oversees both the District of Columbia Public Schools and charters, contracts with CitySchools Collaborative, a nonprofit, to manage tutoring logistics. It handles scheduling and finds space for tutoring sessions so principals don鈥檛 have to. 

, more than 42% of DCPS students scored at the highest levels in reading, exceeding pre-pandemic results. In math, the percentage of students meeting expectations grew by over 4 percentage points, the largest jump since 2015. With one of the federal grants, CitySchools Collaborative will expand its work into Maryland and Virginia. 

More recent research findings, about the importance of offering tutoring and , have also allowed districts to learn from past mistakes. 

鈥淵ou can actually do this at a decent scale,鈥� Loeb said, 鈥渁nd give students this personalized attention.鈥�

Their absences were excused, but still contributed to a chronic absenteeism problem that the district, like those across the country, has been trying to solve since the end of the pandemic. Some DeKalb students had as many as 25 visits to the doctor in a school year. Students are considered chronically absent when they have at least 18 absences, about 10% of the year.

鈥淭hey never would show up in our truancy dashboard because they might be great at turning in doctor’s notes,鈥� said Nicole Carroll, principal at Henagar Junior High School, east of Huntsville. 

Doctors are now more mindful of trying to schedule appointments around school hours, said Jason Mayfield, the district鈥檚 instructional supervisor. And it’s one of the reasons Alabama is closer than any other state to reducing chronic absenteeism back to pre-pandemic levels. 

鈥淲e really need to take a moon leap on attendance,鈥� state Superintendent last summer.听鈥淲e need to see dramatic improvements, especially in our high poverty communities, so that we can get back to where we were before the pandemic and then work to get even better than that.鈥�

Statewide, 12% of students were chronically absent in 2024-25, six percentage points below the peak of 18% in 2022 and just a point higher than it was in 2018-19.

Other states still have a long way to go. 

New Mexico, where some districts to track absenteeism and alert parents when their kids are not in school, made for two straight years. But last year, the rate jumped again from 30% to 33%.听Oregon, Alaska and the District of Columbia also still have rates above 30%, according to a maintained by the conservative American Enterprise Institute.听

Progress is 鈥渁ll over the map,鈥� said Nat Malkus, AEI鈥檚 deputy director of education policy studies. It鈥檚 unlikely for states to see large declines in chronic absenteeism like some did after schools fully reopened, but the 鈥渄anger sign鈥� is that the pace of recovery is slowing, he said. States and districts are tackling the problem in different ways, but Malkus is among those who think the federal government should provide some leadership to keep schools moving in the right direction. 

鈥淭hey have a powerful megaphone and the nation鈥檚 data,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hey should be using both to push this fixable and pervasive issue to the top of the agenda, signaling to states, schools and families that getting kids back to class regularly is a non-negotiable priority for America鈥檚 schools.鈥�

Education Secretary Linda McMahon has voiced support for state efforts to improve reading performance 鈥� a top bipartisan goal considering historic drops in national test scores. But she hasn鈥檛 given the same attention to the persistent chronic absenteeism crisis. 

With 40 states and the District of Columbia reporting 2025 data so far, the rate stands at 23%, down a percentage point from the year before, but still well above the pre-pandemic level of 15%. A last summer showed that roughly half of urban districts are still battling rates . 

Both have committed to cutting chronic absenteeism in half over a five-year period. States vary in how they count attendance, but rates declined in 12 states participating in the challenge in 2025. In the other five and D.C., chronic absenteeism either increased or remained flat. 

A need for better data

There are emerging signs that chronic absenteeism is on the department鈥檚 radar. Its has held eight focus groups on the issue of chronic absenteeism since mid-December. The goal is to 鈥渋dentify and explore innovative strategies to address chronic absenteeism,鈥� said Savannah Newhouse, the department鈥檚 press secretary. 

The conversations focused on 鈥渞oot causes鈥� and effective strategies, said Hedy Chang, CEO of Attendance Works, a nonprofit that has brought national awareness to how high daily attendance rates can hide the fact that some students might be accumulating dozens of absences. A member of her team participated in one of the groups.

Malkus isn鈥檛 the only expert who would like to see the Trump administration step up. 

鈥淎t the end of the day, no instructional strategy or reform effort will work if students aren鈥檛 there to benefit from it,鈥� said Bella DiMarco, a senior policy analyst at , a think tank at Georgetown University. 

The federal government, she said, could improve the transparency and quality of data. While most states have posted their 2024-25 numbers, official federal reports are often a year or more behind. 鈥淪tates and districts need timely, actionable attendance data so they can intervene early, not reports that arrive too late to inform decisions.鈥�

The department could in turn encourage states to publish timely absenteeism data, like and already do, said Danyela Egorov, a fellow at the conservative . The secretary could also highlight strategies from districts that have been successful in bringing chronic absenteeism down, Egorov said.

The DeKalb schools in Alabama shifted from a punitive approach focused on truancy to one that encompasses excused absences as well. Leaders moved 鈥渆arly warning鈥� meetings with parents from the courthouse to schools to make them less threatening. 

Their 鈥淔lip the Dip鈥� campaign makes liberal use of attendance incentives for students and teachers, like gift cards and a Nintendo Switch. And every nine weeks, schools recognize kids for missing four days or fewer instead of celebrating only perfect attendance.

鈥淭hat way, they don’t just give up,鈥� said Carroll, Henagar Junior High鈥檚 principal. 

Since 2022, the district鈥檚 rate has dropped from over 19% to 10%.

鈥楪et them there first鈥�

Some say actions by the Trump administration are actually hurting educators鈥� efforts to lower chronic absenteeism, a data point that the to rate school performance.

In terminating government contracts, the department ended work on about聽effective ways to reduce chronic absenteeism.听聽

鈥淭he team working on that had already sifted through over 2,000 studies on ways to address chronic absence and narrowed that to about 150 to 200,鈥� said Kevin Gee, a researcher at the University of California, Davis, who was among those on the project. 鈥淗ad it not been cancelled, the guide would have been made available for districts to use this month.鈥�

Immigration raids are leading parents to keep children home. In California鈥檚 Central Valley, enforcement action coincided with in daily absences, especially among young students, according to an analysis by Stanford University researcher Thomas Dee.  

Others point to McMahon鈥檚 decision in December to cut off 18 grantees that were still expecting at least two years of federal funding, comprising roughly $60 million, for . The model targets high-poverty areas and uses schools as hubs for a variety of services, from mentoring and mental health support to food banks and housing assistance. Recent research shows the approach has been linked to declines in chronic absenteeism in and . 

The Education Department is in negotiations with who sued over the loss of funds. But others wonder how they鈥檒l keep the work going. 

The Prichard Committee, a Kentucky nonprofit, was still expecting roughly $18 million to serve 40 districts when the department canceled the remainder of its grant. Schools that are part of the initiative have seen decreases in chronic absenteeism of at least 2%, higher than the rate of decline statewide. At Danville High School, southwest of Lexington, the rate fell from 45% in 2023-24 to 32% the next year. 

At Reidland Elementary in McCracken County, the funds paid for family literacy events and backpacks to incoming kindergartners stocked with early reading and math materials.

The grant also supported a teacher who works one-on-one with kindergartners who are behind in reading and math. But now, the principal will have to find another way to pay for the position. Lisa McKinney, communications director at Prichard, said it鈥檚 hard for students to overcome gaps if they鈥檙e missing too much school.

鈥淲e want everyone to read and write on grade level,鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut you鈥檝e got to get them there first.鈥�

When the Trump administration decimated the Education Department鈥檚 civil rights office last year, thousands of students waiting for relief from alleged racial and sexual discrimination in schools were left to languish. 

It turns out the move to sideline half of the Office for Civil Rights staff , according to a new report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. Nearly a year later, the Education Department still can鈥檛 say whether it saved a dime. 

GAO estimates the decision to place civil rights staffers on paid administrative leave, while simultaneously shuttering most of its regional offices, cost upwards of $38 million for the salaries and benefits of staffers who were kept home. 

鈥淥ther costs,鈥� the government watchdog noted, 鈥渁re unknown.鈥� 

Without a full accounting of costs and savings, the watchdog concluded, the the shakeup improved efficiency, saved money or better served students 鈥� the very reasons used to justify the cuts in the first place. 

In the news

The latest in Trump鈥檚 immigration crackdown: Minnesota school districts and the state鈥檚 teachers union filed a lawsuit demanding reinstatement of a longstanding policy against immigration enforcement activities near schools and other 鈥渟ensitive locations.鈥� | 

• A Minnesota 11-year-old and her mother will be reunited with their family after being held for nearly a month in a Texas detention center after getting picked up by immigration agents on their way to school. | 
  
• The horrifying truth behind the immigration arrest of 5-year-old Liam Ramos: It wasn鈥檛 an accident. | 
  
  • The Columbia Heights school district where Liam is enrolled closed for a day this week after officials received a 鈥渞acially and politically motivated鈥� bomb threat. | 
    
• 鈥楴one of this is OK鈥�: Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz demanded in a letter that the federal government disclose how many of the state鈥檚 children have been detained as part of the immigration enforcement surge 鈥� and pleaded for agents to stay away from schools and bus stops. | 
  
• Cities could be compelled to cooperate with federal immigration officials in order to access federal funds for investigations into internet crimes against children, a lawsuit alleges. | 

Big Tech in the spotlight: As TikTok and Snap settle lawsuits centered on the damaging effects of social media on children, Meta and YouTube are gearing up for closely watched trials. The tech companies face allegations the apps were designed to keep kids hooked despite known harms to their well-being. | 

• Amazon reported hundreds of thousands of photos of child sexual abuse in its artificial intelligence training data 鈥� but the company鈥檚 refusal to say where it came from could hinder police efforts to track down perpetrators. |  
  
• As Democrat- and Republican-led states pass rules designed to protect children from the potential harms of AI chatbots like ChatGPT, an executive order by President Donald Trump gives the attorney general authority to sue states with consumer protection laws that stand in the way of the country鈥檚 鈥済lobal AI dominance.鈥� | 
  
• The head of the Federal Trade Commission came out as a strong proponent of contentious online age-verification rules, arguing 鈥渋t offers a way to unleash American innovation without compromising the health and well-being of America’s most important resource: its children.鈥� | 

A North Carolina woman faces criminal charges after she allegedly kicked a pregnant school resource officer in the stomach while refusing to leave her child鈥檚 elementary school. | 

鈥業t鈥檚 evil鈥�: The National Institutes of Health failed to protect genetic data of more than 20,000 U.S. children from misuse by a fringe group of researchers who used the records to claim intellectual superiority of white people over other races. | 

Two Florida teenagers accused of plotting to kill a classmate will be charged as adults with attempted premeditated murder. | 

ICYMI @The74

Emotional Support

社区黑料鈥檚 Eamonn Fitzmaurice and his son Ellis  to offer a few treats and scratches. 鈥淚鈥檓 a dog person,鈥� Eamonn tells me, 鈥渂ut the cats were cute.鈥�

When he declared in March 2025 that he wanted the Education Department 鈥渃losed immediately,鈥� it wasn鈥檛 just a sound bite. It was a promise. A promise to dismantle the one system meant to protect the children this country has always underserved: Black children. The ink on the Emancipation Proclamation might be old, but the mindset that fought it never really went away. It just put on another suit.

After emancipation, freed Black families built schools with their own hands. They hired teachers, scraped together funds and insisted that their children would learn to read even if they had to do so in secret. The backlash was swift and violent. White mobs , , and state lawmakers passed inequitable that kept Black students in crumbling classrooms with hand-me-down, tattered books.

By 1980, after decades of states proving they couldn鈥檛 or wouldn鈥檛 by Black and poor students, the federal government stepped in. President Jimmy Carter created the Education Department to make sure that every child, no matter where they lived or what color they were, had a fair shot at learning.

I think of my grandson, an autistic Black boy with an individualized education plan who depends on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and other federal programs. Without these protections and funding that come from the federal level, the system will fail children like him. States don鈥檛 have an excellent track record of protecting students with disabilities, especially Black boys. When we remove federal oversight, we aren鈥檛 saving money. We鈥檙e sacrificing children.

As a former public school teacher, I鈥檝e seen firsthand what happens when education depends on ZIP codes rather than fairness: Wealthy, mostly white districts keep thriving. Meanwhile, schools that serve Black and brown kids are stuck under leaking ceilings, flipping through worn-out books older than their teachers.

And yet here we are in 2025, watching the federal government try to hand over the keys to the states. Thousands of education workers are out of work, civil rights offices are closed, and the Trump administration appointees have completely gutted oversight.

They鈥檝e shut down seven of the 12 regional offices for the department鈥檚 Office for Civil Rights and attempted to lay off employees, only to try to bring back some of those workers. All this chaos means fewer investigations into discrimination, fewer checks on racist discipline policies and fewer protections for Black children who are already suspended and expelled at rates than their white peers.

Now we are supposed to trust states to do the right thing? The same states shouting 鈥渓ocal control鈥� are banning DEI programs, censoring Black history and whitewashing textbooks. AP African American Studies. Texas once approved a curriculum that called enslaved people 鈥�.鈥� Local control isn鈥檛 reform. It鈥檚 cultural erasure disguised as policy.

Black children are the first to feel the sting. To this day, our kids attend schools with fewer resources, larger class sizes and outdated materials. Federal programs like Title I and IDEA keep those schools alive. Without them, special education funding dries up, class sizes balloon and talented teachers walk away. Take them away, and you widen that gap on purpose.

When you strip education from federal protection, you don鈥檛 get freedom, you get chaos. You get 50 different versions of what a child is worth, determined by 50 governors with 50 different agendas. We鈥檝e seen this movie before.