While the federal education bureaucracy has room for improvement, this move should alarm anyone 鈥� across party lines 鈥� who understands the central purpose of Title I: to mitigate the effects of poverty on learning and ensure that every child has a fair chance at a high-quality education.

Title I was not created to build workforce pipelines or meet short-term labor market needs. It was created to address inequities in schooling. Relocating it to the Department of Labor 鈥� an agency with little experience in K-12 education, little familiarity with school improvement or academic intervention, and no core mission related to teaching or learning 鈥� fundamentally undermines its purpose.

Title I administration relies on specialists who spend their careers understanding the complexities of school improvement, early literacy, bilingual education, assessment, family engagement, data reporting and civil rights enforcement. These professionals interpret federal law, develop guidance that districts depend on, monitor state implementation, help local leaders navigate compliance challenges and support research-based strategies that improve academic outcomes for children in poverty. Their work is rarely visible to the public, but their expertise is vital to the day-to-day functioning of thousands of schools.

When these positions are eliminated or scattered across agencies, the federal government loses not only staff but decades of institutional memory. Labor does not have personnel trained to advise districts on effective reading interventions, to monitor support for English learners, or to help states build equitable accountability systems.

Nor does it have the infrastructure to provide guidance on the complex interdependence of Title I with federal programs governing students with disabilities, teacher training or English learners. That expertise cannot be rebuilt quickly. And the predictable result will be confusion, inconsistency and weaker oversight.

Narrowing the federal role to workforce preparation overlooks the broader civic, academic, social and developmental purposes of schooling. A child鈥檚 education is not simply a supply-chain function of the labor market. Title I was created to provide additional resources to schools serving students with the fewest opportunities: resources that fund literacy coaches, paraprofessionals, after-school tutoring, community school coordinators, summer learning programs, bilingual aides and social workers.

These efforts help children succeed academically and thrive as full members of their communities. They cannot be replaced by job-readiness activities, nor should they be justified only through workforce logic.

The students most harmed by this shift live in every corner of the country. In rural communities, Title I dollars support small schools that would otherwise be unable to hire reading specialists or maintain adequate transportation. These schools often have only one or two central-office staff members to manage federal programs. When reporting requirements or compliance expectations shift suddenly to a new agency unfamiliar with school operations, rural districts have little capacity to absorb the confusion. That leaves teachers and students vulnerable.

In suburban districts, Title I is often the lifeline that enables supports for rapidly changing demographics. Many suburban schools now serve increasing numbers of multilingual learners, low-income families and students experiencing housing instability. Title I funds help these districts build systems of early intervention, family engagement and academic support that would otherwise not exist. When federal guidance becomes unclear or inconsistent, these districts struggle to maintain those programs.

Urban districts depend on Title I at an even larger scale. Large-city schools use these funds to support community school models, mental health services, after-school programs, restorative justice initiatives and partnerships with nonprofits. They also rely on clear federal guidance to ensure that high-poverty schools receive their fair allocation of state and local funds in addition to Title I dollars, a safeguard called 鈥渟upplement, not supplant.鈥� Because Labor lacks the expertise or commitment to enforce this rule, inequities within districts will widen and children in red, purple and blue districts will suffer.

As a child of a low-income, single-parent family, my brother and I benefited directly from Title I funding in the 13 public schools we attended. Title I paid for more teachers, for literacy programs, books in our classrooms, after-school programs, breakfast, free and reduced-price lunch and even band instruments that allowed us to participate until we could afford to purchase our own.

Both of us entered the workforce at young ages, taking part time jobs in middle and high school. Both of us continued to work through college. And both of us have Title I to thank for providing funding and accountability mechanisms to the local districts we attended. Despite the financial instability and numerous moves, public schools and the educators serving in them offered us resources, programs and stability we otherwise would not have experienced.

Those advocating for the elimination of the Education Department insist that because Title I funding will continue, nothing fundamental will change. But funding without coherent and responsible oversight is functionally weaker funding.

Dollars do not implement themselves.

They require an expert federal partner, capable state agencies and local leaders who understand how to use those funds wisely. When the federal partner is replaced by an agency without educational expertise, the quality and equity of implementation deteriorate. That deterioration will disproportionately impact the very communities and families Title I was created to support.

Improving the federal role in education is a worthy goal. Streamlining bureaucracy, clarifying guidance and eliminating redundancies can make federal programs more effective. But dispersing the Education Department鈥檚 core functions across agencies that lack expertise is not reform, it鈥檚 abandonment. The nation鈥檚 commitment to public schooling as the foundation for increasing educational access and economic opportunity is too important to place in the hands of a department ill-equipped to uphold it.

But it took months for some states to access millions of dollars for career and technical education this year after the Department of Labor , part of the Trump administration鈥檚 plan to splinter and ultimately dismantle the Department of Education. The Labor Department鈥檚 grant system didn鈥檛 recognize state education agencies鈥� bank accounts. 

鈥淲e were in this endless loop of having to re-verify our account number,鈥� said Richard Kincaid, assistant state superintendent of college and career pathways at the Maryland State Department of Education. 鈥淚t never seemed to take in the system.鈥�

Maryland used state funds to fill the gap while it waited on $22 million in reimbursements. But the glitch, some argue, doesn鈥檛 bode well for when the Labor Department begins dispersing funds from Title I, the largest federal education program. The annual budget for Title I is $18 billion, compared to $1.4 billion for , which funds CTE. Title I serves 26 million low-income students, covering salaries, tutoring programs and classroom materials. 

An , obtained by the website Government Executive, underscored the difficulties, calling the shift of CTE a 鈥渕iniscule鈥� task compared to what lies ahead. 鈥淟arger formula grants and competitive grants are going to be much more difficult to migrate,鈥� the document said.

Beyond technical difficulties, educators say the Labor and Education departments have such vastly different missions that they worry about the message the Trump administration is sending by putting K-12 programs in an agency focused on getting jobless adults into the workforce. 

鈥淲e’re not talking about how to support a 28-year-old walking into an American job center looking for the next thing,鈥� Kinkaid said. 鈥淲e’re talking about kids.鈥� 

The Education Department last week unveiled six interagency agreements with four other federal agencies as part of the Trump administration鈥檚 plan to wind down an agency that it argues was unconstitutional to begin with. 

鈥淟et’s make sure that that grant money that’s coming from the federal government is getting in [states鈥橾 hands as efficiently as possible,鈥� Education Secretary Linda McMahon said during a White House briefing Thursday. 鈥淲e don’t want teachers having to spend their time and money on regulatory compliance.鈥� 

But for some state directors like Kinkaid, the result has been frustrating.

The administration, he said, has 鈥渁sked state CTE programs to essentially fly for the past six months without air traffic control.”

鈥楩ruitful partnership鈥�

Officials downplayed the initial rough spots, saying the transition of CTE, adult education and family literacy programs to the Labor Department has been relatively smooth. They worked with nine states to resolve the account number problem. During a call with reporters Tuesday, a senior department official said the administration expects a 鈥渟imilar fruitful partnership鈥� when it merges other K-12 programs into the Labor Department.

State leaders, the official promised, would still be able to rely on 鈥渢he expertise and concierge-level service鈥� they expect. As of Thursday, staff housed in the Labor Department had processed 568 payment requests totaling over $227 million for 40 unique states and territories, according to an email from a Labor official.

But at least one state, Rhode Island, was still hitting roadblocks as of Friday.

鈥淲e are receiving error messages indicating that our organization name does not match the name on record,鈥� said Rhode Island Department of Education spokesman Victor Morente. He said he expected the issue to be fixed this week. 鈥淭his situation underscores the challenges that abrupt changes within federal departments can create.鈥�

Lawmakers heard about the rocky start last week.

鈥淥perationally, it is a muddle,鈥� Braden Goetz told the . He spent 26 years in the Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education and now works as a senior policy advisor at New America, a left-leaning think tank. 鈥淚 don’t understand how the work gets done. When Secretary McMahon makes decisions, does she call the Secretary of Labor and ask her to communicate that down the chain?鈥�

An Education Department spokesperson said staff reached out to all grantees about requesting CTE funds from the new grant system and has yet to hear from five of them. 

鈥淚t is common for states to not draw down funds for several months for a variety of state-driven reasons,鈥� the official said. The California, Michigan and Wyoming education departments told 社区黑料 they haven鈥檛 had any trouble getting their CTE funds.

鈥楤ureaucracy will remain鈥�

John Pallasch served as assistant secretary of the Employment and Training Administration, the Labor office to which K-12 programs are moving, during Trump鈥檚 first term. He said any hiccups are likely to be temporary and that the Labor Department 鈥渋s pretty good at grants management.鈥� 

Some observers said shuffling staff and programs from one agency to another doesn鈥檛 go far enough. 

鈥淭he Education Department still retains many functions,鈥� Neal McCluskey, director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote in . 鈥淪o bureaucracy will remain, and the Constitution will continue to be violated.鈥�

From Kinkaid鈥檚 perspective in Maryland, states have lost the strong working relationship they had with CTE staff at the Education Department. The team is down from 15 staffers to about five. There鈥檚 been 鈥渓ittle to no communication since the movement happened,鈥� he said. In addition, a lot of state CTE directors are relatively new and need guidance on how to comply with regulations, said Amy Loyd, former assistant secretary for the CTE and adult education office during the Biden administration.

The Employment and Training Administration manages about $3 to $4 billion in grants annually 鈥� a fraction of the $28 billion the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education administers.

In a , Angela Hanks, acting assistant secretary of that division from 2021 to 2022, described moving K-12 programs into the office like 鈥渉aving a frog carry a camel on its back.鈥�

A few of the office鈥檚 existing grants focus on youth, but those target teens and young adults who fit 鈥渜uite a different profile from the students who are served by Title I,鈥� Hanks, now at the left-leaning Century Foundation, told 社区黑料. Job Corps helps 16- to 24-year-olds find employment, while teaches vocational skills for 鈥渋n-demand industries鈥� like construction and hospitality. 

Loyd, now CEO at All4Ed, an advocacy organization, sees a similar mismatch with moving adult education programs to the Labor Department.

鈥淢any of these older adults came to adult education services to strengthen their own literacy because they 鈥� want to be able to help their grandkids with homework,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hey’re 72; they don’t want a workforce credential. They want to be better readers so they can read to their grandkids.鈥� 

Several of the federal K-12 grants are complicated and depend on calculations year to year to ensure payments to districts are accurate. , for example, requires annual counts of military-connected students who attend schools on or near bases.

鈥淭he suggestion that these programs are on autopilot and [the Education Department] just flips a switch to flow the money to states and districts is a fundamental misunderstanding,鈥� said Danny Carlson, who served as deputy assistant secretary of policy and programs in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education during the Biden administration. He鈥檚 now executive director of Learning First Alliance, a network that includes administrator associations, teachers unions and the National PTA.

In addition, McMahon tried to lay off 132 of the 185 remaining elementary and secondary employees during the shutdown. A the layoffs, and the agreement to reopen the government forced the secretary to bring the employees back to work, at least until the end of January. But it鈥檚 unclear whether she plans to try to terminate them again. 

After 10 months of canceled grants, temporary funding freezes and other disruptions, some district leaders are growing accustomed to the uncertainty. 

鈥淚 expect Labor will have a hard time managing Title I allocations for next year, but the administration is trying to do that,鈥� said Jeremy Vidito, chief financial officer for the Detroit Public Schools. 鈥淭hey want the system to fail so they can 鈥� shift funds to private schools or just give the money back to taxpayers.鈥�

Pallasch, the former assistant labor secretary, said he supports integrating not just CTE, but all education programs into the Labor Department.

鈥淲e’re all pulling in the same direction,鈥� he said. 鈥淲hether we’re talking K-12, community college or, quite frankly, Harvard and Yale, those are just job training programs. We are training folks to have the skills to be able to function in an organization.鈥� 

But Kinkaid and fear that the move to the Labor Department takes the field back to a time when some students were 鈥渢racked鈥� into vocational courses without rigorous academic content. 

There are growing efforts to expand apprenticeships and other opportunities for students who might not want to go to college. But for decades, Kinkaid said, the CTE field has tried to 鈥渟hrug off鈥� the stigma that career-focused instruction was only for lower-performing students.

鈥淲e may intentionally or unintentionally recreate that old system where low-income students and students of color were funneled into limited, low-mobility job paths,鈥� he said. 鈥淭his is exactly what the modern CTE system was designed to prevent.鈥�

The U.S. Department of Education is expected to reopen for business Thursday after the in history. Education Secretary Linda McMahon is likely to pick up where she left off 43 days ago, reshaping the federal role in school policy and trying to phase out the agency.

The staff won鈥檛 be as small as the Trump administration had hoped. McMahon gutted the offices overseeing special education, K-12 and civil rights at the start of the shutdown, but a federal judge paused the job cuts and the reopening agreement in Congress . The deal to end the shutdown prohibits any additional terminations through Jan. 30, the next deadline for lawmakers to finalize the 2026 federal budget. 

Two more top officials will also soon join McMahon鈥檚 team. In October, the Senate confirmed Kimberly Richey to lead the Office for Civil Rights and Kirsten Baesler as assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education. Neither could be sworn in during the shutdown. 

Baesler, former North Dakota education chief, is likely to take the lead on considering waiver requests from Indiana and Iowa and managing other 鈥渁dministration-wide priorities, like moving away from 鈥楧EI鈥� and increasing the use of AI,鈥� said Julia Martin, director of policy and government affairs with The Bruman Group, a Washington law firm. 

and want the department to distribute federal funds as a block grant with fewer requirements on how to spend them. In September, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds pointed to an to make the case that states can be trusted to manage federal funds without the Education Department.

Margaret Buckton, a school finance expert and the executive director of the Urban Education Network in Iowa, generally supports the state鈥檚 plan. She explained that funding from one federal grant is often not 鈥渟ignificant enough to move the needle on school improvement.鈥�

But say that the Every Student Succeeds Act, which includes funding for high-poverty schools and several other targeted programs, already allows ample flexibility and warn that blending the money could mean districts won鈥檛 spend it the way Congress intended. 

Indiana also wants to change the way it grades school performance by highlighting qualities such as developing students鈥� work ethic and financial literacy. Anne Hyslop, director of policy development at All4Ed, an advocacy group, said the request is premature because the state is still on its new accountability plan. She questioned whether the new design would still include measures like graduation rates and progress for English learners. 

鈥淭here are particular accountability requirements that are really important,鈥� she said, 鈥渁nd have always been really important for the last 20-plus years.鈥� 

Here are a six other areas that were affected by the budget impasse.

1. Moving special education to HHS

In trying to fulfill her goal to eliminate the department, McMahon has taken steps to transfer oversight of special education programs to the Department of Health and Human Services despite having no authorization from Congress and strong opposition from advocacy groups. 

鈥淭he department is exploring additional partnerships with federal agencies to support special education programs without any interruption or impact on students with disabilities, but no agreement has been signed,鈥� spokeswoman Madi Biedermann said in an Oct. 21 statement. 鈥淪ecretary McMahon is fully committed to protecting the federal funding streams that support our nation’s students with disabilities.”

Opponents of the move say the department is turning its back on students with disabilities.

鈥淭his isn’t about handing power to states,鈥� Jacqueline Rodriguez, CEO of the National Center for Learning Disabilities, said last week during a call with reporters. 鈥淚t’s about walking away from our responsibility to children and hoping that no one notices.鈥� 

For families, the past several months have created confusion over whether their children will continue to receive the services they need, and advocates have discovered broken links and missing documents about civil rights investigations and state monitoring reports on the department鈥檚 website. 

鈥淢oving [the department鈥檚] digital infrastructure to another agency could mean months 鈥� or years 鈥� of lost access to critical records,鈥� Callie Oettinger, an advocate in Virginia, wrote this week in her blog, . 

But some parents say states might be more responsive than the federal government when conflicts with districts arise.

鈥淚 feel like if you push the oversight closer to the community, then you can get better results,鈥� said Tricia Ambeau, an Arkansas mother of two whose eighth grader Emma has Down Syndrome and autism. A conservative, she previously served on the board of Disability Rights of Arkansas, but stepped down during the pandemic. State officials, she said, 鈥渃an make a two-hour drive to a school district and knock on the door and say 鈥榃hat’s going on here?鈥� You’re never going to get that at the federal level.鈥� 

2. Food stamps

While the Department of Agriculture, not Education, runs the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the shutdown and a court battle over whether the government would distribute full benefits has caused stress and chaos for families with school-age children. 

The end of the shutdown means recipients鈥� electronic benefit transfer cards should be refilled as normal. 

School districts across the country, like and , increased efforts to distribute food to needy families and served additional meals. encouraged parents to apply for free- and reduced-price lunch if their kids were not already on the program.

鈥淚t is important to remember that these families were not given the opportunity to plan and budget for this moment. How do you shop for groceries without knowing how many days or months you need the food to last?鈥� Chastity Lord, president and CEO of the Jeremiah Program, said in a statement. The nonprofit supports 2,000 single mothers across nine cities.

3. Proposed rule change on racial disparities in special education

While the government was closed, the department continued to receive comments on a proposed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The department wants to lift the requirement that states submit data on racial and other disparities in special education services, including whether students with disabilities disproportionately receive harsher discipline.

In the announcement, the department said the change would 鈥渞educe the burden on respondents when completing the annual state application.鈥�

Data shows that Black students are for some special education categories, like intellectual disabilities and behavioral disorders, but underidentified for other services like dyslexia and autism. Students with disabilities are also suspended and expelled at higher rates than other students, government . The department鈥檚 recommendation would align with Trump鈥檚 that discourages schools from focusing on equity in school discipline and using less-punitive practices like conflict resolution. 

The department received over 100 comments on the proposal, with many opposed to the idea of suspending the requirement. The current rule 鈥渆nsures transparency and promotes fairness in educational opportunity for all students,鈥� EdTrust, an advocacy organization, wrote in .

Michael Petrilli, president of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute, has for policies that remove disruptive students from the classroom. 

鈥淏ut the answer is not to kill the data collection,鈥� he said.

4. Charter school grants

One way that McMahon has promoted the administration鈥檚 school choice agenda is by highlighting and increasing spending on charter schools. Weeks before the shutdown, the department awarded $500 million in grants to charter schools, which included an additional $60 million over the current $440 million for the Charter Schools Program.

But just as the funds went out to states, charter networks and schools, the shutdown began, cutting off new grantees鈥� access to start-up support during a 鈥渃rucial window,鈥� said Brittnee Baker, communications director for the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

In , which received $30 million, the disruption has delayed progress toward launching several new schools and expanding others. But some critics argue that the department is boosting funding for the sector at a time of slowing growth and charter closures. 

鈥淧olitics, not need, now drives program expansion,鈥� said a from the Network for Public Education. Diane Ravitch, a former Education Department official during the H.W. Bush administration, co-founded the advocacy organization.

5. Prayer guidance

The shutdown also interrupted work on school prayer guidance that President Donald Trump said the department would issue as part of a on 鈥減rotecting our religious freedoms.鈥�

Officials last following the U.S. Supreme Court鈥檚 decision in Kennedy vs. Bremerton, which held that a Washington school district could not stop a football coach from praying on the 50-yard line after games. 

The document clarified that school employees have a right to personal prayer or other forms of religious expression, like wearing a cross, during school hours, but they cannot “compel, coerce, persuade or encourage students鈥� to participate.

The 2023 guidance has 鈥渟erved to help schools and community members understand their rights and responsibilities under the First Amendment,鈥� said Maggie Siddiqi, senior fellow at the Interfaith Alliance, a nonprofit counteracting the religious right. She worked on the update when she served as director of the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the department during the Biden administration. 

As the Trump administration appeals to Christian conservatives, it 鈥渄oes not have authority to do away with the First Amendment鈥� through guidance, she said and warned that parents and educators should watch for any language that allows schools to impose 鈥渙ne specific religious view on their entire student body.鈥� 

As a refresher, AASA, the School Superintendents Association, addressed the topic in its . The issue features a on religion in public schools from the Freedom Forum, a nonprofit focusing on First Amendment rights. With the administration and state leaders often emphasizing Christianity over other faiths and some states passing laws that set aside , the document answers 23 questions about what the law says. 

6. McMahon鈥檚 50-state tour

The secretary still has 40 states to go on her 鈥淩eturning Education to the States鈥� tour, which kicked off in August. 

While she primarily highlights charters and private schools on her visits, she has hit a few district schools on her route, including in Clinton, Tennessee, and in Bozeman, Montana.

McMahon said she鈥檚 gathering examples of promising practices for on issues such as literacy and school discipline, that the department will issue to states. But Cara Jackson, immediate past president of the Association for Education Finance and Policy, said the department wants to 鈥渢ake credit鈥� for some of the work that was in progress when it canceled funding for research. The association was among the groups that to the Institute for Education Sciences and the termination of regional education labs. The cases are ongoing, but of the contracts were later reinstated.

Proponents of eliminating the department don鈥檛 see the point.

鈥淭he information might be useful, but it is contradictory to shutting down the U.S. Department of Education,鈥� said Neal McCluskey, director of educational freedom at the libertarian Cato Institute. 鈥淲hy do it if you don鈥檛 think the department should exist at all?鈥�

颁辞谤谤别肠迟颈辞苍:听An earlier version of this article misstated the number of comments made on a proposed rule change to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which was provided by a government website. The correct number of comments was 100.

Judge Susan Illston from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said she believes the who sued will be able to prove the government鈥檚 actions are unlawful 鈥渁s shown by the haphazard way in which the [reductions in force] have rolled out鈥� and that they 鈥渁re intended for the purpose of political retribution.鈥� 

Illston, who temporarily blocked the layoffs on Oct. 15, said she was moved by some of the written statements from laid-off employees. 

鈥淎lthough we are here talking about statutes and administrative procedure,鈥� she said, 鈥渨e are also talking about human lives, and these human lives are being dramatically affected by the activities that we’re discussing.鈥�

Her injunction means the staff must return to work once the government shutdown ends. 

Education Secretary Linda McMahon cut 465 positions, including 132 in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, 137 in the Office for Civil Rights and 121 in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Madi Biedermann, a spokeswoman for the department, had no comment on the judge鈥檚 ruling and referred 社区黑料 to McMahon鈥檚 earlier calling the department 鈥渦nnecessary.鈥� 

At Tuesday鈥檚 hearing, Michael Velchik, a Department of Justice attorney, argued that the government had the right to lay off employees because Congress hasn鈥檛 approved a budget for the current fiscal year.

鈥嬧�嬧�滻f you don’t have money coming in, you should be looking for ways to cut costs,鈥� he said.  

But attorney Danielle Leonard, representing the employee unions, disagreed.

鈥淲hat counsel is arguing is that if Congress lets government funding lapse for one day, the president can fire the entire federal government,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hat is absurd.鈥�

The cuts were the Trump administration鈥檚 latest move toward eliminating an agency that it argues should never have existed in the first place. McMahon acknowledges that Congress has the final word on whether the department shuts down, but so far, members have taken no action on a proposal that is likely to fail in the Senate. Two weeks into the government shutdown, the cuts, saying that money was still flowing to the states, and some conservatives argue advocates have overreacted to the layoffs. In a commentary, the American Enterprise Institute鈥檚 Rick Hess said the department for a smooth launch of this year鈥檚 financial aid form. But even he questioned the latest cuts, calling them 鈥渙paque, severe and lacking in any kind of clear justification.鈥� 

In their complaint, the unions said staff faced 鈥減olitical discrimination,鈥� and even President Donald Trump has called the layoffs an effort to eliminate 鈥淒emocrat programs.鈥� 

But in filed Friday, Jacqueline Clay, chief human capital officer at the department, said officials didn鈥檛 鈥渢arget employees based on their political viewpoints,鈥� but considered other factors including a shortage of funds.

鈥楻isks of harm鈥�

Last week, over 60 organizations asked the Senate education committee to hold an oversight hearing into the administration鈥檚 actions, which they said have caused 鈥渦nnecessary chaos鈥� and 鈥渃reate immediate risks of harm to every qualifying individual with a disability and their family.鈥� 

On Monday, also called on Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, to reverse the layoffs.

Some worry that gutting the elementary and secondary office could mean a lack of sufficient oversight of Title I, the largest federal education program. The $18 billion fund is intended to support schools serving low-income students, with the level of funding schools receive based on a set of complicated formulas. 

Without federal staff, there鈥檚 a greater risk that states might distribute the funds incorrectly, said Victoria Rosenboom, one of the four staff members who handles those Title I calculations each year. McMahon placed all four on administrative leave. 

鈥淲ithout us to monitor, the states might monitor less themselves,鈥� Rosenboom said. Her team also gathers data from the Census Bureau every year to determine poverty levels. While there鈥檚 still someone in the budget office who can allocate the funds, she said, 鈥渢hey don’t do any of the data collection work. The data quality is all done by us.鈥� 

Others warn of a return to the days when states improperly used Title I funds for construction projects or replaced state dollars with federal funds. 

鈥淭here were no limits on the imagination of schools in terms of how they would spend their money, and there were some pretty egregious expenditures,鈥� said Dianne Piche, a former civil rights attorney at the department who is now retired.  

In the early days after the law passed, a from advocates pointed to districts 鈥渨asting millions of dollars鈥� on purchases such as a Baptist church building in Detroit, 18 portable swimming pools in Memphis and equipment, including a deep fryer, adding machines and a piano, in one Mississippi county. 

Vought wrote the conservative Heritage Foundation鈥檚 Project 2025, a vision for the Trump administration that argued for turning Title I into a block grant. While McMahon鈥檚 budget proposal didn鈥檛 go that far, she鈥檚 currently considering a waiver request from Iowa to roll Title I and other federal funds into a block grant. Indiana submitted a similar proposal, but it excludes Title I. 

Former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos proposed during the first Trump administration, but the plan then was to 鈥渒eep the department functioning,鈥� said Rosenboom, who joined the department in 2019. 鈥淎t that time, there was still some unease about our future, but definitely not to the same degree as with this administration.鈥�

Nearly all staff members in the Office of Special Education Programs and the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education were affected when the department began issuing termination notices Friday. The Office for Civil Rights also saw new cuts after losing half of its staff earlier this year.

鈥淭he track record for challenging [reductions in force] in the courts hasn’t been great,鈥� Emily Merolli, a partner with the Sligo Law Group and a former attorney in the department鈥檚 general counsel鈥檚 office, said during a call with reporters after the hearing. 鈥淲e still very much consider these offices and these programs to be in immediate danger.鈥�

She was among those eliminated in the mass layoffs in March, which were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in July while the case moves forward. In a second case, an appeals court last month gave Education Secretary Linda McMahon the OK to lay off roughly 250 OCR staff and attorneys.

In her ruling Wednesday, Judge Susan Illston from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a Clinton appointee, said the that sued over the layoffs are likely to prove that the administration had no authority to let staff go while they were furloughed during a shutdown. Later this month, she鈥檒l hold a second hearing on whether the employees can remain on the job as the court considers the merits of the case. 

It is 鈥渇ar from normal for an administration to fire line-level civilian employees during a government shutdown as a way to punish the opposing political party,鈥� . During the hearing, she said the department鈥檚 鈥渞eady, aim, fire approach鈥� to reform would be 鈥渆normously disruptive鈥� to students.

On Tuesday, President Trump that he鈥檚 using the current government shutdown to slash 鈥淒emocrat programs that we want to close up or we never wanted to happen.鈥� Advocates have described the cuts as an attack on vulnerable students, including the more than who receive services under the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Late Tuesday, nearly 400 organizations issued demanding that the administration 鈥渞everse course immediately and restore staffing and transparency at the U.S. Department of Education.鈥� 

In a separate , state special education directors said they were 鈥渃onfused and concerned鈥� by the cuts and worried IDEA funding could lapse with fewer staff ensuring the payments go out on time. McMahon responded Wednesday, saying that the shutdown has not interrupted funding, including money for special education.

鈥淭wo weeks in, millions of American students are still going to school, teachers are getting paid and schools are operating as normal,鈥� she . 鈥淚t confirms what the President has said: the federal Department of Education is unnecessary, and we should return education to the states.鈥�

But Michael Anderson, a lawyer at Sligo and a former department attorney who focused on major grant programs like Title I said the secretary鈥檚 statement 鈥渓oses sight of the big picture.鈥�

Staff cuts are like 鈥渄eferred maintenance on a car or a home,鈥� he said. 鈥淥ver time, the effects of not having experienced, knowledgeable staff administering federal education programs鈥� could lead to significant problems. 

Even proponents of eliminating the department were taken aback by this latest round of cuts. Neal McCluskey, director of educational freedom at the libertarian Cato Institute, has been a vocal supporter of closing the Education Department and said the president has the authority to cut employees as long as he keeps enough staff to do the work mandated by Congress. But he said he didn鈥檛 understand how the administration could use the shutdown to justify additional layoffs.

The standoff between Democrats and Republicans over the shutdown 鈥渇eels like a game of chicken, which is bad public policy,鈥� he said. 鈥淏ut [it] seems to be increasingly how federal politics works.鈥�

鈥楧isability doesn’t fly a flag鈥�

News of the cuts over the weekend left parents and advocates feeling betrayed after Trump and McMahon vowed not to cut 鈥渁nything that was going to harm or infringe upon the rights of kids with disabilities,鈥� said Jennifer Coco, interim executive director of the Center for Learner Equity. The center advocates for students with disabilities who attend charter schools, which often struggle to provide students with disabilities a better education than they鈥檇 receive in a district school.聽

The staff who received layoff notices, she said, 鈥渞epresent decades of expertise in understanding what folks in the field needed 鈥� to make things better for kids.鈥�

In March, as part of his effort to close the agency, Trump said it would 鈥渨ork out very well鈥� to move the administration of IDEA to the Department of Health and Human Services. But his administration cut in the Administration for Children and Families in April, and plans to eliminate additional , including those to improve preschool.

Ensuring that states follow IDEA is one of the core functions of the Office of Special Education Programs, or OSEP. Earlier this year, the office put in the country on notice that they were failing to adequately serve children with disabilities. 

struggled with timelines for evaluating students for special education services. Michigan saw a of complaints from parents of children with dyslexia who weren鈥檛 receiving the reading help they needed. And an investigation found the District of Columbia often delayed services to young children, forcing parents to file lawsuits in order to get services.  

With or without federal monitoring, states 鈥渟till have the obligation to make sure that the laws are followed,鈥� said Denise Marshall, CEO of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates. 

But parents often look to OSEP for help. In fact, positions slated for elimination include those who take calls directly from parents of children with disabilities 鈥渨ho probably feel like they have exhausted all of their resources at the state level at the local level,鈥� said Becca Walawender, the former director of policy and planning in the department鈥檚 Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

She took offense at the president鈥檚 characterization that special education is a 鈥淒emocrat program.鈥�

鈥淒isability doesn’t fly a flag,鈥� said Walawender, now a senior adviser to Sligo. 鈥淧eople with disabilities exist in all states, red or blue, across socioeconomic lines, across races, religions. Rural, urban 鈥� it doesn’t matter.鈥�

Julie Melear, a parent who has navigated special education systems in Colorado, Virginia and Idaho, sought help from federal staff multiple times when she felt her two boys weren鈥檛 getting appropriate services for dyslexia. It took OSEP to require the Fairfax County Public Schools to reimburse her for tutoring services the district was required to provide following the pandemic. Now she has a complaint against the Colorado Department of Education. She argues that the state has refused to investigate districts for failing to reimburse parents at market rates when they seek outside evaluations for their children.

鈥淚 am concerned that [the department] essentially is turning over federal dollars to let Colorado do whatever it wants,鈥� Melear said. Colorado is that 鈥渘eeds assistance鈥� from the department, according to federal officials. 

A Colorado department spokeswoman said officials had not received the complaint but that districts can “set reasonable cost limits” as long as they don’t prevent parents from getting an outside evaluation.

鈥楤e careful of what you ask for鈥�

Other parents with a long history of filing state and federal special education complaints point to problems at the federal level. Officials often 鈥渕oved slowly and allowed noncompliance to continue for too long,鈥� said Callie Oettinger, an advocate in Virginia. There are some parents, she said, who have no problem with federal employees losing their jobs. 

鈥淎t the same time, they鈥檙e terrified because, as problematic as some staff members were, they did more than the states,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a case of be careful of what you ask for.鈥� 

It took federal officials, she said, to force Texas in 2017 to lift on the number of students receiving special education services. The limit meant that schools often denied special education services to students with autism, ADHD and epilepsy or offered cheaper accommodations. Gov. Greg Abbott blamed teachers, while educators insisted they were following the Texas Education Agency鈥檚 instructions to identify fewer students for special instruction.

鈥淐an you imagine Texas without OSEP鈥檚 monitoring?鈥� Oettinger asked. 鈥淣ot even major investigations by the and others, which made the noncompliance public, resulted in the state making its own changes.鈥�

鈥榃ithout any recourse鈥�

The special education office often works hand-in-hand with the Office for Civil Rights when schools violate student rights. In fact, despite the investigations that make the news, nearly 70% of the complaints OCR handles are related to disability, said Beth Gellman-Beer, co-founder of Evergreen Education Solutions, a consulting firm, and a former regional director for OCR鈥檚 Philadelphia office.

One OCR attorney who received a layoff notice said she鈥檚 鈥渄eeply concerned鈥� about how the potential layoffs could affect students.

鈥淭he mass elimination of OCR offices that have over 25,000 open cases leaves those complainants without any recourse, let alone answers as to if their case will move forward,鈥� she said. She asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. 鈥淪tates are not prepared to handle these concerns.鈥�

States could also see cash flow problems if the department can鈥檛 process grant payments in a timely manner because it doesn鈥檛 have enough staff, experts said. States and districts have to spend money up front on salaries, supplies and vendor contracts and then request reimbursements from the department.

Small districts, charter schools and rural districts are often 鈥渙perating payroll to payroll,鈥� Catherine Pozniak, a consultant and former assistant state superintendent in Louisiana, said on the call with reporters. 鈥淭hey cannot afford to wait for weeks to get their reimbursements.鈥� 

The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, which administers the complex Title I program and and other grants for K-12 schools, was among those hardest hit, losing 132 employees according to an email from the Office of Management and Budget shared with 社区黑料. 

The downsizing could affect one of the department鈥檚 top priorities: charter schools. In late September, McMahon announced she was releasing $500 million in grants for charters. But if the charter office is gutted, 鈥渨ho’s going to administer those grants and run grant competitions in the future?鈥� Anderson asked. 

The proposed cuts also come as states, such as Iowa, Indiana and Alabama, seek waivers from laws related to funding, testing and accountability. In general, states don鈥檛 lean on the office for 鈥渄ay-to-day guidance,鈥� said Dale Chu, an independent consultant who focuses on testing and accountability. 

But before he resigned Oct. 1, former Oklahoma state Superintendent Ryan Walters was preparing to submit a request to cancel all tests required by the Every Student Succeeds Act 鈥� a proposal that federal officials said McMahon was unlikely to approve. It鈥檚 unclear whether Superintendent Lindel Fields, his replacement, will follow through with the request. 

鈥淚f something like Oklahoma鈥檚 waiver proposal were on the table, you鈥檇 want a functioning federal partner to keep things tethered to the law,鈥� Chu said. He also feels bad for Kirsten Baesler, confirmed last week as the new head of elementary and secondary education. She鈥檚 potentially 鈥渨alking into an office that鈥檚 been hollowed out, and she鈥檒l need to rebuild trust and capacity once the lights come back on.鈥�

鈥楳eaningful work鈥�

After McMahon let over 1,300 people go in March, some career employees knew they were vulnerable. Andrea Falken has spent 15 years working in the Office of Communications and Outreach, where one of her signature accomplishments was running the department鈥檚 , which recognized schools for saving energy and encouraging sustainability. 

鈥淚t pleased a lot of people across the country, in red and blue states alike,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e received scores of notes and even several awards for this work.鈥� 

With an administration that plans to to improve air quality and reduce pollution, the department . Falken was reassigned to handle public records requests and draft a weekly newsletter. The office has dropped from about 80 employees to a skeleton crew mostly working on social media, videos, and the department鈥檚 website, she said. 

鈥淭hey were not effectively utilizing my 20-plus years of professional experience, graduate degrees or multiple languages,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hey were not using us for meaningful work. They did not want us to do anything, really.鈥�

Fortunately, federal funding structures include a little-used tool for sustaining student support programs. , which provides billions in funding for schools serving low-income students, includes allowing states to set aside up to 3 percent of their allocations for direct student services, including and other high-impact interventions. This funding could be a lifeline to the all-too-recently defunded programs making the on the most . 

This provision requires no new funding yet remains largely untapped. Policymakers and education leaders have long pointed to the 3% state set-aside in Title I as a way to sustain critical interventions, but few states have taken full advantage of it. Instead, they simply add it to the money they share with districts.

But with pandemic-era funds largely depleted and budgets tightening, this overlooked mechanism offers a rare opportunity: preserving the programs that have made the greatest impact without forcing districts into painful trade-offs.

For now, Title I appears to be a stable source of federal funding, with regular increases each year. Even when the Trump administration moved to halt federal funding last month, Title I stayed online. Since 1980, allocations to districts have grown by an average of 4.2% a year. This steady rise creates a practical opportunity: A state could allocate its full 3 percent set-aside for direct student services while still increasing district funding, at least in nominal dollars.

For example, if all states had reserved the complete 3% entitled in 2023, they would have had $552 million to continue supporting direct student services and still raised allocations to districts by $639 million. And 2023 allocations weren鈥檛 an anomaly. As Figure 1 shows, growth exceeds 3% in most years, with 24 of the past 43 years surpassing this mark and 11 others showing growth below 3%.

However, even looking at the worst years for Title I growth, it is still feasible to build toward the 3% allocation over a series of years. A state could gradually build up to that level, taking 1% initially and then additional shares in two subsequent years. The transition would be helped by the fact that a districts’ Title I allocations fluctuate from year to year reflecting changes in the U.S. Census Bureau estimates of the number of eligible children in each district.

Ohio is already leveraging the set-aside allocation with its grant. The program directs funding toward high-dosage tutoring, advanced coursework, career pathways, personalized learning, and academic acceleration, aligning with local improvement plans to improve student outcomes. 

Districts have leveraged this grant funding to introduce Advanced Placement and College Credit Plus courses, expanding access to high-level curriculum that were previously out of reach. At the same time, the grant has helped establish career pathways that expose students鈥攕ome as early as middle school鈥攖o high-demand industries, giving them a head start on college and career readiness. 

These investments not only accelerate learning but also work to close long-standing opportunity gaps, illustrating the potential of targeted Title I set-aside spending to drive meaningful change.

Beyond successful state examples, the Council of Chief State School Officers has published a addressing the logistics of implementing the set-aside allocations. The guide also details how, with proper planning and careful communication, states can use this money as a powerful lever for filling gaps in critical supports, like intensive tutoring and wraparound services. Done right, this is more than just financial maneuvering; it鈥檚 a blueprint for how federal education policy can be both ambitious and effective.

The expiration of the $190 billion in federal Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funding marks a natural transition, but it need not mean the end of direct student services, such as tutoring programs, that have proven valuable to mitigating pandemic-era learning loss. 

By leveraging year-over-year increases in Title I funding, states can establish a sustainable mechanism to continue these services without reducing district budgets. This approach balances our commitment to students with our responsibility to districts, ensuring that we move forward in a way that is both effective and equitable.

The end of ESSER doesn鈥檛 have to mean the end of targeted academic support. But making the most of existing resources requires political will. The question is whether states will act before students fall even further behind.

The investigation, prompted by complaints from districts and the public, and led by the GOP-led House, cleared Walters of any misconduct and found no missing funds. 

But Walters and his staff frequently put off asking for clarification when issues were ambiguous, often took months to correct mistakes and left districts in the dark about accessing funds. 

The department 鈥渃ould have allayed districts鈥� concerns with communication in advance of delays or as soon as a problem was identified,鈥� the report said.

Critics say the Republican state chief has neglected his duties, focused on culture war controversies and prioritized his own political career as top officials left the department.

Much of the back-and-forth between lawmakers and agency staff focused on what districts viewed as an in getting preliminary estimates of Title I funds for high-poverty schools. In previous years, districts received those figures in the spring, allowing them time to recruit and hire staff. The drawn-out timetable left districts 鈥渦nderstandably upset,鈥� said the report, describing Walters鈥� staff as 鈥渙verconfident鈥� in their position that there was no delay. 

 Walters, however, took a defiant tone during a two-hour session before the oversight committee Tuesday.

鈥淭his is a waste of time for the people of the state of Oklahoma,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e have been transparent in everything that we do.鈥�

He attributed the hold-up to fraud prevention efforts and cited the department鈥檚 success in stopping one unnamed district from using federal dollars to renovate a 鈥渇ourplex鈥� owned by the superintendent. Dan Isett, department spokesman, did not respond to a request for more details.

State officials informed districts of the extra fraud precautions by email, Walters said. 

鈥淲e can’t make them read emails,鈥� he said. 

Democrats, however, seemed dissatisfied with the superintendent鈥檚 explanations.

鈥淚 wonder if the concerns cited by our districts will continue to be met with derision, to be quite frank,鈥� said Rep. Melissa Provenzano, who represents Tulsa, home to the state鈥檚 largest school district.

The investigation sought to understand the 鈥渂reakdown of communication,鈥� said Regina Birchum, the oversight agency鈥檚 interim director. 鈥淎ll we wanted to do was try to bridge the gap.鈥�

The agency surveyed districts about their concerns, but only about a third responded 鈥� proof, to Walters, that most districts have no complaints with the department. But Birchum added that some superintendents declined to complete the survey for fear of retribution.

Provenzano pressed Walters on whether he would follow the recommendations of the report, which include promptly reviewing legislation to identify potential confusion and improving communication to districts. He only said his office was reviewing them.

Thoughts on answers at the LOFT hearing:

It wasn’t my fault.
Everyone else is lying.
Blame the feds.
The legislature was unclear.

Am I missing anything?

鈥� Rick Cobb (@grendelrick)

Request to attorney general

While the report focused on five programs that districts and lawmakers complained about, including funds for and emergency , another Democrat, Rep. Meloyde Blancett, wants the oversight committee to expand its investigation into other issues. Those include for political purposes and which are receiving funds through the state鈥檚 tax credit scholarship program.

Republican Rep. Kevin Wallace, a co-chair of the committee, said he鈥檒l leave that request up to new leaders in the legislature. 

Blancett, however, has also asked Attorney General Gentner Drummond to offer a legal definition of 鈥渕alfeasance鈥� to 鈥渃larify the conditions under which legal action may be warranted.鈥� 

Drummond鈥檚 office has not yet responded.

The report also examined what happened with $150 million in school security funds lawmakers approved last year in response to the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas. 

While it took six months to do so, the department initially told districts they could roll over unused funds from one year to the next in case they were reserving the money for a large security upgrade. Then the department reversed that guidance, sparking complaints to lawmakers. 

It took an opinion from Drummond, issued in August, to clear up the matter, but Walters鈥� lack of urgency in seeking clarity and miscommunication within the department were among the issues the oversight agency found 鈥減roblematic.鈥� 

鈥淎gency departments were not communicating clearly with each other, which resulted in incorrect communications to school districts,鈥� the report said.

Provenzano鈥檚 questioning also pointed to one area where there still seems to be a misunderstanding among Walters鈥� top aides. She asked whether payroll savings would be used to purchase Bibles for classrooms 鈥� something Isett, the department spokesman, told reporters. 

鈥淲e’ve never stated that,鈥� Walters said.

She also asked whether communication with districts might improve if the department filled vacant positions. But that seems unlikely. 

鈥淥ur goal,鈥� he responded, 鈥渋s to shrink government.鈥�

In fact, following the meeting, he issued another demand in keeping with what he has as his 鈥渁ggressive, offensive agenda.鈥� In , he insisted Vice President Kamala Harris turn over $475 million as reimbursement for educating immigrant students in Oklahoma, even though prohibits denying an education to non-citizens. 

Harris鈥� office did not respond to a request for comment.

Nobly born at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, Title I was originally construed as a funding stream to be targeted to a specific group of young people: those attending public or private schools with a high percentage of students from lower income families. Its laudable ideal, as expressed by then-President Lyndon Johnson, was that 鈥減overty will no longer be a bar to learning, and learning shall offer an escape from poverty. … For this truly is the key which can unlock the door to a great society.鈥� As I demonstrate in my , that goal was never met. Over the decades, Title I was repeatedly modified and now emphasizes general school improvement efforts while requiring states to measure student achievement and academic differences across racial and economic groups.

Since the dawn of the school reform era in the 1980s, the federal government has lagged behind innovative efforts at the state and local levels, often taking what it deemed to be the most promising of those initiatives and imposing them on all states and localities. Yet, federal spending accounts for little more than 10% of school district revenues, with Title I being the largest component.

Federal interference in education policy has had two high water marks. The first was the judicial effort to undo legalized racial segregation in the 1950s and 1960s. Title I was born in that era and added federal funds to the effort to undo the impact of discrimination. The second occurred in the second term of President Barack Obama, from 2013 to 2017, which capped the efforts of a Washington-based, bipartisan consensus on school reform that emerged over the Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama presidencies. Under the umbrella of Common Core and Race to the Top, this effort tried to incentivize states to adopt curricular standards aligned with the general guidelines of the Common Core, and to adopt one of two standardized tests whose scores could be compared.

Though popular in Washington, this effort fell apart when states began to implement it. The American people value local control of education and pushed back against both the Common Core and its attendant tests. The problem was that the Washington-based compromises appealed to only the policy wonks themselves. Suburban parents did not embrace testing standards that identified proficiency solely with college readiness and began withholding their children from the testing regime. Social conservatives distrusted the attempt to fashion school curriculum around Washington鈥檚 values. Progressives were wary of what they saw as corporate influence in the testing and assessment schemes. In short, groups that agree on little else agreed that Washington had overstepped its bounds.

This pushback, as well as discontent with schooling due to pandemic closures (motivated by federal guidelines responding to teachers union pressure) has given rise to a new era of local and state activism in education policy. In the last two years, eight states have adopted family school choice in the form of education savings accounts, which provide universal or nearly universal access to private and religious schools with public money.

At the same time, various states have moved to require schools to disclose the content of their curricula, and debates over the age-appropriate nature of lessons on sexuality and gender identity have moved to the local school district level, where elected school board members are ultimately answerable to the communities they serve. 

In this context, Title I has become a wedge for federal involvement in conflicts around educational content and other school policies. It has become the hammer that the U.S. Department of Education uses to pursue its own policy agenda through “Dear Colleague” letters and broad investigations into school practices. Attempting to override local preferences, the department threatens the loss of Title I funding to noncompliant districts and schools. The problem is that people on both sides feel strongly about these issues, and solutions forged in Washington are likely to build resentment and damage the trust among parents, schools and communities that is so critical to school effectiveness.

If Congress ever returns to functionality, it should make clear that Title I funds may not be used to pressure school districts to comply with the department on policy matters that are rightfully left to local control. This does not mean that the federal Office of Civil Rights should not pursue remedies to specific violations of civil rights as codified in the Constitution or federal law, but it should not expand the scope of those rights as a matter of executive action. It should also require that Title I funds be directed to participating families, not to local school districts, in states that have universal school choice programs.

In the likely case that congressional action fails to materialize, governors and legislators in individual states should ask themselves whether the acceptance of federal funding, about 10% of school district revenue, is worth the interference that comes with it.

This expansion is critical because many students with high potential do not have access to or participate in advanced learning. For example, students in Title I schools than non-Title I schools are identified for advanced education, and Black and Hispanic students are among Advanced Placement exam takers. Inequities in student participation are so stark that some parents are for the dismantling of advanced programs entirely. But that鈥檚 not what’s needed. We need more of these programs, coupled with systematic examination of participation and outcomes to identify inequities, eliminate barriers to inclusion and build programs that involve students from all backgrounds. 

Collecting, reviewing and acting upon student participation and performance data is essential. Administrators can utilize state, district, school and classroom data to understand who participates and how they fare, and to identify programs where students are systematically underrepresented. There is little need to collect new statistics; existing enrollment and standardized test data will provide sufficient information. For example: 

• At the elementary level, educators should track and examine enrollment in gifted and advanced classes and the percentage of students reaching the highest level on state assessments in math, reading and science.

• In middle school, educators should track and examine enrollment and grades in honors courses, data on how many seventh- or eighth-graders complete algebra and the percentage of students reaching the highest level on state assessments in math, reading and science.

• In high school, educators should track and examine enrollment in AP or International Baccalaureate courses and performance on subsequent examinations; honors coursework; participation in dual degree programs or college courses; and the percentage of students reaching the highest level on state assessments in math, reading and science. 

In addition, student growth should be measured in each grade. of students begin school each fall at grade level, because students in the United States are grouped based on their age, not knowledge levels. Comparing performance at the beginning and end of each year can help ensure that all students learn, even those who are ahead of the curve. 

Most importantly, data should be disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, family income and English learner status, to identify discrepancies that can be addressed with targeted programming or outreach. Annually reviewing participation and outcome data can help educators identify students who might benefit from advanced learning, need more support to succeed or are underrepresented.

When I directed the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation鈥檚 research initiative, I visited Virginia鈥檚 Department of Education to discuss the Governor鈥檚 School Program for advanced learners. Staffers described numerous barriers to participation faced by lower-income students, including parents鈥� disparate access to information, lack of teacher referrals and language gaps. Yet ,when I asked how many lower-income students were enrolled, they did not know. Why? Because student income is captured by the financial aid department, not the system鈥檚 enrollment database.

We don鈥檛 know what we don鈥檛 measure. Many useful data exist, but pulling them together coherently requires intention. Data can be shared internally with administrators or externally with all stakeholders. Analysis can range from reporting head counts in a table to building interactive comparative displays of statistics. While directing gifted education in Paradise Valley district in Arizona from 2006 to 2022, for example, Dr. Dina Brulles annually reported state assessment math and reading results broken down by district and school, to make clear the percentage of students scoring as proficient versus advanced. Every year, she created pie charts by grade, gender and ethnicity, so administrators could see where discrepancies were and create flexible learning groups so all students were challenged.

New software tools make this even easier. For example, Virginia’s Fairfax County Public Schools uses , a data analytics platform, to generate an . This website publishes annual performance measures at the school and district level using interactive displays that viewers can customize to show data for specific schools or student populations. For example, the figure below shows the percentages of various student groups scoring at or above grade level for third grade reading. It鈥檚 great that the district shares these data publicly; even better would be if they also reported learning at the advanced level.

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that colleges cannot use race in admissions decisions. Yet racial differences still drive the percentages of students who have access to and successfully complete advanced courses that are often heavily weighted in admissions to selective colleges and universities.

Using data to understand which K-12 students participate in advanced learning, how they are doing, who might benefit from inclusion and who is being excluded can identify places where educators need to redesign coursework or bolster supports to enable more students from all backgrounds to successfully complete these courses and become college-ready. This will help ensure that colleges and universities have access to a pool of academically talented students whose demographic backgrounds match the nation鈥檚 great diversity, preserving education’s role as a pathway to upward mobility. To do anything less sells short the American Dream of opportunity and advancement for all.

That鈥檚 one of the key findings in our new on Title I, and why we鈥檙e urging Congress to reexamine how it funds Title I moving forward.

To understand why Congress is overlooking the Concentration Grant requires a brief . Title I provides extra funding to school districts serving students living amid high concentrations of poverty, but it isn鈥檛 distributed using a single formula. It relies on four distinct, complex funding that each receives its own appropriation. Basic Grants, the original formula enacted in 1965, get the most money, followed by Targeted Grants and Education Finance Incentive Grants. Concentration Grants are the smallest.

Since No Child Left Behind passed in 2001, funding for Basic and Concentration grants has been frozen and for Title I has been allocated using the two newest formulas, Targeted and Education Finance Incentive grants. Congress added these formulas because the Basic Grant 鈥�.鈥� The Basic Grant gives districts in a state the same amount of money per child living in poverty, regardless of whether a district has a poverty rate of 3% or 33%. Targeted and Education Finance Incentive grants were designed to provide more money per qualifying child as a district鈥檚 poverty rate increases. 

These three grants have dominated conversations about Title I. The smaller Concentration Grants, like the Basic formula, provide districts with a flat amount of money per child living in poverty. However, they have much stricter rules about which districts are eligible. To get a Basic Grant, a district needs a 2% poverty rate and 10 children living in poverty 鈥� criteria that 95% of districts in the country meet. The two newer formulas require a 5% poverty rate and 10 qualifying children, which 88% of districts have. But Concentration Grants expect districts to have a 15% poverty rate or 6,500 children living in poverty. As a result, fewer than half of districts are eligible.

These criteria make Concentration Grants particularly effective at targeting Title I to high-poverty districts. All4Ed commissioned economists and to which districts would benefit most from $10 billion in new Title I funding if the dollars were distributed solely through one of the existing formulas, instead of all four. Concentration Grants were the surprising standout, far outpacing Basic Grants and even edging out Targeted and Education Finance Incentive grants to give districts with the highest poverty rates the most Title I funding per qualifying child. Using the Concentration Grant alone would provide the highest-poverty districts $1,530 per child living in poverty, nearly $400 more than the Basic Grant. This means a district in the top 10%, based on its poverty rate, that enrolls 1,500 children would receive at least $165,000 more in Title I if the Concentration Grant were used instead of the Basic Grant. This difference compounds as enrollment increases. A similar district with 10,000 children would receive at least $1.1 million more using Concentration Grants than Basic Grants 鈥� funds that could be used to hire and train teachers, upgrade curriculum and more. 

The is clear: Education funding matters. Better-resourced schools tend to produce better student outcomes, including higher academic achievement and graduation rates. Yet, there鈥檚 also clear showing that districts with higher poverty rates, more students of color and more English learners receive less funding from state and local sources than districts that serve fewer of these students. Title I can help fill these gaps and, ideally, provide districts with the extra funding they deserve 鈥� but only if the formulas target funds to those with the greatest needs.

It鈥檚 been over 20 years since Congress seriously examined how Title I funding works. Ensuring that no new funds were doled out through Basic Grants since 2001 has certainly helped Title I target students living in concentrated poverty. However, given these new findings about the Concentration Grant and why it鈥檚 so effective at supporting districts with the highest poverty rates, it鈥檚 time for Congress to give it another look. Concentration Grant funding by increasing its appropriation in the next budget 鈥� and, in the long term, evaluating whether other formulas like Targeted and Education Finance Incentive grants should have higher eligibility criteria too 鈥� would go a long way toward helping Title I further meet its mission to guarantee educational opportunities for historically underserved students.

But with even Biden concerned that Republicans could of the House 鈥� and Congress increasingly unable to pass an annual budget on time 鈥� the chances that K-12 schools can count on next year鈥檚 budget for a reprieve appear slim.

鈥淚 am hopeful that this is a down payment for what鈥檚 to come,鈥� said Jos茅 Mu帽oz, director of the Coalition for Community Schools. Congress appropriated $75 million for schools that work with outside providers to address hunger, mental health, housing and other non-academic issues for families 鈥� an increase of $45 million. But Biden proposed a $413 million increase. Mu帽oz said he was disappointed by the 鈥渆xtreme shift.鈥� 

鈥淣ow, we all have to go back to work to correct what just happened,鈥� he said.

The White House has already indicated that Biden will request at least $400 million for community schools when he releases his fiscal year 2023 budget proposal, expected later this month. Advocates also expect to see him once again request big increases for Title I and special education. But based on this year鈥檚 process, some are highly skeptical that Congress will be able to pass a budget before the midterm elections or break out of its cycle of passing multiple short-term budget extensions to keep the government operating.

鈥淲e鈥檒l welcome the commitment to education 鈥� but we saw how that shook out this year,鈥� said Noelle Ellerson Ng, associate executive director for advocacy and governance at AASA, the School Superintendents Association. She added that she could see another series of continuing resolutions that stretch into the new year. 鈥淭hat brings up all the questions of who鈥檚 in leadership come January and how that shapes overall numbers and program allocations.鈥�

The organization’s top priority will once again be full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,or IDEA 鈥� meaning that the federal government would pick up 40 percent of the costs of services for students with disabilities. Biden pledged that he would meet that requirement of the law. He proposed a $2.7 billion increase for fiscal 2022, but the budget includes far less 鈥� a $448 million increase 鈥� bringing the total to $14.5 billion.

AASA was hoping Congress would at least maintain the higher level of funding special education received under the American Rescue Plan, which provided an additional $2.5 billion for students with disabilities.

Congress is missing 鈥渁 true opportunity to redirect itself forward on the IDEA glidepath,鈥� Dan Domenech, executive director of AASA, said in a statement. 鈥淲e applaud them for the small increases included in [the] bill, while also holding them accountable for once again leaving IDEA severely underfunded.鈥�

No more free meals for all

Domenech summed up educators鈥� less-than-enthusiastic reaction to the budget by calling it a 鈥渕ixed bag.鈥� The bill, for example, includes new funding to address students鈥� mental health and $30 million more for afterschool programs, but not a major increase for high-poverty schools.

The budget provides a $1.77 billion increase over fiscal 2021 for school nutrition, but leaves out waivers that would have allowed such programs to continue serving free meals to all students and have flexibility in meal planning to cope with food and supply shortages. 

That means after more than two school years of free meals for all students, regardless of income, families in poverty will need to apply for the National School Lunch Program for the 2022-23 school year in order for their children to receive free or reduced-price meals.

And 鈥済iven the , schools will likely need to raise prices on those families that do pay鈥� said Diane Pratt-Heavner, spokeswoman for the School Nutrition Association. With the end of pandemic meal programs, schools will also 鈥渉ave to significantly curtail summer meal services,鈥� she said.

Biden also campaigned on tripling Title I funding for high-poverty schools. He proposed a $20 billion 鈥渆quity鈥� grant program to help close funding gaps between rich and poor districts and between those serving primarily white students and those that enroll more Black and Hispanic students.

The budget instead raises Title I funding by $1 billion, bringing the total to $17.5 billion. That鈥檚 the highest increase in more than a decade, but doesn鈥檛 include the new funding to reduce disparities.

鈥淭he Title I equity grants would have given the neediest districts greater assurance that they could continue effective academic interventions beyond the pandemic,鈥� said Robert Tagorda, who led equity initiatives in California鈥檚 Long Beach Unified School District and now consults with districts on their recovery efforts. 鈥淒istricts are coming to terms with the one-time nature of COVID relief funds. They’re wondering how they can sustain the tutorials, summer programs and other student services once the funds expire, knowing that it will take a long time to get kids back on track.鈥�

Advocates for young children had a similar response after being hopeful last year that Biden would be able to push through his $400 billion plan to pay for child care and universal pre-K as part of Build Back Better. That legislation is now stalled and it鈥檚 unclear whether universal pre-K will resurface in a of the bill. 

For fiscal 2022, Biden originally proposed almost $20 billion for early-childhood programs, including Head Start and child care. The budget bill instead provides about $17.5 billion for programs serving preschoolers.

鈥淲ithout more significant funding increases, these programs will continue to serve only a small portion of the children and families that are eligible to participate in them,鈥� said Aaron Loewenberg, a senior policy analyst at New America, a center-left think tank.

Other advocacy groups say their recent lobbying efforts made a difference in the final numbers. The National Association of Secondary School Principals, for example, sent 350 members to Capitol Hill two weeks ago to press for increases in principal preparation programs and mental health services for students 鈥� a topic Biden addressed in his State of the Union address. 

The budget includes a $27 million increase for state grants that fund teacher and principal training and $111 million 鈥�  a $95 million increase over fiscal 2021 鈥� that can be used to train more school counselors, social workers and psychologists. Beth Lehr, assistant principal at Sahuarita High School, south of Tucson, Arizona, was among the administrators advocating for those increases to address the aftermath of the pandemic. There are some teachers, she said, 鈥渨ho dread coming to work and parents who are struggling because they feel they can鈥檛 keep their kids safe.鈥�

The Senate on Thursday passed a short-term, $480 billion increase in the debt ceiling that lasts through Dec. 3 鈥� a move that prevents the U.S. government from failing to pay its financial obligations. 

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, after vowing not to help Democrats with the issue, rallied 11 Republicans to end debate and allow the measure to move to a floor vote. Then  passed 50-48, with only Democrats voting in favor. The bill now moves to the House.

“Tonight鈥檚 votes are welcome steps forward in averting a default that would have been devastating for our economy and for working families. President Biden looks forward to signing this bill as soon as it passes the House and reaches his desk,” said White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki. “As we move forward, there must be no question of whether America will pay its bills; Congress must address the debt limit in December and beyond 鈥� just as we鈥檝e done almost 80 times over the last 60 years.” 

Dec. 3 is the same day Congress must pass the fiscal year 2022 budget or another continuing resolution to keep the government open, setting up another possibility that the government will once again come close to default and a government shutdown.
 

Federal funds that states depend on for low-income students, special education and school nutrition programs could be at risk if Congress doesn鈥檛 lift the government鈥檚 debt limit, the White House warned states last month.

The U.S. could be in default by Oct. 18, which could disrupt global financial markets and trigger what Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer last week called a 鈥減arade of horribles.鈥� Democrats have been trying to get bipartisan support to raise the limit 鈥� the total amount the Treasury Department can borrow to meet its financial obligations. But Republicans have balked, leaving Democrats to deal with the politically unpopular issue.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

鈥淩aising the debt limit comes down to paying what we already owe,鈥� President Joe Biden said Monday, stressing that the matter has nothing to do with his agenda for infrastructure or social programs.

While most education funds 鈥� about 90 percent 鈥� come from state and local revenues, some programs rely more on federal sources, such as Title I, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Head Start and child care. A from the White House to state and local governments estimated that up to $50 billion in K-12 education funding could be affected. The standoff over the debt limit adds to the list of major budget challenges currently facing Congress. Members still need to pass the fiscal year 2022 budget and Democrats disagree over a major social spending package that includes funding for schools and early-childhood programs.

Default 鈥渨ould have reverberating effects for states and school districts, whose own finances would be thrown into uncertainty,鈥� said Whitney Tucker, the deputy director of research at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank. 鈥淭itle I will have to stand in line with all the other federal obligations due.鈥�

Tucker wrote about the last week, saying that if the issue isn鈥檛 resolved, states would have to turn to reserve funds to cover costs.

The potential loss of funds creates headaches for district finance officials.

鈥淥n top of everything else they鈥檙e managing right now, the last thing district leaders need is another layer of contingency planning,鈥� said Jonathan Travers, a partner with Education Resource Strategies, a nonprofit that advises districts on financial matters. 鈥淎s a field, we don鈥檛 have the extra bandwidth available right now to respond to debt ceiling brinkmanship in any sort of proactive, planful way.鈥�

A default would impact the National School Lunch and National School Breakfast programs as well as other federally funded nutrition efforts totaling $30 billion, according to the White House memo.

School meal programs are 鈥渋ncurring costs and they rely on the federal government for reimbursement after the meals are served,鈥� said Diane Pratt-Heavner, spokeswoman for the School Nutrition Association.

Because of supply chain delays and shortages of typical menu items, school nutrition programs are already spending higher prices on food. The U.S. Department of Agriculture last week announced in assistance to help them cover those costs.

that benefit children, such as Medicaid and the Children鈥檚 Health Insurance Program, would be affected as well. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen noted that parents receiving monthly child tax credit payments, part of the American Rescue Plan, could .

But Marguerite Roza, director of Georgetown University鈥檚 Edunomics Lab, cautioned that while a default would certainly impact the stock market, states shouldn鈥檛 be worrying about their account balances running low.

鈥淪tates are sitting on a lot of cash right now,鈥� she said, referring to the American Rescue Plan, which included $122 billion for K-12. But most of those funds, she added, are still at the state level and haven鈥檛 reached districts.

Tucker agreed that the relief funds could provide a cushion, but some states haven鈥檛 yet received all of the funds and others have already allocated them.

from Politico and Morning Consult shows that voters would hold both parties responsible if the government goes into default, but they鈥檙e more likely to blame Democrats than Republicans.

In 2011, during the Obama-Biden administration, the U.S. came close to the , with Tea Party Republicans ultimately winning budget cuts in exchange for an increase in the limit. The debt limit became an issue again in 2014, but at that point, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voted to allow the measure to to a vote. Democrats also helped Republicans increase while President Donald Trump was in office.

This time, Democrats wanted to lift the debt limit by adding language to a short-term continuing resolution to keep the government running through Dec. 3. The Republicans didn鈥檛 go for that and President Joe Biden ended up signing a resolution Thursday night without the debt limit increase.

The Democratic majority in the House on Wednesday passed a separate , but the Senate is not expected to pass it. Republicans want Democrats to lift the debt ceiling as part of Biden鈥檚 proposed social and education package. But that plan is on shaky ground, with Democrats divided on how much to spend and Biden already conceding that it will probably amount to much less than the $3.5 trillion he proposed.

Democrats could also move just to lift the debt ceiling using the budget reconciliation process, meaning they would only need a simple majority to pass. Biden asked Republicans to allow Democrats to do that.

鈥淩epublicans just have to let us do our job. Just get out of the way,鈥� he said. 鈥淟et us vote to end the mess.鈥�

Educators welcome President Joe Biden鈥檚 plan to spend $20 billion 鈥� on top of the federal government鈥檚 current funding for high-poverty districts 鈥� to address the needs of schools with the greatest concentrations of disadvantaged students.

But with the new administration already getting a late start on the budget process and Republicans cringing at the size of Biden鈥檚 infrastructure and family policy proposals, it鈥檚 unclear where the additional funding will come from.

The president鈥檚 for fiscal year 2022 would reverse 鈥測ears of underinvestment in federal education programs,鈥� Education Secretary Miguel Cardona told reporters last week. But some Republicans are calling it , considering the other relief bills Congress has passed to address the pandemic.

The current federal budget runs through the end of September. If Congress doesn鈥檛 agree on a new budget by then, lawmakers would likely pass a continuing resolution to keep funding the government, leaving open the possibility they won鈥檛 act on Biden鈥檚 new proposals this year. Meanwhile, the administration continues to in an effort to find a compromise over Biden鈥檚 infrastructure plan, but it鈥檚 possible Democrats would plow ahead and pass much of the president鈥檚 agenda on their own.

鈥淒emocrats hold control and they want to help the president fulfill his priorities,鈥� said Danny Carlson, associate executive director for policy and advocacy at the National Association of Elementary School Principals. 鈥淗e obviously campaigned on tripling Title I.”

As they did with the March relief bill, Democrats could use the reconciliation process, which allows them to pass spending bills without a single Republican vote. With the Senate split 50-50, Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat from West Virginia, could once again end up casting the deciding vote. If the administration aims for a bipartisan deal, Biden will need the support of at least 10 Republicans.

, released May 28, would keep funding for the existing Title I program at the current level of $16.5 billion but would create a new formula for distributing $20 billion in 鈥渆quity grants鈥� to states that work to close gaps between rich and poor districts and between those serving primarily white students and those that enroll more students of color.

, an advocacy organization that ceased operating last year, showed that despite decades of school finance lawsuits, there was still a $23 billion gap between white and nonwhite school districts as of 2016.

Under the administration鈥檚 plan districts would need to spend the additional funds on priorities Biden promoted during his campaign 鈥� increasing teacher compensation, expanding students鈥� access to advanced courses and providing preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds.

But many questions about the proposal remain, particularly how the federal government would hold states and districts accountable for the money, said Khalilah Harris, managing director of K-12 education policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Some of those answers would come if the plan is approved when the Department of Education creates rules for the program, according to the proposal.

鈥淚t will be important not to just have surface-level conversations about equity and access,鈥� Harris said, adding that she expects Republicans to keep a close eye on how districts spend any increase in funding and that education is likely to be a 鈥渉uge issue鈥� in next year鈥檚 midterm elections.

She said the Title I equity proposal complements Biden鈥檚 plan to increase funding for community schools to $443 million 鈥� almost 15 times the current level 鈥� and would help students with the greatest needs, including homeless students, children in foster care and those with disabilities.

The additional dollars, however, wouldn鈥檛 change the fact that most funding for schools still comes from the state and local level. Zahava Stadler, a special assistant for state funding and policy at The Education Trust, an advocacy organization, said the new equity grants can serve as a 鈥減owerful incentive鈥� for states to address long-standing funding disparities.

鈥楾hink about sustainability鈥�

Another challenge is that the appropriations bill covers not just education, but also the departments of Labor and Health and Human Services. Republican members of the House appropriations committee expressed shock that Biden is asking for almost $103 billion for the education department 鈥� a 41 percent increase.

鈥淎pparently math was not his strong suit when it came to his education because this budget he has put forward is so far out of whack,鈥� Congressman Ben Cline (R-Va.) said last month during an appropriations hearing. 鈥淭his level of an increase in spending in the same year that Congress has allocated extensive funds to mitigate the effects of COVID is highly irresponsible.鈥�

If the new program becomes a reality, district leaders say it could allow them to continue the programs they鈥檙e launching with relief funds to address students鈥� learning and social-emotional needs brought on by the pandemic.

鈥淥ne of the challenges of hiring staff is you have to be able to think about sustainability,鈥� said Robert Tagorda, the executive director of equity, access, and college and career readiness in the Long Beach Unified School District, the fourth largest in California. 鈥淭hat makes it hard for us to think about long-term investments.鈥�

And John Sasaki, spokesman for the Oakland Unified School District, said even though the funds would come with restrictions, 鈥渢hey are intended to help low-income students overcome obstacles that their peers do not face.鈥�

Michael Magee, CEO of Chiefs for Change, said district leaders have talked about using federal relief funds either for one-time expenses, such as facility improvements, or innovative programs that they 鈥渉ope attract state and local dollars over time.鈥� With the equity grants, they could do both, he said.

The budget also includes a new $100 million competitive grant program for middle and high school career-and-technical education programs, separate from the Title I proposal. Biden, however, isn鈥檛 asking for any funding increases for the national Charter Schools Program 鈥� a mistake, Magee said, since charter schools have been reporting enrollment growth in many states since the beginning of the pandemic.

And Nina Rees, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, said charter schools should have been included in the president鈥檚 equity agenda, considering they predominantly serve children of color. The alliance is pushing for an increase in funding to $500 million in next year鈥檚 budget.

In a statement, Rees said, 鈥淭he administration鈥檚 pledge to lift all forms of excellence in education cannot be fully achieved without explicit support for all public schools 鈥� both charter and district.鈥�