As the U.S. Department of Education this week prepared to move swathes of its responsibilities to other agencies, among its flurry of calls was to the nation鈥檚 state education chiefs鈥攚hose experience working with the federal government was about to change dramatically.
In some ways, it wasn鈥檛 exactly a surprise.
Debbie Critchfield, Idaho鈥檚 state superintendent, said her team has been talking about and anticipating major changes for months as President Donald Trump directed Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to facilitate the closure of her agency, as the pair publicly floated where the agency鈥檚 portfolio could end up, and as the department shed nearly half its staff in layoffs and buyout deals.
Nonetheless, the department鈥檚 announcement of six interagency agreements on Tuesday moving core functions to four separate agencies represented one of the Trump administration鈥檚 most significant steps yet toward eliminating the education agency altogether. One of those moves is to shift administration of billions of dollars in funding for K-12 schools鈥攊ncluding Title I, the Education Department鈥檚 largest funding stream鈥攖o the U.S. Department of Labor.
The Trump administration has said funding shouldn鈥檛 be disrupted. But states鈥攚hich generally receive federal funds first before distributing them to local school districts and frequently communicate with the federal government on questions about policy, rules, and funding鈥攃ould find themselves seeking guidance from as many as five different agencies depending on the program.
Some are ready to embrace the change while others retain their doubts.
鈥淲e don鈥檛 want the 鈥榮ky is falling鈥� mentality,鈥� Critchfield, a Republican, said. 鈥淲hat I want to portray is exactly the type of feel that I got in the conversation [Tuesday] from the federal level, which was, 鈥榃e are still here to support, the funding is still there. We鈥檙e here to support the states and their role. It鈥檚 just going to look a little bit different.鈥欌��
Some state chiefs fear rocky road ahead
Already earlier this year, before Tuesday鈥檚 announcement, the Education Department signed an interagency agreement shifting administration of the $1.4 billion Perkins program that funds career and technical education to the Labor Department, along with adult education and other programs geared toward older students and adults.
That didn鈥檛 come without its challenges, said Mo Green, the state superintendent for North Carolina and a Democrat.
The state鈥檚 department of public instruction had to set up new accounts to draw down federal money, because the Labor Department uses a different system to disburse funding. While state staff were able to make the change, it was time-consuming and resulted in delays of funds. Now, the team has to manage two different grant systems with two different reporting systems from two different agencies.
Even now, months later, state education staff don鈥檛 know where to send questions鈥攖hey often send them to both the Education and Labor departments, Green said.
鈥淚t certainly again raises that question about, how is this more efficient and less bureaucracy as the Trump administration has stated?鈥� he said.
State chiefs across the country, particularly from Democratic-led states, echoed Green鈥檚 concerns this week.
鈥淚t is clearly less efficient for state departments of education and local school districts to work with four different federal agencies instead of one,鈥� California state Superintendent Tony Thurmond said in a statement. 鈥淓xperience also tells us that any time you move expertise and responsibilities, you disrupt services. There is no way to avoid negative impacts on our children and our classrooms with a change of this magnitude.鈥�
JP O鈥橦are, a spokesperson for the New York state education department, called the effort a retreat from federal responsibility over education that would reduce accountability.
鈥淚t is especially ironic that an administration that claims to champion 鈥榞overnment efficiency鈥� is advancing a proposal that will make government less efficient, less coordinated, and far more burdensome for states and districts,鈥� he said in a statement. 鈥淔ragmenting federal education functions across multiple agencies will only create duplication, confusion, and unnecessary red tape.鈥�
Other state chiefs argued it wouldn鈥檛 create much change.
鈥淭hese partnerships will not impact funding or day-to-day operations of our schools,鈥� Indiana Education Secretary Katie Jenner said in a statement. 鈥淯ltimately, our shared mission remains the same: we must keep our focus on providing high-quality education for all students.鈥�
McMahon told Education Department staff Tuesday that if the agreements were successful, she would ask to Congress鈥攚hich would have to sign off on permanent changes鈥攖o codify the interdepartmental moves.
Key programs and funds will move, splintering from other Education Department programs
As the department moves much of its K-12 programming from the office of elementary and secondary education to the Labor Department, it will place those programs under a different roof from other key K-12 functions鈥攐versight of services for students with disabilities and civil rights investigations.
That seems like a dangerous shift, said Massachusetts Education Secretary Patrick Tutwiler.
鈥淭his latest move weakens the Department of Education鈥檚 ability to act swiftly when students鈥� rights and futures are at stake,鈥� he said in a statement.
A number of states were still reviewing the changes and what effect it could have for schools and didn鈥檛 immediately have comments this week. But others were enthusiastic to see the shift. Wyoming Superintendent Megan Degenfelder, a Republican, said the agreements provided a 鈥渓ong overdue mandate to optimize federal programs.鈥�
Montana Superintendent Susie Hedalen, who said she鈥檚 been supportive of Trump鈥檚 effort to reduce the federal role in education, said her department is already accustomed to working with multiple federal agencies. Staff there 鈥渟tand ready to take this on,鈥� she said.
鈥淚 think there鈥檚 a lot of details to come, so I鈥檓 anxious to hear more and see how this is actually going to come into play,鈥� she said. 鈥淚mportant components for me are just ensuring that the shift of federal responsibilities does not create new burdens for the states.鈥�
In Idaho, Critchfield said the earlier interagency agreement with the Labor Department to manage CTE went smoothly. Though she initially worried about emails getting lost in the shuffle and delays in funding, it was 鈥渂usiness as usual.鈥� She anticipated it would be similar for the new agreements.
鈥淲e expect that many of our same contacts will still be in place. They will just be located in a different place,鈥� she said.
One state education chief who stands to be directly affected by these moves is North Dakota state Superintendent Kirsten Baesler, who resigns Monday to be sworn in as assistant secretary of elementary and secondary education, overseeing a portfolio of programs that are shifting to the Labor Department.
Baesler told North Dakota school leaders in a statement that the shift was an 鈥渋nternal administrative change.鈥�
鈥淣orth Dakota schools should stay the course,鈥� she said. 鈥淵our work continues uninterrupted, and nothing about this federal realignment changes the support or expectations you rely on today.鈥�
