yes, most federal grant funding is still coming from the U.S. Department of Education

 With ongoing thanks to Mark Lieberman for keeping his eyes on this: 

Congress in February approved more than $12.5 billion for K-12 schools to flow to states on Oct. 1, including $10.8 billion through the Title I formula grant for schools serving low-income students and $1.7 billion through Title II for teacher professional development.

In a statement to Education Week, the department confirmed that those funds will go through the department’s existing G5 grants system, rather than through a portal run by the Department of Labor, where the Trump administration has moved most K-12 programs.

This was true of the round of funding that went out July 1; today's statement confirms the same will be true of the funding going out on October 1.  

Here comes the MA voucher push

 Because OB3, Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" has a provision for vouchers by state in the language, you knew that others would join the Boston Globe's editorial board in pushing for them in Massachusetts. Thanks to Yawu Miller's coverage of a recent panel at the JFK Presidential Library*, we now know not only that this is happening, but who the players are and what their talking points are going to be:

“Covid relief money is gone, inflation is bad, buses are expensive, special education is expensive,” former Massachusetts Education Commissioner Jeff Riley told an audience of about 200 that filled an auditorium at the museum last Wednesday. “We have an opportunity for this new pot of money to help us with things like expanded learning time, high dosage tutoring, special education services. This seems like a time when people should get together.”

Yes, taking time away from his fulltime job of trying to get schools on the AI bandwagon, our former Commissioner is all in our vouchers, but we're going to frame it as public school assistance. Also involved: 

The National Parents Union is spearheading the local coalition which aims to pressure Gov. Maura Healey to adopt the tax credit program. So far, the group counts 124 organizations in support, including The Pioneer Institute, The Boston Foundation, the Lynch Foundation, 45 individual Catholic Schools, 18 Montessori Schools, 13 Jewish day schools, the umbrella organizations supporting those types of schools and dozens of YMCAs and Boys and Girls Clubs.

NPU will surprise no one, nor will the private schools, but the outside of school organizations no doubt have this sold to them as after school dollars that could be coming their way.

Miller does---as always--an excellent job of framing the issues with the push, very much including that they don't actually work. But he also notes that Governor Healey, whose decision this is, so far has been silent on this issue. That is very concerning. There will be an effort to frame this as a "ed reform" issue, and she has some close to her that are in on that.

Oh, and incidentally: the list of things that Riley includes largely are not things on which the vouchers could be used: 

Despite promises that the scholarships could cover special education services, among other school-related expenses, Fliter said that wouldn’t be true for public schools. The way qualified education expenses are defined by the federal government only includes things for which schools bill parents.

“Unfortunately, when you dig into the text of the statute and what the regulations are from the IRS and from others, it becomes very clear that a qualified education expense, as it’s referenced in the Internal Revenue Code and by the Coverdell Education Savings Account, does not include anything like special education expenses,” Fliter said.

Read Miller's coverage, and then keep an eye out on this one.  

*who maybe don't exercise a say over this, but one does question the venue choice

Keeping an eye on federal grants

 DESE sent this update out late last week:

DESE has received some additional projected figures from the federal government that have allowed us to refine the Title I projections we shared last month; we’re also able to anticipate statewide totals from other major ESSA programs (Title II-A, Title III-A, and Title IV-A), as well as from Perkins. Again, these numbers are still preliminary. DESE receives final awards from the federal government on July 1st. 

Title I – Updated figures from the federal government show that MA will experience about a 7% reduction overall, not a 10% reduction overall as we projected last month. DESE has revised the FY27 Title I Warning Chart accordingly. These district-level projections are likely more accurate than last month’s projections, but it bears repeating that they are subject to change. Districts will receive final numbers in July. 

Title II-A – Similar to Title I, preliminary figures from the federal government show that MA overall will likely experience about a 7% overall reduction from last year. We do not have district-level projections for Title II-A, which could vary greatly, so we encourage districts to budget conservatively. 

Title III-A – Preliminary figures from the federal government show that MA overall will likely be level-funded for Title III-A. DESE will provide district-level projections for Title III-A in several weeks when we issue the Title III-A Intent to Participate application in GEM$. Until then, we encourage districts to budget conservatively. 

Title IV – Preliminary figures from the federal government show that MA overall will likely see about a 6% increase in Title IV-A. We do not have district-level projections for Title IV-A, which could vary greatly, so we encourage districts to budget conservatively. 

Perkins – Preliminary figures from the federal government show that MA overall will likely be level-funded for Perkins. 

Remember: on the federal budget, this is just the opening round

 You might be concerned or confused by headlines that came through over the weekend like this: 

Did we just DO a federal budget?
We did, but that one was overdue (thus the shutdown) and was the current federal fiscal year budget, 'though it funds next school year.

Now we're starting NEXT fiscal year, FY27, which for the federal government starts in October, which will funding school year 2027-28.

With me?

Now to the alarming headlines: you might remember that we also had alarming news from the initial proposal from the Trump administration for the current fiscal year, too. The House proposal was also alarming, and then the Senate put their feet down and we got a largely level funded federal budget.

So pay attention, but don't panic. 

Eisenhower

 Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.  

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.  

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.  

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.  

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. 

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.  

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.  

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.  

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.  

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. 

Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.  

These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that comes with this spring of 1953. 

This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and lasting peace.  

It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak their intentions with simplicity and with honesty.  

It calls upon them to answer the question that stirs the hearts of all sane men: is there no other way the world may live? 

From "The Chance for Peace" 
Address Delivered Before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16th, 1953 

for any who might be interested: the three F-15 bombers shot down by "friendly fire" by Kuwait over the weekend--which did not result in U.S. deaths--cost about $90M each.

Three takeaways from this week's Board of Ed meeting

 Three things that stuck with me from this meeting: 

1. Both the Commissioner and CFO Bell gave a "yikes*" when it comes to federal grants during the budget update. While the federal entitlement grants were level funded by Congress, they're reallocated by state and then by district each year by demographic information. The state and districts may see less money this year.
   
   
2. Depending on what language the conference committee on the literacy bills comes out with**, the Department may end up in the awkward position of enforcing something that doesn't exist. In the literacy discussion, they were careful to note that their standard for "high-quality instructional materials" isn't "evidence-based" because "very few materials on the market have evidence of efficacy." This is, of course, more evidence (hmph) that the Legislature shouldn't be involved in this, but should be leaving this to the level of authorities who are doing the actual reading on this.
   
   
3. Speaking of not doing the reading, it was alarming to hear, in response to a question posed during the interpretation and translation regulation discussion, that the only guidance or recommendation coming from the Department on the use of AI in translation was that translations be checked by a person. So we're okay with teachers and others just dumping, say, an IEP into a chatbot where it then becomes part of the universe on which everything draws?
   FERPA, people.***
   Let's please do more reading about how this stuff works before turning our core responsibilities over in such ways.

__________________________

*not actually; my interpretation 
**assuming it comes out at all? Is it possible this terrible idea will just die there?
***when it comes out for public comment--it hasn't yet--this would be a very good comment to offer

This is not really related to the above but I thought it was funny.
source

Board of Ed for February: budget!

 "real challenge" per Martinez at federal level on funding, related to enrollment decline and other things
pay attention when things like this are said

Bill Bell on the Governor's budget

SOA implemented in full as of FY27

concern of how chapter 70 is working; increasing number of districts receiving minimum aid
Department, Commissioner, Executive Office, A&F "aren't tone deaf to the issue"
commitment to see through implementation of Student Opportunity Act; what leaders want to do after that "remains to be seen"

circuit breaker growing by $100M into next budget year

haven't received word on what the education funding levels would be for federal grants in entitlement grants
baseline is funded nationally, but allocations remain to be seen

Legislators have begun their process of budget hearings: education and local aid is March 23 in Lawrence

Hills asks if they have the resources needed to implement the goals
Martinez, in essence, says it is a start

Smidy: the capacity is very limited in the field
even with allocations and grants, a lot of schools are not going to be in a position to move forward with these initiatives if they don't have the resources to move forward

Craven: need a sense about what costs are being piled onto districts
Martinez: not only the need, but also where districts are in 
"when we use the word 'advocacy' we're using it too loosely"
nah, that's still advocacy; you just want specific advocacy
"how do we become strategic about our resources..."
this is what people say when they aren't going to give you more funding to do more things
report on local contribution coming in June 

Bell: another attempt to meet the needs of local districts and communities that exist within a capped revenue environment 

And adjourned

we have a federal budget

 And when it comes to education funding, well, I'll let Mark Lieberman of EdWeek take this: 

You can read Mark's coverage (which I recommend) here. The highlight: 

Ultimately, Congress comprehensively rejected the Trump administration’s proposals to slash billions of dollars from federal education investments. Schools nationwide can expect roughly similar year-over-year funding levels this fall for key programs like Title I for students from low-income households, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for special education services, Title II for professional development, and Title III for English learners.

The final legislation doesn’t require the Trump administration to halt efforts to shift Education Department programs to other agencies, and it doesn’t explicitly prohibit the administration from taking further steps to diminish the Cabinet-level agency.

It does, however, include requirements for the department to consult more closely with Congress on the status of its efforts to shift responsibilities to other agencies. It also includes nearly $400 million for Education Department staff compensation, only slightly less than for the previous fiscal year despite recent staff reductions that have nearly cut the agency’s ranks in half.

The legislation also supplies funding for several smaller agencies the Trump administration had already moved unilaterally to defund, including AmeriCorps and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

Remember, we're now talking about next school year's funding: 

Most education funding is forward-funded, which means allocations for the current fiscal year will hit schools in the upcoming school year. Typically, formula funds for schools start flowing to states in July. Grant program competitions can happen throughout the year.

Do remember that both how much goes to each state and how much then goes to each district has to be recalculated each year based on the factors in the formula for each grant, so how much your district gets may not be the same as last year. But we aren't seeing the deep cuts that Trump campaigned on and continued to promise once elected.

They aren't popular. 

federal funding waiver doesn't live up to the hype

 I entirely understand how it is that people might have missed this, but if you do pay attention to school funding, you may have caught U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon touting "returning education to the states" through approval of a waiver for Iowa for combining federal funding, in essence, block granting their funding. As the Department's release says: 

Today, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) approved Iowa’s Returning Education to the States Waiver, empowering state education officials to have more discretion over their federal education dollars. Iowa is the first state to apply for and receive such a waiver, which will allow state leaders to focus federal dollars on work that best improves the achievement of Iowa students.

Iowa’s waiver permits the state education agency to combine four federal funding streams into one. Iowa leaders seek to focus more federal resources on improving student achievement rather than federal compliance. This waiver’s flexibility will reduce compliance costs, allowing nearly $8 million to be redirected from bureaucratic red tape to the classroom over four years. State education leaders will use the redirected funds and the greater flexibility they afford to expand support for evidence-based literacy training, strengthening their teacher pipeline, and narrowing achievement gaps.

If you know anything of how much federal funding flows to states, you may have had that *record scratch* sound in your head when you to the bit about "nearly $8 million" up here. 

Excellent work from Mark Lieberman over at EdWeek gives a more clear eyed assessment on this one: 

 ...in contrast with proposals the state put forward roughly a year ago, the new federal approval touches only 5% of Iowa’s overall allocation of federal education funds, the part that’s set aside for the state education agency. The bulk of federal dollars that flow to school districts each year—$900 million worth—will retain their current structure and spending and reporting requirements.

This announcement could signal an acknowledgment from the department that its legal authority to flatten discrete funding programs and implement unrestricted block grants without congressional approval is limited, said Anne Hyslop, the director of policy development for the nonprofit advocacy group All4Ed, and a former senior policy adviser at the Education Department who helped implement the Every Student Succeeds Act.

It also foreshadows an uphill battle for other states aiming to convert federal education funding to block grants, including Indiana, which submitted a request for that flexibility, along with relief from certain school accountability requirements, in October.

I realize that it isn't going to surprise anyone that the Trump administration is being less than forthcoming on what they're actually doing, but it's always worth calling these out. 

where we are at on federal grants

 This came out from DESE's grants office this morning. While it is not new information, I thought it was a useful summary: 

On November 12, a “continuing resolution” was passed to reopen the federal government through January 30, 2026. However, most school year 2026-2027 federal education funding levels have not been resolved and are still subject to negotiation (ESSA, IDEA, Perkins, etc.). If Congress cannot come to an agreement on FY27 funding levels by January 30^th, they must either pass another “continuing resolution” or shut down the government yet again. It should be noted that the national school meals program was the one major area of federal education funding that did receive a new full-year appropriation, through September 30, 2026.
 
Early the following week, the U.S. Education Department (USED) informed state education leaders of its intent to transition the management of several major programs to other federal agencies. The announcement stated that the majority of programs currently managed by the federal Office of Elementary and Secondary Education will transition to the U.S. Department of Labor via an inter-agency agreement. These programs will include Title I-A, Title II-A, Title III-A, Title IV-A and B, and the McKinney-Vento Homeless Act, among others. 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) programs will, for the moment, remain at USED, as will the Office for Civil Rights. USED officials noted that signed agreements with the Department of Labor and other agencies are only a first step and could not provide immediate details on the timing or specifics of the interagency transitions. These details will vary by program. The federal press release includes links to several federal fact sheets, including one on elementary and secondary education. 

Outsourcing the Department of Education

It was another of those news rounds where if, like me, you were offline for an hour, you missed a major thing and had to play catch-up.

On Tuesday of this week, the U.S. Department of Education signed a series of agreements with other federal departments. Those agreements move functions of U.S. Ed to those other Departments, as EdWeek charts out here. Most of it is going to the Department of Labor—demonstrating truncated view of the function of the public education system—though several go to the Interior, and one to HHS. As yet, there is no move of IDEA which covers special education to HHS, as has been floated a number of times.

It's worth noting that this isn't the first of such moves: career and technical education grants were moved to the Department of Labor earlier this year. Those who have been paying attention say it has not gone well.

Secretary McMahon was quick to say that funding would continue to flow to states and from there to schools. As Matt Barnum wrote in Chalkbeat, it's quite possible that schools will see little change, so long as those other departments actually pick up the ball. The AP, though, captured the concern that I've had all week: 

Instead of being housed in a single agency, much of the Education Department’s work now will be spread across four other federal departments...The plan increases bureaucracy fivefold, Washington state’s education chief said, “undoubtedly creating confusion and duplicity” for educators and families. His counterpart in California said the plan is “clearly less efficient” and invites disruption. Maryland’s superintendent raised concerns about “the challenges of coordinating efforts with multiple federal agencies.”

It is state education agencies that coordinate with the federal level, and it is those state agencies that now have to chase funding down across multiple federal departments--departments not set up to interface on those programs--in order to get the funding to states and then to districts. Those state agencies, if they're anything like our own (and I'll bet they are) are understaffed already.

It's also worth noting that objections have not all fallen along party lines, as covered in the same article:

Yet some conservatives pushed back against the dismantling. U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, said on social media that moving programs to agencies without policy expertise could hurt young people. And Margaret Spellings, a former education secretary to Republican President George W. Bush, called it a distraction to a national education crisis.

“Moving programs from one department to another does not actually eliminate the federal bureaucracy, and it may make the system harder for students, teachers and families to navigate and get the support they need,” Spellings said in a statement.

Those who work in the Department have also noted that this makes no sense.
This is doing it for the sake of doing it. As I noted elsewhere earlier in the week, this feels a lot like the phase some kids go through where they have to push every rule and will come back with "TECHNICALLY..." when they are called on it.

TECHNICALLY, they haven't closed the Department of Education. I suspect that isn't going to be good enough for the judges that have already told them to knock it off.  

A few notes on federal grants

I've been in a couple of sessions recently on federal grants (most recently DESE did one this morning), so providing a few highlights:

• Always remember that federal education grants are almost all what's called 'forward funded' meaning that we have the current fiscal year's funding already. 
• Thus discussions of the FY26 federal budget--which is what the shutdown happened around--are funding that are/will largely impact our NEXT fiscal year at the state and district level, FY27, and thus NEXT school year.
• There are BIG differences among White House/House/Senate's bills, with the Senate being the one that essentially level funds and has the least changes. As the Senate can only act on a bipartisan basis, there's some thinking that the Senate's option is the one that will win out.
• The Senate bill also included language that required that funding to states go out as soon as it was available--none of this wanting to recheck stuff that hung up grants this fall!--but it's anybody's guess as to if that stays in.
• The continuing resolution to fund the government expires January 30, 2026, so expect us to get countdown clocks again soon.
  
•  The CR passed reverses the reductions in force RIFs initiated just after the shutdown began and prohibits the Administration from initiating any new RIFs through January 30, 2026, when the CR expires.
• One piece of good news: Because the CR funds full year appropriations for, among others, USDA, the continuing resolution that passed fully funds school nutrition through September 30, 2026, so that isn't iffy around government shutdowns.

October Board of Ed charter school audits

 asking for the Board to waive the requirement that charter schools submit single audit by November 1
prior to the government shutdown those single audit requirements were not updated
only for those that spend more than $750,000 of federal funding
other districts are not governed by a state statutory date; other districts are due nine months after the close of the fiscal year (so March)
November 1 is in regulation; January 1 is in state law
Curtin: Board doesn't have the authority to waive the statute
regulatory deadline of November 1 can be waived by Board

and adjourned

next meeting November 18

What is freaking me out about funding right now

 I'm at the ASBO conference this week in Fort Worth--ASBO is the Association of School Business Officials--and one of the "must attends" for me is always the federal policy update jointly done by ASBO and AASA (that would be the superintendents). This stems from that presentation yesterday.¹

Setting aside for a moment:

1. that we do not currently have an operating federal government
2. because we do not have a federal budget or continuing resolution
3. and that some of the proposals for the federal budget have been alarming

I want to talk here about something that is actually going to happen because it is actually law and appears to not be in what is being planned for, at least from what I have seen in Massachusetts.

I know we've all got something else on our minds on federal funding right now but

 I did want to call to your attention this recently released report from the Center on Poverty and Inequality from Georgetown Law which analyzes the impact on state budgets of federal legislation: 

OBBBA introduced a new state matching requirement for benefits and increased the state share of administrative costs. Under OBBBA, states must cover part of the benefit costs for the first time, and their share of administrative costs will rise from 50 percent to 75 percent.

Click through to see the map on which you can hover; I share this because this is the result for Massachusetts:

The text reads: 

MASSACHUSETTS

State Cost Share Pre-OBBBA: $91,939,795

State Cost Share Post-OBBBA: $530,559,697

Increase in SNAP Share of State Budget 477%

 

I am fairly certain that no one in Massachusetts is budgeting for that, or even is able to.

Probable federal government shutdown at midnight

 And while we've been over this a few times, here's Politico on what this means for education. The two big PreK-12 hits are Head Start (in some cases) and federal funding in areas with non-taxed federal land. Again, remember, most of our federal grants are forward funded.

Politico also shared the official "here's what happens in a shutdown" document filed by Secretary McMahon. Page 1 has the number of employees expected to have to continue to work should the federal government shutdown at midnight tonight.

Since a possible federal shutdown is coming

 ...as the federal fiscal year ends October 1 (like me, you may be surprised to learn that is next Wednesday), and Congress is not showing signs it's moving towards a continuing resolution to keep it funded (never mind an actual budget).

As that can be anxiety-inducing to hear, let me suggest you review the post AASA (that's the superintendents) has up on a federal shutdown. The most important and reassuring part?

Most K-12 federal funding is “forward-funded”—funds are provided the following July for the upcoming school year—which means the majority of K-12 federal education funding is not immediately impacted by a government shutdown.

It's short; go give it a read. 

Don't panic on Title I just yet

You may have caught last week that the House Appropriation Committee moved a 26% cut to Title I. Please continue to keep in mind a few things on this: 

1. We are talking here about NEXT school year. Yes, the discussion is on fiscal year '26, but that's FEDERAL fiscal year 2026, which starts October 1. That's money that districts will be using for NEXT school year, in what we at the state and local level will call FY27.
   
   
2. The Senate Appropriation Committee DID NOT cut Title I and the two chambers have to agree on a resolution for it to move forward.
   
   
3. There is, again, a very good chance that this isn't going to be done for October, in any case, and people are already discussing a possible government shutdown again.

This is certainly something to keep an eye on, but we're not in panic mode at this point. 

Dragons to slay this the new school year

Statue of St. George slaying a dragon.
Sainte-Georges, Quebec, Canada

As we've entered this school year, I've noticed as I keep an eye on things across the country that we have some reoccurring things that don't serve kids well that we can actually fix. Yes! These are things that are within our power!
Here then are eight dragons to slay this back to school season:

Quick note on federal funding

First, while we should be attentive to the "House GOP eyes 27% cut to Title I" headline, what do we know about how the federal budget process works? There are many steps! And don't forget where the Senate (also with a GOP majority) went on this one: 

In July, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a bipartisan bill that would fund the Education Department at $79 billion in FY 26, a slight increase to current spending. 

As I posted then:

 Money has impact on real people.  

Keep telling your stories to those who make decisions. It makes a difference.