Originally published in Utah Policy.

While official elimination of the U.S. Department of Education requires congressional action, serious reorganization is underway, and more is to come. States are understandably not adequately prepared for these changes, given the limited details from the federal government. But Utah policymakers can still begin addressing critical questions and building a framework for the conversations we need to have as a state. Here’s a place to start.

Possible changes to funding

There is a lot of speculation about federal education funding. So, what is happening with current federal funds, and what can states do to prepare for changes?

The Trump administration has repeatedly signaled that it doesn’t want to defund key programs like Pell Grants, Title 1 funding, or funding for students with special needs (through IDEA). Still, concerns remain about the potential loss of funding and negative impacts on children. Some anticipate more flexibility in federal funding – perhaps through block grants, which give states more say in funding uses and open new opportunities for states, schools, and families. However, the idea has caused some to wonder if the flexibility would lead states to prioritize new initiatives over vulnerable groups of students. All this speculation makes it tricky for states to know where to start planning.

Notably, last month, the Utah State Board of Education requested an audit of federal funds received by the USBE over the past three years, including costs of administering and complying with federal requirements. This kind of analysis is prudent and is an example of an early step that could help assess funding impacts. Likewise, while debates swirl around unknowns, Utah leaders should expand this effort and ask: What policy or legislative responses are available if states lose, gain, or have increased flexible federal funds?

State education leadership to do more

Headlines have covered another eye-catching change: the U.S. Department of Education workforce has been roughly cut in half, from 4,133 to 2,183 employees. The department houses many offices, like the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Office of Civil Rights, the Institute for Education Sciences, and Federal Student Aid. As with other federal workforce cuts, it’s supposed to represent less red tape and intrusion from the federal government, but some argue it means little if the morass of rules and regulations remains unchanged. Utah policymakers should consider the practical effects of federal cuts in staff or regulations and how to respond with a renewed state role in compliance and enforcement.

Aside from reduced federal education workforce issues like delayed responses from federal contacts to state leaders or possibly fewer letters of guidance in future years, the central education policy question remains: What type of principled state leadership does Utah want to create to meet new responsibilities left by a reduction in federal staff or regulations?

A framework

As Utah prepares to think through these questions in more formal ways or working groups, a state framework needs to (1) center on people over systems, (2) balance flexibility with appropriate accountability, and (3) avoid re-creating federal problems at the state level.

Federal policymaking power is better suited to manage systems than it is to address the needs of people – and even then, it doesn’t always deliver. States should continue expanding the policymaking perspective that education is about students, not systems. Hopefully, flexibility in federal funding or requirements accelerates this. If federal funds are block-granted, state policies hopefully increase parents’ options to make student-centered choices. This student focus ought to reinforce– rather than reduce – a state commitment to students who need help most, like students with disabilities or students in low-income areas. State policymakers could reimagine, innovate, and evaluate policies that move the needle academically, especially for these kids. Likewise, state policy should review unnecessary reporting requirements placed on teachers. With a people-focused state approach – students ranking first – states could make important improvements.

Likewise, flexibility will need to be balanced with accountability. The topic of accountability has been ongoing in public education for years but has heightened as education choice programs have spread nationwide. Accountability needs to be both fiscal and academic. Taxpayers deserve to understand where funds flow, what regulations exist, and the outcomes resulting from them. Parents deserve to see gains for their students or make new choices if not. It’s worth noting that current accountability measures from the federal government have not necessarily translated to significant academic gains nationwide. Thus, the state has space to rethink accountability and needs to focus on accountability that translates to student learning.

For many, less federal control in education would be a welcome change. However, for those relieved by the idea of fewer regulatory burdens, the state should avoid simply replicating heavy-handedness at the state level. Even the state legislatures have been accused of micromanaging teachers or schools, so it’s possible to be onerous at the state level. An increased role for states may likely mean changes in staffing or responsibilities, but these need to be paired with a determination not simply to transplant federal tendencies and structures to the states. States may have a unique opportunity to evaluate what state and local control really means without the same pressure from D.C. that has existed in the past.

With so many unknowns, specific state plans are difficult to create right now. However, thinking through questions in advance can equip state leaders to take a confident and principled approach when the time for action arrives.