• Both Title I and IDEA funding offer some state and local flexibility, of which states should take advantage.
• The Trump administration seems poised to increase flexibility of these funds through simplification and consolidation, while advocates of choice would like to see block grants and education savings account flexibility.

Changes to federal education policy keep coming. On May 7, the Trump administration issued a letter on education choices required for students enrolled in unsafe schools. Two weeks prior, the administration announced six new education executive orders, touching on topics like AI training and school discipline.

Proponents of returning more education power to states have advocated for changes to include more flexibility in how federal education dollars can be used, specifically Title 1 and IDEA funding.

With rapid changes from Washington, leaders should be aware of what flexibility already exists within these two critical funding streams – and what flexibility may be possible in the future.

Here’s a quick look at each.

Purpose of Title I and IDEA funding

Title I funding for low-income students

In 1965, Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” In it, Title I funding was established to give federal aid to schools serving high percentages of low-income children. This law established a robust and ongoing federal presence in education that remains today. This law was reauthorized in 2001 as the controversial No Child Left Behind law, which implemented a more prescriptive approach to accountability, with standards, assessments, and yearly progress goals in reading and math. In 2015, the law was renamed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), allowing for more state flexibility in accountability to the federal government.

IDEA funding for students with special needs

Ten years later, in 1975, Congress passed legal protections and funding for students with disabilities with the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA). The law established the right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for children with disabilities. It also established the principle of providing these students with education in the least restrictive environment (LRE), meaning alongside their peers without disabilities as much as possible. The law created the need for an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for each qualifying student to outline how the law would be met for that individual.  In 1990, this law was expanded to include new disabilities and was renamed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, which is what it’s referred to as today. The law was last reauthorized in 2004.

Existing flexibility

Title I funding

The law already provides some flexibility regarding how a state can use Title I funds. For example, a state can reserve 3% of its Title I, Part A funds for “direct student services” like academic tutoring, career and technical education, enrollment in advanced courses not offered in a particular school, and more.

A March 2025 letter from the Trump administration to chief state school officers reminds states that they have this type of flexibility in law and encourages them to use it. The letter notes that few states take advantage of it and that Ohio is the one state that implements direct student services.

Likewise, LEAs and schools can decide to create choices within the existing flexibility allotted to them. The March letter notes that a “school operating a Title I schoolwide program…could choose to implement a program that identifies activities that improve the academic program in the school and which allows parents to choose the best activity to meet their child’s educational needs.” Under certain conditions, the school could “identify a range of dual enrollment opportunities, academic tutoring programs, and career and technical education activities” and let parents decide what works best for their child.

More details on how to use the current flexibility are forthcoming. This is part of the administration’s fulfillment of its March 2025 executive order titled “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities.”

IDEA funding

Likewise, IDEA provides for some state funding flexibility. While Part A of the law outlines key purposes and definitions for the law, Parts B, C, and D deal with funding and the requirements to receive it. Within Part B, states can set aside 10% of the funds for administrative costs and state-level activities, sometimes called “State Set-Aside Funds.”

What constitutes a state-level activity is outlined in regulation but is quite flexible. It can include costs for teacher professional development, technological assistance, LEA support for mental health, or it can fund the creation of a “high-cost fund” to help LEAs pay for especially expensive support. It may also be used to support Part C of the law.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Department of Education sent a letter with ideas for how a state might use the set aside for state-level activities to help address unique needs during that time.

Future funding possibilities

Because we’re in a time of change, many are eager to see more flexibility in federal funds. Advocates of education choice champion block-granting federal funds, which means giving states federal dollars with few strings (or requirements) attached so that states have the maximum flexibility to meet children’s needs. This might mean the dollars go straight to LEAs rather than the state agency, which traditionally disperses them to LEAs.

Another idea that advocates have pushed is to drive the flexibility down to the family level, where federal funds are used in a vehicle like an education savings account, where families decide how the funds meet their child’s needs. Whether there is the political will to make these policies law remains a question.

We do know that a recent May 2025 budget letter from the White House to Congress recommends consolidating multiple grants within both Title I and IDEA funding streams to reduce the U.S. Department of Education’s role and influence. The idea is to increase flexibility for states, districts, and families.

The administration is moving toward simplifying requirements and expanding flexibility while holding steady federal funding for these two critical and popular programs. We hope Utah leaders will continue to consider ways to use current flexibility to meet the needs of our most vulnerable children and prepare to embrace changes in the future.