The Delta Issue #41

I read the President’s education budget. Here are 3 big questions I’m asking.

The Trump administration’s proposed FY2026 education budget is out.

The TL;DR: This proposal upends the way the federal government funds K-12 education. It guts the education budget by $6.5 billion, and consolidates 18 distinct funding streams into a single $2 billion formula grant to states. Cutting the federal education budget right as schools face the ESSER cliff and global recession gathers on the horizon is troubling. Consolidating 18 grants into a single formula is not an inherently bad idea, but if it moves forward, the details will matter tremendously (more on that below).

If nothing else, it’s a not-so-gentle nudge for states to get serious about how education dollars are spent so they best serve kids, which is why it’s more important than ever for states to build their own Super App to get clear on their priorities.

The budget proposal preserves overall funding levels for Title I and IDEA, the two largest federal education programs, but makes major changes within them. It collapses several individual line items under IDEA — including some that support preschool services, technology tools, and parent centers — into the broader Part B formula. Beyond Title 1 and IDEA, it collapses a slew of grants into what the administration is calling a “Simplified Funding Program,” eliminating targeted support for groups like migrant students and youth in foster care.

The administration is framing the move as an effort to give states more flexibility. People who have worked with Jessica and me know that we are all about simplification — our team in Louisiana created the Super App for this exact reason. Done right, consolidating the number of grant applications and budgets that a district or state has to manage can enhance focus. But for the additional flexibility to actually serve kids, states would need to aggressively make and implement a coherent plan.

While this budget will undergo changes when Congress reviews it in July, it’s a clear signal of how the administration is orienting toward states.

Here are the three biggest questions the Simplified Funding Program section of the proposal has me asking.

1. What will the new formula be based on?

Unlike the Title I and IDEA formulas, which are dictated by federal law, the proposed “Simplified Education Fund” lacks statutory clarity. The 18 grant programs it consolidates were each created to address distinct needs, from supporting English learners to serving foster youth and students experiencing homelessness.

Trump’s proposal introduces a new formula, but it’s not clear what the formula will value. If those 18 programs are collapsed into a single pot, who or what will be the priority? What happens to states relying on targeted programs to serve specific student needs?

2. How much flexibility will states have and at what cost?

As proponents of streamlining, we understand the benefit of simplifying the number of different federal grants that flow to states.

But the 18 grants that are consolidated in Trump’s proposal did something that the new budget doesn’t: they ensured states prioritized student groups and services they might not otherwise. If they’re all lumped into one fund, how do we make sure those priorities aren’t lost?

The proposal is vague on how prescriptive the federal government will be going forward.

Will states receive an unrestrained tranche of money with full discretion on how to spend it? Will any of the original federal priorities remain? And if not, who will provide guidance to districts? When you lump rural funding, Title II dollars, and afterschool money into a single pot, focus has to come from somewhere. Without clear direction from the Department of Education, states will need to fill that role.

3. How will states be held accountable for using federal money in a way that is focused on raising student achievement?

As they stand, each of the 18 federal education programs comes with separate reporting requirements and oversight structures. There is a possibility that Trump’s budget proposal could consolidate accountability and reporting to ease the burden on states. That could be a very good thing, but the devil is in the details. How will the federal government track how this money is spent and whether it’s being used effectively? Will the Department of Ed have the capacity — or even the will — to create accountability? How will communities know whether dollars meant for, say, afterschool or homeless students are actually being used as intended?

As someone who’s worked inside a state education agency, I’m skeptical that slashing the federal education budget will help states, let alone kids and their families. Consolidating federal education funding very well might, but only if it’s done right.

At the end of the day, this budget proposal tells us a lot about what’s coming: fewer dollars, fewer rules, and more responsibility pushed down to states without a compass.