Accelerating U.S. educational system reform, the Trump Administration this past Tuesday announced sweeping changes to leadership structures in charge of educational programs. The move shifts education programs out of the U.S. Department of Education and into several new agencies using interagency agreements that do not require congressional action. While these actions accelerate the Trump administration’s commitment to reduce federal control over education, the US Department of Education will retain limited oversight.
According to the Official Announcement from the U.S.Department of Education, the most significant change is the Department of Labor’s new leadership of an interagency agreement, which covers programs within the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and some postsecondary programs.
Other agencies also gain new authority under the reforms: the Department of the Interior will lead Indian Education programs, and the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of State will assume a role with other education-related programs.
In a recent memorandum, CEO of Center of Education Reform Jeanne Allen informs Governors, State Chiefs, legislative leaders, and education innovators about what comes next.
According to Allen, public support for the DOE is supported by polling data, but contingent upon continued funding of K-12 education and “core student protections.” However, a national shift toward “autonomy meets purpose” requires innovation at every level, particularly the state and local district level. Models of success exist which present opportunities to improve outcomes and all that is required, according to Allen, is flexibility and application of CER’s simple formula: “Opportunity + Innovation = Results.”
Trump’s plan embraces decentralization of federal control and the return of education to the purview of individual states. While this implies greater flexibility, it also means uncertainty as each state struggles with different educational priorities and disparate outcomes. Each state must decide to what degree they will embrace innovation in the form of funding portability, private charter of faith-based schools, and flexible rather than one-size-fits-all curriculum.
In this transition, many states join CER in advocating for more flexible educational opportunities. Here in Alaska, rural villages with largely indigenous populations argue for more customized curriculums and programmatic flexibility. Urban school districts also appear too rigid and top-heavy with administration and union control over teaching standards. In her release, Jeanne Allen states:
“Today’s move is exactly what this Administration has said it would do: disrupt a federal system that hasn’t worked for students in decades…As we’ve argued repeatedly, the Department has become an obstacle—not a partner—to good education. Districts have increasingly become real estate, HR, and compliance operations rather than institutions centered on student learning. The recent UCSD analysis showing students with under 30% proficiency entering college is yet another stark reminder that the current model is broken.”
Allen adds that the traditional education establishment may resist the move. She urges leaders across the political spectrum to seize this moment:
“More than a thousand education groups draw their relevance, funding, and political power from the federal bureaucracy. They will predict disruption because it threatens their interests, not because it threatens students…This shift creates new space for every education leader — Republican, Democrat, independent — to rethink how they serve students. Washington should not dictate how every school in America operates. If this transition reduces bureaucracy and puts decisions closer to families, students will be the better for it.”