Overview:
The U.S. Department of Education’s will divert funding from Title 1 toward school choice initiatives
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education has issued new guidance to state education officials, clarifying how they can use federal formula funds to expand school choice initiatives. The move aligns with President Donald Trump’s executive order and campaign promises to expand school choice. This move would divert Title 1 funds from schools and push them to other programming preset by the state education department.
The Department’s letter, sent to chief state school officers, outlines how states can allocate up to three percent of their Title I funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to provide direct student services. These funds can be distributed to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools to enhance educational opportunities and improve academic outcomes.
Under the new guidance, parents could access various educational services for their children, including advanced courses, dual enrollment, academic tutoring, career and technical education, personalized learning, and out-of-school activities.
“The Trump administration is committed to expanding education options for parents in their children’s education,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Today’s guidance is an important early action aimed at advancing educational choice and encouraging states and schools to maximize learning options that help students excel.”
Title I, Part A (Title I) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA), provides supplemental financial assistance to school districts for children from low-income families. Its purpose is to give all children a significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education and to close educational achievement gaps by allocating federal funds for education programs and services.
In the 2021–22 school year, about 63 percent of traditional public schools and 62 percent of public charter schools were Title I eligible. A Title I-eligible school could have a schoolwide program, a targeted assistance program, or no Title I program. A lower percentage of traditional public schools participated in schoolwide Title I programs than public charter schools (42 vs. 50 percent). Nine percent of traditional public and public charter schools operated targeted assistance programs. A higher percentage of traditional public schools had no Title I program (although they were eligible), compared with public charter schools (12 vs. 4 percent).
Stephen D. Dackin, Director of the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, praised the initiative, noting that Ohio is currently the only state utilizing this federal flexibility.
“In being the only state to use this federal flexibility, we have connected these funds that match our statewide priorities with the unique needs of students and schools. Whether it’s credit recovery programs, advanced coursework, or expanding career pathways, the goal is the same for every Ohio student – to meet their full potential,” Dackin said.
Last week, the National Education Association and a coalition of education, civil rights, and school employee groups, including NAACP and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, filed a lawsuit in federal district court arguing that the staff cuts left the agency unable to carry out many of its mandatory functions and threatened student civil rights.
“Gutting the Department of Education will hurt all students by sending class sizes soaring, cutting job training programs, making higher education more out of reach, taking away special education services for students with disabilities, and gutting student civil rights protections,” says Becky Pringle, NEA President. “Parents, educators, and community leaders know this will widen the gaps in education, which is why we will do everything in our power to protect our students and their futures.”
While states cannot dictate how LEAs use the funds, they can establish priorities that align with statewide educational goals. For example, states could award competitive points to LEAs proposing initiatives that offer parents the most choices and maximize the funds’ impact.
The Department’s announcement signals a continued effort to reshape the federal government’s role in education funding, focusing on increasing parental choice and flexibility at the state and local levels.
