Local school funding shouldn't have to pass Washington's political tests

The Hill

a day ago

Education in the U.S. has always been primarily a state and local responsibility. The U.S. Constitution leaves education to the states, which is why decisions about funding, curriculum, governance, licensure and standards have always been made primarily at the state and local levels.
The federal role in education has historically been limited to targeted support, particularly for disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, English learners, and teacher development.
Various federal programs exist to provide additional capacity to schools that need it most. These aren't mechanisms of control, but levers of support. Yet, recent actions by the current administration have exposed something far more troubling than the myth of federal dominance: the increasing politicization of even the federal government's limited role in education.
On July 1, roughly $6.8 billion in K-12 funds — primarily Title II-A (professional development), Title III (English-language learner programs) and Title IV (student support and enrichment services) — were frozen.
The administration's stated reason for the freeze? A review to determine whether any of the funds had previously supported what they called radical ' left-wing ' or woke agendas.
In other words, essential programs that provide professional learning for teachers, academic support for English learners and enrichment opportunities for students were halted — not because of financial mismanagement or program failure, but because of ideological suspicion.
The funds were only partially released weeks later, and then ultimately restored after a public backlash. But this set a dangerous precedent that federal education funds can be weaponized to enforce political litmus tests.
On the one hand, critics argue the federal government has too much influence in schools and should pull back. On the other, those same critics used the limited leverage it does have — namely funding — as a partisan cudgel. The message isn't really about local control. It's about controlling the narrative.
The fear isn't just that support will be withdrawn, but that programs serving vulnerable students and supporting educators will become unstable and unreliable, depending on who is in power and what political winds are blowing.
For some districts — especially in rural or under-resourced areas — federal funding for professional development is the only consistent stream of support for teacher training and leadership development. Without those dollars, districts cancel training sessions, delay school improvement initiatives and scale back on instructional coaching.
These investments, drawn from the small share of federal funding schools receive, don't promote partisanship, they promote professional excellence.
Similarly, funds for multilingual learners, academic enrichment and mental health services are vital to student success. Freezing these programs over political talking points doesn't protect students, it harms them. The outcome isn't ideological clarity, it's teacher and school administrator burnout, stalled progress and disrupted learning.
The myth of overwhelming federal control obscures the real issue: a lack of stable, coordinated and protected systems to support the people doing the hard work of educating children.
Instead of building resilience and coherence into our educational infrastructure, we're increasingly allowing national support to be swayed by partisan distrust.
What makes this moment especially unsettling is that the recent freeze on federal funds wasn't a failure of law, it was a breach of trust. No one ever expected that professional development for teachers and school leaders, expanded mental health supports, or academic assistance for English learners would become the target of ideological review.
That's not because rules prevented it, but because, historically, leaders of both parties understood that some areas of education should remain above the political fray.
The contradiction is especially stark when those calling to eliminate the Department of Education in the name of 'local control' are the same ones now using federal dollars as political weapons.
We need stronger protections against political interference in educational support. That could include bipartisan guardrails requiring congressional notification or bipartisan sign-off before any mid-year freeze of formula or entitlement programs, as well as state-level contingency funds to maintain continuity during funding disruptions.
Program audits should be led by professional educators, not political appointees, and spending reviews should focus on purpose and outcomes, not ideology.
In my work with school districts across the country, I've seen firsthand how fragile these systems are, and how powerful they can be when funded and prioritized. If we truly want schools to succeed, we must treat educator support — and equitable, adequate funding of education — as a shared national investment, not a partisan battleground.
States already control most aspects of education. Federal involvement has always been limited and mostly financial, making up only a small percentage of total school funding — but that small share has become essential for many districts to survive.
What's missing is the will to consistently and equitably invest in the people who make schools work.
Rather than railing against a phantom threat of federal overreach, the conversation should shift to what really matters: ensuring stable, equitable and consistent investment in public education, free from ideological interference. It's not about who controls education. It's about who's actually supporting it.
Chad McLeod is the founder of Sociis Education, an organization that partners with schools and districts to strengthen professional development and leadership capacity for educators.