Will the MAGA campaign wipe out the two largest federal aid programs for kids in K-12 schools? President Donald Trump’s latest budget request would continue funding Title I and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but there is reason to expect major waivers in the rules and big reductions in the oversight that kept those programs focused on the students most in need.
The two big federal programs transformed local schools’ priorities, putting children in need front and center. But they have also burdened children with labels, complexified schools, and created confusion about whom—regular classroom teachers vs. federally paid specialists—is responsible for a student’s overall progress. The White House and the U.S. Department of Education propose to solve these problems in ways that will also end the programs’ benefits.
This essay’s first author (Paul Hill) has seen the good and not-so-good sides of federal programs since leading a congressionally mandated study of Title I in the 1970s. As the initiative shifts to local actors, new options to overcome the not-so-good will become possible.
Both of us are convinced that the consequences of current attacks on federal programs will depend less on what happens in Washington than on how effectively people who care about children in need perform in local politics. Title I and IDEA have created local assets—specialist teachers, parent groups, teacher-training providers, and in the case of IDEA, lawyers who represent students in need of special education. How much harm current disruptions to federal programs do will depend heavily on whether existing local supporters can agree on an agenda, find allies, and persist.
In a new book published this spring, we provide ideas for local leaders and activists who want to make schools more responsive to kids’ needs, even in this time of turmoil. We exploited a set of multiyear case studies of 50 city school districts that adopted a complex “portfolio” reform strategy with the goal of analyzing the differences between districts in which the strategy barely got off the ground before it was killed and those in which it persisted for many years.
The facts we uncovered refute the conventional wisdom that politics always defeats school reform. Opponents don’t always win, though they often do, not because their positions are impregnable but because they set priorities, organize, seek allies, pay attention all the time, and never give up.
Both of us are convinced that the consequences of current attacks on federal programs will depend less on what happens in Washington than on how effectively people who care about children in need perform in local politics.
Here are some practical lessons for people who want to protect children in need and improve their schools:
Start with an idea. Supporters of disadvantaged and disabled kids need to forge a common agenda, not insist on keeping absolutely everything they had when federal programs were in their heyday. This almost certainly means uniting around the importance of school-level flexibility to use money and teaching talent to meet kids’ needs as well as overcoming constraints on staffing and instruction set by labor contracts and state regulation.
Start small with a core group of like-minded people. Trying to start with broad unanimous agreement is a way to privilege the status quo and change nothing. Some groups will oppose or sit on the fence until they see change starting.
Recruit new allies. Change is hard because the groups that are always engaged in K-12 politics are locked in equilibrium. Leaders who would make change must expand the playing field by engaging groups whose primary focus is not K-12 education. In the cities we studied, leaders (including some whose powers were enhanced by state takeovers) knew they had to get support from, for example, minority-group leaders, city government, higher education, employers, religious leaders, and state officials.
Expect opposition. Teacher and parent groups that are getting the best the school system has to offer will naturally fear change. They will message relentlessly, develop alliances, keep their supporters motivated, look for weakness in reform strategy and implementation, and stay engaged over the long haul. Reform leaders need to be prepared to counter opposition, not be blind-sided when it arises.
Keep messaging and expanding the base of support. If not kept up to date and given reasons to persist, some allies will lose interest. Others who at first feared a reform become neutral or even join up with the reform campaign if they see credible evidence that children are benefiting.
Get valid evidence of results, good and bad. Opponents will claim that a reform strategy is useless or doing harm. An anticipatory alliance with a local university or think tank can provide both timely validation and early warning of isolated but deadly mistakes. Leaders who act on early results can protect both children and their initiative’s reputation.
Expect setbacks. Opponents will find themes that resonate with some groups; school boards and superintendencies will turn over; uncontrollable factors can cause downturns in school spending, enrollment, and teacher recruitment. Such events can slow progress and undermine support. Initiatives must be able to execute tactical retreats and timely restarts as circumstances change.
Organize for succession. Reform initiatives take time, and individuals will age out or move on to other jobs. To keep an initiative going long enough to make a difference for kids, leaders must recruit a bench of persons who understand the core ideas and the local alignments of support and opposition. When superintendents are the reform leaders, supporters must press the school board to appoint someone committed to completing what has been started.
Would-be reformers would have much more success if they followed these principles, but they seldom do. In our studies, we have seen many local leaders who thought a state takeover or a big foundation grant would allow them to skirt around local politics. This is a mistake shared, unfortunately, by too many state officials and philanthropies. When deluded by the fantasy of universal support and quick wins, reformers ignore local politics, get blind-sided by opposition, and quit too soon.
Making sure that kids in need are taken seriously and their needs are met, even in the absence of federal regulations, will require local strategy-setting and political organization. Doing what’s needed locally will be more like a long-term movement than an in-and-out intervention. To succeed, such a movement needs to build a coalition among those committed to equal opportunity, renew its leadership over time, learn lessons, and survive setbacks. Everything stems from the recognition that improving public schools is as much a political project as it is an educational one.
In our book, we provide examples of effective and failed politics and how local leaders cope with inertia and opposition.
Our message is that local politics is tractable but hard. Local people can improve schools and protect kids in need, even as federal leadership fades away and federal resources decline. Committed local groups need to get started now, before the ill effects become obvious and hard to reverse.
