GUEST COLUMN.

With the longest government shutdown in history ending on November 12, federal employees have returned to work, and many across the country have been cautiously optimistic that services that had been paused or significantly delayed would now be reinstated.

But the White House announced last week that an aggressive plan to continue transforming the Department of Education is moving forward with new initiatives to reduce services and or relocate functions to other cabinet agencies.

This isn’t the first blow to state departments of education, higher education institutions, and local K-12 school districts. They were already trying to navigate challenges resulting from the deep budget cuts contained in the budget, and additional government shutdown reductions in force. Staffing levels and capacity remain uncertain.   

With the Trump Administration citing goals of  “returning authority to the state and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely,” those delivering education at the state and local level have questions regarding the path towards successful achievement of the Department’s mission to promote student achievement and prepare students for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

What Has Remained at the Department?

Currently, the Department’s functions focus on several key areas, including distribution of funds, policy guidance and enforcement, and data collection and research. While several roles have been identified for relocation to other federal agencies, many other responsibilities of the Department will be transferred to states and localities. 

Supporters of eliminating the Department and reallocating responsibilities point to benefits such as greater innovation and flexibility, lowered administrative costs, and stronger local control and access to decision makers. Others are concerned that the decreased or eliminated footprint of the Department will lead to a lack of consistent oversight and adherence to standards, negative impacts on marginalized populations and those with disabilities, and funding disruptions. 

How are States Responding?

At least 24 states and the District of Columbia have responded with lawsuits to reverse funding cuts (including $6 billion of congressionally appropriated federal funding for after-school, student support, teacher training, and other education programs).  Local school districts are exploring contingency plans and rainy day funds, bracing for shortfalls and education professional vacancies that were already creating challenges prior to 2025.

The states are also preparing for the transfer of critical roles focused on administering the remaining grants, anticipating significantly reduced federal support.  Many are also faced with the need to hire and train staff for expanded roles and scopes of work and invest in infrastructure to support expanded information technology needs. 

The Role of Data

Many of the new tasks will focus on data sharing and management, creating extensive challenges for some states with limited funding and/or administrative capacity.  Currently, the Department consolidates national K–12 statistics informing enrollment and demographics, for example. Without this federal consolidation, states would need to individually collect, standardize, and report data—fragmenting analytics and increasing local burden.

These data issues do not neatly reside within a state or locality but often include cross-state issues (such as standardized testing and achievement measurement), and require thoughtful planning to establish well-communicated and understood agreements that ensure data standards and consistent practices across all state and local agency functions.

Data will be critical in informing budget decisions, forecasting future needs, and evaluating the performance of schools and education delivery.  These data will come from multiple sources to continue supporting activities such as longitudinal studies and outcome-driven analysis. Identifying both successes and opportunities for improvement will be derived from information that includes test performance, graduation rates, and data from labor, health and human service departments within states and localities.

Tools That Can Help

Recent work at the National Academy of Public Administration highlights successful data sharing and management practices, as well as best practices that can guide states and localities in strengthening their efforts to respond to new needs and opportunities, ultimately improving education outcomes. The Center for Intergovernmental Partnerships focuses on opportunities and lessons learned for coordination across all levels of government. The Academy’s work with the Program Integrity Alliance has explored the challenges of Balancing Data Sharing and Privacy to Enhance Integrity and Trust in Government Programs.

The analysis and recommendations provide guidance that can be applied to data management efforts across the intergovernmental continuum, acknowledging the complexity of the tensions that exist in ensuring both program integrity and data privacy.

The recently completed Field Guide for Financing Integrated Data Systems and Evaluation in the Public Sector is a plain-language tool designed to support high-performance and evidence-based policymaking in states and localities.  The information in this field guide can provide resources to assist with financing the development and operation of integrating data systems, thereby improving evaluation capacity and informing program improvement. These tools are just several examples of empowering states and local communities with creative resources to measure what is working and to continue to provide critical services to their residents.  

Ultimately, while many of the decisions that have been made at the federal level continue to be litigated and debated, states and localities have demonstrated a commitment to shaping the education landscape and fostering excellence at all levels to deliver results for learners of all ages.

The contents of this Guest Column are those of the author, and not necessarily Barrett and Greene, Inc. 

#StateandLocalEducationManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #IntergovernmentalRelations #EducationDepartmentCutbacks #StateandLocalPerformanceMeasurement #IntergovernmentalEducationData #StateandLocalEducationData #LongitudinalEducationData #IntegratedEducationDataSystems #StateandLocalGovernmentData #StateandLocalEducationData #NewStateandLocalEducationResponsibilties #StateandLocalEducationEvaluation #StateandLocalEvidenceBasedPoliciesForEducation #StateandLocalDataSharingandManagement #OversightEducationOutcomes #NationalAcademyofPublicAdministration #NAPA #NAPAEducationResearch #EducationDataPrivacy #DeliveringEducationResults #EducationDepartmentDownsizingAndStateResponse #StateandLocalEducationOutcomes #StateDCEducationCutLawsuit #EducationDepartmentCutbacks #CenterIntergovernmentalPartnership #StateLocalGovernmentDataSharing #BalancingDataSharingandPrivacy #BrennaIsman #BandGGuestColumn #BarrettandGreeneInc