Regarding the federal role in education, there is a concerning paradox presented by the Trump administration and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. They advocate for evidence-based practices and high standards in education in public remarks. However, they make it clear that their goal is to deconstruct the Department of Education, and they support this by refusing to finance or suggesting that funding be cut for programs in areas that they simultaneously assert are of the highest significance.
The department’s suggested goals for federal competitive funds for evidence-based literacy are the best example of these discrepancies. The department’s suggested goals, on the one hand, show the kind of federal leadership that may influence state and local policy in a constructive way. Its dedication to the corpus of research known as the science of reading in particular will help guarantee that federal funds are allocated to literacy initiatives that have been shown to be successful rather than inefficient approaches that have let kids down for centuries.
Regretfully, the government has taken steps to cut off or combine programs that help achieve their purported evidence-based literacy objectives.
First, $194 million in Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants will no longer be awarded under President Donald Trump’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget. With a focus on low-income families, English language learners, and children with disabilities, this program assists states in creating reading curricula for students from infancy through high school. Defunding the Innovative Approaches to Literacy Grants program is another goal of the budget.
Two of the eighteen programs that will be combined into a block grant are these two. Even while the Trump budget calls for at least 7.5% of block grant funds ($150 million) to go toward literacy initiatives, this would still represent a 33% reduction in the two programs’ current funding levels.
Second, the administration abruptly informed states last week that it would not be providing them this year’s funds for the Title III English Language Acquisition program under the Every Student Succeeds Act, and it has planned to eliminate $890 million from the program next year. State education agencies can receive funding under Title III to assist English language learners in improving their proficiency and advancing academically. Removing Title III funding and, thus, ending the program will significantly cut down on the resources and policy recommendations that support English language learners. For instance, Title III mandates that states create and put into place uniform protocols for determining which pupils might be English language learners and for their eventual removal from that classification. There will be no assurance that English language learners will be evaluated or that a precise timetable for achieving proficiency will exist if Title III is not financed.
Third, the administration has canceled millions of dollars in grants for evidence-based reading instruction programs and will now withhold approximately $2 billion in funding for this year under the Title II professional development program, despite the fact that the proposed priorities on this topic highlight the significance of teacher training. States could learn from the success of states like Louisiana and Mississippi in increasing reading competence by implementing the measures outlined in the administration’s recommended literacy goals. But if there isn’t any money to attach them to, that won’t happen.
It is difficult to believe the government when it says it is dedicated to improving the science of reading, only to destroy the same federal initiatives that would accomplish that goal. In actuality, the department’s professed objective of assisting in the transition to closure is completely nonsensical. This stance runs counter to the administration’s declared goals toward reading science.
Regarding assessments, the agency is likewise giving mixed signals. On the one hand, the budget makes extensive use of language regarding the significance of accountability and statewide tests. However, the State Assessments grant program no longer receives financing. According to the statute, states will no longer be required to conduct yearly exams unless this program is funded at a level of $361.9 billion. Some observers have adopted a positive outlook, pointing to additional budgetary language that suggests the government still plans to mandate that states do reviews. Given the crucial role that federal law serves as a backstop on assessment and accountability safeguards, the department is, at the absolute least, acting irresponsibly and providing states with an excuse to opt out.
The relationship between educational goals and the tools to attain them must be honestly acknowledged in order to resolve these inconsistencies. The department must back the initiatives that teach teachers how to apply and learn evidence-based instruction if it truly hopes to promote it.
This does not imply that every government education program is flawlessly planned or operates at its best. Debate is reasonable when it comes to program implementation, funding levels, and structure. However, neither fiscal responsibility nor educational advancement are served by the administration’s strategy of retaining rhetorical support for educational objectives while dismantling the programs intended to accomplish them.
American families are entitled to more than words that are separated from actual application. They require a well-thought-out federal education strategy that combines explicit objectives with tangible assistance to help schools and students achieve them. The department’s claims of improving education will remain mere rhetoric unless the discrepancies between what it says and what it funds are resolved.
