Oklahoma’s state superintendent of education is making a bold push to ask the U.S. Department of Education to give the state more flexibility over how it uses federal funds—including using public dollars to pay tuition for private and religious schools—under a request it submitted on Tuesday that experts warn exceeds what the federal agency can legally allow.
The request from Ryan Walters is one of several already made—or in the works—that will test how much leeway Education Secretary Linda McMahon is inclined to give states under the department’s waiver authority. Iowa’s state education department made a request earlier this month to receive its federal school funding as a lump sum rather than through separate programs.
The movement comes as President Donald Trump and McMahon work aggressively to downsize the Education Department, shrinking the agency’s staff through a reduction in force and through an order calling for the agency’s dismantling.
Oklahoma, in a broad and vague request, seeks to consolidate its federal funding into a single grant, arguing it would “simplify fund management, reduce reporting requirements, and allow for more efficient and targeted resource allocation.”
It would allow the state’s education department, in part, to expand school choice, according to the memo Walters sent to the federal department. That’s been a major policy priority for both Walters and Trump, and Oklahoma already offers an expansive tax credit to subsidize the cost of private school tuition and homeschooling.
Public school advocates have worried that greater latitude for states in spending federal funding would mean less transparency and accountability toward making sure resources are sent to the schools and students who most need it.
And even if the request outright flouts the limitations of McMahon’s waiver authority established in law, it wouldn’t be the first time the Trump administration has overstepped its executive authority and teed up litigation to test those limitations.
“I am taking everything seriously,” said Anne Hyslop, the director of policy development at All4Ed, a nonprofit that advocates for students of color and students from low-income families.
Oklahoma’s request ‘exceeds the secretary’s authority’
While states have some flexibility with funding consolidation, it is limited, and doesn’t require a waiver.
But under federal law, the education secretary has no authority to waive requirements related to the distribution and allocation of formula funding for grants that support students from low-income communities and English learners, said Hyslop, who served in the Education Department during the Obama administration.
The secretary does have authority to waive most accountability requirements under the Every Student Succeeds Act, the 2015 update to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that requires states to test students annually and provide data on results; submit plans on accountability goals for testing proficiency, graduation rates, and English-language proficiency; and identify and support low-performing schools.
States seeking waivers must make the case for their waiver requests and explain how they’ll continue addressing the law’s requirements with the flexibility, and they must solicit public feedback on what they’re requesting.
“The waiver authority granted to the secretary under ESEA makes it clear that states and districts cannot request waivers to change the funding formula used to calculate aid amounts, or the rules for how those funds are distributed,” said Tammy Kolbe, principal researcher at the nonpartisan American Institutes for Research.
Districts are allocated their funds through different pots of money, and must report how they’re spending the dollars consistent with the program they’re tied to, said Nora Gordon, a professor of public policy at the Georgetown University.
Each program comes with its own requirements: Title I is to supplement services for students from low-income families, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) grants pay for services for students with disabilities, and Title III funds supplemental services for English learners. States also receive money for teacher professional development (Title II), career and technical education (Perkins V), and other purposes.
In both Oklahoma’s and Iowa’s requests to consolidate funds, they cite the administrative burden of dealing with those different pots of money.
Though a block grant would simplify some of the administrative burden, it would run up against Congress’ appropriation authority.
“When Congress is appropriating the money, they think that they’re appropriating it for one thing,” Gordon said.
States already control most aspects of education, with the federal government sending a sliver of funding—typically less than 10 percent annually—and having no say in curriculum.
But Walters, Oklahoma’s state superintendent who has drawn national attention as a political firebrand in part for repeatedly seeking to incorporate religion into public instruction, said the waiver would give the state direct control over students’ education.
“President Trump’s vision for education is simple: empower parents, get politics out of the classroom and put students first,” Walters said in a statement on Tuesday. “Today, Oklahoma is raising our hand and saying we will be the first to take the reins of education for our students.”
Walters has said previously he’s also talking with the Education Department about using funding provided under IDEA for education savings accounts that would follow students to the school of their parents’ choice, ideally including private schools or independent tutors. The memo released by Walters’ office did not mention that proposal.
Oklahoma’s request aligns, in part, with the playbook laid out in Project 2025, the 900-page conservative public policy agenda that Trump’s administration has already begun to follow after several of its authors were brought on board.
Project 2025 suggested giving states full authority to decide how to spend Title I funds, which currently go to schools with large populations of low-income students. The plan called for the funds to be distributed as “no-strings-attached” grants that could be used for education savings accounts, which allow parents to send their kids to private school with taxpayer dollars. The plan also called for Title I to be phased out after a decade.
Oklahoma’s memo doesn’t name the programs it would consolidate, or how it would ensure students continue to receive the services they’re entitled to under federal law, Hyslop said.
“Even based on the little information that they have provided, I think it’s safe to say this well exceeds the secretary’s authority and what she is able to waive,” Hyslop said.
The department has about four months to decide whether to grant or reject a waiver.
