The recent action by the Trump administration to delay and review the disbursement of billions in federal funding for education is yet another example of political efforts to undermine public education and inflict pain on our most vulnerable students, families, and communities. It’s causing educators and families to scramble at the last minute to create alternative plans to provide critical summertime support, serve multilanguage learners, and train teachers in evidence-based practices.
While it’s egregious—especially given the spurious claims from the administration that these funds support “a radical left-wing agenda”—it’s also indicative of a perennial dynamic in public schools. School district funding fluctuates based on political and economic dynamics, and leaders are often left to figure out how to continue improvement efforts without always having stable resources to accomplish the task.
However, in (rightly) calling out the harm of such funding cuts, we run the risk of perpetuating the idea that funding alone will solve the problems that ail our schools. To improve outcomes for students, we need more than just stable funding; we also need clarity of vision on how best to spend those limited resources.
There’s enormous pressure on school and system leaders to get results. Now. Immediately. And there’s no dearth of public statements from politicians and promises from the marketplace that double down on that pressure. As a result, money isn’t always spent effectively.
I was working with one district recently on its long-term strategic plan. After about a year of engaging with them, the superintendent said to me, “We have every evidence-based program you can buy, but I’m starting to realize that we don’t have any coherence and alignment in our approach, and that’s why we’re not getting results.”
It felt like reading the last line of Philip Roth’s Portnoy’s Complaint when, after several hundred pages of the protagonist reciting his life story, his psychoanalyst finally declares they can get started. Now, we may begin.
Post-COVID, the district had thrown a lot of money at programs, curricula, people, interventions, materials, you name it. But they were trying to do everything all at once, and it was exhausting. More importantly, they weren’t improving.
One of my change-management principles is “slow down the inquiry to speed up the action.” The most successful leaders are really good at creating clarity for their teams. Clarity about who’s going to do what, by when. Clarity about what’s urgent versus what’s important. Clarity about their culture and values and how people are expected to act toward each other as they organize around collective goals.
This action by the Trump administration is creating chaos for schools and families, and leaders need to manage and respond thoughtfully. But they also need to slow down the inquiry, ensure clarity, and establish coherence and alignment.
There’s also a hard truth that leaders don’t always want to admit: Yes, money matters—when it’s spent well. But if it’s not, more funding won’t lead to improved student learning and achievement.
When student needs are increasing, teachers and staff aren’t paid fairly, supplies are in short order, and facilities need upgrading, it’s hard for a leader to say that it’s not all about the money. Believe me, I’ve been there. But the “more stuff” trap has to be resisted.
When he was superintendent of Plainfield, N.J., my mentor, Larry Leverett, used to say that we have a “sacred trust” with taxpayers. That language has stuck with me, as I think it aptly captures the notion that public schools are a public good that serve a community. That sacred trust also means that resources must be spent well and that leaders must be accountable. When our communities trust us with hard-earned tax dollars, we must find clarity and cohesion in how we spend those resources.
Recently, I’ve been working with another district on its long-term strategic plan. The new superintendent and administrative team are eager to do some innovative work. But impending state funding cuts announced a few months ago have forced them to spend a lot of time on readjusting their budget rather than planning for the future.
It’s an enormous challenge for the superintendent to keep the team and the school board excited about what’s possible when they may not be able to deliver what’s necessary. Since many on the team are new to their positions, they haven’t had to deal with the swinging funding pendulum before, and it’s weighing heavily on them. Their conversation is now about figuring out how to balance this reality. I know that lessons learned now will help them in years to come.
When I was a superintendent, I used to tell my board and local elected officials that I’d rather have a stable three-year budget with a small increase than have to go through the annual beg-a-thon and public performance that may result in a large increase or may not.
It’s not that I didn’t want more money for the district—of course I did. But more importantly, I wanted stability. I wanted to be able to focus on the long-term health and continuous improvement strategy for our schools.
Not knowing how many teachers or support staff you’ll have until just before the summer creates a challenge for principals and HR directors. Not knowing whether you’ll be able to purchase new materials—or have to purchase them at the last minute to spend down state and federal dollars—creates a degree of chaos for teachers. Not being able to sign a contract with vendors or service providers who you want to bring in to help improve practice can compromise essential professional development plans. Stability is a precious commodity.
The shameful delayed disbursement of federal dollars compromises the ability of leaders to address real issues with real kids. The state and district leaders who are publicly decrying this political chicanery need to be supported for their courageous stances. Yet, leaders need to hold two competing ideas in their heads at once: Yes, schools need more funds and stability, but they also need a long-term coherent strategy to ensure resources are allocated according to vision and need.
