School district leaders say they are having a hard time keeping up with all the federal policy changes affecting their schools, as President Donald Trump’s administration unilaterally makes some of the most significant changes to federal K-12 policy in years.
Two superintendents expressed those views during a panel discussion here on July 2 at the ISTELive 25 + ASCD Annual Conference 25.
The school district leaders identified several changes they are struggling to deal with, including President Donald Trump’s freeze of nearly $6.8 billion in federal funds for K-12 education and the reduction of the Department of Education’s staff by 50 percent, which included the elimination or consolidation of the agency’s offices of education technology and English language acquisition.
During his second term, Trump has also threatened to withhold federal funds from states that allow transgender girls to play on girls’ sports teams and states that allow diversity, equity, and inclusion programs or policies. His administration has taken early steps to cut off federal school funds from California, Maine, and New York state after the U.S. Department of Education alleged civil rights violations related to those political priorities.
The panel session—titled “Keeping Up with Trump’s Washington: Cheat Sheet for K-12 Leaders” and moderated by Education Week Assistant Editor Alyson Klein—featured panelists Quentin J. Lee, superintendent of Talladega City schools in Talladega, Ala.; Keith Konyk, superintendent of Elizabeth Forward school district in Elizabeth, Pa.; and Eric Mackey, Alabama’s state superintendent of education.
A state chief, so far, is telling superintendents, ‘don’t panic’ about federal funds Trump is withholding
The categories of funds the Trump administration was supposed to start sending to states on July 1 pay for teacher professional development, services for English learners, costs of educating students whose parents work migrant agricultural jobs, before- and after-school programs, and more.
“We are telling our superintendents: don’t panic, don’t close off any programs, lay off any people yet, but that could come,’” Mackey said.
But Mackey said he’s concerned about the possibility of a rescission—the cancellation of previously approved federal funds, which requires the consent of Congress if it’s been requested by the president.
At the moment, the Trump administration is withholding the congressionally approved funds without Congress’ approval, and hasn’t indicated whether it intends to propose a formal rescission of the education funds.
Mackey said this would be detrimental because teachers have been promised jobs, after-school programs have been approved, and contractors have been hired based on states’ and districts’ assumptions that they would receive federal funds approved by Congress in March.
“We can have that argument—and people have very valid points on both sides—about the role of the federal government, whether we should cut back or shouldn’t cut back,” said Mackey. “We can have that [argument] when we are talking about the 2027 [school] year and beyond, but we can’t have that discussion about the 25-26 school year in July of 2025.”
Leaders discuss issue of federal funds going to private schools
The panelists also discussed the prospect of a federal private school choice program, a day before Congress passed a tax-credit scholarship program as part of Trump’s signature bill with tax and spending cuts.
The legislation includes the first major federal investment in private school choice through a tax-credit scholarship program that provides taxpayers with a federal credit of up to $1,700 for donations to organizations that award students scholarships to attend private school.
The program is open-ended in terms of its total cost, which will depend on how many people claim the credit.
Lee, the Alabama superintendent, doesn’t believe in using federal funds to support private education. He worries that schools already have limited funding for existing programs.
“We really need to look at: what is the goal? Are we really trying to improve all the children or just the children that already have a step up in life?” he said.
Superintendents explore other options after elimination of some Ed. Dept. offices
In March, amid the reduction in force that’s wiped out about half the Education Department’s staff, the office of education technology was eliminated. It had spearheaded a national education technology agenda and assisted states with implementing it.
Superintendents Lee and Konyk believe that the office’s elimination provides districts with the opportunity to explore different options for implementing digital technology and to determine what works best for their districts instead of following a national plan—even one that was non-binding.
Both are members of the League of Innovative Schools, a group of superintendents working to learn more about the use of technology in schools.
Membership in the league “allows us to talk to like-minded folks who can lead us in policy and work from the practitioner level, which is super powerful,” said Konyk. “While those [federal] departments are important, and we value the resources and guidance on policy that they give us, the key is that we need to search for ourselves and find other resources that meet those needs.”
Mackey said he’s most concerned that the elimination of offices in the department, along with the lack of federal Title II-A funding for professional development, could jeopardize the teaching profession.
“Everybody wants to pull back, and we all know that the easiest thing to do is say, ‘Nobody gets to travel, nobody goes to any meeting, anywhere, anytime. Nobody talks to anybody else,’” he said. “Well, we get behind when we do that, so we have to invest in professional development if we want to stay ahead.”
