How Do the Federal Budget Cuts Impact K-12 Education?

At one school in California, students called a Black peer racial slurs and played whipping sounds during a lesson about slavery. At another, students with disabilities were barricaded in a “reset” room. Both of these cases were investigated by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and promptly  dismissed without resolution. This same office stands to lose 35% of its total funding under the Trump Administration’s budget for the 2025-26 fiscal year.

According to National Education Association Today (NEA Today), On May 2, the Trump Administration released a “skinny” budget—a blueprint for the budget congress will ultimately decide on—that made a $4.5 billion cut to K-12 programs. This is a part of the $12 billion total proposed budget cut to the Department of Education (DOE).

Under the administration’s suggestion, eighteen K-12 grant programs would be condensed into the K-12 Simplified Funding Program. According to EdSource, this would reduce the current grant amount of $6.5 billion to a $2 billion block grant.

The condensed programs include: Education for Homeless Children and Youths, Assistance for Arts in Education, Statewide Family Engagement Centers, American Civics and History Education, and Comprehensive Literacy State Development.

Block grants give states more control over how funds are spent—a goal, according to the White House, asserted by Trump during his campaign: “I will close the Department of Education and move education back to the states where it belongs.” By these measures, the state would be given more power over the rights, protections, and services provided to students. According to NEA Today, a number of legislators, including some Republicans, are opposed to this objective, as it may result in reduced accountability and funding. 

The administration is also planning to shift block grants towards private school voucher programs; this voucher is essentially the government’s way of returning the money parents paid in public school taxes so that the money can be used to pay for their child’s education at an independent school. Incidentally, funding is also expected to transfer to charter schools—increasing from $440 million to $500 million—many of which the NEA Today describes as “mired in financial scandals and mismanagement” and having a “mixed at best” academic record. Regardless of the validity of such statements, it is evident that the administration is shifting away from funding public schools, at least at the federal level, instead favoring school choice.

“[The “skinny” budget] supports the President’s vision of expanding school choice and ensuring every American has access to an excellent education,” says Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in a statement on May 2. This line of thinking favors the idea that when parents and/or students are given a choice over where they are educated, they are more likely to have access to a higher quality education.

However, in choosing to send their child to a private or charter school, parents take their tax dollars away from public schools, and in doing so create a positive feedback loop of public school decline.

The administration will continue funding for Title I—which provides funding for students from low-income families—and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)—which protects the right to education services of students with disabilities. However, seven IDEA programs will likely be condensed into one. According to Education Week, cuts to the IDEA are supplemented by smaller funds for infants and toddlers, family resources, technology tools, and state personnel development.

Rob Manwaring—a fiscal and policy analyst at Children Now—states special education program costs are increasing, as more children are being screened and diagnosed. Therefore, the compressing of IDEA funds will likely result in less funds for special education services. Additionally, the budget cuts are potentially not representative of considerations relating to the increased cost of living or the impact on teacher salaries and benefits.

English learners, children of migrant farm workers, the homeless, Native Americans, and rural children garner the most benefits from the programs that would be cut. Interestingly, 63% of rural voters supported Trump in 2024—up from 60% in 2020—according to Newsweek. 

Adding on, programs focused on preparation for postsecondary education, literacy, civics, the arts, student safety, and well-being are targeted. Teacher training—protected under Title II, according to Chalkbeat—and educational research are also facing millions of dollars in cuts.

However, the goal of these proposed cuts go beyond increasing state power and reducing taxes; the budget is, perhaps more significantly, seemingly a means of determining the content that is and is not permitted to be taught.

Within the DOE’s final mission statement, Linda McMahon asserted “Taxpayer-funded education should refocus on meaningful learning in math, reading, science, and history—not divisive DEI [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion] programs and gender ideology.” In similar fashion, the White House states “Taxpayers will no longer be burdened with tens of billions of dollars wasted on progressive social experiments and obsolete programs.” 

The administration recently canceled a $226 million grant under the Comprehensive Centers Program—which, according to the DOE, provides support for students from low-income families—because it allegedly “forced radical agendas onto states and systems, including race-based discrimination and gender identity ideology.”

For similar reasons, the OCR faced $49 million in budgets and layoffs of 40% of their staff. According to NEA Today, the administration states that the OCR “pushes DE programs and radical transgender ideology.” The mission of the OCR is to protect students from discrimination based on disability, race, and gender. Such cuts may worsen academic achievement and decrease motivation.

According to ProPublica, one OCR attorney—who remained anonymous due to fear of retaliation—said their workload increased from 60 to 380 cases. They added, “The people who remain are doing all they can. We’re doing all we can. But it isn’t enough, and it keeps us up at night.”

In March, the OCR dismissed 91% of cases without investigation and 89% of cases in April. Generally, the OCR dissolves 70% of cases for not necessitating inquiry. Ongoing investigations, including those that were nearly resolved, were dismissed rather abruptly. 

Fifty-seven cases relating to civil rights violations were resolved in March and fifty-one were concluded in April. Under the Biden Administration, approximately 200 cases were resolved per month. Additionally, the public online list of OCR investigations has not been updated since President Trump took office.

Under the Trump administration, the OCR has shifted its focus to DEI practices and transgender girls in women’s sports. According to ChalkBeat, “the Education Department is trying to use its civil rights authority to root out practices associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, and force states to end inclusive policies that protect transgender students.”

The current shift in the DOE is incongruent with past policies. According to ProPublica, the OCR is “historically one of the government’s largest enforcers of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” and “known for being a neutral fact-finder.”

On February 14, according to the DOE, the OCR issued a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) to to educational institutions receiving federal funding, informing them they “must cease using race preferences and stereotypes as a factor in their admissions, hiring, promotion, scholarship, prizes, administrative support, sanctions, discipline, and other programs and activities.”

According to the White House, the DOE’s “‘Dear Colleague’ letters have forced schools to redirect resources toward complying with ideological initiatives, which diverts staff time and attention away from schools’ primary role of teaching.” This ties into the White House’s online statement made in March: “The Department of Education burdens schools with regulations and paperwork.”

In accordance with the administration’s policies, nearly half of the DOE workforce was laid off on March 11, reducing the staff from 2,200 to 4,133 people (including voluntary buyouts). According to the Associated Press, on March 20, Trump signed an executive order to eliminate the DOE.

The administration explains their reduction in budget and workforce as a means of giving back more power to the states and improving the quality of education. The White House asserts math and reading scores are lower while spending on education has increased; therefore, increasing funds does not improve education. According to the American Legislative Exchange Council, this proves partially accurate, as in spite of increases in staff and spending, test scores have not increased.

More generally, the White House avers that “low-performing students are falling further behind.” This proves true for eighth graders in math, as in 2024 “scores decreased for lower-performing students at the 10th and 25th percentiles” according to The Nation’s Report Card. Plus, for fourth graders in reading, “The 2024 scores at all selected percentiles except the 90th were lower compared to 2022 percentile scores” and for eighth graders in reading “Compared to 2022, scores were lower at the 10th, 25th, and 50th percentiles” in 2024. However, for fourth graders in math, “there were no significant score changes for lower-performing students at the 10th and 25th percentiles.”

Incidentally, some of the information provided by the White House website to back up such claims is not accurate. The administration states “13-year-olds’ mathematics scores  are the lowest they have been in decades” while The Nation’s Report Card avers that “The average score at grade 8 [in math] was higher compared to the first assessment in 1990.”

Additionally, the White House states that “13-year-olds’ reading scores are the lowest since testing began over 30 years ago” while The Nation’s Report Card asserts that “Compared to the first reading assessment in 1992, the average score was not significantly different in 2024.”

With all the potential changes the administration’s budget holds for the educational system in the United States—from policies regarding discrimination and lesson content—one must question just how much of the future our schools should lie in the hands of the states.