The next phase of education federalism should be judged not by how much authority Washington returns to the states, but by whether states use that authority to improve student outcomes.
“The governors are ready for some old-fashioned horse trading. We’ll regulate less, if schools and school districts will produce better results.” That was the Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander’s blunt summary of the bargain governors proposed to strike with Washington forty years ago. He was then chair of the National Governors Association, co-chaired with Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton.
It’s worth revisiting now, as the U.S. Department of Education approves a fresh round of state requests for exactly that kind of trade.
The Department of Education has approved requests from six states to consolidate federal K–12 funding streams under its Returning Education to the States initiative. The waiver lets those states combine more than $109 million from several federal programs, bypass some federal requirements, and redirect the money toward priorities like literacy, mathematics, and family engagement. Twenty-two more states have also been cleared to waive federal requirements for their school districts without asking Washington’s permission.
Predictably, the debate centers on whether Washington should return greater authority to the states. Supporters welcome a correction after decades of expanding federal involvement in education. Critics worry that reduced federal oversight weakens accountability or widens differences among states.
