Weekly Update

March 21, 2025

Trump Moves to Close Education Department

President Trump has signed an executive order directing the closure of the U.S. Department of Education, marking a historic shift in federal education policy. While this move fulfills a longstanding conservative goal of returning education authority to the states, major legal, logistical, and political hurdles remain.

What the Order Does and Doesn’t Do

According to a White House fact sheet, the directive instructs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to take all necessary steps to phase out the department while ensuring “effective and uninterrupted delivery of services.” However, closing a federal agency created by Congress requires congressional action, making it uncertain how much of this order can be implemented without legislative approval.

Reports suggest the department’s core responsibilities may be reassigned to other agencies, but some details remain unclear. Key functions such as federal student loan management, enforcement of civil rights in education, and administration of K-12 funding programs like Title I and IDEA must continue under existing federal law.

In a press event, the President announced that student loan management would be transferred to the Small Business Administration. He also stated that oversight of special education services and nutrition programs would shift to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. These restructuring efforts are anticipated to move quickly in the coming days.

While the restructuring addresses some administrative ambiguity, major questions remain about how these agencies will absorb such responsibilities — and whether they have the capacity or authority to do so.

For context: Kansas and Missouri receive $683 million and $1.6 billion in federal education funding each year, respectively. Of that, Kansas is allocated $115 million and Missouri $262 million in Title I support alone. Read the full executive order here.

What Comes Next? No One Knows for Sure

With Congress yet to weigh in and legal challenges mounting, the timeline for the department’s closure remains uncertain. Although some lawmakers have raised questions about implementation, past efforts to eliminate the department have faced bipartisan resistance.

Expect extended legal and political debates over the future of the department and its core functions. With questions around both executive authority and statutory obligations, resolution is likely to take months, if not years.

For now, the fate of federal education policy is in limbo. Whether Congress will act, whether legal challenges will succeed, and how federal education responsibilities will be reassigned remain open questions.

Aligned’s Take: States, school districts, and institutions of higher education will continue to rely on federal funding and regulatory guidance for key programs—including Title I, IDEA, and student financial aid—making it essential that education policy, whether at the federal or state level, remains data-driven, focused on student success, and aligned with workforce needs. Regardless of the outcome, clear guidance and a well-defined path forward will be essential to ensuring continuity in education funding, accountability, and support for students, families, and educators.

Missouri Update

House budget chair cuts $106 million in child care funds from gov budget

Before adjourning for spring break, the Missouri House Budget Committee convened to review changes made by the chair, Representative Dirk Deaton to HCS HB 2, the State's budget for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. During the meeting, Deaton outlined several adjustments that diverge from Governor Mike Kehoe's original budget proposal, which included cutting $106 million from the Governor's request for Missouri's child care subsidy program.

"For me, it didn't even really get to the question of the policy consideration. We used federal one-time dollars for these changes. Even if they could be used over a number of years, they've come to an end," said Deaton.

This reduction would eliminate funding intended to improve provider stability through enrollment-based payments and advance payments, both of which were priorities in Kehoe's budget to strengthen Missouri's child care sector.

The $85.2 million request would allow providers who participate in the state’s subsidy program to shift to an enrollment-based away from an attendance-based payment model. This change aligns with new federal guidance requiring states to adopt more stable payment practices.

Missouri’s child care subsidy program is funded through the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), managed by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) under the Department of Health and Senior Services. In July 2024, ACF updated regulations urging states to adopt stable payment practices, such as enrollment-based and prospective payments, to improve child care access, affordability, and quality.

Paying providers based on enrollment versus attendance ensures child care businesses receive consistent income, even when children are absent due to illness or family emergencies. For example, current policy allows for five absences per month. If a child was out for two weeks with flu, the center would not receive reimbursement, even though they still must expend resources to staff and support a classroom. Without the financial stability that an enrollment mode allows, providers face greater hardships, which can lead to closures or a reduction in available slots.

The second cut — $21.5 million — was intended to establish a prospective payment system that mirrors how families pay in the private market where payments for services are in advance. This approach would help centers manage upfront costs like payroll, rent, and supplies without waiting weeks for state reimbursement.

Governor Mike Kehoe included both priorities in his FY26 budget. During his State of the State address, Kehoe emphasized the need to move to enrollment-based payments to help providers remain financially stable.

"My administration is committed to timely payments for the child care providers who partner with the State to provide care. We know delays in payments from the State have made it difficult for providers to even stay open," said Kehoe. "Starting in fiscal year 2026, providers will receive payments from the State at the beginning of the month and we will pay on enrollment – just like private pay. We will not allow late payments, or technology issues to put these small businesses at risk of not being able to provide for families in need of child care."

Halftime standings

Click here to read the GovWatch Halftime Report.

For more details on Aligned Priority Bills, including other key education measures advancing this session, click here.

With the legislature on break this week, there is no weekly report.

Budget and Revenue

This week, Governor Mike Kehoe signed HB 14, the state's Supplemental spending bill to continue funding state operations through Fiscal Year 2025, which ends June 30.

Budget work on FY26 will continue in the House when lawmakers return to Jefferson City next week.

In other news

Kansas Update

Kansas Education Commissioner Wants More Learning Time

As spring arrives, many Kansans are ready to leave behind the unusually harsh winter that forced widespread school closures across the state. With districts losing instructional days, educators and policymakers are now debating whether the state will waive the requirement to make up lost time.

Kansas Education Commissioner Dr. Randy Watson not only supports requiring districts to make up the days, but is also urging school leaders to explore extended learning opportunities this summer.

A Push for Summer Learning

In a Kansas State Board of Education meeting, Watson proposed that districts offer half-day summer instruction for students in grades K-3, targeting those who score below proficiency in reading or math. The plan would provide up to 48 additional hours of instruction, with classes running from 9 AM to noon, Monday through Thursday, through July — allowing for long weekends on Memorial Day and Independence Day.

“If we could get 90% of the kids 48 to 49 hours of instruction, what progress we could make in a short period of time,” Watson told the Board.

Addressing Longstanding Achievement Gaps

Although Watson framed his proposal as a response to pandemic-related learning loss, Kansas’ academic achievement challenges predate COVID-19, as Aligned has previously covered.

Research shows that more instructional time can improve student outcomes, depending on the quality of instruction. A 2018 study found that students who received 25 additional hours of math instruction and 34 additional hours of reading instruction in district-led summer programs performed better on state assessments than their peers who did not attend. However, recent studies on pandemic-era extended learning opportunities found gains only in math proficiency — not reading.

While federal pandemic relief provided $130 billion nationally for extended learning programs — including summer school — many families chose not to enroll. Parents often prioritized family time, with summer activities like vacations and recreational sports competing for attention. Even with incentives like free transportation, meals, and targeted instruction, participation rates remained lower than expected.

Extending the school year has been debated before in Kansas, but legislative efforts have failed. The state currently requires 186 school days or 1,116 instructional hours per year, with most districts opting for longer school days rather than a longer academic year.

Aligned’s Take: Kansas cannot afford to take a business-as-usual approach to academic recovery. Given the scale of learning gaps — both before and after the pandemic — schools must deploy multiple strategies to support student achievement. Extending learning time is one avenue, but it must be part of a broader strategy that includes high-dosage tutoring, additional math and reading interventions, longer school days, and expanded summer learning opportunities. If Kansas is serious about addressing academic underperformance, every available tool must be on the table.

Budget and Tax Decisions Loom in Topeka

With Tax Day approaching and the legislative session winding down, Kansas lawmakers are entering the final phase of negotiations on two major issues: approving a state budget and determining property tax relief. Both debates carry significant implications for education and workforce development, making the next few weeks critical for policymakers.

The Senate’s Turn at the Budget

The Kansas Senate approved a $10.58 billion state general fund budget for FY 2026 (Senate Substitute for HB 2007), which includes a 3% across-the-board spending cut and notable policy shifts.

One of the biggest education funding differences between the House and Senate versions is special education: while the House budget includes $10 million in additional funding, the Senate version allocates no new funds despite calls from some lawmakers for more support.

The Senate also adjusted funding priorities for school safety grants, maintaining $1.5 million for secure schools but removing a House-backed plan to fund AI-powered gun detection technology in schools.

As negotiations continue, the 3% spending cut remains a major sticking point, with long-term implications for education and workforce programs. Aligned will continue tracking these discussions to advocate for policies that strengthen Kansas' education system.

Competing Approaches to Property Tax Relief

The Kansas House and Senate continue to debate two competing constitutional amendments aimed at limiting property tax increases. As previously outlined, lawmakers are considering two approaches:

House Proposal (HCR 5011): Limits property assessment increases to a rolling average of statewide property values or the current fair market value, whichever is lower.
Senate Proposal (SCR 1603): Caps annual property assessment increases at 3% or lower, whichever is less.

Both proposals fall under the category of assessment limits, a form of property tax limitation policy designed to slow the rate of property tax increases for homeowners. Assessment limits typically apply only to properties that have not changed ownership, providing long-term homeowners with more predictable tax increases, while new buyers may face higher assessed values upon purchase.

Proponents argue these measures provide much-needed property tax relief, while opponents caution that they could distort the housing market and shift tax burdens over time.

The current state of play: The House referred the Senate’s proposal to the House Tax Committee, but the bill has yet to advance out of committee or receive a full vote. Meanwhile, when the House’s proposal reached the Senate, the Senate Tax Committee replaced its text with the Senate’s own proposal, setting the stage for conference committee. Senate leaders argue their approach delivers more predictable property tax relief and hope to iron out the details and compromise during a conference committee meetings.

While broad-based relief remains uncertain, lawmakers have made progress on targeted property tax assistance. The Senate unanimously approved HB 2231, which provides property tax rebates for seniors and disabled veterans. The bill now awaits a House vote, where it is expected to pass and head to the governor’s desk.

As lawmakers work toward a final agreement before Sine Die, Aligned will continue monitoring how property tax relief proposals are balanced with maintaining effective, transparent, and student-focused K–12 education systems.

Read the legislative report.

In other news

Fresh food program faces uncertain future

Missouri students may soon see fewer fresh, local foods in their school lunches following the expiration of a pandemic-era program. The Local Food for Schools (LFS) initiative, created under the American Rescue Plan Act, provided one-time funding to help schools and child care facilities purchase directly from small producers. Although designed as a temporary effort, its success in improving meal quality and supporting local farmers left many hoping it would continue.

In Missouri, the program ensured that tomatoes, potatoes, squash, cucumbers, eggplant, and peppers filled school trays in the fall. Winter brought hearty offerings like sweet potatoes and winter squash. All year round, lettuce, honey, apple cider, eggs, pork, beef, chicken, and cheeses kept meals diverse and nutritious.

Beyond feeding students, Missouri’s Local Food for Schools program strengthened regional food systems, expanded opportunities for small farmers, and fostered new partnerships in food distribution. 

However, with the USDA's move to terminate the $660 million in funding for the LFS program, these school-to-farm partnerships may end.

Concerns about the future of broader school meal funding

The expiration of the LFS program comes amid broader concerns about potential cuts to school meal funding. Some Republican lawmakers have recently proposed limiting the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP). This program allows high-poverty schools to provide free meals to all students without requiring families to apply individually.

According to the Food Research & Action Center, 139,800 Missouri and 51,981 Kansas students receive free school meals through the CEP. Any changes to this provision could disrupt access to these meals for thousands of families.

A Look at the National School Lunch Program

Since its creation in 1946 under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, the National School Lunch Program has provided free or reduced-price meals to eligible children. The CEP, introduced in 2010, simplified access to those meals by allowing schools to qualify based on the percentage of students from low-income households. School leaders are now facing two challenges: adapting to the loss of LFS funds and preparing for possible changes to the broader meal program.

Upcoming Events

Dr. Marguerite Roza on the role of school boards

Dr. Roza, who will lead our Edunomics event in June, emphasizes the importance of school boards in managing K-12 education budgets. Districts are facing one of their most challenging financial periods in recent memory, and school boards are responsible for allocating $700 billion in public education funds. Thus, they must make tough decisions about what to prioritize, cut, or preserve.