The idea of “sending education back to the states” is a cornerstone of President Trump’s rhetoric on schooling, and it has strong support from many congressional Republicans. However, as the new administration works to neuter the U.S. Department of Education, the upheaval in Washington obscures a more fundamental question: Are states prepared to assume more responsibility? Many state education agencies (SEAs)—the entities largely left holding the bag if Uncle Sam withdraws—tend to take a passive approach to school improvement, typically following rather than leading state-level reform efforts. Unless these agencies are dramatically reshaped, many states risk being set up for failure, no matter how much the president extols the unalloyed benefits of local control.
Handing over education to the states sounds simple—like pouring coffee into a cup. In practice, however, it’s more akin to pouring it onto a plate. SEAs have been shaped over decades to serve as compliance monitors, not reform drivers—and most of their staff are supported by federal funds. They are constrained by state civil service requirements, red tape, and often entrenched political interests. While some SEAs have taken an active role in reform, most have historically followed the lead of governors and legislators. Now, with Washington poised to pull back, these agencies may find themselves expected to play a more central role in shaping education policy—despite lacking the structure or flexibility to do so. Instead of channeling efforts productively, this shift risks spilling out in all directions, creating confusion rather than progress.
This dilemma isn’t new. Over a decade ago, Rick Hess and others examined the problematic question of SEA capacity. As did Fordham, in a report titled The State Education Agency: At the Helm, Not the Oar, which countered the view—held by some policymakers and advocates—that what SEAs need are more money, more bodies, and more know-how:
Instead of putting the SEA on steroids, we should put it on a diet. The seminal 1993 book Reinventing Government… made the case that government often functions best by “steering” instead of “rowing”—deciding what must be accomplished and then enabling others to execute it. We should apply this approach to state-level K–12 activity. By delegating to the SEA only those functions for which it is well suited, policymakers can create room… [and be] better positioned to lead bold reforms.
One state official is quoted as saying, “SEAs need to go back to their core functions and make sure they get really good at those. They need to get out of the business of doing things like… holding statewide trainings and… [developing and selecting] curriculum.”
Suffice to say that the report’s influence was essentially invisible, as evidenced by today’s captivation with high-quality instructional materials. But the underlying point remains: Simply pushing more responsibility onto SEAs without redefining their role would be a mistake.
Some states aren’t just struggling with capacity—they’re grappling with the essential question of who their SEAs should answer to. In Ohio, for instance, a recent controversy highlighted the fact that the state education agency didn’t answer directly to the governor, causing friction between state leadership and the agency. This raises an important question: If an SEA doesn’t answer to the state’s top leader, can it effectively execute educational policy and manage day-to-day operations? And more broadly, what does “returning education to the states” mean if the state itself is not in control of the agency tasked with overseeing education?
In practical terms, sending education back to the states could involve mechanisms like block grants—federal funding with fewer restrictions, giving states more control over their education spending. However, simply shifting responsibility without ensuring accountability won’t be enough. As former Louisiana state superintendent John White has observed, SEAs must adopt “assertive K–12 oversight” to take ownership of outcomes and ensure that policies are not only implemented but evaluated for effectiveness. Without such leadership, SEAs will remain stagnant, trapped by the very frameworks we need them to transform.
That said, there are different ways to go about being proactive. In Louisiana and Mississippi, it featured a significant overhaul of reading instruction. In Indiana, we took a different approach fifteen years ago by focusing on clear goals and principles. Former state superintendent Tony Bennett challenged district superintendents to meet his “90-25-90” goals—aiming for 90 percent of students passing the state test, 25 percent of high school graduates passing an AP or IB exam or receiving dual credit, and 90 percent of students graduating college and career ready. These ambitious goals were paired with three core principles: freedom, competition, and accountability. No matter what reforms we pursued—which included the state’s first statewide reading test—these goals and principles served as our North Star, guiding every decision and ensuring we stayed on course. What’s more, these efforts were backstopped by a U.S. Secretary of Education with whom our policies were largely aligned.
The reality is that allowing each state to pursue its own education reforms without any meaningful federal guardrails is a risky bet, though it’s important to recognize that the history of American education policy has long been marked by pendulum swings between state authority and federal intervention. ESSA, for all its good intentions, proved that relinquishing federal control didn’t guarantee improved outcomes. In fact, when the federal government loosened its grip, student achievement took a nose dive. Pandemic-related school closures made matters worse: The bottom has fallen out on NAEP scores, and too many states are looking to lowering cut scores as a remedy.
For SEAs to lead, they must set high expectations and hold schools accountable. Success is most likely when governors and state chiefs are on the same page, as seen with Governor Mitch Daniels and Superintendent Bennett in Indiana. Their partnership created a unified vision, ensuring education policies had both political backing and clear direction. When coordination is lacking, SEAs not only face political friction but also struggle with limited capacity to drive change. Historically, some of the most effective education reforms occurred when state leaders worked in concert, as seen with governors like Jim Hunt in North Carolina and Jeb Bush in Florida. Their accomplishments underscored the importance of state leadership that actively shapes policy rather than merely reacting to federal mandates.
While high-performing SEAs may differ in approach, they share a common thread: leaders who fully embrace their role as stewards of student success. That means not just holding authority but using it productively—establishing clear priorities, maintaining high standards and accountability, and working in tandem with governors and state legislators to drive academic improvements. Strengthening SEAs isn’t simply about shifting responsibility from the federal government; it’s about ensuring they have the vision, capacity, and alignment needed to turn policy into lasting change for students. Without these elements, the promise of a more effective, state-driven education system will remain elusive.
