蜜桃影视

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

For decades, states and school districts have relied on federal support for understanding the latest research, deciphering arcane federal rules and helping states coordinate around shared education challenges. Now federal policymakers are rethinking this sort of technical assistance 鈥� and even taking steps to dismantle part of it. 

In the past year, major contracts for the federally funded Comprehensive Centers and Regional Educational Laboratories have been canceled, then reinstated. Calling the structure of Comprehensive Centers 鈥渄uplicative鈥� and 鈥渃onfusing,鈥� the U.S. Department of Education solicited public comment on a redesign. The 2027 budget proposal released by the White House in April zeros out both Comprehensive Centers and RELs entirely.聽聽

Watching this unfold with concern are state education agencies鈥攖he primary recipients of this expertise on how to comply with federal laws and improve education outcomes. We recently interviewed state agency leaders in 14 states to hear about their experience with federal technical assistance: What works? What doesn鈥檛? What can they not afford to lose? Our sample is not nationally representative, and the Department of Education is conducting its own broader need-sensing. But offers a ground-level view that can help inform the choices ahead. 

Leaders most often named three functions of federal technical assistance as valuable and not easily replaced.  

The first: providing specialized expertise to help implement the most effective instructional practices. Smaller agencies, in particular, lack staff experts on topics such as evidence-based literacy instruction or supporting students with dyslexia. They also lack the resources to evaluate whether changes in practice are occurring in schools. 鈥淚 can count on one hand the number of PhDs we have, and I think it鈥檚 two,鈥� one leader told us. 鈥淲e just don鈥檛 have the capacity to dig into the issues that we know we want to.鈥� 

The second was cross-state networking. Technical assistance providers often broker connections between individuals in similar roles across state lines, connections that leaders would not have made on their own. This creates opportunities to learn from one another and exchange promising practices. 鈥淚t is completely a siloed job out here in our region,鈥� one said, 鈥渁nd having access to [other] people who are doing the work is the biggest benefit.鈥�  

The third was providing authoritative guidance on compliance with federal law that is specific to states鈥� own systems, staff and rules. This function matters especially in the context of efforts to give more autonomy to states. If states are going to take on greater responsibility for how federal education funds are spent, they will need timely, expert help navigating complex requirements in federal laws 鈥� which remain in place even as other aspects of education policy are largely 鈥渞eturned to the states.鈥� 

Given the restructuring and budget proposals, there is real uncertainty about what technical assistance will look like when the dust settles. Leaders we spoke with provided caveats about some of the ideas that have been floated and suggested improvements they would like to see. 

Some expressed frustration with bureaucratic delays in Education Department processes 鈥� particularly around selecting providers and initiating new projects. Yet they were still skeptical about the idea of giving each state funds to contract for its own technical assistance. 鈥淚f I鈥檝e got a million bucks, and I want to build this thing, requests for information go out today, it鈥檚 likely the first opportunity that that work begins is probably at least a year out,鈥� one leader said. 鈥淭his is state procurement; that鈥檚 the rule, not the exception.鈥�  

State leaders also worried that direct contracting would fragment the national expertise and cross-state coordination a federal system provides. They preferred centralized systems more responsive to states鈥� priorities over a mandate to 鈥渄o it yourself.鈥� 

The ongoing push to hand education functions to other agencies, some leaders cautioned, would result in more complexity, not less. 鈥淚nstead of having five contacts at ED, we鈥檙e going to have two contacts at the Department of Labor鈥� [another at] Health and Human Services鈥� [another at] Commerce,鈥� one said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 actually think it鈥檚 going to create more efficiencies.鈥� 

Other state agency leaders wanted the federal government to lead more boldly on evidence-based practices. The Department of Education, one told us, 鈥渉as never really put their stake in the ground on what is good instruction, what is good assessment, what are good materials.鈥�  

In all, the state leaders we interviewed would welcome reforms that cut red tape and give them more voice in shaping the support they receive. At the same time, they wanted to retain an infrastructure that can deliver specialized research support, cross-state leadership, and state-specific compliance guidance.  

As the decision point nears, their experience offers a roadmap for getting the details right 鈥� one grounded in the daily realities of running a state education system.

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 蜜桃影视鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.