Department of Education | Reorganization at the Federal Level Does Not Abandon Students | The South Pasadenan

The Federal Agency’s Press Release Headline is Plain and Unsettling:
U.S. Department of Education Announces
Six New Agency Partnerships to Break Up Federal Bureaucracy
New Agreements Signed with Departments of
Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services, and State

The federal government’s decision to transfer major K–12 programs out of the U.S. Department of Education and into other federal agencies has set off a wave of intense concern across California school districts. But a closer examination of federal documents and state guidance indicates that, despite the upheaval, core funding streams, testing requirements, and student protections remain firmly in place — even as the administrative landscape shifts.

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced last month that it had executed six interagency agreements designed to “break up the federal education bureaucracy” by moving programs such as Title I, Title II, Title III and Title IV into the Departments of Labor, Interior, State and Health and Human Services. “The Trump Administration is taking bold action to break up the federal education bureaucracy and return education to the states,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in the announcement, calling the effort part of the department’s “final mission.”

The scope of the change is significant. These programs collectively channel billions of dollars annually to states and districts, and California relies heavily on them to support low-income students, English learners, teacher training and after-school enrichment. But ED emphasized that the shift is administrative — not financial — and that states “will continue receiving all Title formula funds,” even as the responsibilities for administering them move to other agencies.

– Advertisement –

California officials, however, responded with a note of caution. In a March 20 letter to district and county superintendents, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond underscored that only Congress can alter the federal government’s obligations toward public education. “While today’s Executive Order signals an intent to dismantle the United States Department of Education,” Thurmond wrote, “any change to the federal government’s obligations to protect students’ access to public education must come from congressional action.”

For districts in Southern California — including LAUSD, Pasadena Unified (PUSD) and South Pasadena Unified (SPUSD) — the question is less about whether federal funds disappear and more about whether the transition disrupts the flow of information, technical assistance and oversight. A former assistant secretary of education told Federal News Network that “anytime you transfer billions of dollars’ worth of programs to an agency that hasn’t run them before, there will be friction — sometimes major friction.” State officials echoed that point, urging districts to notify the California Department of Education (CDE) immediately if they experience delays or disruptions.

The shake-up comes at a time when federal capacity is already strained. Earlier this year, large-scale staff reductions at ED affected offices responsible for assessment and national benchmarking. Researchers warn that diminished capacity could weaken the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the widely used “Nation’s Report Card.” One analyst told The Washington Post that “losing NAEP capacity is like losing the nation’s compass. You can keep walking, but you won’t know if you’re headed in the right direction.”

Despite speculation in some California communities, standardized testing itself is not changing. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), states are still required to administer annual tests in English and math in grades three through eight and once in high school. California controls the design of its tests and accountability system through CAASPP and the California School Dashboard. None of that shifts under the new federal structure. What may change is the level of federal enforcement and the consistency of national comparisons — not the requirement to test.

The most forceful opposition comes from teachers unions. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) called the move part of “an attempt to neuter, if not completely shutter, the Department of Education,” warning that students would “pay the price.” The National Education Association (NEA) labeled the action “an illegal plan to further abandon students,” pointing to concerns over federal civil-rights enforcement and protections for students with disabilities and English learners.

These concerns are particularly relevant in Southern California, where LAUSD and PUSD serve large multilingual populations and rely on Title III funding and federal compliance monitoring. Civil-rights enforcement — including disability accommodations and English-learner protections — has long depended on dedicated ED staffing. With those responsibilities now shared across agencies, the implementation details matter enormously.

Still, some observers caution against overstating Washington’s influence on day-to-day bureaucracy. In testimony and public commentary, former California administrators note that most of the administrative burden in California schools originates at the state and district level, not in federal offices. “People blame the federal government for bureaucracy,” one former superintendent said, “but the vast majority of red tape in our schools is home-grown.” California’s own financial analyses show that teacher salaries have become a smaller share of overall spending in recent years, while benefits and non-instructional costs have risen steadily.

Whether the federal restructuring provides an opportunity for districts to streamline their own operations remains an open question. The Department of Labor, which will oversee many of the transferred programs, argues that the shift could actually strengthen workforce-aligned pathways and career education. A senior federal official, interviewed by The 74 Million, framed the reorganization as a chance to “co-mingle funds” in ways that support students holistically, particularly those who are simultaneously multilingual learners, low-income and in special education.

In practical terms, Southern California districts are preparing for a transitional period that may include delayed grant guidance, new federal contacts, and adjustments to reporting procedures. CDE has stated repeatedly that it remains committed to “moving the needle for student achievement no matter what” and stands ready to intervene if districts experience disruptions.

For now, the core message is simple: funding continues, testing remains in place, and civil-rights protections still apply. But the administrative machinery behind those guarantees is being rearranged — and whether that shift improves efficiency or causes confusion will depend on how effectively the new agencies absorb responsibilities and how closely state and local leaders monitor the transition.

As one education analyst told The 74 Million: “Interagency agreements are a frequently used tool of the federal government. The real question isn’t whether you can move programs. It’s whether the programs still work once you do.”

Southern California’s districts will soon find out.

Next article on this federal change: Will SPEF’s budget be affected in South Pasadena?

Publishers Note: Requests for interview of the new Superintendent for the South Pasadena School District (SPUSD), Dr. Angela Elizondo Baxter, were unsuccessful last summer – understandably due to the new complex position on the back-end of catastrophic fires.  We’re working on a new interview schedule about how her first part of the school years is going, and her insights on the Department of Education issue as it relates to South Pasadena families and orgs.