Education’s Storm Front: Schools prepare for US Department of Education dismantling amidst uncertainty

Stephen Kleinsmith: Not even the Trump administration knows the details of the plan.

Gearl Loden: Federal cuts can impact most vulnerable students.

Alex Riley: Returning control to states allows responsiveness for local needs.

• 
• 
• 

It’s a developing story; it’s a developing storm.

On March 20, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to begin dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. However, the order provided few further details, leaving education officials uncertain of next steps.

“The outlook is unknown,” said Stephen Kleinsmith, former longtime superintendent of Nixa Public Schools and 2017 Missouri Association of School Administrators Superintendent of the Year. “I don’t even think the Trump administration knows what the details of this plan are going to be. They’re taking the chainsaw approach and there is not much you can share when that approach is taken.”

The Education Data Initiative found the federal government provides approximately 13.6% of total funding for public K-12 schools nationwide. According to numbers provided to Springfield Business Journal by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, federal funding – excluding COVID funds – represents 27% of its $8.7 billion 2025 fiscal year budget. Those dollars go toward supporting programs for children with disabilities, support for low-income families, career and technical education, adult education and family literacy services and after-school care.

“The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is awaiting further information and guidance from the U.S. Department of Education to understand how these potential changes within the USED may impact programs and funding administered by DESE,” wrote DESE Chief Communications Officer Mallory McGowin in an email to SBJ.

Republican House Majority Leader Rep. Alex Riley anticipates the change to be beneficial in the long run yet acknowledges uncertainties. He also anticipates court litigation nationwide against the order.

“At this point, it’s really hard to say with any specificity what we might be able to do just because of all the uncertainty of what will be upheld in court and what won’t,” he said.

‘The good, the bad and the ugly’
A February poll from Saint Louis University found 52% of participating Missouri voters do not support dismantling the Department of Education – or ED – with most of those voters being between ages 18 and 64 and 93% Democrat. However, Riley hopes that, once the dust settles, Missourians will agree with his stance on more state control being positive.

“A lot of us are excited about the additional opportunity that this would provide for us to have more say in how our education system is going to operate locally in Missouri,” he said, adding that he anticipates more flexibility in spending, administrative functions and curriculum formulation.

Kleinsmith agrees to that part. More control to the states could allow for increased individualization based on states’ unique needs. However, his concern is that what is being done with the ED feels like a hack job. A better route, he said, is “organized abandonment.”

“National debt is a sin committed by this generation going to the next generation,” Kleinsmith said. “I just didn’t think it was necessary to cut the whole Department of Education. I would have rather had, as they say, a scalpel approach. … But he got rid of the good, the bad and the ugly all at one time. Yeah, that’s a simple way of doing it, but simple ways aren’t always the right way.”

The chainsaw approach is dangerous, agreed current Nixa Public Schools Superintendent Gearl Loden, whose approximately $111 million budget is nearly 6% federal. Children such as the 30% in Nixa who utilize the National School Lunch Program and special education programs and rural districts, are especially at risk.

“Federal dollars are designed to help our most vulnerable, at-risk students,” Loden said. “We can make these decisions sound simple, but you’ve got to pause and look and ask, ‘If we made this decision, what else can it impact?’”

For example, he said, free and reduced-cost lunch programs are directly connected to local farming economies. Yet, according to the School Nutrition Association, approximately $660 million has been cut from the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program, which provided funds for schools and child care facilities to purchase food from local farms.

Federal funds are also needed to keep mandated programs running, though these situations often present a catch-22. ED dollars are needed to meet mandates yet rarely are enough to keep the program running – meaning districts have to dip into their own pockets to pick up the slack.

“We had mandates that were unfunded, or they were so lightly supported financially that you had to double check and make sure it was worth doing,” Kleinsmith said. “Usually the conclusion was, yeah, we better do it. We can’t afford to do it without the money.”

None of this is simple, Loden echoed: “It’s easy to look at the one liners on CNN and Fox and say, ‘We don’t want federal dollars.’ But if you give up federal dollars, you’re not going to have it. It’s all very complex.”

This pressure to do what is necessary to keep funding is increasing – especially on the collegiate level as schools receive demands from the White House to remove DEI programs and modify curriculum to match Trump administration agendas. According to New York Times reporting on March 21, Columbia University conceded to overhauling its “protest policies, security policies and Middle Eastern studies department,” in response to Trump’s threat to rescind $400 million in federal funds for non-compliance.

“You see Columbia University, President Trump telling them what they better do to change their policies if they want to keep the millions of dollars,” Kleinsmith said. “He has control of the purse strings. So, they changed all their policies in accordance with what President Trump wanted and he kept his word by giving them federal dollars.”

On Jan. 29 when Missouri State University announced it would discontinue diversity, equity and inclusion programs and close its office of inclusive engagement, President Biff Williams said the decision was in response to state and federal funding pressures. MSU and Drury University have also both changed language surrounding DEI on campus.

Schools will all be impacted differently when it comes to federal funding. Suburban districts like Nixa, Liberty and Ozark are likely to fare better than rural or urban schools, Kleinsmith said. SBJ reached out to Ozark School District, Springfield Public Schools and Missouri State University, all of which declined to comment for this story.

“All school districts aren’t created the same when it comes to local ability to pay for increased taxation. So, it shouldn’t matter where you’re born or to whom you’re born that determines a quality education,” Kleinsmith said. “And this abandonment at the federal level and putting more reliance on the local level will strain some communities which are already strained financially.”

However, Riley countered that returning control to the states could allow for greater latitude to create and maintain programs like special education: “If you do have a lot of federal guidelines and regulations and the red tape goes away, that does allow us as a state and the locals here to be more responsive to our local needs on the ground instead of a one-size-fits-all approach from the federal government. I think it creates a lot of opportunity that is a positive, not a negative because we can be more responsive to what is going on at the rural level in Missouri or in any community in Missouri rather than having bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., halfway across the country dictate for us how to operate.”

Storm shelters
Change is coming. However, Trump does not have a magic wand, Loden said. Loden does not believe Congress will get enough votes to entirely do away with funding for programs like special education. It’s likely that what is left of the ED will be housed within another federal department – as it was from 1867 to 1980.

“The regulatory part will go to a different agency and then we’ll have to ensure that we meet the recording requirements,” he said. “DESE will be the one doing the heavy lifting. It will still be business as usual.”

None of this should be surprising, Kleinsmith said. One of Trump’s campaign promises was to dismantle the ED.

“If (districts) didn’t partially prepare for it, shame on them because there are opportunities that lie in this major shift,” he said. “Superintendents and administration, teacher unions, teachers associations, all vested bodies of interest need to join forces and put kids first. Do what’s best for the kids first through the strategic planning process.”

Having a 10% operating balance is considered safe, Kleinsmith said – though some districts have 20% or higher. Emphasizing keeping that percentage high should be a priority, he advised.

“We are staying focused on what really matters and that’s educating children and finishing the year off on a good note,” Loden added. “You see it coming, you got your reserves, you can offset and you adjust as you go. That helps you stay focused on teaching children and makes sure teachers can focus on what they need.”