By JC Bowman
A Tennessee superintendent deciding whether to hire a reading specialist has to think beyond the first paycheck. Will the money be there next year? Can the district commit to the educator it hires? And what happens to the children receiving help if the funding ends halfway through the work?
Those are practical questions, and they ought to guide the U.S. Department of Education as it rewrites its grant rules. Washington should have room to direct taxpayer dollars toward projects that work and to act when recipients fail to meet their obligations. Schools need enough certainty to carry out the work the government agreed to fund. A sound rule can protect both interests.
We are keenly aware that federal mandates or programs often have little to do with the actual education of children. In fact, some mandates stand in the way of innovative state and local reforms, while others force state and local officials to focus more on compliance. Tennesseans are traditionally apprehensive of the federal government reaching down into our state and telling us what to do and how to do it simply because they give us funding. But if we lose that funding, can or would the state still be in position to replace it?
The department’s August proposal would explicitly allow it to end discretionary grants early for convenience, subject to law. Existing federal rules already allow termination under an award’s terms when a project no longer serves program goals or agency priorities, to the extent the law authorizes. The department says its proposal would clarify its authority, prevent waste, and keep projects focused on their public purpose. The question is how officials would use that discretion once a school has hired staff, signed contracts, and started serving students.
There are good reasons to end a grant. If a recipient misuses money or fails to deliver what it promised, taxpayers deserve action. That may factor into the looming MNPS audit, or future state-directed audits.
When a project meets the terms of its award and serves students, a change in federal priorities should ordinarily shape the next competition. Before ending an award early, the department should explain its reasons in writing, give the recipient a reasonable chance to respond and, where possible, allow time to wind down services without leaving families scrambling.
The proposal would also remove the requirement to publish certain grant competition notices in the Federal Register. Opportunities would still be posted publicly under federal grant notice rules. The department argues that moving away from the current publication requirement would save money and allow clearer notices. A well-designed online posting can do that. It can also be easy to miss.
A rural Tennessee district may have the same need for reading support as a larger system, with fewer people available to track announcements and write applications. A single, searchable place to find opportunities, reliable alerts, and enough lead time to apply would make a difference.
Then there is the separate practice of committing several years of grant funding up front. That can give successful applicants more confidence to hire and plan. It can also leave less money available for other applicants in that funding round. The department initially estimated 25 to 35 new awards for its fiscal year 2026 Innovative Approaches to Literacy competition.
Senators Patty Murray and Tammy Baldwin reported that the department announced four new awards and set aside $13 million for future years of those grants. Four awards can serve more than four communities, and the original estimate was just that. Still, a difference that large deserves a public explanation of who will be served, what the department expects students to gain, and how smaller districts can compete.
With Democrats set to control both chambers in January, Congress can ask those questions in public and press for answers before the next education spending bill. Lawmakers could negotiate provisions requiring timely public notice of grant competitions and limiting the department’s ability to cancel a grant solely because its priorities changed. Those protections would have to become law. If the department finalizes the rule, Congress could also try to overturn it under the Congressional Review Act. A presidential veto would take a two-thirds vote in each chamber to override.
The impeachment effort of Education Secretary Linda McMahon is expected to pick up support, but will likely go nowhere. In June, Oregon Rep. Suzanne Bonamici and other House Democrats introduced three articles alleging that McMahon exceeded her authority in restructuring the department, misled senators and undermined programs through staffing and funding decisions.
McMahon has defended the administration’s push to shrink federal bureaucracy and return authority to the states. The resolution presents allegations for Congress to weigh. If the House voted to impeach, removal would require conviction by two-thirds of senators present. A successor could reconsider the grant policy, but changing a rule or restoring a canceled award would still require separate action.
A child who needs help reading has only one third-grade year. The adults responsible for that year ought to know when a grant competition opens, what an award commits the government to, and what it would take to end it early. Washington can insist on results and give schools a fair chance to deliver them.
#####
JC Bowman is the Executive Director of Professional Educators of Tennessee
Legal Notice: Permission to reprint this editorial in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and Professional Educators of Tennessee are properly cited.
You must be logged in to post a comment.