Utah lawmakers are exploring what it would mean for the state – and thousands of K-12 students – to reject millions in federal funding for education.
Members of the Legislature’s Federalism Commission broached the subject during a three-hour discussion Monday that included a history lesson, remarks from Utah Congressman Blake Moore and his predecessor, Rob Bishop, and a presentation by Deputy Superintendent Scott Jones.
Talks are in the early stages, and lawmakers are still gathering information about the potential consequences of rejecting federal dollars meant to support underserved students, Rep. Ken Ivory, who chairs the committee, said Tuesday in a statement to The Salt Lake Tribune.
Ivory would not say whether the state would step in to cover any shortfalls should the Legislature snub the funding.
“The questioning is merely to elucidate information as we continue to follow a number of issues and determine where we understand the jurisdictional lines between state-federal roles and responsibilities may be, and whether we might take action to re-balance the state-federal governing partnership in any respect,” the West Jordan Republican said. “Step one is purely informational.”
Federal dollars make up a relatively small portion of Utah’s overall education budget, an estimated 7% for the current fiscal year — or $598.7 million out of a total budget of $8.6 billion, according to the state’s website. But when broken down by program, the impact becomes much greater.
Roughly a third of the funding for the state’s “at-risk” students — called Title grants — comes from Washington. Federal money also accounts for 19% of special education spending, and nearly 86% of the costs for school breakfast, lunch and other child nutrition programs.
Districts with high populations of economically disadvantaged students also rely more heavily on federal funds. For instance, nearly 30% of San Juan District’s revenue for the 2023-24 school year came from federal sources, compared to Park City’s 1.8% that same year, according to a report by the Utah State Board of Education.
‘Strings attached’
Monday’s discussion appeared to be less about bracing for the possible loss of federal funds if President Donald Trump succeeds in his plans to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, and more about lawmakers’ desire to be free of the “strings attached” to federal education money.
“If you ever really want to have control to make the decisions that need to be made for kids in Utah, why are you taking the federal money in the first place?” Bishop asked lawmakers Monday. “Because for every dollar you take, there will always be a creeping conditionalism … that adds to the lessening of the state of Utah’s ability to make decisions for themselves.”
Jones, the deputy superintendent, outlined a few of those conditions in a presentation to lawmakers Monday. To receive Title grants, for instance, schools must adhere to “certain educational accountability” requirements, like administering assessments, setting standards and identifying low-performing schools.
Another example of a condition tied to federal funding is the requirement to provide Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for students with disabilities, Jones highlighted in his presentation. Schools must develop these legally binding plans to outline the specialized instruction, services and supports that ensure each child receives a “free appropriate public education” as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
In a statement to The Tribune, Jones said Tuesday that while there is “general agreement” that federal programs benefit Utah, “there is concern as to the cost outweighing the benefit of the funding.”
To determine those costs, the USBE in June commissioned a $120,000 performance audit with a company, GPP Analytics. The audit will examine the direct and indirect expenses the USBE incurs in managing and overseeing federal funds, according to board documents.
Jones said he expects to have the results by September or October.
How federal funding ties to desegregation
Utah — and the rest of the nation — got a preview this summer of what happens when the federal spigot suddenly closes, after President Trump froze $6.8 billion in education aid, leaving states blindsided and unprepared to fill the gaps. Utah’s freeze totaled roughly $40 million.
The funds have since been restored, but the move sent state education agencies and districts scrambling to stretch leftover grant dollars into the fall, preparing for the possibility the money wouldn’t come.
Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia also sued the Trump administration over the federal funding freeze, NPR reported, arguing it was “unconstitutional” and caused “ongoing harm” and “injury” to K-12 students and adult learners.
Utah lawmakers and speakers on Monday, however, argued The U.S. Constitution is silent on education.
“Where in the Constitution is there mention of education?” Ivory said at Monday’s meeting. ”There is none. Education is a matter reserved for the states.”
The Constitution doesn’t guarantee a right to education, education policy expert Josh Dunn told Utah lawmakers Monday. Dunn is a professor and the executive director of the Institute of American Civics at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
The federal role in education is thought to be authorized through the Constitution’s Spending Clause (which gives Congress power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States”) and through the Fourteenth Amendment, Dunn said.
Before the landmark 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine established by the court’s 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson and legally ended racial segregation in public schools, the federal government had a minimal role in education funding.
The Brown ruling didn’t have much impact on desegregation in the South, Dunn said. It did, however, set the stage for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the first major infusion of federal dollars into public schools through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) a year later.
It was the first time, Dunn said, that the government could cut off or refuse funding to school districts that were unlawfully segregated.
“It turned out that these school districts simply couldn’t resist the federal funding,” he said.
ESEA served as a pillar of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” aiming to reach low-income students who were being neglected by the education system.
Since its passage, ESEA has been reauthorized several times by Congress. In 2001, under President George W. Bush, it was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act, which significantly ramped up testing and reporting requirements. President Barack Obama scaled back those requirements in 2015, and signed into law the Every Student Succeeds Act. The provisions of ESEA, as amended by ESSA, took effect beginning the 2017–18 school year.
Note to readers • This story is available to Salt Lake Tribune subscribers only. Thank you for supporting local journalism.