Over the course of 6 meetings, state lawmakers on the Joint Working Group on Federal Education Funding have heard testimony from education experts who’ve either asked them not to recommend rejecting federal education funding or cautioned about the uncertainties and challenges of doing so.
That changed Wednesday afternoon when lawmakers heard from Sal Nuzzo with the conservative Florida think tank the James Madison Institute and Steve Johnson with the Center for Practical Federalism.
No state has ever rejected its annual federal education dollars, but some Republican lawmakers have expressed an interest in doing so to avoid complying with the requirements that come with that funding.
GOP leaders created the joint working group to look into the feasibility of rejecting the funds. Tennessee received a total of $1.8 billion in federal education dollars in 2023/2024 fiscal year, much of that coming from four annual federal grants.
Nuzzo told lawmakers the “strings” that come attached to these federal dollars should be a concern because those requirements are whatever unelected federal bureaucrats want them to be. Nuzzo gave an example in his state of Florida where schools were providing teens with gender identity counseling without informing parents, as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act’s (ESEA) requirement to support safe and healthy students.
“The most important part of this legally is that in all cases the school districts claim they implemented federal guidance on such issues,” said Nuzzo. “Whenever you hear anyone cite federal guidance as a reason to alter or undermine the will of Tennesseans as expressed by you, their duly elected representatives, I would encourage you to consult with knowledgeable attorneys.”
Florida did not choose to reject ESEA funding, but the state did reject $2 billion in COVID education dollars to avoid having to implement pandemic safeguards.
Nuzzo also told lawmakers Florida has not seen any academic drawbacks from that decision.
“At that time Florida stood alone as the only state to reject funds and our schools and our state have been better for it,” said Nuzzo.
Johnson followed by telling state lawmakers he believes they should consider the monetary, independence, and opportunity costs that come with accepting federal dollars.
He used federal grant dollars that serve students with disabilities as an example. That money requires schools to provide each student with an individual education plan.
“The problem, and this is the problem we see with so many federal programs, is the amount of paperwork it takes to do these, is incredible burdensome. You talk to teachers that do this and they’ll tell you its hours and hours of filling out paperwork and they’ll say some of it is valuable but most of it is not,” said Johnson. “If you were to turn down these federal funds it would allow you to innovate in a way that no one else does right now.”
Only state representatives on the joint working group heard Johnson and Nuzzo’s testimony, as every Senate member skipped the meeting. Committee Co-Chair Representative Debra Moody, R-Covington, told the audience in attendance that Senate committee members had a conflict and would not be present.
“They’re not mad and we’re all good,” joked Moody.
Questions Remain Unanswered
Even with the encouragement of two out of state conservative groups, lawmakers that are still considering the possibility of rejecting federal education dollars likely still have plenty of questions about whether doing so would actually remove the state from federal requirements.
Throughout the joint working group’s hearing schedule, a common theme from multiple education leaders is that federal education dollars are bundled in a way that makes it hard to pick and choose what funding to opt out of.
Even Johnson echoed this uncertainty, telling lawmakers that while Tennessee might be able to reject education funding coming from one federal department, like the USDA’s child nutrition funding, without impacting federal funding coming from another department, rejecting specific funding to avoid specific federal requirements may be more challenging.
“No one knows because no one has really done this yet and so this is kind of a good thing to pursue and look into,” said Johnson.
There are also unanswered questions about what would happen after rejecting federal dollars.
At an earlier hearing Wednesday morning, representatives from the State Comptroller’s office told the joint working group that a decision to reject federal funds could lead to lawsuits or unexpected determinations from bond markets.
Comptroller Office of Research and Education Accountability Director Russell Moore also reiterated a point his office made last week that the state may not be able to immediately avoid federal requirements even if it rejected the money. Some requirements for specific student groups are also a part of state law.
“To me all those things, they start to become open to discussion. Not only what federal requirements would we possibly want to get out from under but also what are the state requirements, what’s the opinion of the General Assembly about those,” said Moore. “When we open up the box of requirements, we’re looking at federal requirements and how the state complies with those but then there are likely to be some state requirements that are in place that the federal government does not require and what is our thinking about that.
The joint working group is expected to make a recommendation on federal funding to the full General Assembly early next year.
