Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource
California educates more low-income students than any state in the nation. Millions of children rely on federal Title I funding for early literacy, tutoring, bilingual instruction, counseling and after-school programs. For decades, those dollars have flowed through a governance system designed to align federal education policy with state agencies, county offices of education and local school districts.
The Trump administration’s decision to move oversight of Title I from the U.S. Department of Education to the Department of Labor is not a routine bureaucratic adjustment. For California, it represents a serious disruption to how education policy is implemented, monitored and coordinated across one of the most complex public school systems in the country.
Title I was created to address the effects of poverty on learning. It funds early literacy interventions, bilingual aides, tutoring, counseling, special education and extended-learning programs, which are supports that research has long shown are essential for students facing economic hardship. For decades, the Department of Education has administered Title I alongside specialists in literacy development, English learner instruction, special education, assessment and civil rights compliance. That expertise matters — especially in California.
The Department of Labor plays a vital role in protecting workers and administering job-training programs, but it is not equipped to manage preK-12 education programs at scale. It does not routinely work with county offices of education, interpret education accountability rules or provide guidance on how federal funds intersect with state systems like California’s Local Control Funding Formula. That mismatch is not abstract. It affects how districts budget, staff schools and deliver services.
Across rural and urban California, Title I depends on strong, consistent federal guidance to function as intended. County offices of education often provide fiscal oversight and technical assistance for small, high-poverty districts. At the same time, large urban systems rely on Title I to support community schools, mental health services, and partnerships with nonprofit organizations. When oversight shifts to an agency unfamiliar with California’s education landscape, the risk of delays, inconsistent interpretations and compliance disputes increases, pulling attention away from students.
The stakes are especially high for English learners. As the most populous state, California educates more multilingual students than any other, and Title I funding plays a central role in supporting bilingual instruction, family engagement and early literacy. These services are deeply embedded in education policy, not workforce policy. Weakening federal capacity to monitor and support them risks undermining years of progress toward more equitable outcomes.
Supporters of the shift argue that aligning education more closely with workforce needs will improve outcomes. Preparing students for work matters. But public education has never been solely about labor market preparation. Schools are also responsible for teaching children to read, write, think critically, participate in civic life and develop a sense of belonging.
Congress created Title I and charged the Department of Education with ensuring its purpose was carried out by a department with the mission and expertise to do so. Moving it to another agency without congressional approval raises serious questions about accountability and oversight.
California has long positioned itself as a leader in educational equity. State leaders and members of Congress should closely examine how this shift will affect low-income students, English learners, and the districts across the state and party lines that serve them.
Title I belongs in an agency built to understand schools, learning and equity, run by career experts who understand how poverty shapes learning and how federal policy reaches local classrooms. California lawmakers should demand answers and take action to stop this move before students and schools pay the price.
•••
John Pascarella is a professor of clinical education at the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education and chief academic officer of the USC Race and Equity Center.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.