Transferring Title I — the $18 billion program serving nearly 26 million low-income students — to the Department of Labor would strip away vital K–12 expertise and decades of institutional memory. Labor lacks experience in literacy, bilingual education, assessment and civil-rights oversight, increasing the risk of confusion, inconsistent guidance and weakened enforcement. Rural, suburban and urban districts would see disrupted services and widening inequities; funding alone cannot substitute for coherent federal oversight.
Moving Title I To The Department Of Labor Would Harm Millions — Here's Why
The Trump administration’s proposal to transfer oversight of Title I — the $18 billion federal program serving nearly 26 million students in low-income communities — from the U.S. Department of Education to the U.S. Department of Labor is unfolding quickly and carries consequences that extend far beyond headlines. This shift would replace education-specific expertise with an agency that lacks core experience in K–12 policy, school improvement, bilingual instruction and civil-rights enforcement.
What Title I Was Designed To Do
Title I's core purpose is to blunt the effects of poverty on learning by directing additional resources to schools that serve students with the fewest opportunities. Those funds support literacy coaches, paraprofessionals, after-school tutoring, community school coordinators, summer learning programs, bilingual aides and social workers — services that help students both academically and socially.
Why The Department Of Labor Is A Poor Fit
Administering Title I depends on specialists who understand early literacy, bilingual education, assessment, family engagement, data reporting and civil-rights protections. These professionals interpret federal law, produce district guidance, monitor state implementation and preserve institutional memory. The Department of Labor does not have the personnel or infrastructure to provide that kind of K–12 technical assistance or to advise states and districts on how Title I intersects with programs for students with disabilities and English learners.
Practical Consequences: Confusion, Inconsistency, Weaker Oversight
Scattering education roles across agencies will erode expertise and institutional memory, producing inconsistent guidance and weaker enforcement. Dollars alone do not ensure effective programs: funds require coherent federal oversight, knowledgeable state agencies and local leaders who know how to use those resources. Replacing an expert federal partner with an ill-suited agency will degrade implementation quality and widen disparities.
How Communities Would Be Affected
Rural districts: Small schools often rely on Title I to afford reading specialists or adequate transportation. With only one or two staff managing federal programs, sudden changes in reporting or compliance can overwhelm these districts.
Suburban districts: Growing numbers of multilingual learners and students facing housing instability depend on Title I to build early-intervention systems and family-engagement practices. Unclear guidance threatens these lifelines.
Urban districts: Large-city systems use Title I to support community-school models, mental-health services, restorative-justice initiatives and nonprofit partnerships. The “supplement, not supplant” protection ensures high-poverty schools receive appropriate state and local resources in addition to Title I funds; Labor lacks demonstrated capacity or commitment to enforce that rule, risking wider inequities.
A Personal Perspective
As someone who grew up in a low-income, single-parent household and attended 13 public schools, I saw Title I’s impact firsthand: additional teachers, literacy programs, classroom books, after-school activities, meals and even band instruments that let students participate. These supports provided stability and opportunity during financial instability and frequent moves.
What Should Be Done
Improving the federal role in education — streamlining bureaucracy, clarifying guidance and reducing redundancies — is a worthy goal. But true reform should strengthen the Department of Education’s capacity or build a specialized, education-focused center with the necessary expertise. Dispersing core education functions to agencies that lack K–12 experience is not reform; it is abandonment of vulnerable students and communities.
Bottom line: Title I is about educational equity, not short-term workforce pipelines. Oversight belongs with experts who understand teaching, learning and civil-rights protections — not with an agency whose mission centers on labor markets.
