The debate over the federal education budget for the upcoming year is intensifying.
Both Congress and the White House have unveiled three distinct budget plans for K-12 education funding in fiscal year 2026. Education experts caution that two of these proposals-those from the White House and House Republicans-could drastically reduce financial support for some of the nation’s most at-risk students and underserved school districts.
Overview of the three budget proposals
To begin with, the White House’s budget blueprint suggests a 15% reduction in funding for the U.S. Department of Education. This plan would completely eliminate the $1.3 billion allocated for English language learners and migrant students. Additionally, it proposes merging 18 separate funding programs-including those aiding rural schools, civics education, at-risk youth, and homeless students-cutting the combined total from approximately $6.5 billion to just $2 billion.
Officials from the White House defend this consolidation, arguing it streamlines federal oversight and grants states and local districts greater autonomy to allocate funds according to their unique needs.
The second plan, put forth by House Republicans, calls for even more significant cuts to K-12 education. Notably, it targets a $4.7 billion reduction in Title I funding, which supports schools serving low-income communities. Title I has long been a bipartisan priority, currently distributing about $18 billion annually to disadvantaged schools nationwide.
In promoting this legislation, House Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma) stated, “Progress requires bold, disciplined decisions rather than maintaining the status quo.”
The third proposal, originating from the Senate, suggests only modest reductions and largely preserves existing funding levels.
It’s important to remember that federal contributions make up roughly 11% of overall school budgets, but cuts-especially in low-income districts-can still have significant and disruptive effects.
Political leanings of districts influence funding losses
Researchers at the progressive think tank New America analyzed how these budget plans might affect districts differently based on their political representation. Their findings indicate that under the White House’s proposal, each congressional district would lose an average of about $35 million in K-12 funding, with districts led by Democrats experiencing slightly larger reductions than those led by Republicans.
The House Republican plan would deepen these partisan disparities, with Democratic districts facing average cuts of approximately $46 million, compared to $36 million for Republican districts.
Requests for comment from House Appropriations Committee Republicans regarding this partisan funding gap went unanswered.
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), a senior member of the committee, remarked during the bill’s markup, “We’ve had to make tough decisions. Just as families prioritize their budgets at home, we must do the same with federal resources.”
The Senate’s proposal takes a more moderate approach, largely maintaining current funding levels.
Alongside New America’s work, the Learning Policy Institute has developed a tool to compare the Senate’s plan with the White House’s budget, highlighting potential impacts on schools.
Disproportionate effects on high-poverty schools
According to an analysis by the advocacy group EdTrust, both the White House and House Republican proposals would disproportionately affect schools in high-poverty areas.
For instance, in Kentucky, EdTrust estimates that the White House budget could reduce funding by $359 per student in the state’s poorest districts-nearly triple the per-student loss projected for wealthier districts.
The House plan would impose even steeper cuts: $372 per student in high-poverty schools versus $143 per student in low-poverty schools.
Conversely, the Senate’s budget would result in much smaller reductions-$37 per student in the highest-poverty districts and $12 per student in the wealthiest.
New America’s research echoes these findings, showing that the lowest-income districts would lose 1.5 times more funding than the wealthiest under the White House plan.
Zahava Stadler of New America notes that the House proposal goes further by explicitly targeting Title I funding for students in poverty, a move unprecedented in recent history.
House Appropriations Committee Republicans did not respond to inquiries about the disproportionate impact on low-income communities.
Meanwhile, the Senate plan includes a slight increase in Title I funding for the coming year.
Greater losses for majority-minority schools
New America’s analysis also reveals that districts serving predominantly students of color would face nearly double the funding cuts compared to districts with mostly white students under the White House budget-a disparity described by Stadler as “enormous.”
A key factor in this gap is the White House’s decision to eliminate all funding for English language learners and migrant students. The administration justified cutting the English learner program by claiming it “undermines English language proficiency” and argued that low reading scores necessitate unified classrooms rather than segregated programs.
Under the House Republican plan, districts with mostly white students would lose about $27 million on average, while those serving primarily students of color would lose nearly $58 million.
EdTrust’s state-level data mirrors these trends. In Pennsylvania, for example, districts with the highest populations of students of color could see cuts of $413 per student under the White House budget, compared to $101 per student in districts with fewer students of color.
The House plan would deepen these disparities, with cuts of $499 per student in majority-minority districts versus $128 in predominantly white districts.
Ivy Morgan of EdTrust expressed surprise at the severity of the House proposal’s impact, stating, “It’s worse than the White House budget for high-poverty, high-minority, urban, and rural districts.”
Both the White House and House Republican budgets share a common theme: a push to reduce the federal government’s role in funding education.
When President Trump declared, “Education will be returned to the states where it belongs,” it signaled a move toward scaling back federal financial involvement in schools.
If either of these budgets is enacted, states, local communities, and families will face the challenge of compensating for the lost federal dollars-funds that have historically been directed toward supporting the students and schools with the greatest needs.
