Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How does the Department of Education define and categorize instructional versus non‑instructional staff?
Executive summary
The Department of Education does not publish a single, plain‑language rulebook in these sources that says “instructional” versus “non‑instructional” staff; public reporting and the department’s organizational materials instead describe mission offices, program functions, and staffing changes that affect program‑facing employees and headquarters operations (for examples of recent staffing figures and reorganizations, see the department’s org chart and reporting on workforce reductions) [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not provide a clear departmental definition that maps specific job titles into “instructional” and “non‑instructional” categories; instead, reporting focuses on which offices and program functions were cut, reassigned or preserved [4] [5] [6].
1. What the Department’s documents emphasize: offices and program functions, not classroom labels
The Department of Education’s public materials (including its org chart and overview pages) organize work by offices and programs — for example, offices covering K–12, postsecondary, civil rights, and finance and operations — rather than by an “instructional vs. non‑instructional” personnel taxonomy, so the most direct way to see who does what is to look at which offices deliver program oversight, research, civil‑rights enforcement or internal services (see the ED org chart and the department overview) [1] [7].
2. How reporters and analysts describe staffing roles in practice
Education journalists and policy groups describe staff in terms of the programs they oversee — for example, staff who “administer programs for students with disabilities, and homeless and migrant students” — rather than labeling them instructional or non‑instructional. Coverage of recent RIFs (reductions in force) highlights loss of program‑facing expertise in offices that support vulnerable students, implying those positions perform program administration and oversight rather than classroom instruction [4] [3].
3. What “instructional” usually means — not confirmed here
Common usage outside these specific sources calls “instructional” staff teachers, classroom aides and direct educators, and “non‑instructional” staff administrative, program, compliance and support roles. However, the sources provided do not state that the Department of Education itself uses that binary or assigns titles that way; available sources do not mention an agency‑level formal classification that maps ED job series or occupations into “instructional” vs. “non‑instructional” buckets [1] [7].
4. Why the distinction matters in recent coverage of cuts and reassignments
News outlets and think tanks framed the March–November 2025 downsizing as a removal of staff who perform legally required program oversight and services — for example, layoffs or reassignments in the Office for Civil Rights, special education, and offices supporting English learners — which reporters treat as programmatic and compliance roles rather than classroom teaching positions [3] [4] [8]. That coverage underscores that losses at ED often affect federal program administration, technical assistance, and enforcement capacity [5] [9].
5. Where formal personnel categories are likely to exist (but aren’t shown here)
Federal agencies typically track occupations and job series (e.g., via Office of Personnel Management classifications) and sometimes label positions as “programmatic” or “administrative.” The ED org chart and “overview” pages show office structure and headcounts, which is the closest publicly cited material in these sources to an internal staffing taxonomy, but they do not translate those offices into an instructional/non‑instructional shorthand [1] [7].
6. Competing viewpoints in reporting about roles and impact
Administration statements framed staffing changes as streamlining and shifting work to other agencies to “refocus programs” and reduce federal oversight; critics — including education advocates, some Democrats and some Republicans according to reporting — argued the changes remove essential, congressionally‑mandated functions and weaken capacity to protect vulnerable students [5] [10] [11]. Reporting notes interagency agreements move day‑to‑day program operations while a small ED contingent remains, a move that observers disagree about legally and practically [5] [11].
7. What to do next if you need a definitive classification
If you need an authoritative, job‑by‑job mapping of “instructional” vs. “non‑instructional” staff at ED, these sources do not supply it; the logical next step is to consult ED human‑resources / workforce documents or OPM job series data (not included in the provided reporting) or request clarification from ED’s Office of Finance and Operations or HR (the org chart is a starting point) [1] [7]. Available sources do not mention an ED‑published instructional/non‑instructional classification.
Limitations: This analysis is limited to the supplied sources and does not draw on ED HR manuals, OPM datasets, or other materials not in the search results; those may contain a formal personnel taxonomy that would answer the question more directly [1] [7].