How can we put more money towards federal funding for education?
Executive summary
Federal education spending can be increased through a mix of immediate appropriations choices, structural changes to funding formulas, and new revenue or reallocation strategies—each route shaped by partisan priorities and the administration’s agenda as shown in current FY2026 debates House-Passes-FY26-LHHS-Minibus.aspx" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[1] [2]. Practical pathways include pressing Congress to expand discretionary appropriations, converting or growing mandatory/entitlement funding, tying federal investments to countercyclical stabilization, and mobilizing political and administrative levers to prioritize education over competing priorities [3] [4].
1. Boost discretionary appropriations now: lean on annual spending bills
The most direct way to put more money into federal education is to secure larger discretionary appropriations during the regular appropriations process: the House bill currently proposes $79.0 billion for the Department of Education—about $217 million above FY2025 and roughly $12 billion above the administration’s request—demonstrating that Congress can increase topline funding when it chooses [1]. Advocates and districts should monitor LHHS negotiations and press senators and representatives to accept the Senate’s and House’s higher funding levels rather than the administration’s proposed cuts, because the Senate and House bills have already shown bipartisan willingness to sustain or modestly raise key programs [3] [5].
2. Protect and expand formula and targeted grants—change distribution, not just totals
Increasing federal money is not only about more dollars but smarter targeting: preserving and expanding Title I, IDEA, Head Start, and early learning grants prevents local disinvestment and helps equalize resources across high-need districts, a point underscored by research arguing for a larger federal role to blunt post-recession cuts and inequities [3] [4]. Congress can increase Title I and IDEA as line items or create new targeted, mandatory supplements tied to poverty metrics; the Senate’s proposal to increase Title I-A by $50 million, for example, shows how modest formula adjustments alter resource flows [5].
3. Convert or create mandatory funding streams to stabilize support
One structural approach is to move more education funding from discretionary to mandatory or entitlements, insulating support from annual budget fights and shutdown risks—a concern raised by districts facing delayed FY25 funds and uncertainty over FY26 distributions [6]. While politically difficult, making core K–12 and early childhood investments mandatory—or creating a federal stabilization fund to surge dollars in downturns—would formalize the federal role the EPI recommends to mitigate recessions’ harm [4].
4. Raise or reallocate federal revenue with explicit education commitments
Longer-term increases require revenue choices: raising dedicated federal revenues (new education-specific levies or redirecting existing receipts) or reallocating less-critical discretionary spending. The political hurdle is high—President’s FY2026 request sought cuts and program eliminations, demonstrating a competing agenda favoring reduced federal footprint and charter expansions rather than across-the-board increases [2] [7]. Any revenue strategy therefore must be tied to clear congressional majorities and public advocacy.
5. Use programmatic and administrative levers to free funds and incentivize state investment
Agencies can reauthorize or redesign programs to leverage federal dollars—examples include the Workforce Pell Grant program and competitive grants like FIPSE which recently awarded $169 million to spur innovations, showing how federal grants can be targeted to strategic priorities without changing baseline appropriations [8] [9]. Additionally, federal incentives that encourage states to increase their education spending (matching or bonus grants) can multiply the federal effect, but these rely on cooperation from states and political appetite in Congress.
6. Build political pressure: coalitions, evidence, and local voices matter
Practical increases depend on politics: advocacy coalitions—early childhood networks that mobilized 285 members to call for increased FY26 funding—show that bipartisan pressure can shift outcomes [10]. District leaders and associations warn that administrative maneuvers and delayed distributions make timely commitments essential, so organized, data-driven campaigns that show student impact and fiscal necessity are crucial to turn proposals into enacted, spent dollars [6] [10].
7. Counterarguments and political realities
Opponents argue that expanding the federal role crowds out state control or increases deficits; the administration’s FY2026 blueprint favors consolidations and cuts, including shifting some programs away from ED and emphasizing school choice and charter incentives [2] [7]. Those priorities reflect an explicit agenda to shrink federal baseline spending while channeling funds toward different models, so any effort to increase federal education funding must anticipate ideological fights over how and for whom the money is used [2] [7].