Indiana Files Request to Consolidate K-12 Programs into a Single Block Grant

On October 17, the state of Indiana submitted to the U.S. Department of Education a request to consolidate multiple federal K-12 programs, including all or parts of Titles I (migrant education but not state grants), II-A, III and IV A and B, into a single block grant, which could be used for “any activity authorized under the” Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Under Indiana’s plan, the state would assume responsibility from the federal government for monitoring and evaluating the use of these funds. For instance, rather than file individual program-specific plans with the federal government as is currently required, Indiana’s proposal envisions a single “comprehensive consolidated plan” that would, among other things, “Outline how the state will support all students, including targeted populations and federally identified subgroups.”

Additionally, Indiana proposes to create and make publicly available an Annual Strategic Investment Plan, which “will serve as a transparent, data-driven framework that connects the state’s student-centered, future-focused educational and workforce priorities with how federal ESEA funds are invested—and the students those investments are intended to serve.” Indiana’s request also includes the creation of a state innovation fund, which would allow the state to redirect $25 million in federal funds to any school district, charter school or innovative program that serves students zoned to attend persistently underperforming schools.

The filing of this request with the Department of Education starts the statutorily mandated 120-day review by the U.S. Department of Education. If the Department rejects this request, Indiana can appeal. If it approves the request, Indiana’s plan would be implemented in the 2026-27 school year. Reports indicate that the current federal shutdown does not serve as a bar to the Department reviewing and acting upon this request. Should the Department grant this waiver request, it could serve as an invitation and a road map for other states to seek the same relief.

Indiana justifies its request in several ways:

1. It will reduce the administrative cost and burden of the state and school districts in using these dollars. The request notes that Indiana “allocates an estimated $2.2 million annually in staff time to support the administrative infrastructure necessary to meet ESEA compliance requirements. Of this, approximately 75%—or $1.7 million—is dedicated solely to compliance and reporting, rather than to initiatives that directly advance student achievement in critical areas such as early literacy, STEM education, career coaching, and work-based learning. This diversion of resources limits the department’s ability to fully align federal investments with Indiana’s highest education priorities.”

2. The proposed consolidation does not vary greatly from the COVID-era Elementary and Secondary Education Emergency Relief (ESSER) program which, “enabled Indiana to align resources with its most pressing educational priorities, deploy additional staff to directly support student success, and adapt swiftly to evolving needs in the field. Through ESSER, we were able to be nimble and deploy student-focused tactics, while also studying return on investment. We had the flexibility to move with urgency and make decisions on when to double-down and when to pivot, based on what was moving the needle for students.”

3. The request does not encompass all K-12 federal funds (e.g., it does not include IDEA); does not change the formula allocation that the state receives for the existing programs nor the formula suballocations to school districts; and does not waive “the supplement not supplant provisions.”

The request still leaves open many questions about how this block grant would function and be overseen. For instance, it remains unclear whether the state would have significant authority over how school districts spend their allocations. Additionally, while the state’s proposal mentions its responsibility for protecting targeted populations, it is not apparent whether migrant students and English Learners will receive the same level of services and support as they enjoy through their currently operating programs. Further, the proposal does not pledge that defined funding will be made available to professional development or afterschool programs, the existing federal programs for which represent a significant proportion of the total proposed block grant. Finally, while the proposal speaks to state reporting to the federal government (as well as the public), there is no discussion of the continuing responsibility of the federal government to oversee the funds themselves and protect the rights of special populations.

Indiana Governor Mike Braun (R) said in a press release supporting the submission: “We can best support Hoosier students when we return education to the states, empower parents with high-quality educational options, get red tape out of the way for educators, and focus on improvement for every student,”

Indiana’s state teachers’ union expressed concerns in August to the state’s original request, since refined after a month of public input, stating: “ISTA believes flexibility can be beneficial when paired with transparency, collaboration and a clear focus on student success. However, we remain concerned about provisions in the waiver that could reduce input from educators and parents and divert critical resources from schools working to close opportunity gaps.”

Risks to Federal Protections

From the perspective of the Joint National Committee for Languages and the National Council for Languages and International Studies (JNCL-NCLIS), Indiana’s request presents significant risks to the federal protections and dedicated resources that support multilingual learners, English learners, and the educators who serve them. Merging program-specific funding streams—especially Title III—could weaken accountability and make it more difficult to track how states and districts meet the needs of linguistically diverse students.

The lack of clarity and oversight mechanisms in this waiver request is deeply concerning. Federal safeguards exist to ensure that all students receive the opportunities they need to succeed. JNCL-NCLIS finds the absence of specific commitments to multilingual learner services and educator support alarming and will continue to monitor developments closely, request clarification from both the Indiana Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Education, and take action as necessary to uphold strong and effective language education nationwide.