Republican lawmakers have introduced legislation that would redirect federal education dollars directly to families when public schools shut down. The "Kids in Classes Act," sponsored by Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and Representative Burgess Owens of Utah, seeks to make Title I funds portable during closures caused by public health crises or teacher union strikes.
Mechanics of the Proposal
The bill targets Title I funding, which is allocated to schools serving high-poverty communities to boost academic achievement. Under the proposal, if a school closes, parents would gain control of their child's share of those federal dollars. They could then use the funds for approved educational alternatives, including tutoring services, online learning programs, or tuition at other schools, to maintain continuity of instruction.
Timing and Context
The legislation arrives amid renewed attention on instructional disruptions. Earlier this month, a teachers' strike in San Francisco canceled four days of classes for over 50,000 students. Similar labor actions have occurred or been threatened in other California districts. The president of the California Teachers Association has stated such strikes aim to draw public attention and demonstrate political strength, a tactic that critics argue disproportionately harms students.
School closures are not confined to California. According to analysis by the Defense of Freedom Institute, teacher union strikes since 2010 have involved over 850,000 employees across 30 states and Washington, D.C., resulting in 672 total days of lost instruction—nearly four full school years. Experts like Marguerite Roza of Georgetown's Edunomics Lab note these disruptions hit low-income families hardest, as they often have fewer childcare options and more to lose academically.
The Pandemic's Shadow
The debate is heavily informed by the prolonged school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning in March 2020, CDC recommendations led to widespread classroom shutdowns. While some states reopened relatively quickly, others maintained closures for extended periods, despite growing evidence of severe educational setbacks. Congress responded with a historic $190 billion infusion of federal education aid, the largest in U.S. history. Yet, the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress shows most fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math scores remain below pre-pandemic levels.
"If another public health emergency arises, or if schools close due to labor disputes, families should not again find themselves helpless while their children fall behind," the article's argument contends.
Historical Precedent and Broader Agenda
The concept of portable Title I funds is not new. In 2015, Senator Scott and then-Representative Luke Messer introduced similar measures to let states make these funds follow students to any school type, though the proposals failed to reach a floor vote and were excluded from the final Every Student Succeeds Act reauthorization.
Beyond this specific bill, some lawmakers advocate for more sweeping reforms to shift educational authority from the federal government to states. Legislation like the A-PLUS Act, recently reintroduced in the 119th Congress, would grant states greater flexibility over federal education dollars allocated under ESSA. That bill, however, remains stalled in committee. This push occurs alongside other contentious federal spending debates, such as the ongoing impasse over Department of Homeland Security funding that has exposed divisions within the Republican conference.
Proponents frame the "Kids in Classes Act" as a practical step to ensure federal aid serves disadvantaged students even when school buildings are closed. They also view it as part of a larger movement to decentralize education policy, ultimately aiming to reduce the federal footprint—a goal that aligns with long-standing conservative efforts to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education. This focus on agency authority comes as the Education Department itself implements major changes to student loan programs.
The core argument is that federal education funding should prioritize students over systems. When classrooms go dark, the money designated for a child's education, the bill's supporters argue, should move with that child to wherever learning can continue.
