Indiana's Education Waiver: A New Era of State Control?
On 16 June 2026, Indiana became the third state to secure a major waiver from the U.S. Department of Education, giving Hoosier officials far more control over how to spend roughly $50 million in federal grant money. The move is part of the Trump administration's broader push to 'return education to the states' – a phrase that's become something of a rallying cry for those who think Washington has too big a say in local classrooms.
But this isn't just about cutting red tape. The waiver allows Indiana to consolidate five separate federal funding streams into one, with far fewer spending restrictions. State officials say it'll save about $20 million in compliance and documentation costs alone. Not bad, if you believe the numbers. And Education Secretary Linda McMahon travelled to Plainfield High School to personally approve the plan, flanked by Indiana Secretary of Education Katie Jenner and Governor Mike Braun (both Republicans).
'As states, we have significant control over education in that we set the standards, we can choose our curriculum, we can design our assessments,' Jenner said at the signing. 'But when it comes to federal funding, our hands have always been tied. Until now.'
The waiver is officially part of the 'Return Education to the States' initiative, and it follows similar – though smaller – deals cut with Iowa and Louisiana earlier this year. But Indiana's version goes a step further: it's the first Trump-era waiver to also reshape how schools are held accountable for student performance.
What the Indiana Waiver Actually Does
Let's dig into the mechanics, because the devil is in the detail – and the detail is actually quite interesting.
Indiana's waiver consolidates funding from parts of Title I (low-income students), Title II (teacher training), Title III (English-language learners), and Title IV (school safety and enrichment). Combined, these streams total $50 million over the next four years. Instead of tracking separate pots of money with separate reporting requirements, the state can now treat it as one block grant with much looser strings attached.
The estimated $20 million in savings come from eliminating 'bureaucratic red tape' – think fewer audits, less paperwork, fewer staff hours spent on compliance. That money, according to the administration, can now be redirected to the classroom. Superintendent Andy Allen of Plainfield Community Schools said his district plans to move office staff back into teaching roles: 'Now we get back out in the buildings, we get back in front of kids, we get back in front of teachers.'
But there's a second, less-publicised piece to this. The waiver also allows Indiana to change how it grades schools. Specifically, it reduces how heavily academic indicators (test scores, graduation rates, etc.) are weighted in the state's new A-F school performance system. Instead, Indiana can now give more weight to college- and career-readiness metrics – things like work-based learning and industry credentials.
That's a big deal. Accountability systems have been a flashpoint in education policy since the No Child Left Behind era, and conservatives have long argued that test scores don't tell the whole story. This waiver gives Indiana permission to rewrite the narrative.
The Bigger Picture: Trump's 'Return Education to the States' Agenda
Indiana didn't get its waiver in a vacuum. It's the third state approved this year, and more are likely coming. A handful of conservative-led states have either submitted proposals or expressed interest, according to the Education Department.
The broader context? The Trump administration has vowed to dismantle the federal Education Department entirely – or at least shrink it to a shadow of its former self. McMahon herself said at the Plainfield event: 'President Trump told me I'd be successful in my job when I fired myself or worked myself out of a job.' Bold talk, but waivers like this are a concrete step toward that vision.
The waivers are also a kind of pragmatic workaround. Congress sets the funding levels for federal education grants, and the president can't just redirect that money without legislation. But the Secretary of Education does have waiver authority – limited, but real – to exempt states from certain requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). By stretching that authority as far as it will go, the administration is effectively bypassing Congress on how that money is used.
Iowa's waiver, approved earlier this year, was much more modest. The state originally asked for flexibility on major grants like Title I (which sends more than $100 million to Iowa's low-income schools) and wanted to consolidate ten funding streams. What it got was a much smaller package: four streams totalling $9.8 million for teacher training, English learners, after-school programs, and academic enrichment. Louisiana's waiver was similarly narrow.
Indiana's $50 million package is bigger, but still a fraction of the roughly $1.2 billion in federal K-12 funding the state receives annually. It's a start, not a revolution.
What Wasn't Approved – And Why It Matters
Here's where things get really interesting. Indiana's original request also included a school choice proposal: the state wanted to take money set aside for improving low-performing districts and give it to higher-performing schools that enrolled students transferring from those low-performing schools. In other words, using federal funds to fuel school choice – a clear priority for Trump.
The department said no.
An Education Department official told the Associated Press that the proposal was rejected because it would have changed how funds are allocated to recipients, which is an explicit restriction on the secretary's waiver authority. In plain English: the law says the money has to go to certain types of schools and districts. You can bend the rules on how it's spent, but you can't redirect it to entirely different recipients.
That's a significant limitation. It suggests that while the administration is happy to loosen bureaucratic requirements, it can't (or won't) use waivers to fundamentally redesign the flow of federal education dollars. School choice advocates may need to look elsewhere – perhaps to the federal school choice program set to launch next year, as mentioned in the PBS report.
Iowa faced similar pushback: its request for flexibility on Title I was denied. So the waiver authority, while real, has clear boundaries. Whether the administration tries to test those boundaries in the future is an open question.
The Critics' Case: Protecting Vulnerable Students
Not everyone is celebrating. Critics argue that consolidating funds eliminates the protections built into categorical grants. When money is earmarked for English-language learners, for example, it ensures that those students aren't overlooked. Roll that funding into a general pool, and the risk is that it gets spent on things that benefit everyone equally – which might not help the kids who need it most.
The three waivers approved so far all roll funding for English-language learners into broader spending. Rural schools and low-income students also lose their protected status under these block grants. Without explicit designations, critics say, vulnerable populations may end up shortchanged.
The Biden-era approach – and, frankly, the approach of most administrations since ESEA was passed in 1965 – was to keep those categories intact to ensure equity. The Trump administration's view is that states know their communities best and that the paperwork burden outweighs any accountability benefit. It's a philosophical divide, not a technical one.
Indiana officials argue they won't neglect any student group. Katie Jenner pointed to the success of the Boys & Girls Club's summer learning labs, which serve 5,800 Hoosier students and could expand to 10,000 with additional funding flexibility. 'We're moving the needle for kids,' she said. But the proof will be in the outcomes, not the press releases.
What This Means For You
If you're a parent, teacher, or taxpayer in Indiana, this waiver isn't just a D.C. policy squabble – it affects your local school. Here's what to watch for:
- Less paperwork, more flexibility: Schools will spend less time filling out grant reports. That could mean more money for classroom supplies, teacher salaries, or after-school programs. But there's no guarantee – each district will decide how to spend its share of the consolidated funds.
- Accountability changes: The new A-F system will place less weight on test scores and more on career readiness. If your child is in a school that emphasises vocational training or apprenticeships, that could be a boost. If you rely on test-score data to compare schools, you'll need to look at different metrics.
- Imperfect flexibility: The waiver doesn't cover all federal funds, and it doesn't allow school choice with federal dollars. So don't expect a voucher-like system to appear overnight. The administration is limited by law, at least for now.
- Potential equity gaps: If your child is an English-language learner or from a low-income family, keep an eye on how the consolidated funds are spent. Without earmarks, advocates worry those students could lose out. Ask your school board what their plan is.
For educators, the waiver is a mixed bag. Less compliance work is welcome – but it also means fewer clear rules on how to serve particular populations. You'll need to be proactive in ensuring that vulnerable students aren't left behind when the categorical protections vanish.
For taxpayers outside Indiana, this is a test case. If Indiana's experiment works – if outcomes improve without compromising equity – other states will likely follow. If it fails, expect a backlash. Either way, the 'Return Education to the States' train is rolling, and Indiana is a key passenger.
What Comes Next
More waivers are on the way. The Education Department has already signalled that it expects applications from other conservative-led states. And given that the administration has until at least January 2029 to push its agenda, we can expect the pace to accelerate.
But there are limits. Congress still controls the purse strings, and the waiver authority has statutory boundaries. The rejection of Indiana's school choice proposal shows that the administration can't unilaterally reshape federal education policy. It can streamline, consolidate, and deregulate – but it can't redirect money to entirely new purposes.
That said, the ultimate goal for many in Trump's orbit is to eliminate the Education Department entirely. Waivers are a stepping stone: if states can show they can handle federal money responsibly with less oversight, the argument goes, why do we need the department at all? Critics counter that the department exists precisely to ensure equity across states – and that waivers undermine that mission.
For now, Indiana has its waiver. Schools have more freedom and fewer forms. Whether that freedom translates into better outcomes for Hoosier students – especially the most vulnerable – is the question that will define this experiment. And it's a question we won't have an answer to for years.
