This evolving landscape demands a transformative approach to leadership and preparedness from school boards
For education to be truly "closest to the children," local boards must begin prioritizing student learning with the same intensity that once defined federal education policy, writes NSBA's Phelton C. Moss. Given the current education landscape, the role of school boards cannot be limited to hiring superintendents and managing district budgets.
July 20, 2026
ORANGROBOT/PEOPLEIMAGES.COM/STOCK.ADOBE.COM
As part of U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon’s “Final Mission,” she has repeatedly stated that “education—particularly funding and accountability—needs to be closest to the children.” She made this statement most recently at the signing of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order to begin closing the U.S. Department of Education. But what exactly does that mean for school boards? As the closest governing bodies to students, boards may soon find themselves at the forefront of efforts to improve reading and math scores, which the White House cited as key reasons for returning education authority to the states.
Local school board members, including myself, are grappling with these potential new responsibilities. Chief among them: developing local district-based accountability tools to ensure the students we serve can read, write, and compute at levels comparable to their peers across the country.
One might assume that education is not already a locally governed matter based on Secretary McMahon’s remarks. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled in San Antonio Independent School District vs. Rodiquez, 411 that the federal government has no responsibility to provide systems of public education. Further, the U.S. Code prohibits federal involvement in local education, though that has not stopped federal efforts to influence local education. For example, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), signed into law by President George W. Bush, shepherded in the most aggressive efforts to intervene in local education, citing the need to “raise higher academic expectations” nationally.
Over a decade later, the passage of the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) returned significant educational authority back to the states. While McMahon advocates for even greater decentralization, placing more power with local school boards, ESSA and the Supreme Court’s ruling positions states—not the federal government—as the primary educational authorities.
During the era of federal oversight ushered in by NCLB, the U.S. saw modest academic gains, largely driven by intense accountability measures and “gaming” efforts aimed at closing the achievement gap. Under the Adequate Yearly Progress framework, schools faced rigorous expectations for student proficiency in math and reading. Educators from that time will recall the heightened pressure—and consequences—for failing to meet these benchmarks.
Since then, federal accountability has been relaxed, partly due to pushback from states and districts unable to meet 2014 performance goals and further weakened by the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the nation is again experiencing declines in academic performance and widening achievement gaps—echoes of the pre-NCLB era.
Supporters of the president’s decision, like Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, argue that America’s ranking in education is prompting another shift in accountability away from the federal government and squarely onto the shoulders of local school boards. If McMahon’s vision is realized, local school boards will play a central role in driving academic outcomes.
What could this mean in practice? In the era post-NCLB, advocates called for local school boards across the country to routinely host data-driven discussions on student outcomes, curriculum effectiveness, and school climate—a direct result of the federal push for accountability led by then-Secretary of Education Rod Paige. In the absence of federal accountability, these practices may need to be further amplified or reimagined at local school board meetings to ensure equitable access to teaching and learning.
For example, during my first year of teaching in 2012, as a member of my school’s leadership team, I regularly presented my students’ performance data to the school board and responded to their questions. Similarly, in 2017, as a first-year turnaround principal, I was again expected to present performance data and answer board members’ questions.
Other school boards and districts regularly focus on student achievement. Texas’ Fort Worth Independent School Board unanimously approved a strategic plan in early 2025 that dramatically shifts the district’s approach to increasing student achievement, after a year of rejecting the same plan. However, some districts still have work to do. For example, a recent analysis found that the Chicago Public Schools Board of Education, in the last three months, has spent only 18.4% of its time in conversations focused on student learning.
Currently, many school boards are preoccupied (which is fitting) with governance, operational issues, and budget approvals. But if education is to truly be “closest to the children,” local boards must begin prioritizing student learning with the same intensity that once defined federal education policy.
This evolving landscape demands a transformative approach to leadership and preparedness from local school board members. Their roles can no longer be limited primarily to hiring superintendents and managing district budgets. Today’s school board members must cultivate a deeper, more strategic skill set centered on academic excellence and equity. This includes the ability to pose insightful questions that drive academic improvement, prioritize student achievement on board agendas, and craft policies designed to elevate educational outcomes.
If efforts to fully dismantle the Department of Education and associated laws persist, school board members, with the support of state education agencies, will need to embrace more responsibility for achievement. They will be expected to advance equity initiatives focused on closing the gap in access to effective teaching and learning traditionally monitored by the Department of Education.
Although the potential shift toward reduced federal oversight raises legitimate concerns about maintaining federal protections, it simultaneously presents local school boards with an unprecedented opportunity to lead more boldly and intentionally. No doubt, school boards will be compelled to sharpen their focus by asking more rigorous, academic outcomes-driven questions, setting agendas that hold districts accountable to parents and communities for data-informed decisions, and crafting policies explicitly designed to address the needs of all learners.
Phelton C. Moss, Ph.D. leads NSBA’s federal advocacy portfolio and serves as an assistant professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.