by Thomas Showalter

President Donald Trump’s “skinny budget” for fiscal year 2026 mirrors a call in Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership to block-grant the major federal funding streams for K-12 students and schools. Block grants-lump sums given to states together with fewer restrictions than separate, programmatic line items. But this shift can have unintended consequences, especially for programs that serve vulnerable youth. 

Block Grants Would Lead to Reduced Services, Especially for Those Who Most Need Them 

Consider the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program (21CCLC), the only federal program dedicated exclusively to supporting afterschool and out-of-school-time learning for K-12 students. Through the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the most recent reauthorization of the main federal K-12 law, 21CCLC funding means that every state must fund a statewide competition to allocate funding for afterschool and out-of-school time programs. 21CCLC grantees must target low-income students with programming intended to “improve student academic achievement as well as overall student success,” though they have wide latitude in what this programming looks like. In fact, 21CCLC is some of the only federal funding that supports enrichment and summer-learning activities for low-income students. Grantees must also demonstrate how they will use federal funds to leverage other state and local funding sources.  

The president’s budget calls for 21CCLC funding to be folded into the “K-12 Simplified Funding Program,” the K-12 block grant – which would also face a $4.5 billion cut compared to the current programs included within it. If Congress enacted this change through the budget and appropriations process, states would not be required to continue afterschool and out-of-school time programming at current levels – or at all.  

In the context of overall cuts to K-12 funding, superintendents would fight to ensure that local school districts – often the largest employers in small towns and rural areas – keep their funding in a block-granting scenario. The small community- and faith-based organizations that make up the bulk of 21CCLC grantees would be likely to lose out – as would the more than 1 million students who benefit from these programs each year. 

What To Do Now

Now is the time for advocates and state leaders to act – not with fear, but with resolve.  

First, this means reiterating the overwhelming evidence of positive impacts derived from programs like 21CCLC. A 2020 evaluation of the Texas’s CCLC programs found that participants who attended programming for 60 days or more, across two years, had a 42 percent higher chance of being promoted to the next grade level!  

A second point is more difficult: naming the fact that federal requirements can be positive. While providing only about 13 percent of the nation’s K-12 funding, the federal government leverages these dollars to increase fairness and access to education. Federal funds are already flexible: In the 21CCLC context, states have great latitude in how they compete out their funding to local entities and what they prioritize. But the federal role keeps states and local school districts honest, by providing a baseline requirement that they prioritize low-income students and other with needs. In a country where the quality of K-12 education is largely tied to ZIP code, this is a much-needed role.  

Third, advocates must also present a positive vision for specific programs. Much can be improved in 21CCLC. This starts with increasing funding, such that the estimated 25 million students who would be in an afterschool program if it were available are able to access this programming. Advocates have also called for more connection between out-of-school time opportunities and career development, more systems for providing year-round support to students and families, and more attention to children’s needs beyond academics.  

Finally, advocates and especially program leaders must plan for the painful possibility that federal funding drops dramatically or disappears. Could states or local governments, school districts, foundations, or even individual donors step in? Are there alternative eligibility, staffing, or service models that could more closely target the young people with the most needs with reduced resources? Freed from federal constraints, might volunteers be able to fill roles that paid staff might otherwise play?  

It’s easier to destroy successful programs than to rebuild them, and the threat of block-granting is real. Those who care about education must rise up, not for the status quo, but for better options for all students.  

Thomas Showalter is an independent consultant assisting nonprofits with policy change, program implementation, fund development, and communications, as well as a subject matter expert in areas including K-12 education, workforce development, and disability. Thomas was previously executive director of the National Youth Employment Coalition, served on the staff of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and worked in various roles at public-affairs and public-relations firms.