This core principle matters deeply as Secretary Linda McMahon leads the Trump Administration’s work to return education to the states. However, transferring authority is not, by itself, a success. Returning education to the states cannot simply mean the federal bureaucracy does less; it must mean states become stronger. True success is what happens next.

For decades, Washington accumulated an outsized role in education. Programs multiplied, requirements compounded, and states and school districts built systems around federal compliance rather than student needs. As the federal footprint grew, accountability dissolved. If a school struggled, it could point to a district requirement, the district could point to the state, and a state could point to a federal mandate.

The education community  also became very good at measuring activity instead of outcomes: how much money was spent, how many grants were awarded, how many people participated and how many schools were served. Those numbers tell us scale, but they do not tell us what matters most. 

The real question is simple: How are the children? Did students learn more? Did attendance improve?  Did the investment solve the problem it was intended to solve?

For too long, education has been driven by a compliance mindset. Of course, public dollars must be spent lawfully and responsibly, but compliance alone does not tell us whether students are better off. We need to lead with evidence, not compliance.

Returning education to the states changes that dynamic. It gives state and local leaders greater ability to establish priorities around the needs of their own students and communities — and align policy, resources and implementation accordingly. Make no mistake: Flexibility is not the absence of accountability, but rather, greater flexibility can only exist when strong accountability for outcomes is present.

States need more than permission from Washington; they need the capacity, knowledge, tools and evidence to lead well. That is the core idea behind the, introduced recently.

To ensure this framework actually worked for states, the U.S. Department of Education intentionally stepped back. Instead of dictating a plan, we asked eight politically and geographically diverse state education agencies — Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Utah and Wisconsin — to build, test and then refine the Playbook through the real work of solving their own challenges. 

This diversity was intentional. We did not need a rubber stamp from identical systems, but rather a proof that a common framework could help vastly different states identify their own priorities, ask better questions, and build useful evidence to make better decisions. States already have strategic plans, and they certainly do not need another plan sitting on a shelf. The challenge is turning those plans into action — and then having the tools to know whether those actions are working.

A Learning Agenda begins with the strategic goal a state wants to achieve, identifies what leaders still need to learn, builds the necessary evidence, and connects that data directly to decisions about budgets, programs and resources. It creates a disciplined connection between what a state says matters and what a state actually does. 

This playbook puts fundamental tools into one place, including guides, templates, worksheets, case studies and capacity assessments for states to tailor to their own unique set of priorities. It is not research for research’s sake or more data for data’s sake, and it is certainly not another mandatory compliance requirement. The pilot states chose their own goals, applying the process to real challenges.

Some pilot states used the process to bring together divisions that had been operating in silos around common priorities. Others examined significant investments in reading and math, teacher retention, school improvement, career pathways, school leadership, student well-being, and the use of intermediary organizations. They asked a deceptively simple question: Are we getting the results we thought we were buying? 

This is returning education to the states in action, and it’s what it means to lead with evidence. Instead of the U.S. Department of Education designing a solution and directing states to implement it, states identify their goals, and federal technical assistance helps them build the capacity to act. As states take a stronger leadership role, the federal role must change from directing action to supporting action— putting states in the driver’s seat and organizing federal support around where they want to go. 

I am acutely familiar with this responsibility. While serving as North Dakota’s state superintendent, there were federal requirements I disagreed with. Regardless of what Washington mandated, our students were our responsibility. Their outcomes belonged to us. In that vein, we cannot measure success simply by how many responsibilities the federal government relinquishes or how many decisions move to state capitols. We have to measure it by what happens for young learners because states have the freedom and capacity to lead.

That is our North Star.

Washington will play its role best by giving state leaders the room, evidence, tools, and support to lead around the needs of their own students. That is how we build stronger states — and stronger outcomes for America’s students, this generation and beyond.