Why Local Education Organizations Matter, and Why They Matter More Now

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Americans have good reason to be concerned about the Trump administration’s dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education. For decades, the agency has done important work that states and local agencies simply cannot do on their own, such as conducting national assessments, ensuring schools and districts protect children’s civil rights, and helping college students secure financial aid. 

But even as the department is weakened, some of its work has been sustained by other actors. One of its key functions — helping educators learn about and implement promising improvement strategies — has long been supported and even led by a network of local education organizations.  

When they work together, these organizations — everything from local parent-teacher associations and community-based programs to major philanthropies and research-practice partnerships — turn out to be remarkably good at sharing information about effective K-12 practices, helping school and district leaders craft improvement plans, and rallying support behind these efforts.

And these local organizations don’t just influence what happens to schools locally. As I’ve discovered in my research, many of these organizations have built connections with each other and with school districts over many years. Working under the radar, these organizations have often created an invisible infrastructure to support change and improvement nationally. 

In studying the history of high school dropout prevention systems, I’ve seen how changes emerged from researchers who studied graduation patterns, school coaches who worked with schools to reduce dropout rates, philanthropic managers who funded these initiatives, and community members who advocated for these changes. What then can be learned from this web of local organizations?

First, local organizations learn a lot from each other. In the early 2000s, organizations in Baltimore, Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York City learned that the problem of dropping out can be predicted by students’ ninth grade performance. Researchers from the University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins University didn’t just publish their results; they spoke to varied audiences from local high school teachers to policymakers at the nation’s capital. They worked with other researchers who have since studied these “early warning indicators” and with other nonprofits that incorporated these indicators in their work with schools. As local researchers, nonprofits, and schools collaborated, changes slowly emerged on how to address the problem of students dropping out. 

Second, local organizations adapt innovations in and foster trust with schools. In the 2010s, when nonprofits were introducing systems to support students’ high school graduation, they did not just transpose a set of recommendations from one school to another. Rather, many of these education nonprofits spent years working with teachers and gaining the trust of schools and districts, constantly adapting strategies to the needs of their partners. Schools appreciated getting their own data, coming up with tailored solutions, and working alongside their outside-school partners. In the process, seemingly “foreign” changes and initiatives become strangely familiar. 

Third, local organizations provide stability and focus in a field so often changing. When school boards change and new superintendents come in, they tend to bring in new initiatives. That can make it harder to maintain existing programs. Their partner organizations can help with focus and stability. For instance, organizations like the UChicago Consortium on School Research and coaches from the university’s Network for College Success have been focused squarely on keeping ninth graders “on track” to graduate. This focus has paid off with high school graduation rates increasingly dramatically in places like Chicago, which experienced a jump from 50% in the early 2000s to 85% graduation in 2024. That success wouldn’t have been possible without the sustained efforts of local research, data, and coaching organizations working with schools over a 20-year period. 

To be clear, local organizations cannot replace the U.S. Education Department. Our nation needs a federal agency to establish financial aid policies, distribute Title I funds, collect national data, support testing innovations, and promote K-12 programs. But it’s important to recognize that the U.S. boasts a strong infrastructure of networked local organizations, and this network has an important role to play in K-12 improvement.

Some caveats are in order. One is that the most affluent schools and districts could develop the strongest relationships to these organizations, which will only exacerbate existing inequalities. It’s not unusual to see a wealthy suburban district, with its well-connected PTA members, attract a number of research partners, while a rural district on the other side of the state struggles to attract any interest at all from researchers, philanthropists, or community groups.

Another is the risk of creating a shadow bureaucracy that challenges existing education leaders. Nonprofits and philanthropists can sometimes push their own initiatives without any community input or with few guardrails for accountability. At the very least, partner organizations should create a steering committee — composed of district officials, union leaders, teachers, parents, students, community members, and other diverse voices — to help foster democratic deliberation about their school improvement plans. But some organizations neglect to seek out such input. 

On balance, though, these organizations have the potential to support positive changes in a decentralized education system. Given today’s political headwinds, it is easy to feel pessimistic about the future. But as the Department of Education faces possible closure, educators should acknowledge and find ways to support local nonprofits, philanthropic foundations, and researchers that shape not just our local schools but also our national education landscape. 

UChicago Consortium on School Research and The 74 both receive financial support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York and The Joyce Foundation.

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter