Sixty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson wrote to Congress, urging large-scale changes to education from preschool through college, in pursuit of a national goal of “full educational opportunity.”

“Every child must be encouraged to get as much education as he has the ability to take,” Johnson wrote. “We want this not only for his sake, but for the nation’s sake. Nothing matters more to the future of our country.”

In response, lawmakers passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). When signing the bill into law on April 11, 1965, Johnson called it “a major new commitment of the federal government to quality and equality in the schooling that we offer our young people.”

Among its largest provisions was Title I, which provides federal grants to support the education of students from low-income backgrounds so they can be academically successful in big cities, remote rural towns, and everywhere in between, all across the country. Today, it provides $18 billion annually for the education of students from low-income backgrounds.

But despite decades of success, Title I, and other federal grant programs that provide targeted federal education aid — and more importantly, the students they support — are at risk.

States, starting with Iowa, have begun requesting waivers from the regulations governing specialized education funding programs, instead seeking a “block grant” that would allow the state to pool the federal funds, and use the money as they see fit — even for things that have nothing to do with education.

This is not just a meaningless tweak to a bureaucratic triviality; it’s a risk to real students, right now.

As a son of a tenant farmer, I know that education is the only valid passport from poverty… No law I have signed, or will ever sign, means more to the future of America.

—President Lyndon B. Johnson

Grants that are supposed to be dedicated for the education of students from low-income backgrounds, those in rural communities, English learners, or students experiencing homelessness could be used for the education of students whose families and communities already have plenty of resources. At least one state is in talks to use dedicated funding for students with disabilities — money that comes with federally guaranteed protections for children with special needs to get an inclusive, appropriate education — for unaccountable voucher programs. None of this is what Congress intended, either when it passed the original laws, nor when it has reauthorized Title I funds every year since.

What governors and others advocating for block grants cast as “red tape” that inhibits innovation are actually important protections that ensure that the students who deserve additional resources to succeed actually receive them. Lumping all these funds into one pot of money muddies their original purposes and raises the risk that they’ll be spent in ways that don’t improve educational opportunities for the students who need them.

States claim that they’ll use the funds to support the intended student populations, but history makes clear that not all states cannot be trusted to use federal funds for their intended purpose without federal oversight.

Consider that within a few years of its passage, Congress had to clarify that Title I funding should be used in addition to rather than instead of state and local funding for the education of students from low-income backgrounds.

Unfortunately, states playing fast and loose with federal education funding and civil rights protections isn’t a problem of the past: In 2018, the first Trump administration found Texas in violation of federal law for illegally capping how many students could receive special education services. And beyond funding for students from low-income backgrounds, Title I is also the mechanism by which the federal government requires states to evaluate schools and improve those that aren’t meeting students’ needs — an effort that states have been slacking off in recent years.

It is a short-sighted mistake to elevate the goal of “states’ rights” over ensuring protections for vulnerable groups of students. With 95% of school districts eligible for at least some Title I funding, allowing states to move that money elsewhere risks not only the education of individual students across the country, but the existence of a well-educated workforce in the decades to come.

When signing ESEA, Johnson remarked, “As a son of a tenant farmer, I know that education is the only valid passport from poverty. As a former teacher — and, I hope, a future one — I have great expectations of what this law will mean for all of our young people. As president of the United States, I believe deeply no law I have signed, or will ever sign, means more to the future of America.”

The U.S. Department of Education and members of Congress should do everything they can to further educational opportunities for students, not risk them by instituting block grants that give states a blank check. Let’s give our nation’s students the future that Johnson envisioned — a ticket to pursue the American Dream.