U.S. school systems face pressure to strengthen capacity
Education funding is entering a period in which district leaders may need to make longer-range decisions with greater care. Education Week reports that federal funding accounts for roughly 10% of public K–12 school revenue nationally, while state and local sources each account for about 45%. Those proportions may help explain why changes in any one funding source can become relevant to district planning, particularly as some systems contend with enrollment changes, evolving state funding formulas, and local revenue pressures. For district leaders, these circumstances may increase the value of evaluating programs carefully, prioritizing resources, and considering which practices could remain useful as funding conditions change.
Financial uncertainty may also influence how schools assess the range of initiatives competing for time, funding, and staff attention. Districts seem to have adopted new instructional models, technology platforms, curricula, and professional-development programs to address different educational priorities. When several efforts operate at once, the resulting activity may make it more difficult to determine which initiatives are strengthening an organization's underlying capacity to learn and adapt. This possibility can raise a broader consideration for school systems: whether their internal structures, knowledge, and leadership practices are sufficiently developed to retain useful lessons when individual programs or funding sources change.
Available workforce data may add another dimension to that consideration. RAND estimates that teachFer turnover declined from approximately 10% during the pandemic to just under 7% during the 2024–25 school year, while principal turnover declined from 16% to about 8%. Urban districts also reported higher teacher turnover than suburban and rural districts. These figures may suggest that leadership development, professional learning, and the transfer of institutional knowledge could remain relevant as districts consider how to maintain continuity amid personnel changes.
Policy discussions may add another layer of responsibility for state and local education systems. A 2026 Heritage Foundation paper examining a potentially smaller federal role in education suggests that state and local policymakers could assume greater responsibility across areas including Title I, special education, civil rights, and assessment. The paper also considers the possibility of greater local decision-making alongside changing administrative responsibilities. As those discussions continue, districts may benefit from examining whether their leaders and teams have the capacity to interpret changing requirements, develop talent, communicate across functions, and connect policy decisions with instructional priorities.
That organizational question appears to have informed the career of Dr. Thomas Maridada, whose professional experience has included classroom teaching, school leadership, urban-district superintendency, national child advocacy, and statewide leadership development. Through the Center for Strategic Leadership and Organizational Coherence (CSL) and the Institute for Organizational Coherence (IOC), his work focuses on leadership, professional learning, talent development, instruction, and organizational strategy.
His philosophy is captured in his observation. "Educational excellence does not have to be serendipitous," he says. "We can create it with intention." The idea suggests that educational improvement may be more sustainable when organizations develop the internal ability to learn, adapt, and improve alongside individual programs and initiatives.
That perspective also informs Maridada's description of an "illusion of progress," referring to circumstances in which an organization may remain highly occupied with improvement activity while its capacity to adapt and strengthen its own practices remains uneven. His career has provided experience across several levels of education, including work as a superintendent involving STEM, early college, international learning, world-language programs, and teacher development.
For Maridada, leadership development may therefore have implications beyond preparing individuals for formal positions. "The goal of leadership is not to make people dependent upon the leader; it is to increase their capacity to lead, think, solve problems, and succeed without constant external direction," he says. That principle appears to inform CSL's focus on professional learning, human capital systems, leadership pathways, and instructional priorities, as well as IOC's work involving research, strategic alignment, workforce solutions, and future-ready learning. The connection may be especially relevant when strategy, talent, instruction, and accountability need to operate in support of shared priorities.
Maridada's philosophy also offers a perspective on how organizations might respond when particular areas encounter difficulty. "When a part of the system is struggling, strengthen it rather than blame and scapegoat the stakeholders within the system," he says. In practice, that philosophy may involve developing teacher expertise, preparing principals for complex responsibilities, improving communication, strengthening feedback systems, and creating opportunities for peer learning. Such efforts could give educators greater opportunities to draw on expertise within their own organizations while developing the capacity to address future challenges.
The broader landscape may place greater emphasis on how districts evaluate their resources, preserve institutional knowledge, and develop the capabilities of the people responsible for carrying out educational priorities. Funding conditions, workforce changes, and evolving policy responsibilities may differ considerably among states and districts, making locally informed decisions increasingly relevant to how individual systems respond.
For education leaders, the coming period may present an opportunity to examine not only which programs receive support, but also which organizational capabilities could help those investments remain useful over time. As responsibilities and resources continue to evolve, the ability of schools to learn from experience, develop their people, and sustain effective practices may become an increasingly relevant consideration in discussions about long-term educational improvement.
