Georgia lawmakers have raised transparency concerns over federal “guidance” communicated to the state Department of Education (GaDOE). While this issue might seem like the ultimate in esoteric “inside baseball,” it reflects a serious challenge to state and local governance in education, and has far-reaching consequences for Georgia’s students, parents and educators.
Federal guidance is a catch-all term for many types of communications – such as “Dear Colleague” letters, FAQs or various memoranda – that explain to state administrators how the federal government interprets and intends to enforce federal law. The very existence of such communication is often a sign that either the law is unclear, or that it is so broad or vague as to give federal bureaucrats the need – or simply the opportunity – to create their own interpretation of the law.
Unlike statutes or formal regulations, federal guidance is not, strictly speaking, legally binding. Courts have consistently held that guidance cannot create new legal obligations on its own. In theory, states and school systems remain free to depart from guidance so long as they comply with the underlying law.
In practice, however, federal guidance often carries significant weight. Schools and state agencies frequently adjust their policies to align with federal expectations rather than risk compliance reviews, investigations or potential consequences tied to federal funding. Over time, guidance can function as de facto rulemaking, shaping education policy even though it was never formally enacted or adopted through a legislative process.
Lawmakers have now proposed changes that address how this dynamic plays out at the state level, particularly when guidance is transmitted directly to GaDOE. Guidance is often interpreted and incorporated administratively, without public discussion or transparency. This process risks undermining state and local self-governance by overriding laws passed by elected leaders with the choices of unelected bureaucrats.
When guidance is absorbed quietly through agency action, meaningful oversight becomes more difficult. Legislators may not be aware that guidance is influencing state education policy; local school systems may be unsure whether they are responding to binding law or administrative interpretation; and parents and educators may not know what standards or expectations are driving changes on the ground.
Both chambers of the Georgia legislature have introduced bills aimed at improving transparency when the state receives federal guidance on education. The bills would require the GaDOE to publish federal guidance they receive, making them readily available to the public and to the General Assembly.
The bills proposed in Georgia seek to address this transparency gap without prohibiting cooperation with federal agencies or barring the use of guidance altogether. They would prevent the GaDOE from adopting non-binding federal suggestions without first subjecting them to public review and documentation. Under the proposals, GaDOE would be required to post any relevant federal “guidance document” to a dedicated website within 15 days of receipt.
Within 45 days of receiving a guidance document, the GaDOE would also be required to publish a formal written response on that same webpage. That response must explain whether the guidance is consistent with Georgia law, how the department plans to implement it and whether the GaDOE has raised any objections or concerns with the issuing federal agency.
The legislation also establishes an annual reporting requirement. By August 1 of each year, the State School Superintendent would be required to submit a report to the House and Senate Education Committees listing all federal guidance received during the prior year, along with the department’s official responses. The need for these reporting requirements is itself an indication of the problem: There is so little transparency for federal guidance today that it is unclear how often federal bureaucrats even send such missives.
Georgia’s effort is not without precedent. In 2024, Tennessee enacted a law requiring its Department of Education to provide federal guidance it receives to the chairs of its government affairs and education committees.
Tennessee’s law was widely described as a first-of-its-kind transparency measure, but a few other states have adopted related practices, though not always through statute. Alaska began publishing guidance documents online pursuant to a 2025 administrative order. Virginia, while no longer operating under a standing executive order requiring publication, continued to post guidance documents online as a matter of practice, even after the formal requirement expired in 2018.
These measures fit into a larger legislative effort to reassert oversight in policymaking that occurs outside the legislative process. Just as Georgia lawmakers have pursued regulatory reform to limit unelected agencies from effectively writing law through rulemaking, these education bills apply a similar principle to federal guidance. They are a step toward transparency and accountability, ensuring that policy shifts are visible and not embedded quietly through administrative action.