The Work Behind the Policies that Shape Schools
- Elizabeth Reid-Eriksen
- 2 hours ago
- 7 min read
An informational interview with Assistant Director Bob LePage of the Executive Office of Education examining how education policy takes shape and the behind-the-scenes negotiations that influence decisions across Massachusetts.
I had the pleasure of interviewing Robert LePage, a senior leader in Massachusetts' education policy, to explore what happens beyond the public's view. Our conversation focused on what it actually takes to create and implement education policy across the Commonwealth -- from navigating local control and funding constraints to coordinating across multiple agencies with overlapping responsibilities. LePage shared how many policies that appear simple on the surface require years of planning and ongoing adjustments based on feedback from students, educators, and communities.
Although LePage did not initially plan a career in education, his diverse professional background has strongly shaped his current role as Assistant Director at the Executive Office of Education. LePage holds an MBA from the University of Massachusetts and dual bachelor’s degrees in Marketing and Finance & Insurance from Northeastern University. His career spans work in the sports industry, teaching as a college professor in the business of sports, and consulting in higher education and strategic planning. Together, these experiences position LePage to offer a well-rounded perspective on how education policy is developed and implemented behind the scenes.
Crafting the Policies
Creating policies is not an easy task, especially when you have to account for students and communities across the Commonwealth that all hold a vast variety of opinions and needs. The first step to the process is recognizing the differences across Massachusetts, but what comes after that?
One way the state navigates this challenge is through funding structures that recognize inequality between districts. LePage described how Massachusetts adjusts education funding based on a community’s wealth (Chapter 70 of MA General Laws), using income levels and local property taxes to determine how much support a district receives from the state. In some towns, the Commonwealth may cover nearly the full cost of educating a student, while wealthier districts receive far less state aid and fund schools largely on their own.
LePage pointed to current conversations around high school education as a clear example: “You might be getting college and career advising, other districts may not get that. You might be getting some exposure to financial literacy. Kids in other districts don't get them. You might be getting exposure to work-based learning or Capstone classes. Other districts don't have that. But if we want those things to be available to all students, then we have to support those districts to get there.”
But funding alone cannot create meaningful change. When the state wants to expand opportunities, such as career pathways, financial literacy, or work-based learning, it often relies on grants rather than mandates. Why? Because not every district has the same capacity to implement new programs immediately.
“So we might provide planning grants, we might provide grants to purchase quality materials. We might provide teacher professional development. And over time you're trying to get people to adopt those things. You make policies that are phased in over a few years as we're not looking for everybody to get it done immediately. Instead we say, over the next 3 years, 4 years, you need to get the point X. And here's how we're going to help them get there.” -Assistant Director of the EOE, Bob LePage
Taken together, LePage’s insights reveal that creating effective education policy is less about sweeping and immediate mandates and more about carefully aligning funding, flexibility, and long-term support to move districts forward at a realistic pace.
The Obstacles that Litter Policy Decisions
Even when education leaders agree on what should be done, policy decisions are often shaped by what is realistically possible. According to LePage, these decisions are affected by three major constraints: budget, control, and coordination.
As much as the education department would love to fix all problems within the system, “We can only spend the dollars that are appropriated by the legislature.” No matter how strong an idea may be, it must fit within a finite budget.
Another challenge comes from Massachusetts’ emphasis on local control. While this structure allows districts to respond directly to their communities, it also limits how quickly the state can implement large-scale change. “There are very few things in Massachusetts where we can do kind of massive system change,” LePage noted, explaining that most initiatives rely on districts choosing to participate rather than being required to comply.
While the Executive Office of Education provides statewide frameworks and guidance, it does not control many of the decisions that shape students’ daily experiences. Curriculum choices, course offerings, and support services are largely determined at the local level. Unfortunately, this means progress often takes time. Policies that look straightforward on the surface may take years to fully materialize as schools align resources, staffing, and priorities.
Policy decisions are also complicated by the need to coordinate across multiple systems. Education does not exist in isolation; early education, K–12, and higher education all operate under different structures and philosophies. “They’re like three houses in a neighborhood,” LePage explained, “but they’re not all exactly the same people living inside.”
These three agencies are the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), the Department of Early Education and Care (EEC), and the Department of Higher Education (DHE) and they all have various priorities.
LePage compared navigating tensions between agencies to growing up with siblings. “Most of the time we were aligned, but not always,” he explained. “Sometimes we would agree to disagree, sometimes we’d find a middle ground, and sometimes we’d agree we could get there over time.” The same dynamic applies when agencies with different priorities are asked to work together.
This becomes especially clear when initiatives overlap across departments. LePage pointed to adult English language learning as an example, noting that it requires coordination between elementary and secondary education, labor and workforce development, and health and human services. When priorities intersect, the Executive Office often serves as a bridge that brings agencies together to align goals, resources, and timelines.
Finding common ground, however, does not mean eliminating tension. Limited funding, competing interests, and differing philosophies often force difficult tradeoffs. Yet, as LePage emphasized, these negotiations are a necessary part of the work. It is important that we include all perspectives and principles in order to build policies that reflect the realities of students, educators, and communities across the Commonwealth.
Pulling Back the Curtains
What happens behind the scenes of education policy is rarely visible, yet it is where priorities are set, compromises are made, and daily work unfolds. Pulling back the curtain reveals the less visible efforts that shape education across the Commonwealth.
The Daily Work
Despite overseeing policy that affects every level of education, LePage explained that there is no such thing as a typical day. But generally, you could categorize his job into two common days:
First, days with meetings. These days customarily lie on Mondays and they are jammed packed from 10:00am-5:00pm. According to LePage, these meetings are “usually a combination of internal team meetings with other folks [who are] part of the executive office. We might have team meetings with other agencies. We might have specific initiative calls.”
Second are field days. This includes travel such as visiting schools, colleges, or workforce sites across the state. These visits are not ceremonial. LePage emphasized that being in the field is essential to learning what policies look like in practice. Conversations with students, principals, and parents often reveal gaps between intent and impact, or unintended consequences that require adjustment.
If those conversations don’t happen, policy risks being shaped without enough information. “Sometimes you make a decision,” LePage noted, “and six months later you realize it’s not helping in the way you intended.” At that point, the work shifts again and you are back to revising regulations, reallocating funding, or rethinking communication strategies.
Difficult Tradeoffs
With limited resources, every decision comes with tradeoffs. LePage was candid about the reality that there is always more the state wants to do than it can afford. Even programs with clear benefits may struggle to gain funding if they are not widely understood or politically prioritized.
He pointed to early college programs and innovation career pathways as examples. Although these initiatives can significantly benefit students, they were once less visible to legislators, making it harder to secure funding. In other cases, funding is directed toward programs that are more familiar, even if their long-term impact is less clear.
LePage also shared a personal example: math education. As a former college professor, he sees firsthand how gaps in middle and high school math follow students into higher education. While the state has invested heavily in early literacy and STEM fields like computer science and biotechnology, he believes more could be done to support math instruction during critical years. The challenge? Math is widely disliked, making it harder to rally enthusiasm and funding around improving it.
“You can’t do everything,” LePage acknowledged. Tradeoffs are unavoidable, and policy work often means choosing which problems can be addressed now and which have to wait.
Work to Be Proud Of
Much of the work LePage is most proud of happens far from public view. While headlines tend to focus on final budget numbers or policy outcomes, he emphasized that the real impact often lies in the process, especially in how education funding priorities are shaped. Because education policy is tied so closely to budgeting, a significant portion of the work involves deciding not only what to invest in, but why.
LePage described the state budgeting process as far more complicated than most people realize. Ideas developed within the Executive Office of Education must move through multiple layers (such as agency discussions, the governor’s office, and the Secretary of Finance) before ever reaching the legislature. From there, representatives and senators weigh in, often reshaping priorities based on their constituents’ needs. What emerges at the end is not a single office’s vision, but a negotiated outcome shaped by many voices.
He also highlighted something students often underestimate: the power of public input. “The voice of the people is a lot more than people think,” LePage explained, noting that calls, emails, and letters to legislators are read and considered. While social media may feel louder, it is often direct communication that quietly influences policy decisions behind the scenes.
Looking Ahead
When asked what students interested in education policy or public service should understand about the work, LePage emphasized that the day-to-day reality is mainly built on collaboration, communication, and coordination. Much of the job involves working across teams, managing projects, and making decisions shaped by limited resources.
For students considering this path, LePage offered practical advice grounded in experience:
“You have to be able to work on teams, and you have to be able to communicate: written and orally.” -Assistant Director of the EOE, Bob LePage
He stressed the value of understanding management, finance, and project planning, noting that many policy decisions are driven by funding realities.
Looking ahead, his message is clear: meaningful change in education depends not only on strong ideas, but on the ability to navigate complex systems with patience, clarity, and collaboration.