The Impact of Eliminating the Department of Education

Proposals to eliminate the Department of Education (ED) have been a Republican talking point since Ronald Reagan first suggested it in the early 1980s. The Trump administration’s executive order to weaken the agency is just the latest attempt. While the stated goal is to cut waste, reduce inefficiencies, and refocus education on students, there’s a reason ED has never been eliminated. It operates with the smallest staff of any cabinet-level department and accounts for less than 2% of federal spending. More importantly, it administers essential programs like Title I, which provides funding for schools serving low-income students, and IDEA, which supports students with disabilities.

The debate surrounding the Department of Education's role in American education is complex, touching upon issues of federal oversight, local control, equity, and student achievement. Calls for its elimination often stem from a desire to reduce federal intervention and empower states and local communities to tailor education to their specific needs. However, such a move raises concerns about the potential impact on vulnerable student populations, civil rights protections, and the overall quality of education across the nation.

This article examines the potential consequences of eliminating the Department of Education, considering arguments from various perspectives and exploring the possible effects on different levels of education, from K-12 to higher education. It also delves into the history of federal involvement in education and the reasons behind the creation of the Department of Education in the first place.

History and Purpose of the Department of Education

The concept of a federal department of education has deep roots, dating back to the post-Civil War reconstruction period. The Department of Education was formally established by President Jimmy Carter in 1979. The federal role in education essentially began to deepen in the 1950s under Republican President Eisenhower because students were lagging behind, and the states were not responding effectively. The federal role expanded further in the 1960s to support a much-needed focus on equity.

The Department of Education was created to:

Read also: Impact of Trump on Student Debt

Strengthen the federal commitment to ensuring equal access to quality education for all students.
Supplement and complement the efforts of states, local school systems, and other entities to improve the quality of education.
Promote research and innovation to enhance educational practices.
Collect data and disseminate information to inform policy decisions and improve educational outcomes.

The department plays a role in ensuring educational equity. Before Trump took office, DOE was conscientious about enforcing civil rights laws in education.

Arguments for Eliminating the Department of Education

Those who advocate for eliminating the Department of Education often argue that:

Education is primarily a state and local responsibility. They believe that decisions about curriculum, standards, and funding should be made at the state and local levels, closer to the students and communities they serve.
The Department of Education is an unnecessary bureaucracy. They contend that the department is wasteful and inefficient, and that its regulations and mandates stifle innovation and flexibility at the local level.
Federal control over education has not improved student outcomes. Critics point to stagnant or declining test scores and graduation rates as evidence that the Department of Education has failed to achieve its goals.
Eliminating the Department of Education would empower parents and communities. They argue that giving parents more control over their children's education, through school choice programs and other initiatives, would lead to better outcomes.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon released the following statement following President Trump’s Executive Order to return education to the states: “Today’s Executive Order is a history-making action by President Trump to free future generations of American students and forge opportunities for their success. We are sending education back to the states where it so rightly belongs. Education is fundamentally a state responsibility. Instead of filtering resources through layers of federal red tape, we will empower states to take charge and advocate for and implement what is best for students, families, and educators in their communities. Closing the Department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them-we will continue to support K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others who rely on essential programs. We’re going to follow the law and eliminate the bureaucracy responsibly by working through Congress to ensure a lawful and orderly transition. With today’s action, we take a significant step forward to give parents and states control over their children’s education. Teachers will be unshackled from burdensome regulations and paperwork, empowering them to get back to teaching basic subjects. Taxpayers will no longer be burdened with tens of billions of dollars of waste on progressive social experiments and obsolete programs.

Jeanne Allen, founder and CEO of the Center for Education Reform in Washington, D.C., said in a statement that the administration is fulfilling a promise to "disrupt a federal system that hasn't worked for students in decades" and that "shifting power closer to communities is the right direction."

Potential Impacts on K-12 Education

The elimination of the Department of Education could have far-reaching consequences for K-12 education, affecting funding, accountability, and civil rights protections.

Read also: The Impact on Education

Funding for Schools

The Department of Education provides significant funding to states and local school districts through various programs, including Title I (for low-income students) and IDEA (for students with disabilities). In Utah’s public education budget, the federal government plays a relatively minor role in providing funding to the state, but a significant role in funding certain programs. The Legislature appropriated a total of $598.7 million in estimated federal funding in public education for FY 2026, (approximately 7.0% of the total appropriation). Federal funds are focused in four major areas in public education, Special Education, Title Programs (Economically Disadvantaged), Career and Technical Education, and Child Nutrition Programs.

Eliminating the department could lead to a reduction in federal funding for these programs, potentially impacting the resources available to schools and students. Federal education grant programs have been renewed for the coming fiscal year (prior to the last continuing resolution), so the risk of immediate financial impact appears low.

Special Education: Utah receives approximately $142.6 million in federal IDEA funding. On top of this amount, the Legislature has appropriated approximately $600.0 million ongoing in state funds to support special education programs. This makes federal funds approximately 19% of total special education funding. State statute governing special education in Utah are aligned to the federal IDEA laws and the federal process is used to determine eligibility. Changes in how the federal laws are implemented and monitored may impact delivery of special education services.
Title Programs: $62.7 million in federal funding received through various Title Programs (i.e., Title I, Title II) the primary focus of the federal title programs is to provide funding for students experiencing economic disadvantage, migration, homelessness, etc. The Legislature has appropriated $130.5 million ongoing in state funds to support the Students At-Risk WPU Add-on program which distributes state funding to LEAs based on student economic disadvantage and English language learner status. Federal funds comprise approximately 32% of total funding dedicated for “At-Risk” students. Utah’s law for the Students At-Risk WPU Add-on is independent of federal funding and laws governing the Title Programs. While changes at the federal level may impact the use of Title funding, the use of the state appropriation is governed by state statute and local implementation.
Career & Technical Education: $16.8 million in federal funding to support public and higher education CTE programs, often called the Perkins grant. The Legislature has appropriated $134.4 million to support CTE programs in the public schools and over $185.0 million to support technical education through higher education institutions.

Read also: Presidential Son in Higher Education
Child Nutrition: $354.4 million in federal funding to support school breakfast, lunch, milk, etc. programs. The Legislature has appropriated $50.1 million from the liquor tax to support the program. In this case, the federal government provides approximately 86% of the funding.

Some argue that these funds would go to states as block grants if the Education Department were dissolved, but the federal accountability for compliance could disappear.

Potential Funding Issues

While the administration claims that moves to dismantle the department would lessen bureaucracy, it would likely increase it. It would create a breadth of challenges for local and state education agencies, who would likely have to navigate new payment systems. This could create funding delays and issues. For example, in 2025, rural school leaders received funding two months late after the administration transferred programs outside of the department. In moving K-12 programs to the Department of Labor (DOL), the DOL grant system didn’t recognize state education agencies’ bank accounts.

Accountability and Standards

The Department of Education plays a role in setting national education goals and promoting accountability for student achievement. Programs such as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB-2001) emphasized accountability and standardized testing to ensure all students, regardless of background, receive a quality education.

Eliminating the department could lead to a weakening of accountability measures and a decline in educational standards, particularly in states with historically low levels of achievement. Since the early 2000s, both Democrat and Republican administrations have eased up on assessment and accountability requirements for states, even after more than a decade of declining achievement and unprecedented learning loss during and post-Covid.

Civil Rights Protections

The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) enforces federal laws against discrimination in schools, protecting students on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, or national origin.

Dissolving the Education Department could result in certain programs moving to different agencies, and the department's downsized Office of Civil Rights, which enforces federal laws against discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability or national origin in schools, could move under the direction of the Department of Justice. This would require parents to have the resources to pursue litigation to resolve any complaints. Cuts to OCR staff and legal scholars responsible for protecting the civil rights of American students means that schools will have more leverage to discriminate against children without any oversight or accountability."

Impact on Students with Disabilities

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a critical funding and civil rights law that protects the rights of students with disabilities and ensures they receive the education they are legally entitled to. IDEA requires stringent monitoring and oversight, and it is essential that its guardians protect and strengthen its services. The Department of Education prioritizes the needs of students with disabilities, in large part because IDEA is the second-largest federal funding program for K-12 public schools. If the program were moved to HHS, officials there would likely consider it an afterthought.

Over the past year, the Trump Administration has discontinued several grants within IDEA, including for state-level initiatives that train teachers of students with disabilities and that help schools and educators gain the resources and training to instruct students with visual and hearing impairments, and for nonprofit organizations that supply resources and legal support to parents of students with disabilities from marginalized groups, including students of color and families that speak languages other than English.

When IDEA was enacted in 1975, Congress committed to funding 40% of the average per pupil cost for special education, but the federal share is now less than 12%. Despite this shortcoming, high school graduation rates for students with disabilities have improved drastically since the implementation of IDEA. In the 1995-96 school year, only 27.2% of students with disabilities graduated with a high school diploma. For the 2021-22 school year, that number was at 73.6%. The Department of Education plays a crucial role in tracking states’ progress in meeting IDEA’s requirements, which could be at risk if the program moves to HHS.

School Choice and Vouchers

Ending a federal role in education would accelerate other policy shifts we are already starting to see. Another consequence of ending the Department of Education could be the creation of a wide system of school vouchers, giving parents a chance to use them for private or parochial schools. Under such a system, tens of millions of public dollars would be taken from public education to support private education.

According to Project 2025’s roadmap, some key aspects of what this privatized system would include School Vouchers and Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). Public schools would see a decrease in funding as resources are diverted to private and charter schools. Education policy and funding would be managed at the state and local levels, reducing federal involvement and allowing for more localized decision-making. And the system would allow private schools, including faith-based institutions, career schools, and apprenticeship programs, to use government funded education vouchers. However, this approach raises serious concerns about equity and access to quality education for all students, particularly those in marginalized communities.

The Risk of Increased Disparities

Before Trump took office, DOE was conscientious about enforcing civil rights laws in education. Without it, disparities between wealthy and low-income districts could widen, exacerbating educational inequality and the potential for racial resegregation. The aftermath of dismantling of DOE will be a return to significant differences in educational quality and opportunities for students across the country.

Potential Impacts on Higher Education

The elimination of the Department of Education could also have significant consequences for higher education, affecting student financial aid, institutional funding, and oversight of accreditation.

Federal Student Aid Programs

The Department of Education manages federal student aid programs, including loans and grants, which help millions of students afford college. In fiscal year 2024, the department awarded $120.8 billion in federal loans, grants and work-study funds in fiscal year 2024 to more than 9.9 million college and career school students, according to an unaudited annual report by Federal Student Aid.

Abolishing the Education Department doesn't mean federal student aid programs would end, experts say. These programs could be overseen by another federal agency or dispersed to states.

Pell Grants - federal awards based on financial need - are unlikely to be affected, given their bipartisan support. But Congress may vote to slash funding for federal college access initiatives, such as work-study or public service loan forgiveness, Blackwell says.

Institutional Funding and Oversight

The intention of the higher education proposals is "to actually free up money from going directly to the institutions themselves and allow a much more competitive environment for higher ed that don't have the money to pay to the lobbyists to get some of the direct assistance that some of the larger or specialty universities get.

However, some experts argue that eliminating the Education Department could create more challenges for institutions that rely more heavily on federal money, such as historically Black colleges and universities. If there's uncertainty, if there's delays in financial processing, then these colleges that require some type of funding for their infrastructure - just their general running of their institutions - could be at risk. When that happens, it has a top-down effect. College enrollment and access could drop."

Clery Act Enforcement

It is crucial to recognize that colleges and universities currently benefit from the Department of Education’s expertise in Clery Act enforcement. ED’s Clery Group is responsible for conducting program reviews and providing valuable training and technical assistance to help institutions comply with the law. If Clery Act oversight were shifted to an agency with no experience or knowledge of the Clery Act, it would have direct consequences for both institutions and the faculty, staff, and students the Clery Act protects.

The Need for Real Reform

Even if ED does get shut down, that won’t fix education’s inefficiencies, most of which are wired into the system by state regulations, labor contracts, and local customs. At the same time, defending the status quo is no solution. education system is long overdue for radical change. The latest National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results paint a bleak picture-less than a third of students nationwide are proficient in reading and math. Learning losses from school closures persist, but the decline began long before that. Over the past decade, student performance has steadily worsened, with the lowest-performing students falling the fastest. During the Covid-19 pandemic and resulting school closures, stagnation gave way to outright freefall in many states and cities, despite massive federal investments meant to reverse learning losses. The built-in rigidities, uneven access to effective instruction, and high expectations revealed themselves shockingly. It’s past time to get to the heart of the problems that have plagued public education for decades under both parties’ watch. A plan for real reform is essential-one that rejects both the simplistic “burn it down” approach and the complacency of “deny and defend.” Real solutions require boldly rethinking how to educate students, remove bureaucratic barriers, and drive meaningful innovation.

There is no question that public education needs to change. The real question is: what kind of change should it be? Doing away with the Department of Education taps into the vein of discontent but doesn’t fix any of the issues mentioned above-nor does sending more funds directly to states and districts with no strings attached. Similarly, federal programs to expand private school choice programs will embolden and excite supporters of choice; however, decades of evidence show that simply telling families they can choose schools does not address the dysfunctions built into our education system. Private and charter schools are too small to serve all students who need options; crudely designed and poorly funded voucher programs are insufficient to generate a new supply of quality schools. Choice is a positive factor, but it is not magic. In fact, without attention to essential enablers like parent information, transportation, fair admissions, funding levels, new school creation, capacity-building, and performance measurement, choice can further exacerbate existing challenges.

tags: #impact #of #eliminating #the #Department #of