Key points:
- The argument for dismantling the Department of Education is not a new one
- Trump has won a second term–here’s what that means for schools
- Trump picks Linda McMahon to lead, and possibly dismantle, Education Department
- For more news on policy, visit eSN’s Educational Leadership hub
In light of Donald Trump assuming a second presidential term in 2025, conversations concerning dismantling the United States Department of Education have resurfaced. Supporters argue that federal involvement in education undermines state authority, while critics fear that removing the federal role could exacerbate inequities and hinder national progress. To evaluate the proposal, it is crucial to examine the federal and state roles in education, the historical and constitutional context, and the potential benefits and challenges of such a shift.
The federal role in education
The United States Constitution does not explicitly grant the federal government authority over education. As Lunenberg et al. (2012) noted, “Education is not a function specifically delegated to the federal government” (p. 327). Instead, under the Tenth Amendment, powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states (McCarthy et al., 2019). This leaves education primarily under state jurisdiction, with federal involvement historically limited to indirect support rather than direct control.
The United States Department of Education was established in 1979. It is responsible for overseeing federal funding for schools, enforcing federal laws in education, and ensuring equal access for students across the country. Furthermore, it has played a significant role through legislation such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and its successors: NCLB (No Child Left Behind) and ESSA (the Every Student Succeeds Act). These laws link federal funding to specific requirements, which aim to address inequities in education. Currently, federal contributions account for approximately 8 percent of funding for elementary and secondary education, with the remaining 92 percent coming from state and local sources (“The Federal Role,” 2017).
The role of state and local control in education
Education policy and administration have traditionally been state functions. States determine funding formulas, establish teacher certification requirements, and oversee curricula through their departments and boards of education (Lynch, 2016). Governors and state legislatures allocate funds, which are often distributed to schools based on enrollment, need, or specific programs (Lunenberg et al., 2012).
Local school boards also play a critical role, managing day-to-day operations and responding to community needs. This decentralized structure reflects a longstanding belief that local authorities are better positioned to address the diverse needs of their communities. However, it has also led to significant disparities between states and districts in terms of funding, resources, and student outcomes.
Dismantling the United States Department of Education
One of the most compelling arguments for dismantling the United States Department of Education lies in the principle of localized control. Critics argue that education is best managed by state and local governments because they are closer to the specific needs of their communities. Localized governance could allow schools to tailor their policies, curriculum, and resource allocation in ways that best fit the unique demographics of their regions. For example, schools in rural areas may have vastly different needs than those in urban centers, which is why local authorities are likely better equipped to address these disparities without the interference of federal oversight.
The concern extends beyond general education. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which is enforced by the United States Department of Education, mandates that students with disabilities receive free and appropriate public education (FAPE) along with necessary services and accommodations. Similarly, the department oversees federal programs that support English Language Learner (ELL) students by helping schools provide tailored instruction and resources to students who are not native English speakers. Without federal oversight, it is possible that these programs could lose funding or be inconsistently applied across states, causing vulnerable populations to be without critical support.
Advocates of dismantling the United States Department of Education also point to the financial burden of maintaining a federal agency. They argue that billions of dollars allocated to the department could be redirected to state education budgets, thereby allowing for more impactful initiatives at the forefront. By eliminating bureaucratic layers, states could potentially deliver education funding more efficiently, thereby focusing resources directly on teachers, classrooms, and students.
Another critical function of the United States Department of Education is establishing and enforcing national education standards. Programs such as NCLB and ESSA aim to hold schools accountable for student performance and ensure consistency across states (albeit, there are arguments those programs have led to a culture of “teaching to the test” and have stifled creativity in the classroom), but allowing states and local districts to have greater freedom to design their own standards and assessments may fostering innovation while also leading to the quality of education varying dramatically from state to state and can cause challenges for students in transient populations due to a lack of cohesion disrupting their education and limiting their opportunities.
Keeping the United States Department of Education
Dismantling the United States Department of Education raises significant concerns about equity. The department plays a crucial role in addressing disparities in funding education, as well as in funding access. Federal programs (i.e., Title I, free meals, counseling, after-school programs, etc.) provide additional resources to schools serving high numbers of low-income students, many of which are located in inner-city areas. Without the United States Department of Education, these programs might be eliminated or left to the discretion of states that have historically struggled to prioritize funding for underserved communities.
Inner-city urban schools often face unique challenges (i.e., overcrowding, insufficient funding, higher rates of poverty among students, etc.). Many of these schools also serve disproportionately high numbers of students with disabilities and ELL students, thereby making federal support even more vital. The United States Department of Education enforces civil rights protections that ensures that all students (including vulnerable subgroups) receive equitable treatment. Dismantling the department could weaken these safeguards, thereby leaving marginalized communities more vulnerable to neglect. Therefore, the loss of federal oversight is a serious concern for public education. Historically, states have not always allocated resources equitably, and urban school districts have often been underfunded compared to their suburban counterparts. Federal intervention has been essential in addressing these disparities. Without it, inner-city schools may struggle to maintain even basic standards of education, thereby exacerbating poverty and inequality.
All schools (not just inner-city schools) will be adversely impacted by dismantling the United States Department of Education. Federal funding supports Advanced Placement (AP) courses, STEM initiatives, and dual-enrollment opportunities. Dismantling the United States Department of Education could lead to inconsistencies in college admissions processes because states might adopt different graduation requirements and assessments. This lack of standardization could complicate admissions for students applying to out-of-state or prestigious universities. Furthermore, the United States Department of Education funds research initiatives that lead to the development of new teaching methods, technologies, and curricula. These innovations often benefit all schools, but without federal support, such research might stagnate leaving schools without access to cutting-edge educational resources.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the debate pertaining to dismantling the United States Department of Education has taken on new urgency under the Trump administration in 2025. While advocates of dismantling the department argue for greater local control and efficiency, the critics highlight the potential risks to equity and access. As the nation grapples with this issue, it is essential to prioritize the needs of students (and communities). The ultimate goal must be to create a more equitable and effective education system that serves all students regardless of their background or zip code.
In light of Donald Trump assuming a second presidential term in 2025, conversations concerning dismantling the United States Department of Education have resurfaced. Education Policy & Funding, Educational Leadership, Featured on eSchool News, Department of Education, Education, educational leadership, leadership, math, middle school, news, Policy, school, states eSchool News
