Project 2025 told us they wanted to close the Department of Education
What might we lose?
“Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.”
That is the first sentence of the chapter on the Department of Education in Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership. It was written by Lindsey M. Burke of The Heritage Foundation.
On March 11, the Department of Education, led by former wrestling magnate Secretary Linda McMahon, announced that it would cut its staff in half—over 1,000 employees. Today, it was announced that President Donald Trump will soon (likely tomorrow, March 20) issue an executive order that directs the remaining staff of the Department of Education to begin dismantling their department. U.S. ED was created by law, so only Congress—with the President’s signature—can completely close it, but it seems like Trump is going to try to wind down as many functions as possible.
Let’s be clear about one thing up front—education policy almost entirely lies with the states. The content of education—what children are actually taught in schools—is decided at the state level. Specific provisions for students are assigned at the local level, through school districts and decided upon by superintendents and school boards. What and how a child is taught is very much a local and state function.
So what does the U.S. Department of Education do? Several things, outlined below, but the big, BIG, important one is that it makes sure that every student receives the same educational opportunities as another. U.S. ED makes sure that students aren’t discriminated against. It makes sure that students with disabilities have access to appropriate educational materials. It makes sure that higher education is not only for the wealthy. It makes sure that educational institutions can’t con students looking to make a better future for themselves.
These are all laws—the anti-discrimination protections for students and the accessibility provisions for students with disabilities. With no U.S. Department of Education, what agency will oversee and enforce those laws? Do parents want that to be up to their state? Maybe some, maybe not others. Do parents want it left up to Congress? Given congressional approval ratings, I doubt it.
Without the U.S. Department of Education, these tasks will be left to the states. And we can already make a good guess that there will be differential enforcement of laws across states. States vary widely in how much they spend per student; without U.S. ED as a backstop, will all states be able to prioritize these functions? (And note much of that data comes from U.S. ED. Without the National Center for Education Statistics, will we even know what is going on in schools across the U.S.?)
What does the U.S. Department of Education do?
(This is an incomplete list.) Note: I fully expect the U.S. ED website to go down soon.
U.S. ED has existed in roughly its current form since 1980, when U.S. ED and the Department of Health and Human Services were split from the former combined Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The history of addressing education policy at the federal level goes back much further, however, to when President Andrew Johnson signed the first Department of Education into existence.
Today, U.S. ED performs a number of oversight functions that ensure that all students in the United States have access to quality educational services, regardless of their medical status, where they live, how much money they have, or what they look like.
U.S. ED’s own description of its role in education is “to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access,” acknowledging that “It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation.”
Anti-Discrimination and Students with Disabilities: Lyndon Johnson signed the first civil rights education act into law: the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Several amendments and supporting education laws have been passed since then, including the current Every Student Succeeds Act (the descendent law of No Child Left Behind, but with more flexibility for states), the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
If you have or know a child in a school that receives Title I funding (i.e., a school with low-performing students, especially in high-poverty areas), or if you have or know a child that has an IEP or a Section 504 plan, then you have or know a child who greatly benefits from these laws. It is U.S. ED that ensures Title I schools receive supplemental funding and that requires states and school districts to provide IEPs to students with disabilities. Without U.S. ED, these students will be left to the whims of their states and school districts, almost guaranteeing that students will be left behind.
According to NCES (see below), in 2021-2022, “about 63 percent of traditional public schools and 62 percent of public charter schools were Title I eligible.”
Also according to NCES, 7.5 million students aged 3-21 (15% of all students) were served by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
National Center for Education Statistics: Do you know how we (collectively) know how many people can read? The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) collects literacy statistics, along with other critical basic education data from across the country, like the Title I and IDEA student stats I provided above.
For instance, this map on the US Literacy Gap from the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy uses data from the NCES (scroll down and you’ll see the citation). When you see education statistics in the press, they are likely coming from NCES. Without NCES, we will have a much weaker understanding of the reading and reading comprehension levels of U.S. citizens. This leaves us weak as a society and as a nation.
Higher Education: Most people who attend institutions of higher education in the US need financial aid of some sort, and access to this financial aid is standardized through submission of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Not only is this the gateway to federal student aid in the form of grants or student loans, it’s also used by the vast majority of higher education institutions—public and private—to determine aid for students. When the FAFSA system failed last year, numerous students were harmed. Sure, that incident showed that FAFSA needs help, but it also definitively demonstrated the criticality of the system. It is a vital resource that U.S. ED provides to higher education in the U.S.
Through its loan programs, U.S. ED also provides incentives for schools to serve students well; it, in concert with the similarly imperiled Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has withheld loans from several for-profit institutions that preyed on vulnerable student populations, especially veterans eligible for Post-9/11 GI bill funds.
Resources for Educators: U.S. ED acts as a clearinghouse of educational information. The Institute of Education Sciences—of which NCES is a part—provides “best practices” information submitted by professionals around the country, for use by educators and education policy makers around the country. Through the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. ED also funds data collection and research efforts. This is a pretty common role for federal-level agencies—they function as a disseminator of information from districts, cities, counties, and states. A teeny amount of federal-level funding is devoted to ensuring that states and local jurisdictions can learn from each other when they conduct policy experiments.
Thank you for this clear and concise summary. Early in my life I worked in special education and I have several relatives who have or have had IEPs. Besides the personal connection, my belief is that diminishing or closing this department will increase disparity through discrimination and oppression, making us all less free and more vulnerable to tyranny.