Eliminate the Department of Education

The discussion surrounding the potential elimination of the U.S. Department of Education has gained renewed vigor, primarily fueled by the Project 2025 blueprint many conservatives are referencing as they consider future presidential agendas. Advocates argue that the existence of the Department of Education violates constitutional boundaries since the Constitution does not expressly grant the federal government the authority to govern education. Beyond simply abolishing the department, proponents stress the importance of dismantling the various educational programs it administers, many of which date back before the department’s establishment in 1979. This historical context reveals a complicated evolution wherein the National Education Association shifted from a professional body to a labor union that ultimately played a significant role in advocating for a separate education department, which came under President Jimmy Carter’s administration.

The creation of a standalone Department of Education was met with significant debate and concerns from various factions. Figures like Joseph Califano, Carter’s secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, viewed the separation as potentially harmful to the balance of state and local control over education and a threat to higher education’s independence. Notably, prominent educators and union leaders, including Albert Shanker of the American Federation of Teachers, expressed apprehension about the department’s effectiveness and the risks of centralizing educational governance. Despite the objections, the department was narrowly established, and over the subsequent years it expanded its reach, particularly under Republican administrations. Ronald Reagan campaigned against it during his run for presidency, but Congress showed little enthusiasm for comprehensive reforms during his tenure.

The years that followed saw the federal government assume a more prominent role in K-12 education, especially with the enforcement of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) from 2002 to 2015. NCLB sought uniformity in educational standards across states and mandated “adequate yearly progress” towards proficiency in reading and math. This federal oversight intensified concerns that the Department of Education was undermining state control, as it pressured states to conform to national standards and curricular frameworks, including the controversial Common Core. However, federal mandates ignited a backlash from both political sides, especially spotlighting teachers’ unions’ dissatisfaction regarding policies linking standardized test scores to teacher evaluations.

As a response to these tensions, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was enacted, effectively pulling back on the stringent requirements of NCLB. While ESSA lessened federal control by eliminating the necessary “adequate yearly progress” assessments, it did not solve the fundamental issue of federal involvement in education. The Department of Education remains the smallest Cabinet department, contributing a relatively modest portion of total K-12 funding—an average of 8.5 percent over the last five decades. Nonetheless, the federal financial stakes can significantly influence state decisions, leading to concerns about the consequences of potential non-compliance with federal regulations, regardless of the size of the funding.

Despite notable achievements in standardized testing outcomes during the NCLB years, many critiques emerged regarding the narrow focus on mathematics and reading, which sidelined a broader educational curriculum. Programs and approaches not aligned with high-stakes testing were often neglected, likely stifling the sustainability of state-led reforms that had initially birthed the standards-based movement. By centralizing power within a federal department, the depth and diversity of educational quality across states suffered. As a proposed solution, some suggest that merging the Department of Education with another department, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, would effectively dilute its focus on K-12 education while streamlining oversight.

However, dismantling the Department of Education should not merely result in a merger; instead, it requires a fundamental reevaluation of the constitutional validity of its numerous programs. The need for a more balanced and localized approach to education remains critical. The call for a complete overhaul not only aims to remove the existing constraints of federal micromanagement but also emphasizes restoring state autonomy. Ending all unconstitutional programs would ensure that educational governance is more aligned with the founding theory of federalism, allowing the states to exercise their distinct educational practices without undue interruption from federal mandates. In conclusion, while there is merit in discussing the future of the Department of Education, a wholesomely revised perspective is necessary to address both its current state and historical implications.