The Reasons We’ve Had a Department of Education
Education Policy Brief #200 | Valerie Henderson | March 31, 2025
Featured Photo: ABC News
Summary
The U.S. Department of Education (DOE), established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, operates to promote student achievement, ensure equal access to education, and enforce federal laws prohibiting discrimination in federally funded programs. Historically, the DOE controls policies related to federal financial aid, collects education data, and administers funding for education research. It notably manages Pell Grants, student loans, Title I programs (support for low-income students), special education through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and oversees compliance with federal civil rights laws in educational institutions.
Over time, the Department’s scope has evolved, driven by landmark legislations such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, and subsequent reauthorizations, including No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and Every Student Succeeds Act (2015).
Analysis
Historically, the DOE’s role has expanded significantly from its original mission. Initially intended as a support system for states and localities, it has increasingly influenced local education policy through conditional funding mechanisms. Federal initiatives such as Common Core standards adoption, Race to the Top grants, and the enforcement of standardized testing illustrate a shift toward increased federal involvement in local education policy.
Critics argue that excessive federal mandates may undermine local innovation and flexibility. While supporters claim the DOE’s role ensures consistency in quality and equity across states, particularly benefiting marginalized populations such as students with disabilities and those from low-income backgrounds.
Advocates for maintaining the DOE emphasize its pivotal role in safeguarding educational equity and civil rights. They argue that federal oversight is essential to ensure that all students, regardless of geographic location or socioeconomic status, have access to quality education. The DOE’s enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and support for underfunded schools through programs like Title I are cited as critical mechanisms for promoting fairness and addressing historical disparities in the education system.
Conversely, proponents of abolishing the DOE contend that education should be primarily a state and local responsibility, free from federal intervention. They argue that the DOE imposes one-size-fits-all mandates that stifle local innovation and burden schools with bureaucratic requirements. By eliminating the department, they believe that states and local communities would have greater autonomy to tailor education policies that best fit their unique needs and priorities.
Historically, federal funding accounts for only about 8-10% of total educational expenditures, yet these funds significantly shape local and state policy due to the conditions attached. Experts frequently debate whether such leverage ultimately enhances or constrains educational quality.
In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the dismantling of the Department of Education. The order instructs the Secretary of Education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities.” While the executive order sets the framework for reducing the department’s functions, completely abolishing it would require congressional approval. The administration asserts that this move aims to empower states and local communities by reducing federal oversight and bureaucracy in education.
I do not support efforts to abolish the Department of Education, as doing so would significantly harm students who depend on federally mandated services, especially those from historically marginalized backgrounds and children with disabilities. The Department plays an essential role in protecting civil rights, funding special education programs, and ensuring equitable access to education across all states. Without its oversight, local disparities in funding, quality, and inclusiveness would likely widen. While there is room for reform and improved collaboration with states, dismantling the DOE would strip away necessary protections and support systems that millions of students rely on daily.
Engagement Resources
- National Education Association (NEA)
Advocates for public education policies that strengthen public schools, enhance educational opportunities, and improve educator working conditions.
https://www.nea.org - Education Trust
Engages in research and advocacy aimed at closing achievement gaps and promoting educational equity across socioeconomic and racial groups.
https://edtrust.org - Center on Education Policy (CEP)
Provides nonpartisan, evidence-based research on public education, helping policymakers understand the implications of educational policies and practices.
https://www.cep-dc.org