In 2025, the US Department of Education may face a significant transformation. Recently, Republican Senator Mike Rounds from South Dakota introduced legislation to abolish the Department of Education. The newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by the world’s richest individual Elon Musk and Republican rising star Vivek Ramaswamy, aims to enhance government efficiency by streamlining federal bureaucratic agencies.
It remains unclear whether lawmakers and the new government will focus on abolishing the current status of the Department of Education, restructuring it, or reducing its influence to a smaller national agency or a regulatory body below the Cabinet level.
Clearly, changing this massive federal bureaucracy is no easy task. The likelihood of abolishing the Department of Education is slim, as eliminating a Cabinet agency requires Congressional approval through relevant legislation and at least 60 votes in the Senate.
Objectively speaking, reforming any federal department requires an understanding of the history of education in the US.
Over the past 150 years, the origins of the Department of Education in the US varied. In 1867, President Andrew Johnson signed legislation establishing a department with only four federal employees. The department’s purpose was to collect data and information, similar to the data collection for farmers by the Department of Agriculture in the mid-19th century. Through several gradual reforms, President Jimmy Carter elevated the Department of Education to a Cabinet-level agency in May 1980.
President Ronald Reagan promised to eliminate the Department of Education during his 1980 campaign, but he did not achieve this goal during his term. Over two decades later in 2002, President George W. Bush proposed increasing federal government involvement in local and state education during his campaign. His efforts led to the controversial No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, focusing on standardized testing. A study by the University of Michigan suggested that the NCLB legislation may have helped improve math scores for lower-grade students, but there was no evidence of a similar improvement in reading scores.
During President Barack Obama’s administration, the oversight of the Department of Education was strengthened with initiatives like the Race to the Top program in 2009 with $4.35 billion and the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 with $1.6 billion. However, an analysis of the Race to the Top grant in 2016 concluded, “It is currently unclear if the RTT grants affected the policies and practices adopted by states, or if they improved student outcomes.”
As of now, according to official US data, the Department of Education had a budget of $241.7 billion for the fiscal year 2024, with 4,200 employees. The department allocated $92.28 billion for various incentive measures.
Families and taxpayers may raise an apparent question: Is it justified for our country to spend billions of dollars on federal projects that have little impact on improving educational outcomes?
Currently, there are several popular federal programs supported by both the Republican and Democratic parties that should not be abolished but rather overseen, managed, and implemented by another federal agency. Let’s analyze these noteworthy federal programs one by one.
First is the Head Start program, contrary to popular belief, managed by the Administration for Children and Families under the US Department of Health and Human Services. It aims to prepare infants and preschool-age children from income-eligible families for school. How the Head Start program is managed by a federal department outside of the Department of Education serves as an example of how federal welfare programs are managed.
Second is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This federal program, signed into law in 1975, is crucial for families with disabled children and is the primary federal regulation overseeing special education for children in the US.
Next is the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education program (OCTAE). This program, under the Department of Education, receives broad federal and state support and funds local and state-level vocational training. Originally authorized by the US Congress in 1963 as the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, Congress has reauthorized it over the past 60 years. In 2018, President Donald Trump signed the reauthorization of this act.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is another federal program. Its Title I provision, requiring careful federal funding allocation, was established by the US Congress in the 1970s to aid school districts serving economically disadvantaged students and families. The allocation to state and local educational agencies is based on estimates of poverty population from the US Census Bureau. This program enjoys strong support and would likely face backlash against any modifications by the Department of Government Efficiency. In the 2021-2022 school year, approximately 63% of traditional public schools and 62% of charter schools qualified for Title I federal funding.
Public education is a crucial component of the vision planned by our founding fathers for America. They recognized that a cultured and educated citizenry is the best choice for national self-governance and shaping America’s future. However, the US Constitution never grants the federal government the authority to establish education policies. Education is not mentioned among the powers listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment reserves powers not granted to the federal government.
According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government and the Department of Education do not have the authority to dictate the education functions, standards, and local curricula of each state. Unlike many other countries’ education systems, education in the US is organized under the state constitutions of 50 states. However, the Department of Education currently wields significant influence, and its leadership, oversight, and direct impact are leading to “mission drift.”
Direct academic guidance has been replaced by unproven academic theories, educational fads, and political ideologies. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) based in Paris shows the average scores of American students in reading, math, and science. This international benchmark test reveals that the US lags behind many other advanced industrial countries.
For example, the 2022 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) compared math scores of American children with those of 80 other countries, showing US children scoring below the average of 25 countries. Rankings of countries like South Korea, Vietnam, the UK, Czech Republic, Canada, and Slovenia surpass US children. The PISA also ranked American students in reading, science, and financial literacy, with countries like Australia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Switzerland maintaining or further advancing their high-performing student scores in industrialized nations.
Many Americans believe that the ultimate role and purpose of the Department of Education will differ significantly from the current scenario. However, implementing reform could prove challenging, as canceling any government program presents its challenges.
As an elected member of the Orange County Board of Education in California for 29 years, I offer the following opinions and suggestions to federal lawmakers and the Department of Government Efficiency led by Musk and Ramaswamy:
– Shift, diminish, and alter the role and responsibilities of the Department of Education, significantly diminishing its impact on state and local education until it resembles its scale and role before President Carter’s administration.
– Transform the current structure of the Department of Education into a structure equivalent to a subcabinet level.
– Establish a new branch within the redefined Department of Housing and Urban Development to promote school choice and charter school development, providing funding support for charter school facilities and campus construction.
– Eliminate all discretionary funding from the federal government to state and local educational institutions.
– Continue to support disabled children and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act under another department’s leadership.
– Early childhood care and education should be a priority for states rather than the federal government. Transfer oversight of the Head Start program for preschool education to states and local governments to expand early childhood education.
– Management of federal student aid can be transferred to the Department of Commerce, relieving taxpayers of student loan repayment responsibilities.
– Bilingual education and English language assistance funds should be the responsibility of states, not the federal government.
– Training efforts managed by the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE) should be transferred to the Department of Labor.
– School-based mental health services should be the responsibility of states.
– The civil rights division within the Department of Education can easily transition to the Department of Justice.
– Allow states, not the federal government, discretionary academic grant funding.
– The Office of Indian Education can be transferred for management under the Department of the Interior.
Lawmakers in Washington, D.C., and state government educational offices should advance processes towards smaller government, individual freedom, and school choice while safeguarding parents’ rights in their children’s education. Let’s observe how the incoming Department of Government Efficiency will impact the reduction or gradual elimination of federal influence in local and state education. We are currently at a crucial moment in history, eagerly anticipating a wave of positive reform in children’s education in America.