Closing the Department of Education is More Realistic Than You Think

---

Issue Areas

---

One of the most discussed topics of President Trump’s second term has been the proposal to close the Department of Education. I have to admit I used to consider this a bit of a fringe proposal, but that was before I worked there for four years.

I think most people discussing this idea, including both supporters and critics, are generally missing the point, and much of the media conversation is slanted in ways that leave readers uninformed. In short, closing the Department is far less radical than you probably think it and would likely benefit students and schools in meaningful ways.

The Department was created in 1979 in legislation signed by President Jimmy Carter as he prepared for his (ultimately unsuccessful) reelection. However, the major component parts of the agency (e.g., the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964), were created earlier than that.

The Department is small compared with other agencies in terms of money (around $80 billion annually and staff (around 4,245 people). The most significant function of the Department, in terms of both dollars and people, is its administration of student loans through Federal Student Aid, one of the largest consumer banks in the nation. The Department also plays a critical role in enforcing civil rights in schools.

Generally, though, most of what the Department does is take money from citizens through taxation and then administer a series of bureaucratic processes that seldom add meaningful value in order for communities to get it back. The Department of Education does not manage schools, but it does add costly requirements that make them less efficient. Therefore, eliminating the Department might mean more money in classrooms and less spending on buildings and overhead in Washington.

This sentiment is widely shared. “My members don’t really care about whether they have a bureaucracy of the Department of Education or not,” said American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten. She added that AFT originally opposed the creation of the Department and “thought it should stay within [the Department of Health, Education and Welfare].”

Weingarten has also noted that many of the Department’s functions are contained in statute, but the President still has significant power to dramatically streamline what is there today. Here’s what such a plan would look like.

Of the many proposals developed over the years to shutter the Department of Education, there are significant commonalities. All of the Department’s programs would be streamlined with as many functions as possible returned to states, schools or colleges, and families. Student loans could then be managed by Treasury, civil rights merged with similar functions at the Department of Justice, and remaining K-12 and special education functions moved to the Department of Health and Human Services. Other efforts like the Bureau of Indian Education could go to the Department of the Interior, research functions could go to other scientific agencies, and the Department of Defense or Interior could administer Impact Aid.

But it would be a mistake to simply, for example, replace the sign on the Federal Student Aid building behind Union Station in Washington, D.C. and do nothing else. Congress needs to simplify loan programs through reconciliation, the Department must deal with the high percentage of bad debt, and it should work with DOGE to streamline the wildly inefficient processes that result in such a large bureaucracy. DOGE’s efforts already underway to root out waste, fraud, and abuse will likely result in significant savings.

In other areas of the Department, payments and document review could be streamlined with technology, and the administration of discretionary grants could be dramatically simplified to more closely resemble block grants. It could then work with other agencies to share services and move towards the eventual elimination of the Department. Even if Congress takes years to see the writing on the wall and officially eliminate the Department, the new Administration make great progress if it acts smartly and swiftly. By doing so, it can make it readily apparent to even skeptical observers that such moves are not so radical. Most importantly, these steps will ensure more funds eventually flow to the classroom to the benefit of students and their parents, who surely would rather fund schools rather than bureaucracies.