If the Department of Education Were Dissolved, States—and Students—Would Win

Since its inception in 1980, taxpayers have spent trillions on the Dept. of Education and in return received only abjectly worse public education.

For years, the idea of abolishing the U.S. Department of Education has been treated as if it were merely political fantasy. Critics of the notion would argue it could simply not be done—as if the agency were etched into the Constitution itself. In one such example the National Education Association called President Trump’s intention to do just that “unprecedented and illegal.”

It’s not.

Public education falls under the jurisdiction of states according to the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to local governments or the people. A federal Department of Education, on the other hand, has no constitutional protection. It appears nowhere in the founding documents. Congress created it, and Congress can undo it.

It only opened in 1980 after having been signed into law by President Jimmy Carter the year prior. And from the start, it was controversial. 

“I would like to dissolve the $10 billion National Department of Education created by President Carter and turn schools back to the local school districts where we built the greatest public school system the world has ever seen,” then-candidate Ronald Reagan said on the 1980 campaign trail. “I think I can make a case that the decline in the quality of public education began when federal aid became federal interference.” 

It sounds almost quaint now to hear him say he thought he could “make a case” and use the $10 billion figure. Four and a half decades later, that budget has ballooned into the hundreds of billions: in fiscal 2022, net outlays for the Department of Education exceeded $639 billion. As for the “case” about student achievement—nationally, only about 35% of high school seniors are proficient in reading and a mere 22% in math. 

Unfortunately for President Reagan, he did not have enough support from Congress to abolish the department as he had hoped. Perhaps if he had a window into our future—where taxpayers have spent trillions over the course of 46 years for abjectly worse public education—he could have secured the votes needed to close it down for good.

Yet, public officials today have these dismal numbers—and many still advocate to keep bankrolling the Department of Education. Perhaps that has less to do with securing positive educational outcomes for students and more to do with the fact that the department’s beneficiaries enjoy exceptionally comfortable, taxpayer-funded salaries despite having little to show for it. 

As pointed out by the American Enterprise Institute’s Frederick Hess, a very large portion of the department’s GS-15 managers are paid $160,000 per year, with just under 90 making upwards of $200,000. That’s more than four times the average starting teacher salary, according to The Heritage Foundation. 

“The bulk of the department’s work boils down to throwing vast sums at higher education, mostly by issuing, managing, and (not) collecting payments for student loans,” said Hess. “That’s why insiders have long described the department as a gargantuan bank with a second-rate policy shop attached.”

“When the feds weren’t busy harassing parents or leveraging food for compliance with their woke agenda, the Department of Education demonstrated gross incompetence,” reads a piece by Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts and Director for the Center for Education Policy Lindsey Burke. “It failed even in basic administration, botching the launch of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid that millions of families rely on to access federal student loans and grants. This isn’t governance. It’s an affront to families in the U.S.”

Last year, President Trump took perhaps the most meaningful step yet towards seeing the Department of Education abolished. In an executive order, he authorized Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the department and “return authority over education to the States and local communities.” Further, the President announced he would slash the department’s workforce by roughly half.

A lower court judge appointed by Biden attempted to halt the layoffs with an order of his own, arguing that “a department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all." Quickly, his order was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. This was a decisive, early win for Trump—and for states rights.

It’s not exactly clear how and when McMahon and Trump will succeed—and there remains great uncertainty about whether or not they can muster enough votes of support in both chambers of Congress—but, despite the challenges, the runway looks somehow clearer than ever before. 

Critics of the department argue that this outcome can only benefit students. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, more than 90% of K-12 funding still comes from state and local sources, not the federal government. Therefore, eliminating the Department of Education would not eliminate education funding. It would simply remove a federal middleman that controls a relatively small share of dollars while exerting outsized influence over policy. 

Redirecting federal education funds directly to states—without a permanent federal bureaucracy attached—would allow governors and legislatures to tailor programs to local student needs, whether that means rural transportation, special education staffing, vocational training, or early literacy initiatives.

States that have experimented with decentralized approaches—such as education savings accounts, charter expansion, or career-technical pipelines—have often done so despite federal constraints, not because of them. And all of the latter examples are largely showing better results and greater promise than public schools across the board.

Research compiled by EdChoice shows that of more than 200 empirical studies on school choice programs—including vouchers, education savings accounts, and similar options—86 percent demonstrate positive effects. Many of these studies specifically find higher levels of parental satisfaction among participating families, as well as positive impacts on student outcomes such as test scores, educational attainment, and school safety.

A distant federal agency can absorb—or, perhaps more accurately, hide—failure indefinitely. Local leaders cannot. When bad education decisions are made closer to home, parents know who on their local school board to speak to, pressure, vote out, or replace. That dynamic keeps administrators in check. It’s a tool for parents to shape the education they want their children to receive. That tool is powerless against unelected bureaucrats. 

“Indeed, eliminating or significantly rightsizing the department would be a boon to parents and teachers. Parents would have more agency over their child’s share of education funding, while teachers and school leaders would contend with fewer federal mandates and regulations. Students would be freer to learn and teachers freer to teach,” write Roberts and Burke.

Reallocating education dollars to the states would not solve every problem overnight—but it would put students and families closer to the decisions that shape their schools. And that would be a great start. 

Anything is better than continuing to invest in a bloated federal department that has only grown larger, costlier, and less effective with each passing year.