Trump Dismantling of Department of Education: 4 Things to Know
Even though the president is not able to terminate the Department of Education unilaterally without going through Congress, the executive order is a sign of a major decline in federal control. The department has already confirmed that almost half of its employees will be reduced by a combination of voluntary buyouts and firings. This action has alarmed people regarding the future of federal education programs and the possible effect on millions of students nationwide.
Perhaps the greatest worry regarding Trump Department of Education elimination is the impact on needy student groups. The Department of Education allocates more than $18 billion every year in discretionary grants in Title I funding to fund approximately 26 million economically disadvantaged students. Title I is vitally necessary to schools with an abundance of needs in areas with high rates of poverty as well as those schools located in rural areas.
Weade James, a senior director of K-12 education policy at the Center for American Progress, cautioned that dismantling the department would result in a loss of accountability and oversight. “It’s imperative that we continue to ask questions about how these reductions are going to affect students because in fact they are,” James said. If not monitored by the federal government, it is feared that the states might not track student progress properly or distribute resources appropriately.
Mia Ives-Rublee, a senior director for the Disability Justice Initiative, raised alarm that shifting these duties would be able to interrupt vital services. “What we do know is we’re going to see a radical change in the way we provide or don’t provide services to disabled students,” she stated.
Another significant problem resulting from the Trump Department of Education dismantling is the administration of the federal student loan program. The Department of Education now manages a gigantic $1.8 trillion student loan portfolio, impacting millions of borrowers across the country.
Even though White House officials have assured that core functions such as student loans will continue running, Trump has stated that these duties can be re-allocated to other departments, including the Treasury Department or the Small Business Administration. Insiders indicate little has been done in coming up with a functional plan for this switch.
A person involved in the deliberations disclosed that the Treasury has been hesitant to assume the pool of loans. With about 40% of federal student loans now in default, the uncertainty over management casts doubt on whether the government is prepared to oversee future loan service and borrower safeguards.
Through the revolutionary reorganization, local school curriculum is one thing that will largely be left alone. Trump Department of Education dismantling does not cover telling classrooms what to teach, since curriculum is controlled by state and local education officials.
When the Department of Education came into being, Congress specifically forbid federal domination over curriculum, school administration, and instructional materials. In other words, Trump’s executive order would not directly change what students will study or teachers teach.
But the order does prohibit federal spending on programs that promote diversity, equity, inclusion, or gender ideology. This prohibition can potentially be dangerous in undermining education initiatives to push educational equity and inclusivity.
As part of the Trump Department of Education dismantling effort, the agency is eliminating close to 50% of its staff. The Office for Civil Rights, which enforces anti-discrimination regulations and shields students from racial, religious, and disability-based discrimination, will be among the most severely affected divisions.
The staff reduction impacts not only the enforcement of civil rights but also the agency’s ability to monitor compliance with core education programs. Advocates are concerned that students from underrepresented groups will suffer greater educational disparities without federal monitoring.
The proponents of the Trump Department of Education dismantling contend that decentralizing education regulation will give parents and local governments the authority to make decisions that are most beneficial to their communities. They are convinced that minimizing federal intervention will result in more responsive and effective educational practices.
On the contrary, opponents caution that the shift threatens to damage students who depend on federal programs for vital services. They point out that abolishing the Department of Education threatens to undermine vital support networks for low-income families, rural schools, and students with disabilities.
“The dismantling of the Department of Education is not a bureaucratic reorganization – it’s a fundamental transformation that could affect millions of children and their capacity to learn,” James said.
The long-term consequences of the Trump Department of Education being dismantled are unclear. Expect legal challenges to the executive order, and Congress will ultimately decide whether to officially eliminate the department.
Meanwhile, parents, school districts, and educators are holding their breath in anticipation of interruptions as the federal government pulls back on its investment in public education. The fate of America’s future rests on what happens next.
In the short term, everyone looks to Washington as the Trump administration remains focused on remodeling the federal government and reframing the position of education within America.
