The debate over the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has reached a fever pitch, with growing momentum to dismantle the federal agency and shift control of education back to states and local communities. Drawing from arguments made in recent writings—two from late 2024 exploring the rationale for elimination and an assessment of the DOE’s track record, alongside a March 2025 piece cautioning against premature celebration—this update consolidates these perspectives and proposes actionable steps for states and localities to ensure education reflects the priorities of those closest to the classroom.
Molly Slag @ American Thinker: Getting rid of the federal Department of Education is just the beginning
Few federal agencies warrant dissolution as much as the Department of Education. A bill in Congress to achieve just that has been introduced, the “States’ Education Reclamation Act.”
However, returning education to the states is not the same thing as returning it to families and communities. Dissolving the DOE does, indeed, seem to be in the cards, yet euphoria at the prospect may be exaggerated due to some wholly understandable confusion on the topic.
The central source of this confusion lies in the fact that there is no such thing as “the” Department of Education. There are 51 departments of education. Dissolving one of them leaves 50 standing.
It’s actually worse than that because there aren’t just 50 other Departments of Education. The American education system is indeed a nationwide system. The system consists of teachers, administrators, principals, superintendents, school boards, and university education departments, along with both the state and federal DOEs. That’s eight constituents. Eliminating one leaves seven standing, multiplied across 50 states.
A surprise awaits people celebrating the federal DOE’s imminent demise. The state DOEs are baby sisters of the federal DOE, with the same views and policies on education.
The Case for Elimination
The push to eliminate the DOE rests on several core arguments. First, it’s seen as a bloated bureaucracy that siphons resources without delivering proportional benefits. Critics point out that the federal government contributes only about 10-15% of public education funding, yet exerts outsized influence through regulations and mandates. Dissolving the DOE could redirect its roughly $70 billion annual budget to states, allowing them to allocate funds based on local needs rather than federal priorities. This aligns with the view that education is a state responsibility under the U.S. Constitution, not a federal one—a principle echoed in calls to reduce “wasteful spending on useless bureaucrats in Washington,” as noted in posts on X.
Second, the DOE’s track record is under scrutiny. Its 40-plus years of existence have coincided with stagnant or declining student outcomes in key areas like reading and math, despite increased spending. Programs like No Child Left Behind and Common Core, driven by federal oversight, have been criticized as one-size-fits-all solutions that stifle innovation and burden educators with compliance rather than empowering them to teach. The argument is clear: centralized control has failed to deliver, and returning authority to states could foster experimentation and accountability tailored to diverse communities.
The Cautionary Note
Yet, as the Federalist piece warns, euphoria over dismantling the DOE may be premature. The writer highlights “wholly understandable confusion” about what dissolution entails. Many state and local education systems have grown dependent on federal funding and guidance, mirroring the DOE’s structure in their own bureaucracies. Simply cutting the federal cord won’t automatically yield local control if states replicate the same top-down approach. Moreover, the transition could spark chaos—uneven funding, legal battles over existing mandates, and resistance from entrenched interests. The promise of local empowerment hinges on proactive steps to avoid these pitfalls.
State and Local Steps Toward True Local Control
To make the vision of local control a reality, states and communities must act decisively. Here are practical measures to consider:
1. Reallocate Federal Funds with Transparency
If the DOE’s budget is redistributed as block grants, states should prioritize transparency in how funds are spent. This could involve public dashboards tracking allocations to districts, ensuring dollars reach classrooms rather than administrative bloat. Local school boards could hold town halls to let parents and taxpayers weigh in on priorities—say, more teachers versus new facilities—making funding decisions a community-driven process.
2. Decentralize Decision-Making
States should resist the urge to replace federal oversight with their own heavy-handed rules. Instead, they could empower school districts by granting them broad autonomy over curricula, hiring, and budgets. For example, Texas or Florida could pilot programs where districts opt into “education freedom zones,” free from state mandates beyond basic standards, letting local leaders innovate—whether that’s vocational training or classical education models.
3. Foster Interstate Collaboration Without Centralization
To address concerns about consistency (e.g., in standards or teacher certification), states could form voluntary compacts—like the National Governors Association has done in the past—sharing best practices without binding mandates. This preserves state sovereignty while avoiding the uniformity trap of federal control.
4. Cut Red Tape and Empower Parents
Localities should audit their regulations, slashing those inherited from federal compliance culture. Pair this with expanded school choice—vouchers, charters, or education savings accounts—so parents can vote with their feet. If a district isn’t serving its students, families should have options, forcing accountability from the ground up.
5. Build Community Oversight Mechanisms
True local control means more than shifting power from Washington to state capitals—it’s about the people in the room. School boards could establish citizen advisory councils, elected or rotating, to review policies and budgets. In rural areas, cooperatives of small districts could pool resources while keeping decision-making grassroots.
The Road Ahead
The movement to dissolve the DOE is gaining traction, fueled by frustration with federal overreach and a belief in local solutions. But as the cautionary voice reminds us, the real work begins after the bureaucracy falls. States and communities must seize the opportunity to rethink education, not just inherit the old system minus one layer. By redistributing resources wisely, cutting red tape, and putting parents and educators in the driver’s seat, they can turn the rhetoric of “local control” into a reality that serves students first. The stakes are high—failure to act could mean swapping one distant master for another, leaving the promise of reform unfulfilled.
BREAKING UPDATE, March 20, 2025…
PF Media: Trump to Sign Order Eliminating Education Department. Now Comes the Hard Part.
Donald Trump will sign an executive order today to begin the process of eliminating the Department of Education.
Trump promised during the campaign that he would abolish the DOE, as has every other Republican president since 1981. Trump’s executive order will make it very difficult for Education Department employees to carry out their assignments, much like his makeover of USAID.
Trump’s order will direct Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure the Department of Education and return education authority to the States, while continuing to ensure the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely,” according to NBC News.
Naturally, the teachers’ unions are fighting the loss of their primary gravy train.
“The Department of Education, and the laws it is supposed to execute, has one major purpose: to level the playing field and fill opportunity gaps to help every child in America succeed,” the American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said in a March 5 statement. “Trying to abolish it — which, by the way, only Congress can do — sends a message that the president doesn’t care about opportunity for all kids. Maybe he cares about it for his own kids or his friends’ kids or his donors’ kids — but not all kids.”
Indeed, the hard part is now trying to convince almost every Republican in the House and Senate, plus at least seven Democratic senators, to defy Weingarten and her millions of dollars in campaign contributions and thousands of campaign volunteers and vote to abolish the Education Department.
I suspect that the Republicans will need to score big wins in the midterm elections to be able to abolish the department entirely. In the meantime, McMahon will try to gum up the works as best she can.