In 1979, the U.S. Department of Education was created, instantly becoming a cause célèbre for the conservative movement’s pushback against an ever-encroaching federal government into the decisions of local communities.
The Department’s elimination became part of the Republican Party’s 1980 platform, and after President Reagan’s landslide election, it remained a central focus of his administration. In a March 1983 radio address, President Reagan stated:
But in recent years, our traditions of opportunity and excellence in education have been under siege. We’ve witnessed the growth of a huge education bureaucracy. Parents have often been reduced to the role of outsiders. Government-manufactured inflation made private schools and higher education too expensive for too many families…better education doesn’t mean a bigger Department of Education. In fact, that Department should be abolished. Instead, we must do a better job teaching the basics, insisting on discipline and results, encouraging competition and, above all, remembering that education does not begin with Washington officials or even State and local officials. It begins in the home, where it is the right and responsibility of every American.
Today, President Trump is not only echoing Reagan’s call to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education — a pledge that has shaped the edges of federal education policy since the Department’s creation — he’s also beginning to make good on that promise. As with many sweeping proposals, however, the devil is in the details — and the implications for students and families are significant.
Before the Department’s creation, education-related responsibilities were spread across multiple agencies, including the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which managed a broad range of social programs, and the Department of the Interior, which oversaw education for Native American students through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Other critical functions — including civil rights enforcement, student financial aid, and services for children with disabilities — were divided among different offices, resulting in a fragmented and often inefficient system. As federal investment in education grew through Title I funds for low-income schools, Pell Grants for college students, and protections under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the rationale for establishing a dedicated Cabinet-level agency was to coordinate these efforts, ensure proper use of federal resources, and help safeguard the rights of vulnerable students nationwide.
The Department was never intended to replace state and local control of schools. Its mission was to ensure that federal funds were used properly, that national education priorities were addressed, and that vulnerable students — who were too often left behind in certain local systems — received the support and protections they were entitled to under the law.
The current controversy over the Department of Education is another chapter in the long-running tension between state and federal powers under our system of federalism — a classic case of “where you stand depends on where you sit.” Administrations from both parties have used federal funding as a tool to influence education policy. For example, under President George W. Bush, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 tied federal funding to strict accountability measures and standardized testing, while the Obama Administration’s Race to the Top initiative offered competitive federal grants to incentivize state-level education reforms, such as adopting college- and career-ready standards and turning around struggling schools.
While state and local governments play a primary role in education, the federal role has been essential in expanding access and opportunity, protecting vulnerable students, and providing critical data and statistics on the state of education. Even with growing federal influence over time, education in the United States remains deeply rooted in state and local control — about 90% of K-12 funding still comes from state and local governments, and pedagogy and education outcomes are primarily shaped at the state and local levels. But the federal government has played a critical role in protecting the rights of vulnerable students, including those in low-income schools, students of color, students with disabilities, and first-generation college students.
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon has raised important points in recent public interviews about the unprecedented challenges facing education and the need for disruptive change. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, math scores for 13-year-olds are at their lowest levels since testing began in the 1970s, and reading scores are the lowest since 2004. These numbers represent real children — in real classrooms — who are struggling to keep up.
At the same time, college completion rates remain an ongoing concern. Only about 62% of students who start a four-year degree complete it within six years, a figure that has shown little improvement in recent years. The numbers are even more troubling for community colleges, where, according to the National Center for Education Statistics only about 32% of students earn a degree or certificate within three years.
Together, these statistics reflect a system where too many students are falling behind in K-12 and facing steep barriers to completing higher education — challenges that demand a coordinated response at both the state and federal levels. Addressing these issues will require careful planning and clear direction, but so far, that level of clarity has been absent from the conversation. Instead, what we’ve seen is not a coherent plan for reform, but a slash-and-burn approach that raises more questions than answers. And if students ultimately suffer as a result, then it will be a failure.
The current call to dismantle the Department raises serious, concrete questions: Who would protect students’ civil rights and ensure schools comply with laws like Title IX and IDEA? Who would oversee the fair distribution of Title I funds for low-income schools? Who would ensure accountability for the billions of dollars in higher education financial aid?
Reorganizing federal agencies is not, in itself, a bad idea. In fact, streamlining government to better serve the public is a worthy goal — if it’s done thoughtfully and with a clear plan. But eliminating an entire department — especially one as central to American life as education — requires more than a campaign promise. It demands a serious conversation about what comes next, how essential functions will continue, and how students will be protected in the process.
Any major reorganization must be clearly communicated to the public — explaining why it’s beneficial, how it will work, and who will take responsibility for ongoing services and functions. Right now, those answers are missing from the debate. News reports suggest more chaos than coherence. For example, significant layoffs and consolidations of key offices like Federal Student Aid have begun, which reports have said are causing delays for students trying to access Pell Grants and federal loans.
Our focus should be on ensuring that whatever system we have — federal, state, or local — delivers real results for students. At the end of the day, it’s not about preserving or dismantling institutions for their own sake, but about whether students are learning, thriving, and prepared for the future. Because when it comes to something as fundamental as education — the foundation of our economy, democracy, and future — we simply cannot afford to get it wrong.
Jim Malatras is a professor at SUNY Empire State University and the former Chancellor of the State University of New York. He has also served as Chairman of the New York State Reimagine Education Advisory Council, a member of the American Council on Education’s National Task Force on Transfer of Credit, Executive Director of the New NY Education Reform Commission, and Director of Operations for New York State.
The post Rotten Apple or Real Reform: What Happens if the Federal Department of Education is Eliminated? appeared first on EMPIRE REPORT NEW YORK 2025® NEW YORK’S 24/7 NEWS SITE.
