Why Trump Wants to Shut Down the Department of Education — And Why It Might Work

As part of his 2024 presidential platform, Donald Trump has once again proposed eliminating the Department of Education and returning authority over schools to states, local communities, and parents. It’s not the first time this idea has surfaced, but the argument for doing so is becoming increasingly compelling as America’s education system falls behind its global competitors, despite decades of rising federal spending.

A Legacy of Federal Overreach

The Department of Education was created in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, largely as a political reward to the National Education Association, which had thrown its weight behind Carter’s campaign. Prior to that, public education was almost entirely a state and local responsibility, with the federal government playing only a limited supporting role.

Carter’s move was controversial from the outset. Critics warned that a federal education bureaucracy would gradually centralize authority, adding unnecessary layers of oversight and detaching schools from the unique needs of their communities. More than forty years later, those fears appear well-founded.

The Consequences of Centralization

Since the Department’s creation, federal spending on education has skyrocketed, yet student outcomes have largely stagnated — or, in some cases, declined. Between 1980 and 2023, inflation-adjusted federal spending on K-12 education rose from roughly $16 billion to more than $80 billion per year. Despite this fivefold increase, U.S. students consistently rank in the middle of the pack on international assessments in math, reading, and science, trailing countries such as Singapore, South Korea, and Estonia.

The federal footprint in education has produced several damaging side effects:

1. Bureaucratic Bloat
   Federal requirements have created an administrative class that diverts resources from classrooms into compliance offices. Teachers and school leaders spend countless hours fulfilling reporting requirements and adhering to federal guidelines, reducing the time and flexibility needed to address the unique needs of their students.
2. One-Size-Fits-All Policies
   Federal mandates have increasingly pushed a nationalized curriculum agenda, undermining the ability of states and local communities to tailor education to local economies, demographics, and cultures. What works in rural Montana is not the same as what’s needed in urban New York City, but Washington often treats them the same.
3. Political Capture
   The Department of Education has also become a political battlefield, with each new administration reshaping curriculum priorities and grant criteria to advance its ideological agenda. From Common Core to DEI mandates, schools have been forced to chase shifting political winds rather than focusing on core academic excellence.
4. Diminished Accountability
   Local communities have less direct oversight of their schools as more decisions flow through state education bureaucracies, which in turn answer to federal authorities. Parents and local school boards find themselves outmatched by distant policymakers in Washington, who have little familiarity with the schools they are regulating.
5. Worsening Outcomes
   Despite decades of increasing federal involvement, reading and math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) have flatlined — and in some cases, declined — especially in lower-income and minority communities, the very populations federal programs were meant to help.

The Broader Context — Carter’s Record of Failure

The creation of the Department of Education fits within a broader pattern of policy missteps that defined the Carter presidency:

• The Iran Hostage Crisis, during which 52 Americans were held captive for 444 days — a situation Carter failed to resolve.
• Stagflation, the toxic combination of high inflation and high unemployment, which eroded wages and shook public confidence in the government’s economic management.
• The Energy Crisis, which produced gasoline shortages and long lines at the pump, further exposing Carter’s inability to craft coherent energy policy.
• The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, which highlighted America’s weakened global standing under Carter’s leadership.

The Department of Education, with its ballooning budgets and declining results, has become a lasting symbol of Carter’s flawed belief in the power of federal central planning.

Trump’s Plan — A Return to Local Control

Trump’s call to shutter the Department of Education is rooted in the idea that local control drives better results. Under his plan, education policy would shift back to the state and local level, where parents, school boards, and communities could tailor their approaches to meet the needs of their students.

Here’s what that could mean for American families:

1. More Parental Control
   Parents would have greater input into curriculum decisions, school policies, and resource allocation. The removal of federal mandates would empower local school boards, which are more directly accountable to the communities they serve.
2. Policy Flexibility
   States would be free to experiment with charter schools, voucher programs, and educational savings accounts, fostering competition and innovation. Successful approaches in states like Florida and Arizona could be replicated elsewhere.
3. Less Bureaucracy, More Teaching
   With fewer federal compliance requirements, schools could redirect resources away from administrative overhead and toward classroom instruction, teacher development, and student support services.
4. Political Neutrality
   Without a federal curriculum agenda, schools would be insulated from ideological swings in Washington. Communities would be free to develop curricula that reflect their values and priorities — whether that’s emphasizing STEM, vocational education, or civic literacy.
5. Cost Savings
   Eliminating the Department of Education would generate billions in federal savings, which could be returned to taxpayers or reallocated directly to states through block grants, giving them more autonomy over how those funds are spent.

Successful State Models

States already taking the lead in reclaiming educational independence offer a preview of what’s possible if the Department of Education is dismantled:

• Florida has become a national leader in education choice, offering parents a menu of options including charter schools, voucher programs, and education savings accounts (ESAs).
• Arizona recently expanded its ESA program to make every student eligible, effectively allowing state funding to follow the child — a model many conservatives view as a blueprint for the future.
• Texas continues to grow its network of high-performing charter schools, which are largely free from federal mandates and outperform many traditional public schools.

These examples illustrate how local flexibility, competition, and parental empowerment are more likely to drive real improvement than any top-down federal initiative.

Donald Trump’s proposal to abolish the Department of Education is not simply a campaign slogan. It’s a response to decades of failed federal intervention, mounting evidence that local control produces better outcomes, and growing frustration among parents who feel increasingly disempowered in decisions affecting their children’s education.

If the U.S. hopes to regain its educational edge in a globally competitive economy, it may need to start by dismantling the bureaucracy that has hindered it since the Carter era — and returning power to those who know America’s students best: their parents, teachers, and local communities.

Sources: Midtown Tribune, Big New York news

Big New York – New Jersey, Connecticut News Business – Job- Moneymakers – Resume – Services – Hospitals-ITTri-state area –  New York – New York City – Manhattan – Brooklyn – Queens – Staten Island – Bronx – Long Island

Please follow and like us: