In his final days, former President Jimmy Carter watched as then-presidential candidate Donald Trump pledged to shutter one of Carter’s key achievements: the U.S. Department of Education.
A common misconception about this proposal is that eliminating the Department of Education would also repeal critical federal laws that ensure equal access to education for all students — laws that were established before the department itself. These include measures like the Every Student Succeeds Act, which evolved from the No Child Left Behind Act and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
This act helps fund programs for teacher training, English language learners, unhoused students and those with special needs, among others. Title I, in particular, provides crucial funding for schools serving high-poverty communities. Additionally, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, passed in 1975, guarantees that students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education.
Credit: Handout
Credit: Handout
If Trump succeeds, it wouldn’t be the first time the Department of Education has been shut down, hindering access to equitable education for marginalized students.
The idea of a federal education agency goes back to 1867, when President Andrew Johnson established the first Department of Education. Initially tasked with gathering data on schools, it was quickly downgraded to an office of education.
At the time, any federal action was seen as part of the larger Reconstruction effort, and the education of former enslaved people caused unease in both Northern and Southern states. This resistance to educating all citizens and establishing equitable education practices led states to assert that education was a matter of states’ rights and that the federal government was exceeding its authority.
Over the next century, efforts to boost federal investment in education came again in response to national crises.
In 1958, the National Defense Education Act was created to address the scientific and technological gaps exposed by the launch of Sputnik. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty resulted in the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, aiming to provide federal funding for schools serving low-income students, English learners, students with disabilities and other marginalized students — groups historically underserved by the education system.
It wasn’t until the Carter administration in 1979 that Congress created the modern Department of Education to centralize these efforts.
The department was tasked with administering federal education assistance, enforcing civil rights laws, conducting educational research and promoting best practices across states, schools and research institutions.
Consolidating 267 educational programs spanning 24 federal agencies highlighted the nation’s commitment to ensuring educational opportunities for all students, particularly those facing the greatest challenges. It also established a Cabinet-level position, underscoring the growing importance of education at the national level.
The Department of Education today represents only 3% of the federal budget, but it provides, on average, 13.7% of a state’s education funding — 16.1% in Georgia. The department’s policies are shaped by Congress and the president.
Trump would need congressional approval to dismantle the department. Alternatively, he can weaken the department by not filling positions, a tactic he chose in his first term.
If the Department of Education is disassembled, the funds tied to federal educational laws would be redirected to states without federal oversight to ensure compliance. Though removing federal oversight could encourage innovation by offering local flexibility in educational programming, it also would introduce significant risks.
States, already grappling with tight budgets and competing priorities, might be forced to make difficult decisions. The concern is that, under financial pressure, states could cut support for the students who need it most.
Georgia’s student population is diverse, with 20% living in poverty, 7.7% learning English and 13.6% receiving special education services (including students with visual and hearing impairments, autism and learning and intellectual disabilities).
These vulnerable students face additional challenges that require customized programs and support to succeed in school. Such support includes access to specialized resources and technology, fostering parental involvement, hiring qualified staff, offering academic programs during the summer and after school and more.
If federal funding is allocated to states without ensuring these supports, essential services could be cut, causing students to fall behind academically.
Current investments in education are long-term assets, as they lead to higher incomes for students, reduce the likelihood of poverty and help build a strong workforce that attracts businesses. When students receive the appropriate support, they are more likely to stay in school longer, earn a diploma and pursue further education or training.
The federal government has historically played a key role in addressing systemic inequities in education.
In his first week in office, Trump dismantled diversity, equity and inclusion programs across federal agencies and reversed a 1965 executive order that prohibited federal contractors from discriminating based on race, religion or national origin.
Georgia schools continue to rely on a 1985 funding formula, and it remains one of only six states that does not consider the number of low-income students when allocating funds.
Federal programs such as Title I help bridge this gap, supporting educational initiatives for low-income students. Yet, without clear guidelines for state funding distribution, and given the historical need for federal support for at-risk students, states facing tough budgetary decisions might not prioritize the needs of vulnerable students.
As a public schoolteacher in Georgia for 25 years, I have witnessed firsthand how quality educators and programs can transform students’ lives. All students should have the chance to achieve their full potential, and it’s essential that we protect the educational programs that make this possible.
Permeil Dass is a high school teacher, data analyst and instructional coach.
About the Author
Keep Reading
The Latest
Featured
