The current administration under Donald Trump is pursuing efforts to significantly reduce the role of the Education Department, signaling a potential shift of its major duties to other federal departments. Responsibilities such as enforcing civil rights could be transferred to the Justice Department, managing student loans might fall under the Treasury or Commerce Departments, and ensuring student disability rights could be handed over to Health and Human Services.
However, one aspect of the department’s mission that remains uncertain is its commitment to promoting equal educational opportunities, particularly in a system marked by inequality. The department recently announced a reduction in its workforce, with 1,300 layoffs. During his campaign, President Trump vowed to completely eliminate the department, criticizing it as inefficient and overly influenced by left-leaning ideologies.
There is concern among advocates that eliminating the department might negatively impact support for disadvantaged students, including those from low-income families, English language learners, students with disabilities, and racial or ethnic minorities. According to Weadé James of the Center for American Progress, reducing the department’s role could create an educational underclass.
The Education Department was established in 1980, partially as a response to movements for civil rights and against poverty during the 1960s and 1970s. Its founding aim included an assurance of equal educational opportunities for all individuals. President Trump’s desire to eliminate the department entirely means risking the loss of an influential platform that highlights educational challenges and advocates solutions, says Michael Petrilli from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Despite arguments for extensive cuts, some experts like Petrilli believe the effects might not be perceptible in day-to-day realities. Academic performance remains a concern, as evidenced by national test scores indicating a lack of fundamental reading skills among a significant portion of eighth graders and an increasing achievement gap. This is the rationale given by Trump allies for dismantling the department and allocating funds directly to states.
Although the department is not without flaws, Wil Del Pilar of EdTrust emphasizes its critical role as a guiding force for educational equity. Trump’s administration seeks to return control of schools entirely to the states, raising questions about the future of federal funding like Title I, essential for schools in low-income areas. Educating students with diverse needs often demands more resources, which are not always available locally. A direct state allocation of funds, with fewer federal constraints, could neglect the unique needs of these communities.
If funding is reshuffled as block grants to states, there’s concern that public education could suffer as these funds might be redirected away from necessary school purposes, warns Del Pilar. States like Mississippi, South Dakota, Arkansas, Montana, and Alaska, which heavily depend on federal funding, could be the most affected by these changes.
Traditionally, the Education Department has been pivotal in championing the rights of disadvantaged students, concentrating efforts on protecting students with disabilities and those facing racial harassment. Critics note a shift under the Trump administration towards prioritizing issues like antisemitism.
Although some worry about changes in focus, others like A. Kelly Neal, a special education attorney, have long felt that the Office for Civil Rights is understaffed and slow, advocating for a possible transfer of enforcement to the Department of Justice.
In a broader effort to reduce focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, the Trump administration has also terminated contracts with programs like the Equity Assistance Center-South. Raymond Pierce of the Southern Education Foundation has criticized these actions, highlighting the government’s duty in addressing educational disparities and increasing opportunities.
