You’ve probably seen the headlines or heard politicians shouting about it on the news. The idea sounds radical to some and like common sense to others. Basically, the argument to why get rid of Department of Education boils down to a massive tug-of-war between federal oversight and local control. It’s not just a talking point; it’s a deep-seated philosophical clash about who actually owns your child’s desk.
People often forget that the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is actually one of the "youngest" cabinet-level agencies. It wasn’t even a thing until 1979 when President Jimmy Carter signed it into law. Before that? Education was handled by a massive conglomerate of health and welfare agencies. Honestly, the country survived for over 200 years without a centralized education boss in D.C.
So why is everyone so mad about it now?
The Case for Decentralization and Local Control
The biggest gripe critics have is that a bureaucrat in a Washington office shouldn't be deciding how a kid in rural Wyoming or inner-city Detroit learns to read. It's about the money. Most people assume the federal government pays for schools. They don't. Only about 8% to 10% of K-12 funding comes from the feds. The rest? That’s your property taxes and state funds.
When you look at why get rid of Department of Education, you have to look at the "strings attached." To get that small 10% of funding, states have to follow mountains of federal mandates. Think about the No Child Left Behind era or Race to the Top. These weren't just suggestions; they were high-stakes requirements that forced teachers to teach to the test.
It’s exhausting for educators.
Critics like Thomas Sowell or politicians such as Rand Paul often argue that the Department of Education is a prime example of "mission creep." It started small and now influences everything from bathroom policies to student loan debt. If you cut the middleman, the theory goes, that money could go directly to states or parents without the federal overhead.
🔗 Read more: Charlie Kirk Shooting Investigation: What Really Happened at UVU
The Trillion-Dollar Student Loan Elephant
We can't talk about the ED without talking about the money. Specifically, the $1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt. The Department of Education isn't just a policy shop; it’s one of the largest "banks" in the world.
Some economists argue that federal involvement in student loans is actually what made college so expensive. It’s called the Bennett Hypothesis. Named after former Education Secretary William Bennett, the idea is simple: if the government gives students more money to pay for college, colleges just raise their tuition to capture that money. It’s a vicious cycle.
If the Department was dissolved, what happens to the loans?
Proponents of elimination usually suggest moving the lending portfolio to the Treasury Department. Others want the private sector to take it back entirely. They believe that if banks had to risk their own money on loans, they wouldn't lend $100,000 for a degree that only pays $30,000 a year. It would force a massive market correction in higher education.
What Actually Happens to the Programs?
"Abolishing" doesn't necessarily mean "deleting."
When people ask why get rid of Department of Education, they often worry about Pell Grants or Special Education (IDEA) funding. In most serious policy proposals—like those from the Heritage Foundation or various libertarian think tanks—these programs don't just vanish. They get "block-granted."
Instead of D.C. saying "spend this exactly on X," they send a lump sum to the state of Florida or Ohio and say, "you know your students best, you handle it."
💡 You might also like: Casualties Vietnam War US: The Raw Numbers and the Stories They Don't Tell You
- Pell Grants: Likely moved to the Treasury.
- Civil Rights Enforcement: Could be moved back to the Department of Justice.
- Statistics (NCES): Might go to the Census Bureau or Labor Department.
The argument is that the "Department" part is just a layer of expensive management that doesn't actually teach a single student how to multiply fractions.
Constitutional Friction and the 10th Amendment
Let’s get nerdy for a second. The U.S. Constitution doesn't mention the word "education." Not once.
Under the 10th Amendment, any power not specifically given to the federal government belongs to the states. This is the legal backbone for those wanting to shutter the agency. They view the ED as an unconstitutional overreach. Every time the federal government issues a "Dear Colleague" letter telling schools how to handle discipline or sports, constitutional originalists see it as a violation of state sovereignty.
Of course, there’s a counter-argument.
Supporters of the department say that without federal oversight, we’d go back to a "zip code destiny" where poor states have abysmal schools and no one is there to protect the civil rights of marginalized students. They point to the 1960s, arguing that federal intervention was the only thing that forced schools to desegregate.
Is the ED Actually Improving Results?
This is the kicker. If we’ve spent billions since 1979, are we smarter?
📖 Related: Carlos De Castro Pretelt: The Army Vet Challenging Arlington's Status Quo
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), often called "The Nation's Report Card," shows a pretty bleak picture. Reading and math scores have largely stagnated or even dropped recently. Some experts argue that the heavy hand of federal standardized testing has actually stifled innovation.
Instead of trying new, weird, experimental teaching methods, schools play it safe to avoid losing their federal 10%.
If you get rid of the Department, you theoretically open the door for 50 different "laboratories of democracy." One state might try a purely vocational track. Another might go all-in on classical education. The "one size fits all" model is what many find so frustrating about the current system. It’s a dinosaur in a digital age.
The Realistic Hurdles
Shutting down a cabinet agency is hard. Like, really hard. It requires an act of Congress, not just a presidential signature. You’d need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, which hasn’t happened for a radical move like this in decades.
Also, the Department employs thousands of people. Bureaucracy has a way of protecting itself. It’s "sticky." Even if a president wants it gone, the infrastructure of federal education is woven into every state budget in the country.
Actionable Insights for Navigating the Debate
Understanding the push to dissolve the ED helps you see where education is headed, regardless of whether the building in D.C. stays open. Here is how you can practically engage with this shift:
- Follow Your State Board: Since 90% of funding and 100% of curriculum authority technically rests with states, your local state board of education has more power over your life than the U.S. Secretary of Education. Attend their meetings.
- Look Into Block Grants: If you hear politicians talking about "School Choice" or "ESA (Education Savings Accounts)," they are talking about the mechanisms that would replace federal oversight. Research how these work in states like Arizona or West Virginia.
- Audit Federal Red Tape: If you are an educator, track how many hours you spend on federal compliance versus actual instruction. This data is the most powerful tool in the argument for decentralization.
- Diversify Higher Ed Paths: With the future of federal student loans always in the political crosshairs, look at Income Share Agreements (ISAs) or trade certifications that don't rely on the federal lending teat.
The debate over why get rid of Department of Education isn't going away. It's a fundamental question of whether we trust a central authority or the people living down the street to decide what the next generation needs to know. Whether the agency stays or goes, the trend is clearly moving toward more local autonomy and parental choice.