Most people think the federal government has been running our schools since the dawn of the republic. It hasn't. Not even close. In fact, the cabinet-level agency we're talking about is actually a relatively new invention, born in 1979 under Jimmy Carter. Before that? Education was a local affair, mostly. Now, the question of why get rid of the department of education has moved from the fringes of libertarian think tanks straight into the heart of mainstream national discourse. It’s a polarizing topic, honestly. People get heated. But if you strip away the shouting matches on cable news, there’s a massive, complex policy argument underneath about bureaucracy, money, and who actually knows what’s best for a kid in a classroom in rural Ohio versus a skyscraper-shadowed school in NYC.
Money talks. It always does.
The Department of Education (ED) doesn't actually "run" schools in the traditional sense. It doesn't hire your kid’s math teacher. It doesn't pick the cafeteria pizza brand. Yet, it manages a budget that has swelled to over $200 billion in recent cycles. Critics argue this is a classic case of administrative bloat. They look at the "compliance costs"—the sheer amount of paperwork local districts have to file just to get back the tax dollars that were sent to D.C. in the first place—and they see a middleman that isn't adding value. Why not just give the money directly to the states? Or better yet, leave it with the taxpayers? This isn't just a "small government" talking point; it's a fundamental questioning of whether a centralized bureaucracy can ever be agile enough to handle the needs of 50 million diverse students.
The Constitutional Argument Against Federal Oversight
Let’s get nerdy for a second. If you flip through the U.S. Constitution, you’ll notice something interesting: the word "education" isn't there. It’s missing. Gone. Nowhere to be found.
Under the Tenth Amendment, any power not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved for the states. For nearly two centuries, that’s exactly how things worked. Proponents of abolition argue that the ED is an unconstitutional overreach that has slowly eroded local control. When the federal government attaches "strings" to its funding—think No Child Left Behind or Race to the Top—it effectively dictates policy to local school boards. If a district wants the cash, they have to follow the federal playbook. Some call it "cooperative federalism." Others call it a soft form of extortion.
Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, has often pointed out that pouring money into a centralized system hasn't exactly yielded a gold mine of results. Despite massive spending increases since the 1970s, national test scores in reading and math have largely remained stagnant. If the goal was to "fix" education from Washington, the data suggests it’s been a pretty expensive failure. You've got to wonder: if the results aren't there, why keep the department?
🔗 Read more: The Brutal Reality of the Russian Mail Order Bride Locked in Basement Headlines
Red Tape and the Death of Innovation
Ever tried to change a curriculum at a public school? It’s a nightmare. Part of that is local politics, sure, but a huge chunk is federal regulation. Critics argue that why get rid of the department of education is a question about freedom. When every school is trying to meet the same federal benchmarks, they all start looking the same. There's no room for the weird, the experimental, or the hyper-local.
- Standardized Testing Obsession: Federal mandates often force "teaching to the test."
- Administrative Greed: A significant portion of federal funds goes toward hiring "compliance officers" rather than actual teachers.
- One-Size-Fits-All: A policy that works for a suburban school in Fairfax, Virginia, might be a total disaster for a tribal school in New Mexico.
The lack of flexibility is stifling. It’s like trying to navigate a narrow creek with a massive cruise ship. You just end up stuck.
What Happens to the Programs?
This is where things get tricky. If you shut down the building on 400 Maryland Avenue, what happens to the Pell Grants? What about the Office for Civil Rights? These aren't small things.
Most serious proposals for dismantling the ED don't involve just deleting the programs. Instead, they suggest "block-granting" the money. Essentially, you take the billions and send it to the governors. Let Florida be Florida. Let Vermont be Vermont. The theory is that local leaders are more accountable to parents than a faceless bureaucrat in a D.C. office who couldn't find their town on a map.
The Office for Civil Rights is another story. This office handles Title IX and ensures kids with disabilities get the services they need under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Opponents of abolition worry that without federal oversight, some states might backslide on protecting vulnerable students. However, proponents argue that the Department of Justice could easily handle these enforcement duties. We don't need a whole separate education department to sue someone for discrimination. We already have a Department of Justice for that.
💡 You might also like: The Battle of the Chesapeake: Why Washington Should Have Lost
The Student Loan Elephant in the Room
We can’t talk about the ED without talking about the $1.6 trillion in student debt. The Department of Education is essentially one of the largest "banks" in the world. It owns the vast majority of American student loans.
There's a strong argument that federal involvement in student loans has actually driven up the cost of college. Think about it. When the government guarantees that every student can get a loan, regardless of the price of tuition, what do colleges do? They raise tuition. Why wouldn't they? The money is guaranteed. It’s a vicious cycle that has led to "credential inflation" and a mountain of debt for twenty-somethings.
By getting the federal government out of the lending business, some economists argue that the market would finally force colleges to lower their prices. If a bank (or a state-based program) has to actually weigh the risk of a loan, they might think twice before lending $100k for a degree with no job prospects. It’s a harsh reality, but the current system isn't exactly a picnic either.
Local Control vs. National Standards
The pushback is real. Many educators believe that without federal standards, the "zip code lottery" will get even worse. They argue that the ED provides a floor—a minimum level of quality and equity that every child deserves.
But does it really? Look at the achievement gap. It’s still there. In many ways, it’s wider than ever. The "experts" have had 45 years to bridge that gap from Washington, and the needle has barely moved. This leads to the "subsidiarity" argument: the idea that problems should be solved by the most local authority capable of handling them.
📖 Related: Texas Flash Floods: What Really Happens When a Summer Camp Underwater Becomes the Story
- Parents know their kids best.
- Teachers know their classrooms.
- Principals know their schools.
- School boards know their communities.
Somewhere way down the list—maybe at number 50—is a deputy assistant secretary in D.C.
The Practical Path Forward
Ending a federal department isn't like flipping a light switch. It’s more like decommissioning a nuclear plant. It’s slow, messy, and requires a lot of technical planning.
If we actually went through with it, the first step would likely be a massive audit. You'd have to identify which programs are "essential" (like Pell Grants) and which are "redundant" (like the dozens of tiny grant programs that nobody can name). Then, you'd start the process of legislative devolution.
The Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups have long advocated for the "APLUS Act," which would allow states to opt-out of federal programs and keep the money for their own educational priorities. It’s a "middle-ground" approach that effectively guts the ED’s power without a total overnight collapse of the system.
Actionable Insights for Concerned Parents and Taxpayers
If you’re following this debate and wondering what it means for your local school, here’s the reality: change starts at the bottom, not the top. Regardless of what happens in D.C., the most impactful decisions are made at your local school board meetings.
- Track the Money: Look at your school district’s budget. See how much comes from federal vs. state vs. local sources. You might be surprised at how little of it is actually federal.
- Engage Locally: If you hate federal mandates, push your local board to use their existing autonomy. States often have more "wiggle room" than they admit.
- Research "Money Follows the Student" Models: Look into states like West Virginia or Arizona that are experimenting with Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). This is the "ultimate" version of getting rid of top-down bureaucracy by giving the power directly to parents.
- Follow the Legislation: Keep an eye on the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports regarding the Department of Education. They provide the most unbiased look at where the money actually goes.
The debate over why get rid of the department of education isn't going away. As long as test scores remain flat and tuition keeps climbing, the pressure to "blow up the system" will continue to build. It’s not necessarily about hating education; for many, it’s about loving it enough to want a system that actually works—one that’s closer to home and further from the beltway. Whether we actually see the department shuttered or just slowly hollowed out through block grants, the shift toward decentralization is the most significant trend in American education policy today. Look at your local district's next election; that's where this battle is truly won or lost.