How to Abolish the Department of Education, Responsibly
The federal department does not do anything states can and already do.
A day before the election, Elon Musk told a crowd in Pennsylvania that the purpose of his non-department Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which he will head with Vivek Ramaswamy under the Trump administration, will be to “reduce a lot of government headcount.” According to Musk, there are too many paper-pushers in government who would be better off doing something “more productive.” He envisions a generous two-year severance package for former civil servants to help them figure out their next career step. Neither Musk nor Ramaswamy has specified what will be cut, but a reasonable starting point might be the Department of Education (DoE).
The idea of abolishing the DoE has been floated by some conservatives in recent years. In 2021, libertarian Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky introduced legislation to eliminate the department. The proposal gained renewed attention when abolition was included in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a policy platform from which Trump has since distanced himself. This platform blends conservative, libertarian, and nationalist policies. Additionally, when Senator Rick Scott of Florida ran for majority leader earlier this fall, he boldly questioned on Fox News why the U.S. needs a Department of Education when education policy is largely governed at the state and local levels.
The U.S. Department of Education was established on October 17, 1979, by President Jimmy Carter and a Congress controlled by an overwhelmingly Democratic majority. Its purpose was to consolidate federal education programs, ensure equal access to education, and improve national educational standards. Carter’s administration believed centralizing these efforts would address disparities and enhance efficiency. Republicans, including Ronald Reagan, Carter’s successor, sought to abolish the department but faced strong opposition from Democrats who controlled the House of Representatives at the time.
The last major federal bureaucracy to be dismantled was the Civil Aeronautics Board, an agency (not a department) that regulated commercial airlines by overseeing routes, fares, and safety. The bill to abolish the agency was passed under Carter in 1978, and the board was fully dismantled by 1985, with safety oversight transferred to the Federal Aviation Administration. This deregulation is credited with making flights more accessible to Americans and improving service by reducing federal control over the airline industry. Though departments have been merged or divided into other departments, there has never been a full-stop elimination of a federal department.
Education in the U.S. is largely managed at the state and local levels. States oversee education through their own departments of education, setting policies, curriculum standards, and teacher certification requirements. They also provide funding, supplemented by local property taxes. Local school districts, governed by elected or appointed boards, implement state guidelines and manage schools within their jurisdiction. These school boards handle budgets, hire superintendents, and tailor programs to community needs. This decentralized system allows flexibility, balancing state oversight and local control to ensure education is responsive to diverse needs while maintaining some uniform standards.
This prompts the question: What does the federal Department of Education actually do?
The DoE administers grants and funds to schools and higher education institutions, including Title I for low-income schools, Pell Grants for college students, and IDEA for special education. It enforces civil rights laws like Title IX and the ADA to prevent discrimination, collects data on education trends, and sets national policy through federal programs. It also acts as an advocate for educational equity. All of these functions could either be transferred to states, another federal department, or discontinued altogether.
From a technocratic standpoint, U.S. public education has not improved significantly since the DoE’s establishment. Test scores remain stagnant, and the U.S. ranks lower than expected internationally despite increases in public spending. Federal programs like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top can hamstring teachers in ways that place excess emphasis on “teaching to the test” as they say. While it is unrealistic to expect the DoE to address what is largely governed subnationally, the U.S. doesn’t clearly benefit from federal involvement. A department justified on the positive connotations people have with “streamlining” government turns out to disregard the ways that, in a federation of states, “streamlining” disregards conditionality of the states. Furthermore, as a matter of democratic principle, it would be preferable for education to be governed at the most accessible level of government for parents. Relying on technocratic, outcomes-based rationales to determine who governs often emboldens centralized authority and the powerful interests that capture it.
State education departments already have experience disbursing grants and student aid, enforcing civil rights compliance, and collecting data—tasks that constitute most of what the federal DoE does. The remaining duties, such as setting national standards and advocating for equal access, are largely symbolic. These additional roles may help federal officials signal that education is a priority, but the system’s success or failure is not significantly tied to them.
The biggest hurdle to abolishing the DoE is discontinuing the federal government’s involvement in student aid which in the 2024 fiscal year accounts for $124 billion. Disapproval of higher education institutions has been rising as more Americans recognize the burden of taking on significant debt to attain jobs that don’t necessarily require a college degree. The premise that a college education is essential for financial security fuels demand for higher education, which is further amplified by federal student aid—ultimately driving up costs. A prominent 2015 study found that tuition increases by 60 cents for every additional dollar of subsidized federal loans.
Shifting student aid policies to the states, potentially through conditional categorical or block grants, would pressure citizens to participate more actively in state politics and foster competition across states. States could then tailor funding to specific priorities, such as early childhood education, vocational training, or school vouchers. Removing federal involvement would also place much-needed downward pressure on the cost of higher education, giving people more proximate influence over this critical aspect of American life.
Federal employees whose roles are eliminated could receive severance packages. Those who secure employment in one of the fifty state education departments could be incentivized with bonuses and a tax credit for relocation expenses.
The optics of abolishing the DoE, however, require careful attention. Opponents will likely exploit public misconceptions, portraying abolition as a de-prioritization of education, an attack on expertise, and a rejection of American children’s future. Advocates must develop a communication strategy that makes an equally emotional case, emphasizing that detached federal bureaucracy excludes Americans from processes that should be democratic, inclusive, and adaptive.
Ultimately, the justification for abolishing the DoE hinges on public disapproval of higher education costs and the declining necessity of traditional college degrees. An incremental approach—such as gradually reducing or conditioning federal student aid—could weaken the department’s basis for existing and make abolition more feasible both on the merits and optics.
The slim odds of dismantling the federal government’s second-youngest department—surpassed only by the arguably less useful Department of Homeland Security—highlight the trend of centralization in the U.S. This reflects a growing ideological rift: the right, traditionally associated with preservation, is now advocating bureaucratic abolition, while the left, historically a force for change, has taken up the mantle of preservation.
The DOGE’s efforts to reduce federal bureaucracy will face legal challenges and resistance from the civil service, with only marginal cuts likely. Whether DOGE focuses on eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” or simply consolidates executive power remains to be seen — the latter of which would be a disappointment for anyone seeking a more accountable government. What dismantling the DoE can do is set a precedent that, at the very least, does away with the reflexive federalization of more and more policymaking in vast federation ever more detached from Washington’s values and priorities.
In a political media dominated by national narratives, That Patchwork is the only newsletter about democracy from a decentralist angle. To preserve democratic pluralism means challenging the primacy of national narratives that presume central power knows best.
My concern is that we need a modicum of standardization nationally- some majority Spanish speaking states or hyper-liberal/ hyper-conservative states will teach to their populations. As a nation, we need to agree on one language/ civic education to remain a nation.
I was both a student and a teacher prior to Jimmy Carter's Dept of Education. I've seen some good come from it. But mostly I've seen education degenerate into bureaucratic, structured indoctrination.
I don't claim that public education in the past was without fault, but the Dept of Ed has only made things worse. And more expensive.