Dismantling of the United States Department of Education

Key points:

In the light of Donald Trump assuming a second presidential mandate in 2025, conversations about the dismantling of the United States Department of Education have resurfaced. Supporters argue that federal participation in the undercover education of state authority, while critics fear that eliminating federal role can exacerbate inequalities and hinder national progress. To evaluate the proposal, it is crucial to examine federal and state roles in education, the historical and constitutional context and the potential benefits and challenges of such change.

The federal role in education

The United States Constitution does not explicitly grant the Federal Government's authority on education. Like Lunenberg et al. (2012) pointed out: “Education is not a function specifically delegated to the federal government”(P. 327). On the other hand, under the tenth amendment, the unpublished powers to the Federal Government are reserved for states (McCarthy et al., 2019). This leaves education mainly under state jurisdiction, with a federal participation historically limited to indirect support instead of direct control.

The United States Department of Education was established in 1979. It is responsible for supervising federal funds for schools, enforcing federal laws in education and guaranteeing equal access to students throughout the country. In addition, he has played an important role through legislation such as the Law on Primary and Secondary Education (ESAA) and its successors: NCLB (no Child Left Behind) and ESSA (Every Student's law is successful). These laws link federal funds with specific requirements, whose objective is to address inequalities in education. Currently, federal contributions represent approximately 8 percent of funds for primary and secondary education, with the remaining 92 percent from state and local sources (“The federal role”, 2017).

The role of state and local control in education

Policy and educational administration have traditionally been state functions. The states determine the financing formulas, establish teachers certification requirements and supervise the curricula through their departments and education joints (Lynch, 2016). Governors and state legislatures allocate funds, which are often distributed to specific registration schools, needs or programs (Lunenberg et al., 2012).

Local school boards also play a fundamental role, managing daily operations and responding to the needs of the community. This decentralized structure reflects a long belief that local authorities are better positioned to address the diverse needs of their communities. However, it has also led to significant disparities between states and districts in terms of financing, resources and results of students.

Dismantling of the United States Department of Education

One of the most convincing arguments to dismantle the United States Department of Education is in the principle of localized control. Critics argue that education is better administered by state and local governments because they are closer to the specific needs of their communities. Located governance could allow schools to adapt their policies, curriculum and allocation of resources so that it best fits the unique demography of their regions. For example, schools in rural areas may have very different needs from those of urban centers, so local authorities are probably better equipped to address these disparities without the interference of federal supervision.

The concern extends beyond general education. The Law of Education of Individuals with Disabilities (IDEA), which enforces the United States Education Department, requires that students with disabilities receive free and appropriate public education (FAPE) together with the necessary services and adaptations. Similarly, the department supervises federal programs that support Language Language Langument (ELL) students helping schools provide personalized instruction and resources to students who are not native English speakers. Without federal supervision, these programs may lose funds or apply inconsistently in all states, which causes vulnerable populations not to have critical support.

Defenders of dismantling the United States Department of Education also indicate the financial burden of maintaining a federal agency. They argue that billions of dollars assigned to the department could be redirected to state educational budgets, allowing more shocking initiatives at the forefront. By eliminating bureaucratic layers, states could deliver education funds more efficiently, thus focusing resources directly on teachers, classrooms and students.

Another critical function of the United States Department of Education is to establish and enforce national education standards. Programs such as NCLB and ESSA aim to hold schools for the performance of students and guarantee consistency in all states (although there are arguments that these programs have led to a culture of “teaching to the test” and have suffocated creativity In the classroom), but they allow local states and districts Challenges for students in transient populations due to the lack of cohesion that interrupts their education. and limit your opportunities.

Maintain the United States Education Department

The dismantling of the United States Department of Education raises significant concerns about equity. The department plays a crucial role in approaching disparities in education financing, as well as access to financing. Federal programs (that is, title I, free meals, advice, programs after school, etc.) provide additional resources to schools that meet a large number of low -income students, many of which They are located in areas of the city center. Without the United States Department of Education, these programs can be eliminated or left at the discretion of states that have historically fought to prioritize funds for unattended communities.

Urban schools in the city center often face unique challenges (that is, overcrowding, insufficient financing, higher poverty rates among students, etc.). Many of these schools also serve a disproportionately high number of students with disabilities and Ell students, which makes federal support even more vital. The United States Department of Education enforces civil rights protections that guarantees that all students (including vulnerable subgroups) receive equitable treatment. The dismantling of the department could weaken these safeguards, thus leaving the most vulnerable marginalized communities to negligence. Therefore, loss of federal supervision is a serious concern for public education. Historically, states have not always assigned resources equitably, and urban school districts have often been insufficient compared to their suburban counterparts. Federal intervention has been essential to address these disparities. Without it, schools in the city center can have difficulty maintaining even basic education standards, thus exacerbating poverty and inequality.

All schools (not only schools in the city center) will be negatively affected by dismantling the United States Department of Education. Federal financing supports advanced placement courses (AP), Stem initiatives and double registration opportunities. The dismantling of the United States Department of Education could lead to inconsistencies in the processes of admission to the university because states can adopt different requirements and graduation evaluations. This lack of standardization could complicate admissions for students who request universities outside the State or prestigious. In addition, the United States Department of Education finances research initiatives that lead to the development of new teaching methods, technologies and curricula. These innovations often benefit all schools, but without federal support, such research could stagnate schools without access to avant -garde educational resources.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the debate related to the dismantling of the Department of Education of the United States has assumed a new urgency under the Trump administration in 2025. Although the defenders of dismantling the department defend greater control and local efficiency, critics highlight the risks Potential for equity and access. As the nation dealt with this problem, it is essential to prioritize the needs of students (and communities). The ultimate goal must be to create a more equitable and effective educational system that serves all students, regardless of their background or postal code.