For about a century, the go-to plan for Republican politicians has been to shrink the bureaucracy. They can’t raise taxes, and reducing taxes won’t do much. Therefore, the most reasonable option that aligns with the Republican desire to run a smaller government is eliminating federalism. Even with the ability to cut bureaucracy, no major federal departments have ever been cut by a conservative head of state. For context, President-Elect Donald Trump’s recent announcement that he would abolish the Department of Education came as a huge surprise to Republicans and Democrats alike. However, dismantling the US Department of Education (DOE) would be difficult due to the complex logistics of transferring its numerous programs–Title I funding and federal student aid–to other agencies. This would require significant Congressional approval, which is unlikely, given the DOE’s role in supporting low-income and rural schools–even though the 2024 elections left Congress with a Republican majority. Additionally, Trump’s educational agenda is contradictory, as he advocates for reduced federal power to influence local education policies, which further complicates the implementation of his plan. 

The DOE, established in 1979, plays a pivotal role in overseeing education policies by administering federal funds, enforcing civil rights protections, and managing student financial aid. Recent proposals to disband the DOE, have reignited the debate over the federal government’s role in education. Despite the high improbability of Trump’s plan, many are still wondering what would happen if the Department of Education was abolished. Let’s take a look. 

If the DOE were dissolved, special education students who rely on federal funding would suffer a severe blow. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ensures that students with disabilities receive a free, appropriate public education tailored to their needs. Under the DOE’s administration, the federal government provides states with crucial funding for special education services. Without the DOE, this funding would likely be transferred to states as block grants with no federal oversight–undermining the accountability mechanisms currently in place and potentially leading to unequal services for students with disabilities. States would have the power to allocate funds as they see fit, but there would be no guarantee that these funds would be used properly or equitably, putting vulnerable students at risk of inadequate services.

Another major concern is the civil rights protections provided by the DOE. The DOE’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces federal laws that protect students from discrimination based on race, sex, disability, and other factors. According to the Alaska Beacon, if the DOE dissolves, the OCR would likely be moved to the Department of Justice, meaning it would become much harder for families to navigate the process of seeking redress for discrimination in schools. Pursuing civil rights cases would require families to engage in litigation, a complex and costly process that many might not have the resources to pursue, making it significantly more difficult for marginalized students to ensure their rights are protected, potentially leaving them vulnerable to discrimination and inequality in the educational system.

In higher education, the potential dissolution of the DOE would introduce substantial uncertainty, especially regarding federal financial aid. The DOE administers federal programs like Pell Grants, student loans, and work-study programs, which are crucial for millions of students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds. The result would be delays and disruptions in the disbursement of financial aid, creating chaos for students who rely on this funding to pay for their education. Some experts also predict that other aid programs, such as public service loan forgiveness and work-study, could be cut or significantly reduced, leaving students with fewer opportunities to access and complete higher education.

In the end, while the idea of abolishing the Department of Education may continue to surface in political rhetoric, the practical challenges and consequences would likely make such a move far too disruptive and damaging to the nation’s education system.