On March 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. What Trump and supporters refuse to recognize, or simply fail to care for, however, is the devastating impacts that millions of American students will suffer from.
Contrary to popular belief, the department does not dictate school curriculum; state and local districts do. The White House’s claims of returning education to state power “where it belongs” is misleading because they, along with local governments, already have a majority of the power. The department simply just gives them money. Under the name of empowerment is the shameful consequence of leaving economically disadvantaged children behind. The only thing Trump’s decision will return to states is more financial burden.
Money matters. Sadly. Schools are able to hire and retain large amounts of staff, which leads to smaller classroom sizes and ultimately more focused and specialized care for each student. Resources such as textbooks and technology become accessible for every student to take home. Sports and other after-school activities critical to child development are invested in. If the average student is taken care of, districts have the ability to look after acutely underprivileged, special needs and disabled students and even allocate resources to adult education programs. While Title I funding, which directs money to low-income communities, may not have a statistically significant impact on advantaged children. According to rsfjournal poorer students are at a 5.3% increased likelihood of graduating high school, 2% less likely to repeat grades and are 2% more probable to be enrolled in an advanced program with a mere $100 increase per pupil. Conservatives love to complain that throwing money doesn’t deliver results. But the Department of Education isn’t throwing anything; its spending has only accounted for 3% of the federal budget in fiscal year 2025. Meanwhile, the same government has totaled almost $1 billion on spending for the Yemen bombings; may I add, in vain. Much of the burden is still placed on state and local governments, which are also responsible for school curriculum as emphasized earlier. As discussed in the previous section, more money truly does benefit students. It just so happens that the majority of these students are disadvantaged, and are hence disregarded and unprioritized. When test scores and other measurable statistics are examined holistically, of course there won’t be a significant difference with an increase in funding. There will, however, be a visible improvement in inequity between low and high income areas.
To an extent, I’m also dissatisfied with how the American education system teaches children. Although, I don’t blame federal funding, I blame school curriculum. If someone is in critical condition at the hospital and no treatments are improving their health, you don’t just say, “oh well,” and cut-off electricity for the entire hospital. Other people were recovering, but you just restored their health back to the same condition they came in, for the sake of saving resources looking at only one patient’s inability to heal. Besides, no treatment won’t improve a patient’s health, but persisting and testing different treatments likely will. People often forget to consider reform as an option, and instead rashly opt to take the easy way out and cut the entire program. As a nation, our education system needs reform. It does not need to be deprived of resources.
States, and especially local districts for that matter, simply can’t control all school funding without striking disaster. Some schools receive and rely on minimal federal funding, but many districts are banking on it for basic necessities. According to the Pew Research Center, Over 48.6% of Detroit schools’ funding comes from the federal government. . In areas around Memphis almost a third of school funding is accounted for by the federal government. Due to inadequate resources, poorer areas physically lack the capacity to single-handedly fund their schools.
Another concern Republicans commonly tout about is “ending racial indoctrination” according to the White House, through the department’s dismantling. This is far too exaggerated. As I’ve repeatedly emphasized, states have control over school curricula. The department cannot implement, or doesn’t even suggest the content public schools feed children. So attacking the department in this matter is simply unproductive. The true underlying concern is the department’s regulation of civil law limiting discrimination on school grounds, because god forbid everyone is treated equitably. The Office for Civil Rights is the sector that mainly handles these issues, but over half of its staff was laid off in March, and as of April, 6 of 12 regional offices have been shut down. In essence, Trump is blatantly stating that social justice is not a priority. The rich, white student is the only one that prospers. There is now no security for colored students who receive unfair punishments. There is no security for children who are sexually assaulted within school property. There is no security for Jewish students facing antisemitic threats. There is no security for disabled students who cannot physically access buildings or technology. Although the administration desires to shift these roles allegedly more suitable for the Department of Justice, it’s also important to recognize its additional functions, such as Civil Data Collection, which is crucial in monitoring educational progress like student discipline or enrollment in stem courses for races that are still recovering from generational setbacks.). Note that the 15% of the student population reliant on the 15 billion dollars funded through IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act will also be disregarded in the transfer of these responsibilities through another agency. Drastic cuts were also made from the Institute of Education Sciences, which may I add, is extremely ironic because reducing funding for statistical analysis of the effects of these federal programs won’t change the effects whatsoever. Trump and supporters often make blind assumptions that the effects are invisible, but instead of examining the evidence in detail, they choose to erase it instead. Cuts were also made from the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development and the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and Office of English Language Education; yet another example of how the underprivileged are targeted with the consequences of these changes. Student loans are also a critical aspect to consider when evaluating Trump’s new policies. Over 40 million Americans rely on student loans, as demonstrated by the $1.5 trillion already offered by the federal government, according to BBC News, but as the Trump administration aims to migrate these authorities to the Department of Treasury, they also will likely become dangerously more constrictive. Repaying these loans is often extremely difficult, and it is for that reason that conservatives argue they shouldn’t be offered so lightly. However, not only are those contingent on student loans earning low-income, but the accruing interest rates add a much larger burden. Privatizing student loans, also favorable upon Republicans, would likely mean much higher interest rates, more constraints for eligibility such as an established credit record and discriminatory lending through loose regulations. Federal student loans are overwhelmingly accessible, accounting for over 92.2% of student loans today (e. Student loan debt is directly linked through generational poverty; removing these resources and overlooking financially troubled students isn’t saving the country, it is starving the people.
The importance of the Department of Education cannot be compounded into a single article. This is such an extensive topic that I could analyze and criticize for eternity, but this is simply an overview. It is evident that this decision is disproportionately disadvantageous against the underprivileged, particularly through race, disability and economic status. While Trump isn’t directly eliminating the department, he is demolishing it and handing off leftovers to unqualified agencies who cannot and will not prioritize students remotely as much as the Department of Education. Even before his presidency, education has been heavily dismissed as a primary issue among the federal government. Why are we turning a blind eye when we have adequate resources? Why are we giving up instead of urging reform? Education is the foundation of our country’s future. Education is key in overturning very impoverished communities that are frowned upon so unashamedly.
