The Department of Education is Unconstitutional – and Unnecessary

Predictably, ahead of the signing, teachers unions issued dire warnings about how this would imperil students. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, arguably the nation’s most influential teachers’ union, called Trump’s anticipated plans an “attack” on education that would cause “chaos.”

In fact, if the department were to vanish, American parents would be surprised at how little things would change. It would merely return power closer to the people who should be in charge of education: families and educators.

In the U.S., education has always been a state, local and family responsibility. Few people throughout our history would have imagined putting an often distant federal government in charge, and the Constitution gives it no power over education. Thus, eliminating the department, and possibly moving some of its core functions to other executive offices, would hardly cause “chaos.” While federal officials have gotten too deep into education, nothing they do is essential. States, districts and the private sector can easily fill any gaps, even if this administration stays true to form and doesn’t engage in much planning or notice to those affected by the dismantling.

It is often forgotten that the Education Department is a relatively new creation, at least in government years. It opened in 1980 and remains a relatively small source of funds for local schools. Since the 1979–80 school year, the entire federal government has typically provided only around 9% of all public elementary and secondary school revenues. Only about half of that passes through the actual Department of Education, with things like school lunches coming from the Department of Agriculture, for example.

But that percentage still amounts to a significant number. In 2022, the department delivered $44.7 billion for elementary and secondary education, which is pretty much on par with spending in previous years. (That’s except on rare occasions when there have been unexpected events such as the pandemic, and the feds have gone into reckless spending mode.)

What have we gotten for decades of such largesse? If test scores are the measure, virtually nothing. While federal funding has risen, outcomes for high school seniors – the system’s “final products” – have largely stagnated as measured by the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress (the self-described “Nation’s Report Card”). And that’s with a number of heavy federal intervention programs intended to improve scores, including the No Child Left Behind Act, Race to the Top and the Common Core education standards.

Test scores hardly capture everything – or even most of what – there is to education. But test scores have been the core federal measure of success. Other things that might really matter – creative thinking, character development, etc. – simply do not lend themselves to bureaucratic measurement, so anything other than basic outcomes measured by standardized tests have been marginalized in curricula when the feds have asserted control.

If Trump succeeds in mothballing the department, many of its existing duties could simply be shifted to other offices – ones that would likely be more competent in carrying them out.

Currently, the Education Department’s most significant job is administering federal student aid programs, especially student loans, for undergraduate and graduate students (and parents). But as the Government Accountability Office recently reported, the department has failed for years at basic functions such as tracking repayments. Heck, the DOE could not even successfully simplify the form to apply for financial aid, and it struggled majorly to get the computer system to work despite having years to get it right. The Treasury Department, on the other hand, has a long history of efficiently making payments to the public.

Similarly, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights could be moved to the Justice Department, which already oversees enforcement of Americans’ civil rights. The Education Department’s office is largely redundant, which perhaps is why it has been available for presidents to use to coerce schools into doing whatever administrations think they should do, like advance diversity, equity and inclusion programs … or end DEI altogether.

Of course, children in America were educated long before the creation of a federal department 45 years ago. During that time we somehow were able to start leading the world economically, technologically and culturally.

Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s big-government administration didn’t think the Constitution allowed for federal involvement in education. In 1943, Roosevelt chaired a commission on the Constitution’s 150th anniversary whose final document asked: “Where, in the Constitution, is there mention of education?” The answer: “There is none; education is a matter reserved for the states.”

Even the Education Department’s original architects knew that states, districts, families and educators were responsible for education, not Washington. The department’s mission statement uses language such as “supplement and complement” the efforts of entities like “states,” “local school systems” and “the private sector” – not wield control.

As with most governmental entities, the Education Department is expensive. Until recently, it employed nearly 4,200 people and cost about $2.8 billion in terms of salaries and expenses. In effect, American taxpayers send their money to Washington, D.C., where the government takes its cut and then sends the remainder back to local communities, wrapped in red tape.

If we eliminated the middleman and kept the funds local, there would be more money available for schools to use. And clearly better decisions would be made about how pupils are taught, since they would be made in closer proximity to the actual students. Years of expensive federal involvement hasn’t improved education. It is time to end this unconstitutional experiment.