The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has a long history of bipartisan support—as well as criticism. As a congressman, James Garfield passed a bill to create the first federal Bureau of Education after the Civil War, which was charged with documenting the condition and progress of education in the states and territories.
In 1867, President Andrew Johnson signed legislation to create a Department of Education, which was demoted to an Office of Education in 1868 due to worries that a department would hold too much control over schools. More than a century later President Lyndon Johnson signed The Elementary and Secondary Education Act. And in 1979, President Carter reestablished the federal DOE, but disagreements about its necessity remained. President Reagan, for example, tried to eliminate the department in 1981 but lacked congressional support.
Earlier this year, President Trump issued an executive order to dismantle the DOE and return education authority to the states. On July 14, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the administration to conduct mass layoffs at the DOE.
To understand the effect these actions might have on education, vlog asked Paul Peterson for his analysis. Peterson is the Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government, director of the Program on Education Policy and Governance, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Peterson’s scholarship focuses on the improvement of education policy and providing public education solutions for state education and policy leaders.
Q: What role does the DOE currently play in education?
Peterson: For elementary and secondary education, the major responsibility of the U. S. Department of Education (DOE) is to distribute funds to states and school districts. The federal contribution to K-12 spending is about 10% of the total public expenditure. The two largest federal programs are compensatory education and special education. The compensatory education program provides funding that is expected to be directed toward services for students from low-income families. Researchers have found that the additional funding does not translate into lasting increases in school resources experienced by low-income students or improvements in their educational performance.
Q: What are the pros and cons of education systems managed by each state?
Peterson: States delegate the responsibility for managing schools to school districts, subject to state regulation. Most of the 14,000 school districts are operated either by elected school boards or by a mayor-appointed one. The boards appoint professional superintendents who are responsible for managing day-to-day operations, including the recruitment of teachers and other staff, the allocation of resources among schools within the district, and the determination of salaries and working conditions, which in most states is the product of a collective bargaining process. About 45% of funding for schools is paid by the taxpayers within the district, and about 45% is covered by state taxpayers. The 10% contributed by the federal government is managed by districts in accordance with federal and state regulations and guidelines.
Q: How would the dissolution of the department affect federal education funding, particularly for low-income schools and students with disabilities?
Peterson: Funding levels for the federal compensatory and special education programs are set by Congress, which has yet to determine funding levels for the coming fiscal year. An appropriation bill setting out funding levels for the coming fiscal year is anticipated by the end of October. The legislation will need bipartisan support in the Senate, as 60% of the senators must agree before debate on the appropriation can be closed. Informed observers expect funding to continue at approximately current levels.
“Funding levels vary dramatically among the states. The federal government has never attempted to narrow the differences among the states.”
Q: What safeguards could be put in place to ensure educational equity across states if the federal oversight role is removed?
Peterson: Funding levels vary dramatically among the states. In New York, school districts, on average, spend about $33,000 per pupil; Massachusetts and Connecticut spend about $25,000 per pupil; but Idaho and Utah spend less than $10,000 per pupil. The Supreme Court, in Rodriguez v. San Antonio (1973), found no constitutional requirement that spending levels be equal either within or across states. There is virtually no correlation between spending levels and gains in student achievement from one assessment to the next, as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The federal government has never attempted to narrow the differences among the states.
Q: How would this impact student loan programs currently administered at the federal level?
Peterson: Were the U. S. Department of Education to close its doors, it is likely that student loan and Pell grant programs would be managed by the Department of Treasury. Whether or not DOE or Treasury administers the program, students must expect to comply with requirements that loans be paid in accordance with contracted obligations. Loan forgiveness is to be discontinued except in special circumstances.
Q: How would the transition be managed to prevent disruption to K-12 and higher education systems nationwide?
Peterson: In addition to student loan and Pell grant program management most likely being transferred to the Department of Treasury, the compensatory and special education programs would likely be transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services (where they were lodged prior to 1979), and the enforcement of civil rights legislation would be undertaken by the Department of Justice.
Q: What role would the federal government retain, if any, in enforcing civil rights protections in education (e.g., Title IX, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)?
Peterson: Civil rights protections would likely be enforced by the Department of Justice. Whether or not that happens, it is likely that regulations affecting affirmative action and sexual discrimination will be altered to coincide with administration policies, which currently oppose the classification of individuals by race, ethnicity, or self-determined gender preferences. It is uncertain whether this will cause significant programmatic disruption.
Q: How do you anticipate this will affect private education like parochial schools? Or charter schools?
Peterson: The newly enacted “Big Beautiful Bill” allows any taxpayer to take up to $1,700 in credits for contributions to a qualified Tax Credit Scholarship organization, which may use the money to pay tuition at either religious or secular private schools for those within 300% of the poverty line in their area. Depending on the amount that taxpayers contribute to this program, the number and amount of low- and moderate-income scholars for private education could increase modestly or substantially. However, scholarships cannot be provided within any state unless approved by its governor or by a legislatively designated officer.
The program could increase choice by families between private schools and charter schools, which are already publicly funded by state and local governments. The very limited amount of federal funding available for charter schools is not expected to increase.
Q: What impact would the DOE closure have on education research?
Peterson: When the U.S. Office of Education was established in 1870, its sole task was to gather data on the state of U.S. schools. Districts were asked to submit information on enrollments, numbers of teachers, school expenditures, and many other specifics. The statistical function of the agency expanded when Congress asked DOE to gather data on student performance in each state via NAEP surveys. Budget and personnel cuts in the DOE budget for research will limit DOE’s statistical capacity and the regularity of NAEP surveys, unless they are modified by forthcoming congressional legislation.
—
Photograph by Craig Hudson/The Washington Post/Getty Images.