Imagine waking up to the news that the U.S. Department of Education no longer exists. No federal oversight of public schools. No Pell Grants. No regulations on student loans. In its place, each state holds the reins of its own education system.
For some, this represents a victory for local control. For others, it signals a chaotic unraveling of protections and financial support. But what would actually happen if the Department of Education were abolished?
One of the most immediate consequences would be student loans. The federal government currently provides loans to about 43 million borrowers, contributing to a staggering $1.6 trillion in debt.
If the department were dismantled, responsibility for these loans could shift to private lenders or individual states. This would likely lead to higher interest rates, fewer repayment protections, and increased financial strain on borrowers.
Currently, federal programs offer income-driven repayment plans and loan forgiveness options. Without a central education authority, these safety nets could disappear, leaving students vulnerable to skyrocketing debt.
Beyond student loans, eliminating the Department of Education would transfer full power to the states. Each state could determine its own curriculum, testing standards, and funding priorities without federal intervention.
This might allow for more tailored education policies, but it could also widen existing inequalities. Wealthier states could enhance their school systems, while underfunded states might struggle to provide basic services.
Federal education funding is essential for supporting state budgets, especially in rural areas. Nebraska, for example, receives 12.3% of its total education funding from the Department of Education.
Meanwhile, states like Mississippi and South Dakota rely on federal funding for nearly 20% of their education budgets.
Without federal support, rural states could be left scrambling to fill the gap, resulting in teacher shortages, outdated resources, and school closures in underfunded districts.
The Department of Education also ensures critical support for vulnerable student populations, particularly students with disabilities and low-income students.
Through programs like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the federal government helps guarantee that students with disabilities receive necessary accommodations and services.
Without federal oversight, states might reduce these programs or fail to enforce them consistently, leaving students without essential support.
Low-income students also benefit from federal programs like Title I funding, which provides additional resources to schools serving high-poverty communities.
If the Department of Education were eliminated, these funds could vanish, not only further deepening the educational divide between wealthy and struggling school districts, but increasing the divide in society as a whole as well.
Advocates of this change argue that cutting the department would streamline bureaucracy and return control to parents and local governments.
The Trump administration, for example, championed education reforms that emphasized school choice and reduced federal oversight.
Critics, however, warn that the Department of Education is essential for enforcing civil rights laws, ensuring protections for students with disabilities, and holding schools accountable for educational standards.
The debate over the Department of Education isn’t just about government structure—it’s about the future of millions of students. The Department of Education’s initiatives and programs make education a reality for millions of students across the country. While reforming education policy is always worth discussing, dismantling an institution that provides funding, oversight, and protections would have far-reaching consequences.
If we’re serious about improving education, we must think critically about the systems we change and the safeguards we might be removing. The stakes are too high to act without a clear plan for what comes next; too many people depend on programs ensured throughthe Department of Education to be even attempting to move ahead without a viable alternative for these individuals.