Tommy Kruecker-Green || Opinion Editor

President Trump has launched an initiative to dismantle the US Department of Education (ED). Such a move requires an act of Congress, which may be unlikely to occur. Nonetheless, recent calls by Trump to abolish the ED have ignited a debate that raises questions about equity, access, and the role of government in ensuring that every student, regardless of background, has a fair shot at success.

Contrary to what some believe, the ED was not created to dictate what is taught in classrooms—curriculum decisions remain the purview of states and local school boards—but to serve as a guardian of equity. Since its inception under former President Carter, the federal agency has played a role in ensuring that no student is denied an education because of sex, ethnicity, income, disability, or other factors. By administering programs like Title I funding and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), ED has helped level the playing field for schools serving low-income communities and students with special needs. Moreover, federal funding is tied to schools meeting non-discrimination requirements. Removing this layer of support would risk undoing decades of progress in educational equity. 

Local and state governments provide the bulk of K-12 funding, and federal contributions make up only roughly 10 percent of public school budgets. For a school like AHS, dismantling the ED might not be felt very much at all. However, for underprivileged districts, the loss of federal aid would be devastating. When there is a system in which the amount of funding for schools is tied to property taxes, and hence, property values, one can understand why it is so important for an entity like the ED to step in and do what it can with a flawed system, to balance the scales and give all students, regardless of their zip code, a fair shot.

Andover High School Principal Jimmy D’Andrea provided insight into how federal education funding is allocated. “If the [ED] were to be abolished, that doesn’t automatically mean that the funding is abolished,” he explained. Federal funds pass through state agencies before reaching school districts, but their removal would significantly impact schools that rely on them the most. He pointed out that for Fiscal Year 2025, Andover Public Schools received approximately $3.7 million in federal funding out of a total $103.6 million budget. Perhaps Andover may not feel the effect, but he acknowledged that “if you were to look at, for example, Lawrence Public Schools next door or other city school systems in Boston public schools, you would likely see a much greater percentage of resources coming from the federal government.” The reality is that these underprivileged districts could suffer if federal education funding disappeared.

D’Andrea also addressed IDEA and Title I funds, which benefit students with disabilities and those from low-income families, respectively. “When they were initially talking about a funding freeze, they specifically said that Title I and IDEA money was exempted from that,” he noted.

I was wondering what is motivating conservatives intent on abolishing the ED. Many are socially conservative and say they want “woke” out of the schools. However, the federal ED is not in the business of developing curricula, and consequently, it is not “promoting” any social agenda in public schools. States set the rules and curriculum standards, while local school districts set policies and actual curricula. Nevertheless, in threatening to dismantle the ED, President Trump persists in claiming that it is time to return schools to state and local control. History teacher Fred Hopkins suggested that politicians who attack the ED are perhaps not being honest about their intentions. Although they say they want to return control of public schools to the local level, it’s just a fact—and they are well aware—that K-12 public schools are already, for the most part, controlled at the local level. He suspects that those attacking the ED are actually more interested in privatizing all education, in particular at the postsecondary level; they want to reduce spending on higher education. 

Indeed, in addition to K-12 funding, the ED administers Pell Grants and student loans, making higher education attainable for low-income students. These programs, which distribute approximately $30 billion annually, help millions afford college. Without federal oversight, these essential funding mechanisms could be dismantled or privatized, making higher education even more inaccessible to working-class Americans. Importantly, these grants and loans towards higher education make up more than half of the ED’s budget.

If the ED is eliminated, its functions could be folded into other departments and agencies. In fact, some legislated programs, like Title I or IDEA predate the creation of ED and would likely continue to be administered in some way. This is nonetheless not ideal; the idea behind the creation of the cabinet-level ED was to elevate the issues of education. Still, one could imagine something worse: that the responsibilities are not just shifted to other agencies but the ED’s role is abolished, and many programs eliminated. Then one would hope that the states would be able to take over the role that the ED had in promoting equity. I’m confident it would happen in Massachusetts. But I’m not sure about some other states. Above all, I believe that the ED is needed so that students seeking postsecondary education are not deterred by their financial situations. We need to have public colleges/universities. The cost of private postsecondary education in the US is obscene. I don’t say that lightly. So what are our priorities? If we are to be a nation that offers “opportunity to all,” dismantling the ED sounds like a bad idea, any way you measure it.