The Dismantling of the DoE Causing an Education Crisis

Kelby Chichester

The right of American families to determine how their children are educated has long been tied to the nation’s struggle for equal and equitable schooling across racial and socioeconomic lines.  

Now, with a single stroke of his pen disgraced former president and convicted felon Donald Trump has reignited a decades-old debate over federal education policy this time with consequences.  

In March 2025, Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (DoE) claiming that federal involvement in schooling has “plainly failed our children, our teachers, and our families.”  

This reckless move, which has been a long-standing goal of right-wing extremists, will have sweeping consequences for America’s 49.5 million public school students. This will be stripping away critical federal oversight, protections and funding mechanisms that serve the most vulnerable populations.  

The order mandates that the DoE’s functions be redistributed across multiple federal agencies by the end of the year.  

Among the changes civil rights enforcement will be handed over to the Justice Department, federal student loan programs will be managed by the Treasury and special education oversight will shift to Health and Human Services. This restructuring will directly affect how over $150 billion in federal education funding is distributed.  

This will also include $18.8 billion in Title I funding which supports high-poverty schools serving approximately 26 million students. $15.5 billion in IDEA funding, which ensures that 7.3 million students with disabilities receive the support they need. $120.8 billion in federal student aid which helps 10.8 million college students afford higher education.  

While Trump and his allies frame this move to return control to states and local governments civil rights organizations and education experts warn that it is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to gut federal protections for students who need them most.  

Janai Nelson, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, condemned the decision calling the justification for dismantling the department a “fabricated” excuse that echoes the dark history of school segregation.  

Supporters of so-called “school choice” celebrate the executive order as a victory claiming it will give families more flexibility to seek alternatives to public schools. This will include charter schools, homeschooling and taxpayer-funded vouchers for private institutions. But critics argue that these policies primarily benefit wealthier and privileged families while draining resources from already struggling public schools especially those serving low-income communities and students of color.  

“We all know that we need to do more to improve our schools, especially for those routinely denied an excellent education,” Maya Wiley, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in a statement. But Trump’s order, Wiley argued, “is a direct attack on schools and the right to an education.”  

The fallout from this hasty and ill-conceived decision is already raising alarm among educators, school administrators and advocacy groups. The rapid timeline for dismantling the department means states will be forced to take on a massive administrative burden with little time to prepare. Many districts, particularly those in high-poverty areas depend on federal oversight to ensure funding compliance and protect students’ rights.  

Teachers’ unions fear that the loss of federal leadership will lead to chaos, undermining efforts to improve curriculum standards, professional development, and support services for students with disabilities.  

Even beyond the legal battles that will likely arise to challenge this decision major logistical hurdles remain.  

Without a central authority overseeing education policy critical functions risk being mismanaged or falling through the cracks. The 4,400 employees of the Department of Education many of which have specialized knowledge in funding distribution, special education law and civil rights enforcement face displacement threatening a loss of institutional expertise.

Spreading education responsibilities across multiple agencies that lack experience in the field is likely to lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies, communication breakdowns and worsening inequities in public education.  

The question now is whether state governments already grappling with stretched resources can handle the immense responsibility of ensuring equal educational opportunities for all students. While some conservative state leaders welcome the increased autonomy others worry that without federal oversight.

Historically marginalized communities will suffer the most.  

In the coming months, education advocacy groups and legal organizations will be working to mitigate the harm caused by Trump’s reckless move.

Students, parents and educators must remain vigilant ensuring that those in power do not use this moment to further erode access to quality public education. The stakes are too high to let this decision go unchallenged.