Throughout the campaign and since his reelection President Donald Trump has made plain his intention to close or drastically shrink the size of the Department of Education.

Teachers unions are vehemently opposed to the potential closure. They view such actions as detrimental to students. Teachers unions such as the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) have strongly criticized the Trump administration’s actions to date that include mass layoffs and executive orders aimed at reducing the department’s size and influence. Teachers unions, like the NEA, are now involved in lawsuits challenging the administration’s efforts, arguing that the department cannot be legally closed without Congressional approval. 

Unions emphasize what they describe as the crucial role the Department of Education plays in providing financial aid for college, supporting students with disabilities, and enforcing civil rights laws. They express worry that dismantling the department will disproportionately harm vulnerable students and lead to funding crises for schools. What they do not tell us is that their impact on the propagandizing of students in the likes of DEI would be curtailed.

While acknowledging the need for efficiency and potential streamlining of the department, unions maintain that a federal role in education is essential for ensuring equity and access for all students, especially those in need. What they do not tell is that since the birth of the republic schools and education flourished under state and local control.

Since its creation during the Carter administration as a means of paying a political debt for teachers union help in his election critics have argued that the unions’ goals were driven in large part by self-interest, as the Department of Education’s growth had benefited them. Critics question the unions’ commitment to students, suggesting that union focus is primarily on maintaining funding for their own organizations and Democratic party allies.

What are the reasons given for ending the United States Education Department? To begin with, the department is unconstitutional. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, go to the states, or to the people. Our Constitution does not assign responsibility for education to the federal government, leading some to argue that the Department of Education is an overreach of federal power. 

Others state the department is unnecessary because prior to its establishment the states and local school boards had been doing a more than adequate job of educating our children for over 200 years. This is because they are better attuned to understanding and addressing the specific needs of their students and communities. Other critics state that the Department of education is too expensive and spends as much as $2.8 billion for salaries and expenses a year. In addition, the U.S. through the Department, spends three times more money on education as any other nation yet the U.S. ranks twelfth in getting the most value for this amount of funding. Also, while per pupil spending has risen by 245 percent since the mid 1970s test scores have risen less than 2 percent in the same period.

The department is often described as incompetent because its biggest job is to administer federal student aid programs, especially student loans. However, according to the government Accountability Office the Department has failed at basic functions like tracking repayments. It has failed three audits in recent years.

In 1990, the U.S. ranked sixth globally in education, but this dropped to 27th by 2018. PISA testing which is a worldwide study conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development assesses the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students in mathematics, reading, and science. The study aims to provide comparable data to help countries improve their education policies and outcomes.  Results of testing done in 2024 indicated that U.S. students were outscored by students from Singapore, Ireland, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Estonia, China, and Canada to name a few outscored U.S. students in the three core subjects of math, reading and science. This suggests a serious decline in the US lead in advanced knowledge and skills in the global marketplace. 

It is interesting to note that the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union has stated on numerous occasions that the way to reverse declining test scores is to spend more money. That hasn’t worked in the last 45 years so why does the NEA think it will work now? Wild spending has seldom made for great baseball teams so why should it buy a school system that puts children first or demands high standards and helps them achieve them. Sliding test results are not the result of a lack of money spent on education in the U.S. where we spend more than other nations. It is however a policy problem, a bureaucracy problem, a teacher union problem, and an academic standards problem.

If eliminating the Education Department means less federal interference with greater state and local control of education and less red tape combined with greater flexibility that empowers parents and teachers then I agree with Trump and his goal of eliminating the Department of Education.

Thomas Kirkpatrick Sr. is a Silver Creek resident. Send comments to editorial@observertoday.com.