JC Bowman, the executive director of Professional Educators of Tennessee, shared his thoughts regarding President Trump’s executive order aimed at "dismantling" the US Department of Education. He expressed the view that federal funding holds greater importance than the agency itself. Bowman noted that the potential closure of the department could lead to considerable consequences for education funding across the United States. However, he emphasized that the actual effects would largely hinge on the extent to which the order can be enacted under executive authority and whether Congress will ultimately back it through legislative action.
Here’s a breakdown of the potential effects based on current information:
Federal Funding at Risk
The Department of Education oversees approximately $80 billion in annual discretionary funding (based on the FY 2025 budget), plus additional mandatory spending like Pell Grants and student loan programs. Key programs include:
- Title I Grants: $18.4 billion annually supports schools with high numbers of low-income students. Without the department, this funding could be disrupted unless reassigned to another agency or directly to states.
- IDEA (Special Education): $15.5 billion funds services for students with disabilities. States rely heavily on this to meet federal mandates under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
- Pell Grants: Around $30 billion annually helps low-income college students. The administration has suggested these could shift to the Treasury Department, but any transition risks delays or administrative gaps.
- Student Loans: The department manages a $1.6 trillion loan portfolio. Moving this to another agency (e.g., Treasury) could maintain funding, but logistical challenges might affect loan forgiveness programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness.
Short-Term Impact
Since the president cannot unilaterally eliminate the department or its statutory programs—Congress created it and controls appropriations—the executive order likely focuses on reducing discretionary spending and non-mandatory functions. This could mean:
- Cuts to Administrative Programs: Programs not explicitly mandated by law (e.g., some teacher training or innovation grants) could be defunded or scaled back immediately, potentially saving billions but reducing support services.
- Freeze or Delay: The order might freeze new grants or delay disbursements while reorganization plans are drafted, causing cash-flow issues for schools and colleges reliant on timely federal funds.
- State Burden: Essential programs like Title I and IDEA would technically continue unless Congress acts, but states might face uncertainty or temporary gaps if administrative oversight shifts without clear guidance.
Long-Term Impact (Requires Congressional Approval)
If Congress passes legislation to fully dismantle the department, funding could shift dramatically:
- Block Grants to States: The administration favors returning education funds to states as block grants, giving governors and local officials more control. However, this could reduce total funding—some estimates suggest a 10-20% cut ($8-16 billion)—as federal oversight and earmarks are removed. States with weaker tax bases (e.g., Mississippi, New Mexico) might struggle to replace lost funds, widening disparities.
- Program Elimination: Non-core programs (e.g., arts education, after-school initiatives) could be axed entirely, saving federal dollars but cutting resources for millions of students.
- Higher Education: Pell Grants and loans might survive under another agency, but smaller programs like work-study or campus-based aid (e.g., Perkins Loans) could disappear, hitting community colleges and low-income students hardest.
State and Local Response
States currently provide about 47% of K-12 funding, localities 45%, and the federal government 8%. Losing federal funds would force states to either raise taxes, cut services, or reallocate budgets. Wealthier states like New York or California might absorb the hit, but poorer states could see school closures, larger class sizes, or reduced special education services. For example, states like Louisiana gets 11% of its education budget from federal sources—any reduction could strain already tight resources.
Bottom Line
In the short term, funding disruptions might be limited to administrative hiccups and smaller program cuts, costing schools millions rather than billions. Long-term, if Congress greenlights the closure, states could face a $10-20 billion shortfall, shifting the burden to local taxpayers.
The administration argues this decentralization will cut waste and boost efficiency, but without a detailed transition plan, the immediate impact may be uncertainty more than outright loss.
Bowman remarked that during his campaign, “President Trump pledged to eliminate the US Department of Education, emphasizing this commitment as a central aspect of his platform. Congress will now get a chance to weigh in on the final direction.”
Link: https://www.proedtn.org/news/695743/Final-Countdown-at-the-Department-of-Education.htm
