In recent weeks, Education Week Opinion has received scores of submissions from individuals in the K-12 field reacting to the current state of education in the United States and, in particular, the actions of the Trump administration.
As the federal government appears poised to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, the time seemed appropriate to share a sample of those essays from educators, researchers, and advocates. Education Week Opinion reached out to select authors seeking permission to excerpt from their original submissions with the goal of sharing a broad range of viewpoints.
Excerpts have been edited for clarity and length. Responses are listed alphabetically.
‘We don’t have a viable plan to improve student outcomes that isn’t tied to excessive funding’
Educators like me who insist that kids are the number one priority must acknowledge a fundamental truth: Funding doesn’t equate to improving student outcomes.
Those who resist eliminating or restructuring the U.S. Department of Education argue that funding for students will disappear without this massive bureaucracy. But let me be clear—no one is taking money away from kids. In fact, eliminating the department could increase funding in classrooms. U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon stated in an interview on Fox News that for every federal dollar spent on education, almost 47 cents is spent on regulatory compliance.
McMahon, mandated by President Donald Trump to “put herself out of a job,” has a new credo: Eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse while ensuring our special education, low-income, and financial-aid-dependent college students receive the federal aid due to them.
A government filled with spending addicts has infected its citizens with a disease of more. The infection is building—the national debt is $36 trillion high—at the time of this writing. Print more. Spend more. The pain from spending cuts will be minor compared with defaulting on our debt. However, the unintended victims will be our children. It won’t be the result of the disappearance of the Education Department; it will be because we don’t have a viable plan to improve student outcomes that isn’t tied to excessive funding.
This excerpt was originally part of a post published on the Diversified Education Services blog.
‘In today’s GOP, ... Reagan would be derided’
President Ronald Reagan, the classic “America First” president, at least did a fine job at pretending to care about the country’s future by emphasizing the need for Black educators. But in today’s GOP, which has embraced racial polarization and denies the need for any race-based initiatives, Reagan would be derided and booted out.
Today, Ronald Reagan would be labeled “woke” by President Donald Trump and his followers.
The divergence between these two Republican presidents highlights how far half the body politic has moved in just under four decades. We are moving socially and politically backward at a time when our country is becoming more diverse.
We have to ask: What does the Republican Party lose by having a diversified workforce? An increased number of Black teachers? More educated Black students? What could be gained?
Acknowledging factual history allows us to learn from our mistakes
Perhaps what is most disturbing to me in the Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling executive order is the implication that schools exist to “instill a patriotic admiration for our incredible Nation. … ” We are indeed an incredible nation, but the history of this country is full of examples where we acted unfairly, unethically (including sexually, physically, and emotionally abusing students), and where we clung to stereotypes and biases that impeded the educational opportunity and progress of whole races and cultures. In education, one can look at any of the following: the treatment of Native American children, which included removing them from their homes to attend boarding schools where they were mistreated and suffered from malnutrition and neglect; outlawing education of enslaved Africans and, later, segregating African Americans into schools that were separate and far from equal; and physically punishing Mexican American and other students for speaking Spanish in school and even during recess.
Acknowledging factual history does not demand “acquiescence to … ‘unconscious bias,’” nor does it promote racial discrimination or undermine national unity, as the Trump administration says it fears. It gives us the opportunity to learn from our mistakes and do better in the future. Whitewashing this history might sideline it, but doing so will neither make our history disappear nor promote national unity.
It astounds me that the words “diversity,” “equity,” and” inclusion” have been so vilified that we are blindly removing them from public discourse. While there are surely instances where DEI efforts have been unsuccessful or downright misinformed, the harm done pales in comparison to that from President Donald Trump’s seeming intention to end critical thinking and his unfounded belief that talking about DEI will automatically make students feel like victims rather than give them agency.
‘Students with the greatest needs are at higher risk’
Returning authority to the states—another justification for dismantling the U.S. Department of Education—removes the one mechanism we have for ensuring all states uphold the civil rights of students. Without dedicated federal staff and with limited oversight from staff with no expertise in education programs and students’ education-related civil rights, how will the public know if states use funds like Title I (for schools with disadvantaged students) and IDEA (for children with special needs) for their intended purpose? Absent federal safeguards, all students with the greatest needs are at higher risk of not receiving the support congressional law intended.
Nor is disinvesting in education research a productive step toward efficiency. Rather, it is a step away from accountability, transparency, innovation, and effective decisionmaking. Data matter for our ability to address pressing problems of teacher attrition, student absenteeism, low reading proficiency, and college affordability, and to understand which investments work best. The cancellation of ongoing projects and loss of staff expertise, infrastructure, and data built up over the past several decades will set our country back for years to come, not make it more efficient.
‘State policymakers must act swiftly’
Partnerships between school districts and universities have grown significantly over the years as a collaborative effort to increase the teacher workforce, attract high-quality educators to hard-to-staff schools, and provide professional learning to improve student outcomes. Yet, school districts and universities nationwide now face the potential termination of the U.S. Department of Education and the loss of $600 million in teacher-training grants, including those under the Teacher Quality Partnership and the Supporting Effective Educator Development programs, leaving many universities and school districts uncertain about how they will prepare the next generation of teachers. These grants offered incentives to attract teachers and address shortages in the most critical areas.
If the federal government closes the Department of Education, millions, if not billions, of dollars in support for students and schools could disappear—or, according to U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, may shift to different agencies. Were this to happen, state policymakers will be challenged to respond and mitigate districtwide financial burdens. State policymakers must act swiftly to implement sustainable funding solutions and strategies for teacher recruitment before shortages further destabilize schools and hinder student learning.
‘The U.S. Department of Education didn’t fail us. We failed it’
Here is where the U.S. Department of Education matters. It was never meant to micromanage schools or dictate curriculum. Rather, it was designed to ensure a floor of fairness, to provide federal scaffolding for communities historically left behind. Through Title I funds (for schools with disadvantaged children) , IDEA (for children with disabilities) , Pell Grants, and civil rights enforcement, the department has played a role in leveling the field. It has coordinated research and intervened when inequality occurred.
For decades, we have treated the department not as a cornerstone of democracy but as a political scapegoat. We’ve underfunded it, vilified it, and blamed it for failing to solve problems we’ve actively prevented it from addressing. We demanded miracles without mechanisms, expecting a single agency to solve problems rooted in housing, health care, labor, and social policy.
If education is indeed a national priority, then it must be met with national solidarity.
The future of education lies not in dismantling federal infrastructure but in reimagining it. We don’t need the federal government to be less involved in education, we need it do a better job. And we need to stop scapegoating the institutions that shoulder the burden of hope for millions of families.
The Department of Education didn’t fail us. We failed it.
‘Students with disabilities do not have the luxury of waiting for a bureaucratic recovery’
The shifting landscape of the U.S. Department of Education presents an opportunity to reimagine how we support students with disabilities. For too long, transition planning for students with disabilities has been treated as a bureaucratic obligation rather than a crucial step in preparing students for independence, careers, and fulfilling lives. Given that the agency’s responsibilities appear to be shifting, states, school districts, and communities have a unique chance to take bold action. Now is the time to build a system that not only functions effectively but also gives students the skills, confidence, and opportunities they need to thrive in the real world.
The long-term economic implications of inadequate transition planning are staggering. Failing to equip students with disabilities with the necessary skills and pathways to employment diminishes individual potential and places a greater financial burden on social services and public-assistance programs.
Beyond economic concerns, the societal cost of neglecting transition planning is profound. When students with disabilities are left without clear career or educational paths, they face increased risks of social isolation, mental health struggles, and long-term marginalization.
The Education Department’s layoffs have accelerated an already looming crisis, and waiting for another federal intervention is not an option. Students with disabilities do not have the luxury of waiting for a bureaucratic recovery. Their futures hinge on immediate action from states, school districts, and forward-thinking leaders who are willing to embrace innovative solutions.
‘The real goal: granting states the right to discriminate’
“Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever.” These haunting words uttered by Alabama Gov. George Wallace in 1963 during his inaugural address ring out from the past as President Donald Trump threatens to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. While Trump may not stand on stage and declare this, the history of segregation is intertwined in his desire to return education to the states.
The cry for states’ rights is always a call for states to have the right to discriminate. The move by the Trump administration to abolish the department is no different.
The attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and other so-called “wokeness,” and the heightened focus on undocumented students are not separate from the idea of dismantling the federal oversight of education. They work together in a highly choreographed dance distracting you from the real goal: granting states the right to discriminate.
