Trump Begins Dismantling Education Dept, Schools Warn of Chaos/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Trump administration’s plan to dismantle the Education Department is raising alarms among state and school leaders. With programs scattered across multiple federal agencies, critics fear increased bureaucracy and disruption. Supporters say it returns power to states and ends federal micromanagement.
Dismantling the Education Department + Quick Looks
- The Trump administration is distributing Education Department functions across four federal agencies.
- Critics warn the move will create chaos and undermine support for struggling students.
- Labor, HHS, Interior, and State Departments will assume control of education programs.
- Education Secretary Linda McMahon says the shift offers flexibility and less federal control.
- State leaders criticize the plan as disorganized and done without their input.
- Federal funding to schools will continue, but the delivery mechanisms will change.
- Uncertainty surrounds staffing, support for Title I and special education programs.
- Democrats and some Republicans question the plan’s effectiveness and intent.
Trump Begins Dismantling Education Dept, Schools Warn of Chaos
Deep Look
WASHINGTON — In a sweeping and controversial move, the Trump administration has begun dismantling the U.S. Department of Education, a plan it says will restore local control and streamline bureaucracy. But to many state officials and educators, the shift marks the start of federal confusion, increased red tape, and fewer safeguards for students.
Under the administration’s plan, key functions of the Education Department will now be absorbed by four other federal agencies: the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, State, and Interior. The largest share of school funding and support will fall under the Department of Labor.
For President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon, the move aligns with long-held goals of shrinking the federal government’s footprint in education.
“This is a hard reset,” McMahon said during a White House briefing. “It’s about ending federal micromanagement, not federal support.”
Despite assurances that federal funding will continue without disruption, the dismantling has drawn sharp criticism from state education leaders, many of whom say they were blindsided by the announcement.
States Warn of Bureaucratic Chaos
School leaders across the country say the change increases bureaucracy rather than reducing it. Washington state’s education chief called it a “fivefold increase in red tape,” while California’s state superintendent deemed it “clearly less efficient.” Maryland’s top education official expressed concern about managing coordination across multiple agencies.
“This is not what we asked for — or what our students need,” said Wisconsin State Superintendent Jill Underly. “We need flexibility, not confusion.”
At issue is the massive reorganization of duties previously housed in a single federal department. Under the plan, Title I funding — $18 billion for low-income students — moves to the Labor Department, an agency that currently administers grants to just 130,000 people annually. Critics question whether the department has the capacity to take on such a pivotal role in K-12 education.
“Even in the best-case scenario, this risks unleashing chaos on school districts,” warned Angela Hanks, a former Labor official under the Biden administration.
In Massachusetts, Superintendent Stephen Zrike of Salem Public Schools worries about how funding rules may change under new agency oversight.
“We don’t know what other stipulations will be attached to the funding,” he said. “The level of uncertainty is enormous.”
Education Department in Limbo
The Education Department still technically exists — only Congress can eliminate it. But most of its operational responsibilities are being transferred, leaving the agency in a bureaucratic limbo. It will retain authority over some oversight and policy guidance, especially as other departments assume educational duties.
While local school systems already coordinate with multiple federal agencies — like the USDA for school meals — experts note that this is the first time the core of federal education programs will be housed outside a dedicated education agency.
Some conservatives, while generally supportive of reducing government, voiced hesitation. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) cautioned that transferring education programs to agencies without educational expertise could backfire. Former Education Secretary Margaret Spellings called the move a distraction and a misstep.
“Moving programs around doesn’t eliminate bureaucracy — it just makes it harder for families and schools to get support,” Spellings said.
Impact on Students Still Unknown
Although federal funding is expected to continue, educators fear the loss of institutional expertise and access to crucial guidance. The Education Department serves as a resource for interpreting federal rules, funding formulas, and special education compliance.
David Law, superintendent of Minnetonka Public Schools and president of AASA, the national superintendents’ association, said school leaders depend on federal clarity.
“Without guidance, services might not be delivered because schools won’t know if they’re allowed to provide them,” Law said.
Meanwhile, the American Federation of Teachers criticized the plan as disruptive and unnecessary. Union president Randi Weingarten questioned the rationale for replacing an established structure with a new one lacking clear infrastructure or training.
“Why destroy the existing system instead of improving it?” she asked.
Political Reactions Reflect Deep Divide
Reaction to the plan has split largely along party lines. Congressional Democrats called the plan reckless and harmful to vulnerable students. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), the ranking member on the House Education Committee, urged Secretary McMahon to reverse course, citing the original 1979 law that established the department to avoid exactly this kind of fragmentation.
Republicans supporting the move say it finally ends federal overreach and allows states to take charge of their education systems. Others see it as a symbolic win for smaller government.
But with national test scores still lagging post-COVID, critics say now is the wrong time for major restructuring. Reading and math scores remain historically low, particularly among disadvantaged students.
McMahon, however, views the department’s track record as justification for dismantling it. “The numbers speak for themselves,” she said. “We need a new approach.”
Whether this “new approach” strengthens schools or sows nationwide disruption remains to be seen. For now, school systems across the country are bracing for uncertainty.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.