Is This the Beginning of the End for the Department of Education?
The department laid off over 1,300 employees this week.

On Tuesday, the Department of Education announced it was firing more than 1,300 workers as part of broader federal workforce cuts. The cuts reduce the agency's employees by half, following 572 employees who took buyout offers and 63 provisional workers who were fired in February.
"Today's reduction in force reflects the Department of Education's commitment to efficiency, accountability, and ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most: to students, parents, and teachers," Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a Tuesday press release. "I appreciate the work of the dedicated public servants and their contributions to the Department. This is a significant step toward restoring the greatness of the United States education system."
It's unclear how the cuts will affect the department. McMahon framed the cuts as an attempt to increase efficiency and better serve students. However, considering that McMahon said last week that President Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order aimed at eventually shuttering the department, it's hard not to see the layoffs as the first step in a plan to effectively abolish it. While it would take an act of Congress to formally scrap the Education Department, neutering its workforce might be the next best thing.
The announcement was almost immediately met with sharp criticism. "The real victims will be our most vulnerable students," National Education Association President Becky Pringle said in a Tuesday statement. "Gutting the Department of Education will send class sizes soaring, cut job training programs, make higher education more expensive and out of reach for middle-class families."
However, others noted that reducing the size of the Education Department—which hasn't even existed for 50 years—could end up streamlining a large, ineffective bureaucracy.
"A 50 percent workforce reduction is sizeable and could very well be a good thing. We don't know how many people are actually needed to execute [the education department's] jobs, and it's time to find out if it's been a bloated bureaucracy all along," Neal McCluskey, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom said Wednesday. "Of course, the unconstitutional Department should be eliminated, but that would take an act of Congress. For now, it will be good to see if taxpayers can save substantial money running the place."
At the very least, since the vast majority of funding for U.S. public schools comes from local and state governments, there's little reason to think that shrinking the Department of Education would affect K-12 students much. The department primarily focuses on administering the behemoth federal student loan program—though Trump also seems to have that in his sights as well. Last month, the Education Department froze applications for income-based loan repayment. And last week Trump signed an executive order limiting eligibility for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, targeting those who help break immigration laws or commit "the chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children."
"I don't think the Education [Department] should be handling the loans," Trump said earlier this month. "That's not their business."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What a pleasant surprise.
She didn't even mention FAFSA!
Is that even allowed?
I think I speak for us all when I demand an update on the Villareal situation.
Education is not within Congress's Article I powers.
A lot of democrat judges are illegally blocking Trump's actions. They need to be removed from the bench.
"The real victims will be our most vulnerable students," National Education Association President Becky Pringle
Wrong! Bye, bye.
Today's reduction in force reflects the Department of Education's complete and total failure to improve education in any way whatsoever.
Education in America has been an outright failure.
Produced nothing but spoiled entitled brats.
With the Dept. of Education shut down, the states and local school boards will be able to decide what's in the best interests of students and it does not include trans ideology or DEI.
On another note the DOE should be investigated for corruption and fraud. The teacher's union needs to be shut down as well. Randy Weingarten can find sone more useful to do, maybe as a check-out as a dollar store.
Most of what the DOE does is student loans which are the main driver for ever increasing tuition costs. Get rid of it and college should become more affordable.
Student loans aren't going away. They will just be administered by another department.
Send them back to banks. With no government support.
Universities can then deal with the chaos.
So you now support Trump? Good.
Most of what the DOE does is student loans which are the main driver for ever increasing tuition costs. Get rid of it and college should become more affordable.
There is definitely a problem with supporting college with financial aid that just allows students to pay inflated prices. But doing away with it entirely would just mean that there would be more students that can succeed in college not going. Because that is what has happened throughout the industrial age. Not investing in public education doesn't create some kind of libertarian utopia where parents and students have the incentive to work hard enough to get a good education on their own. It results in large parts of society that don't get educated. And all of that unfulfilled potential is a waste that hurts all of us.
No false dichotomies in this comment.
In what other endeavor is public money the only avenue? You said it yourself--it's a waste for people to remain uneducated. The implication being that education produces value, so why wouldn't private investors pick up the slack?
Of course, certain majors, certain universities, and certain areas of study would probably suffer. If an area of study can't pay for itself, i. e., it doesn't produce tangible value to society, should we really be encouraging it?
The implication being that education produces value, so why wouldn't private investors pick up the slack?
Private investors want a return on their investment. I can't imagine any such investment groups funding very many schools at any level if the students would have no obligation to work for them after they graduate.
If you are so certain that this would happen, maybe you can point to a place and time where education did work like that?
It will just regrow with more heads, like a hydra. You have to kill it dead. Behead it. Chop it up. Burn it. Scatter it to the four winds. Bury it.
The problem from a libertarian perspective is that killing the DoE will just push decision-making about government schools down to the states, which makes the situation worse - because it'll be 50 governments meddling in education policy, not one. Instead of one national standard you'll have 50 different standards, and your child could end up grossly disadvantaged if for example, you're in a backward state like Oklahoma where the government is insisting on putting a fiction work known as a "bible" in all government school classrooms. The libertarian answer is to separate school and state, period.
As long as we're going to have government schools then it makes more sense to have decisions be at the local level so people can vote with their feet. If all standards are national, and they suck, then there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Yes.
And this is our cobstiturional structure.
The feds' only rule us to provide remedies for civil rights violations.
State decision-making is not local. It would be far preferable for each school (or at a bare minimum, school district) to make decisions and set policy, so that parents can choose another school relatively close by, instead of having to move to a completely different state.
I didn't say "state" I said "local". Your reading comprehension is on par with Jesse and SGT.
Wow. Sorry you felt the need to be insulting. You win Mute.
Dumbass-on-dumbass fratricide.
It’s a lot easier to hold my state government accountable than the federal government.
Wrong. Have you ever tried to hold a state government accountable? It's impossible.
If you have to govern, govern local. Centralization is the enemy. Though I agree, moving out of the public schooling model entirely would be preferable.
because it'll be 50 [smaller, easier to influence, easier to fight, easier to escape] governments meddling in education policy
How does this make the problem worse?
Do national standards make underperforming schools perform better?
>>The announcement was almost immediately met with sharp criticism.
idk I cheered and danced a little
There is a role, albeit limited, for the Federal government in education.
The commerce clause allows the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce. It makes some sense for the Federal Government to set standards (weights, measures, and some business practices) to improve commerce.
Likewise, it probably makes sense for the Federal Government to work with states to set standards that allow students and their credentials to be recognized across state lines.
Where the education department went off the rails was in attempting to micromanage all aspects of schooling. It's Dear Colleague letters requiring schools to suspend due process for males accused of sexual impropriety is an obvious example.
"...Likewise, it probably makes sense for the Federal Government to work with states to set standards that allow students and their credentials to be recognized across state lines..."
We're currently giving kids who are functional illiterates HS diplomas, and we have a DoE.
Nah. DoE needs to go. We were better off before it was forced on us by Carter.
Repeal the commerce clause if we ever get a chance. It is a ham fisted tool of authoritarianism.
Where the education department went off the rails was in attempting to micromanage all aspects of schooling. It's Dear Colleague letters requiring schools to suspend due process for males accused of sexual impropriety is an obvious example.
Those are not examples of how the Education Department micromanages "all aspects of schooling." It is one example of an action related to a hot-button issue that gets a lot of play in the news and social media.
There isn't some big mystery about what the ED does. You can go to its website and find out. Also of note, the common refrain that it was "created" in 1979 is ignoring that this creation was a consolidation of functions that had existed prior to that, and elevated it to a cabinet-level agency. There has been some federal role in education since at least 1867.
https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/an-overview-of-the-us-department-of-education--pg-1
Likewise, it probably makes sense for the Federal Government to work with states to set standards that allow students and their credentials to be recognized across state lines.
As that history page I linked shows, the federal role in education really increased starting with Sputnik and a push to support science and math education. Then, naturally, the ED started getting involved in supporting programs, and in supporting state governments, to increase equal educational opportunities.
Collecting data and researching education is also an important ED function, so that states can see where they stand relative to each other and share what works and what doesn't.
The largest part of its budget seems to be financial aid for college, and no doubt that is a big target for libertarians and Republicans. It will be interesting to see if any of the people cheering the gutting and eventual elimination of the ED still feel the same when there is no one in the federal government to make sure that public schools in their state provide support for their child with a disability. Vote for state government that will do it, you might say. Except, what if those candidates lose? Federal laws regarding equality in education were proven to be necessary decades ago, as there were state governments that didn't want that to exist.
What if your candidates lose at the federal level? What if we get a federal law which *prohibits* states from doing the things you want? Why assume that the federal policy is always going to be better than the state policy?
Grammar nerd.
others noted that reducing the size of the Education Department—which hasn't even existed for 50 years
others noted that reducing the size of the Education Department—which has existed for less than 50 years
fewer than?
Nah stick with less than because we're really talking about the bulk of time, not counting the years like individual units.
"Is This the Beginning of the End for the Department of Education?
The department laid off over 1,300 employees this week."
Let's hope this is the beginning of the end of the DOE.
Education is a state and local issue, not a federal one.
Plus, terminating this needless, useless and expensive bureaucracy will save the American taxpayers billions of dollars.
Hopefully, Trump will go further and terminate the Commerce Department, the EPA, FEMA and at least reduce other bureaucracies by at least 50%.
Eliminating the DofEd is a good thing, but not like this. Presidents Elon and Trump should get Congress to agree, explained what would happen with the department's functions, what happens to the laid off employees, etc. You know, things like show some leadership and really solve the problem, instead of letting his assholishness fly free.
As it stands now, the big question is "What's in it for Trump?"
"...Presidents Elon and Trump..."
Give your head some company, stuff your TDS up your ass. And then please make your family proud and the world a far better place: Fuck off and die, shitstain.
Just trying to lighten the mood, Sevo. But to my point, any thoughts on "What's in it for Trump", or does TDS preclude making coherent arguments and leaves only meaningless name calling for rebuttal?
Yeah, a cabinet department shouldn't be eliminated by executive fiat. It should be cut in the budget, preferably with funding not totally cut until next school year so states have time to react and fund the things they should have been funding in the first place.
Yep. Let's get rid of all of these people. Especially since I have no idea what they do! (Pun intended.)
Please revive all those columns where Reason praised Jimmy Carter for the Dept of Education. I need a laugh
I do not recall such columns.
Maybe there have been such articles, but a search mostly brought up ones critical of it, like this:
https://reason.com/2017/02/07/department-of-education-jimmy-carter/