The Evolution of the Department of Education
How The Trump Era Fits In
The Evolution of the Department of Education:
How the Trump Era Fits In
Summary of New Policies/changes
Why the Dept of Ed was Founded
1980’s to 2020’s with the Dept of Ed
Possible Outcomes
-
Let’s Summarize The New Policies
When writing this we will try to leave out any political bias . There is a chance that I miss a perspective, I am just going to provide historical results to the current agenda.
Since his first term President Trump has taken efforts to reduce control and more recently stated efforts to dismantle the Department of Education.
For us, as a company rising in the higher education space making the college search more transparent, we want to understand if these policies make sense for higher ed or not. So let's look at the policy and compare it to what has happened throughout history with similar moves.
-
Here are the main points from President Trump's proposed changes as of April 2025:
1. Dismantling the U.S. Department of Education
Trump has pledged to shut down the Department of Education entirely.
He argues that education should be controlled at the state and local level, not by Washington bureaucrats.
The plan aligns with a broader strategy to decentralize federal power and remove what he sees as ideological influence from public education.
-
2. Eliminating Federal Influence Over Curriculum
Trump has proposed banning the teaching of “critical race theory” and “gender ideology” in federally funded schools.
In his “Agenda47” plan, he calls for a federal investigation into curriculum promoting progressive values and “left-wing indoctrination.”
-
3. Targeting Elite Universities and Research Funding
Trump has started cutting federal research funding to elite universities that enforce DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies he sees as discriminatory or ideological. Currently: Harvard, Columbia, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Princeton, UPenn, and University of California (UC) system.
He has accused these institutions of becoming “radical political indoctrination centers” rather than academic institutions.
-
4. Restoring “Patriotic Education”
Trump has advocated for a return to “patriotic education” through initiatives like the 1776 Commission. ( go to pg 20-21 here)
The goal: emphasize traditional American values and minimize the focus on systemic racism or identity politics in history and civics education.
-
5. Empowering Parents and States
Trump wants to expand school choice, including vouchers, charter schools, and homeschool support.
He frames this as giving families more control over their child’s education, especially when they disagree with public school policies.
-
6. Overhauling Federal Civil Rights Enforcement
Under Trump’s education approach, the federal government would scale back enforcement of Title IX and other civil rights protections related to race, gender identity, and sexual orientation in schools.
These powers would likely be returned to states, leading to uneven protections across the country.
-
Take away:
This bold, sweeping approach is rooted in the belief that federal involvement in education has led to ideological bias, inefficiency, and loss of parental control. But critics warn that dismantling these structures could gut funding and civil rights protections for the nation’s most vulnerable students.
-
Why Was The Department of Education Founded?
History can repeat itself over and over again which is why I think that it's important to have an understanding of where these policies originated from and under what circumstances called for a reform.
Although the first U.S. Department of Education was founded in 1867, it was quickly downgraded in 1868. The DoE that we know of today was signed into effect by President Jimmy Carter in 1979.
-
Pre-1979: State and Local Control Era
Structure:
Education was almost entirely managed by state and local governments.
There was no standalone federal agency dedicated solely to education; instead, education was a division under the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW).
-
Results:
Wide disparities: Wealthier states and districts often had far superior education systems compared to poorer areas.
Inequality: Marginalized communities, particularly in the South (due to segregation), suffered from underfunded and inequitable schools.
Local autonomy: Schools had more flexibility to craft curricula and policies tailored to community needs.
Minimal federal standards: There was little in terms of national accountability or uniformity, which resulted in patchy performance across the country.
-
Why Did It Change?
The move toward federal involvement happened gradually through the 1950s-70s due to several key factors:
-
Civil Rights Movement (1950s-60s):
Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional.
The federal government had to step in to enforce desegregation, particularly in Southern states that resisted integration.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government more power to enforce anti-discrimination laws in schools.
-
The "Sputnik Shock" (1957):
The Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik alarmed U.S. policymakers, who feared American students were falling behind in science and math.
This led to federal investment in STEM education, such as the National Defense Education Act (1958), marking one of the first major federal education initiatives.
-
War on Poverty (1960s):
President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration saw education as a key tool to combat poverty.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 provided federal funds to schools serving low-income students, introducing federal oversight on how these funds were used.
Rising National Concerns (1970s):
Fragmented and inconsistent education outcomes raised alarm among policymakers.
Issues like low literacy rates and inequities between states pushed calls for more centralized oversight.
-
1980’s - Reagan Era: Push for Shrinking Federal Role:
President Ronald Reagan opposed the DoE, believing Education should be at the state/local level. As a result, Reagan enacted budget cuts and pushed for increased support of school choice (private schools, homeschool).
-
The major moment that boosted public demand for DoE was the 1983 report titled “ A Nation At Risk” which warned that American schools were failing.
-
1990’s - Standards and Accountability Rise:
Under both presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton pushed for national standards and testing to improve school performance. Things like the Improving America's Schools Act, reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), focusing on Title I (aid for disadvantaged students).
-
2000’s - No Child Left Behind Era:
Now George W. Bush focused on pushing for strong federal oversight with tough accountability. This was accomplished through the No Child Left Behind Act which basically mandated annual testing and aimed to close achievement gaps but led to “teaching to the test” and widespread criticism.
2010’s - Flexibility & Race to the Top:
President Barack Obama created the “Race To The Top” where they created competitive grants for states that adopted Common Core standards and Teacher Evaluations. His admin also replaced No Child Left Behind with the Every Student Succeeds Act which gave more control back to states while maintaining testing, data requirements, and reduced federal micro-management of schools.
It is important to note that in 2010 had the highest number of students enrolling in College, 21 million.
2020’s - Polarization and Culture Wars:
Here's where we have been for the last 5-10 years under President Trump and President Biden.
-
Trump’s First Term (2017–2021):
Secretary Betsy DeVos pushed for school vouchers and school choice.
Reduced federal regulations and oversight.
Criticized public education unions and the Department itself.
-
Biden’s Term (2021–2025):
Reversed many Trump-era rollbacks.
Prioritized student debt relief, equity in education, and support for pandemic recovery.
Increased Title I funding and advocated for universal pre-K.
-
Trump’s Second Term (2025–):
Has begun dismantling the Department, arguing it’s ineffective and bureaucratic.
Plans to shift power back to states and eliminate federal education mandates.
-
Why Now?
The timing of Trump’s push to dismantle the Department of Education isn’t random—it’s rooted in a confluence of cultural, political, and electoral factors:
Post-2020 “Culture War” Momentum
The pandemic put schools and education in the national spotlight—mask mandates, remote learning, and curriculum disputes (like critical race theory) sparked outrage.
Parents started paying closer attention to what schools were teaching
That led to increased backlash over things like:
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies
Gender and sexuality education
Racial equity content in history/social studies
This created a fertile political environment to campaign on: “Take back control of our schools.”
-
Political Strategy
Education has become a high-motivation issue for conservative voters.
Trump’s base sees institutions—especially elite universities and federal agencies—as part of a liberal establishment.
Framing the Department of Education as a bureaucratic enforcer of “woke” ideology fits the broader MAGA narrative of:
Draining the swamp
Fighting elite control
Giving power “back to the people"
-
2024 Election Framing and 2025 Execution
During the 2024 campaign, education was one of the clearest battlegrounds in the GOP platform.
Dismantling the Department of Ed becomes both:
A symbolic blow against federal overreach, and a concrete action to satisfy voters frustrated by culture-war issues in schools.
-
Second: Why Dismantle the Department to Fix DEI?
The truth is: dismantling the Department is not logically necessary to fix those concerns. But here’s why it’s happening anyway:
The Department Is Symbolic of “Liberal” Education Policies
Critics see the Department as the pipeline for progressive policies:
It enforces civil rights law (e.g., Title IX, racial equity).
It promotes inclusive curriculum.
It distributes funding with DEI-related conditions or guidance.
By removing the Department, you remove the federal lever used to influence public education—something many conservatives oppose on principle.
Problem: That also removes protections and resources for underserved students, not just "woke policies."
-
Broad-Stroke Governance
Trump’s policy style tends to be disruptive over surgical. Rather than refining or reforming specific programs, his approach is often to:
Defund, eliminate, or deregulate entirely.
So instead of limiting DEI guidance or restricting grants to elite universities, the move is to collapse the entire system that supports them.
-
Political Simplicity
“Abolish the Department of Education” is a clear, repeatable campaign message.
It’s emotionally charged and easy to grasp.
“ Trim Title 1 allocations with guardrails ” doesn’t energize voters.
Even if it’s not policy-efficient, it’s politically effective.
-
What Are The Possible Outcomes?
I think a fair question to ask after reflecting on what has worked in the past is, Are President Trump's proposed policies taking us back towards an Education system like pre-1979?
Before the Department of Education was established:
Schools were almost entirely state- and locally run.
There were huge disparities based on geography, race, and wealth.
Federal involvement post-1979 was deliberately designed to correct that by:
Enforcing civil rights (e.g., desegregation, Title IX).
Supporting low-income students (Title I funding).
Providing special education (IDEA).
Promoting nationwide standards and equal access.
-
Current efforts to weaken or dismantle the Department of Education do resemble that
pre-1979 era, especially in how they return power and funding control to the states.
-
What could be the Pro’s to dismantling the Department of Education?
Greater Local Control Could Foster Innovation
Without a top-down federal standard, states and local districts might experiment more freely with new learning models, funding structures, or alternative credentialing.
For example, places like Arizona and Florida have already expanded school choice, vouchers, and education savings accounts (ESAs). Some families prefer these options.
Entrepreneurial education models (like microschools, homeschooling pods, or charter networks) may thrive in the absence of federal red tape.
Benefit: Potential for customized education that reflects local values and community needs.
-
Pushback Against Bureaucracy May Reignite Accountability
Many critics see the federal Department as bloated, slow, and disconnected from classroom realities.
Dismantling or downsizing it could force a reckoning with what government programs are truly essential vs. what has become performative or duplicative.
Benefit: A leaner education ecosystem with clearer accountability lines—especially if funding stays closer to classrooms.
-
Elite Institutions Face a New Incentive Structure
Trump’s threat to strip federal funding from elite universities (especially those with large endowments) might compel them to rethink:
Their admissions practices
DEI enforcement
Research priorities
Whether or not you agree with the pressure tactic, some argue that these schools benefit enormously from public dollars yet operate with little transparency or ideological diversity.
Benefit: Could rebalance higher education’s relationship with the public interest.
-
A Rebalancing of the Federal-State Relationship
Since 1980, the federal government has slowly increased its footprint in education—but some argue this hasn’t translated into better outcomes.
By returning more authority to the states, advocates believe education will become more responsive to local demands, rather than Washington mandates.
Benefit: States act as “laboratories of democracy”—and in theory, the best models rise and spread.
-
But Here’s the Trade-Off…
All of this depends on how well states protect equity, civil rights, and access without federal guidance. Historically, not all states have done this well—especially for students of color, students with disabilities, and low-income communities. That’s why the federal role grew in the first place.
So the upside exists, but it’s:
Uneven, depending on where you live
High-risk, without strong local safeguards.
And likely to benefit families who already have choice and mobility more than those who don’t.