End Federal Control of Our Schools, Close the U.S. Department of Education

Share this article on:

While the U.S. Department of Education is only a small fraction of total education spending – accounting for less than 10 percent of education spending in the United States (9 percent in Virginia) – it has a huge impact on how states and localities spend their own money on schools, on how teachers are educated and certified, and on the curriculum used in classrooms. Through regulation, accreditation, grant language, testing, and the force of law, the U.S. Department of Education literally steers how most education funds are spent in this country.

The Department of Education’s one size fits all, Washington-centered approach reduces efficiency, penalizes innovation, limits the ability of schools to respond to changes in student needs, pushes progressive cultural beliefs, and generally funds bloat and bureaucracy over teachers and classrooms.

While working for the Oversight and Investigation’s Subcommittee of the Education and the Workforce Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, I was part of a team of Congressional staff that worked on Chairman Pete Hoekstra’s “Education at a Crossroads” report (cited generously in the much maligned Project 2025 education chapter by my friend, Dr. Lindsey Burke). Notably, our report found that only 65 to 70 cents of every dollar sent to local schools ever made it to the classroom.

Massive education grants like Title I and smaller grants like the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act both require Department of Education staff to write grant language, lawyers to review this language, programmers to code online portals, and teams of reviewers to grade and inspect submitted applications. The grants are written in a way to direct spending to align with the “experts” at the Department or in Congress.

Worse yet, the work required of those seeking the grants at the state and local level are equally burdensome. Staff, consultants and contractors are hired to write grants, staff lawyers review submissions, massive amounts of data are collected and formatted, and accountants are hired to review and justify their grant requests. Then, if federal funds are received, ongoing, labor-intensive reports must then be written and submitted at great cost to the local schools. Finally, painfully, the whole process begins again the next year.

In our “Crossroads” report, we tracked several grants from the Department of Education to local schools and back to the Department. We were stunned to learn that some of the smaller grant programs like Safe and Drug Free Schools required far more expenditures on staff at the local level to apply for the grants than was received in funding from the federal Department of Education.

One small school we called estimated they had spent close to $1,000 applying for a grant that amounted to $19. We learned they used this money to pay for parking on a field trip to a police drug testing lab. When we inquired why they would do this, they noted the importance of the imprimatur of being a Safe and Drug Free School – and the sign they would be able to hang on their building highlighting their participation (a sign purchased and hung at their own expense, mind you). One wonders what results they could have had on making their school safe and drug free if they had used the $1,000 on anti-drug activities or on other needs that would have helped their students make positive choices.

Sadly, even if President-elect Donald Trump eliminates the U.S. Department of Education, there are hundreds of education programs strewn throughout the government, many overlapping, and most completely ineffective. Our “Crossroads” report (verified by the Government Accountability Office) identified 481 education programs in 36 different Departments and agencies spending an additional $37 billion on education — all outside of the Department of Education’s budget. I have to imagine that these numbers have only grown since.

This sprawling, often overlapping, mostly ineffective labyrinth of programs drives the direction of school spending. For every “problem” there is an aptly named program designed to give politicians rhetoric to use with voters to suggest they are solving real issues. Yet, test scores continue to decline, and violence and drug use continue to plague our children.

As a founder and former principal of a private school in Washington, DC, the decision to apply (or not apply) for federal education funding was never easy. Before taking federal Title I funds for low-income children, we had to consider the impact of bringing outside educators into our school, using a curriculum that may or may not align with our program, while setting aside scarce “isolated” space for the Title I teachers to use the few times they came to the school. We would have to review the massive paperwork and reporting obligations and the penalties for non-compliance.

A similar calculus was made for each of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act “Title” programs. How much were we willing to bend our program to the federal mandates? How many administrative staff could we shift to these programs. Worse, the mandatory training sessions for these programs were little more than a hodgepodge of woke education ideology where school staff and administrators were treated dismissively as if we should genuflect to the federal staff providing us these much-needed resources. They knew best. We, not surprisingly, refused most federal funds and were better for it. There is no question we would have participated if the U.S. Department of Education had just taken a census of our qualifying students and provided us a single grant to use as we saw fit to benefit our students.

Historically, education was largely left in the hands of state and local governments. This decentralization was intentional, reflecting the belief that education is best managed close to the communities it serves. States have varying needs, values, and priorities, and local governments are often more in tune with the specific challenges and opportunities facing their schools. But the drive to get “free” federal money, and the imprimatur it brings, has changed who is in the driver’s seat of our schools.

Governor Youngkin was elected on the promise to give parents control over their children’s education. President-elect Trump’s plan to close the Department of Education would give the Commonwealth a unique opportunity to reconsider its education spending. Freed from mandates and the lure of federal grants, the Governor and the General Assembly could work together to find a way to make historic changes in our schools.

The timely reworking of Virginia’s school accountability system and the upcoming adjustments in our school funding formula could both help drive freed up dollars to where there is the greatest need and fund innovation that could drive success in our most vulnerable populations. The Thomas Jefferson Institute’s Chris Braunlich has expertly written on the need for more accountability and transparency, coupled with a more targeted funding formula.

Moreover, school districts could be empowered to offer more options for parents and students, such as charter schools, private school choice programs, and homeschooling options. A competitive environment that encourages educational innovation can lead to better outcomes for all students.

This ought not to be controversial. Democratic State Senator Perry has sought the establishment of “Recovery Schools” as an option outside of our traditional public schools, and Governor Youngkin has similarly pushed for more innovative “lab schools” – both are good models for the kind of changes that could come with more local control over much needed education funding when the federal government gets out of the way.

Before the partisan bickering begins, Governor Youngkin and leaders of the General Assembly should sit down and discuss the opportunities and challenges of President-elect Trump’s proposal. Too much is at stake to not take this proposal seriously. Our children, especially those in our struggling schools, need to not be used as pawns. Scoring political points on such an issue is not the “Virginia way.”