The U.S. Department of Education (ED) has been criticized for infringing on states’ rights and effective classroom instruction since its inception in 1979. This backlash has grown both in size and volume since the election of President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly vowed to dismantle the department and return education “back to the states.” With this pledge comes many concerns from both sides of the political spectrum. These concerns are primarily due to the role the department’s funds play in creating a conducive environment to education that will reach school districts around the country.

Responsibilities

The department does not mandate instruction in classrooms; instead, federal bureaucrats decide the general framework of what happens in schools. For example, the ED makes sure that students and teachers with disabilities get the resources they need to succeed and prevent discriminatory practices in schools that receive federal funds. The decision as to what is taught is often hammered out at the state or local level.

The main purpose of the department is to dole out funds to districts and individuals around the country who qualify. This can come in the form of Title I funding, other formula funds or federal student aid–a broad term that includes
various types of loans and grants.

While delegating funds to school districts is the department’s primary task, this is not the sole duty it takes on: another notable role is providing services for marginalized students. This is done for the most part by collecting data, which allows the ED to tactfully determine where and how funds for specific populations should be spent in order to maximize efficacy. The Secretary of Education then presents the collected data to the president and Congress so that they can make the funding determined by data collection a reality.

Programs

The funding that the department hands out can be broken down into two major categories: formula funds and federal student aid programs.

Formula funds are funds that are given to school districts based on formulas developed by statisticians at the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and in collaboration with the Census Bureau. One of the most notable types of formula funds is Title I funds, which total over $18 billion per year and affect nearly 90% of school districts nationwide, according to a recent National Public Radio (NPR) article. These funds help economically
disadvantaged districts get the support they need.

The NCES plays a large role in determining what districts get those funds and how much each district receives. NCES works closely with the Census Bureau to analyze population data along with school district boundaries in order
to determine the appropriate amount of Title I funds for each eligible district.

Federal student aid programs can be further broken down into two categories: grants and loans. Grants are given to an individual or district without expectation of payback from whoever receives the grant, whereas loans are expected to be repaid with interest by the entity to which they were given. One of the most notable federal loan programs is for student loans. One’s eligibility for a loan from this program is determined by the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). No matter a student’s socioeconomic status, this application is required to be filled out to receive federal, state or school aid.

One of the most common types of federal grants is Pell Grants, which are often given to students who exhibit an “exceptional financial need,” according to the Federal Student Aid Office website, or those who are currently enrolled in a prison education system. The ED allows schools to decide which students are eligible to receive Pell grants.

Effects of recent cuts

While recent cuts at the federal level do not directly impact the amount or type of funding given to districts, the flow of money will inevitably be interrupted by the mass layoffs federal employees are currently experiencing. To this point, the ED offices most affected by the reduction in the workforce have been the Office of Civil Rights and the Federal Student Aid Office.

Legally, the executive branch is unable to cut certain programs and funds. These include special education and 504 accommodations, certain FAFSA programs and Title I funds. However, there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure funds will be distributed correctly or at all, given the recent reduction in the federal workforce. The recent layoffs are expected to delay necessary funding for rural districts for the 2026-2027 school year, according to an NPR interview with an employee at the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP).

While abolishing the ED is only legal through an act of Congress, there are no restrictions on re-delegating its responsibilities to other agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services. This route was suggested by the newly confirmed Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, who oversees the ED, at her confirmation hearing. These education-related programs have previously been assigned to other departments.
For example, the Head Start program that helps prepare preschool-aged children for elementary school was established in the Department of Health and Human Services in 1969 under the Nixon administration.

Local Impact

In addition to the cuts to the ED at the federal level, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, has also propose changing education offices at the state level. The governor recently introduced a biennial plan that would cut Ohio public school funding by nearly $100 million. According to Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS) Superintendent Shauna Murphy, this would result in a loss of nearly $27 million for CPS over the next two years.

This proposed plan would increase local taxpayers’ burden of funding public schools, which is in direct opposition to the conservative ideology that both Gov. DeWine and Trump embrace.

The effects of these potential funding cuts at the state level, combined with the possible dissolution of the federal ED, have the opportunity to drastically alter the landscape of public education both in Ohio and across the country, and leave the future of public K-12 education in limbo. The extent of these effects will become more apparent in the coming months.