The Risks of Abolishing the Department of Education: A Crisis for Teachers, Parents, and Students

It is official: President Donald Trump is preparing an executive order to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education. However, he cannot unilaterally abolish a federal agency without the approval of Congress. This move could have profound consequences for millions of students, particularly those in rural, poor, or underserved areas. While the idea may be framed as reducing federal overreach, its implementation could dismantle vital programs, disrupt funding, and widen the education gap.

"If it became a reality, Trump’s power grab would steal resources from our most vulnerable students, explode class sizes, cut job training programs, make higher education more expensive and out of reach for middle-class families, take away special education services for students with disabilities, and gut student civil rights protections," said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association. "Americans did not vote for, and do not support, ending the federal government’s commitment to ensuring equal educational opportunities for every child."

How Would It Impact Teachers?

1. Loss of Federal Funding for Schools

   • The DOE distributes billions in federal funding, including Title I grants that support schools in low-income areas. Without this funding, teacher salaries, classroom resources, and professional development could suffer.

   • Rural and urban schools, already struggling with teacher shortages, could see further declines in hiring and retention.

2. Reduced Protection for Teachers' Rights

   • The DOE enforces laws that protect teachers from discrimination, wrongful termination, and unsafe working conditions. Without this oversight, many educators could lose essential workplace protections.

   • Programs that support teachers, such as loan forgiveness for educators working in high-need areas, could be eliminated.

3. Increased Inequality in Teacher Pay and Training

   1. The DOE provides grants for teacher training and support programs, particularly in STEM, special education, and bilingual education. Losing these programs would worsen teacher shortages in crucial areas.

   
   

What About Parents and Students?

1. Cuts to Special Education and Disability Rights

   • The DOE helps enforce Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), ensuring students with disabilities receive necessary accommodations and services.

   • Without federal oversight, many states could underfund or ignore the needs of special education students.

2. A Widening Gap Between Rich and Poor Schools

   • Wealthier districts would likely maintain high-quality education through local taxes, while poorer districts—especially in rural and urban areas—would suffer from lack of funding.

   • Students in low-income communities already face resource gaps, and abolishing the DOE could exacerbate disparities in access to technology, textbooks, and extracurricular activities.

3. Loss of Federal College Aid

   • Many Pell Grants, student loan forgiveness programs, and federal scholarships are managed by the DOE.

   • Without a federal agency overseeing these programs, millions of students—especially first-generation and low-income college applicants—could struggle to afford higher education.

   
   

School Choice: A False Solution That Worsens Inequality

Last week, Trump signed another education-related order to expand school choice, directing the Education Department to issue guidance to states within 60 days about how they can use federal funds to boost school choice programs.

School choice has long been a cornerstone of the GOP agenda, with a significant number of Republican-led states freeing up more funding in recent years for low-income families to send their students to private or charter schools.

However, the push for school choice often diverts public funding away from traditional public schools, leaving them underfunded and unable to serve the vast majority of students. While wealthier families can supplement private tuition with vouchers, many low-income families find that the cost of private school remains out of reach—especially when factoring in transportation, fees, and additional expenses.

The Bigger Picture: Education Becomes Even More Politicized

Without federal oversight, education policies would be left entirely to the states, which could lead to wider disparities in curriculum, testing, and school funding. Some states may prioritize equitable education, while others may slash budgets, restrict curricula, or cut student protections. This would create a fractured education system, where opportunities depend not on merit, but on geography and wealth.

Conclusion: A Risk We Can’t Afford

Abolishing the Department of Education isn’t just about politics—it’s about the future of millions of students, teachers, and families. Without federal oversight and funding, the most vulnerable communities would suffer the most, deepening inequality and limiting opportunities for the next generation. Education should be reformed, not dismantled. Instead of eliminating the DOE, efforts should focus on improving accountability, increasing teacher support, and ensuring every child—no matter where they live—has access to a quality education.

My Opinion:

Abolishing the Department of Education would give states the power to reshape public education with little to no federal oversight, raising concerns that some may use this newfound freedom to introduce religious doctrine into the classroom. Ironically, many of the same individuals who claim to fear the "indoctrination" of children through discussions of diversity, history, or science-based curriculums are the ones advocating for policies that could allow mandatory prayer, biblical teachings, or religious-based science—such as creationism—in public schools.

If you are a parent seeking a religious-based education for your child, private religious schools are an option. If you are sincerely worried about "indoctrination" because your child could have a gay, liberal, person of color, or other non-normative teacher, alternatives such as homeschooling or virtual education exist. My hope is that we recognize the need for a public school system that remains accessible, fact-based, and comprehensive—one that includes critical race theory, sex education, and other essential historical frameworks that equip students with a well-rounded understanding of the world.

The restrictive actions of Republican leaders like Trump and DeSantis aren’t just about "preserving traditional values"—they’re about controlling the narrative and censoring perspectives that challenge their political ideology. By aggressively targeting educational content related to race, gender, and diversity, they are attempting to erase uncomfortable truths, silence marginalized voices, and create an education system that aligns with their worldview rather than embracing academic freedom and critical thinking. While proponents claim these bans protect students from "indoctrination," the real effect is stripping young people of the opportunity to engage with complex historical and social realities. Education should be about expanding minds, not limiting them, yet these policies push schools toward a sanitized, one-dimensional curriculum that ignores systemic inequality and suppresses discussions on identity and inclusion. This isn’t about protecting children—it’s about controlling them.