American Association for Teaching and Curriculum –

Background Brief on the Impact of the Shutting Down the U.S. Department of Education

Based upon the American Association for Teaching and Curriculum’s Mission, Vision, and Values, the Background Brief on the Impact of Shutting Down the U.S. Department of Education is intended to encourage and facilitate dialogue and community engagement.

Mission Statement

AATC engages educators in the exploration and study of teaching and curriculum toward the aim of educational understanding, improvement, and

transformation.

Vision Statement

AATC aspires to create supportive spaces where scholars, practitioners, and educators critically reimagine and leverage the power and potential of

curriculum, teaching and learning to transform the individual and society.

Values

• Collaborative Community Engagement

• Intellectual Curiosity

• Equity and Justice

• Empathy and Integrity

• Recognition of our Common Humanity

A Background Brief is used to provide a comprehensive overview of a situation, project, or issue. It provides enough context for someone to understand the subject and to engage in meaningful, constructive dialogue.

Background:

The U.S. Department of Education is currently facing significant threats of downsizing and potential elimination under the Trump administration. The proposal to close the U.S. Department of Education, as outlined in recent political initiatives such as "Project 2025," has generated significant debate regarding the potential consequences for the nation’s education system. Proponents argue that dismantling the department would return control to state and local governments, while critics warn of disruptions to critical programs and funding mechanisms that support equitable access to education.

The U.S. Department of Education has been consistently critiqued for overreaching its authority, inefficiently managing resources, failing to improve educational outcomes, and potentially imposing ideological uniformity at the expense of local diversity and control.

The Reagan administration's attempt to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education was a significant policy initiative that ultimately failed. Ronald Reagan campaigned on the promise to abolish the Department of Education during his 1980 presidential run. In his 1982 State of the Union address, Reagan officially called for the dismantling of the Department of Education. He argued that education decisions should be made at the local level, with minimal federal involvement. The Reagan administration's attempt to eliminate the Department of Education failed due to congressional opposition. The department remained, but with reduced funding and a shift in some responsibilities to state governments.

Despite ongoing controversies, the U.S. Department of Education has significantly expanded its role and influence in American education since the Reagan era, becoming deeply entrenched in both K-12 and higher education policy and funding.

The Trump administration has expressed a strong desire to abolish the Department of Education, aligning with Republican campaign promises and the "Project 2025" blueprint (The Leadership Conference Education Fund, 2024). This plan aims to reduce federal involvement in education, shifting responsibilities to states and local governments (Turner, 2025; Walker, 2025; Walker, 2024).

While shutting down the department requires congressional approval, the administration is reportedly considering executive orders to dismantle key functions and reallocate responsibilities to other agencies (Walker, 2025). Several key programs managed by the U.S. Department of Education are at risk of being terminated or significantly altered as part of efforts to dismantle the department.

Potential Impact of Closing the U.S. Department of Education

The proposal dismantle the Department of Education would likely result in widespread disruption to the U.S. education system, potentially exacerbating educational inequalities and creating significant challenges for students, educators, and institutions at all levels (Hensley, Whittaker, & Boser, 2025):

• Approximately 4,100 Department of Education employees could lose their jobs.

• Functions of the department might be moved to other agencies, potentially causing inefficiencies and delays in program administration.

• Oversight of more than 100,000 public schools and around 34,000 private schools could be disrupted.

• $1.6 trillion in student loans would be at risk, affecting tens of millions of Americans with outstanding debt.

• $36.6 billion in Pell Grants supporting 6.6 million college students could be jeopardized.

• Over $70 billion in essential education programs could be lost or delayed, including $37 billion for K-12 programs.

• $18 billion in Title I funding supporting 26 million students from low-income backgrounds could be at risk.

• $15 billion for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) might be disrupted, affecting 7.4 million students with disabilities.

• Potential loss of $2 billion for Impact Aid, will effect 800,000 students living near military bases, on Native American reservations, or other federal properties.

Federal Oversight and Equity Concerns

The U.S. Department of Education plays a central role in ensuring educational equity, particularly for underserved communities. The closure of the department could lead to reduced federal oversight of programs such as Title I, which provides funding to schools with high concentrations of low-income students. Without federal accountability measures, disparities in education quality across states may widen, potentially affecting 2.8 million students and leading to the loss of approximately 180,000 teaching positions. Another major concern is the fate of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which ensures appropriate educational services for 7.5 million students with disabilities. Shifting oversight to another federal agency, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, could deprioritize enforcement, thus impacting students who rely on these protections.

Impacts on Student Aid and Higher Education

The Department of Education manages federal student aid programs, including Pell Grants, student loans, and loan forgiveness programs. The closure of the department could place these programs at risk, leading to uncertainty in funding and administration. Millions of students depend on federal aid to access higher education, and disruptions in these programs could disproportionately impact low-income and minority students (Hensley, Whittaker, & Boser, 2025):

• 55% of undergraduate students relying on federal aid could face challenges in pursuing higher education.

• Nearly 1,000 colleges with more than a third of their students depending on Pell Grants could face significant financial strain.

• Potential delays in funding could cause massive ripple effects, possibly leading to the closure of some colleges.

Civil Rights Protections

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR), currently housed within the Department of Education, enforces anti-discrimination laws in schools and universities. If moved to the Department of Justice, enforcement of educational civil rights may weaken, reducing protections for students facing discrimination based on race, gender, disability, or other factors. This shift could lead to slower response times for civil rights complaints and a diminished focus on education-specific discrimination cases.

State Autonomy vs. Federal Coordination

Proponents of dismantling the department argue that state and local governments are better equipped to address education needs without federal intervention. However, critics highlight the risks of inconsistent education policies and funding disparities across states. The lack of federal coordination could lead to significant variations in curriculum standards, assessment systems, and college admissions criteria.

Invitation to Dialogue

The closure of the U.S. Department of Education would have profound implications for educational funding, equity, and oversight. While supporters emphasize increased local control, the potential loss of federal protections, funding stability, and civil rights enforcement raises serious concerns. Policymakers must carefully weigh these factors in determining the future of federal involvement in education.

Process:

Dialogue is a structured form of communication that goes beyond simple conversation, aimed at fostering deep learning and critical thinking. Key characteristics of dialogue include:

• Seeking mutual understanding rather than winning an argument

• Exchanging ideas and perspectives to broaden one's own viewpoint

• Suspending judgment and listening actively to others' perspectives

• Grounding discussions in textual evidence and academic content

• Encouraging critical thinking and intellectual growth

We are inviting the AATC Community to participate and contribute to this crucial dialogue. Our community has deep and diverse expertise that we can leverage to understand this issue, the possible consequences, and potential for action that are required at this moment.

• Issues to be Explored:

o History of the Federal Department of Education.

o Impact on Low-income Schools due to elimination of ESEA, reauthorized

under ESSA Title I Funding.

o Impact on exceptional student education due to transfer of IDEA programs

to other federal agency(s).

o Impact of the elimination of the Office for Civil Rights.

o Impact on higher education of the elimination of the Federal Student Aid Programs: Pell Grants, Federal student loans, and loan forgiveness repayment programs.

o Impact of the elimination of ESSA.

o Impact of the elimination of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives.

o Role and impact of Linda McMahon if appointed Secretary of Education.

o Statutory requirements to sustaining or eliminating the Federal Department of Education.

o Other unanticipated consequences to reducing or eliminating the Federal Department of Education.

We invite you to send your contribution to Dr. Paul Parkison (paulparkison@gmail.com) and the Background Brief Ad Hoc committee who will be curating the dialogue on the AATC Website.

Structure of Contributions

In an attempt to create some consistency in the format of contributions, consider utilizing the following guidelines for your contribution. These should be concise, grounding discussions in textual evidence and academic content, encouraging critical thinking and intellectual growth.

A. Key Facts or Data (Bullet Points or Short Paragraphs)

• Include important data, facts, or figures that are relevant to understanding the situation. This contribution might include timelines, financials, or results from relevant research.

• Make sure the information is concise and easy to grasp at a glance.

B. Current Status or Situation (2-3 Paragraphs)

• Explain where policy and activities stand now. Include any ongoing actions, current efforts, or decisions that have been made.

• Are there any resolutions in the works? Provide an update on the current state of play.

C. Challenges/Opportunities (1-2 Paragraphs)

• Mention any obstacles that are being faced or anticipated.

• Highlight any potential opportunities or advantages that could arise from addressing the issue at hand.

D. Next Steps or Recommendations (1-2 Paragraphs)

• If relevant, outline possible actions, steps, or decisions that need to be made moving forward.

• Recommendations for resolution or further investigation can be included.

E. Conclusion (1 Paragraph)

• Summarize the key points and reinforce the importance of the subject.

• Reiterate any critical next steps or considerations.

Works Cited

Hensley, T., Whittaker, M., & Boser, U. (2025, February 14). Trump's Plan for the Department of Education Puts Billions at Risk. The Learning Agency: The Cutting Ed: https://the-learning-agency.com/the-cutting-ed/article/trumps-plan-for-thedepartment-of-education-puts-trillions-at-risk/

The Leadership Conference Education Fund. (2024, August). Project 2025: What's At Stake for Education. CivilRights.org: chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibphttps://civilrights.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/08/Project-2025-Education.pdf

Turner, C. (2025, February 7). U.S. education policy is at a crossroads. NPR: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/07/nx-s1-5288107/trump-education-departmentrace-gender-democrats

Walker, T. (2024, October 4). How Project 2025 Would Devastate Public Education. NEA Today: https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/how-project-2025-would-devastate-public-education

Walker, T. (2025, February 4). How dismantling the Department of Education Would Harm Students. NEA Today: https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-newsarticles/how-dismantling-department-education-would-harm-students