Op-ed: At least one liberal commentator sees benefits to abolishing U.S. Department of Education

Amid outcries from the left about President Trump’s intent to dissolve the U.S. Department of Education, at least one courageous analyst is pointing out the positives – from increased local…

Amid outcries from the left about President Trump’s intent to dissolve the U.S. Department of Education, at least one courageous analyst is pointing out the positives – from increased local funding to streamlined operations.

“Putting aside arguments by conservatives that the department itself is unconstitutional, it makes no sense why liberals are so possessive of a program that is disconnected from their own constituents: teachers,” writes Lance Christensen in a commentary for CalMatters, a nonprofit news organization. 

“Why are Democrats so content in keeping scarce funds out of the grasp of their own school districts’ bargaining units? Are they really concerned about the jobs of 4,400 staffers, most of which are ensconced in Washington?” 

Christensen, vice president of government affairs and education policy at the California Policy Center, stands out from the predictable doomsayers with his well-reasoned, thoughtful approach. 

Let’s look at each of the arguments he addresses regarding academics, funding and civil-rights issues. 

‘Academic outcomes certainly aren’t better’ 

To help improve dismal test scores, state and district leaders should directly control school funding because they’re closer to students and teachers, Christensen argues. 

“Can anyone name a single thing the federal bureaucracy does better?” he quips. “Academic outcomes certainly aren’t better since the Education Department began operating in 1980.” 

As previously reported by The Lion, U.S. students have been trailing other developed countries in international exams measuring math and science proficiency since 2019. 

“While over a dozen countries have made gains, our students are falling behind – by alarming margins,” said Keri Rodrigues, president of National Parents Union. 

“It’s time for our leaders to step up, prioritize meaningful reforms, and demand real accountability in our schools. The lack of urgency is appalling.” 

In another nationwide study, the achievement gap for middle school students worsened in the 2023-24 school year compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“Growth during 2023–24 fell short of prepandemic trends in nearly all grades,” the NWEA report concluded, citing an average achievement gap of 36% in reading and 18% in math. “This continues the trend of stalled progress observed in the previous school year and indicates that pandemic recovery remains elusive.” 

The findings contradict previous enthusiasm about “initial rebounding in 2021-22” when students appeared to be improving slightly in math and reading proficiency. 

“The average student will need the equivalent of 4.8 additional months of schooling to catch up in reading and 4.3 months in math,” the report noted. “These estimates are similar to last year for math, and larger for reading.” 

Benefits of ‘fewer strings attached’ to funding 

In addition to academic troubles, Christensen takes issue with the assumption that school funding should funnel through federal mediators. 

“Most education spending comes from local and state resources, and a significant chunk of federal funds don’t get to the classroom — or students themselves — because of the number of middlemen who take their cut first, particularly from grants.” 

He highlights the hefty sums of funding that never reach schoolchildren within the current centralized, top-down system. 

“The devil is always in the details, but as Trump’s plan unfolds, liberals will need to evaluate the necessity of a centralized Education Department thousands of miles away and controlled by the opposition party. Democrats can still fund special education and poverty programs with fewer strings attached and with the money states save when it is not routed through D.C.” 

Instead of redistributing $240 billion each year at the nation’s capital, schools could receive funding through block grants to each state’s department of education, according to Christensen. 

“A simple calculation would reduce the army of local compliance officers needed to fashion grant and federal aid applications and could go straight into teacher coffers.” 

Such restructured assistance would also benefit those most often opposed to conservative policies, Christensen argues. 

“Why do Democratic-leaning donor states – like California, New York and Massachusetts – relinquish billions in federal tax dollars, only to see a fraction of that money returned for education?” he asked. 

“This imbalance means that blue states subsidize red states’ schools.” 

Oh, the irony. 

Rather than fighting such a policy, this “should be reason enough for California Democrats to support the elimination of a federal department.” 

‘Radical ideologues’ occur with or without federal intervention 

The final argument involves how closely states would follow federal educational laws, often in the context of civil rights. 

For example, the left-leaning Hechinger Report predicts “devastating” results if the federal department closes, viewing it as tantamount to “destroying American public education.” 

“Prior to the enhanced federal involvement, a range of state policies essentially denied public education to millions of students, especially in the South,” an opinion piece reads. “But, beginning in the mid-1970s, to receive federal funding, states had to comply with federal policies that required them to serve all students, and while they were still very much in charge of how they would do that, under federal engagement, they could not refuse access.” 

Although the Hechinger Report acknowledged the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1954 prohibiting racial segregation in schools, “it wasn’t until the creation of the U.S. Department of Education that the federal government began to oversee state actions to achieve parity through its civil rights divisions.” 

However, such views fail to account for the bloated nature of government and how the same objectives can be accomplished elsewhere, according to Christensen. 

“Some scholars worry that removing the department will mean that specific funds can no longer be leveraged to maintain fidelity to federal laws like the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act,” he notes. 

“Aside from the fact that the Department of Education has done little to shield families from radical ideologues, there’s no reason that these programs can’t be housed in another department at a fraction of the administrative cost.” 

Christensen concludes with a call for common sense, arguing “states are better equipped to protect student privacy and respond to families’ needs directly.” 

Instead of “reacting to Trump,” he advises Democrats to “consider how they might benefit by not begging the federal government for table scraps shipped off to Republican majority states.” 

“Avoid the partisan budget games,” he urges, “that will only be exacerbated by the culture wars in D.C.”