The Proposed Elimination of the Department of Education: Motivations, Benefits, and Implications
I. Executive Summary
The "States' Education Reclamation Act of 2025," designated as H.R.369, proposes the abolition of the United States Department of Education (DOE) 1. The primary motivations behind this legislative effort are rooted in principles of federalism and a belief in the primacy of state and local control over educational policy and practice 3. Proponents argue that the DOE has overstepped its constitutional bounds, leading to bureaucratic inefficiencies and hindering local autonomy. However, the DOE provides substantial benefits to states across the nation, including critical financial support for disadvantaged students and those with disabilities, the enforcement of civil rights laws ensuring equal access to education, and the facilitation of national-level research and data collection 4. Connecticut, while receiving a smaller percentage of its overall education funding from the federal government compared to state and local sources, still benefits significantly from DOE programs, particularly in supporting Title I initiatives and special education services 8. Arguments against the elimination of the DOE center on concerns that such a move could exacerbate existing educational inequalities, reduce vital support for vulnerable student populations, and dismantle a crucial federal infrastructure for promoting educational equity and excellence 4. The future of H.R.369 remains uncertain, pending further legislative action in Congress 12.
II. Introduction: The States' Education Reclamation Act of 2025
Established in 1979, the U.S. Department of Education was created to address a growing need for federal leadership and support in the nation's education system 5. Its core responsibilities encompass the administration of federal financial aid, the development and implementation of national education policies, the collection and dissemination of educational research and data, and the enforcement of civil rights laws to ensure equal access to education for all 4. The very creation of the DOE signaled a national recognition that federal involvement was necessary to tackle disparities and promote quality in education across states. This historical context highlights the significance of the current proposal to eliminate the department, representing a potential paradigm shift in the federal role in education.
The "States' Education Reclamation Act of 2025," or H.R.369, introduced by North Carolina Representative David Rouzer, seeks to dismantle this established federal agency 3. The bill's primary objective is to abolish the Department of Education and repeal any program for which it holds administrative responsibility 1. This legislative initiative is not an isolated event but is explicitly linked to the "Project 2025" agenda, a broader political platform advocating for a significant reduction in the federal government's scope and influence across various sectors, including education 12. Understanding this connection reveals that H.R.369 is part of a larger ideological movement aiming to fundamentally reshape the relationship between the federal government and individual states in the realm of education. This report aims to analyze the multifaceted implications of this proposed legislation, examining the stated motivations behind it, the benefits the DOE currently provides to states with a specific focus on Connecticut, the potential funding ramifications, and the key arguments presented against its elimination.
III. Unpacking the Motivations Behind H.R.369: The Case for Eliminating the DOE
Section 2 of H.R.369, titled "Findings," meticulously outlines the rationale underpinning the bill's objective to abolish the Department of Education 3. The first finding asserts that the principles of federalism, as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, inherently assign authority over educational policy to the individual states and the people, thus rendering a federal Department of Education fundamentally inconsistent with these foundational principles 3. This core argument stems from a particular interpretation of the division of powers within the American governmental system, suggesting a belief that education is an area best left to the discretion and control of state and local entities. This perspective prioritizes decentralized governance in education, asserting that states are better equipped to understand and respond to the unique needs of their respective student populations.
Building upon this foundation, the bill's second finding posits that tradition and practical experience dictate that the most effective governance and management of schools in the United States are those carried out by parents, teachers, and the local communities themselves 3. This emphasizes the importance of local autonomy and direct parental involvement in shaping educational experiences, implying a view that the DOE's presence acts as an unnecessary intermediary, potentially hindering this direct engagement and local responsiveness. The bill's third finding goes further, asserting that the education of the nation's students is currently suffering under a system characterized as "managerial government" 3. This critique targets the perceived bureaucratic structure and operational inefficiencies of the DOE, suggesting that its administrative overhead and regulatory framework negatively impact the quality and outcomes of education across the country.
The fourth finding in H.R.369 contends that the Department of Education has actively weakened the ability of parents to make crucial decisions regarding their children's education and has simultaneously undermined the capacity of local communities to effectively govern their own schools 3. This reinforces the recurring theme of local control and parental rights, suggesting a perception that the DOE's policies and regulations are not only unnecessary but actively detrimental to the autonomy and decision-making power of those closest to the students. Furthermore, the sixth finding states that the DOE has fostered an environment of overregulation, standardization, excessive bureaucratization, and increased litigation within the landscape of United States education 3. This highlights concerns about the compliance burdens placed upon states and local school districts by the DOE, suggesting that these processes are often overly complex, resource-intensive, and may divert attention and funding away from direct classroom instruction and student support.
The seventh finding in the bill points to the significant financial resources that the Department of Education expends on its own maintenance and operational overhead 3. This presents a fiscal argument in favor of eliminating the department, suggesting that taxpayer money allocated to the DOE could be more effectively utilized if directly distributed to the states for educational purposes, thereby reducing administrative costs. The eleventh finding broadens the scope of the argument, asserting that the current system of top-down uniformity in education is detrimental to the specific needs of local businesses and communities, the diverse economic requirements of individual states, and ultimately, the nation's ability to effectively compete in the global job market 3. This suggests that a more decentralized approach to education, tailored to the unique circumstances of each state, would better prepare students for local economic opportunities and enhance national competitiveness.
Finally, the twelfth finding claims that the Department of Education has demonstrated hostility towards many promising educational reforms, particularly those aimed at empowering parents, teachers, and local communities 3. This finding suggests that the DOE's centralized structure and approach to education stifle innovation and promote a one-size-fits-all model that fails to adequately consider the individual educational needs of the nation's diverse student population. This reinforces the desire for greater local autonomy and the ability for states and communities to implement educational approaches that they deem most appropriate for their specific contexts.
In the Congressional Record from March 6, 2025, Representative Bonamici addressed the stated motivations behind the push to eliminate the Department of Education 11. She noted that the central justification being offered is the idea of returning authority over education to the states and local school boards. While acknowledging this as the stated aim, Representative Bonamici directly challenged its validity. She argued that these very entities already possess significant authority in the realm of education, emphasizing that the Department of Education does not, in fact, dictate curriculum content or determine class sizes at the local level 11. This counter-argument directly undermines the core premise of the "return of authority" motivation, suggesting that the concerns about federal overreach in these fundamental aspects of education may be unfounded or at least significantly overstated.
IV. The Benefits of the Department of Education to States: Supporting Education Across the Nation
Despite the arguments for eliminating the Department of Education, the agency plays a crucial role in providing essential support and resources to state education systems throughout the country. One of its primary functions is to ensure equal access to a quality education for all students, regardless of their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or any other personal characteristic 4. This commitment is manifested through the vigorous enforcement of federal civil rights laws, which prohibit discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding 4. This federal oversight is indispensable for protecting vulnerable student populations and guaranteeing that all students have a fair and equitable opportunity to learn in an inclusive environment.
Furthermore, the DOE administers and provides substantial financial support for programs specifically designed to assist students with disabilities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a cornerstone of this effort, ensuring that states provide a free and appropriate public education to children with disabilities 4. The DOE's role in funding and overseeing the implementation of IDEA is vital for enabling states to meet the complex and often costly needs of these students. Similarly, the department plays a critical role in supporting economically disadvantaged school systems through programs such as Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 4. Title I provides funding to school districts with high concentrations of low-income students, helping to mitigate funding disparities between wealthier and poorer districts and providing crucial resources to improve the academic outcomes of these students. Representative Khanna, in the Congressional Record from February 4, 2025, underscored the importance of this funding, stating that the elimination of the DOE would be detrimental to every neighborhood with a public school that receives Title I funding 16.
The Department of Education also plays a significant role in facilitating access to higher education through its administration of federal student aid programs 4. The Federal Pell Grant program, managed by the DOE, provides needs-based grants to students from low-income backgrounds, making college more affordable 1. Additionally, the DOE oversees the federal student loan program, which serves as the largest source of loans for college students, enabling millions to finance their postsecondary education 1. While H.R.369 proposes transferring these programs to the Department of the Treasury 1, the DOE's current administration ensures a focused approach to supporting students' access to higher education.
Beyond direct financial assistance, the DOE contributes significantly to the advancement of educational knowledge and practice through its support of research and data collection 4. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES), a research arm of the DOE, funds a wide range of studies aimed at improving teaching effectiveness and educational outcomes 4. Furthermore, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), also within the DOE, gathers and disseminates crucial data on educational institutions, trends, and performance, providing valuable information for policymakers, educators, and researchers 7. This commitment to research and data-driven decision-making helps to foster continuous improvement in the education sector.
Finally, the Department of Education provides national leadership and coordination on education matters 6. The Secretary of Education serves as an advisor to the President and leads the department in implementing national education policies and initiatives 6. The DOE also sponsors and participates in various national programs and conferences, such as the Blue Ribbon Schools program, which recognizes and celebrates exemplary schools across the country 6. These efforts help to bring national attention to important education issues, promote best practices, and foster a shared vision for the future of education in the United States.
V. Department of Education Funding to Connecticut: A Closer Look at Federal Support
In the 2023-2024 school year, the state of Connecticut received approximately $553 million in federal funding for education from the U.S. Department of Education 8. While this represents a significant financial contribution, it constitutes a smaller portion of Connecticut's overall funding for K-12 public education, accounting for about 7% of the total in 2023-2024 (or 8.2% in the 2021-22 school year) 8. The majority of education funding in Connecticut comes from state and local tax revenues 9.
A substantial portion of the federal funding allocated to Connecticut is specifically directed towards supporting key federal programs. Approximately half of the $553 million received in 2023-2024 was dedicated to Title I grants, which provide assistance to schools serving high numbers of low-income students, and special education programs funded through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 8. This highlights the critical role of federal funding in addressing equity and providing essential services to vulnerable student populations within the state.
Notably, towns and cities in Connecticut with higher concentrations of low-income families rely more heavily on federal education grants, particularly Title I funding 8. For example, during the 2021-22 school year, the Bridgeport School District received 18.5% of its total funding from federal sources, the highest percentage among all school districts in the state 10. This demonstrates that the potential elimination or significant reduction of federal funding could disproportionately impact these high-needs districts in Connecticut, potentially leading to substantial challenges in maintaining their current levels of educational programs and services. In the 2021-22 school year, Connecticut's public schools received a total of $1.1 billion in federal funds, which translates to $2,133 per student. This per-student federal funding amount is lower than the national average of $2,536 per student 9.
To provide a clearer picture of the funding landscape for public education in Connecticut, the following table summarizes the sources of funding for the year 2023:
Sources of Funding for Connecticut Public Education (2023)
| Funding Source | Amount (in Billions) | Percentage of Total Funding |
| Local Funds | $7.8 | 57.1% |
| State Funds | $4.7 | 34.6% |
| Federal Funds | $1.1 | 8.3% |
This data illustrates that while federal funding constitutes a smaller percentage of the overall budget, the $1.1 billion received in 2023 still represents a significant financial contribution that supports vital programs and services for students across Connecticut.
VI. Arguments Against Eliminating the Department of Education: Concerns and Counterarguments
Numerous concerns and counterarguments have been raised against the proposed elimination of the Department of Education, highlighting the potential negative consequences for students, schools, and the nation's education system as a whole. Representative Bonamici, in her statement to the Congressional Record on March 6, 2025, voiced strong opposition to the idea of shutting down the DOE 11. She specifically warned that such an action would inevitably lead to a reduction in crucial support for students with disabilities, potentially undermining their right to a free and appropriate public education. Additionally, she expressed concerns about the detrimental impact on schools located in rural communities, which may rely more heavily on certain federal programs and resources administered by the DOE. A significant point of contention for Representative Bonamici was the potential elimination of civil rights protections for students, currently enforced by the DOE's Office for Civil Rights. She argued that dismantling the department would weaken the federal government's ability to ensure equal educational opportunities for all students, regardless of their background. Furthermore, she raised a procedural point, asserting that the Department of Education was created by an act of Congress and therefore can only be dismantled through similar legislative action, suggesting that any attempt to do so via executive order would face legal challenges. Representative Bonamici emphasized the vital role the DOE plays in protecting civil rights and providing essential support to low-income students and students with disabilities, vowing to fight against any efforts to defund this critical work and indicating a readiness to pursue legal action if necessary.
Beyond these specific concerns, broader arguments against eliminating the DOE center on the potential for increased educational inequality across the nation 4. Opponents of H.R.369 caution that dismantling the federal agency could exacerbate existing disparities in educational resources and outcomes, particularly in underserved communities that rely heavily on federal funding and support programs like Title I 12. An analysis by the American Progress organization argues that eliminating the DOE would widen academic achievement gaps and disproportionately harm the country's most vulnerable communities by denying students and families access to essential resources and protections 4. This perspective underscores the belief that federal oversight and funding are necessary to ensure a baseline level of educational equity and opportunity for all students, regardless of their geographic location or socioeconomic background.
The potential loss of national-level coordination and the benefits of a centralized education agency also constitute significant counterarguments 4. The American Progress article points out that many of the world's top-performing countries in education have a national-level agency dedicated to overseeing their education systems, suggesting that a centralized structure can play a crucial role in promoting quality and equity 4. An education expert quoted in TIME magazine further supports this view, stating that the DOE provides an "equalizing factor" that helps to reduce educational inequalities between states by establishing "incentives for continuity" in key programs and standards 5. This suggests that the DOE plays a role in ensuring a degree of consistency and quality in education across different states, which might be jeopardized by its elimination.
Finally, significant concerns have been raised regarding the financial implications for states and local school districts if the federal government were to reduce or eliminate its funding for education 8. Reports indicate that if the DOE were abolished, the responsibility for funding education would likely shift primarily to state and local governments, which may face considerable challenges in adequately covering the resulting financial gap 12. U.S. Representative Jahana Hayes from Connecticut specifically highlighted that eliminating federal funding would force local communities within the state to make difficult choices about cutting other essential services or increasing local taxes to meet their legal obligations, particularly concerning the provision of services for students with special education needs 8. These concerns underscore the potential for significant financial strain on state and local education systems if federal funding is withdrawn, potentially leading to cuts in educational programs and services or increased financial burdens on local taxpayers.
VII. Conclusion: Weighing the Potential Impacts of Eliminating the Department of Education
The proposed elimination of the Department of Education through H.R.369 is driven by a core belief in the principles of federalism and the conviction that education is fundamentally a state and local responsibility. Proponents argue that dismantling the DOE would reduce bureaucratic overreach, empower local communities and parents, and foster greater innovation and responsiveness within the education system.
However, the analysis reveals that the Department of Education provides substantial and multifaceted benefits to states, including Connecticut. These benefits encompass critical financial support for disadvantaged students and those with disabilities, the enforcement of essential civil rights protections ensuring equal access to education, and the facilitation of valuable national-level research and data collection. While federal funding represents a smaller portion of Connecticut's overall education budget, it plays a vital role in supporting key programs and addressing specific needs within the state, particularly in high-needs districts.
The arguments against eliminating the DOE raise significant concerns about the potential for increased educational inequalities, a reduction in vital support for vulnerable student populations, and the loss of a crucial federal infrastructure designed to promote equity and excellence in education. The financial implications for states and local communities, particularly the potential strain on their ability to fund essential programs and services without federal assistance, are also a major point of contention.
Ultimately, the potential impact of eliminating the Department of Education is complex and far-reaching. While the desire for greater local control over education is a valid consideration, the evidence suggests that the DOE plays a critical role in ensuring equity, protecting vulnerable students, and providing essential resources to states. The future of H.R.369 remains uncertain, dependent on the legislative process and the broader political landscape in Congress. The need for significant support in the Senate indicates that the path to abolishing the DOE faces considerable hurdles.
Works cited
H.R.369 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): States' Education Reclamation Act of 2025, accessed March 23, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/369
H.R. 369 (IH) - States' Education Reclamation Act of 2025 - Content Details - - GovInfo, accessed March 23, 2025, https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BILLS-119hr369ih
Text - H.R.369 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): States' Education Reclamation Act of 2025, accessed March 23, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/369/text
Frequently Asked Questions About the U.S. Department of Education, accessed March 23, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-u-s-department-of-education/
What Does the Department of Education Actually Do? | TIME, accessed March 23, 2025, https://time.com/7270145/what-does-the-department-of-education-do/
An Overview of the U.S. Department of Education: How Does ED Serve Students?, accessed March 23, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/an-overview-of-the-us-department-of-education--pg-2
How does the federal government support education? - USAFacts, accessed March 23, 2025, https://usafacts.org/articles/how-does-the-federal-government-support-education/
CT leaders on Trump Department of Education order: 'Reckless' - CT Mirror, accessed March 23, 2025, https://ctmirror.org/2025/03/20/department-of-education-executive-order-ct-reacts/
How Connecticut Funds Education - School + State Finance Project, accessed March 23, 2025, https://schoolstatefinance.org/issues/how-ct-funds-education
What percentage of public school funding in Connecticut comes from the federal government? | USAFacts, accessed March 23, 2025, https://usafacts.org/answers/what-percentage-of-public-school-funding-comes-from-the-federal-government/state/connecticut/
www.congress.gov, accessed March 23, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/119/crec/2025/03/06/171/43/CREC-2025-03-06-pt1-PgH1023.pdf
Trump agenda to axe Department of Education finds solid backing in North Carolina: Here's what happened - The Times of India, accessed March 23, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/trump-agenda-to-axe-department-of-education-finds-solid-backing-in-north-carolina-heres-what-happened/articleshow/117269983.cms
Missouri Voters Oppose the Elimination of The Department of Education - PRiME Center | St. Louis University, accessed March 23, 2025, https://www.primecenter.org/prime-blog/doe
What does the Department of Education do? - USAFacts, accessed March 23, 2025, https://usafacts.org/explainers/what-does-the-us-government-do/agency/us-department-of-education/
usafacts.org, accessed March 23, 2025, https://usafacts.org/articles/how-does-the-federal-government-support-education/#:~:text=The%20Education%20Department%20primarily%20funds,based%20on%20census%20poverty%20estimates.
www.congress.gov, accessed March 23, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/119/crec/2025/02/04/171/23/CREC-2025-02-04-pt1-PgH438-2.pdf