As part of his 2024 presidential platform, Donald Trump has once again proposed eliminating the Department of Education and returning authority over schools to states, local communities, and parents. It’s not the first time this idea has surfaced, but the argument for doing so is becoming increasingly compelling as America’s education system falls behind global competitors, despite decades of rising federal spending and regulatory overreach.
A Legacy of Federal Overreach
The Department of Education was created in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, largely as a political reward to the National Education Association, which supported his campaign. Prior to that, public education was almost entirely the domain of state and local governments, with the federal government playing only a limited supporting role.
From the beginning, the Department’s creation was controversial, with critics warning that a federal bureaucracy would add layers of inefficiency, insert Washington politics into classrooms, and detach schools from the unique needs of their communities. Over 40 years later, those predictions have largely come true.
The Consequences of Centralized Education
Since the Department’s creation, federal spending on education has ballooned, yet student outcomes have stagnated — or in some cases, declined. Between 1980 and 2023, inflation-adjusted federal spending on K-12 education soared from approximately $16 billion to over $80 billion annually. Despite that, American students consistently rank in the middle tier in international assessments of math, reading, and science, often trailing countries with far lower per-pupil spending.
The problems linked to federal education control include:
- Bureaucratic Expansion — Federal compliance requirements created an administrative class focused on paperwork and audits rather than teaching and learning.
- One-Size-Fits-All Policy — Federal programs ignore regional differences, applying blanket policies to states as diverse as Vermont and Texas.
- Political Currents in the Classroom — From Common Core to federally-backed DEI mandates, Washington has increasingly used schools to advance ideological agendas.
- Weakening Local Accountability — Parents and local officials often find themselves powerless against federally driven initiatives, creating a disconnect between schools and families.
Carter’s Broader Record of Policy Failures
The Department of Education was just one example of Carter’s broader pattern of policy mismanagement. His presidency is widely remembered for crisis, stagnation, and strategic blunders that eroded America’s economic strength and global standing.
- The Iran Hostage Crisis — Carter’s inability to secure the release of 52 American diplomats, who spent 444 days in captivity, was a defining failure that showcased his administration’s paralysis.
- Stagflation — Carter presided over the rare and damaging combination of high inflation, high unemployment, and slow economic growth, a crisis that devastated middle-class families and exposed deep flaws in his economic policies.
- Energy Crisis — Long gas lines and repeated fuel shortages defined Carter’s term, as his administration proved unable to craft a coherent domestic energy strategy, leaving the U.S. vulnerable to Middle Eastern price shocks.
- Soviet Expansionism — Carter’s weak response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan emboldened adversaries and marked a sharp deterioration in Cold War deterrence.
The Panama Canal Giveaway
One of Carter’s most controversial — and emblematic — decisions was his negotiation of the Panama Canal Treaties, under which the United States agreed to hand over control of the strategically vital canal to Panama. While not literally sold for one dollar, the agreement was seen by many as a needless concession, sacrificing a critical asset without any meaningful compensation or strategic gain for the U.S.
The Panama Canal, built and operated by the U.S. for decades, was more than a commercial asset; it was a symbol of American engineering prowess and global leadership. Carter’s decision to relinquish control was widely unpopular at home, where critics viewed it as another example of his broader weakness in foreign affairs, marked by appeasement and mismanagement.
The canal transfer was completed in 1999, but the decision’s roots trace directly to Carter’s desire to appease leftist anti-colonial sentiment in Latin America, regardless of the economic and strategic consequences for the U.S. In the decades since, Panama has leased key port facilities to Chinese state-owned companies, raising long-term national security concerns — a development Carter’s critics point to as evidence of his strategic shortsightedness.
Trump’s Plan — Restore Local Control
Against this backdrop, Trump’s proposal to eliminate the Department of Education represents more than a policy tweak — it’s a symbolic reversal of Carter’s entire governing philosophy. The core argument is that local control, parental empowerment, and state-level flexibility offer a more effective and accountable path to improving schools than top-down mandates from Washington.
Key Benefits of Shutting Down the Department
- Parental Empowerment
With fewer federal mandates, parents regain direct influence over curricula, hiring, and school priorities through local school boards, who are more responsive than distant federal officials. - Policy Innovation
States regain the freedom to experiment with school choice initiatives, including charter schools, education savings accounts (ESAs), and private school vouchers, fostering competition and innovation. - Administrative Streamlining
The billions spent on federal compliance can be redirected to teacher salaries, classroom technology, and direct student services. - Political Neutrality
Without federal directives, schools are less vulnerable to partisan swings in Washington, freeing them to focus on academic fundamentals rather than the latest ideological trends. - Taxpayer Savings
Shutting down the Department would save billions annually, either reducing the federal deficit or being returned to states via block grants, giving them far more flexibility to meet local needs.
Successful State Models
Several states have already proven that local control and educational choice produce better outcomes:
- Florida has become a leader in education choice programs, with universal education savings accounts allowing parents to allocate public funds directly to the school of their choice.
- Arizona offers a similarly expansive ESA program, making all students eligible for direct educational funding tailored to their specific needs.
- Texas has fostered a thriving charter school sector, which consistently outperforms traditional public schools, especially in urban areas.
These examples suggest that decentralizing education policy not only reduces bureaucratic waste but also fosters innovation and improved outcomes — a stark contrast to the stagnant results under federal oversight.
Donald Trump’s push to abolish the Department of Education is not merely a campaign talking point; it’s a long-overdue correction to decades of federal overreach and failure — a failure that traces directly to Jimmy Carter’s misguided creation of the Department.
Carter’s broader legacy of policy disasters, from the Panama Canal giveaway to the economic misery of stagflation, reflects a governing style built on concessions, bureaucratic growth, and misplaced priorities. Education reform offers Trump a powerful opportunity to unwind that legacy — replacing top-down control with bottom-up innovation, empowering parents, and restoring accountability to the people who know America’s students best.
If America is serious about reclaiming its educational leadership, breaking free from Carter’s flawed legacy may be the first necessary step.
Sources: Midtown Tribune, Big New York news