Have you ever watched grown adults throw a full-blown tantrum because someone dared to move their favorite deck chairs around on a sinking ship?
That’s pretty much what we’re witnessing right now with the latest meltdown over the U.S. Department of Education.
A coalition of blue-state attorneys general and the usual teachers-union suspects are back in court, this time furious that the new administration has started shifting major education programs to other federal agencies. They’re calling it illegal, cruel, even catastrophic for children. Meanwhile, the rest of us are sitting here wondering why anyone thinks the specific mailing address of a government program determines whether kids learn to read.
The Current Freak-Out, Explained in Plain English
Here’s what actually happened: the Department of Education signed agreements with four other federal agencies (most notably Labor) so those agencies now handle the day-to-day management of billions in grants. Over $20 billion that used to flow through one bureaucracy now flows through another. Same money. Same programs. Same rules. Different org chart.
The National Education Association called this “stealing from our students” and “robbing them of their futures.” The American Federation of Teachers insists it violates statute. Democratic attorneys general from twenty states plus D.C. filed suit.
And honestly? I get the political theater. But the sheer decibel level feels a little… disproportionate.
A Quick History Lesson Most People Forget
Let’s start with the most inconvenient fact for the hysterics: the Department of Education as a Cabinet-level agency has only existed since 1980.
Yes, really. Jimmy Carter created it as a thank-you gift to the teachers unions for their first-ever presidential endorsement. Before that, federal education programs lived inside the old Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). Somehow America survived 200 years without a stand-alone DOE.
Even more telling: virtually every major program the DOE runs today—Title I for low-income schools, special education funding, Pell Grants—was created before the department existed. Moving the paperwork somewhere else doesn’t erase the laws that authorize the spending.
“It’s just a bureaucratic restructuring. It doesn’t get rid of programs; it doesn’t cut funding; it doesn’t close any schools.”
– Senior research fellow at a prominent conservative think tank
What Critics Are Really Afraid Of
Here’s where it gets interesting. The loudest voices aren’t actually worried that shifting grant management to the Labor Department will hurt kids tomorrow morning. They’re terrified this is the first domino.
Because once you demonstrate that these programs can run perfectly fine without a dedicated Cabinet agency, the obvious next question becomes: why do we need the dedicated Cabinet agency at all?
And that question terrifies people who have spent decades building power inside one centralized bureaucracy in Washington.
- It’s far easier to lobby one federal department than 50 state legislatures.
- It’s simpler to impose nationwide curriculum preferences when money comes with strings attached in D.C.
- It’s more convenient to maintain ideological capture when everyone has to come to you for permission slips.
Local control sounds great in theory—until you’re the interest group that prefers controlling things from 2,000 miles away.
Does the Department Actually Improve Outcomes?
This is the part nobody on the pro-DOE side wants to talk about.
Since 1980, federal spending on K-12 education has exploded. Adjusted for inflation, we spend roughly three times per pupil what we did when the department opened its doors. Yet reading and math proficiency have barely budged. In many cases they’ve gone backward.
Roughly one-third of American fourth and eighth graders cannot read or do math at even a basic level. That statistic hasn’t improved meaningfully in decades—despite the creation of an entire Cabinet agency supposedly devoted to fixing it.
Former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos probably put it most bluntly:
“Congress sends billions. The department adds red tape, peels off money for overhead, attaches political agendas, then sends the rest to states—and accepts zero responsibility for results.”
She saw it from the inside. Most of us only see the marketing brochures.
The Local Control Argument Nobody Wants to Have
Critics always counter with the same refrain: without federal guardrails, some districts will make terrible decisions! Red states will defund public schools! Poor kids and disabled kids will suffer!
Let’s be real. We already have plenty of districts—many in deep-blue cities—where a third of kids can’t read at grade level. Federal “guardrails” haven’t prevented decades of failure in Baltimore, Detroit, or Chicago. Maybe, just maybe, the guardrails are part of the problem.
And here’s the dirty secret: when money gets closer to the people actually teaching the kids, waste tends to drop and innovation tends to rise. Teachers and principals usually know their students better than a GS-14 in Washington ever will.
- Some districts might experiment with phonics-first reading programs.
- Others might lengthen the school day or year.
- A few might even—gasp—pay great teachers more money.
Horror of horrors, different communities might try different things. Some will fail. Many will succeed better than the one-size-fits-nobody model we have now.
Will the Department Actually Get Abolished?
Probably not anytime soon.
Full abolition would require 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, and Republicans don’t have anywhere near that many reliable votes. Too many moderate Republicans still fear the “think of the children” attack ads.
So the current moves are best understood as death by a thousand cuts—or perhaps more optimistically, a proof of concept. Show that the sky doesn’t fall when programs move elsewhere. Build the case that we can live without the bureaucracy. Chip away until even Democrats start asking why we’re still paying for a middleman who adds no value.
In the meantime, expect more lawsuits, more screaming headlines, and more claims that moving a spreadsheet from one agency server to another somehow destroys public education.
But ask yourself this: if the mere suggestion of reorganizing paperwork triggers this level of panic, what does that tell you about how secure these programs really are—and who actually benefits from the status quo?
Sometimes the loudest tantrums reveal the weakest foundations.
I’ve watched education debates for years, and I’ve rarely seen this kind of unhinged reaction to what amounts to an internal government HR shuffle. That alone makes me think the reformers are onto something.
Because when the deck chairs are the only thing keeping certain interests afloat, they’ll fight like hell to keep anyone from moving them—even if the ship keeps taking on water.
