Executive Order Dismantling the Department of Education (DOE)                                     

The Impact of an Executive Order to Close the Department of Education

 

The idea of closing the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has long been a topic of debate, with arguments ranging from reducing federal oversight in education to concerns about the effects on students, families, and educators. A proposed executive order to dismantle the DOE and transfer its key functions—such as financial aid, special education, and Title I programs—to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would represent a significant shift in the federal government’s role in education. Such a move would have far-reaching implications for students, schools, and the broader education landscape.

​

Historical Context of the DOE

 

Established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, the DOE was created to coordinate federal education programs and ensure equal access to quality education. Over the years, it has played a central role in administering federal student loans, enforcing civil rights laws in education, and overseeing programs that support disadvantaged students. While critics argue that the DOE represents unnecessary bureaucracy, proponents contend that it safeguards educational equity and ensures federal resources reach the students who need them most.

 

The Role of Financial Aid Under DOE

 

One of the DOE’s most critical functions is managing federal financial aid programs, including Pell Grants, student loans, and work-study opportunities. If an executive order were issued to dismantle the DOE, these responsibilities would need to be reassigned—potentially to HHS.While HHS has experience managing large-scale assistance programs such as Medicaid and TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), it does not have a framework in place for handling the complexities of student financial aid. The transition would likely require extensive restructuring, raising questions about efficiency, oversight, and potential delays in aid distribution. Students relying on federal loans and grants could face disruptions, impacting their ability to afford higher education.

 

Special Education and IDEA Implementation

 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is another cornerstone of the DOE’s responsibilities. This law mandates that students with disabilities receive free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. Through the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), the DOE ensures compliance, provides grants to states, and offers guidance on best practices.Transferring special education oversight to HHS could have mixed consequences. On one hand, HHS has a long history of supporting individuals with disabilities through programs like Medicaid and the Administration for Community Living (ACL). On the other hand, education-specific expertise is essential for ensuring that schools effectively implement IDEA requirements. Without a dedicated federal education agency, advocacy and enforcement of special education laws could weaken, leaving students with disabilities vulnerable to inadequate support.

 

Title I and Its Impact on Low-Income Students

 

Title I, part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), provides funding to schools serving low-income students. These funds help bridge educational gaps by supporting additional instructional services, after-school programs, and teacher development.Under DOE oversight, Title I ensures accountability and equitable distribution of funds. If this program were shifted to HHS, the primary concern would be whether an agency focused on health and welfare could effectively manage an educational funding system. While HHS has experience addressing socioeconomic disparities, its mission does not currently align with school-based interventions and academic achievement. The risk of diluted focus could undermine efforts to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged students.

 

Potential Benefits and Challenges of a DOE Closure

Potential Benefits:

​

• Reduction in Federal Bureaucracy: Proponents argue that closing the DOE would eliminate redundancy and streamline government operations.

• State Empowerment: Without a federal education department, states would have greater autonomy in managing education policies.

• Cost Savings: Some suggest that reducing federal oversight could lead to budgetary savings, though the extent of these savings remains uncertain.

 

Challenges and Concerns:

​

• Disruptions in Service:  A sudden transition of financial aid, special education, and Title I to HHS could create administrative confusion, delaying critical services.

• Lack of Educational Expertise in HHS: While HHS is adept at managing health-related programs, it lacks the educational policy expertise that the DOE provides.

• Risk to Equity Protections: Federal oversight ensures that vulnerable student populations, including those with disabilities and from low-income backgrounds, receive necessary support. Without a dedicated education agency, enforcing compliance with civil rights laws could become more difficult.

 

Conclusion

​

An executive order to close the DOE and transfer its responsibilities to HHS would represent a fundamental shift in the federal government’s role in education. While the intention may be to reduce bureaucracy and increase efficiency, the potential consequences—ranging from disruptions in student aid to weakened oversight of special education and Title I programs—raise significant concerns. Policymakers would need to consider whether HHS has the capacity, expertise, and focus to take on these critical education-related functions without compromising the quality and accessibility of educational opportunities for millions of students. In the end, any decision regarding the DOE’s future should prioritize the needs of students and ensure that federal education programs continue to serve their intended purpose effectively.