Schools fear unrest as the White House begins dismantling the Department of Education

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration says its plan to dismantle the Education Department offers a solution for the nation’s lagging academics — one that could free schools from the shackles of federal influence.

However, to some school and state officials, the plan appears to add more bureaucracy, without any clear benefit for students struggling with math or reading.

Instead of being based in one agency, much of the Education Department’s work will now be distributed across four other federal departments. For President Donald Trump, it’s a step toward closing the department entirely and giving states more power over education. However, many states say that would complicate their role as intermediaries between local schools and the federal government.

He watches: How the Trump administration is dramatically reshaping education in America

Washington state’s education chief said the plan increases bureaucracy fivefold, “undoubtedly creating confusion and duplication” for educators and families. His counterpart in California said the plan was “clearly less efficient” and called for filibuster. The Maryland superintendent raised concerns about “the challenges of coordinating efforts with multiple federal agencies.”

“States have not been involved in this process, and this is not what we asked for — or what our students need,” said Wisconsin Superintendent Jill Underly. He urged the Trump administration to give states more flexibility and reduce standardized testing requirements.

Education Minister Linda McMahon said schools will continue to receive federal funds without interruption. Ultimately, she added, schools will have more money and flexibility to serve students without the Department of Education.

However, the ministry is not finished, only Congress has the authority to abolish it. Meanwhile, McMahon’s plan leaves the agency in federal limbo. The Department of Labor will undertake most of the funding and support for the country’s schools, but the Department of Education will retain some duties, including policy direction and broad oversight of Labour’s education work.

Similar deals would offload programs to the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of State, and the Department of the Interior. The agreements were signed days before the government shutdown and were announced on Tuesday.

Signing work-sharing agreements with other departments is nothing new: The Education Department already had dozens of such agreements before Trump took office. Local school officials routinely work with other agencies, including the USDA, which oversees school meals. What’s different this time is the amount of programs that have been offloaded — for example, the majority of the Department of Education’s funding for schools.

However, Virginia Schools Chancellor Emily Ann Gullickson said schools are accustomed to working with multiple federal agencies, and she welcomed the administration’s efforts to give states more control.

While some see the risk of unrest, others see a victory over bureaucracy

The response to the plan has been drawn mostly along political lines, with Democrats saying the change would hurt America’s most vulnerable students. Republicans in Congress described it as a victory over bureaucracy.

However, some conservatives opposed dismantling. U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, said on social media that moving programs to agencies without political experience could harm young people. Margaret Spellings, former education secretary for Republican President George W. Bush, called it a distraction from the national education crisis.

“Moving programs from one department to another does not actually eliminate federal bureaucracy, and may make the system more difficult for students, teachers, and families to navigate and get the support they need,” Spellings said in a statement.

There is little debate about the need for change in school education in America. Her scores in math and reading have dropped in the wake of COVID-19. Before that, reading scores had stagnated for decades, and math scores weren’t much better.

McMahon said this is evidence of the failure of the Department of Education and is not needed. At a White House news conference on Thursday, she described her plan as a “hard reset” that does not stop federal support but ends “federal micromanagement.”

Read more: McMahon says the closure shows there is no need for the Department of Education

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers and one of McMahon’s staunchest opponents, questioned the logic of her plan.

“Why put together new infrastructure, new bureaucracy that no one knows anything about, and take the old bureaucracy and destroy it, instead of making the old bureaucracy more efficient?” Weingarten said at Wednesday’s event.

Schools fear the impact of missing experience on education laws

The full impact of this change may not be clear for several months, but it is already raising concern among states and school districts that have come to rely on the Department of Education for its policy expertise. One of the agency’s roles is to serve as a hotline for questions about complex funding formulas, special education laws and more.

He watches: Trump shutdown hollows out office of special education

The ministry did not say whether officials serving this role would keep their jobs during the transition period. Without that help, schools would have few options to clarify what can and cannot be paid for with federal money, said David Law, superintendent of Minnetonka Public Schools in Minnesota.

“What can happen is services go undelivered because you don’t have an answer,” said Low, who is also president of AASA, a national association of school superintendents.

Some question whether other federal departments have the capacity to absorb the influx of new business. The Department of Labor will assume responsibility for the first grant program, worth $18 billion and serving 26 million students in low-income areas. Angela Hanks, who led the Labor office under former President Joe Biden, said she will go to a Labor office that now handles grants that serve only 130,000 people a year.

At best, Hanks said, it would “unleash chaos in school districts and, ultimately, on our children.”

The school system in Salem, Massachusetts, with 4,000 students, receives about $6 million in federal funding that helps support services for students who are low-income, homeless or who are still proficient in English, Superintendent Steven Zrecki said. He fears that moving these programs to the Department of Labor would bring new “rules of engagement.”

“We do not know what other conditions will be attached to the financing,” he said. “The level of uncertainty is enormous.”

Other critics pointed out that the Department of Education was created to consolidate education programs that were spread across multiple agencies.

Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., the ranking member on the House Education and Workforce Committee, urged McMahon to rethink her plan. He cited the 1979 law that created the ministry, which he said had led to “fragmented, duplicative and often inconsistent federal policies regarding education.”

AP Education writers Moriah Balingit in Washington, Bianca Vasquez Tones in Boston, and Mekia Ciminera in Raleigh, North Carolina, contributed to this report.