Of all the things the federal government does that it shouldn’t, education policy is near the top of the list. Education is, and always has been, a state and local responsibility. Yet for decades, Washington, D.C., has taken an outsize role in telling states how to educate their children — often with disappointing results.
If we’re serious about improving education, it’s time for a thoughtful, commonsense discussion about winding down the department altogether. That’s why it’s encouraging to see President Donald Trump and newly confirmed Secretary of Education Linda McMahon reducing the role of the Department of Education and returning power where it belongs: to states and local communities.
This conversation is long overdue. For nearly 50 years, the federal government has steadily expanded its reach in education. Congress has rewritten the rules and renamed the programs — from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to No Child Left Behind to the Every Student Succeeds Act. Yet none of these reforms address the underlying problem: education shouldn’t be dictated by Washington.
The Department of Education distorts our system of federalism, where powers are divided between the states and the federal government. It stifles innovation, wastes taxpayer dollars, and has failed to deliver better outcomes for students.
As Yuval Levin says in his book American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation—and Could Again, “twisted combinations of state and federal authorities have made for poorly designed and administered public programs and for confused chains of authority and accountability.”
Education is a textbook example. Levin argues we should disentangle state and federal governance wherever possible. I couldn’t agree more.
Last year, the department spent $268 billion. About $68 billion of that was sent back to states and school districts in the form of grants — but only after states jumped through expensive, time-consuming hoops. If Utah wants Title I funding, we have to prove poverty rates. For Title II teacher development funds, we submit detailed plans. There’s Title III for English language learners and Title IV for “safe and healthy students” and “a well-rounded education.”
The requirements are so burdensome that in some Utah classrooms, paraprofessionals do much of the teaching because licensed teachers are overwhelmed by federal paperwork.
That’s not to say the goals behind these programs aren’t worthwhile. And I have no doubt there are good people in the department working hard to help students. But the idea that Utah — or any state — needs Washington bureaucrats overseeing our schools is both outdated and wrong.
The bigger challenge is that states have become dependent on these federal funds. If a state opts out, its taxpayers don’t get their money back — they end up subsidizing other states. That’s neither fair nor sustainable.
So how do we fix it? The federal workforce reductions announced this week are a promising start. If Congress and the president want to go further, they should consider proposals such as the LEARN Act, which would offer tax credits to residents of states that opt out of federal education programs. Taxpayers could keep more of their money, and states could decide which programs to continue locally.
Utah has a long track record of investing in education, including supporting low-income schools. But we could do it with more flexibility, less bureaucracy, and greater accountability to Utah families — not Washington regulators.
If eliminating the department entirely is too much to ask, shifting to flexible block grants would be a commonsense improvement. It would cut red tape, save money, and allow states to innovate in ways that best serve their students.
I understand some critics worry that without national oversight, some states might fall behind. But that’s how federalism works. Our founders expected states to try different approaches and learn from one another. Innovation happens when states are free to lead, not when Washington imposes one-size-fits-all solutions.
And there’s a broader benefit. Levin notes that “forced uniformity is frequently an invitation to recalcitrance and sectionalism.” Lowering the temperature of national politics starts with better distinguishing between national and state responsibilities. Restoring that balance will strengthen our country, not weaken it.
None of this will be easy. As former President Ronald Reagan famously said, “The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program.”
Many have come to rely on federal education dollars and will be cautious about change. I understand that. I also understand the need to stay competitive with countries such as China. But I am not convinced that more federal control is the answer. In fact, I believe it’s part of the problem.
TRUMP EDUCATION DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATES 45 COLLEGES OVER ‘RACE-BASED’ PROGRAMS
In Utah, we have some of the best educators, administrators, and parents in the country. If freed from burdensome federal mandates, there’s no doubt we could deliver an education system that reflects our values, meets the needs of our students, and prepares them for a dynamic world.
Dismantling the Department of Education may sound bold. But it’s also common sense. Washington doesn’t have all the answers. It’s time to trust states and local communities to do what they do best.
Gov. Spencer J. Cox (R) is a husband, father, farmer, and Utah’s 18th governor.