Opponents, however, see the move as dangerous and regressive, particularly for marginalized and vulnerable students. Title I currently supports schools serving large numbers of low-income children, and critics argue that eliminating this funding would exacerbate educational disparities between affluent and under-resourced districts. Even more pressing are concerns about the potential impact on students with disabilities. The IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) guarantees services and support for students with special needs. If states are no longer federally mandated to comply, advocates fear that many disabled students could be left without appropriate accommodations or educational opportunities.
“As someone who has a brother with a developmental disability, this makes me very angry,” senior Emma Rodgers said. “There’s a reason we had the DOE, and there’s a reason that students with special needs fell under the DOE and not Health and Human Services. I feel comfort knowing that my brother is already out of high school, but scared for students still in school, like my little cousin who’s only eight and has autism.”
The economic implications also raise concerns. The Office of Federal Student Aid administers more than $100 billion in loans, grants, and work-study funds annually. Moving that system to another department entirely raises fear for low and middle-income families who might face a harsher financial burden with fewer protections and more variation in access from state to state. Pell Grants, which support millions of college students each year, could be subject to unpredictable funding structures, potentially widening the gap in college accessibility.
“We are choosing to homeschool for a reason — we value FREEDOM OVER FUNDING. We don’t want bigger government and wasteful spending,” parent Nicole Hutchison said. “We want to keep our choice of curriculum based on our religious views and family values. We do not want to adhere to state-mandated assessments and requirements that are NOT WORKING in the public sector.”
There’s also a deep divide between how urban and rural schools could be affected. While urban districts might have access to philanthropic support, many rural schools rely heavily on federal assistance like Title I and IDEA funds. Without these, rural communities often already struggling with teacher shortages and limited resources, could see severe declines in educational quality, staffing, and student support services.
“I worry about ALL public education, not just Joshua. But I’m most concerned about JISD’s resistance to change, its bond debt, classroom sizes, and teacher retention,” Hutchison said. “I don’t understand how a district like Joshua can be in a hiring freeze due to budget restrictions but plan to build new campuses and hire more staff.”
Still, some acknowledge that while the Department of Education plays a vital role, it isn’t perfect. They propose reforms that increase efficiency and transparency rather than complete dismantlement. This group tends to support maintaining federal funding and civil rights protections but also advocates for giving states more room to innovate and respond to local needs. These voices argue for a middle ground, where both accountability and flexibility can coexist.
“This is frightening. While the DOE definitely needs to be fixed, it is scary to simply close the agency in charge,” teacher Mica Martin said. “My main concern is that nothing specific has been put into place to safeguard programs for those with special needs. As a teacher, this makes me worry for the future of my profession.”
As the debate continues, what’s clear is that the future of American education hangs in the balance. The dismantling of the Department of Education isn’t just a bureaucratic change, it’s a decision that could reshape the educational landscape for generations, with real consequences for students, teachers, and families nationwide.
Your donation will support the student journalists of Joshua High School. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment and cover our annual website hosting costs.
