Will states struggle to support student achievement as a result of the Department of Education shrinking its workforce?
Not likely. Instead, a smaller federal education department could pave the way to progress for states that commit to improving student outcomes.
Reduced staff at the department — recently approved by the U.S. Supreme Court — might give states the opportunity to rethink their policies and spending priorities. Ideally, they could direct more funding to programs that work, with no federal strings attached.
States receive about 10% of their school funding from the federal government. And they can still expect to get their share, despite the layoffs. Eliminating funds that support programs the department is required to administer by law would require an act of Congress – as would phasing out the entire department.
Even so, concerns about the stability of federal funding persist. Special education and Title I programs receive the bulk of federal money, with other programs receiving a smaller share.
But these funds have strings attached, in the form of extensive rules and regulations for states that use them. For example, states must create test-based accountability systems to be eligible for Title I funds. School officials spend a significant amount of time and money simply complying with the strict conditions established in federal regulations.
Despite navigating these compliance hurdles and other federal requirements, states continue to struggle to boost student achievement. National performance in reading and math has yet to recover even after states received record federal aid in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In Michigan, in addition to their typical funding, schools received about $6 billion in federal COVID-19 aid. A significant portion of that aid was spent on increasing the salaries of existing employees, according to a study performed by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. And state spending on public education has increased more than 30% over the past 10 years. Even so, the Great Lakes State landed 44th in the nation for fourth grade reading on the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress, also known as The Nation’s Report Card.
The primary goal of establishing the U.S. Department of Education was to improve student achievement. Yet, an analysis of national long-term performance trends reveals no significant change in student achievement resulting from the department’s creation in 1980.
But this trend should not be surprising. The federal government’s role does not include identifying education policies and practices that make sense for each individual state. State legislators and local school officials are in a better position to do that. That’s one reason why the bulk of education dollars — about 90% — comes from state and local sources.
Some states have broken from the status quo and used their state funding strategically to make notable gains in student outcomes. While Michigan’s performance was near the bottom, Mississippi placed ninth in fourth grade reading in 2024 after landing at 49th in 2013. Compared to Michigan, the Magnolia State receives fewer dollars per student and educates more economically disadvantaged students. Yet it gained more points in reading and math than any other state over the past 10 years.
Mississippi took advantage of its local authority by adopting policies that best serve its student population. By prioritizing student literacy, creating more rigorous state standards, aligning accountability measures to the updated standards, and reforming educator preparation and coaching models, the state was able to use its resources efficiently to produce one of the most impressive performance trajectories since the NAEP test was launched in 1969.
Dismantling the department would loosen the federal government’s grip on the states. State policymakers and local school officials could more freely spend tax dollars on policies they think will work, not based on what some bureaucrats in D.C. think is a good idea. They will have the autonomy to fund initiatives that best meet the needs of their local communities, as Mississippi did.
States like Michigan will have the opportunity to reconsider their policies and direct funding where it’s needed most. School officials will have greater authority to implement programs that are more likely to boost the achievement of students in their local districts. They won’t be hamstrung by federal rules and regulations that impede their forward progress. School leaders can take the reins and advance policies that create better learning opportunities for students.
