A week ago, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that attempts to close the Department of Education. This was something he promised to do while campaigning, and was celebrated by conservative advocacy groups, such as the Heritage Foundation and Moms For Liberty. But there are still questions on what exactly closing the Department means. First, the ED still exists, as executive departments cannot be eliminated by executive order, only by an act of Congress. While Trump’s order claims that the ED’s funding for public schools does not improve student outcomes, it is unclear whether that funding will be fully cut.  Trump has said programs for students with disabilities will go to the Department of Health and Human Services, and that the job of managing student loans will go to the Small Business Administration, which recently had nearly half its staff cut. But some functions like civil rights enforcement and public school funding remain unclear.

Academic Magnet High School does not directly receive any federal funds. But that in no way means that we would be unaffected by cuts to public school funding, according to Mr. Perlmutter. “Every one of our feeder middle schools gets federal money,” he told me. “When we’re denying people an access to a foundational education, we’re denying them access to a school like ours. How is somebody going to be prepared when they can’t get their foundation?”

He believes the end of the Department will have “cascading effects” that will eventually hurt Magnet. And besides funding, there are other issues ending the Department may cause. “Title 9 would be affected,” Title 9 being the law that protects against discrimination based on sex; and enforcement of Section 504 and IEPs would be unclear (these are both federal guarantees that students with disabilities can have accommodations).

With the Department of Education gone, some have proposed that states should receive federal funding for education as grants, with no requirement for what the states spend it on. While this would give more authority to the states, some worry that it would mean states would stop funding certain initiatives, like low-income or minority schools. On our school district’s distribution of funds, Mr. Perlmutter said:

“What our district does, very admirably, is well designed and executed; principals and communities are held to task. The money follows the kid; per pupil expenditure hovers around $10000. The vast majority can be educated at that cost, but some kids are expensive.”

Equal education outcomes could be at risk if states chose not to equitably fund students whose education is more expensive, specifically low-income children, children learning English, and disabled children. But of course, this would all vary state by state.

“In some states that’s a great idea, in some it has the potential to be successful, in other states that’s problematic.”

“What about this state?”

“No comment.”

Mr. Perlmutter says that he thinks one question about ending the ED is most important: “Why?”

Ending the Department of Education is not a popular proposal, not among the general population or teachers, and even (as of 2 years ago) among many House Republicans, 60 of whom joined all Democrats in voting against an amendment to a bill that would end the Department.

Mr. Perlmutter pointed me to Molly Spearman, the Republican SC State Superintendent of Education from 2015 to 2023 mostly under Republican Governor McMaster, who he described as “fairly conservative,” who said she is “frightened” about the idea of handing education responsibility fully to states, including our own. She doesn’t believe that our state would have ever integrated or given equitable education to students with disabilities without the federal government. (See this article by the Post and Courier)

The movement to end the Department of Education started with President Ronald Reagan, just 2 years after it was split off into its own department, who opposed efforts to end school segregation and thought that education funding should be controlled by the states. He argued that it was a “wasteful [federal] program” and that there would be “major savings by dismantling the Department of Education.” He also saw it as a tool promoting affirmative action, which he opposed. But Reagan failed to end the ED, as he tried to use Congress to dismantle it, the only true way to end an executive department. While it won’t end the Department, Trump’s order will still significantly hinder its function, and will certainly have effects on all public schools around the country, including ours.

Also, we wouldn’t get any more Blue Ribbon Awards, as they’re run by the Department of Education, and Mr. Perlmutter was very proud of ours from last year.