Why I’m Concerned About the Abolishment of the Department of Education.

Reforming education may be a better first step than abolishment.

This is Part II to the discussion, I’m looking at it as a complementary counterpoint to my position; You can read Part I here: Why I, a Teacher, Am Not Worried About the Department of Education Being Abolished

I’m arguing with myself to challenge both sides of this development, because I see the Pros and Cons of this.

In my previous article, Why I’m Not Concerned About the Abolishment of the Department of Education—Even as a Middle School Teacher, I made the case for decentralizing education and empowering individuals to take control of their learning.

I stand by that argument.

The current system is bloated, bureaucratic, and often out of touch with the needs of students, teachers, and communities. Reducing the government’s role in education could lead to greater freedom, innovation, and responsibility.

But here’s the thing: As much as I believe in the power of individual choice and local control, I’m not blind to the potential pitfalls of abolishing the Department of Education entirely.

Reflecting on my argument, I realized that some serious concerns need to be addressed.

So, let me offer a complementary counterpoint to my piece, because the full picture is always more complicated than it seems.

Freedom Without Equity is a Risky Proposition

I still believe that freedom is essential.

The idea of a free-market approach to education, where parents, teachers, and communities have more say, is undeniably appealing. It promises competition, innovation, and flexibility that could breathe new life into a system that often feels stagnant.

But here’s the catch: Freedom without equity can easily lead to inequality.

In a world without the Department of Education, who ensures that every child, regardless of zip code, family income, or background has access to a quality education?

While wealthier communities might thrive under a decentralized system, poorer districts could struggle to provide even the most basic resources.

The Department of Education, for all its flaws, plays a critical role in leveling the playing field. It provides funding for low-income schools, enforces civil rights protections, and ensures students with disabilities receive the support they need.

Without it, we risk creating a system where the haves excel and the have-nots are left behind; something which I do not want to see happen.

The Danger of a Patchwork System

I argued that uncertainty in pursuing freedom is preferable to a stagnant status quo.

And I still believe that.

But uncertainty can also lead to chaos.

Abolishing the Department of Education would leave a vacuum, and without a clear plan for what comes next, we could end up with a patchwork system where standards vary wildly from state to state—or even district to district.

Imagine a student moving from one state to another and finding that their new school teaches entirely different material or operates under completely different rules.

Or consider the challenges for teachers who might have to navigate a labyrinth of conflicting standards and expectations.

While local control has its merits, it also requires a level of coordination and consistency that could be difficult to achieve without some form of federal oversight.

The Role of the Department of Education in Innovation

I stand by my criticism of the Department of Education as slow-moving and overly bureaucratic. But it’s worth noting that the department also plays a role in fostering innovation. Federal grants and initiatives have supported groundbreaking research, pilot programs, and new teaching methods that might never have gotten off the ground otherwise.

For example, the Department of Education has funded efforts to integrate technology into classrooms, improve STEM education, and address systemic inequities.

While it’s true that bureaucracy can stifle creativity, it’s also true that some level of structure is necessary to ensure that innovation is equitable and sustainable.

The challenge is not to abolish the Department of Education but to reform it—to make it more responsive, efficient, and focused on empowering teachers and students rather than dictating to them.

The Illusion of a Free Market in Education

My vision of a free-market approach to education is intriguing, but it’s worth asking: Would a truly free market in education serve the best interests of students?

In a completely decentralized system, schools would compete for students and funding, which could lead to some positive outcomes. However, it could lead to a race to the bottom, where schools prioritize marketing + test scores over genuine learning.

Moreover, not all families have the time, resources, or knowledge to navigate a free-market system.

For every parent who can research schools, advocate for their child, and make informed choices, countless others lack the means to do so. The Department of Education, for all its flaws, provides a safety net for those families.

It ensures that every child has access to an education, no matter their circumstances.

A Balanced Approach: Reform, Not Abolition

My previous article was a call to action, a reminder that the status quo is not working for many students, teachers, and families.

But as I’ve reflected on my argument, I’ve come to believe that the answer lies in reform, not abolition. We need a Department of Education that is leaner, more agile, and more focused on supporting innovation and equity.

We need a system that empowers local communities while ensuring no child falls through the cracks.

Abolishing the Department of Education might create uncertainty, which I see as a catalyst for freedom. But it could also create an even more unequal and fragmented system than the one we have now. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, let’s work to fix what’s broken while preserving what’s essential.

Freedom and Responsibility Go Hand in Hand

My vision of a decentralized, freedom-driven education system is inspiring.

It challenges us to think bigger and imagine a world where education is shaped by the needs and aspirations of individuals rather than the dictates of a distant bureaucracy. But freedom without responsibility can be a dangerous thing.

To pursue a better system, we must ensure it is equitable, consistent, and accessible.

Uncertainty in pursuing freedom is better than a stagnant status quo.

But let’s ensure that the freedom we’re pursuing lifts everyone, not just a privileged few. The Department of Education may not be perfect, but it could become a powerful force for innovation and equity with the right reforms.

Maybe the best decision is not to abolish it, but to improve it.

Together, these two pieces, my original argument and this counterpoint, can help us see the full picture: A future where freedom and responsibility go hand in hand, and where every child has the opportunity to thrive.

- Zac Small