I am a one-issue voter; I vote on education policies. When I read Project 2025, during the US presidential election, I was concerned about the implications on education in the US. Some of those concerns are now live: “President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to initiate the process of dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. This action aims to return educational control to the states, but it requires further Congressional approval to be fully realized. The move has sparked debate on the implications for federal oversight in education, state autonomy, and potential disparities in educational funding.”
President Donald Trump took a decisive step in his administration’s push to shrink government spending on Thursday, signing an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education.
The move, long championed by conservatives, is part of Trump’s broader campaign to cut federal bureaucracy, a strategy led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which is overseen by billionaire Elon Musk.
Flanked by schoolchildren seated at desks in the White House’s East Room, Trump declared, “We’re going to eliminate it, and everybody knows it’s right. The states will take back education, as it should be.”
For me, education is not a local issue because the liberation of the mind is universal conceptually. The idea that moving education to the state will advance the nation is faulty because a disparate model of education cannot bring a cohesive framework for a national economic acceleration. The Utah model, the Alabama model, the Maryland model, etc may not be optimal because education requires a national roadmap!
In the US, basic education is largely funded by local real estate tax, and that means where you live determines the quality of your education. A rich kid who lives in a wealthy neighborhood will attend a better school compared with a poor kid who lives in a place with minimal real estate tax revenue. So, just like that, communities see gaps in attainment because young people are set up as a result of where they live, as learning opportunities are not universal.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 17 (June 9 – Sept 6, 2025) today for early bird discounts. Do annual for access to Blucera.com.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register to become a better CEO or Director with Tekedia CEO & Director Program.
If you remove the federal factor, I expect this playbook to accelerate to the extent that inequality will widen. Yes, without federal support those underperforming communities could be forgotten! The implication is that in 20 years, the GREAT America will become more unequal economically.
(If Nigeria does what the US government plans to do, most schools in villages will fold because the government gets largely zero taxes from rural communities. Today, the federal of Nigeria funds some core components of our basic education, making sure every kid has a shot)
Comment on Feed
Comment 1: I agree with you on this. Over 90% of education policies are in the hands of states in the US. US Dept Education (USDE) mostly oversee programs that help to close the gap between the underserved people and the affluent. This executive order will exacerbate the inadequacy and decimate programmings that carters to the needs of the poorest of the poor across US. The people that will suffer more are minorities: Hispanics, Americans of African descent, people in the Appalachia area, & Native American communities.
This plus other policies will set America back decades, and the damage this will do in four years would take half a lifetime to re-write. The reasons why Americans kids are behind their counterparts in the West is not because USDE is obstructing progress. It is because they do not have enough funding to close the gap. This position will ensure that charter school system is proliferated, where school tax money is taken from poor communities to fund the education of rich kids in private schools.
USDE was established by congress, and only the congress has the power to abolish it. I look and I cannot see that congress standing up for ordinary people who will be impacted by this policy. They have fallen in line, right and left.
Comment 2: The reason why this move was necessary is because if Nigeria spent what the Department of Education spends, every Nigerian student would have a school.
America cannot be spending that kind of money and be getting worse outcomes than India.
My response: The comparison on amount is not relevant. You focus on the framework. The budget of Harvard is more than 3X the education budget of Nigeria.
Comment 2A: It is very relevant. America is the main laggard even within the OECD. The framework is obviously bad as the outcomes are mediocre.
Harvard is going to get its cuts as well.
My response: In quantifiable impacts on innovation, America leads OECD. But if you are focusing on test scores, sure, you can give it to OECD. It is not America that needs to change, it is what OECD measures that needs to change. Sweden is well ahead of US on education based on OECD standards, but America is well ahead of Sweden on practical global innovation competitiveness except in exam tests
Comment 3: I agree that this is simply another means of widening the inequality. Presently schools in rich communities are better funded and adequately equipped than those in poor or average communities. Even the ratings confirm this. Education is not something to be politicized and I hope this decision would be reconsidered.
---
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA (June 9 – Sept 6, 2025), and join Prof Ndubuisi Ekekwe and our global faculty; click here.