If President-elect Donald Trump follows through on campaign-trail promises to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, Colorado schools would face a long list of questions about how federal funding would reach their most vulnerable students.
The 45-year-old federal agency, created by Congress, leaves decisions about what students learn up to states and local school districts. But the department plays a significant role in providing schools grant funding to educate students living in poverty, children with disabilities and kids learning English. The department also tracks data related to how students are performing in school and ensures schools that receive federal funds comply with civil rights laws that reinforce equal access to education for all students.
And the department — to be led by Trump’s transition co-chair and former wrestling executive Linda McMahon — administers federal student loans and helps make higher education affordable to students from low-income families through Pell Grants.
Scrapping the agency, which Republican leaders have regularly attempted, including Trump during his first term, requires clearing a high hurdle: the backing of Congress and a supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate, The Washington Post reported.
At least one proposal to dismantle the education department is already on the table, with a bill introduced Thursday in the Senate by Sen. Mike Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota, USA Today reported. A similar GOP effort last year, when Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie added an amendment aimed at closing the department to a broader bill focused on parents’ rights, failed.
What would the end of the federal department mean for Colorado schools?
For one, it would likely lead to turbulence for public schools across Colorado and the country — all of which rely on funding from the federal agency, said Kevin Welner, director of the National Education Policy Center and a professor in the University of Colorado School of Education.
“If the Trump administration eliminates the Department of Education, they’re going to have to move a lot of pieces around to other departments,” Welner said. “That is going to result in a lot of chaos. That chaos is going to be felt by people in state departments of education, the school districts and in schools.”
That chaos would only amplify stress across districts as they face budget constraints closer to home. The majority of funding that flows to Colorado school districts comes from a combination of state and local resources. At a basic level, districts receive a dollar amount from the state for every student they educate — known as per-pupil funding. This school year, districts net just under $8,500 for each of their students. Districts get additional funding for specific groups of students who typically need extra support, such as students from low-income families and kids learning English.
Axing the Department of Education would be another blow to schools at a time when declining student enrollments are leading to less state funding for many districts and driving some cities to close schools.
Meanwhile, Colorado districts wonder whether the state will make good on a legislative promise to increase education funding by $500 million over six years and roll out a long-awaited new school funding formula. Districts are warily eyeing a budget proposal by Gov. Jared Polis that would give them about $190 million less than what they were on track to receive, Chalkbeat Colorado reported. Polis’ tweaks to education spending stem from a projected state budget shortfall of about $1 billion next fiscal year.
Districts’ budget challenges have been made even more complicated by the end of federal COVID relief dollars in September, which meant districts had to either part ways with programs and staff they floated with those dollars or find a more sustainable source of funding.
It’s hard to understand other consequences Colorado schools could face before Trump takes office and spells out more specifics of his education agenda, said Tracie Rainey, executive director of the nonprofit Colorado School Finance Project.
“I think it opens a whole lot of questions,” Rainey said, including questions about the rights of students who benefit from supplemental federal funding, such as students with special needs.
The Colorado Department of Education declined to comment in light of the uncertainty about the federal department’s future.
Zooming out to look at education funding as a whole, Rainey said Colorado receives a small amount of federal funds. She estimates that no more than 5% of the funding dispersed to districts comes from the federal level, mostly benefiting students with special needs and students learning English.
“Colorado is not considered a needy state, and so we aren’t a large recipient of any of those funds that come through the (federal agency’s) formula,” Rainey said.
Anticipating a “hyperpoliticized” future for schools
The U.S. Department of Education is a critical component of schools’ efforts to meet the needs of students who bring significant challenges to schools, such as those living in poverty or those with disabilities, and for students pursuing higher education. And yet, education hasn’t ranked among the highest priorities in recent political campaigns, said education policy expert Van Schoales.
“Historically, the interest in public education swings back and forth and it’s usually over the course of decades,” said Schoales, senior policy director for the nonprofit Keystone Policy Center. “Regardless of whether or not it was (Kamala) Harris or Trump, neither of them had a major education agenda. And I think that we are coming off of a wave of strong interest in education from the right and the left for a variety of reasons, and that’s waning.”
Instead of focusing on how well kids can read and master other subjects, schools have become a central battleground for national culture wars, Schoales said.
He predicts that partisan divides will continue to deepen from state to state as Trump takes office.
“Blue states will become bluer in their education agendas and red states may become redder,” he said.
One possibility: The federal government might offer incentives for states to develop voucher programs, Schoales said, pointing to Arizona as an example. The conservative state’s tax credit program allows any family to use public funds to send their child to private school or cover homeschooling expenses.
Schoales also sees potential in the rise of a national voucher program — a longtime conservative aspiration — with Republicans also likely seizing the next four years to ramp up school choice in red states and expand charter schools. That will paint charter schools as “Trumpian,” he said, deterring blue states from further building on their school choice options.
“Education becomes hyperpoliticized and … not necessarily focused on what’s best for kids,” he said. “That’s the problem.”
“Fewer needs being met”
At the same time, funding for urban school districts — which generally serve a high concentration of immigrant students and students from low-income families — could take a hit, Schoales said. That would happen if a mass of immigrant families pull their kids from public school, spooked by Trump’s threats of deportation. Districts who have seen an influx of students from other countries in recent years, and consequently a boost to their per-pupil funding, will lose out on state dollars if those students flee.
They’ll also net less funding if the Trump administration moves forward with cutting Title I dollars, money that is earmarked for schools serving high percentages of kids living in poverty. Eliminating Title I is one objective outlined in Project 2025, a political handbook published last year by conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation.
Project 2025 is also intent on changing how the federal government distributes funding through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which guarantees students with disabilities can access public education and receive additional services they need. The handbook recommends converting that funding into block grants for states.
“When similar but less dramatic changes for those block grant ideas have been made in the past, we’ve seen that the money doesn’t really go to the students who most need it,” said Welner, of the National Education Policy Center. “So I think we’ll certainly see movement in that direction and we’ll see some resulting problems like we’ve seen in the past with the money not getting to the students who need it.”
If Title I or IDEA is “substantially slashed,” Welner added, “then we’ll see fewer needs being met.”
Some of the funds from those programs would likely be diverted to a federal voucher program, he said, primarily benefitting kids from more affluent families.
“Taking opportunities to learn away from any child is going to result in worse outcomes,” Welner said. “Obviously taking that money away from the most vulnerable populations will be most devastating, but that’s what’s being proposed.”
Shifts in education that may pan out under the Trump administration are part of a historical cycle of Democrats and Republicans “seesawing” between policies, which sometimes give educators “whiplash,” he added. But he suspects changes in education over the next four years might be more enduring.
“The changes might be more difficult to recover from,” Welner said. “I think that that’s a source of anxiety.”