Restructuring the Department of Ed: A familiar pattern

Last week, our education reporter delved into the rapidly changing events at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) with an eye toward discovering how those changes would specifically affect Nebraska. Recent discussions of dissolving, or more likely, the downsizing and reassignment of vital functions of the department, has understandably stirred anxieties throughout the community and across the political spectrum.

The Gazette will continue to monitor and report on the situation as it develops, but we are reminded that this is not the first time the structure of federal education oversight has been up for reconsideration — nor is it likely to be the last.

The department itself is a product of restructuring. In 1980, during the Carter administration, it was carved out of the larger Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, in an effort to streamline and elevate education as a national priority. Even then, the move was not universally welcomed. Critics feared federal intrusion into what had long been a state and local responsibility. That tension — between national standards and local control — has never fully subsided.

In fact, many of the same advocates who today warn against shrinking the department once pushed back, forcefully, against what they saw as too much federal control. During the George W. Bush administration, the No Child Left Behind Act imposed rigid testing mandates and accountability requirements on states. It was met with criticism from teachers’ unions and education policy experts, many of whom argued that Washington had overstepped its role.

The concern then was about bureaucratic overreach. The concern now is about federal withdrawal. These positions may seem inconsistent, but they reflect the complexity of balancing national values with local governance.

That doesn’t mean the concerns raised now should be dismissed. The federal government plays an important role in ensuring access, equity, and opportunity. Title I funding for disadvantaged schools, protections for students with disabilities under IDEA, and civil rights enforcement under Title IX and other statutes are not optional programs — they are federal law. Those obligations do not vanish with the nameplate on a department door.

If the Department of Education were to be restructured or even dissolved, its core functions would still have to reside somewhere — likely reassigned to other federal agencies, as has been done before. This process should be deliberate, gradual, and highly visible. Congress would have to act. Agencies would have to realign. There would be debate, litigation, and oversight.

In the meantime, schools will not close. Teachers will not stop teaching. Local and state education departments will continue doing the essential work of serving students and families.

This moment, in other words, is not the end of federal support for education. It is a political and administrative shift — one of many our country has experienced. Whether one agrees with the proposed changes or not, we would do well to remember that education in this country has never been solely the province of Washington, D.C. It has always been, and will remain, a partnership among federal, state, and local entities.

Adjustments may lie ahead. Priorities may shift. But the essential mission endures. Our schools, our students, and our shared responsibility to educate the next generation are not going away — and neither are the legal guarantees that protect the rights of all children.

Let us approach this conversation not with panic, but with perspective. We’ve been here before. We’ll navigate this chapter too.