Abolishing the Education Department Will Restore Local Autonomy, Community Stewardship

The U.S. Department of Education building in Washington in a file photo. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

Commentary

President Trump’s decision to close the Department of Education has ignited controversy across the political spectrum, drawing both criticism and support over its implications for local control and federal oversight in education.

Yet, rather than embracing this shift as an opportunity to restore decision-making to state and local levels—where schools are best positioned to meet students’ needs—critics have reacted with apprehension, overlooking the benefits of a decentralized system that fosters flexibility, responsiveness, and local autonomy.

The Canadian and American education systems were built upon the foundational belief that schools thrive when they reflect their communities’ unique needs and aspirations. Education in North America has historically been understood as a shared civic endeavour, best shaped by parents, teachers, and local leaders: those with the most immediate stake in its outcomes.

At the heart of this tradition lies the doctrine of in loco parentis (Latin for “in the place of a parent”). In Anglo-American jurisprudence, this principle affirms that teachers are entrusted with the responsibility to act as reasonable parents in guiding, disciplining, and protecting students. This legal principle affirms that schools are not merely state institutions; instead, they derive a portion of their authority from parents, who entrust them with certain educational responsibilities while maintaining a fundamental role in guiding their children’s upbringing and moral development.

Historically, this perspective positioned schools as partners in education, reinforcing their role in supporting, rather than supplanting, parental authority. This partnership helped foster a system where schools and families worked together to shape the next generation.

This commitment to local stewardship endures today through local school boards. Entrusted with governing curriculum and policy under state and provincial authority, school boards embody the democratic principle that those most directly affected by educational policies should have a voice in shaping them. By placing decision-making in the hands of local citizens rather than distant bureaucrats, school boards ensure that education remains responsive to those it serves.

At its best, local governance cultivates a dynamic, pluralistic educational landscape, free from rigid, one-size-fits-all mandates. Schools evolve organically, adapting to their communities’ unique needs. In Canada, this principle finds explicit legal recognition in Section 93 of the British North America Act (1867), now the Constitution Act, 1867, which enshrines the provinces’ rights to oversee education. This decentralized approach was not merely an administrative convenience but a deliberate safeguard to ensure that schooling remains dynamic, responsive, and reflective of local priorities.

Similarly, while the U.S. Constitution is silent on education, it has long been understood as a responsibility best entrusted to states and local communities. This decentralized approach was firmly grounded in the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states and the people all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government.

This principle remained intact until 1979, when the Carter administration disrupted this balance by creating the Department of Education, marking a significant shift toward federal involvement in schooling. Critics warned that this new bureaucracy would entangle schools in burdensome regulations, stifling innovation while eroding state and local authority. A centralized system, they cautioned, would impose rigid, one-size-fits-all policies, undermining the flexibility and responsiveness vital to effective education.

One clear example of federal overreach is the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Though presented as state-led, the Obama administration tied Race to the Top grants to its adoption, pressuring states to align, whatever their local priorities. This federal leverage eroded state sovereignty, replacing local control with rigid, top-down policies and subordinating community-driven education to the dictates of distant administrators.

Bureaucratic inefficiency compounds the problem. As of fiscal year 2025, the Department of Education operates with a budget of approximately $80 billion, much of which is absorbed by administrative costs. Eliminating the department would reduce bureaucratic waste and redirect valuable resources to teachers, students, and community-driven initiatives rather than federal overhead.

Restoring local control would empower parents and communities to take a direct role in shaping their children’s education, ensuring that schools serve students’ needs rather than political agendas set in Washington. A decentralized approach strengthens schools and communities by allowing state and school boards to craft education policies that reflect local values and priorities, creating a more relevant and responsive system.

Decentralization also reinforces parental authority, keeping education a local responsibility where families have a direct say in curriculum, policies, and governance. Free from restrictive federal mandates, states and districts gain the flexibility to experiment with diverse teaching methods, curricula, and school models, fostering innovation and improving student outcomes.

Most importantly, returning control to state and local levels upholds the constitutional principle of federalism, ensuring that education remains a matter of community stewardship rather than centralized government control.

Above all, it restores the fundamental purpose of education: to cultivate knowledge, character, and citizenship under the guidance of those most invested in shaping the next generation.