Education policy can feel far removed from the real work of schooling. Why is that? What can we do about it? These are crucial questions, never more so than in 2025, and I can鈥檛 think of anyone better to help tackle them than Andy Rotherham, the author of the Eduwonk blog, co-founder of Bellwether, member of Virginia鈥檚 board of education, and former special assistant for education to President Bill Clinton at the White House. Today, Andy and I discuss Trump administration efforts to downsize the Department of Education and what they mean.
鈥搁颈肠办
Rick: Andy, the Trump administration has issued an signaling its desire to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. But, even Trump鈥檚 secretary of education, Linda McMahon, concedes that she鈥檒l need congressional action to follow through on that. In the meantime, the administration has taken the extraordinary step of laying off more than 1,300 staff at the department. Combined with earlier cuts and buyouts, they鈥檝e shrunk the 4,000-plus-person agency by . We鈥檝e never seen anything like it. The cuts have provoked a furious reaction from traditional education groups. They鈥檝e also posed big questions about how the department will operate moving forward.
I have a couple thoughts on all this. For starters, as someone who thinks there鈥檚 a lot of bloat and redundancy at the department, I鈥檓 underwhelmed by a lot of the pushback. In all the angry statements that have filled my inbox, I haven鈥檛 seen much that cogently explains why we should expect the loss of 2,000 federal officials to have a discernible impact on K鈥�12 or higher education. That said, the Trump administration has not yet clearly explained the rationale for these particular cuts, how a smaller department will work, or why these actions will yield a more efficient, nimble agency. In fact, the lack of explanation raises questions about whether the cuts will hobble crucial, congressionally mandated activities like the National Assessment of Educational Progress or the FAFSA overhaul that the Biden administration . I guess my bottom line is that I鈥檓 supportive of the cuts in principle but have a lot of questions about their execution.
Andy: I think the best way to think about this is that it鈥檚 a mixed bag. On NAEP, for instance, their 鈥渕ove fast, cut what you can cut鈥� approach is going to backfire because they say they want to keep NAEP, and the assessment enjoys bipartisan support, but they are cutting some of the key functions needed to keep it operating in a high-quality way. (My understanding is they are trying to fix this, but it鈥檚 not straightforward given how they鈥檝e made these cuts in the first place.) That same dynamic is showing up in some other work at the Institute for Education Sciences. This would have been avoidable if they鈥檇 just listened to some people with expertise at the department instead of assuming everyone there was the enemy. Will disruptions to NAEP or their data gathering be a high-profile issue with the public? No. But it will still be a substantive problem for the sector going forward. That points out the risk for Democrats and supporters of the department鈥攎any of these cuts and changes have a slow fuse and won鈥檛 be apparent for a while, if ever. The lack of reform and attention to effectiveness over the years leaves defenders of the department playing a weaker hand than they otherwise might.
The bottom line, though, is this is sloppy, and your take is what I hear even from a lot of people who are broadly sympathetic to their aims: skepticism and concern about how DOGE and the administration are doing this.
Rick: It was Mark Twain who said that a patriot is someone who supports their country all the time and their government when it deserves it. That鈥檚 kind of how I feel here. I鈥檓 all for cutting red tape and empowering accountable 糖心动漫vlog, but clumsy or slapdash efforts won鈥檛 do that. I think that there are a lot of terrific people in this Department of Education. But it鈥檚 their job to convince the public that what they鈥檙e doing will actually work. The NAEP example is illustrative. The administration says it values NAEP, and it did indeed protect the small NAEP unit at the National Assessment Governing Board that handles management, strategy, and communications. Meanwhile, the administration zeroed out the unit at the National Center for Education Statistics responsible for NAEP鈥檚 data coordination, collection, and analysis.
Was this just an oversight? Did the left hand not know what the right hand was doing? Is there some kind of strategy or plan here? I鈥檝e no idea. You鈥檙e right, of course, that most people aren鈥檛 going to worry about a statistical agency. But if things play out similarly when it comes to special education or student loans, the problems are going to be plenty visible. If they don鈥檛 do a better job of making the case that they know what they鈥檙e doing, administration officials will sow doubts and invite political blowback.
Andy: Well, Mark Twain also had plenty of choice things to say about education, school boards, and learning. I think you are pointing to something important, and the inverse of the slow fuse issue. Whether it was oversight, sloppiness, or deliberate, there is a political risk here. A majority of Americans oppose gutting the Department of Education. A recent found that just 30 percent say they want it reduced or eliminated. Two-thirds say they want it kept the same or expanded. The Trump team seems to think it can thread this political needle by keeping the funding but dismantling the agency鈥攁nd they鈥檙e probably correct to assume that when Americans say they want to keep the agency, they鈥檙e referring to funding more than specific program offices. But that doesn鈥檛 mean there will not be a political price at some point if this creates visible disruptions or if Congress cuts some of these programs down the road.
We should also note that in the context of the overall federal budget, education department-related cuts are all pretty small stakes percentage wise. The of federal spending are entitlement programs and the debt. This whole exercise creates more of a perception of fiscal responsibility and seriousness than a reality.
Rick: Yeah, it can feel like everything is messaging nowadays. After all, we鈥檙e running a in a healthy economy while sitting on $36 trillion in total accumulated debt. I鈥檓 100 percent for tackling that, so we鈥檙e not just dumping a mountain of debt on our kids and their kids. But, as you say, that鈥檚 mostly about reining in entitlements鈥攁nd there鈥檚 zero evidence either party has any appetite for that. So we鈥檙e mostly getting small, symbolic cuts. The administration still hasn鈥檛 released any clear numbers, but I鈥檇 estimate the staff cuts at the department amount to something like $400 million in salary and benefits, give or take. That鈥檚 real money, but it鈥檚 also a lot less than 1 percent of what Washington will spend on education this year鈥攁nd less than one one-thousandth of this year鈥檚 deficit.
Meanwhile, the administration has taken pains to say that programs aren鈥檛 getting cut, issued an executive order to abolish the department even as it conceded this is Congress鈥� call, and talked about empowering states without yet moving to address the rules or regulations that matter (shrinking the Education Department doesn鈥檛 actually help on that score unless you鈥檝e done that). This all adds up to more style than substance. Democrats, in turn, have leaned into 鈥渟ky-is-falling鈥� messaging. The public comes away confused with an exaggerated sense of how much this all matters. And we get a lot of click-bait headlines but not much action on deficit reduction, regulatory relief, or school improvement.
Andy: Yeah, I don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 explicit and I鈥檓 not a conspiracy type, but it鈥檚 hard to miss how much this issue works for both 鈥渟ides鈥� in different ways. It鈥檚 one of those fights people are quietly glad to have from a political standpoint. Arguing about 鈥渁bolishing鈥� the Department of Education is easier than, for example, solutions to our stubborn post-pandemic reading scores. On the substance, you are right about rules and regulations. I鈥檓 surprised from a dozen state chiefs to Linda McMahon asking for flexibility hasn鈥檛 received more attention. The 74 broke that story. One part of it was a request for waivers. I鈥檇 . Iowa is already in line for one. That approach would have a few benefits for the administration, including sidestepping some of the issues you raise. It also creates the sort of feudal spectacle the president seems to like, with people asking for authority he can then bestow.
We haven鈥檛 even talked in-depth about the congressional obstacles to this鈥�60 votes in the Senate, 218 in the House鈥攂ecause, as you alluded to, they鈥檙e so obvious. So, this will happen through other means, and there will be litigation about aspects of it. In fact, because it鈥檚 hard to do this in an intentional manner because of all the barriers鈥擟ongress, existing law, personnel rules, and so forth鈥攚e鈥檙e getting this sort of 鈥渄o what you can when you can鈥� approach. It is sloppy, situational, and chaotic. And, as you noted at the outset, it lacks any positive message because this is a lot more complicated than just 鈥渓eave it to the states.鈥�
