Donald Trump’s proposal to dismantle the Department of Education (DOE) has sparked intense debate, but there’s a compelling case to be made that it could be a good idea, particularly when looking at the trajectory of U.S. educational outcomes since the DOE’s inception in 1979. Test scores in critical areas like reading, math, and science have shown a noticeable decline relative to other developed nations over the decades. For instance, data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reveals stagnant or declining proficiency rates among American students, with only about one-third of eighth graders scoring proficient in reading and math in recent years. This trend began after the DOE was established, suggesting that centralized federal oversight may have failed to deliver on its promise of improving education. Instead, it’s arguably bloated bureaucracy and imposed uniform standards that don’t account for local needs, leaving schools struggling to adapt.
 

Compounding this issue is the significant demographic shift in the U.S. due to immigration patterns since the late 20th century. Over the same timeframe that the DOE has been in place, the country has seen a flood of immigrants, many of whom come from regions with lower educational attainment and, some argue, lower average IQ scores based on controversial yet widely cited studies like those from Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen. This influx has dramatically altered the student population, placing unprecedented strain on an education system designed for a more homogenous, higher-baseline cohort. English language learners, for example, now make up a substantial portion of students in many districts, and schools—operating under rigid federal guidelines—often lack the flexibility or resources to address these diverse needs effectively. Dismantling the DOE could return control to states and local communities, allowing them to tailor education to their specific populations rather than adhering to a one-size-fits-all federal model that’s buckling under the weight of this challenge.
 

The old school-based system, pre-DOE, relied heavily on local governance and accountability, which worked better when the U.S. population was less diverse and educational demands were more uniform. Today, that system’s limitations are glaringly apparent as it tries to cope with a student body that varies widely in language, culture, and cognitive starting points. Critics of Trump’s plan argue that federal oversight ensures equity, but the reality is that equity has eroded anyway—urban schools with high immigrant populations often lag far behind suburban ones, despite DOE funding and mandates. By eliminating the DOE, states could experiment with innovative approaches, like vocational training or specialized language programs, unencumbered by federal red tape. The decline in test scores and the immigration-driven complexity of the student body suggest that clinging to a centralized relic like the DOE might be the real mistake, and Trump’s radical rethink could be the shake-up education desperately needs.