A proposal to potentially shut down the U.S. Department of Education (ED) during a second Trump presidency was the focus of a webinar Tuesday evening hostedDr. Cheryl Holcomb-McCoy
The threat to shut down ED isn’t new, said Dr. James Earl Davis, a professor and endowed chair of education at Temple University.
“Since the inception of the US Department of Education in 1979 every Republican presidential candidate, either in the platform or in actions, has proposed the elimination of the department,” said Davis, who moderated the discussion.
As a federal agency, ED has had a long-standing role in advancing racial equity in education, added Dr. Cheryl Holcomb-McCoy, the former dean of the College of Education at American University and the recently named CEO and president of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
“President [Jimmy] Carter was deeply committed to issues of racial equity and wanted the Department of Education to be a space where the Civil Rights Division would protect students, families, and communities,” said Holcomb-McCoy. “I believe there is a clear political connection behind these repeated efforts to diminish the Department. This isn’t a new issue—it has evolved over time, and we continue to see this political division play out.”
Without it, she cautioned, there would be no federal civil rights division to protect students from cases of discrimination.
Dr. Marvin Lynn, dean of the College of Education at the University of Colorado, said that the Department of Education, which oversees the education of nearly 50 million students in the nation, is the smallest among the 15 federal agencies in terms of staff and budget. Despite its small size, it holds significant responsibility for enforcing civil rights and supporting public education.
He provided historical context for the ED, highlighting its roots in addressing racial inequality and human rights.Dr. Marvin Lynn
"The Department of Education really exists within the context of the ongoing struggle for civil and basic human rights,” he said. “It has been one way in which the government has tried to respond to this," he noted, highlighting key legal victories like the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that sought to eliminate segregation in public spaces. He warned that eliminating the ED could push the U.S. toward the privatization of education, shifting control to states with partisan agendas.
Lynn argued that public education has historically required federal intervention, especially in states that have failed to serve underserved populations, including communities of color, poor and working-class white children, and the disabled. He emphasized that states have often needed pressure to address inequalities. "We don't have a history that suggests otherwise," he added.
Dr. Weade James, senior director of K-12 Education Policy at the Center for American Progress, emphasized the importance of understanding the political motivations behind such a proposal, noting that they aren’t driven by concerns over educational quality but by a broader desire to privatize public education.
“These actions could undermine the Department’s ability to fulfill its mission and hold states accountable for maintaining educational equity,” she said, adding that the incoming Trump administration could hinder the Department's effectiveness without fully dissolving it, including transitioning civil service positions into political appointees, relocating key staff, limiting funding, and defunding critical areas such as the Office for Civil Rights.
The panelists also highlighted the impact of Project 2025 and the potential shift of federal loan programs to the Treasury Department, which could change loan processes, interest rates, and repayment structures.
"They're trying to set back the work we've done to ensure students get financial support and are able to pay back loans in a humane way,” said Holcomb-McCoy, who added that civil rights policies could be weaponized, with DEI initiatives being targeted. "They’re turning to policies meant to promote racial equity against some of our DEI efforts," she added.
Holcomb-McCoy said that if the ED is eliminated, there would be no other federal agency to address education or enforce equity and fairness in the system. Its absence, she added, would mean that education would no longer be a priority at the federal level, which could have a chilling effect and dangerous consequences including the loss of curriculum standards, decreased support for HBCUs, loss of federal oversight in special education and disruption of Pell Grants and federal student loans.
"It would really impact our underserved communities, low-income students, and first-generation college students,” she said.
Lynn warned that the U.S. is moving toward an "authoritarian regime" that redistributes wealth to the most privileged, undermining the promise of the American Dream.
“Part of the promise of the American Dream is the idea that you can be poor today and rich tomorrow through your efforts and through your hard work,” he said. “Public schools have played a critical role in the advancement of some of us from being poor to being middle or upper-middle class."