The Ongoing Closure of the Department of Education
The Trump administration’s move to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education is not just a bureaucratic shift—it’s an opportunity to rethink how education dollars are spent fundamentally. The justification for this closure is rooted in the belief that education policy should be managed at the state and local levels. As a result, 1,300 employees have been laid off, and 600 more have accepted buyouts, drastically reducing federal oversight in education.
While decentralization could give states more control, the real question is whether this money will benefit teachers and students or if it will get lost in bloated state bureaucracies. The Department of Education has historically overseen the distribution of billions in federal education grants, including funding for low-income students, special education, and teacher training. Without federal oversight, it will be up to the states to decide how to allocate these funds—raising the stakes on who truly benefits from this restructuring.
The Teacher Pay Crisis: A Misallocation of Funds
Teachers remain underpaid and overburdened, despite education funding increasing over time. The real issue isn’t always a lack of money—it’s how it is spent. Instead of going directly to teachers' salaries, a disproportionate amount is absorbed by layers of administrators at the federal, state, and county levels.
While the Department of Education’s administrative budget was relatively small (about $5-7 billion per year), state and county education departments have ballooned with administrative costs, diverting money away from classrooms. If we truly want to improve education, then the first step should be cutting unnecessary administrative roles and reallocating that money to teachers, classroom resources, and student programs.
Cutting Bureaucracy to Fund Teacher Raises
Right now, the teacher-to-administrator ratio is wildly inefficient, with some districts having as low as 4:1 or 6:1 ratios, meaning one administrator for every four to six teachers. The national average is around 15:1, but what if we adjusted that ratio to 2.5 teachers per 1 administrator?
The potential savings are staggering:
Current estimated administrative payroll nationwide: $30 billion+
Cutting half of administrative roles could save: ~$15 billion annually
Potential salary increase per teacher: ~$3,947 per year
This shift would not only provide teachers with much-needed raises but also force schools to streamline administrative tasks, ensuring that more money goes directly to those who educate students, not just those who oversee paperwork.
Where Do We Go from Here?
The closure of the Department of Education is an opportunity to rebuild the system from the ground up. If states are now in charge of education funding, then they must prove that they are willing to put teachers first. We should be demanding that a larger portion of education dollars go directly to teachers’ salaries rather than maintaining excessive administrative overhead.
If policymakers are serious about improving education, they should enact reforms that ensure funding is used where it matters most—in the classroom. Reducing bureaucratic waste isn’t just a financial issue; it’s about respecting the educators who shape the future.
The Real Question: Who Benefits from Education Spending?
Do we want a system where teachers are paid fairly and have the resources to succeed, or one where administrators and bureaucrats absorb billions in funding? The answer should be obvious. It's time to hold states accountable and demand that education funding goes where it belongs—directly into the hands of teachers.
What do you think? Should administrative roles be slashed to give teachers direct raises, or is the current system justified?