What would abolishing the Department of Education mean for Nevada?

While the majority of Nevada’s education funding comes from state and local taxes, around 10 percent comes from the federal agency. That money funds programs such Title I, which provides financial assistance for low-income students, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act act and federal student aid programs like Pell Grants for higher education. It also collects statistics and enforces civil rights laws that bar discrimination in schools.

Proponents of dismantling the department say it would eliminate a slow, bureaucratic agency and provide more flexibility for states, but opponents have worried about losing the programs and funding for vulnerable populations that come through the department.

“There’s definitely bureaucracy in the Department of Education,” President of the National Education Association of Southern Nevada Vicki Kreidel said Tuesday. “But my fear is that if that goes away, what happens to the programs? Especially if some of these programs may be things that the President-elect doesn’t value?”

It still remains unclear how likely it would be for Trump to abolish the department. Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for Trump’s second term, outlined a plan to eradicate the department. Trump distanced himself from the document throughout his campaign, but he did pledge on multiple occasions, both before and after the election, to abolish the Department of Education.

The Trump Transition Team did not respond to request for comment.

Even if Trump is serious about the plan, it would have to pass through Congress, including a supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate to end a filibuster. Such a win would be difficult given the 53-47 Republican to Democrat split in the Senate.

But even without a full abolition of the department, other changes could unfold for education nationally that could affect students in Nevada. Trump has opposed President Joe Biden’s program to forgive student loan debt, and he could reverse the program.

Cultural issues in education, both locally and nationally, are also at stake. Two former Moms for Liberty members, who have advocated for removing books and education on race and gender issues, were recently elected by substantial majorities to take take their seats on the Clark County School Board in January.

If Trump does not abolish the department, he also could also follow through on statements he has made and pull money away from states that who support transgender policies or others with which he disagrees.

For the most part, Kreidel said, the future is all still speculation. But she does hear concern from teachers about the future every day.

“It’s a wait and see, but it’s a wait and see with that kind of sick feeling in your stomach,” Kreidel said.

More local control

One potential outcome could be the states getting “block grants” of funding, which would provide more flexibility on how to spend it.

Brad Marianno, a UNLV professor for education policy and higher education, said that there could be some efficiency trade-offs to the move to abolish the federal agency.

“Even if it occurs, I don’t know that that’s an earth shattering thing to the way we view education,” Marianno said.

Erin Phillips, who runs the parental rights group Power 2 Parent, said that she is in favor of the conversation around dismantling the federal agency because it would individualize education, something her organization has championed for a long time.

The current regulations coming down from the Department of Education, she said, perpetuates a “one-size-fits-all model of education.”

“When we see kids who have an individualized education, and they are being taught the way that particular student learns, and every student learns slightly differently, that is how we improve education,” Phillips said.

Funding gaps

But although Phillips is in favor of the conversation around individualizing education, she did worry that abolishing the department would be a “huge undertaking.” She said that it would fall on the states to ensure that they filled in the gaps for current programming for vulnerable populations.

Danielle Ford, a former CCSD board member recently elected to the Nevada State Board of Education, has been an advocate for reducing state mandates, but she said that is not related to the conversation around abolishing the federal agency.

Ford said that she worried that without the funding being explicitly earmarked for certain programming, states would be able to choose how to spend it. That means that the money that currently goes to vulnerable populations, like low-income and special education students, could be spent somewhere else.

“I think that schools and districts are going to be left scrambling,” Ford said.

Not the first time

Trump is also not the first person to raise the possible abolition of the department. Former President Ronald Reagan campaigned on closing the department, but ultimately did not follow through with a recommendation to Congress.

Nicole Beer, a librarian who runs Defense of Democracy of Southern Nevada, said that although she is concerned for the future, teachers and librarians will continue to fight for education, just as they always have.

“Nobody is coming to Nevada’s rescue, except for librarians and teachers. We’ve always saved ourselves, and we will save our students,” she said.

Contact Katie Futterman at kfutterman@reviewjournal.com. Follow @ktfutts on X.