The author, with nearly five decades in rural schools, warns that the proposal to break up the U.S. Department of Education and move programs to other federal agencies will fragment authority and disrupt services. Transferring K–12 to Labor, Native programs to Interior, campus child care to HHS and international education to State would complicate funding flows and replace a predictable grants system (G5) with multiple agency platforms. Small rural districts lack the administrative capacity to manage that complexity, putting vulnerable students at risk. The author recommends targeted reforms—streamlined grants, reduced reporting, updated systems and more technical assistance—rather than scattering responsibilities.
Opinion: Splitting the U.S. Department of Education Would Create Chaos for Rural Students
After nearly five decades working in rural schools, I’ve learned that systems already short on staff, time and resources do not get better by being torn apart. The Trump administration’s proposal to fragment the U.S. Department of Education—shifting its core responsibilities to agencies with little education experience—risks exactly that outcome.
What the Plan Would Do
Under the proposal, several major education functions would move to different agencies: the Department of Labor would oversee K–12 programs, the Department of the Interior would manage Native American education programs, the Department of Health and Human Services would run campus-based child care, and the State Department would assume international education and student-exchange functions. The administration has also hinted at additional transfers.
Why This Will Hurt Rural Districts
The practical effects are obvious in small communities: muddled authority, limited technical assistance, blurred accountability and competing priorities. Rural districts typically operate with skeletal central offices. In many places one superintendent handles Title I, special education, federal grants, transportation, food service and student supports—often while also running daily operations.
Imagine telling that superintendent they can no longer turn to a single Department of Education for coordinated guidance, but must contact Labor for one program, Interior for another, HHS for a third and the State Department for yet more. That is not reform; it is an obstacle course.
Each agency uses different payment and grants-management systems. I have extensive experience with G5, the Department of Education’s central online platform for managing grant funds, and with earlier versions used across multiple administrations. While G5 is not flawless, it provides predictability and a clear path for technical assistance and problem resolution.
Splitting programs across multiple agencies would eliminate that predictability. Requiring districts to navigate several payment systems will add complexity, slow reimbursements and increase the risk of errors. Small rural districts generally lack the administrative capacity to manage multiple federal accounting systems, and even brief delays can disrupt payroll, special-education contracts and critical student services.
Real Consequences For Students
Delays and bureaucratic friction translate directly into harmed students: postponed reading interventions, suspended behavioral-health supports, or delayed hiring of critical staff. Since the creation of the Small Rural School Achievement program in 2001—an essential grant that helps close rural funding gaps—I had not experienced a single delay in federal education funding until this year. That contrast shows how quickly instability in Washington reaches rural communities.
The students who depend most on steady federal support will be hurt first: children with disabilities, Indigenous students, English learners and children from low-income families. These groups rely on consistent, coordinated services—not fragmentation that scatters responsibility across agencies.
Practical Alternatives
If the administration truly wants to help states and districts, there are commonsense, low-risk steps that would ease burdens without creating chaos:
- Streamline and standardize federal grant applications.
- Eliminate duplicate reporting requirements across programs.
- Modernize and integrate outdated data and payment systems.
- Expand targeted technical assistance to under-resourced districts.
Rural communities depend on stability. We know what happens when a barn collapses or a herd scatters—everyone suffers, and it takes far more effort to restore order than it would to reinforce the structure in the first place.
Breaking up the Department of Education and scattering its programs across multiple federal agencies is not reform; it is disruption. If the proposed plan proceeds, rural schools, tribal communities and the most vulnerable students will pay the steepest price.
Help us improve.
