In recent decades, the federal government has intervened extensively in the nation's public school system. The Department of Education spent $66 billion on elementary and secondary education in 2025, and it runs dozens of programs that impose rules and regulations on the public schools.

While federal intrusion has increased over the decades, standardized tests reveal that public school performance remains mediocre. America's ranking on international student comparisons is middling compared to other high-income countries, despite our nation's high per pupil spending.

Federal subsidies and regulations have undermined the schools. Top-down policies have suppressed innovation and competition while also generating large bureaucracies. Federal interventions have also diffused responsibility for the shortcomings of the public schools.

Meanwhile, the states have been eager to receive federal funds but have chafed at the accompanying mandates, such as those under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) and the Race to the Top program of 2009. Widespread objections to federal control resulted in Congress passing the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015, which reduced some federal rules.

While the ESSA partly reduced federal control, other developments have increased it. These include federal efforts to open schools during the COVID-19 pandemic and various social policy impositions during the Joe Biden and Donald Trump administrations.

In 2025, the Trump administration called for the ending of the Department of Education and proceeded to cut the department's staffing roughly in half and partly move operations of some programs to other federal agencies. At the same time, the administration tried to impose its views regarding transgender athletes and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) on the schools.

Congress should eliminate the Department of Education, phase out federal spending on K–12 education, and end related regulations. Federal aid to the schools is no free lunch, as it is funded by taxpayers who live in the 50 states. The current system simply gives states back their own money, but with regulations and bureaucracy attached. Outside of a few specialized areas, the federal government should withdraw from K–12 education. Americans would be better off for it.

Origins of Federal Intervention

When the first American settlers arrived from England, they brought traditions that placed education in the hands of the family and religious communities, not the government. As more settlers arrived, however, colonial leaders in New England feared that their social institutions—based on families and communities—were weakening. As a result, leaders in Massachusetts instituted what some consider a precursor to American public schooling, the Old Deluder Satan Act of 1647.¹

The 1647 act required all settlements having at least 50 families to employ a teacher of reading and writing, and settlements of 100 or more families to establish a grammar school. The idea was to ensure that all residents were sufficiently literate to read the Bible so that they could fend off the inducements of Satan.² Money to pay for teachers and schools was raised either through tuition payments or public funds.³ However, this system was expensive and out of touch with the needs of many New England colonists, and over the decades towns stopped abiding by the law.⁴

Outside of New England, education was even more decentralized. In the South, it remained almost entirely a family affair, with children being taught in their homes or in private or community schools. In the ethnically and religiously diverse middle colonies, a wide variety of schools appeared. They generally served the needs of the religious denominations and were largely free of government interference.⁵

Education remained a state and local concern with the establishment of the new federal government in 1789. Under the Constitution, the federal government is given no authority to intervene in education, other than via its jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, federal lands, the military, and treaties with Native Americans. Under the Fourteenth Amendment ratified in 1868, the federal government also has an obligation to prevent states and public schools from discriminating in their provision of education.

Throughout the 19th century, American elementary and secondary education evolved within state boundaries, but it became increasingly centralized within states. In the 1830s, the "common school" movement, a movement to create free public schools for all, began to surge. Supporters argued that free public schools would enlighten the citizenry and integrate America's heterogeneous peoples. By 1890, most of the states had free and compulsory public schooling, and by 1918 all the existing states did.

Despite this centralization within the states, the federal government generally remained out of the picture. In 1867, Congress appropriated $15,000 for the creation of the Department of Education in response to lobbying by the National Teachers Association and to monitor the education of freed enslaved people in the defeated Confederate states.⁶ The National Teachers Association would later become the National Education Association (NEA). The following year, Congress downgraded the department to an Office of Education within the Department of the Interior. The agency would not regain its departmental status until 1980.

In the early 20th century, the Office of Education was mainly tasked with collecting information about schools and teaching methods. The federal government funded very few state and local activities in any policy area, but that started to change under the New Deal of the 1930s. In education, the government launched an array of temporary initiatives, such as programs for school construction and repair, the hiring of unemployed teachers, loans to school districts, and aid to rural schools.

There was resistance to these initiatives from policymakers who worried that New Deal precedents would lead to the creation of permanent federal subsidies.⁷ A 1934 Congressional Quarterly article on education noted that "federal subsidies have been opposed on the ground that they stifle local initiative, and are paternalistic, economically unsound, and unconstitutional."⁸

Still, even with the New Deal, the federal government generally kept out of K–12 education. In 1941, the United States Constitution Sesquicentennial Commission published the History of the Formation of the Union Under the Constitution, which included this question and answer: "Q. Where, in the Constitution, is there mention of education? A. There is none; education is a matter reserved for the states."⁹

Nonetheless, education groups such as the NEA pushed for federal subsidies and the creation of a cabinet-level education department.¹⁰ Many bills were introduced in Congress from the 1940s through the early 1960s to make grants to the states for K–12 schools, with advocates pointing to disparities in school spending between high- and low-income states. They also argued that the federal government could raise taxes more easily than the states.¹¹ Those efforts were not successful, except with the Lanham Act of 1941 and a 1950 law that authorized "impact aid" to compensate school districts for tax revenue lost because of the presence of federal facilities in communities.

It was not until the 1957 launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik that Americans, concerned that the Soviets might be ahead in science, looked to Washington to "fix" public schools. For the first time, the federal government initiated curriculum and goal-setting policies with the passage of the 1958 National Defense Education Act (NDEA), which increased funding for mathematics, science, and foreign language programs. The NDEA kept an explicit connection to national defense and was at least related to a proper federal role under the Constitution.

Growing Federal Role

The federal government's expansion into education grew by leaps and bounds during the 1960s, with education spending a major part of President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society." The 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which aimed to boost resources for low-income school districts, was landmark legislation and remains the nucleus of federal K–12 policies.

ESEA's Title I was intended to provide grants to schools in high-poverty areas. Despite this original goal, Title I quickly morphed into a broad-based subsidy program. By the late 1960s, Title 1 was already subsidizing 60 percent of the nation's school districts, and it continues to do so today.¹² Title I is the largest federal K–12 program.

The 1965 act also created subsidies for teacher training, educational research, school libraries, textbooks, school technology, and other items. To create the infrastructure to administer the new programs, the act provided grants to beef up state departments of education.

In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act—now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act—required states to ensure a "free, appropriate public education" to all disabled students, but it left open to interpretation precisely what services school districts were required to provide. The act has generated huge bureaucratic and legal costs as parents and school districts battle over those services.¹³ The law also likely spurred increases in the diagnosis of learning disabilities, even though some of these conditions may not be more prevalent today than in the past.¹⁴

In 1976, the NEA endorsed Jimmy Carter for president, partly because of his promise to create a cabinet-level Department of Education.¹⁵ It was the first time the NEA had endorsed a presidential candidate. In 1979, after a major political push by the NEA, Congress narrowly passed legislation to carve a new Department of Education primarily from the existing Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

On the campaign trail in 1980, Ronald Reagan promised to abolish the Department of Education, calling it Carter's "new bureaucratic boondoggle."¹⁶ In 1982, President Reagan proposed eliminating the department, but the idea went nowhere in Congress, which had little appetite to eliminate a department it had recently created. The president's efforts were also set back by the influential 1983 study A Nation at Risk.¹⁷ Congressional Quarterly noted that the study "was such a hit that Reagan political strategists began using its call for higher education standards as an issue for the 1984 campaign. This new enthusiasm helped [Secretary of Education] Terrel Bell and others block efforts to abolish the Education Department."¹⁸

A Nation at Risk drubbed America's public schools, intoning that "if an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war."¹⁹ The report produced alarm on par with Sputnik and resulted in greater federal intrusion. In 1984, the Republican Party dropped the elimination of the Department of Education from its platform. The proposal returned in 1996, but for only one year before returning to the platform again in 2024.

Presidents after Reagan expanded the federal role in K–12 education. President George H. W. Bush pushed for voluntary national education goals, and President Bill Clinton signed into law the Goals 2000: Educate America Act to put money behind pursuing such goals.²⁰ He also signed the Improving America's Schools Act, which required states to develop federally approved plans coordinated with Goals 2000 and to adopt standards and tests aimed at yearly academic progress.²¹ If states did not comply with the mandates, they would lose some of their federal subsidies. A Republican majority swept into Congress in 1994 and removed the enforcement of national standards and tests, but did little else to curb the new federal interventions.

President George W. Bush and Congress increased federal involvement with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002.²² The law imposed rules for state math and language arts standards and tests, as well as penalties for schools that did not make "adequate yearly progress" toward 100 percent student "proficiency" by 2014, both in the aggregate and for subgroups of children.²³ The states complained about the onerous NCLB rules for testing and annual progress, teacher qualifications, public school choice, and after-school tutoring. While there was widespread dissatisfaction with NCLB, for years Congress was unable to agree on how to change it.

Expanding federal control further, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in 2009, which provided $100 billion in added funding for education. About half the money was distributed under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. To receive it, states had to agree to added federal micromanagement, including:

1. Making progress toward college- and career-ready standards and assessments that are reliable for all students;
2. Establishing pre-K-to-college-and-career data systems that track progress;
3. Making improvements in teacher effectiveness and the equitable distribution of qualified teachers for all students; and
4. Providing intensive support and effective interventions for the lowest-performing schools.²⁴

Also, using ARRA funding, the Secretary of Education created the $4 billion Race to the Top (RTTT) program, which required further commitments by states to gain funding. The states competed to receive the funds, earning points for promises to comply with numerous provisions. One provision was to adopt "college- and career-ready standards," with maximum points for standards common to "a majority of the states." This essentially meant the Common Core math and English language arts standards that the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers had agreed to create earlier in 2009. The states were also given points for agreeing to the common assessments Washington would select and fund. The goal was to have all states using the Common Core and one of two national tests.²⁵

Common Core was not the only intrusive RTTT requirement. The program also graded states on their commitments to implementing statewide student data systems, putting in place teacher and principal evaluation systems, fostering charter schooling, and more.²⁶

To further push its top-down policies, the Barack Obama administration in 2011 offered states waivers from some provisions of NCLB, especially the 2014 deadline for all children to be proficient in math and reading. Waivers required states to use either the Common Core or state-created standards certified by a state higher education system as college- and career-ready. The Obama administration also required changes to how districts were labeled based on test performance, and changes to teacher and principal evaluations using, among other things, "student growth" data. The Department of Education process for granting waivers was opaque, despite federal law disallowing such manipulations.²⁷

A further federal intrusion was that the administration decided to bypass uncooperative state governments in 2012 by creating a RTTT program directly for school districts. The idea was to bring interested districts into the RTTT regime even if their state governments had either failed to win RTTT money or had decided not to apply.²⁸

RTTT and NCLB waivers created large increases in federal power over education. They also inspired backlashes on the political left and right. On the left, teachers rebelled against the growing focus on standards and tests. On the right, the move to entrench Common Core standards ignited opposition. Finally, waiver requirements that teachers be evaluated in part based on their students' standardized test scores pushed teacher unions over the brink. The result was the ESSA of 2015.

The ESSA, which remains in force, is a step back from federal micromanagement, especially because it ended NCLB's "adequate yearly progress" mandate. The ESSA also goes to great pains to say that the Secretary of Education may not influence states to adopt any specific standard or test, and it does not require that teacher evaluations be based on standardized test scores.

However, the ESSA does require that states have uniform standards and tests, and it demands that states intervene in schools with the lowest 5 percent of performers, as well as high schools with graduation rates below 67 percent. States must also intervene in schools with poorly performing subgroups of students. And the law requires that state standards, tests, and accountability plans be approved by the Secretary of Education. While the secretary cannot require that specific standards or tests be used, he or she may veto any standards deemed to be insufficiently "challenging." Furthermore, the law requires detailed district reporting on numerous indicators, including subgroup test scores and, potentially, several non-test indicators such as "school climate."

Since 2015, the federal government has taken steps to impose its view of social policies on the public schools. The Biden administration used federal funding—tied to Title IX of the Civil Rights Act—to require that public schools allow students to select bathrooms and locker rooms based on students' gender identity rather than their sex at birth. The regulations were blocked in court.²⁹ The administration also considered regulations governing transgender students on public school sports teams but did not formally introduce them.

The federal government also had a controversial role during the COVID-19 pandemic. Federal guidance influenced decisions about when and how to reopen public schools to in-person education. The teacher unions favored longer closures, and they were consulted by the Centers for Disease Control in developing guidance on the issue.³⁰ These events negatively influenced the views of many parents concerning the federal role in education, and in turn likely encouraged Donald Trump to propose dismantling the Department of Education in his 2024 presidential campaign.

In 2025, the Trump administration cut the number of Department of Education employees by nearly 2,000 from the 2024 total of 4,200.³¹ During the government shutdown in the fall of 2025, the administration attempted to cut another 465 employees, but these workers were subsequently reinstated.³² The administration has also moved portions of some department activities to other federal departments.³³ As of this writing, the administration has not tried to fully shut down the department, believing that doing so requires an act of Congress.

Federal Spending Today

Department of Education K–12 spending has increased substantially over recent decades. In constant 2025 dollars, spending rose from $38 billion in 2000 to $66 billion in 2025.³⁴

Here are some of the largest K–12 programs within the Department of Education, with the estimated outlays in 2025:³⁵

• Title I. This program provides grants to the states for education of the disadvantaged. Title I is the main leverage the federal government uses to impose regulations on the states for standardized testing, teacher qualifications, reading curricula, and other items. Spending was $20.8 billion in 2025.
• Stabilization Fund. Congress passed additional K–12 funding during the COVID-19 pandemic, and $18.1 billion of the funds were still being spent in 2025. The spending is temporary and should decline to zero.
• Special Education. The programs authorized under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act cost federal taxpayers $9.9 billion in 2025. That spending level is a dip from typical annual outlays of more than $15 billion.
• School Improvement Programs. This is a $6.3 billion hodgepodge of many programs to aid teachers and fund enrichment, training, and assessment activities.
• Impact Aid. This program costing $1.6 billion in 2025 compensates school districts for untaxable federal properties within their boundaries.

Outside of the Department of Education, the federal government funds Head Start in the Department of Health and Human Services, American Indian education programs in the Department of the Interior, the school lunch program in the Department of Agriculture, and numerous education programs in the Department of Defense. Department of Education spending accounts for just under half of all federal spending on K–12.³⁶

All federal spending typically represents around 8 percent of total federal, state, and local K–12 public school spending in the nation, although the federal share rose temporarily during the COVID-19 pandemic.³⁷ The federal government uses this relatively small share of spending to impose unproductive regulations and paperwork on the states.

Including all federal, state, and local funding of public schools, real per pupil spending more than doubled between the 1980 creation of the federal Department of Education and 2021.³⁸ That increase in resources, however, has not led to equivalent improvements in educational outcomes.

Educational Outcomes

Despite real funding increases and large federal interventions, there has been no general increase in K–12 education achievement as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The NAEP includes the Long-Term Trend (LTT) assessment and the newer "main" assessment.³⁹ Here are the results for, essentially, high school seniors for the span of years that have been reported:

• LTT Math. On a 500-point scale, the average math score rose two points, from 304 in 1973 to 306 in 2012.
• LTT Reading. On a 500-point scale, the average reading score rose two points, from 285 in 1971 to 287 in 2012.
• Main Math. On a 300-point scale, the average math score fell three points, from 150 in 2005 to 147 by 2024.
• Main Reading. On a 500-point scale, the average reading score fell nine points, from 292 in 1992 to 283 in 2024.

For additional context, the main NAEP also reports on "proficiency":

• Main Math. The share of students hitting proficient or above declined from 23 percent in 2005 to 22 percent in 2024.
• Main Reading. The share of students hitting proficient or above declined from 40 percent in 1992 to 35 percent in 2024.

While standardized test scores capture only a part of what education is about, America should be improving its performance to compete in the increasingly high-skill global economy. On a per pupil basis, American spending is the 5th highest among 38 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.⁴⁰ But American taxpayers are not getting a good return on this educational investment: International tests show only middling performance for American K–12 students.

For the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) for 15-year-olds in 2022, out of 81 countries, the United States ranked 34th on math, 9th on reading, and 16th on science.⁴¹ For the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) assessment in 2023, out of 44 countries, the United States ranked 22nd on math and 15th on science.⁴²

Misallocation and Bureaucracy

All spending programs redistribute income from taxpayers to the beneficiaries of programs and the bureaucracies that run them. The higher the federal, state, and local taxes, the less income families can spend on private schools, tutors, saving for college, or other educational expenses, not to mention non-education needs. At the same time, without all the federal regulations and controls, states could decide the best use of public education dollars, whether reducing class sizes, paying teachers more, or supporting school choice programs.

Federal subsidies, particularly Title I, are supposed to redistribute funds to disadvantaged schools, but the government is not very successful at such redistribution, even if it were a good idea. Title I funding goes to some of the wealthiest school districts in the country, such as the Northern Virginia jurisdictions of Arlington and Fairfax counties and Alexandria and Falls Church cities. For the nation overall, comparing per pupil federal K–12 spending with states' median income and poverty levels reveals low correlations, with correlation coefficients of −0.11 and 0.26, respectively.⁴³

Furthermore, federal funding is substantially offset by reduced state and local funding. A statistical analysis by Nora Gordon of the University of California, San Diego, found that while Title I is supposed to steer money to poor school districts, the actual effect is quite different.⁴⁴ She found that within a few years of grants being given, the states used the federal funds to displace their own funding of poor schools. Thus, poor schools may be no further ahead despite the federal grant money directed at them. Other studies have found that Title I has not reduced the education funding gap between higher- and lower-income states.⁴⁵

Title I is spread widely, going to more than 60 percent of public schools.⁴⁶ It can be directed to any school with at least 40 percent of students defined as economically disadvantaged. These schools can use the money school-wide, and thus the extra federal aid turns out to be just a small spending bump—only about 5 percent.⁴⁷ A $20 billion annual federal investment in disadvantaged children might seem large until you spread it over tens of millions of students, including many who are not disadvantaged.

What do schools use Title I funds for? The most common use, as reported by school principals, has been teacher professional development, which has no demonstrated impact on student learning.⁴⁸ Other uses include "after-school and summer programs, technology purchases, and supplemental services, which also have been shown to be ineffective, and class-size reductions, which are unlikely to be of the size needed to generate effects found in previous research."⁴⁹ To an extent, Title I funds are "assistance theater" rather than meaningful help.

Aside from redistribution, a theory behind federal K–12 aid is that national experts can skillfully design top-down programs to improve on the diverse knowledge and experience of local educators across our vast country. But the failure and rejection of many top-down efforts in education—such as NCLB—has shown that central planning in education is not a practical solution to sustainably improve performance.

By involving all levels of government in education, the federal aid system creates massive paperwork and a lack of accountability. Federal funding shifts the focus of state and local education officials to maximizing federal aid rather than delivering quality services and innovation. Indeed, some federal rules might backfire by making it harder for school districts to innovate.⁵⁰

Federal aid has helped build huge and unproductive bureaucracies. At the federal level, 87 percent of Department of Education employees were furloughed in 2025 during the government shutdown, having been deemed "nonessential."⁵¹ In fact, the entire federal department is nonessential, as it mainly just produces subsidies and mandates that undermine state and local control.

Federal intervention has also spurred the growth of large bureaucracies at the state and local levels to handle the federal funds, regulations, and paperwork. From 1980 to 2022, the number of students in K–12 public schools nationwide increased by 21 percent, while the number of public school teachers increased 48 percent, according to Department of Education data.⁵² The number of principals and assistant principals increased 84 percent over the period; the number of guidance counselors increased 101 percent; the number of support staff increased 55 percent; and the number of instructional aides increased 178 percent.⁵³

A 2025 request from the State of Iowa to the Secretary of Education to block-grant ESEA funding indicated that the state has thousands of government employees who work part- or full-time on compliance with federal K–12 funding, at a cost of about $53 million.⁵⁴ Were this Iowa figure typical for compliance costs across the states, the national total compliance costs would be about $5 billion.⁵⁵

Federal education intervention has also generated large lobbying and litigation activities. For 2024, the NEA had a staff of about 700, annual revenues of more than $400 million, and $381 million in dues and agency fees, the latter being payments from nonmembers who fall under collective bargaining agreements.⁵⁶ The NEA and the American Federation of Teachers are some of the largest lobbyists and political spenders in Washington.⁵⁷ Other education groups lobbying the federal government include the American Association of School Administrators, the National School Boards Association, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and the National Association of School Nurses.

There are numerous lobby groups that focus on particular education programs in the federal budget. The Afterschool Alliance, for example, advocates for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program and other after-school programs. The group has annual revenues of more than $6 million and assets of more than $11 million.⁵⁸

If the K–12 public school activities funded by federal aid are useful, then state and local governments should fund them. The economy would be saved the wasteful lobbying costs, and taxpayers would be saved the costs of hiring all the well-paid administrators dealing with federal subsidies and regulations.

Federalism Works

Under the US Constitution, the federal government was assigned specific limited powers and most government functions were left to the states. Reemphasizing the limits on federal power, the Framers added the Constitution's Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

One of those areas reserved to the states and the people is education. A decentralized approach to education makes sense, because state and local governments better understand the needs of their diverse communities. Not surprisingly, the states have taken different approaches in such areas as reading instruction and school choice.

The states should function as "laboratories of democracy," as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis noted, able to try different methods of teaching and then learning from each other. That reduces the risk of a single government getting something wrong and dragging the whole country down, as we saw with elements of the top-down No Child Left Behind Act.

For decades, reading instruction in the United States has been dominated by the "whole language" method, sometimes called "balanced literacy." This approach emphasizes students memorizing words and using context clues, such as nearby pictures or elements of a story, to learn how to read. The approach deemphasizes phonics, in which students learn to read by learning letter and letter-combination sounds. It turns out that the former approach has no meaningful research support, while the latter has substantial support.⁵⁹

After seeing reading policies adopted in Florida in the early 2000s that escalated student performance, in 2013 Mississippi adopted phonics-based instruction and prohibited third graders who could not pass a reading test from advancing to fourth grade. Since that time, the state has risen from near last on the NAEP's fourth-grade reading assessments to above the national average; in 2024, it tied for ninth place.⁶⁰ Mississippi is not at the national average yet for eighth graders, but it has closed the gap considerably. Several other Southern states, including Louisiana and Alabama, have emulated Mississippi and have also seen gains.⁶¹

Another area where laboratories of democracy are working is school choice, policies that allow funding to follow children to education providers that families choose. These policies range from the choice of public schools within a district to education savings accounts that let parents use funds for myriad expenses, including tuition and tutoring. Since the first modern voucher program in Milwaukee in 1990, states have learned from each other and choice programs have expanded and improved. By late 2025, the number of school choice programs had grown to 75 in 34 states, and enrollment has grown to about 1.5 million students.⁶²

Adhering to federalism might have made the standards-based approaches nationalized by NCLB more sustainable. States such as Texas and North Carolina had adopted these approaches before NCLB, and President George W. Bush, who had been the governor of Texas, decided they were so promising that he took them national. But that took a policy from Texas and imposed it on the entire country, roping in detractors and subjecting the policy to white-hot national-level politics. NCLB became a federal bludgeon that could not be easily tailored to differing state or local needs.

Circling back to Mississippi, the Reading First initiative was a major part of NCLB that emphasized scientifically based reading instruction. But as a top-down imposition, it became a political lightning rod rather than spurring good reading instruction when whole-language supporters fought it tooth and nail. The initiative was hyperpoliticized and devolved into a scandal, with sweetheart deal accusations, scapegoats, and more.⁶³ It was exactly what a controversial education effort imposed nationally tends to create: political warfare, not the best outcomes for kids.

Conclusions

Over the decades, many policymakers have argued that K–12 education is a national priority and that the federal government must play a leadership role with programs, funding, and regulations. However, just because something is a national priority does not mean that the federal government should get involved or that policies should be centralized. Indeed, education can better flourish in a decentralized environment of diversity and local innovation. State and local governments can fund their own school systems and learn best practices from each other.

The federal government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the public schools over the years, with little to show for it but stagnant test scores, huge bureaucracies, and piles of regulations that smother local initiatives and improvements. Federal funding and interventions in K–12 schooling should be phased out and control returned to the states and the people.

Endnotes

1. Christopher J. Lucas, Our Western Educational Heritage (Macmillan, 1972), pp. 474–80.

2. N. Ray Hiner, The Social History of American Education, eds. B. Edward McClellan and William J. Reese (University of Illinois, 1988), pp. 3–22.

3. Old Deluder Act (1647), in Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, vol. 2, 1853.

4. John C. Teaford, The Social History of American Education, eds. B. Edward McClellan and William J. Reese (University of Illinois, 1988), pp. 25–31.

5. Wayne J. Urban and Jennings L. Wagoner Jr., American Education: A History, 3rd ed. (McGraw-Hill, 2004), pp. 53–54.

6. "An Overview of the US Department of Education: History and Purpose," Office of Communications and Outreach, Department of Education, November 13, 2025.

7. J. I. Seidman and F. Van Schaick, "Expansion of Federal Education Program," CQ Researcher, August 20, 1934.

8. J. I. Seidman and F. Van Schaick, "Expansion of Federal Education Program," CQ Researcher, August 20, 1934.

9. United States Constitution Sesquicentennial Commission, History of the Formation of the Union Under the Constitution (Government Printing Office, 1941), p. 128.

10. J. I. Seidman and F. Van Schaick, "Expansion of Federal Education Program," CQ Researcher, August 20, 1934.

11. Christopher T. Cross, Political Education: National Policy Comes of Age (Teachers College Press, 2003), pp. 2–21; and Bryant Putney, Federal Grants for Education (CQ Press, 1937).

12. Fast Facts, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.

13. Chris Borreca, "The Litigious Mess of Special Education," The Atlantic, May 1, 2012.

14. Maggie Koerth-Baker, "The Not-So-Hidden Cause Behind the ADHD Epidemic," New York Times Magazine, October 15, 2013.

15. Neal McCluskey, Feds in the Classroom (Rowman and Littlefield, 2007), p. 50.

16. Dan Bauman and Brock Read, "A Brief History of GOP Attempts to Kill the Education Dept.," Chronicle of Higher Education, June 21, 2018.

17. National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform; A Report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education (Government Printing Office, 1983).

18. Charles S. Clark, "Attack on Public Schools," Congressional Quarterly, July 26, 1996.

19. National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform; A Report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education (Government Printing Office, 1983).

20. Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Pub. L. No. 103-227, 108 Stat. 125 (1994).

21. Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-382.

22. No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

23. Neal McCluskey, Feds in the Classroom (Rowman and Littlefield, 2007), p. 86.

24. "Guidance on the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program," Department of Education, 2009.

25. Neal McCluskey, "Getting the Common Core (and Federal) Facts Right," Cato at Liberty (blog), Cato Institute, March 15, 2016.

26. "Race to the Top Program Guidance and Frequently Asked Questions," Department of Education, 2010.

27. For example, NCLB states, "Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school's specific instructional content, academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum, or program of instruction."

28. Race to the Top, President Barack Obama White House Archives.

29. Amy Howe, "Supreme Court Blocks Temporary Enforcement of Expanded Protections for Transgender Students," SCOTUSblog, August 16, 2024.

30. Josh Christenson, "Randi Weingarten, Teacher's Union Helped Coordinate CDC's 2021 School Reopening Guidance, Records Reveal," New York Post, April 26, 2023.

31. Brooke Schultz, "Ed. Dept. Layoffs Are Reversed, but Staff Fear Things Won't Return to Normal," Education Week, November 13, 2025.

32. Brooke Schultz, "Ed. Dept. Layoffs Are Reversed, but Staff Fear Things Won't Return to Normal," Education Week, November 13, 2025.

33. Maya Yang, "US Education Department Reassigns Many Powers to Other Federal Agencies," The Guardian, November 18, 2025; and "US Departments of Labor, Education Take Next Steps in Implementing Their Workforce Development Partnership," news release no. 25-1363-NAT, Department of Labor, September 8, 2025.

34. Author calculations based on Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2026, Technical Supplement to the 2026 Budget: Appendix (Government Publishing Office, 2025). See also Public Budget Database, Fiscal Year 2025, GovInfo, Government Publishing Office.

35. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2026, Technical Supplement to the 2026 Budget: Appendix (Government Publishing Office, 2025), p. 241. Spending data is for fiscal years.

36. "Table 401.30, Federal On-Budget Funds for Education, by Level/Educational Purpose, Agency, and Program: Selected Fiscal Years, 1970 Through 2022," National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, February 2024.

37. "Table 235.10, Revenues for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, by Source of Funds: Selected School Years, 1919–20 Through 2020–21," National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, August 2023.

38. "Table 236.55, Total and Current Expenditures per Pupil in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: Selected School Years, 1919–20 Through 2020–21," National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, August 2023.

39. Adjustments to the tests slightly altered the scores beginning in 2004.

40. "Table 605.10, Gross Domestic Product per Capita and Expenditures on Education Institutions per Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) Student, by Level of Education and Country: Selected Years, 2005 Through 2020," National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, October 2023; and Education Financing, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

41. PISA 2022 Results: The State of Learning and Equity in Education, vol. 1 (OECD Publishing, 2023).

42. Matthias Von Davier et al., TIMSS 2023 International Results in Mathematics and Science (TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, 2024).

43. These are correlations between federal spending per pupil in 2020–2021, state median household income levels for 2024, and state poverty rates for 2024. Gloria G. Guzman, "Household Income in States and Metropolitan Areas: 2024," American Community Survey Brief no. ACSBR-025, Census Bureau, September 2025; "Table 235.20, Revenues for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, by Source of Funds and State or Jurisdiction: School Year 2020–21," National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, August 2023; and Craig Benson, "Poverty in States and Metropolitan Areas: 2024," American Community Survey Brief no. ACSBR-026, Census Bureau, September 2025.

44. Nora Gordon, "Do Federal Grants Boost School Spending? Evidence from Title I," Journal of Public Economics 88, issues 9–10 (August 2004): 1771–92.

45. Amit R. Paley, "Program Widens School Funding Gap, Report Says," Washington Post, December 20, 2006.

46. Fast Facts, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.

47. Mark Dynarski and Kirsten Kainz, "Why Federal Spending on Disadvantaged Students (Title I) Doesn't Work," Brookings Institution, November 20, 2015.

48. Mark Dynarski and Kirsten Kainz, "Why Federal Spending on Disadvantaged Students (Title I) Doesn't Work," Brookings Institution, November 20, 2015.

49. Mark Dynarski and Kirsten Kainz, "Why Federal Spending on Disadvantaged Students (Title I) Doesn't Work," Brookings Institution, November 20, 2015.

50. Melissa Junge and Sheara Krvaric, "How the Supplement-Not-Supplant Requirement Can Work Against the Policy Goals of Title I," Center for American Progress and American Enterprise Institute, March 2012.

51. Andy Sullivan, "US Government Shutdown: Who Is Still Working and Who Has Been Furloughed?," Reuters, October 8, 2025.

52. "Table 213.10, Staff Employed in Public Elementary and Secondary School Systems, by Type of Assignment: Selected School Years, 1949–50 Through Fall 2022," National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, January 2024.

53. "Table 213.10, Staff Employed in Public Elementary and Secondary School Systems, by Type of Assignment: Selected School Years, 1949–50 Through Fall 2022," National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, January 2024.

54. "Revised Iowa Unified Allocation Plan Proposal," Iowa Department of Education, September 2025.

55. Based on the ratio of K–12 students in the United States to K–12 students in Iowa.

56. National Education Association, Center for Union Facts, data for 2024.

57. National Education Association, Open Secrets; and American Federation of Teachers, Open Secrets.

58. Afterschool Alliance, ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer.

59. Sold a Story podcast, APM Reports.

60. Mississippi, Data Tools: State Profiles, Nation's Report Card, 2024.

61. Sharon Lurye, "Kids' Reading Scores Have Soared in Mississippi 'Miracle'," PBS News, May 17, 2023.

62. The ABCs of School Choice, 2026 Edition (EdChoice, 2026).

63. Sol Stern, "Too Good to Last: The True Story of Reading First," Thomas B. Fordham Institute, March 5, 2008.