As President Donald Trump’s administration pushes forward with plans to cut funding to the Department of Education (DOE), local teachers and students in Washington, D.C., warn of severe consequences for the city’s public schools.
Many questions from students and educators have surfaced from Trump’s pledge to abolish the DOE, a federal agency that creates policies, administers programs and coordinates federal funding for educational programs.
In addition to these responsibilities, the DOE protects students from discrimination and provides all students the opportunity to learn through enforcing laws and support for low-income and disabled students.
Jon Valant, director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution said in an NPR article that many red and rural states rely on Title I funding as a share of their per-pupil education, and opposition comes from both Democrats and Republicans as it has the power to pose real threats to their constituents.
Title I is a federally funded program for schools with poverty rates of 35 percent or more to receive additional funds to allocate towards students to ensure students have an equitable and quality education.
Serenity Brooker, a sophomore elementary education major from Miami who is currently shadowing a teacher at Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom Public Charter School, pointed out that many schools in D.C. are already struggling with resource shortages, and cutting the funding for the DOE would only exacerbate these challenges.
“D.C. testing scores aren’t very high right now, so cutting the Department of Education isn’t going to help that at all,” she said.
Recent data from Mayor Muriel Bowser and The Office of State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) shows that over 22 percent of D.C. public school students are performing at or above proficiency in math, and just 34 percent are proficient in English Language Arts/Literacy (ELA) in the annual PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) assessments.
These results reflect the grades of students in the district’s statewide assessments in ELA and math, taken in spring 2024 by students from grades three through eight and high school.
Brooker said that low-income schools in the area rely heavily on federal funding to provide basic materials like books, and learning tools. Without these resources, the quality of education for young learners could decline significantly.
A report from the Educational Trust revealed that schools serving low-income students across D.C. receive, on average, $2,200 less per student in funding than wealthier districts.
American Progress, a public policy research organization, reported that this funding gap contributes to a shortage of essential classroom materials, limiting teachers’ ability to deliver high-quality instruction and hindering students’ academic progress.
Brooker further explained that a lack of funding could make it harder for teachers to offer the hands-on, engaging learning experiences that young children need.
“With funding cuts, they don’t have the materials they need, like books or things to help with math. It makes learning less fun for them,” she said, noting that when children lose interest in learning, it can have long-term negative effects.
The consequences of reducing funding to the DOE would also have effects on public K-12 schools as well as colleges and universities. Aydin Tariq, a high school senior from Mattoon, Illinois, offered his perspective on how federal funding cuts could affect low-income communities in D.C.
Reflecting on his own experience, Tariq said, “There are unfortunately many challenges that students like me face when it comes to utilizing these resources, and a lot of it comes down to accessibility.”
He highlighted how students in his district struggle to access valuable educational opportunities due to financial barriers.
In order for the department to close, it will require an act of Congress. Still, even with full Republican control, Valant told NPR the idea is unlikely to gain traction due to money as many red and rural states rely on Title I funding as a share of their per-pupil education.
In Tariq’s case, his school receives Title I funding that helps provide new materials, technology and run operations.
He said that if the funding was no longer federally mandated, what were once federal grants would then become grants sent to the states, and likely have disastrous effects on funding, academic and disability resources, and even graduation rates.
“Every school should get the funding they deserve based on their size and resources,” Brooker said.
Copy edited by Camiryn Stepteau
