Has the U.S. Department of Education improved anything?

Idaho lawmakers are raising an important question about the role of the federal government in education. House Joint Memorial 19, introduced by Idaho House Majority Leader Jason Monks and Senate Majority Leader Lori Den Hartog, calls on Congress to support efforts to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education and return authority over education to the states.

The memorial reflects a growing belief that the federal government’s expanding role in education has produced more bureaucracy than results. After more than four decades of federal involvement, it is worth asking whether the Department of Education has actually improved educational outcomes for American students.

Unfortunately, the evidence suggests it has not.

The Department of Education was created in 1979 under the Carter administration with the goal of improving the educational performance of American students. Since then, the agency has cost taxpayers more than $2.3 trillion. Yet despite this enormous investment, student performance has shown little meaningful improvement.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress—often called the Nation’s Report Card—shows that reading and math scores have largely stagnated for decades, with recent declines following the pandemic. In other words, after more than forty years and trillions of dollars spent, the federal government has little progress to show.

At the same time, federal involvement in education has grown dramatically through regulations and mandates attached to federal funding. Federal funding accounts for only about 10% percent of a school district’s revenue, yet the rules attached to that funding represented nearly half of the regulations the district had to follow.

Across the country, school districts and universities must navigate thousands of pages of federal requirements in order to receive relatively small amounts of funding. These regulations affect everything from reporting requirements and administrative compliance to student services and campus policies. Even private universities that accept federal financial aid must comply with these rules.

The impact has been a growing bureaucracy that often distracts educators from their core mission: teaching students.

The federal government’s involvement has also played a role in the rising cost of higher education. Since 1980, inflation-adjusted college tuition has increased by roughly 180 percent. Federal student loan programs administered through the Department of Education have helped fuel that increase by guaranteeing a steady stream of federally backed loans. With those loans available, universities have been able to raise tuition without worrying that students would be unable to afford it.

The result is a system that is both more expensive and less effective.

This raises a broader constitutional question as well. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states powers not delegated to the federal government, and education is not among the enumerated responsibilities of the federal government.

Historically, education has always been a state and local function shaped by the needs and priorities of individual communities.

States and local communities understand their students far better than distant federal agencies in Washington, D.C. They are better positioned to design curriculum, policies, and education systems that reflect the values and needs of their citizens.

Idaho House Joint Memorial 19 recognizes this reality. By supporting efforts to eliminate the Department of Education and return authority to the states, Idaho lawmakers are encouraging a national conversation about whether federal control has truly benefited American students.

After more than forty years, the record suggests it has not. The Department of Education has added layers of bureaucracy, contributed to rising costs, and centralized decisions that should remain closer to students, parents, and local communities.

If policymakers are serious about improving education outcomes, the solution is not another federal program or another layer of regulation. It is restoring responsibility where it belongs—with the states, the communities, and the families who know their students best.