Trump’s calls to eliminate U.S. Department of Education renews debate about the role of federal government in Tennessee schools

“The federal Department of Education--a gift to the teachers' unions--began operations on May 4, 1980. It's no coincidence that the quality of public education has declined over the ensuing 44 years. Abolish the DOE and return authority over public education to the states, where it constitutionally belongs,” wrote Jacobs.¶

Republican statements of support for Trump on this matter has sparked criticism from Tennessee Democratic Party leaders who worry such a move could hurt the most vulnerable Tennessee children.¶

“Tennessee public schools are among the most underfunded in the nation. Any action that endangers targeting federal funding for schools’ meals, children with disabilities and students in low-income communities would be unpopular with families throughout the state and should be rejected,” said a spokesperson for the Senate Democratic Caucus in an email to Tennessee Firefly.¶

The rift largely reflects longstanding differences between both parties about the role of the federal government in public education more generally, particularly in relation to recent debates about school choice legislation that many Democrats believe would funnel much-needed funds away from the state’s traditional public-school systems. ¶

Rick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said in a report from the education publication Chalkbeat that he believes the debate has become a way for both parties to signal their goals when it comes to the role of the federal government in education policy.¶

“The Department of Education actually has very little to do with that debate. Abolishing it doesn’t advance school choice and keeping it doesn’t do much for traditional district schools. But it’s become a symbol of which side you’re on in that debate,” he said in the report.¶

The renewed debate this year comes after some Republican lawmakers previously expressed interest in rejecting more than a billion federal education dollars to avoid some of the requirements that come with taking them. Tennessee lawmakers held multiple hearings on the possibility last year but ultimately did not move forward with legislation.¶

While some Republicans believe such moves would give states’ education systems more autonomy, educators, Democrats, and public education advocates have consistently rallied against efforts to disempower the department. They argue that the idea would be a disaster for public schools in Tennessee, due to the importance of federal funding for supplemental services and programs that address the needs of economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, English language learners, students dealing with homelessness, and professional development for students and teachers.¶

Last year, leaders from Hawkins County Schools, Jackson-Madison County Schools, Memphis-Shelby County Schools, and Metro Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) spoke at a hearing to express their opposition to rejecting federal education funding. MNPS Chief of Staff Hank Clay said then that federal funding is needed to help Davidson County’s most vulnerable students, and enables the district to make strategic investments for its students.¶

“This funding provides extra supports for these students who need resources to support learning and provides protection for those students. We see this federal funding as some of our most strategic resources that we can use to experiment with without using state and local funds to research whether the funds are providing the evidence that we need to increase student achievement,” Clay said then.¶

Democratic state Sen. Jeff Yarbro argued in a recent report from WZTV Nashville that the U.S. Department of Education’s guidance and funding for Tennessee plays a critical in state efforts to improve student performance.¶

“Almost all the standards that are set for ensuring that they get a high-quality education, that they get some access to learning and a better future. Those rules are primarily brought in by the federal government,” Yarbro said.¶

Story updated with comments from Glenn Jacobs.¶

Though some criticized the proposal as duplicative of 2025 legislation, the ban addresses an important nuance in the law.