Washington: The Trump administration says dismantling the Education Department will address lagging academic performance and free schools from federal constraints.

School and state officials, however, say the move adds bureaucracy without clear benefits for students struggling in math and reading. Much of the department's work will now be split across four other federal agencies. For President Donald Trump, it is a step toward closing the department and giving states more control, but several states warn this will complicate their role between local schools and the federal government.

Washington state's education chief said the plan increases bureaucracy fivefold, creating confusion and duplicity. California's chief called it less efficient and disruptive. Maryland's superintendent noted challenges in coordinating with multiple agencies. Wisconsin superintendent Jill Underly said states were not consulted and asked for greater flexibility and fewer standardised testing mandates.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon said schools will continue receiving federal funds without disruption and will ultimately have more resources and flexibility. The department remains in place, as only Congress can abolish it. The Labour Department will take over most school funding and support, while the Education Department retains policy guidance and broad oversight.

Additional programs will shift to the Departments of Health and Human Services, State, and Interior. Although interdepartmental agreements are not new, the scale of programs transferred this time is far larger.

Virginia's schools chief Emily Anne Gullickson said schools are used to working with multiple federal agencies and supported efforts to give states more authority.

Political reactions split

Democrats warned the restructuring will harm vulnerable students, while Republicans called it a victory over bureaucracy. Some conservatives objected, including Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who said agencies lacking education expertise could hurt young people. Former education secretary Margaret Spellings said shifting programs does not eliminate bureaucracy and could make the system harder to navigate.

McMahon said declining test scores show the department has failed and argued her plan is a “hard reset” that ends federal micromanagement. Teachers union leader Randi Weingarten questioned the logic of replacing an existing system instead of improving it.

Schools fear loss of expertise

States and school districts worry about losing the department's guidance on funding formulas and special education laws. The department has not said whether key staff will remain. Without them, schools may lack clarity on allowable federal spending, said Minnetonka superintendent David Law.

Critics question whether other departments can handle the expanded workload. The Labour Department will assume Title I, an USD 18 billion grant serving 26 million low-income students, despite currently managing programs for only 130,000 people a year.

Salem, Massachusetts superintendent Stephen Zrike said shifting programs could bring new stipulations and uncertainty. Others note the Education Department was created in 1979 to prevent the fragmentation that existed when programs were scattered across agencies.

Rep. Bobby Scott urged McMahon to reconsider, citing the original law that warned dispersion created fragmented and inconsistent federal education policies.