DISMANTLING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: KENTUCKY’S EDUCATIONAL STAKES IN FEDERAL DISSOLUTION

Author: Jacob A. Williams, Associate Editor

I.               Introduction

As the nation mourns Jimmy Carter, we reflect on his presidential legacy. Among his most significant achievements was establishing education as a cabinet-level priority through the creation of the Department of Education (“DOE”) in 1979.[i] But now transition to the new presidential administration has revived discussions about dismantling the “bureaucratic” DOE and shifting both control and funding of education to the states.[ii] Senate Bill 5384, introduced in late 2024, would transfer oversight of federal student loans to the Department of Treasury and special education programs to the Department of Health and Human Services, enabling the states to fill in the gaps.[iii] While eliminating the DOE is no easy task,[iv] renewed challenges to federal education oversight prompt consideration of whether states can handle added administrative duties.

Investigation into Kentucky’s education-related history will lead you to a 2014 quote from Senator Rand Paul stating, “I don’t think you’d notice if the whole department was gone tomorrow.”[v] However, Kentucky has struggled with its own commitment to education. In 1989, the Kentucky Supreme Court declared the state’s education system deficient under its constitution in Rose v. Council for Better Education.[vi] The court held that funding disparities between wealthy and poor districts violated students’ fundamental rights to an adequate education.[vii] Adjusting for modern inflation, the 1990 per-pupil expenditure disparity that the court deemed unconstitutional was $3,489.[viii] In 2022, the disparity in per-pupil funding climbed to $3,902.[ix] These troubling figures raise a critical question: Is Kentucky prepared to assume expanded educational oversight if the DOE is dissolved?

II.             Kentucky’s Response to the Rose Decision

The Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 (“KERA”)[x] represented the legislature’s comprehensive response to Rose, fundamentally restructuring Kentucky’s education system.[xi] Among its most significant changes was the creation of the Office of Education Accountability (“OEA”), designed to monitor education reform implementation.[xii] KERA’s reforms also included the Support Education Excellence in Kentucky (“SEEK”) funding formula,[xiii] which guaranteed base funding per pupil with supplements for at-risk students, exceptional children, and transportation needs.[xiv]

SEEK initially provided a foundation for educational investment that narrowed the discrepancies present before Rose.[xv] However, recent years have shown deterioration in its effectiveness due to unforeseen market volatility.[xvi] Transportation funding under SEEK, prescribed by statute, has not been fully funded since 2004.[xvii] This underfunding forces districts to redirect money from other educational needs to cover shortfalls.[xviii] On top of those challenges, Kentucky’s education budget has been inconsistent. From 2022-2024, Kentucky’s budget lowered education’s General Fund allotment from 45% to 37%.[xix] However, the 2024-2026 state budget marks a significant shift, with the Governor’s office securing funding for student transportation and increasing the base per-pupil amount by 4.0%, the largest increase since the 1990 Education Reform Act was enacted.[xx]

The inconsistencies present in Kentucky’s funding of education, despite KERA’s dedicated oversight mechanisms, raise fundamental questions about Kentucky’s administrative capacity. While the OEA provides guidance to current programs, the state’s struggle to regulate SEEK funding causes some state education leaders to doubt Kentucky’s progress regarding education funding.[xxi] Before considering the dissolution of the DOE, it is crucial to examine what federal support Kentucky currently receives and how the state might replicate these services.

III.           Federal Support in Kentucky

Kentucky’s P-12 education system receives substantial financial and programmatic support through various DOE programs. In the 2022-2023 school year, Federal Title I funds provided $200 million in federal revenue for 1,484 public schools.[xxii] These funds helped address disparities that Rose sought to eliminate by aiding Kentucky’s economically disadvantaged districts.[xxiii] Additionally, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,[xxiv] the DOE provides guidance on special education standards and training.[xxv] Kentucky schools supported approximately 109,749 exceptional children in the 2022-2023 academic year.[xxvi] This includes students with special needs requiring individualized education plans and those needing advanced placement and gifted education programs.[xxvii]  Beyond these specific programs, the DOE also provides technical assistance for implementing federal programs, offers professional development resources for educators, and maintains oversight of civil rights compliance in schools.[xxviii]

The DOE’s non-financial contributions—through curriculum guidance, assessment systems, and accountability measures—are far from warmly welcomed throughout the state.[xxix] Critics argue these responsibilities belong with states,[xxx] while supporters maintain that federal frameworks ensure consistent nationwide standards.[xxxi] Kentucky’s academic standards and accountability measures currently align with the nationally recognized frameworks. However, transitioning oversight functions to the state would require a significant review of current procedures to maintain program quality, particularly where federal technical expertise has historically guided state implementation.[xxxii]

IV.          Administrative Capacity Challenges

While advocates for limiting the federal role in education argue that states should have near exclusive say over education standards, Kentucky must consider the significant obstacles its most vulnerable populations may be exposed to.[xxxiii] Specifically, to avoid lapses in existing education programs, the state will need to account for the administrative capacity that the federal government currently boasts.[xxxiv] In its education agencies, Kentucky will require new personnel to regulate and manage the Title 1 funds that currently fall under federal supervision, adequate training for these individuals, and competitive salaries that ensure quality candidates are sustained.[xxxv]

The state’s existing challenges with educational oversight, exemplified by the legislature’s ongoing struggles with funding distribution, highlight the complex nature of managing the state education budget. If the state must supplement DOE procedures, it will need to establish and maintain the necessary administrative structure. If it fails to do so, the burden of providing these funds will shift to the districts of Kentucky.[xxxvi]

V.            Conclusion

Kentucky’s battles with state education policy since Rose demonstrate both the state’s commitment to educational improvement and the persistent challenges it faces. Similar testing outcomes, despite lower per-pupil spending compared to surrounding states,[xxxvii] show that Kentucky is a state using its budget to achieve positive results.[xxxviii] However, no matter how committed to education the state has been in the past, recent data shows that Kentucky districts are simply not receiving adequate funding.[xxxix] Federal dollars provide important supplementary support for disadvantaged students nationwide, support that would be difficult to replace even if only fractional amounts are lost.[xl] As proposals to dissolve the DOE advance, Kentucky's educational system demonstrates that, without serious reform, preserving established federal frameworks remains necessary for maintaining and improving educational quality.

[i] See Mark Walsh, Jimmy Carter’s Education Legacy Stretched From the School Board to the White House, ED. WEEL. (Dec. 29, 2024), https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/jimmy-carters-education-legacy-stretched-from-the-school-board-to-the-white-house/2024/12 (noting that Jimmy Carter campaigned on a promise to establish a federal department of education, something he achieved in his one term in office).

[ii] Laura Meckler, GOP candidates embrace Trump’s call to abolish Education Department, WASH. POST (Oct. 24, 2024), https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/10/24/trump-republicans-education-department-shut-down/ (explaining some GOP representatives describe the Education Department as a bloated and unnecessary bureaucracy).

[iii] Returning Education to Our States Act, S.5384, 118th Cong. (2024).

[iv] Meckler, supra note ii (noting that closing the DOE would require a Senate supermajority of 60 votes, similar to a failed bill sponsored by Kentucky House member Thomas Massie in 2023).

[v] David Catanese, Trump wants to eliminate the Department of Education. What would that mean for Kentucky?, LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER (Jan 2, 2025, 2:00 AM EST), https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article296924884.html.

[vi] Rose v. Council for Better Educ., 790 S.W.2d 189 (Ky. 1989) (stating “We have decided one legal issue—and one legal issue only—viz., that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth has failed to establish an efficient system of common schools throughout the Commonwealth.”).

[vii] See id. at 199.

[viii] Jason Bailey et. al., The Funding Gap Between Kentucky’s Wealthy and Poor School Districts Is Now Worse Than Levels Declared Unconstitutional, KYPOLICY (Aug. 23, 2023), https://kypolicy.org/kentucky-school-funding-returns-to-pre-kera-levels/.

[ix] Id.

[x] Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990, ch. 476, 1990 Ky. Acts 1208.

[xi] Bailey et. al., supra note viii (describing that by passing KERA, legislators reformed academic expectations, performance, local decision-making, teacher development, oversight and accountability, wraparound services for students and more, improved funding adequacy and equity.).

[xii] See KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 7.410(1)(c) (West 2024).

[xiii] See KY. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 157.310-.440 (West 2024).

[xiv] See generally Bailey et. al., supra note viii (noting that the new funding formula, KERA, guaranteed a minimum amount of funding per student, state coverage of transportation costs, and required districts to levy a percentage of property taxes to the SEEK formula).

[xv] See Lawrence Picus et. al., Assessing the Equity of Kentucky's SEEK Formula: A 10-Year Analysis, 29 J. EDUC. FIN. 315, 333-335 (2004) https://www.jstor.org/stable/40704213 (noting that SEEK funding maintained financial neutrality between low and high-income districts during its first decade, aligning with legislative intent).

[xvi] See Sarah Michels, What’s wrong with SEEK and how can Kentucky fix it? ST. J. (Mar. 4, 2024), https://www.state-journal.com/education/whats-wrong-with-seek-and-how-can-kentucky-fix-it/article_990e07fe-da1e-11ee-8da1-8786108140b6.html.

[xvii] See Pam Thomas et. al., The Money Is There and So Are the Needs: Preview of the 2024-2026 Budget of the Commonwealth, KYPOLICY (Dec. 14, 2023), https://kypolicy.org/the-money-is-there-kentucky-budget-preview-2024-2026/#State_funding_for_P-12_education.

[xviii] Id.

[xix] Id.

[xx] 2024-2026 Executive Budget, KY. OFF. OF STATE BUDGET DIR., 3 (2024), https://osbd.ky.gov/Documents/Most%20Recent%20Publications/00-2024-26_BIB-Budget-FINAL.pdf.

[xxi] Michels, supra note xvi (noting that the Superintendent of Bowling Green Independent School District believes the state is “tremendously missing the mark”).

[xxii] See Kentucky Education Facts, KY. DEP’T OF EDUC. (Nov. 21, 2024, 6:17 PM), https://www.education.ky.gov/comm/edfacts/Pages/default.aspx.

[xxiii] Title 1, Part A Handbook, KY. DEP’T OF EDUC. 3 (Aug. 2024) https://www.education.ky.gov/federal/progs/tia/Documents/Title%20I%20Part%20A%20Handbook.pdf (noting the purpose of the Title 1, Part A program is to provide fair, equitable, high-quality education to all children and to close educational achievement gaps).

[xxiv] 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482 (2018).

[xxv] About IDEA, U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC. (last visited Jan. 1, 2025), https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/ (stating “(IDEA) is a law that makes available a free appropriate public education to eligible children with disabilities throughout the nation and ensures special education and related services to those children.”).

[xxvi] Ky. Educ. Facts, supra note xxii.

[xxvii] KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 157.200 (West 2024).

[xxviii] See Libby Stanford, The U.S. Department of Education, Explained, EDWEEK (Oct. 14, 2024), https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/the-u-s-department-of-education-explained/2024/10 (updated Nov. 8, 2024).

[xxix] See U.S. Dep’t of Educ. Off. of Elementary & Secondary Educ., A State’s Guide to the U.S. Department of Education’s Assessment Peer Review Process, U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., 2-4 (Sep. 24, 2018), https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2023/11/assessmentpeerreview.pdf (describing that the DOE must provide to states guidance on the subject of fulfilling peer review state assessment systems and accountability checks).

[xxx] See Meckler, supra note ii (citing that proponents of shuttering the DOE refer to it as a monstrosity, an agency that does not make sense, and an agency that states no longer need.).

[xxxi] Id. (explaining that the Office for Civil Rights investigates discrimination claims and administers federal grants beyond standard DOE oversight).

[xxxii] See generally Steve Inskeep & Taylor Haney, What Trump’s pledge to close Dept. of Education means for students, GOP-led states, NPR (Nov. 15, 2024, 11:26 AM ET) https://www.npr.org/2024/11/14/nx-s1-5181966/a-look-at-the-potential-impact-of-shutting-down-the-department-of-education (Jon Valant, director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, states the federal government has, over time, come to play several important roles in education at the state level).

[xxxiii] See Sarah Wood & Cole Claybourn, What Happens if the Education Department Is Dissolved?, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REP. (Nov. 27, 2024), https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/what-happens-if-the-education-department-is-dissolved (noting that districts will be responsible for using converted block grants however they choose without federal oversight to ensure students with IEPs and 504 plans are cared for).

[xxxiv] Id.

[xxxv] See generally Katherine Knott, Republicans Could Abolish the Education Department. How Might That Work? INSIDE HIGHER ED (Nov. 4, 2024), https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2024/11/04/what-abolishing-education-department-could-mean.

[xxxvi] See Pam Thomas et al., State Funding for Education Has Been Stagnant for Many Years, But the 2022-2024 Budget Presents a Unique Opportunity to Begin Reinvesting, KYPOLICY (Feb. 14, 2022), https://kypolicy.org/state-education-funding-2022-2024-opportunity-for-reinvestment/ (noting that with diminished state support, districts and their constituents are left to shoulder the burden).

[xxxvii] See KY. Legis. Rsch. Comm’n, A Review of School Funding Adequacy Studies, 480 (2023), https://legislature.ky.gov/LRC/Publications/Research%20Reports/RR480.pdf.

[xxxviii] Id.

[xxxix] Id. (concluding “Nine adequacy studies were reviewed, and none found that all districts were adequately funded.”).

[xl] See Jess Clark, Report shows funding gap between Ky.’s poorest and wealthiest districts now worse than in 1990, LOUISVILLE PUB. MED. (Aug. 25, 2023, 4:00 PM EDT), https://www.lpm.org/news/2023-08-25/report-shows-funding-gap-between-ky-s-poorest-and-wealthiest-districts-now-worse-than-in-1990 (noting that Kentucky Senate Majority leader cites to rising and falling property values, property assessments, and tax revenues as challenges in education funding).