What would abolishing the Department of Education mean for Nevada?

President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, making the future of Nevada’s nearly $1 billion of federal funding for Title I, special education and federal student aid programs uncertain.

Proponents of the department’s abolishment say it would eliminate a slow, bureaucratic agency and provide more flexibility for states. Opponents worry about losing the programs and funding for vulnerable populations that come through the department.

“There’s definitely bureaucracy in the Department of Education,” said Vicki Kreidel, a teacher and president of Southern Nevada’s chapter of the National Education Association union. “But my fear is that if that goes away, what happens to the programs? Especially if some of these programs may be things that the president-elect doesn’t value?”

The Clark County School District, where well over half of its 385 schools receive federal Title I funding, is particularly vulnerable. In total, Nevada received nearly $161 million in Title I funding for low-income schools for the 2024-25 school year.

“It’s designed to close the gap between families who can provide additional opportunities and those that can’t,” said Principal Rebecca Mestaz Lyon of Heard Elementary School.

The school in east Las Vegas used its $334,590 in Title I funding for classroom libraries, field trips and guest speakers. Mestaz Lyon said she had her fingers crossed that her school would continue to receive Title I funding, but conceded she can no longer be sure.

Included in Nevada’s almost $1 billion in federal funding from the Department of Education is $8.19 million dedicated to helping students learn English (in CCSD, 16 percent of students are English learners) and $104.4 million to special education programs. Nevada also received more than $173 million for federal Pell Grants, which help low-income students pay for higher education.

‘Many things are up in the air’

It’s unclear whether Trump will be able to shut down the department. The plan would have to pass Congress, including 60 votes in the Senate to clear a filibuster.

Short of full abolition of the department, other changes could affect students in Nevada. For example, Trump has opposed President Joe Biden’s efforts to forgive student loan debt.

“Many things are up in the air that weren’t up in the air prior to November,” Mestaz Lyon said.

On Tuesday, Trump nominated Linda McMahon, the former chief executive of World Wrestling Entertainment, to head the department. In a statement, he described her as a “fierce advocate for Parents’ Rights.” He also praised her work toward school choice.

McMahon could carry out Trump’s advocacy for cultural changes within education, such as his advocacy for removing transgender protections and race policies. Trump has also said he would pull money away from states that support policies with which he disagrees.

For the most part, Kreidel said, the future is all speculation. But she does hear concern from teachers about the future every day.

“It’s a wait and see, but it’s a wait and see with that kind of sick feeling in your stomach,” Kreidel said.

More local control

One potential outcome of reforms to the Department of Education could be “block grants” of funding, which would provide states with more spending flexibility.

Brad Marianno, a UNLV professor for education policy and higher education, said there could be some efficiency trade-offs with the move to abolish the federal agency.

“Even if it occurs, I don’t know that that’s an earth-shattering thing to the way we view education,” Marianno said.

Erin Phillips, who runs the parental rights group Power 2 Parent, said she is in favor of the conversation around dismantling the federal agency because it would individualize education, something her organization has championed for a long time.

The current regulations coming down from the Department of Education, she said, perpetuate a “one-size-fits-all model of education.”

“When we see kids who have an individualized education, and they are being taught the way that particular student learns, and every student learns slightly differently. That is how we improve education,” Phillips said.

Funding gaps

Although Phillips is in favor of the conversation around individualizing education, she said she is worried that abolishing the department would be a “huge undertaking.” She said it would fall on the states to ensure they filled the gaps for programs that help vulnerable populations.

Danielle Ford, a former CCSD board member recently elected to the Nevada State Board of Education, has been an advocate for reducing state mandates. She said that effort is not related to the conversation around abolishment of the federal agency.

Ford said she worries that without funding explicitly earmarked for certain purposes, states would be able to choose how to spend it. Money that currently goes to vulnerable populations, such as low-income and special education students, potentially could be spent somewhere else.

“I think schools and districts are going to be left scrambling,” Ford said.

In a written statement, the Nevada Department of Education said it wouldn’t respond until Trump’s administration determined its plans for K-12 education.

Not the first time

Trump is not the first president to call for the abolition of the department. Former President Ronald Reagan campaigned on closing the department signed into existence by President Jimmy Carter, but Reagan ultimately did not follow through with a recommendation to Congress.

Nicole Beer, a librarian who runs Defense of Democracy of Southern Nevada, said that although she is concerned for the future, teachers and librarians will continue to fight for “quality education,” just as they always have.

“Nobody is coming to Nevada’s rescue, except for librarians and teachers. We’ve always saved ourselves, and we will save our students,” she said.

Contact Katie Futterman at kfutterman@reviewjournal.com. Follow @ktfutts on X and @katiefutterman.bsky.social.