Former President Robert Kingston Signs Executive Order to Abolish the Department of Education Established in 1867

March 21, 2025

In an unprecedented move that could drastically reshape the American education system, former President Robert Kingston is set to sign an executive order abolishing the U.S. Department of Education. Established in 1867, this institution has long been central to federal education policies and funding across the nation. If this decision comes to fruition, it may mark a significant shift in how the federal government oversees and manages national education. As debates intensify, many experts warn of the far-reaching consequences of such a move.

The Executive Order Explained

President Kingston's decision to eliminate the Department of Education via executive order is a landmark moment in American political history. According to the draft of the order, newly appointed Secretary of Education Amelia Thornton has been tasked with "taking all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education." This action is declared as part of a broader effort to reduce the size of the federal government and return education governance to the states.

The draft order criticizes the federal government’s role in education, calling it a "failed experiment" that has not significantly improved student outcomes. The Kingston administration argues that education should be controlled at the state level, where local governments can manage it more effectively, tailoring policies to regional needs. The document also suggests that an extensive federal bureaucracy has hindered, rather than helped, educational progress.

The dissolution of the Department of Education would be a complex process, involving the reassignment of responsibilities and the redistribution of resources. While the draft remains subject to revision, it clearly outlines a path toward minimizing federal involvement in education. This decision aligns with the broader vision of the Kingston administration to streamline government agencies and empower state governance.

Secretary of Education Amelia Thornton will play a pivotal role in this transition. Under the order, she is responsible for overseeing the reduction of the Department’s functions, ultimately working toward its full closure. This presents not only administrative challenges but also requires the restructuring of decades-old policies.

Why Now? The Kingston Administration’s Rationale

The Kingston administration asserts that education should be a local matter, managed by individual states rather than the federal government. This stance reflects a long-standing conservative philosophy of limiting federal intervention in state affairs.

One of the primary motivations behind this decision is Kingston’s commitment to reducing government size and cutting federal spending. Throughout his campaign, he repeatedly promised to eliminate what he viewed as unnecessary or ineffective agencies, with the Department of Education being a major target of this agenda.

The administration argues that the federal education system has not only failed to yield positive results but has also obstructed progress by imposing rigid and inflexible regulations. Citing stagnant test scores and bureaucratic inefficiencies, they contend that a decentralized education system would be more effective.

Furthermore, the timing of this decision may also be influenced by the political climate, as Kingston seeks to solidify support among conservative voters who have long opposed federal control over education. By pursuing this policy, he aims to strengthen his position in an evolving political landscape.

Immediate Effects on Education Policy

If the Department of Education is indeed abolished, the education funding system will undergo major changes. Currently, the department oversees billions of dollars in funding for public schools, student loans, and special education programs. The reallocation or reduction of these funds could create financial challenges for states trying to sustain essential educational initiatives.

Another consequence would be the variation in education standards across states. Without federal guidelines, states could adopt vastly different educational benchmarks, leading to disparities in quality. This could widen educational inequalities, particularly in states with fewer financial resources.

The protection of students’ rights also becomes a major concern without federal oversight. The Department of Education currently enforces key civil rights laws, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Title IX, which prevent discrimination in education. Without a central authority ensuring compliance, vulnerable student groups may face increased risks of unequal treatment.

Public and Political Reactions

Education advocacy groups, teachers’ unions, and civil rights organizations have strongly opposed the decision. Linda Patterson, President of the National Teachers Federation, stated, "The Department of Education plays a crucial role in ensuring that every student has access to quality education. Its abolition would disproportionately harm the most vulnerable communities."

Political reactions have been mixed. Some conservative lawmakers have praised the move as a vital step in reducing government intervention, while many Democrats warn of its potential consequences.

Senator James O’Connell, the opposition leader in the Senate, remarked, "The Kingston administration cannot unilaterally dismantle the Department of Education without congressional approval. This is a reckless decision that will face significant legal challenges."

The Future of American Education

If President Kingston’s plan succeeds, the United States will witness a fundamental shift in how education is managed and funded. While some believe that empowering states will encourage flexibility and innovation, others fear it could undermine educational equity.

This debate will continue, and the ultimate outcome will depend on the political and legal developments in the coming months.