Education Department Staff Say Reorganisation Has Added Bureaucracy, Not Efficiency

The US Department of Education has not been dismantled outright, but its staff and functions have increasingly been redistributed across other federal agencies, according to accounts from employees within the department. That redistribution, they say, has in practice made the department's work more cumbersome rather than more efficient.

The Trump administration has pursued a long-stated goal of significantly reducing or eliminating the Department of Education, arguing that shifting its responsibilities to other parts of the federal government, or to states, would cut bureaucracy and better serve students. But department staff describe a different reality on the ground, in which functions once handled within a single agency now require coordination across multiple departments.

Fragmentation over elimination

Rather than the department disappearing, employees say core functions, such as overseeing student loans, civil rights enforcement in schools, and grant programs for low-income and disabled students, have been moved to or shared with other federal bodies. That fragmentation, according to staff, has introduced additional layers of approval and communication that did not previously exist, slowing down processes that used to be handled internally.

Employees have described the practical effect as one of added friction: tasks that once moved through a single chain of command now require sign-off or coordination from staff in other agencies who may be less familiar with the specific rules and history governing education programs. Some staff say this has led to delays in responding to schools, families, and students who rely on the department for everything from loan servicing questions to discrimination complaints.

The administration has maintained that consolidating or redistributing functions previously housed at the Department of Education will ultimately reduce duplication and cut costs. Supporters of the reorganisation argue that a leaner federal footprint in education gives states and local districts more control over how programs are run. Critics, including some of the department's own staff, argue that the transition period has so far produced the opposite of its stated goal, adding complexity without a clear plan for how the new arrangement will ultimately be simpler or cheaper.

The department's future organisational structure remains a subject of ongoing policy debate in Washington, with staff accounts suggesting that, for now, the practical experience of reorganisation has diverged from the administration's public description of it.