top of page

Washington Does Not Educate Children—Families Do

  • 3 days ago
  • 3 min read

Why Moving Power out of Washington Must Mean More Than Rearranging the Bureaucracy


DETROIT NEWS| Opinion (Hon. Wm Wagner) - Updated July 31, 2026, 9:57 p.m. ET


The House Education and Workforce Committee’s Less Bureaucracy, Better Education package challenges Washington to acknowledge that federal bureaucracy is not necessary for educational excellence. Recognizing that truth does not diminish the real needs these programs address. A principled case for reform must protect students who depend on aid and schools that serve low-income communities. The central question is which level of government and which institutions can fulfill these lawful obligations most effectively and accountably.


The ten bills, H.R. 9602 through H.R. 9611, transfer responsibilities involving K–12 programs, higher education, workforce development, student aid, family engagement, and other matters from the Department of Education to agencies better suited to administer them. The House Education and Workforce Committee advanced all ten bills on July 15. They do not abolish the Department or address every program under its roof. But they reduce its reach and place federal functions where they more properly belong.


Constitutionally, this is a welcome course correction. The Constitution delegates limited and enumerated powers to the federal government. It gives Washington no general authority to direct education. Under the Tenth Amendment, powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states or the people. Education, therefore, always rested closest to families, communities, and states—not federal planners. Even the law that created the Department of Education acknowledges that parents bear primary responsibility for educating their children and that states and localities bear the primary public responsibility. That same law warns, however, that scattering education programs among federal agencies can produce fragmented, duplicative, and inconsistent policies. Congress must take both truths seriously. That said, Congress cannot manufacture a constitutional power simply by creating a federal agency. The statute establishing the Department of Education did not alter the Constitution or grant Washington a general authority over education that the enumerated powers do not provide. Still, Congress assigned duties to the Department by law, and Congress should repeal or transfer those duties by law. The House package therefore does more than reorganize an executive agency. It gives lawmakers an opportunity to unwind federal overreach through the proper constitutional process. Limited government requires lawful means as well as proper ends.


The biblical order is clearer still. Deuteronomy 6:7 commands parents, “You shall teach them diligently to your children.” Government may protect justice and assist in appropriate ways, but it must not displace the family’s God-given responsibility. Decisions should be made as near as possible to the people who know the child, bear the consequences, and answer to God for their stewardship. Still, changing the name on the federal letterhead is not the same as returning education to parents and states. If the same mandates, dollars, databases, and compliance burdens remain, only scattered among several departments, Washington may produce fragmentation instead of freedom. Critics are right to warn about funding delays, lost expertise, conflicting guidance, and a maze of agencies for colleges and school districts. Scripture commends both stewardship and order. First Corinthians 14:40 teaches that “all things should be done decently and in order.” That principle applies to public administration as surely as to any other sphere.


Congress should, therefore, pair these transfers with firm safeguards that ensure uninterrupted funding during the transition, establish one clear point of contact for families and institutions, require public performance measures, protect students already relying on aid, and provide automatic review of programs that duplicate state or local work. Lawmakers must preserve legitimate protections for the vulnerable while refusing to use those concerns as an excuse for permanent federal control.


I support the direction of this package. But success should not be measured by how many employees or programs change addresses in Washington. The measure must be whether authority moves closer to parents, burdens on schools actually decline, and students are better served.


The goal is not merely a smaller Department of Education. It is a government restored to its constitutional boundaries, families restored to their rightful authority, and public servants reminded that they are stewards—not masters—of the people.


Bibliography

bottom of page