- Moving the programs from the Department of Education to other agencies does not reduce the size of government; it simply shifts the bureaucracy to another office.
- Dividing oversight among agencies risks more confusion, weaker accountability, and higher administrative costs for taxpayers.
- Without changing federal law, these transfers avoid real reform and leave the structure (and spending) largely intact.
The U.S. Department of Education has done just that announced two new interagency agreementstransferring selected responsibilities to the Departments of State and Health and Human Services. The stated goal: to break up the federal education bureaucracy, improve efficiency and return education to the states.
As someone who believes deeply in higher education (and in the value of federal student aid programs that expand opportunity), I also believe in efficient government where taxpayer dollars are spent purposefully to achieve specific goals.
Therefore, these interagency agreements deserve further consideration.
Shifting programs from one federal agency to another does not necessarily mean smaller government. It makes it more complex. And if we’re not careful, this could reduce accountability while ignoring the structural reforms that education policy actually needs.
What the Ministry of Education does
The Ministry of Education has implemented a series of ‘interagency agreements’, whereby functions that traditionally belonged to the ministry are ‘transferred’ to another government agency.
Last year, the government moved six programs from the Ministry of Education to other agencies. These Interinstitutional Agreements (IAAs) sent six programs to the following four agencies:
The U.S. Department of Education staff who administer these programs will be transferred to the four federal agencies.
This week, the Ministry of Education is moving two additional categories of responsibility.
First, the Department of State will take on a greater role in managing section 117 reporting on foreign gifts under the Higher Education Act. Colleges and universities must disclose foreign gifts and contracts totaling $250,000 or more annually. Under the new agreement, the state will help manage the reporting portal, assess compliance and share data with national security stakeholders. This goes together with the new Foreign FundingHigherEd.gov website.
Second, the Department of Health and Human Services will assume administration of various K-12 support programs. These include School Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV), National School Safety Activities, Ready to Learn Programming, Full-Service Community Schools, Promise Neighborhoods and Statewide Family Engagement Centers. HHS, through its Administration for Children and Families, will administer grant competitions and technical assistance.
That’s the context.
Now comes the more difficult question: Does this actually improve the way education policy works for students and taxpayers?
Shifting responsibilities is not the same as reform
If you want a simple analogy, it’s this: If your mother tells you to clean your room and you shove everything in the closet or under the bed, you haven’t cleaned anything. You just covered up the mess.
That’s what’s happening here. No one is actually closing the programs at the Ministry of Education; the bureaucracy, the expenditures and the programs still exist. It is simply pushed to other agencies.
The federal government’s education footprint is not determined by which building houses its employees. It is defined by the statutes that Congress passed: Title I, IDEA, Pell Grants, federal student loans, and more. If the same programs, funding levels, regulations, and compliance requirements remain in place (just under a different agency letterhead), then government has not been cut back. It has been redistributed.
And redistribution can cause friction. Especially if it happens through agreements between agencies.
State educational agencies, colleges and school districts may now have to communicate with multiple federal departments instead of just one. A superintendent who deals with school safety grants can now work with HHS. A university compliance officer handling foreign gift disclosures can work with both the education system and the state. Workforce development officials already combine education and work.
Each additional agency means different systems, guidance documents, oversight structures and internal cultures. That does not automatically mean worse results, but it does mean that more coordination is needed. And that usually means that more money is needed, not less.
Accountability becomes harder to track
I think most Americans are concerned about the way our government is operating. And one of the main arguments for having a single department overseeing one area is accountability.
When something goes wrong with federal student loans, you know the Department of Education is responsible. If special education compliance fails, you will know which agency oversees IDEA.
When programs are spread across different government departments, responsibility becomes less obvious.
Who will ultimately answer if a school safety grant is mismanaged? Education, which supervises? HHS, leading the competition? The Office of Management and Budget, which sets the funding parameters? Congressional committees that oversee various agencies?
When interagency agreements cloud oversight or dilute institutional knowledge, accountability may weaken rather than strengthen.
What about structural changes?
A bigger problem is being overlooked.
If the current administration and lawmakers actually want to dismantle the Ministry of Education, then the fair approach is legislative reform. I’m not saying it should be dismantled at all, but there is a correct way to go about it if that’s the approach lawmakers want to take…
That means revising statutes, redefining federal roles, and openly debating which programs should exist, be consolidated, or be returned to the states.
That’s hard work. Congress is needed for that. It requires political risk.
Agreements between agencies, on the other hand, fall within existing law. They shift existing administrative responsibility without changing the underlying obligations. Title I still exists. IDEA still exists. Federal loan programs are still governed by federal rules.
Real reform would examine whether federal involvement in certain areas produces measurable results relative to costs. It would evaluate the overlap between agencies. The question should be asked whether the results justify administrative layers.
Simply transferring the administration can streamline some processes. But it also introduces new ones.
Without structural reforms, all we are doing here is playing a bureaucratic game for social media headlines.
Efficiency should mean results, not headlines
I support an efficient government. Wasteful spending, redundant oversight and bureaucratic proliferation undermine public confidence.
Just look at the PSLF buyback backlog mess. Even with more accountability and oversight, nothing is being done to solve the administrative problems impacting U.S. student loans. It damages confidence in the entire system.
Efficiency is measured in results and cost savings, not in press releases.
If interagency agreements reduce duplication of back-office functions, improve data sharing, and clarify compliance pathways, they can prove useful. If they instead add new layers of coordination and leave the regulatory complexities untouched, taxpayers may see little return.
The government must be organized around mission clarity. Nationally, education policy affects more than 50 million primary and secondary education students and roughly 17 million college students. This amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars every year.
That size requires careful monitoring and possible reform.
If you split an agency without addressing the legal framework underneath, you risk confusion – and likely more costs, not less. It can also make it harder for voters to understand who is responsible for success or failure.
If the goal is truly to return education to the states, Congress must directly revise federal statutes and funding requirements. If the goal is efficiency, policymakers should publish measurable benchmarks: reductions in administrative costs, processing times, compliance accuracy, and grant cycle time statistics.
If you actually want departmental efficiency, let’s look at the statistics.
In short
I believe in higher education. I believe federal student aid has opened doors for millions of families who otherwise would not have had access to college. I also believe that government should be lean, responsible and results-oriented.
Agreements between agencies can be a tool. But they are not reforms in themselves.
Moving programs from the Department of Education to the state or HHS does not automatically lead to a shrinking of government. It makes it complicated. It blurs responsibility. And it distracts from the pressing administrative needs Americans have today.
Cleaning the room means organizing what stays, throwing away what doesn’t, and making it easier to function in the future.
Anything less is pushing things into the closet, hoping mom doesn’t find out.
#Moving #education #programs #agencies #fix #broken