What Could Closing the U.S. Department of Education Mean for Music Education?
If you’ve been watching the news lately, no doubt you’ve heard that the current administration is actively trying to shut down the US Department of Education (DoE). And if you’re anything like me (and many other educators) you’re probably concerned about what this might mean for teachers, students, schools, and more personally, music programs. While the rhetoric often simplifies the issue to slogans about “local control,” the reality is far more complex—especially for music educators. Imagining a future where DoE no longer exists isn’t just a thought experiment; it’s a chance to consider how deeply intertwined federal policy is with the health of our band rooms, rehearsal halls, and music tech labs nationwide.
Before diving deeper, I want to acknowledge something important: I make every effort to avoid political commentary in my writing and professional work. Music educators come from a wide range of backgrounds, belief systems, and communities—and the classroom should be a place where students (and teachers) feel safe from political polarization. However, in recent months I’ve heard genuine anxiety from colleagues, district leaders, and educators across the country about what closing the DoE might mean for their programs. When uncertainty affects the work we do for students, I believe it’s essential to provide clear, factual insights without venturing into partisan territory. My goal here is not to advocate for or against any political position, but to help music educators understand the potential implications so they can prepare, advocate, and support their students regardless of policy outcomes.
To understand the implications, we need to start with what the DoE actually does. The DoE oversees more than 30 federal education programs: Title I (support for students in low-income communities), Title II (professional development), Title III (support for English language learners), IDEA (special education funding), and Title IV-A (Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants). Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), music and the arts are explicitly identified as part of a “well-rounded education,” making them viable recipients of Title IV-A funding for technology, instruments, curriculum, teacher training, and expanded learning opportunities.
Beyond funding, the DoE plays a vital role in civil-rights enforcement. It ensures compliance with laws like Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504—protections that, whether music educators realize it or not, help guarantee access to music classes for students who might otherwise be excluded. ED also collects and publishes national education data, runs competitive grant programs, supports teacher-preparation initiatives, and provides guidance that shapes state-level policy.
A recent article by the NEA titled “How Dismantling the Department of Education Would Harm Students” echoes many of the concerns music educators should heed. It highlights key points including:
The NEA argues that stripping DoE of its resources and mission would “be catastrophic for the millions of students in low-income communities who need educational services and support.”
It outlines how civil-rights protections are at risk, which would indirectly affect students’ access to inclusive music and arts experiences.
It draws attention to specific programs — such as Title I and IDEA — that could be drastically altered or reduced, thereby impacting instructional staffing and services for underserved students.
While the NEA article addresses public education broadly, its implications are highly relevant to music education. Music programs—especially in underserved schools—depend on the structures anchored by the DoE. The NEA’s analysis reinforces the fact that if the DoE’s functions are disrupted, the ripple effects will likely reach our rehearsal rooms, classroom budgets, and student-access frameworks. If the DoE is eliminated, the federal government wouldn’t simply stop funding education overnight. But the administration, oversight, and accountability for these programs would shift—or disappear. Congress could theoretically distribute block-grants to states, hand responsibilities to other agencies, or reduce federal involvement altogether. No matter the approach, the transition would be messy.
The biggest immediate impact on music education would be instability in funding. States vary dramatically in their education priorities and budgets. Currently, federal funds make up roughly 8–10% of public education spending, but that percentage is much higher in districts serving historically marginalized communities. Title I and IDEA dollars are lifelines for many schools. Remove or restructure those programs without careful oversight, and the inequities already present in music education could deepen.
State funding is also far from guaranteed. Some states have strong arts-education mandates and active arts commissions; others do not. Without the federal expectation of equitable access to a well-rounded education, states could interpret their responsibility toward music education in fifty completely different ways. Some might boldly double down on arts investment. Others could quietly cut programs during the next budget cycle with little national recourse for parents or educators.
In this scenario, state advocacy becomes not just important but essential. National oversight would recede, and responsibility would shift to state departments of education, governors, and legislatures. Music educators would need to become far more engaged at the state and local levels. The roadmap for advocacy would fundamentally change.
Fortunately, music educators are not alone. Organizations like the National Association for Music Education (NAfME) and the NAMM Foundation have decades of experience navigating complex policy landscapes. NAfME’s state affiliates would likely become even more important, as each state adapts to its new post-DoE reality. The Arts Education Partnership, Education Commission of the States, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Federation of High Schools (NFHS) would also play increasingly central roles in providing research, policy guidance, and tools for arts advocacy.
At the district level, music educators could expect new challenges as local boards make decisions previously guided by federal frameworks. Teacher shortages could grow if federal funding for preparation grants, student-loan-forgiveness programs, and alternative certification pathways is reduced or devolved. Professional development—an area where music educators already feel underserved—could become unevenly available depending on state or district priorities. And without federal civil-rights monitoring, families of students with disabilities may have to work harder to ensure their children receive equitable access to music instruction, adaptive equipment, and inclusive opportunities.
There is, however, another side to this scenario. Some advocates of eliminating the DoE argue that states would gain freedom to innovate. A few might indeed reimagine music education in exciting ways—expanding contemporary offerings, adopting more robust technology initiatives, or investing in culturally responsive approaches. But innovation without equity is a recipe for national inconsistency, and historically federal oversight has played a stabilizing role in preventing the arts from becoming optional.
At the heart of all this is a pressing question: Who ensures that every child, in every zip code, has access to music education? If the answer moves from Washington to each state capitol, music educators must be ready to meet that challenge head-on. Advocacy cannot be an optional activity; it must become part of the professional identity of every music teacher.
And yet, even in the face of uncertainty, one truth remains constant: music educators are remarkably resilient. Whether policy structures shift or stay the same, our mission doesn’t change. Every student deserves to experience music—not just as an extracurricular activity, but as a fundamental part of their education. Ensuring that promise will require adaptability, creativity, and a renewed commitment to advocacy. If federal support diminishes, our collective voice must grow louder. Innovation must be paired with equity. And no matter the policy landscape, music education must remain a cornerstone of the American educational experience.
Music educators don’t need to wait for political decisions to start protecting their programs. Begin by strengthening relationships with your administrators and school board members, sharing program data, inviting them to events, and keeping them informed about the impact of music on student learning. Stay active in your state’s NAfME affiliate and other arts-advocacy groups, which provide updates, tools, and coordinated action plans. Engage parents and families as vocal supporters—they carry tremendous influence at the district and state levels. And finally, make your program visible through concerts, community events, recordings, and student showcases. By staying organized, informed, and proactive, music educators can help ensure their programs remain strong regardless of what happens at the federal level.
I hope you find this article useful! Let me know what you think.