Linda McMahon, Secretary of Education
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images/TNS
In recent months, there has been growing discussion about returning more control of education policy to individual states instead of keeping strong federal oversight. At first glance, this idea might sound appealing. Some people argue that states understand their communities better and should make their own decisions about education.
But when the Xavierite Editorial Board spoke about this issue, many raised concerns that show why this shift could be risky–especially for present and future college students.
Important topics might disappear from classrooms simply because a state decides they are unnecessary.
Education should expand knowledge and opportunity, not limit it based on geography.
Another student pointed out a simple but powerful issue: people don’t get to choose where they are born. If education systems differ dramatically from state to state, students could end up with very different chances of getting into college or receiving a quality education.
This would create an uneven playing field from the start. Education is supposed to help level the field—not make it steeper.
Education experts have raised similar concerns. According to The Education Trust, removing federal oversight could “jeopardize civil rights protections, weaken accountability, and dismantle programs that millions of students rely on.” (EdTrust)
For many students, federal support programs are the reason college is even possible. One graduating student shared that without financial aid and grants, they likely wouldn’t be graduating this year.
Instead of spending years working just to afford classes, they were able to balance school with work and finish on time. Programs like federal financial aid are designed to give students across the country the chance to pursue higher education, regardless of their financial situation. Removing or weakening those programs could close doors for thousands of students.
Education researchers also warn that federal programs play a key role in protecting vulnerable groups. Without federal enforcement, students from marginalized backgrounds could lose important protections and support systems that ensure equal access to education. In fact, the Education Trust warns that before federal oversight, “millions of students were denied basic educational opportunities, and states routinely ignored glaring inequities.” (EdTrust)
There are also concerns about how state priorities could shape education funding. One student worried that in Illinois, attention and funding might become concentrated in the Chicagoland area, leaving other regions behind.
Others fear that states might prioritize private schools over public ones because of financial incentives. When education policy varies too much between states, it can create gaps in quality and opportunity that hurt students who already face challenges.
Supporters of returning education to the states argue that local leaders understand their communities better than federal officials. One policy organization argues that education decisions should be made closer to home because “parents, educators, and learners are recognizing that the education needed for success is different than it was in the past.” (Stand Together)
Advocates of decentralization also argue that “those closest to students—parents, educators, and innovators—should have the freedom to shape learning environments.” (Stand Together)
However, while local flexibility can be valuable, students worry that removing federal oversight entirely could create more problems than it solves.
Perhaps the biggest concern students expressed is affordability. College costs are already rising, and many students rely on tuition assistance programs to attend school at all. If federal programs were reduced or eliminated, countless students could lose access to college entirely. This doesn’t just affect individuals—it can shape the future workforce, the economy, and opportunities for the next generation.
Research and commentary from education policy organizations have echoed these concerns, warning that reducing federal involvement could weaken protections and support systems that students depend on nationwide. Federal oversight has historically helped ensure civil rights protections, financial aid access, and consistent standards that benefit students across the country.
To be clear, this debate is complicated. States do have different needs, and some people believe local control can make education more responsive. However, based on what students are saying, the risks of returning education almost entirely to the states may outweigh the potential benefits.
When access to education depends too heavily on where you live, equality in education begins to disappear.
At the end of the day, education should be an opportunity available to everyone—not something that varies dramatically based on state lines. As students, we’re the ones most affected by these policies, and our voices should be part of the conversation.