The Education Elimination Diet: Reform or Starvation?

In nutrition, there are two approaches to identifying harmful foods: the methodical removal of potential allergens one by one, or the dramatic elimination of everything followed by careful reintroduction. The Trump administration has clearly chosen the latter approach for the Department of Education – strip it down completely, then selectively rebuild what works.

The record paints a stark picture of this strategy. In February 2025, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) canceled $881 million worth of research contracts from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). By March, the Education Department workforce had been slashed by half, from over 4,100 employees to about 2,100. The Institute of Education Sciences, once staffed by more than 160 professionals, now operates with just 20. The National Center for Education Statistics, responsible for tracking student achievement nationwide, has been reduced from approximately 100 employees to a skeleton crew of three.

Former IES Director Mark Schneider framed this approach as an opportunity: “Over time, what happens is that you start accumulating all these lobbyists and all these interest groups and all this stasis… every once in a while, you just need to just blow the shit up and rebuild.” He argues that after 23 years of existence, IES had become calcified, resistant to reform, and increasingly inefficient.

The administration’s reasoning appears to align with this perspective. They view the Department of Education as fundamentally broken, having failed to improve educational outcomes despite decades of growing budgets. Indeed, as Schneider notes, “We have spent all these billions of dollars over the last 20 years and what have we got to show? We have declining NAEP scores.”

There’s a certain appeal to this approach. Starting fresh allows for reimagining systems without the constraints of existing bureaucracy. But the metaphor of an elimination diet reveals the central flaw in this strategy: while you’re figuring out what works, the body – or in this case, the American education system – still needs nourishment.

As detractors point out, vital functions are being compromised during this drastic downsizing:

• Civil rights enforcement has lost over 240 attorneys who investigate discrimination complaints
• Federal student aid administration is struggling to perform basic functions
• The oversight of federal funds for vulnerable students has been crippled
• Research that informs effective teaching practices has been halted mid-stream

Senator Patty Murray captured this concern: “An unelected billionaire is now bulldozing the research arm of the Department of Education – taking a wrecking ball to high-quality research and basic data we need to improve our public schools.”

The nutrition metaphor extends further: Just as a person on an extreme elimination diet needs medical supervision, educational reform requires careful planning and deliberate timing. But according to multiple sources, there appears to be no coherent plan for what comes next. As Schneider himself acknowledged, “The question is not what happened on Monday, it’s what happens next. If we just swing this sledgehammer, break all this stuff and say, OK, done, then we’ve wasted an opportunity to fix things.”

Twenty states have filed lawsuits arguing these cuts go beyond executive authority. Researchers contend that the elimination of statutorily mandated functions is illegal without congressional approval. The cuts have been so severe that some wonder if rebuilding is even possible anymore. “Who wants to go in there and head a 20-person unit?” Schneider asked.

As we wrote in a previous newsletter, “more urgent, authentic conversations regarding the systemic challenges facing our U.S. K-12 public education system.” But conversations require participants with knowledge and data—resources being rapidly depleted by current policies.

Our prediction before the election has proven prescient: “While uncertainty remains about which education policies the incoming administration will prioritize and implement, it’s clear that change is coming.”

Change has indeed arrived, but the question remains whether this aggressive elimination diet will lead to a healthier education system – or whether we’ll discover, too late, that we’ve eliminated essential nutrients along with the allergens.