The United Nations considers education a fundamental right that all human beings deserve. Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to education,” emphasizing its role in combating poverty, reducing inequalities and empowering individuals. However, the debate over whether education should be considered a right or a privilege has been reignited in recent months, particularly with the announcement of President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed education policy plans. Trump’s plan to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education has sparked controversy, drawing attention to the nation’s unique approach to education—and how that approach could drastically shift under his administration.
While the U.N. recognizes education as a universal human right, the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to education, allowing successive administrations to shape educational policy in ways that vary dramatically from state to state. Trump’s proposal to eliminate the Department of Education is not a new idea, but it does underscore an important truth: in the United States, education is often treated as a privilege, not a right.
The absence of education as an explicitly protected right in the Constitution means that education policy is primarily the responsibility of state and local governments. Although federal laws, such as the Civil Rights Act, ensure some level of national oversight and protection against discrimination, there is no legal mandate requiring the government to provide an education to every citizen. The 1973 Supreme Court ruling in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez cemented this by stating that education is not constitutionally protected. This lack of a constitutional guarantee has allowed the U.S. to build a highly unequal educational system. The quality of education students receive often depends on where they live, how much their state invests in education and their access to private resources. States like Maryland and Massachusetts offer some of the best public schools in the country, while others like Mississippi and Oklahoma struggle to fund their education systems adequately. As a result, education becomes more of a privilege for those in wealthier, better-resourced states rather than a universal right accessible to all.
Trump’s proposal to dismantle the Department of Education is framed as a return to local control, where states and communities have greater freedom to determine how education is run. While some argue that this will reduce federal overreach and allow states to tailor education to local needs, such a decision would deepen educational inequalities. Without federal oversight, the disparity between rich and poor districts would likely grow, leaving marginalized communities with fewer resources, lower-quality education and fewer opportunities. Federal programs like Title I, which supports low-income schools, could be severely weakened or eliminated entirely. If these programs are dismantled, many vulnerable students could lose the protections and support they rely on further entrenching educational inequality. States would be left to decide whether to fill in the gaps—and many might fail to do so.
The federal role in education is shaped by the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated by the federal government to the states. This amendment has given states considerable leeway in determining their educational policies, creating various standards and resources across the country. While federal programs and funding have been crucial in promoting educational equity, the absence of a federally guaranteed right to education means that the quality and accessibility of education depend on the state in which you live.
In this context, Trump’s education policy of abolishing the Department of Education would not eliminate education itself; instead, it would eliminate a central body that works to ensure a degree of consistency and fairness across states. As a result, education could become even more of a privilege. If education were explicitly protected in the Constitution, such policies could potentially be challenged in court on the grounds of violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, the courts would likely defer to state and local governments because education is not a federal right. In the absence of federal oversight, education—especially a well-rounded, inclusive one—would remain a privilege, not a right. It would become the domain of those who can afford to live in progressive, well-funded districts or who have the means to access private education. For many others, access to education would continue to be shaped by the whims of local and state governments, leaving students in underserved communities at a severe disadvantage.
Education should be recognized as a universal right, not a privilege reserved for the fortunate. In the fight for educational equity, it is crucial to remember that education is not merely a privilege but the key to a more just and equitable society. Until it is recognized in the Constitution, the path to true educational reform will remain elusive.
