DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN:THE MOST PREDICTABLE SEQUEL IN AMERICAN HISTORY
How America Keeps Trying to Kill the Department of Education—And Why It's Always About the Same Thing
Or: What Happens When "States' Rights," "Fiscal Responsibility," and "Parental Choice" Walk Into a Bar (Spoiler: They've Been There Since 1867)
THE MOST PREDICTABLE SEQUEL IN AMERICAN HISTORY
If you're experiencing a strange sense of historical vertigo watching today's education debates, congratulations—you're paying attention. The current assault on the Department of Education isn't just reminiscent of past battles; it's practically reading from the same dog-eared script that Congressman Fernando Wood clutched in 1867 when he railed against the "radical" idea of using federal dollars to educate formerly enslaved people.
The only thing that's changed is the quality of the production values. Where Wood had gaslight and oratory, today's opponents have think tanks, billionaire donors, and the Heritage Foundation's 900-page Project 2025 playbook. But strip away the PowerPoints and the talk of "Education Savings Accounts," and you'll find the same three-card monte that's been running since Reconstruction: Who counts as a citizen? Who deserves public investment? And who gets to decide?
This is the story of how America has spent 158 years trying to answer those questions—and how, every single time federal education policy has leaned toward equity, a chorus of voices has risen to cry "overreach," "waste," and "unconstitutional tyranny." It's a story of remarkable consistency, really. You could set your watch by it.
ACT I: THE ORIGINAL SIN (1867-1868)
THE DEPARTMENT THAT LIVED FOR ONE YEAR
Let's start at the beginning, when the Department of Education's problems began approximately 11 months after its birth.
In March 1867, President Andrew Johnson—a man who makes modern obstructionists look like amateurs—reluctantly signed legislation creating the first federal Department of Education. The timing was no accident. The Civil War had ended, four million formerly enslaved people were legally free, and the Freedmen's Bureau had established over 4,000 schools across the South. Black literacy was exploding from near-zero to 20% in just five years.
The new Department's mission was straightforward: collect education statistics, promote efficient school systems, and—here's where things got spicy—support education for the formerly enslaved.
The budget? A princely $15,000 (about $320,000 today). The staff? A handful of clerks. The threat level perceived by Southern Democrats and their Northern allies? DEFCON 1.
ENTER FERNANDO WOOD: THE ORIGINAL "CONCERNED CITIZEN"
Congressman Fernando Wood of New York—a Democrat who'd once suggested New York City secede and join the Confederacy—led the charge against this "monstrous" federal overreach. His arguments, preserved in the Congressional Record, deserve to be read in full for their breathtaking clarity about what was really at stake:
The Department was "too expensive" (despite costing less than a single ironclad warship).
It was "unconstitutional" (education wasn't an enumerated power).
It would create "federal tyranny" over local schools.
And—here's the quiet part said loud—it would unfairly support "lazy, idle Negroes" with taxpayer dollars.
Wood's rhetoric worked. By 1868, Congress had demoted the Department to a sub-cabinet "Bureau of Education" tucked inside the Department of the Interior, slashed its budget, and reduced its staff to three clerks and a commissioner. The demotion wasn't about efficiency or constitutionality. It was about ensuring the federal government couldn't monitor—much less challenge—how Southern states were systematically defunding Black education.
THE FUNDING VACUUM: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT
The numbers tell the story that polite political language tried to hide:
Literacy Progress Stalled:
- 1865: ~10% Black literacy (South)
- 1870: ~20% (peak of federal support)
- 1880: ~34% (post-federal withdrawal)
- 1900: ~55% (Jim Crow era, massive disparities)
The Spending Gap Became a Chasm:
By 1890, some Southern states spent $15 on white students for every $1 spent on Black students. This wasn't accidental inequality—it was policy, enabled by the absence of federal oversight.
The "Double Tax":
Black communities paid state taxes that funded white schools, then had to self-fund their own "subscription schools" because state legislatures redirected their tax dollars. They were literally paying twice for the privilege of teaching their children to read.
The Freedmen's Bureau Effect:
In counties where the Bureau operated schools, Black literacy was 35% higher than in counties without them. When Congress terminated the Bureau in 1872—using the same "overreach" arguments deployed against the Department—many of these schools were burned by white mobs or closed for lack of funding.
The demotion of 1868 wasn't a budget cut. It was a policy of abandonment—a signal to Southern states that they could suppress Black education without federal interference. That precedent lasted until the mid-20th century.
ACT II: THE PATTERN REPEATS (1950s-1980s)
THE SOUTHERN STRATEGY: MASSIVE RESISTANCE MEETS SCHOOL CHOICE
Fast-forward to 1954. Brown v. Board of Education declares school segregation unconstitutional. Southern states, faced with the prospect of integrated classrooms, discover a brilliant workaround: If you can't have segregated public schools, eliminate public schools entirely.
Prince Edward County, Virginia (1959-1964): The county closed its entire public school system for five years rather than integrate. Officials redirected tax dollars to "tuition grants" for white students to attend private "segregation academies." Black students? They got nothing. No schools, no education, no options.
This wasn't an isolated case. Across the South, "school choice" programs emerged as a direct response to desegregation orders. The language was carefully sanitized—"freedom of choice," "parental rights," "educational liberty"—but the mechanism was identical to 1868: defund the public system that serves everyone, redirect money to private alternatives that can discriminate.
MILTON FRIEDMAN: THE ECONOMIST WHO PROVIDED THE COVER
Here's where the story gets interesting. In 1955, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman published "The Role of Government in Education," proposing a voucher system where public money follows students to any school—public or private.
Friedman's argument was rooted in market theory: government monopolies are inefficient; competition improves quality; parents should have choice. On paper, it was about economics. In practice, it provided intellectual cover for segregationists.
The Timing Tells the Story:
Friedman published his voucher proposal in 1955—one year after Brown v. Board. Southern states implemented voucher programs in the late 1950s and 1960s—precisely when desegregation orders intensified. Courts eventually struck down these programs as unconstitutional attempts to preserve segregation, but the blueprint survived.
Today's school choice advocates cite Friedman constantly, often without acknowledging that his "free market" theory was immediately weaponized to preserve racial segregation. The economic argument and the racial resistance became inseparably intertwined.
RONALD REAGAN: THE DEPARTMENT MUST DIE
By 1979, President Jimmy Carter had created the modern Department of Education, consolidating federal programs and elevating education to Cabinet status. The Department's primary power? The ability to withhold federal funds from schools that violated civil rights laws—Title VI (race), Title IX (sex), and Section 504 (disability).
Ronald Reagan's response? Abolish it.
Reagan's 1980 campaign made eliminating the Department a centerpiece promise. The arguments were familiar:
- Constitutional: Education is a state matter, not a federal one (10th Amendment).
- Fiscal: The Department is wasteful bureaucracy.
- Ideological: Federal mandates (like affirmative action and busing) are "failed social experiments."
- Political: Teachers' unions—a major Democratic power base—depend on public school enrollment.
Reagan couldn't get Congress to fully abolish the Department, but he succeeded in slashing its budget and influence. The pattern held: whenever federal education policy enforces equity, a movement emerges to dismantle the enforcement mechanism.
ACT III: THE MODERN ERA (1990s-2025)
THE PRIVATIZATION MACHINE: BILLIONAIRES, THINK TANKS, AND VOUCHERS 2.0
Today's assault on public education is more sophisticated than Fernando Wood's floor speeches, but the architecture is identical. The key players:
The Funders: Betsy DeVos, the Walton family (Walmart), the Koch brothers—billionaires who've poured hundreds of millions into school choice advocacy, often through organizations that don't disclose donors.
The Think Tanks: Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute—producing endless white papers arguing that public schools are "government monopolies" that must be disrupted.
The Legislative Strategy: Universal vouchers and Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) that allow parents to use public funds for private school tuition, homeschooling supplies, or even religious education.
The Rhetoric: "Parental rights," "educational freedom," "escaping failing schools"—language carefully focus-grouped to avoid the taint of the segregationist origins.
THE FOUR MOTIVATIONS (THEY'RE ALWAYS THE SAME)
1. Market Efficiency: The belief that private competition improves quality and reduces costs. (Evidence: mixed at best; voucher programs often increase overall costs while reducing public school funding.)
2. Parental Control: The argument that parents should have total authority over curriculum, especially regarding "culture war" issues—DEI, gender identity, LGBTQ+ inclusion, accurate history about racism.
3. Weakening Unions: Teachers' unions are a major Democratic constituency. Reducing public school enrollment directly weakens union power and Democratic fundraising.
4. Racial and Class Sorting: The unspoken benefit—private schools can select students, exclude "difficult" cases, and avoid the legal requirements that public schools face. The result is a two-tier system where affluent families get choice and poor families get what's left.
PROJECT 2025: THE BLUEPRINT GOES PUBLIC
In 2023, the Heritage Foundation released Project 2025, a 900-page policy manual for the next conservative administration. The education section reads like Fernando Wood's fever dream:
- Abolish the Department of Education (move functions to Treasury and Justice)
- Eliminate Title I (funding for low-income students)
- End Head Start (early childhood education for disadvantaged children)
- Convert IDEA to block grants (special education funding)
- Expand universal vouchers (including for religious schools)
- Eliminate the Office for Civil Rights (no more enforcement of anti-discrimination laws)
The justifications? The Department promotes "radical woke agenda," "critical race theory," and "gender ideology." It's been "infiltrated by radicals and Marxists."
Strip away the 21st-century buzzwords, and you're left with Fernando Wood's argument: The federal government shouldn't use taxpayer dollars to promote equality for people we don't consider fully deserving of citizenship.
ACT IV: THE CURRENT ASSAULT (2025)
TRUMP'S EXECUTIVE ORDERS: 1868 REDUX
In early 2025, President Donald Trump issued executive orders to begin dismantling the Department of Education without waiting for Congressional approval. The strategy mirrors the 1868 demotion:
Administrative Reorganization: Moving Title I (low-income funding) and IDEA (special education) to other agencies—effectively demoting the Department without formally abolishing it.
Funding Freezes: Withholding $7 billion in formula grants while conducting "reviews" to ensure funds don't support "radical agendas" (DEI policies, LGBTQ+ protections).
Waiver Approvals: Encouraging states like Iowa and Oklahoma to request waivers that effectively convert categorical grants into block grants.
Tax-Credit Vouchers: Passing the "Educational Choice for Children Act"—a federal voucher program operating through the tax code to bypass Department oversight.
THE STATE LABORATORIES: IOWA AND OKLAHOMA
Iowa's "Unified Allocation Plan": Governor Kim Reynolds requested permission to consolidate 10 federal funding streams (Title I, II, III, etc.) into a single lump sum. The pitch: save $28 million in administrative costs. The reality: remove the guardrails preventing states from using poverty-targeted funds for general purposes.
Oklahoma's "Marketplace of Solutions": State Superintendent Ryan Walters went further, requesting permission to use federal funds for private school vouchers and "Classical Curriculum" (often Christian-aligned). In August 2025, Oklahoma announced it would stop requiring certain federal tests, replacing them with the Classical Learning Test (CLT)—a private, ideologically aligned assessment.
Both states are testing how far executive waivers can go without Congressional authorization. The legal battles are ongoing.
THE LEGAL BATTLEGROUND: WHO HAS THE POWER?
As of December 2025, multiple lawsuits are determining whether Secretary Linda McMahon has the authority to dismantle the Department through executive action:
State of New York, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Education: 20 Democratic Attorneys General argue that moving Title I and IDEA functions to other agencies violates the Administrative Procedure Act and Congressional statutes.
The Funding Freeze Litigation: 23 states sued over the $7 billion freeze; federal judges largely sided with states, ruling that the Secretary cannot "impound" funds Congress has appropriated.
State Waiver Challenges: Civil rights groups are suing to block Iowa and Oklahoma's waivers, arguing they violate the "supplement, not supplant" rule and civil rights protections.
Tax-Credit Voucher Suits: Organizations argue the new federal voucher program violates the Establishment Clause by allowing tax credits for religious schools without civil rights protections.
The central question: Can the executive branch abolish a Cabinet department in practice without Congressional authorization? It's the same question from 1868, just with better lawyers.
THE PATTERN: A HISTORICAL TABLE
| Era | Federal Action | Opposition Argument | Real Motivation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1867-1868 | First Dept. of Education created | "Unconstitutional overreach; too expensive" | Preventing federal support for Black education |
| 1950s-1960s | Brown v. Board; desegregation orders | "States' rights; freedom of choice" | Preserving school segregation |
| 1970s-1980s | Modern Dept. created (1979) | "Wasteful bureaucracy; federal intrusion" | Opposing busing, affirmative action, union power |
| 2000s | No Child Left Behind | "Unfunded mandates; excessive testing" | Resisting accountability for achievement gaps |
| 2020s | Civil rights enforcement (Title IX, DEI) | "Woke agenda; critical race theory; gender ideology" | Opposing LGBTQ+ protections, racial equity initiatives |
The rhetoric evolves. The motivation remains constant.
THE REAL COST: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN FEDERAL OVERSIGHT DISAPPEARS
History provides a clear answer: Inequality explodes.
The 1868-1900 Period: The First Experiment
When federal oversight vanished after 1868:
- Spending disparities: $15 to $1 (white vs. Black students)
- Literacy progress: Slowed dramatically despite community efforts
- School closures: Thousands of Freedmen's Bureau schools burned or defunded
- Legal weaponization: States passed literacy tests for voting, weaponizing the very educational deprivation they'd created
The Modern Voucher Evidence
States with universal voucher programs show similar patterns:
- Increased segregation: Private schools can select students; public schools become more concentrated with high-need students
- Reduced accountability: Private schools don't face the same testing, transparency, or civil rights requirements
- Higher overall costs: Vouchers often cost more per student than public school funding, while reducing resources for the 90% of students who remain in public schools
- Uneven access: Rural areas and students with significant disabilities often can't access private options, leaving them in increasingly under-resourced public schools
The Civil Rights Enforcement Gap
The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) investigates thousands of discrimination complaints annually—race, sex, disability, language access. Under a block grant system or abolished Department:
- No centralized enforcement: States become judge and jury of their own civil rights compliance
- Weaker legal standing: Private lawsuits are more expensive and time-consuming than OCR investigations
- Reduced data: Without federal reporting requirements, discrimination becomes harder to document and challenge
THE RHETORIC DECODER: WHAT THEY SAY VS. WHAT THEY MEAN
"States' rights" / "Local control"
Translation: We don't want federal oversight of how we treat marginalized students.
"Parental choice" / "Educational freedom"
Translation: Affluent families should be able to use public funds for private schools that can exclude students we don't want to educate alongside our children.
"Wasteful bureaucracy"
Translation: We object to the regulatory apparatus that enforces civil rights laws.
"Federal overreach"
Translation: The federal government shouldn't be able to withhold funds when we discriminate.
"Market efficiency" / "Competition improves quality"
Translation: Education should operate like a business, where "customers" (affluent families) get premium service and "unprofitable" students (high-need, disabled, English learners) are someone else's problem.
"Woke agenda" / "Critical race theory" / "Gender ideology"
Translation: We object to teaching accurate history about racism and to protecting LGBTQ+ students from discrimination.
This isn't to say everyone who supports school choice or questions federal education policy is motivated by racism or discrimination. But the policy architecture consistently produces these outcomes, and the historical origins are undeniable.
CONCLUSION: DÉJÀ VU ISN'T JUST A FEELING—IT'S A WARNING
The assault on the Department of Education isn't new. It's not even particularly creative. It's the same play that's been running since 1867, with the same three-act structure:
Act I: Federal government attempts to promote educational equity
Act II: Opposition mobilizes around "overreach," "waste," and "local control"
Act III: Federal capacity is dismantled, inequality explodes, marginalized communities pay the price
We've seen this movie before. We know how it ends.
The question isn't whether today's attacks on public education are unprecedented—they're not. The question is whether we've learned anything from the 158 years since Fernando Wood stood on the House floor and declared that educating formerly enslaved people was an unconscionable waste of taxpayer dollars.
The rhetoric has gotten more sophisticated. The funding mechanisms are more complex. The think tanks have better websites than Wood had. But strip away the modern packaging, and you'll find the same fundamental question that's haunted American education since Reconstruction:
Who counts as a citizen deserving of public investment?
Every generation has to answer that question. Right now, we're answering it again.
The Department of Education has always been a proxy for larger battles over equity, citizenship, and the role of federal power in protecting civil rights. The current assault isn't an anomaly—it's the latest chapter in a very old story.
The only question is whether this time, we'll recognize the pattern before it's too late.
EPILOGUE: THE OPTIMIST'S CASE
Here's the thing about patterns: once you see them, they're harder to repeat unnoticed.
The 1868 demotion succeeded partly because most Americans didn't understand what was at stake until decades later, when the damage was done. Today, we have the historical record. We have data on what happens when federal oversight disappears. We have the evidence from Prince Edward County, from the post-Reconstruction South, from every previous iteration of this fight.
We know what "local control" meant in 1868. We know what "freedom of choice" meant in 1959. We know what "parental rights" means now.
The script hasn't changed. But maybe—just maybe—the audience has.
The question is whether we'll use that knowledge, or whether we'll let déjà vu become destiny.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
—George Santayana
"Those who remember the past and repeat it anyway? That's not ignorance. That's a choice."
—Everyone watching this unfold in 2025
