Direction for Restructuring Korean Education Governance through Analysis of the US Department of Education Abolition Plan

In March 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump issued Executive Order No. 14242, directing the transfer of the functions of the U.S. Department of Education to state governments and local communities and ordering the phased dismantling of the Department itself. The executive order argued that the Department of Education had failed to improve academic achievement and that political objectives and bureaucratic inefficiency had widened the gap between federal education policy and conditions on the ground. In particular, it criticized the Department for inefficient management of a substantial budget, called for the reduction of education programs driven by specific ideological agendas—such as DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies—and emphasized the realization of state-centered educational autonomy.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 report, which can be regarded as the strategic foundation of this executive order, presents a detailed blueprint for dismantling the Department of Education. The report proposes converting federal low-income support programs (Title I) into block grants, transforming special education funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) into a voucher-based system, and transferring student loan administration to the Department of the Treasury and civil rights enforcement functions (OCR) to the Department of Justice. It further recommends reallocating education-related statistical functions to the Department of Commerce and Native American education programs to the Department of the Interior, thereby comprehensively dispersing and downsizing federal education functions and transitioning toward a state- and market-led education system.

Key implications derived from a comparison of the U.S. case and Korea’s education system are as follows. First, while the United States aims to minimize the role of the federal government, Korea should focus on recalibrating the strong authority of the central government and realizing substantive local educational autonomy. Second, Korea’s education system faces limitations on local and school-level autonomy and creativity due to frequent policy changes following political transitions and the constraints of centralized policy management. This underscores the need to establish a nonpartisan, long-term education governance framework that transcends changes in administration. Third, Korea’s education finance structure remains highly dependent on the central government, resulting in insufficient fiscal autonomy at the local level; therefore, expanding fiscal autonomy alongside strengthened accountability is essential.

In conclusion, discussions on restructuring Korea’s Ministry of Education should move away from the extreme notion of abolishing the Ministry and instead focus on redefining its role, strengthening local educational autonomy, and building an inclusive and integrated education governance system centered on the National Education Commission. To this end, the Ministry of Education should be reorganized to function primarily as a national-level policy planner and interministerial coordinator, while operational authority over early childhood, primary, and secondary education should be gradually transferred to provincial and metropolitan offices of education to realize genuine local education governance. In addition, the decision-making role of the National Education Commission should be activated to institutionally guarantee central coherence, local autonomy, and broad social participation within a collaborative governance framework. Ultimately, Korea’s education governance should be restructured on the basis of a clear division of roles between the central and local governments, enabling stable and future-oriented education reform.

I. Introduction

II. Historical Background and Ideological Foundations of the U.S. Debate on Abolishing the Department of Education

1. History and Ideological Basis of Calls to Abolish the U.S. Department of Education

2. Campaign Pledges and Policy Implementation under the Trump Administration

III. Analysis of the Trump Administration’s Strategy to Dismantle the Department of Education

1. Structural Analysis and Assessment of Executive Order No. 14242

2. The Project 2025 Blueprint for Abolishing the Department of Education

IV. Implications of the U.S. Plan to Abolish the Department of Education for Korean Education

1. Comparison of the Education Systems of Korea and the United States

2. History of Discussions on Abolishing Korea’s Ministry of Education

3. Implications for Korean Education

V. Conclusion: Directions for Restructuring Education Governance in Korea

References

Korean version: https://www.cfe.org/20250609_27783