Dismantling the DOE: Potential Impacts on AV in Higher Education
By Joe Way, PhD, CTS
On March 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order that charges Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin the dismantling of the Department of Education with the purpose of “sending educational decisions back the states.” While it is indeed shocking to some that the president would touch a government agency so many Americans are reliant upon, for others, the move is viewed as Trump keeping a campaign promise. Likely, the executive order will face serious legal challenges, not to mention Congress’s “ownership” of the Department. But, assuming it were to go through, what are the true potential implications of eliminating the U.S. Department of Education, specifically through the lens of an audiovisual tech manager? Let’s explore both the possible benefits as well as adverse outcomes, considering administrative processes, funding opportunities, technological innovation, standards alignment, equity in resource allocation, and compliance obligations.
On the negative side, significant risks and disadvantages accompany the proposed elimination of the Department of Education. One primary, major concern is the potential loss of federal funding sources, which have historically supported essential AV infrastructure investments, particularly in under-resourced institutions. Without federal financial support, many institutions might face substantial budgetary constraints, limiting their ability to maintain and expand their AV technology infrastructure, ultimately affecting educational quality and equity. A majority of schools rely on federal grants for research dollars, which often go into uplifting spaces with relevant teaching-and-learning technologies.
Furthermore, technological inequality may significantly worsen without federal oversight and standardized funding frameworks. Wealthier institutions would likely continue advancing their technological capabilities, whereas less-affluent institutions could fall further behind. We saw this pre-pandemic, prior to CARES Act money becoming an equalizer (Note: CARES was not funded through the DoE, but rather the Treasury.) This widening digital divide could severely restrict equitable access to high-quality educational tech, adversely impacting student achievement and perpetuating broader socioeconomic inequalities.
Another critical disadvantage is the diminished advocacy for accessibility standards provided by the federal government, notably in enforcing compliance with ADA requirements. The Department of Education has played a vital role in mandating and promoting accessible educational technologies. Accountability could be lost. The DoE elimination could stall progress toward universal accessibility and universal design, leaving students with disabilities potentially underserved by institutions less motivated or financially incapable of ensuring accessibility compliance. While that can be overcome through concious decisions by AV designers, without a mandate, budget descions often find ways to cut, and that could be at the expense of accessibility.
The elimination of federal oversight also poses a risk of fragmentation in technological standards and practices across higher education institutions. While schools do not always have equal technologies or practices, the “community” within higher ed AV does serve as an equalizer. “We all experience the same problems, but at different scales” may not necessarily continue to be true, specially as the haves and haves-not gap widens. Where tools like Zoom became near-industry standards and inter-operability has taken on momentum crucial for effective collaboration and consistent technology management, without a central guiding entity, institutions might adopt varied and incompatible AV systems, complicating collaborative projects and shared academic endeavors, ultimately resulting in higher costs and less efficient operations. Manufacturers may also shift priorities to “good enough” buyers.
Lastly, institutions might face increased costs for technology acquisition and maintenance. Federally coordinated initiatives and collective procurement arrangements currently help institutions benefit from economies-of-scale and cost reductions. The DoE works strongly with the Federal government to ensure fair trade, resource allocation, and quality standards. With states negotiating independently, they would likely lead to smaller states experiencing diminished purchasing power, leading to higher prices for equipment, software licensing, and ongoing maintenance, which could severely restrict innovation and technological growth.
Despite these disadvantages, there are potential upsides. The removal of federal oversight could significantly reduce regulatory complexity within AV technology management, streamlining procurement, deployment, and maintenance processes. While oversight is good for quality control, beurocracy can lead to slow-down in innovation. Currently, complex federal regulations and procedures impose substantial administrative burdens, often delaying critical decisions and slowing down the implementation of new educational technologies. While I noted above the chance at increased pricing, the opposite might actually be true once the “red tape” is eliminated. Reducing this regulatory overhead could empower AV technology managers to respond more swiftly to evolving pedagogical requirements, such as integrating hybrid learning environments or adopting emerging AV innovations.
What is also important to recognize is that the elimination of the Department of Education does not mean elimination of everything good the DoE does and/or programs that are essential to students. It simply means that these functions will shift to other offices in the Federal government. This could be a really good thing, becuase administration of those services will live with the people who can do it best. Student loans will not go away, they will just live with the U.S. Treasury. Special education and accessibility services do not go away, they will be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. Protection of civil rights will not be lost; the enforcement will shift to the Department of Justice. These changes in departmental oversight could be the single best reason for the elimination of the DoE; allowing Departments that focus on the execution of these various areas can mean better protections, less red tape, lower costs to tax payers, and better serviceability and support.
Enhanced institutional autonomy represents another significant potential advantage for us technologists. It could allow for closer collaboration with solutions providers, also tailoring personalized opportunities for specialty institutions. With reduced federal mandates, educational institutions would gain greater freedom in selecting and implementing AV solutions that align closely with their unique academic goals and technological strategies. Such autonomy could foster innovation, allowing AV managers greater latitude to design customized solutions that directly support institutional teaching and learning outcomes. This could especially be an advantage for state school systems (and K-12 districts).
Additionally, eliminating bureaucratic oversight from federal agencies may accelerate decision-making processes and facilitate more rapid deployment of classroom technologies. AV tech managers often encounter delays due to required compliance checks and bureaucratic approvals, particularly when using federal funding sources. A more streamlined decision-making structure at the state and institutional level could expedite the adoption of essential solutions, thereby benefiting faculty, staff, and students through enhanced learning environments. While many would argue that the slow decision-making is actually at the institutional level, that is often because of how finances are earmarked and/or tied to specific usage regulations. Moving decision-making to the local level allows instituions to pivot as needed, when needed.
Along the same lines, decentralizing educational oversight to state and local institutions could foster more responsive and localized decision-making. This could be a positive for underserved demographics. Such a shift would enable AV managers to align technology initiatives more closely with specific regional or institutional priorities and the socio-economic and ethnic realities they face. Tailored solutions responsive to local needs and contexts can enhance educational experiences, accommodate diverse student populations, and promote more efficient use of resources. This could allow insitutions to become a true mirror of their respective communities, fostering more inclusive learning environments at a personal level.
Last, reducing federal compliance and reporting requirements could significantly lighten administrative workloads for institutions. Currently, extensive documentation and reporting obligations often divert resources and focus away from direct student support. With less top-level beurocratic responsibilites, focus and resources can be aimed internally, thus redirecting inititatives to the needs of the students. Just as seen during the pandemic, this was a positive for the AV industry. Institutions could dedicate greater attention to technology investment, training, direct instructional support, and strategic planning initiatives, ultimately enhancing their overall effectiveness.
In conclusion, one last point is that the president does not have the complete authority to eliminate the DoE, as that would take an act of Congress–which he currently holds the majority, so it is possible. This “dismantling” is a reduction in staffing, redundancy, and shifting of services away from the Department to other service providers and states, more equipped to administer them efficiently. In the end, the elimination of the Department of Education does indeed present complex implications for institutions and higher ed tech managers. While advantages such as increased autonomy, reduced regulatory complexity, and more responsive decision-making processes may seem attractive to some schools, significant concerns remain, like the potential loss of federal funding, increased technological inequality, diminished accessibility advocacy, and rising costs. While we are likely going to see major shifts in how our instituions operate, the short-term waves will eventually calm, creating new ways-of-working and operational norms, as well as new funding and regulatory means.
Connect with Joe Way:
LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/josiahway
X (Formerly Twitter): https://www.x.com/josiahway
Dr. Josiah Way is the Executive Director, Digital Spaces at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), known as a revolutionary visionary and innovator in the audiovisual industry. As the leading educational technology thought leader, Joe was recognized as the 2019 AV Professional of the Year, 2023 AV Living Legend, 2008 Businessman of the Year, and is named to multiple top industry and influencers lists, including the 2024 global Top 100 Innovators and Entrepreneurs, 2024 Who’s Who in America, 2023 Top 50 UC Professionals, and 2019 and 2022 Top 30 Higher Ed IT Leaders lists. He is a highly sought keynote speaker and writer, most acclaimed for his innovative design of the technology standard for hybrid instruction and business development within the higher ed vertical. Joe is the cofounder of the Higher Education Technology Managers Alliance (HETMA) and serves as the Editor-in-Chief of Higher Ed AV Media, host of the Higher Ed AV Podcast, and writer of the Business of AV monthly column. Dr. Way authored the bestselling book, Producing Worship, and is a regular contributor to multiple leading AV-industry publications, while also serving on numerous corporate and higher education advisory boards. Joe has over 30 years’ experience in education, technical production and the arts, and organizational leadership and management. He has been featured in Forbes Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, ABC and PBS Television, Yahoo News, and consulted for high profile organizations like the United Nations, US Department of Education, and over forty Fortune 500’s. In his free time, Joe enjoys cruising the lake on his boat with family and friends, golfing PGA West, and perfecting his Traeger meat-smoking techniques. Oh, and he once won his fantasy football league. Joe is available for speaking engagements, media appearances, and business development consulting.
