Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which schools and programs were directly named or most affected by the DOE's 2025 decision?
Executive summary
The available reporting does not list individual schools by name as being directly targeted by the U.S. Department of Education’s 2025 reorganization; instead, journalists and the agency describe which programs and departmental offices are being moved and which categories of schools or students are likely to be affected (e.g., most K–12 programs, Title I, CCAMPIS, Indian Education) [1] [2] [3]. Multiple outlets emphasize that six Education Department offices and “most K–12 programs” will shift to other agencies, with Title I and campus child-care programs specifically named as being transferred [1] [2] [3].
1. What the Department actually named: programs and offices, not individual schools
The Department’s announced actions and contemporaneous reporting focus on moving whole program portfolios and offices rather than singling out particular schools. Politico reports that six department offices will be affected and that specific programs — including a campus child-care access program and a foreign medical school accreditation program — will move to Health and Human Services, while Title II and other K–12 grant programs will be administered by Labor [1]. Education Week and Chalkbeat likewise frame the change as a transfer of program management — “most K–12 programs will leave” the Department and K–12/higher education management is moving to Labor — not a list of named campuses [2] [4].
2. Programs repeatedly identified across coverage
Multiple outlets name the same program types as being moved: Title I (federal aid for high-poverty K–12 schools), Title II (state education agency funding/teacher programs), CCAMPIS (child-care access for student-parents), foreign medical school accreditation, and various grants for charters, history/civics, and teacher training [1] [3] [2] [4]. Reporting also highlights that the Department will parcel out Indian Education programs to the Department of the Interior and shift some grant management to Labor [3] [4].
3. Who the coverage says will be most affected
Journalists and advocates point to vulnerable and high-need students and institutions as most at risk: coverage warns that shifts of Title I and related K–12 programs to Labor could uniquely affect economically disadvantaged students served by those programs [3]. Education Week and 19th News emphasize that “many of the department’s biggest programs” moving elsewhere implies broad impacts for districts and schools that rely on federal funding and compliance guidance [5] [2].
4. What is explicitly not in the reporting: named schools or campuses
None of the provided sources list individual K–12 schools or specific college campuses that were directly named by the Department as being closed, merged, or otherwise singled out in the 2025 decision. Available sources do not mention individual school names being targeted [1] [2] [4]. If you are seeking whether a particular campus was named, current reporting does not provide that information [1] [2].
5. Competing interpretations and political framing
Coverage splits between straightforward reporting of administrative shifts (Chalkbeat, Education Week, Politico) and more charged analysis warning of politically motivated dismantling (19th News, Newsweek opinion pieces, NEA commentary). Politico and Chalkbeat describe the technical details — six offices, transfers to four agencies — while advocacy outlets frame the moves as fulfilling Project 2025’s goal to eliminate the Department and warn of harms such as loss of oversight or funding for public schools [1] [4] [3] [6]. Both kinds of coverage cite many of the same program names but diverge on whether the changes are pragmatic reorganization or a political dismantling effort [1] [6].
6. Practical implications for schools: administration, funding, and confusion
Reporting flags likely near-term impacts even without named campuses: grant administration, compliance points of contact, and longstanding relationships between districts/colleges and ED will move to new agencies — a process that advocates say could create confusion for districts applying for grants or seeking technical assistance [5] [2]. Education Week notes that the Department has not published some fiscal-year accountability documents, adding to uncertainty about how funding changes will be implemented [7].
7. What to watch next and how to verify effects on specific schools
To learn whether any individual school or program (for example, a local Title I-funded elementary or a specific college’s CCAMPIS award) is directly affected, look for federal notices of interagency agreements, grant reassignments, and subsequent state or district-level guidance; current national reports do not identify campuses by name [1] [2]. For authoritative detail, watch for Federal Register notices and agency announcements that list specific grants or award transfers [8] [1].
Limitations: reporting in the provided sources concentrates on program- and office-level moves; they do not catalog named schools or campuses affected, so any claim about specific schools being “directly named” is not supported by these sources [1] [2] [4].