Department of Education needs to go
President Trump has expressed his hope that the new Secretary of Education will put himself out of a job by eliminating the Department of Education (ED) (FYI DOE designates the Department of Energy). It seems more like a plan than a wish.
The idea that anything in the D.C. governmental empire should be — and even could be — disbanded is a major hair-on-fire issue with the bureaucratic establishmentarians. Big government Democrats and left-wingers believe that the federal government should only expand and increase. The usurpation of power from the states and the acquisition and redistribution of the people’s wealth is the left’s fundamental source of power. That is why the federal government constantly grows by bureaucratic accretion.
One of the more controversial additions to the bureaucratic power base is the Department of Education, signed into law in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter. During his successful campaign against Carter in 1980, President Reagan called for the elimination of the ED. It was anticipated that his appointed Secretary, William Bennett, would do the job. For various reasons, Reagan failed to follow through on his campaign rhetoric.
Since that time, virtually every conservative leader and think tank has had the elimination of the ED on the “to do” list – but there has never been a serious effort until now.
The Department of Education has four self-proclaimed “key functions” – (1) distributing financial aid, (2) collecting and disseminating research, (3) focusing national attention on key issues and make recommendations, and (4) ensuring equal access to education.
Put more succinctly – and accurately — the ED gives away billions of taxpayer dollars, (despite having no authority over curriculum and school construction) … compiles information readily available from other government sources … promotes woke issues … and utterly fails to improve the educational quality of inner city minority students. During its 35 year history, the ED has not only failed minority students in our segregated cities, but has allowed (caused?) the entire public school system to decline in educational outcomes as evidenced by standard testing and comparison to many foreign nations.
There is one goal that the ED does NOT claim but actively pursues – and that is opposition to educational choice that WOULD give inner city minority students the ability to attain quality education.
Whenever there is an effort to eliminate a wasteful and needless government program or agency, the left goes into hysterical caterwauling and fearmongering – raising any number of reasons why the agency or department is essential – and even existential – to the to the welfare of the people … the preserving of the Republic … and the future of all mankind.
In terms of the ED, they claim that it is essential to the operation of the school lunch program. An outright lie. That program was – and is- managed by the Department of Agriculture. It existed long before the ED was created.
They say that the ED is essential to protect the civil rights of minority Americans. Another lie. The progress made in civil rights in the mid-1900s – especially in terms of school integration – was made without a Department of Education. All the progress in ending racist school segregation in the past — and protecting the civil rights of students today – is the responsibility of the Justice Department.
Schools on American military bases are operated by the Department of Defense. American schools in foreign countries are under the jurisdiction of the State Department. Schools on Native American lands are overseen by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education. The well-known Head Start Program was – and is — operated by the current Department of Health and Human Services.
Those opposed to the elimination of the ED also suggest that it will undermine – and even end – funds to address special ed students. These needs are largely met within local school budgets. The federal government has provided supplementary funding to non-public school systems to handle special ed students. Catholic school systems get millions of dollars to take on special ed students from the public school systems. (So much for separation of church and state.) Again, these needs were being met before the existence of the ED. Much of the federal assistance to education in the past was handled directly by legislative appropriations administered through the former Department of Health, EDUCATION and Welfare –and even before that existed.
American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten has claimed that the ED is essential to addressing the special needs of minority students. It does no such thing. One only need look at the low quality of education in the Democrat-run cities where Black and Latino studies are segregated and provided with a separate and unequal educational experience. Contrary to Weingarten’s claim, the ED has done nothing to improve the quality of inner-city education. He lies.
The Department of Education has more than 4,000 employees and a $103 billion budget. At the time of its creation, the ED had a budget of $14 billion. To handle Covid related issues, President Bidden increased the funding of ED to $274 billion in 2023. And we know how badly that went.
What the ED HAS done is to serve as a protector and promoter of school unionism … the promoter of Woke programs and policies … and a wasteful expender of taxpayer money.
Most importantly, the ED usurps the rights and the powers of local communities to oversee and manage their own school systems — the education of their own children. The ED is nothing less than a cancer on the body politic.
Abolishing the Department of Education would be a good start in reducing the size, cost and regulatory overreach of the federal government. We did without it for 200 years – and we can do very nicely without it again. It will only be missed by those in the D.C. establishment who draw power and wealth from its existence.
So, there ‘tis.
Horist seems to be reaching into The Dumpster on this one; it’s not that he’s wrong, he just has not shown the evidence that he’s right. Can’t wait for independent teacher-Tom’s Stop the Spin; I smell a scathe coming The author is full-o-beans excited at the prospect of death to the department. Seems downright delighted at the prospect of ending many a department created by Congress, funded by Congress, all elected to do this by The People. He notes how many will be unemployed almost with a smile, certainly without sympathy, as if this is their mistake too. His recent solution for most things is destruction without alternative nor solution to the thing. He favors surgery by hatchet, a dull one too. On this one he notes the invention in 1979 with calls for destruction by the Republican Party since 1980. Reagan promised but could not persuade the Democratic House, and no Republican has got it done since. Perhaps there is a good reason? But now we have guys willing to illegal and without transparency totally gut the government as the Horist’s of the world cheer.
Horist believes he has his chance this time to end it all and return it to the States. Yeah, that’s the perfect solution. But is there a place for a Federal Program? Of course there is. the current agenda perfect; perhaps not, nothing is perfect. But the author has not proven it’s totally wrong except by his feelings about the concept of limited Federal Government. Realize in his statements, he’s not against government; he’s against the Federal Government. That’s at the heart of it, but he does not say it. And remember what Horist and his kind are not saying: in the transfer to the States, they will slash the budget to pay for their tax cuts to the wealthy sacrificing programs for the people. You see the Federal Government can do what the majority of States cannot — take a loan to get things done. So the system changes much more than a mere transfer.
He claims to know all things Democrat and on this one and states “Big government Democrats and left-wingers believe that the federal government should only expand and increase. The usurpation of power from the states and the acquisition and redistribution of the people’s wealth is the left’s fundamental source of power. That is why the federal government constantly grows by bureaucratic accretion.” As usual, he provides no facts, no evidence. The government expanded under Trump’s rule last time, and he said the same things as now. And this Democrat believes the government should provide needed things for our general welfare that the States or private industry will not and do not provide and none of the crap the author says about Democrats do I believe. I do not believe in expanding the government unless needed and cost-effective. My budget focus is much more conservative than most Republicans as they add more deficit and spending that Democrats. The difference in the author’s statements and mine is that when I say it, I prove it: “Republican presidents have added slightly more to the national debt per term than Democratic presidents, according to inflation-adjusted data from the U.S. Treasury Department and the Bureau of Labor Statistics dating back to 1913.” *https://www.investopedia.com/democrats-vs-republicans-who-had-more-national-debt-8738104* And when asked for supporting evidence, I provide it. The author provides snarky name calling and demeans the commentor.
This post is replete with bold statements lacking empirical evidence. Here’s another one: “Put more succinctly – and accurately — the ED gives away billions of taxpayer dollars, (despite having no authority over curriculum and school construction).’ Oh no, billions. What Federal agency does not deal in billions? It’s 8% of the public-school budget and mostly programs that the State does not provide like: Title I grants that are part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). These grants help narrow State funding gaps for at-risk students. How do you return that to the State what they wouldn’t fund before? And how is managing 50 of these programs more cost effective than one national program? Or Part B grants that help fill funding gaps for at-risk students grants. Again, the key is State funding gaps. Do you think giving the State money to manage what they refused to manage before will be better? No doubt the author feels we can cut this budget up by 50, toss it over the wall, and all will end well. It does not, it didn’t, and that’s why the Fed stepped in. The author claims giveaway, but they are grants and must be applied for and earned. Perhaps the Fed overstepped, but if there are cases where it did, it’s far less than a 8% problem when looking at the total school budgets.
If you expect to take the budget, cut it up by 50, toss it over the wall to the States for the same or better performance, it just does not work. No economies of scale and 50 ways to fuck it up. And remember, the real secret here is to slash the budget along the way to fund the new tax cut for oligarch billionaires, the real goal of the exercise that sheeples like the author blindly support and enable. Mark my words, just like I said Trump/Kushner will attempt to use Saudi money to re-develop GAZA after stealing the land from the Palestinians, the destruction of government agencies will coincide with budget cuts that will end up in the pockets of the rich as tax cuts. And you will get pennies: again. That’s their real goal. Follow the money and you can see where this leads.
The story is choc-a-block with ideas without evidence as to the need or merit. They want to do the same thing with FEMA which is doubly laughable. We distribute the FEMA budget to the States, probably with YUGE cuts on the way, and then when disaster hits Florida and they can’t cover with their 1/50th of the budget, they can beg other States for the money. Given the way Republicans block emergency and disaster funding at the national level today, yeah, this will work.
Next I will tackle Horist’s real root cause issue: limited Federal Government and the lack thereof.