The Risks of Dismantling the Department of Education

In recent years, there has been a growing debate over the role of the U.S. Department of Education. Last week, rumors swirled that President Trump would sign an executive order dismantling the department. Many conservatives have argued for eliminating the department for years as a move to reduce what they deem as federal overreach and return control of education to states and local governments. However, the consequences of such a move could be severe, potentially leading to increased disparities in educational quality, reduced oversight, and weakened protections for students who need them most.

The Department of Education: A Necessary Balance

Established in 1979, the Department of Education was designed to support state and local education efforts, ensuring a level playing field for students across the country. While concerns about excessive federal involvement are valid, the department provides critical functions such as distributing federal funding, enforcing civil rights protections, and promoting accountability in education systems.

Advocates for dismantling the department often cite the importance of local control. While decentralization allows for tailored educational policies, history has shown that without federal oversight, disparities between wealthy and low-income districts can widen, and underserved communities may be left behind. The department plays a vital role in ensuring that all students—regardless of socioeconomic background—have access to a quality education.

US Education funding

In 2019, the United States spent approximately $15,500 per full-time equivalent (FTE) student at the elementary and secondary levels, which was 38% higher than the average of OECD countries reporting data ($11,300). This placed the U.S. fifth in spending per student at these levels, behind Luxembourg, Norway, Austria, and the Republic of Korea. 

At the postsecondary level, U.S. expenditures were even higher, averaging $37,400 per FTE student. This amount was more than double the OECD average of $18,400, making the U.S. second only to Luxembourg in higher education spending. 

Despite these substantial investments, the U.S. often lags behind other nations in key educational outcomes, such as standardized test scores in math, reading, and science. This discrepancy raises questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of educational spending in the United States. 

It's important to note that while the U.S. invests heavily in education, the distribution of these funds can vary significantly across states and districts, leading to disparities in educational quality and access. This underscores the critical role of the Department of Education in promoting equitable funding and resources to ensure all students receive a quality education.

We should also note that many countries do not factor transportation costs into their education funding totals, as children often ride free on public transportation systems, particularly in large cities. In contrast, in the U.S., many districts rely on busing as the primary form of transportation to and from schools, which significantly raises costs. Additionally, most foreign countries provide government-created and distributed primary and secondary education curricula, whereas U.S. districts often spend considerable amounts on privately developed curricula, driving up education expenses. Lastly, the U.S. is one of the few nations without a public healthcare system, and the costs associated with providing healthcare for teachers are included in their employment costs, but are not a factor in education costs elsewhere in the world. These factors collectively contribute to the significantly higher cost of public education in the U.S.

The Role of Public and Private Education

Without the Department of Education, the future of public schools could become uncertain. State-driven policies could lead to significant differences in educational quality, while an expansion of private school voucher programs might divert essential funds from public institutions.

While school choice has its benefits, including increased competition and flexibility for parents, the potential risks of unchecked privatization must also be considered. Voucher programs, in particular, often do not cover the full cost of private school tuition, meaning that families who cannot afford to pay the difference are left without viable options. As a result, these programs tend to disproportionately benefit wealthier students who can already afford private education, while leaving lower-income families struggling to access high-quality schooling.

Additionally, many private schools receiving vouchers are not held to the same accountability and transparency standards as public schools, meaning that taxpayer dollars could go to institutions that do not provide adequate education or uphold civil rights protections. This redirection of public funds further weakens public schools, which serve the vast majority of American students, leading to larger class sizes, fewer resources, and reduced teacher salaries.

Proper oversight is needed to ensure that all students receive a fair and effective education, regardless of whether they attend public or private schools. Without such safeguards, the expansion of voucher programs could deepen educational inequalities rather than resolve them.

Protecting Civil Rights and Equity

One of the key functions of the Department of Education is the enforcement of laws like Title IX, which protects students from discrimination based on gender. Additionally, the department helps uphold protections for students with disabilities and ensures that federal education funds reach the schools and students who need them most.

The department also plays a crucial role in supporting special education programs through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This federal law mandates that students with disabilities receive free and appropriate public education, and the department helps provide necessary funding and resources to ensure these students have access to the support they need. Without federal oversight, states may struggle to maintain equitable special education programs, potentially leaving vulnerable students without the resources required for their success.

A careful, balanced approach is necessary. While states should have significant control over education policy, there must also be a mechanism to prevent discrimination and ensure equal opportunity for all students. Eliminating the department could weaken these safeguards, potentially leading to inconsistencies in how student rights are upheld across different states.

A Thoughtful Approach to Reform

Instead of dismantling the Department of Education, a more pragmatic approach would involve reforming it to be more efficient and responsive to local needs. Streamlining bureaucratic processes, providing more resources, and allowing for greater support to
the state and local levels could help strike a balance between national standards and local control.

Education is a cornerstone of democracy and social mobility. While it is important to evaluate and improve the role of federal oversight, a complete dismantling of the Department of Education could create unintended consequences that may harm students, educators, and communities. A collaborative, bipartisan approach is essential to ensuring that every student has access to a high-quality education, no matter where they live.

Education Reform: No Child Left Behind and Common Core

Much of our current educational system stems from an old idea, that each state and school district should set it's own standards, curriculum and by doing so leave both accountability for said standards, and ability to change them with the states. Some states did very well, others did not. Low education rates over decades have shown that decrease in education leads to an increase in drugs, violence and crime. Those who have less than a high school education are three times more likely to go to jail than those who receive their diploma and 63 times more likely than those who get a college degree. Right now the unemployment rate is triple for those without a high school diploma than those with a four year college degree.

It is clear from these stats that education is crucial to upper movement for the lower classes, and that the need for education is crucial to our country's continued success and increased prosperity. We have established in the U.S. and throughout most of the world that education is one of the basic responsibilities for each government.

Over the years congress and various presidents have tried to fight against poverty and low education in the U.S.. In 1965 as part of his "War on Poverty" the "Elementary and Secondary Education Act" was passed by congress, emphasizing fair and equal opportunities for all students to achieve academic excellence. It was designed to do this by disbursing funding to schools with children from low income families. It was equally focused on improving low functioning schools as well; however, it has also brought focus for improving funding to these schools to be based upon whether low functioning schools are improving. For most schools nationwide, most federal funding comes from grants have been allotted to schools based upon fulfilling requirements by the Department of Education. Overall most funding for schools come from property taxes, but often that alone often does not fulfill all of the needs of school districts, and so they often rely heavily on these federal grants.

The question became how to continue to encourage poor functioning schools. Dropout rates had increased and it became clear that evaluating students would be a key component in developing methods to know how to encourage poor functioning schools. In the 1990's most states incorporated standardized testing into their curriculum. These tests were set by each state in order to give accountability to teachers and administrators and to gauge the efficacy of the teaching being conducted. In 2001 ESEA was reauthorized with an additional provision, which was called "No Child Left Behind."

No Child Left Behind has been heavily criticized because of it's focus on testing as the primary way to determine where to disperse grants. It failed to take into account student's previous growth and other factors, and overall has left behind more kids than it has helped. 

More recently the National Governor's association in coordination with other national groups decided that there needed to be simpler across the board basic standards that should be met. The need for these standards was to try to ensure that all students would at least be taught up to a minimum standard. This does not mean that students can not be past these standards, achieve higher, get into better classes that have extra expectations, etc. It does, however, mean that a student from California moving to Ohio in 8th grade should be around the same level of education and not several steps behind.

The response has been mixed - many teachers who I have interviewed have been overwhelming in support of the common core curriculum. Their reasons for this seems to be the focus on mastery of concepts and the focus on fewer concepts, allowing teachers to ensure students get a more in-depth understanding of the most important concepts.An additional benefit to these standards is that by having the same standards, we are more easily able to measure how our students are doing compared with students across the world. Having 50 sets of standards made it incredibly difficult to compare our educational performance with other countries. This difference has been thought to be one of the causes for our country being rated lower in education than several other countries.

The concern with common core seems to be centered around a few ideas: the first being that this change has been facilitated through the department of education through the "Race to the Top" program. The concern over a federal takeover of education seems unfounded, however, as each state still sets their own standards based on the core curriculum. These standards are not mystery standards. They are available and are not hidden to parents or teachers once the states have decided on them.

Another major concern is involved in the lack of testing involved with these standards and the lack of involvement by teachers and parents in directly setting the standards. Also there is concern that there has not been a trial run of these standards. I feel that these concerns at this point are valid, but with the amount of states involved in these standards, the secondary concern will be confirmed or denied within 5 years or so. The last concern seems to be the overall cost of implementation, including retraining and curriculum materials.

I understand and support common core's main focus,  and I believe that having equal standards among the states is a necessity. However I also understand that there is a lot that we do not understand about it yet.