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.

What is USAID and What Does it Do?

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, dedicated to promoting democratic values, improving global health, alleviating poverty, and fostering economic growth in developing countries. It has been a dedicated force in accomplishing humanitarian good on behalf of the American people. However, recent actions by the Trump administration have significantly altered the agency's structure and operations, raising concerns about its future role in international development.

The Mission of USAID

Established in 1961, USAID's mission is to advance democratic values, enhance global health, reduce poverty, and stimulate economic growth in developing nations. The agency operates in over 100 countries and supports communities in their efforts to achieve healthier, more productive lives. Historically, USAID has focused on building resilience in areas such as education, healthcare, food security, economic development, and governance.

Recent Developments Under the Trump Administration

In early 2025, the Trump administration initiated significant changes to USAID, including:

• Staff Reductions: Plans were announced to reduce USAID's workforce from over 10,000 employees to approximately 300, focusing on essential personnel. This move has led to widespread furloughs and resignations, disrupting ongoing projects and operations.

• Freeze on Foreign Aid: A near-total freeze on foreign assistance was implemented, with exceptions made only for humanitarian aid. This freeze has halted numerous development programs, affecting millions of people worldwide.

• Integration into the State Department: Actions are underway to merge USAID into the State Department, aiming to streamline operations and align foreign aid with the administration's priorities. This restructuring has raised concerns about the agency's autonomy and effectiveness, as well as whether this change is unconstitutional.

Implications of These Changes

The restructuring of USAID under the Trump administration has led to several challenges:

• Operational Disruptions: The reduction in staff and resources has impaired the agency's ability to monitor and distribute aid effectively, potentially leading to inefficiencies and increased risks of aid misallocation.

• Impact on Development Programs: Critical programs addressing health crises, education, and economic development have been suspended or scaled back, affecting vulnerable populations globally.

• Legal Challenges: The rapid changes have faced legal opposition, with unions and advocacy groups filing lawsuits to halt the cuts and protect the agency's mission.

Conclusion

USAID has historically played a pivotal role in international development, fostering global stability and prosperity. The recent restructuring efforts by the Trump administration have introduced significant challenges, potentially altering the agency's capacity to fulfill its mission. As these developments continue to unfold, the future of USAID remains uncertain, with ongoing debates about the best approach to foreign aid and international development.

Trump is not the best president ever. He's also not the worst.

Image Source Flickr CC license 

Something that bothers me with Trump supporters is the occasional claim that Trump is the best president we've ever had.

Many will argue over what achievements he's had and that is fine. It's common and understandable that supporters will give him more credit than those who oppose him.

Even if you think he's a great president, arguing that he's the best president ever is simply willful ignorance.

Lincoln, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, FDR and TR are often thought to be the best presidents in the history of our nation. In my opinion putting Trump above them isn't just laughable, it's willful ignorance.

What has Trump's biggest challenge been? A few matters in foreign affairs? Several large hurricanes (with a mixed record on recovery)? Nearly everything he's faced has been worse in the last 50 years at times, with equal or better records by the president's facing those challenges. The biggest point people push is that the economy is really good. But going from a good economy to a great, doesn't exactly make him the best president ever by far. 

Compare that with the five presidents mentioned, each of whom had lasting significant positive impacts on the history of the country.FDR for instance faced a much more difficult economy, a world war, and passed major legislation that still has impacts to this day. Lincoln faced a country at war, worked to unite the country with the transcontinental railroad and made sure economically those states who remained had a firepower economy. Washington built the government from the ground up, paid off the national debt, established initial ties with foreign countries, and helped keep the country united through the intial years of our country. 

Likewise, the belief that Trump (or Obama) is the worst president in history is also laughable. Buchanan is easily the worst, with his failure to compromise and push forward needed policies to shape the country in a way that it could move forward directly leading to the Civil War. Others that are worth noting, Harding who did very little and whose administration was riddled with fraud and scandals, Andrew Johnson who barely survived impeachment and who opposed reconstruction efforts, and of course Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace. Each of these men had major scandals, and divided the country in some of the worst ways. Now, Trump does have time that he could equal any of these men on either side possibly, but it isn't likely that he will. 

Fact Check: Trump on Iran and 'Do These Republican Senators Support the Iran Deal?'

Last Saturday in an interview on the "John Fredericks Show" Trump made a statement about the Iran deal: "If Israel attacks Iran, I think -- of course this wouldn’t happen, it wouldn’t happen with me, with Obama you never know -- but we’re supposed to be on Iran’s side if this happens. OK? And nobody knows this and even talks about that point but, basically, we’re supposed to protect them."

Earlier that day in an interview with CNN he made similar comments on the topic: "You know, there is something in the Iran deal that people I don't think really understand or know about," he said. "And nobody is able it to explain it, that if somebody attacks Iran, we have to come to their defense."

So I wondered, is it true that the U.S. has to support Iran if they enter into armed conflict with Israel? Let's dig into the facts. According to Politifact: 

"At the heart of the claim is Article 10, Annex III, of the accord which states:

"E3/EU+3 parties, and possibly other states, as appropriate, are prepared to cooperate with Iran on the implementation of nuclear security guidelines and best practices."

That includes the following:

• "Co-operation in the form of training courses and workshops to strengthen Iran's ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems;

• "Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems."

This article has been criticized in the Israeli media.

"One of the clauses in the nuclear deal reached between world powers and Iran last week guarantees that the world powers will assist Iran in thwarting attempts to undermine its nuclear program," Israel Hayom, a newsletter, said July 20.

But experts told PolitiFact Florida in late July that such interpretations are, at best, exaggerated. The aim of the provision, they said, is to protect nuclear materials from theft (say, if terrorists tried to steal Iranian assets) or from sabotage (with the intent of causing a hazardous-materials threat to health)."

It is also important to note that this deal is not being presented as a treaty; it is considered an "executive agreement" and therefore doesn't have much hold on the U.S. When a new president is sworn into office in 2017, he or she will have to decide what to do with the agreement and whether or not they will continue to follow it.

Earlier this year during a committee hearing, Senator and presidential hopeful Marco Rubio questioned Secretary Ernest Moniz and Secretary John Kerry about this provision:

Rubio: "If Israel decides it does not like this deal and decides it wants to sabotage an Iranian nuclear program or facility. Does this deal that we have just signed obligate us to defend Iran against Israeli sabotage or for that matter the sabotage of any other country in the world

Moniz: "I believe that applies to physical security and safeguards all of our options and those of our allies would remain in place."

Rubio:If Israel conducts an airstrike against a physical facility, does this deal, the way I read it, does it require us to help Iran protect and respond to that threat?"

Kerry: "No. The purpose of that is to have longer term guarantees as we enter the world in which cyber warfare that when you are going to have nuclear capacities we want to make sure you are properly protected. But I can assure you we are going to coordinate in every possible way with Israel."

Rubio: "If Israel conducts a cyber attack against the Iranian nuclear program, are we obligated to help them defend themselves against the Israeli cyberattack?"

Kerry: "No, I assure you, that we will be coordinating very, very closely with Israel as we do on every aspect of Israel’s security."

It seems pretty clear that while there are some security features in here, that we will not be required under the deal to protect Iran against Israel. This claim is rated false.

Going along with this I also came across another claim on facebook, that several Republican senators had supported the Iran deal.

The claim is simply that these senators supported the Iran deal. We took a look at each of these senators press releases and statements to the media. 

Senator John McCain is one of the leading opponents of the deal and has even gone so far as to call Secretary Kerry "delusional." 

Senator Lindsey Graham has made opposing the Iran deal a central part of his presidential campaign message.

Senator Hatch stated: “For decades, the Iranian regime has been dangerous in its aims and duplicitous in its quest for nuclear weapons.  Any deal that removes sanctions without robust means of ensuring the regime's disarmament and compliance with its international obligations is worse than no deal at all.  Empowered by the bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act that we passed into law earlier this year, Congress must fully scrutinize this agreement and must not hesitate to oppose the deal if it endangers the security of the United States or our allies in the region.” He has been a major opponent of the bill.

Senator Alexander opposes the deal stating that it "does not sufficiently restrict Iran's nuclear program and makes no effort to put a brake on its other conduct as the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism." He continued,"The agreement puts some limits on Iran's nuclear program, but it also legitimizes it, thereby encouraging a nuclear arms race in the most unstable area of the world," Alexander said. "The agreement takes the pressure off Iran at a time when pressure is likely to succeed."

Senator Coats' statement on the deal explains:

"Members of Congress now have the opportunity to review the pending deal, and every member must determine what this deal buys us and at what cost. We must ignore the coming public relations campaign that will trumpet this deal as a victory for diplomacy and the false premise that the deal is a choice between peace and war."

President Obama has defended his deal by challenging critics to put forth an alternative. How about exercising American leadership and enacting more vigorous sanctions to persuade the Iranian leaders to reconsider their positions or persuade the Iranian people to reconsider their leaders?

Congress should reject this bad deal."

Senator Corker stated that “Rather than end Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, over time this deal industrializes the program of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. ... Congress should reject this deal and send it back to the president.”

Senator Flake said he opposes the deal because “While Congress has received assurances from the administration that it does not forfeit its ability to impose sanctions on Iran for behavior on the non-nuclear side, these assurances do not square with the text of the [agreement]," 

Senator Perdue plainly stated that the senate should "reject the deal"

To put it simply, this post is flat out false on all counts. There isn't a shred of truth to the statement. If you see a friend post this meme or the above quote please feel free to refer them to this article.