It’s been a rocky ride in politics this past year and a half. No doubt there are winners and losers in any race but this one brought out the worst in humanity on both sides of our two party system. No chance of a third party even getting a foothold. That should not happen in the United States, but of course it does and it’s by design.

Whether you are on the right, left or somewhere in the middle, the education of our citizens is a valued tradition that many hold as vital to our democracy. Exactly how that education occurs is another matter with strongly held viewpoints covering a wide spectrum of ideas. If you have read any of my previous blogs you know I am an educational freedom advocate and find that giving parents choice is the best option especially those who are in poverty.

What exactly does the federal government have to do with the education of our children?

The first Department of Education was signed into legislation by Andrew Johnson in 1867 with the sole purpose of collecting information and statistics on schools in America. A healthy debate over the government’s role in education has ensued ever since.

In the 1960’s the federal role in education expanded significantly with the passing of the Title I legislation to address poverty and segregation in schooling across the country. Based on low income, federal dollars were allocated to nearly every school in America. This funding was to address inequities between schools in areas of poverty and access.

Jimmy Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act into law in 1979, dividing the Department of Education, Health and Welfare into two separate entities. Once the Department was a cabinet level position, it began to address the equity concerns on a more rigorous level and greatly expanded it’s oversight into state and local school districts.

The Department of Education spends billions of dollars every year on policy guidelines and regulations to ensure that schools follow these guidelines in order to receive federal funding.

Examples of these include the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation or the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act (ESSA) during the Bush administration which rolled out the high-stakes testing era and the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) indicators. These were used to punish schools that could not meet the standards. Many of the schools landed in a proverbial jail called “School Improvement”. Many of those schools were determined by a family’s zip code and there was no way out even after this hammer hit.

Likewise, several years later under the Obama administration with Every Child Succeeds Act (ECSA) federal funding became contingent upon the adoption of a common set of standards. Again schools had to teach and test to what was called Common Core and were expected to make yearly progress. This initiative was rammed down the throats of school districts across the nation. Basically, if you want the funding you will do as we say.

In both of these cases and other reauthorizations since, this level of government overreach appears to do more harm than good. It did not meet its intended purpose in either instance. Both initiatives fell flat after a few years. Requirements were waived which left parents, teachers, students and their communities confused and frustrated.

The point is that we should not legislate or design programs and curriculum on a federal level. The further away from the local school the worse the outcomes. Legislators take advice from those who are not working in schools but claim to know what is best. They don’t as evidenced in the outcomes over the past decade or two.

The listed purpose of the current Department of Education is as follows;

1. Ensure access to education
2. Improve the quality of education
3. Administer federal assistance
4. Collect data on schools
5. Enforce federal laws

Given that list and their track record consider these facts.

1. Schools/parents in areas of poverty are not given a choice except in some rare cases, where a lottery program is offered. This typically involves waiting lists and frustration. Access is still an issue. Kids are trapped in failing schools. Inequity is not resolved.
2. Educational outcomes in our country have declined over the past decade. Reading is down 7 points and math is down 14 points. USA being 28th out of 37 countries for Science, Technology, Engineering an Math (STEM). Inequities still exist among various demographics.
3. An estimate of 43% of schools across the country receive Title I funding. States and localities fund approximately 80 to 85% of their budget with about 10% coming from the federal government. Federal funding never meets the need, especially in the area of special education. It is a band aid at best. If the goal is to address inequities, band aids don’t work. Inequities are not resolved.
4. Data is collected through a narrow lens of high stakes and often inequitable testing.
5. Laws are already enforced through civil rights legislation.

Here is how these directives might look if the Department of Education is dismantled.

1. Each state is issued a block grant. States can use Title I funds to follow the child wherever they receive an education and that includes public, charter, homeschools, micro-schools, etc. giving parents the freedom to choose which educational path is best for their child. Student college/trade school loan programs can be administered through the state as well.
2. Federal funding continues to flow but through the office of Budget Management or another designated office reducing redundancy.
3. Free up the states and local school districts from restrictive paper work, reporting, and one size fits all programs thus freeing up local funding.

Another possible advantage to dissolving the federal Department of Education comes when local districts don’t have to hire a heavy load of central office personnel to manage all the federal regulations, policies, grant reporting, record keeping and budget allocation. This may free up funding to increase teacher pay or to direct funding to areas of need such as special education.

In any case, dissolving the Department of Education will not be the end of education in our country, just the end of a bloated, unnecessary and often redundant and restrictive federal agency. It may have served a purpose in theory but in actuality it has grown into a bureaucracy that has failed to fulfill that purpose.

Skeptics who use fear-mongering to suggest that dismantling this department will leave the students with disabilities or the bilingual students or students in poverty without assistance just don’t know what they are talking about.

Change is difficult but often necessary in order to better address the need.

Here are a few ideas.

Redirect to the states the 68 billion dollar budget and the salaries of the Secretary of Education along with the salaries of the 4,400 people working at the federal Department of Education. Perhaps those 4,400 people can find work in an actual school or start one of their own or that money can be used to increase teacher salaries.

Redirect to the states the 68 billion dollar budget and trim the federal deficit by reducing the work force by 4,400 people including a Secretary of Education. It might be just tiny drop in the leaking deficit bucket but every penny helps right?

A budget deficit occurs when spending exceeds revenue during a specific period. In FY 2024, the federal government spent $6.75 trillion and collected $4.92 trillion in revenue, resulting in a deficit. The amount by which spending exceeds revenue, $1.83 trillion in 2024, is referred to as deficit spending.
The government solves this problem by borrowing the revenue they don’t have which of course includes interest payments passing this debt on to future generations. Imagine running your household finances like this.

Re-negotiate a new budget allocation to each state to assist in the education of our citizens with no strings attached.

Educating our children was never framed in the constitution as a responsibility of the federal government. Communities are powerful forces for good, massive government agencies are not. They pollute and strip away freedom and choice.

Remembering a couple famous quotes from Margaret Mead.

“Never doubt that a small group (our local communities) of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

“Children should be taught how to think not what to think.” We have strayed so far from this.

I am hopeful for the dismantling of this federal bureaucracy. I’ve been in the educational arena for over 30 years and not once did I ever see or believe that the Department of Education made a huge difference in the lives our children. Local communities have, teachers have, parents have, neighbors have. In that I take great solace and hope for the future.