The Long Trial of the Department of Eductaion
Article by: Aly Moreno / Graphic by: Jillian Hartshorne
On March 20th, Donald Trump signed an executive order that would begin to dismantle the Department of Education. Despite his promise to the people of his non-affiliation with such a notion, he signed the executive order to decentralize education from the federal government. The dismantling of such a necessary system of our government comes with immense consequences for all students, and especially for low-income families.
The Department of Education was first implemented in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter. In 1980, Republicans like President Ronald Reagan already threatened to abolish it. The GOP deemed then, and now, the department was an unnecessary breach of the government as well as a case of overspending. While Reagan planned to put an end to the department, it did not advance past his blue House. This opposition persisted. In the 90s, the GOP reaffirmed their efforts in abolishing the department, but no such efforts were executed due to bipartisanship. The GOP’s main argument in it’s removal is that federal involvement in local government for education is unconstitutional, or that it burdens schools with federal regulations.
Trump’s executive order shifts education authority to the schools’ local governments. If his order passes Congress, it ensures uninterrupted Pell grants and funding during the transition. However, this is not enough, and hardly likely. To remove the department of education is to remove federal grants to public and charter schools. To maintain pre-existing grants with no return on investment in taxpayer dollars, the federal government is ultimately at a loss. In response to criticism surrounding Trump’s illogical order, he cited poor student performance as evidence of the department’s failure, something accredited by researchers as an everlasting result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Key figures in Trump’s plan include Senator Bill Cassidy, Representative David Rouzer, and Representative Thomas Massie. Bill Cassidy is the current chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Cassidy supports Trump’s order in light of the department's “failure of its mission.” The latter representatives have introduced various other bills in the House advocating for the department’s closure, yet no action has been taken.
There are broader implications than one may think. Title I funding serves low-income students as a sort of categorical grant, a grant targeted at one area of education in particular. Title I would, in the case of abolishment, be converted to a block grant, which is much more vague and general. When the local government and school have complete authority of federal funding, they may be unjustly allocated resulting in larger classes, fewer student resources, and an estimated 180,000 jobs lost in teaching (affecting approximately 2.8 million students).
On a similar note, programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act risk being transferred to separate agencies outside of federal authority, reducing access to essential services for over 7.5 million students. Similarly, The Office for Civil Rights would be transferred to the Department of Justice, which would overall weaken the enforcement of non-discriminatory policies and regulations in education. This, combined with the removal of DEI, poses a serious threat for minority racial groups, genders, and for the disabled.
There are larger impacts on Trump’s move to abolish the Department of Education than appear surface level. While it has not been passed, it is still extremely likely to be implemented. The best routes of action are to contact your representatives and senators demanding they vote no. An attack on the Department of Education is a direct attack on the individual’s rights to life, liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness.
Sources
https://www.closeup.org/should-the-department-of-education-be-abolished/
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/938
