Imagining a nation without a Dept. of Education

A group of specialists gathered on Tuesday at the Graduate School of Education to evaluate the possible impacts of President Donald Trump’s executive directive to dismantle the Department of Education.

This executive branch agency at the cabinet level supervises policy, disperses federal funding for educational institutions, and ensures equitable access to learning opportunities. It also administers federal student aid initiatives, such as Pell grants, supports research efforts, and compiles data. The agency manages a budget amounting to nearly $80 billion, with approximately $34 billion allocated to assist low-income students and those with disabilities. Moreover, it oversees over $1.6 trillion in student loans.

Following the president’s directive to “facilitate the shutdown of the Department of Education and restore educational authority to the states,” the agency, led by Linda McMahon, has terminated research contracts and reduced its workforce by nearly 50 percent. Democratic attorneys general, teachers’ unions, and educational organizations, among others, have initiated 19 distinct legal challenges against the administration’s educational policies, asserting that the attempt to dissolve the agency constitutes an unlawful overreach. The department was established by a congressional statute in 1979, and detractors of the Trump directive assert that its closure would also necessitate legislative action.

Educators, pupils, and families find themselves in a perplexing and troubling context, remarked Martin West, Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Education, who facilitated the discussion.

Neal McCluskey, director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, advocates for the abolition of the agency and the return of control of public schools to the states, yet criticized the government’s approach.

“My principal concern is that this is occurring in a very careless manner — like a bull in a china shop,” he stated. “I want to see the Department of Education eliminated, but if it’s executed without any foresight, in a way that is chaotic, I’m concerned that it’ll make my desired outcome appear dreadful.”

Andrew Rotherham, co-founder and senior partner at Bellwether, a national educational nonprofit, underscored the potential repercussions of lost funding in high-poverty regions throughout the country. Via Title I, the department allocates financial support to schools with elevated numbers of children from low-income households.

“It’s clear that high-poverty school districts are going to feel the impact,” Rotherham commented. “In terms of the political landscape, it’s necessary to remember that those funds are utilized in red communities, blue communities, red states, blue states, and purple states. Everyone is impacted.”

“It’s necessary to recognize that those funds are spent in red communities, blue communities, red states, blue states, purple states. Everyone is affected.”

Andrew Rotherham, Bellwether

Catherine Lhamon, a former assistant secretary for civil rights at the Education Department, expressed sorrow regarding the consequences for civil rights offices at the local level, which are tasked with enforcing protections established by the Constitution and federal legislation. She noted that seven out of twelve offices have been closed.

“This means that fewer than half of the investigators who are already struggling to fulfill their duties are now left to handle the entire nation’s civil rights enforcement responsibilities, ensuring that no individual faces discrimination based on race, gender, or disability in educational settings,” Lhamon explained. “When I departed on January 20, our personnel were managing an average of 50 cases each, which is an unmanageable workload.”

She continued: “What we understand is that schools serve as breeding grounds for understanding how to engage in society, how to participate in democracy, and how to contribute effectively to our communities. … By stepping back from six decades of commitments to fundamental protections for our identities, I find it alarming.”

The panelists also expressed worries regarding reductions in research conducted through the agency’s Institute of Education Sciences, which has experienced over 100 layoffs. Brian Gill, a senior fellow at Mathematica, pointed out that his organization recently witnessed the cancellation of several projects that were contracted by the institute. He expressed concern about the long-term implications.

“Changes in research won’t produce immediate effects in educational environments,” Gill remarked. “In the realm of research, this is a significant issue. If you care about the advancement of research and innovative initiatives in education, as well as enhancing the functionality of schools in the long run, this is likely to have serious consequences.”