The Education Department is firing 1,300 employees. Add in people who took buyouts, and the department's staff will be half the size it was on Inauguration Day. It's not clear whether some responsibilities, such as managing federal college aid and student loans or civil rights enforcement, will be transferred to other departments.
President Trump is expected to issue an executive order on the department's future this week. He needs a vote in Congress to close the department, and isn't likely to get it. But it could become a smaller operation. Less monitoring of how federal funds are spent is likely to mean more misuse, predicts Education Week's Stephen Sawchuk. That seems like a safe bet.
Ed Week has a useful explainer on what Trump can and can't do by executive order, and Chad Aldeman argues that some DOGE decisions to cancel grants will "not stand up to legal scrutiny."
Education Secretary Linda McMahon told her staff in a post-confirmation email that her “final mission” is to “send education back to the states.”
Education already is a state responsibility, writes Peter Cunningham, who worked for Obama's Education Department. States and school districts provide "up to almost 90 percent of the funding for public schools; set the learning standards; choose curriculum; hire and train the teachers, principals and administrators; mete out discipline; and establish graduation requirements."
The federal government provides extra funding for low-income students, students with disabilities, rural students and students learning English, as well as college aid and loans. The U.S. Education Department also investigates civil rights violations.
The Department of Agriculture runs the school breakfast/lunch program.
Federal law mandates "testing so we can track progress in core subjects like reading and math, but, at this point, there are no real consequences for falling short," writes Cunningham. Trump administration cuts in education research mean "we can look forward to knowing even less about the state of learning in America."
If Secretary McMahon does "send education back to the states" -- presumably in the form of unrestricted block grants -- many states aren't prepared to assume the responsibility, writes Dale Chu.
In some states, such as Louisiana, Mississippi and Indiana, governors and state superintendents have worked together to promote education reforms, he writes. But many state education agencies are set up to monitor compliance with federal directives, not to drive education reform.
Schools got $190 billion in federal funds to cope with the pandemic. There were few restrictions on how to spend it. Overall, it didn't go well.
Accidentally published as a guest above since my computer decided to stop keeping me logged in. Oh well.
So let's break it down:
1) It's only 10% of school funding but education will get significantly worse if we cut it
2) States are responsible for 90% of funding but if we don't control the other 10% they'll waste it
3) There are currently no consequences for falling short in testing but if we cut the education department then there will be no consequences for falling short in testing
4) States are responsible for 90% of education but if we send the other 10% back to them, they won't be ready to handle the responsibility.
Did I miss anything? This argument is a litany of contradictions. Add to that the complete lack of any actual Constitutional rationale for …