Multiple Republican presidential candidates made it clear at this week’s debate that the Department of Education is in danger if they are elected.
“Let’s shut down the head of the snake, the Department of Education,” Vivek Ramaswamy said. “Take that $80 billion, put it in the hands of parents across this country.”
Conservatives see the department, which has more than 4,400 employees and in its current form dates back to 1979 after first being established in 1867, as a prime example of Washington’s meddling in Americans’ lives. The time has come to “shut down the Federal Department of Education,” former Vice President Mike Pence said Wednesday.
But what would it mean to actually shutter the massive agency?
How could the department be eliminated?
Killing the Department of Education (DOE) would be easier said than done.
Conservatives have said since the creation of the department they want to get rid of it. From President Ronald Reagan and his Education secretary to President Trump and his own, Republicans have decried the department’s existence but failed to abolish it.
That is because the decision to do so is not only up to the president and would have to go through Congress.
“There would have to be some legislation to specifically outline this, but I do think it would need to have the support of the executive branch and, obviously, this is a Cabinet-level agency, so I think having the president — would have to take a leadership role and help to make sure that the proposal is carefully crafted,” said Jonathan Butcher, the Will Skillman senior research fellow in education policy at The Heritage Foundation, which supports nixing the DOE.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) proposed such legislation in 2021 and reintroduced it earlier this year.
“Unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., should not be in charge of our children’s intellectual and moral development,” Massie said two years ago. “States and local communities are best positioned to shape curricula that meet the needs of their students. Schools should be accountable. Parents have the right to choose the most appropriate educational opportunity for their children, including home school, public school or private school.”
DOE did not respond to The Hill’s request for comment.
DOE’s duties would be absorbed by other federal agencies
DOE has an enormous number of responsibilities, including handling student loans, investigating complaints against schools and tracking education progress across the country.
None of the 2024 candidates during Wednesday’s debate detailed how they would handle eliminating it, but conservatives have longed to see many of its tasks either completely eliminated or absorbed into other departments.
“For example, the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education. I think that any duplicate responsibilities that it shares with the Department of Justice should be eliminated, and then the rest of that office should go to the Department of Justice,” Butcher said.
It will look like that scientific knowledge survey they did in subsaharan africa. People won’t know that the earth orbits around the sun.
This isn’t hyperbole, they won’t teach science if they can avoid it.
I got to experience evangelical science indoctrination as a child, and they literally do not want science taught. It contradicts the pop up books.
This is definitely one of those places where it’s easy to get frustrated with rural conservative voters, voting against their own best interests.
Kids in a state like mine already have a huge advantage because we value education and we fund it better. We also can afford to do so.
Conservative states already have less opportunity for their kids, by interfering and limiting their education. Those kids are already disadvantaged because many areas can’t afford adequate funding. I understand authoritarian politicians wanting power and control, but how can parent vote for limiting their kids’ future like that. Department of Education helps fund those schools, while also requiring equal opportunity and requires it be an actual education. Again, I understand politicians spreading divisiveness and outrage to control the populace, but how do parents firstly fall for the BS, and secondly vote against accepting “free” funding to improve their kids’ education?
DoE is one of those “transfer of wealth” programs where blue states pay more, and red states take more. If I don’t mind paying extra to help those disadvantaged, why do they not want to accept more money to invest in their kids’ future. Someone needs to talk to them about “family values”
If I don’t mind paying extra to help those disadvantaged, why do they not want to accept more money to invest in their kids’ future. Someone needs to talk to them about “family values”
Because they want to teach hate to keep the poor poor and the rich rich. A DoE will never allow that, the existence of a DoE is “woke”.
It’s simple. Rural parents and older people have been convinced over time via propaganda that “the school system” is why younger people don’t generally share their values and ideology. This can be used in all kinds of ways to create emotional responses later.
For example, many conservatives in the western states are convinced young arsonists are burning down forests and fields because they are homeless and feel entitled to housing. Of course, there is no proof of this, and they don’t think it can be climate change because they don’t think climate change is real.
As a result of all this, they are very willing to take their kids out of school and switch to some homeschooling program so they don’t raise homeless arsonists.
I wish I was kidding.
Republican don’t want to re-organize how the federal government handles the responsibilities of the DOE—they want those responsibilities eliminated, and the more it harms schools, the better.
You can’t indoctrinate kids nearly as easily in public schools, and there’s no way to turn a profit on them. By contrast, a solid public education makes kids more likely to grow up and vote Democrat. The GOP especially today knows that it can’t win legitimately; rage baiting and cheating are their only remaining strategies.
Why would ending a 40-yr-old Federal department end the 400-yr-old colony/state-based public school system?
Of all the departments that could be eliminated, it’s only after Homeland Security in terms of one with a previous status quo in living memory.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html
the Federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is about 8 percent
the Federal role in education as a kind of “emergency response system,” a means of filling gaps in State and local support for education when critical national needs arise
comprehensive set of programs, including the Title I program of Federal aid to disadvantaged children to address the problems of poor urban and rural areas
While you may think 8% of school funding isn’t much to lose, look at what it would impact
