Will President Trump issue an executive order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to dissolve the Department of Education? While this initiative will likely require congressional approval, it reflects a longstanding commitment to dismantling the federal agency.
In her memo titled "Our Department's Final Mission," McMahon highlights the need to create a lasting impact on American education. However, she faces significant public opposition, with 63 percent of respondents in a Marist Poll expressing their disagreement. These individuals cite concerns about ensuring educational opportunities for all children.
The United States Department of Education has become a vital component in the U.S. educational system, overseeing the distribution of federal financial aid to support various programs. However, we would suggest that federal money plays a more significant role than the agency itself.
The US DOE also collects and analyzes data on student performance to inform policy decisions and enforces non-discrimination policies to ensure equal access to education for all students. Although its funding represents less than 10 percent of public school financing, its impact on educational equity and quality is considerable.
Linda McMahon's confirmation signifies a shift towards less federal involvement in education. McMahon aims to eliminate bureaucratic inefficiencies and enhance educational freedom. Trump seeks to transfer educational responsibilities to the states, although complete dissolution requires congressional approval.
It is also unclear how much authority the administration has to redirect funds without congressional approval. Additionally, the Department has initiated significant cost reductions, including terminating contracts and laying off staff. Our main concerns are the school meal programs, Title I educational funding, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Our state cannot educate children without those dollars.
Any effort should be focused on improving the efficiency of educational programs rather than implementing budget cuts. The administration aims to use targeted strategies to enhance program performance, maximize student outcomes, and support educators. By prioritizing operational improvements, the Trump Administration seeks to strengthen funding for educational programs and create a more effective learning environment.
The Trump administration prioritizes expanding school choice by enhancing parents' access to private school vouchers and other educational options. However, the extent of legal and political opposition to this goal is still uncertain.
Each state has unique educational needs, and the federal government's role in education is increasingly questioned. The U.S. Constitution does not address education, with the 10th Amendment reserving state powers. However, the 14th Amendment requires states to provide equal protection under the law, emphasizing the importance of equal opportunity.
Worries surrounding possibly dismantling the U.S. Department of Education are undoubtedly valid. Such an action could seriously affect students who depend on key federal initiatives. For instance, programs like Title I, which provide essential funding to improve educational opportunities for low-income students, could face significant disruption. Similarly, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ensures that students with disabilities receive appropriate services and support tailored to their needs.
The loss of these federal protections and resources could adversely affect the quality of education for millions of children across the country, exacerbating existing inequalities and denying vital resources to those who need them most. The full implications of these initiatives remain unclear. Congress has yet to act on many proposals, leaving educational policies in flux.
Proponents passionately contend that diminishing federal oversight is essential, citing the troubling stagnation of educational outcomes as a persuasive rationale for their stance. They highlight that despite significant investments and policies, students are not experiencing the growth and advancement that should be expected. This stagnation serves as a clarion call, urging a reevaluation of federal involvement in education. We understand that no matter what happens, there will be substantial changes.
Without legislation, the Education Department's legal authority and programs would likely remain in place, even if the headquarters shut down. The laws governing federal student loans, K-12 funding, and school civil rights would still exist and could only be changed by Congress repealing them or reallocating responsibilities to other agencies.
As we await what is next for the United States Department of Education, we wonder if it’s on a final countdown to closure or its final mission? We will find out shortly.
JC Bowman
Executive Director of Professional Educators of Tennessee