President Donald Trump's recent decision to dismantle the Department of Education, the sole federal entity dedicated to ensuring equal educational opportunities for all American students, has sparked a heated debate.
This move, however, is not about control, efficiency, or even academic performance. Rather, it is a strategic maneuver to redistribute resources and opportunities from the majority to a select few.
According to Fox News, the control of education, from curriculum to graduation requirements, has always been in the hands of states and local school districts. The federal government contributes approximately one-seventh of the total expenditure on public schools, which cater to 90% of American children. This funding plays a pivotal role in creating equal opportunities for all, ensuring that underprivileged children, those with disabilities, and first-generation college students have the same chances of success as their peers. Interestingly, the states that rely most heavily on this funding are predominantly red states, due to their higher number of children who qualify for the funds allocated by Congress and distributed by the Department of Education.
Contrary to popular belief, federal funding is not used to impose any curriculum or ideology, as this is prohibited by law. These laws and norms should remain unbroken, regardless of who occupies the presidency. Similarly, the funding should not be used as a weapon to force educators to submit to any political ideology or personal beliefs.
The Department of Education, established on a bipartisan basis by Congress in 1979, has deep roots in public school support. Lyndon B. Johnson, who taught in a rural Texas school where students often arrived without shoes, acted to support children growing up in poverty when he became president. Every subsequent president, except the current one, has built on this foundation.
Trump, however, lacks the authority to abolish the Education Department. This power lies solely with Congress. Nevertheless, he and Elon Musk are attempting to dismantle it, initially by dismissing nearly half of its staff and then by planning to distribute its responsibilities to other understaffed departments lacking the necessary expertise and resources. This move has raised eyebrows among some Republicans.
The potential consequences of this action are dire. It is difficult to envision how the 7.5 million children with disabilities, 26 million children from low-income families, or the 13 million young people who rely on financial aid for college will not be disadvantaged if there is no one to ensure that the funding reaches its intended destination. Teachers will be laid off, class sizes will increase, and the students with the fewest resources and greatest needs will bear the brunt of these changes.
Mississippi, which recently experienced a resurgence in reading scores, receives nearly a quarter of its funding for local K-12 schools from federal sources. This is followed by South Dakota, Montana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Kentucky, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, all of which receive about 20% of their school funding from the federal government. In contrast, New York state receives a mere 7.2%.
The potential misuse of these funds, whether for tax cuts for billionaires or for school vouchers, will inevitably result in children suffering. Concerns are mounting for struggling readers, children requiring speech or occupational therapy, and families benefiting from before- and after-school programs. Who will provide these children with the tutoring or specialists they need if their families cannot afford it? Who will investigate parents' complaints about their children's civil rights being violated at school when most of the Office for Civil Rights staff has been eliminated?
Education Secretary Linda McMahon has proposed transforming Title I funding, currently designated for schools in high-poverty communities, into a no-strings-attached block grant. This would not guarantee that services reach the students and schools that desperately need them.
If states were allowed to use federal money for private school vouchers, those currently receiving services in public schools would lose out. The data indicates that this would essentially be a redistribution of wealth, with 70% of public dollars for vouchers going to wealthy families with children already in private schools. In the last election, voters rejected private school vouchers wherever they appeared on the ballot, demonstrating their support for public schools.
Research overwhelmingly shows that increases in K-12 funding improve student academic achievement, particularly for children living in poverty. However, this administration is steering us towards achieving less with less.
Trump's circumvention of Congress is not only illegal but also overwhelmingly unpopular. Americans are opposed to the message that closing the Department of Education sends. They do not want their president to strip children and young people of opportunities.
Closing the Department of Education presents a Hobson's choice. To maintain current services, families will end up paying more in state and local taxes. This results in tax cuts for the wealthy and tax increases for everyone else.
States are already grappling with the chaos caused by the funding cuts. The administration's sudden halt of billions in federal pandemic aid payouts last month left state officials shocked and scrambling, leading to lawsuits. Grants for effective reading and math programs, addressing teacher shortages in rural communities, assisting young people with disabilities in navigating life after high school, and a civics education program have all been halted.
The AFT is fighting Trump's actions, including in the courts. This is not because the department is flawless. It isn't. Testing should be de-emphasized, and paperwork should be reduced. Like any entity, it could undoubtedly be more efficient. We should also be doing much more to elevate career and technical education, making it, along with college prep, a viable pathway for studentssomething that Secretary McMahon and I both believe.
Login