“Should the Education Department Be Closed or Reduced?” – NPR

The debate regarding the U.S. Department of Education is underway, though opinions on its future are mixed.

President Trump has expressed his desire to eliminate the department, with the Senate expected to soon vote on Linda McMahon’s confirmation as education secretary.

During her recent confirmation hearing, McMahon affirmed her commitment to fulfilling Trump’s vision of dismantling the department and “returning education to the states where it rightfully belongs.”

However, some Republicans voiced their hesitations about the department’s future, as they support various functions it provides.

‘Bureaucratic hurdles’

Traditionally, the Education Department has been a focal point for Republican criticism, often characterized as a labyrinth of federal regulation and a symbol of states’ rights.

“In many instances, our troubles stem from the excessive centralization of authority in our federal education system,” McMahon remarked to lawmakers at her hearing, attributing the department to diminished student performance and other issues. “Exceptional educators are weary of political dogmas permeating their curriculum and bureaucratic obstacles on their desks.”

Yet, later during the hearing, fellow Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska reminded her peers that the department has no authority over individual schools. Federal law explicitly prohibits the department from dictating educational content or methods, she said.

“We included several specific provisions [in federal law] that expressly prevent any federal employee from mandating, directing, or controlling … instructional content, academic standards, and curricula,” Murkowski informed her colleagues.

For a substantive discussion on whether to dismantle the department, there’s a need for consensus and clarity regarding its functions.

Funding dynamics

The Department of Education primarily handles two significant responsibilities alongside operating the federal student loan program: safeguarding students’ civil rights and distributing funds to the most in-need schools. However, it neither dictates classroom operations nor manages fiscal allocations.

“There has been considerable discussion about dismantling the Department of Education. … Before we proceed, I want to clarify what [it] actually accomplishes,” stated Bill Cassidy, the Republican chair of the Senate education committee from Louisiana. “Typically, only about 10% of public education funding originates from federal sources.”

In reality, most school funding comes predominantly from state and local taxes. As a result, wealthier districts can spend significantly more per student compared to less affluent districts a short distance away.

The Education Department aims to balance the disparities in funding across the nation.

The 10% of federal funding, while modest, is specifically aimed at aiding the nation’s most disadvantaged students in urban centers and rural areas alike. It also covers expensive special education needs.

Even Republican lawmakers at the hearing sought a commitment from McMahon to ensure the continuity of federal funding, even if the department were to be dissolved.

McMahon reassured lawmakers at one point that “Yes, it is not the president’s intention to cut the funding for these programs. The objective is merely to enhance operational efficiency.”

Support for students with disabilities

The department is also tasked with enforcing federal civil rights legislation, including Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination, as well as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), ensuring children with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education.

When McMahon raised the possibility of shifting supervision of IDEA to another federal entity, Democrat Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire provided a historical perspective.

“Prior to IDEA and the establishment of the Department of Education, state and local institutions often excluded these students [with disabilities] from education,” Hassan noted. “They were often institutionalized and faced mistreatment.”

It appeared uncertain how Republicans present felt about relocating IDEA oversight from the Education Department, despite the first Republican question directed to McMahon regarding enhancing support for students with disabilities, particularly those with dyslexia.

“What would be your strategy to ensure that a child diagnosed with dyslexia receives timely intervention?” inquired Cassidy, whose daughter has dyslexia.

McMahon’s response was brief and did not reference IDEA.

“I sincerely want to ensure that we are identifying challenges like dyslexia early on, as it has been demonstrated that intervention can facilitate improvement,” McMahon stated to Cassidy. “I would like to collaborate with you to devise a more effective approach in our educational systems.”

The department’s role in enforcement

Republicans expressed their strongest discontent with the Department in regard to a Biden-era initiative to broaden Title IX protections for transgender students in K-12 and higher education.

Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, criticized these “binding regulations that forced colleges to allow biological males into female locker rooms.”

Hawley condemned the department for its perceived overreach, yet also encouraged McMahon to be more assertive in other aspects.

“Will you enforce the law, Title VI, with unyielding commitment? And can we ensure Jewish students feel secure on our campuses?”

McMahon affirmed: “Absolutely. Or face funding cuts.”

Since McMahon’s confirmation hearing, the Trump administration has expanded the department’s enforcement priorities, cautioning all schools accepting federal aid, both K-12 and higher education, that it considers recent diversity and equity initiatives under Biden to be themselves discriminatory.

Schools now have two weeks to discontinue these programs or face scrutiny from the U.S. Department of Education.