As part of his campaign, U.S. President Donald Trump promised voters to disassemble the U.S. Department of Education (ED), which has managed the American education system for decades. The ED’s dismantling, along with Republicans’ counterplan to replace the ED’s funding programs with no-strings-attached block grants, would create inequalities in accessing quality public education and hinder access to student financial aid, derailing the government’s previous efforts to level the educational playing field.
Currently, the ED oversees educational achievement on both state and local levels, equal access to education nationwide, and federal financial aid programs. To compensate for the ED’s loss, the Republican party plans to send states “block grants”: fixed amounts of money that may not be adjusted according to inflation and regional needs, with less oversight from the federal government. In this way, Republicans plan to “dramatically [reduce] the number of federal strings involved,” according to Director of Education Policy Studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute Rick Hess’ statement to The Guardian. Such block grants don’t specify terms or instructions for states to follow, holding them less accountable in spending towards specific goals as the ED delegates for education.
Due to this lack of accountability, block grants lead to a sector’s gradual funding reduction. With no enforcement regarding how grants are spent, policymakers can cut funding with greater ease. Several governmental programs have experienced such cuts over the years since their departure from federal funding; since 2000, funding has fallen by 27% for 13 major low-income health, housing, and social services block grants, 55% for the HOME Investment Partnership Program, and 26% for the Native American Housing Block Grant. Education block grants would mirror this pattern, leading to an overall decline in educational funding across the nation.
A decline in funding would lead to inequities in education, beginning with an uneven distribution of funds across regions. While schools in wealthier areas may benefit from regional tax funding with the enablement of hiring more qualified teachers through those funds and installing updated technology and diverse learning materials in classrooms to enhance learning, disparities would occur in lower-income areas. Schools without outside resources may lack funds and learning opportunities, leading to strains within spending.
Beyond K-12 public education, the ED manages student loans for those pursuing higher education, career and technical education programs, special education and rehabilitation, and foreign language education, fostering inclusivity and providing resources for students of all backgrounds. Eliminating a vital branch would reduce programs promoting diverse and equitable learning environments. A lack of access to quality education would then limit upward mobility, perpetuating a cycle of poor education and low-quality living.
While some argue the current ED’s controlling nature micromanages curricula which they label as unconstitutional, this management sets educational standards across the nation and maintains quality education for students of varying socioeconomic backgrounds, ultimately leading to increased productivity and academic success. The ED has enhanced students’ academic achievements, with achievement gaps between white and African-American students in fourth-grade reading reaching an all-time low and average reading scores for fourth-grade students with disabilities improving 23 points by 2007 according to a White House report: five years since the ED enacted the No Child Left Behind law and Common Core across K-12 classrooms nationwide.
The ED’s grip on US education is not authoritarian; it simply holds schools nationwide accountable for offering all students equal educational opportunities. Though the ED is inarguably imperfect and has its share of flaws like stifling students’ creative approaches to learning, Trump’s plan to completely dissolve the ED would have a significant toll on the government initiatives being taken to ensure students are offered equal opportunities for quality education, regardless of their socioeconomic background. Considering the ED’s role in fostering equitable education throughout the nation, it is crucial to maintain it as a government bureau instead of carelessly cutting it without regard to who will be negatively affected.
