The Hyperventilating Over The DOE Restructuring Is Ongoing

Authored by Larry Sand via American Greatness,

In the latest wave of fearmongering surrounding President Trump’s efforts to overhaul the U.S. Department of Education, a coalition of states that sued to stop mass layoffs at the department in March is now challenging recent decisions to transfer many of the DOE’s core functions to the U.S. Department of Labor and other federal agencies.

The attorneys general from 20 blue states and the District of Columbia, along with several teachers’ unions, argue in an amended complaint filed on Nov. 25 that federal laws require the U.S. Department of Education to implement its own programs. The lawsuits focus on the fact that the department signed seven agreements with four other federal agencies, allowing those agencies to handle the day-to-day management of key grant programs. Under these arrangements, the Labor Department now heads up most K-12 grant programs, distributing over $20 billion annually to schools.

The National Education Association issued a ridiculous statement alleging that the moves are “illegal, cruel, and shameful.” NEA president Becky Pringle bizarrely declared, “Not only do they want to starve and steal from our students—they want to rob them of their futures. Nothing is more important than the success of our students, and America’s educators and parents will not be silent as Trump and Linda McMahon turn their backs on our students, families, and communities to pay for billionaire tax cuts.”

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten also claims that the move is not legal. “There are lots of things about the Department of Education that are in statute,” she declares, referring to funds that the department distributes to low-income families, students with disabilities, English as a Second Language learners, and work-study programs.

Let’s take a deep breath, step back, and look at the facts.

While the federal government has spent money on education and developed education policies since the 19th century, the DOE didn’t become a standalone agency until 1980, when it split off from the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Its creation came about when, as a sop to the National Education Association, Jimmy Carter established it while running for reelection. Clearly, it was politically motivated, and in response, the NEA subsequently issued its first-ever endorsement in a presidential contest.

As Jay Greene, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, points out, most of the programs that the DOE now administers were created before the department was established. He writes that it is “just a bureaucratic restructuring. It doesn’t get rid of programs; it doesn’t cut funding; it doesn’t close any schools. It’s just a change in the administration, not a change in the programs and services and funding delivered to America’s schools.”

Neal McCluskey, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, further explains that under the restructuring, states may get money back, but with strings attached.

Additionally, President Trump says his goal is to transfer the department’s primary responsibilities—such as Pell Grants, Title I funding, and resources for students with disabilities—to other parts of the federal government.

There is little reason to believe that moving various programs to different agencies will have any impact on schools whatsoever. Running the same programs under a different department is unlikely to affect students.

“If that’s all they’re doing, they’re not going to save any money, they’re not going to change any policy,” says Shep Melnick, a political scientist at Boston College.

Melnick is correct. Essentially, what the feds are trying to do at this time is tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

What the left and the teachers’ unions truly fear is that the restructuring will eventually result in the federal government completely withdrawing all educational control.

The reasons for shutting it down are numerous.

First, spending is more efficient when it is closer to the source. Jim Blew, assistant secretary of education during the first Trump administration and co-founder of the Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies, correctly notes, “This ‘local control’ message is often met by naysayers with the concern that some local districts may do worse without federal ‘guardrails’—as if every school and district needs the same guardrails or that maintaining them comes with no cost. Perhaps some local districts will use their freedom to create worse outcomes (although that would be hard to do when roughly a third of our nation’s 4th and 8th graders already cannot demonstrate even basic, grade-level reading or math skills), but I find it more likely that we will see committed, innovative educators improve student outcomes when freed to use federal funding as they think best.”

Perhaps no one fully comprehends the DOE’s uselessness and waste more than former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. She contends that it shuffles money around, imposes unnecessary requirements and political agendas through its grants, and then shirks responsibility for evaluating whether any of what it does actually adds value. “Here’s how it works: Congress appropriates funding for education; last year, it totaled nearly $80 billion. The department’s bureaucrats take in those billions, add strings and red tape, peel off a percentage to pay for themselves, and then send it down to state education agencies.”

In summary, the DOE is ineffective, incompetent, unnecessary, and costly, and does nothing to support education. Its creation was a mistake, and it should be abolished. There is no strong policy reason or constitutional basis for the federal government to be involved in K-12 education. Ultimately, America’s schools would be better off without it.

But big-government leftists and teachers’ unions rely on centralized authority. It’s easier for them to influence a single federal agency where they already hold sway than to compete for control across 50 states and thousands of local districts.  And, sadly, they will get their way, as 60 U.S. Senators would have to authorize the abolition of the DOE, which will not happen.