Gutting the Education Department abandons America's past, present, future
Having worked in the Education Department for more than 35 years as a program officer, I know first-hand the breakthrough achievements of the agency and its staff. One example is how every school district receiving federal funds must have a publicly available school report card so people can identify areas of weaknesses and develop school improvement plans.
A quick look at the department's latest national report card shows that U.S. fourth- and eighth-graders are not making enough progress to regain ground lost during the pandemic — especially in reading. In 2024, the percentage of eighth-graders achieving their grade's basic-level reading skills was the lowest since 1992, when the assessment was started. The percentage of fourth-graders achieving their basic reading level was its lowest in 20 years.
Facilitating high-quality teaching has always been a priority for the Education Department. This includes education research, which is readily available through the department's What Works Clearinghouse. The department has also become a valuable information resource for prospective college students who want to find high-quality universities, teachers and administrators who seek guidance on best practices, and technical assistance for low-performing schools.
The Education Department also provides grant funding for leading-edge programs, including Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration grants, the Full Service Community Schools Program and the Teacher Quality Partnership Program. Title I provides much-needed resources to school districts and eligible private schools with high percentages of children from low-income families. The Office of Student Financial Assistance awards more than $120 billion a year in grants, work-study funds and low-interest loans.
Many countries with high-quality schools have strong national ministries of education. For example, China's national curriculum requires students to start learning English as early as kindergarten. In Greece, public education from preschool to university level is a constitutional right. Countries such as Germany, Norway, Austria, Finland, Iceland, Poland and Argentina provide college education for their citizens tuition-free.
To ensure America's success, we need a national agency to maintain high expectations for public education working in partnership with private schools.
Mary E. Moran, Litchfield, Illinois
Dismantling the Education Department would not significantly reduce government inefficiency — but it would effectively abandon millions of students. If we hand full control of education to the states without federal safeguards, we risk turning it into a privilege instead of a right. And for people like me, as well as the young students I teach, that's not an abstract policy discussion. It is survival.
At 4 years old, I was diagnosed with autism. I could not read, write or speak, even to say my own name. My family fought an exhausting legal battle to secure my right to an education. They sacrificed their financial stability and peace of mind, even to the point of living in a house where rain leaked through the roof, just to ensure I had access to the basic education that every child deserves. Without the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, which is enforced by the Education Department, I wouldn't be able to share my story, much less teach others.
As an English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher, I see that same fight play out every day. Millions of English learners rely on programs that depend on the Office of English Language Acquisition. Without it, states could slash ESL funding, leaving immigrant and bilingual students without the resources they need to integrate, learn and thrive.
The federal government exists to ensure states don't leave vulnerable students behind. Without its funding and enforcement, special education services, ESL programs, equitable funding and even basic accountability could become optional.
The argument for dismantling the Education Department often relies on the idea that states know how to best educate their own students. If that were true, why would we continue to see significant educational disparities — across scores, quality and access — across state lines? The question is not whether states can do better, but whether they will.
If states alone could fix education, we wouldn't see students with disabilities denied services. We would not see English learners left without support. And we certainly wouldn't see an education system where Zip codes determine opportunity.
Education is not a game. It's a civil right. And without federal oversight, we risk taking a giant step backward, leaving millions of students without the protections they need to succeed.
Brendan Tighe, Atlanta
Not much has amused me in the news lately, but as a veteran educator, I laughed out loud when I read remarks by Republicans including Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana and Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders supporting President Donald Trump's efforts to get rid of the Education Department. Louisiana and Arkansas are both near the bottom of almost any state-by-state education ranking. I would take any opinions about how to improve education from people in charge of those states with a grain of salt — or maybe a whole teaspoon.
What's not funny is the trepidation I hear from my former special education colleagues and parents of public school students, wondering how these misguided ideasare going to affect the future of public education, which is a cornerstone of our nation's past achievements and future success.
Theresa Early, Colorado Springs
As an educator, I read about President Donald Trump's executive order to close the Education Department with great alarm. Although the department seems to have lost some of its primary focus over the years, it should be improved and reformed, not abolished.
Without national education standards, poor states will fall further behind those with the money to pay for better educational institutions and teachers. Also, disadvantaged students nationwide will not be able to receive adequate public education and will probably face greater challenges in preparation for our highly specialized, competitive, information-laden and technical world. This will only perpetuate the growing economic and educational divide in the United States.
In the prescient words often attributed to former Harvard University president Derek Bok: 'If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.' I shudder thinking about our nation's future.
Michael Pravica, Henderson, Nevada
I earned a PhD supported by government grants. My politics were formed by protesting the Vietnam War and have remained left of center as I have aged. Logically, I should have a knee-jerk reaction against President Donald Trump's assault on the Education Department.
However, I find myself struggling to rise to the defense of an institution and policies that, over the past two generations, have produced an electorate that resulted in Trump's presidency — twice. Trump's election might be the only reason to rethink American education.
James Morentz, Bethesda
As President Donald Trump does his best to eliminate the statutorily constituted Education Department and, in Education Secretary Linda McMahon's words, 'free future generations of American students and forge opportunities for their success … [by] sending education back to the states where it so rightly belongs,' it might be useful to remember just how involved our national government has been in public education for the past 240 years.
Thomas Jefferson led the committee behind the Land Ordinance Act of 1785, which provided the basis for organizing the territories north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi. This law provided the first mechanism for funding public education using national financial resources. The ordinance provided that when the territories were organized and given self-governing rights, the 16th section in every six-mile square township was to be used to support public education. Here was our national government, two years before our Constitution was drafted, telling soon-to-be-states how to support public education.
In the early 19th century, some educators and lawmakers began advocating for greater federal involvement in U.S. education, promoting the idea of a national, standardized 'common school' system to aid the nascent public schools that were so haphazardly established and funded across the country. After the end of the Civil War, during Reconstruction, the federal government became more involved by creating a non-Cabinet-level Education Department. Defending the measure, Illinois Board of Education President Samuel W. Moulton, a Democrat, offered an analogy: Just as the Agriculture Department, which had begun operations in 1862, showed farmers how to increase their crop yields through better practices, so could the Education Department demonstrate to the states the best ways to educate their students.
Different administrations have housed federal oversight of education in different departments, including the Interior Department In 1980, it became an independent department once more.
The Education Department has never done everything perfectly. However, it's important to remember that our country has a long and honorable history of national involvement in and support of public education at the local level — a history that was originated and embraced by the very individuals we know today as the country's Founders.
James Currie, Alexandria
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Trump unfroze education funding, but the damage is already done
Summer is when superintendents and principals finalize staffing and allocate resources for the year ahead. Instead, they've spent the past month scrambling to revise budgets and delay decisions after the Trump administration recklessly froze more than $6.8 billion in federal education funds approved by Congress four months ago — a move that unnecessarily threw school planning into chaos with the school year starting in just a few weeks. On June 30, the Education Department abruptly informed states it would not release key fiscal year 2025 education funds as scheduled, affecting programs like teacher training, English learner support and after-school services. After bipartisan backlash — including lawsuits from 24 states and pressure from Republican senators — the administration reversed course on July 25, announcing it would release the remaining funds. But the damage had already been done. The administration claimed the freeze was part of a 'programmatic review' to ensure spending aligned with White House priorities. Yet, the review was conducted without transparency while the funds were only released after intense political pressure. The Education Department stated 'guardrails' would be in place to prevent funds from being used in ways that violate executive orders, which is a vague statement that should raise concerns about future interference. Districts had built their budgets assuming these funds would arrive by July 1, as they do each year. Instead of preparing for the new school year, states and districts were forced to scramble to minimize the damage. In my home state of Texas, nearly 1,200 districts faced a freeze of $660 million, which represented about 16 percent of the state's total K-12 funding. I have spoken to superintendents, chief academic officers and chief financial officers who described how these unanticipated funding deficits undermined strategic investments into high-quality instruction and mental health services. In Tennessee, $106 million was frozen, representing 13.4 percent of the state's K-12 funding. Knox County Schools eliminated 28 central office positions, including staff supporting instruction for English learners. Florida had $400 million frozen. Pinellas County School District alone stood to lose $9 million. The superintendent reported that they would have to make cuts that directly affect student achievement while the school board chair said the freeze 'feels kind of like the straw that broke the camel's back.' Kansas saw $50 million frozen. Kansas City, Kan. Public Schools warned families that $4.9 million in lost funding would affect 'programs that directly support some of our most vulnerable students — including those from low-income families, English language learners and students with disabilities.' Even with the funds now being released, the uncertainty and disruption caused by the freeze will have lasting impacts. In some cases, district leaders were forced to make staffing and programming decisions without knowing whether critical federal support would be unfrozen. All who care about public education must make clear that this kind of reckless disruption is unacceptable and will carry political consequences. Governors from both parties should press their congressional delegations to pass legislation preventing future executive overreach. And Congress must require the Education Department to provide advance notice and justification for any future funding delays. The funding freeze was a reckless policy choice that disrespected educators, destabilized schools and put children at risk. Public education cannot function on the Trump administration's political whims and such unwarranted actions cannot go unchecked without the risk of normalizing executive overreach at the expense of students. Now is the time for all policymakers and educators to stand up for our schools and ensure that no child's education is ever again held hostage to such problematic politics.
2 days ago
Some workers would be excluded from student loan forgiveness program for 'illegal' activity
WASHINGTON -- Teachers, social workers, nurses and other public workers would be cut off from a popular student loan cancellation program if the Trump administration finds their employer engaged in activities with a 'substantial illegal purpose,' under a new federal proposal released on Friday. The Education Department took aim at nonprofits or government bodies that work with immigrants and transgender youth, releasing plans to overhaul the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. Opponents fear the new policy would turn the loan forgiveness benefit into a tool of political retribution. The proposal would give the education secretary the final say in deciding whether a group or government entity should be excluded from the program, which was created by Congress in 2007 to encourage more college graduates to enter lower-paying public service fields. The proposal says illegal activity includes the trafficking or 'chemical castration' of children, illegal immigration and supporting foreign terrorist organizations. 'Chemical castration' is defined as using hormone therapy or drugs that delay puberty — gender-affirming care common for transgender children or teens. President Donald Trump ordered the changes in March, saying the loan forgiveness program was steering taxpayer money to 'activist organizations' that pose a threat to national security and do not serve the public. The public will be given 30 days to weigh in on the proposal before it can be finalized. Any changes would take effect in July 2026. Under current rules, government employees and many nonprofit workers can get their federal student loans canceled after they've made 10 years of payments. The program is open to government workers, including teachers, firefighters and employees of public hospitals, along with nonprofits that focus on certain areas. The new proposal would exclude employees of any organization tied to an activity deemed illegal. The Education Department predicts that fewer than 10 organizations would be deemed ineligible per year. It doesn't expect a 'significant reduction' in the percentage of borrowers who would be granted forgiveness under the program, according to the proposal. Yet the agency acknowledges that not all industries would be affected evenly. Schools, universities, health care providers, social workers and legal services organizations are among those most likely to have their eligibility jeopardized, the department wrote. It did not give more specifics about what 'illegal' actions those groups were taking that could bar them from the program. But the proposal suggests that performing gender-affirming care in the 27 states that outlaw it would be enough. If a state or federal court rules against an employer, that could lead to its expulsion from the program, or if the employer is involved in a legal settlement that includes an admission of wrongdoing. Even without a legal finding, however, the education secretary could determine independently that an organization should be ejected. The secretary could judge whether an organization participated in illegal activity by using a legal standard known as the 'preponderance of the evidence' — meaning it's more likely than not that an accusation is true. Once an organization is barred from the program, its workers' future loan payments would no longer count toward cancellation. They would have to find work at another eligible employer to keep making progress toward forgiveness. A ban from the Education Department would last 10 years or until the employer completed a 'corrective action plan' approved by the secretary. Critics blasted the proposal as an illegal attempt to weaponize student loan cancellation. Kristin McGuire, CEO of the nonprofit Young Invincibles, which advocates for loan forgiveness, called it a political stunt designed to confuse borrowers. 'By using a distorted and overly broad definition of 'illegal activities,' the Trump administration is exploiting the student loan system to attack political opponents,' McGuire said in a statement. The Education Department sketched out its plans for the overhaul during a federal rulemaking process that began in June. The agency gathered a panel of experts to help hash out the details — a process known as negotiated rulemaking. But the panel failed to reach a consensus, which freed the department to move forward with a proposal of its own design. The proposal released on Friday included some changes meant to ease concerns raised by the expert panel. Some had worried the department would ban organizations merely for supporting transgender rights, even if they have no direct involvement in gender-affirming care. The new proposal clarifies that the secretary would not expel organizations for exercising their First Amendment rights. ___
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Some workers would be excluded from student loan forgiveness program for 'illegal' activity
WASHINGTON (AP) — Teachers, social workers, nurses and other public workers would be cut off from a popular student loan cancellation program if the Trump administration finds their employer engaged in activities with a 'substantial illegal purpose,' under a new federal proposal released on Friday. The Education Department took aim at nonprofits or government bodies that work with immigrants and transgender youth, releasing plans to overhaul the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. Opponents fear the new policy would turn the loan forgiveness benefit into a tool of political retribution. The proposal would give the education secretary the final say in deciding whether a group or government entity should be excluded from the program, which was created by Congress in 2007 to encourage more college graduates to enter lower-paying public service fields. The proposal says illegal activity includes the trafficking or 'chemical castration' of children, illegal immigration and supporting foreign terrorist organizations. 'Chemical castration' is defined as using hormone therapy or drugs that delay puberty — gender-affirming care common for transgender children or teens. President Donald Trump ordered the changes in March, saying the loan forgiveness program was steering taxpayer money to 'activist organizations' that pose a threat to national security and do not serve the public. The public will be given 30 days to weigh in on the proposal before it can be finalized. Any changes would take effect in July 2026. Under current rules, government employees and many nonprofit workers can get their federal student loans canceled after they've made 10 years of payments. The program is open to government workers, including teachers, firefighters and employees of public hospitals, along with nonprofits that focus on certain areas. The new proposal would exclude employees of any organization tied to an activity deemed illegal. The Education Department predicts that fewer than 10 organizations would be deemed ineligible per year. It doesn't expect a 'significant reduction' in the percentage of borrowers who would be granted forgiveness under the program, according to the proposal. Yet the agency acknowledges that not all industries would be affected evenly. Schools, universities, health care providers, social workers and legal services organizations are among those most likely to have their eligibility jeopardized, the department wrote. It did not give more specifics about what 'illegal' actions those groups were taking that could bar them from the program. But the proposal suggests that performing gender-affirming care in the 27 states that outlaw it would be enough. If a state or federal court rules against an employer, that could lead to its expulsion from the program, or if the employer is involved in a legal settlement that includes an admission of wrongdoing. Even without a legal finding, however, the education secretary could determine independently that an organization should be ejected. The secretary could judge whether an organization participated in illegal activity by using a legal standard known as the 'preponderance of the evidence' — meaning it's more likely than not that an accusation is true. Once an organization is barred from the program, its workers' future loan payments would no longer count toward cancellation. They would have to find work at another eligible employer to keep making progress toward forgiveness. A ban from the Education Department would last 10 years or until the employer completed a 'corrective action plan' approved by the secretary. Critics blasted the proposal as an illegal attempt to weaponize student loan cancellation. Kristin McGuire, CEO of the nonprofit Young Invincibles, which advocates for loan forgiveness, called it a political stunt designed to confuse borrowers. 'By using a distorted and overly broad definition of 'illegal activities,' the Trump administration is exploiting the student loan system to attack political opponents,' McGuire said in a statement. The Education Department sketched out its plans for the overhaul during a federal rulemaking process that began in June. The agency gathered a panel of experts to help hash out the details — a process known as negotiated rulemaking. But the panel failed to reach a consensus, which freed the department to move forward with a proposal of its own design. The proposal released on Friday included some changes meant to ease concerns raised by the expert panel. Some had worried the department would ban organizations merely for supporting transgender rights, even if they have no direct involvement in gender-affirming care. The new proposal clarifies that the secretary would not expel organizations for exercising their First Amendment rights. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Collin Binkley, The Associated Press
