The Dept. of Education Should be Eliminated
It's time to let go of this institutional tool of the democrat party.
Department of Education doesn’t educate anyone or run any schools or colleges. It’s a collection of 4,000 bureaucrats who mostly manage student loans, write rules, oversee various grant programs, and generate paperwork. (The department’s public relations shop, for instance, includes 89 staffers at a cost of more than $10 million a year.) Meanwhile, the legislation to eliminate the department, filed in December by Senator Mike Rounds, would simply shift core functions (like the student loan portfolio, data collection, or civil rights enforcement) to other agencies.
Student scores in the United States are not improving under the Department of Education.
The United States has not seen a glimpse of the top 20 in any of the subjects tested in recent years when comparing the assessment results from over 500,000 students in over 65 different countries. Looking at the standards for reading, science, and math, the U.S. falls notably below most Asian countries and significantly under the United Kingdom. Performance levels are remaining the same, but there is no advancement.
While other countries are advancing in these areas, the U.S. remains stagnant. By abolishing the Department of Education, it might be possible to get some fresh ideas into our local educational systems.
There is an argument to be made that the Department of Education should be abolished because its presence is unconstitutional. Although the matter has not been brought before the Supreme Court since both parties grew to accept its presence in the 1980s, the 10th Amendment does say that the powers not delegated to the government by the Constitution or prohibited by the States are reserved to the state governments. Some argue that the DoE promotes the general welfare of the country, it is not a binding legal decree.
If the structure of the government offices do not follow the vision that the Founding Fathers had for the country, then is it really a legal department?
The few times that the Department of Education gets involved on a national level to address schools almost always includes the use of money. When Common Core standards were released by the department, states were not required to implement this system. If they chose not to do so, then the federal government said that it would remove any funding from the state that it was providing for educational purposes. If you wanted to get the resources from No Child Left Behind or Race to the Top, then you had to implement what the Secretary directed.
Instead of promoting individualized educational systems that could benefit students, the Department of Education was blackmailing state governments into using its system. Abolishing this department would eliminate this practice at least in the short term.
It would eliminate all centralization from the U.S. educational system.
Community-based education tends to be more effective than centralized systems that attempt to use a one-size-fits-all approach. The idea of not letting any children get left behind is noble, but the U.S. proved that what happens on paper does not always transfer over to real-life situations. NCLB created high-stakes testing elements that punish schools who under-perform even though they have little say about who attends. Then the adequate yearly process was eventually tapped out at 100%, eventually requiring all students to be proficient in 2014. That never happened.
It eliminates the bureaucracy that creeps into the educational system.
By switching to a state-based set of standards instead of following national guidelines, the Department of Education can no longer “muddy the waters” with their bureaucracy. There is nothing wrong with the presence of standards, but they are usually insufficient in their determination of what the actual educational experience is in the United States. Even with clearer and more rigorous requirements in place because of Common Core, there are still states that meet or exceed them right now.Mike, I completely agree—it's time to let go of this institutional tool of the Democrat Party. The Department of Education does not educate anyone or run schools, yet it consists of 4,000 bureaucrats who mostly manage student loans, write rules, and oversee grant programs. The fact that the department's PR team alone costs over $10 million per year is a perfect example of government waste. Eliminating the DoE, as proposed by Senator Mike Rounds, would not erase essential functions but simply shift them to other agencies.
Student performance in the U.S. has stagnated under the Department of Education, with test scores failing to improve despite its continued existence. The U.S. consistently falls behind many developed nations in reading, science, and math, while other countries advance. The department has done little to address this issue, proving that its oversight does not contribute to real educational progress. This is especially concerning when it comes to STEM education, as our failure to adequately train students in these fields has forced us to rely on hiring talent from other nations rather than developing our own workforce. If we want to compete globally, we need an education system that prioritizes science, technology, engineering, and math—something the current bureaucracy has failed to achieve.
The constitutional argument against the DoE is also compelling. The 10th Amendment reserves powers not explicitly given to the federal government to the states, yet the DoE continues to exert control over education through funding manipulation. Programs like Common Core, No Child Left Behind, and Race to the Top were all used to strong-arm states into compliance by tying federal dollars to participation, effectively blackmailing local governments into following federal mandates.
Abolishing the DoE would eliminate this coercion, remove unnecessary bureaucracy, and allow states to tailor education to their students' needs instead of following a one-size-fits-all federal model. Community-based education has repeatedly proven more effective, yet the federal government continues to push centralization, which has only created more inefficiencies. The failures of NCLB and Common Core demonstrate that federal intervention does not guarantee success, but instead creates additional layers of red tape.
Ending the Department of Education would be a step toward restoring local control, reducing waste, and ensuring that education serves students rather than bureaucrats.So does the funding that the FED provides to each state go away in this scheme also? For the states, that makes up anywhere between 6 and 13%. Of their budget.
Your post left out two really important responsibilities that fall under the DOE...
Title I, which provides money to help districts that serve lower-income communities. In 2023, the Education Department received more than $18 billion for Title I.... That's going to be rough stuff for a whole lot of red states.
IDEA...the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which provides money to help districts serve students with disabilities. In FY 2024, the department received more than $15 billion for IDEA. What are the plans for these kids?
"Abolishing the DoE would eliminate [this coercion, remove unnecessary bureaucracy, and allow states to tailor education to their students' needs instead of following a one-size-fits-all federal model."
There isn't a federal model though? Curriculum is determined at the state and local level.
The DOE does not develop curriculum, determine state education standards, or develop/implement testing to measure whether states are meeting their education standards.
These responsibilities are handled by the states and districts...as specified by Congress.
Education is already primarily a state and local responsibility in this country. So what am I to believe will be gained by blowing up this department? To be honest, kind of looks like a bloodbath for red state schools.
NCLB IS A HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC PIECE OF LEGISLATION... It has had a negative impact on education. That could be dismantled. You certainly do not need to blow up the entire department though.Shar,
It is another wasteful government agency that has a very bloated budget. What is provides can be absorbed by other governmental agencies.
"federal intervention does not guarantee success, but instead creates additional layers of red tape"
This is true. We need to start focusing on better ways to educate our children and stop providing democrats with another way to assert their control over young minds and feed their social agenda to impressionable students.'We need to start focusing on better ways to educate our children and stop providing democrats with another way to assert their control over young minds and feed their social agenda to impressionable students.
How do Democrats at the federal level assert control over students minds? How are they specifically feeding a social agenda? At the DOE level?How let me count the ways --- Democrats at the federal level assert control over students' minds primarily through the Department of Education (DOE) and its influence on curriculum, funding, and policies that shape what is taught in schools. One of the clearest ways they push a social agenda is through diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which have been embedded into everything from history and social studies to math and science. The Biden administration, for example, has heavily promoted DEI and critical race theory-inspired frameworks, ensuring that federal funding and grants go to schools that implement these priorities. They’ve also expanded Title IX interpretations to enforce gender ideology in schools, requiring that students and teachers adopt language and policies aligned with progressive views on gender identity, regardless of parental concerns.
Another major avenue is through federal grants and partnerships with left-leaning education organizations. The DOE works closely with teachers’ unions, which overwhelmingly support Democratic policies and often push for curricula that align with progressive social values. The push for "social-emotional learning" (SEL), which sounds neutral on the surface, has been used as a vehicle to introduce left-wing ideology on race, gender, and activism under the guise of teaching emotional intelligence. The Democrats have also worked to weaken school choice programs, trapping students in public schools where they have more control over the curriculum and limiting parents’ ability to opt out of indoctrination.
A specific example of this influence can be seen in the way the federal government encourages states to adopt certain standards through funding incentives. Under Obama, Common Core was pushed with financial rewards for states that complied, embedding leftist perspectives on history and social issues within standardized education. The Biden administration has taken this further by promoting "anti-racist" teaching frameworks, which often frame America as fundamentally oppressive and push students toward activism rather than critical thinking. The goal is clear—shape young minds early to align with progressive ideology, ensuring future generations are conditioned to accept government solutions, identity politics, and socialist-leaning economic policies without question.
Mike, We need to take a hard look at how and why the DOE has failed our children. It’s time to hold those in power accountable, strip away their control, and make the necessary changes. Our apathy toward this issue has allowed the problem to grow, and now we’re seeing the consequences—a generation of young adults who are poorly educated, struggling to succeed, and weakening our society as a whole. It seems many Americans do apathy well.
I, for one, was glad to see that as of yesterday, DOGE has started working at the DOE, taking a close look at the books.
So far this is some of what they found ---- Department of Government Efficiency
@DOGE 14h
Today, the Department of Education terminated 29 DEI training grants totaling $101mm.
Department of Government Efficiency
@DOGE
·14h
Also today, the Department Of Education terminated 89 contracts worth $881mm.
Source DOGE X
"It eliminates the bureaucracy that creeps into the educational system.
By switching to a state-based set of standards instead of following national guidelines, the Department of Education can no longer “muddy the waters” with their bureaucracy.
the U.S Department of Ed. does not develop curriculum, determine state education standards, or develop/implement testing to measure whether states are meeting their education standards.
These responsibilities are handled by the states and districts...as specified by Congress.What does the DE do, besides money grabs? Seriously, do you know?
They force policy down on the States that many would not otherwise follow.
Force things into the curriculum.
That is a good thing when you are enforcing Math standards.
Its a bad thing when your government is taken over by lunatics that say math is racist and gender is fluid and must be taught that way."Force things into the curriculum.
Such as?? Can you give an example?
In reality...The DOE does not decide what schools can teach...this is determined by the states and local school boards.
I mean, you do realize that curriculum varies WIDELY from state to state.One of the clearest ways they push a social agenda is through diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which have been embedded into everything from history and social studies to math and science. The Biden administration, for example, has heavily promoted DEI and critical race theory-inspired frameworks, ensuring that federal funding and grants go to schools that implement these priorities.
Another major avenue is through federal grants and partnerships with left-leaning education organizations. The DOE works closely with teachers’ unions, which overwhelmingly support Democratic policies and often push for curricula that align with progressive social values.
Get real the power of the Federal dollar speaks loudly.
And it will under Trump--- but it won't be pushing Dem ideologies. The pay-for-play regarding curriculum is all but done.Does the Federal Department of Education mandate curriculum at the local level?
Yeah, they do, as I said with the power of cutting off O2 ( money) if they don't teach exactly what a given administration wants to be taught. Get real this has gone on for some time. So true the DOE is not supposed to dictate curriculum, but they have for decades.
This is an unfounded accusation that completely ignores the curriculum process at the state and local level.
Even within a particular state, curriculum adoption happens at the local level in conjunction with the district administration and its board... With parental input to boot. That's why, there isn't even a uniform curriculum within a particular state's districts.
The Federal Department of Education absolutely does not dictate curriculum.
Your post also confuses what the Federal DOE funds.
The largest percentage of Department of Education funding to states goes towards programs supporting "education for the disadvantaged,".... Title ISomething tells me that you, more than most, know it is well founded and easily proven.
Google search is a friend if you use it properly.
You have a long 4 years (or more hopefully) of denying reality that the Trump Administration will continue to expose and eradicate.Rebut it then... Make your case. Curriculum is adopted at the local level... That is why my school district uses a different math program then the district next to me and they use a different math program from the district adjacent to them and so on and so on... Just the facts
Why would I take the time to do that?
Why don't you take the time to prove how wrong I am, by presenting all the links (to legitimate sources not left-wing rags) to prove your point?
That is my view, and I have watched it go on for decades. Yeah, the rest of your comment is not even something I will waste time on. I think I have expressed my views on the subject. Tip, just because you say so does not make it true. You're just putting forth statements, I gave examples. Noted you did not touch on them...
And you better come up with some facts on "The largest percentage of Department of Education funding to states goes towards programs supporting "education for the disadvantaged" Stats. So pleased to see DOGE today knee-deep in all that is DOE.
You keep sharing what the DE does not do!
I will stick with my thoughts. I see this department as yet another, unnecessary money grabber which needs to be eliminated.
"They force policy down on the States that many would not otherwise follow.
Such as? What policy or policies does the Department of Education enforce upon the states?DEI --- Title IX Expansion (Biden Administration, 2021-Present) – The DOE expanded Title IX interpretations to enforce policies on gender identity in schools --- Common Core State Standards (Obama Administration, (Obamas gem) Restorative Justice Policies (Obama Administration, 2014) – The DOE, in partnership with the Department of Justice, issued guidance discouraging schools from disciplining minority students at disproportionate rates. This policy influenced many districts to reduce suspensions and expulsions, leading to concerns about declining classroom discipline.---Transgender Student Protections (Obama Administration, 2016 / Biden Administration, 2021-Present) – The DOE issued guidance requiring schools to recognize students' preferred gender identity, affecting policies on bathroom access, pronouns, and participation in gender-segregated activities.---School Reopening & Mask Mandates (Biden Administration, 2021) – During COVID-19, the DOE supported mandates that required states to enforce school closures, remote learning, and mask mandates for children, often against parental and state opposition. States that resisted faced threats of funding cuts.
All liberal crapThis is a diversion from the claims that curriculum is being sent down from the federal government to the local level... The areas mentioned in the post, have nothing to do with curriculum.
I just explained on another thread explaining what could be considered trolling. Your comment is a good example of trolling.
I offered you many examples of how the DOE pulled off getting what they wanted to be included in a child's education. You did not touch on any of the examples. You just went on to say none of what I offered had to do with the curriculum.
A curriculum is a structured set of educational courses, lessons, and materials designed to guide what students are taught in a school, college, or other educational setting. It outlines the subjects, topics, and skills that students are expected to learn, as well as the methods and assessments used to measure their progress. A curriculum typically includes goals and objectives for each subject or grade level, and it can vary widely between schools, districts, or countries depending on educational standards and philosophies.
Actually, a good time to point out my view --- the DOE could care less about reading, writing, and asthmatic. Proven by all the samples I offer to prove. They put the cash forward to push left ideologies. Again have a look and see at my examples."Actually, a good time to point out my view --- the DOE could care less about reading, writing,...."
because it is not within their mandate... It is not within the agencies defined role and responsibility. That is left to the states and localities.
If the claims of "pushing cash forward" to advance ideology had any validity at all we would see uniform curriculum...and we certainly do not. These claims have absolutely no merit.
I would encourage folks to go to the Department of Education website and take a look at what responsibilities actually are...They have merit, and this pay-for-play has gone on for years. I gave you several examples that you still have not made mention of. Out-and-out scenarios of where funds would have been held if Public schools did not comply.
Your examples have no foundation in fact though? The claim that is being made is that the federal government is dictating curriculum at a local level. The examples given did not relate to curriculum.
A very simple solution for many, would be to call your local school district's superintendent office and ask them directly how their curriculum is chosen.I defined Curriculum... Maybe have another look. Or best yet, have a look at a few youtube where parents were up in arms regarding the chosen curriculum. Maybe that would be wiser than asking the folks who played the game to get Fed funding.
Lots to take in
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ … +about+DEII understand what curriculum is.
If parents are upset about curriculum, they can look no further than their districts Department of curriculum who chose it.
What is the Federal money that flows to local school districts earmarked for? There is "no game" that needs to be played to get Federal funding for Title 1 and IDEA funds and there is certainly no tie to curriculum at the local level. Those programs constitute the bulk of federal money given to the states... Overall the fed's contribution to the states is about 11%
The YouTube videos represent some parents who really don't understand the role and actual responsibilities of the Federal Department of EducationAccording to ED.gov, there are a few things that the U.S. Department of Education does NOT do.
“In creating the Department of Education, Congress specified that…the Department does NOT
-establish schools and colleges;
develop curricula;
-set requirements for enrollment and graduation;
-determine state education standards; or
develop or implement testing to measure whether states are meeting their education standards.
"These are responsibilities handled by the various states and districts as well as by public and private organizations of all kinds, not by the U.S. Department of Education.”
"The DOE issued guidance requiring schools to recognize students' preferred gender identity, affecting policies on bathroom access"
There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go. They use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate...This is your view... I say much more care about male-female bathrooms being kept as the norm. And I don't want Fed funds withheld if one does not comply with your view. My view is status quo no funds are needed for the status quo. No withheld funds in my scenario. Now is there?
Actually it's not just my view, it's Trump's statement...
"There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go. They use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate,"
https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop … oms-222257
Here is just some of the corruption at the Department of Education.
"DOE crew’s callous homeless-kid scheme is all-too-common corruption
In an act of cartoonish villainy, six Department of Education employees stole valuable slots from homeless children to take their own children and grandchildren on multi-day, taxpayer-funded trips, including to Disney World, reports the Special Commissioner of Investigation for city schools.
The ringleader seems to be Linda M. Wilson, a supervisor of DOE’s “Students in Temporary Housing,” who took her own two daughters on the trips and encouraged colleagues to do the same, then tried to cover it up, allegedly telling her coworkers to lie to SCI investigators.
Using a $300,000 federal grant from the National Center for Homeless Education, the callous crew from 2016 through 2019 forged permission slips with the names of needy kids “living in a shelter, car, park or abandoned building” and faked parents’ signatures so that employees, handpicked by Wilson, could take their own children instead.
A whistleblower claimed: “Few of the homeless students listed on the paperwork actually attended the trips.”
“Stealing candy from babies” is quaint in comparison.
The SCI recommended Chancellor David Banks terminate all six employees and require them to pay restitution.
One of the six, Shaquieta Boyd, actually dared to insist that Wilson “encouraged it, and I had no reason to believe that this was against the rules.”
As if the rules would allow stealing from the homeless.
But that do-whatever-you-can-get-away-with mentality is rife in the city’s public-school system, fostered by a general lack of accountability.
Look at former DOE big Eric Goldstein, who took bribes (reportedly in the millions) from Somma Foods to put chicken contaminated with metal and plastic bits onto the plates of public-school children and only got two years jail time as punishment.
Or top Office of Student Enrollment bureaucrat Amanda Lurie, who barely showed up for work and sold clothes online during work hours, according to SCI — and was rewarded with a promotion and a $9,000 raise.
https://nypost.com/2024/09/16/opinion/d … orruption/What are US Department of Education funds support in the states?
Title I... provides funding for children from low-income families. This funding is allocated to state and local education agencies based on Census poverty estimates. In 2023, that amounted to over $18 billion.
IDEA...Annual funding to state and local governments that supports special education programs to meet the needs of children with disabilities at no cost to parents. In 2023, it was nearly $15 billion.
A vast majority of the department's budget, or $120 billion, goes to federal student aid programs. That includes loans and grants to help people pay for college and other post-secondary education....Pell grants that make it possible for many to be able to go to college.
Things that should be blown up?Can't seem to find the plan for what happens to title 1, Pell grants and IDEA if the DOE is dismantled??? Anyone?
As of February 12, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has not been officially closed or dismantled. However, significant actions have been taken to reduce its functions and funding. So you're getting ahead of yourself.
So if significant actions have been taken to "reduce its functions and funding".... And the three programs I mentioned constitute the majority of its funding.... Surely there is a plan for them, right?
The states will now have to pick up the tab of these programs? Or we should just get rid of them all together? As always, more questions than answers with doge.
Probably a real concern for parents of children with various disabilities that receive service through IDEA in particular.
Oh well... I guess states that can afford it will continue the programs and others will just let it go.First, DOGE is not responsible for making decisions on these programs. Their role is to identify overspending and potential corruption, reporting their findings to the president. It will be up to him to decide on any actions. As for the DOE, I have not seen any reports indicating that programs affecting those you mentioned will be cut. It seems like you’re interpreting the situation emotionally and assuming problems that haven’t actually occurred. plenty of time to worry if facts present themselves.
Yes, its funny, its not even about these things being cut... yet...
Its about tracking down and exposing bad expenditures...
That is what is getting blocked by Judges... the ability to even look at the books... pretty insane when you consider it... the President and his appointees being blocked by a biased lower court...
Don't think the Founding Fathers envisioned that one.The courts are interpreting the law... Just the way they did when they overturned Biden's initiatives over 150 times... Republicans weren't screaming bias or "judicial coup" then, were they?
approval when courts blocked Biden's initiatives but claiming judicial bias in cases involving Trump... Par for the course!
Did Biden whine and moan every time a judge ruled against his administration? Did he call it bias? Did he say that maybe we should "look at" these judges??Biden probably wasn't cognizant enough to recognize "his" programs were stopped by a judge.
But his handlers certainly knew and certainly screamed about it.I have no recollection of Biden or anyone in his administration claiming that judges were biased in their rulings against him. Or saying that we should impeach or look at certain judges for unfavorable rulings. Any citations that include allegations of bias being leveled against judges during Biden's administration?
As I said, Biden probably never knew it. And those that might have complained have given up; the prevailing liberal idea that judges are supposed to create new law is just too widespread.
That's a lot of mind reading lol . But the fact remains, no one has complained about " judicial coup" and impeaching judges because they rule against an administration before musk and trump.
Very excited for you folks to get what you voted for...
YIKES WHAT IS GOING ON IN THESE STATES
Looks like they'll have the most to lose when Trump tears apart the Department of Education...OH WELLBut we did vote for this... So maybe time to understand that. Trump was very clear on his plans for the DOE.
Well at least this will impact primarily red States but what do you find so positive about eliminating the department of education? Especially when these states really are in bad shape. Sadly, they account for bringing the stats of the entire country down. How is Trump's latest move going to improve things for them?
School choice is indeed a key policy area for former President Trump. He has expressed support for expanding educational options, including school vouchers, which would allow parents to use public funds for private school tuition, charter schools, or homeschooling, as well as supporting other programs that allow parents to have more control over their children's education. Under Trump’s administration, there was a focus on giving families more options, particularly in districts where public schools might be underperforming.
Regarding the distribution of funding, it’s likely that Trump’s educational initiatives would prioritize areas with lower-performing schools, often in more economically disadvantaged regions. These areas would likely see an increase in school-choice funding to help parents in those communities access better educational opportunities, including private or charter schools. On the other hand, more affluent or higher-performing areas, which often include some blue states, may see less funding under such a model, as these states tend to already invest more heavily in public education. Trump’s policies might direct less funding to states with higher-performing schools, assuming they are seen as needing less intervention.
This approach could potentially lead to an imbalance in educational funding, with states that are already doing well in education (often blue states) receiving less support for traditional public schools and more conservative or swing states, especially those with struggling schools, seeing more federal dollars for school choice programs. However, any major changes to funding allocation would require Congressional approval, and the specifics of how funds are distributed would depend on the final policy structure.
But as a rule, liberals are for the wealthy to pay their fair share--- as most likely they will in blue states with a rise in taxes to take up the cash they will no longer receive from the Government. Oh well..."Trump’s educational initiatives would prioritize areas with lower-performing schools, often in more economically disadvantaged regions.'
Where and what are these so-called initiatives, I've never heard of them?Here is my source It well lays out initiatives and explains " Supports Academic Achievement for All Students, Particularly Students in Schools with High Rates of Poverty. "
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u … hatgpt.com
"The President’s 2025 Budget:
Preschool to 12th Grade Education
• Supports Academic Achievement for All Students, Particularly Students in Schools with High Rates of Poverty. "
This document is lengthy but lays out Trump's completed plan to better educate our children. It's a shame the general public is not aware of what the Trump administration has laid out to take the place of the failed DOE.
I hope that some here will take the time to read the document and become informed about what is a sensible and practical plan to improve the education of our children. The media is not a reliable place to glean facts.You've presented the budget... Which includes no specific plans to improve student outcomes.
It looks like the proposed budget for the coming year is significantly less? This is helpful?
Let's remember, The U.S. Education Department has no say in curriculum matters. It does not set requirements for enrollment and graduation in schools, nor does it have a say in the selection or use of school or library books, textbooks or resources....
So how is Trump helping?"no specific plans to improve student outcomes"
"The U.S. Education Department has no say in curriculum matters"
So, what's the problem?How is removing the functions of the Department of Education helpful? Specifically, carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Idea), which provides protections for students with disabilities, is federally enforced through the department.
The department also provides funding for public K-12 education, according. Most importantly, Title I—which describes federal allocation of supplemental financial assistance to school districts/schools with a high percentage of children from low-income families. Our red states depend on this at the rate of almost 20% making up their total budget. These backwards states depend on this funding at a rate that is 2 and 3 times higher than blue States. Maybe the focus should be on them? I mean their educational stats pull down the average of the entire nation.
The budget clearly outlines the scope of the plan, with detailed explanations for each funding request. Government budgets are thorough and specify exactly how funds will be allocated and used. As I’ve mentioned before, I hope everyone here who’s interested in the new administration’s plans to improve education will take the time to read the lengthy documents. There’s no better way to understand the facts.
You always seem to be way over your head... A government budget for promoting a new educational plan must include several key components to ensure transparency, accountability, and alignment with legal and fiscal standards. First, it should provide an overview of the plan, clearly outlining its goals and the rationale behind it, backed by data or evidence demonstrating the need for this new approach to education. The budget summary should include the total funding request and a breakdown of how this funding will be allocated across various categories such as curriculum development, teacher training, infrastructure, technology integration, and student support services. Detailed line items are essential, specifying costs like personnel salaries and benefits, professional development programs for teachers, educational materials, technology investments, infrastructure improvements, and funds for research and evaluation to track the plan’s progress.
Additionally, the budget should include a timeline for implementation, showing when various elements will be rolled out and when funds will be spent. It should also outline expected outcomes and metrics for success, such as improved test scores or increased graduation rates, along with key performance indicators to track progress. The funding sources need to be clearly identified, including whether the money will come from new or existing allocations, grants, or collaborations with private or non-profit organizations. A section on long-term financial sustainability is important, outlining how the program will be funded after the initial phase and ensuring future costs are manageable. Finally, the budget should address potential risks to the program’s success, offering contingency plans to mitigate challenges, and it should describe how stakeholders—teachers, students, parents, and the community—will be involved in the plan’s development and execution. By including all of these elements, the budget will ensure the educational initiative is well-funded, transparent, and set up for long-term success.
The budget plan in question, pretty well covers all of the above."The budget plan in question, pretty well covers all of the above....
It absolutely does not. That budget cannot answer even one of the AI generated criteria for budgets that you posted...
And yet a simple unanswered question... How will the dismantling of the Department of Education improve student outcomes?
How does cutting nearly half its staff and hundreds of millions of dollars from its coffers lead to improved student outcomes
That department was created over 150 years ago...and has taken us to the point of being near bottom of the list of developed countries. They have forgotten their task of providing quality education to our children and instead take them down the politically PC road, making sure that every child is happy with their trophies for losing competitions and understands transgenderism and homosexuality. They teach that white children are inherently racist and must be punished by exclusion. They teach that academic accomplishment means nothing; that every child must advance whether learning the material or not. They have removed upper level teaching, substituting the really stupid idea that all children are created equal and therefore the lowest common denominator is the proper goal to aim for. They are destroying women's sports after working so hard to provide quality sports programs for women.
In short, they are NOT doing the job, instead trying to please the people with politically based programs. Get rid of them and let the states do the job; they can't do any worse.No, the Department of Education does not set curriculum at the local level. Education is primarily a state and local responsibility. And nothing to do with sports either.
So with the department's actual responsibilities in mind, why do you think it's a good idea to dismantle it?Yup and China and the rest of the world hope we keep it up, our determination to examine the lint in our navel and ensure everyone's feelings are respected makes it that much easier for them to dominate the world as they replace us as the world's top industrial nation, top GDP, top IQs, etc.
Destroying public education has long been a goal of the Republican Party because it will allow private companies to swoop in and provide inferior services at inflated prices. Those companies can then turn around and pump those profits into political donations for MAGA.
On top of that, a less educated populace is far more likely to vote for policies that harm and disenfranchise them, which is all that the Republican Party has to offer.
Trump's idiotic scheme does absolutely nothing to address the real problems facing students. out-of-touch billionaires ripping apart the Department of Education over some deranged far-right culture war?
Yeah..."I love the poorly educated" sums it upThis comment makes several broad and sweeping claims that, of course, deserve careful consideration. The idea that promoting school choice or encouraging private sector involvement will always lead to inferior services is certainly a controversial take. Proponents of school choice argue that competition can actually improve educational outcomes by giving families more options and allowing schools to innovate to meet students' needs. While it’s true that not every private option is stellar, it’s a bit much to claim that all private companies are just waiting to swoop in and offer inferior services. After all, success often depends on proper oversight and accountability, which could easily be part of the plan if we give it a chance.
As for the accusation that private companies are pumping profits into political donations for MAGA, it’s important to remember that political donations from companies are pretty much a feature of every sector, not just education. Suggesting that the sole goal of these reforms is to benefit MAGA without any real evidence seems like a pretty big leap. While corporate influence in politics is a valid concern, it’s hardly fair to say that every educational reform is purely about financial interests or partisanship.
Then there’s the claim that a less educated populace will inevitably vote for policies that harm and disenfranchise them. This is a rather bold and far-reaching accusation. Suggesting that educational reforms are intentionally keeping people uneducated to manipulate votes just derails the real conversation about improving education. Regardless of political leanings, most reforms are actually aimed at providing better opportunities for students, not making them political pawns. And let’s be real—it’s clear from academic data that the current education system isn’t exactly setting our children up for success. We’ve been failing our students for years, and the proof is in the dismal test scores and underperformance across the board. If the status quo was working, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Finally, calling Trump’s educational initiatives “idiotic” is a bit of a simplification, don’t you think? Sure, his policies like promoting school choice have been met with criticism, but they do aim to address issues of equity, particularly in underserved communities. Rather than dismissing them outright as idiotic, maybe it’s worth diving into the specifics of these policies before deciding they’re totally useless.
What I see you doing here is simply insulting nearly everything Trump has put forward, often without any real merit, while offering little more than negativity. You completely ignore the fact that we have serious, real problems that need to be addressed. Instead, you seem more focused on picking apart the one person actually working to fix them. Maybe it’s worth taking a moment to think about that.
In my view,---you rather see our new president fail, no matter the cost, even if it means hurting our country in the process.
An NPR/PBS News/Marist poll found that 63% of respondents “strongly oppose” closing the Education Department.
Too bad, we have a president that is working on keeping one of his promises -doing away with the DOE. Putting forth a new needed plan to give children a better chance at thriving in today's world. He is working to fix it, not ignore it.
How exactly does getting rid of the Department of Education and it's functions improve education on a local level?
I shared a link to the Trump administration’s promising plan for a new path to better education. Yes, it’s lengthy—but that’s because it covers everything being offered. In my view, it’s a path well worth taking, given our massive—yes, massive—educational failure. More people should take the time to read it. At the very least, it provides the facts about what the plan actually is—not some twisted, doom-and-gloom version spoon-fed by the media.
Bits of articles just don't cover the facts that the Trump administration has painstakingly put forward.
Good luck in the midterms, Republicans, if you try to dismantle the DOE.
Do you not remember what happened when you tried to roll back the ACA?So... The Trump administration is moving the loan management function of the Department of Education over to the Small Business Administration... How's this going to work?
"Small Business Administration cutting 43% of staff in latest move to downsize executive branch..."
The Small Business Administration on Friday said it is cutting more than 40% of its staff as part of the Trump administration's wider effort to shrink the federal bureaucracy.
After announcing the movement of the federal student loan portfolio, Trump then said, "Bobby Kennedy, the Health and Human Services, will be handling special needs."
LMFAO what could go wrong? Raw milk for everyone!
Just incompetence everywhere you look.
this bunch are absolute idiots. Do they even give a minutes worth of consideration to the consequences of their actions?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/small-busi … taff-cuts/"this bunch are absolute idiots. Do they even give a minute's worth of consideration to the consequences of their actions? " Willow
It looks like this "bunch" won and sent someone to follow through on their promises—that’s democracy. If you don’t like it, maybe focus on an agenda that actually appeals to Americans instead of one that alienates them and leaves people baffled.
In my view, all is looking pretty dam good. I am stoked.The Trump administration made significant staff cuts at the Small Business Administration (SBA) as part of a broader effort to reduce the size of the federal government. The SBA reduced its workforce by 43% as part of this initiative. This move was in line with the administration’s goal to shrink the federal bureaucracy and streamline government functions, focusing on making agencies more efficient and cost-effective. The cuts were intended to lower government spending and increase the overall efficiency of federal operations.
Regarding the transfer of the Department of Education’s student loan management to the SBA, this was part of the broader goal to reorganize government functions. The Trump administration aimed to consolidate responsibilities and make certain functions more effective by moving them under agencies with existing frameworks, in this case, shifting the student loan management to the SBA to potentially enhance coordination with other financial services provided by the agency.
Kennedy's experience in working with public health, particularly in addressing the needs of vulnerable populations, makes him well-suited to take on a role that involves tackling complex social and healthcare issues, even if they may not strictly fall under the "special needs" umbrella. As the head of Health and Human Services (HHS), he could bring a strong focus on social welfare, public health improvements, and advocacy for marginalized groups.
It's important to recognize that Bobby Kennedy Jr. has a background in law and advocacy, which positions him to bring a broad perspective to health-related policy. His work on issues such as environmental justice and public health shows that he has the ability to tackle complex issues from a policy and advocacy standpoint.
Rather than dismissing his qualifications, it’s worth considering the experience he brings to the table, particularly in areas where public health intersects with vulnerable communities, which could be an asset to handling various social programs under HHS.
Related Discussions
- 36
Joe, You Need To Do Some Research Before Jumping In With Both Feet
by Sharlee 3 years ago
In April the Biden administration proposed a new Department of Education rule that gives preference in grant awarding to schools that incorporate into their curriculum content from the “1619 Project., a controversial history project that is the most prominent work containing critical race theory...
- 31
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA)
by Sharlee 2 years ago
"The Biden administration awarded $2.8 billion this week to 20 companies after they pledged to honor Democratic goals like diversity, equity, and inclusion as they hire people to build batteries and related components to be used in electric vehicles.The conditional grants are the latest...
- 8
Do you think we should get rid of the Department of Education?
by Susan Mills 12 years ago
Do you think we should get rid of the Department of Education?Do you believe the public schools in our country have benefited from the having a Department of Education?
- 30
Shaping the future of America. Education, civics classes & parenting.
by Tim Mitchell 19 months ago
(About a 2+ minute read)“. . . of the people, by the people, for the people . . .”First, as a passing thought, should the conversation with 17 & 18-year-olds begin ‘now’, especially for those that will be eligible to vote, through schools and/or parents, for the upcoming 2024 election? Is there...
- 381
Americans are happy - media concealing it to 'slow support' for Trump
by Readmikenow 11 days ago
Americans are happier with their government than they been for a really, really, long time but that fact is being suppressed by the "liberal media" because members of that industry hope "to slow the support for President Donald Trump and his second-term agenda."That's the...
- 6
Educational reform
by SparklingJewel 12 years ago
http://edlibertywatch.org/While President Obama continues his dangerously consistent big-government constitutional and congressional end-run regarding education, there seems to be a huge philosophical battle raging in the Romney camp regarding the role of the federal government in that arena....