554
submitted 11 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Multiple Republican presidential candidates made it clear at this week’s debate that the Department of Education is in danger if they are elected.

“Let’s shut down the head of the snake, the Department of Education,” Vivek Ramaswamy said. “Take that $80 billion, put it in the hands of parents across this country.”

Conservatives see the department, which has more than 4,400 employees and in its current form dates back to 1979 after first being established in 1867, as a prime example of Washington’s meddling in Americans’ lives. The time has come to “shut down the Federal Department of Education,” former Vice President Mike Pence said Wednesday.

But what would it mean to actually shutter the massive agency?

How could the department be eliminated?

Killing the Department of Education (DOE) would be easier said than done.

Conservatives have said since the creation of the department they want to get rid of it. From President Ronald Reagan and his Education secretary to President Trump and his own, Republicans have decried the department’s existence but failed to abolish it.

That is because the decision to do so is not only up to the president and would have to go through Congress.

“There would have to be some legislation to specifically outline this, but I do think it would need to have the support of the executive branch and, obviously, this is a Cabinet-level agency, so I think having the president — would have to take a leadership role and help to make sure that the proposal is carefully crafted,” said Jonathan Butcher, the Will Skillman senior research fellow in education policy at The Heritage Foundation, which supports nixing the DOE.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) proposed such legislation in 2021 and reintroduced it earlier this year.

“Unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., should not be in charge of our children’s intellectual and moral development,” Massie said two years ago. “States and local communities are best positioned to shape curricula that meet the needs of their students. Schools should be accountable. Parents have the right to choose the most appropriate educational opportunity for their children, including home school, public school or private school.”

DOE did not respond to The Hill’s request for comment.

DOE’s duties would be absorbed by other federal agencies

DOE has an enormous number of responsibilities, including handling student loans, investigating complaints against schools and tracking education progress across the country.

None of the 2024 candidates during Wednesday’s debate detailed how they would handle eliminating it, but conservatives have longed to see many of its tasks either completely eliminated or absorbed into other departments.

“For example, the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education. I think that any duplicate responsibilities that it shares with the Department of Justice should be eliminated, and then the rest of that office should go to the Department of Justice,” Butcher said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] pbbananaman@lemmy.world 44 points 11 months ago

Take $80 billion, divide by the number of households in US with children ~ 30 million. That’s about $2700. Anyone who’s a parent knows that doesn’t go far at all in terms of education expenses. Good luck privatizing education and funding it out pocket for $3k/yr. Complete idiots.

[-] lingh0e@lemmy.film 12 points 11 months ago

Generous of you to assume they'd redirect that money to anyone else but themselves and their cronies.

[-] drewofdoom@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

That's kinda the point. They actively want the poors to have to send their kids to the 'budget' schools. The ones that charge exactly $2700 / yr / student. Broken computers, empty libraries, overworked and severely underpaid teachers, no extra curriculars.

Meanwhile, the ~~oligarchs~~ rich people can send their kids to the schools that cost more, teaches their kids how to be shitty to the proletariat, and has a pipeline directly into colleges.

The whole point of this venture is to siphon even yet more money from the poor into the hands of the rich, meanwhile depriving those same poor of a worthwhile education and giving the rich an even greater advantage.

[-] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

We spend like 15k/student right now.

I don't think they're capable of reforming education, but it's not the worst idea.

[-] tallwookie@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

would make sense with the move to deregulate child labor laws in the usual states. get them littles back in the coal mines!

[-] KIM_JONG_JUICEBOX@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago

Aren’t schools funded by county property tax and not the DOE?

[-] drewofdoom@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Depends on the state, but finding isn't really the issue here. It's a move to a voucher system.

The idea that they are pushing is to privatize the entire education system. Privatization has been a wet dream for Republicans for many years now, and not just in education. It would further corporatize the country and allow for more money that was once 'the people's' to be siphoned into private pockets.

So the state gives money to families with children. Those families send their kids to a private school and give that money (plus probably a lot more) to that private school. Public money flowing into private hands. Add to that deregulation of the industry - no standard tests or textbooks. Education will be chaos.

[-] tallwookie@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

yeah I thought the dept of edumcation was administrative overhead

this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
554 points (96.6% liked)

politics

18586 readers
4259 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS