Blog

Regardless of the true intentions behind its creation, the Department of Education has remained a substantial federal institution for over four decades. Over this period, it has ingested somewhere in the vicinity of 1.4 trillion taxpayer dollars and employed thousands of federal workers. Yet, proof of veritable improvements in the K-12 system following its birth is virtually nonexistent. While the U.S has continued to lag behind other nations by various metrics of academic success (See our previous article, Is Continuity Key?), the DoED has dedicated itself to creating a complex web of regulations, agreements, and national educational standards, albeit to no avail. The Common Core benchmarks, for example, were introduced in 2010 and their adoption was encouraged by the DoEd to combat the vast inconsistencies between various states in educational performance and approaches. In retrospect, such an approach was inappropriate given that numerous states had already exceeded the standards set by the CC at the time of its introduction, and the curriculum has failed to increase standards even in those that hadn’t. Unsurprisingly, this has led to various exemptions in states seeking to diverge from DoED-directed standards, which, in a sense, defeats the organization’s purpose. As of this writing, less than twenty states continue to use the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), the CC’s aligned standardized testing aspect. Additionally, a 2019 report by the Government Accountability Office (the official federal agency watchdog) found the department to be plagued by issues such as inaccurate, poor-quality evaluations and data reporting, and a failure to monitor the granting and subsequent use of government funds, among others.

It seems as though President Carter’s push to prevent “bureaucratic back passing” has resulted in precisely the opposite: a bloated federal tool that has failed massively in meeting its objectives while increasing its interference with local jurisdictions. Since the Reagan administration, the GOP has launched numerous efforts to abolish the agency. In a recent statement, Betsy Devos (the DoED’s secretary under Donald Trump) advocated nixing the department in favor of “educational freedom”. In a modern climate where egregious inequalities and culture wars are hallmarks of American schools, though, the complete elimination of federal oversight from schools would be a misguided step to move toward Devos’ vaguely expressed ideal of “educational freedom”.

When the Executive and Legislative branches next address K-12 reforms (a move they ought to consider soon, seeing that it is a matter of significant educational, economic, and even national security importance), their product should meet the following criteria:

• Consolidation - For all of its provided resources, the DoED has neither effectively spent nor properly tracked its funds. American education would be better supported by an agency (whether a single educational department or not) that engages in targeted, meticulously observed spending that is designed to create a particular outcome.
• Realistic, but rigorous: Aside from its resource allocation, enforcing educational standards must be the top priority of federal education oversight. In the past, though, these standards were ill-suited and unviable within the educational systems of many states and thus were repealed in many instances. As we concluded in our last article, continuity is key.