Beth Ann Rosica: So much ado about nothing — closing the Dept of Ed might help students

Looking back over the last 46 years since the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) was created, it is not a stretch to claim the only groups to benefit from the agency are the national teachers’ unions.

The DOE was established in 1979 by Congress at the urging of President Jimmy Carter. Notably, Carter was the first presidential candidate endorsed by the National Education Association (NEA) and the second presidential candidate endorsed by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). 

The timing raises the question: was the DOE simply created as a quid pro quo for the endorsement and money that accompanied it? Given what we learned over the extended school closures, it is not a far-fetched idea.

According to the New York Times, in 1976 both the NEA and AFT were starting to enter the political arena.

“The National Education Association, an 18 million‐member teachers’ organization that has gradually increased its political involvement, will take the final step into partisan politics this year with the almost certain endorsement of Jimmy Carter for President.”

The author pointed out the NEA’s prior nonpartisan activities.

“Such a move by a group that less than a decade ago eschewed political partisanship is seen as the full extension of its new policy of putting money and its members’ time into the campaigns of candidates considered ‘friendly to education.’”

The Times also acknowledged the role of teachers and the unions within the Democratic Party.

“The emerging political consciousness of the nation’s teachers will also be demonstrated by the presence at the Democratic National Convention of more than 200 teachers who will participate as delegates and alternates.”

The unions and their members’ support of Carter helped him win the election, and so began a long history of endorsing and funding democratic candidates at the national and local levels.

Fast forward to the last five years, and we know these teachers’ unions used their political clout to collude with the DOE, the CDC, and the White House to keep schools closed during Covid. Last December, a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee issued a report, concluding the highly political unions lobbied to keep schools closed much longer than necessary. The report also noted the teachers’ unions yielded far more power than any other group in the country with regard to this issue.

For the AFT and the NEA, the closure of the DOE will likely result in a huge decrease in political capital. Meanwhile, a vast number of students across the country are not proficient in basic skills, and the statistics are dramatically worse for some minorities and low income students.

What has the DOE and its bureaucracy actually done to positively impact academic achievement?

The United States is lagging behind other countries, despite the billions of dollars funneled into education annually. A national study analyzing fifteen-year-old students’ proficiency in reading, math, and science in 2022 ranked 25 countries/regions higher than the U.S., including China, Japan, Korea, Canada, Switzerland, Ireland, United Kingdom, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Germany.

Yet reading the headlines about the DOE closing, you might think the sky is falling.

NPR: Closing Education Department puts ‘American competitiveness’ at risk, expert warns

WHYY: Federal education funds hang in the balance for Pa. and N.J.

USA Today: Special education experts worry about students with disabilities post-Education Department

ABC: Trump signs order gutting Department of Education while surrounded by kids

Despite the doomsday predictions, none of the DOE K-12 funded programs have been cut — and there has not been any discussion about eliminating funding for services. While I do not have a crystal ball or any secret insights into Secretary McMahon’s plans, it does not appear that any K-12 programs will end as a result of closing the DOE.

The Executive Order specifically states existing programs and services are to remain in place.

“The Secretary of Education shall, to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.” (emphasis added)

Realistically, closing the DOE and returning education to the states could provide more money to local school districts, not less. If programs continue to be funded at the current level through different federal agencies and if the DOE regulations are no longer in place, there will be more funding for direct services.

For example, two of the largest programs funded for K-12 schools are Title I and special education. Title I provides remedial reading and math instruction for educationally disadvantaged students and special education services are provided for students with a myriad of disabilities. At both the state and local school district level, there are a lot of administrative positions associated with this funding.

Most local school districts employ a special education director and any number of supervisors, in addition to a Title I or federal programs director. These positions do not provide direct services to students, but rather complete endless bureaucratic tasks to remain in compliance with the DOE regulations.

Administrators aren’t the only ones bogged down in red tape. Ask a special education teacher how much time they spend working with students directly versus completing federally mandated paperwork. If the accompanying regulations for these programs are streamlined or eliminated, school districts could potentially employ more direct service staff who spend more time with students and fewer administrative staff.

Based on the 2024 Pennsylvania test scores, only 40 percent of students are proficient in math and only 53 percent are proficient in reading and writing. With increased teachers and reading specialists, districts might be able to better support struggling students.

It is certainly possible that eliminating the DOE will produce better outcomes for students, yet the majority of news outlets choose to ignore that potentiality. They are all speculating that funding will end, despite the language in the executive order.

The worst offender is the NEA with their headline — “How Dismantling the Department of Education Would Harm Students.”

The article starts with, “the Trump administration is taking a wrecking ball to public schools — inflicting damage on millions of students across the country in the process — to pay for tax handouts for billionaires.”

This statement is factually incorrect and designed to create panic amongst parents, particularly for those with special needs’ children. Additionally, as mentioned above, the end of the department could realistically funnel more money into direct services for these students, resulting in dramatically improved outcomes. But neither the NEA nor the democratically-controlled mainstream media wants to imagine that possibility.

The national teachers’ unions rely upon the DOE to maintain their political power, hence why they are sounding the alarm about its dissolution. Yet, those who matter most — students, teachers, and schools — will benefit substantially from the dissolution of a corrupt system that is no longer controlled by politically-calculated and motivated unions.

Abolishing the DOE and subsequently ending the teachers’ unions reign of error is a win for everyone who truly cares about quality education and positive academic outcomes for every single student.

Beth Ann Rosica resides in West Chester, has a Ph.D. in Education, and has dedicated her career to advocating on behalf of at-risk children and families. She covers education issues for Broad + Liberty. Contact her at barosica@broadandliberty.com.