If Trump Eliminates the Department of Education, He Will Regret It

After winning the presidential election, focusing on immigration, inflation and the vague notion that life was better in 2019, many expect Donald Trump to press ahead with plans to… liquidate the Department of Education. It is difficult to understand what meaning this makes – for him, his party or the country.

The Ministry of Education does not stand up to criticism, especially its policy regarding student loan relief And student discipline. But mostly he does boring things, like providing grants to support students with disabilities or school systems with many poor children. And this is not the main item ($238 billion) of the federal budget ($8.7 trillion). If the president-elect wants to make serious cuts to federal spending, he needs to look at either the military or programs for the sick and elderly.

But if it’s not about money, then what is it? It can’t be about efficiency Despite Elon Musk’s DOGEfor the disappearance of Cabinet departments—or the creation of them—never seems to make much difference.

It is easy to imagine the liquidation of, say, the Ministry of Commerce and the distribution of its functions between the Ministries of Finance, Internal Affairs and Labor. But what will this fix? A similar issue concerns Congress’s creation of the Department of Homeland Security after 9/11. This new cabinet-level agency took various immigration functions out of Justice, lured the Secret Service out of the Treasury, took aviation security out of Transportation, merged them all with FEMA and, yada, a new agency!

So if Trump’s goal is simply to redraw the lines in some federal bureaucratic organizational structures, it will be a waste of time, but a harmless waste of time.

In general, it is unproductive to delve too deeply into Trump’s motives – his love of chaos explains much of his behavior—but the desire to dismantle the Department of Education is evidence of a larger right-wing impulse that deserves further study: solving public education problems through relentless decentralization. This is a path that leads to the federal government retreating from its role, state governments handing over the management of schools to local governments, and ultimately the privatization of the entire enterprise.

Are Americans going to support this agenda? Mark me as a skeptic. Democrats missed their historic role as the party trusted education with prolonged school closures during COVID. Exaggerating privatization measures will hit back at Republicans.

More broadly, viewing the Department of Education as a source of malign leftist influence is critically counterproductive. Under President Joe Biden, the department did not end gifted and talented programs or tell students that “worship of the written word” it is an aspect of white supremacy. This is what leftist school boards did.

Biden should have done more to fight back. And now that Trump is ready to control the levers of federal power, he must use them. This means not only a culture war, but also good old-fashioned education reform, like that carried out by George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Both of these administrations rightly believed that America’s public school systems tended to care more about what teachers and a distinct minority of parents wanted than about educating children.

A federal government that champions the national interest in promoting basic literacy and math education is invaluable—and conservatives should know this well. Mississippi, which has had a Republican governor for more than two decades, significantly improved my once dismal reading performance with a multifaceted effort focused on teaching phonics and the so-called “science of reading.”

These methods work and can be deployed on a large scale. But history shows that decentralized school systems and individual teachers attacked them for a reason. There must be a central body that will disseminate best practices and insist on results.

This is true for higher education as well. The Obama administration released what it called gainful employment rule it made for-profit colleges ineligible for federal student loans if too many of their students failed to earn enough money to repay their loans. Industry representatives protested, rightly arguing that it was unfair to hold for-profit schools to higher standards than traditional public and private nonprofit schools.

Instead of engaging in this debate when he took office, Trump simply abandoned the rule, allowing all schools to continue receiving money without any accountability.

A much better answer would be to apply this rule to all schools. Trump could still do this in his second term, delivering a far more powerful blow to the bad elements in the US higher education system than any culture war claims. But this will require a functioning Department of Education.

Of course, conservatives who are philosophically opposed to federal spending on education will not be convinced by any of this. But the beginning of wisdom for any new administration is to remember that no president achieves everything he sets out to doand that pushing for huge policy changes on issues that were barely discussed during the campaign is dangerous.

Education is vital to economic growth and a well-functioning democracy. conservatives have good ideas about how to improve it. These ideas can be promoted much more effectively by using existing institutional structures rather than by destroying them. In other policy areas – immigration, anyone? Trump seems to understand that a certain level of centralization and regulation is necessary to advance the national interest. The same is true for education.

©2024 Bloomberg LP Distributed via Content agency “Tribune”, LLC. Matthew Yglesias is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A co-founder and former columnist at Vox, he writes the blog and newsletter Slow Boring. He is the author One Billion Americans.

---

This column does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board of Bloomberg LP or Bloomberg LP and its owners. controlOpinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily the views of controleditors or management.