Impact of an Education Department shutdown
What effect would it have on classrooms?
Originally published in the Moultrie News.
Some of my parenting friends and I are freaking out about the possibility of shutting down the Department of Education. Can you help talk us back from the ledge?
This is a good time to remind readers that I refuse to take a political perspective on education. I choose to think critically for myself. Good and bad ideas can come from either side of the aisle. Regardless of which politician aims to either eliminate or maintain the Education Department, my focus is squarely on what benefits our schools.
Let’s start here: Before 1980, the Education Department didn’t even exist, so it’s not as if we have no experience functioning without it. Also, since the Constitution’s 10th Amendment grants authority over schools to states and localities, the department has very limited power, and the power it does possess is largely coerced through the threat of withholding funds.
We can fairly state that schools weren’t so good everywhere before the department was created. We can also fairly state that things aren’t so good everywhere now under its influence.
The department certainly does some things that would be missed. For example, it administers the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which provides valuable statistics on where our children stand academically. I cannot say, however, that this directly impacts the classroom, where state testing absorbs all the oxygen.
To talk you back from the ledge, consider what the department doesn’t do: it doesn’t select curricula, hire or certify faculty, build or maintain schools, or set school policies. It does contribute to district budgets, but only around 9 percent, most of which is targeted at specific programs, like Title I for low-income students, special education, and various grants. Articles suggest there could be “disruptions” in distributing these funds should the department close, but I’ve seen no indication that the funds would be cut off.
That’s because, according to reports, if the USDE is shut down, much of what it does would still be done, just by other departments. Some of this already occurs: The federal school lunch program, for example, is administered by the Department of Agriculture.
Many worry about federal special education policy, but this is an area where things could possibly improve. Under the Education Department’s supervision, special education is engaged in a crisis. Qualifications have been stretched to encompass students well beyond those with physical or cognitive handicaps; students can be labeled special needs because they’re really smart, really impulsive, don’t like to obey, or have trouble focusing.
Federal regulations impose a mountain of red tape for these students that suffocates special education teachers. These are the same teachers who are leaving (or failing to enter) the field at alarming levels. The result is too few teachers serving too many students. Yet, despite the heavy toll of bureaucratic mandates, the federal government barely funds them: It finances special education at only about 15 percent per student, forcing states and localities to cover the remaining 85 percent.
Could local governments improve special education regulations to better address children's needs? Could they remove barriers that hinder access to quality education and allow teachers to focus on vulnerable students without being overwhelmed by bureaucracy? Possibly, though politicians say this area would be regulated through the Department of Health and Human Services, so it’s also possible things would remain on the same course.
Apart from this, the most significant impact I’ve seen in my career from the USDE was a negative one: Threatening to sue school districts that suspend disruptive students helped fuel a significant rise in teacher departures, contributed to student walkouts over unsafe school environments, and left lasting harm on student achievement.
So, like many observers, I don’t think shuttering the department would cause significant changes inside your child’s classroom, and what changes occur might even improve matters.
I don’t know if that will talk anyone back from the ledge, but it shouldn’t edge you any closer.
Jody Stallings has been an award-winning teacher in Charleston since 1992 and is director of the Charleston Teacher Alliance. To submit a question, order his books, or follow him on social media, please visit JodyStallings.com.
The problem I have with these “both sides are bad” arguments are that they always seem like an attempt to have an objective viewpoint while parroting rightwing propaganda, which is ironic from Mr. Jody Stalling who purports to ‘refuse to take a political perspective on education’ then spends the entire column parroting fallacious rightwing propaganda.
Stalling Downplays the duration of the US Department of Education noting that it has only existed since 1980, 45 years ago. Aside from the fact that 45 years isn’t exactly recent, the premise is not exactly true. The US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) was created on April 11, 1953 before being split into its own department in 1980. Stallings argues that we have experience functioning without the department, but Stalling does not as he has only been an educator since 1992. We actually have functioned with it for 72 years. Not sure that either 45 or 72 years are such a negligible amount of time.
Stalling goes on to downplay the necessity of federal testing. While there may be differences in how to measure or implement such testing, leaving this metric in the hands of local school districts without a federal standard will create an unequal playing field for college admittance. The majority of Western nations implement a national standard for education, such as France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Japan. Some countries also have national curricula, including Ireland, Italy, Norway, Spain, and South Korea. Many if not most western nations have a negative perception of the quality of US education because of lax standards.
Stalling goes on to argue that the department only contributes around 9% to district budgets, most of which targets specific programs for low-income and special needs programs. 9% isn’t a paltry sum, where does Stalling think the additional 9% funds will be taken from? Higher taxes? But he’s seen no indication that there could be a “disruption” of these funds “should” the department close. I don’t know where he got this information from, but all accounts suggest that these programs will be “disrupted”.
For one thing, 1300 department employees have been fired, severely impacting the ability to “review and distribute government-funded research into effective ways to educate children with autism or severe intellectual disabilities.”
Stalling argues that the USDE programs impacted by ending it will “still be done by other departments”. Which department is taking over for special education programs? The one example Stalling provides is the school lunch program which will now be taken over by the Department of Agriculture. Great, except the USDA has now cut one billion dollars from the fund that provides for school lunch and food bank programs.
Stalling complains that federal regulations impose mountains of red tape for special education students which is the reason many special educators are not entering or leaving the field. Although it is undoubtedly true that many educators are leaving the field because of heavy paperwork load, an equal number of educators are leaving because of low pay, high stress levels, and a perception of being undervalued, all topics that the left have been fighting against while Republicans have been amplifying, especially with the culture wars they’ve embraced.
Stalling goes on to argue again that the financial contributions the USDE provides to special education is “only 15%” arguing they should provide more. Again 15% is hardly a paltry sum and again, how does Stalling think local schools will raise the additional 15% funds?
Stalling has said that the USDE has negatively impacted school districts because of restrictions placed on disciplining disruptive students. I have no indication of the circumstances Stalling has experienced, however the Department has investigated complaints of students being overly harshly disciplined as well as experiences where teachers have singled out minority students for discipline. Who does Stalling think will enforce these issues when the USDE is dissolved?