Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. Since the Department was carved out of the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1979, what improvements to education have been made that would not have been made without the separate department?
2. "Elimination" means there would be no separate Department. Which remaining Department would take over the current Department's responsibilities? Would it be Health and Human Services? Some other Department?
1. Since the Department was carved out of the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1979, what improvements to education have been made that would not have been made without the separate department?
Excellent question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtab4994
2. "Elimination" means there would be no separate Department. Which remaining Department would take over the current Department's responsibilities? Would it be Health and Human Services? Some other Department?
The OP is assuming that the federal government disengages from education entirely.
Well, on the K-12 level I think that this would mean simply that decisions and funding for education would be passed back to the states, a duty that all states engage in to varying degrees already. For the Federal donor states, this could potentially lead to an increase in educational funding.
For post-secondary education, the elimination of the DoE would present some interesting issues because they are the ones that determine and often distribute financial aid to college students. They also back a huge number of loans, as well. This is a duty that I'm not sure that all states would be prepared to handle and undoubtedly many of them wouldn't even bother.
If the DoE is eliminated, I don't think that means that it would have to be absorbed by another cabinet-level department. I think it could just as easily mean that the Federal government simply does not concern itself with education.
One has to understand that the Federal Department of Education came into being because of Sputnik and the perception that the US was falling behind Russia, but what caused the government to act was also the civil rights issues involving segregation of schools. The first actions involved desegregating schools in areas where there was a great deal of resistance to the idea. This was the first time that the disparity in test scores also got the attention of the general public.
The problem is that the interventions that have happened have not made a dent in the actual problems. Note though that the federal contributions are relatively small. Believe it or not the department has not grown substantially and it has the smallest staff of the 15 cabinet agencies despite an increase in its responsibilities.
Eliminating the department would be a big problem for those of us who rely on it to enforce the laws giving our special education students access to a free and appropriate education.
Eliminating the department would be a big problem for those of us who rely on it to enforce the laws giving our special education students access to a free and appropriate education.
That's something I overlooked. However on the flip side, I think an argument can be made that the Federal government forces states, districts, and schools to overcompensate for special needs students to the point that the regular students and gifted students are, to some degree, being cheated, particularly for as much as it costs to educate special needs students. I hope that doesn't come off as sounding too insensitive, but I'm not sure the solution is working and in a lot of ways it could be making the educational system, overall as a whole, worse off.
Eliminating the department would be a big problem for those of us who rely on it to enforce the laws giving our special education students access to a free and appropriate education.
Don't you think that could be handed off to the states?
Sputnik was 1957 and the DOE was established in 1979. I'm unsure how related the two events could be.
Don't you think that could be handed off to the states?
Sputnik was 1957 and the DOE was established in 1979. I'm unsure how related the two events could be.
No, the states won't do squat. Half the time, we fight with the state to get the school districts in compliance and they seriously will not do anything. Besides, I live in Texas and they don't even want good education in terms of science or history. Let's see - teach creationism, pray before school, add in Joe McCarthy and delete Thomas Jefferson. No thanks on the states doing anything much.
This might belong in P&OC, but I wanted to get some feedback from educators and administrators.
If the federal government eliminated the Department of Education entirely - no funding, no standards, no strings - what's the worst possible outcome?
Is there a serious downside?
What would education in the United States look like?
Would any schools close?
Would quality suffer?
What quality? Scores have only gotten worse since it was established and we've really slipped competitively as a country compared to the rest of the world.
You realize eliminating it as a Department only means just that. It would be as if in 1979 they made the IRS a Department and then decided in 201X to put it back under Treasury with less programs. If the purpose of it was to improve education, it's not doing that.
You should also know that before it was established under Carter, The American Federation of Teachers opposed its establishment.
This is its mission according to its own website:
Strengthen the Federal commitment to assuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual;
Supplement and complement the efforts of states, the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the states, the private sector, public and private nonprofit educational research institutions, community-based organizations, parents, and students to improve the quality of education;
Encourage the increased involvement of the public, parents, and students in Federal education programs;
Promote improvements in the quality and usefulness of education through Federally supported research, evaluation, and sharing of information;
Improve the coordination of Federal education programs;
Improve the management of Federal education activities; and
Increase the accountability of Federal education programs to the President, the Congress, and the public.
Why is the quality goal "promote improvement" instead of just "Improve" like the two goals underneath it? I'll answer that. Because they don't want a mission they think they can't accomplish.
I fully disagree with you nana. I have before. Your sole concern is pushing special education. What about the rest of the kids in the country? Don't you think they deserve decent schooling? From your posts, I think not.
The Feds have progressively destroyed the main goal of our educational system to teach kids to do their best and strive for what they could achieve, much of it due to the fact of forcing things as least restrictive environment and mainstreaming down every districts throat.The Federal Education was not a full fledged monster until 1972. (* look at you own link in the NYSED thread)
I started teaching about when DC got hold of the Dept. of Ed. and it has destroyed neighborhood schools and true local control in NY State. I went to school under little federal pressure and to college under no massive pressure. From the time I started teaching in the early 70s, every year the schools were forced under more and more federal regs and programs. It has NOT improved education. It has shoved paperwork at teachers, tests at students ( much of which is totally irrelevant to learning), and most kids lose out when the curriculum is watered down for multiple reasons.
I quote you:
"Eliminating the department would be a big problem for those of us who rely on it to enforce the laws giving our special education students access to a free and appropriate education."
Yes, you rely on it for what benefits you. Having a Federal Dept. of Ed. isn't benefiting most children. State and local education control without Washington interference should do that. I vote for it to be dissolved.
I speak as a retired teacher. Local control is better. What are you afraid of?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
