The Department of Education Is About Government Not Education

on February 8, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Little Red School HouseThe Department of Education was established as a cabinet department in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter. For the Children! Except, only it wasn't. It was basically a pay-off to the teachers' union as well as a way to further enshrine The State's control. Once huge albatrosses of departments and programs are created, we can never sever the ties from around our necks. The surest way to ensure control and power is to create a bureaucracy for life. Leave it to Jimmy Carter to use our children for such an end.

Ah, President Carter. When the high point of one's presidency is 'malaise', you're totally doing it wrong. The only thing he did right was to attempt to hide his brother Billy. And he even failed at that; he couldn't even stop him from foisting off "Billy Beer" on an unsuspecting public. Still, some really bad beer was nothing compared to the huge keg of waste and fail that is the Department of Education.

When Republicans dare to point out this inescapable fact, however, predictable screeching occurs. "Why do Republicans hate education?! And children?! And science or something?!" Nothing could be further from the truth. Republicans are actually for the children, rather than just giving lip service to the same. Republicans understand that regulations and government bureaucracies do not educate; good teachers and parents do. In fact, abolishing the Department of Education used to be part of the GOP platform. But, alas, as always once a government program becomes part of the collective mindset, it's almost impossible to roll-back, never mind abolish completely,

Plus, the unions and the party that rely on the same for power and control will never allow it. The best that we can hope for, sadly, is the reform that presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is striving for. He said, "You need to dramatically shrink the federal Department of Education, get rid of virtually all of its regulations." People of all political ideology should agree with this. I mean, there comes a point when even the most enamored of a government program must see that it has reached a point of diminishing returns. The Department of Education has the smallest staff of all cabinet agencies, yet has the third largest budget. A budget that has accomplished what, exactly?

Nothing. When first established, the Department of Education had a budget of $13.1 billion and now has a budget of $77.8 billion (in 2011). Pouring good money after bad accomplishes nothing. Reams and reams of paperwork to meet arbitrary regulations does nothing but take time away from, you know, the actual educating of our children. Test scores have either gone down or remained absolutely stagnant, regardless of the money thrown at the problems. Of course, most of the money is thrown towards the unions. For the Children!

Mamas understand this. We get rid of stuff that costs us money, yet does us absolutely no good. Mamas are also smart enough and capable enough to be in control of their own children's education. It needs to go back into local hands, away from a vastly wasteful bureaucracy-filled entity centered in the way out-of-touch Washington, DC.

I'm pro-choice, when it comes to the education of our children. The Department of Education gives us little to no choice and needs to get the boot, or at least have the boot removed from the necks of parents and local teachers. Contrary to popular opinion, federal government, mamas really do know best.

This post is part of a weekly conversation with our 5 Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. Read the original question and find links to all their responses here: Should the Department of Education Be Abolished?

Image via Svadilfari/Flickr

About the author Lori Ziganto

is mama turned blogger, since her daughter got tired of hearing her shake fisty rants about the state of politics today; she started believing presidents "just give speeches and make mommies mad." Lori now types them out instead. Find me on twitter at @SnarkAndBoobs

Filed Under: 2012 election, education, in the news, politics

Comments (23)

tinypossum

on Feb 8, 2012 at 10:10 AM

I may tend to agree that it is time to scale back the size and scope of the DOE and put more responsibility and accountability back with the local jurisdictions. However, when you spend the first two paragraphs of your post taking cheap shots at President Carter, a man who has done more for humanity in his lifetime than you could ever dream of doing, you lose all credibility. You just out yourself as a single-minded and ill-informed person who cannot look past her own biases to see the good and bad on both sides of the political spectrum. Anyone who is that party centric is not someone who can be taken seriously. What The Stir needs most are more bloggers who can share a balanced, non-snarky opinion that is based in a critical analysis of the issues. That's seriously lacking here.

Report this comment

Nonmember comment from Gertie

on Feb 8, 2012 at 10:18 AM

I would like to see school choice being more of an option.

hoticedcoffee

on Feb 8, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Oh, the hypocrisy. Tiny, you agree the DOE is too big, but then spend the next 5 sentences trying to discredit her opinion because of her opinon of Carter. To quote you, "Anyone who is that party centric is not someone who can be taken seriously"...so, I guess the good news is, we have your blessing to not take you seriously? You know, since you didn't share a balanced, non-snarky opinion that is based on a critical analysis of the issues?

Anyway - the DOE has to go. It's bad government. It's FAILED every single year since it's inception, and every single year, it has an even bigger budget because they want us to believe the issue is funding, not function. Billions of dollars wasted every year for static student performance is not acceptable. Billions of dollars a year to stroke the teacher's unions and buy their votes. Billions of dollars every year so the federal government can make sure our kids are mediocre. I absolutely support gutting it.

on Feb 8, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Please tell me what is possibly meaningful about snarking on Billy Beer? Is that what you call good writing and balanced political analysis? If that's what you are looking for, then The Stir is the right place for you. Between Ziganto and Jenny Ericson you have all the one-sided, narrow-minded, party-centric snark you need. As long as the blogger spends her time slamming Obama or any other Democrat, you're happy regardless if she actually writes anything that's insightful or well thought out. None of the issues we face today are black and white, as much as some people would like. There are good ideas from both sides but people like you and the majority of the bloggers here can't seem to open thier eyes or minds to see that. There's one blogger here who has the ability to express a balanced opinion and that's Lindsay Farrier. The rest, from both sides, are only thinking from one side of their brains. But, I guess you like that since that's what you seem to do, too.

on Feb 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM

More pot. You go, girl. Stick with it.

Justamom283

on Feb 8, 2012 at 10:57 AM

I agree with tiny. I wish the writers here would stick to just writing about the issue instead of slamming the person or candidate. In this post for instance, her views on Jimmy Carter have nothing to do with how awful the DOE has been.

on Feb 8, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Right back at ya.

texasmamma777

on Feb 8, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Abolish the DOE, the sooner the better. The states can better spend those dollars, tailoring the use of the funds to their individual needs.

And Carter was inept, his tenure was a miserable time in America. As we've seen time and again, liberal, utopian policies always fail. "Let's just throw some more money at it!" is not just stupid, it's short-sighted, wasteful and dangerous.

the4mutts

on Feb 8, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I won't pretend to know a lot about the DOE, or the actions of presidents that were in office before I was even born.
What I DO know a lot about, is my children, their way of learning, their achievements, and their school.
My kids go to a city school, in a lower middle-class neighborhood where we live. Its a clean place, but nobody around here has a lot of cash to throw around, the school district included.
What I also know? THIS IS THE BEST SCHOOL IN OUR ENTIRE CITY! Why? Because they get some of the least funding. The teachers pay better attention, use more hands-on activities, and use their brains to figure out where the kids are, and what they need. They communicate with parents, and the parents respect the teachers.
$$$$ isn't the only thing schools need, and if that's all the DOE focuses on, its no wonder the "good" schools in bakersfield, ca are suffering, and so are the children. Better training, more attention paid, and less money thrown at problems that money has Nothing to do with.