Should the Department of Education be Abolished?

on February 6, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Created by Jimmy Carter in 1980, the Department of Education is the smallest cabinet-level department in US government, with only about 5,000 employees.

And if some Republicans have their way, it will one day be abolished altogether.

Every GOP presidential candidate has advocated either getting rid of the department or giving it less power.

But is this the right decision for our children?

Education is important to American moms, and so this week, we're asking our CafeMom political bloggers this question:

What would abolishing the Department of Education mean for moms? Why is this a good or bad idea?

We'll hear from our bloggers on the topic all week long -- In the meantime, let us know what you think about the issue in the comments of this post!

Interestingly, the Department of Education has the third-largest budget of the 15 Cabinet-level departments. Much of that budget goes to the bipartisan No Child Left Behind plan (a plan enacted with George W. Bush's blessing in 2000), which many have criticized as being ineffective, burdensome and expensive.

Others say the department is a violation of the 10th amendment, which reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution does not contain any reference to regulation or funding of education.

Here's where the GOP candidates stand on the Department of Education:

A quote from Mitt Romney in 2007:

I've taken a position where, once upon a time, I said I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education. That was my position when I ran for Senate in 1994. That's very popular with the base. As I've been a governor and seen the impact that the federal government can have holding down the interest of the teachers' unions and instead putting the interests of the kids and the parents and the teachers first, I see that the Department of Education can actually make a difference.

Newt Gingrich:

"As President, Newt will dramatically shrink the Department of Education to a research and reporting overview agency, and restore decision-making powers to states and communities."

Ron Paul:

Ron Paul works towards the elimination of the inefficient Department of Education, leaving education decisions to be made at the state, local or personal level. Parents should have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children.

Rick Santorum:

The federal role in education is very limited. Education is the responsibility of parents, local schools (public and private), and states in that order. The President can and should inspire toward educational excellence and personalization of learning. The federal government’s role is limited to areas such as supporting civil rights protections such as IDEA in a common sense fashion, enabling essential research, and promoting equality of opportunity where needed.

President Bush was on the mark about the soft bigotry of low expectations and the offensively low graduation rates in many of our cities. Today, there are still many parents without good educational options for their children. The problem is that the solution is not a federal one, it is a state and principally local one. Parents and citizenry should hold schools accountable and have educational options for their children. Baby steps were taken in this direction in No Child Left Behind, but it should have been initiated at the local level where the consumers, taxpayers, and children are. States may choose to adopt common core standards, but they should not be forced on states, private schools, or home schools.

President Obama:

Obama wants to reform No Child Left Behind.

In his own words, "We're going to let states, schools and teachers come up with innovative ways to give our children the skills they need to compete for the jobs of the future. Because what works in Rhode Island may not be the same thing that works in Tennessee -- but every student should have the same opportunity to learn and grow, no matter what state they live in," Obama said.

That's where the candidates stand.

Here's what our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers have to say:

Abolishing the Department of Education Is the Best Thing for Our Kids

Department of Education Gives a Gift to Children

The Department of Education Is About Government Not Education

Haven't We Learned Something Good From the Department of Education?

State, Not Federal Government, Should Decide How to Educate Its Kids

Do you think we need a Department of Education?

Filed Under: 2012 election

Like What You Just Read?

Click the "Like" button below to get Lindsay Ferrier's stories on Facebook.

Comments (22)

PonyChaser

on Feb 6, 2012 at 11:10 AM

The DoE, like most federal endeavors, has become bloated and often oversteps its boundaries. It has been observed that the Dept regularly bows to the wishes of the Teacher's Union, instead of sticking to what is truly best for the children of this nation. (ex: instead of cutting back on pensions and other lifetime benefits for teachers and adminstrators, books are cut, school time is reduced). They enact bloated, one-size-fits-all legislation like NCLB instead of looking at the real problem, which resides in forcing all kids to learn the same way, regardless of individual needs. So, looking at it in that light, I say Abolish!

On the other hand, an argument can be made for having national standards. Setting national standards and goals for every grade, in each necessary subject makes absolute sense, and gives kids a fighting chance in the global race for jobs.

Taxes should be local. There should be NO national funding for education. It should stop at the state level. Anything higher asks for corruption.

There should be no National Teacher's Union. Local/district unions are fine; they can deal intimately with the needs of both their teachers and their students. But when you start going bigger than that, even state-wide, the needs of the children begin to succumb to the needs and desires of a group of adults. And the bigger it gets, the more open to corruption it becomes.

So, no, I don't think the DoE should be abolished. Completely revamped and massively downsized, yes.

Report this comment

KenneMaw

on Feb 6, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Well said PonyChaser. You said it very well.

LittleFrogsMA

on Feb 6, 2012 at 12:47 PM

The Federal governmen controls schools the same way it controls highways. No state is obligated to take Federal money but they all do which means they follow the Federal governments rules.

on Feb 6, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Pony Chaser,

You are saying that teachers, alone of all Americans, should not have the right to organize, to make their students needs heard. Every other group has that right.. why not teachers? Even worse, why do you think that we went into this field? None of us are getting rich teaching. But we are the experts in education, we know what needs to be done and what shouldn't be done. The politicians don't listen to us and pass their laws for political means... without unions, we would be totally unrepresented in the political process and that means students' needs would be unrepresented.

on Feb 6, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Frogs... I never said that teachers should not organize. I said that they should be limited to local organizations, and I stand by that. I have no problems at all with the teachers in a district banning together to ensure that they are fairly paid, that they receive the curriculum materials they need, etc.

What I have a problem with is a national union telling my small-town school that we cannot fire a poor teacher without jumping through a thousand political hoops.

I have a problem with major unions, in general. I would (and have) said the same thing about UAW, and SEIU. Unions, at a local level, are fine and often appropriate. But when they go national (or global like SEIU - how is THAT a good idea?), there is WAY too much opportunity for money-grabbing and corruption.

Unions have caused superintendents of schools to make more than the President of the United States. I don't have a single problem with people making money, I"m all for it. But how can you justify telling me that there isn't money for books, when the Supt is driving around in a Lincoln (true story - I witnessed it) that is paid for by the school, and pulling down six digits?? Why should we be paying for full, lifetime health benefits on the taxpayer's back when those taxpayers can't provide health insurance for themselves?

on Feb 6, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Why should we be limited to local organizations? No other group is.

Why is it okay for corporations (national organizations) to have political voices but not workers?

Why is it okay for retirees, gun owners but not teachers?

BTW... unions have NO control over superintendent pay. They are NOT members of teachers' unions. Do you really think the teacher's union in Lincoln wants to see the superintendent in a lincoln and no books on the shelves (if that's real?)? No.

Why do we pay for full, lifetime health benefits? Because you underpay your teachers for 30 to 40 years in exchanges for those retirement benefits.

on Feb 6, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Retirees and gun owners are private organizations. They are not paid by the federal government, and are not negotiating with them for salaries, etc.

The whole point of a union was to ensure safe working conditions and fair wages. That has been achieved over and over again. As you, yourself, point out, teachers are "underpaid" but on the backside, get supported for the rest of their lives after they retire. And some retire at the ripe old age of 50. That could be 40 years or more that they are completely supported by taxpayers - some of whom cannot support themselves. How is that right?

At age 50, with 20 years of teaching behind you, and (presumably) a Master's Degree, you should be able to slide into another job, if that is your desire. But don't expect your neighbor to support you just because you were a teacher. You are no better than anyone else. If your neighbor has to work, so should you. Saying that teachers are underpaid and therefore "deserve" to be supported for the rest of their lives is ridiculous. Two wrongs don't make a right.

on Feb 6, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Retirees and gun owners are sometimes Federal or state employees. If they can use their compensation to join those organizations to represent their beliefs, why can't teachers use THEIR compensation as they choose to organize on a state and national level?

Finally, why would you eliminate the voice of experts from the discussion on education?

And those retirement plans aren't my neighbor supporting me.. .they are delayed compensation. Things that I EARNED taking care of the nation's children.

kitty4ever

on Feb 6, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Yes it should be eliminated and taken back to the local level. The DoE puts mandates on schools that are a one size fits all. What may be a good rule in a big school, may not be neccessary and just a financial burden to a small school. The state needs to be more in control, where each shool can be reviewed.

scrappycraftyga

on Feb 7, 2012 at 1:11 PM

oh my...as having both good teachers and "bad"...and hearing this..even with my father who finally retired...they had a union..look who is screwed..they make the decision on insurances apparently for retirees and guess what..he pays so much..and guess what he retired after 45 years of his time ...he is going on 72 this year..heart condition..union helped back in the day..now its all politics and the workers get screwed..so hindsight..teachers..well my sister is 13 years in a school as a TA..because of the Standarized Testings.. she will not go for the full degree for teaching..politics..get this..she does what the teachers do if not MORE and she finally is over it..but what is she to do. She is for the KIDS..Teachers don't teach the nation...'s kids..they teach a select group ina school. The work hard..they deserve good pay and benefits..but with the govt and everybodys hands in the pot so to speak..some teachers don't care anymore..my final note here..what happen to simply teaching Children???