Amidst the policy dialogues of the new Trump administration, which emphasize a leaner federal government, one of the recurring themes has been the reconsideration of the role of national agencies in domestic affairs, including education. Specifically, the discussion around potentially eliminating the U.S. Department of Education has gained notable traction. While this might appear to be a radical proposition, it is supported by arguments drawing from historical precedents and the foundational principles of federalism, advocating for a system where states and local communities hold more sway over educational governance.
Federal Overreach in Education:
Education in the United States was traditionally seen as a matter of state and local governance. The Constitution does not explicitly grant the federal government the authority to regulate education, reflecting an understanding that educational needs vary widely across different regions. From this perspective, the establishment of the Department of Education in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter can be viewed as a departure from the original intent of limited federal involvement.
The Carter Administration’s establishment of the Department of Education in 1979 was largely driven by the desire to consolidate various federal education programs and to elevate education to a cabinet-level position. The reasoning included the belief that a dedicated department would improve educational outcomes by streamlining federal education policy, advocating for educational issues at the national level, and ensuring that education received the attention and resources it deserved. The move was also influenced by political considerations, particularly support from teachers’ unions who sought a stronger federal role in education. However, from a constitutional perspective, the creation of the Department of Education did not rely on explicit constitutional authority, as education is not mentioned in the Constitution. Instead, the argument for its establishment was based on implied powers, specifically the General Welfare Clause, which has been interpreted broadly over time to allow for federal involvement in areas traditionally managed by states, like education. Critics argued that this represented an overreach, pointing out that the Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution to the states or the people, suggesting education should remain a state and local matter.
The Department of Education’s dual goals of enhancing student achievement and simplifying federal policy seem increasingly at odds with reality, given the persistent stagnation in educational outcomes despite an ever-expanding bureaucratic oversight.
Administrative bloat in public schools is a concern that the number of administrators and non-teaching positions has grown disproportionately compared to the student population:
• Historical growth: Since 1950, the number of administrative and non-teaching positions in public schools has increased 702%, while the student population has only increased 96%.
• Recent growth: From 1992 to 2009, the number of administrators and non-teaching staff increased 46%, while the number of students increased 17%.
• Disproportionate growth: The U.S. Department of Education found that while student growth over 19 years was 7.6%, teachers grew 8.7%, and administrative staff grew 87.6%.
Evidence supports the assertion that administrative bloat in educational institutions can lead to several negative outcomes: it often diverts funds from instructional purposes to administrative overhead, as seen in the disproportionate growth of administrative staff compared to instructional staff since the 1970s; it has not correlated with improved graduation rates, with some studies indicating a stagnation or even decline in student outcomes despite increased administrative costs; the rising administrative expenses contribute to higher tuition and fees, thus increasing the net cost for students; this cost escalation can limit university attendance by making education less accessible to students from lower-income backgrounds; and finally, the expansion of non-instructional roles has been criticized for representing an irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars, especially when public educational institutions receive state funding.
Did someone mention “Employee Benefits?”
When examining the financial dynamics of educational institutions, a surprising revelation is that the surge in administrative costs, often blamed for financial strain, isn’t the primary consumer of increased education budgets. Instead, the escalating expenses are predominantly driven by the costs associated with employee benefits. This includes pensions, health care, and other post-employment benefits, which have seen significant increases, outpacing the growth in administrative spending over recent years.
Reason Foundation – November 29, 2021: Administrative bloat isn’t the biggest problem facing school district budgets.
Growing employee benefit debt costs – not administrative spending – is the biggest line item keeping new education dollars out of the classroom.
The latest version of President Joe Biden’s proposed Build Back Better budget resolution excludes some of the priorities Democratic lawmakers backed in a previous version of what was a $3.5 trillion budget plan, but it still contains some $400 billion in federal funding for universal pre-K and childcare. If passed by the U.S. Senate, these federal taxpayer dollars would be added to the $200 billion in stimulus funds that the federal government has already poured into public education during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Critics point out that such hefty spending packages are less likely to improve the education system than they are to bolster the system’s bureaucracy. The latest data seem to support that perception. School districts are using one-time federal stimulus funds to fund long-term commitments such as hiring new support staff and giving out permanent raises. This is why many education-reform advocates see administrative bloat as a key obstacle that is keeping much-needed dollars out of classrooms.
Education reformers might be barking up the wrong tree, however. A closer look at school finance data reveals that increased administrative spending hasn’t been the line item devouring most new education money in recent decades. The real culprit is the ballooning cost of employee benefits.
Fixing the problems with public pension systems won’t happen overnight and it will likely mean that things temporarily get worse for classroom spending before they get better. But if public pension problems aren’t addressed, education dollars will continue to evade classrooms – and even aggressive cuts to administration are unlikely to make much difference.
Diversity in Educational Needs:
America’s strength is deeply rooted in its diversity, encompassing not only cultural variations but also the distinct educational preferences and needs across its populace. This diversity necessitates educational policies that are flexible and nuanced to reflect the unique character of each state. A standardized, one-size-fits-all approach imposed by Washington, D.C., often proves inadequate in addressing the intricate differences among states. For example, should the voters in Massachusetts determine that high-stakes testing is not aligned with their educational objectives, it raises the question of why federal policy should supersede this local decision-making. Likewise, if Oklahoma’s citizens express a desire to incorporate Bible study into their school curriculum, the debate and decision should remain within the community, rather than being dictated by distant federal bureaucrats who may not understand or appreciate local values and needs.
One explicit instance where a state challenged federal mandates on educational policy is the case of Texas v. United States in 2018, where Texas was among several states challenging the Department of Education’s policies. Specifically, Texas, joined by other states, opposed the Obama administration’s guidance on transgender student rights in schools, which included bathroom access policies. This challenge was based on the argument that the federal guidance overstepped constitutional bounds, infringing on state and local control over education matters, particularly under the guise of Title IX interpretations. The lawsuit claimed that these federal mandates encroached on states’ rights to manage their school policies without undue federal interference.
Historical Context:
Prior to the creation of the Department of Education, the Office of Education, established in 1867, operated with a far lighter touch, primarily serving in an advisory capacity rather than wielding significant control. This approach fostered a decentralized educational landscape where states were free to craft educational policies that best reflected their unique cultural, economic, and educational landscapes. It’s noteworthy that during this period, American education saw substantial growth and innovation. For instance, high school graduation rates had been steadily increasing, and literacy rates were on the rise, suggesting that education was functioning effectively without the need for extensive federal oversight. The call to revert to this earlier model is not about eliminating oversight but rather about restoring a system where education could be more effectively and responsively managed at the state level, tailored to local needs without the heavy hand of the federal bureaucracy.
Arguments for Decentralization:
Local Control: Education policies crafted by local communities are inherently more likely to reflect the specific values, needs, and educational goals of those regions. Here are a couple of specific examples illustrating this:
Curriculum Customization in Vermont: Vermont has implemented personalized learning plans for students, which are developed by teachers, parents, and students themselves. This approach allows education to be tailored to each student’s interests and career aspirations, something that a standardized federal curriculum might not accommodate as effectively. Vermont’s focus on personalized education demonstrates how local control can foster educational innovation by allowing schools to adapt teaching methods and content to the individual learner, promoting engagement and better educational outcomes.
Tech Integration in Florida: Florida has leveraged its local control to push forward with significant advancements in technology integration in classrooms. The state has initiated programs like the Digital Learning Now Act, which encourages schools to use digital tools and platforms in education, reflecting the state’s forward-thinking approach to education in the digital age. This kind of initiative can be more readily tailored and tested at the state level, where educators can adjust policies based on direct feedback from students, teachers, and parents, leading to educational practices that might be stifled or delayed under a more rigid federal system.
Professional Educators of Tennessee – February 27, 2024: Why Local Control of Education Matters
Local control of schools is crucial to shaping a shared philosophy of education. Local boards must provide quality education that reflects community values. Strengthening local control and engagement can create a greater sense of common good. It’s vital to remember why we have schools and education. It is also critical to recognize the importance of educators as the primary drivers of student success.
Most citizens in Tennessee prefer greater control over their local schools instead of having them controlled by the state or national level. Taxpayers traditionally believe local officials should be in charge of running schools. However, current state and national policy debates have narrowed the purpose of education to simply enhancing economic competitiveness, overlooking the broader goals that matter at the local level.
Local control of education gives communities a say in their schools. It empowers parents and taxpayers, fosters innovation and competition, and can lead to better educational outcomes. We should prioritize local control of education as it’s crucial for building a stronger society.
Forbes – February 26, 2024: What Is Decentralized Education?
It’s results day, and the education system is getting an F.
Gen-Z believes the traditional education system isn’t for them. In fact, only 51% of Gen-Z teens are even interested in pursuing a four-year degree—a huge 20% drop from May 2020.
The education system is outdated, expensive and not flexible enough for current and future generations. Gen-Z is the first generation to have access to technology and information from birth—with the iPhone released at a pivotal time in their childhood—this creates a unique relationship to learning and education.
Their real world is digital-native, internet and Google-fueled. But, their world at school is full of books and lectures and rejects Google. This is an issue for many when decentralized education walks into the classroom.
What is decentralized education?
Put simply, decentralized education (also known as DeEd) is taking power away from the established, centralized education system—think Harvard College and the University of Cambridge—in exchange for alternative education solutions built from the bottom up.
Often, students are graduating with outdated skills due to a school’s curriculum being too old or the teachers not working in the industry. As such, 45% of new university graduates don’t think their degree has armed them with the right skills.
Instead of a group of faculty members creating a curriculum, despite their lack of current knowledge in a field, decentralized education looks towards industry professionals and skilled teachers to create resources for students. Decentralized education can take many forms. It could be a small learning pod started by a teacher, a micro-school formed by experts or a virtual platform like Skillshare.
Education has been stuck in the same grade for decades now. It’s time to graduate. And, decentralized education is the course that could lead us there.
Alternative education options will continue to thrive in an environment where traditional education is expensive and lags behind the real world. This is a great opportunity for entrepreneurs to create valuable businesses that push the next generation to new heights—alternative education is expected to grow 29% in 2024.
Decentralized education gives power to students, lowers the barrier to education and allows for more non-traditional, emerging careers to flourish earlier. This can only be a positive change for the working world.
Creating a Decentralized Autonomous Organization:
DAOs introduce a transformative paradigm in education through their decentralized nature, transparency, and inclusiveness, presenting a stark contrast to conventional educational frameworks. Utilizing blockchain technology and the ethos of decentralization, DAOs aim to broaden educational access, give power to students, and cultivate a worldwide network committed to continuous learning. As this model develops, DAOs are poised to redefine educational structures, paving the way for a future where education is more just and reachable for everyone.
Creating a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) for educational purposes demands meticulous planning, active collaboration, and a strong commitment from all involved parties. By adhering to a detailed roadmap, one can establish a system that is not only decentralized and transparent but also inclusive, enabling participants from educators to learners to actively influence educational evolution. With strategic foresight, effective governance structures, and robust community involvement, DAOs offer a revolutionary approach to education, opening up avenues for continuous learning and skill enhancement.
Here are some examples of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) in the realm of education:
SOFAorgDAO – While not exclusively for education, SOFA (Sovereign Order of the Federation of Artists) has elements related to education and tech. They focus on creating decentralized systems for education, among other areas, emphasizing innovation and industry standards.
Acad Labs – A platform that aims to integrate DAO and Web3 technologies with education. It’s designed to enhance personalization and ownership in knowledge and skill sharing, using gamification and social elements to encourage learning.
Dream DAO – While primarily focused on activating Gen Z to take control of their learning and careers with an emphasis on Web3, this DAO serves as an educational platform where members learn about and contribute to projects related to education, sustainability, and more.
Learning DAOs – These are smaller, often community-driven DAOs where individuals come together to fund, design, or participate in educational initiatives. For instance, a group might form a DAO to crowdsource funds for a specific educational project or course, allowing members to vote on curriculum, instructors, or educational methodologies.
Ed3 DAO – Aimed at educators, this DAO focuses on prototyping micro-schools, edtech products, and educational services. It uses Web3 tools to innovate in the education sector, emphasizing business and management skills for educators.
These DAOs represent the innovative intersection of blockchain technology with education, where governance, funding, and decision-making are decentralized, and the community has a direct say in the direction and offerings of educational content or initiatives. Each example showcases different aspects of how DAOs can be applied to education, from enhancing access and personalization to community-driven curriculum development and funding.
These examples underscore how local control can lead to the development of educational practices that are not only more aligned with community values but also encourage innovation, responsiveness to local economic needs, and educational experimentation that can lead to broader educational reforms or improvements.
Efficiency and Accountability: When states and local districts maintain control over education, accountability becomes more direct and transparent. For example, in California, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) was introduced in 2013 to give school districts greater control over how funds are spent based on local needs, with the requirement that they engage with parents and community members in the process. This has allowed for community input to directly influence educational priorities, budgets, and policies. When issues arise, like the controversy over curriculum content or school performance, local elections become the arena where residents can vote for school board members who align with their educational values or demand changes.
Another instance is seen in Georgia with the Quality Basic Education Act, where local school systems are held accountable through a combination of state oversight and local control. School districts must meet state standards, but they have the latitude to develop their own educational plans, which are then scrutinized by the state. This system ensures that while there’s uniformity in meeting certain educational benchmarks, the methods to achieve these can be locally tailored. If a district underperforms, the community can directly influence policy by electing new school board officials or engaging in public forums, which can lead to swift policy changes or leadership shifts, demonstrating a tighter feedback loop than what might be possible under a more centralized, federal control.
These examples illustrate how local control can lead to education systems that are more responsive to the immediate needs and feedback of the community, fostering an environment where educational governance is both accountable and adaptable.
Reduction of Bureaucracy: The argument for reducing bureaucratic layers within the Department of Education is rooted in the belief that educational funds should be maximized for direct educational benefit rather than being consumed by administrative costs. Here are specific examples and considerations:
Administrative Overhead vs. Classroom Funding:
Example: Studies have shown that over the past few decades, the growth in administrative positions in public education outpaces the increase in teaching staff. This has led to a scenario where, for instance, in some states, administrative costs have risen faster than instructional spending, diverting potential classroom resources to salaries for non-teaching roles like compliance officers, diversity coordinators, and various other administrative positions.
State Control Leading to Innovation:
Example: Historically, states like Florida and Arizona have implemented educational reforms and innovations like school choice and charter schools without significant federal intervention. These states have often cited that less bureaucratic interference allows for more flexible funding models, where money follows the student rather than being allocated through a rigid federal system.
Considering President Trump’s proposed Department of Government Efficiency, here’s how it might apply:
• Streamlining Efforts: The idea behind this new entity is to dismantle unnecessary government bureaucracy. By applying this principle to the Department of Education, the initiative could focus on:
• Eliminating Redundant Programs: Identifying and merging or cutting overlapping programs within the Department that do not directly contribute to educational outcomes.
• Empowering Local Decision-Making: Encouraging states to take back control of education funding, allowing them to allocate resources based on local needs without the need for federal oversight, which might reduce administrative costs related to compliance with federal mandates.
• Direct Aid to Schools: By reducing the layers of bureaucracy, more funds could theoretically reach schools directly, potentially allowing schools to hire more teachers, improve facilities, or invest in educational technology rather than supporting a large administrative staff.
This approach aligns with the ethos of reducing government size to increase efficiency, suggesting that less federal involvement could lead to educational systems that are more responsive to the actual needs of students and communities. However, it’s worth noting that the effectiveness of such policies would depend heavily on the implementation and the ability of states to manage educational responsibilities without federal guidelines.
Promotion of Educational Experimentation:
Implementing the idea that states become “laboratories of innovation” in education without federal mandates would involve several key steps and considerations:
Legislative Changes:
Repeal or Reform of Federal Legislation: The first step would involve legislative action to repeal or significantly reform laws like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), now known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which sets federal standards for education. This would be necessary to strip away federal mandates that currently dictate aspects like testing, accountability, and curriculum standards.
Block Grants: Instead of categorical funding tied to federal mandates, states could receive block grants. These grants would come with fewer strings attached, allowing states greater discretion over how the money is spent. This could be facilitated through legislation that simplifies funding distribution while ensuring states maintain accountability for educational outcomes.
State-Level Initiatives:
Experimentation with Educational Models:
Diverse Curriculum Development: States might experiment with curriculum design. For instance, some might focus on STEM education, while others might prioritize vocational training or arts education, tailoring educational offerings to local economic and cultural contexts.
Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) and Vouchers: States could expand or implement systems where funds follow the student, allowing parents to choose between public schools, private schools, charter schools, or even homeschooling options. This could drive competition for educational quality.
Incentive Programs: States could create incentive programs for schools that achieve specific improvements in educational outcomes, like graduation rates or test scores, encouraging innovation in teaching methods and school management.
Regional Collaboration: States might form regional coalitions to share best practices, innovate together, and even create regional educational standards or assessments if they find value in some level of standardization.
Market Dynamics:
Educational Market Competition:
Charter Schools and Innovation: Without federal oversight, charter schools might proliferate more freely, each potentially innovating in different educational approaches, from project-based learning to technology integration.
Private Sector Involvement: The private sector could play a larger role, not only in school choice options but also in educational technology and curriculum development, responding to the demands of local markets.
Accountability and Data Sharing:
State-Driven Accountability: States would need to establish their own accountability systems. This might involve state-specific standardized tests, or alternative metrics like student portfolios, project evaluations, or teacher assessments.
Data Transparency: To foster competition and accountability, states could agree on sharing certain educational data in a standardized format, allowing for comparisons and best practice dissemination without mandating uniform standards.
Cultural and Social Considerations:
Respect for Local Values: This model would allow education to reflect local values more closely. For example, rural states might prioritize agricultural education, while urban areas might focus on urban planning or digital skills.
Public Engagement: Implementation would require significant public engagement, where communities, through local governance, have a say in educational policy, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility.
Challenges and Safeguards:
Equity Concerns: To prevent widening disparities, mechanisms like shared funding formulas that consider the economic capacity of different states might be necessary, or federal oversight could be limited to ensuring civil rights and access to education are maintained.
Transparency and Corruption: With less federal oversight, states would need robust internal mechanisms to prevent mismanagement of funds or educational standards.
In essence, this implementation would rely on the principle of federalism where states, as co-equal sovereign entities, are free to experiment with policies tailored to their context, driving innovation through competition, while still ensuring some level of accountability and equity. The success of such an approach would hinge on effective state governance, public engagement, and a culture of educational excellence and innovation within each state.
The principle of federalism is the division of powers between a central (federal) government and regional (state or provincial) governments within a single political system. It allows for the coexistence of national unity with state autonomy, where each level has its own sphere of authority, and neither can encroach upon the powers reserved to the other, fostering a balance where local issues can be addressed locally while national concerns are managed at the federal level.
A Step Towards Educational Freedom:
The proposal to eliminate the Department of Education does not aim to plunge education into disarray; rather, it champions the notion that states and local communities are best equipped to tailor educational policies to meet their unique needs. This concept isn’t about abandoning education but returning to a time-honored system where states were the primary custodians of education for over two centuries. The argument isn’t centered on reducing educational funding but on reallocating control where it can be wielded with greater precision and effectiveness. By decentralizing education, we empower local governance to reflect the true will of their constituents, rather than adhering to the often distant and generalized mandates from Washington.
Eliminating the Department of Education would restore educational sovereignty to states, fostering an environment ripe for experimentation and innovation tailored to local needs. This move would not mean chaos or neglect but rather a return to a historically successful model where communities directly shape their educational futures. By reducing federal oversight, we can expect a surge in educational diversity, accountability driven by local stakeholders, and potentially more effective use of educational funds due to decreased administrative bloat at the federal level.