Photo credit: www.educationnext.org
Understanding the Controversy Surrounding Education Research Cuts
The recent actions surrounding the Department of Education’s approach to education research have sparked significant debate. While many expected outrage from educational experts, the responses have varied widely. Personally, I find myself at odds with what appears to be a general sentiment of discontent, particularly regarding the chaotic execution by the new team referred to as Team DOGE. My long-standing position has been that the federal government plays a crucial role in education research, and despite the unsettling nature of recent decisions, I believe some aspects of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) require a reevaluation or, at the very least, significant modification.
To delve deeper, it is important to note that Team DOGE operates somewhat autonomously from the staffing at the Department of Education. The new team is filled with individuals possessing substantial expertise in educational programs; however, the DOGE leadership lacks this depth of knowledge. Their primary strategy thus far has centered on making deep cuts without much differentiation. This approach has led to a wave of indiscriminate policy changes.
Generally, I am not an advocate for sweeping policy changes devoid of consideration. I align with Adam Gamoran, who was nominated by President Biden to lead the IES but has yet to be confirmed. He articulated a critical view of the current approach, asserting, “It would be one thing to say, all right, we’re going to undertake a careful process of examination to determine which of these contracts are really paying off. But to take a sledgehammer to the whole set of contracts is capricious.”
The crux of the issue is that there appears to be little inclination within the educational research community to pursue a thoughtful evaluation of the effectiveness of existing contracts or to initiate a productive discourse regarding potential reductions. The tenure of former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos can serve as a case in point. Despite her efforts to implement gradual changes and address challenges via collaboration with Congress, she faced extensive criticism and opposition from various education factions. Even modest proposals for budget cuts met with significant backlash, highlighting an environment where measured changes were often dismissed or actively resisted.
Mark Schneider, a former director of the IES, has advocated for the elimination of inefficient operations that prolong the existence of irrelevant programs. In his six years leading the IES, he encountered significant obstacles while trying to effectuate meaningful changes during both the Trump and Biden administrations. Schneider suggests that the aggressive strategies employed by DOGE provide a crucial chance to “clean out the attic,” potentially removing antiquated systems hindering progress.
Appreciating the rationale behind DOGE’s actions sheds light on the organization’s mindset. The prevailing assumption within the group is that traditional Republican leaders lack the propensity to enact thoughtful reductions, while Democratic counterparts appear to be unwilling to engage in such efforts. The thought process follows that should officials endeavor to proceed cautiously, progress will be stagnant. Therefore, the only feasible path forward, according to this logic, is to act swiftly, disrupt existing operations, and implement cuts before resistance from entrenched bureaucracies and opposing interests can manifest. While this strategy may not resonate with everyone, it underscores the urgency the group feels in trying to achieve results.
Source
www.educationnext.org