Photo credit: www.educationnext.org
“Fantastic!” I exclaimed. “The administration is reducing the federal presence, addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, tackling antisemitism, confronting issues on campus, and supporting school choice. It’s truly remarkable.”
“That sounds encouraging,” she replied.
“Absolutely,” I responded. “For conservatives, it feels like a bright morning after years of cloudiness. We’re returning to practical principles, empowering states, and limiting federal authority.”
She took a moment. “However, I recently learned that the president is establishing a federal task force for integrating AI in educational settings. Additionally, there was a letter sent to Harvard urging significant changes. This doesn’t seem like a move toward reducing federal involvement in education.”
“You’re mixing issues,” I clarified. “We must ensure our students are equipped for a future influenced by AI. Similarly, his new executive measures on apprenticeships and school discipline illustrate scenarios where federal leadership is necessary. Regarding Harvard, the response to antisemitism required presidential action.”
“But it sounds like you support an active federal role in education,” she noted. “I’m confused because I thought the goal was to reduce the federal government’s footprint. Didn’t he propose eliminating the Department of Education?”
“Not to eliminate, but to ‘dismantle,’” I explained. “The president’s executive order emphasizes that the Secretary of Education should continue moving forward with this plan. The aim is to distribute the department’s functions across various agencies.”
“Why is that necessary?” she asked.
“The Department of Education has become heavily aligned with teachers’ unions, colleges, and liberal advocacy groups. This restructuring aims to create a fresh beginning and promote the empowerment of state governments while reducing federal interference.”
“I understand, but discarding the Department of Education raises concerns, especially for students with special needs, like my niece, or those who rely on Pell Grants for college. Whether it’s labeled ‘abolishing’ or ‘dismantling,’ I worry those funds might disappear,” she expressed.
“That’s untrue,” I countered. “There’s no intention to cut those essential programs. Funding will continue; the president simply wants it managed by a different agency, potentially the Department of Health and Human Services.”
“In that case, I don’t see the necessity of ‘dismantling’ the Department of Education,” she remarked.
I sighed, realizing the disconnect in understanding. “The president is spearheading significant reforms. Focus on that. For example, he has reduced the workforce at the Department of Education by nearly half,” I noted.
“Now that’s noteworthy!” she exclaimed. “I suppose that results in substantial savings for the federal education budget, right?”
“It’s difficult to determine,” I conceded. “We lack clear data from the federal government. However, I estimate the savings could be around $400 million.”
“So, what does that equate to? Approximately a 25 percent reduction in federal education spending?” she inquired.
“Actually, it’s more like half a percent,” I clarified.
Her eyes widened. “Wait, what? Just one-half of one percent?”
Source
www.educationnext.org