Photo credit: abcnews.go.com

Concerns Arise as Trump Administration Seeks to Restructure Education Department

The Trump administration is poised to reshape the structure of the Department of Education, with indications that responsibilities traditionally held by the agency may be reassigned to other federal entities. Civil rights oversight could be transferred to the Justice Department, while management of student loans might shift to the Treasury or Commerce Departments, and the Health and Human Services may take on the role of overseeing students with disabilities.

However, the fate of a critical mission area—the advocacy for equitable access to education in a system marked by disparities—remains uncertain. The department has already seen a significant reduction in its workforce, with a recent announcement detailing a cut of 1,300 positions. Throughout his campaign, President Trump expressed intentions to eliminate the Department of Education, labeling it as an inefficient entity plagued by liberal bias.

Advocates for education fear that without the department’s oversight, the federal focus on vulnerable populations, including low-income students, English language learners, students with disabilities, and racial minorities, could decline. “We risk creating an underclass of students if we undermine the agency that ensures equitable access to education,” stated Weadé James, senior director of K-12 education policy at the Center for American Progress, a think tank promoting racial equity and education funding.

The aim of equitable education has historical roots, stemming from the civil rights and anti-poverty movements of the 1960s and 1970s. The founding legislation of the Education Department underscored its mission to reinforce federal commitment toward ensuring equal educational opportunities.

If Secretary of Education Linda McMahon follows through with the administration’s goal of diminishing the department’s role, the potential loss of a national platform to advocate for educational challenges and solutions could be significant. Michael Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, emphasizes that while the impact of a reduced department might not be immediately evident, it risks overlooking systemic educational issues.

The latest national testing data highlights ongoing academic struggles among students; for instance, around one-third of eighth graders are reported to be lacking fundamental reading skills, and disparities in performance continue to widen. These metrics have been cited by McMahon and other administration allies as justification for reducing the department’s operations and reallocating its funding directly to state authorities.

Despite its imperfections, the Education Department has historically served as a guiding force for academic institutions, asserts Wil Del Pilar, senior vice president of EdTrust, an organization advocating for educational equity. Del Pilar stresses the importance of the department’s role in implementing policies and protections that foster equitable educational outcomes.

As the Trump administration pushes for increased state control over education, questions loom regarding the allocation of critical federal funding, such as Title I resources aimed at supporting schools in high-poverty areas. The financing essential for meeting the educational needs of low-income students, English learners, and those with disabilities often comes at a significant cost, which is why federal assistance is vital.

McMahon has indicated a preference for distributing this funding to states with fewer restrictions. Concerns arise that, without necessary federal oversight, states may repurpose these funds according to their own agendas, potentially entrenching existing inequalities. “If funding is provided as block grants, it could effectively undermine public education,” Del Pilar warns, suggesting that such arrangements afford politicians latitude that may divert resources from essential educational priorities.

States like Mississippi, South Dakota, Arkansas, Montana, and Alaska could face significant repercussions, given their reliance on federal aid for over 20% of their education budgets during the 2021-2022 school year.

The Department of Education has also historically championed the rights of marginalized students through its Office for Civil Rights, focusing on issues affecting students with disabilities and others facing discrimination. Under the current administration, there has been a shift in priority toward addressing claims of antisemitism.

While some advocates express concerns over the changing focus, others note frustrations with the Office for Civil Rights, viewing it as overburdened and slow to render support for those seeking recourse. A. Kelly Neal, a special education attorney from Georgia, remarked on the deteriorating responsiveness of the office, suggesting that a transition to the Department of Justice for enforcement may be a solution worth considering.

In a recent development, the administration opted to terminate the contract for the Equity Assistance Center-South, a program designed to assist Southern school districts still under federal desegregation mandates. The Southern Education Foundation has since challenged this decision, highlighting it as a failure to uphold the government’s duty to address educational disparities and ensure equitable opportunities for students.

The direction this restructuring will take and its implications for students across various demographics will remain critical areas of observation in the coming months.

Source
abcnews.go.com