By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Vivek Ramaswamy criticized the low 2022 eighth-grade reading scores, advocating for the elimination of the Department of Education as a solution. However, education experts dispute this claim, asserting that the department’s role in funding, data collection, and research is crucial for monitoring student progress and improving literacy. They argue that eliminating the department would not address the underlying issues impacting reading proficiency. Instead, increased investment in research and grant programs within the department could prove more effective.
Read the original article here
Kids’ declining reading scores are a serious problem, a crisis even, demanding immediate attention. The suggestion to eliminate the Department of Education as a solution, however, seems drastic and potentially counterproductive. While the current state of reading proficiency is alarming, simply abolishing a government department responsible for education funding and oversight won’t magically improve literacy rates. In fact, such a move could exacerbate the existing issues, particularly in under-resourced schools and communities.
The argument for privatization often centers on increased efficiency and improved outcomes. However, the experience with privatization in other sectors, like healthcare, suggests that this approach often leads to higher costs and unequal access, especially for those who cannot afford the higher prices associated with private education. While some private schools might offer excellent programs, a wholesale shift towards privatization risks leaving many children behind.
The idea that eliminating testing would resolve the issue is a simplistic and concerning approach to a complex problem. While high-stakes testing can have drawbacks, it provides crucial data to identify areas needing improvement. Simply ignoring the problem by ceasing to measure it will not make it go away; rather, it will prevent us from understanding its scope and implementing effective solutions.
The claim that focusing resources on the “top 20%” will improve overall quality overlooks the societal benefits of a well-educated populace. A highly educated workforce benefits everyone, not just the wealthy elite. This viewpoint ignores the societal costs associated with a less-educated population, such as increased crime rates, healthcare costs, and economic stagnation.
The observation that many solutions proposed seem geared towards benefitting the wealthy is a legitimate concern. Tax breaks favoring the wealthy at the expense of public services like education are certainly a cause for concern. This situation creates a system that favors the privileged while neglecting the needs of the broader population.
A significant portion of the debate focuses on the role of funding and resources in education. The assertion that schools already receive “insane amounts” of resources while simultaneously suggesting that the problem is a lack of parental involvement neglects the complexities of the educational landscape. Some schools are significantly underfunded and lack essential resources, while others struggle with issues of teacher retention and training.
The significant role of parental involvement in a child’s reading development is undeniable. However, this is not an either/or situation. Attributing the entire problem to parents ignores the systemic issues within the education system, including curriculum design, teacher training, and access to resources. The impact of poverty on access to resources, including books and quiet spaces to study, shouldn’t be disregarded.
Furthermore, the suggestion that lower reading scores are tied to a shift away from rote learning and toward critical thinking is questionable. The ideal educational approach involves a balance of both. The memorization of basic facts is important, but this knowledge is made more meaningful through application and critical analysis. The shift away from rote learning doesn’t necessarily mean kids can’t read – rather, a more balanced approach could improve outcomes.
The notion that eliminating the Department of Education would somehow lead to better outcomes is not supported by evidence or logical reasoning. While the Department of Education may have its shortcomings, it plays a vital role in funding and regulating education across the nation. Removing this vital institution would severely destabilize the educational system without a viable alternative in place. A more comprehensive approach addressing funding, teacher training, and parental involvement is needed rather than a drastic, poorly thought-out solution.