By Matt Underwood Trump: McMahon will begin the process of dismantling the Education Department after a Supreme Court win, a move that’s already sparking concern.
The reality of defunding education is already evident. In one instance, a state education department saw its annual funding for underserved populations, workforce development, and new immigrants drop from $729 million to zero in a single year. This isn’t an isolated incident; it reflects a larger trend impacting education at all levels across the country. The sentiment is that some conservatives, realizing they couldn’t persuade enough people to embrace their views and impose them through schools, have opted to destroy the system instead.
It’s crucial to recognize that conservatives don’t represent the majority in the US. They may appear powerful, but that’s partly because voter turnout is low. Their actions, from policies restricting voting to dismantling vital social programs, seem to be a strategy of asserting control through force, a tactic designed to make it seem like they have more support than they do. The focus is on impacting funding for small-town schools and programs for special needs children. The underlying question becomes how this will affect those families raising special needs children when funding is cut.
The potential for the Supreme Court to pave the way for this dismantlement is there. The GOP’s goal of destroying the Department of Education is being openly discussed. The narrative suggests the goal is presented as a “streamlining” of the Department, seemingly with the Supreme Court’s approval. This raises concerns about the fate of special education regulations and their enforcement. The predicted impact falls heavily on states with less financial resources, particularly in the red states where federal funds represent a substantial portion of school budgets.
The dismantling of the Education Department is framed within a larger context of eroding intellectual curiosity and scientific rigor. The question becomes: What replaces education? It seems the replacement would be a regression to more primitive ways of life, rejecting modern advancements in medicine and technology. The fear is that a poorly educated population becomes easier to control, creating fertile ground for manipulation.
One of the impacts that will be felt most will be on the federal loan system. Student loans, which are contracted between the borrower and the Department of Education, will likely be subject to legal challenges. Previous experiences with entities like Navient and Sallie Mae raise concerns about potential lawsuits and confusion over promissory notes. The potential for class action lawsuits and state-level actions appears likely.
The implications extend to the future of the workforce. If education is fragmented, with varied standards across states, it could harm students’ preparation for college and careers, and ultimately hurt economic competitiveness. Special programs like Head Start, support for English Language Learners, and programs for rural education may disappear. Coordination for school-related disaster relief during crises, such as pandemics, also risks being lost.
This anticipated shift in approach to education will have a variety of negative effects. It will widen inequality, removing federal protections for students with disabilities and minorities. Oversight of financial aid programs could be reduced, leading to potential fragmentation or cuts in Pell Grants and federal student loans. Consistent education standards may erode, creating inconsistent and damaging academic standards.