Dept of Education 'doesn’t do anything to advance students' education,' says Betsy DeVos

Key Concepts

• Department of Education
• Elimination of the Department of Education
• Block Grants
• State-level control of education
• Local-level control of education
• Parental involvement in education
• School Unions (NEA, AFT)
• Top-down approach to education
• Bureaucracy and regulation in education
• Education funding and effectiveness

Summary of Discussion on the Department of Education

This discussion centers on the perceived ineffectiveness and inefficiency of the U.S. Department of Education, with a strong argument presented for its elimination and the devolution of educational control to the state and local levels. Former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, alongside the interviewer David, critiques the department's performance, citing poor student test scores and the vast sums of money spent without commensurate results.

Ineffectiveness of the Department of Education

• Poor Student Outcomes: David highlights alarming statistics regarding student proficiency. Only 31% of 4th graders can read properly, and 39% can do math properly. These figures worsen for 8th graders, with only 30% passing reading tests and 28% passing math tests. This is described as "deplorable."
• Financial Mismanagement: Since its inception, an estimated $3 trillion has been spent on education, yet standards have declined.
• "Pass-Through" Agency: Betsy DeVos asserts that the Department of Education primarily functions as a "pass-through" for funds, adding unnecessary bureaucracy and requirements while consuming billions in taxpayer dollars.
• Political Motivation: DeVos argues that the department was established in 1979 as a "political payoff" to school unions for supporting Jimmy Carter. She contends that its existence is a political outpost for school unions, not a driver of educational advancement.

Proposed Solutions and Alternative Frameworks

• Elimination of the Department of Education: This is presented as a long-standing priority, dating back to the first Trump administration. DeVos herself proposed merging education with labor to "work myself out of a job."
• Devolving Power to States and Localities: The core argument is that states and local communities are better positioned to determine what is best for their students. This includes empowering parents to direct their children's learning.
• Block Grants: The strategy involves shifting funds to states via block grants. States would then submit a state plan to a particular agency, reducing bureaucracy and regulation. This approach is expected to foster innovation and allow states to allocate funds based on their specific needs.
• Inter-Agency Collaboration: The idea of transferring educational funding responsibilities to other agencies, such as the Department of Labor, is discussed. Linda McMahon, the current Secretary, has reportedly sent some grants to the Department of Labor, which is seen as a positive step towards greater efficiency.
• Reduced Bureaucracy and Regulation: The shift to block grants and state-level control is framed as a move towards "less bureaucracy" and "less regulation," which will "give states innovation."

Historical Context and Supporting Arguments

• Reagan Administration Efforts: The discussion references the Reagan administration's attempts to dismantle the Department of Education, noting that they were unsuccessful and spending actually increased.
• "Woke Grants": David draws a parallel between grants from the department in the 1980s and what he terms "woke grants" today, suggesting a consistent pattern of politically motivated or ineffective funding.
• Union Influence: The influence of teacher unions, specifically the NEA and AFT, is highlighted as a significant factor. DeVos believes that eliminating the department will hurt the political power of these unions, but not teachers or students, who she argues will benefit from more resources and better outcomes.
• Shift in Union Ideology: David notes a perceived shift in the AFT from a more moderate leadership (Al Shanker) to a more leftist ideology, which he believes coincided with a "leftist revolution within the education community."

Notable Quotes and Statements

• David: "You really have to be blind to the current test scores to suggest that Department of Education has been this wonderful success and better preparing America's kids for the competitive world we live in."
• Betsy DeVos: "The Department of Education doesn't do anything to advance student's education. It's been nothing but a political pay off to the school unions."
• Betsy DeVos: "It's time to continue to let the states do the things that are best for students and most importantly, at the local level. Down to the parent level, directing where their kids are going to learn best."
• Linda McMahon (quoted): "The states will have less requirements because more money will go in block grants to the states who will just submit a state plan to a particular agency. This is less bureaucracy and this is less regulation and this will give states innovation, states will determine when they need to take that money."
• David: "The Department of Education has been nothing but a pass-through, but as a pass-through, has continued to add on all kinds of unnecessary and cumbersome and burdensome requirements while sucking up billions and billions of taxpayer dollars in doing so."
• David: "They are cut from the same cloth." (referring to historical and current grants)
• Betsy DeVos: "This is, the Department of Education has been doing but a political outpost for the school unions, and the only thing that will be hurt by turning it over to the states and eliminating the department is that political power on the part of the teacher, more broadly the school unions, because that's what they are. They don't represent teachers. Teachers and students aren't going to lose in this. They are going to win and dwayne more resources."

Conclusion

The central argument is that the Department of Education has failed to improve educational outcomes despite significant financial investment. The proposed solution is to dismantle the department and empower states and local communities through block grants, thereby reducing bureaucracy, fostering innovation, and allowing parents to have a more direct role in their children's education. This shift is seen as a way to break the political influence of teacher unions and ultimately benefit students.