It’s also the student aid programs and a ton of other university-level stuff. Maybe the student aid programs can be shifted to Treasury or something but the Education Department doesn’t really do much K-12 policy stuff since, as you said, that’s a state and local thing. It’s mostly just non-controversial grants to states.
Maybe it doesn’t need to be a whole department but turning into an agency under another department isn’t going to save much money, if any. It’s just moving things around on an org chart.
Wait a sec, Dept of Ed is responsible for distributing all the funds for Title 1`schools(Schools where the majority of students are below the national poverty line), if they destroy the DoE, who takes on that role…and do we trust Trump and Musk to distribute those funds fairly knowing that the majority of poor people are black/racial minorities?
I think this is really about cutting off funding if you ask me…
Ah, but here’s the rub: shifting student aid programs to Treasury or some other bureaucratic abyss isn’t reform—it’s rebranding. The Education Department might be a bloated relic, but moving its functions around doesn’t eliminate waste; it just hides it under a new rug.
And let’s not pretend this is about saving money. Federal spending is a black hole where efficiency goes to die. The real play here is power consolidation: breaking one department into scattered fiefdoms so no one notices when the screws tighten.
Sure, K-12 is state-run on paper, but federal grants come with strings thicker than steel cables. This isn’t decentralization; it’s sleight of hand, and the taxpayers are left holding the bag—again.
Judging by every new CEO I’ve had, this is the play.
Do something largely inconsequential but visible, like a reorg.
Wait for anything good to happen as it inevitably always does, since every nuance is measured somewhere.
Claim the something good was a direct result of your action, even though in reality you likely only marginally slowed down something that was going to happen anyway.
It’s also the student aid programs and a ton of other university-level stuff. Maybe the student aid programs can be shifted to Treasury or something but the Education Department doesn’t really do much K-12 policy stuff since, as you said, that’s a state and local thing. It’s mostly just non-controversial grants to states.
Maybe it doesn’t need to be a whole department but turning into an agency under another department isn’t going to save much money, if any. It’s just moving things around on an org chart.
Wait a sec, Dept of Ed is responsible for distributing all the funds for Title 1`schools(Schools where the majority of students are below the national poverty line), if they destroy the DoE, who takes on that role…and do we trust Trump and Musk to distribute those funds fairly knowing that the majority of poor people are black/racial minorities?
I think this is really about cutting off funding if you ask me…
Ah, but here’s the rub: shifting student aid programs to Treasury or some other bureaucratic abyss isn’t reform—it’s rebranding. The Education Department might be a bloated relic, but moving its functions around doesn’t eliminate waste; it just hides it under a new rug.
And let’s not pretend this is about saving money. Federal spending is a black hole where efficiency goes to die. The real play here is power consolidation: breaking one department into scattered fiefdoms so no one notices when the screws tighten.
Sure, K-12 is state-run on paper, but federal grants come with strings thicker than steel cables. This isn’t decentralization; it’s sleight of hand, and the taxpayers are left holding the bag—again.
Judging by every new CEO I’ve had, this is the play.