FR 2025-05213

The executive order titled "Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities" seeks to fundamentally alter how education is governed in the United States. The president has proposed closing the Department of Education, a significant move that aims to transfer educational authority from the federal government back to individual states and local communities. This strategy is rooted in the belief that federal involvement has not successfully improved educational outcomes and that local governance could more effectively address educational needs.

General Summary

This document outlines the president's intent to dissolve the Department of Education, emphasizing dissatisfaction with current educational outcomes and the inefficiency of federal control. The executive order charges the Secretary of Education with the responsibility of overseeing the closure process, ensuring a seamless transition of duties to state and local entities while maintaining compliance with federal law and avoiding disruptions.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several concerns arise from this proposal. First, there is a lack of detail on how the transition of responsibilities from the federal to the state level would be handled without causing service interruptions. This raises uncertainties about the immediate future of federal educational programs and grants, particularly those that provide critical resources to disadvantaged communities.

The document also criticizes the expenses associated with the Department of Education's public relations office, implying potential waste but not offering specific alternative approaches to cost management. Furthermore, the executive order's stance on terminating programs associated with "diversity, equity, and inclusion" or "gender ideology" could be contentious and lacks precise definitions, potentially leading to legal and political challenges.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, this proposal signifies a shift toward increased state and local involvement in education. It could lead to educational policies that are more tailored to local needs and priorities. However, it could also result in varying educational standards across states, potentially widening the gap in educational quality and resources available to students in different regions.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Parents and Students: For parents seeking more influence over their children's education, this transition could be seen positively, providing greater input and responsiveness at the local level. However, students who rely on federally funded programs might face uncertainty about the continuity of such resources.

State Governments: States would gain more control over education, allowing for policies that better reflect local values and needs. This could lead to innovative educational practices but might also strain state resources and infrastructures previously supported by federal oversight.

Teachers and Administrators: The impact on educators could be mixed. Some may welcome the reduction in federal bureaucracy, while others might be concerned about the potential loss of federal protections and resources that were more equitably distributed.

Federal Employees: Employees of the Department of Education may face job uncertainty, particularly those involved in roles slated for elimination or restructuring as part of the department's closure.

Overall, while the executive order promotes the idea of decentralizing education to better serve local communities, it raises significant questions regarding implementation, equity, and consistency across the nation's educational landscape.

The executive order underscores significant financial elements associated with the current structure and functioning of the Department of Education. These aspects highlight some challenges and implications of the proposed changes.

Federal Spending on Education

The document notes that taxpayers expended about $200 billion at the Federal level on schools during the COVID-19 pandemic, in addition to the ongoing $60 billion annually on federal school funding. This substantial financial commitment is part of the broader discussion on the effectiveness and efficiency of federal spending in education. The executive order suggests that despite these large expenditures, the federal approach has not successfully improved educational outcomes, as indicated by low proficiency scores in reading and math for 8th graders. This financial reference highlights the issue of whether these funds are being used effectively to benefit students.

Department of Education Costs

The order points to the financial burden associated with the Department of Education’s public relations office, which consists of over 80 staff members at a cost exceeding $10 million per year. This expenditure is presented as an example of potential waste within the department, suggesting that resources might be better allocated. However, the order does not provide specific alternatives for reducing these costs or reallocating them more effectively, posing questions about how financial inefficiencies might be addressed if the department's closure proceeds.

Student Loan Debt Management

A significant financial aspect addressed is the management of the $1.6 trillion student loan debt portfolio by the Department of Education. The order compares this portfolio’s scale to that of major banks like Wells Fargo but highlights a critical staffing shortfall within the Office of Federal Student Aid, containing fewer than 1,500 employees. This reference indicates a concern regarding the department's capacity to manage such a vast financial enterprise, suggesting a potential need for restructuring or transferring responsibilities to entities more equipped to handle banking functions. However, it lacks a detailed plan for managing the transition of these financial responsibilities, which could be crucial for ensuring student needs are met without service disruption.

In summary, the federal document scrutinizes substantial financial commitments and operational costs within the Department of Education, questioning their effectiveness and efficiency. However, it does not adequately address how the proposed closure or changes might impact financial management or the transition of services, leaving important questions about future financial oversight and student support unanswered.