South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds is introducing legislation to eliminate the federal Department of Education.
However, some educators are raising questions about the idea.
A major piece of legislation proposed by the junior Senator would entirely remove the federal Department of Education. With a Republican presidency incoming, if this were to pass Congress the bill likely faces an easy path to law.
Rounds said it’s an opportunity to retain local control of schools.
“I’d rather have that money go back into the schools and through voluntary associations with one another and different organizations – they’ll find the best way to take care of educating the kids," Rounds said. "I think we’re going to see test scores go up rather than go down.”
Rounds said he does not support the reallocation of department funds, instead allowing the money to go directly to the states as block grants.
“We’re looking at probably a savings between $1-$1.3 billion at the federal level, and a lot of that money could also be passed down to the states as well," Rounds said. "We just simply know we do a more efficient job at the state level if we don’t have that big thumb pushed down on us by bureaucrats at the federal level.”
Critics of the plan say the Department of Education, which was established in 1979, offers services at the federal level that are more comprehensive than any one state could provide.
That includes initiatives to provide nationwide out-of-school learning opportunities, STEM education opportunities for students of all backgrounds, and provides a singular secretary of the department which can direct priorities to school districts across America.
Rounds acknowledged challenges loom if this change were made.
“We do have folks within the Department of Education right now that have to implement what the federal government dictates," Rounds said. "Those folks would still be there, but they probably will need additional help at the local level in terms of administrative costs, but the administrative costs at the local level are miniscule compared to the costs of what the administration at the bureaucratic level in DC is.”
Rounds said he believes he could secure the votes to push this legislation forward in the upcoming Congress.
Despite this claim of fund saving and removal of bureaucracy, not everyone is on board. That includes Cory Strasser, acting superintendent of Rapid City Area Schools.
“First of all, anytime you make a major change that is a funding source for a lot of our programs – specifically our Title 1 funding, you really risk our work in terms of providing an equitable education,” Strasser said.
Strasser is left with questions about the larger implications of this potential move.
“When you disband a federal program and you say it’s going to return to the states or that it’s going to go to other agencies, how are those other agencies able to carry out, effectively and efficiently, the pieces they’re supposed to," Strasser asks. "How are states then going to handle the funding mechanisms so that schools aren’t negatively impacted?”
Strasser said he’s skeptical his colleagues in the education field would support this move, citing financial, oversight and equity concerns if the DoE were to be eliminated. He describes the proposal as “very concerning.”
“There’s just uncertainty with how it’s going to work and how funds would be utilized and available to schools," Strasser said. "So, that causes a lot of consternation when public schools rely on only a few revenue streams to carry out our work. Title funds are one of those big revenue streams.”
Strasser said he believes while states are important to carry out the day-to-day operations of education, he also believes federal government plays a crucial role in supporting those operations.
President-elect Donald Trump plans to nominate former professional wrestling executive Linda McMahon to be the secretary of the Department of Education. Assuming her confirmation, McMahon has announced her priority is to send education “back to the states.”