Multiple Republican presidential candidates made it clear at this week’s debate that the Department of Education is in danger if they are elected. “Let’s shut down the head of the snake, the Depart…

Multiple Republican presidential candidates made it clear at this week’s debate that the Department of Education is in danger if they are elected.

“Let’s shut down the head of the snake, the Department of Education,” Vivek Ramaswamy said. “Take that $80 billion, put it in the hands of parents across this country.”

Conservatives see the department, which has more than 4,400 employees and in its current form dates back to 1979 after first being established in 1867, as a prime example of Washington’s meddling in Americans’ lives. The time has come to “shut down the Federal Department of Education,” former Vice President Mike Pence said Wednesday.

But what would it mean to actually shutter the massive agency?

How could the department be eliminated?

Killing the Department of Education (DOE) would be easier said than done.

Conservatives have said since the creation of the department they want to get rid of it. From President Ronald Reagan and his Education secretary to President Trump and his own, Republicans have decried the department’s existence but failed to abolish it.

That is because the decision to do so is not only up to the president and would have to go through Congress.

“There would have to be some legislation to specifically outline this, but I do think it would need to have the support of the executive branch and, obviously, this is a Cabinet-level agency, so I think having the president — would have to take a leadership role and help to make sure that the proposal is carefully crafted,” said Jonathan Butcher, the Will Skillman senior research fellow in education policy at The Heritage Foundation, which supports nixing the DOE.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) proposed such legislation in 2021 and reintroduced it earlier this year.

“Unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., should not be in charge of our children’s intellectual and moral development,” Massie said two years ago. “States and local communities are best positioned to shape curricula that meet the needs of their students. Schools should be accountable. Parents have the right to choose the most appropriate educational opportunity for their children, including home school, public school or private school.”

DOE did not respond to The Hill’s request for comment.

DOE’s duties would be absorbed by other federal agencies

DOE has an enormous number of responsibilities, including handling student loans, investigating complaints against schools and tracking education progress across the country.

None of the 2024 candidates during Wednesday’s debate detailed how they would handle eliminating it, but conservatives have longed to see many of its tasks either completely eliminated or absorbed into other departments.

“For example, the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education. I think that any duplicate responsibilities that it shares with the Department of Justice should be eliminated, and then the rest of that office should go to the Department of Justice,” Butcher said.

  • tissek@ttrpg.network
    421·
    1 year ago

    At this point I really have to wonder if Republicans even want a federal level. I mean to me it looks like they are trying to disassemble the USA.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      341·
      1 year ago

      Hmm… rural southern voters wanting to disassemble the USA… I feel like I’ve heard this one before?

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      141·
      1 year ago

      They want the largest amount of control at the highest level. If the federal level doesn’t work, they’ll dismantle it as far as possible and instead reign at the state level.

      That’s also why they are against “big government” - it’s always the government above their highest one that’s problematic. Never the one they are at.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        33·
        1 year ago

        They don’t really want that federal control. They want to pretend they didn’t lose the Civil War and have the federal government be responsible for international relations and military defense only.

        This will allow them to pass whatever laws they want in their state, with effects I’d bet you can predict pretty easily, and depressingly.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 year ago

          They don’t really want that federal control. They want to pretend they didn’t lose the Civil War and have the federal government be responsible for international relations and military defense only.

          That doesn’t fit together with their legislature whenever they are in power. They seem to like federal control when they have it.

          This will allow them to pass whatever laws they want in their state, with effects I’d bet you can predict pretty easily, and depressingly.

          But why don’t they stick to state governments? Why do they seem to use whatever power they have if they are in control of a city, a state or the federal government? Why do they not behave in real life the way you describe they do?

    • KIM_JONG_JUICEBOX@lemmy.ml
      4·
      1 year ago

      But SCOTUS seems to be working out for them.

      Maybe we should just get rid of the other two branches of government, and let them rule like kings.

    • regalia@literature.cafe
      51·
      1 year ago

      Of course they do, they are advocating to strengthen it more then anybody. They just want to strengthen it in all the worst possible ways by making their fascism on the federal level.