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

ā€œLetā€™s shut down the head of the snake, the Department of Education,ā€ Vivek Ramaswamy said. ā€œTake that $80 billion, put it in the hands of parents across this country.ā€

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 Washingtonā€™s meddling in Americansā€™ lives. The time has come to ā€œshut down the Federal Department of Education,ā€ 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 departmentā€™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.

ā€œThere 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 ā€” would have to take a leadership role and help to make sure that the proposal is carefully crafted,ā€ 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.

ā€œUnelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., should not be in charge of our childrenā€™s intellectual and moral development,ā€ Massie said two years ago. ā€œStates 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.ā€

DOE did not respond to The Hillā€™s request for comment.

DOEā€™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 Wednesdayā€™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.

ā€œFor 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,ā€ Butcher said.

  • SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    Ā·
    1 year ago

    They donā€™t really want that federal control. They want to pretend they didnā€™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 Iā€™d bet you can predict pretty easily, and depressingly.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      They donā€™t really want that federal control. They want to pretend they didnā€™t lose the Civil War and have the federal government be responsible for international relations and military defense only.

      That doesnā€™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 Iā€™d bet you can predict pretty easily, and depressingly.

      But why donā€™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?