Educating Citizens versus Sheep, Part 3

Part 2 of this series looked at a preliminary assessment of the Department of Education (ED). Table 1 shows the mission and preliminary assessment of key tasks below. Nearly half of the key tasks related to ED programs.

Yet there is nothing specified to scope or limit these tasks, at least in the mission section of the ED website. Presumably, the scope is in the mission statement quote below. If so, these programs need to promote student achievement and global competitiveness. Given that US educational global competitiveness has dropped from the top 3 when the Carter Administration formed the ED to barely in the top 30 now, and the ED’s own data on their website clearly shows academic achievement is falling. One could reasonably conclude that the ED is a failure and has been one for quite a while. One of the key lessons of military planning and execution is not to reinforce failure. But this seems to be exactly what the US government is doing with education. The budget request for the ED for FY2025 is $82.4 billion in discretionary funding, a $3.1 billion or 4.0 percent increase.

The $82.4B does not seem like much considering the full federal budget and the amount is over 4% of the FY24 $1.9 trillion budget deficit. This is a serious amount for a failing department. If the Department of Government Efficiency is looking for $2 trillion in spending cuts, the ED presents a prime target.

The question is, should the department be eliminated or should it be streamlined and reformed? Broadly speaking, the US citizens have 3 options for ED reform.

Leave the current structure intact and focus on programs that deliver results that bring up the US educational competitiveness and education of citizens rather than sheep. Analyze program requests and recommend fund/no fund and assess funded programs to ensure they meet program objectives. Prepare reports for Congress and the President.
Cut the department to a much smaller program management entity (PME), perhaps under the Department of Commerce. Focus on meaningful, executable programs and let the states execute them. The PME analyzes project proposals and recommends funding or not funding. It then conducts program audits to ensure the program meets the designated objectives. Prepare reports for Congress and the President.
Disband the department and move responsibility for education to the state and local governments.

Given the failure of the ED to date, option 1 is not tenable with a major overhaul of the department and its policies and processes. Option 3 pushes everything down to the state level, to include funding and oversight. This could be too drastic of a cut in today’s highly competitive and dynamic environment. Option 2 provides the ability to design effective programs and fund them and allow the states to execute them. In today’s world, this is perhaps the optimal approach, but will require some study to determine the size and structure of the PME and where it should be located within the federal government.

Department of Education Mission

The mission of the US Department of Education (ED) is:

ED’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
Congress established the U.S. Department of Education (ED) on May 4, 1980, in the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88 of October 1979). Under this law, ED’s mission is to:

Table , US ED Key Tasks with Preliminary Assessment
Key Task	Preliminary Assessment
Strengthen the Federal commitment to assuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual;	Key term is “Access”. Does this mean there is a school with teachers all students can go to? If so, this task is met. But is there a quality dimension to access?
Supplement and complement the efforts of states, the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the states, the private sector, public and private nonprofit educational research institutions, community-based organizations, parents, and students to improve the quality of education;	Is this through federal education programs below where the tasks are to invest, create and effectively manage and coordinate programs? How are they assessed and program managers held accountable?
Encourage the increased involvement of the public, parents, and students in Federal education programs;	Over the last few years, the Attorney General has, in fact, discouraged public involvement and even tasked the FBI to investigate parents who tried to get information on school programs and curriculums.
Promote improvements in the quality and usefulness of education through Federally supported research, evaluation, and sharing of information;	What is the Constitutional authority for these programs? Perhaps it is to support the ideas in the Preamble to the Constitution? If so, then assessment metrics need to be geared toward those objectives, especially domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare.
Improve the coordination of Federal education programs;	First, we need to scope allowable programs, then develop assessment metrics.
Improve the coordination of Federal education programs;	First, we need to scope allowable programs, then develop assessment metrics.
Improve the management of Federal education activities; and	First, we need to scope allowable programs, then develop assessment metrics.
Increase the accountability of Federal education programs to the President, the Congress, and the public.	First, we need to scope allowable programs, then develop assessment metrics. Accountability to the public is critical. None of this is classified. Every briefing and report to the President and to Congress should be immediately and easily made available to the public.