Take 1: Dismantling the Department of Education: A Step Toward Local Control or a Risk to Equity?
The idea of dismantling the Department of Education seems like bold action and a push for local control, but is it really the solution? Giving communities more say in education sounds good, but without federal oversight, we risk creating an even wider disparity in quality and access. In one town, students might have access to top-notch facilities and curriculums, while a few miles away in a different district, resources and standards could be severely lacking.
Federal oversight isn’t perfect, but it sets a baseline that ensures every student, regardless of zip code, gets an education that meets a certain standard. Leaving it up to local governments alone could mean that issues like underfunded schools, teacher shortages, and outdated materials become even more severe. Education is about preparing future generations, and without some level of national consistency, we may be setting students up for a future shaped by luck, not opportunity.
-Nirati Iyer
Take 2: Defunding Opportunity? The Risks of Dismantling the Department of Education for Disadvantaged Students
As the time for Trump to take over the White House draws nearer, talks of dismantling the Department of Education (DOE) have only grown louder. I can’t help but watch nervously as we wait on what this could mean for people such as myself. The Department of Education provides Title I funding for low-achieving or high-poverty K-12 students. Additionally, the department distributes Pell Grants, funding for disabled students and FAFSA.
The argument against the DOE is that it is an example of unnecessary government oversight and a waste of monetary resources. The United States, despite investing billions into education, sees no return on those funds.
However, shifting funding distribution to states that have the potential to refuse to acknowledge how minorities, low-income and historically disadvantaged citizens experience roadblocks to education, has the potential to widen the education gap between those who are born financially advantaged and disadvantaged. This strategy to shrink the federal government’s involvement in education comes at the risk of screwing over economically disadvantaged students.
-Alexis Berridge
Take 3: Impowerment or Inequality? The Case for a Stronger, Not Abolished, Department of Education
Project 2025 has brought into question the abolishment of the Department of Education. However, increased funding to the Department with actual legal authority can help monitor equal education opportunities and standards. Without any federal supervision, the education system between states could be inconsistent. Handing the torch down to local communities is an empowering gesture. Still, kids from one state might end up learning advanced calculus while in another state they’re struggling to find textbooks younger than their grandparents.
Limitations on individual state funding and resources risks widening the education gap between states. Local communities know their students best, but without enforcement power, students in underfunded areas will be especially affected by a deficit in critical resources. Gen Z is already staring down a world of rapid change and a widening education gap will only exacerbate our concerns for the future. Whether for or against the Department of Education, there must be a legal authority to enforce equal access to education and standards. Otherwise, YouTube or Khan Academy will be our only hope.
-Aimee Wang