Education in the U.S. is largely overseen by the Department of Education. This includes everything from student loans to federal protections. During his campaign, President Donald Trump proposed getting rid of this department, but what that would mean for students remains uncertain.
Recently, two speakers at the University of South Florida (USF) discussed this issue. They explored the political divide surrounding the Department of Education and how federal funding affects educational programs.
Damaris Allen, director of Families for Strong Public Schools, emphasized the need for regulations to ensure all students receive a consistent education, regardless of where they live. On the other hand, Jamie Miller, a former executive director of the Florida Republican Party, argued against the necessity of the department, saying it limits states’ ability to govern their educational systems.
“A significant portion of federal education spending doesn’t even go through the Department of Education,” Miller explained. He believes that even if the department were eliminated, education would still thrive in the country.
While Miller thinks that Trump won’t be able to eliminate the department entirely, he anticipates significant changes. He noted that policies regarding diversity and inclusion are already shifting under the new administration.
Allen, however, expressed concern about the impact this could have on education. She fears that removing federal protections could lead to less investment in public schools and more privatization of student loans.
The conversation turned to federal financial aid programs like FAFSA. Miller suggested these might move to the Department of Treasury, while Allen raised worries about the future of such aid, voicing uncertainty about how well states could support students without federal help.
“Florida is a prime example of a state unprepared for the Department of Education’s removal,” Allen stated. She pointed out that Florida has one of the lowest public education investments in the country, ranking 50th in average teacher salary.
According to Allen, crucial programs like Title I funding, which helps low-income public schools, would vanish without the Department of Education. In contrast, Miller argued that states are committed to education and would continue to invest in it, regardless of federal oversight.
The discussion also touched on the divisive politics surrounding education. Both speakers recognized that the department has become politicized, often prioritizing ideology over what students actually need.
As they concluded, Allen reiterated her worry that vulnerable students could suffer without proper funding. She feared that without support, dropout rates could rise, putting many at risk.
Check out this related article: Missouri’s State of the State: Kehoe Unveils Bold Plan for Income Tax Cuts and Increased Education Funding
Source link