The federal government has invested in our public schools, but what are the results of all that funding? The U.S. Department of Education (DOE), established in 1979, was intended to improve national education standards and ensure equitable access to quality schooling. However, after more than four decades, its effectiveness is increasingly questioned. Critics argue that the department has become a bureaucratic burden, has diminished local control, and has failed to improve student outcomes despite massive spending increases. Closing the DOE could restore state and local control, reduce waste, and allow for more innovation in education. The problem is, politicians like Warren don't see anything wrong with the current system, which is failing our children. 

Education is best handled at the state and local levels, where schools can tailor curricula to the needs of their students. The DOE imposes one-size-fits-all mandates that often do not align with local priorities. States and local school districts better understand their students' needs than distant federal bureaucrats. Federal mandates create unnecessary red tape, forcing schools to focus on compliance rather than education. Closing the DOE would allow states to experiment with different models and encourage competition that leads to innovation.

The U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government authority over education; instead, it is a power that historically belonged to states and local communities. Removing the DOE would restore this original framework and let states take charge of their own education policies.

Since its creation, the DOE’s budget has skyrocketed, yet American education has not significantly improved. Spending has increased exponentially– from $13 billion in 1980 to over $79 billion in 2023. But it gets worse. In fiscal year 2024, the Department of Education's gross cost was roughly $252 billion.

Despite this spending, U.S. students rank lower in math, science, and reading than their peers in many other developed nations. Graduation rates and standardized test scores have remained stagnant or even declined in many areas. Eliminating the DOE would allow taxpayer money to be used more efficiently, ensuring funds go directly to classrooms rather than being lost in federal bureaucracy.

As mentioned earlier, Warren is one of the politicians who opposes school choice, so it makes sense why she is against gutting the DOE. A federal education monopoly stifles competition and limits school choice options for parents. If the DOE were abolished, states could expand voucher programs, charter schools, and homeschooling options without interference.

School choice empowers parents to select the best educational setting for their children rather than being stuck in failing public schools. Charter schools and voucher programs have already shown stronger student performance and higher satisfaction rates where implemented. Competition forces schools to improve, as they must attract students rather than simply receiving guaranteed federal funding.

Democrats say they care about ordinary folks, yet oppose one of the most significant tools that would allow parents to decide which school they want to enroll their children in. The hypocrisy is nothing new, but we hope that school choice becomes the norm once the DOE is gutted.