In this enlightening discussion, Michelle Dimino, the Education Program Director at Third Way, and Neal McCluskey, Director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, debate the controversial relevance of the Department of Education. They explore the balance between federal and state control in education, analyzing policies like No Child Left Behind. The conversation also tackles the implications of Title IX enforcement and whether civil rights oversight could shift to other agencies, raising questions about equity and student outcomes.
Neal McCluskey argues for the abolition of the Department of Education, advocating that education has thrived without federal oversight for centuries.
Michelle Dimino emphasizes the Department of Education's crucial role in managing federal funding and enforcing laws to ensure educational equity.
The podcast explores the challenges and complexities of dismantling the DOE, highlighting differing public opinions and the political hurdles involved.
Deep dives
The Debate Over the Department of Education
The discussion centers around whether the Department of Education (DOE) should be abolished, with differing opinions from experts in education policy. Neil McCluskey argues that the DOE is unnecessary and unconstitutional, stating that education has thrived for centuries without it and emphasizing that the federal government provides a minimal percentage of K-12 funding. He believes that education could continue without a dedicated cabinet-level department, suggesting that responsibilities could be managed within other governmental frameworks. In contrast, Michelle Domino advocates for maintaining the DOE as a crucial entity to manage federal funding, enforce laws, and collect educational data, emphasizing its role in supporting educational equity.
Federal Funding and Equity
The conversation highlights the significance of federal funding, particularly Title I, which provides financial resources to low-income school districts. McCluskey argues that Title I should be eliminated as it represents federal overreach into education, while Domino defends its importance in ensuring equitable access to quality education. She asserts that Title I funding, despite being a small part of overall education spending, plays a vital role in supporting educational opportunities for disadvantaged students. Both experts explore the implications of such funding, indicating that it could either enhance or complicate educational outcomes, depending on its management.
The Role of Student Loans
The federal government's involvement in student loans also comes under scrutiny, with differing views on its necessity. McCluskey believes that federal student loans create negative consequences, such as tuition inflation and the over-surveying of students into higher education without adequate job prospects. He argues for a privatized approach that would incentivize lenders to assess the viability of students' educational paths more carefully. Conversely, Domino highlights the importance of federal loans in maintaining access to education for lower-income students, stressing that proper oversight and regulation are needed to ensure that federal lending supports successful educational outcomes.
Civil Rights Enforcement in Education
The discussion touches on the Office of Civil Rights within the DOE, examining its role in combating discrimination in education. Domino emphasizes that this office is essential for enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws and ensuring students can access education without facing biases. McCluskey, however, contends that civil rights enforcement could be effectively handled by the Department of Justice, arguing that the DOE's existence does not justify its role in this area. This divergence reflects broader concerns about the appropriate scope of government involvement in education and the balance between state and federal authority.
Practical Implications of Dismantling the DOE
The feasibility of abolishing the DOE is addressed, with both experts acknowledging the political challenges this would entail. McCluskey notes that while he hopes to see the department dismantled, it would require significant political action by Congress. Domino counters that, given the department's popularity with constituents who rely on its funding, such changes are unlikely to occur. This pragmatic breakdown reflects the complexities of educational governance in the U.S., where differing perspectives on federal versus state roles continue to shape educational policies and debates.
President Trump campaigned on a pledge to dismantle the DOE and has already made sweeping cuts to its research arm, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). What role should the federal government play in U.S. education? Where should the Department of Education’s functions live bureaucratically? Should they stay in the DOE or be distributed to other federal agencies? Michelle Dimino is the Education Program Director at Third Way, a national, center-left think tank. Michelle’s research and advocacy focus on improving student outcomes, promoting quality and transparency, and strengthening accountability through pragmatic policy reforms. Neal McCluskey is the director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom. He is the author of the book The Fractured Schoolhouse: Reexamining Education for a Free, Equal, and Harmonious Society. Got questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
