One of the most pressing concerns is the potential for increased disparities in educational funding and resources. Historically, local and state control has led to vast inequalities, particularly affecting low-income and marginalized communities. Federal intervention through programs like Title I and IDEA has been instrumental in ensuring that disadvantaged students receive the support they need. Without a centralized entity to enforce these protections, there is a real danger that educational inequalities will deepen.

Additionally, the argument that eliminating the Department of Education would lead to more efficient funding distribution is questionable. While bureaucratic inefficiencies exist, federal funding ensures national consistency in education quality and access. Redirecting funds to states does not guarantee equitable allocation, especially in states that have historically struggled to prioritize education funding.

Ultimately, while localized decision-making is valuable, the risks of completely dismantling the Department of Education outweigh the benefits. Instead of eliminating it, policymakers should focus on refining its role to balance state flexibility with national equity and accountability. The primary concern must always be ensuring that all students, regardless of their background, have access to a high-quality education.

If it is a priority to dismantle DOE in the first 100 days of a presidency, then what type of priority would it take if were not taken down. It would probably be left to sustain itself without any attention, good or bad. 

The states should focus on how they can influence the districts they serve. Under the 10^th amendment, one of the decisions that states have control over is education. Though making education equal should be a priority, it is not. In fact, in the past several years, many states created laws that work against educating on diversity in classrooms at every level, specifically in educational spaces that receive state funding. That was under the influence of an executive order signed by the POTUS in 2020. 

In many ways, New Jersey is one of the country’s most diverse states. There are 564 municipalities and almost just as many school districts. New Jersey has politicians who seek to challenge the way diversity is taught to the various demographics of people who learn in NJ schools. If the DOE is dismantled, NJ may become a state that tries to push for changing laws and the way the truth is taught in schools. Especially since Gov Murphy is nearing the end of consecutive term limits. He has done alot for education in recent years. I can’t help but think how much could be undone when someone else is elected. 

Do I agree with disrupting the DOE? No. If it means states can have a better handle on education for the better, then okay. However, for most states I do not believe that will be the case. The DOE was created because many states did not properly handle diversity in schools. 

I come from a historically low income family on both sides. Neither of my parents had graduated from a university or ever received a degree, and as I've gone to school in the past, I’ve always been added into the free lunch programs at schools. I was also a child with various behavioral issues as a child, and have had siblings on the autism spectrum that have needed significantly more assistance in school to achieve the least restrictive environment and learning. I began to think about my upbringing as I read through this article, and how while much of these changes may benefit me as a teacher in my preferred district, they won’t benefit those like me, who grew up like me, who needed extra help, free lunches, and programs to help achieve equity. On top of this, a majority of my education has been paid for by a combination of both the FAFSA and the HESSA. It took me a moment to realize as it was not mentioned in this article that the FAFSA by definition is federal funding for education. It may take up only 8% of funding in education, but to me, that 8% is half of my tuition every semester, and is keeping me from going deep into debt with student loans. 

I fear for students of the future who may not be able to afford lunches, who may not receive the same quality of education that those assurances of the federal government provide. I feel for the students who desperately need speech, a paraprofessional, or other services in an IEP that can no longer be entirely guaranteed to them by that additional federal level. I fear for those from communities of low economic wealth who might wish to pursue higher education past their potentially inequitable schools who may not be able to afford college from a lack of grants, and who may not be accepted from educational disparities in public school curriculums and quality. 

This is a change that may not be in our best interests, and though historically the U.S. DOE has only existed since 1979, it vastly improved the quality of education in our country, has helped pass numerous education acts, and have assured that schools are free from inequity, and that student rights are met. Hopefully the department may remain by the end of the current 4 year presidential term.

One of my biggest takeaways is how dismantling the Department of Education could affect bilingual education. The department currently provides funding and oversight for programs that support ELL students, ensuring they receive the resources and accommodations they need. Without federal intervention, these supports might be inconsistently applied, leaving bilingual students vulnerable to inadequate instruction and limited opportunities. The article also reinforced my concerns about educational disparities. I see firsthand how funding disparities impact students, some schools have access to better resources, while others struggle with overcrowded classrooms and outdated materials. The Department of Education helps bridge these gaps through initiatives like Title I funding and special education programs. Removing these safeguards could disproportionately harm students in lower-income and minority communities, many of whom are bilingual learners. Overall, this article made me reflect on how much federal support shapes the classroom experience. While I understand the argument for local control, I fear that without national oversight, bilingual students who already face unique challenges could be left behind. This reinforces my commitment to advocating for equitable education policies that ensure all students, regardless of language or background, receive the quality education they deserve.

Historically, the department was created to unify and address national education challenges. While reforms are needed to streamline its functions and improve effectiveness, dismantling it entirely could undermine progress in equity and access. Instead of elimination, we should focus on making the department more efficient and responsive to the needs of students and educators. Education is too important to leave to chance, and every child deserves a fair shot at success.

I also noticed in the article the word 'potentially' is used in regards to what state and local government would do with more funds if there is no US Department of Ed. State departments of Ed. have a history of not using their funds correctly which is why federal needed to step in. I have no doubt without federal protection these programs like IDEA, Title I, STEM, and AP courses will disappear from inner-city schools, which are the schools that need it the most. If the goal is to create a more equitable and effective education system that serves all students regardless of their background or zip code then getting rid of the US Department of Ed. is not the answer, you don't get rid of something because it has flaws, you go in and you address and fix the issues. Federal and state education departments should be working together to ensure our future.

This department helps schools get money for important things like free lunches, extra help for struggling students, and special education. Without it, some states might not give enough money to schools that need it. It also ensures that all students are treated fairly, including those with disabilities and those learning English. If every state had different rules, some kids might not get the same chances as others. Plus, if schools had different graduation rules, moving to a new state could confuse students.

The department also helps pay for advanced classes like AP courses and science programs. Without that help, some schools wouldn’t be able to offer these, making it harder for students to get into college. Instead of getting rid of it, we should make it better. Schools should have enough money and support to help every student succeed!