Carol D’Amico: Why dismantling the Education Department has merit

In recent weeks, many colleagues, friends and family members have reached out, assuming that I am opposed to the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education. After all, I served as assistant secretary of education during President George W. Bush’s first term.

However, my stance might surprise them. I indeed support the shift away from federal intervention in state and local control of education policy.

Our education system was never designed for federal involvement. Unlike other countries with centralized ministries of education, the United States was built on the principle that education is a state and local responsibility. Governors, state legislatures and local school boards oversee funding, curriculum standards, teacher licensing and student testing.

It is a bit of an irony that the biggest and most productive burst of education reform was stimulated by a 1983 federal report titled “A Nation at Risk,” a work product of then-Secretary of Education Terrel Bell. President Ronald Reagan had appointed Bell to achieve one of his public-policy objectives: dismantling the Department of Education. That effort was quickly stymied by the inconvenient reality that laws would have to be changed to dismantle a federal department.

Undaunted by his boss’s objection to a federal role in education, Bell persuaded Reagan that there was a national interest that deserved his attention. Thus was born the National Commission on Excellence in Education, which produced the seminal report “A Nation at Risk.” Its opening paragraphs stated the starkest of realities:

“The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people. … If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. … Our society and its educational institutions seem to have lost sight of the basic purposes of schooling, and of the high expectations and disciplined effort needed to attain them.”

Thankfully, America’s governors—of both political parties—took up the challenge, including Indiana’s own Gov. Bob Orr. I was proud to be part of his efforts. The governors got a gigantic boost when Reagan’s next secretary of education implemented the brilliant public policy of shining a light on performance.

Americans are nothing if not naturally competitive. And so, when Secretary Bill Bennett issued the first Nation’s Report Card, ranking states by student performance, the stage was set for annual competition to track winners and losers. This set off an era of meaningful improvements in education outcomes.

Early euphoria about the success of this simple tactic did not last long, and the battle lines were drawn in the frame of partisan politics. Attacks on accountability began to erode early achievement gains in the early 2000s and were further exacerbated by the pandemic.

The federal government has largely abandoned the use of public accountability as a tool to pressure states into improvement. Instead, federal overreach has often led to burdensome regulations, advancement of unproven practices and mandates that stifle innovation. And educational outcomes have continued to decline.

If dismantling the U.S. Department of Education returns more authority and resources to state and local entities, I welcome the change. But only if the federal government fulfills its proper role: shining a light on student achievement and compelling states to take action where needed. It does not take a federal bureaucracy of more than 4,000 employees and an annual budget of $238 billion to achieve this.•

__________

D’Amico is a former assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Education.