The Necessity of Closing the Department of Education
Marissa Streit, CEO of PragerU, has made some provocative claims regarding the Department of Education. She argues that it mainly serves as a funding source for teachers’ unions and educational elites, and functions as a platform for social experiments on children. This, according to her, underlines the need to shut it down.
Reflecting on the department’s origins, Streit recalls that in 1979, President Jimmy Carter established it when his approval ratings were low—just 28%. He was, understandably, looking for allies as he approached the 1980 election, and the National Education Association was a key supporter. In fact, Streit noted that the association has long been pushing for the existence of the Department of Education.
Interestingly, she remarked that “no one thinks it’s necessary except for teachers’ unions.” After they achieved their goals, they were given a substantial budget, leaving states with a dilemma: “we’d either adopt this program or forgo federal dollars,” introducing a vast bureaucracy tied to loyalty obligations.
Prior to the Department’s establishment, state and local governments had significant control over education, and the American public education system was considered among the best globally. However, Streit observes that nearly half a century later, that reputation has eroded dramatically.
Currently, the U.S. sits in 28th place for mathematics and 36th for literacy worldwide. Alarmingly, one in four eighth graders lacks basic math skills, while one in three struggle with reading at grade level. The situation in American history education is equally grim, with only 13% of students demonstrating proficiency.
Streit argues this isn’t merely a funding issue. The U.S. spends around $17,000 per student, with Chicago even allocating $29,000 despite its struggling system. She maintains that rather than improving conditions, the Department has contributed to a decline, transforming public schools from “exceptional to embarrassing.”
Last year, despite the Department’s budget standing at $268 billion, Streit pointed out that the bulk of that money often goes toward hiring more administrators and support staff. These employees—many of whom are Democrats—lead comfortable lives, often earning above $100,000 annually.
The sector also distributes about $80 billion on initiatives that, Streit claims, lack educational value, such as teacher development and diversity training. In her view, the Department of Education has been political from the start, aiding Democrats and unions without supporting the students themselves.
In exchange for political favor and financial backing, Democrats reportedly secure votes thanks to the National Education Association, which has consistently supported Democratic presidential candidates since Carter’s time.
Additionally, Streit argues that the union uses the Department to propagate its ideology among young people. She cited a specific instance where Framingham State University received $1.3 million to develop a textbook focused on the evolving definition of families through socially constructed ecological theory.
She emphasizes that issues like boys competing against girls in sports illustrate the extent to which these radical ideas are pushed in schools, with the Department of Education playing a significant role.
In conclusion, Streit posits that the only feasible solution for the Department of Education is quite simply to shut it down.
