Ending the Department of Education: The Good

Ending the Department of Education: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (full series)
Background | The Good
The Bad | The Ugly

The Good: Desegregation and Special Education

As is usually the case at the beginning of government expansion, the origins at least were noble. The public schools in the South had been segregated for nearly 100 years. Under Jim Crow laws, black children were separated from white children and, because of this, were educated in inferior public schools. The Supreme Court’s support of “separate but equal” policies in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) further ingrained segregation. However, these schools were far from equal—African American schools received fewer resources, were underfunded, and employed underpaid and often poorly trained teachers.

The tide began to turn with the landmark Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which declared segregation in public schools unconstitutional. The Court ruled that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” clarifying that segregation violated the 14th Amendment.

Despite this ruling, resistance in the South was strong. Pro-segregation advocates employed numerous tactics to delay or prevent integration, such as closing public schools, establishing private “segregation academies,” and passing laws designed to undermine compliance.

This is where the federal government stepped in. It played a critical role by providing guidance and assistance to school districts on how to develop desegregation plans. More effectively, the federal government used financial incentives by withholding federal funds from districts that refused to integrate. This approach proved to be the most effective, as many reluctant districts ultimately complied to avoid losing financial resources. Let’s face it. Money talks when it comes to our public schools.

Along with the mission to integrate our nation’s schools, the federal education offices played a pivotal role in securing free public education for students with special needs through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Originally titled the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, this landmark legislation passed in 1975. It governs how special education services are provided in America and marked a turning point in guaranteeing that students with disabilities receive a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE).

Before 1975, it was not a national standard for students with disabilities to have access to free public education, let alone specialized services. Under IDEA, students with special needs are entitled to free education from age 3 to 21, offering even more years of public education than their peers without disabilities.

Early in my teaching career, I had the privilege of working as a long-term substitute teacher in a post–high school special needs program for students age 18–21. In this program, students were taught valuable life skills, such as holding a regular job at a pizza shop. Since the students were all over 18, taking field trips was easier, so we were frequently outside the classroom. We took public transportation to their jobs, went on nature outings, attended a weekly dance where students from similar programs gathered, and even participated in a few college classes—all funded by public education tax dollars.

This position was one of my favorite teaching experiences. I am not criticizing the program in any way. I saw firsthand how it benefitted the students. However, it does raise a few questions. Why do students with special needs receive several more years of free education than their peers without disabilities? And why such an emphasis on practical life skills for these students, while general education students miss out on similar opportunities? Wouldn’t all students, special needs or not, benefit from programs that focus on life skills and workforce readiness?

Despite my minor concerns about equality in special needs programs, the Department of Education has proven to be the ultimate compliance authority in ensuring states implement these programs effectively. Their responsibilities include setting policies and guidelines for states and districts, monitoring adherence, providing grants to fund special needs programs, requiring annual reports, investigating complaints, and enforcing corrective actions. The department has evolved from a distant overseer to a watchful parent, carefully supervising every aspect of these programs.

This is where the Left and many on the Right voice their concerns about dismantling the Department of Education. What would happen to the education of students with special needs? Would their programs be neglected—or worse—erased entirely?

No doubt, the Department of Education’s major roles in integrating schools and overseeing special education programs contributed to its promotion to Cabinet-level status in 1979. Under President Jimmy Carter, along with strong support from the National Education Association (NEA), the department finally gained the powerful position it holds today.

Interestingly, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) opposed the ED’s elevation to Cabinet-level status, viewing it as a boost to their rival, the NEA. Randi Weingarten, the current AFT president, recently acknowledged in an MSNBC interview: “I don’t—I mean, my members don’t actually care about whether they have [the] bureaucracy of the Department of Education or not. In fact, Al Shanker and the AFT in the 1970s were opposed to the creation!”

In the next installment, the No Child Left Behind Act federalized public education to an unprecedented level with disastrous results.