I'm not talking about teachers getting fired...that's not how or where the shock-waves would hit if the entire DOE were abolished...
*** quick yet important side note: the idea of shutting down the DOE is typically part of grand conservative rhetoric. even Drumpf says he wants to do away with it. but the fact of the matter is that NO President nor any one person can legally just up and cut a federal department that was created via an act of Congress. it would actually require another
act of Congress to make that happen. so really this entire tangent is being used to demonstrate the importance of the details and how, without thorough and continuous exploration deeper into the issues, one might end up inadvertently voting against one's own best interests (see: Brexit) ***
ok, so besides the fact the department is definitely bloated (not sure exact count but something like over 5,000 employees), and those pesky federal reports and mandates and other hoops that educators all hate to jump through, as well as - sure - overall gripes in regards to fat-cats controlling the classroom curriculum, the DOE actually serves some POSITIVE purposes such as:
- awarding Pell Grants to students in need. around 85% of ALL full-time undergraduate students at four-year colleges in the 2011-12 school year relied on financial aid of some type
- serves as oversight to ensure states do not break civil rights laws. because, as folks in the south know, sometimes leaving states completely to their own devices doesn't always go so well.
- serves as oversight to ensure more disadvantaged populations & districts are treated the same as wealthier areas. again, history has seen funds redirected from low-income communities to serve those with more wealth (i.e. political "importance")
- keeps and collects valuable data regarding the education system, schools, students, and demographics, which in turn helps the department discern where grants have been most effective, what programs are successful, etc.
- ensures there is no discrimination in schools, including gender-based. remember, it was federal code that first allowed women to compete in male-dominated athletics.
- serves as oversight in making sure the funds schools receive are handled appropriately and helps keep fraud at bay [emphasis on helps
i'm just going to deal with the financial aspect, because this is what will exactly trickle down and affect students, teachers, schools, and entire communities.
simply put, cut the federal grants and the institutions that depend on those funds will fold:
That probably wouldn't go over very well with the for-profit higher education lobby, which relies on federal dollars to stay open. Same goes for the private non-profit colleges. Within the first year, many private schools would likely close, and probably a fair amount of community colleges as well. Other state public schools would also be hit hard from the lack of grants and loans, but their relative position compared to the private schools would probably improve, because the state subsidies allow for their tuition to be lower so more students would be willing to enroll in those schools.
But that increase in demand for state subsidized higher education actually increases the burden on states, which would feel the pressure to expand the number of seats available and pay for it through tax increases. So while [this] plan would certainly decrease the number of people going to college overall, it would also increase the number wanting to go to state subsidized schools, and likely increase the state's tax effort for public higher education....
Also, given just how important higher education is as a sector of the economy in many parts of the country, such a decrease in federal aid would possibly lead to a mild recession, at least in certain areas.
so it's not as much about the potential for teachers to actually get fired
...as it is just not having a place to go to work altogether.
and that's just ONE responsibility of the DOE being cut.
Johnson hasn't thought any of this out.
one more thing slightly off-topic but yet not: i think Common Core standards have gotten a bad rep and get touted as some kind of federally-mandated curriculum. but really, they're state-adopted standards. i'm obviously not an expert though so don't believe me without doing your own research of course.
but back to Johnson.
as someone who values education, why do you want to support the candidate who seems to be the least-educated? actual degrees don't matter i'm talking pure knowledge and the ability to discuss pertinent issues intelligently. the man COULD NOT EVEN NAME THE LEADER OF NORTH KOREA. seriously. the more i see him actually speak the dumber-sounding he gets. o_O
(ps u know i
u...i wouldn't be willing to invest time discussing politics with you at all if i didn't)