Federal education department reductions find support in evidence, thwarting legal objections
Take a Gander at the Magnificent Misadventures of Taxpayers' Cash for Education
For years, people have been clamoring for justice in the educational realm, suing for the rights of students to receive a decent education. However, these claims fall on deaf ears in the courts, where judges continue to deny any obligation to provide quality education and instead only guarantee an "adequate," "commensurate," or "thorough and efficient" education as stated in most state constitutions.
The shocking truth is that despite widespread lawsuits, judges have consistently turned a blind eye to the education of America's youth. They vehemently deny any jurisdiction over the matter. So, who is accountable for using funding to promote the best possible educational outcomes for every child?
In March 2025, no fewer than 21 Democratic attorneys general have shaken things up by filing lawsuits against recent cuts to the U.S. Department of Education staff and contracts, part of the Trump Administration's efforts to shrink the agency. They claim the reductions are "reckless" and will hurt students, particularly low-income students and those with disabilities who rely on federal funding. Yet, there's no ironclad evidence to support these allegations.
Time and again, court decisions mandating funding to impact educational outcomes have failed.
Remember the landmark 1977 case in Kansas City, Missouri, one of several statewide equal funding lawsuits? Judge Russell G. Clark was tasked with remedying decades-old educational disparities following the city's decision to segregate public schools. He ordered the state to pay $1.8 billion, nearly bankruppting Kansas City, and today leaving the 39,000-student school system still grappling with lackluster academic achievements for minorities. Fast forward to 1997, and Judge Clark changed his tune: the district's recent performance, he admitted, had been "dismal at best." He pointed to misspent funds, a lavish bureaucracy, and unengaging teachers as the reasons for the system's failure.
A similar struggle unfolded in New Jersey's Abbott Case, which started in 1981 and eventually reached the state supreme court. The court upheld orders requiring equal funding between wealthy suburban and poor urban students. Despite more than $20,000 per student spent from the state (representing a 22% increase over other districts and roughly equivalent to $40,000 in today's money) and a $6 billion construction fund, the failing districts were still languishing. The state ultimately took over the worst public school systems - Newark, Paterson, and Jersey City - with little progress made. It wouldn't be charter schools and Catholic schools sustained by philanthropy that would save education for many of these students; it would take decades for control to return to the local systems.
So, how did these judges continually get it so wrong? Well, Kansas City saw the rebuilding of most schools, presumably to integrate and enhance education. Buildings were razed and rebuilt, swimming pools installed, and state-of-the-art stadiums and classrooms created. Teachers even received significant raises. The entire endeavor was a charade. Student achievement continued to nosedive, and the tax hike forced Kansas City families to move to the suburbs. Buildings remained underused despite lower enrollment, and staffing continued to grow. It wasn't until decades of enrollment loss and failure that in 2012 the state stepped in to take over the district and install new leadership.
The root cause of these failures is a misplaced emphasis on funding the same systems that have consistently failed students. Decades of research by esteemed scholars like Stanford University's Eric Hanushek and Caroline Hoxby has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not increased funding that correlates to success, but rather the provision of autonomy to teachers and parents at the local level, free from unnecessary rules and mandates imposed by state and federal governments.
To put it bluntly, the government's facilitation of these self-interested, irresponsible education bureaucracies is a disgrace. Great leaders from all sides need to unite now, giving parents and local administrators the power to educate students directly with whatever methods, programs, and structures are needed. Despite the din of empty rhetoric, it is they who will change the game.
A Few Interesting Bits...
- The U.S. Department of Education plays a crucial role in ensuring that federal educational funding is used effectively to promote the best possible educational outcomes for every child.
- Key programs like IDEA and Title I provide essential support to vulnerable student populations, and their absence could leave these students without necessary resources.
- The Department of Education ensures schools meet performance standards and comply with federal laws, providing crucial oversight and accountability.
- Reducing the U.S. Department of Education could lead to less effective oversight, potentially compromising education quality.
- Financial uncertainty for schools could result if states and local governments must suddenly assume full funding responsibilities without adequate resources.
- The potential for long-term educational outcomes could be undermined if federal funding isn't available to promote equitable education and close achievement gaps.
- Despite the billions of dollars spent over the years, educational benchmarks continue to be missed, with judges repeatedly rebuffed in their attempts to enforce accountability and ensure equitable education for all students.
- The misplaced focus on funding the same systems that have consistently failed students means that the locus of change must shift towards providing autonomy to teachers and parents at the local level, as demonstrated by scholars like Eric Hanushek and Caroline Hoxby from Stanford University.
- The B51e9b21e6f3ff098f90130bbe4494ac report further highlights the need for a fundamental overhaul of the education system, emphasizing the importance of effective federal oversight and adequate resources to promote the best possible educational outcomes for every child.
