The Case for Abolishing the Federal Department of Education
In a thought-provoking discussion on The Alex Marlow Show, PragerU CEO Marissa Streit outlined a compelling argument for why the U.S. federal government could—and should—abolish the Department of Education. The conversation, hosted by Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow, centered on the idea that the federal government’s role in education has become redundant and inefficient. Streit’s argument rests on the notion that the Department of Education primarily serves as a middleman for dispersing funds, a function that could easily be handled by the Treasury Department. She emphasized that the federal government’s involvement in education has led to unnecessary bureaucracy and mis allocation of resources, often failing to address the real needs of students and families.
The Redundancy of the Department of Education
Streit’s central argument is that the Department of Education’s primary role—dispersing funds—can be handled more efficiently by the Treasury. “If Americans would like to give funding from the federal level to the states, the Treasury can do that,” she explained. This eliminates the need for a separate department dedicated to writing checks, which she described as an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Streit also pointed out that one of the Department’s largest expenditures—the loan forgiveness program—has become a burden on taxpayers. She criticized the program for funding degrees that do not align with societal needs, arguing that the market should dictate which degrees are valued and supported.
The Inequity of Loan Forgiveness Programs
One of the most contentious points Streit raised was the fairness of federal loan forgiveness programs. She questioned whether it is just for hardworking Americans, such as plumbers, to foot the bill for individuals pursuing degrees in less practical fields, like theater studies or “balloon blowing.” “Should a plumber in the United States pay for the loan forgiveness of a degree for somebody who is going to study balloon blowing or theater studies? Is that even fair?” she asked. Streit emphasized that as long as the Department of Education continues to administer blanket loan forgiveness programs, taxpayers have no say in how their money is spent. This lack of accountability is particularly problematic, given that billions of dollars are at stake.
School Choice and Supporting Vulnerable Students
Streit also highlighted the inefficiencies in the Department of Education’s handling of programs like Title I, which is designed to support low-income students. While the intent of the program is commendable, Streit argued that the funds could be better utilized if they were distributed directly to parents through vouchers. This approach would empower families to choose schools that best meet their children’s needs, rather than funneling money through the states. She illustrated this point by sharing the story of a blind child in California whose family struggled to find a government school that could accommodate their needs. Despite having the funding, they were unable to access a private school that could provide the necessary support. Streit suggested that vouchers could solve this problem, allowing families to allocate resources effectively and ensure their children receive the education they deserve.
Empowering Parents and Special Needs Families
Streit’s vision for education reform places a strong emphasis on school choice, particularly for families with special needs children. She described how the current system often fails these families by limiting their options. “Imagine being able to actually provide families with a voucher where they can take their special needs child to an actual special needs school that would help them, that would benefit them the most,” she said. This approach not only addresses the financial burden but also ensures that children receive the support they need to thrive. Streit’s proposal challenges the status quo by prioritizing the needs of students and families over bureaucratic processes.
A Call for Change in Education Funding
The discussion concluded with a call to rethink the role of the federal government in education. Streit’s argument hinges on the idea that education funding should be more transparent, accountable, and aligned with the needs of society. By eliminating the Department of Education and transferring its functions to the Treasury, the government can streamline funding processes and ensure that resources are used more effectively. At the same time, empowering parents through school choice programs can lead to better educational outcomes for all students, particularly those who are most vulnerable. Streit’s proposal offers a vision of an education system that is both efficient and equitable, one that prioritizes the needs of students and families over unnecessary bureaucracy.
In summary, Marissa Streit’s case for abolishing the federal Department of Education is rooted in a desire to eliminate inefficiencies, restore accountability, and empower families. By shifting the focus from bureaucratic processes to direct support for students and families, Streit argues that the U.S. can create a more equitable and effective education system.
