If the U.S. Department of Education suddenly went away, what would change for local families and communities? Not much.
For starters, the Department of Education doesn’t “educate” anyone. It’s a middleman. Americans send their taxes to Washington, D.C., the bureaucracy takes a big chunk of it to pay staff and overhead, and the rest is sent to states and local communities with a bunch of red tape. Reducing that bureaucracy should save money, which means schools could actually receive more funding.
Parents are better at making decisions for their children than federal bureaucrats.
Furthermore, there’s no evidence that the federal involvement has improved education. Since the department was created in 1980, federal per-pupil spending has skyrocketed, but results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress — also known as the Nation’s Report Card — have been largely stagnant.
Yet a recent Fast Company article declared that ending the Department of Education “would be disastrous for Title I schools,” with a special emphasis on Greater Johnstown Public Schools in Pennsylvania. And who is making that claim? Not surprisingly, it’s largely people who benefit from the current system, including the head of the local and state teachers’ unions, the director of the law firm that’s led efforts to increase school taxes, and the director of a policy center that has historically received substantial funding from unions.
When your only arguments are nothing more than fearmongering, you’ve ceded the debate.
For better or worse, ending the Department of Education would not end Title I funding, which is supposed to help low-income students. Title I existed before the Department of Education and would likely be administered through a different department if the agency were shuttered.
As with other federal involvement, we have no evidence that Title I has been effective overall. For example, the Nation’s Report Card has for decades shown a consistent achievement gap between economically disadvantaged and non-economically-disadvantaged students.
There has been talk of changing how Title I is distributed to improve its effectiveness. One option is converting the funding to block grants that states could administer with fewer strings. This would put decision-making power closer to the students who are impacted by these decisions and enable state leaders to direct funds where they see the most need. It would be an improvement over the current Washington-based system.
Better still would be to bypass the states and convert the funding to scholarships, enabling parents to choose the educational support that their children need. Ultimately, there’s no constitutional role for the federal government when it comes to education, which makes sense given the impossibility of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., knowing what’s best for children in, say, Pennsylvania.
One of us was formerly a teacher and principal in Johnstown public schools and is now the principal of Bishop McCort Catholic School, also in Johnstown. He has dealt with Title I firsthand in both environments and seen the problems caused by the red tape and lack of flexibility with the funding. He’s confident that dismantling the Department of Education — and making any federal funds portable so parents could choose the best environment for their children — is the best way to support the students served by Title I.
And that’s the bottom line when it comes to education. Parents are better at making decisions for their children than federal bureaucrats. Pennsylvania public schools spent nearly $22,000 per student in 2022-23 (the latest data available). In the Greater Johnstown School District, per-pupil spending was more than $23,000. Yet 82% of students scored below proficient in math, and 77% scored below proficient in English. Imagine what parents could do if they could direct even half of that funding to the educational option that worked better for their kids.
Dismantling the U.S. Department of Education will not destroy education, but it may put a dent in the public schooling bureaucracy. Despite the fearmongering of people who work in the system, less bureaucracy and more freedom for parents and students are good things.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPennsylvania and made available via RealClearWire.
In the spring of 2003, the U.S. military spearheaded a major push in high schools nationwide to recruit young women. Military recruiters even called homes asking for high school girls by name.
Meanwhile, military recruiters handed out trendy military “swag” at schools to help boost recruitment efforts. This occurred against the backdrop of the tragic story of 19-year-old Pfc. Jessica Lynch, whom the enemy captured in the post-9/11 Iraq War.
Truly moral nations do not place their women on the front lines.
Her eight days in captivity and her dramatic rescue became a round-the-clock news event. Jessica’s story was initially romanticized to lure young women into military service. Many moms, however, sensed the “fake news” was not telling the whole story.
The heinous reality of Lynch’s captivity, revealed in her authorized biography, “I Am a Soldier, Too,” shattered the romanticized narrative surrounding women in the military. In captivity, Jessica endured three hours of torture by several Iraqis, which included anal sexual assault and rape. Her spine was fractured, her arm shattered, multiple other bones were broken, and she suffered internal injuries.
By the grace of God, Jessica was rescued by U.S. special operations forces from behind enemy lines. When asked eight months later in an interview by ABC’s Diane Sawyer about the decision to include the brutal sexual assault in the book, Lynch — to her credit — said, “It was a decision to tell the reality, not selective parts, of a story of going to war.”
We owe Lynch a debt of gratitude for her honesty and courage in sharing such a painful truth.
In 2013, 10 years after Lynch’s rescue, the Obama administration officially lifted the ban on women serving in combat roles. In fact, women were already serving in combat when Obama initiated this major policy shift, even though Congress had not approved it.
The original policy only allowed women in combat roles if they met the same training standards as men. When they failed to do so, the Pentagon lowered the standards, weakening military readiness and effectiveness. Twelve years of data now justify reconsidering why women were banned from combat roles in the first place.
Beyond physical strength differences, other practical concerns make integrating men and women in training or war zones problematic. These include increased romantic relationships, sexual activity, higher rates of STDs, unintended pregnancies, abortions, and sexual assault. Military leadership ignored these concerns to push a political agenda.
Thankfully, the “roar to restore” was heard in the 2024 election.
Moms for America is grateful to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for having the courage to say aloud that women — especially moms — do not belong in combat. Years of radical feminist indoctrination have led young women to believe there is no difference — physical or emotional — between men and women. Such indoctrination has misled women, marginalized men, and perverted the natural chemistry of relationships between them.
Strong, intelligent, determined, and accomplished women have long held critical noncombat roles in the military, including medics, nurses, doctors, intelligence analysts, communications specialists, cybersecurity experts, logistical specialists, linguists, and many others. These roles are no less essential to the military’s mission than the infantry.
Men and women possess incredible and unique gifts and, in some roles, can perform to the same standards. Yet men and women are different, and acknowledging those differences is not discriminatory.
The call to reinstate the ban on women in combat does not disrespect the valued women who serve in the military, the parents who have daughters in the military, or those women who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Instead, it is a call back to sanity — to evaluate and assess a policy that never should have been changed.
Lowering standards for women decreases the military’s effectiveness and strength to protect and defend America. Moreover, keeping women in combat puts them at the same risk of torture and rape that Jessica Lynch endured during active combat.
Truly moral nations do not place their women or children on the front lines.
The feminist left has demonized the God-given instinct of men to protect women since at least the 1960s. It is time to tell the truth again. It is OK to say that we want men to protect women — and we are grateful for it.
It’s time to protect once again America’s mothers and daughters: Ban women in combat.
During my freshman year of high school, my English teacher required each student to memorize quotes from the play “Julius Caesar.” Ever since, I have turned to Shakespeare’s words in times of turmoil and turbulence to remember essential truths:
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves ...”
“Cowards die many times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once.”
“This was the most unkindest cut of all.”
Likewise, in 2013, then-future British Prime Minister Boris Johnson visited Hong Kong and spoke about finding solace and fortitude amid life’s brevity and failures. He said he often looked to a passage from “The Iliad.” In a remarkable show of erudition, Johnson recited that excerpt in ancient Greek for more than two minutes, leaving his audience in awe.
No one wants to say it, but we are fostering an entire generation of Americans with 'slower' brains.
Last year, actor Jeff Goldblum appeared on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” When asked how he “stays inspired,” he delivered a lengthy, heartfelt quote from George Bernard Shaw about “the true joy in life.” His effortless recall was striking.
Such spontaneous displays of deep knowledge are rare today for a sobering reason: We are raising a generation less and less capable of presenting such learned feats. Students simply do not study as they once did, nor can they retain information at the same level. As a result, their knowledge gaps are enormous — so vast, in fact, that those outside the teaching profession might find them hard to fathom.
This is not hyperbole or melodrama; it reflects the lived reality of today’s American classroom. Students possess shocking gaps in their knowledge. Can they name the state capitals? Planets in the solar system? Basic grammar, cursive, oceans, or continents? Do they understand what makes certain presidents great? Are the years 1066, 1215, 1776, or 1941 significant to them? Sadly, the list goes on.
Data from the National Center for Education Statistics confirms this decline: study times have fallen, and students complete less homework. Even when they study, they often become distracted by phones and other devices. Gen Z reportedly spends up to nine hours a day on screens.
Most American college students study less than two hours per day. Strangely, despite these dwindling efforts, grades have soared and graduation rates are higher than ever. This paradox — less work yielding better results — casts doubt on modern education. It recalls a line from the 1990s group C+C Music Factory: “Things That Make You Go Hmmm ...”
No one wants to say it, but we are fostering an entire generation of Americans with “slower” brains. Students increasingly claim they cannot study, explaining that they simply “cannot remember anything” when it is time for an exam. A new family of expressions — “brain rot,” “doom scrolling” — have emerged to describe the damage.
Why don’t kids read any more? They can’t concentrate. And even if they could, many lack the vocabulary or cultural-historical knowledge to appreciate what they read. Try understanding “A Farewell to Arms” when you know almost nothing about World War I. Try grasping “The Kite Runner” if you have never heard of Afghanistan.
Traditional methods of rigorous study and rote memorization have largely fallen out of favor, dismissed as relics of a bygone educational era. In their place, newer objectives — such as promoting “21st-century skills,” emphasizing social-emotional health, encouraging “digital literacy,” or exploring identity — have taken center stage.
At the same time, modern “thought leaders” and consultants, many with little or no firsthand classroom experience, often mock the foundational goals of education: building strong reading and writing skills and cultivating deep, substantive knowledge.
But we can do something about it: When we raise the bar, our young people can and will rise to meet it.
And here is the dead giveaway. Many of the same kids who claim they cannot study for academics somehow find a way to memorize dozens of plays on the football field, lines for a drama production, or moves for a video game.
I tested this theory in my classroom, asking students to memorize foundational American texts: the Preamble to the Constitution, the First Amendment, and the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. At first, they balked. But over time, something remarkable happened. They didn’t just learn the words; they learned something essential about themselves. They discovered that effort yields rewards and that they were capable of more than they had believed. As my freshman English teacher taught me, some truths are worth remembering forever.
Knowledge isn’t just valuable in the marketplace; it’s essential for a well-lived life. It builds the foundation of a substantial self, grounded not in fleeting trends or momentary chicness, but in the wisdom of the ages.
Without intellectual rigor, our children will never know what they’re capable of or how high they can reach. The solution is simple yet profound: Ask more. Demand more. And watch the magic happen.
The U.S. Army hit its 2025 recruiting goals four months ahead of schedule, the branch’s secretary announced Tuesday. The news was revealed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed authored by Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who described the branch meeting its 2025 fiscal year goal of 61,000 new recruits as “personal.” The achievement marks the first […]
www.theblaze.com
If Democrats Didn’t Have Double Standards … | 9/15/22