Although the issue of migration was not one of the main arguments in Donald Trump‘s presidential campaign, fear in the sector has become more relevant, given the promise to eliminate the United States Department of Education (DOE).
And on more than one occasion, Donald Trump said in his election campaign that “would close the Department of Education and move education back to the states”something that, in the opinion of Margaret Spellings, the president’s former Secretary of Education George W. Bush to Newsweek“it is a very old republican orthodoxy.”
After achieving victory in the United States presidential elections on November 5 against Kamala HarrisDonald Trump has redoubled his plans to dismantle the Department of Educationeven in a video he argued that he intends to close it “very soon” during what will be his second term. The promise has caused chaos and confusion for parents, educators and entire families.
The former Secretary of Education of the administration of Barack ObamaArne Duncan, spent last Tuesday night speaking with hundreds of thousands of educators who, according to his statements, were very afraid and concerned about what the future holds for American schools.
It must be remembered that the United States Department of Education was founded by Jimmy Carter in 1979, and was separated from the Department of Health and Welfare as part of a campaign promise that the Democratic president made to the National Education Association.
In fact, since the creation of DOEthe greatest responsibility of this organization has been to disseminate federal funds for education, with the objective of distributing federal funds for education and thus complement state resources and finance a variety of programs, among which is Title I, that allows financial assistance to schools with a high percentage of low-income students, and the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), which is dedicated to “improving outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.”
What are the potential impacts of federal education policy changes on immigrant students in the United States?
Time.news Editor: Welcome to Time.news, where we discuss the most pressing issues of our time. Today, we have a special guest, Margaret Spellings, the former Secretary of Education under George W. Bush, who will provide her insights on the implications of potential changes to the Department of Education, especially in light of recent political developments. Welcome, Margaret!
Margaret Spellings: Thank you for having me! It’s a pleasure to be here.
Editor: Let’s dive right in. Over the course of Donald Trump’s campaign, he highlighted the idea of closing the Department of Education and devolving education back to the states. You’ve referred to this as “very old Republican orthodoxy.” Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?
Spellings: Certainly. The notion of state control over education has been a consistent theme within Republican ideology for decades. It’s based on the belief that local authorities are better equipped to meet the unique needs of their communities. However, history has shown us that such a radical shift can lead to disparities in educational quality and access, particularly for disadvantaged groups.
Editor: That’s an interesting perspective. With the current rise in anxiety surrounding immigration, do you believe that fears about education will be exacerbated by potential cuts or changes to federal education policies?
Spellings: Absolutely. While migration wasn’t a focal point in Trump’s campaign, the underlying fears and insecurities it creates can certainly ripple through the education system. For many immigrant families, access to quality education is one of the primary concerns. If the federal government steps back from its role, we could see more inequities arise, especially in border states with higher immigrant populations.
Editor: Speaking of inequities, how do you see state control affecting educational standards across the nation?
Spellings: If education were to be fully returned to the states, we might witness a patchwork of standards and outcomes. Some states may uphold rigorous academic standards while others might lower their benchmarks to suit their local political climates. Without a federal baseline, students in certain areas could receive a markedly different education simply based on their zip code, which goes against the principles of equity and opportunity.
Editor: That raises significant concerns. In a context where resources are limited and competition is fierce, how can states ensure that they’re supporting all students, especially those who are immigrants or come from marginalized backgrounds?
Spellings: That’s a crucial question. It requires a commitment to equitable funding, robust support systems, and pathways that specifically address the challenges faced by those students. Local governments need to be proactive in partnerships with community organizations and NGOs to leverage additional resources and supportive measures. It’s a tough road, but essential for all students’ success.
Editor: Transitioning slightly, how do you believe public perception of education policy might change as we move into this new administration?
Spellings: Public perception will likely evolve in response to the tangible changes—or lack thereof—seen in schools. If families notice a decline in educational quality, we may see a renewed demands for more federal involvement. America values education, and parents will advocate fiercely for their children’s futures. A significant shift can often lead to stronger grassroots movements advocating for federal support once again.
Editor: As we look ahead, what message would you want to convey to educators and policymakers in this uncertain landscape?
Spellings: It’s crucial for educators and policymakers to stay engaged and vocal about the needs of their students. Community voices must be heard loud and clear – advocating for a balanced approach that retains necessary federal oversight while respecting local governance. Education is a public good that must be championed consistently, especially in times of uncertainty.
Editor: Thank you, Margaret. Your insights are invaluable as we navigate these complex issues. It’s clear that the future of education, especially in relation to migration and federal policy, holds many challenges. We appreciate you sharing your expertise with us today.
Spellings: Thank you for having me. It’s important that we keep these conversations alive as we move forward.