Section 3.2: Department of Education
“Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.”
This is literally the first sentence of this section.
The rest of Burke’s stated mission advocates for what’s called “school choice”, where parents have the option to direct their childrens’ share of education funding through an education savings account – funded largely by state and local taxpayers – to a school of their choice.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education – including an analysis of what it would mean to eliminate the DoE – here.
“To the extent that federal taxpayer dollars are used to fund education programs, those funds should be block-granted to states without strings, eliminating the need for many federal and state bureaucrats.”
“Without strings.” That answers the question of whether or not they plan to provide any oversight into what states are actually doing with the money, or how they’re treating children, or whether they’re providing a quality education. There would be LITERALLY NO ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS for what constitutes a “quality education.”
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“Although student loans and grants should ultimately be restored to the private sector (or, at the very least, the federal government should revisit its role as a guarantor, rather than direct lender) federal postsecondary education investments should bolster economic growth, and recipient institutions should nourish academic freedom and embrace intellectual diversity.”
This answers the question about what they want to do with student loans. As discussed in the analysis, moving them to the private sector is a money loser for whomever gets stuck with them. I don’t know how you’d force or encourage the private sector to take on these loans.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“Rather than continuing to buttress a higher education establishment captured by woke “diversicrats” and a de facto monopoly enforced by the federal accreditation cartel, federal postsecondary education policy should prepare students for jobs in the dynamic economy, nurture institutional diversity, and expose schools to greater market forces.”
There’s a bit of unpacking to do on this one. By “diversicrats”, she’s implying that higher education has been “captured” by administrators who promote diversity, inclusion, and progressive social values (which she refers to as “woke.”) Claiming that the federal accreditation system is a “cartel” suggests that it has a monopoly on what qualifies as quality higher education, which, yes. That’s literally its whole intended purpose. Ensuring quality in an education you’re paying good money for is not a negative thing. Many jobs will not hire you if you didn’t go to an accredited school, because the quality of education you received may not have actually included what you need to know in order to perform that job. Would you see a surgeon who went to a non-accredited school for his training? Is she suggesting that sham universities (like Trump University) should be treated equally with accredited institutions? (Trump University famously bilked people out of their money and taught them nothing useful.)
There’s nothing inherently wrong with bolstering trade schools and focusing on job readiness, but the absolute disdain Burke has for quality standards and modern values is incredibly off-putting.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“The new Administration must end the practice of acting like the federal student loan portfolio is a campaign fund to curry political support and votes. The new Administration must end abuses in the loan forgiveness programs. Borrowers should be expected to repay their loans.”
Democrats can’t forgive student loans, because then people might like Democrats better than us! Nothing says your ideas are cruel like arguing for passing laws that actually PREVENT others from doing kindnesses. This is also the same woman who, a few scant paragraphs ago, argued for moving student loans to the private sector, so I don’t know what she’s pretending she wants to protect, here.
Here’s what else is wrong with her statement: Most or all of the people whose student loans were forgiven DID pay back their debts. Several times over, in some cases. What was forgiven was the interest on these loans. And not everyone is/was eligible. Teachers, government employees, people who work for nonprofits or in the medical sector, and the disabled got special consideration. Everyone else had to have a particular type of repayment plan that they’d been paying on time for at least 20 years. [Source]11
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.”
Enforcement of civil rights which completely disregards race and gender discrimination not only does not reflect a “proper understanding of the law”, it’s blatantly discriminatory. She’s arguing here that racial discrimination and gender discrimination are A-okay, because it’s not your right to not be discriminated against because of your race or gender. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 would like a word, Ms. Burke. One wonders what she believes a “proper understanding of the law” is, in this case.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“Transfer all Indian education programs to the Bureau of Indian Education.”
Burke goes on to argue for transferring all Tribally-centered programs to the Bureau of Indian Education, which is part of the Department of the Interior. She does not mention increasing their budgets to properly handle any of these programs. Perhaps that goes without saying? In any case, this isn’t a unilaterally bad idea if done correctly; perhaps the Bureau of Indian Education is better equipped ideologically and culturally than the DoE to handle their own business. Burke goes on to advocate for the shuffling to other departments a large number of programs currently under the purview of the DoE.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“The next Administration should completely reverse the student loan federalization of 2010 and work with Congress to spin off FSA and its student loan obligations to a new government corporation with professional governance and management.”
This is a weird and contradictory statement, and could reflect a misunderstanding on the author’s part of what the student loan federalization of 2010 actually DID. Earlier in this section, Burke argued for moving student loans to the private sector. Then, she reversed course and argued for keeping them in the government. Now, she’s arguing for reversing the 2010 federalization, which specifically ended the practice of private banks issuing federally guaranteed student loans – indicating that she wants a return to that practice – and in the same breath arguing that the loans should be administered by a “new government corporation” – i.e., not a private entity. The conditions she goes on to describe – federal loans being managed directly by the Department of the Treasury – is decidedly NOT moving them to the private sector, so one wonders why we would need to reverse the 2010 federalization. (Additionally, does moving student loans to the Department of the Treasury even quality as a “new government corporation”? This portion is a more than a bit nonsensical.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“The new Administration must take immediate steps to rescind the new requirements and lessen the federal restrictions on charter schools.”
To understand this, you’d have to understand that the Department of Education under the Biden Administration proposed (not imposed) some additional requirements25 for Charter schools to receive federal funding in March 2022. Those requirements were:
- Demonstrate demand for a new charter school by showing evidence of collaboration with local public schools. This would involve demonstrating that the charter school would not negatively affect existing public schools or the community at large by causing over-enrollment or draining resources.
- The proposal included provisions requiring charter schools to show their fiscal and operational transparency. Schools would need to show strong governance practices and clear plans for financial sustainability without relying solely on federal funding.
- Schools would have to outline how they would promote racial and socioeconomic diversity within their student body. This requirement aimed to ensure that charter schools are inclusive and serve a diverse range of students, rather than concentrating on certain demographics (read: rich, white, Christian.) Incidentally, this is the requirement that Burke is most offended by.
- Restrict or reduce federal funding for charter schools run by for-profit management organizations, emphasizing that federal grants need to benefit students, not private entities.
I’m having real trouble figuring out why any of this is a negative thing, unless you are, as Burke seems to be doing, arguing that charter schools should be run by for-profits, allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, and socioeconomic status, and operate without any oversight even if it results in them harming their communities.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“The new Administration must quickly move to rescind these changes, which add a new “nonbinary” sex category to OCR’S data collection and issue a new CRDC that will collect data directly relevant to OCR’s statutory enforcement authority.”
She’s arguing here for stopping the Office of Civil Rights Data Collection (CDRC) from collecting any information on nonbinary students and removing that as an option. Only students identifying as either male or female shall be counted.
This seems arbitrary and discriminatory for no good reason, and is another example of the Bruno Strategy at work. If we don’t count nonbinary students in our statistics, they stop existing!
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.