Education Experts Discuss Possibility of Ed. Department Closing at IOP Forum

Education experts discussed the potential closing of the Department of Education under the Trump administration and the effects of absenteeism on U.S. schooling at a Harvard Institute of Politics forum Thursday evening.

The forum, which was moderated by Harvard Center for the Developing Child Chief Strategy Officer Tassy Warren, centered on recent discussions about the Education Department’s future under the new White House administration — and what its closing would mean amid increasing absenteeism and continued efforts to remedy a school system destabilized by the Covid-19 pandemic.

When asked about the potential closing of the department, Academic Dean at the Harvard Graduate School of Education Martin R. West said there are alternative channels to fund K-12 schools, adding that the department is a relatively new body.

“A lot of people don’t know that we haven’t had a Department of Education forever,” he said, referencing the department’s establishment in 1979 under former President Jimmy Carter.

But West added that conservative attacks on the department are no more new than the institution itself.

“Immediately upon its creation, it was under assault,” he said. “Ronald Reagan won the 1980 election and came into office committed to abolishing the Department of Education.”

Conservatives including Reagan did not see the department as a necessary undertaking for the federal government, West said, pointing to the argument made by some conservatives now that education is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

In the event of its closing, there may be alternative options to fill the Education Department’s four primary functions — providing funding, setting funding regulations, protecting students’ civil rights, and supporting education research — according to West.

“A more interesting conversation to be having is less, ‘What would happen if the department is eliminated?’ or ‘Will the department be eliminated?’ and more, ‘What’s going to happen in each of those four areas?’” he said.

The largest federal funding streams provided by the department are Title I and the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, West said, adding that he does not expect the programs to be cut under the Trump administration in the near future.

“I’ve seen zero signs so far that even the incoming administration in the department — much less members of Congress who are responsible for the power of the purse — are actually interested in changes to the federal Title programs in the short run,” West said.

Panelists at Thursday’s event also discussed the prominence of absenteeism in K-12 schools, and the phenomenon’s connection to post-pandemic learning losses.

“Absenteeism is one of the very few things that organizations outside of schools could be helping with right now,” said Thomas Kane, an HGSE Professor of Education and Economics.

Kane proposed a number of solutions that local governments can implement to mitigate the absences.

“Mayors can help with public information campaigns, solving transportation issues. Employers could create more flexibility around school pickup and drop off times,” he said. “The many museums and other organizations around Boston and elsewhere could be running supporting extracurricular activities at schools to help draw students in.”

Absenteeism was a primary issue covered in an Education Recovery Scorecard Report — published by Kane and several co-authors earlier this month — which analyzes data on post-pandemic learning recovery in the U.S.

Even with online learning and Covid-19 increasingly in the rearview, the panelists agreed that K-12 schooling is facing another formidable challenge: absenteeism.

“If the pandemic was the earthquake, absenteeism is the tsunami that is continuing to run through schools,” Kane said.

— Staff writer Tanya J. Vidhun can be reached at tanya.vidhun@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @tanyavidhun.