In general, I think the federal DOE does more harm than good, and the good is not accomplished in a very cost-effective way.
The one thing a federal DOE could do is fund Randomized Controlled Trials to identify which teaching techniques are most effective. Public schools are the perfect means to do so as the sample sizes are enormous and the classroom offer something like a control. They would also be very inexpensive compared to current spending. This could have a huge bang-for-the-buck impact on education. Currently, we devote very little funding to identify what works.
The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) contributes approximately 8% to 11% of funding for K-12 public schools, with the majority of financial support coming from state and local sources.  Despite being a smaller portion of overall funding, federal contributions are crucial for specific programs and support services.
Potential Impacts of Eliminating Federal Funding:
1. Reduction in Targeted Programs: Federal funds often support programs aimed at assisting low-income students, special education services, and initiatives like Title I and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Removing federal funding could jeopardize these programs, disproportionately affecting vulnerable student populations.
2. Increased Financial Pressure on States and Localities: States and local governments would need to compensate for the loss of federal funds, potentially leading to higher taxes or reallocation of existing resources, which could strain budgets and impact other public services.
3. Widening Educational Inequities: Federal funding helps mitigate disparities between affluent and less affluent districts. Without it, schools in lower-income areas might face significant challenges in providing quality education, exacerbating existing inequities.
States and Regions Most Affected:
The impact of removing federal funding would vary across states, depending on their reliance on these funds. For instance, in 2021, Montana received 31.8% of its total revenue from federal aid, the highest in the nation, followed by New Mexico (30.7%), Kentucky (30.1%), Louisiana (29.8%), and Alaska (29.0%).  These states would likely face more significant challenges in replacing federal education funds.
Within states, rural and economically disadvantaged regions often depend more heavily on federal support. The loss of federal funding could lead to program cuts, staff reductions, and diminished educational resources in these areas, further disadvantaging students in need.
While federal funding constitutes a smaller percentage of overall K-12 education financing, its removal would have substantial negative effects, particularly on programs serving vulnerable populations and in states and regions with higher dependency on federal aid.
DOE has been truly destructive and the money sent to schools has largely led to the metastasis of administrative staff in schools and not to any real improvement in children's education. Back when education was subsumed under HEW things were a bit better but the teachers' unions demonstrated their power and forced DOE over the line to perpetuate and further empower the teachers unions.
I love the ideas you list but they all sort of look like ending DOE - as all of the programs are moved elsewhere in the federal government or turned into block grants for the states. Which seems pretty much like ending the Department of Education. DOE has 4400 employees and a $68 billion budget. I'm guessing we'd need just a few dozen at most to run a block grant program. What am I missing that's "mending" here, rather than ending?
In general, I think the federal DOE does more harm than good, and the good is not accomplished in a very cost-effective way.
The one thing a federal DOE could do is fund Randomized Controlled Trials to identify which teaching techniques are most effective. Public schools are the perfect means to do so as the sample sizes are enormous and the classroom offer something like a control. They would also be very inexpensive compared to current spending. This could have a huge bang-for-the-buck impact on education. Currently, we devote very little funding to identify what works.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-iron-law-of-policy-evaluation
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-case-for-randomized-trials-in
The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) contributes approximately 8% to 11% of funding for K-12 public schools, with the majority of financial support coming from state and local sources.  Despite being a smaller portion of overall funding, federal contributions are crucial for specific programs and support services.
Potential Impacts of Eliminating Federal Funding:
1. Reduction in Targeted Programs: Federal funds often support programs aimed at assisting low-income students, special education services, and initiatives like Title I and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Removing federal funding could jeopardize these programs, disproportionately affecting vulnerable student populations.
2. Increased Financial Pressure on States and Localities: States and local governments would need to compensate for the loss of federal funds, potentially leading to higher taxes or reallocation of existing resources, which could strain budgets and impact other public services.
3. Widening Educational Inequities: Federal funding helps mitigate disparities between affluent and less affluent districts. Without it, schools in lower-income areas might face significant challenges in providing quality education, exacerbating existing inequities.
States and Regions Most Affected:
The impact of removing federal funding would vary across states, depending on their reliance on these funds. For instance, in 2021, Montana received 31.8% of its total revenue from federal aid, the highest in the nation, followed by New Mexico (30.7%), Kentucky (30.1%), Louisiana (29.8%), and Alaska (29.0%).  These states would likely face more significant challenges in replacing federal education funds.
Within states, rural and economically disadvantaged regions often depend more heavily on federal support. The loss of federal funding could lead to program cuts, staff reductions, and diminished educational resources in these areas, further disadvantaging students in need.
While federal funding constitutes a smaller percentage of overall K-12 education financing, its removal would have substantial negative effects, particularly on programs serving vulnerable populations and in states and regions with higher dependency on federal aid.
DOE has been truly destructive and the money sent to schools has largely led to the metastasis of administrative staff in schools and not to any real improvement in children's education. Back when education was subsumed under HEW things were a bit better but the teachers' unions demonstrated their power and forced DOE over the line to perpetuate and further empower the teachers unions.
If the DoE goes away, it seems likely most of that money doesn't reach poorer towns and poorer students at all.
I love the ideas you list but they all sort of look like ending DOE - as all of the programs are moved elsewhere in the federal government or turned into block grants for the states. Which seems pretty much like ending the Department of Education. DOE has 4400 employees and a $68 billion budget. I'm guessing we'd need just a few dozen at most to run a block grant program. What am I missing that's "mending" here, rather than ending?