11 March 2025
Whether you are for or against the institution of the US Department of Education, we can likely agree that a thorough and transparent review of its data and performance is long overdue.
The Department of Education serves as an intermediary, distributing federal funds to local school districts with the intent to promote equitable educational opportunities. Critics argue that the centralized approach leads to bureaucratic inefficiencies and a disconnect between funding decisions and local educational needs. They advocate for direct funding to local school boards, suggesting that such a model empowers communities to tailor educational strategies more effectively toward their own needs.
Since the establishment of the U.S. Department of Education in 1980, there has been a notable increase in federal funding for K-12 education. Adjusted for inflation, per-student spending has risen from approximately $5,000 in 1980 to over $12,000 in recent years. More recently, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that public school spending per student increased by 8.9% from 2021 $14,358 to 2022 $15,633. This represents the largest percentage increase in over 20 years. Despite this investment, student proficiency in critical areas such as reading and math has remained relatively stagnant on the charts, even taking a stark downward turn between 2021 and 2024 after the massive increase in funding. (Wikipedia/Census.org).
But even the stagnation is misleading. In an effort to address the flat trend in scores, various educational policies have been implemented over the years, many of which have outright lowered proficiency standards. For example, the adoption of the Common Core State Standards in 2010 aimed to standardize learning goals across states. Opponents argued that these standards led to a narrowing of curriculum and “teaching to the test”, diminishing mastery in learning. Some states adjusted their proficiency benchmarks downward to align with these standards, making it seem as if more students were meeting expectations when, in reality, the bar had been lowered.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), referred to as the “Nation’s Report Card,” has documented these trends. For instance, average reading scores for 17-year-olds have shown minimal improvement since the 1980s (even with the lowering of standards), with scores hovering around 285 on a 500-point scale. Similarly, math scores have remained flat, with averages near 305 over the same period.
There’s an obvious imbalance between increased funding and stagnant or declining student outcomes, rightfully raising concerns about the effectiveness of current educational spending. While funding has increased, the anticipated outcomes in student achievement have not materialized, prompting debates about how resources are allocated and used within the education system.
Though overall funding has increased, the distribution and application of these funds varies across districts and states. Some suggest that increased funding has been absorbed by rising administrative costs and employee benefits rather than directly impacting classroom instruction. The supposed per-student spending has increased, but a significant portion is consistently allocated to salaries and employee benefits.
Over the past decade, the costs associated with teacher benefits have risen significantly, outpacing salary increases. On average, teacher salaries have only increased by approximately 1.4% per year, whereas employer contributions to health insurance have grown by 4% annually, and retirement benefits have surged by 7.8% each year. As a result, the proportion of benefit costs relative to average teacher salaries has escalated from 28.7% to 40.96% over this time. So, while salaries have only seen modest growth that does not keep up with inflation, the overall compensation package, including benefits, has become quite costly.
Over the past two decades, Gilmer County has experienced a negative trend in student performance, specifically in reading and math proficiency, despite the indicated increased per-student funding of approximately 30% during this time. According to the most recent available data, only 38% of elementary students in Gilmer County achieved proficiency in reading, and 50% reached proficiency in mathematics. These numbers are notably lower than both state and national averages. For instance, on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), approximately 39% of fourth-grade students and 28% of eighth-grade students nationwide performed at or above the proficient level in mathematics in 2024 (still staggeringly inadequate). In Georgia, the average NAEP scores over the past 20 years place the state 31st nationally in reading and 41st in math. This is concerning and warrants an explanation and investigation into how funding is being spent. Who is determining the curriculum, and what stipulations should be implemented when more funding is requested? In-step with the national problem, additional financial resources do not equal improvements in student outcomes and overall academic achievement with per-student spending at $16,035 per student (National Center for Education Statistics) for the 2021-2022 school year and total revenue at $66.2 million with expenditures at $68.9 million. (dlg.usg.edu [Digital Library of Georgia] open.ga.gov- “School System Financials”, nces.ed.gov) *Note that reports vary per source.
Pickens County has also seen a significant increase in educational funding. As of the 2021-22 school year, the district’s annual revenue was approximately $65.5 million with expenditures at $55,88 million and a per-student expenditure of $13,466.
Pickens County Schools demonstrate mixed academic performance when compared to state and national standards.
Proficiency Rates:
-
Math Proficiency: 41% of students in Pickens County are proficient in math, surpassing the Georgia state average of 37%.
-
Reading Proficiency: 37% of students in Pickens County are proficient in reading, slightly below the Georgia state average of 40%.
School Rankings within Georgia:
-
Pickens County High School: Ranks 170th out of 458 public high schools in Georgia.
-
Hill City Elementary School: Ranks 439th out of 1,248 elementary schools in Georgia.
-
Harmony Elementary School: Ranks 463rd out of 1,248 elementary schools in Georgia.
National Performance:
- Pickens County High School: Holds a national ranking of 6,203. (usnews.com)
Graduation Rates:
- Pickens High School: Achieved a graduation rate of 91.84% for the class of 2024, exceeding the Georgia state average of 85.4%, due in part to collaboration with Pickens Mountain Education Charter School. ((schooldigger.com)
Proponents of the Department of Education argue that it plays a crucial role in maintaining educational standards, ensuring civil rights compliance, and providing necessary funding to underserved communities. They’re concerned that dismantling the department would lead to disparities in educational quality and access, particularly for marginalized groups. However, funding for marginalized groups has also not produced an increase in positive academic outcomes as a good portion of this money is spent on social programs vs academics. In fact, scores within this category of students declined 4-7 points from 2019-2023, according to the NAEP.
When considering the future of the Department of Education, we have to weigh the benefits of federal support against potential advantages of localized control. We have history and data to determine our next steps, but do we trust our local administration any more than we do those at the federal level? How would we return funding to local oversight while ensuring equality in underserved communities? It seems simple enough; audit every school board, make these audits public, and withhold funds from schools that neither comply with equal allocation to students or produce quality outcomes. This could instigate parent and community involvement when it comes time to re-elect school board members. The key advantage of local control is that community members have closer access to decision-makers regarding how funds are distributed. However, as is often the case with local government, voter turn-out and parental involvement is often lacking, leading to the same outcomes we’re experiencing at the federal level.
If we were to evaluate the Department of Education based on measurable standards of effectiveness, would it meet the mark? Considering that test scores, innovation, and student proficiency were notably higher before the agency’s creation, it’s worth reassessing its overall impact and relevance.
While ensuring sufficient funding for schools in economically disadvantaged areas and for children with special needs is non-negotiable, data makes it clear that the current system is falling short, especially for these groups. If the Department of Education is to continue operating, it should be required to undergo a complete overhaul, with a renewed focus on establishing clear, results-driven standards.
For those exploring the broader issue of declining public school performance, you may consider examining the influence of for-profit charter schools and the politicians who support charter school expansion while investing in those same institutions. As with any government system facing questionable outcomes, following the money can reveal deeper insights into the motivations and decisions behind educational policies.
Keeping this discussion logical vs political, people have valid reasons for why they are for or against the decision to eliminate the Department of Education. Whether you are for or against dismantling the Department, what are your thoughts and how would you suggest addressing poor academic performance in public schools? Who do you feel is best qualified to handle federal funding for education?