Sierra College Survey on The Department of “Not Much” Education
About every Tuesday, I and a couple of other well-meaning but perhaps overly hopeful volunteers set out for Sierra College to inquire after the opinions of the young scholars regarding democracy—a subject that is often debated these days, but it appears to me to be rarely practiced. Now, the school gives us a permit because of we also register voters.
Our last survey took place on February 25, 2025, and it focused on the steady dismantling of the Department of Education—a subject of keen interest to folks who might one day wish to be educated. We corralled about thirty students into participating (some only answer some of the questions), which is a fair number, though some weeks we get more, some less, depending on how desperate they are to avoid their studies. The real prize, however, is not the numbers but the discussions—grand, rollicking affairs in which both the students and us volunteers come away a little wiser, or at least a little more entertained.
Now, one young fellow hit me with a comment that near about knocked me over. "The questions are kind of biased, aren’t they?" he asked. I, being naturally curious, inquired, "How so?" He thought a moment and then said, "Well, they seem to be based on facts, and the other side doesn’t seem to use many facts."
Well, I was floored. It was a moment of pure enlightenment, right up there with Newton and his apple. And it seemed to me that this one astute observation summed up the entire difference between Democrats and today’s Republicans: the former are plagued with facts, while the latter have freed themselves of that burden entirely.
Take, for instance, Question #1: "Can a presidential decree simply abolish the Department of Education”, as Mr. Trump so confidently proclaimed?" The students, to their credit, responded with a resounding 100% "No," stating that it would require an act of Congress. And, in fact, they were right—by law, a president cannot simply wave his scepter and bid the department into oblivion. However, as history has shown, legality and reality are often on speaking terms but not necessarily friends.
The truth is, Congress would indeed have to pass a bill to dismantle the department, and in the Senate, it would take at least 60 votes—a number that, on most occasions, seems harder to find than a polite debate on social media. Moreover, a host of federal laws governing education—such as the Civil Rights Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act—cannot simply be wished away unless Congress takes action. And since the words Congress and Action do not mix well, I doubt this could happen.
But politicians, being the resourceful mischief-makers they are, have found an alternate route: gut the department from within. Fire the folks who keep the lights on, shift responsibilities to other departments, and before you know it, you’ve got yourself a hollowed-out agency that exists in name only—a ghost department, if you will.
Legally, this all rests with Congress, but in practice, well—it reminds me of a pack of dogs: the Republicans roll over and play dead, while the Democrats bark loudly but don’t seem to be able to bite. Meanwhile, lawsuits are sure to flood the courts, which will keep the Department of Justice busy—though since many of those lawyers are also being shown the door, it may all end in a grand legal tangle that future historians will refer to as "The Great Undoing of Common Sense."
In the end, perhaps the courts will sort it out, perhaps not. But by the time the dust settles, the damage will have already been done—much like a tornado that insists on discussing property rights only after it’s finished tearing down the barn.
Since my article seems to be running long and I’ve only put out 1 of the 4 questions I will be condensing my rhetoric at this point.
Question #2: Can a president eliminate bans on immigration raids in schools?
Unfortunately, the law is not a simple, clear-cut thing, and this one is a great example of poor decision making and limiting state control. Out of 29 scholars polled, 13 had the good sense to say, “No, not until a court gets its gavel on it.” Eight folks reckoned the answer was “Yes” because it’s already happening, and another eight tried to be diplomatic with a “Yes and No,” leaving the matter up to states. Well, the straight of it is this: a president sure can, but some states have taken it upon themselves to object most vigorously, refusing to let their local lawmen play along. And in places like California, this has sent school attendance numbers running faster than a cat in a room full of rocking chairs.
Question #3: Will less funding mostly affect high-poverty schools?
Here we have a classic case of folks trying to apply logic to government spending—a pastime as hopeful as trying to teach a pig to dance. When asked, eight bright-eyed thinkers declared, “States can spend their money as they see fit, no strings attached!” A solid 19, however, pointed out that most federal education money is Title I funding, meant to go straight to the poorest schools. Not a soul thought special education got the lion’s share.
Now, the reality is this: The federal government contributes about 8% to a district’s coffers. Of that, most is earmarked for the poorest schools, with a respectable chunk going toward special education. But rest assured, when the funds start drying up, it’ll be the schools in the hardest shape that feel it first. That’s just the way of things—like expecting a poker game run by Congress to be anything but rigged.
Question #4: Will the Trump cuts affect student loans?
Two souls out there thought Congress could eliminate student loans altogether—bless their optimism. Two others figured cuts would eventually come for everybody. But the vast majority, 21 in number, shrewdly noted that while official statements say “No,” discretionary grants have already met their untimely demise. And so, the grand American tradition continues—loans for the poor, tax breaks for the rich, and an unwavering commitment to ensuring young scholars stay just indebted enough to keep them from getting too uppity.
And here’s a charming little twist: Some of those eliminated grants once helped Native American students. Now, instead of assisting them, those funds can comfortably find their way into the pockets of billionaires—some of whom, I suppose, might be Native American, though I’d wager the percentage ain’t high.
The Secretary of Education: Wrestling with the Future
Now, you might think that the person chosen to oversee education would, at the very least, know a thing or two about it. That would be an understandable mistake. Last time around, President Trump picked a woman with ties to private education, which is sort of like hiring a butcher to run a vegetable stand. But this time, he’s outdone himself, nominating none other than Linda McMahon—previously in charge of that most scholarly of institutions, World Wrestling Entertainment. Her qualifications? A year on a school board and a firm belief in “Parental Rights”—which, in political dialect, means prying decisions out of the hands of educators and into the mitts of folks who might not have seen the inside of a schoolhouse since their own youth.
McMahon’s mission includes three key points:
Expanding school choice—also known as siphoning money from public schools and handing it to private and religious ones.
Shrinking the federal education bureaucracy—meaning firing those pesky experts who keep things running smoothly.
And, above all, making sure public education suffers just enough to remind folks that the best way to get a decent schooling in this country is to be born into money.
There are more plans afoot, each more alarming than the last, but we’ll have to sit tight and wait to see what fresh misfortunes await. One thing’s for sure—if you’ve got children in public schools, now might be a good time to start supporting public education and maybe even running for the local school board.
This article was written by Robert Sherriff with inspiration from the students at Sierra College