General Question

kruger_d's avatar

Why appoint a Secretary of Education?

Asked by kruger_d (6742points) 1 month ago

If Trump is shuttering the department, why appoint a Secretary? Will she just be a mouthpiece for edicts? How can they enforce them without federal funds to withhold?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

8 Answers

Zaku's avatar

* Since his first term, the usual purpose of Trump appointees has been to undermine government departments.

* I don’t think the President is really supposed to have the authority to “shutter” government departments Congress is the one that is supposed to allocate funds to various purposes, and the President is not supposed to be allowed to not do so.. So a reasonable assumption would be that even if the President wanted to completely abolish a department, they might not be able to, and so might, at least at first, settle for appointing a saboteur to undermine it, rather than not appoint anyone.

ragingloli's avatar

It is a multi-pronged attack. 1. Freeze funding via executive order (illegal). 2. Have Elon and his lackeys send mass emails demanding resignations (illegal). 3. Have Elon and his lackeys take control of the treasury payment systems to potentally stop any transfer of funding to various departments (illegal) 4. Install bootlickers to sabotage the departments directly. Multiple attack vectors in case some, or most of them fail due to legal challenges.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@ragingloli I’m sure Trump read and is following the Fuehrer’s road map to overthrow a Democracy !

Pandora's avatar

He needs a worse version of Her to be able to totally destroy public education.
Problem with the rich is they feel they are the only ones paying for poor people’s children to be educated and the educated don’t exactly all vote for Republicans that protect their wallets.
They love the severely undereducated. They can hire them as waiters or house keepers or to work in factories for long hours and underpay them.
Its a win win for the rich and republicans. And a lose, lose for their enemy the poor.

seawulf575's avatar

When President Trump took office, there was a Department of Education. It needs a leader, if only to manage the transition of getting rid of the department and moving most things to the states. The control of the money to the states will need to end up residing somewhere so that will be managed as well.

Pandora's avatar

@seawulf575 As a person who moved from state to state with their kids I will say that moving everything to state levels will suck for many states that don’t have enough local funding. You would be surprised by the lack of education in some states versus others and that’s with Federal setting standards. The moment you remove that, the crap will hit the walls. Luckily for my kids I was a stay at home mom who could tutor my kids when we moved to crappy states that had bare minimum requirements and I could always find a teacher who was willing to give me assistance in providing extra work for them.
Not every kid is going to have that mom and teacher willing to help their kid progress and not get left behind. Teachers are going to teach what is required. Some have to take on extra courses because if teacher shortages.
Dept of education doesn’t need to be struck down. It just needs for an actually qualified person to run it. Not a butt kisser without skills.

jca2's avatar

@Pandora In my area, tutors were going for 40 dollars an hour when my daughter was smaller. I couldn’t afford that. The affluent in my area, which there are many, could. The kids that were diagnosed with learning difficulties would get it as part of Special Ed. The middle class (like me) and working class were on their own.

seawulf575's avatar

@Pandora Growing up, we moved a lot too. I went to 8 different schools, grades 1–12, in two different states. I do know about the different school systems and what they bring first hand. Funding is only a part of the issue. But I see two things wrong with what you were saying. First, during the campaign trail Trump laid out his vision for the Dept of Ed. He wants to move the control of the education system to the states with the Feds only providing 50,000 foot goals and providing funding. That doesn’t require an entire department of thousands of people to do. That means determining how many teachers a school needs or what supplies they are going to need or what the curriculum will look like (within guidelines) will all be done at the state level.

The second thing I noticed is that you identified that school systems already suck in many areas. This is true. Yet we have a Dept of Ed right now that has been failing the country. So doing nothing with it would not improve things. Throwing more money at it will not improve things.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther