In the Mandate for Leadership, Lindsey M. Burke is the author of the chapter devoted to the Department of Education. The chapter begins with the assertion that the Department of Education should be eliminated.
In her bio in the book, Burke is listed as the director of the Center for Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation. She is also credited with serving Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin’s team on education. Youngkin made school choice (i.e. measures to pull funding from public schools and put it toward private schools) a centerpiece of his campaign. He also vowed to eliminate critical race theory from the classroom (which should not be too hard, given that CRT is taught very rarely if at all in K-12 schools, despite the claims of conservatives to the contrary. What conservatives mean by eliminating CRT in public schools is eliminating discussion of racism, racial inequality, and especially systemic racism in the United States). Burke’s bio also lists her association with the Educational Freedom Institute, which exists to support school choice initiatives.
Arguably, it is not a coincidence that conservatives (who claim to support freedom) are seeking to censor teaching about conflict among different socioeconomic groups. This is because conservatives are working for one particular socioeconomic group to the detriment of others. Students who learn about, for example, the struggle between workers and business owners or between Black and white people in the United States could gain clarity about what class they belong to and what their interests are.
Regarding the call to eliminate the Department of Education, it is worth noting what exactly could be meant by the call to eliminate the department. For example, the department could be eliminated, but some of its functions could simply be assigned to other parts of the federal government. If, on the other hand, the department’s functions are eliminated along with the department, poor students and schools in poor areas could be especially hard hit. Writing for Education Week, Frederick Hess claims that the department provides “Title I funds for high-poverty schools ($18 billion a year), special education funding ($15 billion a year), and Pell Grants ($28 billion a year).” (Title I, special ed, and Pell grants are not the only programs intended to help the poor that are targeted in the Mandate for Leadership.)
Schools that receive Title I funding include rural schools (in districts presumably majority conservative), but big-city schools (in districts presumably more liberal) are more well-known Title I recipients. In an article about proposed cuts to Title I funding, Matt Barnum quotes a Republican member of Congress from a rural district as noting this fact. This may be an example of tribalism, as it is discussed in a review by Fintan O’Toole of a book by Susan Neiman. In the review, O’Toole writes: “failure to deliver real benefits to one’s community is forgivable so long as the other side is faring worse.”
The School Choice Movement
Many criticisms have been made against the movement backed by conservatives to fund private education, for example via charter schools, at the expense of public schools. In order to better understand the arguments for and against privatization of education, a short review of the history of the school privatization movement is in order. Burke, in her chapter on the Department of Education, says that education policy should follow what economist Milton Friedman advocated in 1955. This is presumably a reference to an essay by Friedman titled “The Role of Government in Education,” which was published that year. In his essay Friedman argues that free market economic principles should be applied to education, just as they are in business. For example, he writes that it is desirable to “make capital available for investment in human beings on terms comparable to those on which it is available for physical investment.”
Friedman also briefly reviews a foundational claim of those who support public education. He writes:
“A stable and democratic society is impossible without widespread acceptance of some common set of values and without a minimum degree of literacy and knowledge on the part of most citizens. Education contributes to both. In consequence, the gain from the education of a child accrues not only to the child or to his parents but to other members of the society; the education of my child contributes to other people’s welfare by promoting a stable and democratic society.”
Public education, its advocates have further argued, can and should contribute to the public good by promoting fairness. Public education can and should reach all—rich and poor alike—and give all a chance at self-improvement and social mobility. People who have been important shapers of education policy in the United States have advocated for things such as giving everyone “a fair start,” teaching all “students to be thinkers,” and providing historically marginalized groups such as Black people with an equal education.
Critics of school privatization may point out that Friedman’s paper was helpful to those who opposed public school integration in the wake of the famous Brown v. Board of Education case. While Friedman himself may be presumed as not harboring any racist sentiments, his work provided cover for those opposed to racial integration. As Nancy MacLean puts it: “‘School choice’ aimed to block the choice of equal, integrated education for Black families.”
In addition to criticism based on the racist underpinnings of the current push toward school privatization, there is criticism of what effects school privatization has had in practice. Critics claim that school privatization has worsened inequality, is less responsive to the taxpayers who fund it, is susceptible to abuse, is not cost effective, may be used to fund religious schools with public money, and does not produce notably better results.
Finally, the idea that market principles should be applied to things that are of general benefit to the public may be rejected outright by those who argue that public services should not be sold off to the highest bidder but rather be provided by and for the public and be accountable to the public.
However, if one argues that a core tenet of conservatism is the preservation (or re-establishment) of inequality, it is not only not objectionable that school privatization increases inequality but rather it is a worthwhile, or at least not a problematic, goal. Arguably, for Burke and Project 2025, inequality in education is not a bug but a feature.
