Rebuttal to Department of Education
by Lindsey M. Burke
Rebuttal to Project 2025: Department of Education by Lindsey M. Burke
Lindsey M. Burke’s Project 2025 vision for the Department of Education advocates for drastically reducing the federal role in education, dismantling key federal programs, and shifting more control to states and local governments while promoting school choice initiatives. While Burke frames this as empowering families and local communities, her proposals risk widening inequalities, undermining the rights of vulnerable students, and destabilizing the public education system. By defunding or reducing federal education programs, Burke’s vision threatens to erode the progress made toward ensuring that all students, regardless of background or location, have access to a high-quality education.
The underlying premise of Burke’s vision is that federal oversight stifles innovation and imposes one-size-fits-all mandates that interfere with local control. However, this argument overlooks the critical role the federal government plays in promoting educational equity, protecting students' civil rights, and providing crucial resources for disadvantaged communities. Burke’s proposals to reduce federal involvement, coupled with an aggressive push for school choice, would likely deepen existing disparities in the education system, particularly for low-income students, students of color, and students with disabilities.
Defunding the Department of Education: A Step Backward for Equity
At the core of Burke’s vision is the defunding or drastic reduction of the Department of Education. She argues that the federal government should have a minimal role in education, with more power given to states, localities, and parents. However, this approach risks dismantling the protections and support systems that ensure vulnerable students have access to quality education.
The federal Department of Education was established in part to address disparities in educational opportunities, particularly for historically marginalized students. Key federal laws such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Title IX have been instrumental in closing achievement gaps, enforcing civil rights protections, and providing necessary funding to schools serving low-income students. Burke’s vision of defunding or reducing the department would likely weaken enforcement of these laws, eroding the safeguards that ensure equal access to education for all students.
Without federal oversight, states with fewer resources may struggle to provide equitable funding and services to students in high-poverty areas. This would lead to greater disparities between wealthy and low-income districts, with students in underfunded schools having fewer opportunities, outdated materials, and limited access to experienced teachers. Defunding the Department of Education would not lead to greater educational freedom—it would increase educational inequities and leave millions of students without the support they need.
School Choice: Funneling Public Dollars to Private Schools
A key component of Burke’s vision is an aggressive expansion of school choice programs, including charter schools, vouchers, and education savings accounts (ESAs). While proponents argue that school choice empowers parents and creates competition to improve education quality, the reality is that these programs often divert public funds away from public schools and funnel them into private institutions, many of which lack transparency and accountability.
Voucher programs, in particular, use taxpayer dollars to subsidize private school tuition, including for religious schools. This not only raises concerns about the separation of church and state but also diverts critical funding from public schools, which serve the vast majority of students. Public schools, especially those in low-income areas, rely heavily on federal and state funding to provide essential services such as special education, extracurricular activities, and academic interventions. By redirecting public funds to private schools, Burke’s plan would weaken public schools and reduce the resources available to students who remain in the public education system.
Moreover, private schools that accept vouchers or ESAs are often not required to follow the same accountability standards as public schools. They may not be subject to the same academic oversight, may not provide services for students with disabilities, and may not adhere to non-discrimination policies. Burke’s push for an unregulated school choice system could result in a two-tiered education system—one where private schools cater to select students with fewer regulations, while public schools are left with diminished funding to serve an increasingly high-needs population.
Undermining Protections for Marginalized Students
Burke’s vision also threatens to undermine key federal protections for marginalized students, particularly students with disabilities, LGBTQ+ students, and students from low-income families. The Department of Education plays a crucial role in enforcing civil rights protections that ensure all students have access to a safe and supportive learning environment, free from discrimination.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), for example, guarantees that students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education. This law ensures that students with disabilities have access to the services, accommodations, and supports they need to succeed academically. Burke’s proposal to reduce the federal role in education would weaken the enforcement of IDEA, potentially leaving students with disabilities without the resources they need to thrive.
Similarly, Title IX protections, which prohibit sex discrimination in education, have been essential in ensuring equal opportunities for girls and women in athletics, academic programs, and extracurricular activities. These protections have also been critical in addressing sexual harassment and assault on campuses. Rolling back federal oversight of Title IX enforcement would make it harder for students to report and address instances of discrimination, harassment, or assault in schools.
In addition, Burke’s vision of an unregulated school choice system raises concerns about equity for LGBTQ+ students. Private schools that accept vouchers or ESAs are often not required to adhere to non-discrimination policies, meaning they could legally exclude or discriminate against LGBTQ+ students. This would undermine the progress made toward creating inclusive and affirming educational environments for all students.
Exacerbating Inequalities Through Local Funding Disparities
A significant risk of reducing the federal government’s role in education, as Burke advocates, is the potential for increased funding disparities between school districts. Public education funding in the U.S. is largely driven by local property taxes, which means that wealthier districts are able to raise more revenue than poorer districts. Federal funding, particularly through programs like Title I of the ESEA, helps to offset these disparities by providing additional resources to schools with high concentrations of low-income students.
Burke’s vision to scale back federal involvement would likely result in cuts to programs like Title I, which would disproportionately harm low-income students and schools. Without federal support, schools in low-income areas may struggle to provide basic services, maintain school facilities, or hire qualified teachers. The result would be a more fragmented and unequal education system, where students’ access to quality education is determined by their zip code rather than their potential.
Federal programs also play a key role in providing resources for English language learners, migrant students, and students experiencing homelessness. Reducing federal funding for these programs would leave many vulnerable students without the support they need to succeed in school.
Ignoring the Need for Comprehensive Reform
Burke’s vision for the Department of Education focuses heavily on decentralization and deregulation, but it largely ignores the need for comprehensive education reform that addresses the root causes of inequality in the system. Simply reducing the federal role and promoting school choice will not solve the underlying issues of underfunding, resource disparities, and systemic racism that affect many public schools.
Real education reform requires investment in public schools, targeted interventions to address achievement gaps, and policies that promote equity and inclusion. This includes increasing funding for under-resourced schools, expanding access to early childhood education, and addressing the school-to-prison pipeline, which disproportionately affects students of color and students with disabilities.
Rather than dismantling the Department of Education and diverting public funds to private schools, policymakers should focus on strengthening the public school system, improving teacher quality, and ensuring that all students have access to a well-rounded, high-quality education.
Conclusion: A Vision That Threatens Public Education and Equity
Lindsey M. Burke’s Project 2025 vision for the Department of Education threatens to undermine the core principles of equity, access, and opportunity in public education. By advocating for the defunding of the Department of Education, expanding unregulated school choice programs, and reducing federal oversight, Burke’s proposals would create a more unequal education system that disproportionately harms low-income students, students of color, students with disabilities, and other marginalized groups.
The federal government plays a critical role in promoting educational equity, protecting students’ rights, and ensuring that all children have access to a quality education. Rather than dismantling these protections and diverting public funds to private interests, the U.S. should be focused on strengthening the public school system and addressing the systemic inequalities that continue to limit educational opportunities for millions of students.
Burke’s vision, while framed as a push for greater local control and educational freedom, would exacerbate existing disparities and leave vulnerable students without the support they need to succeed. The Department of Education must remain committed to its mission of advancing equity and opportunity for all students—not just for those who can afford private school tuition or live in wealthier districts. Project 2025 fails to offer a path toward a more inclusive, equitable, and effective education system and should be rejected in favor of policies that prioritize fairness, access, and opportunity for every student in America.