In Part I of this series, we discussed the public’s reaction to President Trump’s recently signed executive order to close the Department of Education. After spending over three trillion dollars on education since 1979 when the department was created, measures of performance show students are doing worse than ever.

The Epoch Times did a survey to measure the public’s reaction to the idea of closing the Department of Education. In Part I we read five of the responses, which were overwhelmingly in favor of President Trump’s decision. Today we will look at more responses:

6. The Department of Education should be eliminated entirely.

Strongly Disagree: 7 percent

 Disagree: 4 percent

Neutral: 11 percent

Agree: 16 percent

Strongly Agree: 63 percent

79 percent agree (63 percent strongly agree, 16 percent agree) Only 11 percent disagree (7 percent strongly disagree, 4 percent disagree) Neutral: 11 percent

7. The federal government spends too much on education.

Strongly Disagree: 7 percent

 Disagree: 3 percent

Neutral: 13 percent

Agree: 13 percent

 Strongly Agree: 63 percent

76 percent agree (63 percent strongly agree, 13 percent agree) Only 10 percent disagree (7 percent strongly disagree, 3 percent disagree) Neutral: 13 percent

9. It is important for the federal government to maintain oversight of civil rights in the education system.

Strongly Disagree: 36 percent

Disagree: 15 percent

Neutral: 22 percent

Agree: 12 percent

Strongly Agree: 15 percent

27 percent agree (15 percent strongly agree, 12 percent agree) 51 percent disagree (36 percent strongly disagree, 15 percent disagree) Neutral: 22 percent

10. Among the Department of Education’s key functions, financial aid for college students is the most essential to maintain.

Strongly Disagree: 36 percent

Disagree: 17 percent

Neutral: 26 percent

Agree: 12 percent

Strongly Agree: 9 percent

21 percent agree (9 percent strongly agree, 12 percent agree) 53 percent disagree (36 percent strongly disagree, 17 percent disagree) Neutral: 26 percent

11. The layoffs will have a negative impact on federally funded programs such as student loans and grants.

Strongly Disagree: 47 percent

Disagree: 20 percent

Neutral: 20 percent

Agree: 5 percent

Strongly Agree: 8 percent

Only 13 percent agree (8 percent strongly agree, 5 percent agree) 67 percent disagree (47 percent strongly disagree, 20 percent disagree) Neutral: 20 percent

12. The Department of Education has been effective in improving the quality of U.S. education.    Strongly Disagree: 79 percent

Disagree: 11 percent

Neutral: 4 percent

Agree: 2 percent

 Strongly Agree: 4 percent

Only 6 percent agree (4 percent strongly agree, 2 percent agree) 90 percent disagree (79 percent strongly disagree, 11 percent disagree) Neutral: 4 percent

A particularly telling result came when respondents were asked whether the Department of Education has been effective in improving the quality of U.S. education. A full 90 percent said no, with 79 percent strongly disagreeing. Only 6 percent agreed with the statement. This overwhelming disapproval aligns with the broader survey trend favoring reform, decentralization, and—in many cases—complete elimination of the department.

Readers’ Reform Priorities

In the final question of the survey, readers were asked to identify their top priorities for improving education in the United States, with the option to select from multiple choices or submit their own ideas.

The most commonly chosen priority was the removal of critical race theory (CRT) and other politically driven content from school curricula. Close behind was support for expanding school choice, including access to charter schools and voucher programs—reflecting strong interest in empowering families to choose the educational path that best fits their children. Other frequently selected priorities included modernizing school curricula to emphasize STEM subjects and job-related skills, as well as enhancing school safety and restoring discipline in the classroom.

In addition to these selections, thousands of respondents shared their views through write-in responses. While diverse, the suggestions broadly echoed the themes of the multiple-choice results and coalesced around three core ideas.

The first was a call to return to academic fundamentals. Many respondents urged schools to prioritize reading, writing, math, science, and civics—and to eliminate ideological content, including CRT, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and gender theory. There were also strong calls to restore life skills education and discipline in classrooms.

The second theme was parental authority. Respondents repeatedly emphasized that parents—not government officials—should determine what children are taught. Proposals included more school choice, greater curriculum transparency, and allowing education funding to follow students to the schools of their families’ choosing.

Finally, many readers called for decentralization of education policy. There was broad support for returning authority to state and local governments, with some respondents advocating for the complete elimination of the Department of Education. The prevailing view was that education systems should reflect the values of local communities rather than the dictates of federal agencies.

Taken together, the responses reflect widespread dissatisfaction with federal involvement in education and a powerful mandate for reform—centered on academic integrity, local control, and the primacy of parents in shaping their children’s futures.

Let us hope this move will begin the process of improving the education of our children in the future. It is vital to the future of our nation.

 

This blog is normally dedicated to discussing issues concerning healthcare. But long-time readers will know my second most passionate subject is education. The reason for this is simple; education is the ticket to a successful life, especially to lifting low-income students out of poverty. With a good education there is no limit to what anyone can accomplish if they are determined and willing to work hard.

But education has been an uneven playing field for millions of children in our country, especially those who grow up in our inner cities. Poor schools lead to poor education, which leads to children trapped in poverty.

The statistics on our education system are alarming, to put it mildly. Since the Department of Education was founded in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, the federal government has spent over three trillion dollars on education – and our children are less educated than they ever were before!

This is unacceptable and President Trump is trying to do something about it. He has just signed an executive order to close the Department of Education and return control of education to the states. The process of actually closing the department will take time and Congressional approval, but this is a good first step.

How popular is the idea of closing the Department of Education?

I’m glad you asked. The Epoch Times has just published the results of a survey done of the American people to measure their response to this question. Here is what Tom Ozimek writes in The Epoch Times: “A new Epoch Times survey reveals overwhelming support among readers for reforming—and in many cases, eliminating—the Department of Education. Respondents strongly favored reducing the department’s workforce, transferring control of education policy to the states, and giving parents greater influence over school decisions.” 

The poll, which drew over 31,000 responses, was conducted in the days leading up to President Donald Trump’s March 20 executive order, which launched the process of dismantling the Department of Education and returning educational authority to state governments.

Since its establishment in the late 1970s, the Department of Education has spent more than $3 trillion. Yet, according to a White House fact sheet academic performance has stagnated. Despite a 245 percent increase in per-pupil spending, math and reading scores have declined, and American students consistently rank behind peers in other developed nations.

In a speech before signing the order, Trump said federal efforts in education have failed to deliver results. “Today we take a very historic action that was 45 years in the making,” he said. “My administration will take all lawful steps to shut down the Department,” Trump continued. “We’re going to shut it down, and shut it down as quickly as possible—it’s doing us no good.”

A central finding in the survey is the near-unanimous backing for reducing the Department of Education’s workforce. Ninety-three percent of respondents supported the move, with 85 percent saying they “strongly agree.” Only 6 percent were opposed. That view was reinforced by answers to a related question, in which 85 percent said that cutting the department’s staff and shifting control to the states would improve the quality of education in their own communities.

Here are some of the survey responses:

1. I support the decision to reduce the Department of Education’s workforce.

Strongly Disagree: 5 percent

Disagree: 1 percent

Neutral: 2 percent

Agree: 8 percent

Strongly Agree: 85 percent

93 percent agree (85 percent strongly agree, 8 percent agree) Only 6 percent disagree (5 percent strongly disagree, 1 percent disagree) Neutral: 2 percent

2. Parents should have more influence in decisions regarding school curriculum, policies, and educational standards.

Strongly Disagree: 2 percent

Disagree: 2 percent

Neutral: 3 percent

Agree: 8 percent

Strongly Agree: 85 percent

93 percent agree (85 percent strongly agree, 8 percent agree) Only 4 percent disagree (2 percent strongly disagree, 2 percent disagree)

3. Cutting the Department of Education’s workforce and shifting control to states will improve education quality in my community.

Strongly Disagree: 5 percent

Disagree: 2 percent

 Neutral: 8 percent

 Agree: 17 percent

Strongly Agree: 68 percent

85 percent agree (68 percent strongly agree, 17 percent agree) Only 7 percent disagree (5 percent strongly disagree, 2 percent disagree) Neutral: 8 percent

4. States should have control over education policy without involvement from the federal government.

Strongly Disagree: 4 percent

Disagree: 3 percent

Neutral: 8 percent

Agree: 20 percent

Strongly Agree: 65 percent

85 percent agree (65 percent strongly agree, 20 percent agree) Only 7 percent disagree (4 percent strongly disagree, 3 percent disagree) Neutral: 8 percent

5. Shifting control to states will ultimately improve America’s performance in global education rankings.

Strongly Disagree: 4 percent

Disagree: 2 percent

Neutral: 9 percent

Agree: 20 percent

Strongly Agree: 65 percent

85 percent agree (65 percent strongly agree, 20 percent agree) Only 6 percent disagree (4 percent strongly disagree, 2 percent disagree) Neutral: 9 percent

More survey results next post.

 

In Part I of this series, I discussed the current over-reaction on the left to the Trump Administration’s desire to reduce the rising costs of Medicaid. We learned that Medicaid is actually the worst form of health insurance, even worse than no health insurance at all! But Democrats have been eager to expand the rolls of Medicaid since it puts more Americans under the control of the federal government when it comes to their healthcare. To achieve that goal, they have been willing to push the envelope of eligibility to the extremes, even declaring an emergency when none exists.

I explained this last statement in an earlier post in August, 2024. I will repost much of that information here so you will understand what is driving the costs of Medicaid out of control:

 

“Medicaid keeps on growing like kudzu vine in a forest. Kudzu grows like a wildfire out of control and the Biden government has no interest in stopping it. They actually want it to take over everything.

This process began with the Affordable Care Act of 2010, better known as ObamaCare, which the Obama Administration pushed through Congress without a single Republican vote. Medicaid eligibility was originally defined by the federal government as 133% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) for pregnant women and children six years and under, 100% of FPL for children seven to eighteen, 75% of FPL for the elderly and disabled and 25% of FPL for working parents. Childless adults were ineligible. Individual states may increase these levels but may not decrease them.

ObamaCare changed all that by establishing one federal definition of eligibility at 133% of FPL. It also enticed states to increase their Medicaid rolls by offering to increase the federal subsidy from a then current average of 57% of the costs to 100% of the costs for “newly eligible” people in 2014 for three years. Thereafter the subsidies would gradually decline to 90% in 2020, but none beyond that. Many states were sucked in by this incentive only to have buyer’s remorse when the rolls of their Medicaid population ballooned past expectations and they were left with huge debts in their state’s budgets. But the federal government was only too delighted to have more people on the rolls of Medicaid.

Then the Covid pandemic hit in 2020. This gave the new Biden Administration just the excuse they needed in 2021 to expand the rolls of Medicaid further. They extended the temporary expanded eligibility guidelines of the Trump Administration well beyond the pandemic crisis to allow millions of Americans to enroll in Medicaid who did not meet the economic eligibility guidelines.

Fast forward to today and now we see the Biden, or should I say Harris, Administration going further in their quest to expand Medicaid. Here is how the Wall Street Journal editorial board described it: “Kamala Harris this week praised North Carolina’s new plan to wipe out medical debt. What the Vice President didn’t say is that the Biden Administration is making taxpayers in the rest of America pay for it. Behold how the Administration is turning Medicaid into an entitlement for progressive policies far beyond healthcare for the poor.”

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services last week approved North Carolina Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s plan to increase federal Medicaid reimbursements for hospitals that agree to forgive medical debt and discount future bills for low- and middle-income patients. Urging other states to follow, Ms. Harris promised to continue “to relieve the burden of medical debt.”

This could be an expensive proposition. Americans owe more than $220 billion in medical debt, though perhaps Ms. Harris considers it a pittance relative to the more than $800 billion in student debt the Administration has written down. Enter Mr. Cooper, who is dangling more Medicaid money for hospitals that waive debt accrued over the last decade by patients earning less than 350% of the poverty line—$109,200 for a family of four—or whose unpaid bills exceed 5% of their annual income. Hospitals will also have to provide large discounts for patients earning less than 300% of the poverty line.

Larger federal Medicaid payments would exceed the amount of potential debt relief. But this may still be a Faustian bargain for hospitals since debt relief could cause patients to skip out on future bills. Reducing patient payments for emergency visits could also spur more to go without insurance, resulting in more uncompensated care.

Why is this government so eager to enroll more Americans in Medicaid? This is all about expanding the welfare state to make more Americans dependent on the government. It is one more step toward socialized medicine, the complete government control of your healthcare. Don’t be fooled! When they are in complete control of your healthcare, they are in complete control of who gets treatment and who does not.”

 

Today, the Trump Administration is trying to reign in the costs of Medicaid that now exceed the Defense Budget. These costs have skyrocketed in the last 15 years, more than doubling from $402 Billion in 2010 to $894 Billion in 2024.It is clear that would be good for the country – and it would be good for the millions of Americans who find themselves stuck with Medicaid – the worst form of health insurance available.