Mar. 22—Alaska Commissioner of Education Deena Bishop was in attendance Thursday when President Donald Trump signed an order to “facilitate the closure” of the federal Department of Education.
The order is meant to shrink the number of employees in the department and transfer some of its duties to other arms of the federal government. The dissolution of the department would require an act of Congress.
Bishop declined an interview request after attending the signing event in Washington, D.C. A spokesperson for the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development said the order would “return control of public education back to the states.”
“With more control, Alaskans can better focus in on how education resources are spent, and on what they deem most beneficial to our students and their future,” the spokesperson said in an email.
Alaska receives hundreds of millions of dollars annually to operate K-12 schools. The percentage of total school budgets coming from federal sources is among the highest in the nation when compared with other states. The funding is targeted at disadvantaged students, including those from lower-income households and those with disabilities.
[What to know about Trump’s plan to abolish the Education Department]
Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan said during a press availability in Juneau on Thursday that it “could be a good outcome” if “there’s more federal dollars with less D.C. strings attached.”
“The Department of Education, since it’s been enacted, has spent over a trillion dollars, and our secondary school education results have dramatically declined, and I’m not sure federal dictates from Washington that don’t understand certain local education imperatives is the best way to approach it,” he said.
“So the key question to me is, are they just dismantling everything or is the vision to dismantle and then get the money to the Alaska state Legislature and local communities, who, in my view, have a way, way better sense, especially for Alaska, on how to spend the money and how to prioritize the money because they’re closer to the kids, they’re closer to the teachers,” Sullivan added.
In a statement on Friday, U.S. Rep. Nick Begich III celebrated Trump’s efforts to close the department.
“The centralized one-size-fits-all factory model of education has proven to be a poor approach. It’s time to end this experiment and restore local leadership in education,” Begich wrote.
Meanwhile, Alaska U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, also a Republican, questioned the claim — shared by Sullivan and other Republican lawmakers — that the federal Department of Education “dictates” local education decisions.
“There is a strong argument for finding efficiencies within the department and ensuring that student aid is delivered more effectively. However, the assertion that the department has ‘control’ over our kids’ education is incorrect, as federal officials are explicitly prohibited by law from meddling in schools’ curricula, state standards, student assessments and more,” Murkowski said in a written statement.
“The benefits that the U.S. Department of Education provide for Alaska are almost too numerous to list,” she said, pointing to its efforts to ensure Alaska Native students can access culturally relevant curricula, among others.
“The Department of Education was created by statute and it will require approval of the Congress to close it. I will continue to defend the continuation of the laws, programs, and funding that the Department administers that Alaska’s educators, students, and parents rely on,” she said.
[The Education Department was created to ensure equal access. Who would do that in its absence?]
State Rep. Rebecca Himschoot, a Sitka independent who chairs the House Education Committee, said that even though education funding cannot be eliminated without congressional approval, she is concerned about the impacts of Thursday’s order.
She said the loss of federal education department staff could mean the elimination of data and oversight — and the Alaska education department does not necessarily have the capacity to take up tasks currently entrusted to federal oversight.
“Everybody loves to get funding with no strings attached,” she said. “Having free-flowing funding and never having to report back on how it was spent or follow guidelines on how it should be, to me, is risky if we’re interested in waste, fraud and abuse.”
In remarks to the state board of education last week, Bishop said that an executive order could not — on its own — eliminate the federal funding that flows to Alaska schools, but she welcomed the elimination of some regulations attached to the funding.
Bishop said she signed on to a letter to Secretary of Education Linda McMahon this month proposing changes to how federal education policy is handled, including by requesting “more flexibility with the federal funding.” A department spokesperson did not immediately provide a copy of the letter.
“There are different categories of funding, and the request was more flexibility within the funds to share those funds,” Bishop said.
The National Education Association of Alaska, a union representing most public school teachers in the state, opposes the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education, its leader said Thursday.
“The Department of Education provides many things, including vital support for Alaska students with special needs, through the Individuals with Education Disabilities Act. Alaska receives the most Title 1 funding per pupil of any state in the nation. More than 51,000 Alaskan students benefit from that support,” wrote Tom Klaameyer, president of NEA-Alaska, in a statement.
“Historically, NEA-Alaska may not have always agreed with decisions or directives coming from the Department of Education,” said Klaameyer. “However, whether it’s through gutting the department from the inside, or seeking congressional approval for the complete elimination, the most vulnerable students in America and the educators who serve them will ultimately pay the price.”
Among its roles, the U.S. Education Department also handles student loans for higher education.
According to an email from University of Alaska President Pat Pitney, officials with the state’s public university system “don’t expect there to be significant changes to our operations or the ability of students to access federal financial aid, including Pell Grants and loans.”
“Advocating for federal student aid funding remains a top priority for the UA system regardless of what changes happen at certain federal departments or agencies,” Pitney wrote in a letter to students and faculty. “Federal student aid is a vital component of ensuring access and affordability for students across the State of Alaska.”
Read the full article here