Assignment Prompt & Instructions
– a year ago
**files (3)**
– ## directionsforfinalpaper.docx
– ## FEEDBACK.docx
– ## TheDepartmentofEducation.docx
**## directionsforfinalpaper.docx**
Final Term Paper –
Literature Review Paper –
By the end of this course, all enrolled students will have to present a literature review paper relevant to industrial organizational psychology. Students will submit items indicating the progress on their paper throughout the term including a paper draft prior to final paper submission. Please consult the assignments schedule for the required submissions and their deadlines. Choose a topic relevant to industrial/organizational psychology and write a minimum of 5 – 10 double-spaced pages (not including cover and reference pages), using APA format with at least 10 references from peer reviewed journals. A list of available topics may be provided for consideration – but the list of key topics and selected bibliography articles listed in the syllabus should provide some ideas. Several APA guides, and samples are provided on Canvas along with a rubric for grading the assignment.
The paper must also use and cite 10 peer-reviewed articles appropriate for the topic. The reference section of the paper must cite all the articles used for its preparation. The 10 peer- reviewed articles are the minimum; that means students may use more than 10 articles for their paper. All papers must be written in accordance with APA guidelines, and should be careful not to plagiarize.
Papers will be assessed for plagiarism with Turnitin during the writing process. Thus, students must submit a copy of their proposal to the software in Canvas by the deadline stated below. (Section removed regarding
**Similarity Report** requirement for final submission. They key is that you have been made aware of possible similarities indicated by the Turnitin system and have made an effort to ensure proper credit has been provided to the originators of work, ideas, concepts, etc.). The paper must be submitted to the instructor no later than 11:59 PM on April 22nd . The paper will be graded primarily based upon the content of what is written, although issues of form, grammar and spelling will influence grading. YOU MAY NOT USE A PAPER FROM ANOTHER CLASS (PREVIOUS NOR CURRENT COURSE).
**## FEEDBACK.docx**
FEEDBACK:
**1. Clarity & Organization**
**Strengths:**
· The structure is logical and follows a clear progression: it introduces the topic, outlines the department’s functions, discusses the feasibility of dismantling it, explores the consequences, and addresses counterarguments.
· Each major function of the Department of Education is broken into digestible subsections with headings, aiding reader comprehension.
**Areas for Improvement:**
·
**Introduction and thesis clarity:** The first paragraph could more clearly preview the structure of the paper and main argument. For example, the thesis could better state that the essay argues for
_maintaining_ the Department of Education based on its multiple critical functions.
·
**Redundant phrases:** Phrases like “This piece delves into…” and “This discourse points out…” could be more concise. Consider simply stating “This paper examines…” or directly launching into the argument.
·
**Transitions:** Some sections (e.g., from "Education Research and Policy Development" to "The Feasibility of Dismantling…") feel abrupt. Use transition sentences to guide the reader through shifts in focus.
**2. Content Development**
**Strengths:**
· The paper presents a strong, evidence-based case for the Department of Education's continued relevance, backed by current news and academic sources.
· Key programs (e.g., Pell Grants, Title I, IDEA) are well-explained with contemporary data and policy context.
**Areas for Improvement:**
·
**Theoretical integration:** While the paper is rich in policy content, it could benefit from incorporating relevant
**I/O Psychology theories**—for example, educational equity as related to
_workforce development_,
_social mobility_, or
_organizational policy frameworks_. Linking the content back to I/O psych concepts would make it more suitable for the course.
·
**Depth of analysis:** The paper presents strong descriptions but could engage more critically with the material. For example, when discussing Pell Grants or IDEA, consider exploring
_why_ these federal efforts outperform state-level approaches.
·
**Balanced argumentation:** While it acknowledges counterarguments, the rebuttals could be more nuanced. It may help to cite a source that supports local control or critiques federal bureaucracy, then offer a more developed counter-response.
**3. Writing & APA Formatting**
**Strengths:**
· Generally strong grammar and vocabulary.
· APA formatting of references is on the right track and includes current sources.
**Areas for Improvement:**
·
**Grammar/wording:** Some awkward or unclear phrasing:
· “The department was established with the aim of consolidating…” → “It was created to consolidate…”
· “Premium” in “those which are premium” is vague. Consider “higher-income students” or “those from affluent backgrounds.”
· Avoid hyperbole like “apocalyptic negative consequences.”
·
**APA formatting:**
· The title page should include a running head (if following APA 6) or centered title and page number only (APA 7).
· In-text citations need refinement. For example:
· “(Brasch et al., 2025)” is used several times, but page numbers are not included when quoting or referring to specific claims. If paraphrased, that’s okay, but make it clear.
· References should be double-spaced and have a hanging indent. URLs should not be followed by a period.
**4. Research Gaps & Critical Thinking**
**Strengths:**
· The paper raises an urgent and relevant policy debate with real-world implications.
· It shows thoughtful consideration of funding equity and legal complexity.
**Areas for Improvement:**
·
**Missing perspectives:** Could benefit from integrating perspectives of teachers, administrators, or students (qualitative voices). Are there recent surveys or studies reflecting these stakeholders’ views?
·
**Future implications:** What does the debate suggest about the
_future of work_ or educational pathways into professional life—key I/O concerns? For instance, dismantling the ED could affect the talent pipeline, workforce readiness, or diversity in hiring pools.
·
**Critical lens:** The argument could be strengthened by critiquing
_how effectively_ the Department fulfills its mandates. Are there inefficiencies or areas of improvement worth noting, even if the conclusion remains pro-ED?
Anthony Hubert , Apr 6 at 2:58pm
**Add a Comment:**
[Media Comment](https://uncfsu.instructure.com/courses/43267/assignments/970499/submissions/65778) [Attach File](https://uncfsu.instructure.com/courses/43267/assignments/970499/submissions/65778)
**## TheDepartmentofEducation.docx**
2
**The Role of the Department of Education and Its Importance to American Students**
Cedric Harris
Fayetteville State University
Psychology 350
Dr. Anthony Hubert
March 28, 2025
**The Role of the Department of Education and Its Importance to American Students**
The United States Department of Education (ED) is the mainstay of America's educational establishment, with immense control of policy, appropriations, and civil rights enforcement. Established in 1980 under President Jimmy Carter, the department was established with the aim of consolidating all federal education programs into a single agency, to ensure equitable access to quality education for all Americans. In the last few years, political discourse on the ED has been more contentious, particularly during Donald Trump's presidency and his 2024 campaign, when he repeatedly pledged to eliminate the department. This pledge has caused extensive debate on whether the department is needed, whether it can be eliminated, and the potential impact on students, teachers, and the education system at large.
This piece delves into the Department of Education's different roles, examining its critical functions, legal and political challenges to dismantling it, and the extensive effects that this action would have. Blending thought from academic articles, news reports, and policy briefing, this discourse points out the department's unalienable role in advancing educational equity, expanding civil rights, and supporting disadvantaged student populations. The argument also gives counterarguments to eliminating or minimizing the department, providing an unbiased argument for and against on this hot topic. This essay concludes last that the Department of Education is a backbone to the integrity and affordability of the American education system and that its demise would have apocalyptic negative consequences for students, schools, and society as a whole.
**The Essential Functions of the Department of Education**
The U.S. Department of Education executes a wide array of functions that are fundamental to the administration of the U.S. education system. These functions are largely categorized under four categories: administration of federal student aid, civil rights enforcement, support to disadvantaged schools, and research and policy analysis in education.
1.
**_Federal Student Aid Programs_**
The best-known and most impactful of the ED's functions is overseeing federal student aid programs. Federal student loans, work-study jobs, and Pell Grants are such programs, providing billions of dollars in assistance to millions of students annually, enabling them to study at colleges and universities (Faguy, 2025). Pell Grants, for instance, are a safety net for low-income students, offering as much as $7,395 per year (as of 2025) to help pay for tuition and living costs. Without Pell Grants, many students would have to abandon their aspiration for education or incur debts that are not sustainable.
Federal student loans, an integral component of the ED portfolio, have students pay lesser rates and more moderate repayment terms than private loans (Brasch et al., 2025). Income-driven repayment plans and loan forgiveness schemes, also tracked by the department, illuminate the economic load of students from low-starting-wage professions such as education or social work (Brasch et al., 2025). Shutting down such programs would fall much harder on students from the lower-income group than on those which are premium, worsening inequality of opportunity in higher education access.
2.
**_Civil Rights Enforcement_**
The ED has a significant role in enforcing civil rights legislation that safeguards students from discrimination on the basis of race, gender, disability, and other characteristics. Title IX, for example, prohibits sex discrimination in schools, ensuring equal access to education and athletics for girls and women (Habash, 2025). The department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) receives and investigates allegations of discrimination and makes the schools liable for any non-compliance, making educational settings safer and more inclusive (Habash, 2025).
Also, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) plays the role of ensuring that students with disabilities have the right to free and appropriate public education. ED provides funding and oversight to compel the schools to comply with IDEA, offering accommodation by way of individualized education programs (IEPs) and special instruction (Inskeep & Haney, 2024). These protections would be compromised were there no federal enforcement, and struggling students would not have the support necessary for them to be successful.
3.
**_Funding for Disadvantaged Schools_**
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) sends federal money to high-poverty schools to hire additional teachers, reduce class size, provide tutoring, and enhance facilities—measures with a track record of raising student achievement (Burga, 2025). In the 2024-2025 school year, Title I distributed over $16 billion to schools in the United States, reaching nearly 25 million students.
The ED also provides grants for Native American, English language learner, and rural school students that focus on distinctive needs of those student populations. As a result, for instance, the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) supports small, distant school districts in remedying funding gaps and teacher shortages (Faguy, 2025). Phasing out such programs will increase disparities between wealthy and impoverished school districts even more, thereby enriching inequities in education.
4.
**_Education Research and Policy Development_**
The ED supports research on how to teach and learn best and informs educators and policymakers with findings. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES), a departmental organization, conducts large-scale studies of concerns such as early childhood learning, reading, and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) attainment (Habash, 2025). This research-informed decision-making informs decision-making at the local, state, and national levels to ensure continuous improvement in education.
Further, the ED creates policies for confronting emerging problems, including mental health emergencies within schools and the digital divide. When the pandemic caused by the COVID-19 virus, for instance, erupted, the department provided billions of dollars to aid schools in becoming distance learning models and overcoming lost learning (Brasch et al., 2025). States would lack coordination and adequate resources to fight such systemic concerns in the absence of federal guidance.
**The Feasibility of Dismantling the Department of Education**
In spite of demands for its abolition, the Department of Education cannot be readily abolished because of legal, political, and practical constraints.
1.
**_Congressional Approval Required_**
Congress established the ED in the Department of Education Organization Act (1980), and therefore dissolution would need legislatively to be approved. With most of its programs, such as Pell Grants and IDEA, having bipartisan backing, Congress will not likely pass such a bill (Faguy, 2025). Even some right-leaning members of Congress from rural states, which are heavily reliant on federal funding for their schools, have fought efforts to eliminate the department.
2.
**_Executive Authority is Limited_**
While a president can use executive orders to cut the ED's budget or reallocate its functions, the actions would be open to court challenges. Trump's 2025 executive order transferring the administration of student loans to the Treasury Department was stopped by the courts, who held that the switch could be done only by Congress (Burga, 2025).
3.
**_Public and State Dependence on Federal Funding_**
Most states do not have the budget capacity to make up for lost federal education funds. In Mississippi, for instance, 15% of the state's educational budget comes from federal money (Inskeep & Haney, 2024). Governors and legislatures across parties will not fund policies that risk their schools' solvency.
**Potential Consequences of Eliminating the Department of Education**
There are some negative effects that would come to be once the department of education is abolished:
1.
**_Economic Collapse of Higher Education_** _:_ Sudden elimination of federal student aid would affect millions of students who are not able to afford college, leading to crumbling enrollment numbers and the shutdown of colleges (Habash, 2025). Private lenders will fill the gap, but with higher rates of interest and lower borrower protections, deepening the crisis of student debt.
2.
**_Erosion of Civil Rights Protections_** _:_ Without federal authority, schools would be free to rescind accessibility provisions for students with disabilities or ignore Title IX complaints (Brasch et al., 2025). These changes would disproportionately impact minority groups, whose members would experience more discrimination and exclusion.
3.
**_Broadening Educational Inequalities:_** Low-income schools, which are reliant on Title I funding, would be disproportionately affected. Absent federal aid, those schools might cut after-school activities, cut teacher staffing, or even close their doors.
4.
**_Loss of National Standards and Accountability:_** The ED guarantees that every state has basic education standards. Without it, there would be a patchwork of uneven policy that harms student mobility as well as readiness in the workforce.
**Counterarguments and Rebuttals**
Those against abolishing the ED argue that states must regulate education and cutting bureaucracy is cost-effective. While local control has advantages, federal government regulation is needed to prevent inconsistency. For example, without IDEA, special education would be underfunded by states, which would deny disabled students access to services (Habash, 2025). Administrative costs in the ED are minimal (less than 2% of its spending). Most money helps students and schools directly, which makes cost-saving in abolition minimal.
**Conclusion**
The Department of Education is an essential component of America's educational landscape. Its programs and protections ensure a quality education for all students, regardless of their background. Political debates over its role will certainly continue, but the facts unequivocally attest to the need for a strong federal education agency. Strengthening, not dismantling, the department is what policymakers must keep in mind when seeking to enhance education for future generations.
References
Brasch, B., Meckler, L., & Timsit, A. (2025).
_Key functions of the Education Department, which Trump is moving to dismantle._ The Washington Post.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/02/04/department-of-education-explained-trump/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/02/04/department-of-education-explained-trump/)
Burga, S. (2025).
_Can Trump Dismantle the Department of Education?_ Here’s What to Know. Time Magazine.
[https://time.com/7213488/trump-dismantle-department-of-education/](https://time.com/7213488/trump-dismantle-department-of-education/)
Faguy, A. (2025).
_What does the Department of Education do – and can Trump dismantle it?_ BBC News.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79zxzj90nno](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79zxzj90nno)
Habash, T. (2025). Donald Trump Can’t Actually Dismantle the Department of Education, but His Policies Still Threaten Us All.
_Action Report #3. Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom._ [https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/ActionReport3_%20Will_Trump_Dismantle_Dept_of_ED.docx.pdf](https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/ActionReport3_%20Will_Trump_Dismantle_Dept_of_ED.docx.pdf)
Inskeep, S., & Haney, T. (2024).
_What Trump's pledge to close Dept. of Education means for students, GOP-led states._ NPR.
[https://www.npr.org/2024/11/14/nx-s1-5181966/a-look-at-the-potential-impact-of-shutting-down-the-department-of-education](https://www.npr.org/2024/11/14/nx-s1-5181966/a-look-at-the-potential-impact-of-shutting-down-the-department-of-education)
**## TheDepartmentofEducation.docx**
2
**The Role of the Department of Education and Its Importance to American Students**
Cedric Harris
Fayetteville State University
Psychology 350
Dr. Anthony Hubert
March 28, 2025
**The Role of the Department of Education and Its Importance to American Students**
The United States Department of Education (ED) is the mainstay of America's educational establishment, with immense control of policy, appropriations, and civil rights enforcement. Established in 1980 under President Jimmy Carter, the department was established with the aim of consolidating all federal education programs into a single agency, to ensure equitable access to quality education for all Americans. In the last few years, political discourse on the ED has been more contentious, particularly during Donald Trump's presidency and his 2024 campaign, when he repeatedly pledged to eliminate the department. This pledge has caused extensive debate on whether the department is needed, whether it can be eliminated, and the potential impact on students, teachers, and the education system at large.
This piece delves into the Department of Education's different roles, examining its critical functions, legal and political challenges to dismantling it, and the extensive effects that this action would have. Blending thought from academic articles, news reports, and policy briefing, this discourse points out the department's unalienable role in advancing educational equity, expanding civil rights, and supporting disadvantaged student populations. The argument also gives counterarguments to eliminating or minimizing the department, providing an unbiased argument for and against on this hot topic. This essay concludes last that the Department of Education is a backbone to the integrity and affordability of the American education system and that its demise would have apocalyptic negative consequences for students, schools, and society as a whole.
**The Essential Functions of the Department of Education**
The U.S. Department of Education executes a wide array of functions that are fundamental to the administration of the U.S. education system. These functions are largely categorized under four categories: administration of federal student aid, civil rights enforcement, support to disadvantaged schools, and research and policy analysis in education.
1.
**_Federal Student Aid Programs_**
The best-known and most impactful of the ED's functions is overseeing federal student aid programs. Federal student loans, work-study jobs, and Pell Grants are such programs, providing billions of dollars in assistance to millions of students annually, enabling them to study at colleges and universities (Faguy, 2025). Pell Grants, for instance, are a safety net for low-income students, offering as much as $7,395 per year (as of 2025) to help pay for tuition and living costs. Without Pell Grants, many students would have to abandon their aspiration for education or incur debts that are not sustainable.
Federal student loans, an integral component of the ED portfolio, have students pay lesser rates and more moderate repayment terms than private loans (Brasch et al., 2025). Income-driven repayment plans and loan forgiveness schemes, also tracked by the department, illuminate the economic load of students from low-starting-wage professions such as education or social work (Brasch et al., 2025). Shutting down such programs would fall much harder on students from the lower-income group than on those which are premium, worsening inequality of opportunity in higher education access.
2.
**_Civil Rights Enforcement_**
The ED has a significant role in enforcing civil rights legislation that safeguards students from discrimination on the basis of race, gender, disability, and other characteristics. Title IX, for example, prohibits sex discrimination in schools, ensuring equal access to education and athletics for girls and women (Habash, 2025). The department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) receives and investigates allegations of discrimination and makes the schools liable for any non-compliance, making educational settings safer and more inclusive (Habash, 2025).
Also, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) plays the role of ensuring that students with disabilities have the right to free and appropriate public education. ED provides funding and oversight to compel the schools to comply with IDEA, offering accommodation by way of individualized education programs (IEPs) and special instruction (Inskeep & Haney, 2024). These protections would be compromised were there no federal enforcement, and struggling students would not have the support necessary for them to be successful.
3.
**_Funding for Disadvantaged Schools_**
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) sends federal money to high-poverty schools to hire additional teachers, reduce class size, provide tutoring, and enhance facilities—measures with a track record of raising student achievement (Burga, 2025). In the 2024-2025 school year, Title I distributed over $16 billion to schools in the United States, reaching nearly 25 million students.
The ED also provides grants for Native American, English language learner, and rural school students that focus on distinctive needs of those student populations. As a result, for instance, the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) supports small, distant school districts in remedying funding gaps and teacher shortages (Faguy, 2025). Phasing out such programs will increase disparities between wealthy and impoverished school districts even more, thereby enriching inequities in education.
4.
**_Education Research and Policy Development_**
The ED supports research on how to teach and learn best and informs educators and policymakers with findings. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES), a departmental organization, conducts large-scale studies of concerns such as early childhood learning, reading, and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) attainment (Habash, 2025). This research-informed decision-making informs decision-making at the local, state, and national levels to ensure continuous improvement in education.
Further, the ED creates policies for confronting emerging problems, including mental health emergencies within schools and the digital divide. When the pandemic caused by the COVID-19 virus, for instance, erupted, the department provided billions of dollars to aid schools in becoming distance learning models and overcoming lost learning (Brasch et al., 2025). States would lack coordination and adequate resources to fight such systemic concerns in the absence of federal guidance.
**The Feasibility of Dismantling the Department of Education**
In spite of demands for its abolition, the Department of Education cannot be readily abolished because of legal, political, and practical constraints.
1.
**_Congressional Approval Required_**
Congress established the ED in the Department of Education Organization Act (1980), and therefore dissolution would need legislatively to be approved. With most of its programs, such as Pell Grants and IDEA, having bipartisan backing, Congress will not likely pass such a bill (Faguy, 2025). Even some right-leaning members of Congress from rural states, which are heavily reliant on federal funding for their schools, have fought efforts to eliminate the department.
2.
**_Executive Authority is Limited_**
While a president can use executive orders to cut the ED's budget or reallocate its functions, the actions would be open to court challenges. Trump's 2025 executive order transferring the administration of student loans to the Treasury Department was stopped by the courts, who held that the switch could be done only by Congress (Burga, 2025).
3.
**_Public and State Dependence on Federal Funding_**
Most states do not have the budget capacity to make up for lost federal education funds. In Mississippi, for instance, 15% of the state's educational budget comes from federal money (Inskeep & Haney, 2024). Governors and legislatures across parties will not fund policies that risk their schools' solvency.
**Potential Consequences of Eliminating the Department of Education**
There are some negative effects that would come to be once the department of education is abolished:
1.
**_Economic Collapse of Higher Education_** _:_ Sudden elimination of federal student aid would affect millions of students who are not able to afford college, leading to crumbling enrollment numbers and the shutdown of colleges (Habash, 2025). Private lenders will fill the gap, but with higher rates of interest and lower borrower protections, deepening the crisis of student debt.
2.
**_Erosion of Civil Rights Protections_** _:_ Without federal authority, schools would be free to rescind accessibility provisions for students with disabilities or ignore Title IX complaints (Brasch et al., 2025). These changes would disproportionately impact minority groups, whose members would experience more discrimination and exclusion.
3.
**_Broadening Educational Inequalities:_** Low-income schools, which are reliant on Title I funding, would be disproportionately affected. Absent federal aid, those schools might cut after-school activities, cut teacher staffing, or even close their doors.
4.
**_Loss of National Standards and Accountability:_** The ED guarantees that every state has basic education standards. Without it, there would be a patchwork of uneven policy that harms student mobility as well as readiness in the workforce.
**Counterarguments and Rebuttals**
Those against abolishing the ED argue that states must regulate education and cutting bureaucracy is cost-effective. While local control has advantages, federal government regulation is needed to prevent inconsistency. For example, without IDEA, special education would be underfunded by states, which would deny disabled students access to services (Habash, 2025). Administrative costs in the ED are minimal (less than 2% of its spending). Most money helps students and schools directly, which makes cost-saving in abolition minimal.
**Conclusion**
The Department of Education is an essential component of America's educational landscape. Its programs and protections ensure a quality education for all students, regardless of their background. Political debates over its role will certainly continue, but the facts unequivocally attest to the need for a strong federal education agency. Strengthening, not dismantling, the department is what policymakers must keep in mind when seeking to enhance education for future generations.
References
Brasch, B., Meckler, L., & Timsit, A. (2025).
_Key functions of the Education Department, which Trump is moving to dismantle._ The Washington Post.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/02/04/department-of-education-explained-trump/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/02/04/department-of-education-explained-trump/)
Burga, S. (2025).
_Can Trump Dismantle the Department of Education?_ Here’s What to Know. Time Magazine.
[https://time.com/7213488/trump-dismantle-department-of-education/](https://time.com/7213488/trump-dismantle-department-of-education/)
Faguy, A. (2025).
_What does the Department of Education do – and can Trump dismantle it?_ BBC News.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79zxzj90nno](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79zxzj90nno)
Habash, T. (2025). Donald Trump Can’t Actually Dismantle the Department of Education, but His Policies Still Threaten Us All.
_Action Report #3. Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom._ [https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/ActionReport3_%20Will_Trump_Dismantle_Dept_of_ED.docx.pdf](https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/ActionReport3_%20Will_Trump_Dismantle_Dept_of_ED.docx.pdf)
Inskeep, S., & Haney, T. (2024).
_What Trump's pledge to close Dept. of Education means for students, GOP-led states._ NPR.
[https://www.npr.org/2024/11/14/nx-s1-5181966/a-look-at-the-potential-impact-of-shutting-down-the-department-of-education](https://www.npr.org/2024/11/14/nx-s1-5181966/a-look-at-the-potential-impact-of-shutting-down-the-department-of-education)
**## directionsforfinalpaper.docx**
Final Term Paper –
Literature Review Paper –
By the end of this course, all enrolled students will have to present a literature review paper relevant to industrial organizational psychology. Students will submit items indicating the progress on their paper throughout the term including a paper draft prior to final paper submission. Please consult the assignments schedule for the required submissions and their deadlines. Choose a topic relevant to industrial/organizational psychology and write a minimum of 5 – 10 double-spaced pages (not including cover and reference pages), using APA format with at least 10 references from peer reviewed journals. A list of available topics may be provided for consideration – but the list of key topics and selected bibliography articles listed in the syllabus should provide some ideas. Several APA guides, and samples are provided on Canvas along with a rubric for grading the assignment.
The paper must also use and cite 10 peer-reviewed articles appropriate for the topic. The reference section of the paper must cite all the articles used for its preparation. The 10 peer- reviewed articles are the minimum; that means students may use more than 10 articles for their paper. All papers must be written in accordance with APA guidelines, and should be careful not to plagiarize.
Papers will be assessed for plagiarism with Turnitin during the writing process. Thus, students must submit a copy of their proposal to the software in Canvas by the deadline stated below. (Section removed regarding
**Similarity Report** requirement for final submission. They key is that you have been made aware of possible similarities indicated by the Turnitin system and have made an effort to ensure proper credit has been provided to the originators of work, ideas, concepts, etc.). The paper must be submitted to the instructor no later than 11:59 PM on April 22nd . The paper will be graded primarily based upon the content of what is written, although issues of form, grammar and spelling will influence grading. YOU MAY NOT USE A PAPER FROM ANOTHER CLASS (PREVIOUS NOR CURRENT COURSE).
**## FEEDBACK.docx**
FEEDBACK:
**1. Clarity & Organization**
**Strengths:**
· The structure is logical and follows a clear progression: it introduces the topic, outlines the department’s functions, discusses the feasibility of dismantling it, explores the consequences, and addresses counterarguments.
· Each major function of the Department of Education is broken into digestible subsections with headings, aiding reader comprehension.
**Areas for Improvement:**
·
**Introduction and thesis clarity:** The first paragraph could more clearly preview the structure of the paper and main argument. For example, the thesis could better state that the essay argues for
_maintaining_ the Department of Education based on its multiple critical functions.
·
**Redundant phrases:** Phrases like “This piece delves into…” and “This discourse points out…” could be more concise. Consider simply stating “This paper examines…” or directly launching into the argument.
·
**Transitions:** Some sections (e.g., from "Education Research and Policy Development" to "The Feasibility of Dismantling…") feel abrupt. Use transition sentences to guide the reader through shifts in focus.
**2. Content Development**
**Strengths:**
· The paper presents a strong, evidence-based case for the Department of Education's continued relevance, backed by current news and academic sources.
· Key programs (e.g., Pell Grants, Title I, IDEA) are well-explained with contemporary data and policy context.
**Areas for Improvement:**
·
**Theoretical integration:** While the paper is rich in policy content, it could benefit from incorporating relevant
**I/O Psychology theories**—for example, educational equity as related to
_workforce development_,
_social mobility_, or
_organizational policy frameworks_. Linking the content back to I/O psych concepts would make it more suitable for the course.
·
**Depth of analysis:** The paper presents strong descriptions but could engage more critically with the material. For example, when discussing Pell Grants or IDEA, consider exploring
_why_ these federal efforts outperform state-level approaches.
·
**Balanced argumentation:** While it acknowledges counterarguments, the rebuttals could be more nuanced. It may help to cite a source that supports local control or critiques federal bureaucracy, then offer a more developed counter-response.
**3. Writing & APA Formatting**
**Strengths:**
· Generally strong grammar and vocabulary.
· APA formatting of references is on the right track and includes current sources.
**Areas for Improvement:**
·
**Grammar/wording:** Some awkward or unclear phrasing:
· “The department was established with the aim of consolidating…” → “It was created to consolidate…”
· “Premium” in “those which are premium” is vague. Consider “higher-income students” or “those from affluent backgrounds.”
· Avoid hyperbole like “apocalyptic negative consequences.”
·
**APA formatting:**
· The title page should include a running head (if following APA 6) or centered title and page number only (APA 7).
· In-text citations need refinement. For example:
· “(Brasch et al., 2025)” is used several times, but page numbers are not included when quoting or referring to specific claims. If paraphrased, that’s okay, but make it clear.
· References should be double-spaced and have a hanging indent. URLs should not be followed by a period.
**4. Research Gaps & Critical Thinking**
**Strengths:**
· The paper raises an urgent and relevant policy debate with real-world implications.
· It shows thoughtful consideration of funding equity and legal complexity.
**Areas for Improvement:**
·
**Missing perspectives:** Could benefit from integrating perspectives of teachers, administrators, or students (qualitative voices). Are there recent surveys or studies reflecting these stakeholders’ views?
·
**Future implications:** What does the debate suggest about the
_future of work_ or educational pathways into professional life—key I/O concerns? For instance, dismantling the ED could affect the talent pipeline, workforce readiness, or diversity in hiring pools.
·
**Critical lens:** The argument could be strengthened by critiquing
_how effectively_ the Department fulfills its mandates. Are there inefficiencies or areas of improvement worth noting, even if the conclusion remains pro-ED?
Anthony Hubert , Apr 6 at 2:58pm
**Add a Comment:**
[Media Comment](https://uncfsu.instructure.com/courses/43267/assignments/970499/submissions/65778) [Attach File](https://uncfsu.instructure.com/courses/43267/assignments/970499/submissions/65778)
**## TheDepartmentofEducation.docx**
2
**The Role of the Department of Education and Its Importance to American Students**
Cedric Harris
Fayetteville State University
Psychology 350
Dr. Anthony Hubert
March 28, 2025
**The Role of the Department of Education and Its Importance to American Students**
The United States Department of Education (ED) is the mainstay of America's educational establishment, with immense control of policy, appropriations, and civil rights enforcement. Established in 1980 under President Jimmy Carter, the department was established with the aim of consolidating all federal education programs into a single agency, to ensure equitable access to quality education for all Americans. In the last few years, political discourse on the ED has been more contentious, particularly during Donald Trump's presidency and his 2024 campaign, when he repeatedly pledged to eliminate the department. This pledge has caused extensive debate on whether the department is needed, whether it can be eliminated, and the potential impact on students, teachers, and the education system at large.
This piece delves into the Department of Education's different roles, examining its critical functions, legal and political challenges to dismantling it, and the extensive effects that this action would have. Blending thought from academic articles, news reports, and policy briefing, this discourse points out the department's unalienable role in advancing educational equity, expanding civil rights, and supporting disadvantaged student populations. The argument also gives counterarguments to eliminating or minimizing the department, providing an unbiased argument for and against on this hot topic. This essay concludes last that the Department of Education is a backbone to the integrity and affordability of the American education system and that its demise would have apocalyptic negative consequences for students, schools, and society as a whole.
**The Essential Functions of the Department of Education**
The U.S. Department of Education executes a wide array of functions that are fundamental to the administration of the U.S. education system. These functions are largely categorized under four categories: administration of federal student aid, civil rights enforcement, support to disadvantaged schools, and research and policy analysis in education.
1.
**_Federal Student Aid Programs_**
The best-known and most impactful of the ED's functions is overseeing federal student aid programs. Federal student loans, work-study jobs, and Pell Grants are such programs, providing billions of dollars in assistance to millions of students annually, enabling them to study at colleges and universities (Faguy, 2025). Pell Grants, for instance, are a safety net for low-income students, offering as much as $7,395 per year (as of 2025) to help pay for tuition and living costs. Without Pell Grants, many students would have to abandon their aspiration for education or incur debts that are not sustainable.
Federal student loans, an integral component of the ED portfolio, have students pay lesser rates and more moderate repayment terms than private loans (Brasch et al., 2025). Income-driven repayment plans and loan forgiveness schemes, also tracked by the department, illuminate the economic load of students from low-starting-wage professions such as education or social work (Brasch et al., 2025). Shutting down such programs would fall much harder on students from the lower-income group than on those which are premium, worsening inequality of opportunity in higher education access.
2.
**_Civil Rights Enforcement_**
The ED has a significant role in enforcing civil rights legislation that safeguards students from discrimination on the basis of race, gender, disability, and other characteristics. Title IX, for example, prohibits sex discrimination in schools, ensuring equal access to education and athletics for girls and women (Habash, 2025). The department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) receives and investigates allegations of discrimination and makes the schools liable for any non-compliance, making educational settings safer and more inclusive (Habash, 2025).
Also, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) plays the role of ensuring that students with disabilities have the right to free and appropriate public education. ED provides funding and oversight to compel the schools to comply with IDEA, offering accommodation by way of individualized education programs (IEPs) and special instruction (Inskeep & Haney, 2024). These protections would be compromised were there no federal enforcement, and struggling students would not have the support necessary for them to be successful.
3.
**_Funding for Disadvantaged Schools_**
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) sends federal money to high-poverty schools to hire additional teachers, reduce class size, provide tutoring, and enhance facilities—measures with a track record of raising student achievement (Burga, 2025). In the 2024-2025 school year, Title I distributed over $16 billion to schools in the United States, reaching nearly 25 million students.
The ED also provides grants for Native American, English language learner, and rural school students that focus on distinctive needs of those student populations. As a result, for instance, the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) supports small, distant school districts in remedying funding gaps and teacher shortages (Faguy, 2025). Phasing out such programs will increase disparities between wealthy and impoverished school districts even more, thereby enriching inequities in education.
4.
**_Education Research and Policy Development_**
The ED supports research on how to teach and learn best and informs educators and policymakers with findings. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES), a departmental organization, conducts large-scale studies of concerns such as early childhood learning, reading, and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) attainment (Habash, 2025). This research-informed decision-making informs decision-making at the local, state, and national levels to ensure continuous improvement in education.
Further, the ED creates policies for confronting emerging problems, including mental health emergencies within schools and the digital divide. When the pandemic caused by the COVID-19 virus, for instance, erupted, the department provided billions of dollars to aid schools in becoming distance learning models and overcoming lost learning (Brasch et al., 2025). States would lack coordination and adequate resources to fight such systemic concerns in the absence of federal guidance.
**The Feasibility of Dismantling the Department of Education**
In spite of demands for its abolition, the Department of Education cannot be readily abolished because of legal, political, and practical constraints.
1.
**_Congressional Approval Required_**
Congress established the ED in the Department of Education Organization Act (1980), and therefore dissolution would need legislatively to be approved. With most of its programs, such as Pell Grants and IDEA, having bipartisan backing, Congress will not likely pass such a bill (Faguy, 2025). Even some right-leaning members of Congress from rural states, which are heavily reliant on federal funding for their schools, have fought efforts to eliminate the department.
2.
**_Executive Authority is Limited_**
While a president can use executive orders to cut the ED's budget or reallocate its functions, the actions would be open to court challenges. Trump's 2025 executive order transferring the administration of student loans to the Treasury Department was stopped by the courts, who held that the switch could be done only by Congress (Burga, 2025).
3.
**_Public and State Dependence on Federal Funding_**
Most states do not have the budget capacity to make up for lost federal education funds. In Mississippi, for instance, 15% of the state's educational budget comes from federal money (Inskeep & Haney, 2024). Governors and legislatures across parties will not fund policies that risk their schools' solvency.
**Potential Consequences of Eliminating the Department of Education**
There are some negative effects that would come to be once the department of education is abolished:
1.
**_Economic Collapse of Higher Education_** _:_ Sudden elimination of federal student aid would affect millions of students who are not able to afford college, leading to crumbling enrollment numbers and the shutdown of colleges (Habash, 2025). Private lenders will fill the gap, but with higher rates of interest and lower borrower protections, deepening the crisis of student debt.
2.
**_Erosion of Civil Rights Protections_** _:_ Without federal authority, schools would be free to rescind accessibility provisions for students with disabilities or ignore Title IX complaints (Brasch et al., 2025). These changes would disproportionately impact minority groups, whose members would experience more discrimination and exclusion.
3.
**_Broadening Educational Inequalities:_** Low-income schools, which are reliant on Title I funding, would be disproportionately affected. Absent federal aid, those schools might cut after-school activities, cut teacher staffing, or even close their doors.
4.
**_Loss of National Standards and Accountability:_** The ED guarantees that every state has basic education standards. Without it, there would be a patchwork of uneven policy that harms student mobility as well as readiness in the workforce.
**Counterarguments and Rebuttals**
Those against abolishing the ED argue that states must regulate education and cutting bureaucracy is cost-effective. While local control has advantages, federal government regulation is needed to prevent inconsistency. For example, without IDEA, special education would be underfunded by states, which would deny disabled students access to services (Habash, 2025). Administrative costs in the ED are minimal (less than 2% of its spending). Most money helps students and schools directly, which makes cost-saving in abolition minimal.
**Conclusion**
The Department of Education is an essential component of America's educational landscape. Its programs and protections ensure a quality education for all students, regardless of their background. Political debates over its role will certainly continue, but the facts unequivocally attest to the need for a strong federal education agency. Strengthening, not dismantling, the department is what policymakers must keep in mind when seeking to enhance education for future generations.
References
Brasch, B., Meckler, L., & Timsit, A. (2025).
_Key functions of the Education Department, which Trump is moving to dismantle._ The Washington Post.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/02/04/department-of-education-explained-trump/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/02/04/department-of-education-explained-trump/)
Burga, S. (2025).
_Can Trump Dismantle the Department of Education?_ Here’s What to Know. Time Magazine.
[https://time.com/7213488/trump-dismantle-department-of-education/](https://time.com/7213488/trump-dismantle-department-of-education/)
Faguy, A. (2025).
_What does the Department of Education do – and can Trump dismantle it?_ BBC News.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79zxzj90nno](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79zxzj90nno)
Habash, T. (2025). Donald Trump Can’t Actually Dismantle the Department of Education, but His Policies Still Threaten Us All.
_Action Report #3. Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom._ [https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/ActionReport3_%20Will_Trump_Dismantle_Dept_of_ED.docx.pdf](https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/ActionReport3_%20Will_Trump_Dismantle_Dept_of_ED.docx.pdf)
Inskeep, S., & Haney, T. (2024).
_What Trump's pledge to close Dept. of Education means for students, GOP-led states._ NPR.
[https://www.npr.org/2024/11/14/nx-s1-5181966/a-look-at-the-potential-impact-of-shutting-down-the-department-of-education](https://www.npr.org/2024/11/14/nx-s1-5181966/a-look-at-the-potential-impact-of-shutting-down-the-department-of-education)
**## directionsforfinalpaper.docx**
Final Term Paper –
Literature Review Paper –
By the end of this course, all enrolled students will have to present a literature review paper relevant to industrial organizational psychology. Students will submit items indicating the progress on their paper throughout the term including a paper draft prior to final paper submission. Please consult the assignments schedule for the required submissions and their deadlines. Choose a topic relevant to industrial/organizational psychology and write a minimum of 5 – 10 double-spaced pages (not including cover and reference pages), using APA format with at least 10 references from peer reviewed journals. A list of available topics may be provided for consideration – but the list of key topics and selected bibliography articles listed in the syllabus should provide some ideas. Several APA guides, and samples are provided on Canvas along with a rubric for grading the assignment.
The paper must also use and cite 10 peer-reviewed articles appropriate for the topic. The reference section of the paper must cite all the articles used for its preparation. The 10 peer- reviewed articles are the minimum; that means students may use more than 10 articles for their paper. All papers must be written in accordance with APA guidelines, and should be careful not to plagiarize.
Papers will be assessed for plagiarism with Turnitin during the writing process. Thus, students must submit a copy of their proposal to the software in Canvas by the deadline stated below. (Section removed regarding
**Similarity Report** requirement for final submission. They key is that you have been made aware of possible similarities indicated by the Turnitin system and have made an effort to ensure proper credit has been provided to the originators of work, ideas, concepts, etc.). The paper must be submitted to the instructor no later than 11:59 PM on April 22nd . The paper will be graded primarily based upon the content of what is written, although issues of form, grammar and spelling will influence grading. YOU MAY NOT USE A PAPER FROM ANOTHER CLASS (PREVIOUS NOR CURRENT COURSE).
**## FEEDBACK.docx**
FEEDBACK:
**1. Clarity & Organization**
**Strengths:**
· The structure is logical and follows a clear progression: it introduces the topic, outlines the department’s functions, discusses the feasibility of dismantling it, explores the consequences, and addresses counterarguments.
· Each major function of the Department of Education is broken into digestible subsections with headings, aiding reader comprehension.
**Areas for Improvement:**
·
**Introduction and thesis clarity:** The first paragraph could more clearly preview the structure of the paper and main argument. For example, the thesis could better state that the essay argues for
_maintaining_ the Department of Education based on its multiple critical functions.
·
**Redundant phrases:** Phrases like “This piece delves into…” and “This discourse points out…” could be more concise. Consider simply stating “This paper examines…” or directly launching into the argument.
·
**Transitions:** Some sections (e.g., from "Education Research and Policy Development" to "The Feasibility of Dismantling…") feel abrupt. Use transition sentences to guide the reader through shifts in focus.
**2. Content Development**
**Strengths:**
· The paper presents a strong, evidence-based case for the Department of Education's continued relevance, backed by current news and academic sources.
· Key programs (e.g., Pell Grants, Title I, IDEA) are well-explained with contemporary data and policy context.
**Areas for Improvement:**
·
**Theoretical integration:** While the paper is rich in policy content, it could benefit from incorporating relevant
**I/O Psychology theories**—for example, educational equity as related to
_workforce development_,
_social mobility_, or
_organizational policy frameworks_. Linking the content back to I/O psych concepts would make it more suitable for the course.
·
**Depth of analysis:** The paper presents strong descriptions but could engage more critically with the material. For example, when discussing Pell Grants or IDEA, consider exploring
_why_ these federal efforts outperform state-level approaches.
·
**Balanced argumentation:** While it acknowledges counterarguments, the rebuttals could be more nuanced. It may help to cite a source that supports local control or critiques federal bureaucracy, then offer a more developed counter-response.
**3. Writing & APA Formatting**
**Strengths:**
· Generally strong grammar and vocabulary.
· APA formatting of references is on the right track and includes current sources.
**Areas for Improvement:**
·
**Grammar/wording:** Some awkward or unclear phrasing:
· “The department was established with the aim of consolidating…” → “It was created to consolidate…”
· “Premium” in “those which are premium” is vague. Consider “higher-income students” or “those from affluent backgrounds.”
· Avoid hyperbole like “apocalyptic negative consequences.”
·
**APA formatting:**
· The title page should include a running head (if following APA 6) or centered title and page number only (APA 7).
· In-text citations need refinement. For example:
· “(Brasch et al., 2025)” is used several times, but page numbers are not included when quoting or referring to specific claims. If paraphrased, that’s okay, but make it clear.
· References should be double-spaced and have a hanging indent. URLs should not be followed by a period.
**4. Research Gaps & Critical Thinking**
**Strengths:**
· The paper raises an urgent and relevant policy debate with real-world implications.
· It shows thoughtful consideration of funding equity and legal complexity.
**Areas for Improvement:**
·
**Missing perspectives:** Could benefit from integrating perspectives of teachers, administrators, or students (qualitative voices). Are there recent surveys or studies reflecting these stakeholders’ views?
·
**Future implications:** What does the debate suggest about the
_future of work_ or educational pathways into professional life—key I/O concerns? For instance, dismantling the ED could affect the talent pipeline, workforce readiness, or diversity in hiring pools.
·
**Critical lens:** The argument could be strengthened by critiquing
_how effectively_ the Department fulfills its mandates. Are there inefficiencies or areas of improvement worth noting, even if the conclusion remains pro-ED?
Anthony Hubert , Apr 6 at 2:58pm
**Add a Comment:**
[Media Comment](https://uncfsu.instructure.com/courses/43267/assignments/970499/submissions/65778) [Attach File](https://uncfsu.instructure.com/courses/43267/assignments/970499/submissions/65778)
**## TheDepartmentofEducation.docx**
2
**The Role of the Department of Education and Its Importance to American Students**
Cedric Harris
Fayetteville State University
Psychology 350
Dr. Anthony Hubert
March 28, 2025
**The Role of the Department of Education and Its Importance to American Students**
The United States Department of Education (ED) is the mainstay of America's educational establishment, with immense control of policy, appropriations, and civil rights enforcement. Established in 1980 under President Jimmy Carter, the department was established with the aim of consolidating all federal education programs into a single agency, to ensure equitable access to quality education for all Americans. In the last few years, political discourse on the ED has been more contentious, particularly during Donald Trump's presidency and his 2024 campaign, when he repeatedly pledged to eliminate the department. This pledge has caused extensive debate on whether the department is needed, whether it can be eliminated, and the potential impact on students, teachers, and the education system at large.
This piece delves into the Department of Education's different roles, examining its critical functions, legal and political challenges to dismantling it, and the extensive effects that this action would have. Blending thought from academic articles, news reports, and policy briefing, this discourse points out the department's unalienable role in advancing educational equity, expanding civil rights, and supporting disadvantaged student populations. The argument also gives counterarguments to eliminating or minimizing the department, providing an unbiased argument for and against on this hot topic. This essay concludes last that the Department of Education is a backbone to the integrity and affordability of the American education system and that its demise would have apocalyptic negative consequences for students, schools, and society as a whole.
**The Essential Functions of the Department of Education**
The U.S. Department of Education executes a wide array of functions that are fundamental to the administration of the U.S. education system. These functions are largely categorized under four categories: administration of federal student aid, civil rights enforcement, support to disadvantaged schools, and research and policy analysis in education.
1.
**_Federal Student Aid Programs_**
The best-known and most impactful of the ED's functions is overseeing federal student aid programs. Federal student loans, work-study jobs, and Pell Grants are such programs, providing billions of dollars in assistance to millions of students annually, enabling them to study at colleges and universities (Faguy, 2025). Pell Grants, for instance, are a safety net for low-income students, offering as much as $7,395 per year (as of 2025) to help pay for tuition and living costs. Without Pell Grants, many students would have to abandon their aspiration for education or incur debts that are not sustainable.
Federal student loans, an integral component of the ED portfolio, have students pay lesser rates and more moderate repayment terms than private loans (Brasch et al., 2025). Income-driven repayment plans and loan forgiveness schemes, also tracked by the department, illuminate the economic load of students from low-starting-wage professions such as education or social work (Brasch et al., 2025). Shutting down such programs would fall much harder on students from the lower-income group than on those which are premium, worsening inequality of opportunity in higher education access.
2.
**_Civil Rights Enforcement_**
The ED has a significant role in enforcing civil rights legislation that safeguards students from discrimination on the basis of race, gender, disability, and other characteristics. Title IX, for example, prohibits sex discrimination in schools, ensuring equal access to education and athletics for girls and women (Habash, 2025). The department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) receives and investigates allegations of discrimination and makes the schools liable for any non-compliance, making educational settings safer and more inclusive (Habash, 2025).
Also, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) plays the role of ensuring that students with disabilities have the right to free and appropriate public education. ED provides funding and oversight to compel the schools to comply with IDEA, offering accommodation by way of individualized education programs (IEPs) and special instruction (Inskeep & Haney, 2024). These protections would be compromised were there no federal enforcement, and struggling students would not have the support necessary for them to be successful.
3.
**_Funding for Disadvantaged Schools_**
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) sends federal money to high-poverty schools to hire additional teachers, reduce class size, provide tutoring, and enhance facilities—measures with a track record of raising student achievement (Burga, 2025). In the 2024-2025 school year, Title I distributed over $16 billion to schools in the United States, reaching nearly 25 million students.
The ED also provides grants for Native American, English language learner, and rural school students that focus on distinctive needs of those student populations. As a result, for instance, the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) supports small, distant school districts in remedying funding gaps and teacher shortages (Faguy, 2025). Phasing out such programs will increase disparities between wealthy and impoverished school districts even more, thereby enriching inequities in education.
4.
**_Education Research and Policy Development_**
The ED supports research on how to teach and learn best and informs educators and policymakers with findings. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES), a departmental organization, conducts large-scale studies of concerns such as early childhood learning, reading, and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) attainment (Habash, 2025). This research-informed decision-making informs decision-making at the local, state, and national levels to ensure continuous improvement in education.
Further, the ED creates policies for confronting emerging problems, including mental health emergencies within schools and the digital divide. When the pandemic caused by the COVID-19 virus, for instance, erupted, the department provided billions of dollars to aid schools in becoming distance learning models and overcoming lost learning (Brasch et al., 2025). States would lack coordination and adequate resources to fight such systemic concerns in the absence of federal guidance.
**The Feasibility of Dismantling the Department of Education**
In spite of demands for its abolition, the Department of Education cannot be readily abolished because of legal, political, and practical constraints.
1.
**_Congressional Approval Required_**
Congress established the ED in the Department of Education Organization Act (1980), and therefore dissolution would need legislatively to be approved. With most of its programs, such as Pell Grants and IDEA, having bipartisan backing, Congress will not likely pass such a bill (Faguy, 2025). Even some right-leaning members of Congress from rural states, which are heavily reliant on federal funding for their schools, have fought efforts to eliminate the department.
2.
**_Executive Authority is Limited_**
While a president can use executive orders to cut the ED's budget or reallocate its functions, the actions would be open to court challenges. Trump's 2025 executive order transferring the administration of student loans to the Treasury Department was stopped by the courts, who held that the switch could be done only by Congress (Burga, 2025).
3.
**_Public and State Dependence on Federal Funding_**
Most states do not have the budget capacity to make up for lost federal education funds. In Mississippi, for instance, 15% of the state's educational budget comes from federal money (Inskeep & Haney, 2024). Governors and legislatures across parties will not fund policies that risk their schools' solvency.
**Potential Consequences of Eliminating the Department of Education**
There are some negative effects that would come to be once the department of education is abolished:
1.
**_Economic Collapse of Higher Education_** _:_ Sudden elimination of federal student aid would affect millions of students who are not able to afford college, leading to crumbling enrollment numbers and the shutdown of colleges (Habash, 2025). Private lenders will fill the gap, but with higher rates of interest and lower borrower protections, deepening the crisis of student debt.
2.
**_Erosion of Civil Rights Protections_** _:_ Without federal authority, schools would be free to rescind accessibility provisions for students with disabilities or ignore Title IX complaints (Brasch et al., 2025). These changes would disproportionately impact minority groups, whose members would experience more discrimination and exclusion.
3.
**_Broadening Educational Inequalities:_** Low-income schools, which are reliant on Title I funding, would be disproportionately affected. Absent federal aid, those schools might cut after-school activities, cut teacher staffing, or even close their doors.
4.
**_Loss of National Standards and Accountability:_** The ED guarantees that every state has basic education standards. Without it, there would be a patchwork of uneven policy that harms student mobility as well as readiness in the workforce.
**Counterarguments and Rebuttals**
Those against abolishing the ED argue that states must regulate education and cutting bureaucracy is cost-effective. While local control has advantages, federal government regulation is needed to prevent inconsistency. For example, without IDEA, special education would be underfunded by states, which would deny disabled students access to services (Habash, 2025). Administrative costs in the ED are minimal (less than 2% of its spending). Most money helps students and schools directly, which makes cost-saving in abolition minimal.
**Conclusion**
The Department of Education is an essential component of America's educational landscape. Its programs and protections ensure a quality education for all students, regardless of their background. Political debates over its role will certainly continue, but the facts unequivocally attest to the need for a strong federal education agency. Strengthening, not dismantling, the department is what policymakers must keep in mind when seeking to enhance education for future generations.
References
Brasch, B., Meckler, L., & Timsit, A. (2025).
_Key functions of the Education Department, which Trump is moving to dismantle._ The Washington Post.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/02/04/department-of-education-explained-trump/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/02/04/department-of-education-explained-trump/)
Burga, S. (2025).
_Can Trump Dismantle the Department of Education?_ Here’s What to Know. Time Magazine.
[https://time.com/7213488/trump-dismantle-department-of-education/](https://time.com/7213488/trump-dismantle-department-of-education/)
Faguy, A. (2025).
_What does the Department of Education do – and can Trump dismantle it?_ BBC News.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79zxzj90nno](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79zxzj90nno)
Habash, T. (2025). Donald Trump Can’t Actually Dismantle the Department of Education, but His Policies Still Threaten Us All.
_Action Report #3. Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom._ [https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/ActionReport3_%20Will_Trump_Dismantle_Dept_of_ED.docx.pdf](https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/ActionReport3_%20Will_Trump_Dismantle_Dept_of_ED.docx.pdf)
Inskeep, S., & Haney, T. (2024).
_What Trump's pledge to close Dept. of Education means for students, GOP-led states._ NPR.
[https://www.npr.org/2024/11/14/nx-s1-5181966/a-look-at-the-potential-impact-of-shutting-down-the-department-of-education](https://www.npr.org/2024/11/14/nx-s1-5181966/a-look-at-the-potential-impact-of-shutting-down-the-department-of-education)