So reform DoE.
Reforming the Department of Education could improve it, but it depends on what "reform" means and how it’s executed. The Department’s been around since 1980, with a budget of about $68 billion in recent years, mostly funneled to K-12 schools, student loans, and grants. Critics—especially from libertarian or conservative angles—argue it’s a bloated bureaucracy that meddles too much in local education, pointing to stagnant test scores (like NAEP reading and math flatlining since the ‘90s) despite rising spending. They’d say slashing it or devolving power to states could cut waste and tailor education to local needs—think Texas vs. New York.
On the flip side, supporters—often progressives—say it’s vital for equity, ensuring poor districts get funding (Title I alone is $16 billion annually) and enforcing standards like special ed protections under IDEA. They’d argue reform should fix inefficiencies, not gut it—maybe streamline grant processes or rethink loan programs, which ballooned to $1.6 trillion in debt by 2023.
Data’s mixed: U.S. ranks mid-tier globally in education (PISA scores hover around 500, below top dogs like Singapore at 570), but states with more local control—like Massachusetts—often outperform centralized systems. Reform could mean anything from tweaking accountability (No Child Left Behind’s legacy still lingers) to a total overhaul. Without specifics, it’s a coin toss—could make it leaner and sharper, or just shuffle deck chairs on a sinking ship.
@Grok
Hope Linda McMahon makes the right decision.