>> The Department of Education is shrinking.

Many of the officers that carry out its key functions are set to shift to other federal agencies.

It's the latest step in President Donald Trump's push to make good on his campaign pledge to dismantle the department entirely.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon said this morning the changes will address, quote, our own bureaucratic bloat.

We have link 6 groundbreaking partnerships with other federal agencies.

>> To delegate Education Department programs that are redundant with existing programs at Labor State, Interior and HHS.

These inner agency agreement to cut our own bureaucratic bloat.

Our key step in our efforts to shift educational authority from Washington, D.C., to your state education agency.

>> And that man also called on Congress to make these new changes permanent.

Joining us to discuss everything that's happening is Bo Jackson, a professor of education and social policy at Northwestern University and former appointee to the White House Council of Economic Advisors.

Professor Jackson, thanks for joining us.

Thank you so much for having So this overhaul set to shift funding for schools serving low-income communities to the Department of Labor grants for parents attending colleges will go to health and Human services, foreign language funding over to state and Native American education programs to interior.

Are these other agencies built to effectively administer those programs?

No, no, they're not.

So, you know, that part of education serves a lot of different functions.

And, you know, just want to make clear from a historical perspective, you know, the department education was established in 1979 before then it was health education and welfare.

And there was an acknowledgement that a lot of the things that were happening to serve students in this country should have been house within one central Department that really took care of all those different aspects.

So, you know, when you think about administering the title one program, which really provides funds for low-income children in this country in Chicago.

I think about 90% of schools are title.

One.

Schools heavily depend on that money.

That is not something that Department of Labor is really equipped to do.

So I'm a little concerned about that.

I would also say that I wonder to what extent this represents so shifting of orientation away from education being something that is designed to promote overall human, thriving towards thinking on a much and now review about education is only towards serving to make sure people have skills to serve the labor market right now.

I think obviously that's part of what education is there to But it's not everything you know, in the department announced these new interagency agreements on Tuesday, there's clear timeline of of when they go into place.

I mean, are concerned about the speed at which things are moving?

Could this create delays and funding or other snags?

It absolutely could.

So in principle, would you like to see is that personnel who are currently involved in the part medication.

We're going to take advantage of the institutional knowledge, decades of his to shun knowledge that people have acquired over the course of years working at a department occasion.

I would like to see if they were going to make this move in in a way that was responsible, that those individuals would move over to the other other entities move over to HHS, to move over, to to labor.

But I don't see any indication of that.

What seems to be happening is that what we're going to move over the functions and leave people where they are, which I which I think could absolutely have deleterious effects for the people who depend on these funds.

And it would be clear a lot of the money that the federal government spends an education goes towards the more fragile members of our society, low-income kids, people who need access to money, to go to college.

And these are the end of it is we're going to suffer.

mention CPS about your at 89% of schools qualify for that title.

One funding.

What sort of an effect could this have on kids here in Chicago?

That's a really question.

So it's important to put all this into context.

So overall, in terms of how much money comes from the federal government that goes to public schools nationally, it's about 10% of the budget comes from the federal government in Chicago.

That number's probably little bit higher.

say 20%.

So we're talking about that pocket, that amount of money.

It's not the lion's share.

Most of the control and the money really still is at the local and the state level.

But losing a fit for your budget?

Absolutely can have deleterious effects.

So to put that into into perspective, you talk about losing maybe 2, 2, and a half $1000 per kid estimates show that would reduce college-going rates by about 6 or 7%.

So that's a really meaningful impact.

We could see if we were to sort of have that money go away.

So we mentioned that of the accusations of glow at the top of the segments Trump administration says the Education Department is too big.

4200 employees, 17 offices, nearly 200 billion dollar budget in 2025, what do you make of that argument?

It is there too much bureaucracy there at at is it loaded?

I wouldn't say that is going to just be clear.

You know, whether something is believe it or not, really has to be a comparison of size relative to function.

The department occasion does a lot of things that has a lot of different functions of meant to mention a few already administering.

See the Pell Grant program to make sure people have access to financial aid, making sure the student loan programs are properly administered, making sure the Office of Civil Rights is there to enforce laws that require that students are not being discriminated against the do a lot of actions that are happening within department education.

Some of it is also research collecting data, making sure we understand where things are sitting rules and standards for schools in of right of domain.

So that requires a lot of different moving parts and requires a reasonable sized rockacy.

So to say that just because there are a lot of people employed by the department, those blow to don't think is quite with a look at.

You have to look at the size.

department relative to all the functions that is actually being carried out by the department.

You know, the administration says breaking up the Education Department will put more power in the hands of states of school districts parents.

What do you make of that argument?

So I don't think that makes any sense.

So right now, what what is being proposed or what is being fought up to spoke about right now is essentially moving control or moving some of some of the functions from one federal part of the brat rest the government to another within the federal government.

So we talk about moving from education, 2 labor or to a These are all still within the federal government.

So nothing that is being discussed here is moving any power down towards the states or to local entities.

So that doesn't make any sense.

I would also just want to say very clearly that a lot of this conversation is predicated on this idea that somehow the federal government is controlling what is happening in schools.

That is just not the case.

Most of the day-to-day decisions that are happening within schools are determined by in local level at the state level.

It is that the federal government does provide some resources to help students were in need who are from low-income backgrounds.

But most of the day-to-day decisions are really not happening at the federal level.

So the that entire predicate of this argument, it doesn't really hold water.

And do you think that's part of why, you know, President Trump, some some politicians, some voters want to see the department dismantled this idea that it's somehow, you know, complete federal control of what happens in in classrooms each day.

So I think there 2 things potentially going on.

I think one is I think there's somewhat of a misconception in among the public that somehow the federal government is responsible for the curriculum that is being taught.

Some people have called it will If you want to use that terminology has been used to describe what's happening in schools and people associate that with things that are happening from the federal government.

That is not but the federal government really is involved in the federal government has guidelines say to enforce civil rights.

So, for example, we have laws that say that you cannot have have exclusionary, discipline policies that disproportionately impact African-American boys, for example, those are the kinds of things that would be enforced by the civil rights arm of the department education.

That's not what prevent hating laws.

But I think there's been a confounding of those ideas and the thinking is, well, if the federal government isn't is enforcing laws and making sure that, you know, certain rules are followed some of that control.

But most of the day today, like I said, is really happening at the local level.

some of that I think is just the idea that we don't want people.

We don't want the federal government involved at I would argue that part of the role of the from federal government is to protect those that are most vulnerable.

And that's when most of those programs are there to do.

All