Education Department Cuts Half It's Staff

Wednesday, March 12, 2025

The Education Department plans to lay off more than 1,300 of its employees as part of an effort to halve the organization's staff -- a prelude to President Donald Trump's plan to dismantle the agency.

Posted by Corky at 08:30 PM | 42 COMMENTS | permalink

Devastating news! This basically guts the Department of Education .

[image or embed]
-- Christopher Webb (@cwebbonline.com) March 11, 2025 at 6:44 PM

Comments

"McMahon told employees to brace for profound cuts in a memo issued March 3, the day she was confirmed by the Senate. She said it was the department's "final mission" to eliminate bureaucratic bloat and turn over the agency's authority to states."

At least this isn't political, lmao. I mean, the facts are that the most reliable way of predicting if a person will vote Republican is if they have a low level of education.

www.cnn.com

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2025-03-12 11:53 AM

I guess the cruelty is the point.

#2 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2025-03-12 12:59 PM

Authority already largely rested with the states.

Want to blame America's state of education? Blame states that do a piss poor job of educating their residents.

This will do nothing more than fracture education and cause states with good programs to pull away from states with bad programs. The deep red south will fall further behind and need to be floated even more by blue states.

#3 | Posted by jpw at 2025-03-12 01:13 PM

There's only 2600 employees at the Department of Education? (I read the article the peak was 4100.)

"She said it was the department's "final mission" to eliminate bureaucratic bloat and turn over the agency's authority to states.""

What dies that even mean, because education is already controlled by the States, and that's why education is worse in poor Red states, and poor Red states like it that way.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-03-12 01:55 PM

Maybe we can break down into micro units where we're surrounded by people who think like us and all have the same goals.

First-century church?

Communes?

What comes after anarchofascism?

#5 | Posted by Dbt2 at 2025-03-12 02:04 PM

If what snoofy said is true .

What dies that even mean, because education is already controlled by the States, and that's why education is worse in poor Red states, and poor Red states like it that way.
#4 | Posted by snoofy

What was DOE doing to prevent this, if States already control education?

I could see the DOE if there was a standardized testing, but I recall these are racist when Bush was pushing no child left behind.

So really no need for large DOE.

#6 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-03-12 03:04 PM

and that's why education is worse in poor Red states, and poor Red states like it that way.
#4 | Posted by snoofy

Is Connecticut a red state?
www.cnn.com

#7 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-03-12 03:07 PM

Putin's demented orange bitch's fraudulent university was a model of efficiency.

thenationaltriallawyers.org

#8 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2025-03-12 03:10 PM

The Dept of Ed has been a abject failure since inception as our students are doing much worse than before it was founded in '77. Eliminate and let the Dept of the Treasury send the funds to the states.

#9 | Posted by MSgt at 2025-03-12 03:30 PM

This is a good time for all of you here to look into a role in your State's Department of Education as well as your local school boards.

#10 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2025-03-12 03:54 PM

That Twunt McMahon said they kept all the "good ones." According to the union heads the "good ones" are the white males who went to conservative colleges. The majority of those laid off were women and people of color. This will be an easy judicial reversal.

#11 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2025-03-12 10:34 PM

Education is kryptonite to MAGATS

#12 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-03-13 12:29 AM

Authority already largely rested with the states.

What they're aiming to gut is the federal requirements to educate disabled children.

students are doing much worse than before it was founded

That is entirely on the parents who refuse to hold their children accountable for failing.

#13 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-03-13 07:18 AM

I bet you McMahon keeps the SWAT team: www.heritage.org

#14 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-03-13 07:33 AM

"Eliminate and let the Dept of the Treasury send the funds to the states."

So the states get to pick the white schools that get more money, and the black schools that get less money.

We understand that the racism is the point.

Not sure if you do, though.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-03-13 07:48 AM

Who is screaming the loudest about this? The head of the teacher's union. That's all you need to know.

#16 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-03-13 12:35 PM

So the states get to pick the white schools that get more money, and the black schools that get less money.

We understand that the racism is the point.

Not sure if you do, though.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-03-13 07:48 AM | Reply | Flag:
(Choose)
| Newsworthy 1

The white schools that get more money?
The states get the block grants and decide where the money is distributed. If they screw up school boards and state governments will get voted out. That's how democracy (which you so cherish) is supposed to work.

#17 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-03-13 12:40 PM

#17 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Why do you bother to deny that MAGA is a racist movement?

Everyone knows that it is. Is there some residual benefit you think you get by lying about it?

#18 | Posted by Zed at 2025-03-13 12:45 PM

Who is screaming the loudest about this? The head of the teacher's union. That's all you need to know.

#16 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

You apparently enjoy seeing American Citizens suffer.

That's all I need to know.

#19 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-03-13 12:52 PM

Fish Odor evidently sees an nefarious element in the concerned voice of the head of (a) Teacher's Union. You know who I hear "screaming?" Those students 15-20 years from now who have difficulty reading /comprehending past a 6th Grade level in a progressively technical society. Left behind? More like kicked out of the car on the side of the road like a abandoned house pet. If your goal is a nation full of easily malleable nose-grinders, I couldn't think of a more sure way to accomplish that.

#20 | Posted by dutch46 at 2025-03-13 02:17 PM

I know I don't agree with the far left so that makes me a full on Nazi here. I am really a moderate and am torn on this topic.

Given that the statement that the state of education here in the States has not improved since the dept. of education was formed, why is it such a bad thing to cut it back? Please take this as an honest request for viewpoints that are meant to shed light on the topic and not an attempt at 'gotcha' question.

#21 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2025-03-13 02:39 PM

Hmm...National curriculum/teaching standards? Equitable funding in red-lined communities? I would imagine those two examples alone would suffice to most people, but when it became acceptable to put a college dropout wrestling promoter in charge of the education of our children, well...as Machiavelli advised, "Any excuse will serve a tyrant."

#22 | Posted by dutch46 at 2025-03-13 03:14 PM

"In 1979, only 31% of adults age 25 and over had completed some postsecondary education, compared to 62% in 2022."

www.google.com

That's quite the improvement.

But Republicans hate that improvement.... because today the best predictor of how someone votes isn't race or gender or income... it's their level of education. And people who vote Republican are the least educated people.

So the less the education, the more Republican voters there are.

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2025-03-13 03:16 PM

"The states get the block grants and decide where the money is distributed. If they screw up school boards and state governments will get voted out."

^
Libertaitan fantasy.

This is the same mindset that says we don't need an FDA, when companies sell poisoned food and people die, those companies will go out of business.

Nevermind that getting rid of the FDA is what killed those people in the first place.

It's like you don't understand cause and effect.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-03-13 03:24 PM

Has anyone checked Ohio to see if the Haitians were still eating the dogs and cats?

Or has that stopped thanks to Trump's presidency?

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-03-13 03:30 PM

"Given that the statement that the state of education here in the States has not improved since the dept. of education was formed, why is it such a bad thing to cut it back?"

So like when McClellan wasn't making enough progress, Lincoln should have cut McClelllan's budget.

When the Patriots were down 28 to 3 in the 3rd quarter, Belichick should have benched Brady.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-03-13 03:32 PM

www.snopes.com

According to testimony from Elaine Karmarck, the director of Clinton's initiative, it eliminated 426,200 federal roles between January 1993 and September 2000.

Seemed it was okay back then, so why no now...

Just one example: Back in 2000 NASA was still running the shuttle program and sending up all govt satellites and had approx 18k employees.

Fast forward to today where NASA pays Space X to send/return astronauts to ISS, plus also carrying a number of satellites for NASA, yet still has approx 18k employees...

ADDITIONAL INFO: In 2000, NASA's budget authority, or New Obligations Authority (NOA), was approximately $13.602 billion.

As of March 12, 2025, NASA's fiscal year 2024 budget is $24.875 billion, a 2% decrease from the $25.4 billion received in 2023.

So YES, we need to make cuts in govt programs that are fleecing the US Taxpayers as many of us pay those taxes, so are against Fraud, Waste and Abuse - unlike dems.

#27 | Posted by MSgt at 2025-03-13 03:40 PM

"it eliminated 426,200 federal roles between January 1993 and September 2000.

Seemed it was okay back then, so why no now..."

Because Clinton planned it carefully and did the downsizing over seven years.

Trump didn't plan at all and his Co-President Elon cancelled the Enola Gay because that program came up when he searched for "gay" programs to cancel.

The fact that you even ask what's different about layoffs planned over seven years and layoffs planned in a weekend by a ketamine junkie does not pass the smell test

You were alive during the Clinton years. You know the headlines weren't anything like what we are seeing today.

You really just enjoy being a fool. Are you one of the low IQ racial minorites?

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-03-13 03:48 PM

#27

You are being bamboozled yet again.

Here's why the Billionaires you have put in charge don't like Gov and Gov workers:

drudge.com

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2025-03-13 03:48 PM

"So YES, we need to make cuts in govt programs that are fleecing the US Taxpayers"

How about the govt program where Tesla pays no income tax. Should we be paying for that?

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-03-13 03:53 PM

According to testimony from Elaine Karmarck, the director of Clinton's initiative, it eliminated 426,200 federal roles between January 1993 and September 2000.
Seemed it was okay back then, so why no now...

You honestly don't see the difference between cutting the federal work force over a 7 year period after a review board was impaneled that gave their recommendations after a 6 months review, and Musk and his DOGE bros haphazardly cutting them in less than 60 days with no transparency and accountabliity? From the link you posted:

It's true that during his presidency, Clinton reduced the federal government's workforce by more than 377,000 employees as part of an initiative called the National Partnership for Reinventing Government (initially called the National Performance Review, or NPR). However, there's a key difference between how Clinton's NPR cut jobs and what Trump and Musk are trying.

In March 1993, just two months into his presidency, Clinton announced the creation of the National Performance Review, led by his Vice President, Al Gore. Its goal, according to Clinton's announcement, was "to make the entire Federal Government both less expensive and more efficient, and to change the culture of our national bureaucracy away from complacency and entitlement toward initiative and empowerment."

The review lasted six months, and made 384 recommendations to improve the federal bureaucracy. The implementation of those policies took a lot longer, and some required legislation to be passed through Congress. For instance, in 1994, Clinton signed a bill that offered federal workers buyouts of up to $25,000 in an effort to reduce the workforce by 272,000 employees. According to an April 1995 statement from Clinton, the buyouts were largely offered to management positions in an effort to "reduce the layers of bureaucracy and micromanagement that were tying Government in knots." That statement said that about 70 of the buyouts in non-Department of Defense agencies went to managers and other individuals "at higher grade levels."

The initiative continued to make recommendations for government reform. According to a 1999 article on an archived version of NPR's website, it reduced the federal workforce by 351,000 between 1993 and 1998. An archived FAQ page from 2000 said 377,000 jobs were cut between 1993 and 1999. In a 2013 appearance before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, former National Performance Review leader Elaine Karmarck said the agency cut 426,200 jobs by September 2000.

Nobody is against reducing fraud, waste and abuse in the federal government, but that's not what's happenin here.

#31 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2025-03-13 03:59 PM

"You honestly don't see the difference"

He sees the difference.

He is bringing it up for no other reason than to muddy the waters.

These people just lie, and distort, and live to smell their own political farts.

They think their farts are clever too.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-03-13 04:02 PM

"He sees the difference."

Or he doesn't and also doesn't realize other people aren't as naive and gullible as he is.

#33 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2025-03-13 04:06 PM

"Clinton's initiative, it eliminated 426,200 federal roles between January 1993 and September 2000.

Seemed it was okay back then, so why no now..."

So you are forced to pretend you can't tell the difference between doing things the right way and doing things haphazardly and illegally.

What an absolute failure of a man you grew up to be.

"U.S. District Judge William Alsup described the mass firings as a sham' strategy by the government's central human resources office .." drudge.com

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-03-13 04:23 PM

How does this benefit anyone?

#35 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-03-13 04:30 PM

I mean, all this is being done to benefit billionaires by providing them with an additional tax cut that they don't need.

#36 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-03-13 04:33 PM

ending this money sucking travesty will be the best thing for education since Horace Mann

you dopes and morons don't know what the F you're talking about.

--as usual.

#37 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2025-03-13 07:12 PM

@#37 ... you dopes and morons don't know what the F you're talking about. ...

Yeah, at this point, I'd proffer that your current alias may want to refrain on that "you dopes and morons" mantra.

Jus' sayin'

#38 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-13 07:20 PM

How does this benefit anyone?
#35 | Posted by truthhurts

Who does it hurt? Literally who? America education system is in total collapse.

#39 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-03-13 07:55 PM

So you are forced to pretend you can't tell the difference between doing things the right way and doing things haphazardly and illegally.

At this point, I am not sure a National Performance Review would even get through congress. Schumer would sit on it.

So then were are we?

#40 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-03-13 07:57 PM

One thing I find most curious about this discussion forum is ... what alias seem to show up after an alias may have been countered.

Most interesting.

#41 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-13 08:16 PM

@#39 ... Who does it hurt? Literally who? ...

So... your current alias' view of government seems to focus upon who does government hurt, rather than who does it benefit?

Good to know.

#42 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-13 08:54 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

CDC: Autism Rates have Risen (111 comments)

Lisa Murkowski: 'We Are All Afraid' of Retaliation (86 comments)

Senator Blocked from Visiting Abrego Garcia in El Salvador (76 comments)

Harvard Rejects 'Unprecedented' Trump Demands over Funding (62 comments)

Mass Shooting at Florida State University (31 comments)

Speaker Johnson Is Eyeing Big Cuts to Medicaid (29 comments)

SCOTUS Takes Challenge to Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order (24 comments)

Blue Origin Flight Showcases Utter Defeat of US Feminism (22 comments)

Trump Bars AP from White House Despite Court Order (22 comments)

Trump Seeks Criminal Prosecution of NY Attorney General (21 comments)