Podcast Summary: Hold These Truths with Dan Crenshaw

Episode: Eliminate the Department of Education? A Conversation with Dr. Beth Akers
Date: February 8, 2025
Host: Dan Crenshaw
Guest: Dr. Beth Akers, American Enterprise Institute

Episode Overview

This episode tackles the heated political proposal to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), a topic raised in recent policy circles and embraced by some conservatives. Congressman Dan Crenshaw invites economist Dr. Beth Akers to untangle what the Department of Education does, the reality behind calls for its abolition, and what meaningful education reform could look like. The conversation balances myth-busting, practical policy discussion, and a critique of current federal interventions in education, particularly student loan programs.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Origins and Role of the Department of Education

• DOE was established in 1979 to centralize the administration of federal educational funding and programs, including those that previously existed under other agencies.
  • (01:31, Dr. Akers): “Almost all of these programs that we currently think of as being really core to what federal intervention in education is today, they mostly existed before the creation of the federal Department of Education.”
• Federal involvement in K-12 is minimal, deliberately designed so, while higher education intervention is largely through financing (student loans, Pell Grants).
• Public Perception: Eliminating DOE is often confused with eliminating federal educational support, which creates unnecessary public anxiety.

2. What Programs Does DOE Administer?

• Federal Student Loans & Pell Grants: The DOE is one of the nation’s largest lenders.
  • (03:13, Dr. Akers): “Federal financial aid is housed at the Department of Education... This is a tremendous loan program that puts the Department of Education as one of the largest lenders in the nation.”
• K-12 Special Education & School Lunches: Federal rules (especially for special ed) can be felt on the ground but are a minor share of total school funding.
  • (06:01, Crenshaw): “Special ed has federal rules around it... school lunch programs comes up. That’s it.”

3. Arguments for and Against Eliminating DOE

• Not Ending Programs: Eliminating the DOE would not end federal education programs; responsibility would shift to other agencies like Treasury or IRS.
• Decentralization: Proponents argue for a return of control to states to limit federal overreach.
• Reality Check:
  • (09:39, Crenshaw): “Nothing will change in your life if this happens... DI is and go away. That’s all coming from your school boards.”
  • (10:00, Dr. Akers): “4,000 people at Department education.”
• Legal Reality: Only Congress can actually abolish DOE; the President doesn’t have unilateral authority.

4. Federal Funding's Actual Impact on Schools

• Federal Share: Only about 10% of K-12 funding is federal; most is state/local.
  • (11:10, Dr. Akers): “Something like 10% of K12 education resources come from federal funding. So the rest... is state and local supported.”

5. Student Loans and Higher Education Reform

• Current Issues:
  • The federal student loan system lacks accountability for colleges.
  • Student loan forgiveness disproportionately benefits higher-income borrowers (e.g., those with graduate degrees).
    • (18:23, Crenshaw): “It overwhelmingly benefited people with master’s degrees.”
    • (21:16, Dr. Akers): “Interest rate, I think, was around 3% currently higher for graduate student loans.”
• Proposed Reforms:
  • Skin in the Game: Colleges should be responsible for student outcomes (repayment ability, employment).
    • (16:41, Crenshaw): “Skin in the game... colleges have to have skin in the game.”
    • (30:05, Crenshaw): “Responsible for a student’s success. That just seems to make sense.”
  • Graduated Loan Limits/Interest Rates: Rates should reflect major and expected earnings.
    • (15:19, Crenshaw): “Your major, for instance… should dictate your interest rate.”
  • CCRA Bill (Foxx): Accountability for institutions, streamlined repayment options, restricting access to federal funds for underperforming colleges; not all legislative pieces are perfect but head in the right direction.

6. Tuition Inflation and the Bennett Hypothesis

• Increased Federal Aid Drives Prices: Evidence shows easy access to student loans inflates college costs.
  • (27:04, Dr. Akers): “Availability of federal credit has affected graduate school pricing… almost a one for one increase in the availability of credit and the increase in the price.”
• Endowment Tax: Taxing university endowments could help fund reforms and encourage responsible spending, especially for wealthier institutions.

7. Pell Grants, Accreditation, and Expanding Aid Beyond Traditional Colleges

• Pell Grants: Can support community colleges and some trade/vocational programs, though accreditation is a barrier.
• Accreditation Problem: Accreditors are often self-regulated, preserving status quo and blocking innovation.
  • (35:32, Dr. Akers): “This monopoly of accreditors… made up of exactly who you think it’s made up of, which is the academics that all come from the Ivy League schools.”
• Short-Term Pell: Allowing Pell to fund short-term, skills-based training (e.g., pipe fitting) is proposed as a logical reform.
• More Competition: Regulatory change could open the gate for more innovative education providers.

8. K-12 School Choice and Structural Issues

• School Choice: Increased parental choice (vouchers, charters) is seen as an innovation driver.
  • Critiques include concerns about resource draining from public schools, equity, and implementation.
  • (42:18, Dr. Akers): “The force is advantaging people who are already advantaged… the systemic level is to raise all institutions.”
• Teacher Unions: Discussed as a possible barrier to innovation and competition.

9. Curriculum & Federal vs. Local Control

• Local Decision-Making: Most curriculum disputes are local/state issues, not federal DOE mandates.
  • (48:48, Dr. Akers): “I want to see local governments deciding what should be taught in their schools.”
• Practical Reforms Suggested: Closer alignment between schools and local labor markets; more flexible pathways for students.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Federal Overreach and Messaging:
  • Crenshaw (09:39): "Nothing will change in your life if this happens... That’s why we've been spending the last few years telling you to run for school board elections, because that's where it happens."
• On Student Debt Cancellation:
  • Akers (18:27): “For the vast majority of people, college pays off huge dividends... most people who have done it are, you know, it’s paying for them.”
• On Federal Funding Impact:
  • Akers (11:10): “Something like 10% of K12 education resources come from federal funding.”
• On College Outcomes:
  • Akers (21:16): “The effective rate of return on [a bachelor’s degree] is tremendous. I would love to borrow $30,000 at a subsidized interest rate…”
• On Accreditors and Innovation:
  • Crenshaw (35:32): “This monopoly of accreditors… is made up of exactly who you think it’s made up of, which is the academics that all come from the Ivy League schools.”
• On Educational Prosperity:
  • Akers (37:17): “Plumbers are going to be the new millionaires.”
• On Legislative Reality:
  • Akers (12:36): “If this is a change we really wanted, this is a change that would have to happen through legislation… My sense is that there’s not support in Congress to do this.”
• On Broader Reform:
  • Akers (53:46): “Let’s keep an eye on this for what it is, which is a possibility for entering a phase of streamlining what might be an inefficient agency, but really keep our eye on the bigger prize, which is more meaningful reform of the actual programs that touch Americans lives.”

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:31] – Creation, necessity, and scope of the Department of Education
• [03:13] – Overview of major DOE-administered programs
• [06:01] – Actual influence of DOE on K-12 schools
• [09:39] – Addressing misconceptions about elimination; legal realities
• [10:00] – DOE staffing levels (Approx. 4,000 employees)
• [11:10] – Federal funding as a minority of K-12 school budgets
• [15:19] – Student loan reform proposals (tied to major/career prospects)
• [21:16] – Student loan interest rates and effective return on investment
• [27:04] – Research on federal aid's effect on tuition
• [35:32] – Problems with accreditation and barriers to innovation
• [42:18] – School choice and its systemic effects
• [48:48] – Why local governments (not DOE) should run curriculum
• [53:46] – Summing up: streamlining DOE vs. real reform

Tone, Style, and Final Thoughts

The conversation is frank, accessible, and fact-driven, with Crenshaw’s direct style counterbalanced by Dr. Akers’ economic perspective and data-based arguments. Both seek to correct common misconceptions and refocus the debate on what really matters: accountability in education funding and empowering local innovation. The consensus is skeptical about the symbolic calls to eliminate the DOE, urging instead a shift to substantive reform of how public funds are used to support American education at all levels.