← Hold These Truths with Dan Crenshaw
Hold These Truths with Dan Crenshaw
Eliminate the Department of Education? A Conversation with Dr. Beth Akers
00:53:53
Following this week’s major reforms at USAID, the Trump Administration has signaled that the Department of Education (DoEd) is next on the chopping block. Education expert Dr. Beth Akers joined Rep. Crenshaw to discuss the implications of...
Loading summary
Transcript325 lines
- [00:00]
A
We hold these truths to be self.
- [00:02]
B
Evident that all men are created. As a member of Congress, I get to have a lot of really interesting people in the office, experts on what they're talking about. This is the podcast for insights into the issues. China, bioterrorism, Medicare for all. In depth discussions, breaking it down into simple terms.
- [00:18]
A
We hold. We hold.
- [00:19]
B
We hold these truths. We hold these truths. With Dan Crenshaw. The eagle has landed. Welcome back to hold these Truths. Best podcast ever. Give it five stars.
- [00:29]
This is a. This is a timely conversation because you've heard a lot about on the news, is eliminating. Eliminating a number of things at warp speed, but one of them being the Department of Education. And look, this dates all the way back to the Reagan days. He wanted to eliminate the Department of Education was unsuccessful. It was created in 1979. I believe Trump has even said that his Department of education nominee, Linda McMan, should put herself out of a job. And so I want to unpack what the heck this department even does. Does it affect people when you put the word education in something and also elimination, it scares the heck out of people. So we have an expert with us today, Dr. Beth Akers from American Enterprise Institute. Thanks for being with us.
- [01:12]
A
Thanks so much for having me.
- [01:13]
B
I think, I think I want to do a 101 first. I mean, what does the Department of Education do.
- [01:23]
Again? Like I said, you put education and elimination in the same sentence and people are like, well, you're trying to eliminate education. Of course there was none. Did I get that right? 1979.
- [01:32]
A
That's exactly right.
- [01:33]
B
So there was nothing before that. People were educated somehow. Yes, our founders were very well educated. They didn't have, like, it's, it's. They didn't have Internet or anything. So what.
- [01:46]
What'S the layman's explanation of what the Department of Education actually does?
- [01:51]
A
I would say that basically, you take all of the federal funding, federal programs that revolve around education, K12 and higher ed, and they're all administered now through what is the federal Department of Education. So it's worth noting that 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. So as you noted, 1979, 1980 is when we really had Department of Education. And so these programs were collected in one place and administered centrally there. What's also worth noting, though, is a lot of education policy is really directed at the state level. And so Federal intervention for K12 education is somewhat minimal at this point, by design. At the higher education level, a lot of the intervention is what we think of as the financing system for higher ed.
- [02:45]
B
Yeah, that's interesting. Like you said, a lot of these programs preexisted. They were just administered where? I don't know, through the White House, through something kind of irrelevant, I guess, to our current conversation. But can we do some examples, just so people have an idea of what we're even talking about? What sort of programs?
- [03:03]
A
Well, so the thing that's near and dear to my heart, a lot of my research is on higher ed finance and student loans in particular.
- [03:08]
B
So all their student loan programs, Pelt grants, Pell grants, all that that comes through doe.
- [03:13]
A
Yeah, that's exactly right. And so federal financial aid is housed at the Department of Education. There's a lot of question of whether or not even should be. And this is something I've been writing about for a long time. This is a tremendous loan program that puts the Department of Education as one of the largest lenders in the nation, which is not really even what people think of as what the Department of Education is. And so I'm sort of foreshadowing here. Should we be even having this conversation of. Are all these activities that have been congregated at the federal Department of Education, Are they really even appropriate to be there? Some of them, yes. Some. Them of some, no. And I think that's why it's reasonable to be having this conversation.
- [03:49]
B
Yeah. And we get into some details on, like, okay, so where would you. We don't. The argument isn't to get rid of student loan programs.
- [03:56]
A
Right.
- [03:56]
B
So where do you put them? If we just all of a sudden didn't have a DOE administration?
- [04:01]
A
Yeah. Where do we go?
- [04:02]
B
Where do you go? Yeah. Where does the.
- [04:03]
A
So I think what you said first, though, is really important to reiterate because, I mean, there's a lot of hysteria over this point when it. First, I think Project 2025 put this back on the, you know, national, like, mainstream media discussion points of, oh, no, we're gon. And there was the sense that came with that, that this was going to be the end of all federal intervention in education. And that's not at all the case. There's good reason to move a lot of these programs. I think some of the idea behind it was, of course, that decentralizing power back to states and getting federal government out of, particularly in the K12 system. This could achieve some of that. But things like the lending program would very naturally fit at Other agencies. I'd love to see it move to treasury or the irs. Basically an AGENC that has a lot more economists and is much more adapt at handling these tremendously large financial portfolios that really just. The Department of Education has not historically been staffed to do what else?
- [05:00]
B
Student loans. I mean there's, there's all sorts of education grants. What are some of the bigger ones?
- [05:06]
A
Right. So the Pell Grant program runs through the federal Department of Education. The accountability regimes that we have for higher ed institutions, accreditation, that is the, you know, the, basically the, the gatekeeping for federal funds. It all happens at the of education.
- [05:22]
B
But I want to get more specific. Like what, like what kind of grant programs do we generally authorize and is. I want people to under. I want people listening to understand like okay, like what? Literally like what, where does. What's happening here? Because I'll talk to my teachers and my district and superintendents just to ask them how does the federal government affect you all? And the answer is usually nothing really. We, you know, it's, we're run by the state.
- [05:48]
A
That's right.
- [05:49]
B
You know, where there's the, there's special ed.
- [05:51]
A
Right.
- [05:52]
B
Special ed has federal rules around it. It annoys all the schools that I talk to. They think they're too restrictive, they're not enough. Freedom school lunch programs comes up. That's it.
- [06:02]
A
Yeah.
- [06:02]
B
You know, so I, you know it's, it's a, it's important to get some truth out to people. Like the Department of Education is not ruining your kids education or curriculum. That's your state, that's your, that's your left leaning state or county that is screwing them up and that needs. Or maybe the counterargument would be maybe there are some grant programs that say hey, you won't get this money unless you do this stupid stuff. Is that true?
- [06:28]
A
Well, perhaps. But none of this conversation, we don't have any examples. I mean none of the conversation about closing the department has anything to do with ending these programs. So my assumption is that anything that's existing would just be transferred to being administered somewhere else. And so yes, the biggest area of concern that I've heard from, from people Americans is the programs for special education in the K12 level. Pell Grant programs would continue. They're sort of baked into federal financial aid as a package with a student lending program. There's absolutely no conversation about taking funds away from those. Or if there is, it's a totally separate conversation.
- [07:03]
B
So yeah, it seems to be a. I don't know, it's.
- [07:08]
I think just at a. It's been a longstanding Republican talking point to get rid of the Department of. And I, I, it's not, it's not one I use a whole lot. I'm like, yeah, sure, I agree with it. I mean, they're a bunch of bureaucrats. I'm not sure what they do.
- [07:25]
A
Right.
- [07:25]
B
And the way I describe it to people is basically as you just described it. I said, look, it's a pass through for grants. In theory, anyone could administer those grants. That's what it's supposed to do. I, I'm curious what the, what, what was the logic in the 1970s of like, why we need a Department of Education? Was, was there, was there some idea that, that there would be a. Because this is another thing. I think it does. I'm not really sure, but it's supposed to sort of take all of the best.
- [07:51]
I guess, education tactics or, you know, teaching methods, let's say, put them into one place and do studies and say, look, this. And that's probably what it does play. Funds a lot of studies and says like, this works. This type of teaching methodology works well and.
- [08:05]
A
Right.
- [08:06]
B
And this is why you should. What's that new math they do now? Which is really stupid, but in my opinion, I don't know who came up with that, but I don't know. Is that the Department of Education that has that idea or is that just what schools started doing? I don't know. Yeah, but was, was that one of the reasons they created it in the first place? To be sort of like a centralized point where all the best ideas come and then flow back out? Is that.
- [08:27]
A
Well, I think it's not a crazy idea. I mean, we think of education as being a core part of American values and what we should be investing in. I think there was a bit of a disconnect between the idea that so much of our education system is decentralized and so the idea of congregating federal programs in one place may have made sense at one time. I think the reason it makes sense to have this conversation is because that there's a sense that there has been federal overreach into both K12 in higher education. And so does dissolving the federal Department of Education actually address that explicitly? Maybe not, but it certainly sends a strong message. It takes away likely some of the staff who are making strides towards that end, which we may not believe is the appropriate way for setting policy and law in education. So, you know, the problem with this conversation is it's a lot more about rhetoric than it is about making actual changes on the ground. You know, very likely we're gonna see all the programs and the staff that work those programs move to different agencies and they'll be administering them there. So are we sort of, you know, chopping, you know, like, them to, like, take away some of the power by separating them and moving them to different buildings? Maybe. But, you know, if we want to talk about those changes, like, there's probably a lot more important.
- [09:40]
B
Yeah, we need to talk about what the. We need to talk about what the changes.
- [09:43]
A
Exactly.
- [09:43]
B
And. And so this is a little bit of a reality check. That's why I want to do this podcast, because I. I'm not sure what people think. What happens? Let's say you just make it disappear. I'm not sure what benefit people think happens. I mean, you're. You're eliminating some federal jobs. Like how many federal jobs? I don't even know.
- [09:59]
A
4,000 people at Department education.
- [10:01]
B
It seems like a lot.
- [10:01]
A
It's a lot of people.
- [10:03]
B
An excessive number of people to do whatever that is this job is.
- [10:07]
A
Yes. I mean, look, it's all subjective, right? Like, how many people should be at a department education? If we have education, we can all disagree on the number, but I think it's very likely because of the incentives that exist in this space that they're overstaffed and inefficient to some degree. And so can there be a streamlining process that would make taxpayer dollars go farther, you know, for all things that we think are important? Most likely, yes.
- [10:32]
B
How many just for. For parents who really just care about The K through 12 stuff? What. What are some of our. Just forget Department of Education. Let's talk about our programs generally that we spend money on. It's not my committee, so I'm not super aware of this, but like, And. And maybe sometimes teachers and even superintendents aren't exactly aware of where their money's coming from. But if you just removed. Let's say you did actually chop it all away.
- [10:59]
A
Yeah.
- [10:59]
B
What Does K through 12 really feel? I. I understand there's special ed rules, and I assume special ed money, so that's one thing.
- [11:08]
A
Yep.
- [11:09]
B
Was there anything else that actually.
- [11:11]
A
Something like 10% of K12 education resources come from federal funding. So the rest of it is state and local supported.
- [11:18]
B
But is it usually given to states directly and then it's resourced from there? The school wouldn't really know which. Which pot of money is coming from where?
- [11:26]
A
I can't say that for sure. And I think that Special education might be a place where some of that funding is directed from the federal level, but it's a bit outside of my lane. But yeah, I mean, in effect, I think the answer is it's not a huge, it's not a huge impact.
- [11:39]
B
It's about 10%.
- [11:40]
A
Yeah.
- [11:42]
B
And you know, because our schools are, at least in Texas, I mean, they're funded through property taxes there. It's, it's managed by the state, it's spread out by the state so that rich counties don't just get all the money and it's still spread to poorer counties.
- [11:59]
You know, it's not obvious what federal education reform even looks like.
- [12:04]
What. But so obviously one idea is just getting rid of the photo department. That's one, that's one reform.
- [12:10]
A
Yep.
- [12:11]
B
But I just, I like it for expectation management. It's like, what, what benefits do you get? Besides, you're kind of telling me that the, the benefit is sort of feeling good about streamlining a bureaucracy.
- [12:24]
A
Right.
- [12:24]
B
We're not.
- [12:25]
A
But, but it's not clear that's going to happen necessarily anyway that's gonna, gonna happen.
- [12:30]
B
It's also not clear to me that the president would have authority to just shut it down. Yes.
- [12:37]
A
So this is probably the most important point. And so obviously watching what the President has done with usaid, there is a greater sense today that maybe the president may use executive authority to intervene in what's happening at the Department of Education. Whether or not that would sustain a legal challenge is unclear. But I mean, what I'm saying is that in the long run, 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. You may have a better sense than I do about that one, but it doesn't seem like it is a priority and not. I think it really should be a priority because I think that there are really bigger fish to fry in this space and I'd love to see, you know, lawmakers attention focused on, you know, fixing some of the, you know, higher priority challenges we have.
- [13:20]
B
Yeah. You know, it's. Yeah. Again, it's important to tell constituents like it's, nothing will change in your life if this happens. That that's important to note like DI is and go away.
- [13:31]
A
Right.
- [13:31]
B
That's all coming from your school boards. That's why, that's why we've been spending the last few years telling you to run for school board elections, because that's, that's where it happens.
- [13:38]
A
Right.
- [13:40]
B
And so you know, get rid of it, don't get rid of it. It is. It is what it is. You're. You're definitely not going to hear anybody argue to get rid of Pell grants and things like that.
- [13:47]
A
Right. That's not the table.
- [13:48]
B
So then what, what should be the focus then? If, if we're thinking about better education? Because again, if people look at this a little, there's a lot of single variable analysis that happens.
- [13:59]
A
Yeah.
- [13:59]
B
Since the Department of Education was created, you know, our statistics on education have gone down, therefore it is its fault. And if we get rid of it, our statistics will go back up. That's single variable analysis. Not very good critical thinking.
- [14:12]
A
Right.
- [14:13]
B
Clearly, education is more complicated than that. Like what? You work on this full time then? Like, what should we be focused on?
- [14:18]
A
Well, I'm an economist, so I feel obligated to. To tell you correlation is not causation, in other words. Right. My sense is that I would like to see the priority in reform and higher ed finance right now. And so, like I said, the dollars coming out for K12 are smaller. And I think the biggest mess that we have to clean up right now is on higher ed finance. The Biden administration really deconstructed the federal lending program, took away all accountability for colleges for students themselves in borrowing. And I think we're on the precipice of a huge default crisis in student loans. That's sort of my administrative making more so than even a financial one. So there's been a lot of good thinking in Congress, both the House and the Senate, on reform for both the accountability and lending programs. I think those need to be really at the top of mind.
- [15:07]
B
Yeah, I think so, too. I mean, just looking at it simplistically, again, I'm not on the committee that does this full time, but it seems to me like your, your major, for instance, that you choose should dictate your interest rate.
- [15:19]
A
That's right.
- [15:20]
B
That's a good idea.
- [15:21]
A
Yeah.
- [15:21]
B
I'm not sure there's a bill that does that.
- [15:23]
A
Yeah. Well, I'll tell you, you know, I answered a lot of media phone calls in the aftermath of President Biden's decision to start canceling student loans. And one of the questions that, you know, I found that people didn't realize was this idea that we're continuing to fund colleges year after year through both Pell Grants and availability of student loans, even in instances when students were coming out year after year after year with no access to jobs, no access to earnings.
- [15:47]
B
And so the schools don't Care. There's no accountability. No accountability, is there? Virginia Fox has a particular piece of legislation.
- [15:55]
A
That's right.
- [15:56]
B
Pretty familiar with. Maybe talk about that.
- [15:57]
A
Yeah, for sure. So CCRA is a piece of legislation coming from the House. I wish I knew the.
- [16:04]
B
Something about education.
- [16:05]
A
Education. Something. Yeah. So education reform, basically, it's a package. It's sort of a comprehensive take on, you know, how do you get the incentives right in this space? First, it's accountability for colleges. So colleges right now are kind of winning in that, you know, colleges are. Or the students are struggling. They can't pay back their loans when they finish. Taxpayers are struggling because they're picking up the bill for all of this and they're kind of riding high. And so what this legislation would do is to say, look, we need to get colleges paying the price when their students are coming out and not able to afford to repay those debts. So that's a piece of it. Part of it is putting some limits on what people.
- [16:40]
B
Skin in the game. The simple answer.
- [16:42]
A
Skin in the game.
- [16:43]
B
We talk about a lot. Bumper stucker slogan. But colleges have to have skin in the game.
- [16:47]
A
Yeah.
- [16:47]
B
This is a. There's a way to do that.
- [16:49]
A
Yep, exactly. Under the Biden administration, we saw an expansion of the repayment programs that students have access to. It's a convoluted mass. People who are really far up in the income distribution don't have to pay back their loans. So you're doing quite well. College paid for you, but you still. Still don't have to pay back your loans.
- [17:05]
B
That's ridiculous.
- [17:05]
A
We got to get rid of that.
- [17:06]
B
Infuriating. And is there any way to claw back? I mean, like some people. This is a legal challenge that. That should. It's. It's such. It's such an illegal move. I like. It's. It's. If there was anything impeachable under Biden, I think this was. This was a major one.
- [17:22]
A
Yeah.
- [17:23]
B
I'm not. One thing we're not talking about is how to claw that back or if there's a way to. We are trying to gain money for reconciliation and tax cuts. So this would be a good place to look. And I assume that that particular committee is going to be assigned to maybe look at that, but.
- [17:39]
A
Yeah.
- [17:40]
B
Are you advising them? How would they. How would they do it?
- [17:42]
A
Yes, absolutely. So basically putting limits on this, you know, making it so that, you know, the benefits of not repaying your loans are really restricted to people who are actually struggling financially. I mean, but that's.
- [17:52]
B
In the future. I Mean, what about what Biden's already done?
- [17:54]
A
Oh, you know, this is a tough one. I think it's really hard to change the contract terms that like Americans have once they've already been changed. I mean, a lot of the debts have been forgiven. I mean, that's money out the door and that's done and gone. I mean, I don't see us turning around. I don't see lawmakers turning around and saying, yes, we told you, your loan is forgiven. But just kidding now. Yeah, just kidding.
- [18:13]
B
I mean, I do it.
- [18:14]
A
You.
- [18:15]
B
Because. Because it is. I mean, you tell me the statistics on this. It overwhelmingly benefited people with master's degrees. It's not your struggling.
- [18:24]
A
Yes.
- [18:25]
B
I mean, it's just. It just is percentage wise. But you tell me what the numbers are.
- [18:28]
A
This is something I've been saying for years. So, you know, when people first started getting hysterical about the student loan crisis, I crunched the numbers to see, like, how are people actually doing here? And what we see is that for the vast majority of people, college pays off huge dividends. And so if you've got a loan, it's likely you've also got a degree that gets you access to a really good paying job. Yes. There are people who are struggling and maybe the people. The number.
- [18:50]
B
They probably chose a really bad major.
- [18:51]
A
They probably chose. Yeah. I mean, it could be through fault of their own. Through no fault of their own. I mean, there are people who are struggling and we should have programs that support them. But we have long had programs that support them. You know, people who are not making enough money to repay their loans for a decade now.
- [19:08]
B
They call. You can call our office. That's one of the. That's one of the things our caseworkers do. Like, let's help you find the programs. We are.
- [19:14]
A
Your right.
- [19:15]
B
I always tell people, one of those. We have multiple jobs in Congress. One is we have to vote. We have to vote. And two, or your customer service. Or customer service agent for the federal government.
- [19:24]
A
Yeah.
- [19:25]
B
Most people just call because they forgot that they didn't renew their passport and to travel the next day.
- [19:30]
A
That sounds like me. Yeah.
- [19:31]
B
Yeah, yeah. Well, we've become very good at that. Thank God we have good relationships with the Passport office of Houston. But anyway, yeah, that's. Yeah, there's programs and by. And just said screw it.
- [19:40]
A
All right. Well, I think there was like a political advantage to portraying people with student loans as being these victims of something.
- [19:47]
B
Everybody's a victim.
- [19:48]
A
Everyone's a Democrat parlance.
- [19:50]
B
So.
- [19:50]
A
But what that did is really Hurt the people.
- [19:52]
B
Sorry, not everyone. Yeah, we're not victims. No, they have their classes of victims.
- [19:57]
A
Yeah, that's right. Yes, but. And student.
- [19:59]
B
We like to bribe them for votes.
- [20:01]
A
Yeah, Student borrowers are the victim class here.
- [20:03]
B
A lot of doctors and lawyers and peoples with master, people with math. Peoples. Why do I keep seeing peoples? People with master's degrees.
- [20:09]
A
Yeah.
- [20:09]
B
So.
- [20:10]
A
But the problem with that is not an economic problem so much as I think it's a psychological problem, which I'm out over my skis here. I'm not a psychologist, but clearly people feel like they're really in trouble. I was shocked when the polling came out for student loan cancellation because I thought, oh, surely the more than half of Americans who don't have college degrees are not going to fall for this. Right. They're going to think, I pay my bills, I take out a loan, I pay it back. I'm not going to be on board. Turns out Americans are convinced that if you've got a student loan, you are a victim in a sense. And it's, financially speaking, not at all true.
- [20:41]
B
Yeah. Well, give us some numbers on that.
- [20:43]
A
Yeah. So a typical borrower coming out of an undergrad program has about a $30,000 debt from the federal government. People will tell you it's six figures. It's not. The federal loan limits restrict it to be about 30,000. A bit more if you're an independent student. We know on average a bachelor's degree pays about a million dollars. Additional earnings over the course of your lifetime. The effective rate of return on that is tremendous. I would love to borrow $30,000 at a subsidized interest rate from the federal government to make that investment. And, you know, most people who have done it are, you know, it's paying for them. We are seeing.
- [21:15]
B
What is the interest rate?
- [21:17]
A
Interest rate, I think, was around 3% currently higher for graduate student loans, you know, higher for unsub loans.
- [21:23]
B
Good interest rate. It's like. It's almost to the point where, like, okay, if I'm saving up for college for my daughter, I might tell her to get a loan because I'd rather use that money and get a big bigger return on it.
- [21:32]
A
Absolutely. I tell. I mean, I tell everybody I know his kids are going to college. They should borrow every penny, whether they have it in their bank account or not, in part because they're likely to have it forgiven if we end up with another Democratic president.
- [21:44]
B
It's illegal.
- [21:45]
A
Yeah, well, there's that, but it's not the responsibility of Americans. You know, it's the responsibility of lawmakers to make sure that doesn't happen.
- [21:54]
B
We'll keep going on the numbers. I have another question, but keep going.
- [21:57]
A
Yeah. So, you know, so essentially we have seen an increase in the amount that people are borrowing, the amount of defaults that we're seeing. So there is a problem.
- [22:04]
B
And who benefits? I mean, what I really wanted to get at is like, okay, so on average about $30,000 in debt. But like, who has that, who has that debt? That's another key point.
- [22:14]
A
Well, okay, so I think this goes to the next issue. So you mentioned, is it the higher income people who are benefiting from this cancellation? What we see is that the high balance borrowers tend to be people with the most education. Right. You go to medical school, you go to law school, mba, you have a lot of debt. These are the people who are disproportionately benefiting from the forgiveness plans that happened under President Biden's administration. And so, you know, that's the biggest concern. I'm not opposed to bailing out people who get in trouble, whether it's, you know, their fault or, you know, the system's fault, whatever it is.
- [22:44]
B
Yeah.
- [22:45]
A
Problem I have is when we've got.
- [22:46]
B
But again, there's already programs for that.
- [22:48]
A
That's right. People who are, you know, my economic peers, people who have professional degrees, who are working good jobs, you know, they should be paying back their loans. And you know, CCRA does that and that, that's, that's the direction I think we need to head in.
- [23:00]
B
Yeah. I mean, as far as the popularity of it, you know, the, my sense was that there was overwhelming support against it. Maybe that's just the Republican sense.
- [23:11]
A
Yeah.
- [23:12]
B
You know, the Republican voters weren't really falling for it.
- [23:15]
A
Right.
- [23:15]
B
That's for sure. And I, I got a different sense that, that it was very unpopular, but.
- [23:20]
A
I think people soured on it over time. Yeah, the initial polling was more positive than I expected, but I think people did sort to sour on the idea.
- [23:27]
B
There is, I mean, you could make the argument on the, for, for, for medicine, for, for doctors, that, that there is a problem because the, the payments aren't as good and the many, many, many years before you even start getting paid. Well, it's forcing people into specialty, specialty practices that frankly, we don't need more of, we need more primary care physicians.
- [23:52]
A
Right.
- [23:52]
B
You know, not loan forgiveness, but at least on programs that address that. But that's a scalpel approach that you can't just.
- [23:58]
A
Well, here's the deal. So basically you Know, there are dozens of instances where you think like, oh, the loan program is not working for this reason. And you just cited one of them. I think what we've tried to do with higher ed finance in general is say, let's fix all of the policy problems that we have that have to do with education, employment, workforce, using this really blunt tool of student lending. I mean, it's the wrong approach. Like, is there a problem with the availability of primary care doctors? Yes. What is, like the economic textbooks tell you when there's a shortage of primary care doctors, subsidize primary care. Don't create a lending program that has all these terms and generous forgiveness provisions. Give them a tax credit, pay them more, you know, whatever it is. And so we kind of go down this road of saying we have to leave the program intact as it is, continue to make graduate loans unrestricted, which is the status quo, because we have these challenges. I think we need to get away from that and putting limits. I think even getting rid of entirely graduate student lending. That's one of the biggest problems. We talk about where the money is going from the forgiveness. So much of it is going to graduate programs, in part because a lot of them don't pay. You know, these are really low return programs, typically outside of the professional degree programs that we talked about. So this is. This is a big area of concern.
- [25:12]
B
Well, that gets to my point about having different interest rates for different types of programs. I mean, if. So if you want to be a lawyer or you want to be a doctor. Okay, well, we know you're going to pay that money back.
- [25:23]
A
Yeah.
- [25:24]
B
If you want to get a master's degree in. Well, frankly, like education, for instance, I don't know. I don't know what the return is on that.
- [25:31]
A
So it's not.
- [25:32]
B
It's not so good.
- [25:33]
A
Yeah. Yeah.
- [25:34]
B
Or a variety of other master's degrees. And. Yeah, maybe there. Maybe there shouldn't be loans for that. So I'm a higher interest loan.
- [25:42]
A
I'm with you on this interest rate thing. Right. So in private markets, they fluctuate interest rates, and that tells us something about the risk we're facing. Right. It's like, you know, Visa tells me my interest rate is going to be 21%, I think twice about buying that thing that I don't probably really need. Right. So we don't do that. That's been a policy decision in higher ed. The problem I have with moving that direction is I don't love the chances that the federal government is going to get this right. And so what I would like to see is that we do get into a system where we're underwriting student loans, but that it's coming from the private sector. So to me the easiest place to do that to start is with graduate loans. We've kind of baked in this idea that you can borrow for undergrad. But I think graduate school is the place where we can say like look, these are programs that statistically are not paying. Borrowers are getting huge payouts from the forgiveness program. It's costing a ton of money.
- [26:32]
B
How much? Give us an idea.
- [26:33]
A
I can't tell you the exact figures, but I know that's a tremendous cost savings at this point if we were to constrain graduate lending, even just put caps on it, because right now you're limited only by the cost of attendance. So colleges can charge whatever they want and that basically determines how much the federal government and taxpayers are going to pay you to go get this degree that's not going to pay off.
- [26:55]
B
And of course what all this causes too is higher tuition. We see a correlation between higher tuition and.
- [27:05]
Student loans. So what's the truth behind that?
- [27:08]
A
So this has been a debate for a long time. This idea of, it's called the Bennett hypothesis. You make more federal financial aid available, it's going to drive up the price. Researchers have been grappling with it for a long time. It's really hard to measure, unfortunately. But in the past year we had a really great study come out looking at how availability of federal credit has affected graduate school pricing. And we're seeing almost a one for one increase in the availability of credit and the increase in the price. So there's a huge pass through. So as colleges see more credit is available, they're jacking up their prices and so students are paying it. So this is a tremendous concern.
- [27:42]
B
Yeah, and they don't dip into their. At least the big schools that have a large endowments don't seem to dip into that the way we would think they would.
- [27:50]
A
Why would they though? I mean, right. They, it's not rational for them to do it. They've got this big pot of federal taxpayer dollars that's unlimited. Students aren't even paying it back. You know, several years ago Georgetown got in trouble for pointing this out to their law student and saying, hey look you, if you take out these loans and beyond a certain point you're not going to pay it back anyway. You know, that's not a good look.
- [28:10]
B
No, no it's not. And what do you think about the. That's been floated, I think by Trump or Republican, something about an endowment tax. And I'm not sure what that the devil's in the details, of course, but.
- [28:22]
A
Yeah, I don't think this is terrible. So earnings on endowments being taxed institutions, I mean, these are for profit, excuse me, non for profit entities. And so normally they would be excluded from tax from that. I think the way that this tax would hit, would end up hitting places where they're already serving a pretty well off population. And that's the thing I'd be concerned about. And so it turns out to be probably a pretty progressive policy and that, you know, it advantages the less well off. And I tend to favor those policies.
- [28:48]
B
Yeah. Okay. So it's something Ways and Means could consider because again, this is, this is all in the scope of reconciliation where we, we want to give people their, their tax cuts permanently. Right. Always have to remind people it just means you keep your taxes as they are.
- [29:02]
A
Yeah.
- [29:03]
B
They're going to go up this year in March whether you like it or not. And that's not, that's not something people are going to be very happy about. We're trying to stop it.
- [29:09]
A
Let me just add to this, you know, in this conversation regarding reconciliation, you know, the, all of the expansions that we've seen over the generosity of the student loan and forgiveness programs in the past decade, I've sort of fought every single one of them. The silver lining to that is we're now in this place where student lending used to be, you know, a program that at least broke even and now it's costing us just a ton of money. So it was hard to get rid of before, but I think putting some constraints on it today both makes policy sense and it makes financial sense for the nation. And so that puts us in a better position for reform.
- [29:41]
B
It's a number of things. So maybe going back to the ccrm, whatever the heck that stands for, but it's the Education bill that Chairwoman Virginia Fox.
- [29:49]
A
That's right.
- [29:49]
B
Has come out with. Maybe let's go back to some of the provisions in that.
- [29:53]
A
Sure.
- [29:53]
B
Because I don't have them off the top of my head, but I feel like, I feel like you kind of know it. Not to put you on the spot, but the skin in the game part, yeah, that's important. I mean, making colleges somewhat.
- [30:05]
Responsible for a student's success. That just seems to make sense. I mean, you know, you shouldn't be offering majors that you just know are not gonna, that there's no job market for.
- [30:19]
What else is in there that we should be happy about or think.
- [30:21]
A
About streamlining repayment of student loans and easing off the generosity of these forgiveness programs.
- [30:27]
B
Kind of what we've been talking about, Right?
- [30:28]
A
So, you know, this is my day job to know this stuff. But if you ask me, how many different ways are there to repay your student loan, I can't tell you, because we have expanded the complexity of student loan repayment so much because we haven't had comprehensive legislation that reauthorize the Higher Education Act. Instead of we'd have a executive order after executive order that uses this loophole or this, you know, squeezes through this. And so we have this absolute mass of repayment. I think that's part of what's convincing some Americans that having a student loan is a really scary thing because it's so complex. What this does is says, okay, either pay back as a loan like you do an auto loan or a mortgage, or you pay it back on an income contingent basis. You pay a percentage of your monthly income capped at a certain amount. If you don't make, you know, over $30,000, something like that, then you don't pay anything at all. Simplify the system like that, and then it becomes really easy even for, you know, you know, folks to explain to their constituents, like, look, you're okay, dear, we've got you.
- [31:21]
B
Yeah.
- [31:22]
A
And so that's a piece of what CCRA does. Loan limit reform for graduate students. Exactly what you've just talked about, putting limits. Also putting a limit on which institutions can continue to take resources from the government. So right now, you don't have to prove anything when it comes to being able to say, okay, my students are doing pretty well after they graduate. I guess you have to prove something. But the bar is so low, it might as well not exist. But what this legislation, and there's a Senate bill that matches this, says, we'd like to see earnings for your graduates beating high school graduates. I mean, that's a pretty reasonable bar. And people say, like, oh, we don't want to ensure that institutions are just only focused on one thing, which is profit. And, you know, and. But the bar being at the level of a high school graduate earnings is so reasonable. It's such a low bar.
- [32:14]
B
And is it easy for schools to track that? They probably already do to some extent, because that's how they sell themselves.
- [32:21]
But does that mean hiring yet more administrators? Which has been another key factor of why tuition has gone up, too.
- [32:28]
A
So the federal government actually has this information. Okay, there's a Bit of a complication, which is that there's legislation that restricts the creation of the data set that would allow for this easy analysis. The restriction on what's called the unit record data system. I'd like to see that overturned so that we can do this sort of analysis and make it easy for institutions. If they're having to do a lot of heavy lifting, that's not good for them. It's not good for students. When we have, you know, the IRS can connect data with Department of Education, if it, if it exists and, or wherever that data is housed going forward and know how well students are doing. We're doing that in some instances, just not.
- [33:06]
B
So does that bill have that provision in it or would that need to be added on to make that work?
- [33:11]
A
I'm guessing it's not in there. I can't remember exactly. But I would guess since I know Virginia Fox was not a big fan of those with concerns over privacy and transparency. Excuse me, Privacy, not transparency.
- [33:23]
B
Right, fair. So the current idea would be to make schools do it themselves.
- [33:28]
A
There's some burden on schools, but we're still using federal data. So there are instances like gainful employment regulations that look largely at for profit institutions. They're using federal data to do that. The data would just be better if we could overturn this restriction and there'd be more accurate information.
- [33:46]
B
Yeah. And what about using Pell Grants for something other than your typical 4 year degree? What are the options there?
- [33:54]
A
So Pell grants can be used at community colleges, four year degree programs, certificate programs that are accredited. And so, you know, people often think of Pell Grants as being for traditional academic tracks. There's a lot of trade, vocational programs that are accessible through institutions that do have access to Pell Grants, but they.
- [34:12]
B
Have to be a community college.
- [34:14]
A
That's right.
- [34:14]
B
So it's. And would this be a good reform or would it cost too much money? Like say a. Because, you know, outside of community colleges there's plenty of programs. Whether those maybe apprenticeships aren't the.
- [34:28]
A
Yeah.
- [34:28]
B
Aren't the right bucket we're talking about. But you know, a six month, A six month skills trade program to learn how to do pipe fitting.
- [34:37]
A
Right.
- [34:37]
B
I mean.
- [34:37]
A
Right.
- [34:38]
B
You know, not too costly. The private market's kind of taking care of some of this. But it wouldn't be crazy to say like this is a much better use of our federal funding.
- [34:47]
A
Right. So we're talking about short term pal as a possible policy reform. I think the, the crux issue here is in an issue called accreditation that's. Accreditations are the gatekeeper to federal aid dollars. And so you open that door, you get Pell grants, you get access federal student loans. The problem with accreditation historically is that you largely have to look like a college in order to get.
- [35:10]
B
So who runs the accreditation?
- [35:11]
A
Accreditation is run out of the Department of Education, but accreditors are third party institutions. So the Department of Education essentially contracts or, you know, gives authority to these third parties, and then they say, okay, you're a good enough institution, you're not a good enough institution. And then that opens the door to those aid dollars.
- [35:29]
B
Now, I've heard from educators that like that. That's a problem.
- [35:33]
A
I think it's a huge problem.
- [35:34]
B
This monopoly of accreditors that is, that 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.
- [35:44]
A
Exactly. Basically this is like an example of self regulation. Right. Let's all get together and regulate ourselves and call it. The problem is that you limit innovation when you have that. So like I like to say, you have to look like a college in order to get through the door for these programs. And I'd like to see colleges that don't look like the colleges that we have known.
- [36:03]
B
Have you seen Good Will Hunting? Yeah, I'm at Harvard. Well, I have a fucking library pass. Like, you know, it's like.
- [36:10]
A
Yeah, yeah.
- [36:12]
B
So how do we. Is there any legislation to tackle that? Or is that something that we really need to be focused on?
- [36:16]
A
So this is something we can actually see the Trump administration handle through regulation or sub regulation even. Really, what I'd love to see is that there will be more competition among accreditors. This is something that, you know, staff level employees at Department of Education could change tomorrow if they wanted to start being more welcoming, inviting to. I love the new style of accreditation that seems to be emerging that's looking more strictly at student outcomes. I don't care how you educate students, because if they get out and get a job and are on their pathway to, you know, prosperity for them and their family, that's a win. And I think we should be giving.
- [36:53]
B
The dollars that pipes sitting skill.
- [36:54]
A
Yeah.
- [36:55]
B
A lot of money.
- [36:56]
A
Right.
- [36:57]
B
You're making a lot of money and you're like 19.
- [36:59]
A
Yeah, yeah.
- [37:01]
B
You know, so that's, that's just a fact. And a lot of money. Don't quote me on this, but it's, you know, you can get up to a hundred thousand dollars a year pretty quickly.
- [37:09]
A
Oh, for sure.
- [37:09]
B
With certain skill sets. I Mean, plumbers are going to be the new millionaires. Yeah, that's a, that's. That's. There was been stories written about that like this is the new millionaire class as plumbers.
- [37:18]
A
Yeah. I mean, I think. And the organizations of institutions will push back and say maybe that's not what education is. Right. There's this kind of romantic notion about what college should be. It's about.
- [37:31]
B
And it's great for some people.
- [37:32]
A
It's great for some people.
- [37:33]
B
It was good for you and me.
- [37:34]
A
Yep. And it should exist. It should continue to be subsidized. We should also open the door to these other pathways so that we have a spectrum of pathways that Americans can use to, you know, build their lives so they can provide.
- [37:48]
B
Because. Because not all community colleges are good at doing those. Those. What would you call them? The. What's the right terminology? Doing those trade and vocational stuff like. Yeah, Lone Star College in my district is a big, big Texas staple. Does they work with industry? They, you know, at least they tell me that. And, but I think industry tells me that too. So, so there's a good mix there. And Texas in general has a good. What are they called? CES programs. You know, skill. Skill based in high school. And I've seen the high schools that do it. It's really interesting stuff. Again, there's other ways to train people. You know, they put a criminal justice systems within their high school. They put up a courtroom inside their high school. I've toured it. It's really cool.
- [38:36]
And it just sets you up with a specific skill set. That's not necessarily a liberal arts degree where you got to take all of these different, you know, you're just. Is it wasting money? It depends on who you are, whether or not it's a waste of money. I don't like some of the right wing talking points, which is like, don't go to college. I'm like, to be clear, a lot of people saying that I've all went to college. A lot of people cheering for that are all college students. So just let's listen.
- [39:00]
Just. Let's just be a little bit more honest here about what's going on.
- [39:03]
A
Yeah, yeah. And I should say Texas is sort of a leader in this idea of skin in the game for institutions. There's state level legislation that's actually rewarding institutions for delivering these good labor market outcomes, which is a model we should see in the federal level.
- [39:17]
B
Right.
- [39:18]
A
And in other states.
- [39:18]
B
And you got to be nimble. I mean, you know, in Texas, for instance, we're Seeing a massive influx in industry.
- [39:25]
Especially the tech industry. And you know, you talk to tech industry and they're like, well, if we're not, we don't relocate somewhere. If we don't have a workforce there that, that we can hire and if education can, can be nimble and quickly adapt to that, you're going to see massive productivity growth.
- [39:42]
A
Yeah, yeah.
- [39:43]
B
Wherever you are. What about, and I don't know if this is out of your wheelhouse, but just K through 12 state level curriculums, I mean, we're obviously not doing what we need to do. The, the statistics are what they are. This is still the best place in the world that everyone wants to come to for their higher education.
- [40:02]
A
Yeah.
- [40:03]
B
Despite all its problems.
- [40:06]
But there's a growing sense that there's just a, there's a massive disparity between one school to the next on, on how well students are doing.
- [40:15]
You know, there's, there's arguments over the curriculum, whether it makes sense, what is, what do we, where do we even begin on something like that?
- [40:23]
A
I mean, I'm, I'm not a K12 expert, but I am a parent. And what I would love to see like, like all states moving in the direction of reform of more choice for students. I mean, it comes back to the principle that we talked about with hera, which is competition drives improvements in quality. It drives those innovations that make changes. And we're seeing a lot of state level movements on choice in Texas, for sure. Yeah. I live in the state of Utah and we have, we have a great program as well. And so we're seeing a lot of movement and a lot of states. Dominoes have, fall, are falling and the.
- [40:52]
B
We're still fighting it in Texas. I mean, Abbott. Yes, Abbott. This is a big priority for Greg Abbott. There's now the push. We should talk about the critiques of it, you know, because I randomly came across an interview given by what I assume is a House. A House member of the Texas legislature, Democrat. Who's, who, who, who makes the case that Greg Abbott's voucher system, which is effectively or his idea for it, which is, you know, it gives you a voucher to pay for private school. Their argument is that, well, you're really only subsidizing rich people who already send their kids to private school. How do you make like, what's the counterargument to that?
- [41:36]
A
I mean, I think you need to realize that the funds aren't just helping institutions that are on the receiving end, but the pressure that's created by the funds, the Potential for the funds leaving the schools is what's going to drive quality at that school as well. So, yes, it's like the concentration of resources and places where there's already more advanced student population. I get that concern. The idea, the theory behind it is that this rises all institutions together. And so, yeah, the force is advantaging people who are already advantaged with the idea that as a primary impact of that, that all institutions get better. So I get it. I mean, I think the optics are hard sometimes, but I do think that the impact of it, regardless, at a systemic level is to raise all institutions.
- [42:19]
B
Yeah, I would agree. I'm definitely, definitely for it. But it's, it's. But the constituencies make it hard and even, and even the opposition comes from where sometimes you don't expect it, which is the parents. Yeah, especially the parents who are already in good school districts because that, you know, their fear is, oh, we're gonna get a bunch of bad students.
- [42:39]
A
Right.
- [42:39]
B
I'm not sure that's true. It's not that easy to just, to just drive your kid, you know, 20 minutes further to a different school. It's, it's, you know, people are going to make that choice if it's, if it's available to them.
- [42:51]
A
Yeah.
- [42:52]
B
And, and like you said, it, it's, it's, it's a message to schools that they need to be better. If parents are choosing to leave your school.
- [42:59]
A
Right.
- [43:00]
B
There might be a reason for that. Maybe there's safety issues at that school. Maybe there's, there's bad teachers, whatever it is. And it's not as if we, at least in Texas, like, we, you know, we have a system where, where schools get the same amount regardless, because obviously it's through property taxes, and obviously property taxes are higher in some places and you get more money, but that's evened out.
- [43:21]
A
Right.
- [43:22]
B
And what we also see is in some of the worst performing school districts in America, they have the highest per student cost. So something's not working.
- [43:31]
A
Right? Right.
- [43:33]
B
What isn't? I mean, what's your take on that? Like, in the places that it's not working, like, what are some of the driving factors?
- [43:40]
A
To be honest, I don't have those answers for you. I'm more of a higher education than case 12 expert. So broadly speaking, other beyond, like beyond the, the that. I'm pretty sure we want to move in the direction of more choice. I can't really tell you what, inside those walls is not working.
- [43:54]
B
Yeah. And it's probably different in every district. I mean, and it's from what I've seen at least it's, you're allowed to guess. I know you don't want to like you're allowed to say what you've read even if it's not your, your, your, your, your, your area of expertise. But I mean it's, it's often things that we don't have a lot of control over, like single parent homes.
- [44:13]
A
Sure.
- [44:14]
B
And, and because like what we see in Texas is we have these great programs.
- [44:20]
At the high school level for, you know, vocational training, that kind of thing. And talking to my superintendents, the, the reality is, is that the people who need it most in the low income areas don't take advantage of them, even though they're available to them.
- [44:33]
A
That's right. Yeah.
- [44:33]
B
And I, I don't have an explanation for that.
- [44:36]
A
Yeah, yeah. I mean so much vigorous come from the home. I mean from a system level. I guess the other thing I would say is like a place of concern would be the teachers unions. You know, we're currently in conversations in Utah awaiting a state senate vote on legislation that would eliminate the possibility for teachers to be unionized in the state. And I quite frankly think that's move in the right direction. I'm really concerned about the lack of competition in the teacher labor markets and competition drives innovation, as we've said over and over in this conversation. And it does the same thing, you know, in the labor markets. Right. People do a better job when they're, they have an incentive to, you know, to achieve and to have good outcomes. And when they have an employment system that kind of protects them or isolates them from, you know, their, what it is that they produce. You know, I think that works in the wrong direction.
- [45:25]
B
And are some of the fears, I think some of the fears that again like those lower performing schools would have is because the money follows the student, they fear that.
- [45:36]
It'S just a downward spiral.
- [45:37]
A
Right.
- [45:37]
B
And in theory that's true. If like 10 of your popular student population has that now has that ability to just move and their parents have the ability to drop them off at a different school that's further away and out of their bus route. Yeah, yeah. You lose a lot of money really quickly now. There's ways to mitigate that, isn't there? I mean whether it's just kind of stair stepping that, that, you know, over time, like maybe a five year period where that money goes. I've heard solutions like that.
- [46:05]
A
Yeah, I think so. And I think states would have to have programs for restarting in neighborhoods Where a shutdown is necessary. I mean, a shutdown seems like a terrible thing for people who have emotional attachments to these institutions that have existed for a long time. But it may be the best for the community, in fact, to reinvent these schools. And so I think states would want to have in place, you know, methods for restarting when, you know, an institution does fail. And I think it's fine that institutions fail, whether they be colleges, whether they be elementary schools. And sometimes that's going to be the best way to, to reinvent what's happening.
- [46:38]
B
Yeah. My first.
- [46:40]
Like block walking experience actually was, was, was dealing with this issue. Exactly. Because so I was doing my master's degree at, at Harvard and we were assigned to go block walking, either in favor or against the school choice.
- [46:56]
What was it? It was a, it was a, it was a ballot initiative.
- [46:59]
A
Yeah.
- [46:59]
B
And you know, it was a. Charlie Baker, Republican governor of Massachusetts, was a, it was a, you know, a ballot initiative for expanding the school choice program. And it was interesting to hear people, people were pretty well informed about it actually, and their argument was just that, like, well, you're going to lose money. And I would have. And I had a counter which was, no, this particular policy.
- [47:23]
Doesn'T take away the money right away from the school. It, it happens gradually over five years. So they can adapt.
- [47:28]
A
Right.
- [47:29]
B
It still failed, I think.
- [47:31]
A
Yeah.
- [47:31]
B
Because Massachusetts. But, but, but again, it could still fail in deep red Texas as well because parents still have that fear and teachers and, and, and whether they're unionized or not, they, they, they make their opinions heard to parents who maybe don't know the broader theory behind it. And. Yeah, so that's what makes it a complex issue. And, and now Abbott's just, he's very hard on it, even primary and people who vote against it and been rather successful in it. So I think we'll see more success in Texas and I think we'll see better outcomes in the long term. Yeah.
- [48:08]
I'm, I wonder if you have any opinions too, and just get it getting out of the school choice debate, you know, like more theory on, on just what we're even teaching in schools and whether that's beneficial to kids. I mean, do we need to completely rethink our curriculums, just generally speaking, I mean, just reimagine it completely. I don't, that's, that's a very local decision.
- [48:29]
A
Yeah.
- [48:30]
B
Again, I've seen schools do it. Like again, you have a courtroom in your school that you're obviously reimagining how education should you Have a robotics lab in your school. And these are public schools, by the way, not necessarily just your fancy private ones. Those have great stuff. But.
- [48:44]
A
Right.
- [48:45]
B
Is that, you know, how do we even begin those conversations?
- [48:49]
A
I mean, I think this kind of circles back to where we started, which is this idea of federal intervention, you know, direction coming from the federal department, education. I mean, I don't want to see it. I want to see local governments deciding what should be taught in their schools. And you know, if California wants to teach a whole lot of DEI in their classrooms, that's okay with me. I mean, I think that, you know, I believe in like the states being these laboratories for democracy. And if it turns out that that's actually the best way to educate students, maybe we'll take note in 10 years and move in that direction. But you know, I like to see that happen. I'd like to see Texas decide what needs to be posted on the walls in their classroom and make decisions, you know, for their students.
- [49:23]
B
Well, yeah, I mean. Well, I agree with that general philosophy. I'm just wondering if you have opinions on just as a education expert, like, what have you seen work, you know, what, what kind of curriculum have you, is there, is there other laboratories maybe around the world that we could look at that seem to work better? Is it a, I don't know, is it a year round school year? I've seen that, you know, versus having the entire summer off. I mean, what, I mean, I'd like.
- [49:47]
A
To see like a lot more connection with like local labor markets and industry to kind of dictate the curriculum that's happening so that, you know, as we think about, you know, training students to exist past high school, you know, we're preparing people for college, but we're also preparing people for the workforce and giving them the skills that are appropriate for the communities that they live in. I mean, I think that that, that would set us on a good path.
- [50:10]
B
Because it's not obvious to me that critical thinking is taught very well. Again, depends on the school.
- [50:15]
A
Right.
- [50:17]
B
You know, it's, it's, it's not obvious. Okay, so our math scores are lower than they should be. That doesn't mean that we don't have some students who are just exceptional at math. Math. And they go on to those jobs.
- [50:28]
A
Right.
- [50:28]
B
I was pretty good at math. I took, I minored in physics. So I had pretty high level math classes. I don't remember. I couldn't do any of it now.
- [50:36]
A
Right.
- [50:36]
B
So it obviously didn't matter.
- [50:39]
That being said, being good at the Sciences and math, I think. I think helps your brain develop better. But. Sure, I, I don't know. I, I don't know if that's, if that's the right answer for, for a 10th grader who's just bad at it. And maybe you need to put them in a, just a different set of electives that helps them in a certain job market that have that flexibility.
- [50:57]
A
Right, right. And I know the conversation about inserting trades and professional development into K12 education risks the issue of tracking students into different pathways based on the families that they come from, their socioeconomic status. And that's obviously a concern, but I think having diversity in options that students have in that path, even at that stage of education, probably better serves our nation, as long as we're careful about it.
- [51:21]
B
Yeah. I guess the question is, what does it mean to be, to be careful.
- [51:25]
A
Yeah. Right. I'll leave that one to the practitioners.
- [51:29]
B
Yeah. No, yeah. It's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's. It's an incredibly difficult question to ask. So wrapping this all up to, like, the recent news.
- [51:40]
It's, here's my sense. The, the, the. We're not shuttering USAID because I don't think the administration can.
- [51:48]
A
Right.
- [51:49]
B
But what it does start is a very necessary conversation about what USAID even does. And there's all these examples of these very silly grants that are given out by usaid. And I've seen that when I was in the military working, you know, going through embassies, and in my time as a congressman going through embassies, I'm like, there's a disconnect between the tactical decisions on the ground of, like, what you want to fund and the strategic necessity of U.S. interests.
- [52:14]
A
Right.
- [52:15]
B
So it's going to. You're not going to shut our US id, but it is going to spark that conversation. And I would anticipate that the same conversation gets sparked by the mere threat of shutting down the Department of Education. You can't. Is that. I don't think there's a legal pathway to that without, without Congress doing it.
- [52:31]
A
Right.
- [52:32]
B
And then if Congress did do it, we'd have to go through a lot of the.
- [52:37]
Work that you stated, which is, well, what do you do with the pro. We don't run out. We don't want to get rid of these programs. Actually. It's just the 4,000 workers administering them. So somebody has to administer them. So what exactly are you going to do?
- [52:48]
A
Right.
- [52:49]
B
But it at least sparks that conversation and maybe paves the way for some of that legislation we talked about, which has huge cost savings in the end.
- [52:55]
A
Yeah, yeah. I mean, I think the risk is that this is a distraction from the things that really matter, these reforms that are really necessary. But you know, as a, as a bonus, if we have the Doge team, you know, storming the Department of Education and, and out of it comes a lot of discussion about those spending programs that exist that really we can kind of all reasonable people agree these don't make a lot of sense as a use of taxpayer dollars. That could be a great thing. So, yes, I think, do. I think this is going to happen overnight? I think the President might try to make it happen overnight, maybe. Is it going to happen? No, it's not. Could it happen in the long run? Maybe. But I think, you know, 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.
- [53:47]
B
Well, it's great. Beth, thanks so much for being on.
- [53:49]
A
Yeah, thank you for having me. Absolutely.
- [53:51]
B
Good to have you.
- [53:52]
A
Yeah.
- [53:52]
B
All right.