Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Don't fail our children by abolishing the Department of Education

Department of Education building
J. David Ake/Getty Images

Robertson is a clinical associate professor at the Rory Meyers School of Nursing at New York University and a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project.

Imagine a school where a child grappling with anxiety or depression walks the halls without access to vital mental health support — no counselors, no programs, just in silence. This unsettling scenario could become a reality if Republican proposals to abolish the Department of Education gain traction, jeopardizing not only educational standards but the emotional well-being of millions of students.


As Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), chair of the Appropriations Committee, warns, “Trump’s proposal to abolish the Department of Education may sound outrageous, yet it reflects a serious movement among many Republicans.” Whether or not Donald Trump takes office in 2025, it seems clear that Republicans in Washington will continue to attempt to do away with the Department of Education. If successful, this drastic action could disrupt the daily lives of millions of families, undermining essential support systems for our children.

Many families rely on the federal government to ensure their children receive a quality education, particularly in mental health resources. The Department of Education plays a vital role in promoting both academic excellence and the social-emotional well-being of students. It provides essential funding and guidance for programs that address the mental health needs of children and adolescents. Abolishing the department risks dismantling a crucial safety net that supports our youth during formative years.

Mental health issues among students are alarmingly prevalent. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, nearly one in five children ages 13 to 18 experiences a severe mental disorder at some point in their lives. Schools are often the first line of defense in identifying and addressing these issues, as they provide a structured environment where children spend a significant portion of their day. Without the support from the Department of Education, schools would struggle to navigate these challenges.

Relying solely on state responsibilities for mental health resources is a precarious proposition. States vary dramatically in their funding, priorities and ability to address mental health issues. While Connecticut ranks among the best states for access to mental health services for children, Texas is often cited as one of the worst, highlighting significant disparities in care across the country. This inconsistency means that a child’s access to mental health support would depend largely on their zip code, perpetuating inequality and leaving many students without the help they desperately need.

The lack of bipartisan support for federal initiatives underscores a significant divide in addressing mental health in education. While there is widespread agreement on the importance of mental health services, partisan politics often frame education funding as a contentious issue rather than a shared priority. This division can lead to inconsistent support for vital programs, with some lawmakers advocating for budget cuts instead of necessary investments. As a result, schools — especially those in underserved areas — face financial barriers that hinder their ability to hire counselors and implement effective mental health strategies.

Moreover, the Department of Education facilitates critical initiatives like the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program, which aims to improve access to mental health services in schools. These grants help schools hire counselors, provide training for staff and develop comprehensive mental health programs. Without federal support, like the recent announcement of $70 million in awards for school-based mental health services, many schools would struggle to implement effective mental health strategies.

The implications of this situation could be devastating. Imagine a child battling severe anxiety or depression, completely devoid of the support they desperately need during school hours. In such a scenario, teachers — often untrained in mental health crises — may feel overwhelmed and ill-equipped to respond effectively, leading to increased disciplinary issues as frustrated educators resort to punitive measures instead of compassionate interventions. This, in turn, can result in plummeting academic performance and a pervasive sense of alienation, creating a toxic school environment where bullying and social isolation thrive. As mental health deteriorates, some students may face feelings of hopelessness, and tragically, the lack of support could push vulnerable individuals toward self-harm or suicidal ideation. The long-term consequences perpetuate the already existing public health crisis, as untreated mental health issues wreak havoc on the lives of these children, impacting their relationships, families, career prospects and overall quality of life.

Furthermore, the Department of Education’s emphasis on mental health has raised awareness about the importance of social-emotional learning. Programs that educate school personnel on creating safe learning environments and teaching resilience, empathy and stress management skills are vital for developing well-rounded individuals. If these programs were to fade away, we would neglect the mental health of our students and compromise their long-term success as adults.

The proposal to abolish the Department of Education poses a grave threat to mental health resources in our schools. Rather than leaving the responsibility solely to states, we must recognize the essential role the federal government plays in ensuring equitable access to mental health support for all students. As we grapple with the realities of mental health in our youth, we cannot afford to dismantle the structures that support their well-being. The stakes are too high, and our children’s futures depend on the availability of these crucial resources.


Read More

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less