Overview
more
The smallest of all the cabinet-level agencies, the Department of Education (ED) is responsible for supporting the education of American children and adults in schools and colleges across the country. Education is decentralized in the United States, meaning that the task of providing and running schools is left in the hands of state and local officials. The federal government’s role has largely been to provide federal monies to bolster programs that teach children how to read, promote science or help students attend college, among other things. Although it is the smallest of all federal departments, ED has been the source of controversy since its founding in 1980. Conservatives have blasted the department for decades, claiming it is intrusive and detrimental to the education of children. Liberals, while not always happy with the work of the department, have consistently defended ED in the face of attempts by Republican administrations to weaken, if not outright disband the department. The GOP goal of eliminating the department changed, however, with the election of George W. Bush. Instead of trying to eradicate it, President Bush used the department to implement a controversial education reform measure, No Child Left Behind, which has been the source of much criticism and debate.
History:
more
The federal government’s first Department of Education was created in 1867, a non-cabinet-level agency charged with collecting information on schools and teaching to help states establish effective school systems. By 1890 and the passage of the Second Morrill Act in 1890, the Department of Education had become the Office of Education, responsible for administering support for the original system of land-grant colleges and universities.
During the World War I and World War II eras, federal education officials became responsible for providing federal aid to vocational education. The 1917 Smith-Hughes Act and the 1946 George-Barden Act focused on agricultural, industrial and home economics training for high school students. The Lanham Act in 1941 and the Impact Aid laws of 1950 eased the burden on communities affected by the presence of military and other federal installations by making payments to school districts. And in 1944, the GI Bill authorized postsecondary education assistance that would ultimately send nearly 8 million World War II veterans to college.
In 1953, the Eisenhower administration created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW), a cabinet-level agency. The 1950s also saw federal lawmakers adopt the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in 1958 in response to the Soviet launch of Sputnik. To help ensure that highly trained individuals would be available to help America compete with the Soviet Union in scientific and technical fields, the NDEA included support for loans to college students, the improvement of science, mathematics, and foreign language instruction in elementary and secondary schools, graduate fellowships, foreign language and area studies, and vocational-technical training.
As a result of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty campaign and the Civil Rights movement, the Education Department became responsible for implementing federal legislation to provide equal access for all people to education. This legislation included Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibited discrimination based on race, sex, and disability. In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act launched a comprehensive set of programs, including the Title I program of federal aid to disadvantaged children to address the problems of poor urban and rural areas. That same year, the Higher Education Act authorized assistance for postsecondary education, including financial aid programs for needy college students.
In 1979, the Carter administration decided that education was too important for it to be part of HEW and established the cabinet-level Department of Education (ED) to bolster its mission of supporting schools and educational systems around the country at the state and local level. It was not long, however, before ED came under assault by Carter’s successor, President Ronald Reagan.
Reagan promised during the 1980 presidential election to eliminate the department as a cabinet post, but Democrats in the House refused to go along. Two years later, Reagan tried again to dismantle ED by severing all funding, and again, Democrats thwarted the President’s effort. Unable to do away with ED, Reagan decided instead to appoint a Secretary of Education who was philosophically opposed to the agency’s mission. William “Bill” Bennett served as education secretary from 1985 to 1990, through the last years of Reagan and into the administration of George H. W. Bush.
Bennett was an outspoken critic of the educational establishment, which he called “the blob” for bloated educational bureaucracy. He advocated for teacher testing, performance-based pay, education accountability, ending tenure, a national exam for all students to take and school vouchers to allow parents to send their children to private schools.
In the mid 1990s, after Republicans took control of Congress, the GOP targeted the Department of Education, calling ED an intrusion into local, state and family affairs. During the 1996 presidential campaign, Republican nominee Bob Dole promised to “cut out” the Department of Education if elected.
When George W. Bush was elected to the White House in 2000, the Republicans did not try to erase ED from the executive branch. Instead Bush took a page from Bill Bennett and implemented an ambitious and controversial program called No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which utilizes standards-based reforms to measure how students are performing from kindergarten to grade 12. A key part of NCLB requires all public schools to implement standardized tests for all students to take—and if they don’t, they risk losing federal education funding. Overall, NCLB has provoked considerable debate and controversy. Critics assert that NCLB’s testing mandate will reduce student learning because of the temptation by teachers to lower achievement goals and “teach to the test.” President Bush, however, has insisted NCLB’s testing data will show which schools are failing to properly educate children and lead to improvements that will level the learning field for all students.
What it Does:
more
The Department of Education supports the teaching of students from kindergarten through postgraduate school by providing funding for dozens of programs. With this funding comes a variety of federal rules and requirements that schools and colleges must meet in order to be eligible. The department’s elementary and secondary programs annually serve more than 14,000 school districts and some 56 million students attending more than 97,000 public schools and 28,000 private schools. Department programs also provide grant, loan and work-study assistance to nearly 11 million postsecondary students.
Key ED Offices:
Educational Levels
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education: OESE oversees the quality of education received by students in elementary and secondary (high school) schools across the United States. This is done through their six main programs: Academic Improvement and Teacher Quality Programs; Impact Aid Programs; Office of Indian Education; Office of Migrant Education; School Support and Technology Programs; and School Achievement and School Accountability Programs. Through these programs, the OESE works to improve the quality of teaching and learning within elementary and secondary schools, as well as ensure equal access to services and ensure equal opportunity. An example of one of OESE’s programs is the Early Reading First Program, which provides grants to early childhood centers to improve students’ language, cognitive and early reading skills. This is one of the main literacy programs under No Child Left Behind. The ultimate goal of the program is to increase literacy among children in high poverty areas with the hope of enabling all children to read at their grade level.
Office of Postsecondary Education: OPE formulates and administers federal postsecondary education policy and programs. Aimed at creating equity in, and improving the quality of, higher education, OPE initiatives generally fall into three areas of concentration: policy and planning, minority and disadvantaged students, and accreditation. The office also administers Federal Student Aid programs, grants for institutions serving low-income and minority students, and international education programs including the Fulbright.
Office of Vocational and Adult Education: OVAE responsibilities cover adult, post-secondary, rural, and vocational education. Its staff creates, manages and administers policies, programs and grants; commissions studies; and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Education, Congress, the President, and the public on how to bring about potential improvements in the quality of education and educational services. The four general areas encompassed within OVAE are: Adult Education and Literacy; Career and Technical Education; Center for Rural Education; and Community Colleges.
Targeted Groups
Office of English Language Acquisition: Known in its entirety as the Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students (OELA), the office replaced the former Office of Bilingual and Minority Language Education. The name change aptly reflects a shift in policy—from an emphasis on bilingual instruction to a more “English only” approach to integrating non- or limited-English-speaking students into the federal school system. The No Child Left Behind Act established new, steep standards for student and school achievement with periodic testing—which, according to critics, combines with the English only approach to marginalize students in need of English instruction. OELA is responsible for administering programs and activities under Titles III and V of the No Child Left Behind Act, including the distribution of $1 billion in federal grant funds to institutions of higher education, state education agencies, districts, schools and community-based organizations.
Office of Indian Education: OIE administers the Indian Education Program of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. Although NCLB does not change the agency’s original 1972 mandate to facilitate greater educational opportunities for American Indians and Alaska Natives, it attempts to provide greater accountability in the use of federal funds. The primary function of OIE is to design and oversee a comprehensive system for administering Indian formula and discretionary grants; prepare and track performance indicators of grant program’s efficacy and help carry out national evaluations of OIE programs; provide leadership for Department of Education-wide policy coordination and help formulate policy and guidance; and develop and implement a system for maintaining open communications with the National Advisory Council on Indian Education (NACIE) and other educational organizations.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services: OSERS works to improve the lives of children and adults afflicted by disabilities through research and development grants distributed at both the state and regional levels. The three main components of OSERS are special education, vocational rehabilitation, and research. The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) focuses on developing programs for disabled children from birth to age 21. OSEP administers the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which gives grants to states, institutions of higher education, and non-profit organizations to promote research and development for programs aimed at children.
Research and Evaluation
Institute of Education Sciences: IES is the primary research arm of the Department of Education, comprised of four national centers devoted to supporting and disseminating scientific research related to education. IES’s work involves using randomized trials in evaluating educational methods. Randomized trials always involve the comparison of results between an experimental group, which is taught using the new method under study, and a control group, which is taught using traditional methods. The idea behind the IES is to boost this sort of research while reducing political influence on that research. The four national centers fund, evaluate, and disseminate such research, while the National Board for Education Sciences (NBES) advises the IES director on the agency’s policies, priorities and procedures. IES works with the Office of Innovation and Improvement and the What Works Clearinghouse, which is designed as a resource for educational decision-makers in selecting programs and practices based on scientific research. IES also evaluates programs and grants for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Office of Innovation and Improvement: OII was created in order to help manage the spending of money created by the No Child Left Behind Act. In addition, the OII decides how to distribute the funds of its 28 grant programs, ranging from charter schools to dropout prevention, and it coordinates the public school choice and supplemental education services. When distributing these funds, OII hopes to improve student achievement, increase parental awareness and keep the education system up to date. OII is also responsible for administering earmarks, which are funds allocated by Congress to be spent on predetermined projects.
Other
Federal Student Aid: FSA provides financial assistance to students pursuing all types of education, from vocational school to post-graduate education. Most students receive assistance in the form of loans to be repaid after completion of education. These loans are either direct from the federal government or federally guaranteed private loans. FSA also has grant programs, with eligibility based on financial need, and work-study programs in which the program pays part of the wages of student workers. Students can apply for any FSA program through the consolidated Free Application for Federal Student Aid available on-line. Last fiscal year, FSA processed 14 million such applications and assisted more than 10 million students.
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools: Public concern overschool safety has increased over recent decades due to fatal shootings and other violent acts. The Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools was created to address school safety concerns that face students. The office administers drug and violence prevention programs for students in elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education and related programs that promote the health and well being of students. The office’s budget has been cut drastically in recent years. State grants dropped from $344 million in 2007 to $100 million for 2009. Cuts include alcohol abuse reduction, mentoring programs, character education, school counseling, physical and civic education.
Where Does the Money Go
more
According to USAspending.gov., the Department of Education has spent $10.4 billion this decade on private contractors. A total of 7,222 private companies and other organizations were paid by the department for testing equipment and materials ($1.06 billion), debt collection services ($950 million), ADP systems analysis ($729 million) and banking services ($670 million), among other goods and services.
The top 10 recipients of ED contracts are:
Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. $1,068,428,349
Lockheed Martin $759,032,646
Accenture Ltd $739,548,529
Computer Sciences Corporation $539,134,842
Westat, Inc. $510,607,640
Veritas Capital Fund II, LP $459,747,491
Pearson PLC $310,067,675
Performant Financial Corporation $296,898,955
American Institutes For Research
in the Behavioral Sciences $282,585,346
SLM Corporation $250,457,696
In addition to spending money on contractors for services, ED allocates $90 billion annually for Federal Student Aid programs. Aside from the millions of college students who benefit, private lenders who participate in the programs receive substantial payments through loan fees, subsidized interest while students’ payments are deferred as they continue schooling and for six+ months afterward, and guaranteed payments in cases of default. SLM Corporation (Sallie Mae) is the largest student lender.
The Office of Indian Education (OIE) allocates millions each year in grants to local education agencies (LEAs). In 2008, there were 96 formula grants to LEAs worth $1.9 million.
In 2007, OIE awarded 45 professional development grants totaling more than $12 million. As well, the agency awarded 1,237 formula grants to local education agencies in 2007 that served 474,867 students.
More than 44% of OIE’s grants go to programs in Oklahoma, Arizona and Alaska, despite the fact that only 14% of the Native American population lives in these three states.
Controversies:
more
Government Hires Media Commentator
In an effort to promote the No Child Left Behind program, the Bush administration hired a conservative black commentator, Armstrong Williams, to promote the controversial plan on television and radio. Education Secretary Roderick Paige defended the move, calling it a standard “outreach effort” to minority groups who stood to benefit most from the Bush administration’s showcasing of NCLB.
The Education Department’s inspector general criticized the contract, under which Williams also agreed “to regularly comment on” and promote the law during his syndicated TV show. Williams contended that he did nothing illegal. The $240,000 deal produced one radio ad and one TV ad before the contract was suspended.
Pundit Armstrong Williams settles case over promoting education reforms (by Greg Toppo, USA Today)
Administration Paid Commentator: Education Dept. Used Williams to Promote 'No Child' Law (by Howard Kurtz, Washington Post)
ED Overpays Student Loan Lenders
In 2004 the Government Accountability Office warned Education officials that legal loopholes could result in the government paying billions of dollars in unnecessary subsidies to banks that provide loans to college students. The department chose to do nothing about the problem, and even as of 2007, after the inspector general found serious financial mistakes committed by the department, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings gave no indication that she would order banks to repay the government.
The inspector general concluded that the government had overpaid one lender, Nebraska-based Nelnet, $278 million from 2003 to 2005. The Washington Post conducted its own analysis and determined that potential overpayments to other lenders from 2003 to 2006 could total roughly $300 million. Two lenders, the New Hampshire Higher Education Loan Corp. and the Arkansas Student Loan Authority, said they returned millions of dollars in subsidy payments voluntarily after they discovered errors themselves.
Spellings acknowledged that the federal government “had some responsibility” for “confusion” over subsidy rules that helped student loan companies reap hundreds of millions of dollars in potentially excessive payments at taxpayer expense. But she would not seek a full accounting of the cost of what the Education Department’s inspector general termed “improper” payments in a program that guarantees lenders a 9.5% interest rate for certain loans even when market rates are much lower. Nor did the department plan to seek reimbursement.
Confusion Cited in Overpayments To Student Lenders (by Amit R. Paley, Washington Post)
ED Official Allows Extra Payments to Loan Company
In January 2007, Education Under Secretary Sara Martinez Tucker allowed student loan company Nelne, to keep $278 million in overpayments that Department of Education auditors had declared improper. Then it was revealed that Tucker had ties to Nelnet through her years at the Hispanic Scholarship Fund (HSF)—which went from a philanthropic organization to a major fund-raising operation under her leadership.
Officials at the Department of Education defended Tucker’s work regarding Nelnet. They also indicated they were unwilling to recover the funds from Nelnet for fear it would force the department to pursue other lenders, which could potentially eliminate some borrowing options students now have.
Coverage of the Nelnet Settlement (New America Foundation)
Upward Bound
In March 2008, the Department of Education halted a controversial study on the “Upward Bound” program that helps prepare first generation and low-income students for college. Begun in 2007, the study was designed to measure whether narrowing the focus to students considered less likely to pursue higher education would make the program more effective. Critics called the study—which required grantees to enroll twice as many students as normal and assign one half to a control group—unethical, even immoral, for recruiting disadvantaged students and then denying them entry for the purpose of determining numbers.
Education Dept. to End Controversial Study of Upward Bound, Chronicle of Higher Education (by Kelly Field, Chronicle of Higher Education)
Sallie Mae Uses Freedom of Information Act to Obtain Student Data
In October 2007, student loan giant Sallie Mae filed a New York Freedom of Information Law request asking community colleges in the State University of New York (SUNY) system to provide the company with the names, telephone numbers and home mailing and e-mail addresses of “all admitted and enrolled students for academic year 2007-2008.”
The request, which came from the company’s Direct Marketing division, also asked the schools to identify the age, graduating class and major of each student listed.
Such requests from direct-to-consumer private student loan companies are raising alarms among college financial aid administrators, who worry that the companies are trying to lure their students to take on unnecessarily high levels of debt.
After word got out about Sallie Mae’s activities, the company shutdown the effort.
Sallie Mae Demands SUNY Colleges Turn Over Students' Personal Data (by Stephen Burd, New America Foundation)
Sallie Mae Abandons Effort to Compel Colleges to Give Up Students' Addresses (New America Foundation)
Randomized Trials in Education
The emphasis on randomized trials in evaluating educational methods has been criticized as unethical because students in the experimental group may be subjected to methods that are not only ineffective but harmful, while students in the control group may be denied the benefits of new and useful methods. Other critics have argued that educational outcomes depend on more factors than can be controlled by a randomized trial, leading to doubts about whether the results are truly “scientific.” Some observers have criticized the emphasis on randomized trials in the absence of additional funding for the schools that agree to implement them.
Usefulness of Education Research Questioned (by Greg Toppo, USA Today)
Searching for Science to Guide Good Teaching (by Maria Glod, Washington Post)
What can educators learn from the Red Sox? (by Beth Gamse and Judith Singer, Harvard Education Letter)
What Does Scientifically Based Research Mean for Schools (by Leslie Dahlkemper, SEDL Letter)
Debate:
more
No Child Left Behind
The most important education measure adopted during the eight years of the Bush administration has been the No Child Left Behind Act. Called the “cornerstone” of President Bush’s education policy, NCLB has produced considerable debate over its aims and achievements to date.
For NCLB:
Supporters of No Child Left Behind insist the program will increase accountability among educators to ensure every child receives a quality education from American public schools. Parents of children attending schools found not to be performing up to specified standards will also have the opportunity to move their child to another, better-performing school. Another benefit of the new law is flexibility—under NCLB, school districts will be able to combine their federal funding for certain programs and utilize it in ways that before were forbidden. Literacy will also improve as greater emphasis will be placed on making sure all children can read by third grade.
The Future of NCLB (Hoover Institution)
Why No Child Left Behind is a Good Law - And How to Use It (by Pete Wright, Wrightslaw)
Against NCLB:
Many critics question No Child Left Behind’s implementation or charge that it fails to acknowledge complex factors influencing student learning. Some caution that a strong focus on test scores can distort teaching and learning in unproductive ways. Another problem with the program’s testing provisions is the fact that it fails to distinguish between successful schools and unsuccessful schools, and between schools that are underperforming in just one area and schools that need a complete overhaul
Other critics point to a lack of funding to properly implement NCLB, while still others say the program has not improved student learning. According to the Harvard Civil Rights Project, NCLB did not have a significant impact on improving reading and math achievement scores, and it has not helped narrow achievement gaps.
What Congress needs to hear about NCLB (by Edward J. McElroy, American Teacher)
Report finds growing public dissatisfaction with NCLB (School Board News)
Testing the NCLB: Study shows that NCLB hasn't significantly impacted national achievement scores or narrowed the racial gaps (Civil Rights Project)
In the Middle:
No Child Left Behind: An analysis of the controversy (by Thomas Imms, New Foundations)
A guide to the No Child Left Behind Act (by Pamela Karwasinski and Katharine Shek, Center for Public Education)
The good and bad of NCLB (editorial, Washington Times)
Higher Ed Funding
Debate over funding for higher education has historically fallen along partisan lines, with Democrats advocating more liberal spending and Republicans looking to dismantle federal assistance infrastructure. The rising cost of college tuition, room and board—about 65% (adjusted for inflation) between 1996 and 2006—has stirred the debate over higher education.
While the Bush Administration has arguably increased funding in some areas for the Department of Education (including the controversial No Child Left Behind Act), many programs have been cut and lawmakers from both sides have recently called for increased oversight of spending at the postsecondary level. In February 2008, the House of Representatives passed legislation to renew the Higher Education Act with bipartisan support. With all parties increasingly concerned with the inhibitive costs of higher education, Democrats joined Republicans in supporting a measure (House Bill H.R. 4137) that would pressure institutions to keep a tighter grip on costs and spending. Citing racial bias and disapproval with a diminished Secretarial accreditation authority, the Bush Administration has expressed initial opposition to provisions in both House and Senate versions of the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 (H.R. 4137).
Federal aid advocates decry spending cuts, while libertarian groups like The Heritage Foundation continue to argue that federal spending on higher education fails to help make it affordable, as “colleges and universities just consume this additional revenue.”
Right (pro-downsizing)
The Facts on Federal Education Spending (by Dan Lips, Heritage Foundation)
Left (pro-spending)
Background
Overhaul of Higher Education Act Is Magnet for Lobbying (by Libby George, Congressional Quarterly)
House, Focusing on Cost, Approves Higher Education Act (by Doug Lederman, Inside Higher Ed)
Economist Says U.S. Spends Too Much on Higher Education, Chronicle of Higher Education (by Mark Miller, Chronicle of Higher Education)
Senate debates higher education provisions to improve federal programs and expand access to college (American Chronicle)
House Begins Debate on HEA Reauthorization Bill; 14 Amendments Adopted (by Haley Chitty and Larry Zaglaniczny, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators)
Suggested Reforms:
more
Proposed Changes to Federal Student Aid
Numerous proposals have been put forth by think tanks and other organizations with suggestions for how the government can improve the college loan system. Three reports—by the Progressive Policy Institute, Brookings Institute, and the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers—are summarized here:
Progressive Policy Institute
First, the federal government should strip away burdensome red tape in the financial aid application process. Currently, eligibility for federal aid is calculated using a formula that weighs sources of taxable and nontaxable income, material assets, and family size, among many other factors. This system requires students and families to complete a complicated application form. A better alternative would be to determine student aid eligibility using the standard information families provide on their federal income tax returns.
Second, the federal government should reform the way it provides student aid funds to states and institutions. Currently, federal programs fund states and institutions to help pay for the aid they provide to students in need of financial assistance—including many middle-income students. In the future, it could match only the aid that states and institutions provide to Pell grant recipients. This matching provision would reduce any current incentives for states and institutions to move the aid they provide up the income scale.
Third, Congress and the president should tighten the restrictions that determine which student borrowers will benefit from federal payment of interest costs while they remain in school. These in-school interest payments—the largest-cost item in federal student loans—currently subsidize many students who are not low- and middle-income. Tightening the financial qualifications for in-school interest subsidies so the benefit only goes to those who need it most would help cut the federal government's student loan costs and thus free up funds either for higher loan limits or greater investments in other forms of student aid.
Fourth, the federal government should consider incentives such as paying institutions for the Pell grant recipients they graduate. Low rates of degree completion are a major problem in American higher education: Less than half of students complete a four-year degree in six years and graduation and transfer rates at community colleges are dismal. Rather than penalize or reward students, it may make more sense to provide incentives for institutions to improve student performance.
Fifth, the federal government should develop a much more aggressive early intervention strategy, rather than rely so much on student financial aid to change the attitudes and raise the aspirations of the most at-risk grade school and high school students. This should include a large expansion of the federal Gear-Up program of university and middle school partnerships, as well as the establishment of college savings accounts for low-income students starting when they are in grade school.
Five Steps to Reform Student Financial Aid (by Art Hauptman, Progressive Policy Institute)
Brookings Institute
The Brookings Institute proposes a drastic simplification of the current system of educational grants and tax incentives. The proposal combines Pell Grants and the Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits for undergraduates into a single, streamlined grant administered through the Department of Education, using information already collected by the Internal Revenue Service. Eligibility would be explained on a postcard, allowing students and families to anticipate their grants many years before the college decision. This set of reforms is designed to improve the effectiveness of federal spending on higher education, allowing aid to serve its intended goal: opening college doors to those with the ability, but not the means, to pursue higher education.
College Grants on a Postcard: A Proposal for Simple and Predictable Federal Student Aid (by Judith Scott-Clayton and Susan M. Dynarski, Brookings Institute)
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers
Congress should increase student aid funding by redirecting money that subsidizes banks and lending institutions that participate in federal college loans. Instead of wasting dollars on subsidies, the federal government should utilize a Direct Loan program that cuts out the middle man (i.e. banks). Doing so would produce the following:
-Generate $4.4 billion in new federal money based on the savings of all colleges and universities switching into the more cost effective Direct Loan program
-Provide $3 billion more for all colleges and universities across the country
-Elevate Pell Grants by almost $600 per recipients
Easy Money: How Congress Could Increase Federal Student Aid Funding at No Additional Cost to Taxpayers (American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers) (pdf)
Former Directors:
more
Roderick Paige (January 20, 2001 - January 20, 2005)
Richard Riley (January 21, 1993 - January 20, 2001)
Lamar Alexander (March 22, 1991 - January 20, 1993)
Lauro Cavazos (September 20, 1988 - December 12, 1990)
William J. Bennett (February 6, 1985 – 1988)
Terrel Bell (January 22, 1981 - January 20, 1985)
Shirley Hufstedler (November 30, 1979 - January 20, 1981)
- Table of Contents
- Overview
- History
- What it Does
- Where Does the Money Go
- Controversies
- Debate
- Suggested Reforms
- Former Directors
- Comments
- Leave a Comment
Department of Education
Comments