EDUNEWS & VIEWS
Trump’s push to abolish the Education Department: Could it really transform schools?
So, what would an America without the Department of Education look like?

President-elect Donald Trump wants the Department of Education gone. During his presidential campaign, Trump made waves by repeatedly pledging to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, calling it a symbol of federal overreach and an unnecessary drain on taxpayer money. The promise was bold: “We will ultimately eliminate the federal Department of Education,” he declared at a rally in Wisconsin back in 2016. His critics and supporters alike raised eyebrows, but what would actually happen if such a move were to be made?
The Department of Education, created in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, has long played a pivotal role in shaping America’s education system. If Trump’s plan were to move forward, it could mean sweeping changes to how K-12 schools are funded and how federal education policies are implemented.
The Core Functions of the Department
The Department of Education performs several essential roles in the American education system. For one, it funnels billions of federal dollars to states and schools. Its two major funding programs—Title I and IDEA—help support schools serving low-income students and children with disabilities. These programs provide nearly $28 billion annually to K-12 schools, although they represent only a small fraction of overall school funding. The bulk of K-12 school budgets comes from state and local taxes. The Department of Education also manages federal student loans and financial aid programs, including Pell grants, which distribute about $30 billion annually to help low-income college students.
Without these programs, how would schools and students fare? The answer isn’t clear-cut, but one thing is certain: federal funding has become a significant tool in ensuring access to education, especially for marginalized groups.

The Bureaucratic Web: Oversight and Regulations
In addition to distributing funding, the Department of Education plays an oversight role, ensuring that schools meet federal standards and investigating issues of discrimination. Through its Office of Civil Rights, the department enforces rules aimed at preventing discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and disability in schools. Over the years, the department has also been a key player in regulating hot-button issues—such as protections for transgender students and regulations on student loan forgiveness programs.
But what happens if this regulatory body no longer exists? One potential scenario could involve the transfer of these responsibilities to other federal agencies or a decentralization of decision-making power to state and local governments.
Federal Funds: The Strings Attached
Federal money doesn’t come without conditions. For instance, schools that receive funding through programs like Title I must adhere to certain rules and regulations. These guidelines can sometimes create what many consider “red tape.” For years, critics of the Department have argued that the bureaucracy tied to federal funding slows down school improvement efforts and imposes undue burdens on local administrators.
According to experts, the funding programs might survive, albeit in a different structure
Some policy experts suggest that even if the Department of Education were dissolved, the funding itself could continue—possibly in the form of block grants that offer more flexibility to local districts. But others warn that dismantling the department could result in a loss of essential oversight and services, especially for students with special needs.
What Happens to Federal Education Programs?
Interestingly, many of the funding programs the Department of Education oversees—particularly Title I and IDEA—were in place before the agency itself existed. This raises the question: Would these programs disappear if the department were abolished?
According to experts, the funding programs might survive, albeit in a different structure. Congress, which ultimately controls federal spending, has historically resisted efforts to cut education funding, even during budget negotiations when past presidents proposed cuts. Many believe that, even if the Department were to close its doors, the political and public support for these funding streams would likely push them into different agencies or programs.
Can Congress Actually Abolish the Department of Education?
While Trump’s rhetoric may have made abolition sound simple, shutting down a federal agency is no small feat. It would require an act of Congress—a challenge that previous efforts have failed to overcome. Even President Ronald Reagan, shortly after the department’s creation in 1980, proposed its elimination but eventually backed down due to lack of congressional support. The Trump administration also tried to merge the Education and Labor Departments, but that effort stalled in Congress.
Even if the GOP gains unified control of Washington in the coming years, it remains uncertain whether there will be enough support to completely dismantle the Department of Education.
The Road Ahead
So, what would an America without the Department of Education look like? In reality, it’s likely that some form of federal oversight and funding would continue, but the shape of it could change significantly. If Congress and the president were to act, the most likely outcome would be a shift in how federal funds are distributed—potentially with fewer strings attached—and a reorganization of some of the department’s key functions.
While Trump’s rhetoric may have made abolition sound simple, shutting down a federal agency is no small feat. It would require an act of Congress
Ultimately, the debate about whether to abolish the Department of Education touches on much larger issues: how to balance federal power with state autonomy, how to fund public schools fairly, and how to ensure that all students, regardless of background, have access to a high-quality education.
As the conversation continues, one thing is clear: any significant change to the Department of Education would have profound implications for the future of education in America, particularly for its most vulnerable students. Whether that future is shaped by a more decentralised approach or by a reformed federal agency remains to be seen. But one thing is for sure—the stakes are high.
EDUNEWS & VIEWS
India is not in competition with any other nation: ISRO Chief
ISRO Chief V. Narayanan urges youth to lead India’s technological revolution

In a powerful address at the 8th edition of the Chhatra Sansad India Conclave (CSI), ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation) Chairman V. Narayanan inspired over 20,000 young minds to push boundaries and take India to new heights in space exploration and scientific innovation. His message was clear: the nation’s future in technology will be shaped by the youth, and they are crucial in propelling India to the forefront of global advancements.
In his keynote, V. Narayanan, Chairman of ISRO, spoke about India’s ongoing strides in space exploration. He emphasized that India is not in competition with any other nation but is focused solely on advancing its own technological progress. “India’s future is in the hands of its youth. You are the driving force behind the country’s technological and scientific transformation,” Narayanan said, calling for continued innovation in space research.
The conclave, held at Lovely Professional University, gathered influential leaders, policymakers, and thinkers under the theme “Vision India 2047: Bharat @ 100.” The event was a platform for dynamic conversations about India’s growth and the role youth will play in shaping the nation’s future as it approaches its centenary of independence.
Dr. Ashok Kumar Mittal, Member of Indian Parliament and Founder Chancellor of LPU, set the tone for the event, urging the youth to embrace their power to reshape India’s trajectory. He highlighted LPU’s commitment to nurturing future leaders who will lead the country in global arenas.

Other prominent speakers at the conclave included Smriti Irani, former Union Minister, who encouraged the youth to leverage their talents to build businesses and enterprises that would drive India’s economic future. Motivational speaker Jaya Kishori inspired attendees to embody discipline, values, and purpose-driven action, while Temjen Imna Along, Minister of Tourism & Higher Education for Nagaland, spoke of an inclusive India where progress benefits all regions and communities.
The event also saw insightful video messages from several distinguished figures, including Nitin Gadkari, India’s Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways, and Vikrant Massey, Indian actor, emphasizing the role of youth in the ongoing digital revolution and India’s rise on the global stage.
A key feature of the conclave was a thought-provoking debate on “One Nation, One Election,” which sparked discussions on the potential impact of a unified electoral system on India’s future governance. The debate, chaired by Maulana Kalbe Rushaid Rizvi, allowed students to actively contribute their views on shaping India’s democratic structure.
EDUNEWS & VIEWS
‘Blue Ghost’ soft-lands on the moon in one shape
With Blue Ghost’s successful soft-landing, Firefly Aerospace has become only the first private company ever to have a lunar probe intact on the lunar surface.

On March 2, NASA confirmed the first ever successful soft-landing attempt by a private company. Firefly Aerospace’s lunar lander, the Blue Ghost Mission 1 (named after a rare species of fireflies thought native to the United States), touched down at precisely 2.04 p.m. IST, near Mons Latrielle at Mare Crisium on the moon’s near side. Firefly Aerospace issued a press release shortly thereafter.
The soft-landing comes after another US-based private company, Intuitive Machines, attempted one a year ago. On that occasion however, the lander, known as Odyssey, bounced off hard on the lunar surface at touchdown, following a steep descent. It rested titled with a stray lunar rock to offer a shoulder. In contrast, Blue Ghost which stuck both an upright landing, and its payloads intact.
The landing was the culmination of a 45 day trip that began early this year. On January 15, Blue Ghost blasted to space aboard a SpaceX’s Falcon 9 Block 5 from NASA’s Kennedy Space Centre, Florida. Sharing space during the launch was yet another commercial lunar lander, the Hakuto-R Mission 2 – built and operated by the Japanese space technology company, ispace. However, Hakuto-R has a projected landing date on the moon sometime in April, owing to a different arrival approach.
Firefly had released pictures of the lunar terrain, the Blue Ghost‘s photographed from its landing site. One of them shows a rugged gray dusty terrain, with a portion of the lander’s chassis in view in the foreground. Whereas a second one showed a desolate terrain with the earth reflecting sunlight above the horizon. Blue Ghost‘s shadow looms in the foreground in the image.
This site located close to Mons Latrielle, is what scientists think is an ancient basin formed upon a rogue asteroid impact eons ago. More than 500 km wide, Mare Crisium, as the basin is known by, is believed to have been flooded by lava in volcanic eruptions dating to some 4 billion years ago.

The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket that carried Firefly Aerospace’s lunar lander, Blue Ghost Mission 1, is seen stationed here at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, Florida | Credit: NASA
Laying groundwork for NASA’s Artemis
“Firefly is literally and figuratively over the Moon,” Jason Kim, CEO of Firefly Aerospace, said shortly after the landing, in a press release. “Our Blue Ghost lunar lander now has a permanent home on the lunar surface with 10 NASA payloads and a plaque with every Firefly employee’s name. This bold, unstoppable team has proven we’re well equipped to deliver reliable, affordable access to the Moon, and we won’t stop there. With annual lunar missions, Firefly is paving the way for a lasting lunar presence that will help unlock access to the rest of the solar system for our nations, our partners, and the world.”
In 2023, Firefly Aerospace ferried the instruments as part of a $93.3 million contract signed with NASA as part of the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program. The CLPS program is Nasa’s attempt at driving private participation on future lunar missions. But the payloads help set stage for NASA’s Artemis program, which would mark their first attempt since the Apollo program, to land astronauts on the lunar surface.
Some of the payloads reflect the new engineering demands for such long-term lunar missions. To streamline tracking lander and rovers on the moon, NASA supplied the Lunar GNSS Receiver Experiment (LuGRE). It is a GNSS receiver to help earth-orbiting satellite constellations, including GPS and the Galileo, track the lunar lander with high accuracy in real-time. Another one is the Regolith Adherence Characterization (RAC) that investigates possible soil degradation left behind in the wake of a typical lunar mission soft-landing.
Other payloads were designed to explore various science objectives. Research institutes and universities across the United States contributed to a variety of instruments. They included laser retro reflectors to measure distances, an x-ray imaging device to study how the solar wind affects space weather on earth; a probe which can inject itself into the moon’s sub-surface to measure heat dissipation.
In a press release applauding Blue Ghost’s successful soft-landing attempt, NASA’s acting administrator, Janet Petro, said, “This incredible achievement demonstrates how Nasa and American companies are leading the way in space exploration for the benefit of all … We have already learned many lessons – and the technological and science demonstrations onboard Firefly’s Blue Ghost Mission 1 will improve our ability to not only discover more science, but to ensure the safety of our spacecraft instruments for future human exploration – both in the short term and long term.”
EDUNEWS & VIEWS
Indian kids use different math skills at work vs. school
The research, which involved over 200 children, compared the performances of children engaged in market work with those focused solely on their studies

A recent study conducted in Delhi sheds light on the contrasting mathematical abilities of children who work in markets versus those who attend school, raising questions about how educational systems can better address these disparities. The research, which involved over 200 children, compared the performances of children engaged in market work with those focused solely on their studies.
In the study, children were tasked with solving math problems under various conditions. Remarkably, 85 percent of children with market jobs were able to answer a complex market transaction problem correctly, while only 10 percent of their school-going counterparts succeeded in solving a similar question. However, when the same group was given simple division and subtraction problems, with pencil and paper for assistance, the results shifted. Fifty-nine percent of school kids solved the problems correctly, while only 45 percent of market-working children did.
The researchers also introduced a word problem involving a boy buying vegetables at the market. One-third of market-working children successfully solved the problem without any aid, whereas fewer than 1 percent of schoolchildren were able to do the same. This stark difference in performance highlights the potential benefits that practical, real-world experience in the marketplace can offer.
Why, then, do nonworking students seem to struggle more under market conditions?
“They learned an algorithm but didn’t understand it,” said researcher Abhijit Banerjee, explaining the phenomenon. On the other hand, market-working children appeared to have developed useful strategies for managing transactions. One notable example was their use of rounding to simplify calculations. For instance, when faced with multiplying 43 by 11, many market kids would round 43 to 40, multiply by 10, and then add 43 to get the correct result of 473—an intuitive trick that seemed to help them tackle problems more efficiently.
“The market kids are able to exploit base 10, so they do better on base 10 problems,” said Esther Duflo, co-author of the study. “The school kids have no idea. It makes no difference to them.” Conversely, the schoolchildren demonstrated a better understanding of formal written methods for division and subtraction.
The findings raise an important issue: while market-working children excel in solving real-world problems quickly, they may be missing out on the formal education necessary for long-term academic success. “It would likely be better for the long-term futures if they also did well in school and wound up with a high school degree or better,” Banerjee said.
The divide between the intuitive problem-solving skills of market kids and the formal methods taught in school suggests that a new approach could be beneficial in the classroom. Banerjee suspects that traditional teaching methods, which often prioritize a single, formal approach to solving problems, may be limiting. He advocates for encouraging students to reason their way toward an approximation of the correct answer, a method that aligns more closely with the informal strategies used by market-working children.
Despite these concerns, Duflo emphasized, “We don’t want to blame the teachers. It’s not their fault. They are given a strict curriculum to follow, and strict methods to follow.”
The question remains: how can schools adjust their teaching methods to better support students’ diverse problem-solving strategies? The research team is actively exploring new experiments to address this issue, with the goal of creating a more inclusive and effective educational system.
“These findings highlight the importance of educational curricula that bridge the gap between intuitive and formal mathematics,” the authors concluded.
The study was supported by the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab’s Post-Primary Education Initiative, the Foundation Blaise Pascal, and the AXA Research Fund.
-
EDUNEWS & VIEWS5 months ago
India: Big Science in the 20th century and beyond
-
Interviews6 months ago
Memory Formation Unveiled: An Interview with Sajikumar Sreedharan
-
Society6 months ago
Global tech alliance: Nvidia partners with Reliance to transform AI landscape in India
-
The Sciences6 months ago
Prof Saleem Badat awarded ASSAf Science-for-Society Gold Medal
-
Earth5 months ago
The wildfires, floods, and heatwaves: Understanding the science behind climate change
-
Society6 months ago
Do not compete the competition
-
Space & Physics5 months ago
How Shyam Gollakota is revolutionizing mobile systems and healthcare with technology
-
Space & Physics6 months ago
Chandrayaan-3: The moon may have had a fiery past