The Gutting Of The Department Of Education

This message comes from Penguin Random House with Everything is Tuberculosis. Best-selling author John Green tells the story of a young TB patient in Sierra Leone and systems of injustice fueling the world's deadliest infectious disease.
Available where books and audiobooks are sold. This is Fresh Air.
I'm Tanya Mosley. The Department of Education is reportedly gutting its workforce.
In addition to the more than 1,300 workers who were fired on Tuesday, more than 600 have accepted separation packages or were fired last month during their probationary period. This leaves the department to roughly half of its workforce, which is responsible for enforcing civil rights laws in schools, supplying student loans and grants, and tracking student achievement.
These new layoffs come as President Donald Trump calls to eliminate the department altogether. At the heart of Trump's effort is a plan to consolidate what he describes as waste within the government, vowing to cut federal funding for schools and colleges that promote, quote, critical race theory and transgender ideologies.
Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Education also sent letters to 60 colleges and universities.
It says are under investigation for violations relating to alleged anti-Semitic harassment against Jewish students during pro-Palestinian protests on campuses nationwide. Joining us to talk about all of this is Laura Meckler, a national education writer for The Washington Post, who covers news politics and the people shaping American schools.
Her book, Dreamtown, Shaker Heights and the Quest for Racial Equity, is an examination of the ideals and realities of racial integration in her hometown of Shaker Heights, Ohio. Our conversation was recorded yesterday.
Laura Meckler, welcome to Fresh Air. It's so nice to be here.
Let's start with the backstory behind the letter that was sent this week to the 60 colleges by the Department of Education for alleged violations relating to anti-Semitic harassment.

Remind us of what this stems from. Well, all of this stems from protests that broke out on campus following the October 7th, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, which was then, of course, followed by the war between Israel and the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
And, of course, there were very, very passionate, strong, angry protests at campuses all over the country. So there's been this tension that colleges have been facing, especially last academic year, to be honest, but to some extent this year, too, about how to balance the free speech rights of the protesters against the rights of other students to be on campus and to be on campus in an atmosphere that's free of harassment for Jewish students to feel safe.
In some cases, they did not feel safe. And all of that was sort of stirring and quite active as President Trump was running for his second term.
And then once he took office, he's taken a very strong step to try to essentially clamp down on colleges and force them, they would say, to take anti-Semitism seriously. You've actually been reporting on how the Trump administration pulled last week.
It's $400 million in federal grants and contracts from Columbia University. And just to remind people, Columbia was sort of the epicenter

of the protests last spring. Can you tell us more about the accusations that happened there on that

campus, as well as the cuts to funding? I mean, $400 million sounds like an incredibly large amount

and what that actually impacts. Well, we don't have the full scope of what it impacts, but yes,

$400 million is a lot of money for a university, for any university and for Columbia University. This unfolded very quickly at Columbia.
About a week and a half ago or so, the Trump administration told Columbia that it was under investigation for how it was treating Jewish students and whether it was safeguarding them against anti-Semitism. And then just four days later, they concluded that they weren't and pulled this $400 million by their calculations in grants and contracts.
This is not normally how things are done. Normally, there's a long investigation and there's a process by which universities can sort of come into compliance, which is what almost always happens.
In this case, they just said, you haven't upheld your duty under federal civil rights law, and therefore we're pulling this federal funding. So it was quite dramatic.
And a lot of people read it as a real shot across the bow, not just to Columbia, but to other universities around the country too. Right, because 60 other universities received a letter just on Monday.
I would assume there probably is fear around funding cuts for those universities as well. You know, absolutely.
I mean, everybody is fearful. And I think we should put this into some really broader context here, which is that universities have been on their heels, since the start of this administration.
There have been a series of actions that have been taken and that have been threatened in terms of funding and sort of general control over what they do from the Trump administration. And so universities are already feeling very frightened, unsure, and, you know, frankly, scrambling about what they will do if they lose all this federal funding.
Some of these schools are very dependent on federal funding through NIH research grants and other means. And the Trump administration is going about this, you know, quite aggressively, as we saw with Columbia on Friday.
And now this threat to, as you said, 60 other universities to say, yes, you know also on our radar and we could do the same to you. So the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Ed sent that letter to the colleges and universities.
And that office, which under a larger proposal to dismantle the Education Department, would fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. Can you share the latest of what we know about this draft executive order to dismantle the department that has been circulating? Have you seen it? I have seen it.
Of course, President Trump campaigned on a promise to close the Department of Education. And when he showed up on his first day, there was a draft executive order waiting for him, actually, that would have called on Congress to do such.
We should note that the administration does not have the power to simply close the Department of Education. Only Congress would have the ability to do that.
Congress created the agency, and only they can dismantle the agency. But what this executive order, the initial version of this executive order would have said was, ask Congress, come up with a plan to get Congress to eliminate the department.
And in the meantime, do what you can to dismantle it, to diminish it. And then we saw another version of the executive order floating around that did not have the part about calling on Congress to act, but did say that you should do what you can to diminish the agency on your own.
So it's not entirely clear what the administration's thinking is right now, but we do know two things. Ultimately, they would like to eliminate the department.
Congress is not likely to do that. And absent that, they would like to do what they can to reduce its footprint, potentially take parts of the agency and send them elsewhere, although that too is legally problematic.
Remind us what the U.S. Department of Education is responsible for.
Sure. So the biggest thing that it does is run the student federal aid program, the loans and the Pell grants that come from the federal government.
That's a huge responsibility. On the K-12 side, they administer a couple of very large grants.
Now, 90 percent of education spending comes from the state and local governments, but 10 percent comes from the federal government. Some of it's from a program called Title I, which aids high poverty schools.
Some of it's from a program called IDEA, which helps cover the costs of educating students with disabilities. And then the department also has, as you mentioned, the Office for Civil Rights.
And the goal of the Office for Civil Rights is to enforce, it's more than the goal, its task, its mandate is to force federal civil rights laws, which say you cannot get federal funding if you discriminate on students or others on campus on the basis of sex, race, national origin, and other factors as well. So that's their job.
So those are the major functions of the Department of Education. Going back to what you said about how it would take an act of Congress to dismantle, I do want to talk with you about the ways that the administration can change the function without Congress.
One of the ways is by taking some of what the Department of Education does and then having other departments handle that. Can you give us some examples of that? Well, there has been an aspiration for them to do that.
For instance, there's been talk, and Linda McMahon, the education secretary, during her confirmation hearing kind of floated these ideas of moving, for instance, the Office for Civil Rights to the Justice Department, or moving, say, the Title I program to the Department of Health and Human Services, or moving the federal student loan program to the Treasury Department. However, all of these programs in statute are said to be housed at the Department of Education.
So it isn't really clear at all to me or the experts I've talked to that they can just, on their own, try to move it. Now, maybe they will try, in which case, as you said, I think we'll likely see court action.
But I also think there's another path that's possible, which is rather than try to move these pieces around the government, is change how they're used. Either try to diminish them through unilateral canceling of grants and contracts, through reducing the staff, which we've already seen, the significant reduction in the staff at the Department of Education, and through changing how they use the powers of the Department of Education itself, including the Office for Civil Rights.
There was an executive order that Trump put forth in February where he demanded the Secretary of Education to deliver recommendations to him for eliminating funding for K-12 schools that engage in the indoctrination, as he puts it, over race and gender topics. And schools are typically a reflection of their communities.
And the curriculum is not set by the federal government, but states and the districts themselves. So how would the federal government enforce something like this? The first thing to talk about is exactly what you were just sort of pointing to, which is that there is a contradiction between the rhetoric that we hear from the White House, which is about returning education to the states and letting local people make these decisions and having empowering parents and all of this, and then at the same time, essentially trying to control education from Washington.
So we have a real contradiction there. Having said that, how would you go about doing that? Well, the way you do it is the argument is that when you, say, talk about race in certain ways in schools, or when you talk about gender and particularly transgender identity in schools, you are essentially violating civil rights laws.
They would say, yes, education should be controlled by school districts, but they don't have the right to violate federal law, which, of course, they don't. But there is a lot of debate about what federal law actually has to say about these issues.
This idea of moving the Office of Civil Rights, which, as you mentioned, enforces Title IX and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to the Department of Justice, how would being under the DOJ change the function of that office?

Well, it wouldn't necessarily change anything. So the Justice Department could use the power in the exact same way that the Education Department uses the power.
It would just be sitting in a different building in Washington. When you talk about dismantling the Department of Education, there's really two things to think about.
One is to think about, are we diminishing what the department does? Are you cutting the funding? Are you doing less? Are you essentially pulling back on the federal influence over schools? Or are you just getting rid of the department and moving stuff around? And those are two very different things. Yes, they're two very different things.
But ultimately, could the administration get what it wants through that second action? I think that theoretically, it could. I mean, it could if they could find a way to get Congress to go along, or maybe they ignore Congress and just try to do it on their own and try to spread the functions around.
They would declare victory on that. I don't know how much that necessarily impacts people on the ground, whether there is a Department of Education or not.
However, I do think that there's a symbolic importance to having this agency. I think the reason why it was created was to try to say that, hey, education is important and it deserves a seat at the table when we talk about the most urgent federal priorities.
And that, you know, we're going to have a secretary who has stature and who is in the cabinet room and with the other cabinet secretaries and who has a voice to be a leader on education and all of these elements that come from having a department itself. So theoretically, the Treasury Department could run the student aid program.
You know, theoretically, any agency could give out grants. Theoretically, the Treasury Department could run the student aid program.
Theoretically, any agency could give out grants. Theoretically, the Department of Justice could enforce civil rights laws in the context of education, just like it does in other contexts.
Like those things could happen. But the question also here around having a department is about like, what do we say that we value and what ideas and what issues do we want to have a seat at the table? It's pretty interesting that Linda McMahon has taken this role as the head of the Department of Education to dismantle it.
Can you kind of give us a sense of, is she working herself out of a job? Is she there just for that explicit purpose? What can you tell us about her? Well, it's interesting. She's not somebody who has a strong background in education.
She has a little bit of education experience. She's served on a state board for about a year, and she's been a trustee of a college in Connecticut.
She's obviously best known as being the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment with her husband, Vince McMahon. But the other thing you need to know about Linda McMahon is she's very close to Donald Trump.
And she served as the administrator of the Small Business Administration in his first term. And she worked on his re-election and she co-chaired his transition.
And now she has this job. So, you know, she is not somebody who has to really, she's a billionaire.
She doesn't have to worry about a paycheck if theoretically the Department of Education went away. I think that, again, it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to close the Department of Education.
So that's really much more of a talking point. I think that one thing we should be looking for is at what point do they start pivoting away from really talking about closing the education department?

Because the more they talk about it, if it doesn't happen, does that look like a failure on the part of President Trump? I don't think he would like that much. So I think we're much more likely to see her come in there.
She's really – she's kind of a grown-up.

She's – before she got there, it felt like, you know, the 20 something dozers were running the place, you know, now she's coming in and the people who opposed her didn't so much oppose her for who she was, but more because of what the agenda was. It's also pretty interesting because when Betsy DeVos was sworn in, it was pretty clear her ideology around education.
I mean, she was just such a big proponent of school choice. With McMahon, what did she indicate during her confirmation hearings would be sort of her focus around education, understanding her background? You know, she basically parroted the Trump lines about education.
She spoke about being in favor of school choice, which, as you said, was a Betsy DeVos priority. She talked about wanting to decrease the footprint of the Department of Education.
She did acknowledge that only Congress could close it. She talked about, you know, equity and gender ideology and needing to get rid of those out of schools.
She said she would look into what Doge was doing and make sure it, you know, didn't go too far. So, you know, she had a fairly as expected confirmation hearing.
I do think, though, that there's another interesting contrast with Secretary DeVos, because, yes, school choice was her and is still, we should say, her passion. She believes very strongly in school choice, which really didn't advance on the federal level under her tenure.
But she also had a very, very different outlook about the federal role in education. She thought it needed a light footprint.
So while she undid a lot of what the Obama administration did, she did not impose her own philosophical agenda. In fact, in a story I wrote last year, we looked into the creation of the 1776 Commission, which was to promote patriotic education in schools.
And it had begun with Donald Trump calling Betsy DeVos up one summer evening in 2020 and said, we've got to stop the 1619 project. How do we ban it from schools? Which was the New York Times, right, by Nicole Hannah-Jones.
Exactly. Yes, it was their effort to really reframe American history around slavery and the role that slavery has played in this country and its history.
And Betsy DeVos' response to President Trump was like, no, we can't ban the 1619 Project. That's not our job.
We're not here to run a national curriculum. You know, I don't like it either, but that's up to individual school districts.
And that's a very different point of view that we're seeing. And that was really how she governed during her whole four years was like, you know, she wasn't telling school districts what to do in either direction.
She viewed the federal government as having a light footprint. And now we see such a different, different orientation where they very much, I don't think they would have any trouble banning the 1619 Project.
In fact, it's banned on the state and local level in many places. Right.
But that's one thing, to ban it on the local level. The local and state governments, that is their job to set curriculum.
It isn't the federal role to decide what students learn, what students have to do to graduate, what books people read.

Those are not federal roles traditionally. But under this new way of looking things under the Trump administration is that they're defining things like this as being essentially akin to racial discrimination, that this is essentially discriminating against white people if they're forced to see American history through the lens of slavery.
Those are the sorts of arguments that are being made that essentially if you are pushing so-called critical race theory, if you're trying to say that the country is systemically racist, if you're saying that white people have privilege that other people don't have, all of these things gear you into the territory of a definition of racial discrimination that is very different than what we've seen in the past, essentially using the civil rights laws to try to stop what their proponents would see as efforts to try to eliminate racism. So that is a very different orientation, a much more muscular federal role that we've already seen rolled out just in these opening weeks of the Trump administration.
So it's a stark contrast to the first Trump administration. Our guest today is Washington Post national education writer Laura Meckler.
On Tuesday, the Education Department announced it was firing more than 1,300 department workers. We'll be right back after a short break.
I'm Tanya Mosley, and this is Fresh Air. Support for NPR and the following message come from Betterment, the automated investing and savings app.
CEO Sarah Levy shares how Betterment utilizes tech tools powered by human advice. Betterment is here to help customers build wealth their way.
And we provide powerful technology and complete human support where technology can deliver ease of use and affordability and the people behind that technology can provide advice and guidance. Learn more at Betterment.com.
Investing involves risk, performance not guaranteed. This message comes from Midi Health.
If you're a woman over 40 dealing with hot flashes, insomnia, weight gain, or brain fog, you don't have to accept it as just another part of aging. The clinicians at Midi Health understand what you're experiencing and know how to help.
Midi Health provides specialized care for paramenopause and menopause, covered by insurance. Book your visit today at joinmidi.com.
That's joinmidi.com. This message comes from the Sierra Club, protecting national parks and public lands for over 130 years and defending everyone's right to a healthy planet.
This Earth Month, all gifts are matched to make twice the impact. Donate now at sierraclub.org slash podcast.
This message comes from Carvana. Carvana makes car selling easy.
Just put in your license plate or VIN and get a real offer in seconds. Whether selling now or whenever feels right, sell with Carvana.
Laura, I want to talk a little bit about some of the actions of DOGE.

That's the Department of Government Efficiency run by Elon Musk.

We see that dismantling the Education Department is part of a larger effort by DOGE to streamline the government. They've terminated something like 89 contracts with the Department of Education, which has had an immediate impact on the Institute of Education Sciences.
What have you been following on that front? Yeah, well, DOES showed up and they just really began taking a hacksaw to a lot of different parts of the Education Department's mission. Specifically, they started with the Institute for Education Sciences, which is the research arm of the education department, and began just canceling grants.
There's a provision in federal grants where you, and maybe others as well, where you can cancel it for, quote, convenience, which means basically any reason we want. And that's what they did.
So these are research grants that were meant to try to figure out what is the best way of doing something. For instance, there was one grant that compared two different ways of teaching math.
It was an experiment, essentially, to see which one was more successful.

There also are important grants that deal with collecting data about education statistics around the country, how we know how many schools there are, how many teachers there are, what's the demographic makeup of the student body of the teaching force.

All of that information comes through this part of the agency. So that's one thing that they did.
They also began canceling grants that had anything to do with diversity, equity, and inclusion. If it had any of those words in it, essentially it got canceled as being inconsistent with the administration's priorities.
And you also saw them putting a lot of employees on administrative leave. Initially, they said they were going to put people on leave who did work related to DEI because they don't want that work done anymore.
But they actually went further than that and put a lot of people on leave, it appears, simply because they had at some point participated in some sort of a diversity program. And this includes programs that were touted under the first Trump administration that then Education Secretary Betsy DeVos herself was a supporter of.
So essentially, if you just participated in something like the Diversity Change Agent Program, which was a program to essentially help try to change the culture at the department, if you were just an everyday participant and you went to like a one-day training or a two-day training, you know, a few years ago, you might have been put on administrative leave. So DOJ has been quite active.
Why is Trump doing this? What is his vision for education? Well, it's interesting because when you listen to President Trump talk about education, he really talks about two different things, and they're somewhat in tension. The first thing he talks about is, quote, returning education to the states, which is a somewhat of a puzzling thing to say because education is already run by the states and local governments to a very large effect.
Now, there was a time not that long ago, you probably remember the No Child Left Behind Act that was passed under President George W. Bush, where the federal government did have a much bigger role.
But that was actually rolled back near the end of the Obama administration. So really, the federal footprint today is somewhat light.
But he does talk about returning education to the states. And the second thing we hear about from him is getting essentially, you know, wokeness and, you know, gender ideology and equity and race conversations essentially out of the schools.
So he wants to use the power of the federal government to influence the way that schools talk about those subjects and the policies that they use. So you can see how these are somewhat in tension with one another.
You have the federal government on one hand saying, well, this should be run by the states, on another hand saying, yes, except for this, that, and the other. Can you remind us as it pertains to the culture war issues and anything related to DEI, some of the origins of that? I know a few years ago, we were really talking about critical race theory within K-12 education.
I've also heard President Trump talk about the mothers, the parents who have really been pushing like sort of this lobby to push against DEI in schools. What can you tell us about that? Yeah, so the term critical race theory, which became sort of a basket term for everything that conservatives did not like about the conversation around race in schools.
But what it really is about is taking as a given that there is systemic racism in the country. And, you know, for some people, that's an obvious, of course, there's systemic racism.
And for other people, that's quite offensive. So that was essentially the dividing line that we saw.
We really saw a lot of this being churned up following George Floyd's death in May of 2020. And a lot of schools felt a moral imperative to really address questions of race and equity and to talk about what was happening in our country.
And then what you had was essentially a backlash to that, where you essentially had mostly white people who were saying, you know, this is offensive to me. How can you say, are you saying I'm racist? They didn't like any insinuation that they were part of the problem.
And I think that that's essentially where you saw a lot of pushback. Most of this really began on the local level at school board meetings.
Then you started seeing parent groups form. I should actually say that those parent groups were initially formed in response to COVID policies and people who were angry that schools were closed too long.
They were angry that their children were being required to wear masks and they were fighting against that. And then those groups essentially morphed into fighting about the content of these conversations around race.
And then that escalated to the state level where you sort of led by Florida and Governor DeSantis there. You saw a lot of legislation essentially controlling what could be taught.
You couldn't have certain conversations about race or gender in classrooms. There were new restrictions on what books were allowed to be read.
There were efforts to take books out of the library. Sort of all these culture wars were percolating all through the Biden years, essentially, and sort of teed up for Trump when he started running for reelection.
Did this also really ramp up the conversation around school choice? I know that Trump has really talked about that. I know Secretary of Education, former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos was a big proponent of school choice.
Can you tell us a little bit more about Trump's vision as it relates to school choice? Sure. I do think there is a direct relationship between the pandemic and school choice, as well as what we are now seeing from President Trump.
The frustration around public schools, some of which really were closed for a very long time, as long as a year and a half in some cases, where, well, the schools were open, but they were operating remotely. There was huge frustration around that.
And that all teed up long time efforts. These go back decades to try to essentially allow public money to pay for private schools and today also for homeschooling through various types of voucher programs.
And we've seen an explosion of these in conservative, mostly conservative states around the country of really big, expansive voucher programs that in many cases are available to all families, whereas they used to be limited by, say, income, or maybe they were targeted to students in certain parts of the state, or maybe to students with disabilities. Now they're essentially open to anybody where you can get thousands of dollars in state funding to apply to something other than public school.
So that's been happening over the last few years, a very robust school choice movement around the country. And now

President Trump also campaigned on bringing that to the federal level. And there is an effort right

now to add a federal school choice program into a big budget bill that is being negotiated now

that can pass through Congress with a simple majority in the Senate, as opposed to the normal

threshold of 60 votes for new programs like this. The leading idea that proponents are pushing hard is a tax credit.
It's in fact a 100% tax credit for donations to what are called scholarship-granting organizations. And then you would essentially get that money back through the tax code when you pay your taxes.
This sounds like it would be a big upset to the public school funding model. Well, there are certainly public school advocates who are very worried about that.
They're worried on two levels. They're worried about sort of the opportunity cost of it.
Like if we have billions of additional dollars to spend on education, they believe it should be spent on the public schools and not on private schools. They also worry about, and certainly on the state level, which is where a lot of the money for public schools comes from, that if you are spending all this money on voucher programs, will there be enough for the public schools? Will you have to cut public school spending at some point? And then lastly, the concern is, does this essentially lure kids away from public schools to private schools? Now, of course, advocates on the other side would say that that's their choice.
They're making a choice about what's best for their kid. But from the public school point of view, every child who leaves, they take their money with them.
They no longer get that per pupil funding. So this is a big deal for public schools.
How does a school choice program impact rural areas where private schools are scarce? Yeah, well, they're much less likely to be able to take advantage of it. Because as you say, there are fewer private schools.
So kids just have fewer choices about what to do. And also in rural areas, we should say that often the schools are the biggest employer and really the center of the community.
So they play a very important role. In fact, you know, for many years, we really saw reluctance of Republicans representing rural areas in many states to support school voucher programs for

that reason. However, that has somewhat shifted and there has been more support from those

Republicans over time for these programs. But yeah, I mean, school choice does not have the

same kind of impact in a rural area that it does in a suburb or in a city where there are a lot

more options. Can you talk about the impact of cuts to students with disabilities? Yeah, well, the federal government requires that schools, public schools, offer students with disabilities a free and appropriate education.
And as part of that, they have agreed to pay for part of the cost. Now, they've never paid the amount that they said they would, but they do pay some of the cost and help school districts fund these services, which can be quite expensive, depending on what a particular student's situation is.
But the idea is that we want students with disabilities to not just be ignored. For many years before this, they were just kind of, schools would just refuse to educate them, and they're no longer allowed to do that.
They do have to provide education to students regardless of their disability. Okay, let's take a short break.
If you're just joining us, we're talking to national education writer Laura Meckler of the Washington Post about what it would mean in practice for the Department of Education to be dismantled. We'll continue our conversation after a short break.
This is Fresh Air. This message comes from the Sierra Club, the nation's largest grassroots environmental organization.
For over 130 years, the Sierra Club has fought to protect national parks and public lands. Through legal, policy, and advocacy efforts, the Sierra Club safeguards America's cherished natural places for future generations and defends everyone's right to a healthy planet.
This Earth Month, all gifts are matched for a limited time to make twice the impact. Donate now at sierraclub.org slash podcast.
This message comes from Blue Harbor Entertainment with Audrey's Children, starring Natalie Dormer, the untold true story of Dr. Audrey Evans, whose fight for change redefined medicine and continues to impact the lives of millions.
After being recruited to an elite children's hospital in 1969, Evans refused to accept the futility of current therapies and pioneered life-saving treatments. She was also the co-founder of Ronald McDonald House Charities, now playing only in theaters.
One of the interesting things noted in Project 2025 is to narrow institutional funding to historically Black colleges and universities. One of the things President Trump was lauded for during his last presidency was making permanent and annual funding commitment of millions to HBCUs.
It's just interesting to be at this point where there seems to be such a culture war over things that are very specific to people of color or other identities. Have you been watching or following this? And how likely could that commitment go away? Well, we haven't seen that be threatened, at least not yet.
So I don't necessarily think that's specifically on the chopping block. But, you know, I would never rule it out.
It could be. I mean, I think you have to ask the question if they're saying essentially that, for instance, affinity groups, say like a group that gathers people together with a certain identity for support and socializing and, you know, maybe frank conversations, that they essentially are arguing that these are contrary to federal law because they're exclusionary based on race.
So does that same argument get made for an HBCU? I don't think so. HBCUs admit people of all races, even if they are focused on one.
So it is, they're certainly not violating federal law, but it's kind of in a similar neighborhood to what we're hearing. Yeah, it just complicates the conversation, because if you're asking an HBCU to be compliant against federal mandates around DEI, for example, and it's tied to funding, it just puts all educational institutions in a really precarious bind as it relates to the curriculum that they're setting forth for their students.
Well, 100%. And that, I think, is sort of the idea here.
They want everybody to be questioning everything they do. One thing that struck me during Linda McMahon's confirmation hearing is she was asked, would a Black History Month celebration be okay? And she said, yes, it would be.
And she said, an event on Martin Luther King Day, that would be all right as well. But then she was asked, well, what about a Black History course? And she said, well, I don't know.
I'd have to see the details. And now there are Black History courses at schools all over the country.
So I thought that was a somewhat of a red flag. My eyes, you know, perked up when I heard that, if eyes can perk up.
And when I heard that, when she said that, because I was like, well, a Black history class might be contrary to federal law. You know, that's a new idea.
It just opens up a lot of things. I mean, an indigenous history class.
I mean, America is, quote unquote, a melting pot of so much, and the history is so rich, it just opens up everything. The thinking of the administration is that, you know, we shouldn't be separating people out by race.
So are these departments doing that? Is this contrary to their interpretation of federal law? We had the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights issue a letter, what's called a Dear Colleague letter, which was their interpretation of the Students for Fair Admissions case against Harvard, you know, a couple of years ago, which had to do with affirmative action in admissions. And they wrote this letter, though, very broadly, suggesting that essentially, any consideration of race in any way, in any program, at a university, or a K-12 school, could be contrary to federal law.
And this letter had people scrambling, like, what does this mean?

And then they issued a follow-up, which somewhat narrowed it. But all of this confusion that we're

talking about throughout this whole conversation, we're talking about confusion, we're talking about

general ideas that then get seemed to applied in, you know, somewhat shocking ways, such as all of

a sudden, Columbia University losing $400 million in funding or a grant program that had a lot of bipartisan support just sort of disappearing, you know, or people losing their jobs. Like all of this stuff is extremely destabilizing.
And I actually think is sort of part of the plan in some ways, because they want people and universities and school districts to think twice before they do any of this stuff. You know, I'm just curious.
I mean, calls for education reform, I mean, they've been happening really since even before the formation of the Department of Education. So this is not necessarily something that feels new or novel.
I mean, there is a desire from both sides. It's bipartisan to really look and streamline and provide a better way for educational opportunity in the United States.
And some see some of the roadblocks and the bureaucracy as a block to that? For sure. I mean, I don't think anybody really disagrees that we want kids to have the best possible start in life and have the most opportunities.
I think that that's very true. And there has been in recent years, some more conversation about the actual substance about how do we achieve that.
For instance, there's been a deep conversation about how reading is taught and promotion of something called the science of reading, which is something that incorporates phonics much more directly than we've had in recent years. And that's like a conversation about the real heart of education, like how do we actually improve outcomes for kids? How do we get them on a firmer footing? funding.
There also is more, there actually is bipartisan support for things like apprenticeships

and, you know, more robust and more effective career and technical education in high schools

for kids who are not going to maybe end up going to college. So there are things out there to talk

about the actual education of it all, as opposed to the rest of this, which is very much about politics and culture and the like. Laura Meckler, thank you so much for your reporting and your time.
Thanks so much for having me. Laura Meckler is a national education writer for the Washington Post.
Our conversation was recorded yesterday. Coming up, TV critic David Bianculli reviews A Thousand Blows, the new historical drama series from Peaky Blinders creator Stephen Knight.
This is Fresh Air. This message comes from Schwab.
At Schwab, how you invest is your choice, not theirs. That's why when it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices.
You can invest and trade on your own. Plus, get advice and more comprehensive wealth solutions to help meet your unique needs.
With award-winning service, low costs, and transparent advice, you can manage your wealth your way at Schwab. Visit schwab.com to learn more.
This message comes from Greenlight. Ready to start talking to your kids about financial literacy? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app that teaches kids and teens how to earn, save, spend wisely, and invest.
With Greenlight, you can send money to kids quickly, set up chores,

automate allowance, and keep an eye on your kids' spending with real-time notifications. Join millions of parents and kids building healthy financial habits together on Greenlight.
Get started risk-free at greenlight.com slash NPR. Stephen Knight, creator of the long-running, much-acclaimed British TV series Peaky Blinders, has a new period drama that's come to the United States.

It's called A Thousand Blows, and it's about tough yet vulnerable characters trying to survive and thrive in Victorian-era East End London. Our TV critic David Bianculli has this review.
In the last couple of years, British writer-producer Stephen Knight has been responsible for some really thoughtful,

very entertaining TV miniseries.

The modern spy drama The Veil,

starring Elizabeth Moss.

The World War II drama All the Light We Cannot See,

starring Mark Ruffalo.

And, set in the early 19th century,

a vibrant adaptation of the Charles Dickens novel

Great Expectations, with the marvelous Olivia Colman as Miss Havisham. But before that, from 2013 to 2022, Stephen Knight created, and wrote and directed many episodes of, one of the best TV series so far in this 21st century, Peaky Blinders, showcasing the talent of Killian Murphy long before he played the title role in the hit movie Oppenheimer.
Peaky Blinders was a brilliant character study of someone striving to outwit, outplay, and outlast all competing criminal elements while simultaneously navigating potential roads to prominence and respectability. That's what Stephen Knight's new series A Thous Thousand Blows, is about as well.
But this new Hulu series, set on the tough east side of London in the Victorian era, focuses intently not just on one scrappy character, but on three. And Knight, as creator and lead writer of A Thousand Blows, has done what David Milch did on his HBO series Deadwood.
Knight, like Milch, bases his central characters on actual figures from history, then builds a totally believable, depressingly seedy environment, and populates that with fictional characters to interact with the real ones. The actual historical record is used more as inspiration than blueprint, but the seeds are there.

Basically, A Thousand Blows is set against the boxing world,

which, at that time in London in the 1880s, was a tale of two cities.

There's the east end of London, where vicious bare-knuckles fights were staged in back rooms of neighborhood pubs.

And there's the west end, where boxing matches were more gentlemanly affairs in men's clubs,

We'll be right back. bare-knuckles fights were staged in back rooms of neighborhood pubs.
And there's the West End, where boxing matches were more gentlemanly affairs in men's clubs, with boxing gloves and strongly enforced rules of engagement. Stephen Graham, who played Hayden Stagg in the final season of Peaky Blinders, portrays Sugar Goodson, an East End pub owner and furious fighter.
Aaron Doherty, who played Princess Anne in the middle seasons of The Crown, portrays Mary Carr, the leader of the Forty Elephants. That's a gang of opportunistic pickpockets, shoplifters, and thieves, all women.
And interacting with both of those fact-based colorful characters is a third. Jamaican immigrant Hezekiah Mosko, played with Killian Murphy-type intensity, by Malachi Kirby, who starred as Kunta Kinte in the recent remake of Roots.
Eventually, Hezekiah steps into the boxing ring on both sides of London. But when he arrives in England, fresh off the boat at the London docks and accompanied by his childhood friend Alex, he's pursuing a different dream entirely.
One of the first people he meets on the bustling streets of London is Mary Carr, the gang leader thief, who, while talking to Hezekiah about his future, also is picking his pocket. All right, so tomorrow I'm going to the East London Zoological Gardens.
Have you ever been there? Actually, yes. We go there often, especially when we know there'll be a crowd.
Have you seen the lions there? What do you want to see a lion for? I don't want to see a lion. I want to tell him one.
You're a lion timer. Not yet, but I will be.
You're not serious. I'm not from London, so when I say something, that is what I mean.

When their conversation is over and Hezekiah politely asks for his stolen two shillings to be returned, the two begin a friendship that takes them across London, from grimy streets to royal mansions. A Thousand Blows arrives on Hulu with all six episodes dropped at once.
but it finishes with a to-be-continued ending and even includes some teaser scenes from future episodes. More of this story clearly is coming.
But what's here is gripping on its own and full of surprises. The boxing sequences, like the royal dinners, are impressive in their detail and in their very different types of intensity.
And while A Thousand Blows is not, so far, quite up to the level of Peaky Blinders, it does achieve one thing that TV series did so brilliantly. It introduces us to characters and performances that linger long after the show is over.
David Bianculli is a professor of television studies at Rowan University.

He reviewed A Thousand Blows, now streaming on Hulu.

Tomorrow on Fresh Air, we remember South African playwright Athol Fugard,

whose plays were about the emotional and psychological consequences of apartheid.

And we remember songwriter and singer Jerry Butler,

who sang with Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions before going solo. I hope you can join us.
Fresh Air's executive producer is Danny Miller. Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham.
Our managing producer is Sam Brigger. Our interviews and reviews are produced and edited by Phyllis Myers, Anne-Marie Baldonado, Lauren Krenzel, Teresa Madden, Monique Nazareth, Thea Chaloner, Susan Yacundi, and Anna Bauman.
Our digital media producer is Molly C.B. Nesper.
Roberta Shorrock directs the show. With Terry Gross, I'm Tanya Mosley.
Support for NPR and the following message come from IXL Online. Is your child asking questions on their homework you don't feel equipped to answer? IXL Learning uses advanced algorithms to give the right help to each kid, no matter the age or personality.
One subscription gets you everything. One site for all the kids in your home, pre-K to 12th grade.
Make an impact on your child's learning. Get IXL now.
and npr listeners can get an exclusive 20 off ixl membership when they sign up today at ixl.com slash npr this message comes from warby parker what makes a great pair of glasses at warby parker it's all the invisible extras without the extra cost like like free adjustments for life. Find your pair

at borbyparker.com or visit one of their hundreds of stores around the country.

Support for NPR and the following message come from IXL Learning. IXL Learning uses advanced

algorithms to give the right help to each kid no matter the age or personality.

Get an exclusive 20% off IXL membership when you sign up today at IXL.com slash NPR.