Many political pundits are still trying to piece together how the results of last week’s midterm election are going to play out in the next session of Congress. The Republican Party’s victories in the Senate and in the House of Representatives will bring many fresh faces and new ideologies into the fold in Washington. One of the most talked-about Republican candidates during the campaign, Rand Paul (R- Kentucky), was able to coast his way to victory with a 10-percentage-point lead over his Democratic opponent, Jack Conway, in the final tally. Now a national favorite, Paul has an ambitious agenda for when he gets to Washington, and it includes abolishing the Department of Education.

Abolishing the Department of Education? Yes, you read that correctly. Rand Paul, taking after the beliefs of his father, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), believes that education should be a local matter. Therefore, he opposes any federal control or authority over schools; he noted in a debate that it was unjust for someone in Washington to insist that “Susie having two mommies” was an acceptable family situation to teach his kindergartner. Paul also believes that the federal government should be divorced from any funding toward education, otherwise Washington could retain some control in the field.

There are many reasons why this is troubling. States receive about 10 percent of their funding for education from the federal government. While this may not seem like a lot, it amounts to millions of dollars. In Kentucky’s case, it is estimated to be $429 million of the current budget. Most of this money is presented to the state through Title I block grants, which go to students of low-income backgrounds who are in dire need of aid. The Department of Education also funds many essential programs such as Head Start, an early childhood program that has demonstrated gains for later academic achievement. I will note that Paul did acknowledge the necessity of Pell Grants, which provide financial aid for higher education and suggested they could be moved to another department.

The Department of Education also conducts longitudinal studies and gathers vital statistical information regarding academic achievement. For example, using its data, I was able to observe that Kentucky is actually below the national average in eighth-grade math scores, according to a nationally distributed assessment test. This type of data can be essential in understanding which states and urban areas need greater support in the education realm.

Paul’s position is also frustrating because it is simply not politically feasible. Republican President George W. Bush was one of the primary architects of No Child Left Behind, a massive federal expansion of educational control. This was an endeavor heavily promoted by the presumed next speaker of the House, U.S. Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio). Go even further back to the “godfather”—President Ronald Reagan. He also ran on a platform of abolishing the Department of Education, only to discover in office that having an influence on education policy was politically useful. He commissioned a now-famous report, “A Nation at Risk,” detailing policy recommendations to improve education across America. Reagan’s secretary of education commented in 1984 that abolishing the department would never again be considered seriously. In addition, although Republicans have criticized President Obama, many have written praise for his secretary of education, Arne Duncan, and his newest plan to stimulate educational innovation in the states through a multibillion-dollar grant competition, Race to the Top (the merits and benefits of this program are still debated among educators though).

This is all very disconcerting to me because it demonstrates a politician’s desire to put political survival above sound, pragmatic policy. I’m sure this talking point gained Paul some votes in his state—but at what cost? The Department of Education provides vital funding and services to millions of children across the country every day. Even if one disagrees with that sentiment, it seems that, politically speaking, the department is here to stay. So if one really cares about the future of education in this country, why not spend time and effort on considering how to reform the department for the better? I hope this is something that Rand Paul and his newly elected colleagues will somehow consider during the next congressional session. Serious and well-informed debates regarding the future of education need to occur. Too much is at stake to just stick to talking points.