While the confirmation hearing provided an array of soundbites that continue to circulate through the 24-hour news cycle, Rebecca Natow of the Hechinger Report provides some insight into an important topic that was largely absent from the vigorous debate: rule-making.
As mentioned in her article, "rule-making" is essentially how federal agencies navigate their operations under new and existing legislation. This process allows relevant agencies to set the rules of interpretation regarding vague language, mandates, definitions, etc. For example, if legislation directed towards "low-income students" fails to define how "income" is measured, rule-making allows that department to utilize their own interpretation. For political science nerds like myself, this is extremely similar to the President's usage of signing statements or executive orders to dictate federal interpretations of laws.
With this in mind, overhauling legislation would not necessarily be needed in order to enact significant change in the Department of Education and its operations. Rather, merely altering the department's interpretation of current statutes is enough to modify the existing landscape of education (note: these rules are still subject to constitutional oversight by the courts).
While rule-making can seem confusing, it is important to remember that this process is a matter of public record. Natow points to an especially helpful tool in Regulations.gov--a government resource that provides information about proposed rule changes, public hearing regarding those rule changes, and opportunities for public comment. Obviously, this will be an important tool for those who are concerned about the potential for radical changes in the Department of Education and beyond.
