“Department of Education” Between the Lines

Summary: Section 3.11 of Project 2025, titled “Department of Education,” advocates for the significant reduction and eventual elimination of the federal Department of Education. The document argues that federal involvement in education has failed to improve student outcomes despite significant financial investments. The section calls for a shift in control of education policy and funding to the state and local levels, promoting school choice and reducing federal regulations. The proposals include reforms to various offices within the department, redistribution of programs to other federal agencies, and the elimination of what is described as bureaucratic inefficiency.

In-Depth Analysis:

1. Elimination of the Department of Education:
   • Policy Proposal: The document strongly advocates for the dissolution of the Department of Education, arguing that education should be managed by states and local communities rather than the federal government. The proposal emphasizes the return of education funding and decision-making to the state and local levels through block grants without federal oversight.
   • Concerning Implications: While decentralizing education could encourage innovation and responsiveness to local needs, the complete elimination of the Department of Education raises concerns about the potential for increased inequality in educational opportunities. States with fewer resources may struggle to provide quality education, and without federal oversight, there could be a lack of uniform standards, leading to disparities in educational quality across the country. Additionally, federal programs that support disadvantaged students could be weakened or eliminated, exacerbating inequalities.
   • Potential Consequences: The removal of federal oversight could result in significant disparities in educational outcomes, particularly affecting low-income and minority students. The shift to state and local control might lead to a fragmented education system with varying standards and access to resources, potentially undermining the goal of providing equal educational opportunities for all students.
2. Advancing Education Freedom through School Choice:
   • Policy Proposal: The section promotes the expansion of school choice initiatives, including education savings accounts (ESAs) and voucher programs, which would allow parents to direct public funding to the educational institutions of their choice, whether public, private, or religious.
   • Concerning Implications: While school choice can provide families with more options, it also raises concerns about the potential for public funds to be diverted from public schools, weakening the public education system. There is also a risk that such programs could lead to increased segregation along socioeconomic and racial lines, as families with more resources may be better positioned to take advantage of these opportunities.
   • Potential Consequences: Expanding school choice could lead to a decline in funding for public schools, particularly in low-income areas, where public education may be the only viable option for many families. This could result in a two-tiered education system, where only those with sufficient resources have access to high-quality education, further entrenching social and economic inequalities.
3. Reforms to Federal Education Programs and Offices:
   • Policy Proposal: The document calls for the redistribution of federal education programs to other departments, such as moving Title I funding to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and shifting the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to the Department of Justice (DOJ). It also proposes reducing the number of programs managed by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) and transferring responsibilities for special education to HHS.
   • Concerning Implications: The redistribution of programs could lead to a dilution of the focus on education and create inefficiencies in program management. Moving civil rights enforcement from the Department of Education to the DOJ may reduce the emphasis on protecting students’ rights in educational settings, particularly concerning issues like discrimination and access to education for students with disabilities. The proposed changes could also lead to reduced federal support for special education, potentially harming students who rely on these services.
   • Potential Consequences: These reforms could result in a fragmented approach to education policy, where critical programs are managed by agencies that may not have the expertise or focus on education. This could undermine efforts to ensure equal access to quality education for all students, particularly those who are most vulnerable, such as students with disabilities and those from marginalized communities.
4. Critique of Federal Education Spending and Effectiveness:
   • Policy Proposal: The document criticizes the effectiveness of federal education spending, arguing that despite trillions of dollars invested since the 1960s, student outcomes have remained stagnant. It calls for a reevaluation of federal education funding, with an emphasis on reducing expenditures and focusing on programs that directly improve student achievement.
   • Concerning Implications: While it is important to ensure that education spending is effective, the broad critique of federal spending could lead to significant cuts to programs that provide essential support to students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds. The focus on reducing expenditures may overlook the complexities of educational challenges and the need for targeted investments in areas that require improvement.
   • Potential Consequences: Reducing federal education funding could exacerbate existing disparities in educational opportunities, particularly for disadvantaged students who rely on federal support. Without adequate funding, programs that address issues like early childhood education, special education, and support for low-income students may be weakened or eliminated, leading to further declines in student achievement and widening achievement gaps.
5. Restoring State and Local Control Over Education Funding:
   • Policy Proposal: The section advocates for restoring state and local control over education funding, arguing that federal involvement has led to inefficiencies and a lack of accountability. The proposal includes transferring federal education funds to states in the form of block grants, allowing states to use the funds as they see fit.
   • Concerning Implications: While state and local control can increase flexibility and responsiveness to local needs, there is a risk that block grants may not be distributed equitably, leading to disparities in funding across states and districts. Additionally, without federal oversight, there may be less accountability for how the funds are used, potentially resulting in inefficiencies and misuse of resources.
   • Potential Consequences: The shift to state and local control over education funding could lead to significant disparities in educational resources and opportunities. States with more resources may be able to provide better education, while those with less funding may struggle to meet the needs of their students. This could result in increased inequality in educational outcomes and limit opportunities for students in underfunded areas.
6. Title IX and Civil Rights Protections:
   • Policy Proposal: The document calls for rescinding the Biden Administration’s changes to Title IX, which expanded protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It advocates for restoring the definition of “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth and transferring the enforcement of civil rights protections from the Department of Education to the DOJ.
   • Concerning Implications: The proposed rollback of Title IX protections could lead to increased discrimination against LGBTQ+ students, limiting their access to safe and inclusive educational environments. The narrow definition of “sex” could also undermine the rights of transgender students and reduce protections against gender-based discrimination. Transferring civil rights enforcement to the DOJ may reduce the focus on education-specific issues, potentially weakening the protection of students’ rights in schools.
   • Potential Consequences: Rescinding the expanded protections under Title IX could result in a less inclusive and equitable education system, particularly for LGBTQ+ students. The proposed changes may lead to increased discrimination and harassment in schools, creating hostile environments that hinder students’ ability to learn and succeed. Additionally, the shift in enforcement responsibilities could reduce the effectiveness of civil rights protections in educational settings, leaving students vulnerable to discrimination and unequal treatment.

Conclusion Statement: The proposals outlined in the “Department of Education” section of Project 2025 represent a significant shift in federal education policy, with a focus on reducing federal involvement and increasing state and local control. While the emphasis on school choice and local decision-making may offer some benefits, the proposed changes raise serious concerns about the potential for increased inequality, reduced protections for vulnerable students, and a fragmented education system. The elimination of the Department of Education and the rollback of civil rights protections could undermine efforts to ensure equal access to quality education for all students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. As these policies are considered, it is crucial to carefully weigh their potential consequences and ensure that they do not compromise the fundamental principles of equity, inclusion, and the right to a quality education for every student.

Potential Concerns: Department of Education

Equity and Access

• Disparities in Educational Quality: Decentralization and increased local control can lead to significant disparities in educational quality and resources across different regions. Wealthier districts may implement innovative programs and provide superior educational opportunities, while poorer districts may struggle to meet basic standards. This can exacerbate existing inequalities and create an uneven playing field for students based on their geographic location and socio-economic status.

• Impact on Vulnerable Populations: The shift towards market-driven policies and school choice, including voucher programs and charter schools, can divert essential resources from public schools, which serve the majority of students, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds. This diversion of resources can lead to underfunded public schools, reduced educational opportunities, and increased inequities for vulnerable populations.

Accountability and Oversight

• Reduced Federal Oversight: Reducing federal oversight and regulatory burdens can lead to inconsistencies in educational quality and accountability across states and districts. Without uniform standards and enforcement mechanisms, it can be challenging to ensure that all students receive a high-quality education, regardless of where they live. This lack of oversight can also make it difficult to hold schools accountable for their performance and use of public funds.

• Risk of Substandard Educational Institutions: Expanding school choice without adequate oversight can lead to the proliferation of substandard or fraudulent educational institutions. Ensuring that voucher programs and charter schools maintain high standards and provide quality education is essential. Without proper regulation, there is a risk of public funds being used to support schools that do not meet the necessary educational requirements.

Curriculum and Values

• Contentious Debates Over Curriculum: The emphasis on traditional educational values and curriculum reform can lead to debates over what constitutes an appropriate and balanced education. There is a risk that certain topics, such as social justice, multiculturalism, and critical thinking, may be marginalized in favor of a more traditional curriculum. Ensuring that the curriculum is inclusive and reflective of diverse perspectives is crucial to avoid promoting a narrow or biased view of history and society.

• Potential for Ideological Bias: Character education programs and the promotion of traditional values can be beneficial, but they also risk being used to promote specific ideological or political agendas. Ensuring that character education remains neutral and inclusive is important to avoid indoctrination and to respect the diverse beliefs and values of all students.

Higher Education Reforms

• Affordability and Accessibility: Addressing the rising costs of higher education and promoting vocational and technical training are important goals. However, reforms must ensure that they do not disproportionately disadvantage certain groups of students. Efforts to promote vocational training should complement, rather than replace, traditional college education. Maintaining affordability and accessibility for all students, regardless of their chosen educational path, is essential.

• Institutional Autonomy: Balancing the need for accountability with the autonomy of higher education institutions is important to maintain the quality and diversity of educational offerings. Excessive regulation or interference can undermine the ability of colleges and universities to innovate and respond to the needs of their students.

Conclusion

The proposed reforms for the Department of Education under Project 2025 aim to decentralize control, promote school choice, reduce regulatory burdens, and return to traditional educational values. While these reforms have the potential to increase flexibility, innovation, and parental involvement, they also raise significant concerns about equity, accountability, curriculum inclusiveness, and the practical challenges of implementation. Addressing these concerns through thoughtful planning, adequate support mechanisms, and a balanced approach is essential to ensure that the proposed reforms benefit all students and strengthen the overall education system.

Breaking Down the Concerns: Department of Education

• Educational Inequality: Giving more control to local governments can lead to big differences in school quality. Wealthier areas might offer better education, while poorer areas struggle, making it unfair for students based on where they live.

• Resources for Public Schools: Programs like vouchers and charter schools might take money away from public schools, which could hurt the education of most students, especially those from low-income families.

• Lack of Oversight: Reducing federal rules can lead to uneven education standards. Without proper checks, it’s hard to ensure all schools are doing a good job and spending money wisely.

• Risk of Poor-Quality Schools: If new schools (like charter schools) aren’t well-regulated, they might not provide good education. There’s a risk of funding schools that don’t meet basic standards.

• Curriculum Disputes: Changing to a more traditional curriculum could lead to arguments about what should be taught. Important topics like social justice might be left out, making education less balanced.

• Ideological Bias: Programs focused on character education need to be neutral. There’s a risk they could push certain political or religious views, which isn’t fair to all students.

• Higher Education Costs: While making college more affordable is good, reforms should help all students equally. Vocational training should add to college options, not replace them, to keep all educational paths open.

• College Autonomy: Colleges need freedom to innovate and meet student needs. Too much regulation could limit their ability to provide diverse and quality education.

# Red Flags in the Reforms: Analyzing Troubling Quotes

• Quote: “Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated. When power is exercised, it should empower students and families, not government” (Project 2025, p 302).

  • Summarize Quote: The quote suggests that federal education policy should be minimal, eventually leading to the elimination of the Department of Education, with a focus on empowering students and families rather than government.

  • Explanation: The proposal to eliminate the Department of Education reflects a significant shift away from federal oversight and support in education. This stance may lead to a reduction in uniform standards and support for disadvantaged students, potentially exacerbating educational inequalities. The emphasis on limiting federal power and focusing on students and families overlooks the crucial role that federal initiatives play in ensuring equitable access to quality education across different states and districts. Without federal oversight, states with fewer resources may struggle to provide adequate educational opportunities, resulting in disparities in educational quality and access.

• Quote: “The next Administration should prohibit the USDA or any other federal agency from withholding services from federal or state agencies—including but not limited to K–12 schools—that choose not to replace ‘sex’ with ‘SOGI’ in that agency’s administration of Title IX” (Project 2025, p 319).

  • Summarize Quote: The recommendation is to prevent federal agencies from withholding services from institutions that do not include “SOGI” (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) in their administration of Title IX.

  • Explanation: This quote raises concerns about the protection of LGBTQ+ students under Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex in educational programs and activities. The suggestion to prevent the enforcement of policies that protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity could lead to increased vulnerability and discrimination against LGBTQ+ students. This stance reflects a potential rollback of civil rights protections, undermining the progress made in ensuring a safe and inclusive environment for all students. It also suggests a broader agenda of reducing federal oversight in enforcing civil rights protections in education.

• Quote: “Ultimately, every parent should have the option to direct his or her child’s share of education funding through an education savings account (ESA), funded overwhelmingly by state and local taxpayers, which would empower parents to choose a set of education options that meet their child’s unique needs” (Project 2025, p 302).

  • Summarize Quote: The quote advocates for Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), allowing parents to use state and local taxpayer funds to choose educational options for their children.

  • Explanation: The emphasis on ESAs as a means of providing parents with educational choice reflects a broader push towards decentralization and privatization in education. While promoting choice, this approach may lead to significant challenges, including the potential underfunding of public schools as funds are redirected to private and alternative education options. This could exacerbate existing inequities, particularly affecting students from low-income families who may not have the same access to quality private education. The reliance on state and local funding also risks creating disparities based on geographic and economic differences, further entrenching educational inequalities.

• Quote: “States are eager to lead in K–12 education. For decades, they have acted independently of the federal government to pioneer a variety of constructive reforms and school choice programs. For example, in 2011, Arizona first piloted ESAs, which provide families roughly 90 percent of what the state would have spent on that child in public school to be used instead on education options such as private school tuition, online courses, and tutoring” (Project 2025, p 302).

  • Summarize Quote: The quote highlights state-led initiatives in education, particularly school choice programs like Arizona’s Education Savings Accounts (ESAs).

  • Explanation: While the promotion of state-led initiatives can encourage innovation, the focus on school choice programs like ESAs raises concerns about the potential weakening of public education. Such programs divert funds from public schools, which may result in reduced resources and quality for students who remain in the public system. The emphasis on private options like tutoring and private school tuition suggests a move towards privatization, which could exacerbate educational inequalities by favoring families with more resources and access to information. The lack of a strong federal role could also lead to inconsistent education standards and protections across states, affecting the overall quality of education nationwide.

• Quote: “To improve educational opportunities for all Americans, the next Administration should work with Congress to pass a Department of Education Reorganization Act to reform, eliminate, or move the department’s programs and offices to appropriate agencies. The following is an overview of what should happen within each of the offices and to each of the programs currently operated by the department” (Project 2025, p 308).

  • Summarize Quote: The recommendation is to reorganize or eliminate the Department of Education’s programs and offices.

  • Explanation: This statement indicates a potential dismantling or significant reduction of the Department of Education, which could lead to a decentralization of educational standards and policies. Such an approach may reduce federal oversight and support for education, potentially exacerbating inequalities in education quality and access across different states. The lack of a unified national standard could lead to disparities in educational outcomes, particularly affecting marginalized communities. Additionally, this restructuring could limit the federal government’s ability to address national educational issues, such as ensuring equal access to quality education, supporting students with disabilities, and protecting students’ civil rights.

• Quote: “Streamlining existing programs and funding so that dollars are sent to states through straightforward per-pupil allocations or in the form of grants that states can put toward any lawful education purpose under state law would bring a needed easing of the federal compliance burden” (Project 2025, p 308).

  • Summarize Quote: The proposal suggests distributing federal education funds directly to states with fewer federal compliance requirements.

  • Explanation: While the intention of reducing federal compliance burdens may seem beneficial, this approach could undermine the enforcement of critical educational standards and protections. Without federal oversight, states may use funds in ways that do not align with the goals of equity and quality in education. This could lead to disparities in how resources are allocated, particularly in states with less commitment to supporting underserved or marginalized students. The lack of federal compliance could also hinder efforts to uphold standards for educational content, teacher qualifications, and student outcomes, potentially resulting in a fragmented and unequal education system across the country.

• Quote: “The federal government should confine its involvement in education policy to that of a statistics-gathering agency that disseminates information to the states” (Project 2025, p 308).

  • Summarize Quote: The recommendation is for the federal government to limit its role in education to collecting and sharing data.

  • Explanation: This proposal suggests a significant reduction in the federal government’s role in shaping education policy, which could have several negative consequences. By limiting its involvement to data collection, the federal government would relinquish its role in setting and enforcing educational standards and policies. This could weaken protections for students’ rights and reduce support for programs aimed at addressing educational inequities. Furthermore, the federal government’s diminished role could lead to a lack of accountability for states in how they use federal funds and implement educational initiatives. This approach risks creating a more fragmented and inconsistent education system across the nation, potentially widening the gap between well-funded and under-resourced schools.

• Quote: “Reduce the number of programs managed by OESE, and transfer some remaining programs to other federal agencies. Transfer Title I, Part A, which provides federal funding for lower-income school districts, to the Department of Health and Human Services, specifically the Administration for Children and Families. It should be administered as a no-strings-attached formula block grant” (Project 2025, p 308).

  • Summarize Quote: The proposal is to reduce the programs under the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and transfer Title I funding to the Department of Health and Human Services.

  • Explanation: Transferring Title I funding to another agency and administering it as a block grant without specific requirements could jeopardize the targeted support intended for lower-income school districts. Title I funds are crucial for providing additional resources to schools serving disadvantaged students, helping to close the achievement gap. The absence of specific requirements or oversight could result in inconsistent allocation of funds, potentially diverting resources away from the students who need them most. This change could undermine efforts to provide equitable educational opportunities and support for low-income and marginalized students, further entrenching educational inequalities.

• Quote: “Most IDEA funding should be converted into a no-strings formula block grant targeted at students with disabilities and distributed directly to local education agencies by Health and Human Service’s Administration for Community Living “ (Project 2025, p 309).

  • Summarize Quote: The proposal suggests converting funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) into block grants managed by the Department of Health and Human Services, with fewer federal stipulations.

  • Explanation: Converting IDEA funding into block grants with minimal federal oversight threatens the consistent and equitable delivery of special education services. IDEA mandates that students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education, tailored to their individual needs. Federal regulations ensure that these rights are upheld and that funds are used specifically to support these students. Without stringent federal guidelines, states and localities may divert funds to other uses or fail to meet the needs of students with disabilities, potentially violating their rights under the law. This shift could undermine the quality and accessibility of special education services, increasing disparities and reducing support for one of the most vulnerable student populations.

• Quote: “Since 1965, Congress has continued to layer on dozens of new laws and programs as federal ‘solutions’ to myriad education problems. In 1973, it passed the Rehabilitation Act, and, in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to address educational neglect of students with disabilities. In 2002, it created the Institute for Education Sciences to consolidate education data collection and fund research. Congress has also enacted a series of Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Acts, including Perkins V in 2018. Congress could have, and once did, distribute management of federal education programs outside of a single department. But for those interested in expanding federal funding and influence in education, this unconsolidated approach was less than ideal, because a single, captive agency would allow them to promote their agenda more effectively across Administrations” (Project 2025, p 303).

  • Summarize Quote: The federal government has continually added new education laws and programs, centralizing control under the Department of Education, which allows for agenda promotion across different administrations.

  • Explanation: This statement implies a criticism of the centralization of education policy under the Department of Education, suggesting that it enables the promotion of specific agendas. The description of federal solutions as “layering” indicates a negative view of these interventions. The term “captive agency” implies that the Department of Education has been used to impose specific educational policies rather than fostering a diverse and locally controlled educational landscape. This perspective could be seen as a call to reduce federal oversight and funding in education, potentially leading to increased disparities in educational quality and access, particularly for disadvantaged groups.

• Quote: “One recent example is the Biden Administration’s requirement that state education agencies and school districts submit ‘equity’ plans as a condition of receiving COVID recovery ESSER funds in the American Rescue Plan. This exercise led to the hiring of numerous new government employees as the rules were promulgated, plans were created after collecting public feedback, and those plans were eventually deemed satisfactory” (Project 2025, p 304).

  • Summarize Quote: The Biden Administration required states and districts to create equity plans to receive COVID relief funds, leading to increased government hiring and bureaucratic processes.

  • Explanation: This quote criticizes the requirement for equity plans as a condition for receiving federal COVID-19 relief funds, suggesting that it led to unnecessary bureaucratic expansion. The term “equity plans” might be interpreted as a politically charged concept, implying that the focus on equity could be seen as an overreach or unnecessary condition tied to funding. This perspective may downplay the importance of addressing disparities in education exacerbated by the pandemic, potentially limiting efforts to ensure equitable access to educational resources and support for all students.

• Quote: “The National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the higher education lobby have leveraged the agency to continuously expand federal expenditures—a desirable funding stream from their vantage point because federal budgets are not constrained like state and local budgets that must be balanced each year” (Project 2025, p 304).

  • Summarize Quote: The quote accuses major educational organizations of using the Department of Education to increase federal spending for their benefit.

  • Explanation: This statement implies that influential educational organizations exploit federal funding for their own interests, suggesting a misalignment between these groups’ actions and the public good. The accusation of unchecked expansion of federal expenditures raises concerns about potential misuse of funds and the prioritization of organizational agendas over students’ needs. This rhetoric can undermine public trust in these organizations and the federal education system. Moreover, it frames the discussion in terms of fiscal restraint rather than focusing on the potential benefits of increased funding for improving educational outcomes, particularly in underfunded areas.

• Quote: “Elementary and secondary education policy should follow the path outlined by Milton Friedman in 1955, wherein education is publicly funded but education decisions are made by families” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 302).

  Summarize Quote: Education should be publicly funded, but families should make decisions about their children’s education.

  Explanation: While giving families more control over educational decisions can promote choice and customization, it may also exacerbate inequalities. Families with more resources and knowledge will likely benefit more from such a system, while those from disadvantaged backgrounds might struggle to navigate their options. Furthermore, this approach could undermine public school systems, diverting funds and support away from them, which can lead to a decrease in the quality of education for students who remain in public schools.

• Quote: “The future of education freedom and reform in the states is bright and will shine brighter when regulations and red tape from Washington are eliminated” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 302).

  Summarize Quote: Education will improve when federal regulations and bureaucracy are removed.

  Explanation: The call to eliminate federal regulations aims to increase flexibility and reduce administrative burdens at the state level. However, federal regulations often exist to ensure baseline standards and protect student rights. Removing these regulations could lead to a lack of consistency and oversight, potentially allowing for practices that do not prioritize student welfare or educational outcomes. It is essential to balance the need for flexibility with the need for protections and standards.

• Quote: “The new Administration must end abuses in the loan forgiveness programs. Borrowers should be expected to repay their loans” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 305).

  Summarize Quote: The administration should stop loan forgiveness programs and ensure borrowers repay their loans.

  Explanation: While fiscal responsibility is important, completely ending loan forgiveness programs overlooks the financial burdens many students face. Education can be a significant investment, and student loans often come with high interest rates that can be difficult to repay, especially for graduates in lower-paying fields. Loan forgiveness programs can help alleviate these burdens and make higher education more accessible. Removing such programs might discourage people from pursuing higher education, particularly those from low-income backgrounds.

• Quote: “Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 305).

  Summarize Quote: Civil rights enforcement should exclude gender ideology and critical race theory.

  Explanation: This stance suggests a rollback of protections and educational content related to gender identity and systemic racism. Critical race theory and gender studies are frameworks that help understand and address inequalities in education and society. Excluding these perspectives can limit comprehensive education about diversity and systemic issues. It can also signal a lack of support for students and educators who benefit from these frameworks, potentially fostering an environment of exclusion rather than inclusion.

Conclusion

The “Department of Education” subsection in Project 2025 proposes significant reforms that emphasize decentralization, state and local control, and the minimization of federal oversight. The overall direction of these reforms raises several red flags and concerning implications, particularly when considered alongside the implications of the immunity ruling.

• Elimination of Federal Oversight: The proposal to eliminate the Department of Education and limit federal involvement to data collection and dissemination reflects a drastic reduction in federal oversight. This move could lead to increased disparities in education quality and access across different states, as federal oversight plays a crucial role in maintaining baseline standards and protecting students’ rights. Without federal regulation, there is a significant risk of inconsistent educational standards and protections, particularly for marginalized and disadvantaged students.

• Rollback of Civil Rights Protections: The recommendation to enforce civil rights laws without considering gender ideology and critical race theory indicates a potential rollback of protections for LGBTQ+ students and those impacted by systemic racism. This stance undermines efforts to create inclusive and equitable educational environments, potentially leading to increased discrimination and exclusion of vulnerable student populations. The lack of federal enforcement of these protections could leave students without recourse in the face of discrimination.

• Privatization and Educational Inequality: The emphasis on Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) and the redirection of funds from public to private education options highlight a push towards privatization. While this approach promotes parental choice, it also risks exacerbating educational inequalities. Public schools, which serve the majority of students, may face underfunding as resources are diverted to private and alternative educational institutions. This could lead to a decline in the quality of education for students who remain in the public system, particularly those from low-income families.

• Reduction of Student Support Programs: The recommendation to end loan forgiveness programs and convert funding for students with disabilities into block grants with minimal federal oversight threatens the support systems currently in place for these students. Loan forgiveness programs are essential for making higher education accessible to students burdened by high tuition costs. Similarly, converting IDEA funding into block grants could undermine the consistent delivery of special education services, violating the rights of students with disabilities and reducing the quality of education they receive.

• Impact of the Immunity Ruling: The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, which grants former Presidents criminal immunity for official acts, amplifies the potential negative impacts of these proposed reforms. With reduced accountability, the administration could implement these changes without fear of legal repercussions, even if they undermine educational equity and quality. This lack of accountability could lead to unchecked executive actions that prioritize political agendas over the needs and rights of students.

In summary, the proposed reforms in the “Department of Education” subsection of Project 2025, paired with the implications of the immunity ruling, pose significant threats to the integrity and equity of the U.S. education system. The elimination of federal oversight, rollback of civil rights protections, push towards privatization, and reduction of student support programs could collectively lead to increased educational disparities and reduced support for vulnerable student populations. The potential for unchallenged implementation of these policies underscores the importance of maintaining robust checks and balances to protect the rights and interests of all students.

“Department of Education” in a Nutshell

The “Department of Education” section in Project 2025 advocates for a fundamental restructuring of federal education policy in the United States. The plan is built on a vision of reducing, and ultimately eliminating, the federal Department of Education, returning control over education policy and funding to states and local communities. The following key points summarize the proposals and the associated concerns:

Elimination of the Department of Education

The section proposes the elimination of the federal Department of Education, arguing that education should be managed at the state and local levels. The idea is to empower families with more educational choices, including private, religious, and vocational institutions, through mechanisms like Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). However, this approach raises significant concerns about increased disparities in educational quality across states, particularly for students from low-income or marginalized communities. Without federal oversight, there is a risk of uneven standards, which could lead to unequal educational opportunities and outcomes across the nation.

Advancing School Choice

The plan strongly supports the expansion of school choice initiatives, such as ESAs, which would allow parents to direct public funds to the educational institutions of their choice. While this could increase flexibility for some families, it could also divert essential resources from public schools, weakening them—especially in underserved areas. There is also a concern that this could exacerbate segregation by socioeconomic status and race, as more affluent families might be better positioned to take advantage of these programs.

Reorganization of Federal Education Programs

The proposal suggests redistributing the Department of Education’s programs to other federal agencies or eliminating them altogether. For example, Title I funding, which supports low-income school districts, would be transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The shift of responsibility for special education to HHS is also proposed, alongside other significant changes. This reorganization could dilute the focus on education and lead to inefficiencies, potentially harming students who rely on these programs, particularly those with disabilities.

Rollback of Civil Rights Protections

A critical part of the plan involves rescinding the Biden Administration’s changes to Title IX, which expanded protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The proposed rollback would restore the definition of “sex” to biological sex recognized at birth and shift civil rights enforcement from the Department of Education to the Department of Justice. This could lead to increased discrimination against LGBTQ+ students and reduce protections for students’ rights in educational settings, potentially creating hostile environments that hinder learning.

Reduction of Federal Education Spending

The section critiques federal spending on education as ineffective, advocating for a reduction in expenditures and a reevaluation of federal education programs. This could result in significant cuts to programs that provide vital support to disadvantaged students. The emphasis on reducing spending might overlook the complexities of educational challenges, particularly in areas that require targeted investments to improve outcomes. Reducing federal involvement could further exacerbate existing inequalities, particularly affecting low-income and minority students.

Higher Education Reforms

In higher education, the plan suggests reducing federal involvement, including phasing out loan forgiveness programs and privatizing student loans. It argues for a focus on workforce skills rather than traditional four-year degrees and calls for greater market forces in higher education. While this may promote job readiness, it risks marginalizing students who pursue liberal arts education or cannot afford the high costs of private education without federal support.

Concerns and Potential Consequences

The proposed changes in this section raise several significant concerns:

• Equity and Access: The decentralization of education could lead to substantial disparities in educational quality and access, particularly harming students in underfunded areas.
• Accountability and Oversight: Reduced federal oversight could result in inconsistencies in educational standards, making it challenging to ensure that all students receive a high-quality education.
• Civil Rights Protections: The rollback of Title IX protections and the shift in civil rights enforcement could lead to increased discrimination against vulnerable student populations, particularly LGBTQ+ students.
• Public School Funding: The expansion of school choice programs could weaken public schools by diverting funds to private institutions, exacerbating inequality.
• Special Education: Changes to special education funding and oversight could undermine support for students with disabilities, increasing disparities in the quality of special education services.

Overall, the “Department of Education” section of Project 2025 outlines a vision of reduced federal involvement in education, with a strong emphasis on school choice and decentralization. While these proposals may increase flexibility for some, they also pose significant risks to equity, access, and the protection of students’ rights, potentially leading to a more fragmented and unequal education system across the United States.