茄子视频

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Perhaps you鈥檝e been wondering why many recent articles, predictions and speculations about Trump鈥檚 plans for the U.S. Department of Education focus on its abolition while others predict that it will be forcefully deployed to reshape what schools teach.

Consider the Washington Post鈥檚 excellent education reporter Laura Meckler, writing on Nov. 12: 

President-elect has promised sweeping changes to federal agencies, but there鈥檚 one he wants to do away with altogether: the Department of Education.

And here鈥檚 Forbes on Nov. 20, announcing the choice of Linda McMahon to be education secretary:

President-elect Donald Trump has tapped Linda McMahon鈥攐ne of his top donors, a former cabinet member and wife of billionaire former WWE chair Vince McMahon鈥攖o lead the federal Department of Education, an agency he has repeatedly vowed to shutter in favor of relegating all educational responsibility to individual states in his second term.

But here鈥檚 Meckler again, just five days later on Nov. 17:

鈥溾��while his promise to has drawn enormous attention, experts in both parties say this is not likely to have sufficient support. A more likely outcome is Trump using the department to press a conservative worldview.

And here鈥檚 PBS on Nov. 15:

Donald Trump鈥檚 vision for education revolves around a single goal: to rid America鈥檚 schools of perceived 鈥� wokeness 鈥� and 鈥渓eft-wing indoctrination.鈥� The president-elect wants to forbid classroom lessons on gender identity and structural racism. He wants to abolish diversity and inclusion offices. He wants to keep transgender athletes out of girls鈥� sports鈥�.

What鈥檚 going on here? Is the federal role in education slated for elimination or expansion? Is McMahon鈥檚 mandate getting rid of her agency or empowering it?

There鈥檚 no way to be sure today鈥攁nd I鈥檓 not the first to ponder this seeming paradox. But there鈥檚 ample reason to be unsure, and that鈥檚 because the Trump world has long sent exceedingly mixed messages when it comes to K-12 education and the federal role therein.

One clear message is that education belongs to the states, localities and parents鈥攁nd Washington should get out of the way. There鈥檚 certainly no need for an Education Department if the federal role is minimal or even nonexistent. 

But another view鈥攁nd faction鈥攈olds that Uncle Sam should require schools to do the right thing and prevent them from doing wrong things, with those things being decided by Trump鈥檚 acolytes. 

You鈥檒l find both views鈥攁nd the resulting mixed messaging鈥攊n both the Republican platform and Project 2025.

The 2024 platform, for instance, says this:

We are going to close the Department of Education in Washington, D.C., and send it back to the States, where it belongs, and let the States run our educational system as it should be run.

But it also says this:

Republicans will ensure children are taught fundamentals like Reading, History, Science, and Math, not Leftwing propaganda. We will defund schools that engage in inappropriate political indoctrination of our children using Federal Taxpayer Dollars.

Project 2025鈥檚 education chapter, written by the Heritage Foundation鈥檚 Lindsey Burke, says this:

Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated鈥�The federal government should confine its involvement in education policy to that of a statistics-gathering agency that disseminates information to the states.

But it also says this:

No public education employee or contractor shall use a name to address a student other than the name listed on a student鈥檚 birth certificate.

A sage veteran of earlier Republican administrations terms this a tug-of-war between the 鈥渄ecentralizers鈥� and the 鈥渃entralizers.鈥�

It鈥檚 not limited to education, of course. The libertarian (or decentralizing) strand within conservatism has always wanted as little government as possible, along with minimal regulation and low taxes. What one might call the 鈥渢raditionalist鈥� strand has long sought to deploy government power to ensure people behave properly and be prevented from doing things regarded as immoral, sacrilegious or unpatriotic. They can鈥檛 help but be centralizers! 

Decentralizers have pushed in the past to scrap the department, to 鈥渧oucherize鈥� Title I, and to 鈥渂lock grant鈥� just about everything else, as well as to rescind a slew of regulations and rein in the department鈥檚 Office for Civil Rights.

Centralizers are often found in Democratic administrations鈥攃onsider the strings President Barack Obama attached to Race to the Top as well as sundry Biden-era regulations involving gender and school discipline. But the centralizing impulse also runs deeper than you might think among conservatives, sometimes鈥攖his may be counter-intuitive鈥攊n the form of mandating school choice and parental rights. 

The Project 2025 chapter on education, for instance, recommends a host of legislative and regulatory moves that would ensure parental rights and role in their children鈥檚 education and provide school choice within existing federal programs. Such recommendations parallel bills that GOP members of Congress have introduced to expand federal tax credits for education, extend 鈥渆ducation savings account鈥� options, and enact a 鈥減arents鈥� bill of rights.鈥�

Trump鈥檚 choice of Linda McMahon as Education Secretary鈥擬ike Petrilli has called this her 鈥渃onsolation prize鈥� for not being given the Commerce Department鈥攎ay simply signal that education, for now, will be a policy backwater. 

While she鈥檚 a long-time supporter of charters and choice, it鈥檚 a little difficult to picture her doing battle over bathrooms. She鈥檒l likely go through the motions of trying to get her department abolished鈥攁s Terrel Bell did, with no success, back in the early Reagan years鈥攂ut neither she nor anyone else is likely to get Congressional assent to repealing the agency鈥檚 innumerable spending programs nor its protections for kids with disabilities.

Does that mean in the end, that little will change? 

Perhaps. But remember, too, the very last act of the previous Trump administration in the realm of education: releasing of the 鈥�1776 Commission ,鈥� which sought to refute the then-inflammatory 鈥�1619 Project鈥� and combat 鈥渋dentity politics鈥� by proffering its own view of U.S. history. It contained this passage regarding the duty of school and educators:

States and school districts should reject any curriculum that promotes one-sided partisan opinions, activist propaganda, or factional ideologies that demean America鈥檚 heritage, dishonor our heroes, or deny our principles.I agree with that statement myself, as do many Americans, and I note that it doesn鈥檛 call for the federal government to get involved with curricular disputes. But I wouldn鈥檛 count on the team that will take over the White House on Jan. 20 to be equally restrained.

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how The 74鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.