Note to readers: This essay is adapted from a presentation I gave to policy advocates last week; I thought you might find it helpful as well.
The six months since Donald Trump won re-election to the White House have been a whirlwind, and not just for those of us who live in Washington. It feels like every day brings K–12 education policy news from the nation’s capital, much of it foreboding.
The key to staying sane—and focused on improving schools and student outcomes—is to figure out what’s worth paying attention to. In my mind, actions from the Trump Administration, Congress, and the Supreme Court can be placed into three buckets:
- Pure political theater
- Moves that sure seem illegal and are therefore likely to be undone by the courts
- Actions that are likely to stick and to matter in the real world of schools, classrooms and kids
The third bucket is much smaller than the other two.
Bucket 1: Political theater
Let’s start with the theater. Of course, there’s the push to eliminate the Department of Education, which would require congressional action and thus is not going to happen, despite the administration’s big talk to the contrary. (That’s different from slashing staff and offices—I’ll tackle that below.)
I would also put the president’s budget request near the top of this list, a proposal that would cut funding for Title I and Head Start while block-granting lots of other smaller programs. As usual, Congress is likely to ignore the administration’s budget proposal so we can, too. Plenty of President Trump’s executive orders also belong in the theater category. I’m thinking of those that amount to little more than press releases or editorial statements such as reminders of the ways states can use federal funding to promote school choice, or existing requirements related to school choice for kids in unsafe schools. These are basically tweets, so don’t fret about them.
Bucket 2: Obviously illegal actions
Now let’s turn to actions that appear consequential but sure seem to cross the line in terms of presidential authority—and are therefore likely to be undone by the courts.
Start with the unilateral spending cuts that the administration has enacted. That includes the $1 billion in mental health services cut recently, the evisceration of grants and contracts out of IES and NSF, and the canceled grants and contracts for ED’s regional labs and centers.
To be clear, I think that the administration has the authority to cancel some of these existing grants and contracts. But I also think that it is obligated to spend money that Congress appropriated, so the administration is going to have to re-compete these activities by the end of this fiscal year (September 30) or else it will be breaking the law. Congress has shown no interest in allowing the administration to not spend the money (via “impoundment” or “rescission”), so the money will likely start flowing again in some form. (Breaking news: Perhaps the administration will repurpose some of these funds, as it appears to have done for the federal charter schools program.) Then there are the massive staff cuts at the Department of Education, and especially IES and NCES, where almost nobody remains. Opponents of these actions have a strong legal case that such cuts amount to abolishing sub-agencies that Congress has created—which would be illegal. So it strikes me as likely that this gets undone or pieces (like IES) get rebuilt in some way. Also, on the DEI front, the administration will surely be laughed out of court for trying to muck around in curricular matters, which is clearly prohibited by long-standing law.
Bucket 3: What actually matters
Finally, let’s discuss the stuff that’s happening that might actually make a difference in the real world. Counterintuitively, most of these items have little to do with President Trump! Start with the religious charter schools Supreme Court case. The oral arguments were a few weeks back and most court watchers think the court will likely rule on the side of the religious charter school in Oklahoma that brought the case. The consequences of this decision can’t be overstated. The issue is not whether states may support religious charter schools if they want to. It’s whether states must allow religious charter schools if they also allow secular charter schools.
That is now a likely outcome and one with huge implications for the charter sector—every charter law in the country is built on the assumption that these are public schools and therefore cannot be religious. The court may offer some clues on how states can revise their charter laws so that they don’t have to allow religious ones, which will probably involve getting the government more enmeshed in school governance, and that could be a terrible outcome for charter school autonomy. In blue states, this could give opponents of charter schools an opportunity to eviscerate them altogether. So that’s not great. Meanwhile, the “ big, beautiful” reconciliation bill is working its way through Congress. None of the regular K–12 programs are included in it, such as Title I or Head Start, but the House version includes $5 billion for a private school tax credit scholarship program, which could bring private school choice to every state in the country. It is designed so that eligible kids everywhere will have access to the dollars; it’s not obvious if there’s anything blue state legislators can do to stop it.
Sometime this summer, we could go from most blue states not having any private school choice to them having the possibility of religious charter schools and private school choice through a federal tax credit program. Wow! There’s also, of course, a debate about how much Republicans will cut Medicaid, nutrition assistance, and other entitlement programs. Depending on how that comes out, it could put pressure on states to backfill those federal dollars which could in turn put pressure on their education budgets. Then there’s a very real chance of recession that we are facing thanks to the administration’s trade war. In my mind, that is the most consequential development out of Washington because we know that recessions are terrible for kids and families and for education funding. Let’s finish by returning to the administration’s actions on education—the ones to pay attention to. First, while some of their anti-DEI efforts will surely be struck down by the courts (the ones having to do with curriculum) others are likely to be upheld. Namely, if a district has a program that’s explicitly targeting a particular racial group, and does not allow other students to participate, that’s clearly illegal and is not going to be allowed. (For example: Chicago’s “Black student success” initiative.)
We are also seeing the administration argue against the use of disparate impact theory when it comes to school discipline and other matters. And we’re all watching the states to see whether anyone submits waiver requests to get around major requirements in federal law, such as the annual testing rules.
Add it all up, and here’s what you should be watching:
- The economy as recession seems likelier
- The reconciliation bill debate in Congress, especially as it relates to Medicaid funding and the tax credit scholarship bill
- The outcome of the Supreme Court case on religious charter schools
- The administration’s actions on civil rights, especially those related to racial discrimination
That’s not such a long list. Otherwise, BREATHE.
