President-elect Donald Trump is setting the stage for significant changes to U.S. education policy, proposing to dissolve the Federal Department of Education, which has become increasingly contentious over the years. This initiative, aligned with the views of many libertarian-leaning conservatives, seeks to return educational control to states, thereby uprooting federal oversight and funding.
Linda McMahon, Trump's nominee for Secretary of Education, has come under fire even before her confirmation hearing. McMahon, best known for her tenure as CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), is seen as unqualified by critics, including the three-million-member National Education Association (NEA). Following the announcement, NEA remarked, "Students deservebetter than political favors," emphasizing the need for qualified leadership to handle the educational needs of the majority of students across the nation.
Becky Pringle, NEA President, likened McMahon's potential tenure to “Betsy DeVos 2.0,” referencing Trump's first-term Secretary of Education whose policies were largely considered to undermine public schooling. Pringle noted, "Linda McMahon is unqualified to lead the Department of Education and lacks the knowledge needed to help public schools—where 90% of students learn—thrive." This critique highlights widespread concerns about the administration’s direction under McMahon.
Meanwhile, colleges and universities are grappling with compliance issues related to the new gainful employment and financial value transparency rule from President Biden's administration. Institutions have requested successive extensions on their reporting deadline, indicating the pressing concerns within higher education environments about the feasibility of new compliance measures. They are currently seeking to extend the deadline from January 15 to July 2025 due to difficulties collecting necessary data.
James Kvaal, Undersecretary of Education, has emphasized the urgency of meeting these reporting requirements. "It’s disappointing the special interests want delays...and we will not grant farther extensions," he said. The pressure to furnish data on enrollment and student outcomes underlines the need for accountability within educational programs, especially for career-focused institutions.
Faced with mounting pressures to comply, many colleges have voiced concerns over their capacity to manage the extensive data reporting requirements within the proposed timelines. According to the American Council on Education (ACE), many institutions are already understaffed and overwhelmed, making it difficult to adhere to the new regulations set forth by the Department of Education.
Despite the challenges, ACE Senior Director Emmanuel Guillory stated, "We can get information in, but it may not be accurate,” acknowledging the balancing act of fulfilling regulatory demands without compromising the quality of data submitted. They insisted their request for delays is not avoidance of responsibilities but rooted in fairness to educational institutions lacking adequate time and clarity.
Rachel Fishman, director of higher education at the New America Foundation, countered institutional claims of unfair burdens, dismissing their pushbacks as typical industry resistance. She cautions against perpetuating the status quo, stating, "It’s all an effort to maintain the status quo for the industry... It’s concerning if institutions wish to delay accountability and transparency for students and their families.”
With Trump taking office, the future direction of education policy remains uncertain. The juxtaposition of Trump’s plans to dismantle the Department of Education alongside Biden’s push for greater accountability creates a potentially fraught environment for educational institutions at all levels. Stakeholders are particularly apprehensive about how these changes will affect funding, availability of programs for disadvantaged students, and the administrative capacity of institutions already stretched thin.
Speculative analyses project possible declines in federal educational funding if the Department of Education were abolished, potentially worsening existing inequalities, especially for students reliant on programs like Title I, which provides support for schools with high numbers of students from low-income families. Critics argue this could lead to dire consequences for students and schools already facing challenges, particularly as the nation already experiences teacher shortages exacerbated by policies aiming to constrain financial support.
Throughout these discussions, many educators and parents fear the ramifications of reduced federal involvement may leave students at even greater risk for educational disparities.
Trump’s administration has made it clear they view federal education as bloated and ineffectual. The uncertainty of whether they will successfully dissolve the Department of Education hangs heavily over these developments, but one thing is clear: the conversation around education policy is far from settled, and the stakes for students, educators, and families remain especially high.
