The American education system is poised to be a battleground for funding, diversity, and immigration issues under President Trump. On his campaign trail, Trump has mentioned ending the U.S. Department of Education; rolling back federal funding of public schools, particularly those maintaining diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies; supporting vouchers allowing parents, even wealthy ones, to receive taxpayer money to send their kids to private schools; and overturning Title IX, which was broadened under Biden to cover sexual orientation- and gender-based discrimination.
Late last year, Trump opted for Linda McMahon to take the helm as the next Secretary of Education. McMahon is not only known as the co-chair of Trump’s presidential transition team but also has ties as the former head of the Small Business Administration and founder of the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). Experts warn of potential pushback against Trump's education plans, with Pedro Noguera, dean of the USC Rossier School of Education, stating, "EliminATING the department won’t eliminate public education, but it would jeopardize oversight." Notably, around 90% of funding for K-12 public education stems from state and local governments, with only 10% derived from federal sources, which amounted to roughly $800 billion in 2021.
Trump’s proposed policies could have detrimental effects on marginalized students across states, especially Pennsylvania. According to advocates like Maura McInerney of the Education Law Center, “The proposed dismantling of the department of education would be disastrous for Pennsylvania students, particularly those who are most marginalized by our education system.” This is particularly relevant, as the state benefits from about $1.6 billion annually from federal education funding, targeting communities most in need.
Title I funding, which aids underperforming public schools, is also at risk under Trump’s administration. At present, Pennsylvania receives about $762 million annually from Title I resources aimed at assisting children experiencing socio-economic hardships. Recent figures indicate nearly half of special education funding for students with disabilities stems from federal subsidies, drawing male students from lower-income backgrounds who comprise approximately 63% of public schools nationwide.
Interestingly, Trump’s agenda is largely supported by conservative groups who contend states could manage education more effectively without federal oversight. Rachel Langan with the Commonwealth Foundation remarked, "Pennsylvania is going to take care of kids in Pennsylvania,” indicating confidence in local governance. Still, public school advocates express concerns over potential negligence of civil rights protections, particularly considering the Office for Civil Rights currently handles numerous investigations related to discrimination within Pennsylvania schools.
Adding to the complexity, legal challenges to Trump's proposed policies may also hinder direct implementation. Notably, the 1982 Supreme Court ruling Plyler v. Doe guarantees every child, irrespective of immigration status, the right to K-12 education. Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, stated, "I know we’ve seen a court majority overturn long-standing precedent...but Plyler is not in imminent danger at all." This suggests some level of federal protection remains likely even amid potential policy shifts.
Meanwhile, the future of federal student loan programs hangs delicately. Over 1.86 million Pennsylvanians collectively hold $67.5 billion in federal student debt. During Trump's first term, discussions emerged around shifting responsibilities for student loans to state governance, which is perceived to impact the ease of the process significantly. Hillman, professor of education at the University of Wisconsin, believes this could precipitate more confusion for borrowers: "I think borrowers right now are concerned and confused about, ‘How much is my payment going to be for the next 10 years?"
While Trump campaigns on significant education reform, the path forward will inevitably face challenges associated with legal precedents, state governance capacity, and potential backlash from constituents who rely on federal support. Critics highlight the necessity of retaining oversight to combat acts of discrimination and support low-income students who otherwise might fall through the cracks of an already fragile system.
Going forward, the overarching narrative may become one of uncertainty as states grapple with managing the ramifications of policy changes from Washington. The parameters set by Trump could shift control dramatically, yet whether this new paradigm will effectively serve America's most vulnerable education demographics remains to be seen.
