The Trump Administration and Education: Another Scheme or True Educational Reform?

 

The Trump Administration and Education

The National Agenda-The Overview

            Every presidency ushers in change. In fact, presidents supporting educational reform are normal.  Since 2000, the national reform has included NCLB, ESSA, Common Core, and numerous national tests. However, because of the lack of depth provided by candidate Donald J. Trump, there is a greater sense of apprehension of the range of reforms that will be unleashed by this administration. So this commentary aims to synthesize the Trump Agenda and what needs to be done to protect the legacy of public education in America.

Despite growing up in New York City, home of the nation’s largest public school system, Donald Trump never attended the city’s public schools.  He did not play a role in the city’s educational politics and his children never attended the city’s schools.  Nor did they attend public colleges or universities.  A good deal of President Trump’s educational opinions on charter schools, voucher based systems, and teacher’s unions come from others.  His ideas are not aligned a political party, but more so with views of friends and associates like Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Harlem Success Academy’s CEO Eva Moskowitz. Throughout his brief time as a “public non-elected politician,” Mr. Trump has also called for school choice and while on the campaign trail he argued for vouchers.

Given that background, it can easily be said that President Trump is not a friend of public education.  In fact one can state that he probably knows very little about education and even less about public education.  His mantra has been that American schools fail to educate and that they must be improved.   But the solutions to fixing public education have often been reduced to simple slogans or unclear thoughts. For example, although he cannot define what the “Common Core” is, candidate and President-Elect Trump stressed that he was against it and argued for its repeal. 

This a quote from candidate Trump in 2016:

“I’m a tremendous believer in education. But education has to be at a local level. We cannot have the bureaucrats in Washington telling you how to manage your child’s education. So Common Core is a total disaster. We can’t let it continue. We are rated 28th in the world, the United States. Think of it, 28th in the world. And frankly, we spend far more per-pupil than any other country in the world. By far. It’s not even a close second.”

As fact checkers have demonstrated, such a statement eliminates the complexities associated with the Common Core, global testing, the role of the federal government in supporting public education, and the manners in which public schools are funded.  It is that very type of statement that has created levels of fear among educators and educational reformers yet seemingly won over less knowledgeable members of the public.

Shortly after the election, Trump met with Moskowitz, a former Democrat Councilwoman, and Michelle Rhee, the former head of Teach for America and superintendent of Washington, D.C.’s schools.  Although both supported Clinton, many thought that either would have influenced him to take a more moderate position, and possibly pick one of them for his cabinet.  His selection of Betsy DeVos, a life-long Republican, as Secretary of Education was a surprise and was widely criticized.  Unlike choices made by previous presidents, Secretary DeVos is not an academic, educator, or school administrator.  She is a billionaire socialite, and her sole educational interest has been replacing public schools with private-school vouchers and charter schools.  Mrs. DeVos has contributed to various efforts to weaken public schools in Detroit and has funded efforts in the mid-west supporting educational reform. Mrs. DeVos, like Jeb Bush and John Kasich, is a big supporter of Common Core.

Moderates and liberals have been extremely upset by DeVos’ statements before, during, and after her confirmation hearings.  She once stated that she sees the US Public School System as a “dead end.” During interviews as well as during the hearings, she displayed a lack of understanding of the historic need for Black colleges and universities, misunderstood the intent of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, did not want to acknowledge that all schools receiving public funds should have the same standards of accountability, was ambiguous about enforcing employment regulations, and did not see the danger of having firearms in schools.  (Recently on April 7^th it was revealed that Secretary DeVos’ has a security detail using US Marshals that costs the government $1 million per month. So while she is interested in short-changing America’s students she is not worried about lavishly spending taxpayer dollars.)

The Trump/DeVos education plans will have a tremendous impact on American education. However various constituents, for numerous reasons, will resist their implementation. One should expect to see the greatest push-back at the state and local levels in places like New Jersey where property taxes, not the federal government, provide the majority of the funds for municipal and county education.

The Department of Education started the year with a $68 billion budget.  The forthcoming Trump budget will cut it to roughly $58 billion.  Upon the roll-out of the president’s first budget, Secretary DeVos provided this press release:

“Today’s Budget Blueprint keeps with President Trump’s promise to focus the U.S. Department of Education on its mission to serve students. The budget places power in the hands of parents and families to choose schools that are best for their children by investing an additional $1.4 billion in school choice programs. It continues support for the nation’s most vulnerable populations, such as students with disabilities, while streamlining and simplifying funding for college and continuing to help make college education more affordable.”

“Taxpayers deserve to know their dollars are being spent efficiently and effectively. This budget is the first step in investing in education programs that work, and maintaining our Department’s focus on supporting states and school districts in providing an equal opportunity for a quality education to all students. I look forward to continuing to engage with Congress as we roll out the President’s priorities and put the needs of students first.”

The Details

The media analysis of the budget suggests that President Trump will cut the funds going to education by roughly 14% or $9.2 billion. The goal, according to most educational experts, is to starve and kill public education and revive it only to promote school choice and vouchers.  As seen in many instances, voucher programs are not effective as neighborhood schools are strongly protected from outside threats, and privatization agendas tend to benefit corporations and not school children.

Trump’s plan, would cut $2.4 billion in grants for teacher training and $1.2 billion for summer and after-school programs.  Some PK-12 and Higher Education programs that President Trump deems are not effective would also be slashed or eliminated.  Many of these initiatives are designed to assist low-income (urban students).  Outside of the savings, some funds will be transferred to support school choice options.  In Trump’s first year, as previously mentioned, $1.4 billion will be used to support school choice and eventually the figure should approach $20 billion annually.  In 2017, $250 million would go to private schools and $168 million to new charter schools.  These figures illustrate a commitment to weakening public schools and providing a tax break to alternatives of the public schools.

The effectiveness of Trump’s educational policies cannot be predicted but one can say their effectiveness will vary between Higher Education (where his views can affect public and private and not-for-profit and for-profit institutions) and K-12 education (which will be solely public education with rewards for private schools).  Resistance and acceptance of these policies will appear in various forms largely in response to existing structures in state governments and state educational policies.

Higher Education

The Administration’s proposals will have a deep impact on higher education.  Trump's policies will affect student aid, institutional funding, and aspects of student and faculty development.  And, they will also play a role in the distribution and payback, and penalties associated with student loans and student loan debt.

Although the “America First” budget pledges level funding for Pell Grants and for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions, there will be cuts in other areas.  One example, according to Inside Higher Education, is less funding of work-study programs.  The administration is calling for reductions to the TRIO program, and the elimination of the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants and the GEAR-UP program.  All three assist low-income students prepare for and succeed in college. He also wants to cut Tittle II, which helps states hire and train teachers.

Programs like the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Corporation for Community and Public Service, and AmeriCorps will be eliminated within two years.  President Trump also wants to eliminate the NIH, which provides needed dollars for scientific and medical research. The proposed budget will also silence the US Institute of Peace and the Woodrow Wilson International Center.  Similarly, in line with other agencies that support educational endeavors, the president is not in favor of supporting them.  His cuts would also affect NASA, as well as earth science and climate research. 

Presidential Executive Orders will also affect higher education in various ways. The two Islamic bans have been responsible for trapping students and scholars outside of the US.  They are also frightening students and scholars from coming to America or/and keeping scholars and students in the US.  This is an alarming development, which does not seem to have a simple resolution.

Most American universities need the additional revenue provided by international students. International students cannot receive financial aid so they could be considered “cash cows,” especially for public institutions. However, international students are great for American students because they increase diversity and greater interest in world affairs. Diplomacy can easily start on college campuses. Programs like Fulbright Scholarships will be harmed in this budget, and there will be a decrease of international scholars and faculty, who clearly added to the richness of the exchange of scientific and intellectual ideas, pedagogy, and scholarship.

Additionally, it is well known that many non-residents, especially “dreamers,” are attending college.  President Trump is on record that he will not support DACA/dreamers or any non-documented individual. Despite the creation of “sanctuary campuses”, the search for illegals will escalate on college campuses.  How will colleges and universities respond to ICE, Homeland Security, or other immigration authorities conducting raids on campuses is unknown.

Outside of the president’s agenda, the Republican controlled House of Representatives and Senate are actively pursuing educational reforms.  In February, the House voted to overturn regulations crafted by the Obama administration for accountability under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA which followed NCLB) and for teacher preparation rules.  These regulations were rejected by the National Governors Association and supported by Civil Rights organizations. At the end of March, President Trump signed a bill that overturned an ESSA provision to rate the effectiveness of programs training K-12 teachers.  It is clear that the repealing of the provisions is an attempt to weaken and ultimately destroy ESSA.

K-12 Education

Since her congressional hearings, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has been traveling around the nation selling her idea that taxpayer dollars should be used to pay for private school tuition in what can best be called a “voucher scheme.” She seems unaware that private schools can reject any student and that the majority of the lower income, disabled, African American and Latino families will not be able to use their vouchers at the nation’s more exclusive schools but more likely at church-based schools.  Additionally, national research shows on average that public schools educate better than these types of private schools in particular, and most private schools in general.

Under the Trump budget 21^st Century Community Learning Centers (After School Programs), Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants (for struggling readers and students with disabilities), and Impact Aid (funds for rural schools that have lost revenue due to tax-exempt federal property) will suffer major cuts.

An area of concern that the Trump administration instantly addressed is the subject of transgendered bathrooms. While President Obama had used an executive order to protect the rights of the students, President Trump re-worked an executive order to return to the earlier view that students must use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender at birth.  The administration is stressing that it is returning authority to the states, but this is clearly a rouse.  A nation needs a uniform policy and education as well as educational safety is a right that should be granted to all students.

In relationship to legal issues, President Trump’s appointments to the Supreme Court are likely to affect educational policies.  Most liberals, for example, do not view Judge Neil Gorsuch’s favorably.  An area where he failed them was in his interpretation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act or IDEA.  In 2008, in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, he ruled against Colorado parents who felt that the school had only given their child a minimal amount of support. The Supreme Court rejected the “de minimis standard” on March 22, 2017. Following the unanimous decisions several advocacy groups offered the following comments:

“The de minimis standard was outrageous and really meant that schools could do nothing and get away with it, so of course we’re pleased that the court soundly rejected that,” said Curtis L. Decker, executive director of the National Disability Rights Network. “But we would have preferred a clearer standard. The vagueness puts a burden on the family to try to show that their particular child needs a certain program to succeed.”

Nicole Jorwic, director of rights policy for the Arc, an advocacy organization for people with intellectual disabilities, said a review of Judge Gorsuch’s opinions related to people with disabilities “reveals an exceptionally narrow view of the protections offered by federal disability rights laws.”  So, it is fair to assume that Judge Gorsuch’s addition to the court may lean it in favor of more conservative politicized issues. Meanwhile, in the immediate future, the court may hear court cases concerning vouchers in states where it has been introduced but is creating problems. And it will be interesting to see where Justice Gorsuch will stand on these issues.

As we progress beyond the first 100 days, the future is very uncertain, but the administration is intent on returning governance of public schools to the states.  The what, why, and how presents two distinct possibilities: 1) where states can control and then minimize public dollars for education which will effectively destroy public schools, and 2) that states can maintain the status quo and not worry about federal interference.  A darker view of this future has been presented by the UCLA Civil Rights Project in its discussion of apartheid schools.  Visually, it is a return to public schooling before Brown v. Board of Education where poorer students and students of color will attend poorly funded and highly segregated schools.  

The Fight

The fear of these policies is going to lead to additional protests and acts of resistance. Because of the nation’s dependence on financial aid (loans and scholarships) college students are most likely the largest population to challenge President Trump’s policies and reforms.  On April 6^th more than 15,000 students marked the first day of “Resistance School” “a program where the educational focus is mobilizing against President Donald Trump’s administration.”  The foundations of the Resistance Schools come from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.  Joe Breen, a co-founder and student at the law school and the Kennedy School of Government, asserted that it was the responsibility of students to use their training for change.  It is reported that several hundred students participated on the Harvard campus and over 15,000 from every state and 20 countries tuned in online.  Tim McCarthy, a Kennedy School lecturer, presented the first lecture focusing on communicating effectively for change.

On Earth Day, another Washington, DC mall protest will take place.  The Science March is designed to enhance awareness of fake science, demand policies that address climate change, and promote more funding for science education and the restoration of proposed cuts.

Locally, the New Jersey legislature has stated that existing law and court precedent that fortified public schools and universities as so-called safe zones, with schools required to serve all students and prohibited from even asking about students’ immigration status will remain in effect despite calls from the president to check on the status of all students.

And, in the halls of Congress, there are still attempts to bring both sides of the aisle together.  The BRIDGE Act, for example, is a bipartisan proposal to extend protection to the Dreamers for three years while immigration reform policies are amended.

Overall, there are a significant number of existing educational organizations that have become more political since the inauguration.  Notables include the National Network for Educational Renewal, Education Votes which is connected with the NEA, the AACTE, NJ Spotlight, the NEA, and Education Week .

Research is equally important.  For example there are numerous scholarly studies that must be shared that debunk Secretary DeVos’ agenda and equally challenge President Trump’s initial educational assumptions.  Recently, Christopher Lubienski and his wife Sarah, a researcher with the University of Illinois, authored a book entitled, The Public School Advantage: Why Public Schools Outperform Private Schools. The two looked at several early childhood longitudinal studies and data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).  He commented stating: “When we did the analysis, and we controlled for the fact that there tends to be more affluent parents sending their children to private schools, when you account for those demographics, that more than explains any gaps in achievement. In fact, public schools are actually more effective in teaching mathematics”.  Lubienski believes math is a better reflection of what’s being taught in schools compared to reading, which is often learned at home.  “This,” he asserts,” definitely turns the common wisdom on its head, and it undercuts the basic narrative we have around school reform now exemplified in Betsy DeVos and Donald Trump.”

In closing, we must return to the original ideas of public education.  American education remains the sole vehicle to inspire and instill in all Americans the need for democracy and involved citizenship.  Public schools are a necessity for democracy and they must not be eliminated! To the contrary, we need more public schools to make sure that American values are taught and shared to a wider spectrum of the student population. What President Trump fails to consider is that local control of schooling may, in fact, dilute shared knowledge and this might contribute to lower scores on international tests.  It also contributes to the limited understanding of American democracy-history, civics, and politics.
And, as this presidency, both directly and indirectly, is a call for all Americans to become participants in the democratic process, it should lead to more Americans supporting and getting involved in public education.  This means attending community hearings and meetings, voting in all elections, writing politicians, joining community organizations, and constantly reading about policy decisions, and how they will affect you, your friends and your community.  In conclusion, it is my greatest hope that we (all) will be active in protecting and improving public education on all levels.