Home » Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise by Chapter » Department of Education

Department of Education

Summary of Impacts

Project 2025 suggests reducing fossil fuel production regulations, which will accelerate climate change. Reduced regulations will reduce air quality and increase negative public health outcomes. Over-reliance on fossil fuels will jeopardize future energy security and stability, and increase American dependence on foreign oil sources.

Key Quotes

“Eliminate the Clean Energy Corps by revoking funding and eliminating all positions and personnel hired under the program.”
(McNamee 418)

“Eliminate energy efficiency standards for appliances.”
(McNamee 411)

“Make the design, development, and deployment of new nuclear warheads a top priority.”
(McNamee 430)

Impacts on the Department of Education

The “Project 2025” policies prioritize decentralization, local control, and privatization to boost efficiency and education outcomes. However, these changes will worsen inequalities, reduce protections for marginalized groups, and degrade public services. The emphasis on conservative values and deregulation poses significant risks to vulnerable populations like low-income families, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and students with disabilities, leading to long-term harm to social equity and public welfare.

Critical Analysis

The document uses conservative rhetoric to frame federal intervention in education as inherently negative, emphasizing “bureaucratic bloat” and “red tape” without acknowledging the benefits of federal oversight, such as ensuring equal access to education and protecting civil rights. – The emphasis on “education freedom” and “parental rights” is a common conservative talking point, often used to justify policies that undermine public education and promote privatization. – The document frequently criticizes “woke” policies and “radical gender ideology,” using these terms to dismiss efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Detrimental Impacts

The proposed policy for the Department of Education stands to affect the following:

AFFECTED GROUPS

LGBTQIA+

Rolling back Title IX protections and redefining “sex” to exclude gender identity will harm transgender students by denying them protections against discrimination.

Low-income Individuals

The emphasis on school choice and education savings accounts will exacerbate educational inequality by diverting funds from public schools to private institutions, leaving low-income families with fewer resources and lower-quality education.

People with Disabilities

Converting IDEA funding into block grants and transferring oversight to the Department of Health and Human Services will reduce the quality and accessibility of special education services, harming students with disabilities.

BIPOC

The focus on violent crime and career criminals could lead to over-policing and disproportionate targeting of racial and ethnic minorities, exacerbating existing racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Additionally, aggressive prosecution of drug-related crimes and securing the border could result in harsher penalties and increased incarceration rates for minority communities, particularly those of Hispanic and African American descent.

General Public

Civil Rights

Moving the Office for Civil Rights to the Department of Justice and limiting its enforcement to litigation will make it harder for students to report and address discrimination. A student experiencing racial harassment may face a lengthy and complex legal process, discouraging them from seeking justice and allowing discriminatory practices to persist.

Student Loans

Ending loan forgiveness programs and privatizing student lending will increase the financial burden on low-income students. A student from a low-income family may struggle to repay their loans, leading to long-term debt and financial instability.

Future Consequences

Economic Disparities

Diverting funds from public schools to private institutions through education savings accounts will reduce resources for public schools, particularly in low-income areas. This will lead to larger class sizes, fewer extracurricular activities, and outdated materials, negatively impacting the quality of education for low-income students.

Increased Racial Inequity

Rescinding the Obama Administration’s guidance on school discipline and eliminating the disparate impact standard will likely lead to increased racial disparities in school discipline. Black and Hispanic students will face harsher punishments for the same infractions as their white peers, contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline.

Conclusion

In summary, the proposed policies in Project 2025 are likely to cause significant harm to marginalized groups, low-income families, and students with disabilities. The emphasis on school choice, reduced federal oversight, and privatization will exacerbate educational inequality and undermine civil rights protections, leading to long-term negative consequences for vulnerable populations.

Quotes from the Mandate

Page numbers refer to the Mandate for Leadership PDF

“Congress should wind down so-called ‘area studies’ programs at universities” (General Welfare, Dept. of Education, Page 388)

Area studies programs concentrate on a particular geographic area (e.g., Latin America, East Asia, Middle East) or cultural group (e.g., African studies, Indigenous studies). Students delve into the history, languages, arts, politics, and social issues of that region or culture. By undermining area studies programs, the recommendations in “Project 2025” would marginalize ethnic and cultural studies, weaken the nation’s global engagement capabilities, and compromise academic freedom. The proposal to realign these programs towards specific ideological orientations further raises concerns about the erosion of intellectual diversity and independence in higher education. Eliminating these programs would likely impact cultural understanding, diplomacy and international relations, language skills, research, and potentially threaten equity and inclusivity efforts.

“The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which prioritizes government and public sector work over private sector employment, should be terminated” (General Welfare, Dept. of Education, Page 386)

The PSLF program offers student loan forgiveness for people employed full-time by government or non-profit organizations. The program is designed to encourage students to enter potentially low-paying careers like firefighting, teaching, government, nursing, public interest law, the military, and religious work. Terminating this program would impact hundreds of thousands of borrowers counting on their loans being forgiven after ten years of repayment. Additionally, calls for eliminating other types of loans (Grad PLUS, Parent PLUS) and aid (interest rate subsidies, other loan forgiveness) are included. Lastly, they want to amend the law to ensure that no administration is able to cancel student loans in the future.

“[Prohibit] accreditation agencies from intruding upon the governance of state-supported educational institutions” (General Welfare, Dept. of Education, Page 384)

Project 2025 proposes to remove accreditation agencies or allow states to choose their own accreditation agencies. The plan calls for the president to issue an executive order allowing states to choose their own accreditation agencies or even removing the accreditation requirement entirely. Later, on page 392, they call on the president to issue an executive order “pursuing antitrust against college accreditors, especially the American Bar Association.” Accrediting agencies uphold educational quality, facilitate federal aid, and ensure accountability within the higher education system. Eliminating these agencies would jeopardize educational quality, student mobility (transferring between institutions), and federal funding.

“No public education employee or contractor shall use a name to address a student other than the name listed on a student’s birth certificate, without the written permission of a student’s parents or guardians” (General Welfare, Dept. of Education, Page 378)

In addition, gender pronouns must be consistent with biological sex. No public institution may require an education employee or contractor to use a pronoun that does not match a person’s biological sex if contrary to the employee’s or contractor’s religious or moral convictions.
This policy would harm transgender students by denying them the right to express their gender identity. Their mental health will suffer, especially if they are outed to unsupportive guardians. It would also create unnecessary administrative burden for schools.

“End the… HEA loan forgiveness programs, including borrower defense to repayment, closed school discharge, and Public Service Loan Forgiveness” (General Welfare, Dept. of Education, Page 372)

income above the exemption.” No clarification was provided as to whether the 10 percent would be discretionary income or all income. As such, Project 2025’s plan would force borrowers who make more than the Federal Poverty Line to pay 10% of their income to student loans with the poverty line amounts as outlined as:

1 person: $15,060
2 people: $20,440
3 people: $25,820
4 people: $31,200

For comparison, the author is surprisingly candid about how their plan compares to Biden’s: “President Biden has proposed a new income-driven repayment program that would be extremely generous to borrowers.” For more information about Biden’s IDR adjustments that Project 2025 will cut, check out this guidance.

“Rescind the Equity in IDEA regulation. No replacement regulation is required.” (General Welfare, Dept. of Education, Page 368)

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) aims to ensure equitable access to education for students with disabilities. The equity regulations they refer to aim to prevent disproportionate racial impacts that may interact with disability (suspension/expulsion rates in Individualized Education Programs, inappropriate identification for special education, etc.) If the equity requirements are removed, students of color who have disabilities will have difficulty accessing education. For a deep dive into the requirements, see this guide from the IDEA Data Center.