As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the possibility of a second Trump administration looms large over the nation鈥檚 education landscape. Enough is at stake that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has repeatedly distanced himself from the conservative Heritage Foundation鈥檚 federal policy blueprint authored largely by the former president鈥檚 administration alumni. The 900-page document, which includes education policy recommendations for a second Trump term, has been attacked for months by Democrats.
Despite the rift on the right, there is little mystery about likely education policy should Trump win in November. During his tenure, Trump and his education secretary, Betsy DeVos, pushed for significant changes to federal education policy. They proposed converting the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Title I funding into block grants to states, potentially undermining these crucial programs鈥� ability to target resources effectively. They also championed school choice initiatives and sought to roll back civil rights protections for marginalized students.
A second Trump term would likely double down on these efforts. If Trump wins, we should expect renewed attempts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, further expansion of school voucher programs, and continued erosion of federal oversight in education. The administration might also revive attempts to restrict transgender students鈥� rights and limit the teaching of topics related to systemic racism.
The promise of public education as a great equalizer has long been a cornerstone of American democracy. But chronic underfunding, inequitable resources, and a nationwide teacher shortage have created a system where ZIP code too often determines educational destiny. Under Trump, existing disparities would likely grow, particularly for students with disabilities, students from low-income backgrounds, and members of marginalized communities.
Yet right now, we have within our grasp the tools and ideas to not just defend public education but to reimagine and reinvigorate it.
Consider the following three ideas, which could serve as a bulwark against potential rollbacks and pave the way for a more equitable and effective education system:
1. Fulfilling IDEA鈥檚 promise
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, originally passed by Congress under a different name in 1975, was a landmark piece of legislation, ensuring that students with disabilities have access to a free, appropriate public education. Yet, nearly five decades after its passage, the federal government has never met its commitment to fund 40 percent of the excess costs of special education. Actual contributions have peaked at under 20 percent. It鈥檚 time to change that.
By enacting the IDEA Full Funding Act and gradually increasing allocations over the next decade, we can lift the financial burden off school districts, lighten the load for overworked special educators, , and broaden access to effective inclusive opportunities.
Fully funding IDEA would inject billions of dollars into our schools, providing critical resources for the 7.3 million students served by the program. This investment would not only benefit students with disabilities and honor our moral and legal obligations, it also would strengthen the entire education system.
2. Restructuring Title I for equity
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the federal government鈥檚 primary vehicle for aiding high-poverty schools, is due for an overhaul. In fiscal 2023, Title I received approximately $18.4 billion in federal funding, supporting millions of students across the nation. Nonetheless, the program has shifted from its original intent. Title I initially offered assistance to a subset of the neediest schools, but, over time, Congress allowed the program to morph into one that provides general aid to states.
Under Trump, existing disparities would likely grow, particularly for students with disabilities, students from low-income backgrounds, and members of marginalized communities.
The program鈥檚 complex formulas often fail to direct resources to the areas of greatest need in at least two ways. First, the program mandates a statutory minimum grant to all states, irrespective of need, poverty levels, or geographic costs. This approach diverts essential funding away from states with higher concentrations of students in poverty, thereby undermining efforts to close educational gaps and promote equity.
Second, the current Title I formulas unfairly poor states for their poverty. These formulas are based on how much each state spends per student. States that spend more money receive larger Title I grants, while those that spend less receive smaller grants.
Many high-poverty states schools 鈥減rogressively,鈥� directing more resources to higher-need districts. Yet, instead of rewarding these efforts, the formulas exacerbate inequality by allocating more funds to wealthier states, further entrenching disparities and undermining the very purpose of Title I funding.
A restructured Title I could drive aid to high-poverty areas and incentivize states to make fair funding efforts.
3. Addressing our teacher shortage through state courts
The nationwide teacher shortage represents an existential threat to high-quality education, and this threat has only worsened since the pandemic.
鈥淭he situation is catastrophic,鈥� Suffolk University Law School professor Joshua Weishart, 鈥渘ot because there is a 鈥榯eacher shortage鈥� (not enough qualified people to be excellent teachers), but because of rampant 鈥榯eacher alienation鈥� (disrespect and disregard dissuading qualified people from becoming or remaining excellent teachers).鈥�
State constitutions, with their robust guarantees of educational rights, offer a compelling avenue for addressing this crisis. Many of these foundational documents not only promise an adequate education but also recognize qualified teachers as an indispensable component of that right.
While no single proposal can serve as a panacea for social issues, leveraging the power of state constitutions and courts offers a promising path forward. Take California, the state with the largest public school enrollment as an example. By applying the reasoning adopted in key school finance precedents, as I have elsewhere, advocates could contend that the maldistribution of qualified, effective teachers violates students鈥� state constitutional rights.
These three proposals represent more than policy tweaks; they embody a fundamental recommitment to the promise of public education. By fully funding IDEA, we affirm that every child, regardless of ability, deserves an excellent education. By restructuring Title I, we declare that poverty should not determine a child鈥檚 educational opportunities. And by addressing the teacher shortage through constitutional means, we assert that access to great teachers is not a privilege but a right.
The path forward requires political will, public engagement, and a shared belief in the transformative power of education. As we face down the threats posed by the possibility of a new Trump administration, let us not merely defend the status quo. Rather, we can seize this moment to build an education system truly worthy of our children and our democracy.
