Brookings Institute

Project 2025 and education: A lot of bad ideas, some more actionable than others

Rachel M. Perera, Jon Valant, and Katharine Meyer

Brookings Institute

August 12, 2024

In their August 12, 2024 article, “Project 2025 and education: A lot of bad ideas, some more actionable than others,” Rachel M. Perera, Jon Valant, and Katharine Meyer analyze Project 2025, a proposed policy agenda spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and backed by a coalition of conservative activists. With substantial implications for education, this agenda is a key component of the broader Project 2025 plan intended to reshape federal governance significantly, particularly under a potential second Trump administration. The authors argue that many of Project 2025's education-related proposals could be detrimental to students and schools, and they offer four main observations on the project's potential impact and feasibility.

1. High Congressional Hurdles for Major Proposals

Most of the proposals in Project 2025 would require extensive cooperation from Congress to pass, which may prove unlikely. For example, significant measures such as dismantling the U.S. Department of Education, eliminating Head Start, and creating a federal Parents’ Bill of Rights would require not only majority support in the House but likely a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority in the Senate. This challenge is heightened by the political unpopularity of many proposals and the need for bipartisan support in the Senate, which is improbable given the contentious nature of the reforms. Notably, efforts to restructure the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) into block grants and end “negotiated rulemaking” in higher education would also require congressional intervention, making these ambitious plans politically challenging to realize.

2. Proposals that May Harm Conservative Constituencies

The second observation highlights that several of Project 2025’s educational reforms could disproportionately affect conservative, rural areas. For instance, the proposal to phase out Title I funding over a decade could adversely impact students from low-income households, particularly in states that rely heavily on these federal funds. Title I, which provides substantial aid to high-need schools, serves not only urban but also rural districts in conservative areas. Given that some of these states spend less on education and have limited support for social programs, a shift from federal to state control over Title I may not lead to equivalent support, risking further educational inequity. Thus, although framed as conservative policy, these proposals might encounter pushback from Republican lawmakers concerned about the effects on their constituencies.

3. Executive Branch Actions That Could Proceed Without Congress

While many Project 2025 policies require legislative approval, some could be enacted unilaterally by the executive branch. The authors note that a second Trump administration could easily roll back civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students, reduce Title IX protections, and dismantle federal civil rights enforcement within education, actions that could reverse gains made under previous administrations. The authors also point to regulatory “whiplash,” where consecutive administrations enact and then dismantle executive policies, particularly around protections against predatory colleges and regulations on federal loan forgiveness. If reinstated, Schedule F, which reclassifies civil service roles to make them politically appointed, could also impact the Department of Education, making it susceptible to politicized staffing and reduced regulatory oversight.

4. Influence of White Christian Nationalism on Policy Goals

The authors argue that many of Project 2025’s education proposals seem influenced by a white Christian nationalist perspective rather than traditional conservative principles. While certain measures, such as calls for school choice, align with longstanding conservative ideals, the broader agenda includes unprecedented federal oversight and restrictions on LGBTQ+ rights, such as “rejecting gender ideology” and critical race theory. These elements align with a vision emphasizing “ethno-traditionalism,” which promotes a narrowly defined cultural and religious agenda. Such proposals could reshape education to prioritize certain ideological views, limiting inclusive policies and fostering a divisive environment in schools.

Conclusion

Perera, Valant, and Meyer contend that while Project 2025 presents itself as a forward-thinking conservative agenda, its education policies raise significant concerns about feasibility, potential harm to vulnerable communities, and the ideological basis of its proposals. They suggest that, while some proposals might lack congressional support, the executive actions could still shift the educational landscape. Ultimately, the authors encourage scrutiny of Project 2025’s potential impact, especially its alignment with values that may not support a diverse and inclusive education system.

Original Article

------------------------------

Prepared with the assistance of AI software

OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT (4) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com