As the Project 2025 conservative notion trends as of the last few weeks, it is essential to note that the Trump Campaign has not formally endorsed or solidified a connection with the initiative, but archived video of President Trump speaking at the Heritage Foundation have been released where he refers to project 2025. Critics have also made clear that members of the former Trump Administration have been contributors to the policy agenda, a lengthy document with a conservative perspective that began development nearly two years ago.
For our purposes and discussion, we will highlight the policy agenda related to chapter eleven, the Department of Education, and offer a few responses to the policy positions.
“Our postsecondary institutions should also reflect such diversity, with room for not only traditional liberal arts colleges and research universities but also faith-based institutions, career schools, military academies, and lifelong learning programs.” – Project 2025, Chapter 11.
Higher education practitioners would likely contend that our current landscape lends itself to a diverse range of public and private institutions with different foci and specializations. We must also consider that the type of student entering higher education today vastly differs from a decade prior. Students have shifted their demand toward social mobility outcomes, employability, and a holistic college experience with connectedness and belonging. We are seeing a steady decline in the ivory tower and prestige bubble that once was the top tier in the hierarchy of college choice. Nevertheless, Higher Education in America has diversity, and could arguably continue to grow in this effort.
Let us dive into some Higher Education specifics of the chapter:
1) Restoring state and local control over education funding. As Washington begins to downsize its intervention in education, existing funding should be sent to states as grants over which they have complete control, enabling states to put federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. (Project 2025, Chapter 11, p. 322)
This policy proposal does provide the states with autonomy. However, it neglects to account for the inequitable practices that have taken place at the state and local levels, thus requiring the federal government to act. If each state is to determine where funding should be allocated, how would the states ensure an equitable process for all factors of the education sector? For instance, based on the state's prioritizations, that would determine where funding would be allocated. The existing structure, which includes the federal government, accounts for this specific factor, and this proposal should consider how it would tackle the issue of inequity, while decoupling from the department of education.
As we have seen in countless legal cases in the primary, secondary, and postsecondary landscapes, education is not provided to all parties as an equal opportunity, thus requiring the federal government to assist in the distribution of funds. While it is ideal to assume states have the best intentions for all students, most states need to catch up in this area, and perhaps turning over all funding streams to their authority would prove more restricting than freeing.
2) Treating taxpayers like investors in federal student aid. Taxpayers should expect their investments in higher education to generate economic productivity. When the federal government lends money to individuals for a postsecondary education, taxpayers should expect those borrowers to repay. (Project 2025, Chapter 11, p. 322)
The current system has several different tiers of repayment plans. The underlying issue this policy proposal is trying to address is the current federal student loan forgiveness structure for specific employment sectors after ten years of loan repayment. Overall, the loan forgiveness program offers some monetary relief and repayment schedule at an affordable income level. It must also be noted that the loan forgiveness program is not open to all student loan borrowers, but specifically geared toward careers in public service and adjacent fields. Thus, taxpayers can expect loans to be repaid overall, with some supplemental options for those in public service.
3) Protecting the federal student loan portfolio from predatory politicians. The new Administration must end the practice of acting like the federal student loan portfolio is a campaign fund to curry political support and votes. The new Administration must end abuses in the loan forgiveness programs. Borrowers should be expected to repay their loans. (Project 2025, Chapter 11, p. 322)
More information about this statement should be gathered and explored extensively. Using the predatory terminology would suggest that financial undertakings are being exploited for causes unrelated to student access and enrollment in higher education.
4) Safeguarding civil rights. The enforcement of civil rights should be based on an adequate understanding of those laws and rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory. (Project 2025, Chapter 11, p. 322)
Civil Rights refers to eliminating discrimination, imploring equal treatment, and legalities associated with the 14th Amendment. This policy proposal needs to be more informed of the actual purposes of critical race lenses utilized in higher education as a portal to understanding demographic dynamics and the landscape in the American Economy, as well as the history of race in this country. The teachings of this framework do not impede any civil rights legalities.
Other higher education areas cited in the Department of Education chapter:
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education
Transfer the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education’s few programs to the Department of Labor, but
Move the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Education Program to the Bureau of Indian Education.
Office for Postsecondary Education (OPE)
The next Administration should work with Congress to eliminate or move OPE programs to ETA at the Department of Labor.
Institutional funding should be block-granted and narrowed to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and tribally controlled colleges.
Move programs deemed necessary to our national security interests to the Department of State.
Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA)
The next Administration should completely reverse the student loan federalization of 2010 and work with Congress to spin off FSA and its student loan obligations to a new government corporation with professional governance and management.
Nondiscrimination based on Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (Title IX)
The next Administration should move quickly to restore the rights of women and girls and restore due process protections for accused individuals.
The overall assessment of the policy agenda regarding the Department of Education seems limited. At best, there is a clear mission being articulated to decouple the education system from the federal level and an overall proposal to return these functions to the state and areas within the federal government, such as the Department of Labor. Removing the Education Department without a guaranteed alternative structure seems irresponsible and poorly thought out. This policy agenda needs to include the neutrality of the portions of higher education currently working well, such as increased retention efforts in lieu of recovering enrollment.
What seems agreeable within this education policy plan is the increased attention and focus on Career and Technical Education, as that directly impacts outcomes for social mobility. The notions related to permanent funding for underrepresented universities are also plausible but should include not only HBCUs but also HSIs and Tribal Universities. Finally, the decoupled approach assumes that money management is better at the state level, with minimal restrictions. This is where we have historically seen a disproportionate funding allocation when the states solely control finances. Thus, if this policy plan is implemented, it would need to ensure that allocation is equally distributed, and that is, quite frankly, no guarantee.
In closing, the conservative approach to decoupling the education system lacks a critical element of a suitable replacement, as the states alone have proven to be a wide variation and an unreliable metric for nationwide equality in funding. Returning national issues to the states will continue to create a variation in solutions for students needing higher education access and funding. While it is essential to slow the rising tuition costs, freezing tuition at the state level would be ideal, rather than turning over all federal funding to the state for disbursement. The policy proposal should also consider the current moves toward performance-based funding incentives that reward institutions for improved student success.
The baseline must be an equitable approach to empowering students and families. Decoupling the funding structure to provide state autonomy has no historical track record of success, and alternatives to this approach should certainly be explored.
Thank you for reading and sharing this summary article. Be sure to subscribe to felderofficial.com for weekly insights that are released every Friday.
Rebuttals are always welcome,
Jade M. Felder, Ed.D.
@felderofficial
留言