Trump wants to end 'wokeness' in education. He has vowed to use federal money as leverage
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • one month ago • 110 commentsBy: Story by COLLIN BINKLEY, AP Education Writer
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
W ASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump's vision for education revolves around a single goal: to rid America’s schools of perceived “ wokeness ” and “left-wing indoctrination.”
The president-elect wants to keep transgender athletes out of girls’ sports. He wants to forbid classroom lessons on gender identity and structural racism. He wants to abolish diversity and inclusion offices.
Throughout his campaign, the Republican depicted schools as a political battleground to be won back from the left. Now that he’s won the White House, he plans to use federal money as leverage to advance his vision of education across the nation.
Trump’s education plan pledges to cut funding for schools that defy him on a multitude of issues.
On his first day in office, Trump has repeatedly said he will cut money to “any school pushing critical race theory, transgender insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual or political content on our children.” On the campaign trail, Trump said he would “not give one penny” to schools with vaccine or mask requirements.
He said it would be done through executive action, though even some of his supporters say he lacks the authority to make such swift and sweeping changes.
Trump’s opponents say his vision of America’s schools is warped by politics — that the type of liberal indoctrination he rails against is a fiction. They say his proposals will undermine public education and hurt the students who need schools' services the most.
“It's fear-based, non-factual information, and I would call it propaganda,” said Wil Del Pilar, senior vice president for Education Trust, a research and advocacy organization. “There is no evidence that students are being taught to question their sexuality in schools. There is no evidence that our American education system is full of maniacs.”
Trump's platform calls for “massive funding preferences” for states and schools that end teacher tenure, enact universal school choice programs and allow parents to elect school principals.
Perhaps his most ambitious promise is to shut down the U.S. Education Department entirely, a goal of conservative politicians for decades, saying it has been infiltrated by “radicals.”
America’s public K-12 schools get about 14% of their revenue from the federal government, mainly from programs targeting low-income students and special education. The vast majority of schools' money comes from local taxes and state governments.
Colleges rely more heavily on federal money, especially the grants and loans the government gives students to pay for tuition.
Trump's strongest tool to put schools' money on the line is his authority to enforce civil rights — the Education Department has the power to cut federal funding to schools and colleges that fail to follow civil rights laws.
The president can't immediately revoke money from large numbers of districts, but if he targets a few through civil rights inquiries , others are likely to fall in line, said Bob Eitel, president of the conservative Defense of Freedom Institute and an education official during Trump's first term. That authority could be used to go after schools and colleges that have diversity and inclusion offices or those accused of antisemitism , Eitel said.
“This is not a Day One loss of funding,” Eitel said, referencing Trump's campaign promise. “But at the end of the day, the president will get his way on this issue, because I do think that there are some real legal issues.”
Trump also has hinted at potential legislation to deliver some of his promises, including fining universities over diversity initiatives.
To get colleges to shutter diversity programs — which Trump says amount to discrimination — he said he “will advance a measure to have them fined up to the entire amount of their endowment.”
His platform also calls for a new, free online university called the American Academy, to be paid for by “taxing, fining and suing excessively large private university endowments.”
During his first term, Trump occasionally threatened to cut money from schools that defied him, including those slow to reopen during the COVID-19 pandemic and colleges he accused of curbing free speech .
Most of the threats came to nothing, though he succeeded in getting Congress to add a tax on wealthy university endowments, and his Education Department made sweeping changes to rules around campus sexual assault .
Universities hope their relationship with the administration won’t be as antagonistic as Trump’s rhetoric suggests.
“Education has been an easy target during the campaign season,” said Peter McDonough, general counsel for the American Council on Education, an association of university presidents. “But a partnership between higher education and the administration is going to be better for the country than an attack on education.”
Trump’s threats of severe penalties seem to contradict another of his education pillars — the extraction of the federal government from schools. In closing the Education Department, Trump said he would return “all education work and needs back to the states.”
“We’re going to end education coming out of Washington, D.C.,” Trump said on his website last year. In his platform, he pledged to ensure schools are “free from political meddling.”
Rather than letting states and schools decide their stance on polarizing issues, Trump is proposing blanket bans that align with his vision.
Taking a neutral stance and letting states decide wouldn't deliver Trump's campaign promises, said Max Eden, a senior fellow at AEI, a conservative think tank. For example, Trump plans to rescind guidance from President Joe Biden's administration that extended Title IX protections to LGBTQ+ students . And Trump would go further, promising a nationwide ban on transgender women in women's sports.
“Trump ran on getting boys out of girls' sports. He didn’t run on letting boys play in girls' sports in blue states if they want to,” Eden said.
Trump also wants a say in school curriculum, vowing to fight for “patriotic” education. He promised to reinstate his 1776 Commission , which he created in 2021 to promote patriotic education. The panel created a report that called progressivism a “challenge to American principles” alongside fascism.
Adding to that effort, Trump is proposing a new credentialing body to certify teachers “who embrace patriotic values.”
Few of his biggest education goals can be accomplished quickly, and many would require new action from Congress or federal processes that usually take months.
More immediately, he plans to nullify executive orders issued by Biden, including one promoting racial equity across the federal government. He's also expected to work quickly to revoke or rewrite Biden’s Title IX rules, though finalizing those changes would require a lengthier rulemaking process .
Trump hasn’t detailed his plans for student loans , though he has called Biden’s cancellation proposals illegal and unfair.
Most of Biden’s signature education initiatives have been paused by courts amid legal challenges, including a proposal for widespread loan cancellation and a more generous loan repayment plan . Those plans could be revoked or rewritten once Trump takes office.
Tags
Who is online
341 visitors
Amen.
Brilliant, no vaccine requirement. Measles alone can and will cause multi cases and deaths.
RFK Jr said just yesterday there will be vaccines for those who require them.
If there is no mandate for vaccines what the hell does RFK mean. It’s parents choice to have their kids vaccinated or not. He might want to look at American Samoa last bout with measles and the number of cases and death it caused because many parents stopped getting their kids vaccinated.
The only reason right wingers like RFK Jr. is because Trump does.
It's deeper than that. Public health officals have destroyed their credibility "boys can be girls by thinking they are" "it's safe to meet in large groups to protest racism, but don't you dare have a funeral or everyone goes to jail," "The lab leak theory is a conspiracy," keeping schools closed, etcetc..
When an organization lies to people, the people like Kennedy who were calling them liars from the beginning gain credibility, even if they are lying themselves. There's no difference between claiming "there's no biological difference between the sexes" and "vaccines cause autism."
Kennedy rejects claims that he's anti-vaccine and told NBC News after Trump was elected that he won't "take away anybody's vaccines."
What to know about RFK Jr.'s positions on vaccines, drugs and health care
But not a parents choice to have their kid treated with respect if they are a female, or gay, or to have them educated without religious interference.
The info in your link is a very good reason not to put this him in charge of the department. He won’t take vaccines away he just will not require them as part of going to school…WTF is the difference. There are enough nut case parents that will not get their kids vaccinated to start the next pandemic.
Did you even read your own article? Trump states that he will withhold federal monies from any school that has vaccine or mask requirements.
SOS
Let me ask you right now:
Were the vaccines that Fauci & co demanded be given to small children based on science?
Did those vaccines have any effect on children under 6 years old?
It is time to evaluate what they told us.
WTF does that have to do with the present subject. Are you telling me that vaccines for polio, measles et al have not stopped hundreds of thousands of deaths? Are you remotely familiar with the history of the US regarding disease?
There is cold hard proof on how effective these vaccines were/are stopping childhood death.
Are you going to evaluate what your have been told and proven science about the vaccines that are being used today?
I guess Kennedy, Jr. wants to bring back diseases that have been obliterated thanks to vaccines and lots of children's deaths.
Vaccines did do all those things. However, as you must know, RFK Jr is replacing a bunch of overpaid professionals who were less than honest during the pandemic. Yesterday RFK Jr said he would not interfere with vaccines. If he acts as an idiot, I will join you in calling for his removal.
Too late
He’s replacing people with degrees in science/med/contagious diseases with his knowledge of all these sciences and without having the slightest idea about any of them or their work.
And you keep repeating that he said he would not interfere with vaccines. That isn’t the point he will not require that schools enforce it and TRUMP will not fund the schools per your own article. What part of that don’t you understand, Vic?
So he's replacing intelligent dedicated scientists with what???????????
So, what happened to Native American children when government bureaucrats decided how they were to be educated? What happened to Native American culture when bureaucrats in Washington decided to indoctrinate the children? Didn't those bureaucrats justify their actions by using 'social good' as an excuse?
The needs of the many overrides the freedoms of the individual. Who cares what parents think when the experts possess all the knowledge and all the justifications and all the authority.
You've been convinced those mandates won't cost you anything. And then you'll whine about the history of boarding schools. Fickle, feckless, the past does not inform the future.
When you boil this down Trump wants reparations for white people . Not giving individual whites government money perhaps, but giving them back "their" country.
There has never been a period or era in US history when there was not widespread racism. If you think there has been please tell us what era that was. But schools wont be allowed to teach that. Why? Because some parents think teaching that will upset their ten year olds.
[✘]
Ok big shot. Tell us a period of American history when there was not widespread racism.
How about taking a look around you. Or did you forget the Democrats lost that fight in the 1960's.
So you cannot name a period in America when there was not widespread racism but we should remove or minimize the topic in our history books. Ok.
It is in the history books, just not to the extent some would like it to be.
White guilt?
Nope
I did. You should pay attention to what is said.
[✘]
1618? Was there racism in the Americas before the forced immigration of Black people? Doesn't that suggest immigration fosters racism?
Reparations= a society where whites are neither privileged nor discriminated against.
The horror!
People of color have been discriminated against in America for almost 400 years, but we need to make white people feel better about that fact.
White people are not discriminated against they are being reminded.
America isn't even 250 years old and it's been discriminating for that long? Truly exceptional.
not discriminated against they are being reminded.
they are literally being discriminated against.
And then their great great great grandkids will deserve reparations for the discrimination they suffered....
Or we could just stop racially discriminating. I know what I pick.
If Virginia in 1620 was not part of "America" why is it in American history books? Same with the mayflower pilgrims.
Saying that American history did not exist before July of 1776 is , well, silly.
If you want to think white people are discriminated against in a degree that requires whitewashing history nothing will be able to persuade you otherwise.
For the same reason England is in American history books: background!
What country was responsible for the colonies in 1620?
There was no such place as the United States of America.
Take your grievance to the countries that held land here….England, Spain, France, Portugal….
Did the prominent families who established Virginia all go back to England? The history of Virginia is central to American history, it is not central to British history.
I dont know why people even bother with such an objection other than that they want to minimize the length of racism by 150 years.
How cute You don't know the history of the country you presumably live.
The history of America requires background.
You can't tell it without explaining the age of exploration and the colonization which followed.
He might have known it, but he is giving us the Nikole Hannah-Jones fantasy.
1600-1754 : Colonial Americans : Overview
1600-1754: Colonial Americans: Overview | Encyclopedia.com
The colony of Britain.
America came later.
What about it?
The idea that the history of the people known as Americans began in 1776 is silly, but it serves its purpose I guess.
It took America a while to break from Britain and become a country.
Nikole Hannah-Jones is a racist and a storyteller, not a historian.
I'm sure you know as much about the 1619 Project as you know about Jan 6th and Trumps attempt to steal the 2020 election.
A quote from any organization harboring resentments hardy signifies anything of importance.
I have it on the shelf right next to the Communist Manifesto.
No, but trying to make them feel guilty about it is just silly. My grandparents came from Italy and had their own hardships and discrimination and had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. And somehow their lineage has to feel guilty and responsible for it. No thanks
Its not about individual people like your grandparents. It is in the history of our country from the beginning and people dont want to remember it.
There are millions of people like my grandparents
People do remember it. It is taught in school. There is a difference between remembering it, learning from it and taking responsibility for it when no one in your family ever had anything to do with it.
Feeding people to lions is now frowned upon. I am not looking for schools in Italy to try to make kids today feel responsible for my relative being fed to the lions.
Look at that time period. During that time this was an extension of BRITAN.
But because the continent was called America by the founder, they want to group everything bad that happened here before July 4, 1776 as part of the US, when it was only a part of the continent of North America.
There is so much they CHOSE to ignore to make their argument that I can't help but laugh at them.
Quite sure Lil' Thomas Jefferson knew all about that when he wrote the Declaration of Independence - "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.[✘]
We all are.
We are all laughing at you and the traitor trump.
Who is going to be your president in January again?
... definitely not some criminal/traitor asshole.
[✘]
Yep, some still have difficulty with the fact that prior to 1776, the majority population of the 13 colonies were in fact loyal British subjects who just happened to live across the big pond in North America.
Stamp out woke and make DEI die
Yeah, stamp out decency, empathy, intelligence, common sense, equality.............
I don't know about that. Without DEI how could a total incompetent person prove just how incompetent they were by spending a billion dollars and still get stomped in an election? S/
Is the argument that before 1776 should not be counted for slavery and genocide because it’s wasn’t the US? WTF, did all the founding fathers die in 1775 and reborn in 1776 so their slavery and genocidal acts before aren’t counted? Talk about rewriting history.
The "1619 Project" lacks perspective, twists motives, ignores and distorts facts, and misrepresents history.
WTF are you talking about, Vic. I did not mention ‘’1619 Project’’ if you aren’t able to debate without wandering off on something I never referenced/said it’s probably time for you to stop trying to BS your way through this.
You are making the same argument.
It's going to take a lot to shut down the Department of Education and require buy-in from Congress as well. Will be interesting to watch. And a lot of pieces of the DOE are needed and would end up being pushed back to their older departments where they were before the DOE was created by Carter.
As far as the money that is already allocated for this, I guess they could do block grants to the states but then would there be any hold on what the money would be used for? One thing we know for sure with government (in this case state governments) is that when money falls into their lap they tend to go crazy with pet projects rather than using the money as designed.
One question I don't have an answer to. Could the Department of Education change allocations to allow for school choice? If there was a federal mandate for school choice, how else could it be deployed and what's the downstream impact? I think there would be a lot of screaming from the teachers unions over this but they do tend to ignore they are their own worst enemy. Teachers continue to be underpaid while unions and school administrations continue to rake in larger chunks of money.
Yes, the DOE is famous for putting conditions on funds. look at how Michelle Obama was able to change the menus at schools as an example.
“…look at how Michelle Obama was able to change the menus at schools as an example.”
Like ensuring and providing healthy meals for our children in knowing that may be the only meal some may receive? Goodness gracious…
[✘]
“If there was a federal mandate for school choice, how else could it be deployed and what's the downstream impact?”
There is already a choice for parents. Don’t feel comfortable putting your child into the public education system? There are options aplenty, and that is their right. But to legislate school choice is to further the disadvantage families that have no choice.
Just my opinion as an individual who benefited greatly in having a public education and the benefits it provides.
Only about half of the states have a school voucher system for school choice. If it were mandated at a federal level would that not open up for choices for those disadvantaged families? Without that, this boils down to a fight between the haves and the have nots. Hardly a level playing field.
My bigger argument is that the teachers unions and school administrations have become too greedy and take too much of the pot leaving little for the teachers. That IMO is the real issue.
Like you, I went to a public school and I turned out ok. But I don't believe that we can use what we had all those years back as a good representation of what exists today. Math and reading comprehension levels have dropped so much and we lag behind so many other developed countries in education, especially when we spend more per student than most developed countries. We're not getting a good return on the investment, and we need an educated youth to run the country in the future.
IMO the status quo cannot continue, change is needed.
Public school alumnus here, and chose to send my kids to public schools. I am on board with their value.
However that's an easy thing for me to say when I have the means to live in any school attendance zone I want. My kids went to top 1% high schools, but only because we could afford to live in the right place.
So I guess the question is how we make sure other families have access to that. I don't know if school choice helps that problem or not. But unless we want ever spiraling inequality, we need to do something.
If we don't do that, what do we do?
“If it were mandated at a federal level would that not open up for choices for those disadvantaged families?”
Should it become federalized, there is a ‘church v. state’ component that will require judicial intervention, as many charter schools have a religious basis.
So agree that teachers bear the brunt of the burden…underpaid and under appreciated for their efforts in this political environment. Paying them for what they’re worth would be a great investment, keeping the best and brightest possible engaged and empowered.
And thanks, Snuffy for engaging in a reasonable conversation, sans any snark…
Shit, I forgot the snark? I'll work on that...
“I don't know if school choice helps that problem or not.”
As it has become a more political issue, as always the complexities are ignored in the debate.
To me, time spent in getting involved in one’s local community is far more important than money allocated at a federal level.. for every single school district has distinct needs that any umbrella ‘solution’, by definition, will never address those unique challenges.
Again, just one opinion.
You should try this when commenting.
“You should try this when commenting.”
If you haven’t already come to understand, some comments deserve respect while some warrant derision.
IMO School choice arguments are a red herring... It uses children as a commodity for profit without government accountability.
The problem i see is that public schools are a functional monopoly, especially in large city school districts. there is no incentive to perform better, and they are a large enough Union to place undue influence and control of the city government that "controls" them. the money should follow the child, and the parents should have the choice to get their children the best education possible.
And some just can't "get the point so they post something stupid that has nothing to do with the conversation, Like can the Feds put restrictions on how funds can be used? and instead focus on the example to try to score some imaginary point for no apparent reason.
I'm happy my taxes go towards public school funding.
I am not happy when my taxes are used for private and or catholic schools. Their parents need to pay for that. If they can't afford it, not my problem.
“and instead focus on the example to try to score some imaginary point for no apparent reason.”
Making the point made in 6.2.7 crystal clear.
Carry on…only confirming what everyone hereabouts already knows…
Yup
I don't disagree with it.
I think people see the educational institutions in America as so vast and nearly impossible to change that circumventing that inertia is the only viable option.
OK, that's probably fair.
How do you keep this whole thing from being just a welfare program for affluent people who want the taxpayers to pay for their kids' private schooling?
You can't, but that brings up another question, why should the affluent be double charged (penalized)simply because they are more successful? They already pay more for public schools than the poor, at what point are we all equal?
“that circumventing that inertia is the only viable option.”
Perhaps, but given that postulation, there must be viable solutions
We all intrinsically know the solution requires hard conversations with all stakeholders involved…but discussions our leadership seems want to avoid, more comfortable in talking not to it, but at it.
I'm not sure I understand how they're being penalized.
You bring up a pretty good question here... is there really any viable way to solve this? We assume there is, probably because we're American and we inherently believe most problems are solvable, but is it really? And if there is a way to guarantee every child gets a great education, are we willing to do what it takes?
Children have been a commodity for schools for a rather long time already. I can remember putting my eldest two thru school (they are 46 now) and my wife & I had to sign to promise to keep them in school for a certain number of days as the school received money from the state for each student based on days in classroom.
The real issue IMO is that schools have lost their way and now teach to pass the mandated tests that the DOE pushes in order to keep the money flowing in. Children are not being taught how to think, but rather how to take and pass tests. In the mean time the math and reading abilities continue to decline and we fall further behind other advanced countries in education levels.
“…at what point are we all equal?”
In fulfilling the ambitious, yet still ambiguous American dream, perhaps when one becomes a citizen, by birth or by established means.
Perhaps simplistically dismissive in reality, but always worth looking forward in the possibilities.
The schools, at least where i live are funded by property taxes, so the larger your house the more you pay, if i have a 100,000 dollar house i pay 1000 to schools, someone with 50,000 dollar house only pays 500. so being successful means i have to pay more for the same school.
“…so being successful means i have to pay more for the same school.”
So tell me where and when anyone anywhere has a choice where their tax dollars are allocated. Good on you for your ‘success’, shame on you for being somehow discontent in your largesse.
A simple question…do you or did you have kiddos in the public school system? As an adjunct, is or was your tax sacrifice just another line item in your budget, or something begrudgingly paid?
They're funded by property taxes in Texas, too.
I don't think I agree that property tax or sales tax penalize anyone.
We always have the option to be rich and live in an inexpensive house.
I don't blame anybody for complaining about the amount of taxes we pay.
Really rich people have a pretty low tax rate, but it still adds up to a lot of money.
The group that has worked really hard all of their lives and is just barely getting to that threshold pay huge tax rates, especially if they're self-employed or they own a small business. So they have every right to resent being told how they should feel about taxes by people who are either stupidly rich or don't have much money.
They worked their ass off, finally got ahead a little bit, and and now the bureaucrats want half. It sucks, and no amount of "you should be thankful" makes it any better.
That said, there are certain kinds of taxes that are self-inflicted. If you bought a million dollar house, you should expect to pay taxes on a million dollars worth of property. You always had the choice not to buy the million dollar house.
I voted your comments up because I agree with the principles involved. I am not sure that, "You always had the choice not to buy the million dollar house." is the way I would put it though.
I'm interested.
How would you have put it?
Well, since most people don't have enough money or the wherewithal to buy a million dollar house, (I know that I surely don't) I probably would have said, "You knew what you were getting into when you bought the million dollar house." A fine point that makes no difference, really, until you consider the gentrification of areas.
And how is any of that determined?
Just from the standpoint of political philosophy, you wouldn’t even expect this to be an issue. Trump made a big deal out of saying abortion should be a state issue, and I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that that is an appropriately conservative approach. Similarly, conservatives have been complaining for years about the very existence of the Department of Education, saying that the federal government has no business getting involved in the state and local administration or funding of K-12 schooling.
But in this case, they think it’s a great idea for the federal government to try to control what happens in local schools. Seems inconsistent.
In any event, it’s going to be legally problematic, for sure. The description quoted above is too vague and overbroad to pass judicial review. It also looks very much like viewpoint based restrictions on expression, which will invoke strict scrutiny - a situation in which the government usually loses. Congress has broad authority to put conditions on spending, but there are limits - among them, the conditions have to be consistent with existing constitutional protections.
And that’s just where it could run afoul of the Constitution. We also have federal laws limiting the conditions that can be tied to federal spending on schools, and any proposal along these lines may violate those laws.
Finally, this may not have much impact as a relatively small percentage of school funding comes from the federal government.
This is sloppy analysis by me, and just sort of off the top of my head, but these are some issues that came to mind.
This just crossed my newsfeed at lunch -
ignoring the US constitution somehow doesn't seem like the best way to meet geezus, but it could be the fastest ...
“Oklahoma school districts on Thursday telling them they would be required to play their students and parents a video showing Walters blaming the “radical left” and “woke teachers unions” for “attacking” religious liberty, then inviting students to join him as he prays for President-elect Donald Trump.”
Oh my…given that, perhaps boebert is next in line to join the cabinet to ‘head’ the DOE, as she, with GED credentials in hand, has echoed similar sediment [sic]…
What a freak. Is that some kind of elected position? How did this freakshow become in charge of 'educating' anyone?
she'll have a different "job" in the white house ...
“Seems inconsistent.”
At best.
Willing to defer to ‘states rights’ in determining a woman’s right to determine their own healthcare decisions while simultaneously advocating federal control over school funding…all while the internal debate whether to abolish the DOE continues…inconsistent and incongruent.
The root cause of the problem with education is too many people are having kids and don't have the time, skills, resources or desire to do their part in taking care of and educating their children. This is why birth control and abortion are needed, this is what some Republicans don't want to accept. .
I think that this has been a problem historically, as in people have always had children whilst being unprepared in a myriad of ways.
From the article:
This interesting juxtaposition of contrasting ideas is why I say "Big Brother Trump will be Watching" The latest in doublespeak.
Always cracks me up when I hear Nutters talking about, "woke" and 90% of them have no clue what it even means.