The Department of Education workforce has been cut in half under the Trump administration, from over 4,100 employees to approximately 2,180. This reduction reflects broader efforts to limit federal oversight and transfer educational responsibilities to individual states.
Supports claim this offers states greater control over their education systems. Critics, however, fear it undermines federal leadership in addressing nationwide disparities, such as resource allocation and standardized education.
The Trump administration's focus on restricting topics like diversity and contested historical facts in classrooms has generated heated debate. This move aims to prevent what policymakers view as biased or politically charged curricula.
Opponents express concern over limiting intellectual freedom and underrepresenting America's diverse history. Supporters claim it ensures educational materials align with traditional values and prevent divisiveness in schools.
The Trump administration has not yet officially abolished Black History Month, but it is in the works. A Department of Defense memo announced the cancellation of any “identity months” such as Black History Month and Women's History Month in the military and agency.
Supporters claim doing away with these celebrations will promote “unity and purpose.” Despite this, in February 2025, President Trump signed the same proclamation signed by every president since 1976 that recognizes Black History Month. It’s unsure how this will progress as he continues to roll out anti-DEI initiatives in schools.
Trump's administration issued warnings about withholding federal funding from institutions maintaining DEI programs, citing their potential to divide students along racial or ideological lines.
While supporters believe this aligns with broader "colorblind" policies, others argue it impedes progress toward equity in education. Many schools are left trying to find the balance between compliance and addressing systemic inequalities.
The promotion of school choice and vouchers redirects taxpayer money from public schools to private and charter schools. Advocates argue this empowers parents to choose the best educational setting for their children.
Opposition has been outspoken about the risks of defunding public schools. They warn that this will make school inequality worse because wealthier families are the ones who benefit from school choice systems.
The Trump administration proposed cutting $600 million in federal grants for teacher training programs, including the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development programs. These grants were designed to address teacher shortages in high-need areas and support diversity in the teaching workforce.
States like California and New Jersey, which rely heavily on federal funding, argued that these cuts would worsen the existing teacher shortage, leaving many classrooms without qualified educators. The administration justified the cuts by claiming the programs promoted "divisive ideologies" such as diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The proposal for parents to directly elect school principals aims to increase parental involvement and accountability in school leadership. Advocates argue it offers families a greater say in decision-making.
However, opponents question the feasibility and potential consequences of this policy. They fear it could politicize schools and make it harder for administrators to make evidence-based decisions.
The administration emphasized tying teacher pay to student performance, with the aim of incentivizing better outcomes. Additionally, policy preferences included reducing teacher tenure protections, arguing this would improve accountability in the classroom.
Critics of this say drawbacks include decreased job security for teachers and a narrow focus on standardized test scores as performance indicators. With a teacher shortage already in effect, this could deter people from the field.
Trump reinstated the 1776 Commission, which promoted a curriculum centered on traditional American values and sought to counter what it described as "anti-American" ideologies.
While supporters view this as a way to restore national pride, critics argue it whitewashes history. They fear it could lead to a biased and incomplete representation of America’s past.
Law enforcement agencies have been directed to scrutinize schools for teaching "anti-American" content, such as critical race theory. Educators who are found guilty of promoting “subversive material” could face consequences and schools may lose funding.
Advocates argue this ensures schools remain apolitical and aligned with American values. Opponents highlight the chilling effect such policies may have on academic freedom and honest historical discussion.
Executive Order 14190 directed schools to remove teaching materials deemed subversive or ideological, including concepts related to systemic racism, gender identity, and white privilege. Non-compliance risked losing federal funds, emphasizing a shift toward curriculum control.
Critics believe this destroys inclusivity and stifles discussion on critical societal issues. Supporters insist it protects students from exposure to ideologies they deem divisive or inappropriate.
Trump's administration has encouraged the distribution of Bibles in public schools, despite legal challenges. Advocates see this as a way to instill moral values and uphold religious traditions.
Opponents call it a violation of church-state separation and question its constitutionality. Schools face legal obstacles, as seen in the Oklahoma Supreme Court's recent ruling against such efforts.
