Related Articles
-Editorial
As the U.S. braces for the possibility of Donald Trump’s return to the White House, education experts, policymakers, and community advocates are sounding the alarm about the profound changes that could reshape the nation’s education system. From K-12 public schools to higher education institutions, sweeping policy shifts could impact students, teachers, and families for years to come.
Central to Trump’s education agenda is the potential dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education (DOE). While eliminating the department has long been a conservative talking point, its feasibility remains questionable. Pedro Noguera, Dean of the USC Rossier School of Education, predicts fierce resistance from unexpected sources, including some Republicans and rural communities that rely on federal education funding. “Getting rid of the Department of Education could jeopardize oversight,” Noguera cautioned, noting that Title I funds for low-income schools and Pell Grants for college students could be at risk.
Critics argue that Trump’s approach to education is driven less by evidence-based policy and more by ideological battles over so-called “culture war” issues. Noguera characterized Trump’s agenda as focused on “school choice” initiatives, such as vouchers, which often redirect public education funds to support private and religious schools. These efforts, Noguera noted, have repeatedly failed in states like Kentucky, Nebraska, and Colorado, where voters rejected similar measures. “The public has consistently voted them down,” he said, emphasizing the potential backlash.
The emphasis on choice and vouchers has raised equity concerns. Opponents argue that voucher systems disproportionately benefit wealthier families who can already afford private education while leaving behind low-income communities. With 90% of U.S. students enrolled in public schools, critics contend that funding these alternatives diverts critical resources away from public education, which serves the vast majority of students.
Beyond the potential elimination of the DOE, other federal oversight measures are at stake. Experts warn that a second Trump administration may wield the power of the federal purse and the accreditation system to pressure higher education institutions to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Noguera foresees the Office for Civil Rights being repurposed to “preserve the rights of white students,” reflecting Trump’s broader culture war priorities.
This shift could have lasting consequences for colleges and universities that rely on federal funding and accreditation to maintain operations. Without accreditation, institutions risk losing access to federal financial aid—a vital resource for students from low-income families.
Trump’s potential return could also affect higher education affordability and access. Thomas Toch, Director of FutureEd at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, highlighted Trump’s past efforts to roll back Obama-era regulations on for-profit colleges. Protections designed to shield students from predatory practices may once again be weakened, Toch noted. “We can expect to see those [protections] be watered down again,” he said, referencing Trump’s controversial history with the now-defunct Trump University.
Additionally, Toch warned of potential cuts to federal student aid programs such as Pell Grants, AmeriCorps, and work-study initiatives. These programs help millions of underrepresented students access higher education. “There will be pressure… to reduce Pell Grant funding,” Toch said, citing a long-standing Republican objective to shrink federal spending on social programs.
Toch also predicted that Biden’s student loan forgiveness initiatives would come to an end under Trump. If Trump follows through on promises to limit federal financial aid, millions of students could see reduced access to higher education or face greater debt burdens.
The Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which allows students to apply for financial aid, may also be subject to reform. While the Biden administration faced criticism for its management of FAFSA, Toch warned that Trump’s administration would “own the issue” if it were to take over.
One of the most contentious issues affecting education under a possible Trump administration is immigration. Stephen Miller, Trump’s former senior advisor known for his hardline stance on immigration, is expected to return to a key role. His policies, critics argue, could hinder international student enrollment at U.S. universities, exacerbating an already growing problem of declining college enrollment.
Toch emphasized the importance of international students to the U.S. higher education system, noting that restrictive visa policies would disrupt the flow of talent into American universities. This, in turn, could negatively impact the financial health of colleges that rely on tuition from international students.
For K-12 schools, fears of intensified immigration enforcement loom large. Thomas A. Saenz, President and General Counsel of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), addressed parents’ concerns about deportation raids at schools. Saenz reassured families that Plyler v. Doe, a 1982 Supreme Court decision guaranteeing a public education to all children regardless of immigration status, remains intact.
“They do not have the right or ability to enter public schools to engage in immigration enforcement,” Saenz explained, noting that Plyler v. Doe also protects against immigration enforcement on school grounds. Even if policies regarding “sensitive locations” are rescinded, the Plyler decision offers a legal safeguard.
Despite Trump’s rhetoric, Saenz downplayed the likelihood of significant changes to Plyler, stating that past efforts to undermine it—like California’s 1994 Proposition 187—were swiftly struck down by federal courts. The principles of Plyler have since been incorporated into federal law, making it even more difficult to challenge.
The fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program may also hang in the balance. Saenz explained that dismantling DACA would not be as simple as an executive order or an announcement from the attorney general. The Biden administration established DACA through a formal rulemaking process, requiring a similarly rigorous procedure to reverse it. Any attempt to end DACA would need to go through public notice, comment, and regulatory review.
“It’s important to remember that no announcement from the attorney general, no announcement from Trump himself, would immediately end DACA,” Saenz said.
Noguera also pointed to the lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on education. Student learning loss, particularly in math and science, remains a major concern. He criticized the tendency to prioritize political battles over substantive issues affecting student learning.
“Our educational system, K-12, has great needs,” Noguera stressed. “It’s unfortunate if all the attention goes into the politics and not into the substance of education.”
The post-pandemic world has exposed deep gaps in student achievement, and education leaders like Noguera worry that ongoing culture wars could distract from addressing these core issues. While political headlines may focus on banning books, eliminating DEI initiatives, and school choice battles, the urgent need to support students academically often goes unaddressed.
With the 2024 presidential election on the horizon, the future of education policy hangs in the balance. Experts like Noguera, Toch, and Saenz are urging stakeholders to remain vigilant and prepared for what could be a contentious battle over the Department of Education, funding for low-income students, immigration policies, and civil rights protections.
“If they have ideas about efficiency, by all means, let’s see more efficiency,” Noguera said, referencing the possibility of reforming the DOE rather than eliminating it. He expressed openness to efforts aimed at improving federal education oversight, but he remains skeptical about whether Trump or his allies have a coherent plan.
Saenz echoed this call for preparation, reminding families that the legal framework protecting immigrant children’s right to an education is strong and enduring. For vulnerable communities—low-income students, undocumented families, and marginalized groups—uncertainty lingers but advocates like Saenz, Noguera, and Toch are working to ensure their rights remain protected.
As Noguera put it, “Get ready to rumble.” The battle over education policy in the coming years is shaping up to be one of the fiercest yet.
