Eduwonk

In the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Education Trust CEO Denise Forte and I discuss Virginia’s new plan for school accountability, why it’s needed, why it matters, and what needs to come next.

Impound Lots

And here we go. The Trump Administration, or at least parts of it, are itching to challenge key elements of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974. That law defines the budget process that, at least in theory, is in place today though Congress and White Houses of both parties frequently deviate from it. But until recently the second part of the law’s title, the impoundment part, has been pretty settled. Congress appropriates money, the executive branch spends it. That part of the law was put in place because presidents would decline to spend money Congress had appropriated – this came to a head during the Nixon Administration. President Trump’s budget director, Russ Vought, disagrees with this law and believes it is unconstitutional.

So yesterday, right at the deadline to send appropriated education funds to states, the Trump Administration announced it was withholding almost $7 billion in education spending in ways that line up with the administration’s proposed budget but not with action Congress already took on spending this spring as part of the continuing resolution the government is operating under. Yes, there have been cuts, but Congressionally mandated funding has been restored in various ways. This is an escalation.

Sure, some of this is Kabuki theater. This possibility was a poorly kept secret so no one is “surprised.” Meanwhile, privately it’s hard to find anyone who thinks Title II spending is all that effective or has even read any of the mandated reports on how it’s used. Title II has fought off many proposals for reform. Of course, with Trump going after it, Title II will now be exalted as a pillar of the republic alongside the 13th Amendment, Social Security, or the Civil Rights Act. Welcome to 2025.

On the other—important—hand, Title III funding for English Language Learners is a key student support in some communities, as are funds for migrant students. More than a billion is at stake for those programs. It’s not happenstance that supports for those kids are being targeted—it’s ugly politics. They also targeted after-school programs. Bill Clinton successfully used after-school funding to bludgeon Republicans in budget fights, but that was a different time, and it’s unclear if Democrats can make that message stick in today’s environment.

Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack?    Sign up for free here.

Under current law this action is illegal. That’s clear. Congress appropriated these funds, the executive branch is bound to spend them. The administration, however, thinks it can prevail in court with claims around executive authority and the constitutionality of the impoundment law. In their first term the Trump team tried to use deferral authority and other measures to delay spending but avoided a direct clash on the underlying questions. The Biden Administration subsequently slow walked some border wall spending but likewise did not outright challenge Congress’ authority. Ordinarily, Congress would be expected to defend its spending authority but here we are.

The action is annoying red states and blue ones, but as with previous similar episodes expect blues to push back publicly, and obviously in court, while many red states quietly hope they prevail but will keep their heads down. One reason? Some of this money funds state operations so it’s not purely partisan at all.

Also worth noting: The Department of Education is hanging back on this – deferring all questions from media or the Hill to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. It’s illustrative of this dynamic of fractured views around the administration around the efficacy of various things.

Bottom line: whatever you think of these programs, or federal spending more generally, government requires adherence to law, process, and predictability. As with much of what DOGE did this action is none of these things. The administration could have tested their novel legal theory in a more modest way. Instead, as is their way, politics and chaos.

Wait, Whathoo?

While we’re on process…

I’m disappointed to see Jim Ryan step down from UVA as its president—perhaps foremost as a UVA parent. When you drop your kids off for college there is a lot of emotion, but under Ryan’s leadership I had a good sense that even though the school is large, it would get small fast. He was genuinely striving for a school that is good as well as great. His welcome talk to parents is a masterclass on mixed emotions with some good advice sprinkled in. Every student, parent, and school should be so lucky.

(If you want to read a lot of back and forth on this, James Bacon—who has a dog in this fight—is nonetheless to his credit running commentary on all sides, including several former state legislators and the former head of the Virginia Democratic Party.)

I’m also disappointed as someone with history at the school: graduate school, teaching there, 12 years on what was then called the Curry board, involvement in some other projects. Ryan wasn’t perfect—the university has some real problems—and the reaction to missteps shouldn’t be to reflexively canonize someone. But he was certainly a top-tier university president.

So, speaking of deification, Ryan resisted efforts to erase Thomas Jefferson from UVA, while also making clear that Jefferson was a complicated person. He resisted the stridency of Jefferson’s intractable critics and uncritical fans. In other words: nuance that pleased few. Likewise, here he is 11 years ago pushing back on efforts to disinvite then–Colorado state legislator (now Denver Mayor) Mike Johnston from a Harvard commencement while Ryan was dean. Yes, Mike Johnston! That was a sign of the bonkeroo things to come in the culture wars, but Jim’s instincts were sound. Despite some real bumps and some issues, there is a reason UVA ranked high on FIRE’s free speech ratings.

(Full disclosure, he’s been a guestblogger here, and been featured in Friday Fish Porn more than once).

Anyhow, this situation is troubling for a few reasons. For starters, there hasn’t been a formal, transparent process about what the specific issues are at UVA. I don’t take much convincing that there probably are some, it’s a large school. But I don’t know. You don’t know. And most of the people sounding off don’t know. Few universities don’t have challenges right now, and it’s reasonable to ask people to, you know, follow federal law. Some of this is also tied up, though, in competing interpretations of where the legal lines actually are. Some in the Trump Administration consider anything promoting diversity illegal under the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision. Others think it’s only activities that clearly discriminate.

I prefer a more narrow interpretation. For instance, I think UVA can do more for first gen students than it does now, and don’t see that as in conflict with SFFA v. Harvard. (A few months ago Bellwether and PPI hosted an event looking at those questions.)

But you can’t just have insinuations and forced resignations directed from the Department of Justice. The lack of transparency here is a tell. If you’re confident in your case—both legally and in the court of public opinion—then make it in public.

On questions like this, process matters—especially considering this is a public university. You need evidence and findings, which can be challenged or accepted. A settlement or litigation to reach one. If the accusation is just that UVA is too lefty, well, you’ll have to cashier almost everyone in higher ed this side of Hillsdale and the Citadel—and that’s not against the law anyway. The issue is specific practices. Bring receipts.

So what doesn’t play? Threatening public jobs with letters that (as far as I know) are still not in the public domain, and also preempting or interfering with Virginia’s own governance process for its public universities. It’s a terrible precedent that should be resisted—not even tacitly validated and certainly not endorsed.

More generally, this isn’t about curbing the excesses—and yes, in some instances, illegality—of left-wing DEI efforts. It’s about just swapping that out for an also heavy-handed, illiberal right-wing version of DEI.

That’s no good, and doesn’t have to be the choice.

Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack?    Sign up for free here.

Coming Attractions:

On 6/30, I’ll be leading a keynote discussion at the NACPS conference on the state of the charter school sector. Jed Wallace and I will also record a WonkyFolk later in the day. I hope you’ll also check out sessions by my Bellwether colleagues Carrie Irvin and Jenn Schiess on academic recovery and finance.

ICYMI – Kathleen deLaski and I talked higher ed and who needs college, when, why, and how?

Philanthropy

Over on LinkedIn Goldstein’s going wild and poking bears.

Include Teachers In Social Security

The Social Security Administration released updated figures on Social Security “insolvency” and the picture is…not good:

In plain English, on his way out the door, Joe Biden signed a politically popular but not policy-sound provision eliminating measures in Social Security intended to preserve its progressiveness by accounting for workers also covered by various government pensions— who did not pay into Social Security while earning those pensions. That move accelerated Social Security’s fiscal cliff by about six months, costing about $196 billion over the next decade.

Those pension offset measures could have used reform—like many complicated government formulas, they had problems. Yet the fundamental idea that people with government pensions shouldn’t be treated the same under Social Security as a low-wage worker is an important one and, again, key to Social Security’s progressiveness.

One thing Congress and the states could do now to help, and potentially address the insolvency problem long-term, would be to sweep all teachers into Social Security. About 40% are not covered now. Yes, you read that right—40%. Including all teachers in some large states like Ohio or Illinois.

This isn’t ideal for anyone, especially given that public pension plans often have long vesting periods. Teachers can go five, seven, or nine years without being vested in a pension plan and without earning Social Security credit by paying in. Not great. Social Security isn’t a substitute for a good retirement plan for teachers, but it’s one leg of the stool.

Even well-functioning democracies tend to wait until the last minute to address big, complicated problems. Stay tuned.

Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack?  Sign up for free here.

Diversity, More Instructional Time, Inclusion

It’s easy to pick on the excesses of the 2020 political pivot and what’s often referred to as “wokeness”—not in the Leadbelly sense but rather in the “math is racist and we should decolonize coleslaw” way that suddenly became prevalent and fashionable.

But it wasn’t all absurdities. In addition to raising awareness about real problems, the “reckoning,” as it is sometimes called, also led to some good ideas and progress. In our part of the world, school systems with diverse populations realized that maybe they shouldn’t just orient their calendars around Christian holidays. Suddenly, you saw days off for Eid, Diwali, Ramadan, Lunar New Year, and Jewish holidays. At one level, this is great—these are important holidays for people, and these are public institutions that should be responsive to the public.

At another level, it created frustrations. Parents had to arrange childcare on various days that, to many, felt out of the blue or like moving targets. This frustrated them. Teachers had to figure out how to navigate irregular school schedules. (People debate four-day versus five-day school weeks, but some districts are already basically there by default.)

Districts and schools realized this, and now some are walking things back—declaring holidays to be school days but non-instructional in terms of anything graded or, in some cases, even introducing new content. This addresses the childcare problem and helps comply with various state laws and policies about minimum days kids have to be in school, but it also irritates many teachers. The picking and choosing of holidays isn’t ideal either. And this creates a de facto downward pressure on instructional time—already in short supply due to various constraints.

The school year is too short, in my view. Count me among fans of year-round schools with real breaks at different times of the year—where out-of-school providers can plan to serve parents needing sustained childcare. I had hoped that the inclusion of more holidays would give cover to school leaders to start extending the school year in this direction. That didn’t happen.

It’s too bad. Instead of having non-instructional days, why not explicitly have enrichment days? Schools could remain open during holidays with an explicit focus on enrichment and extra support for students. Parents could opt kids in or out, teachers who want to work and earn more money could do so, and students could get more time and support. Schools could also offer non-academic activities. By not counting these days as mandated instructional days, this would augment learning rather than informally curtailing it, as we often do now.

Would it cost money? Of course. But everyone says they want to spend more on schools—let’s take them up on that. And if we want to pay teachers more, it will have to come with some outputs tied to those inputs. So here’s one. Polling consistently shows two things: people support increases in teacher pay tied to various criteria (not just across the board), and support for raising teacher pay declines as people learn more about how teacher compensation works.

An approach like this could address multiple issues: more money for teachers, a more responsive system, more time for students to learn when many desperately need it, and actual meaningful steps to reflect the diversity that exists in many communities. It could also help move toward a system with more flexible schedules for teachers—something important to a changing workforce.

Or, instead, we can keep doing this I guess.

Friday Fish

Chat Ratliff runs innovation for Albemarle County Public Schools in Virginia (the county surrounding the city of Charlottesville). He’s been featured here a few times with fish and his family. Today we’re going to look at his day job—specifically, a lab school program using fly fishing to teach ecology.

Here’s a local news station.

Here’s a video the school division put together:

Want more? Here are hundreds of pics of education folks, including the fishing Ratliff’s, with fish. Even more pics here.

Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack?  Sign up for free here.

Coming attractions. Tomorrow, Friday, at 1p ET, Kathleen deLaski and I will talk college and alternatives to college for students. The what, why, and how of that issue. Her new book approaches that question from a design perspective.

I’m moderating the keynote session at the NACPS annual conference in Orlando at the end of this month. Join us for a lively discussion on where charter schooling stands in 2025.

New Report Card podcast out: Rick Hess, Nat Malkus, and I chop it up, like the kids say. We discuss how much it truly is for that little DOGEie in the window, trench warfare at Harvard, and the reconciliation bill. Plus, a summer-themed Grade It. More.

New Report Card podcast out (Part 2): OK, it’s been a while since a posting. In the actually newest new episode just out yesterday, Nat, Rick and I talk more about Harvard and international students and “equity grading.” Also, a lot of quiet grumbling about EWA’s recent meeting from journos, we go on the record with our concerns about what it means and why it matters for discourse in the sector.

SCOTUS ended up 4–4 on the Oklahoma religious charter school case. Big question: will proponents of religious charter schools find a better vehicle and avoid a Barrett recusal next time? My colleagues Hailly Korman and Indira Dammu break that down. Meanwhile, Charlie Barone says the Dems need to up their game on charters.

Jed Wallace and I talk about all that—and more, including book recommendations—on a new WonkyFolk. Listen or watch here or wherever you get your podcasts. And we’ll be recording one in Florida at the NACPS meeting in July if you are interested.

Worst book club ever? In Ed Week Rick Hess and I take a look at the Mahmoud v. Taylor case currently before SCOTUS and talk books. Rick doesn’t like Lawn Boy; I think it’s a good book—but not for young kids (the author agrees). We get into age appropriateness, activists, and how these books all get lumped together when case-by-case is a better approach. More generally:

One thing Rick and I don’t get into: teacher training. In the hands of a poorly trained teacher—or one with an agenda or insufficient boundaries—any book can become a problem. But the solution isn’t to put blinkers on kids. It’s to train and support teachers and addressing the freelance problem. Now, if you’re wondering whether school leaders are up to that task given all the swirling ideology—well, that’s a good question. And that brings us to Mahmoud v. Taylor and a question worth pausing on:

Is Mahmoud v. Taylor the dumbest Supreme Court education case ever? 

It just might be.

And that would be no small feat. In this jurisprudential lineage, for every Pierce, Barnette, or Tinker, you get a Bethel or a Bong Hits 4 Jesus. Or more recently, the Kennedy case, featuring a coach whose crusade for school prayer was apparently so vital to him and his allies that after prevailing he’s now seen only on milk cartons.

At the appeals level, we’ve seen cases like Newsom v. Albemarle County, where a school district tried to ban an NRA T-shirt. And of course, we routinely revisit the Co-ed Naked Band or “I ♥ Boobies” genre of cases. Returning to Barnette: every few years, some administrator forgets you can’t compel students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance (that precedent is only eight decades old—be patient).

Now, about Mahmoud v. Taylor. The case started in Montgomery County, MD, and was argued this April. It’s absurd, but no joke. The issues at stake are important. So are the underlying dynamics. Yet, it’s a case that never should have made it to the Supreme Court. Here’s one Montgomery County parent on that.

Natalie Wexler makes the case that courts shouldn’t decide issues like this—local parents and school officials should.

Worth noting: the number of amicus briefs supporting neither party—just trying to limit the damage. Here’s one from education associations. Here’s another.

Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack? Sign up for free here.

Once the case was filed, the school district should have paused. It should have stopped fighting and moved toward a more sensible policy. Note: The original case was Mahmoud v. McKnight, but that superintendent left the district, and the new superintendent, Thomas Taylor, a respected Virginia administrator, inherited the case and is now the named defendant. This is quite the parting gift.

The core issue: Can parents opt their children out of public school activities that conflict with their religious beliefs? In some ways, this question is settled—sex ed, for example, often allows opt-outs. About a century ago, SCOTUS affirmed parents’ right to choose religious schools in Pierce. But this case goes further because the material in question isn’t a discrete unit—it’s embedded in the curriculum. That’s why the stakes are so high.

What happened: Post-2020, Montgomery County started using a collection of books to teach about LGBTQ+ topics, intersectionality, and related themes. Why? Because 2020. Still, as I noted in my discussion with Rick Hess, it’s a mistake to treat these books as a uniform set—they vary. Some are overtly political; others just feature gay characters in otherwise timeless narratives.

In any case, many parents began opting out. And while the immediate assumption was that this was just white reactionaries at it again, it turned out to be a cross-section of families—including many Muslim parents. The lead plaintiff is Muslim. I heard a lot of quiet WTFs from parents in Montgomery County who are fairly left in their politics. A few things worth pausing on:

First: This reaction surprised people—especially the loud leadership class oriented white progressives steeped in the essentialness of intersectionality (never mind most hadn’t heard of the term or idea a year earlier). Despite preaching “cultural competence,” at the rest of us many of these folks in Montgomery County seemed shocked that Muslim families wouldn’t be thrilled about Pride Puppy. We can debate whether that’s good or bad—but it’s real. The resulting rhetoric was… not great.

Second: Come on. It’s 2025. Your kids are going to encounter gay people in the world. If that’s a dealbreaker for you then public school may not be the right fit. Maybe look into living like this? Because seriously—what’s the limiting principle? No openly gay teachers? No mention of different family structures? At the same time we can leave some space for families with different views who want space—especially in the early grades. That’s the core issue here. Pluralism must go all ways, and we badly need that conversation in schools right now about how to balance things. This is not it. (Worth flagging here: The Supreme Court just declined to hear an adjacent and consequential First Amendment student speech rights case).

Today’s education leaders increasingly frame the fight as “Don’t Say Gay” vs. “Gender Theory for Kindergartners,” and then pick a side—sometimes reluctantly, sometimes enthusiastically. But the real loser isn’t either faction (they’re both fundraising and thriving on social media just fine)—it’s public schools. Because it’s the wrong fight. The real threat is the erosion of trust and the activists fueling it alongside declining enrollment, demographic changes, and fiscal pressure.

Montgomery County saw the wave of opt-outs—so many they claimed it was a problem—and instead of seeing it as a signal to heed, they doubled down. They eliminated opt-outs and simply made the material part of the curriculum. That created awkward inconsistencies: for instance, depictions of the Prophet Muhammad were disallowed, but LGBT-themed material that some parents objected to remained. Parents were enraged. And remember: this was all happening in kindergarten and early elementary classrooms. Age really matters to this conversation. It should be one of the first questions you ask when this comes up.

It was the education version of “but the groups,” and a missed chance to lead and show that these things can be balanced. We’re not as divided as the activists on both sides would have you believe.

In other words, it was a terrible choice of hills to die on—and, of course, the county got sued. And now, we’re possibly facing a major SCOTUS decision with broad implications. About something that could’ve been resolved through basic dialogue and principle-based leadership. Certainly without the Supreme Court.

Great work, everyone.

Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack? Sign up for free here.

Yesterday, Rick Hess, Mike Petrilli, Nicole Kelly, Bob Eitel, and I discussed Trump’s “First 100 Days” on education at an event convened by Rick and AEI. Most interesting takeaway? Across the spectrum, there are concerns about two things.

First, a shared worry that the illiberalism of the left is being replaced—though we disagreed on the degree—by a rising illiberalism on the right. I argued that most Trump executive actions aren’t about ending things like DEI, litmus tests, free speech issues, or due process violations, but about channeling power in new political directions. The new DEI of the right isn’t any better than the DEI of the left.

Second, general agreement that the Trump Administration doesn’t—at least yet—have its act together. Two of the panelists are pretty favorably disposed toward Trump, so their concerns are worth noting, even if you apply a discount to the ones Mike and I raised. And even if you just skim, Rick’s final question is a really good one.

Next Tuesday, May 6, on LinkedIn, Mark Walsh and I will discuss recent Supreme Court cases, including the Oklahoma religious charter case and what it might signal.

Also May 6, for the Campaign for Grade Level Reading’s Learning Tuesdays, I’ll moderate a conversation with school and security experts on whether “hardening the target” is the best way to keep kids safe—or if schools should focus more on getting upstream of problems.

On May 8, I’ll be at the SDP Convening at Harvard for a morning plenary on the past and future federal role in education research with Derrell Bradford, Sonja Santelises, Angela Minnici, and Chris Minnich.

May 12, Bellwether’s Sarah Broome and I will talk about Medicaid and why what’s happening in Congress matters for schools.

Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack?     Sign up for free here.

For today, books.

I’m still struck by how many people say things like “Joe Biden was a great president,” “the American people suck,” or “Trump was inevitable.” These views tend to dodge any serious reckoning with the possibility that Democrats, in part, helped set the stage for the current mess.

The American people don’t suck. They’re just intensely frustrated that government and large systems aren’t responsive. Trump wasn’t inevitable. The modern presidency is pretty impossible, and while Biden did some good things that will endure, his handling of inflation (minimized and denied), Afghanistan (bungled and denied), and education (policies seemingly calculated to inflame education polarization and alienate moderates) was political malpractice. He left office with lower approval ratings than Trump—after January 6. That’s a bad way to do politics.

Three recent books, from different angles, explore the dynamics underlying much of this. So rather than wait for the holidays, here are some recommendations for right now. Understanding how we got here is a prerequisite for figuring out where to go.

Much of the education debate today is downstream of pandemic-era decisions. The pandemic unleashed the “Wild One” dynamic, still playing out in various forms. That narrative, though, is now filtered through contemporary politics. David Zweig has receipts. In An Abundance of Caution, he shows how politics, tribalism, and groupthink undermined trust in schools, public health, and Democrats—all at once.

Some of that was preference falsification and opportunism. But much of it traces back to how we consume information. My advice: don’t take anyone seriously on “follow the evidence” or “misinformation” unless they acknowledge what a broad problem this is.

In March 2020, I wrote in The 74 that we needed to move fast to head off learning loss. For that, I was called indifferent to the pandemic (at the time I was moonlighting as an EMT, so…not entirely indifferent), anti-equity, and other more colorful things. As Zweig notes, it was the kids Democrats say they care about most—including Black kids—who took the hardest hits. An education sector obsessed with “equity” did the opposite when pressured. The lack of reckoning about all that isn’t a 2021 problem. It’s a 2025 one.

That brings us to Steven Wilson, ousted from the charter network he founded in part for resisting the suddenly fashionable – again -idea that content and knowledge were “white,” things and arguing that denying them to Black kids in the name of social justice or equity was both wrong and self-defeating.

Wilson’s new book, The Lost Decade, explores these themes. It’s an important look at the politics underneath the Politics. It helps explain two things. First, why an elite driven movement that nonetheless prides itself on its “cultural competence” really isn’t. And second, why, in the era of Trump, Republicans are nonetheless making some inroads on education.

The New York Times interviewed Wilson here. The headline is telling. These days, someone with conventionally liberal views is treated like an uncontacted tribesman.

So what to do? Marc Dunkelman has ideas. In Why Nothing Works, he argues that efforts to restrain another Robert Moses have hobbled government’s ability to function—and that’s fueling public frustration and populism and discrediting those who believe government can be a force for progress.

Abundance is getting the buzz (despite ignoring education), but Dunkelman’s book asks the harder questions about why abundance is complicated—and what it really takes to deliver it.

Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack?    Sign up for free here.

Rick Hess and I check in with Nat Malkus on a new episode of his “Report Card” podcast. You can listen here or wherever you get your podcasts. We discuss why, even if you’re frustrated with what has happened at Harvard, we all have to be Crimson now given the stakes. We talk waivers, AERA, due process, and more.

Earlier this month, Will Marshall (and PPI) and I (and BW) co-hosted an event on Rick Kahlenberg ‘s new book on class-based affirmative action and his journey through the thicket of that debate. You can watch the event here.

I’ll be discussing some current issues at AERA and PPI in Denver this weekend. Other events I’m doing next few weeks:

📍 April 30th – AEI virtual event
On Trump’s first 100 days in education policy. Spoiler: Feels like longer.

📍May 6th – CGLR Webinar
Discussing school security and why “hardening the target” may miss the mark in schools.

📍 May 8th – SDP Convening at Harvard
Morning plenary on the federal role in education research with Derrell Bradford, Sonja Santelises, Angela Minnici, and Chris Minnich.

📍 May 12th – Talking Medicaid and schools and why that matters with Sarah Broome for a Bellwether LinkedIn.

More later in May and June. Hope to see you at one or more.

Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack?     Sign up for free here.

The Dem Choice on Choice

Over the past few months, a quiet but intense debate has broken out among education-reform Democrats over whether the party should embrace private school choice—particularly the ESAs spreading kudzu-like across the country.* The growth of these programs, donor interest, and a broader strategic “what now?” conversation—post-pandemic and with Democrats on their heels on an issue the party usually performs well on—are driving the conversation.

Ashley Berner, Chris Cerf, and I talked through some of this in a webinar earlier this month.

Predictably, establishment Democrats—especially the teachers unions—are a hard no. They want Democrats to stop even being charter curious, sticking solely to public sector–controlled options. That stance is politically out of step and does little for families seeking more than what they currently get. It also overlooks the solid (though increasingly pressured) record of urban charters and the energy for new options percolating across the system.

Still, my take on the broader question is no—and not just because I doubt that today’s backlash-fueled rush to private choice will reliably expand opportunity for low-income students. And I don’t lose a lot of sleep about giving persistently underserved families some options. Politically, however, I just don’t think Democrats need to embrace private school choice wholesale or without meaningful guardrails around civil rights and transparency as well as means testing to meet this moment.

They do, however, need to change. At a time of real disruption and frustration Democrats need to be a party that welcomes a much wider range of perspectives on these questions—especially given the broad support for choice around the country. A flat “no,” or even the perception of being a party of no, isn’t a viable long-term strategy. A rigid stance amazingly manages to turn off some centrist and conservative Dems as well as some pro-reform progressive ones. It’s not the only reason Donald Trump made gains among non-white voters 2016 to 2024, but it’s one of them.

I could show you polling all day, but forget that for a moment: this is America—we like choice. Being on the wrong side of that culturally and politically is not a great place to be.

Political parties need contrast, yes—but they also need inclusion. Winning in today’s tight races depends on addition, not subtraction. Democrats don’t need to become Republicans on education, but they do need to change their ways. That’s why Democrats should make room for people who see school choice differently, even if the party doesn’t officially adopt those positions. And it’s worth remembering that good artists borrow, great ones steal.

Politically, even post-pandemic, choice + accountability matches up well against anything goes. People don’t want to pay for the affluent to go to private school. What doesn’t work is being seen as lashed to the status quo or dismissive of the concerns. Or worse, politicians who emphatically say they’re not for the status quo either but then go on to offer five lame and exhausted ideas as evidence of their appetite for change.

Put plainly: don’t blackball Democrats who support ESAs or vouchers. 2028 Democratic hopefuls in including governors like Josh Shapiro (PA) and J.B. Pritzker (IL) flirt with choice alternatives. Jared Polis, the maverick governor of Colorado is a longtime charter school champion and education innovator. California Governor Gavin Newsom was OK on charter schools—even pre-podcast! Rahm Emanuel is serving up some hard truths. This is the conversation Democrats must have.

The teachers unions will push hard for ideological purity—they have an existential financial interest in doing so. But Democratic leaders should prioritize winning elections and actually governing. Sensible policy would be nice, too. Especially right now. And especially policy that is responsive to families who have been denied educational quality for far too long. All those things are attainable.

Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack?    Sign up for free here.

Lessons From Other Issues

In the 1990s, pro-life Democrats were being pushed out of the party. In 1992, Bob Casey Sr., a pro-life Democratic governor, was barred from speaking at the national convention. Around the same time, Bill Clinton articulated a position on abortion that resonated with a broad swath of Americans: it should be safe, legal, and rare—a formulation that still holds up pretty well. It didn’t end the debate, but it signaled moral seriousness and some welcome nuance. Predictably, interest groups soon pressured him to drop the “rare.” Hillary Clinton stuck with the phrase for a time, but it eventually fell out of use.

Like school choice, abortion is complicated. And like school choice, it depends on the details—something I’ve written about before. Are we talking about first trimester or third? With school choice are we talking about allowing civil rights laws to follow public dollars, or handing out blank checks without oversight?

Imagine if Democrats had kept Clinton’s framing—or said: This party supports reproductive choice, and we also respect that reasonable people can hold sincere, differing views on this. Not every pro-life voter fetishizes The Handmaid’s Tale. Some are acting on deeply held beliefs, not misogynists looking to impose theocracy.

If Democrats had taken that approach, some of the pro-life voters who held their noses and voted for Trump—twice or three times—might have seen things differently. If they hadn’t felt dismissed or alienated, some might have stayed.

And then there’s guns. Activist David Hogg publicly cheered the loss of Rep. Mary Peltola’s seat because she wasn’t anti-gun enough. She represented Alaska. Interestingly, Randi Weingarten, the American Federation of Teachers president, is backing Hogg’s effort to purge incumbent Democrats who stray from orthodoxy.

But here’s the thing: you can have an anti-gun Democrat, or you can have a Democrat representing Alaska—you can’t have both. Guns are part of the culture, part of backcountry safety, and part of daily life there for many residents.

Democrats don’t need to become a pro-gun party either. But they do need candidates who fit their districts. That requires signaling respect for local views and resisting the urge to impose national litmus tests. You build a big tent not by agreeing on everything, but by making space for people who see some issues differently—even when the party’s official position doesn’t shift.

A little nuance sometimes goes a long way.

Back to Choice

School choice is becoming a way of life in many regions—especially fast-growing ones with political clout. In a country where a majority of students will soon have a right to exit public schools, Democrats need to offer something more than a flat “no,” they need a compelling agenda that includes robust public school choice and charter options at a minimum.

Before we get to that, if Democrats can’t even tolerate elected officials in their own party who see the choice issue differently, then it’s going to be a long time in the wilderness—on this issue. Especially if the party can’t focus on what matters and avoid getting sucked into 70–30 and 80/20 issues. See: book bans or parents’ rights.

Parents want options and responsiveness. Meanwhile, key stakeholders resist reform, resist accountability, and resist choice. It’s a natural tension when you have producer interests (unions and the education establishment) and consumer interests (parents) under the same tent. That’s not sustainable without some accommodation and an agenda with new ideas and energy behind it.

Democrats don’t need to flip their position on vouchers or other private choice mechanisms. They should stand up for the idea that public accountability should follow public dollars. That the rich should pay their own way when it comes to private schooling. But they do need to change their posture toward those who see those questions differently and signal to parents that they get the frustration.

In other words, to use the buzzwords of the day, Dems need to be more inclusive on these questions and hold space for people who see things differently. And then create an agenda with compelling ideas. Again, attainable.

*Worth noting: Among the myriad oddities of the choice debate, resistance to choice was stronger when the evidence base for choice was stronger. Now, support is growing even as the research on broad programs is weaker. But school choice is—and always has been—as much about values as evidence. Parents are fundamentally pragmatic and the values are changing.

Friday Fish Porn: Choice edition

We’re talking school choice, so here’s longtime school choice advocate Bill Phillips and his son with a striped bass caught recently in New Jersey waters.

First time? Yes, here are hundreds of pics of education folks with fish, and more here. It’s a unique archive and hopefully reminds you of the human side of these issues – and also that we need to keep our water and air clean. And it’s always fish pics if you get Eduwonk via Substack—to avoid spam filters.

You want bad camera angles (me) but fantastic timely federal education policy content (Lindsay) then this 30 minute primer by federal policy hand Lindsay Fryer will get you up to speed on what you need to know about what’s going on. The audio on my side is rough, we’re working on that with this platform, but it’s worth powering through to get Lindsay’s informed take, which is clear. She’s the founder of Lodestone DC and if you’re looking for counsel or help on the influence side of things she’s a go-to as you’ll see.

This discussion was hosted on Substack, which if you want to get Eduwonk.com by email, is the way to do it.

Tomorrow’s Substack Chat + Some Good Reading

Tomorrow (Friday) at noon ET, join me for a quick 30-minute Substack check-in with Lodestone DC founder Lindsay Fryer — arguably the most well-connected observer of the Trump-era education policy scene.

We’ll cover the state of play on COVID relief extensions, Title VI compliance and waivers, agency reorg, factionalism, and more.

You don’t need to subscribe to Eduwonk on Substack (it’s free), but you do need a Substack account or app to watch live and ask questions. Subscribing or following ensures you’ll get a link and reminder. Can’t make it live? The recording will be available after.

ICYMI: On Tuesday night, HGSE’s Marty West led an Askwith panel on federal education policy with Catherine Lhamon, Brian Gill, Neal McCluskey, and me.
→ Harvard Crimson
→ Harvard Gazette

Next Week:
📍 ASU+GSV — Monday at 11 a.m. PT
Talking education R&D with Jim Shelton, Erin Mote, and Sara Schapiro.

📍 April 9th – PPI–BW event
A conversation on Rick Kahlenberg’s new book on class vs. race in diversity strategies — with a viewpoint-diverse panel.

📍 April 30th – AEI virtual event
On Trump’s first 100 days in education policy. Spoiler: it feels like longer than 100.

📍 May 8th – SDP Convening at Harvard
Morning plenary on the federal role in education research with Derrell Bradford, Sonja Santelises, Angela Minnici, and Chris Minnich.

📍 May 12th – Talking Medicaid and schools with Sarah Broome for a Bellwether LinkedIn.

---

Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack?  Sign up for free here.

What I’m Reading / Watching

• Rahm Emanuel on why Democrats should apologize on schools and move forward
• Marc Dunkelman’s new book: Why Nothing Works
• Chad Aldeman on the future of American education
• Dale Chu on red states and waivers
• Anne Hyslop and Dave Powell on waivers 101
• Bellwether on block grants
• Greg Toppo’s interview with Mark Schneider on rebuilding federal ed research
• Bellwether’s AI newsletter

Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack?  Sign up for free here.

For Education Week today, Rick Hess and I talked about the DOGE approach to governing – and what it means. Sample:

I’m at Harvard this evening, talking about the Department of Education and education research for an Askwith. Next week, I’ll be at ASU-GSV on the same topic with Jim Shelton, Erin Mote, and Sara Schapiro—that’s Monday at 11 a.m. local time. On Wednesday, the 9th, I’ll be at PPI for a PPI–BW event on Rick Kahlenberg’s new book—a fantastic, wide-ranging panel and what should be a great discussion. In May, I’ll be at SDP discussing the federal role in education research, May 8th, morning plenary with Derrell Bradford (50CAN), Sonja Santelises (Baltimore City Public Schools), Angela Minnici (WestEd), and Chris Minnich (NWEA/HMH). I’ll also be talking Medicaid and schools with Sarah Broome on May 12th. A few other public and private events coming—more soon.

ICYMI – new Wonkyfolk. If you like what we’re doing there please consider throwing Jed a subscription.

Rule of Threes

In briefings and conversations about the Trump Administration and the Department of Education, many are surprised to learn everyone in the administration doesn’t sing from the same hymnal. Let’s talk about that, because it matters.

Yes, Donald Trump is the president, and responsibility and accountability ultimately lies with him. But in practice, three power centers are shaping things on education, and it’s worth understanding the dynamic. Every administration includes factions and White House–agency tension is nothing new. It’s why there are processes to address, mitigate, and arrive at consensus policy positions.

Still, even beyond surprise characters like Big Balls, this setup includes some genuinely novel aspects. Here’s an overview of the factions:

The West Wing.
The White House’s domestic policy shop is dominated by Stephen Miller loyalists. Duke alumnus Miller—Trump loyalist, ideological speechwriter turned wonk—serves as Deputy White House Chief of Staff overseeing domestic policy and immigration. He also acts as a kind of minister without portfolio. This team generates most of the culture-war EOs and actions. Their beef with the Department of Education isn’t so much about policy details or operations as it is about a belief the agency is fundamentally a hub of “wokeism” that needs to be brought to heel, paradoxically with its powers used instead to fight wokeism in states and schools. White House–agency friction isn’t newsworthy in itself; the intensity here is. 

What do they want? They want to mainline more of this and more of this all day, every day.

Bottom line: Find someone who looks at you the way they look at Chris Rufo.

DOGE.
The “Department of Government Efficiency”—basically Elon Musk’s government-cutting vision grafted (grifted?) onto an Obama-era initiative—is something new. Also new: Congress rolling over and yielding its prerogatives without a fight. Even at its peak, the Clinton–Gore reinventing government project still worked through agencies and respected Congressional authority. This isn’t the Hoover Commission or Truman Committee either in terms of process. The Bush-era Homeland Security overhaul was political, but it, too, followed a more normal process. DOGE is different. The resistance from agency heads (some successful, some not) is telling—as is frustration from both inside and outside government, including among people who favor cost-cutting (see my conversation with Rick, he’s one). There’s an expiration date on this approach—we just don’t know when. People in red and blue states are pretty pissed about things like this, the red states are just talking to the media less. Republicans on the Hill would be happy to see Elon shown the door. In the meantime, this crowd is also spoiling for legal fights over executive branch spending authority.

What do they want? They want more of this with the same intensity they crave a zyn fix.

Bottom line: Wrap your head around this: Early-twenties hackers and coders—fresh from their parent’s basements and griping about women on 4chan, subsisting on chips and energy drinks while sleeping in IKEA beds hastily thrown into OPM offices—are nonetheless making consequential policy decisions for the nation.

The U.S. Department of Education.
Yes, the agency overseeing most federal education programs comes third here. This is where what one plugged-in wonk calls the “ExcelinEd Republicans” are working. These are credible folks in the field, they want to make a difference and see an opportunity for a new approach. But, they’re playing a weak hand with few fans in the other camps.

Linda McMahon is a competent administrator, serious about her job. McMahon has the President’s ear. That already mattered, and will again. Yet she and others in Department leadership are first and foremost Trump loyalists, open to radically overhauling the agency and ready to implement Trump’s wishes. Yes, they have clashed with the West Wing and DOGE at times, but they’re not running any kind of rear guard action.

What do they want? Left to their own devices, they want more of this.

Bottom line: These are our sector’s country club Republicans, legit conservatives but not bomb throwers. Problem is, it’s unclear how long we’ll still have much of a country club.

Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack? Sign up for free here.

Could the alignment change? Of course. Trump is still a real estate developer at heart—transactional, situational, improvisational. A global crisis, recession, or political shift could change things. Congress might become vertebrate again as DOGE-driven cuts hit red states and an election nears. The ratings for the Elon show are declining. Everyone sees the same polls. For now, though, there’s less a “Trump Administration view” than three competing power centers, each doing its own thing and staffed by people who see their jobs, opportunities, and responsibilities quite differently.

From a lobbying or advocacy standpoint, the implications are obvious even if the chaos and poor information flow makes things confusing: figure out who’s for, against, or indifferent to your issue(s) and act accordingly.

For Democrats and those opposing Trump, the picture’s more complicated. The president doesn’t have deep commitments on education—he’s a populist. In his first term, he increased education spending, including on HBCUs, tried to fold charter school funding into other programs, and backed due process for college students. You know, he mostly acted like a Democrat.* This time? He’s slashing the Department, deporting college students without due process, and issuing Executive Orders to expand school choice.

What’s changed? Politics—and what Trump thinks his base wants, based on his instincts and political feedback loops. That’s the opening for Democrats. Populism is a fickle friend. If Democrats choose smart targets, Trump won’t want to absorb backlash from his own voters. Yes, we’re talking about Democrats—the same party that’s picked an astonishing number of bad targets in education over the past decade. Here’s a recent list. But nothing focuses the mind like a crisis. Meanwhile, Republican and overreach are practically synonyms. Bread-and-butter education issues—not culture wars—are the Democrats’ path, if they can find it and keep their activist wing in check long enough to rebuild public trust.

Courting Change

The Supreme Court has three upcoming First Amendment religion cases—two directly related to schools. In The Times, Adam Liptak sets the stage:

We’ve talked about the Montgomery County, Maryland, case a bit around here—an entirely predictable intersectional pile-up. Yes, it’s amusing that the people lecturing us on cultural competence lacked it themselves. Still, the issues at stake are not trivial.

We’ve also looked at the religious charter schools case and why it could prove consequential for public charter schools.

After these are settled (or not, the Oklahoma case could be 4-4) keep an eye out for First Amendment speech cases.

Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack? Sign up for free here.

*Yes, I know the due process policy a string of federal courts struck down before Trump overhauled it during his first term originally came from Obama-Biden. But you get the point—work with me here.

New Wonkyfolk today. Jed and I talk through some of what’s going on.

Here if you like to watch:

Coming Attractions

I’ll be at Harvard on Tuesday evening for an Askwith Forum to discuss developments at the Department of Education and the federal role in education. The event will be available online later—come in person to ask questions. The following week, I’ll be in San Diego at ASU+GSV to lead a discussion on Washington’s role in research and innovation.

Rick Hess and I have a forthcoming conversation in Education Week about how sloppy much of the recent reform work has been.

From Bellwether: Here’s a roundup of what’s happening with ESAs, direct payment policy schemes, and the outstanding questions surrounding them.

On April 9, in partnership with PPI, we’re hosting a discussion of Rick Kahlenberg’s new book Class Matters. It explores how to achieve campus diversity without relying on explicit racial preferences—especially relevant in the current climate. The event will be at PPI’s DC office and will include Rick, Democratic soothsayer Ruy Teixeira, Rutgers’ Stacy Hawkins, Alison Somin of the Pacific Legal Foundation, and moderator Sam Fulwood, formerly of the Los Angeles Times. Will Marshall of PPI and I will offer framing remarks on why this conversation matters.

The first week of May, I’ll be at the SDP conference at Harvard, again talking data and IES. Then on 5/12, Medicaid & schools expert Sarah Broome, a senior advisor at Bellwether, will join me on LinkedIn to discuss what’s at stake with potential changes to that program.

---

When “Allies” Really Aren’t

The sooner Democrats find their way to a position on transgender issues—supporting freedom, expression, non-harassment, and civil rights, but not endorsing the concealment of transitions from parents—the better off they’ll be politically, and the better off kids will be in practice. We’ve discussed this before.

Here’s Erica Anderson in the Washington Post a few years ago:

Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist who is a transgender woman and former president of the U.S. Professional Association for Transgender Health, said leaving parents in the dark is not the answer. “If there are issues between parents and children, they need to be addressed,” she said. “It’s not like kicking a can down the road. It only postpones, in my opinion, and aggravates any conflict that may exist.”

Here’s California today. Here is Maine. Here’s a letter from OCR the Secretary and Office of Student Privacy released today. There is another to California Governor Gavin Newsom from the Secretary as well. 

This was a landmine hiding in plain sight. We’ve talked about it around here a lot.

If you think the sports issue is unpopular, how do you imagine schools actively keeping secrets from parents plays with the public? School administrators worry it erodes trust but often hesitate to speak up. I was talking to one of the most conservative state chiefs in the country recently—they want this issue to go away because it’s harmful to trans kids.

In other words, it’s one of the most activist-driven issues out there, but one where quiet agreement exists across a wide spectrum of decent people. And let’s be clear: a culture of secrecy harms gay and trans kids alike. The way to help society evolve is through openness and freedom, not concealment. This is all so counterproductive.

Schools are mandatory reporters. If a child isn’t safe, staff must be trained on the appropriate steps to take. But safety and disagreement are different things. The idea that schools should get ahead of parents on major life decisions for minors? That’s nuts and political poison.

Here’s a cursory five-point plan that may lose the strident haters and strident activists—but allow everyone else to find a workable compromise:

1. Respect parents—even if you don’t agree. We’re talking about minors. This isn’t about outing kids, but about schools actively transitioning students without parental involvement or consent. Don’t do that.
2. Cultivate a pluralistic climate. Respect different choices. Let kids be kids.
3. Zero tolerance for harassment and bullying. Public schools are for everyone.
4. Train educators to distinguish between safety and disagreement. Make sure everyone understands what mandatory reporting means, how it works, and why.
5. Respect student free speech rights. Avoid coercive speech policies and lean on common-sense anti-bullying approaches (see #3). Don’t escalate, as much as the fringes might want that, instead deescalate.

Harassment and discrimination are hills worth dying on. Concealment is a hill public schools will die on.

The good news, Democrats? It’s late, but you have 586 days to figure this one out.

---

Two Notes on What’s Happening

First, it’s increasingly clear that the “DC consensus” on education is out of sync with the rest of the country. We can debate whether politics drives culture or vice versa, but what’s happening in federal education policy now stems from more than a decade of cultural and educational shifts. I worry people are so consumed with their own opposition to what’s happening that they’re missing how—and why—we got here. That matters if we want to move forward.

I’m struck by how differently these issues are discussed in DC and the nonprofit space compared to the country more broadly. Robert Pondiscio may overstate it, but he’s not wrong about the pace of change—and Washington is always last to get the memo.

You may not agree with Todd Huston’s argument in The 74. I don’t, and I’m someone who believes in the importance of state authority. But in DC, views like Huston’s are still considered crude or un-evolved in a lot of circles. I don’t think the DC crowd has realized how widespread these views are among leaders across the country.

Once the taboo lifts, we may see some blue states break ranks on elements of the Trump education agenda—especially program consolidation, waivers, and flexibility. Keep an eye on Iowa (though contrary to The 74’s reporting, my understanding is choice isn’t currently part of the waiver—it’s more of a consolidation-for-accountability play and could be a blueprint).

---

Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack? Sign up for free here.

---

Second, we’re arguing policy here in education. Whether federal student loans and Pell grants belong in ED, SBA, or Treasury (correct answer: Treasury) is a policy call. Same with whether IDEA should move to HHS (it shouldn’t—in fact ED should also oversee Head Start rather than HHS). These are consequential questions, yes. But they’re fundamentally policy debates—not existential crises.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon has said she’ll consult Congress on restructuring requiring legislation. The circus stunt executive order says the same. Unless that changes, this is a serious policy disagreement—not a crisis.

Elsewhere in government, though, truly consequential issues are unfolding—with law firms, and with speech rights. The administration is testing limits on due process, the First Amendment, and executive power. Executive power will be front and center especially as the legislative path narrows moving toward 2026—just ask the hero of the battle of Harvard, Elise Stefanik, sacrificed to the political realities this week.

Executive power will most likely be front and center after 2027.

Those limits the president is testing are real constitutional questions. I would argue we’re not yet at a constitutional crisis but are perilously close to one – far too close. A moment like that calls for clarity, not for calling everything you just don’t like unconstitutional, or even a crisis.

---

More Frigid Friday Fish

After this pic of the Roza family ice fishing, others sent in their own ice fishing pics. You all are sadists.

Here’s Melody Schopp’s granddaughter—Melody is the former South Dakota chief and now head of Education Industry Consulting at SAS—in a cold but adorable fish pic. If that doesn’t make you want to take a kid fishing, what will?

Yes, there are hundreds of pics of education folks with fish, and more here—including past Schopp family moments. It’s a unique archive. And it’s always fish pics if you get Eduwonk via Substack—a handy way to avoid spam filters.

Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack? Sign up for free here.

I was on The Disagreement with Alex Grodd earlier this week. You can watch here.

Rick Hess and I also joined Nat Malkus on his podcast. You can listen here.

Both podcasts are about what’s happening in education policy in Washington. I’m also doing private events for some groups—email if interested can share more and references.

At the White House today, the President will sign a, depending who you are, long-anticipated, long-awaited, and/or long-feared executive order to abolish the Department of Education. Even among the Trump team, the EO has sparked weeks of internal debate. A strategic leak to The Wall Street Journal was intended to lock it in. Questions about efficacy, laws governing personnel, and broader strategy have complicated the effort. Trump doesn’t care much about that—he loves the optics. So today it happens.

I can’t tell you what’s going to happen next. This is Donald Trump. Anyone who claims they know exactly what’s coming—you shouldn’t trust them. This is the most situational administration of this century, or the last one. You know who doesn’t know exactly what’s next? Donald Trump.

Still, here are a few ways to think about it in broad strokes:

First, despite some state-level support, the reality remains: there are not 60 votes in the Senate to abolish the Department—possibly not even 50. The closer we get to the 2026 election, the harder it becomes to hit 218 in the House. It’s a symbolic issue that some elected officials are eager to grab onto, while most would prefer it go away—the issue, not the agency. Smart Republicans understand this plays well with the base, but it’s not their strongest move on the education opportunity they’ve been handed. Even wrapped in the appealing language of “returning authority to the states” (most of which already rests with the states), it’s a complicated sell.

Second, Trump isn’t having a great week(s). The Russian president is thumbing his nose at us, courts are overturning many of Trump’s actions, Republican pushback is growing, nominees are hitting headwinds even in the Republican-controlled Senate, and everyone’s worried about the economy or their 401(k)—or both. His poll numbers aren’t collapsing like some folks think over on Bluesky, but there are real warning signs for Trump. So, it’s time for theatrics—a big East Room event this afternoon.

Three scenarios:

1. They’re dead serious.
   In this scenario, they’ll spend political capital and push Congress—as they’ve done before, for example, on the continuing resolution. Every president gets a few big priorities. If this is one of them, they’ll try to follow through. They’re aiming to abolish the Department entirely, not just restructure it. Literal and serious.
2. This is a restructuring plan with some fanfare.
   The 60/218 vote problem is real. So maybe they just default to restructure. The draft EO shows key functions of the Department continuing, just not within the current framework and Department. That’s more bureaucratic sleight of hand than real reform. It gives everyone the fight they want without major consequences. Serious, not literal.
3. This is all “Art of the Deal” BS and show business.
   They want something else. This is entertainment for the Republican base and a long-time white whale for conservatives. It shifts focus, takes pressure off, and—as Trump often does—puts himself at the center of the conversation. They’ll keep revisiting the issue, like a popular recurring character on a sitcom—the Department of Education as the Costanzas.

Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack when it’s published?   You can sign up for free here.

I’d keep an eye on a blend of #2 and #3. If Trump moves student aid to the Treasury Department, not a completely crazy idea, he’ll be able to claim he cut the Department by 95%—a solid talking point.

Their language for today: “return education authority to the States, while continuing to ensure the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.” Not quite the education policy equivalent of “eat bacon and bonbons and lose weight too,” but close. Also, watch the personnel. Until you see serious people exiting or declining nominations, outright abolition probably isn’t the real plan.

I’d watch the waiver process, too—that could end up being the bigger policy shift. States are already lining up. As we’ve discussed before, with this crew, the theatrics usually overshadow or obscure the real moves. The waiver gambit may ultimately matter more than the EO. Trump handing out waivers in splashy fashion is tailor-made for his kind of TV. Waivers don’t require Congress, and even if he stretches his authority, Congress seems unlikely to push back. Unfortunately, there’s bipartisan precedent for that. Waivers could also open the door to more school choice moves.

The risk? As with past federal waivers—NCLB under Bush and Obama, or Race to the Top—even well-structured initially rigorous processes tend to devolve into door prizes over time. I’m not even sure how well-structured this will be.

What’s a little odd is we just tried a giant block grant experiment—$190 billion during Covid. The consensus and evidence? It didn’t accomplish much. We might want to learn from that before doubling down. State flexibility is great, I’m in favor, but federal guardrails around accountability and consequently assessment matter.

Meanwhile, if Democrats are any good at politics (a debatable proposition right now), this could be an opportunity. Bill Clinton used class-size and after-school funding to hammer Republicans. This is an even more target-rich environment—start with special education, student aid, and funding in red states. But you need a clear, crisp, and singular message.

In responding, Democrats should reflect on how we got here—ESSA, student loans, administrative overreach, toxic activism. But they also have a real opportunity, if they take it with a smart, aggressive, reform-driven approach. Don’t defend the Department’s status quo. And please don’t go with “no daylight, kid”—that’s not this political moment. We need daylight—Reykjavík in June levels of daylight. Make the case that this is the wrong way to reform federal education policy and that it’ll make things worse when we can least afford it. Then offer better ideas. It’s possible. If you’re of a certain age, you may recall when Democrats were pretty good on this issue.

Ultimately, this is a squandered opportunity. We’ve seen declining achievement over the past decade, turbocharged by Covid and school closures. Parents feel increasingly alienated from schools. The future of public education is in flux as the system unbundles. The country faces real economic and competitive pressure to improve education and training. These are real issues.

Presidential time and attention are finite and valuable. The President could offer a vision for progress. He could propose ideas with 75% support among parents and the public—quality, accountability, bureaucratic reform, merit, normalcy, resources, and choice. That would be a cross-partisan agenda. It would support his own broader goals—competitiveness, industrial policy, national security. Politically, Trump could put Democrats on defense with a serious agenda that sparks a national reckoning on school improvement. Instead, we get this—the continuation of a tired, decades-long fight over one federal agency with some culture wars sprinkled over like jimmies for MAGA.

It makes it too easy for everyone. More than anything, this is a missed chance to get serious about schools. All this energy could be used more productively. But instead, we get theater—Trump’s undeniable true specialty.