Tag: Checks

  • Trump administration checks off many Project 2025 education goals

    Trump administration checks off many Project 2025 education goals

    by Christina A. Samuels, The Hechinger Report
    December 18, 2025

    Last year, Project 2025 was a conservative wish list: a grab bag of proposals large and small that would transform the federal government, including in education.

    Months later, many of those wishes have become reality. That includes, at least in part, Project 2025’s ultimate goal of doing away with the Education Department.

    The department still exists — getting rid of it completely would require congressional action— but it is greatly diminished: Much of the department’s work is being farmed out to other federal agencies. Half of its workforce of about 4,100 people have left or been fired. And Education Secretary Linda McMahon wrote after her confirmation that she was leading the department’s “final mission.”

    Eliminating the Education Department was just one of many goals, however. While the administration did not meet all the other tasks in this “to-do” list below, compiled by The Hechinger Report and taken directly from Project 2025, there’s still three more years to go.

    Early childhood

    Eliminate Head Start: NO. Head Start, which provides free preschool for low-income children, still exists, though some individual centers had problems accessing their money because of temporary freezes from the Department of Government Efficiency and the prolonged government shutdown. The federal government also closed five of 10 Head Start regional offices, which collectively served 22 states.

    Pay for in-home child care instead of universal (center-based) daycare: NO. Project 2025 states that “funding should go to parents either to offset the cost of staying home with a child or to pay for familial, in-home childcare.” There have been no moves to fulfill this goal, but the budget reconciliation bill the president signed in July increased the child tax credit and introduced “Trump Accounts” for children under age 18.

    Expand child care for military families: YES. The National Defense Authorization Act, passed on Dec. 17 and sent to the president for his signature, authorizes over $491 million to design and build new child care centers for these families, among other provisions. The Department of Defense provides child care to military families on a sliding scale based on income. However, about 20 percent of military families who need child care can’t get it because there is not enough space.  

    Give businesses an incentive to provide “on-site” child care: NO. Project 2025 states that “across the spectrum of professionalized child care options, on-site care puts the least stress on the parent-child bond.” 

    K-12 education

    Move the National Center for Education Statistics to the Census Bureau; transfer higher education statistics to the Labor Department: NO. Education data collection remains at the Education Department. However, the agency’s capacity has been sharply reduced following mass firings and the termination of key contracts — a development not envisioned in Project 2025. At the same time, Donald Trump directed the center to launch a major new data collection on college admissions to verify that colleges are no longer giving preferences based on race, ethnicity or gender.

    Expand choice for families by making federal funding portable to many school options: PARTIAL. In January, the president signed an executive order encouraging “educational freedom.” One of the order’s provisions requires the departments of Defense and Interior — which run K-12 schools for military families and tribal communities, respectively — to allow parents to use some federal funding meant for their children’s education at private, religious and charter schools. However, that initiative for Indian schools ended up being scaled back after tribes protested. The “big, beautiful” spending bill signed in July created a national voucher program, but states have to opt in to participate.  

    Send money now controlled by the federal government, such as Title I and special education funding, to the states as block grants: NO. In the current fiscal year, about $18.5 billion in Title I money flowed to districts to support low-income students. States received about $14 billion to support educating children with disabilities. Project 2025 envisions giving states that money with no strings attached, which it says would allow more flexibility. While the administration has not lifted requirements for all states, it is considering requests from Indiana, Iowa and Oklahoma that would allow those states to spend their federal money with less government oversight. Also, in his fiscal 2026 budget proposal, Trump floated the idea of consolidating several smaller education programs, such as those supporting rural students, homeless students and after-school activities, into one $2 billion block grant. That would be far less than the combined $6.5 billion set aside for these programs in the current budget. 

    Reject “radical gender ideology” and “critical race theory,” and eliminate requirements to accept such ideology as a condition of receiving federal funds: YES. Immediately after Trump was sworn into office, he reversed a Biden administration rule that included protection of LGBTQ+ students under Title IX, which bans sex-based discrimination in education programs and activities that receive federal money. Trump also signed an executive order threatening to withhold federal dollars from schools over what the order called “gender ideology extremism” and “critical race theory.” In the months since, the administration launched Title IX investigations in school districts where transgender students are allowed to participate on sports teams and use bathrooms that align with their gender identity. It sent letters to schools across the country threatening to pull funding unless they agree to its interpretation of civil rights laws, to include banning diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies and initiatives. The Education Department also pulled federal research grants and investigated schools and colleges over DEI policies it calls discriminatory. 

    Pass a federal “parents’ bill of rights,” modeled after similar bills passed at the state level: NO. House Republicans passed a Parents’ Bill of Rights Act two years ago, which would have required districts to post all curricula and reading materials, require schools receiving Title I money to notify parents of any speakers visiting a school, and mandate at least two teacher-parent conferences each year, among other provisions. The Senate did not take it up, and lawmakers have not reintroduced the bill in this session of Congress. About half of the states have their own version of a parentsʼ bill of rights.

    Shrink the pool of students eligible for free school meals by ending the “community eligibility provision” and reject universal school meal efforts: NO. Under current rules, schools are allowed to provide free lunch to all students, regardless of their family’s income, if the school or district is in a low-income area. That provision remains in place. The Trump administration has not changed income eligibility requirements for free and reduced-price lunch at schools: Families that earn within 185 percent of the federal poverty line still qualify for reduced lunch and those within 130 percent of the poverty line qualify for free lunch.

    Higher education

    Roll back student loan forgiveness and income-driven repayment plans: PARTIAL. Three income-driven repayment plans will be phased out next year and a new one — the Repayment Assistance Plan — will be added. RAP requires borrowers to make payments for 30 years before they qualify for loan forgiveness. The administration also reached a proposed agreement to end even earlier the most controversial repayment plan known as SAVE (Saving on a Valuable Education). Trump officials have referred to the SAVE plan as illegal loan forgiveness. Under the plan, some borrowers were eligible to have their loans cleared after only 10 years, while making minimal payments.

    End Parent PLUS loans: PARTIAL. These loans, which parents take out to help their children, had no limit. They still exist, but as of July 2026, there will be an annual cap of $20,000 and a lifetime limit of $65,000 per child. Grad PLUS loans, which allow graduate students to borrow directly on behalf of themselves, are being phased out. Under the Repayment Assistance Plan, graduates in certain fields, such as medicine, can borrow no more than $50,000 a year, or $200,000 over four years.

    Privatize the federal student loan portfolio: NO. The Trump administration reportedly has been shopping a portion of the federal student loan portfolio to private buyers, but no bids have been made public. Project 2025 also called for eliminating the Federal Student Aid office, which is now housed in the Education Department and oversees student loan programs. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the Treasury Department would be a better home for the office, but no plans for a move have been announced. 

    End public service loan forgiveness: NO. PSLF allows borrowers to have part of their debt erased if they work for the government or in nonprofit public service jobs and make at least 120 monthly payments. The structure remains, but a new rule could narrow the definition of the kinds of jobs that qualify for loan forgiveness. The proposed rule raises concerns that borrowers working for groups that assist immigrants, transgender youth or provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians, for example, could be disqualified from loan forgiveness. The new rule would go into effect in July.

    Rescind Biden-era rules around sexual assault and discrimination: YES. The Department of Education almost immediately jettisoned changes that the Biden administration had made in 2024 to Title IX, which governs how universities and colleges handle cases of sexual assault and discrimination. Under the Biden rules, blocked by a federal judge days before Trump’s inauguration, accused students were no longer guaranteed the right to in-person hearings or to cross-examine their accusers. The Trump Education Department then returned to a policy from the president’s first term, under which students accused of sexual assault will be entitled to confront their accusers, through a designee, which the administration says restores due process but advocates say will discourage alleged victims from coming forward.

    Reform higher education accreditation: YES. In an executive order, Trump made it easier for accreditors to be stripped of their authority and new ones to be approved, saying the existing bodies — which, under federal law, oversee the quality of colleges and universities — have ignored poor student outcomes while pushing diversity, equity and inclusion. Florida and Texas have started setting up their own accreditors and said the administration has agreed to expedite the typically yearslong approval process. The Department of Education has earmarked $7 million to support this work and help colleges and universities switch accreditors. 

    Dismantle DEI programs and efforts: PARTIAL. Though the administration called for eliminating college DEI programs and efforts, most of the colleges that have shut down their DEI offices have done so in response to state-level legislation. Around 400 books removed from the Naval Academy library because of concerns that they contained messages of diversity or inclusion, but most of the books were ultimately returned. The National Science Foundation canceled more than 400 grants related to several topics, including DEI. 

    Jill Barshay, Ariel Gilreath, Meredith Kolodner, Jon Marcus, Neal Morton and Olivia Sanchez contributed to this report. 

    This story about Project 2025 and education was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/trump-administration-makes-good-on-many-project-2025-education-goals/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113960&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/trump-administration-makes-good-on-many-project-2025-education-goals/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Speed Checks

    Speed Checks

    Should a student be allowed to take the same class five or six times without someone intervening?

    An older school of community college thought used to refer to the “right to fail.” It was a version of tough love, combined with a libertarian sense that students know best what they need. If someone needs to fail calculus several times to figure out that engineering might not be the path for them, this camp would say, then so be it. Sometimes the ninth time is the charm. Failure may be the best teacher, but sometimes even the best teacher needs some repetition to get the point across.

    Early in my career, I was sympathetic to this viewpoint. After all, it applies in many other spheres of endeavor. For example, it became brutally clear at a young age that professional baseball was not in my future; I indulged my right to fail nearly every time I swung a bat. Crashing out as hard as I did, as early as I did, spared me the frustration that many players feel later in life when they top out in the minor leagues but keep trying to redeem years of sunk cost. Sales positions involve rapid and frequent failure. Actors and comedians know well what it is to crater an audition or to bomb in front of a crowd. Learning what doesn’t work is part of learning what does. Why should academia be any different? Besides, some people are late bloomers, and community colleges are all about second chances.

    Two things changed my mind. The first was getting to know students better. The second was changes to federal financial aid.

    Students clued me in over time, each in different ways. For a couple of years in grad school, I worked a few hours a week in the campus writing center as a tutor. I remember working with a student on a draft of her paper; the paper was full of grammatical mistakes, awkward constructions, abrupt transitions and the various signs of an uncomfortable writer.

    As we discussed each type of mistake, she got flustered, saying that she knew what she did wrong, but she didn’t know why. To prove her point, she showed me a note she had written her friend earlier that day. The note wasn’t eloquent, but it was clear, readable and effective; in other words, it was everything the paper wasn’t. When I asked her what the difference was, she replied that she actually cared about the note.

    Aha!

    What looked like a lack of ability or knowledge was actually a sign of indifference. When she cared, she was perfectly capable of writing reasonably well. The paper felt forced because it was forced.

    What’s true at the assignment level can be true at the course level, too. It’s hard to do well in a class you don’t care about.

    But sometimes students get stuck in ruts. (We all do, for that matter.) Tunnel vision can set in, and they might not see an alternative to the path they’re on. That’s when another set of eyes can make a difference.

    Years ago, when we still had in-person registration, a student came to me to get permission to take a course for the fourth time. When I asked why he failed it the first three times, he responded that he hated it. I asked why he wanted to retake a class he hated. He responded that it was a requirement. But it wasn’t, I pointed out; it was only a requirement for one major, and we had other majors. He looked puzzled.

    I asked if he’d had a class he liked. He mentioned liking a psych class. I told him that we had a psych major and showed what he would need to do to graduate with that. His entire demeanor changed. About a year later, he and his girlfriend stopped by my office to thank me; his entire outlook had changed, and he was on a track he enjoyed. He always had the native ability—he just needed someone to point out that there was another option. Human intervention wasn’t about stopping or scolding, it was about pointing out an option that hadn’t occurred to him.

    Later, of course, feds lowered the lifetime limit for Pell eligibility. Suddenly, spending multiple semesters on the same class made it much less likely that a student would finish at all. Whatever the merits of that policy change, its impact is real. Before a student burns through too much aid, I think we have an obligation to interrupt the spiral and see if there’s a more productive path.

    That view lacks the simple clarity of “the right to fail,” but I think it comes closer to reflecting the world in which students live. Speed checks save lives, and check-ins save careers. I’d rather have someone intervene than watch the student keep hitting their head against the wall, only to (eventually) walk away with student loans and nothing to show for them.

    Source link