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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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.
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.”
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:
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.
Cultivate a pluralistic climate. Respect different choices. Let kids be kids.
Zero tolerance for harassment and bullying. Public schools are for everyone.
Train educators to distinguish between safety and disagreement. Make sure everyone understands what mandatory reporting means, how it works, and why.
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).
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.
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?
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.
A true showman. Via Craiyon.
Three scenarios:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Light content over the past few weeks despite everything going on—lots of travel and work. Apologies, or you’re welcome, depending on why you read.
Here today is some recent content you might have missed, along with a look at the upcoming SCOTUS religious charters case, the restructuring of the Department of Education, and whether you should stop saying “diversity” (spoiler: you shouldn’t). Plus, frigid fish porn. Absence makes the posts grow longer.
I talked with NPR’s On Point about what’s happening at IES and what the future might look like for the Department of Education—and why, though it has problems like other government agencies, ED matters.
Coming attractions: Next week, I’ll be on Nat Malkus’ podcast, The Disagreement with Alex Grodd on Tuesday evening via Substack (taking your questions), and on Michael Feuer’s podcast later this month with Denise Forte discussing all of this. On April 1, I’ll be at Harvard for an Askwith on the role of federal education research (more on that below).
One issue we talked about is the forthcoming Supreme Court case on religious charter schools. This is a significant case.
There are really a few ways to think about the implications of this case. One is the straight-up legal issues related to recent First Amendment religion cases (Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson v. Makin—the latter two being school-specific). Some people see this case as the logical next step, and that path seems clear from a legal perspective. Others think it will be a bridge too far for Roberts or Kavanaugh, because it truly crosses the Rubicon for the Court. Since Justice Barrett is recused, it’s an eight-vote case. So assuming the three progressive justices stick together, four votes would be enough to put the brakes on.
A third way to think about it is the political trade the case represents. Again, at a time when Democrats are facing intra-party pressure and the perennial debate over whether elections are won in the center or on the margins (it’s the center), charters are at some risk and not a broadly supported position among Dems. A trade that allowed charters to recapture some former Democratic support while holding Republican support would be a good one. This case, however, is mostly the opposite trade. It wouldn’t appreciably change the Republican calculus but could make charters politically toxic among Democrats. Expect moratoriums and other efforts to curb growth in the wake of this. One piece of evidence: the near silence from teachers unions, who are in “when the other guy is shooting himself in the foot, stay out of the way” mode. They see this as a charter school problem—not an existential threat. For charters, this is a bad trade.
Across the landscape, there are already plenty of ways for parents seeking a religious education at public expense to get it—and more are emerging all the time. I don’t think one more is needed. This is bad for charter schools and will pave the way for a bevy of additional claims that could ultimately redefine how we conceive of public education.
Stay tuned.
In The 74, Dan Goldhaber, Ashley Jochim, Robin Lake, and I laid out some ideas for a path forward on IES cuts and what a more agile IES might look like:
A few thoughts on the Department of Education restructuring that’s been happening in earnest since Wednesday. Mike Petrilli also offered some good ones.
First, the human aspect. As we’ve discussed, civil service shouldn’t mean absolute insulation from reform, but restructuring should be done respectfully and carefully. Government should be predictable. This isn’t much of that. And given how they’re doing it—to circumvent civil service rules—it’s also possible the Trump team is creating an adverse selection problem: losing people they should keep and keeping people they shouldn’t.
The Powell Doctrine applies here: you break it, you own it. All those issues that were frustrating people—special education case backlogs, FAFSA, student loan processing—well, the Trump team now owns those. The media generally doesn’t do base rates, so all those problems will be laid at the Trump team’s feet, not credited to previous administrations. I’m surprised they’re not more attentive to the politics of all this.
Because they’re doing this with a meat cleaver, they’re setting themselves up for substantive problems. For instance, moving NAEP to NAGB isn’t a crazy idea. But it’s not a good idea if it’s not done with staff, contractor support, and the technical infrastructure needed to make NAEP work. Administering NAEP is more involved than just sending an assessment to some schools. Rinse and repeat on a host of technical data issues.
They have a plan. I don’t agree with parts of it, but the Trump team has a plan for how to do this. If you want to win this argument, learn about and engage with the plan—not the rhetoric. (Pay attention to the case David Cleary makes in this 74 article.) Wild claims don’t help the case—for instance, Becky Pringle saying this will raise class sizes? There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about what’s happening, but that’s not one. What’s going to raise class sizes is the irresponsible use of federal COVID relief dollars. You didn’t hear much about that…
And as we’ve discussed, part of their plan is a tech-sector-style approach to turnarounds and restructuring. I’d argue that’s a poor fit for government. You may not like the logic or agree with it, but there is a logic to engage with.
Also pay attention to the various legal fights around this plan. Even as I was talking with Carl Cannon yesterday, a court was putting a halt on some federal layoffs. It’s going to be fast-paced and chaotic for a while.
If we’re being honest, some of this stuff won’t be missed. Half the people complaining about the Department of Education’s regional offices being cut didn’t know the department had regional offices until Wednesday. You didn’t hear this kind of enthusiasm for IES or its predecessor OERI before the cuts. There’s some dissonance between the public rhetoric and what people are saying privately—and what they’ve said historically. Also, some frustration that Democrats didn’t get in front of this by building a stronger case for the agency when they were running it for 12 of the last 16 years, or doing more on reform.
Likewise, the AP wrote an incredible article the other day about Trump’s apparently unprecedented politicization of the department’s Office for Civil Rights. Frame it. That’s museum-quality presentism. I happen to think OCR plays an important role, but it’s hard to defend some of its actions over the past decade just on civil liberties grounds—don’t take my word for it, federal courts found some actions indefensible. It’s not just politicization when people do things you don’tlike.
All of that—and Trump’s mostly education-ineffective first term, too—is what brought us to this moment. The era of the big Washington ed-scene might not be over, but it’s definitely going on pause for the foreseeable future. You may not like what’s happening, but the sentiment of either support or indifference is a lot greater around the country than the Washington edububble seems to grasp. This is the new reality. We can debate the reasons why—pandemic, choice, toxic edu-politics, Musk, it’s a long list—but things are changing, fast, and the salad days are gone for now.
That brings us to the Democrats. The response so far has been pretty weak soup—and again, too focused on the adults. Democrats need to get back to being a party of reform, an on the front foot forward-looking party of opportunity and potential. There’s a strong case for national and federal leadership on education, R&D, competitiveness, and, yes, equity—equal opportunity regardless of zip code or family income. But that means taking a mend-it-don’t-end-it approach to the Department of Education and education policy more broadly. Dems are struggling with the “mend,” for obvious institutional reasons. The silence around pandemic school policies, the squandered federal recovery dollars, the FAFSA debacle, and the way schools antagonized parents in the name of DEI all carry a cost. Dems need to pivot hard and redefine themselves with their own vision for change—or there’s more of this to come. In other words, more Rahm, less Randi.
Finally, yes—there are clearly people in and around the administration who want to abolish the Department of Education and would if left to their own devices. I think that’s wrongheaded, given the challenges the country faces, and I suspect they’ll struggle to get 60 votes in the Senate (and possibly even 218 in the House, depending on how long this drags out). Some ideas strike me as counterproductive—for instance, moving IDEA to the Department of Health and Human Services. That’s debatable, but IDEA is an education program—and there are good arguments that Head Start should be moving from HHS to ED instead. Any substantial IDEA changes will be a tough sell in Congress; those parents are organized.
I’m a reformer, and I do think the Department can do more with less—something most everyone acknowledged until a few weeks ago. But I still believe a hollowed-out, atrophied ED is a greater risk than a dismantled one. That risk existed even pre-Trump, for anyone paying attention.
Wait, those weren’t deep political commitments?
Shocking news: CZI is backing off DEI. Fetch the smelling salts! Of course, this means nothing to 99% of Americans, but it’s a big deal in this sector. If you’re the kind of person who actually thought big corporations and their adjacent entities were deeply invested in this stuff—and the scales are now falling from your eyes—then I guess, at a human level, I’m sorry for you. Disappointment sucks. But seriously? (Also, don’t worry—when the pendulum swings back, they’ll be back. So save those buttons and pins.)
I don’t mean to sound cynical about it, but as someone who got grief—and more—for saying that a lot of this felt performative and often seemed like professional white people using Black people as instruments of their own careerism (which is its own kind of revolting objectification and dehumanization), this is a weird moment. It’s at once disappointing—America clearly struggles with structural barriers to opportunity—and validating—because most of the efforts in this sector to address those issues were performative and guilt-alleviating, not structural or substantive. Good on those who pointed that out.
It’s also not hard to understand why people—those who were, for instance, cashiered out of professional opportunities by the “ride or die with Ibram X. Kendi” crowd literally months ago—are now feeling some schadenfreude as everyone cowardly runs for the exits on this stuff. You don’t have to be red pilled to get it. The same people who did all that, enabled it, or just stayed quiet are now furiously scrubbing any mention of diversity or equity from what they do. It was feckless then; it’s feckless now.
Rick Hess interviewing Rick Hess via Education Next
A few years ago, Bellwether put out an analysis that, among other things, looked at the explosive growth of DEI consultants and suggested that quality control problems were going to be inevitable. It’s how we went from a reasonable focus on representation to bizarre Okun-style trainings that claimed deadlines, math, and perfectionism were “white” characteristics—at leading nonprofits, no less—almost overnight, with little awareness of how much that sounded like exactly what David Duke would say. And in the process, basic ideas about liberalism, viewpoint diversity, and all of that were submarined. As we’ve discussed, the sector’s leaders might reflect on how all this spread like wildfire—along with the lightning-fast cave.
Ironically, President Trump’s recent executive order about DEI is running into trouble in the courts for this exact reason – it’s too vague and consequently raises First Amendment questions.
You should say what you mean by the terms and words you use. I wouldn’t say “SEL”—why do you want to own everything people are doing under that banner? Instead, name the specific skills or dispositions you want children to learn. Everyone knows “cultural competence,” for instance, is a code word and a constantly shifting political standard. Say what you mean, and stand behind it.
On DEI: If you mean diversity and a commitment to difference—the idea that heterogeneous groups are better at solving complex problems, spotting bias, and are less likely to adopt extreme positions—then say that. If you believe equity and inclusion mean equal opportunity, broad agency, and upward mobility, then say that.
Otherwise, it’s not unreasonable for people to assume these terms are coded signals—because they have been coded signals for elite political ideas. “Equity,” for instance, has been taken to mean limiting advanced opportunities for students in order to standardize outcomes. Policies to that effect have been proposed and enacted. Does “anti-racism” mean you’re against racism—or are you signaling a more coercive and reductionist Kendi-style worldview?
It’s fine if you are—it’s a free country, and debate is healthy. But be clear. And if you’re not, then you should be even more clear about that and put some distance between yourself and ideas you don’t actually embrace.
Meanwhile, yes, “DEI” became unrecognizable because of politics and vagueness. But if you’re not willing to stand up for the value of diversity in America in 2025, inclusion broadly speaking, and access to equal opportunity (which sometimes requires differential resources), then you probably shouldn’t be working in this sector—given the point of education, learning, and human flourishing. Also, maybe not if you’re the type to cut and run as soon as those ideas are under pressure?
Friday Fish Porn – Ice Ice Roza
I have a backlog of fish pictures, here’s an end of winter one with Marguerite Roza, her husband, and daughter ice fishing in Wisconsin. (Roza can be found at Edunomics Lab at Georgetown and Whiteboard Advisors.)
If you’re in DC, Live WonkyFolk today. We’ll discuss the chaos in Washington, the budget and what it might mean for education, and the upcoming SCOTUS case on religious charter schools. Doors 4p, show 4:30. Cocktails and food. RVSP here.
On Friday evening, people across the country celebrated Valentine’s Day—some with their sweethearts, others seeking one, and some simply enjoying time with friends.
Donald Trump celebrated with two executive actions – and a master class on his method you’d be wise to pay attention to. From the Oval Office he released an Executive Order that would take federal funds from any school with a Covid vaccine mandate. This is theater. Especially in K-12, these mandates are a thing of the past. The experts who track them don’t even bother any more. But, there is still a hangover from the pandemic that activates people, especially part of Trump’s base, but probably a wider swath of people than you might think. That’s what he’s playing at here. Tactically, it’s smart politics: some of his opponents might take the bait, his base will love it, and it carries almost no practical consequences. However much you might loathe Trump, don’t let it blind you to the ways he’s a clever populist politician.
Strategically, stunts like this pose the same political risk for Trump and the Republicans as they did for Biden and Harris. If inflation isn’t controlled, or the economy tanks, people outside the hard core base will look back and ask, ‘why were you doing all this other stuff?’ Yet that’s a tomorrow problem. Trump thinks in today’s. (As we learned in 2020 and 2021 the Trump to really worry about is the politically cornered one.) A normal White House would be doing an event on the economy, every day, pressuring Congress, keeping that message front and center. Instead, Gulf of America all the way down. The Dems thought/think their audience is MSNBC, the Trump folks think it’s hyperonline shitposters who get off ‘owning the libs.’ They’re both wrong.
New letter from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights
Opinions vary, but I’d suggest taking it seriously and literally. This is step toward some enforcement actions to make a point and coerce action. It will also occasion litigation about just how broadly the Supreme Court’s recent affirmative action case applies, and implicitly begs some questions about differences between K-12 schools and higher ed.
The letter, not surprisingly, implies and leaves space for a maximalist position on all questions. However, its construction is poor enough, either by design or sloppy execution, as to leave a lot of open questions, including voluntary but sanctioned versus coerced activities. I’ve been critical of much of the way DEI has been implemented in this sector, going far beyond genuine commitments to difference, opportunity, and inclusion and into straight-up coercive politics. Yet a lot in here seems overly broad and overkill, and even conservatives I talked with who are broadly sympathetic to the administration’s policy aims declined to defend aspects of it. But they were understandably cautious because you can’t really figure out exactly or specifically what they are trying to say because of how it’s put together – it’s even missing a footnote in one place. (Just spitballing here, but maybe don’t fire all the staff before you try to do the work?) It reads like a mix of talking points and an ‘Art of the Deal’ approach hastily mashed into a Dear Colleague letter. That’s a problem given the consequence of these things.
If you want to understand the conservative take on these questions, here’s a Rick Hess Q & A about DEI (though not this letter specifically).
In general, this seems more aimed at higher education, but in K-12 it also sets up a fight with California conservatives have been spoiling for. California Governor Gavin Newsom has tried to quietly bob and weave through a controversial California ethnic studies curriculum. That curriculum has been criticized by an ideologically wide swath of people concerned about accurate history and anti-semitism. That’s an example of the wedge they are trying to drive. They will be on firmer political ground there than with some of the broader overreaches they seem to be considering. Most Americans do not consider every and any focus on diversity on campus or in schools to be a legal issue. That kind of overreach will backfire and the political math behind it is terrible. It’s 2025 not 1955.
At her confirmation hearing last week Linda McMahon said curricular decisions were local, and confirmed the limitations on the Department’s ability to involve itself in curriculum. New Hampshire Democrat Maggie Hassan said the hearing was an “elegant gaslighting,” because she thought McMahon really just meant to dismantle the agency. Actually, it was an elegant evasion because what the Trump Administration plans to do is hang everyone on their own petard with moves like this using the agency, its force including new Biden-created authority, contemporary language and jargon, and recent precedent.
The administration is tapping into two different wellsprings here. First, “Dear Colleague” letters have taken on greater utility, importance, and force over the years. Two Obama ones were especially controversial, on Title IX and on school discipline, and haven’t aged well. Both are bete noirs among legally-focused conservatives. This is one will takes its place as the inverse example.
In both of those cases, people who liked them said, ‘well, what’s the big deal?’ ‘It’s not a regulation.’ ‘This is common sense stuff. And if you get investigated it’s just an investigation, not the end of the world.’ They intimated or said outright that if you were not on board with those letters something was wrong with you. Of course, anyone on the receiving end of a federal investigation knows that’s bullshit. These letters, whether from a Democratic or Republican administration, are intended to coerce action without having to go through the regulatory process or Congress. They have some throwaway language about how they’re not law. But they matter. A lot. This is turnabout.
In other words, as opposed to some other actions we’ve talked around here lately, that Congress can choose to address or not, this one is coming through the parallel administrative state both parties have championed for its force and convenience.
The second wellspring is the performative DEI theater of the last decade. You might recall that at the end of his first term, Trump’s Department of Education started telling colleges whose presidents were giving speeches about their complicity in systemic racism that if that was indeed the case they would be ineligible for federal dollars. A fight about that was brewing but rendered moot when Biden won the election.
So here we are. Elite bubble meets populist point. Expect over-correction because all the incentives auger that way. An easy tell is that this letter could have been more narrowly constructed. Or better constructed and released with clearer context about what is and is not going to be pressured rather than essentially saying, ‘more soon!’ Part and parcel of this rushed and haphazard approach to governing that will have real consequences.
There will be people who will make this even more toxic for their own political ends – on both sides. It will be toxic enough regardless.
A confirmation hearing that wasn’t even American spicy.
Linda McMahon’s confirmation hearing to be United States Secretary of Education was pretty uneventful. Surprisingly so given everything going on. The one viral clip was a back and forth with Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy. Watch the whole exchange and draw your own conclusions, not just the excerpts or secondhand accounts. She could have handled it better and more precisely, even while not committing to hypotheticals. Neither the left nor the right really wants to forthrightly throw their crazy off or under the bus.
NH Senator Hassan’s line about an elegant gaslighting was pretty good, but won’t matter. Tim Kaine got McMahon to commit to not slow walking some student loan programs, but that’s a hard commitment to enforce. Like beauty, slow walking is in the eye of the beholder. The biggest oppo dump was that McMahon owns a bunch of municipal bonds. Yawn.
If I knew anything about professional wrestling, I guess I’d be a little excited that “Triple H” was sitting behind McMahon during the hearing. But I don’t, and am not.
Basically, the Dems failed to get the gloves on her, the Rs mostly gave off big “protect funding for my state” and phoning it in energy (Lisa Murkowski being a noteworthy exception). Cool the first question, from Chairman Cassidy, was about dyslexia. Actual issue! A lot of agreement on CTE, that could be bipartisan when things quiet down. McMahon name-checked CT-based education leader Dacia Toll! (Who is a gem). A bit of street theater as some protesting teachers yelling about being public school graduates were removed by Capitol Police. I’d suggest, as a public school graduate and parent incidentally, that when we’re in this mess in no small part because people think we’re not serious, it’s not a great time to put unserious on parade. Could have been a small Sister Souljah move for a Dem senator to say, hey, knock it off have a little respect here.
This 74 account covers it all well. McMahon said she wasn’t interested in cutting spending on core programs. OK. But the hearing was happening the same day as, just across the street, the House Budget Committee was marking up a budget resolution that could lead to cuts. Bear in mind, it’s not difficult for a cabinet secretary to come back to the Hill and say, well, circumstances have changed. But if you want a sense of the agenda, here via 74:
Trump was not a big budget cutter his first term, the opposite actually, so he’d probably trade money for these priorities.
She did say a few noteworthy things. She’ll continue spending on Congressionally mandated items and she will come to Congress with a Department restructuring plan. This puts her at odds with other figures in the Administration who believe the President has the authority to do this absent Congressional consent.
You can do more restructuring legally by Executive Order (EO) and other actions than some people seem to realize, especially given how the Department has evolved. The guardrails are also fuzzier and some Republicans feel empowered to push boundaries post-student loan jubilee, too. Great work everyone. But most people agree you can’t do this entirely without Congress.
As we discussed earlier this week this nomination would have been a layup a few weeks ago. Still, given everything that’s happened on education since then (EOs, DOGE, even some announced sub-cabinet appointments) it was less spicy than one might have expected. If you’re a Democrat, no point voting for her now. If you’re a Republican, no point voting against. From a craft standpoint she did exactly what she needed to and was well-prepared, a contrast to 2017. (In 2017 there was an amusing scramble as Trump people tried to get the word out that they had not been involved in DeVos prep or otherwise distance themselves.)
Bottom line: Based on her record and what she’s said, take them quite seriously, but not literally, on abolishing the department. Expect a sort of DOGE, Art of the Deal, government reform mash-up.
It’s worth noting that in the announcement on the cuts to regional education laboratory contracts the Department said they would be re-contracted under new terms.
Privately, a lot of Trump people are quite exasperated with DOGE recognizing the political and substantive headwinds this approach is creating.
A couple of hard realities.
Outside of some data access issues that are now in court, what’s going on in education is about policy disagreements not legality, no matter how strongly you may feel. That’s not the case across the whole of government, particularly at the Department of Justice. We should be careful not to conflate bad policy, which people disagree about, with illegal policy, which courts decide. It’s entirely possible for you to consider a policy bad, and legal. That would be my take on IES, for instance, as I told Newsweek.
Conversely, some people might consider a policy or policy action good, even if it’s not legal. That’s what is being tested at DOJ this week, and especially today. I’d urge you to read this letter, and also this one, with a few things in mind. First, I don’t want to trivialize the importance of what’s happening around IES and the Department, but let’s not get main character syndrome around here. What’s happening at DOJ is far more consequential. We’re having a disagreement about the structure and role of a federal agency, they’re testing fundamental norms and ideas about how our federal legal system works.
Which is my second point. We’re about to get a rough lesson in just how stupid many of our disagreements have been as we’ve gently boiled like frogs to this point. The attorneys fighting back at DOJ are Federalist Society members, former clerks for Justices Scalia, Roberts, and Kavanaugh. I surely would disagree with them on many things but their commitment to the rule of law or our way of life is not in question. We disagree, ok but they’re not the enemy. If you made them so. Or, conversely, if you just want to “own the libs” regardless of the norm you’re trashing, then you’re part of the problem. The real divides among us are not R and D, or left and right. The divide is: who is committed to liberal order and who isn’t. And that, my friends, transcends partisan lines. It’s a shame it’s taken this to surface how illiberalism doesn’t respect partisan lines nor, thankfully, does integrity, bravery, or good faith.
For instance, the department has important roles around civil rights, special education, and sending funding where it’s most needed given the widespread dysfunction of how we fund schools. In addition to protecting rights, at its best it plays a key role in catalyzing opportunity. All of this could be reformed and improved, but just farming them out, or eliminating them, is not a reform or a strategy. Left to their own devices that’s what the DOGE crew and some in the government would do. It’s shortsighted.
Yes, everyone resisting reform *always* says they *really* do want reform but then argue any and every specific proposed reform will have perverse consequences (A.O. Hirschman wrote a whole book about it), I do think in this case there is some truth to the reform, yes, just not this way, argument. I’ve heard from plenty of people in the research world, for instance, in and out of government, who sincerely agree with Mark Schneider on the need for comprehensive reform, but are not on board with how that’s happening now. (And some who are, it should be noted, because they think this is the only way as Mark argued). Many people were calling for reform pre-DOGE, so this isn’t some sort of deathbed conversion.
Overall, there are plenty of people, including many Democrats, quite open to big reforms and restructuring at the Department and IES. But they want it done with care and a keen eye toward better services for young people and the traditional federal role in looking after underserved populations. ESSA has already taught us how uneven things can be absent that federal role pushing for equity (as we used to define it, equality of opportunity in education, before the term got bowdlerized this past decade). And ideally done with Congress so it’s more durable.
So, second, all the chaos means that at this point, counterintuitively, it’s in the education community’s best interest to see McMahon and the senior team at education, particularly Schwinn and Baesler confirmed in their roles as soon as possible. Not because you agree with them or they are who you would chose (reminder, the election is over) but rather to get some handle on things. The West Wing staff, DOGE, and the Department are not on the same page.
The West Wing staff are highly ideological and looking to do attention grabbing stunts like their pending EO on shuttering the Department that some Senate Republicans and McMahon’s team have been fighting off. Trump, for his part, loves political spectacle so that’s the incentive. DOGE is off the rails.
Going forward, expect political warfare and rear guard actions between the West Wing and the Department. At least until Trump loses interest and moves on. Or his interest is forced elsewhere.
Having a confirmed Secretary isn’t a muzzle for DOGE or insurance against various EOs, as we’re seeing. But it matters and as opposed to some other agency heads, McMahon knows how the federal government works.
There are people who hope it all goes off a cliff just to make a point about Trump. I’m not sure how that makes you any different than the chaos monkeys rampaging through these agencies. If you believe the Department matters, you should want adult leadership in place as soon as possible even if it’s not your preferred adults or you won’t like many of the decisions.
In other words, right now whether you like her or not (no opinion), whether you like it or not (I don’t), Linda McMahon is now the limiting principle in our part of the world.
