Login | December 24, 2024
How will education be shaped under Trump
SARAH J. MOORE
JAMES PATRICK
Special to the Legal News
Published: December 1, 2016
Although Donald Trump will soon be our nation’s 45th president, we still know very little about his platform on education – spurring plenty of uncertainty among school leaders about how the Trump administration will approach education policy reform, ranging from standardized testing and school accountability to transgender student guidelines.
So, what exactly do we know? While on the campaign trail, Trump and the Republican Party embraced a more traditional stance that calls for a significant overhaul of our education system to focus on local control and a repeal of several key Obama administration policies. This includes a push for federally funded private school vouchers, an abolition of Common Core and downsizing of the U.S. Department of Education (DOE). Given the largely ambiguous nature of these objectives, it’s not surprising that educational institutions nationwide are left wondering: What does this mean for my school, college or university?
Downsizing the U.S. Department of Education
Surrogates for President-elect Trump recently stated that the incoming administration will “downsize” the DOE and drastically reduce its enforcement role, effectively transforming it into a federal funding processing agency. Though no specific mention has been made regarding the fate of the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), many in education realize that this compliance and enforcement arm of the DOE could be on the proverbial “chopping block.”
At a minimum, underfunding OCR during Trump’s presidency would directly impact its effectiveness in handling complaints, conducting investigations, pursuing violations and monitoring compliance concerns. Regardless, every school leader accepts the high probability that at least one of OCR’s Dear Colleague Letters formulated during Obama’s administration will be rescinded – most likely the 2016 Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students and the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter on Sexual Harassment/Violence.
But, what does this all mean for educational institutions? For starters, several of the current DOE and/or OCR strategic initiatives could be replaced and likely tabled. Given that these priorities took decades to embrace, students set to benefit from resources implemented under current initiatives will need to find other avenues to success.
Furthermore, reducing the DOE’s enforcement role would place schools in the unique position of effectively self-determining and self-regulating applicable federal compliance requirements. Although most educational leadership won’t view this shift as signaling permission to reprioritize focus away from equal access for students, institutions will be provided great flexibility in how to address such issues. This is of particular concern as relates to minorities, ESL children, special education students and transgender individuals. Notably, private educational institutions receiving federal funding will likely enjoy less governmental restraint in handling student issues that run contrary to religious tenets in areas such as enrollment, program access, residence life, extracurriculars and athletics. An increase in Title IX exemption applications is also likely in 2017, although such action may be curtailed by social media and public relations concerns.
On the other hand, downsizing the DOE doesn’t mean a complete lack of governmental oversight. Whether through accreditation, state regulation or private lawsuit, other mechanisms will continue to “keep schools in check” regarding equal access. Undoubtedly, students will continue to enjoy educational environments free from unlawful actions such as bullying, harassment, discrimination and retaliation. It’s also worth noting that the incoming First Lady – Melania Trump – has identified cyberbullying as one of her priorities. It’s clear that the federal government’s role in education will become a more visible topic as we move into 2017.
Expanding School Choice & Funding Portability
During his campaign, President-elect Trump championed a traditional Republican position – encouraging “school of choice.” Notably, he proposed the reallocation of $20 billion of federal spending into a block grant program that would encourage states to expand school choice, giving parents more control over the kind of education their children receive.
Ultimately, this policy will most likely result in an influx of funding to private, charter and magnet schools. The impact on public education at the K-12 level based upon increased funding portability is inescapable and will likely result in an ever-increasing reliance by the public sector on state and local revenue streams.
The Future of Education
Any time the power dynamic in Washington shifts from one political party to another, there is a potential for considerable consequences in the education arena. Although the DOE’s fate may in fact hang in the balance, an overhaul of the federal regulations that require equal access for all students is unlikely. However, interpretations of these regulations (e.g., addressing transgender students) will undoubtedly feel the impact.
Consequently, Trump’s election doesn’t signal a carte blanche opportunity to ignore core equal educational access aspects of federal law. Educational institutions should continue to do what is morally right and legally required, such as implementing compliance programs, fostering equal access, and addressing on-campus allegations of harassment and sexual assault. On these points, there must be no debate and a unity of purpose.
Sarah Moore is a partner at the Cleveland office of Fisher Phillips, a national management-side labor and employment law firm.
James Patrick is an associate attorney at the Cleveland office of Fisher Phillips, a national management-side labor and employment law firm.