Day 22 of reading and sharing my notes on Project 2025 (the long title is Mandate for Leadership 2024: The Conservative Promise, in case you're searching for it).

Here's my approach and why I’m doing this.

We're still in Chapter 11: Department of Education by Lindsey M. Burke. I covered her bio earlier, along with my experiences and biases around education. (I skipped several chapters per request. I'll eventually get to everything.)

summary

This section is “Advance School Choice Policies,” and it’s specifically talking about Washington, D.C.’s voucher program.

**”All families should be able to take their children’s taxpayer-funded education dollars to the education providers of their choosing—whether it be public school or a private school.”

Washington, D.C., has a voucher program, and the private schools that get voucher money have to do public school tests. She wants the testing requirements and admissions processes to go away.

my opinion

So she wants all of the benefits of public school funding with none of the accountability. And private schools can reject any students they want, regardless of race, disability, etc.

summary

Moving on to “Provide Education Choice for Populations Under the Jurisdiction of Congress.”

The federal government oversees D.C. schools, schools on military bases, and tribal schools that fall under the Bureau of Indian Education.

Burke argues that students in all of these school should have educational savings accounts that “parents can use to pay for personal tutors, education therapists, books and curricular materials, private school tuition, transportation and more …”

She says the Heritage Foundation found minimal financial impact to school districts.

She once again talks about gender theory and critical race theory as reasons why students shouldn’t have to go those schools.

my opinion

School choice disproportionately benefits urban areas, where there are more choices. People in rural areas often don’t have access to private or alternative schools. The same goes for students on reservations. A voucher isn’t going to get them a better school.

summary

Moving on to “Expand Education Choice Through Portability of Existing Federal Funds.”

She again argues for closing the Department of Education and moving special education oversight to the Department of Health and Human Services.

She says part of the federal special funds should go to the families “so parents can choose how and where a child learns” as well ls “for textbooks, education therapies, personal tutors, and other learning expenses …” She says that would be about $1,800 per child per year. She wants the same for Title I.

my opinion

This subject is close to my heart. I have kids with disabilities, and the traditional classroom wasn’t right for them. We basically homeschool, and we choose to do that through a public charter school. So we get funds for books and supplies.

Am I a hypocrite for being against vouchers then? I don’t think so.

Those funds come to us through a public school. So they are still able to allocate funds for special education, and they are able to pool those funds to provide the best education possible.

If everyone just gets a little pile of money, it doesn’t go very far. $1,800 isn’t going to buy you much of anything in terms of disability therapies or tutors. But put all the kids’ $1,800 together, and you have a program that works. And if it doesn’t, the school is answerable to an elected school board. There’s room within the public school system to pool the money and allocate some of it to us as families. We have accountability, too. And if we don’t want that, we can choose to fully homeschool and not get public funds.

We may do that at some point and lose those dollars. That’s fine. I want my tax dollars to go to public schools that are accountable, not to private ones.

summary

She says federal Title I spending should be phased out, and “states should assume decision-making control over how to provide a quality education to children from low-income families.”

my opinion

This seems like a typical conservative small government argument.

summary

The next subsection is “Additional School Choice Options.”

She argues that although it should really be put to the states, “Congress should consider school choice legislation such as the Educational Choice for Children Act.” That would create a scholarship funded by private donors that “eligible families” could use for private school tuition, etc.

my opinion

Why on earth should Congress create a private school scholarship fund? Private schools can and do have their own scholarships and private donors.

summary

The next section is “Additional K-12 Reforms.”

The main argument is that states can opt out of federal education programs and use federal funds for whatever they want.

Moving on to “Higher Education Reform.”

This section bemoans accreditation agencies forcing colleges to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies in order to get accreditation, which lets them get Title IV student loans and grants. She says they are also interfering with free speech. She points out that many of these institutions are faith-based.

my opinion

I say this as a person with a degree from a Christian college, why would a faith-based institution be opposed to diversity, equity, and inclusion?

And if a faith-based institution doesn’t want to follow federal policies, they don’t have to. They just don’t get federal funds if they don’t.

Summary

Burke says states should be able to recognize accreditation agencies or state agencies should be able to act as accreditation agencies for institutions throughout the United States.

In a subsection on student loans, she again argues for privatizing the student loan program and getting rid of loan forgiveness. She says Grad PLUS and Parent PLUS loans should be eliminated because other loans are available.

**”The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which prioritizes government and public sector work over private sector employment, should be terminated.”

my opinion

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program doesn’t prioritize government work over private sector work. It recognizes that teachers, police, and others who work in underserved areas make less than they would in the private sector and helps to offset that service.

summary

Burke once again argues that Congress should make it impossible for the Secretary of Education to forgive or reduce student loans. No surprise there. But she also says this: “as well as to modify in any material way the repayment amount or terms of Title IV student loans.” (bold is mine)

She continues that the federal government shouldn’t pay for overhead expenses tied to research, saying that subsidizes organizations like Google and the Ford Foundation who have diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.

The next section is “New Regulations,” and its first subsection is “Attacking the Accreditation Cartel.”

She says, “The Secretary of Education should refuse to recognize all accreditors that abuse their power,” and “New accreditors should also be encouraged to start up.”

The next subsection is “Confronting the Chinese Communist Party’s Influence on Higher Education.”

She says the next administration should enforce rules on reporting gifts from outside the U.S. worth $250,000 or more and investigate those that don’t. She claims more than 100 universities in the U.S. received nearly $100 billion in gifts and grants from China-based sources between 2013 and 2020.

my opinion

That seems like something we should be keeping tabs on.

summary

The next subsection is “Allowing Competency-Based Education to Flourish.”

She argues for making it easier for colleges to give credit for competency.

On to “Reforming ‘Area Studies’ Funding.”

Burke says “area studies” are often counter to American interests and should be discontinued, but, “In the meantime, the next Administration should promulgate a new regulation to require the Secretary of Education to allocate at least 40 percent of funding to international business programs that teach about free markets and economics and require institutions, faculty, and fellowship recipients to certify that they intend to further the stated statutory goals of serving American interests.”

my opinion

What about that free speech and academic freedom you’ve been going on about?

summary

The next section is “New Executive Orders That the President Should Issue.”

She argues that federal agencies shouldn’t have to consider guidance documents as binding, which was a Trump executive order that Biden revoked immediately.

Her other suggestions are:

• Require Administrative Procedures Act (I think this is for public notice and comment) processes for the Civil Rights’ Case Processing Manual

• Require grant applications to assure that the applicant will uphold the First Amendment

• Say that a college degree won’t be required for any federal job unless the job requirements demand it.

• Get rid of the archive of the list of colleges and universities that asked for religious exemptions for Title IX and keep such a list from being published again.

my opinion

On that last point, she calls it a “List of Shame.” But if they have a religious belief, why should they be ashamed of having it published? And if they want funds without playing by the rules, why shouldn’t that information be available to the taxpayers funding them?

summary

aThe last main section is “New Agency Policies That Don’t Require New Legislation or Regulations to Enact.”

Its first subsection is “Transparency of FERPA and PPRA Complaints.”

She reiterates that the Department of Education should be transparent about complaints filed about student records.

And the Department of Education “should develop a portal and resources for parents on their rights under FERPA and PPRA.” It should let parents know that they can’t be denied access to students’ health records.

The next subsection is “The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.” She argues that Washington, D.C., schools that participate in the school voucher system shouldn’t have to be accredited and Congress (who enacted the requirement) should remove it. In the meantime, the president should expand the list of accreditors by executive order.

The next subsection is “Transparency Around Program Performance and DEI Influence.”

She says the next president should issue executive orders to require:

• how federal programs spread diversity, equity, and inclusion; critical race theory; and gender ideology.

• review outcomes fro GEAR UP and 21st Century grants programs

• reissue the 2018 school safety report with updated information

• a report to Congress on how to “consolidate the department and trim nonessential employees”

•**-”A report on the negative influence of action civics on students’ understanding history and civics and their disposition toward the United States

my opinion

You cannot talk about the history of the United States without race. And you can’t pretend that it’s nice and pretty. That’s not the story.

And I find it rich that this organization is giving policy advice on any negative influence on students and their disposition toward the United States.

Two days ago, their candidate called the United States “the garbage can of the world,” and last night, at his rally, a “comedian” called Puerto Rico, which is part of the United States, an island of garbage.

But tell me again how “action civics,” which I assume is about participating in the system to make it better, is giving students a negative opinion of the country.

summary

She continues:

• An update on a report that shows the impact of family structure on student achievement

• A “full accounting” of CARES Act education spending

• “A report on how many dollars make their way to the classroom in every federal education grant and program”

my opinion

I’m okay with talking about hard things, including where the money goes and how family structure impacts achievement. If that gets used to blame single moms, I’m not okay with that. But if it’s about finding solutions, let’s use the data.

summary

There’s one point under “Pursue Antitrust Against Accreditors.”

Again, “The President should issue an executive order pursing antitrust against college accreditors, especially the American Bar Association.”

my opinion

This seems like a weird ax to grind. And they want law schools accredited by any old accrediting agency? I admit I’m new to this argument, but I don’t get it.

summary

The last section in this (long) chapter is “New Policies/Regulations That Require Coordination With Other Agencies And/Or the White House.”

Burke says the Department of Education has to coordinate rulemaking with the White House, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Justice, and other agencies. And she says the attorney general has to approve any regulations around civil rights laws.

She summarizes her earlier arguments and then argues for eliminating GEAR UP, saying that should be done private or at the state and local levels.

(GEAR UP is a program to help low-income and underrepresented students go to college.)

my opinion

That was a long one, and as I said, I had a lot of opinions on that chapter.

What stands out most—both in this chapter and in the previous ones I’ve read—is how against diversity, equity, and inclusion the authors are.

On Sunday, I was at the grocery store, and a young man saw my “You Belong” bumper sticker. “I like your bumper sticker,” he said. “It’s nice to see. Especially around these parts.”

I was glad it meant something to him. And it made me sad that “You Belong” is a message that seems foreign to my neighbors.

I don’t understand the fear of diversity. Maybe that’s because I had Korean roommates in college, and I lived overseas for three years. Maybe it’s because while I was in third grade, there were kids learning English for the first time in my classroom, and I thought it was wonderful. Maybe it’s because I was taught that we are a nation of immigrants. Maybe it’s because I just like talking with people, and every single one of us has a story that brought us to this moment.

I haven’t tied this series a lot to voting, but it’s obviously related. I cast my ballot last week. I’m voting for a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive country. I know no candidate will get us there. That’s the work we have to do, no matter who wins.

For me, that means I keep showing up to teach ESL on Wednesday nights. I sign petitions and write to my members of Congress, whether I agree with them or not. I talk to people in the parking lot at the grocery store. Because we all belong.

Next time, by request, we’ll be skipping ahead to Chapter 17, Department of Justice.