Chapter 11, Part 4: The Department of Education
Day 21 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). I’ve got lots of opinions today.
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 “Reform the Negotiated Rulemaking Process at ED.”
The Department of Education is required to have a group of stakeholders weigh in on any proposed rules. Burke says this has turned into a circus, and the department should get Congress to get rid of the requirement.
my opinion
The circus absolutely needs to be addressed, and there’s no question that education is a political football. But getting rid of having stakeholders at the table causes a different problem. I’m not sure what the answer is here. She mentions public hearings instead, but I don’t think that solves the problem.
summary
The next section is “Reform the Office of Federal Student Aid.”
This section has several suggested reforms. The gist is getting rid of student loan forgiveness and moving privatizing student loans because “the federal government does not have the proper incentives to make sound lending decisions.”
Moving on to “New Policy Priorities for 2025 and Beyond.”
Burke says Congress should rescind the National Education Association’s federal charter. (That’s the largest teachers’ union.) She disagrees with pretty much everything they support.
Burke argues that the Civil Rights Act means that students shouldn’t learn about critical race theory. She says calling America systemically racist is “actively disrupting the values that hold communities together such as equality under the law and colorblindness.”
my opinion
The United States was quite literally founded on racist principles. The land was the Native Americans’. White people enslaved Africans (and other races) to work for them, and then counted them as 3/5 of a person so that their owners could get more votes. Black people couldn’t sit at the counter with white people in the 1960s. Gerrymandering is often used to amplify white voices. To pretend that our history doesn’t affect our present is ridiculous.
Obviously, there is more subtlety to all of these arguments than I’m addressing here, but why are they so afraid of being honest about our history?
To be clear, I’m not saying all of the founders were racist or that white people haven’t done good things. But we need to be honest when we’re teaching our history. And then includes amplifying voices that have been left out of the history books for far too long.
summary
Burke argues that students shouldn’t be compelled to say things they don’t believe, and that educators should not “refrain from discussing certain subjects in an attempt to protect students from ideas with which they disagree.”
my opinion
I agree. However, I do think some topics are abhorrent and should only be presented in a critical light, such as Holocaust denial, Neo-Nazi propaganda, and conspiracy theories with no basis in fact.
summary
The next subsection is “Advancing Legal Protections for Parental Rights in Education.”
Burke argues that the federal government and courts sometimes treat parental rights as “second-tier” compared to free speech or religion.
She says “schools could be required to assist a child with a social or medical gender transition without parental consent or to withhold information from parents about a child’s social transition. … The federal government could demand that schools include curriculum or lessons regarding critical race or gender theory in a way that violates parental rights …”
my opinion
“Could” is doing an enormous amount of lifting in those sentences.
summary
Burke’s solution is 1) to “work to pass a federal Parents’ Bill of Rights that restores parental rights to a ‘top-tier’ right.” 2) “Further ensure that any regulations that could impact parental rights contain similar protections and require federal agencies to demonstrate that heir action meets strict scrutiny before a final rule is promulgated.”
my opinion
Parents already have rights, and this could put children at risk of abuse in even more danger.
I find it shocking that the United States is the ONLY country in the world that hasn’t signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Perhaps we should start there.
summary
Burke acknowledges that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendements already require schools “to obtain parental consent before asking questions, including surveys, about political affiliations or beliefs; mental or psychological issues; sexual behaviors or attitudes; critical appraisals of family members; illegal or self-incriminating behavior; religious practices or beliefs; privileged relationships, as with doctors and clergy; and family income, unless for eligibility.”
But she wants to make it easier for parents and student (over 18) to sue.
The next subsection is “Protect Parental Rights in Policy.”
Burke says the next Administration should prioritize a parents’ Bill of Rights, which have already been introduced in Congress, and those should complement state laws aready in effect.
She argues that “radical gender ideology is having a devastating effect on school-aged children today—especially young girls.” She says some states require school employees to accept a student’s chosen gender difference without notifying thparents “if the children do not want their parents to know. Such policies allow schools to drive a wedge between parents and children.”
my opinion
If the student doesn’t want the parent to know, it wasn’t the school that drove that wedge.
Snark aside, this is a complicated issue, and I think we as a country need to have a sane discussion about it with as many viewpoints at the table as possible.
summary
**”No public education employee or contractor shall use a name to address a student other than the name listed on a student’s birth certificate, without the written permission of a student’s parents or guardians.”
**”No public education employee or contractor shall use a pronoun in addressing a student that is different from that student’s biological sex without the written permission of a student’s parents or guardians.”
**”No public institution may require an education employee or contractor to use a pronoun that does not match a person’s biological sex if contrary to the employee’s or contractor’s religious or moral convictions.”
my opinion
Okay, let’s start with the first one. Seriously, the school is going to have get written permission to call Jennifer Jenny if that’s what she wants? And what if parents are going through a divorce and the kid wants to take the other parent’s last name? Which one gets to choose? Also, what teacher has access to a child’s birth certificate? This is ridiculous.
The second one is a bit like the first. How would the teacher know what the kid’s birth certificate said? And how does refusing to call them by their preferred pronouns help anyone?
The hypocrisy in that last point is staggering. So if my kid is trans, and I send a letter to the school saying I want my kid’s pronouns to be whatever, a teacher can say no because of their religious beliefs? What about the parental rights they were just talking about?
And could this go the other way? What if a teacher doesn’t believe any child should be bound by gender and so calls everyone “they”? Would that be okay?
Again, adults and kids should be having serious conversations about this stuff, but these proposals are a hot mess.
That’s it for today. The next subsection is “Advance School Choice Policies.”