Ben Mitchell
Director of Advocacy & Policy, Foundation for Tacoma Students
President Biden’s term included some high profile education policy work, but education was not a top priority on the same level of something like infrastructure. Looking ahead to 2025, education policy could be more prominent, and Vice President Harris and former President Trump have, let’s say, contrasting visions. But whoever wins the presidential election it’s likely that they will have to work with at least one chamber of Congress that is controlled by the opposite party. That means that to the extent you care about influencing federal education policy, you should try to identify where the cross-partisan areas are.
Appraising the Biden administration on education
K-12 and higher education were in the headlines A LOT over the last four years. From the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on students and the education system; to controversies over critical race theory, transgender students’ rights, and what books are in school libraries; to campus protests. It has felt like a constant stream, but at the same time, education policy has not been a signature priority for the Biden administration. Issues like climate change, infrastructure investments, industrial policy, and prescription drug prices were the top priorities. I don’t mean that as a critique – you have to set priorities – it’s just to point out that education policy has diminished standing in DC relative to other issues.
Having said all of that, the federal government is vast and regardless of an administration’s top priorities there will always be things happening in education policy. I’ll offer here a brief appraisal of the most prominent federal education policy developments between 2021 and now, from very good, to okay, to questionable, to bad:
- Expanded Child Tax Credit (very good) – The American Rescue Plan was a huge piece of legislation passed in 2021 that contained a one-year expansion of a direct cash assistance program to households with children. It cut child poverty dramatically to a historic low of just over 5%.
- Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (okay) – A large influx of one-time federal money for K-12 schools was part of the American Rescue Plan bill. The money didn’t have a lot of strings attached and probably should have been more focused. But it looks like it had positive impacts for kids overall.
- Student loan forgiveness (questionable) – There was a lot of back and forth between executive actions and court challenges on this, and the arguments in favor are driven by a correct sense that the higher education finance system in the United States is messed up. But a problem with it was that it was not forward-looking and doesn’t fix anything with that finance system for future cohorts of students.
- The new FAFSA rollout (bad) – This is a black eye. This very important financial aid application was redesigned to be easier to complete, but then the rollout was completely botched because federal officials failed to properly test and prepare the form and launched it despite signs that it was not ready for wide release.
Harris’ and Trump’s education priorities
K-12 and higher education issues are not the most prominent issues in the presidential campaign, but they’re not completely sidelined. Former President Trump talks about dismantling the Department of Education, pushing for universal school choice, and expecting schools to promote patriotism, according to his education platform. Vice President Harris’ platform speaks to making childcare, pre-K and college more affordable, and her more detailed economic plan includes restoring the child tax credit expansion and expanding career pathways and apprenticeships.
That’s all based on a read of their campaign and party platforms. Those documents are kitchen sinks of signals to voters around what they stand for as candidates, and so to get a sense of what could actually happen under a Harris or Trump administration you have to analyze likely electoral outcomes in Congress. For this I highly recommend an analysis by the firm Education First. They do a good job thinking through likely outcomes, and then overlaying that with the candidates’ education policy priorities.
The education policy venn diagram
One thing the Education First analysis emphasizes is that the most likely federal election outcome is that there will be a divided government, meaning one party holds the presidency, but the other party holds at least one chamber of congress. This will dramatically narrow the scope of what can get done in terms of education policy – and the window was already pretty narrow since education is not a top tier issue set – to the items where there is bipartisan potential. There are two areas that I think will be interesting to watch for opportunities for bipartisan progress in DC. One seems very possible, the other is more speculative.
Career pathways
Supporting parents
The first is a move away from the “college for all” goal to an embrace of technical training programs, apprenticeships, and other non degree pathways to good-earning wage jobs. Vice President Harris has said she will eliminate four-year degree requirements for federal jobs where they are not needed, and former President Trump issued an executive order in 2020 to eliminate degree requirements for some federal jobs. The move away from degrees is happening at a state level as well, including in Washington, and polling from a variety of sources shows that people want the education system to focus on workforce preparation.
So the energy is there for federal policy targeted at job readiness, job skills, and career-oriented preparation. The questions from here are two-fold: What will specific proposals look like? And how will they ensure non degree programs are worthwhile, given that the economic benefits of many of these programs remain unclear.
This second area is about supporting parents. It feels like going out on a limb to suggest this as an area of bipartisan potential given that “parents rights” has taken the form of cynical scare tactics around critical race theory or just plain cruel efforts aimed at transgender students. That sort of stuff is harmful and wrong and we do not look past it. What I wonder though is if there is cross-partisan space for more parent-friendly federal policy that comes at this from the standpoint of “what should a parent expect from the education system?”
Democrats and Republicans both talk about financial support for families with children. I mentioned the child tax credit earlier, and it’s something that’s actually in the Republican platform. There are disagreements about the size of the credit and work requirements, but maybe there’s a chance?
Perhaps evidence-based curriculum and school policies is another area. Math and reading are subjects that have evidence-based approaches and that parents value equally across political lines. Federal policy could invest in more curriculum research, and then promote the best products. Cell phone restrictions or bans, and student data privacy also seem to be issues that cut across party lines and that parents seem supportive of.
Can education policy move to the front burner?
There was a heyday of federal education policy from the late 90s through the mid 2010s where it was a big priority for both parties. The focus was on things like how money was spent, how well the most marginalized students were doing, and questions about the management of K-12 systems. And these things were instrumental in a decade plus of slow and steady gains. But now it feels like people in DC are focused elsewhere and the philanthropic community has mostly moved on. And because states and school districts play larger roles in education, national-level folks can duck education if they want to.
I hope this can change. The federal government has been the most reliable, though imperfect, place to ensure that historically underserved communities have their civil rights protected. Education is no different, and in 2025 and beyond there should be a renewed focus to explore ways of dramatically scaling up federal funding and accountability for public education.