Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Trump Administration and Failing Schools

Opinion

classroom, learning, teaching, class, students

Although the DOE has expressed concerns about declining academic outcomes among marginalized students, it continues to pursue policies that have proven to be detrimental.

Getty Images, Rafa Fernandez Torres

What is Trump’s administration doing to eliminate achievement gaps between minorities, English learners, socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and children with learning disabilities? Arguably, the administration is promoting policies that worsen these issues. The Department of Education (DOE) has expressed concerns about data representing the declining academic outcomes of these subgroups, but it continues to pursue policies that have proven ineffective and detrimental.

The curricula and subjects taught are being adapted to prepare students for the workforce and provide them with skills to succeed. For example, schools are promoting AI literacy and preparing students for an AI workforce, but the administration is not addressing the needs of students with learning disabilities and varying limitations. Large Language Models (i.e., ChatGPT) generate responses based on datasets of neurotypical users, which do not accommodate individuals with dyslexia and challenges with reading comprehension. Additionally, voice models are not optimized for users with non-standard speech patterns. Students with non-verbal learning disabilities also struggle to interpret AI language, which uses abstract phrasing and indirect expressions, and people with ASD excel with more concrete language and visual supports.


On July 22, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon released a letter on leveraging federal grants for teaching AI as a supplement to the education of students who are “gifted and talented.” This reflects the commonly expressed sentiments within the administration that students with disabilities or learning challenges have less potential to excel in school or have successful, meaningful lives. For example, RFK's widely circulated, debunked, and inaccurate claim about people with autism, that “they’ll never hold a job. They’ll never play baseball. They’ll never go on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted.”

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) placed a one percent cap on students with learning disabilities who could take an alternative assessment; however, states have discretion to weigh subgroup testing scores lower than those of non-disadvantaged students when reporting school performance. Furthermore, Trump signed a CRA that repealed the accountability provisions in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Previously, when states were expected to exceed the one percent cap on students taking alternative tests, they were required to submit waivers with plans to address subgroups that were disproportionately taking the alternate assessments and report to the Secretary the percentage of learning-disabled children in their districts; states requesting extension waivers were required to demonstrate progress toward achieving the milestones previously detailed in their plans. The CRA eliminated federal guidelines classifying who qualifies as “learning-disabled,” states could now independently set criteria for determining proficiency standards, and they were not required to intervene when there were persistent achievement gaps. Waivers have been granted more leniently, and a greater number of underperforming students have been classified as having learning disabilities. These measures, which weigh underperforming students less than their higher-achieving counterparts, do not require states to address barriers to education for minorities and subgroups, perpetuating educational inequality and structural barriers to receiving an equitable education.

The CRAs signed by Trump in 2017 have already negatively affected underperforming subgroups, such as minorities and Special ED students. The Nation’s Report Card shows that the performance of lower and middle-percentile K-12 students is declining in math, English, and reading. The DOE classifies performance in three categories: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. In 2022, English learners and students with disabilities both scored below basic in mathematics; scores were lower in 2024. Black and Hispanic students scored less than basic. Even the 75th percentile of students with low socioeconomic status barely met the standards for basic learning outcomes. The same holds in English and civics, as well as other classes.

In response to these concerning disparities, the DOE is extending these ineffective policies. The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education released a statement on July 29, transferring more decision-making power to the states. According to the statement, states can now apply for four-year waivers (and extensions), implement alternative assessments in some schools or Local Education Agencies (oversight agencies that monitor public schools), and create entirely new schooling systems, such as microschools or classical schools (education often rooted in Christianity, teaching languages such as Greek or Latin, and studying classical philosophy). Congress must respond to protect underperforming groups and maintain national proficiency standards, define substantially similar curricula across states, and intervene when state policies are failing to address achievement gaps.

The Trump administration's response has worsened the already failing model of extending state control to address the underperformance of subgroups. Congress and representatives at the state and national levels must raise awareness about these alarming policies and take action to counteract their negative effects.

Luke Harris is an op-ed author who writes about the US, UK, and international politics, policy, and culture. He has been published in outlets like the North American Anglican and the Conservative Woman.

Read More

US Capitol building
The United States Capitol building with its white dome against a blue sky

Would Congressional Term Limits Make Congress Better—or Worse?

Starting in the 1990’s, the idea of putting term limits on members of Congress became a recurring idea to reform the institution and improve democracy. The idea was born out of the theory that replacing the current crop of legislators with a new batch would produce a better Congress. More than 30 years later we now have quantitative and qualitative data showing the impact of term limits.

Twenty-one state legislatures have enacted some kind of term limit on legislators since 1990. Since then, dozens of academic studies have examined the impact on such factors as: complexity of legislation, influence of lobbyists and staff on legislative outcomes, and interactions with constituent. Here are some key findings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand points to the word tax on a screen

Data calculations

Getty Images

Inconvenient Numbers Are a Sign the System Works

Earlier in October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices rose 3.7 percent over the past year, a little higher than the month before, with gasoline accounting for more than half of September's increase. Rising prices are the kind of news no incumbent politician wants weeks before an election. The report was published anyway, on schedule. That is the quiet discipline of a trustworthy statistical system. It tells us what is true even when the number is unwelcome to whoever holds power.

So, do Americans trust government data? We do. But that trust is incomplete, and it has room to grow.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less