Trump’s Education Proposals: A Misguided View of Public Schooling

Former President Donald Trump is proposing significant changes to the American educational landscape if he is re-elected. Among the most controversial of his plans is allowing parents to elect school principals, a move critics describe as “not logistically possible.”

The education proposals, detailed on his campaign website under the title “Plan to Save American Education and Give Power Back to Parents,” also touch upon contentious cultural issues, including transgender policies and parental rights. Public education advocates have responded with harsh criticism, arguing that these ideas jeopardize the integrity of public schools and educators.

Jim Byrne, president of the Tucson Education Association, expressed concern that this plan, while perhaps appealing in theory, could inflict serious harm on educational institutions. “It would be disruptive, destructive, and detrimental,” he told the Arizona Mirror, highlighting that a more comprehensive approach is necessary. Byrne further noted that other stakeholders, such as teachers and students, would need to be included in the decision-making process.

Marisol Garcia, president of the Arizona Education Association, critiqued the proposal as indicative of a lack of understanding about the complexities of public education. “It’s pretty funny because I don’t even think they know what principals do,” she said, stressing that effective principals require specific training and experience.

While Trump’s proposals have support within certain circles, like the group Moms for Liberty, even some allies do not back the direct election of principals. Co-founder Tiffany Justice admitted to finding it impractical, citing the challenges of getting individuals to run for school boards.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has categorized Moms for Liberty as a far-right extremist group, although Justice has refuted this label. The organization opposes several educational policies it deems contrary to parental rights, aligning with some of Trump’s views.

Another key proposal from Trump suggests creating a new credentialing body for “patriotic” teachers, raising questions about the criteria for such a designation. Garcia challenged the notion, asking, “Who defines the word patriotism?” Justice claims that patriotism is not subjective, yet she did not elaborate further on the definition.

As for Trump’s education policies, they appear to have drawn a sharp divide between proponents advocating for increased parental rights and critics warning of potential fallout for public education. Critics claim that Trump’s insistence on cutting federal funding for schools perceived as promoting critical race theory threatens to suppress inclusive curricula that reflect diverse student backgrounds.

The push for universal school choice, which gives families options to use public funds for private schooling, has been contentious. Garcia and Byrne argue that such policies detract from public education funding, calling attention to Arizona’s expanding school voucher program, now projected to cost taxpayers $429 million this fiscal year.

Justice, an ardent supporter of Trump’s educational vision, aims to dismantle the federal Department of Education and implement his policies should he regain power.