This year’s presidential race exhibits stark divergence in the educational stances of the two candidates. Both propose adjustments to the existing system, however, the positioning is starkly contrasted. The Republican nominee, ex-President Donald Trump, touts controversial measures such as igniting culture wars in American classrooms.
Trump’s campaign stance includes the proposal to dismantle the Federal Education Department, illustrating strong conviction toward a significantly reformed educational paradigm. Unsurprisingly, the campaign of the Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris heads in the opposite direction, prioritizing vague objectives like ‘strengthening’ public schools and lessening student debt.
Additionally, the Harris campaign seems to believe that the affordability of high-grade early childcare is a pressing issue. It would appear that both campaigns are in agreement about making college more affordable and endorsing career-oriented pathways in education. Trump’s campaign also calls for increased support for universal school choices and the defunding of schools vested in disseminating controversial racial, political, and sexual content.
However, it’s important to consider the elephant in the room. Neither campaign seems keen to confront the ongoing impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on our K-12 schools, as per the observation of a researcher with the American Enterprise Institute, a noted conservative think tank.
This lack of any detailed discussion pertaining to the academic growth of K-12 students in both campaigns further emphasizes their less-than-optimal approach. The control of schools, including the policies they implement and what they teach, mostly lies with state governments, giving them more power over education than the federal government. Despite this, the federal government still significantly influences school policy through law-making and funding control.
Trump distinctively pledges to execute universal school choice policies. This approach would allow taxpayers to use their money to send their kids to any private schools, an intriguing deviation from the traditional mindset. Meanwhile, the Harris campaign seems engrossed in improving access to early childcare for children under 5, an issue notable for its absence on the Trump platform.
Harris, on multiple occasions, has pontificated about an apparent need to make childcare more affordable, augment wages for early educators, and lower costs for families. Evidently, both Harris and her running mate showcase a history of supporting universal access to childcare.
As governor, the running mate of Harris championed laws that redirected ample state funding toward child care, making it easier for grandparents to provide care and increasing wages for preschool teachers. Again, this stands in stark contrast to the Trump campaign’s silence on this issue.
Despite their stark clashes, both campaigns agree on the necessity of making college education affordable to all. While Trump’s strategy prioritizes funding for career-driven training programs and seeking alternatives to the conventional four-year college cycle, Harris’s strategy focuses on an illusion of making college ‘a ticket to the middle class’.
She further intends to address what she perceives as ‘the unreasonable burden of student loan debt’. However, it’s important to remember that federal subsidies for low-income students, like the Pell Grants, are already funded by the federal government.
Observations from a researcher at the Century Foundation highlight the longstanding relationship between federal intervention and higher education subsidies, tracing it back to the times of the GI Bill in the 1940s. Maybe it isn’t all doom and gloth for students after all.
Experts from both conservative and liberal backgrounds agree on the unfeasibility of Trump’s plan to close the Department of Education. However, it seems both campaigns are stoking the fear of the Department of Education, using it as an all-around ‘boogeyman’ for every educational hiccup the nation experiences.
The intention from both campaigns to make post-secondary education more accessible, in theory, should make for a fair and inclusive educational landscape. However, as is often the case with political promises, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
One might question, for example, the strategies proposed by Kamala Harris’s campaign, which seem to be more focused on promoting an aspirational image than suggesting practical solutions. On the other hand, the aggressive reformist stance of abolishing the Federal Education Department proposed by Donald Trump seems disruptive rather than constructive.
Ultimately, the campaigns of both nominees demonstrate a shared commitment to influence the educational course of the nation in their unique ways. However, the details reveal divergent views on the implementation of these commitments.
While the winds of this political contest continue to blow, it remains to be seen which campaign’s educational policy will characterize American schools in the years to come, dictated by who emerges victorious in the enduring battle for the heart and soul of American education.