In the midst of a sunny Wednesday, former President Trump penned a series of executive directives which were squarely focused on modifying the landscape of education in the United States. These actions voiced his intent to challenge both K-12 and higher education systems, confronting organizations that provide accreditation to colleges and universities. As per the former administration, these bodies have pushed beyond their boundaries by enforcing discriminatory standards based on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Alongside this, Trump proposed revised rules for discipline within K-12 schools, intent on harmonizing disciplinary policies with objective behavior rather than bending them to DEI standards.
Through these efforts, Trump sought to enforce his conservative perspective on education in America, an agenda that didn’t conform to the values of Biden’s administration. By revisiting policies endorsed by Biden, he aimed to fortify vocational training, promote education about artificial intelligence, and enact a White House initiative designed to foster progress in Historically Black colleges and universities. His approach sparked ripples of change across the higher education landscape, particularly with regards to accreditation.
In reference to college accreditation, Trump ordered an exhaustive revamp of the watchdog system. This procedure, a prerequisite for colleges seeking federal financial aid, serves as a quality control measure. As Trump often cited during his campaign, he planned to wield accreditation reform as a ‘secret weapon’ against perceived ideological biases in secondary education.
Trump’s executive action intended to employ this accreditation process as a tool to ensure colleges are penalized for instances of ‘ideological overreach’. His aim was to promote ‘intellectual diversity’ in higher education institutions. Achieving this involved guiding the education secretary to acknowledge new accrediting entities, thus fostering a more competitive landscape.
In a compelling turn, another executive action advocated the option of withdrawing federal grants from university budgets if they failed to offer ‘full and timely disclosure of foreign funding’. During the briefing that unveiled this order, White House staff asserted, ‘Certain universities, including, for example, Harvard, have consistently broken this law, and enforcement has been sadly lackluster.’
Enshrined in federal law, colleges are obligated to lay bare any gifts or contracts received from foreign entities, provided they exceed the value of $250,000. Although this fresh decree from Trump failed to stipulate specific limits or propose new regulations, it strongly implored that universities ‘grant the American public broader insights into their sources of foreign funding’.
Shifting focus to K-12 schooling, Trump solicited the development of fresh federal guidelines encompassing school discipline. His proposed change moved to annul policies previously championed by Presidents Biden and Obama, policies which sought to reduce racial disparities manifest in suspensions and expulsions, for instance. As per Trump’s directive, any disciplinary practices driven by race were to be categorically prohibited.
Meanwhile, Trump’s additional executive actions targeted the enhancement of education quality at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Responding to the demands of the economy, he wanted to bolster programs like apprenticeships in sought-after trade occupations. These actions revealed his conviction that artificial intelligence-based teaching methodologies were fundamental to progress, prompting the establishment of a White House task force dedicated to the cause.
At face value, these actions could be seen as commendable attempts to imbue self-reliance in individual students and institutions alike, using accountability to fuel progress. However, on closer inspection, one might question whether the implications could be more complex. Could this facade of improving education standards serve as a smokescreen for a more divisive agenda?
Trump’s actions underscored his belief that DEI-based influence should be severely limited in the educational realm. A policymaking approach intended to nurture a homogeneous cultural perspective stands starkly contrasted to the diverse and inclusive conventions expected in a democratic nation. Ultimately, this might be seen as a destructive stance rather than an advantageous one.
Furthermore, the overt implications of these policies for students of color are concerning, particularly in K-12 schools. By seeking to disestablish policies designed to confront racial disparities in disciplinary practices, the previous administration risked perpetuating a system that fails to protect all students equally. This move famously contested the fairness of past policies promoted by Presidents Biden and Obama.
Equally concerning is Trump’s proposition to make it more challenging for universities to acquire federal funding. Although put forward under the guise of transparency, this could have severe implications for institutions grappling with financial burdens and might lead to unequal access to education.
Other measures like the push for artificial intelligence in educational settings, while seemingly innovative, risk oversimplifying the complex nature of educational pedagogy. The rush to incorporate AI, regardless of the hype, can’t take precedence over well-researched methodologies that ensure students fully grasp the multifaceted nature of contemporary issues. Education is more than a string of buzzwords and should not fall prey to such oversimplifications.
In sum, these executive decisions made by former President Trump incite a wave of concern. Parading under banners of accountability, self-reliance, and ‘intellectual diversity’, they risk undermining the very foundations of inclusive, diversified, and equitable education. In contrast, the steps taken by President Biden seek, albeit imperfectly, to promote education that is as diverse as the society it serves.