In 2016, we co-produced a paper called SHIFT happens, which profiled the “entrepreneurs, wonks, and investors revolutionizing the learning-to-employment landscape.”
In the foreword, investor and author Ryan Craig wrote: “Americans are dissatisfied, feel dispossessed, and they’re not going to take it anymore. Large numbers of Americans have not earned the sine qua non of today’s labor market (college degrees), do not work in knowledge-intensive sectors of the economy, and do not live in the fastest-growing regions… It is now clear that leaving the economy prostrate to global forces without powerful advances in how we retrain, reskill, and perhaps even relocate workers who have been left behind is not a sustainable approach.”
As last week’s election signaled, there is broad-based dissatisfaction with the outputs of our incumbent education and workforce systems. Poll after poll suggests that trust in educational institutions is at an all-time low.
So, we have work to do. A September survey from our friends at JFF might help point us in the right direction: among other things, it showed strong, bipartisan support for new ways to build skills and prepare for careers. It showed support for the incorporation of workforce training into traditional educational pathways, as well.
Against that backdrop, what can we expect from the next administration when it comes to postsecondary policy?
“New” pathways. Doubling down on apprenticeships (potentially reinstating IRAPs), short-term, industry-aligned training. New approaches to the subsidization of higher education. That could include short-term grants for sub-baccalaureate programs, as well credentials decoupled from institutions of higher education altogether.
An increased emphasis on data and accountability. This Administration will focus on the measurement of postsecondary outcomes and may explore alternative types of accountability (e.g., new types of accreditors). Recall that in February, longtime opponent Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) supported a federal postsecondary data system for the first time (albeit limited to those receiving federal financial aid).
Parity and competition. Although the Gainful Employment rule is likely to be rescinded, new forms of accreditation and accountability could open the door to increased competition. The post-election gains of publicly traded higher education stocks show the market expectation that regulatory pressure on for-profit colleges will erode. But there may be heightened scrutiny of nonprofit schools, particularly those with large endowments.
Increased state role. Variability among state and local labor markets can make it hard to quantify postsecondary outcomes from Washington. Look for states to take on a bigger role as arbiters—or even recipients—of federal grants. Some have even suggested states as gatekeepers for Title IV funds to institutions.
No more debt relief. Although President Trump signed the initial COVID-era loan moratorium, he has been vocally against Biden’s debt forgiveness plans. There is no indication that the administration will change its perspective on the matter.
Continued focus on DEI and antisemitism. It’s likely the Trump administration will seek out ways to support and expand state anti-DEI efforts. There will also be an increased focus on antisemitism (check out the House Ed and Workforce Committee Report) with pressure for ED to take action against the worst offenders.
At the K-12 level, shifts abound as well…
School choice. Expect continued support for school choice, including movement toward a national tax credit scholarship. Twenty-eight states already offer some form of choice, including tax credit scholarships. There has been a flurry of recent state activity in support of education accounts as well.
ESSA funding. Increased funding for existing accounts, as they are, is not likely. There will be efforts to shift as much of the funding as possible to block grants, which could be done in a variety of ways. One scenario is even an overall increase to K-12 funding on condition of something like block grant flexibility. What’s certain is that state and local authorities will have more discretion to manage those funds over the next four years.
Civil rights pullback. The Biden administration’s expansion of civil rights protections was a recurrent theme on the Trump campaign trail and is top-of-mind for incoming appointees. The next Trump administration will roll back President Biden’s efforts to expand Title IX protections to LGBTQ+ and the current focus on disproportionality in special education and disciplinary matters. Expect the administration to shift protections toward parental rights and religious freedom, which may impact local curriculum decisions. Federal law currently prohibits the federal direction of local curriculum—a policy usually guarded by members of Congress—but that may change.
Expanded eligibility of child care providers and increased federal funding. Vice President-elect Vance expressed support for expanding child care options (specifically expanding eligibility of providers to include home-based care rather than funding “universal daycare”) on the campaign trail. Expect increased funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Remember: Congress approved a $2.37 billion increase to CCDBG in 2018 under Trump’s first presidency – the largest one-year increase in federal funding for child care in history. Whether Head Start sees increased flexibility or tighter accountability remains unclear for now.
A renewed (possibly increased) child tax credit. The Trump administration has already said that it plans to renew the first Trump administration’s child tax credit.
Will the Department of Education cease to exist?
Much has been made of President Trump’s desire to shutter 400 Maryland Avenue. These statements aren’t new, and they should not be taken lightly. But its important to remember that the statutes governing many of the programs administered by the Department actually predate its creation. Federal Student Aid (FSA), for example, could work under the Treasury and Perkins under Labor (or however that agency gets rebranded).
More feasible are proposals to shift current work to other departments and agencies. Proponents of consolidation may incentivize support with more funding for schools in exchange for something that looks like a block grant and an agency shuffle.
Eliminating the Department would require statutory change. Republican lawmakers will introduce bills to that effect, but Democratic Senators can rely on the filibuster to stop the process. In the end, a complete elimination of the Department seems unlikely.
All of this should direct your attention to state leadership. The most significant regulatory change will happen at the state level over the next 2-4 years. This is almost always the case, but it will be exaggerated by President Trump’s election, the slim majority Republican control of the House and Senate (making reauthorization of major education laws like the Higher Education Act unlikely), and the recent SCOTUS Loper decision (commonly referred to as “Chevron”) which gutted the traditional legal deference given to federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer.
This article is sourced from the opening letter of Whiteboard Notes, our weekly newsletter of the latest education policy and industry news read by thousands of education leaders, investors, grantmakers, and entrepreneurs. Subscribe here.
