(This is the seventh in a series of AI-generated analyses of the right-wing manifesto “Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise.“)
“Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership” offers a conservative vision for education reform, advocating for a diminished federal role and increased local control. While the education chapter focuses on broad themes of federal overreach and bureaucratic inefficiency, a closer look also reveals its specific implications for gender equity and Title IX protections in public schools. Here’s a breakdown of the key points and their potential impact on public education:
Core Argument
The Department of Education has grown too large and bureaucratic, hindering educational progress. Federal education funding comes with excessive regulations and red tape. Decisions about education should be made closer to the students, at the state and local level.
Proposed Changes
- Reduce the Department of Education’s role byeliminating or transferring most of its programs to other agencies Also, convert funding into block grants with fewer restrictions for states.
- Increase state and local control by giving states more autonomy in managing education funds and empowering families to choose schools through education savings accounts (ESAs).
- Limit Federal Intervention by repealingor revising recent regulations on charter schools and civil rights data collection.
- End federal student loan programs and create a new, independent loan authority.
Potential Impact on Public Education
- Increased Inequality: Reduced federal oversight could lead to greater disparities in educational quality between states and districts with high and low resources.
- Less Accountability: Fewer federal regulations might decrease accountability for schools and limit efforts to ensure equal opportunity for all students.
- Shift in Funding Priorities: Block grants could provide states with more flexibility, but might also lead to a decrease in funding for specific programs like special education.
- Impact on Choice: Education savings accounts could expand school choice for some families, but might also divert funding from public schools. Changes to charter school regulations could affect their growth and impact on traditional public schools.
- Student Loan Changes: Ending federal student loans could limit access to higher education for low-income students. A new loan authority might operate more efficiently, but could also make loan repayment more difficult.
Potential Impact on Gender Equality and Title IX
The document prioritizes reducing the Department of Education’s involvement, potentially weakening its enforcement of Title IX, a landmark law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education. Title IX mandates equal opportunities in athletics, academics, and the overall school environment. The chapter’s call for fewer federal regulations could translate to a decline in investigations into sexual harassment and assault complaints. This, in turn, could disproportionately impact female students, potentially creating a chilling effect on reporting such incidents.
Furthermore, the emphasis on state and local control raises concerns about the potential for a patchwork of policies regarding gender equity. Resource-strapped districts might prioritize other areas over enforcing Title IX, leading to a decline in protections for students in those communities. Additionally, the proposal for education savings accounts (ESAs) could exacerbate existing gender disparities.
While offering school choice, ESAs might disproportionately benefit families with higher incomes, potentially leading to a flight from public schools by students from affluent backgrounds, who are often concentrated in advanced academic programs.
This could leave public schools with a higher concentration of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, further straining resources and potentially impacting the quality of education for all students, including girls.
The chapter’s focus on cost-cutting raises concerns about the potential decline in funding for programs specifically designed to address gender equity issues. Title IX compliance often requires additional resources for training staff, conducting investigations, and ensuring equal access to facilities and programs. Reduced federal funding could make it more difficult for schools to maintain these crucial resources.
However, the chapter’s emphasis on local control could also present an opportunity. Localities with a strong commitment to gender equity could leverage their newfound autonomy to develop innovative programs and initiatives tailored to their specific needs. This could lead to more effective and culturally relevant approaches to promoting gender equality in schools.
Girls Sports Are for “Girls”
The document goes on at length with the concerns of a conservative administration regarding recent regulations implemented by the Department of Education under the Biden Administration. Here’s a breakdown of the key points related to sex and Title IX:
- Opposition to ‘Non-Binary’ Category: The document objects to the addition of a “non-binary” option for sex in data collection related to Title IX. It argues this addition has no legal basis and disregards parental rights.
- Protecting Women’s Athletics: The authors criticize changes to Title IX that might disadvantage female athletes. They believe these changes could lead to unequal funding, scheduling, or access to facilities for women’s sports programs.
- Biological Sex Definition: The authors advocate for defining “sex” under Title IX solely based on biological sex assigned at birth. They reject the inclusion of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” within the scope of Title IX.
Overall, the proposals in Chapter 11 would significantly alter the federal role in education. The potential impact is complex, with both opportunities and risks. Increased local control could lead to innovation, but might also exacerbate existing inequalities. Some of the potential risks include:
- Focus on Cost-Cutting over Effectiveness: The proposal prioritizes reducing federal spending over demonstrably successful education programs.
- Ignores National Needs: A decentralized approach might neglect issues requiring national solutions, such as ensuring equal access to quality education for all students.
- Undermines Civil Rights Protections: Changes to data collection and enforcement could weaken protections against discrimination in schools.
Scary Quote
“Ultimately, every parent should have the option to direct his or her child’s share of education funding through an education savings account (ESA), funded overwhelmingly by state and local taxpayers, which would empower parents to choose a set of education options that meet their child’s unique needs.”
Might that mean the end of public education?
About the Author
Lindsey M. Burke, Ph.D., is the director of the Center for Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation and a strong proponent of school choice.
Recommended Reading
Read the Entire Series
https://thewritecoach.blog/reject-project-2025/
Read the Entire Document Here (If You Dare)
Mr. Write Coach: What's Your Story? 
Leave a comment