Reading tea leaves is no simple feat, particularly when it comes to divining something as multifaceted as the ever-changing landscape of education policy.
The second administration of President Donald Trump is already bringing a slew of changes to the sector, most recently with a rescission of Biden-era policies on book bans. Still, like the weather, some changes are easier to predict than others.
From areas where school leaders can expect to see the biggest policy reversals under the new administration to how pending U.S. Supreme Court decisions may impact districts, here are five policy trends to watch this year.
Policy ping-pong persists
With Trump’s return to the White House, school leaders can expect more policy ping-pong, said Noelle Ellerson Ng, associate executive director of advocacy and governance for AASA, The School Superintendents Association.
It’s likely that Title VI — which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin — and its related regulations will be proactively used to investigate schools for things like diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives or claims of critical race theory in curricula, said Ellerson Ng. Furthermore, she said, the newly required Head Start wage increase and Environmental Protection Agency requirements around testing for lead in schools could also fall victim to policy U-turns.
Likewise, underwhelming recovery for chronic absenteeism and assessment performance could see the pendulum swing when it comes to policy on student behavior and discipline, said Michael Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative-leaning education reform think tank. Along with stricter policies regarding cellphone use during the school day, it’s likely that further changes will result from increased attention to classroom disruptions, low student engagement, fights and other behavior and engagement issues.
In essence, more “tough love” is probably needed in schools again, said Petrilli, “making it clear to students that there are expectations for their behavior, and we expect them to meet them.”
A huge area to watch is Title IX regulations. During the Biden administration, the anti-sex discrimination law was interpreted as including LGBTQ+ students and staff in its protections.
In early January, before the administration even changed hands, a federal judge struck down the Biden administration’s final rule that enshrined those protections after months of legal tug-of-war. That came just weeks after the U.S. Department of Education had withdrawn a separate rule seeking to extend Title IX protections to transgender student athletes.
Thus far, the Trump administration has issued an executive order proclaiming that the U.S. recognizes only two sexes: male and female. The president also vowed on the campaign trail to keep transgender athletes out of women’s sports.
A 2024 Supreme Court decision, however, could see some of the ping-pong on that and other issues resolved in a judicial venue.
Chevron forces courts’ hands as policymakers
Underpinning all of this, Ellerson Ng said, is the impact and relevance of the Supreme Court’s decision last year to overturn the Chevron doctrine with its ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The 40-year-old precedent deferred to the expertise of federal agencies to interpret and administer laws related to the fields under their purview, but the Loper Bright decision pulls much of that regulatory power into the judiciary.
“Where there’s concern that regulations or guides are being used in a way that someone doesn’t like or doesn’t work for them, they now in the post-Chevron era can say, ‘Well, what’s the feasibility of this regulation, given that agencies aren’t supposed to be administering this?’” said Ellerson Ng. “I think it just increases the volume of implementation questions that will be playing out in the lower courts.”
Petrilli added: “It'll be a little bit ironic if we see the overturning of Chevron used that way, since this is something celebrated by conservatives. It may end up being something that reins in the Trump administration.”
The volume of conflicting lower court interpretations on whether Title IX affords protections to LGBTQ+ students and staff is likely to ultimately force the Supreme Court’s hand in the matter — despite the high court’s rejection of several cases on transgender students’ rights in recent years.
“It's a big question about whether Title IX provides protections to transgender or even to gay students,” said Petrilli. “I think that is something the Supreme Court hasn't yet adjudicated,” though the court did rule in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 offers protections for employees against discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity in the context of workplace discrimination.
It remains uncertain if and when the Supreme Court will take up such a case, but the justices do have two other high-profile K-12 cases on the docket in the coming months.
E-rate’s future in question
One closely watched case during the Supreme Court’s current term could significantly shake up school district budgets and operations nationwide — especially depending on its timing.
In a case consolidated from two pre-existing ones — Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition v. Consumers’ Research and FCC v. Consumers’ Research — the justices are set to determine the constitutionality of the funding mechanism for the Federal Communications Commission’s Universal Service Fund, which administers the federal E-rate program.
Under E-rate, schools and libraries nationwide are able to receive subsidies for broadband internet services.
“We are hopeful that the Supreme Court wouldn’t hand down a decision on something like this until later in the end of its term, June. That critically lines up at the end of the school year,” said Ellerson Ng. If a decision striking down and immediately nullifying the funding mechanism came in, say, March or April — right at the heart of the season for testing, grading and student promotion — it would be “catastrophically chaotic,” said Ellerson Ng.
In the meantime, she said, school districts should be telling their E-rate story: How big their internet budget is, the size of the discount, and the importance of those internet connections for student learning, school safety and building operations.
Curriculum opt-out decision could create a slippery slope
Another case could result in policy that creates more questions than answers when it comes to parents’ ability to opt students out of certain curricula.
The Supreme Court just announced in January that it will hear Mahmoud v. Taylor. That case is set to determine whether school districts violate parents’ First Amendment religious rights when they don’t provide notice or a way to opt their children out of curricula related to gender and sexuality.
The lawsuit was brought against Maryland’s Montgomery County Board of Education by a group of Christian and Muslim parents in reaction to a pre-K-5 LGBTQ+-inclusive language arts curriculum. The school board had initially offered parents a way to opt children out of the curriculum, but later walked that policy back because “individual schools could not accommodate the growing number of opt out requests without causing significant disruptions to the classroom environment.”
The court’s decision could ultimately open a Pandora’s box, said Petrilli. “There's so many ways that a school curriculum could be read to be at odds with somebody's religious values, you know?”
Beyond lessons on gender and sexuality, other subjects that could be called into question under such a ruling might include evolution or climate change, he said.
There’s also a school choice angle in this matter, Petrilli noted.
“Montgomery County is a place where there's not a lot of options outside the traditional public schools. Does that matter? Would it have more leeway to do this sort of thing if it was in a state that had a really strong charter school sector or private school voucher program?" he asked. "That'll be an interesting one to watch.”
The Education Department is here to stay — for now
Trump has nominated former World Wrestling Entertainment president and CEO Linda McMahon to lead the Education Department — for now. However, shuttering the agency remains one of his oft-repeated campaign goals. The new president said much the same in his statement on McMahon's nomination, which still needs Senate approval: "We will send Education BACK TO THE STATES, and Linda will spearhead that effort."
It’s unlikely, however, that lawmakers will actually follow through on closing the Education Department, said Ellerson Ng, “because there’s no way they want to completely eliminate Title I and IDEA [the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act].”
That doesn’t mean that a “performative elimination” of the department couldn’t happen, in which programs or offices like Title I, IDEA, Office for Civil Rights and others are shuffled to other agencies, said Ellerson Ng — but that would still come at a cost. “It’s not free to significantly restructure the federal government.”
Petrilli expressed a similar sentiment: “I think it's highly unlikely that the Department of Education will be shuttered or even partially dismantled, because that would take an act of Congress, which means 60 votes in the Senate, which is not going to happen.”
However, a reduction of the department’s workforce is another matter entirely.
“It's clear that the administration is hoping to encourage many career civil servants to retire, via its return to office mandates and by eliminating DEI positions,” said Petrilli in an email. “But the Department of Education will remain!”
Dive Awards
