Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Empowers Parents, States, and Communities to Improve Education Outcomes

March 20, 2025

Fact Sheets

View Original

Action Summary

Returning Authority: Empowers parents, states, and communities by directing the closure of the federal Department of Education and restoring education oversight to state and local control.
Secretary of Education Directive: Instructs the Secretary to take all necessary steps to ensure a smooth transition while maintaining effective delivery of educational services, programs, and benefits.
Funding Restrictions: Prohibits remaining federal funds from advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI) initiatives or gender ideology in education programs.
Critique of Federal Bureaucracy: Highlights over $3 trillion spent since 1979 with no improvement in student achievement, along with additional ineffective COVID-19 funding and wasted resources.
Academic Performance Concerns: Notes significant declines in mathematics and reading scores, with 13-year-olds facing the lowest scores in decades and several schools showing zero proficiency in key subjects.
Regulatory and Administrative Burdens: Criticizes excessive paperwork and ideological mandates—such as “Dear Colleague” letters—that divert resources from teaching and impose substantial regulatory costs.
Countering Previous Policies: References changes under the Biden Administration, including costly new regulations and alterations to Title IX, as well as the cancellation of $226 million in grants tied to radical educational agendas.
Commitment to Parental Choice: Reaffirms the promise of returning education to parents by expanding school choice options encompassing public, private, charter, and faith-based institutions.

Risks & Considerations

The Executive Order to dismantle the Department of Education and return control to states could lead to significant variability in educational standards and quality across different states. This may affect the preparedness of students entering higher education institutions like Vanderbilt University.
The emphasis on eliminating DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and gender ideology programs could impact the university’s commitment to fostering an inclusive environment, potentially affecting its reputation and student body diversity.
With the shift towards state-controlled education, there may be increased competition among states to attract students, which could influence the demographics and academic preparedness of applicants to Vanderbilt.
The potential reduction in federal funding for education could lead to financial constraints for public schools, impacting the pipeline of students who are well-prepared for university-level education.
Vanderbilt University may need to reassess its partnerships and collaborations with K-12 schools, particularly in states where educational policies and priorities shift significantly.

Impacted Programs

Peabody College of Education and Human Development may need to adapt its curriculum and research focus to align with new state-level educational policies and priorities.
The Office of Diversity and Inclusion might face challenges in maintaining its initiatives if there is a broader national shift away from DEI programs.
Vanderbilt’s Admissions Office could see changes in the applicant pool, requiring adjustments in recruitment strategies to ensure a diverse and academically prepared student body.
The Office of Community Engagement may need to increase its support for local schools to help them navigate the transition to state-controlled education systems.

Financial Impact

The reallocation of federal funds away from the Department of Education could impact the availability of grants and financial aid for students, potentially affecting enrollment and tuition revenue at Vanderbilt.
Vanderbilt University might need to explore alternative funding sources for educational research and initiatives, particularly those related to DEI and gender studies.
There may be opportunities for Vanderbilt to secure state-level funding for educational programs and partnerships, depending on the priorities of individual states.
The shift towards universal school choice could lead to changes in the demographics of students applying to Vanderbilt, potentially affecting financial aid distribution and tuition revenue.

Relevance Score: 4 (The order presents a need for potential major changes or transformations of programs.)

Key Actions

Vanderbilt’s Office of Federal Relations should closely monitor developments regarding the potential closure of the Department of Education and the shift of educational authority to states. This will be crucial for understanding how these changes might impact federal funding and regulatory requirements for the university.
The Peabody College of Education and Human Development should evaluate its programs and curricula to ensure alignment with state-level educational policies and priorities, as federal oversight diminishes. This may involve engaging with state education departments to influence policy and maintain program relevance.
Vanderbilt’s Financial Aid Office should assess the potential impact of expanded educational choice on student demographics and financial aid needs. Understanding these shifts will be essential for adapting financial aid strategies to attract and support a diverse student body.
The Department of Political Science should conduct research on the broader societal impacts of returning educational control to states. This research can provide valuable insights into how these policies affect educational equity, community dynamics, and long-term economic outcomes.
Vanderbilt’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Office should prepare for potential changes in DEI-related funding and initiatives, as federal support may decrease. This may involve seeking alternative funding sources and partnerships to sustain DEI efforts.

Opportunities

The executive order presents an opportunity for Peabody College to expand its research and development of educational choice models. By leveraging its expertise in education policy and reform, Peabody can contribute to the design and evaluation of effective educational choice programs, potentially influencing national education policy.
Vanderbilt can capitalize on the increased focus on educational freedom by developing new programs and partnerships with private and faith-based educational institutions. This could include joint research initiatives, student exchange programs, and collaborative curriculum development, enhancing Vanderbilt’s reputation and reach in the education sector.
The emphasis on supporting low-income and working families through block grants offers an opportunity for Vanderbilt’s Center for Child and Family Policy to engage in policy analysis and advocacy. By providing evidence-based recommendations, the center can influence how these funds are allocated and used to support educational equity and access.
By engaging with the broader educational community and policymakers, Vanderbilt can position itself as a leader in the national conversation on educational reform. Hosting conferences, workshops, and public forums on the implications of educational choice policies can further establish Vanderbilt as a hub for innovative educational thought and practice.

Relevance Score: 4 (The order presents the potential for major process changes required for Vanderbilt’s programs due to funding impacts and shifts in educational authority.)

Average Relevance Score: 3

Timeline for Implementation

N/A – The directive does not specify an implementation deadline; it only provides an issuance date.

Relevance Score: 1

Impacted Government Organizations

U.S. Department of Education: The Executive Order mandates that the Department of Education begin steps to shut down its operations and transfer authority over education back to parents, states, and communities.

Relevance Score: 1 (Only one Federal Agency is directly impacted by the order.)

Responsible Officials

Secretary of Education – Tasked with taking all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return education authority to the States.

Relevance Score: 5 (Impacts White House or Cabinet officials, as it directly directs a Cabinet member to implement significant changes to the federal education system.)