Education Under Siege: The Far-Right’s Vision for Education Explained
How Project 2025’s Radical Proposals Could Reshape Public Education, Undermine Equity, and Spark a Federal-State Showdown Over Civil Rights
As a Special Education teacher at a Title 1 school in Los Angeles, I witness daily the critical role of federal programs and policies in supporting students from underprivileged and historically marginalised backgrounds. These programmes provide not only funding but also a framework for equity and inclusion that guides schools like mine in addressing the diverse needs of our students. However, the proposals outlined in Project 2025, a far-right policy roadmap for the next presidential administration, signal a dramatic shift in these priorities.
Project 2025 seeks to overhaul public education in ways that align closely with the campaign promises of former President Donald Trump and his MAGA movement. As I’ve discussed previously, the document proposes sweeping measures such as enacting universal school choice, phasing out Title 1 funding, reducing support for students with disabilities under IDEA, and even eliminating the U.S. Department of Education altogether. These proposals, paired with Trump’s public rhetoric about public schools and civil rights, reflect an agenda that prioritises privatisation, reduces federal oversight, and removes critical protections for marginalised students.
For educators in Title 1 schools, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Policies outlined in Project 2025 threaten to exacerbate existing inequities, leaving students like mine without the resources and protections they need to thrive. This alignment between Trump’s campaign promises and the policy recommendations of Project 2025 underscores the urgency of understanding and addressing the potential consequences of these proposed changes—not just for public education, but for the vulnerable populations it serves.
“Universal School Choice”
One of the cornerstone proposals of Project 2025 is the expansion of “universal school choice” through mechanisms like vouchers and Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). These measures are framed as tools to empower parents by providing funding that can be used toward private or religious school tuition, homeschooling expenses, or other educational options. Whilst proponents argue that such policies enhance parental control and foster competition among schools, their impact on public education is deeply concerning, particularly for Title 1 schools that serve low-income and marginalised students.
The diversion of public funds to private institutions would leave already underfunded public schools with even fewer resources, exacerbating disparities in teacher pay, classroom materials, and extracurricular programmes. For students who remain in public schools—often those with disabilities, English learners, and others requiring specialised support—this funding reduction would directly impact the quality of their education. Meanwhile, private and religious schools that benefit from these public funds are not bound by the same accountability standards or civil rights protections, potentially creating a two-tiered system where public schools shoulder the burden of compliance while private schools cherry-pick their student populations.
The implications for equity are especially alarming. ESAs and vouchers disproportionately benefit families that already have the means to supplement their child’s education, further widening the gap between privileged and underserved communities. For families in areas like Los Angeles, where public schools serve as a lifeline for vulnerable children, such policies represent a direct attack on access to equitable education.
It is worth noting that Lindsey M. Burke, the author of Project 2025’s education section, is an in-house researcher at the Heritage Foundation and an EdChoice Fellow (another pro-voucher ‘think tank’) with no teaching experience. Her recommendations are divorced from the lived realities of educators and students in public schools, reflecting ideological goals rather than practical, evidence-based solutions. This disconnect underscores the broader issues with Project 2025: policies crafted without input from those who understand the complexities of education are unlikely to serve the diverse needs of America’s students.
Elimination of Head Start
The elimination of the Head Start program, as proposed in Project 2025, represents a direct attack on one of the most crucial early childhood education initiatives for low-income families. Head Start has long been a lifeline for children from disadvantaged communities, providing not only foundational academic preparation but also nutritional support, healthcare services, and family engagement programmes. Despite its broad benefits, Project 2025 frames its termination as a cost-saving measure, arguing that its outcomes do not justify the expenditure. Such rhetoric not only misrepresents the programme’s value but also reveals a deeper agenda steeped in profit-driven metrics that have no place in education.
Unlike private charter schools (corporations), public schools are not meant to generate financial returns; they are essential public services designed to promote opportunity and social equity. Yet, the arguments used to undermine Head Start rely on metrics that prioritise short-term financial savings over long-term societal gains. These arguments are rooted in the values of the ruling class, which historically has sought to undermine social programmes that benefit the poor and marginalised. Such disdain has roots in the eugenics movement, where early assessments of education programmes often sought to devalue the lives and futures of the underprivileged, particularly children of colour, immigrants, and those with disabilities.
The consequences of eliminating Head Start would be devastating. Without access to early childhood education, children from low-income families face an even steeper uphill battle in their academic journeys. Research consistently shows that early intervention is critical for closing achievement gaps, improving high school graduation rates, and increasing social mobility (Barnett, 2011; Besharov et al., 2020; Walton et al., 2023). Stripping this support from vulnerable children not only perpetuates cycles of poverty but also signals a deliberate indifference to their potential.
Project 2025’s position on Head Start reflects a broader ideological aim to dismantle public services that empower the less fortunate, prioritising private interests over public good. By framing early education as expendable, it not only undermines equity but also weakens the social fabric that binds communities together.
‘Phasing Out’ Title I Funding
The gradual elimination of Title I funding, as outlined in Project 2025, targets one of the foundational supports for schools serving low-income students. Title I has been a vital resource, helping underfunded schools address disparities in teacher salaries, instructional materials, and interventions for struggling students given the way schools are funded in the US. However, Project 2025 proposes tying the remaining funding to results on standardised tests—tests that are neither designed with the needs of Title I students in mind nor structured to honour the full fidelity of Individualised Education Programs (IEPs). This approach not only fails to consider the diverse needs of these students but also sets schools up for failure by prioritising metrics over meaningful support.
Standardised testing has long been critiqued for its inability to capture the complexities of learning, particularly for students with disabilities and those in under-resourced schools. The rigid structures of these tests often conflict with the accommodations and modifications outlined in IEPs, effectively penalising schools for serving the students who need the most support. By tying funding to these flawed assessments, Project 2025 imposes impossible conditions on Title I schools, forcing them to meet benchmarks designed to favour wealthier, more resourced institutions. The resulting funding cuts disproportionately impact schools with the greatest need, exacerbating existing inequities.
For schools like mine, where many students rely on Title I funding for academic interventions, arts programmes, and even basic supplies, the proposed changes would be devastating. Without these resources, underfunded schools will struggle to attract and retain qualified teachers, provide critical services, or meet the diverse needs of their student populations. The achievement gap between affluent and low-income students, already substantial, would widen even further—an outcome that seems less like an oversight and more like the intended result of an agenda rooted in preserving privilege.
The recommendations in Project 2025 reflect a broader disregard for equity in education, prioritising punitive measures over support. By undermining Title I, these proposals reveal a vision of education that benefits the few at the expense of the many, perpetuating cycles of inequality and limiting opportunities for those who need them most.
Abolition of the U.S. Department of Education
“Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.” - pg. 319
The proposal to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, a central recommendation in Project 2025, reflects a broader far-right agenda to dismantle federal oversight of public education. This plan would redistribute the Department’s functions to other agencies or devolve them entirely to state control. Proponents argue this would reduce federal interference and empower local decision-making. However, the consequences of such a move would be profound, particularly for the oversight of educational standards and civil rights protections.
Federal oversight through the Department of Education ensures that all students, regardless of their zip code, have access to equitable educational opportunities. It is the federal government that enforces civil rights protections for students with disabilities, LGBTQ+ students, and students of colour, ensuring that states adhere to these requirements. Without the Department, these protections would be left to state discretion, leading to a patchwork of policies with significant variability in quality and inclusiveness. States with fewer resources or less commitment to equity could backslide on decades of progress, leaving vulnerable students at risk of discrimination and neglect.
This proposal aligns with the Heritage Foundation’s longstanding disdain for government departments, a hallmark of its mission to dismantle public institutions that challenge the interests of the capitalist ruling class. The Heritage Foundation, unlike neutral research bodies such as the Rand Corporation, was explicitly established to advance the agenda of capital over the common good (Tian, 2022; McLean & Robin, 2017; Thomson, 2020). Its role in shaping Project 2025 reflects a continuation of this mission, targeting public education as a battleground for ideological and economic dominance.
For educators and students in Title 1 schools, the implications of dissolving the Department of Education are dire. Federal programmes that provide funding, enforce accountability, and protect civil rights would be eroded or vanish entirely. Variability in educational quality across states would increase, disproportionately harming the most marginalised students. By removing federal oversight, this proposal prioritises local control over national equity, effectively abandoning millions of children to the whims of geography and politics. It underscores a vision of education that serves not the many but the privileged few, advancing the Heritage Foundation’s long-held goals at the expense of America’s students.
Undermining the Office for Civil Rights
The reduction or elimination of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) within the Department of Education, as proposed in Project 2025, represents a calculated attack on one of the most essential safeguards for equity in American education. The OCR is responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws that protect students from discrimination based on race, disability, sex, and LGBTQ+ status. By targeting this office, Project 2025 aims to undermine the very mechanisms that hold schools accountable for providing equitable treatment and opportunities for all students.
The far-right’s disdain for the civil rights movement and its legacy is no secret. From desegregation to protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, the pushback has been consistent and unapologetic. The proposed gutting of the OCR feels like a strategic fallback—if the Department of Education itself cannot be eliminated, its civil rights division can at least be rendered powerless. This is part of a broader effort to dismantle federal oversight that prevents discrimination, shifting the responsibility to states that may lack the political will or resources to enforce these protections.
Without the OCR, there would be no federal authority to investigate or resolve complaints of discrimination in schools. Students who face barriers due to race, disability, or identity would have little recourse, particularly in states with regressive policies. The result would be an increase in unchecked discrimination, further marginalising vulnerable students and widening disparities in educational outcomes.
For schools like mine, which serve diverse and often underrepresented populations, the loss of the OCR’s oversight would be catastrophic. It would erode trust in the education system and leave countless students without the protections they need to learn in a safe and inclusive environment. The OCR is not merely a bureaucratic entity—it is a critical force ensuring that education remains a civil right rather than a privilege.
By targeting the OCR, Project 2025 underscores its broader agenda of dismantling equity and inclusion in public education. This is not about improving schools or empowering states; it is about rolling back decades of progress in the fight for civil rights, returning to a system where marginalised students are left to fend for themselves.
Reducing Funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
The proposal to reduce federal funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as outlined in Project 2025, signals a stark disregard for the rights and needs of students with disabilities. IDEA is the cornerstone of special education in the United States, ensuring that all children, regardless of ability, receive a free and appropriate public education. Cutting its funding would undermine the ability of schools to provide critical resources, accommodations, and specialised instruction for students with disabilities, further marginalising one of the most vulnerable student populations.
This proposal aligns disturbingly well with the far-right’s historical roots in the eugenics movement, or what many have called scientific racism. The eugenics movement sought to categorise and control human worth based on perceived genetic fitness, dismissing entire groups of people, including individuals with disabilities, as unworthy of societal support. Reducing IDEA funding is a modern extension of this ideology, subtly eroding the structures that protect students with disabilities whilst privileging profit-driven interests. By removing enforcement mechanisms and tying federal support to minimal funding levels, private charter corporations—many of which already struggle to meet IDEA requirements—could more easily sidestep their obligations to serve students with disabilities.
For educators in Title 1 schools like mine, IDEA funding is essential to delivering the support our students need, from one-on-one aides and specialised equipment to speech therapy and adaptive learning programmes. A reduction in federal funding, or a repackaging of the funds into block grants disbursed via multiple agencies, would create cascading challenges, forcing schools to add staff to manage this confusing mess of funding sources, stretch already-thin budgets. The legal and ethical implications of such a move are profound, as it directly undermines the principles of equity and access enshrined in IDEA, leaving families to fight for services their children are entitled to by law.
Beyond the immediate logistical and financial challenges, this proposal carries a darker undercurrent. By stripping away funding and enforcement mechanisms, it weakens public education’s ability to serve all students whilst enabling private charters to sidestep their responsibilities. The result is a system that marginalises students with disabilities, treating their needs as optional rather than fundamental. In targeting IDEA, Project 2025 lays bare its commitment to dismantling equity in education, prioritising profits and ideology over the rights and futures of children.
Eliminating Federal Funding for Schools with Vaccine Mandates
The proposal to eliminate federal funding for schools that enforce vaccine mandates, as outlined in Project 2025, is a dangerous nod to the anti-vaccine movement, prioritising ideological pandering over public health. Schools have long played a critical role in disease prevention, requiring vaccinations to protect not just individual students but entire communities from outbreaks of preventable diseases. By tying federal funding to the absence of vaccine mandates, this proposal directly undermines the ability of schools to safeguard public health whilst exacerbating existing inequities in education.
Vaccination requirements are grounded in decades of scientific evidence demonstrating their effectiveness in controlling the spread of infectious diseases. Removing federal support from schools that enforce these mandates would deter schools from implementing basic public health measures, exposing students, teachers, and families to greater health risks. The implications extend beyond health—schools already struggling with limited budgets, particularly Title 1 institutions serving low-income populations, would face additional financial strain, further marginalising the communities that can least afford it.
The legal and ethical implications of this policy are equally troubling. Vaccination requirements are not new; they have been upheld as necessary public health measures to protect the common good. This proposal not only disregards those precedents but also weaponises federal funding to coerce schools into abandoning a critical layer of protection for their students. The result is a policy that prioritises ideological purity over the safety and well-being of children.
This proposal is nothing short of the anti-vax movement’s dream, transforming a fringe conspiracy into federal policy. By undermining vaccine mandates, Project 2025 puts children, educators, and communities at risk, all while diverting attention and resources from the pressing needs of public education. It represents yet another instance where ideology is prioritised over evidence, and the health and safety of students are treated as expendable.
Cultural and Curriculum Attacks
The attacks on cultural and curriculum content outlined in Project 2025 reflect a far-right effort to censor educational materials that address race, gender, and sexuality. By criticising and removing content deemed “controversial,” the proposals aim to reshape public education to align with a neocolonial and cis white male-dominated narrative of history. This agenda targets not only curricula but also the educators and librarians who advocate for inclusive learning environments, casting them as threats rather than stewards of comprehensive education.
Such policies undermine academic freedom, which is essential for fostering critical thinking and exposing students to diverse perspectives. By censoring subjects like ethnic studies and gender studies, these proposals strip away opportunities for students to understand the complexities of history, culture, and identity. The result is an education system that reinforces a singular, exclusionary worldview, leaving students ill-equipped to engage in an increasingly diverse and interconnected society.
The impact on marginalised students is particularly alarming. When curricula omit or vilify their identities, these students are sent a clear message: their histories and experiences are not valued. This erasure exacerbates feelings of isolation and exclusion, contributing to disparities in educational outcomes and mental health. Inclusive curricula, on the other hand, empower all students by fostering a sense of belonging and encouraging empathy.
These attacks are not new. The far-right has long opposed programmes that challenge dominant power structures, seeing them as threats to a narrative that prioritises white, cisgender, and male experiences. Project 2025 takes this opposition to an extreme, institutionalising censorship as a tool to maintain control over public education.
In targeting educators, librarians, and inclusive curricula, these proposals prioritise ideology over education. They seek to suppress knowledge and perspectives that challenge neocolonial worldviews, undermining the fundamental purpose of education: to prepare students to think critically and engage with the world as informed citizens.
Final thoughts …
The proposed educational policies outlined in Project 2025 represent a fundamental shift in the priorities of public education, favouring ideology and profit over equity and inclusion. From dismantling the Department of Education and undermining civil rights protections to cutting funding for special education and censoring curricula, these measures collectively attack the foundational principles of access and opportunity in education. The depth of these proposals necessitates thorough analysis, as their consequences will ripple across classrooms, communities, and the nation’s future.
At their core, these policies seek to privilege the already advantaged whilst stripping resources and protections from the most vulnerable students. They ignore the critical role of public education as a tool for social mobility and cohesion, instead treating it as a battleground for enforcing ideological purity. For states like California, where equity and inclusion are enshrined in laws protecting LGBTQ+ students, supporting ethnic studies as a high school graduation requirement, and requiring adherence to IDEA, the stage is set for a constitutional clash. Federal overreach in education policy could lead to lawsuits that ultimately test the limits of state versus federal supremacy in the Supreme Court, with profound implications for the future of education governance.
This showdown will determine whether public education remains a public good, accessible to all, or becomes a fragmented system serving the interests of a privileged few. The stakes could not be higher, not just for students and educators, but for the very fabric of American society. The path chosen will shape not only the next generation of learners but also the values we uphold as a nation.