Review: Harris, Trump present two divergent education agendas
Harris-Walz ticket, while flawed, holds better public education prospects
BRYNN LEE
Visual Representation of the Electoral College, iStock 2024
With the education system and schooling barely mentioned during the final presidential debate on Sept. 10, many parents and educational equity advocates were left feeling blindsighted. As the presidential election comes up in November, all eyes have turned on the two candidates in this year’s election: Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.
Both candidates have shown deeply divergent visions for the future when asked their thoughts about the American education system. While Vice President Harris has shown to be a strong advocate for working class families in pursuit of education and supports efforts to implement equitable initiatives in order to make schooling affordable, former President Trump has raised concerns over his comments and commitment to closing down the Department of Education and the use of public funds to support private and charter schools. Former President Trump told Elon Musk in an interview on X that, if elected, “[he would] close up the Department of Education, move education back to the states”, drawing on material from Project 2025, a initiative from the Heritage Foundation, which initially drew criticism after going viral after their plans for a future dystopian Republican administration were published.
While former President Trump has made it clear he is trying to distance himself from Project 2025, he continues to push for decentralization and stronger parental influence on education. The Harris-Walz campaign have been strong advocates for the strengthening of the Department of Education, often citing inequity in some districts’ inability (and sometimes reluctance) to serve marginalized students and implement necessary federal regulation in education standards.
Bringing attention towards school choice and federal support of alternative schooling, the two candidates differ strongly on this matter. Democrats and Vice President Harris have sought to ensure socioeconomic equity in their goals by opposing the use of federal dollars into private, for profit institutions, stating that they "oppose the use of private-school vouchers, tuition tax credits, opportunity scholarships, and other schemes that divert taxpayer-funded resources away from public education. Public tax dollars should never be used to discriminate”. Harris and the Democratic Party raises the issue of school voucher programs and similar initiatives weakening the public school system by taking away resources and concentrating them in private or charter institutions, many of which are for-profit entities, disproportionately benefiting wealthier families who are better positioned to supplement the cost of private education, further exacerbating existing inequalities in the education system.
Because private schools are not bound by the same accountability standards as public schools, they are not required to serve all students, particularly those with disabilities or special needs and will often turn them away, citing that they do not have the resources and staff to support these students. Many private institutions, particularly religious schools, are not subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as public schools, meaning they may exclude students based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, or disabilities. By allowing public funds to flow into these institutions, the federal government supports practices that undermine the principles of equity and inclusion that are central to public education, further creating an inequitable education system where only privileged individuals will receive the full benefits of federal education dollars.
Vice President Harris has been particularly vocal in her defense of public education, framing it as a civil rights issue. She has pushed for more federal resources towards strengthening public schools, especially in low-income and underserved areas, where funding gaps are often most severe. In her broader vision for education reform, Harris has advocated for a more holistic approach that addresses not only funding inequities but also other structural barriers to educational success, such as teacher pay, class sizes, and access to early childhood education.
By contrast, proponents of school choice, including Donald Trump, argue that voucher programs and tax credits empower parents to choose the best educational options for their children, especially in cases where public schools are underperforming. In the Department of Education, a department many consider an overreach by the government as education is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, Trump and other supporters of school choice emphasize that traditional public schools often fail to meet the needs of all students, particularly in districts with chronically low-performing schools. For them, the rigid structure of the public school system, coupled with bureaucratic inefficiencies, leaves many families trapped in failing schools without alternatives. They believe school voucher programs can break this cycle by giving parents the financial means to choose from a multitude of education options, including private, religious, and charter schools that may offer different curriculum and structuring compared to public schools to better match their personal values.
Beyond the Department of Education and voucher programs, the two candidates clash over other federal education policies, Title IX in particular. The U.S. Department of Education, under the guidance of the Biden-Harris administration, has issued new regulations that broaden the scope of Title IX to protect LGBTQ+ students from discrimination. These regulations extend to issues such as bathroom and locker room access, pronoun use, and participation in school sports consistent with students' gender identity. In response to this, many conservative leaning states like Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, and Georgia have sued the Department of Education and these regulations have been unable to be enforced. Trump’s stance on this issue is consistent with his approach during his first term in office.
In 2016, the Obama administration issued guidance to schools, stating that students should be allowed to use the bathroom and locker room facilities that correspond with their gender identity. However, when Trump assumed office in early 2017, one of his administration’s first actions was to reverse this guidance, rolling back protections for transgender students. Trump’s decision was framed as an effort to return decision-making power to states and local school districts, allowing them to set their own policies on gender identity and bathroom access. However, this rollback left LGBTQ+ students vulnerable to discrimination and contributed to a hostile environment in schools. If re-elected, Trump has vowed to once again reverse these Title IX protections, just as he did in 2017 with the Obama-era guidance. Trump has stated that he would work to roll back the Biden-Harris administration's expanded interpretation of Title IX, restoring the previous interpretation that does not recognize gender identity as a protected category under the law. His campaign has framed this as part of a broader effort to protect “parental rights” and maintain what they describe as the traditional structure of school governance, where local and state authorities—not the federal government—have the primary say over school policies
Furthermore, the Democratic Party and the Harris-Walz campaign has drawn support from many working class families and women for their support of expansion and advocacy for early childhood development and childcare.
One aspect of this advocacy has been her push to expand the Child Tax Credit, a program that, during its brief pandemic-era expansion, was instrumental in dramatically reducing child poverty. The Child Tax Credit provided financial relief to millions of families, leading to a previously unseen decline in child poverty levels. Harris has proposed not only a continuation of this credit but additionally a larger amount of money, offering up to $6,000 for families with newborns for a year, acknowledging the financial strain on families during the critical early year of child development.
The Biden-Harris administration additionally made universal preschool a cornerstone of its education policy, advocating for free, high-quality preschool for all four-year-olds. While this initiative was initially championed by the administration, it faced significant resistance in Congress, leading to its exclusion from larger education legislation packages. Nevertheless, the proposal remains a key part of the Democratic platform for 2024, and Harris has continued to push for universal preschool as a necessary tool to level the playing field for children from historically lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Access to quality early childhood education has been shown to significantly impact a child's long-term academic success and social development, and Harris has emphasized that this investment in the youngest members of society is crucial for addressing systemic inequities.
Another early development program for early education is the Head Start program, a federally funded initiative that provides early childhood education, health, and nutrition services to children from low-income families. Serving children from birth to age five, Head Start has been a prominent federal program for early childhood education for decades, and the Biden-Harris administration has been a steadfast supporter of the program. In her speeches, including her address at the Democratic National Convention, Harris has repeatedly underscored the importance of Head Start in providing early learning opportunities for children who may not otherwise have access to quality care and education. She has promised to protect the program from potential cuts or eliminations, directly addressing concerns that a Trump administration would dismantle or defund it.
In addition to these sharp contrasts on early education, the two candidates also diverge significantly on the issue of book bans and the teaching of what some call “divisive concepts” in schools. Between July and Dec. 2023, PEN America recorded over 4,300 instances of school book bans across the United States, a dramatic increase from previous years. Many of these bans targeted books that addressed issues of race, racism, and LGBTQ+ themes, with 37% of the banned books featuring characters of color and 36% including LGBTQ+ characters or themes. Trump has been a vocal supporter of these efforts to restrict what is taught in schools, particularly when it comes to discussions of race and gender. During his presidency, Trump established the 1776 Commission, which was designed to promote a “patriotic education” that emphasized a positive interpretation of American history. The commission criticized what it described as a growing trend in schools to teach students to view the nation's founders and historical figures not as heroes, but as flawed or even villainous.
This stance has translated into tangible policy proposals. As part of his “Plan To Save American Education,” Trump has pledged to cut federal funding for any school or program that promotes Critical Race Theory, gender ideology, or other content that he and his supporters deem inappropriate for the classroom. While the logistics of enforcing such a policy are unclear, his words resonate with a significant portion of his supporters who believe that public schools have become too politicized and are teaching content that conflicts with traditional values. Several states with Republican leadership have already passed laws limiting how teachers can discuss issues related to race and gender in the classroom, creating a highly charged political environment surrounding education, a prominent example being AP African American History being banned from being taught in Florida schools.
Harris, in contrast, has been a vocal opponent of book bans and efforts to curtail the teaching of what she views as essential aspects of American history and identity. Speaking at a recent American Federation of Teachers event, Harris condemned the rising trend of book bans and the redaction of the United States’ history, describing them as an attack on students’ "freedom to learn" and an attempt to whitewash the country's history. She framed the issue as one of academic freedom and civil rights, arguing that students should have access to a full and truthful accounting of the nation’s past, including our struggles with racism, inequality, and injustice.
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump offer sharply divergent visions for the future of American education, with Harris and the Democratic Party focused on equity and inclusivity, while Trump pushes for decentralization and school choice. These proposals reflect the Democratic Party’s broad self-proclaimed commitment to addressing systemic inequities and providing every child, regardless of background, with the resources and skills for success—although Biden has not laid out a clear K-12 agenda through the course of his presidency as of yet. In contrast Trump has taken a more conservative stance on cultural issues in schools, including his opposition to expanded LGBTQ+ protections under Title IX, his support for book bans and restrictions on teaching about race and gender, and less federal involvement in education. Harris, along with the Democratic Party, frames education as a civil rights issue, advocating for policies that promote fairness and inclusion, while Trump's vision emphasizes traditional values and parental control, often at the expense of marginalized communities.
Harris and the Democratic Party’s vision for education prioritizes equity and inclusion, standing in stark contrast to Trump’s focus on parental control and traditional values. As the election nears, we must ask ourselves: Will we support a system that empowers all students, especially the most marginalized, or one that risks deepening inequality? It’s time to take a stand for the future of education—one that guarantees fairness, protection, and opportunity for every child and every family. What kind of schools, and ultimately, what kind of society do we want to build?
There is no universally right answer to what between both candidates but their vastly different views serve to stimulate a conversation where educational equity and an education system that supports diverse socioeconomic backgrounds can become prevalent topics at the forefront of every legislative agenda. Now is the time to prioritize educational equity more than ever—and youth are central to making this priority a reality.
Saphron Initiative staff and guest contributors often express their views in pieces on Edisco. These pieces do not constitute an organizational endorsement of the viewpoints within. Our goal is to encourage and uplift student voices while respecting diverse opinions. We encourage all readers to conduct further research and develop informed opinions on the issues discussed.
