Podcasts about secondary education act

On this week's Education Gadfly Show podcast, Anne Hyslop, Director of Policy Development at All4Ed, joins Mike and David to discuss the evolving federal role in K–12 education—particularly how the Secretary of Education's waiver authority may—and may not--impact state flexibility on spending and testing under ESSA (the current iteration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act). Then, on the Research Minute, Amber reviews a new study out of Massachusetts that examines whether students in departmentalized elementary schools perform better in middle school.Recommended content: Anne Hyslop and Dave Powell, ESEA Waivers 101: Explaining the Secretary of Education's Waiver Authority, All4Ed and Education First (2025)Dale Chu, “Waiver and out: How red states plan to push the limits of federal ed policy,” Thomas B. Fordham Institute (April 3, 2025).Andy Smarick, “Trump needs to call Lamar,” Thomas B. Fordham Institute (March 20, 2025).Benjamin Backes, James Cowan, Dan Goldhaber, Building Bridges to Middle School? Elementary School Departmentalization and Academic Achievement in the Upper Grades, CALDER (2025)Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our podcast? Send them to Stephanie Distler at sdistler@fordhaminstitute.org.  

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a comprehensive policy initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a set of policy proposals – it is a radical blueprint for reshaping the very fabric of American governance.Project 2025 is the latest in a series of "Mandate for Leadership" documents, a tradition that began with Ronald Reagan's first presidential candidacy in 1981. This 920-page manifesto is the work of over 400 conservative scholars and aims to provide a detailed policy agenda for a potential incoming Republican administration. The project's scope is vast, covering everything from education and environmental policies to media and technology regulations, and even the structure of federal agencies themselves.One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its vision for education. The initiative calls for a significant reduction in the federal government's role in education, advocating for the closure of the Department of Education and transferring its responsibilities to the states. This includes administering programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) through the Department of Health and Human Services instead. The federal government, according to Project 2025, should be limited to a statistics-keeping role, with federal enforcement of civil rights in schools curtailed and transferred to the Department of Justice[1].The implications are profound. For instance, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provides $18 billion in federal funds for schools in low-income areas, would be allowed to expire. Public funds for education would be redirected as school vouchers, available even for private or religious schools, with no strings attached. This shift would likely exacerbate existing inequalities in education, as schools in disadvantaged areas would lose critical funding. Additionally, programs like the Head Start early education initiative, which serves over 1 million children, would be eliminated, a move criticized for lacking any evidence of the program's ineffectiveness[1][5].Environmental policies are another area where Project 2025 proposes sweeping changes. The initiative advocates for downsizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), closing its Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, and reversing the 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health. This would prevent the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, a move that aligns with the project's broader skepticism towards climate change research. The project even suggests incentives for the public to challenge climatology research, reflecting a stark divergence from the scientific consensus on climate change[1].The project's stance on climate change is not isolated; it is part of a broader agenda to promote fossil fuels and undermine renewable energy initiatives. Project 2025 recommends preventing states from adopting stricter regulations on vehicular emissions, relaxing restrictions on oil drilling, and encouraging Arctic drilling. These proposals are at odds with the views of many Republicans who acknowledge the importance of addressing climate change, highlighting a deep internal divide within the party[1].In the realm of media and technology, Project 2025's proposals are equally contentious. The initiative seeks to weaken the independence of public media by potentially revoking the broadcast licenses of channels critical of the administration. This could be achieved through an FCC controlled by the president, in conjunction with the DOJ and FTC, launching antitrust investigations into media companies that report negatively about the administration. This approach is seen as a threat to the First Amendment and the traditional role of the media as a check on executive power[2][4].The project also outlines significant reforms to federal agencies and emergency response mechanisms. For example, it proposes reforming FEMA's emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities. This includes ending preparedness grants for states and localities, a move that critics argue would leave these entities ill-prepared for disasters. Trump's recent actions, such as establishing a review council to advise on FEMA's capabilities, align with these proposals, suggesting a potential shift towards state-level disaster management[3].Project 2025's vision for the federal workforce is another critical aspect. The initiative recommends a hiring freeze and the reduction of the federal workforce, measures that have been attempted by previous administrations but with limited success. The project suggests a freeze on all top career-position hiring to prevent "burrowing-in" by outgoing political appointees, a tactic aimed at ensuring a loyal and aligned bureaucracy[3][4].The project's broader implications for American governance are far-reaching. Critics argue that Project 2025 is a blueprint for an authoritarian takeover, designed to dismantle the system of checks and balances and concentrate power in the executive branch. This would involve redefining personal autonomy and freedom, potentially harming marginalized communities and undermining democratic institutions. The project's proposals to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, restrict access to healthcare and education, and cut social safety nets further exacerbate these concerns[4].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it is clear that this initiative represents a fundamental challenge to the existing order of American governance. The project's backers see it as a necessary corrective to what they perceive as a bloated and overreaching federal government, while critics view it as a dangerous erosion of democratic norms and civil liberties.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's policies would depend on a variety of factors, including the outcome of future elections and the willingness of Congress to enact these proposals. However, the mere existence of this blueprint serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing debates about the role of government in American society. As the country navigates these complex issues, it is imperative that all stakeholders engage in a thoughtful and informed discussion about the future of American governance and the values that underpin it.In the words of Sarah E. Hunt, president of the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, "The Inflation Reduction Act is crucial," and "Republicans need to engage in supporting good energy and climate policy." Such voices highlight the internal conflicts within the conservative movement and the need for a balanced approach to policy-making.As Project 2025 continues to shape the policy landscape, it remains to be seen how its proposals will be received and implemented. One thing is certain, however: the future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the choices made now will have lasting implications for generations to come.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a comprehensive and contentious initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it's a vision for a fundamentally transformed American governance.Project 2025 is the culmination of efforts by over 400 scholars and conservative groups, led by former Trump administration officials Paul Dans and Spencer Chretien. This 900-page manifesto outlines a sweeping overhaul of federal policies, aiming to reshape the government in line with conservative principles. The project is structured around four key pillars: a detailed policy guide, a database of potential personnel, a training program for these candidates, and a playbook for actions to be taken within the first 180 days of a new administration[2][4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its approach to education. The initiative criticizes what it terms "woke propaganda" in public schools and advocates for a significant reduction in the federal government's role in education. This includes closing the Department of Education and transferring its responsibilities to the states. Programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) would be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Center for Education Statistics would become part of the Census Bureau. The federal government, according to Project 2025, should merely keep statistics, rather than enforcing civil rights in schools or investigating disparate impacts of disciplinary measures on racial or ethnic grounds[1].The project also proposes drastic changes in education funding. It suggests allowing Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to expire, which would remove $18 billion in federal funds for schools in low-income areas. Instead, public funds would be available as school vouchers, even for parents sending their children to private or religious schools. This shift is part of a broader philosophy that views education as a private rather than a public good[1].In the realm of environmental policy, Project 2025's vision is equally radical. It seeks to downsize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), close the EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, and reverse the 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health. This would prevent the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The project also advocates for blocking the expansion of the national electrical grid, stymying the transition to renewable energy, and relaxing regulations on the fossil fuel industry. For instance, it suggests removing restrictions on oil drilling imposed by the Bureau of Land Management and promoting Arctic drilling[1].The implications of these environmental policies are far-reaching. Nonpartisan experts warn that without expanding the electrical grid, renewable energy projects will have to slow down. Additionally, the project's stance on climate change mitigation is at odds with many Republicans who acknowledge the importance of addressing climate change. Benji Backer, founder of the American Conservation Coalition, has criticized Project 2025's climate policies as "wrongheaded" and noted a growing consensus among younger Republicans that human activity causes climate change[1].Project 2025 also targets other federal agencies and programs. It proposes reforming the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by shifting the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities. This move is justified by the argument that FEMA is "overtasked" and "overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response." The project further suggests ending preparedness grants for states and localities, arguing that these grants should be terminated to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from "handing out federal tax dollars"[3].In the area of technology and media, Project 2025's recommendations are equally sweeping. It calls for increasing agency accountability while decreasing wasteful spending at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The project also advocates for promoting national security and economic prosperity by supporting the expansion of 5G networks and satellite technologies like StarLink. Additionally, it suggests that Big Tech companies should contribute to the Universal Service Fund, which is currently funded through telephone bills[4].The project's approach to civil rights and social policies is another contentious area. It proposes rolling back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs across federal agencies, arguing that these policies can violate federal civil rights laws. Project 2025 also aims to dismantle the DEI apparatus in various agencies and eliminate terms like "DEI," "abortion," and "gender equality" from federal rules and regulations. This stance aligns with Trump's executive order ending all DEI programs within the federal government, which he claimed could shut out Americans "who deserve a shot at the American dream" due to their race or sex[3].Critics of Project 2025, including Democrats and some Republicans, have been vocal about its potential impacts. Vice President Kamala Harris has described the project as a plan to "return America to a dark past," and President Biden has accused Trump of lying about his connections to the initiative, stating that it "should scare every single American"[2].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the initiative's connections to his administration are undeniable. Former high-ranking officials like Ben Carson, John Ratcliffe, and Peter Navarro are listed as authors or contributors to the policy agenda. This close association has led critics to argue that Project 2025 is essentially a blueprint for a second Trump term, one that could endanger democratic institutions and concentrate presidential power[2][4].As the 2024 elections approach, Project 2025 stands as a significant milestone in the debate over the future of American governance. Its proposals, if implemented, would mark a profound shift in federal policies, from education and environmental regulation to technology and civil rights. Whether these changes would be beneficial or detrimental remains a subject of intense debate.In the words of Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, the nation is "in the process of the second American Revolution," which he hopes will remain bloodless. However, the radical nature of Project 2025's proposals has raised concerns among many that this revolution could come at a steep cost to democratic values and social welfare[2].As we move forward, the fate of Project 2025 will likely be decided in the political arena. Will its vision for a more conservative, decentralized government prevail, or will it face significant resistance from those who see it as a threat to the fabric of American society? The answer will depend on the choices made by voters, policymakers, and the next administration. One thing is certain, however: Project 2025 has set the stage for a critical conversation about the future of America, one that will shape the country's trajectory for years to come.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a comprehensive and contentious initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it's a vision for a fundamentally transformed American governance.Project 2025 is the culmination of efforts by over 400 scholars and conservative groups, led by former Trump administration officials such as Paul Dans and Spencer Chretien. This 900-page manifesto outlines a sweeping overhaul of federal policies, aiming to reshape the government in line with conservative principles. The project is structured around four key pillars: a detailed policy guide, a database of potential personnel, a training program for these candidates, and a playbook for actions to be taken within the first 180 days of a new administration[2][4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its approach to education. The initiative criticizes what it terms "woke propaganda" in public schools, advocating for a significant reduction in the federal government's role in education. This includes closing the Department of Education and transferring control over education funding and policy to the states. The proposal also suggests that programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, and that the National Center for Education Statistics become part of the Census Bureau. The federal government, according to Project 2025, should be limited to a statistics-keeping role in education, with federal enforcement of civil rights in schools curtailed and transferred to the Department of Justice[1].The implications of these changes are profound. For instance, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provides $18 billion in federal funds for schools in low-income areas, would be allowed to expire. Instead, public funds would be available as school vouchers, even for parents sending their children to private or religious schools. This shift could drastically alter the educational landscape, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities. As Roger Severino, a proponent of the project, has argued, the Head Start program, which serves over a million children from low-income families, does not provide value, although he has not provided evidence to support this claim[1].Project 2025's vision extends far beyond education. In the realm of environmental policy, the initiative is starkly at odds with current climate change mitigation efforts. It advocates for downsizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), closing the EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, and reversing the 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health. This would prevent the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The project also supports the expansion of fossil fuel use, including Arctic drilling, and encourages allied nations to rely on fossil fuels. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, has suggested that the EPA should support increased consumption of natural gas, despite concerns about methane leaks[1].These environmental proposals have been met with significant criticism. Republican climate advocates, such as Sarah E. Hunt and Benji Backer, have disagreed with Project 2025's climate policies, emphasizing the importance of supporting good energy and climate policy. Backer noted a growing consensus among younger Republicans that human activity causes climate change, calling Project 2025's stance "wrongheaded"[1].The project's impact on federal agencies is another critical area of focus. Project 2025 recommends reforming the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by shifting the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities. This aligns with Trump's past suggestions to leave disaster response management to the states, arguing that "that's what states are for, to take care of problems"[3].In addition, the initiative calls for the dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs across federal agencies. Trump has echoed this sentiment, signing an executive order to end all DEI programs within the federal government, claiming they can violate federal civil rights laws. Project 2025 goes further, advocating for the deletion of terms like DEI, abortion, and gender equality from all federal rules and regulations[3].The project also targets the civil service and the bureaucracy of the "Administrative State." It proposes a hiring freeze for federal civilian employees and suggests preventing "burrowing-in" by outgoing political appointees. This is part of a broader strategy to reduce the size of the federal workforce and bring independent agencies under White House control[4].Critics of Project 2025 argue that its recommendations are not only radical but also risky, potentially endangering democratic institutions and civil liberties. The initiative's approach to data collection, for example, involves consolidating the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Census Bureau, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, which could significantly impact the independence and reliability of economic data[5].The economic implications are equally concerning. Project 2025 proposes eliminating funding for key public transportation projects, such as the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program, which has been crucial for awarding federal grants to local communities for infrastructure projects. This could make it harder for Americans without cars to commute and travel, affecting their ability to work and maintain social connections[5].Moreover, the project aims to restrict safety nets for farmers, limiting assistance to 'unusual situations' despite the common challenges farmers face due to unpredictable weather and market conditions. This could disproportionately impact low-income farmers who rely on these safety nets to survive economic downturns[5].As we look ahead, it is clear that Project 2025 represents a significant turning point in American governance. The initiative's comprehensive and far-reaching proposals have the potential to reshape numerous aspects of federal policy, from education and environmental regulation to civil service and economic development.Despite Trump's attempts to distance himself from the project, the connections between his policies and those of Project 2025 are undeniable. As Democrats continue to criticize the initiative, calling it a "plan to return America to a dark past," the debate surrounding Project 2025 is likely to intensify in the coming months[2].As the 2025 presidential transition approaches, the implementation of Project 2025's policies will depend on the outcome of the election and the willingness of the next administration to adopt these radical changes. Whether these proposals will become the blueprint for a new era in American governance remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the stakes are high, and the future of American policy hangs in the balance.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, I couldn't help but feel a sense of both fascination and alarm. This sprawling initiative, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and involving a myriad of conservative groups and former Trump administration officials, is nothing short of a blueprint for a radical transformation of the U.S. federal government.At its core, Project 2025 is a 900-page manifesto that outlines a vision for a second Trump presidency, one that would usher in sweeping changes across various federal agencies and policy domains. The project is divided into four key pillars: a comprehensive policy guide, a database of potential personnel, a training program for these candidates, and a detailed playbook for the first 180 days in office[3].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its ambition to consolidate executive power. The plan advocates for placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This is rooted in a controversial interpretation of the unitary executive theory, which aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House. As Kevin Roberts, a key figure in the project, put it, "all federal employees should answer to the president"[1].The project's impact on federal agencies is profound. For instance, it proposes dismantling or abolishing several key departments, including the Department of Education and the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Education, in particular, would see its role significantly reduced, with control over education funding and policy transferred to the states. This would include closing the Department of Education and shifting programs under the Individuals with Disabilities' Education Act (IDEA) to the Department of Health and Human Services[1][2].In the realm of education, Project 2025 envisions a future where federal involvement is minimal. It suggests allowing Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to expire, thereby removing $18 billion in federal funds for schools in low-income areas. Instead, public funds would be available as school vouchers, even for parents sending their children to private or religious schools. The Head Start program, which provides essential services to children of low-income families, would be ended, with critics like Roger Severino arguing it does not provide value, though without providing evidence[1][2].The project's stance on environmental policy is equally contentious. It seeks to reverse a 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health, preventing the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights would be closed, and the agency would be barred from using private health data to determine the effects of pollution. The expansion of the national electrical grid would be blocked, and funding for renewable energy projects would be curtailed. Instead, the project advocates for the development of vast oil, gas, and coal resources, including Arctic drilling[1].Project 2025 also has a clear agenda on social issues. It proposes criminalizing pornography, removing legal protections against anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, and ending diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The DOJ would be tasked with prosecuting what the project terms "anti-white racism," and affirmative action programs would be targeted as violating federal law. Gene Hamilton, a former Trump DOJ official, argued that advancing the interests of certain segments of American society "comes at the expense of other Americans—and in nearly all cases violates longstanding federal law"[1].The project's approach to law enforcement is another area of significant change. The DOJ, described as a "bloated bureaucracy" infatuated with a "radical liberal agenda," would be thoroughly reformed and closely overseen by the White House. The director of the FBI would be personally accountable to the president, and consent decrees between the DOJ and local police departments would be curtailed. Capital punishment would be promoted for "particularly heinous crimes" like pedophilia, and the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service would be authorized to enforce the law in the District of Columbia, which the project describes as "infested with crime"[1].In terms of economic policy, Project 2025 advocates for a flat income tax on individuals, reducing taxes on corporations and capital gains, and cutting Medicare and Medicaid. It suggests merging several statistical agencies, including the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, into a single organization aligned with conservative principles. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would be abolished, and the role of the National Labor Relations Board would be significantly reduced[1].Despite its comprehensive nature, Project 2025 has faced significant criticism and public opposition. Many see it as a dangerous plan to expand presidential power and gut the system of checks and balances. The American public, according to various polls, is largely united in their disapproval of the project's proposals[2].Donald Trump, despite his administration's deep ties to the project, has attempted to distance himself from it. In a social media post, he claimed, "I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal." However, the involvement of former Trump officials and the alignment of the project's proposals with Trump's past policies and current campaign promises suggest a closer connection than he admits[3].As we look to the future, the implications of Project 2025 are far-reaching and profound. If implemented, these policies could fundamentally alter the fabric of American governance, impacting everything from education and environmental protection to law enforcement and economic policy. With Trump's second term underway, the next few months will be crucial in determining how many of these proposals become reality.In the words of Sarah E. Hunt, president of the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, "The Inflation Reduction Act is crucial, and it is vital that Republicans engage in supporting good energy and climate policy." Her sentiments reflect a broader concern among many Americans: that Project 2025's vision for the future may be at odds with the nation's long-term well-being and the principles of democratic governance[1].As the nation navigates this complex and contentious landscape, one thing is clear: Project 2025 represents a pivotal moment in American politics, one that will shape the course of the country for years to come. Whether its ambitious plans will be realized remains to be seen, but the debate it has sparked is undeniable—a testament to the enduring power of ideas and the unyielding spirit of public discourse.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, I couldn't help but feel a sense of both fascination and alarm. This sprawling initiative, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and crafted by a cadre of former Trump administration officials, lays out a vision for a radically reshaped federal government that is as ambitious as it is contentious.At its core, Project 2025 is a 900-page blueprint designed to guide the next conservative presidential administration, with a particular focus on the second term of Donald Trump. The project is built around four key pillars: a comprehensive policy guide, a database of potential personnel, a training program for these candidates, and a detailed playbook for the first 180 days in office[4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to consolidate executive power and reshape the federal bureaucracy in the image of conservative ideology. The plan calls for the replacement of merit-based federal civil service workers with individuals loyal to Trump, effectively politicizing key government agencies such as the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce, and the Federal Trade Commission. This move is part of a broader strategy to centralize control over the government, aligning with the unitary executive theory that advocates for greater presidential control over the executive branch[1].The implications of such a shift are profound. For instance, the Department of Justice, under Project 2025, would be thoroughly reformed to combat what the project terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and would be tasked with prosecuting state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Gene Hamilton, a former Trump DOJ official, argues that these programs "come at the expense of other Americans—and in nearly all cases violate longstanding federal law"[1].Education is another area where Project 2025 proposes sweeping changes. The plan envisions a significant reduction in the federal government's role in public education, advocating for the closure of the Department of Education and the transfer of education funding and policy to the states. This would include ending federal enforcement of civil rights in schools and allowing public funds to be used as school vouchers for private or religious schools. The National Center for Education Statistics would be merged with the Census Bureau, and programs like Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provides $18 billion in federal funds for schools in low-income areas, would be allowed to expire[1][3].The project's stance on education is encapsulated in its criticism of what it calls "woke propaganda" in public schools. It argues that federal overreach has led schools to prioritize "racial parity in school discipline indicators" over student safety. This perspective is reflected in the project's recommendation to end the Head Start program and cut funding for free school meals, with proponents like Roger Severino claiming that such programs do not provide value, though he has not provided evidence to support these claims[1].Environmental policy is another critical area where Project 2025's vision diverges sharply from current trends. The project advocates for the reversal of several key environmental regulations, including the 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health. It proposes preventing the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions and blocking the expansion of the national electrical grid, thereby stymying the transition to renewable energy. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, suggests that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the increased leakage of methane, a potent greenhouse gas[1].These environmental proposals have been met with strong criticism from Republican climate advocates. Sarah E. Hunt, president of the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, and U.S. Senator John Curtis have emphasized the importance of supporting good energy and climate policy, contrasting sharply with Project 2025's stance. Benji Backer, founder of the American Conservation Coalition, has noted a growing consensus among younger Republicans that human activity causes climate change, calling Project 2025's climate policy "wrongheaded"[1].The project's approach to law enforcement is equally contentious. It suggests that the Department of Justice has become a "bloated bureaucracy" infatuated with a "radical liberal agenda" and recommends that the DOJ be thoroughly reformed and closely overseen by the White House. The plan also proposes that the director of the FBI be personally accountable to the president, and that legal settlements between the DOJ and local police departments, known as consent decrees, be curtailed[1].In addition to these reforms, Project 2025 advocates for a more aggressive stance on immigration, recommending the arrest, detention, and mass deportation of illegal immigrants, as well as the deployment of the military for domestic law enforcement. It also proposes enacting laws supported by the Christian right, such as criminalizing the sending and receiving of abortion and birth control medications, and eliminating coverage of emergency contraception[1].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the initiative's proposals align closely with his past policies and current campaign promises. In a social media post, Trump claimed, "I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal." However, a line-by-line review by CBS News identified at least 270 proposals in Project 2025 that match Trump's policies[4].The project's impact on American governance could be profound. By centralizing executive power, dismantling federal agencies, and implementing a wide range of conservative policies, Project 2025 aims to reshape the very fabric of the federal government. As Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation put it, "The nation is in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." This rhetoric underscores the project's ambition and the potential for significant political and social upheaval[4].As we move forward, it is clear that Project 2025 will remain a contentious and influential force in American politics. With Trump's second term underway, many of the project's architects and supporters have been nominated to key positions in his administration. The coming months will be crucial in determining how many of these proposals are implemented and what their long-term effects will be on the country.In the words of the National Education Association, "The American public is united: The 900+ page blueprint for another Trump presidency... would be disastrous for the nation." Whether this prediction holds true remains to be seen, but one thing is certain – Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in the political landscape, one that will have far-reaching consequences for the future of American governance[3].

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sprawling initiative crafted by former Trump administration officials and the conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it's a vision for a radical restructuring of the U.S. federal government.Project 2025 is encapsulated in a 900-page manual titled "Mandate For Leadership," which outlines a comprehensive plan to reorganize every federal agency to align with conservative principles. This project is not just about policy tweaks; it's about transforming the very fabric of American governance. The Heritage Foundation's President, Kevin Roberts, has described their role as "institutionalizing Trumpism," a notion that underscores the deep connections between this project and the former Trump administration[1][4][5].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its ambition to consolidate executive power. The initiative advocates for placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This centralization is rooted in a controversial interpretation of the unitary executive theory, which aims to give the president unprecedented control over the government. As Kevin Roberts put it, "all federal employees should answer to the president"[2][3].The project's impact on federal agencies is far-reaching. For instance, it proposes merging the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics into a single entity, with a mission aligned with conservative principles. It also recommends abolishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is responsible for enforcing antitrust laws. The National Labor Relations Board, crucial for protecting employees' rights to organize, would see its role significantly diminished[2].In the realm of education, Project 2025 envisions a drastic reduction in the federal government's role. It suggests closing the Department of Education and transferring control over education funding and policy to the states. Federal enforcement of civil rights in schools would be curtailed, and programs like the Individuals with Disabilities' Education Act (IDEA) would be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. The project also advocates for the expiration of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provides $18 billion in federal funds for schools in low-income areas. Instead, public funds would be available as school vouchers, even for private or religious schools[2].The environment is another area where Project 2025's proposals are particularly contentious. The initiative seeks to downsize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), close its Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, and reverse a 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health. This would prevent the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The project also supports the expansion of fossil fuel use, including Arctic drilling, and advocates for preventing states from adopting stricter regulations on vehicular emissions. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, has suggested that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns about methane leaks[2].Project 2025's stance on climate change is starkly at odds with the views of many Republicans, including younger conservatives who acknowledge human activity's role in climate change. Benji Backer, founder of the American Conservation Coalition, has called the project's climate policies "wrongheaded," highlighting a growing consensus among younger Republicans that climate action is essential[2].The project's approach to law enforcement is equally transformative. It views the DOJ as a "bloated bureaucracy" that has "forfeited the trust" of the American people, particularly due to its role in investigating alleged Trump-Russia collusion. The DOJ's Civil Rights Division would be reformed to combat what the project terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and would prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. This shift aligns with the views of former Trump DOJ official Gene Hamilton, who argues that advancing certain segments of society comes at the expense of others and violates federal law[2].In the media and communications sector, Project 2025 proposes significant changes. It suggests defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR, and revoking NPR stations' noncommercial status. This could force NPR to relocate from its current FM dial range, making way for religious programming. The project also advocates for more media consolidation and proposes legislation to prevent social media companies from removing "core political viewpoints" from their platforms[2].The implications of these proposals are profound. If implemented, they would fundamentally alter the balance of power within the federal government, potentially undermining the system of checks and balances that is a cornerstone of American democracy. As the American Progress article notes, Project 2025 "would destroy the U.S. system of checks and balances and create an imperial presidency"[3].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the alignment between his policies and the project's proposals is striking. CBS News analysis has identified over 270 proposals in the project's blueprint that match Trump's past policies and current campaign promises. Paul Dans, the former director of Project 2025, has praised Trump's actions as "home runs" that reflect the initiative's efforts and the readiness of the conservative movement[4][5].As we look ahead, the fate of Project 2025 will likely be decided in the coming months and years. With its comprehensive and far-reaching proposals, this initiative represents a critical juncture in American governance. Whether it succeeds in reshaping the federal government or is met with significant resistance will depend on the political landscape and the will of the American people.In the words of Kevin Roberts, "the nation is in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." This statement encapsulates the project's ambition and the stakes involved. As we navigate this complex and contentious terrain, it is clear that Project 2025 is not just a policy initiative – it is a battle for the future of American democracy.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, I found myself navigating a complex web of policy proposals, ideological convictions, and far-reaching ambitions that could significantly reshape the federal government of the United States.Project 2025, formally known as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, is more than just a blueprint; it is a comprehensive plan designed to guide the next Republican president in implementing a sweeping overhaul of the federal government. Led by former Trump administration officials Paul Dans and Spencer Chretien, this project is the ninth iteration of the Heritage Foundation's Mandate for Leadership series, which has been published since 1981[2].At its core, Project 2025 is built around four key pillars: a detailed policy guide, a database of potential personnel for the next administration, a training program for these candidates, and a playbook outlining actions to be taken within the first 180 days in office. This structure is intended to ensure a smooth transition and the swift implementation of conservative policies, should a Republican president be elected in 2024[1].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its interpretation of the unitary executive theory, which posits that the entire executive branch should be under the direct control of the U.S. president. This vision is controversial, as it seeks to centralize power in the White House and eliminate the independence of various federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Communications Commission. Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts encapsulates this philosophy, stating, "The notion of independent federal agencies or federal employees who don't answer to the president violates the very foundation of our democratic republic"[2].The project's policy proposals are vast and multifaceted. In the realm of education, Project 2025 advocates for a dramatic reduction in the federal government's role, promoting school choice and parental rights over federal standards. It suggests eliminating the Department of Education and transferring its programs to the Department of Health and Human Services. Federal funding for low-income students, such as Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, would be allowed to expire, with responsibilities devolving to the states. Public funds would be available as school vouchers, even for private or religious schools, reflecting the project's view that education is a private rather than a public good[2].Healthcare is another area where Project 2025 proposes significant reforms. The plan recommends prohibiting Medicare from negotiating drug prices and promoting the Medicare Advantage program, which consists of private insurance plans. It also suggests cutting funding for Medicaid through various measures, including caps on federal funding, limits on lifetime benefits, and stricter work requirements for beneficiaries. Additionally, the project aims to reform the Department of Health and Human Services to promote traditional nuclear family structures and deny gender-affirming care to transgender individuals[2].The project's stance on immigration is equally robust. It calls for a secure border with increased enforcement of immigration laws, mass deportations, and the construction of a border wall. The Department of Justice would be tasked with combating what the project terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and would prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs[2].In the realm of science policy, Project 2025 outlines a future where the Department of Energy focuses on fundamental research rather than technology development and climate change programs. The Environmental Protection Agency would be restricted from using certain climate change projections and would require clear congressional authorization for any science activities. Mandy Gunasekara, former chief of staff at the EPA during the Trump administration, authored the EPA chapter, reflecting the project's ties to Trump's policy agenda[5].The project also delves into economic policies, proposing tax cuts and the abolition of several federal agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission. It suggests merging statistical agencies like the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics into a single organization aligned with conservative principles[2].Critics of Project 2025 have been vocal about its potential implications. Many see it as an authoritarian and Christian nationalist plan that could undermine the rule of law, separation of powers, and civil liberties. Legal experts argue that the project's proposals would centralize power in a way that is detrimental to democratic governance. The project's questionnaire to screen potential government employees for their adherence to its agenda has raised concerns about the politicization of the civil service[2].Despite these criticisms, Project 2025 remains a significant force in conservative policy circles. Its authors and supporters argue that it is necessary to dismantle what they view as a vast, unaccountable, and liberal governmental bureaucracy. As Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts put it, the nation is "in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be"[1].Donald Trump, despite his attempts to distance himself from the project, has been closely associated with its goals. The project's blueprint includes over 700 specific policy proposals, many of which align with Trump's past policies and current campaign promises. Trump's denial of involvement, however, has not quelled the perception that Project 2025 is tailored for his potential second term[1].As the 2024 presidential election approaches, Project 2025 stands as a pivotal document that could shape the future of American governance. Its ambitious and far-reaching proposals underscore a broader theme of conservative reform, one that seeks to redefine the role of the federal government and align it more closely with conservative and Christian values.The coming months will be crucial in determining the fate of Project 2025. If a Republican president is elected, the project's blueprint could become the roadmap for a significant overhaul of the federal government. Whether this vision of governance will materialize remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: Project 2025 represents a profound shift in how conservatives envision the future of American politics and governance.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a comprehensive blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation, I was struck by the sheer scope and ambition of this conservative initiative. Unveiled in April 2023, Project 2025 is more than just a policy guide; it is a vision for a radical overhaul of American governance, federal agencies, and the very fabric of societal policies.At its core, Project 2025 is designed to serve as a roadmap for the next Republican president, outlining sweeping changes across various sectors. The project is built around four key pillars: a detailed policy guide, a database of potential personnel, a training program for future administration members, and a playbook for actions to be taken within the first 180 days in office[3].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to dramatically reshape the federal government's structure and function. The plan advocates for the dismantling of several major agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education. The Department of Education, in particular, would be abolished, with its programs either transferred to other departments, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, or terminated outright. This move is part of a broader strategy to reduce the federal government's role in education, promoting instead a system where education is largely managed by the states[1].The impact on education would be profound. Federal funding for low-income students under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 would be allowed to expire, and public funds would be redirected as school vouchers, even for parents sending their children to private or religious schools. The Head Start program, a cornerstone for services to children of low-income families, would be eliminated. This shift reflects the project's underlying philosophy that education is a private rather than a public good[1].Project 2025 also envisions significant changes in the realm of healthcare and social services. It proposes cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as healthcare. The plan goes further by advocating for the elimination of coverage for emergency contraception and the use of the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills. This stance is part of a broader effort to align healthcare policies with conservative principles, as evident in the project's call to reduce funding for research involving embryonic stem cells and to make the National Institutes of Health (NIH) less independent[1].The project's approach to environmental and climate policies is equally contentious. It recommends reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuels, and proposes that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should not use "unrealistic" projections of climate change impacts. The EPA would also be required to obtain clear congressional authorization for any science activity, and Congress would be urged to reform or repeal the 1990 law that created the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which the project argues has been "misused for political purposes"[4].In the realm of science policy, Project 2025 prioritizes fundamental research over deployment, arguing that many current programs act as subsidies to the private sector. The Department of Energy would focus on research that the private sector would not otherwise conduct, while programs focused on energy technology development and climate change would be eliminated. Additionally, the project proposes restricting academic and technology exchanges with countries labeled as adversaries, particularly China, in the name of tightening research security[4].The expansion of presidential powers is another central theme of Project 2025. The project advocates for a unitary executive theory, which aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House. This would involve placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts encapsulates this vision, arguing that "the notion of independent federal agencies or federal employees who don't answer to the president violates the very foundation of our democratic republic"[1].This push for centralized control extends to the State Department, where Project 2025 proposes dismissing all employees in leadership roles by January 20, 2025, and replacing them with "acting" leaders who do not require Senate confirmation. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter, believes most State Department employees are too left-wing and should be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president[1].The project's impact on civil rights and social issues is also significant. It proposes removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Instead, the DOJ would be tasked with prosecuting "anti-white racism." The project also calls for criminalizing pornography and imprisoning those who produce it, and for deploying the military for domestic law enforcement[1].In the realm of media and communication, Project 2025 suggests defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and revoking NPR stations' noncommercial status. It also proposes allowing more media consolidation by changing FCC rules, which could lead to the conversion of local news programs into national ones. Social media companies would be required to not remove "core political viewpoints" from their platforms, and the project even entertains the idea of banning TikTok[1].As I navigated through the extensive policy proposals of Project 2025, it became clear that this initiative is not just a set of recommendations but a comprehensive vision for reshaping American governance. While former President Trump has attempted to distance himself from the project, many of its authors and contributors are former members of his administration, and the proposals align closely with his past policies and current campaign promises[3].The potential implications of Project 2025 are far-reaching and multifaceted. Critics argue that the project's vision for expanded executive power and the dismantling of key agencies could undermine the checks and balances that are fundamental to American democracy. The project's stance on education, healthcare, and environmental policies could have profound effects on vulnerable populations and the nation's long-term sustainability.As we move forward, it is crucial to monitor the developments surrounding Project 2025. With the next presidential administration on the horizon, the implementation of these policies could become a reality. The upcoming months will be pivotal, as the nation grapples with the possibility of a second American Revolution, as described by Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts—a revolution that, if realized, would be anything but bloodless.In the end, Project 2025 serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing debates and divisions within American society. Whether one views this initiative as a necessary correction or a dangerous overreach, it is undeniable that its proposals have the potential to reshape the very fabric of American governance and society. As we approach the next milestones in this journey, it remains to be seen how these ambitious plans will unfold and what their ultimate impact will be on the nation.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a comprehensive policy initiative crafted by the Heritage Foundation, I was struck by the sheer scope and ambition of its proposals. This 900-page blueprint, released in April 2023, outlines a radical transformation of American governance, touching on virtually every aspect of federal policy, from education and healthcare to technology and environmental regulation.At its core, Project 2025 is a manifesto for a conservative revolution, envisioning a federal government reshaped in the image of a strong, centralized executive branch. The project's architects argue that the current system of independent federal agencies undermines the democratic republic, and they propose placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control. As Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts puts it, "The notion of independent federal agencies or federal employees who don't answer to the president violates the very foundation of our democratic republic."[1]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its plan to dismantle and reconfigure several key federal agencies. The Department of Education, for instance, would be abolished, with its programs either transferred or terminated. Education would be left to the states, with federal funding for low-income students, such as Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, allowed to expire. Instead, public funds would be channeled into school vouchers, even for private or religious schools, reflecting the project's belief that education is a private rather than a public good[1].The Department of Homeland Security would also face significant changes, with Project 2025 advocating for its dismantling. This move is part of a broader strategy to reshape national security and immigration policies, including the arrest, detention, and mass deportation of illegal immigrants and the deployment of the military for domestic law enforcement[1].In the realm of healthcare, Project 2025 proposes drastic cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, and it urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as healthcare. The plan also seeks to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception and use the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills. This stance is part of a broader agenda to roll back reproductive rights and impose conservative moral values on healthcare policy[1].The project's vision for science and research is equally transformative. It prioritizes fundamental research over applied research, arguing that many current programs act as subsidies to the private sector. Climate change research would be significantly curtailed, with the U.S. Global Change and Research Program facing critical analysis and potential rejection of its assessments prepared under the Biden administration. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be restricted from using "unrealistic" projections of climate change impacts, and its science activities would require clear congressional authorization[4].Project 2025 also targets the tech and media landscape, proposing significant reforms to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The plan includes increasing agency accountability, reducing wasteful spending, and promoting national security and economic prosperity. It suggests that Big Tech companies should contribute to the Universal Service Fund, currently funded through telephone bills, to support the expansion of 5G and satellite connectivity. Additionally, the project advocates for revising Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, limiting social media's ability to moderate content and ban individuals from their platforms[3].The implications of these proposals are far-reaching and have sparked intense debate. Critics argue that Project 2025 represents a blueprint for an autocratic takeover, undermining the system of checks and balances that is foundational to American democracy. As one analysis notes, "Project 2025 would destroy the U.S. system of checks and balances and create an imperial presidency," giving the president almost unlimited power to implement policies without significant oversight[5].The project's stance on civil rights is particularly contentious. It rejects diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives as "managerialist left-wing race and gender ideology" and proposes banning funding for critical race theory. The Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would be used to undermine protections for LGBTQ employees and to prosecute private employers that support DEIA in their workplaces[2].As I navigated the complex web of policies outlined in Project 2025, it became clear that this initiative is not just a collection of policy proposals but a coherent vision for a fundamentally different America. The project's backers see it as a necessary corrective to what they perceive as the "totalitarian cult" of the "Great Awokening," a term they use to describe the cultural and political shifts of recent years[3].Despite Donald Trump's attempts to distance himself from the project, many of its authors have close ties to his administration. The connection is evident in the overlap between Project 2025's recommendations and Trump's own policy agenda. For example, Trump has called for NPR funding to be rescinded, echoing Project 2025's criticism of public broadcasting as a "liberal disinformation machine"[3].As the 2025 presidential transition approaches, the potential implementation of Project 2025's policies looms large. The project's authors envision an "army of aligned, vetted, trained, and prepared" personnel ready to execute these reforms swiftly. If realized, these changes would mark a seismic shift in American governance, one that could redefine the balance of power between the executive branch and other institutions of government.In the coming months, as the political landscape continues to evolve, the fate of Project 2025 will remain a critical point of contention. Whether its proposals are adopted in whole or in part, one thing is certain: the initiative has already sparked a national conversation about the future of American democracy and the role of the federal government in shaping that future. As we move forward, it will be essential to closely monitor these developments and consider the profound implications they hold for the country's governance, civil rights, and societal values.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a comprehensive policy blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation, I was struck by the sheer scope and ambition of its proposals. This 900-page document, released in April 2022, outlines a radical vision for American governance, should a conservative administration take office in January 2025.At its core, Project 2025 is a call to action, designed to reshape the federal government and its agencies in line with conservative principles. The project envisions a future where the Department of Education is abolished, with its responsibilities devolved to the states. This move is part of a broader strategy to enhance school choice and parental control over education, reflecting the project's belief that education is a private rather than a public good. For instance, federal funds for low-income students, such as those under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, would be allowed to expire, and public funds would be redirected as school vouchers for private or religious schools[1][2][3].The project's education reforms are just the tip of the iceberg. It proposes dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and significantly altering the roles of other key agencies. The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Commerce, Federal Communications Commission, and Federal Trade Commission would all come under tighter partisan control. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would be abolished, and the National Labor Relations Board's role in protecting employees' rights to organize would be significantly curtailed[1][2][3].One of the most contentious aspects of Project 2025 is its stance on environmental and climate change policies. The blueprint advocates for reducing environmental regulations to favor fossil fuels, stopping the National Institutes of Health from funding research with embryonic stem cells, and rolling back climate science initiatives. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, suggests that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the potential increase in methane leaks[1][4].The project also outlines sweeping changes to healthcare and social welfare programs. Medicare and Medicaid would face significant cuts, and the government would be urged to reject abortion as a form of healthcare. Emergency contraception coverage would be eliminated, and the Comstock Act would be used to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills. Additionally, work requirements would be instituted for those reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and overtime protections for workers could be weakened[1][2].In the realm of technology and media, Project 2025 proposes several drastic measures. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would be brought under presidential authority, and regulations on media ownership would be relaxed. The project also calls for investigations into Big Tech companies and the FBI for alleged censorship, and it suggests revising Section 230 to limit social media's ability to moderate content and ban individuals from their platforms[3].The project's authors argue that these changes are necessary to streamline decision-making and ensure a more efficient government. They advocate for the "unitary executive theory," which would place the entire federal bureaucracy under the direct control of the president, eliminating civil service protections for thousands of government employees. This move would allow for the replacement of these employees with political appointees beholden to the executive[2][3].Critics, however, see Project 2025 as a blueprint for an autocratic takeover, aiming to destroy the system of checks and balances that underpins American democracy. "Project 2025 would give presidents almost unlimited power to implement policies that will shatter democracy's guardrails," warns a critique from the American Progress organization[5].As I navigated through the detailed policy proposals, it became clear that Project 2025 is not just a set of recommendations but a vision for a fundamentally different America. The project's emphasis on conservative principles and its rejection of what it terms "woke propaganda" in public schools and "totalitarian cult" of the "Great Awokening" reflect a deep-seated ideological shift[1][3].The implications of these proposals are far-reaching. For instance, the elimination of the Head Start program, which serves over 833,000 children living in poverty, would likely drive up childcare costs and exacerbate existing social inequalities. Similarly, the reduction in funding for free school meals and the elimination of programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act would have profound effects on vulnerable populations[1][2].As the 2024 presidential election approaches, Project 2025 stands as a significant milestone in the conservative movement's quest for power. While Donald Trump has publicly distanced himself from the project, many of its authors are closely connected to his administration, and the policy proposals echo those outlined in his own campaign agenda[3].Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's policies would depend on the outcome of the election and the willingness of a future administration to adopt these radical changes. As the nation prepares for this potential shift, it is crucial to understand the depth and breadth of these proposals and their potential impact on American governance.In the words of Darrell West, who has analyzed the inconsistencies in the plan, "the inconsistencies are designed for fund-raising from certain industries or donors that would benefit." This insight highlights the complex interplay between policy, politics, and funding that underpins Project 2025[1].As we move closer to 2025, the fate of Project 2025 remains uncertain, but its influence on the political discourse is already palpable. Whether these proposals become the blueprint for a new era in American governance or serve as a rallying cry for opposition, one thing is clear: Project 2025 represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate about the future of American democracy.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, I am struck by the sheer scope and ambition of its proposals. This is not just a policy guide; it is a comprehensive blueprint for a radical overhaul of American governance, tailored for the next Republican president, with many eyes on Donald Trump should he win the presidential election.At its core, Project 2025 is built around four pillars: a detailed policy guide, a database of potential personnel for the next administration, a training program dubbed the "Presidential Administration Academy," and a playbook for actions to be taken within the first 180 days in office. Led by former Trump administration officials Paul Dans and Spencer Chretien, this project has drawn significant attention and criticism for its ties to Trump's past policies and current campaign promises[3].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its vision for the federal government's structure and function. The project proposes dismantling several key departments, including the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Department of Education, for instance, would be abolished to facilitate school choice and increase parental control over schools, with federal programs and standards devolving to the states. This move would also see the elimination of programs like Head Start, which serves over 833,000 children living in poverty, and the federal fund for low-income students under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965[1][2].The project's approach to education is emblematic of its broader philosophy: education is viewed as a private rather than a public good. This is reflected in proposals to make public funds available as school vouchers, even for parents sending their children to private or religious schools, and cuts to funding for free school meals. The critique of "woke propaganda" in public schools further underscores the project's commitment to conservative principles in education[1].In the realm of healthcare, Project 2025 suggests significant changes, including cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, and the explicit rejection of abortion as healthcare. The plan also urges the government to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception and to use the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills. These proposals align with the project's stance on social issues, such as declaring that "men and women are biological realities and married men and women are the ideal, natural family"[1][2].The project's energy and climate policies are equally contentious. It advocates for reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuels, repealing the Inflation Reduction Act, and closing offices focused on clean energy and climate change mitigation. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, suggests that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns about methane leaks. The project also proposes relaxing restrictions on oil drilling and preventing states from adopting stricter regulations on vehicular emissions[1][4].The impact on science agencies is profound. Project 2025 recommends prioritizing fundamental research over deployment, arguing that many current programs act as subsidies to the private sector. It proposes eliminating offices focused on energy technology development and climate change, and reshaping the U.S. Global Change and Research Program to align with conservative principles. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would be broken up, with its climate change research activities heavily curtailed. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be subject to closer oversight by political appointees, with a focus on managerial skills over scientific qualifications[4].The project's approach to labor and employment is also noteworthy. It suggests eliminating civil service protections for thousands of government employees, allowing them to be replaced by political appointees. This "unitary executive" theory aims to streamline decision-making but raises concerns about the politicization of the federal bureaucracy. Additionally, the project proposes changes to overtime rules that could weaken protections and decrease overtime pay for some workers, and introduces work requirements for people reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)[1][2].Expert analyses highlight the inconsistencies and potential implications of these proposals. Darrell West argues that the inconsistencies are designed for fundraising from certain industries or donors that would benefit. The project's emphasis on political appointees over merit-based staffing and its push for deregulation in key sectors have raised alarms about the potential for increased corruption and decreased public oversight[1].As I reflect on the breadth of Project 2025's proposals, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a fundamental shift in how the federal government operates and the values it upholds. The project's backers see it as a necessary correction to what they perceive as a bloated, inefficient, and overly liberal bureaucracy. Critics, however, view it as a dangerous erosion of public services, environmental protections, and social safety nets.Looking forward, the implementation of Project 2025's policies hinges on the outcome of the next presidential election. If a Republican president aligned with these proposals takes office, the first 180 days will be crucial in setting the tone for the administration. The project's playbook outlines a series of swift actions designed to reshape the government according to its vision. Whether this vision aligns with the broader interests of the American public remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: Project 2025 is a blueprint for a significantly different America.

During Lydon Johnson's 4 years in office, his administration shepherded through: The Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act, The Economic Opportunity Act, Upward Bound, The Job Corps, Head Start, Community Action Agencies, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Medicare and Medicaid, The National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, PBS, and NPR, The Urban Mass Transportation Act, Cigarette Labelling and Advertising Act, The Motor Vehicle Safety Act, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, The Child Safety Act of 1966, The Water Quality Act, The Housing and Urban Development Act, The Fair Labor Standards Act, and many many other programs designed to eliminate poverty in America.  By eliminating poverty, he didn't only mean financial poverty, yet this isn't to say that LBJ ignored the economics at all. You might recall from our first episode Johnson saying, "This administration here and now declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” But we still see poverty in America today, so does that mean the war on poverty failed?  In this episode, we'll look at the legacies of the Great Society, the War on Poverty, and LBJ's Presidency.  And we'll ask, what did the policies that came out of his administration mean for the American Safety Net and why aren‘t more people aware of LBJ's social policy legacy?  Special thanks to our guests for this episode, Erine Gray, Guian McKee, Martha Baily, Julian Zelizer, Mark Updegrove, H.W. Brands, and Robert Caro. Thank you as well to The Miller Center at the University of Virginia, The American Presidency Project at The University of California Santa Barbara, The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum, and The LBJ Presidential Library and Museum in Austin Texas for their consultation and use of archived materials.  Michael Zapruder arranged and composed the music for this show, and played guitar, with Jeff Olsen on drums, Mike St. Clair on bass, and Sam Lipman on keyboards. Executive Producer, Rebecca McInroy.  Advising Editor, Jim Tuttle Intern, Frances Cutter      

DC Circuit Hands Down Major Free Speech Victory The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has handed down a major victory for free speech against the District of Columbia. In Frederick Douglass Foundation v. District of Columbia, Judge Neomi Rao has reversed District Court Judge James E. Boasberg's dismissal of a challenge by pro-life protesters who alleged that they were treated differently from Black Lives Matter protesters. In the appeals court's opinion on this selective enforcement of city ordinances, Judge Rao cited a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court opinion saying, “To permit one side … to have a monopoly in expressing its views … is the antithesis of constitutional guarantees.” Mark and Vec discuss Judge Rao's recent decision in Frederick Douglass Foundation v. District of Columbia.   Congress Cuts Funding School Archery Programs Mark and Vec discuss the Biden Administration's recent decision to begin blocking federal funding earmarked under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for schools with hunting and archery programs.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Continued talk on Rolando Sanchez, a community services district board in Fresno County that is accused of killing a man and hit and run. The 30-page bill updates the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act to require public schools to make certain information available online, including class curriculums, readings lists, library books and the school's budget. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Black student enrollment in college grew exponentially, from fewer than 300,000 students in 1966 to two and half million in 2010. But in the decade between 2010 and 2020, overall college enrollment fell, and Black enrollment plummeted even more. The Supreme Court will take-up two affirmative action cases this term, which begins in three weeks. If race-based consideration in college admissions is disallowed, what will that mean for diversity on college campuses moving forward? We'll consider that question a little later in the show, but first, we begin with Oyin Adedoyin, who writes about campus culture for The Chronicle of Higher Education.  She joins Tom here in Studio A. Her article in this month's issue is entitled “What Happened to Black Enrollment?” And Tom is joined on Zoom by Jon Marcus, a writer and editor focusing on higher education for The Hechinger Report, which covers inequality and innovation in education. He published a story last month called “How Higher Education Lost its Shine.” Tom's guests for the second half of the show are Dr. Glenn Altschuler, a professor of history and an administrator at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York; and David Wippman, the president of Hamilton College, a private liberal arts institution in Clinton, New York. They are co-authors of a recent article in The Hill called, “What colleges are up against if the Supreme Court bans affirmative action.” Both men join Tom on Zoom.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rose Parker is a former Dallas ISD teacher, adjunct professor at Brookhaven College, and the former Director of Research at a top tier venture capital firm. She has a Masters of Education in Social Science and Curriculum/Instruction. In February of 2021, she became the author ofWhat Would LBJ Say?: Robbing Poor, At-Risk, ESL, and Special Education Students in the Lone Star State AND HOW TO STOP IT. Though there is no constitutional justification for federal intrusion in education, LBJ passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 which required school systems to ensure student needs are being met and the funds are being spent where they were intended. Parker tells the story of LBJ when he worked as a teacher in Cotulla, Texas in 1928 and how he drew from that experience while in the White House. Parents and school boards can and should be trained on how to use the law to demand resources provided for their children under state and federal statutes.Fakequity Legitimate school districts make sure each school gets the proper number of teachers based on the number of students. In campuses with a disproportionate number of minority and poor children receiving Title I funds, Dallas ISD has been skimming off $1500-2000 per child which translates into $1 million dollars taken from some of their campuses. Those funds are being backed out of the vulnerable campuses and used to pad the “rainy day funds” and line the pockets of the education patronage network of consultants and bottom-feeders. Get the rest of this article here. Paperback or Kindle version of The Texas Heist available on Amazon.Social Impact Podcast is on Spotify! Call 214-673-4018 to support the show or get exposure for your business.For sponsor information, call 214-714-0495. To learn how OffBeat Business Media, LLC. can support your local business with media opportunities on the OBBM Network, contact us today.Subscribe to the OBBM Network Podcast on Apple Podcasts,Spotify, iHeart, Google Podcasts and more. OffBeat Business TV can be found on Youtube, Vimeo , Rumble , BitChute  and wherever you enjoy great on-demand podcasts and TV.Brought to you by:OffBeat Business Media, LLCThe Epoch Times, https://TrustedNewspaper.comhttps://WeStandForFreedom.comCitizenWatchServ.com1st Safety Training,  (214) 808-9757Support the show (https://offbeatbusiness.com/sign-up/#join)

Evan Whitehead has been in the field of education for over 20 years spanning over three decades, and is currently the Director of Special Services, for Lindop School District 92, in Broadview, IL. In his current role Evan oversees all Federal Programs (Special Education, McKinney-Vento, English Learners, and Title I), Early Childhood Education, Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS), Social Emotional Learning, Family and Community Engagement, Health Services, Continuous Improvement, Equity, Diversity, and Cultural Competency. Evan started his career in education as a crisis and behavior interventionist at therapeutic day school in the Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL. Over his career he has held the following positions: Special Education Paraprofessional, Special Education High School Teacher, Latino Parent Outreach Coordinator, Dean of Student Discipline, Community Outreach Coordinator, Director of Special Services, Director of Bilingual Education and English Learners, Title I Director, and Assistant Superintendent of Special Services. Evan also worked as a District Liaison with the Illinois State Board of Education’s Statewide System of Support. As a District Liaison, Evan was charged with leading District Assistance Teams in implementing supports to districts in order to build district capacity to schools and help reduce the largest within-school gaps in achievement or largest within-school gaps in graduation rates at the high school level. Evan is also a National Consultant, Trainer and Presenter with Dr. Ruby K. Payne’s aha! Process, Inc. www.ahaprocess.com . In his work with aha! Process, Evan provides local and national trainings, presentations, and speaking engagements on Dr. Ruby K. Payne’s most recent book and workshop “Emotional Poverty in All Demographics: How to Reduce Anger, Anxiety, and Violence in the Classroom”. https://www.ahaprocess.com/workshop/emotional-poverty-on- site-workshop. Recently, in November 2019, Evan presented at two statewide Educator Conferences. On November 19, 2019, Evan co-presented “Emotional Poverty in All Demographics” during the general session at the Alabama Association of Elementary School Administrators (AAESA), Fall Instructional Conference in Orange Beach, Alabama. On November 23, 2019, at the IASB-IASA- IASBO Joint Annual Conference in Chicago, IL. Evan presented “Need and Numbers: Board Policies for Equity and Accountability —strategically and intentionally creating board policies based on data, including policies covering professional learning, cultural relevancy, SEL, ISTE standards, to establish accountability goals, using district norms, to leverage achievement.” Evan is also the Executive Director of Educational Services with Strategic Project Management, Inc. www.strategicpm.us in which he oversees training, professional development, continuous improvement services for school districts, higher education institutions, non-profit organizations, social-service agencies. In September 2019, Evan was appointed to a four year term, on the Illinois State Board of Education Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Consolidated Committee of Practitioners (CCOP), by Illinois State Board of Education, State Superintendent Dr. Carmen I. Ayala. The mission of ESEA Consolidated Committee of Practitioners is to study and advise the Illinois State Board of Education on the implementation of programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to ensure that high quality services are available for all students especially those most in need. Evan holds a Bachelor of Arts in Special Education with a concentration of Bilingual Bi-cultural Special Education and English as a Second Language, Minor in Spanish Language and Literature and Master of Arts in Educational Leadership and Administration. Evan also studied Afro-Latino Studies and Spanish Language at Universidad Catolica Madre y Maestra in Santiago, Dominican Republic. Evan's areas of expertise include Special Education, Social Emotional Learning, Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), District/School Continuous Improvement, Family and Community Engagement, Federal Programs, Equity, Diversity, Cultural Competency and Mental Health. Evan is a husband, father, mental health advocate, and has coached youth sports for over 15 years.  Contact Evan Online:Website | ahaprocess.comWebsite | strategiclearningsolutions.comWebsite | strategicpm.usEmail | evanwhitehead11@gmail.comConnect with Evan on Social Media:Twitter | @EvanWhitehead00 

We have the first wave of the Trump laws! In this episode, highlights of the most impactful laws from the first three months of the 115th Congress, which include favors to the fossil fuel industry, gun industry, telecommunications industry, and defense contractors. In addition, learn about a law (that’s flown completely under the radar) that fundamentally changes how NASA operates. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD124: The Costs of For-Profit War CD135: Education is Big Business Bills Outline S. 84: A bill to provide for an exception to a limitation against appointment of persons as Secretary of Defense within seven years of relief from active duty as a regular commissioned officer of the Armed Forces. Exempts General James Mattis from the law that prohibits anyone from serving as Defense Secretary within seven years of leaving military service (Mattis had retired less than four years before his appointment). H.R. 72: GAO Access and Oversight Act of 2017 Gives the Government Accountability Office (GAO) more power to get federal agency records for audits and investigations Requires agency heads to report their plans - not just their actions - that the agency will take when given recommendations by the GAO and requires the reports to be given to more Congressional committees Makes it easier for the GAO to sue federal agencies that don't comply Gives the GAO access to the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) H.J.Res. 41: Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to “Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers”. Repeals an Obama administration rule requiring companies listed in the stock market to publicly report payments by the fossil fuel and mineral industries to the US or foreign governments if the payments are over $100,000 in a year. H.J.Res. 38: Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule. Repeals a Department of Interior regulation known as the "Stream Protection Rule" which aimed to reduce pollution from coal mining by blocking mining within 100 feet of streams and requiring coal mining companies to restore the land their use to it's pre-mining condition. H.J.Res. 40: Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. Repeals a Social Security Administration rule that never went into effect that would have prohibited approximately 75,000 people who receive disability checks for mental illness from buying guns. H.R. 321: Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers, and Explorers (INSPIRE) Women Act Orders the NASA administrator to create a plan to use current and former NASA employees to engage with K-12 female students to encourage them to pursue careers in aerospace. The plan must be submitted in 90 days. H.R. 255: Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act "Encourages" the National Science Foundation to recruit women to work in commercial science and engineering - S. 442: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017 Authorizes $19.5 billion for NASA operations for 2017 Declares that it will be US policy that we will support the International Space Station through at least 2024 Sense of Congress: "Commercially provided crew transportation systems" should be the primary means of transporting US astronauts to and from the International Space Station and reliance upon Russian transportation should be ended as soon as possible. Commercial providers of NASA services will have to provide "evidence-based support for their costs and schedules" only "in a manner that does not add costs or schedule delays" NASA will have to create a plan to "transition in a step-wise approach from the current regime that relies heavily on NASA sponsorship to a regime where NASA could be one of many customers of a low-Earth orbit non-governmental human space flight enterprise." The first report on progress will be due December 1, 2017 Contracts between NASA and private providers are allowed to give immunity to the private providers from lawsuits for "death, bodily injury, or loss of or damage to property resulting from launch services and reentry services carried out under the contract" for any amount over what their insurance covers. The maximum amount of insurance a provider will have to obtain is for $500 million The immunity may exclude claims resulting from willful misconduct by the private provider Establishes long term goals for NASA, which include "to enable a capability to extend human presence, including potential human habitation on another celestial body and a thriving space economy in the 21st Century." There will be a specific focus on enabling humans living on Mars Repeals provisions of law that required the government specifically to have the ability to restart the Space Shuttle program, if needed. Authorizes the NASA Administrator to conduct long-term medical monitoring and treatment of astronauts with no out-of-pocket costs for the astronauts for space flight related ailments only. H.J.Res. 44: Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior relating to Bureau of Land Management regulations that establish the procedures used to prepare, revise, or amend land use plans pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Repeals a Bureau of Land Management Rule that would give the public a larger and earlier role in management plans for public land. The public would have been able to submit data & other information. The public also would have been given information as the plans were developed, allowing the public to comment during the planning process instead of after. H.J.Res. 37: Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Repeals a rule written by the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and NASA that would have made federal contractors prove their compliance with fourteen Federal labor laws, which would then be taken into consideration by agencies when awarding contracts. The contractors would also have to report their wages paid to employees to the agencies and would have limited forced arbitration of employee claims. H.J.Res. 57: Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to accountability and State plans under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Repeals a Department of Education rule that would have pushed states to weigh student achievement via test scores of 95% of their students and graduation rates when determining which schools are "underperforming". The rule also would have required schools to provide parents and the public with more information on their annual report card. H.J.Res. 58: Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to teacher preparation issues. Repeals a Department of Education rule that outlined indicators that states would have to use to judge teacher performance and tied results to some Federal aid funding. H.J.Res. 42: Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to drug testing of unemployment compensation applicants. Repeals a Department of Labor rule that allowed but limited the drug testing of people receiving unemployment benefits. People could only be tested if they were dismissed for substance abuse related reasons and only if their jobs required carrying a firearm, aviation flight crews, air traffic controllers, commercial drivers, railroad crews, pipeline crews, and commercial maritime crews. S.J.Res. 34: A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services” Repeals a Federal Communications Commission rule that would have required Internet service providers to obtain our approval if they were going to share our information, and not condition service on an acceptance of data sharing, and to notify us if our data was compromised. Additional Reading Article: Congress Votes To Expand Drug Testing For Unemployment Recipients by Kelly Mcevers, NPR, March 27, 2017. Article: Why you should take a closer look at this week's NASA bill by Andrew Wagner and Nsikan Akpan, PBS, March 24, 2017. Article: Obama Education Rules Are Swept Aside by Congress by Dana Goldstein, The New York Times, March 9, 2017. Article: The Senate just voted to overturn another environmental rule - sending it to Trump's desk by Chelsea Harvey, The Washington Post, March 8, 2017. Article: Senate overturns Obama-era regulations on teacher preparation by Emma Brown, The Washington Post, March 8, 2017. Congressional Record: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017, House of Representatives, March 7, 2017. Article: Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People with Mental Illnesses by Ali Vitali, NBC News, February 28, 2017. Article: FCC Chairman Goes After His Predecessor's Internet Privacy Rules by Alina Selyukh, NPR, February 24, 2017. Article: Why Trump just killed a rule restricting coal companies from dumping waste in streams by Brad Plumer, Vox, February 16, 2017. Article: Trump signs Sasse's bill to let GAO access massive financial database by Joseph Morton, Omaha World Herald, February 3, 2017. Article: Goodbye, Stream Protection Rule by Paul Rauber, Sierra, February 1, 2017. Article: On the same day Rex Tillerson is confirmed, the House votes to kill a transparency rule for oil companies by Brad Plumer, Vox, February 1, 2017. Article: Republicans will try a little-used tactic to kill five Obama regulations this week by Brad Plumer, Vox, February 1, 2017. Press Release: Bill Johnson Leads House Effort to Protect Coal Jobs by Overturning Ill-Advised "Stream Protection Rule" by Representative Bill Johnson, January 30, 2017. Press Release: Chairman Huizenga, Senator Inhofe Move To Eliminate Resource Extraction Rule via CRA, Chairman Bill Huizenga, January 30, 2017. Op-Ed: The Congressional Review Act, rarely used and (almost always) unsuccessful by Stuart Shapiro, The Hill, April 17, 2015. References U.S. Dept of Labor: Unemployment Insurance Senator Al Franken: Arbitration Amendment OpenSecrets: Rep. Liz Cheney - Top Industries, 2015-2016 OpenSecrets: National Rifle Association - 2016 Contributions OpenSecrets: Rep. Bill Johnson - Top Industries OpenSecrets: Rep. Bill Johnson - Top Industries, 2015-2016 OpenSecrets: Rep. Bill Huizenga - 2014 Assets OpenSecrets: Rep. Bill Huizenga - Top Industries OpenSecrets: Senator Jeff Flake - Top Industries OpenSecrets: Rep. Marsha Blackburn - Career Profile OpenSecrets: Communications/Electronics - Money to Congress Sound Clip Sources Hearing: NASA: Past, Present, and Future, House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, February 16, 2017. Video: NASA Authorization Bill Signing, Oval Office, March 21, 2017. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

There has been considerable policy activity and innovation over the last 50 years to improve educational equity across student populations, starting with civil-rights lawsuits in the 1960s over access to high-quality education and continuing through the 2001 and 2015 reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Disproportionately lower achievement outcomes for several student subgroups have remained a top concern during this time, including those for economically disadvantaged students, English Learners (ELs), and certain racial and ethnic minority groups. Marking the release of a new report, this webinar will explore the key funding mechanisms in place to support EL students, including federal Title III and state supplementary funding sources. In light of broad trends toward more decentralized decisionmaking and the increased opportunities that follow for stakeholder input to shape key educational policies, presenters discuss the diverse sources of information that should be brought to bear on public conversations about funding. These include demographic trends in the student population, district and school-based services that meet diverse student needs, and what efforts are being made to improve educational quality and student outcomes. Drawing examples from recent national and state-level actions, the speakers demonstrate how efforts to improve educational quality for ELs are tightly bound to efforts to improve the equitable distribution of educational resources.

Steve Holmes, Superintendent of the Sunnyside Unified School District, in Tucson, Arizona.  Steve serves as the top administrator in Southern Arizona’s second largest school district.  Steve is a champion for equity, and has built a reputation for his strong advocacy of equitable services for English Language Learners. He has had multiple opportunities to provide clarity and insight to national education audiences. Steve was a facilitator on an educational panel for the National Congressional Hispanic Caucus Conference, where he spoke on policy implications for English Language Learners in relation to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

In this Quality Conversation, Jen Rinehart from the Afterschool Alliance shares the latest in afterschool policy and funding news. She gives an update on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and shares what that means for 21st Century Community Learning Centers across the country. Jen also discusses the implementation of last fall’s reauthorized Child Care and Development Fund. 

Education experts at RAND discuss the limitations of current accountability policies and how a reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act could promote more effective policies.

In this May 2012 briefing, RAND experts offer recommendations on ways to strengthen the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in light of a renewed push in Congress for reauthorization.