Five Reasons Educators Are Wary as Second Trump Term Begins

Betsy Perry is a National Board Certified Teacher who works with special needs students in Montgomery County, Md. She spent most of her 30-year career as a special education teacher at Harmony Hills Elementary School in Silver Spring, Md. 

There, she worked with many students who have layers of needs: “Some have had interrupted schooling, some are fleeing instability or violence or experienced trauma, and many are learning English,” says Perry. 

“We know how to assist them, but it takes extra money to provide the supports that can help level the playing field for their education.”

Most of the successful strategies and programs at Harmony Hills are made possible through funding from federal programs. 

“Title I funding helps schools retain teachers, paraprofessionals, and interventionists to bring down class sizes,” she says. “We have comprehensive school services so students can see a doctor or counselor here at school, and we have a family coordinator who helps parents get more involved.”

Perry is just one of the millions of educators nationwide who are holding their breath as a handful of powerful politicians who aim to gut public education assume control in Washington, D.C.

Perry just started a new job this summer: Special education teacher/assistive technology specialist. In her new role, she helps teachers find the best assistive technology to meet individual student needs, and trains educators and students how to use it. Harmony Hills is still in her caseload, along with other schools who rely on federal funding to help meet student needs.

“Honestly, in all my 30 years of teaching I’ve never seen what I’m seeing now. The challenging behaviors and mental health needs that our students are coming to school with are unprecedented,” she says.

“It’s frightening to think that elected leaders would cut funding for vital school services, which will mostly impact our vulnerable Brown and Black students who are living in poverty.”

What We’re Up Against

The stated agenda of the incoming Trump administration and some members of Congress is to tear down federal support for public education through budget cuts; a national voucher program that would only drain more resources from public schools; and the dismantling of the Department of Education.

At its heart, the most critical function of the Department of Education is to protect students from discrimination and provide all students the opportunity to learn through the enforcement of federal civil rights laws and targeted supports for low-income students and students with disabilities. Eliminating or diminishing the programs and functions of the Department of Education would directly affect the public schools that 90 percent of students—and 95 percent of disabled students—attend.

“No matter who is in office, we cannot allow our elected leaders to abandon our commitment to programs that protect students’ civil rights and promote equity in education,” says Perry.

The best defense against the current anti-public education agenda—like all those that have come before—is for educators to unite through their union and work with parents and other community allies to stand up for the resources students need and deserve.

Here are five reasons educators are concerned by any proposal to cut federal support for public schools: 

1. Schools will have fewer resources to serve lower-income students.

More than half of the nation’s public schools serve a high concentration of low-income students, and over 60 percent of them are Title I-eligible. Cutting federal programs targeted to schools in lower-income communities will diminish these students’ chances to get the academic supports they need, form bonds with educators, gain social-emotional life skills, and receive valuable guidance to pursue career training or college.

2. Students with disabilities and their families will suffer as supports vanish.

By passing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 50 years ago, America took a great step forward in helping students with disabilities access education and reach their full potential. But educators and parents believe IDEA should be fully funded, not slashed. Funding cuts would mean fewer specialists and paraprofessionals, including instructional assistants, counselors, family liaisons, and academic interventionists, to name just a few. Losing these professionals could negatively affect the mental health of students who depend on them. Families would lose at-home supports they rely on to help their children thrive.

3. Fewer students will be able to attend college.

Families across the country rely on Pell Grants to help them afford higher education—nearly 7 million students are currently using a Pell Grant to attend community colleges and four-year institutions of higher education. Since it was created 50 years ago, the program has helped roughly 80 million low-income students attend college. Gutting Pell Grants and the federal student loan program will lead to more students dropping out, and fewer options for families to help students earn a college degree.

4. A national voucher program will further drain public schools of resources.

One of Trump’s long-time allies and megadonors is entertainment tycoon Linda McMahon, who is now Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education.

McMahon’s chief goal for education is to promote vouchers, which drain resources from public schools and send taxpayer money to unaccountable private schools that are permitted to discriminate against students and educators. The policies she promotes are aligned with Trump’s Project 2025 plan: gut funding and support for public education, and force into place a nationwide voucher program, despite the fact that when given the chance to cast a ballot on the issue, voters have rejected vouchers at the state level time and again. 

5. At a time when supports for public schools should be strengthened, cutting federal supports will further exacerbate the educator shortage.

Ballooning class sizes, fewer mental health supports in schools, and the loss of early childhood education and tutoring for students—all of these factors will make it harder for public school districts to attract and retain highly qualified educators and make the field of teaching even less attractive to potential educators. 

Teacher turnover is already highest at schools in the poorest communities (29%) compared to schools that don’t have high poverty rates (19%). Cutting federal supports will only make workloads heavier and conditions more difficult for teachers in high-poverty schools. Professional development and training for educators would also be diminished or cut.