July 2025 — Ed Reporter Monthly Email Edition

On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Maryland parents have the right to opt their children out of lessons they find objectionable on religious grounds; specifically, the pro-LGBT lessons associated with a series of LGBT-themed books.

In 2022, a group of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim parents in the Montgomery County, Maryland school district filed suit against the school board for removing the right of parents to exempt their children from “LGBTQ+” instruction and materials in the curriculum. Initially, the school district notified parents in advance so they could opt their kids out if they chose, but later rescinded that right, thus forcing the indoctrination on all students.

The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, reached the Supreme Court after the parents lost in both the Maryland District Court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia. However, the Supreme Court ruled that “until all appellate review in this case is completed, the Board should be ordered to notify [parents] in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.”

The majority opinion noted: “Less than a year after the Board introduced the books … it rescinded the parental opt out policy. Among other things, the Board said that it ‘could not accommodate the growing number of opt out requests without causing significant disruptions to the classroom environment.’”

As many parents and observers might have added, that in and of itself should have provided a clue that the so-called “instruction,” was unwelcome and needed to be eliminated.

The high court further stated: “Those texts included five ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks approved for students in kindergarten through fifth grade, which have story lines focused on sexuality and gender.”

The plaintiffs’ legal team filed examples of these sexualized texts with the court, which media outlets including The Epoch Times, Chalkbeat, and others exposed after the ruling. One of the books, Prince & Knight tells the story of two biological males who fell in love while working together to defeat a dragon. The prince and knight are depicted as dashing heroes who in the end get married and live happily ever after.

Chalkbeat quoted Justice Samuel Alito as writing on behalf of the majority:

• The Board’s introduction of the LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks, combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs, substantially interferes with the religious development of petitioners’ children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder [an earlier Supreme Court ruling] found unacceptable. The books are unmistakably normative. They are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.

He continued that many other parents also believe that “biological sex reflects divine creation, that sex and gender are inseparable, and that children should be encouraged to accept their sex and to live accordingly…. The storybooks, however, suggest that it is hurtful, and perhaps even hateful, to hold the view that gender is inextricably bound with biological sex.”

In reporting on Mahmood, an article in the Kansas Policy Institute’s publication, The Sentinel, mentions another of the books, Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, which propagandizes kids about same-sex marriage and “censorship.” The article includes an image of the book’s cover and an excerpt of the text from another book, Born Ready, which promotes the transgender agenda to elementary-school children.

Calling the Supreme Court ruling “a big win for all parents,” Johnson County, Kansas attorney, Fritz Edmunds, told The Sentinel:

• At a time when politically based indoctrination of public schoolchildren has reached a previously unimaginable fever pitch, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, provides clear legal grounds for challenging school districts that subtly, and not so subtly, indoctrinate very young, impressionable students against the will of their parents. As Justice Thomas states in his concurring opinion, the Board failed to identify any tradition of teaching sexuality and gender identity to young children, much less a tradition of preventing parents from opting their children out of such instruction.

While the ruling in Mahmood specifically applies to the Montgomery County, Maryland school district, Edmunds explained that “it could certainly be argued with excellent authority that any plaintiffs with Article III standing (i.e., a ‘dog in the fight’) could force their district to allow opt-out.”

Is Mahmood enough?

An article on the Cato [Institute] at Liberty Blog applauded the Supreme Court’s ruling but cited fears that allowing “opt outs” will not be enough to solve the problem. The post’s author, director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, Neal McCluskey, wrote that as long as education is publicly funded, “the only full answer to the question of how to educate everyone in a diverse society without government bias is to attach funding in some way to students—through vouchers, tax credits, education savings accounts—and let all families choose the education they think is best.”

The blog post pointed out that allowing parents to opt-out of lessons they oppose does not mean their children will receive education that is “affirmatively in agreement” with their beliefs. “Opting out does not give them that; it just protects their kids from government imposition of values they oppose,” McCluskey wrote. “School choice avoids that penalty, and does so not just for religion. It allows anyone to choose education consistent with their values, whatever those might be.”

Deciding for the parents in Mahmood were Justices Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Thomas. Alito included full-color excerpts of the books approved by the Montgomery County School Board, as did dissenting Justice Sotomayor, who was joined in dissent by Justices Kagan and Brown-Jackson.

The liberal justices denied that the books and curriculum amount to government-funded indoctrination adding that the majority ruling instead “gives parents too much power over educators via the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.” Sotomayor opined that the decision “threatens the very essence of public education.”

Curriculum details

The Epoch Times asserted that the books at issue in the case “were not neutral,” and that the board told parents they had been introduced “to address a purported lack of ‘inclusive’ materials.” Parents were given to understand that the books were not part of “planned explicit instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in elementary school,” and yet teachers “were required to use them as part of the curriculum.” Furthermore, the books were chosen according to certain criteria.

Included in those criteria were three questions listed by The Times: “Is heteronormativity reinforced or disrupted?” “Is cisnormativity reinforced or disrupted?” “Are power hierarchies that uphold the dominant culture reinforced or disrupted?”

Teachers were also provided with talking points and encouraged to discuss the stories with their students. “For example, if a student suggested that two men cannot get married, a suggested response reads: ‘When people are adults they can get married. Two men who love each other can decide they want to get married.’”

Most parents would agree with Justice Alito’s opinion that these lessons “are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”

While President Trump, Education Secretary Linda McMahon, and various pro-parent groups Including Moms for Liberty, hailed the Supreme Court decision, there was much pearl clutching among liberals.

Moms for Liberty lauded the court for siding with parents “over the authoritarian schools in Maryland that sought to FORCE elementary school children into explicit, sexual education against the will of their parents.” Conversely, Justice Sotomayor said the ruling “will be chaos to public schools,” while other liberal voices lamented that the ruling would open “a gigantic Pandora’s box” and place an “impossible administrative burden on schools” while putting the brakes on controlling bullying.

But as one parent sagely observed on social media, “those on the Left don’t really take offense” that most parents “just want to control their kids’ exposure to sexuality….” Rather, it was always about “raw power. If they can ram stuff down our kids’ throats against parental wishes, then they reckon they should, period. The destruction of the nuclear family has always been job #1. Everyone has seen or heard clips of radical teachers saying your kids are ‘theirs, too’ and that keeping secrets between teachers and students from parents is a-ok. Such ‘educators’ and LGBTQ activists have one rule in common: parents are the problem.”

These teachers, however, along with progressive activists, writers and publishers of LGBT and other inappropriate “children’s books,” appear to be the ones with the problem: Most parents don’t want their children to be sexualized behind their backs in the name of education. They do want them to be taught how how to read, write, do math, learn real science, and gain some knowledge of their country and the world through factual civics and history.

Particularly in recent years, this has been little more than a pipe dream in most public schools.

Christian parents should be pleased to learn that a well-funded, hands-on organization called the Stanley M. Herzog Foundation is working to “catalyze effective and scalable programs across the nation” in support of Christian education. The organization’s website explains that its mission is accomplished “by providing programs such as online content, up-to-date news, training and events, grants, and hands-on organizational improvement initiatives.”

The Missouri-based organization was founded by successful businessman and philanthropist Stanley M. Herzog in 2019 with a goal of assisting K-12 parochial schools; Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical, and also homeschool associations. The day-to-day operations of the Herzog Foundation Institute includes holding conferences and training sessions attended by school administrators from the various Christian denominations.

One of the foundation’s functions is to help qualified parties start their own schools or microschools using a program called the “SchoolBox.” One user described it as “a checklist” of all the steps necessary to open a new school, in the order they need to happen.

Herzog Foundation President Darrell Jones compares the program to “a blueprint or a road map that shows how to move from ‘I’d like a Christian school’ to actually launching a Christian school.” He explains that the foundation “convened experts from around the country who have launched multiple schools in different demographic areas with different business models,” resulting in a platform that individuals or groups can use to move from having a concept or a vision to opening a fully operational school.

Interested parties who visit the SchoolBox website will find that the foundation provides an “8-Step Guide to starting a school or co-op,” including training courses supervised by mentors who provide leadership throughout the process. Parents and leaders who sign up will also receive “proven examples of organizational policies and documents to model,” as well as referrals to resources that can help them achieve the next level in launching their school.

In addition to the SchoolBox program, the foundation offers leadership training events and conferences across the country that “address relevant topics within the Christian education sphere,” led by “national thought leaders and experts” in a variety of topics including “marketing, donor development, and culture building.” These events are tailored for Christian educators and leaders “with their unique needs in mind.”

Help with school choice programs

Herzog Foundation staff help familiarize school administrators with school choice/voucher programs in their states, which can help with private-school tuition.

For example, when Phyllis Schlafly Eagles Executive Director, Kurt Prenzler, attended a Herzog Foundation leadership seminar last month, he learned that Indiana’s “Choice Scholarship Program” offers K-12 students and their families significant assistance. A document titled Choice Scholarship Program Frequently Asked Questions provided by the state offers comprehensive information on the program, including that only accredited schools may participate.

Prenzler discovered that “people are moving from the South Suburbs of Chicago into northwest Indiana,” ostensibly to take advantage of the choice opportunity. He added: “I can only imagine that the voucher program is encouraging people from all over to move to Indiana.”

According to Chalkbeat, the Indiana program was expanded in 2023 to allow higher-income families to participate and eliminated “other need-based criteria.” The program allows approximately $6,100 to $7,400 annually per student, with exact amounts varying according to household income and other eligibility criteria.

While liberals collectively howl about the unfairness of school choice, a 2024 report cited by the Indiana Capital Chronicle showed that, if all the students participating in Indiana’s voucher program had attended public schools during the 2023-2024 school year, it would have cost the state an additional $77 million. The article explained: “That’s because vouchers are paid at a lower amount than public school funding.”

While it boasts one of the largest programs in the U.S., Indiana is fortunately not the only state offering parents a choice. As Prenzler discovered, Wisconsin also sponsors robust school choice. Local news source UpNorthNewsWI.com reported last year that “more than half of the private schools in Wisconsin now participate in School Choice Wisconsin.”

Opponents whine that “the system drains resources from Wisconsin’s already struggling public schools and uses taxpayer dollars to fund private school tuition for wealthy families at the expense of public-school students and educators.” But it’s well known that voucher programs initially targeted lower-income families and were only later expanded to include students in middle-class families. Some observers note that public-school advocates who level baseless accusations at choice programs virtually never acknowledge the elephant in the room, that if students were being taught basic skills rather than woke propaganda, there would be much less demand for vouchers.

Education Reporter has written extensively about school choice programs, which, according to EdChoice, an organization that tracks and reports on such programs, are available in one form or another in 35 states, plus Washington, DC and Puerto Rico. School choice options can vary widely, from vouchers to education savings accounts to private school choice programs such as those available in Indiana and Wisconsin. Many states offer multiple programs, and the fact that the Herzog Foundation assists Christian Schools and startups to navigate the maze is an important service.

In Missouri, the foundation helps administer the MOScholars Program, which awards scholarships “to Missouri students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and students living in low-income households.”

Casting aspersion

As may be imagined, an organization like Herzog, which champions and supports Christian education, is not without its critics. After the foundation opened its new headquarters and training center in Smithville, MO, a 2023 Kansas City Beacon headline stated: “How a Clay County charity spends millions to spread ‘Christ-centered’ education nationwide,” which for Christians was something to be applauded but appeared to serve as ammunition for critics.

The first sentence of the article cautioned: “The Stanley M. Herzog Charitable Foundation has awarded grants to schools that exclude LGBTQ students and families and paid for creationist science teacher training….” Yikes! Imagine teaching kids that they did not evolve from apes. But what might an organization espouse that champions Biblical truth and Christian moral teaching?

The Beacon further charges that the foundation’s efforts to expand government support for private education “drains money from public schools and inappropriately entangles the state with schools that reject students for reasons such as religion, LGBTQ identity, disability and academic performance.”

But Herzog Foundation Communications Director, Elizabeth Roberts, explained to Education Reporter that the organization’s Tomorrow Foundation “provides scholarships to students and families, which are a lifeline for those whose needs are best met by Christian schools or homeschooling.” She added: “The state has a vested interest in funding education so that the next generation is equipped to contribute to the economy, support their families, and strengthen their communities. Herzog is dedicated to ensuring that all families—regardless of background—have the opportunity to provide their children with a quality education.”

The Beacon article connected founder Stanley M. Herzog, who passed away in 2019 after launching the foundation, with financially supporting former governor-elect Eric Greitens, Republican politics, and other Republican politicians including Sen. Josh Hawley, as though to further poke Democrat readers.

More leadership and offerings

The Herzog Foundation’s chairman of the board is Todd Graves, an attorney who previously served as the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri. Financial expert and entrepreneur, John Elliott, is vice chairman. Elliott also serves as vice president of Inside Information Inc. a company he founded with his wife in 1995 that provides “nationwide marketing and research services to electric utilities.”

Other Herzog Foundation offerings include The Lion, an online news publication that provides articles and information on a variety of current topics, with an emphasis on education, an American Dream Speaker Series that hosts nationally recognized speakers, including former U.S. Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, and the HF Podcast Network, which features shows offering “original content focusing on personal growth, the education of children, and Christian values.” One of the 13 regular podcasts is that of Moms for America, a pro-parent organization that has previously been a topic in Education Reporter.

Many Christian parents hope the Herzog Foundation continues to grow in influence as well as expand the MOScholars program and the organization’s training programs. As the foundation posits on its website: “We are on a mission to advance Christian education with comprehensive programs designed to launch, promote, and strengthen Christian education settings across the nation.”

The nation’s largest teacher’s union held its annual lunatic show earlier this month, a.k.a. the 2025 NEA Representative Assembly (RA). In its familiar partisan fashion, union leadership ranted against President Trump and his administration, openly stating as its priority “fighting Trump” over improving the nation’s dismal student achievement in nearly every subject.

Fox News reported that a teacher who tried to engage others in exploring how to improve students’ reading and writing scores at the convention was told: “We don’t have time for that. We’ve got to fight Trump….”

Again this year, NEA President Becky Pringle did not disappoint the union’s radical progressive wing in her raucous address to attendees, a rant that could at times be described as irrational. “Diversity, equity, and inclusion,” she screamed at one point…. “Say the words, say the words, say the words! You are powerful, you are the NEA! Ohhhhhh freedom! Ohhhhhh freedom! Hold your head high!”

Instead of teaching academics, approved NEA New Business Items (NBI) pledged “support for and participation in mass anti-Trump protests,” “opposing ICE ‘kidnapping’ student leaders,” “opposing ‘illegal’ efforts to eliminate the Department of Education,” “ensuring our message reaches communities affected by Trump’s policies,” among others. These efforts have nothing to do with educating children in the basic skills critical for their future success in the workplace and in life.

Fox pointed out that the $3 billion collected annually by the NEA and the AFT from teacher dues “does not go to teachers who are educating; anything but….” Rather, the union intends “to prioritize the 2026 local, state, and federal elections as a pivotal moment for our democracy….” The NEA intends to explore programs such as “funding 10 locals with full-time organizers who apply in each state, up to $100,000 per local to run campaigns in alignment with the union’s fight for democracy.”

Lawyer and Fox News pundit, Emily Campagno, told host Harris Faulkner: “If you were to read [the above] in a vacuum, you would think it was a massively political PAC or a grassroots organization demanding something ridiculous. But that it’s [a teachers’ union] actually aligned with the education of our youth in the public schools when none of the students can read their own name, is mind-boggling. It’s the tone-deaf arena they live in … it’s absolute theft of our taxpayer dollars.”

Faulkner agreed, lamenting the fact that the NEA’s money is all going to politics and “doesn’t help one child in America.”

Egg on its face

In its over-the-top demonstration of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) throughout the convention, the NEA managed to make an embarrassing mistake in one of its NBIs. The Western Journal reprinted a post on X by school-choice advocate Corey DeAngelis, which displayed a photo of an NBI that read:

• NEA pledges to defend democracy against Trump’s embrace of fascism by using the term facism [sic] in NEA materials to correctly characterize Donald Trump’s program and actions. The members and meraisl resources of NEA must be committed to the defense of the democratic and educational conditions required by our hopes for a just society and the survival of civilization itself by stating the truth.

This NBI requires an additional $3,500 to implement, according to NEA. The embarrassing post has since been removed from X, but can still be found in The Western Journal’s op-ed, about which author Samuel Short asked: “How does this happen in 2025 when spellcheck is on every smartphone, computer, and tablet? How does this happen amongst educators?”

He went on to question “how many leftists have actually read Italian Dictator Benito Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism? How many could define the word and point to specific examples of actions taken by Trump that meet that definition? … The answer to both is probably very few to none.”

Short observed that words such as “fascist and nazi have lost all meaning in political discourse…. As for the NEA who represents public school teachers, these are the people left alone in a classroom with your children…. Homeschooling doesn’t sound so crazy if an NEA union member is the alternative.”

Of course, the NEA does not represent all public-school teachers, many of whom sincerely wish to teach, but the union’s policies and politics infect the entire U.S. education system and force otherwise resistant teachers to go along. But the union’s brazen extremism may yet prove its undoing.

Lawmakers move to revoke NEA’s federal charter

Shortly after the NEA’s annual display adjourned, Congressman Mark Harris, a Republican representing North Carolina’s 8th District, introduced H.R. 4450, the National Education Association Charter Repeal Act. A companion measure in the Senate was to be introduced by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). A summary of the bill is yet to be posted online.

The Daily Caller explained on July 15 that the intent of the act is “to sever the union from its congressional ties.” The NEA received its charter from Congress in 1906, and is the only union to have such an arrangement. At least 10 additional representatives joined Harris in sponsoring the bill.

Rep. Harris said in a statement that “the NEA has abandoned its mission to support America’s teachers and strengthen our schools on behalf of a radical agenda.” He continued: “From branding President Trump a fascist to embracing divisive gender ideology and walking away from efforts to fight antisemitism, the NEA has become nothing more than a partisan advocacy group. Since the NEA is clearly not prioritizing students, parents, or even teachers, it’s time to remove Congress’ seal of approval from this rogue organization.”

Moms For Liberty co-founder Tina Descovich said in an interview with Fox News that “there is no reason a teachers’ union embracing such radical ideologies and pushing them into our classrooms should have any access to federal support.” Her organization quoted Congressman Harris on its website as saying: “The NEA was created to champion America’s teachers and serve our schools, but it has spiraled into a partisan machine that’s more about radical ideology than education.”

Descovich told Fox News that only a third of American 4th graders can read at grade level, “and you can see why when the teachers come together at their annual conference, the largest teachers’ union. They don’t vote on anything that has to do with education, and they haven’t for quite some time…. It’s not just this year or last year that they decided to become radical. They’ve been doing this for a very long time.”

And she is exactly right. For decades, Education Reporter has described how the tone of the annual NEA convention has become increasingly strident and extreme as have its NBIs and Resolutions, fewer and fewer of which have anything to do with education. This past year, the union directed over 97.4 percent of its political donations to Democrat candidates.

(For more information on past NEA convention mischief, click on this link, and also visit Education Reporter Online and type NEA Convention in the search box.)

More bad news for the unions

In another favorable ruling for the Trump Administration, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the president to proceed with downsizing the Education Department, and 1,378 employees have already received pink slips. An article in The Federalist by John and Andy Schlafly interprets this ruling to mean “President Trump has kept another campaign promise: death to the DOE.”

The Supreme Court’s decision was a win for Missouri attorney D. John Sauer, who argued successfully in this case (Linda McMahon v. New York) that, “For the second time in three months, the same district court has thwarted the Executive Branch’s authority to manage the Department of Education despite lacking jurisdiction to second-guess the Executive’s internal management decisions.” The high court held in Sauer’s favor and authorized Trump to proceed as he had promised voters he would do.

According to a July 10 Fox News opinion piece by Corey DeAngelis, a resolution proposed at this year’s NEA convention “labeled any move to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education as an ‘illegal, anti-democratic, and racist attempt to destroy public education and privatize it in the interests of the billionaires.’”

DeAngelis made the salient point that “Calling the abolition of a federal bureaucracy ‘racist’ is absurd, especially when the Department of Education’s track record has failed low-income minority students for decades. If anything, the department’s one-size-fits-all approach has entrenched disparities, trapping kids in failing schools based on their ZIP codes.”

Despite the NEA’s hysterical, across-the-board condemnation of President Trump, including his attempts to return education to its rightful place at the state and local levels, his agenda is winning, and parents and students will reap the benefits in the long run.

As DeAngelis’s op-ed noted, the NEA’s radical agenda “is free advertising for school choice and homeschooling. Parents are rightly alarmed by a union that sees their children as ‘hostages’ to its cause.”

He adds: “Since 2019, there has been a mass exodus from union-controlled public schools, with over a million families opting for charter schools, private schools, or homeschooling. The NEA’s Portland convention only accelerates this trend, as parents seek educational options that prioritize learning over politics.”

In still more pushback for the unions, United Federation of Teachers’ (UFT) members in New York City are threatening to pull their money from the union’s “political activities fund” after the UFT endorsed radical socialist Zohran Mamdani for Mayor. The New York Post reported that “UFT President Mike Mulgrew and his top allies infuriated rank-and-file members by pushing through a resolution to back Mamdani,” which was approved “by 63 percent of more than 1,000 delegates — with the vast majority of teachers on summer recess and caught off guard.” The next day, 90 teachers gathered on a Zoom call initiated by “the United Jewish Teachers and NYC Public Schools Alliance, groups battling antisemitism in city schools.” These groups are concerned about Mamdani’s record, which, says a spokesperson, “includes deeply troubling associations with antisemitic and anti-American views.” Many of the city’s public-school teachers are asking their union reps how to drop donation payments to the Committee on Political Education or COPE, and some are considering leaving the union altogether. One school chapter leader and union delegate based in the Bronx asked: “Why should I pay dues to a union endorsing a guy who is a socialist and whose beliefs I vehemently oppose?” The UFT has almost 200,000 members and reportedly collected “dues and agency fees totaling nearly $174.5 million for the fiscal year ending July 31, 2023,” according to its most recent federal financial filings. It spent “$4.5 million on ‘political activities and lobbying’ and another $4.3 million on ‘contributions, gifts and grants.’” Organizers of the Zoom call predict an exodus from the UFT in the coming weeks.

Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen last month signed into law the Stand With Women Act, which bans biological men from competing in women’s sports, including sex-specific interscholastic athletic programs in public schools. LifeSite News reported that LB 89 also prohibits government entities, licensing or accrediting organizations, or athletic associations from filing complaints, opening investigations, or taking “any other adverse action against a public or private school or a public or private postsecondary educational institution for maintaining any separate interscholastic athletic team or sport for female students.” The new law states the obvious, that “(1) Males and females possess unique and immutable differences that manifest prior to birth and increase as they age and experience puberty; (2) Differences between the sexes are enduring and may, in some circumstances, warrant the creation of separate social, educational, athletic, or other spaces in order to ensure safety and to allow members of each sex to succeed and thrive; (3) Physical differences between males and females have long made separate and sex-specific sports teams important so that female athletes can have equal opportunities to compete in sports while reducing the risk of physical injury….” The bill’s lead sponsor, Nebraska State Sen. Kathleen Kauth, said: “LB 89 is about protecting women in their athletics, protecting them in their private areas like their bathrooms, locker rooms, [and] making sure that their opportunities remain their opportunities … athletic competitions or even things like grants set aside for women should be for women.” The pro-parent group, Defending Education, reported on July 15 that 32 states “are in compliance [with President Trump’s executive order ‘Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,’ dated Feb. 5, 2025] and have passed bills and/or made statements to that effect.”

New data shows that investing in a college education is worthwhile only for some. An article on msn.com described a 2024 Gallup and Lumina Foundation poll which showed that “only 36 percent of adults said they have a ‘great deal’ or ‘quite a lot of’ confidence in higher education,” a significant drop from 10 years ago, when 57 percent expressed support. Despite these findings, the Gallup poll showed that “people continue to see college as a pathway to success.” According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Americans aged 25 and over with bachelor’s degrees had a median income of around $1,493 a week in 2023, 66 percent more than their peers with just a high school diploma.” But this wage gap alone “can provide a misleading picture of a college education’s impact on earnings,” says author and economist Bryan Caplan of George Mason University in his book, The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money. Caplan points out that “not everyone who goes to college graduates,” and he estimates that as many as 82 percent of students at a four-year college in 2007, for example, “failed to graduate on time,” earning their bachelor’s degree “six years after enrollment.” The information platform Stacker published an analysis that showed “college is a good bet, at least for those with a good academic record. Excellent students can expect an ROI of about 14.1 percent at public four-year colleges, while poor students can expect only a 4.6 percent return.” These finding suggest that students planning to attend a four-year college or university, despite the high costs and other pitfalls, should at least be well prepared.

Originally posted on Cato at Liberty Blog, June 24, 2025. Reprinted by permission.

About three months ago, President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling on the US Secretary of Education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities.” After initially generating much attention, the drive to end the department has been overtaken by other matters—immigration, tariffs, wars—and has not been a hot topic. Ironically, one of those eclipsing topics has been the administration’s crusade against Harvard University and other institutions, which seems opposed to at least the spirit of returning education power to the people and states.

It was probably inevitable that other matters would eventually take headlines away from ending the department, but we must not lose sight of the goal of ending this damaging and unconstitutional bureaucracy. To help with that, here is an update on where things stand:

Administration Action

The primary thing the Trump administration did that started moving in the direction of department closure occurred before the EO was issued. The administration significantly reduced the department’s workforce through a combination of buyouts and layoffs. The number taking buyouts, as of the last count I have seen, was 572, and more than 1,300 were terminated, totaling about 1,900 employees. That was out of a workforce of around 4,100, or roughly a 46 percent reduction. When she spoke at Cato on May 14, Secretary Linda McMahon said that the department had rehired a few people after it appeared they had cut into “muscle.” She later said that 74 people were brought back.

This major reduction was challenged in court by blue states as well as educator unions and two school districts. On May 22, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the 1,300 firings, and on June 4, an appeals court upheld the injunction. The US Supreme Court is expected to rule on the matter soon. . (Editor’s Note: On July 14, after this article was posted, the Supreme Court granted a stay to the preliminary injunction, which allows the Trump Administration to proceed with staff reductions in the Department of Education while the case continues.)

The administration also cancelled many contracts and grants before the EO was issued, including research contracts and $65 million in grants for teacher training. Several states sued over the training grants, and a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the administration in March. But in April, the Supreme Court lifted that injunction. In addition, associations of researchers sued the administration in May over cancelled contracts, and in June, the department indicated that it would restore 20 of 101 cancelled agreements.

Finally, it has been reported that the administration planned to move the department’s student loan operation to the Treasury, but that was put on hold after the May 22 injunction against shrinking the department. In March, President Trump announced that student loans would move to the Small Business Administration, but that did not occur.

Congress

The administration has made clear that it believes Congress must act to end the department because it was Congress that created it. There are currently four bills to end the department, of which I am aware:

• The Returning Education to Our States Act from Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), which would primarily move current components of the Department of Education to other departments such as Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury.
• The Orderly Liquidation of the Department of Education Act from Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-TX), which would primarily move current components of the Department of Education to other departments such as Health and Human Services, Treasury, and the National Science Foundation.
• A bill to terminate the Department of Education from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), which simply says the department is terminated as of December 31, 2026.
• A bill to terminate the Department of Education from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), which simply says the department is terminated as of December 31, 2026.

It is unclear when these bills might be taken up by Congress.

What is clear is that on June 26, I will participate in a discussion with Sen. Rounds about his bill. Perhaps one thing we will learn is what the timeline for congressional action on ending the department might look like.

The sooner the Department of Education is gone, the better.

Neal McCluskey is the director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom. He is the author of the book The Fractured Schoolhouse: Reexamining Education for a Free, Equal, and Harmonious Society and is coeditor of several volumes, including School Choice Myths: Setting the Record Straight on Education Freedom and Unprofitable Schooling: Examining Causes of, and Fixes for, America’s Broken Ivory Tower. McCluskey also maintains Cato’s Public Schooling Battle Map, an interactive database of values and identity-based conflicts in public schools.