Photo credit: www.educationnext.org
Textbooks tell us that political parties seek power, interest groups aim to protect their interests, and think tanks are dedicated to research on policy-related topics. These distinctions have always been somewhat fluid, but today, the lines separating these political entities have blurred more than ever.
In this election year, Democrats have accused Donald Trump of using a platform crafted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank renowned for its policy advocacy. They highlight that nearly 200 individuals involved in creating Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise—a comprehensive 900-page report from the foundation’s 2025 Presidential Transition Project (Project 2025)—served in Trump’s first administration. Lindsey Burke, a longtime Heritage staffer, penned the chapter on education with assistance from former Trump administration officials, including Jim Blew, who was the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Planning Evaluation and Policy Development. However, Trump dismisses the idea that Mandate outlines his presidential agenda, labeling it as merely a “wish list” from policy advocates with “ridiculous and abysmal” suggestions.
The actual situation likely resides somewhere between these accusations and denials. A detailed comparison of the K–12 plank in the Republican platform recently adopted at their convention and the K–12 recommendations in Mandate’s education chapter reveals few discrepancies between the two documents, though Project 2025 provides far more detail than the brief statement approved by the delegates in Milwaukee.
The most striking difference between these documents is their length. The Republican platform’s K–12 education plank spans a single page, whereas the Heritage chapter extends over 40 pages. This contrast underscores the party’s strategy to remain concise to avoid barriers to winning power, while the think tank aims to convert that power into concrete policies.
But does Heritage accurately interpret the broad phrases in the Republican national platform? The answer is somewhat ambiguous.
While the party platform’s education plank features generalized statements like “support schools that focus on Excellence and Parental Rights” and “prepare students for great jobs and careers,” it contrasts sharply with policies backed by many Democrats and the Biden administration. Mandate lists numerous education policy proposals, addressing major issues also treated in the Republican platform. To gauge the validity of Democratic allegations and Republican rebuttals, we need to examine how six specific topics are handled in both documents: federal spending, the future of the U.S. Department of Education, school choice, special education, civics education, and race and gender issues.
Federal Spending. Mandate presents a direct stance on federal spending, not explicitly mirrored in the Republican platform. The GOP document mentions the U.S. spending the most on schools globally but refrains from promising any K–12 funding cuts, avoiding accusations of defunding public education. In contrast, Mandate advocates eliminating various federal education programs, potentially saving close to $20 billion annually, and suggests that funding for compensatory education be phased out over a decade.
Abolishing the U.S. Department of Education. While the platform discreetly sidesteps specifics on spending, it resurrects Ronald Reagan’s proposal to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education without detailing the transition. In contrast, Mandate suggests a gradual phase-out over ten years, recommending that other federal agencies take over the department’s responsibilities more effectively. During this transition, federal funds should become no-strings-attached block grants to states, with the expectation that states distribute these funds to parents for school choice.
Source
www.educationnext.org