This chapter says the Department of Education should be closed. Its work would go to the states. Some of it would go to other departments. It wants parents to control their child's share of school money. It also wants several school rules changed.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, PresidentHow: legislationp. 319 in the PDF
What the document says
“Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.”
This is the chapter's opening proposition and the frame for the rest of it. The chapter then sets out where each of the department's offices and programs should go: some block-granted to states, some moved to other departments, some eliminated. It says that to wind the department down, Congress must pass and the President sign a Department of Education Reorganization Act.
What the document actually says
“Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.”
That sentence, in plain words
Washington should do less on schools. In the end, the Department of Education should be closed.
What this is about
One federal department handles schools. The book says it should be shut down. Its work would go to states or to other departments.
Shares the chapter's central aim. The chapter said plainly that eliminating the department requires Congress to pass a Department of Education Reorganization Act. An executive order cannot abolish a department created by statute, so this directs steps toward closure rather than achieving it.
In plain English
The order shares the chapter's aim of closing the school department. But an order cannot close a department that a law set up. Only Congress can do that. So the order points toward closing rather than doing it.
The document says “should”Who acts: States, CongressHow: legislationp. 319 in the PDF
What the document says
“every parent should have the option to direct his or her child’s share of education funding through an education savings account (ESA)”
The chapter says elementary and secondary education policy should follow the path Milton Friedman set out in 1955, in which education is publicly funded but decisions are made by families. It notes such accounts would be funded overwhelmingly by state and local taxpayers.
What the document actually says
“every parent should have the option to direct his or her child’s share of education funding through an education savings account (ESA)”
That sentence, in plain words
Each child has a share of school money. Parents should be able to steer it themselves.
What this is about
Money is spent on each child at school. The book says parents should control that share. They could spend it at a school of their choice.
Addresses the chapter's subject of letting parents direct their child's share of education funding. The chapter's proposal was for education savings accounts funded overwhelmingly by state and local taxpayers, which is a matter for states; this order works on the federal levers available to it.
In plain English
The order takes up the same aim: letting parents steer their child's share of school money. The chapter's plan ran on state and local funds, which is up to the states. This order can only work with the tools the federal side has.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 320 in the PDF
What the document says
“those funds should be blockgranted to states without strings, eliminating the need for many federal and state bureaucrats”
The chapter argues that federal money comes with rules that raise the cost of education without raising achievement, and that funding and policymaking should eventually happen at state and local level. It asks that existing funding be sent to states as grants they can put toward any lawful education purpose under state law.
What the document actually says
“those funds should be blockgranted to states without strings, eliminating the need for many federal and state bureaucrats”
That sentence, in plain words
Send the money to the states in one lump. Attach no rules to it.
What this is about
Federal school money comes with many rules. The book says the rules do not help. It wants the money sent to states with no strings.
Addresses the chapter's subject of returning control to states. Whether it produces the no-strings block grants the chapter asked for is not established by the order alone.
In plain English
The order takes up the chapter's aim of handing control back to the states. The chapter wanted the money sent in a lump with no strings. Whether that follows is not settled by the order itself.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 325 in the PDF
What the document says
“The federal government should confine its involvement in education policy to that of a statistics-gathering agency that disseminates information to the states.”
The chapter says the complexity of federal education programs has contributed to bureaucratic bloat in state and local districts, and that streamlining funding into straightforward per-pupil allocations or unrestricted grants would ease the compliance burden.
What the document actually says
“The federal government should confine its involvement in education policy to that of a statistics-gathering agency that disseminates information to the states.”
That sentence, in plain words
Washington should only collect numbers about schools. Then it should share them with the states.
What this is about
The book says Washington should stop setting school rules. It should only gather facts and figures. Then it would pass them to the states.
Executive Order 14242 directs the Secretary of Education to take all necessary steps, to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the states and local communities, and states that the department's main functions can and should be returned to the states. That is the withdrawal of the federal role the proposal describes. It stops short in both directions. The order says nothing about what federal function would remain, and does not mention statistics, the National Center for Education Statistics or the dissemination of information to the states, which is the role the chapter would keep. Its section 2(b) keeps conditions on the allocation of department funds, which is a continuing federal policy role. And closing the department takes an act of Congress, so the order directs steps toward closure rather than accomplishing it.
In plain English
The order tells the secretary to work toward closing the school department. The chapter wanted one job kept: gathering numbers and sharing them with the states. The order does not name that job at all. It also keeps strings on its money, and cannot close the department by itself.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 330 in the PDF
What the document says
“OCR should move to the Department of Justice.”
The chapter says the federal government has an essential responsibility to enforce civil rights protections but should do so through the Justice Department and the federal courts, and that the office once moved should be able to enforce only through litigation rather than administratively.
What the document actually says
“OCR should move to the Department of Justice.”
That sentence, in plain words
This office should move to the Justice Department.
What this is about
One office handles school discrimination cases. The book says it should move. It would then have to go to court to act.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed moves the Office for Civil Rights out of the Education Department, which would take an act of Congress. Every candidate here is a court docket rather than a government action, and the docket records indexed on this site carry only case name, court and filing date, with no text to read, so none of them can be recorded as answering a proposal. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: Congress, PresidentHow: legislationp. 327 in the PDF
What the document says
“The next Administration should completely reverse the student loan federalization of 2010”
The chapter asks that the Administration work with Congress to spin off Federal Student Aid and its student loan obligations into a new government corporation with professional governance and management. It says elsewhere that student loans and grants should ultimately be restored to the private sector, or at the least that the government should revisit its role as guarantor rather than direct lender.
What the document actually says
“The next Administration should completely reverse the student loan federalization of 2010”
That sentence, in plain words
In 2010 the government took over student lending. That should be undone.
What this is about
The government lends money for college. It took that job over in 2010. The book says that should be reversed.
Section 81001 pulls the federal government out of part of the lending the 2010 change brought in. A graduate or professional student may not receive a Federal Direct PLUS Loan for any period of instruction beginning on or after July 1, 2026, annual unsubsidized borrowing is capped at $20,500 for a graduate student and $50,000 for a professional student, parent PLUS borrowing is capped at $20,000 a year and $65,000 for each dependent student, and a student may borrow no more than $257,500 in a lifetime. That reduces direct federal lending, which is the object of the proposal. It is not the reversal the chapter describes. Nothing spins Federal Student Aid off into a government corporation, nothing restores origination to private lenders or revisits the government's role as guarantor, and the Direct Loan program continues for everyone else, the section adding limits rather than changing who lends.
In plain English
The 2025 law cuts back federal lending to students. Grad students lose one loan type from July 1, 2026, and new caps limit what students and parents may borrow. But this is not the reversal the chapter asks for. The direct loan program goes on, and private lenders do not take it back.
The document says “should”Who acts: President, Department of EducationHow: regulationp. 322 in the PDF
What the document says
“Borrowers should be expected to repay their loans.”
The chapter says the Administration must end what it calls the practice of treating the federal student loan portfolio as a campaign fund to curry political support, and must end abuses in the loan forgiveness programs. It separately asks that existing income-driven repayment plans be phased out and replaced with a single plan exempting income up to the poverty line and requiring payments of 10 percent above it.
What the document actually says
“Borrowers should be expected to repay their loans.”
That sentence, in plain words
People who borrow should be expected to pay it back.
What this is about
Students borrow money for college. Some plans cancel part of the debt. The book says that should stop. It says borrowers should repay.
The Education Department's final regulations of October 31, 2025 rewrite the Public Service Loan Forgiveness rule to exclude employers that engage in enumerated illegal activities such that they have a substantial illegal purpose, and state the aim as keeping taxpayer dollars from subsidizing them. That answers the chapter's demand to end what it calls abuses in the loan forgiveness programs, and it carries out Executive Order 14235 of March 7, 2025, which ordered the rewrite. It does not reach the wider proposal: forgiveness itself continues, borrowers keep full credit for work performed until a determination takes effect, an excluded employer can regain eligibility, and nothing in the rule requires borrowers generally to repay what they owe.
In plain English
A rule of October 31, 2025 rewrites the loan forgiveness plan for public work. Some employers are cut out of it, those found to have a large illegal aim. That ends what the chapter calls abuse. But loan forgiveness goes on, and the rule does not make borrowers in general pay up.
The document says “should”Who acts: President, Department of EducationHow: regulationp. 334 in the PDF
What the document says
“On its first day in office, the next Administration should signal its intent to enter the rulemaking process to restore the Trump”
The full passage asks the next Administration to signal on day one its intent to restore the Trump Administration's Title IX regulation, with the additional insistence that sex is properly understood as a fixed biological fact, and to post notice-and-comment immediately. The chapter also asks for a full review of Title IX investigations conducted on the understanding that sex referred to gender identity or sexual orientation, for all such ongoing investigations to be dropped, and for affected districts to be told they may drop policy changes made under pressure.
What the document actually says
“On its first day in office, the next Administration should signal its intent to enter the rulemaking process to restore the Trump”
That sentence, in plain words
On day one, say that the old rule will be brought back.
What this is about
Title IX is a law about sex discrimination at school. Rules under it were changed. The book wants the earlier rules back. It says sex should mean the sex a person was born as.
Executive Order 14168 supplies the definitional half of what the chapter asks. It defines sex as an individual's immutable biological classification as either male or female, states that the definition shall govern all executive interpretation and application of federal law, directs the Attorney General to issue guidance correcting the application of Bostock v. Clayton County to sex based distinctions in agency activities, naming Title IX as the example, and rescinds the Education Department's Title IX guidance documents, including the 2024 implementation pointers and the 2021 enforcement guidance on sexual orientation and gender identity. It changes no regulation. The Title IX rule itself is untouched, no rulemaking is begun, and the order says nothing about reviewing or dropping investigations conducted on the earlier understanding.
In plain English
The order fixes the meaning of sex as male or female for all federal law. It tells the Attorney General to guide agencies on a court ruling, naming school sex bias law. It also pulls school guidance papers from 2021 and 2024. But no rule is changed and none is begun. Open cases are not addressed.
Section 3(a)(i) of Executive Order 14201 directs the Secretary of Education, in coordination with the Attorney General, to continue to comply with the vacatur of the rule Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance of April 29, 2024, and to take other appropriate action to ensure that regulation does not have effect, and section 3(a)(ii) directs that regulations and policy guidance be brought into line with the statutory demand for equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. The rule the chapter would displace is therefore treated as having no effect. The route is not the one asked for. Nothing here opens a notice and comment rulemaking to restore the 2020 regulation, the action rests on a court's vacatur rather than on the department's own rulemaking, the order's subject is athletics rather than the whole regulation, and instead of dropping investigations opened on a gender identity reading of Title IX it directs new enforcement actions.
In plain English
The order treats the 2024 school rule as dead, and points at sports. The chapter asked the agency to write a new rule the slow public way. That is not done here. The order leans on a court ruling instead, and it calls for more cases, not fewer.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: Department of EducationHow: regulationp. 336 in the PDF
What the document says
“The next Administration should immediately commence rulemaking to rescind the Equity in IDEA regulation.”
The regulation requires states to consider race and ethnicity in the identification, placement and discipline of students with disabilities. The chapter says that as a result students are being denied access to special education because of their race or ethnicity, that this was not the intent of the rule but an inevitable byproduct of its assumptions, and that no replacement regulation is required.
What the document actually says
“The next Administration should immediately commence rulemaking to rescind the Equity in IDEA regulation.”
That sentence, in plain words
Start the process to cancel this rule at once.
What this is about
One rule makes states look at race in special education. The book says that leads schools to turn children away. It wants the rule canceled.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The Labor Department's final rule of August 21, 2026 rescinds the regulations implementing Executive Order 11246, which Executive Order 14173 revoked. It removes a race-conscious federal requirement, but from contracting rather than from special education. Nothing indexed begins or completes rulemaking to rescind the Equity in IDEA regulation, and no candidate mentions the identification, placement or discipline of students with disabilities. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: Department of Education, DOJHow: regulationp. 335 in the PDF
What the document says
“the new Administration should also direct the department and DOJ jointly to issue enforcement guidance stating that the agencies will no longer investigate Title VI cases that exclusively rest on allegations of disparate impact.”
Title VI bars discrimination on grounds of race, color or national origin in federally funded programs. Disparate impact refers to a policy that produces unequal outcomes without discriminatory intent. The chapter says sweeping action is needed so that the purpose of the Civil Rights Act is not inverted through a disparate impact standard, and asks for a regulation clarifying the point.
What the document actually says
“the new Administration should also direct the department and DOJ jointly to issue enforcement guidance stating that the agencies will no longer investigate Title VI cases that exclusively rest on allegations of disparate impact.”
That sentence, in plain words
Tell both agencies to drop these cases. They rest only on who ends up worse off.
What this is about
A school rule can hit one group harder than others. That can count as discrimination even if it was not meant. The book says such cases should not be looked into.
The Education Department's final rule of July 24, 2026 amends its Title VI regulations to eliminate disparate-impact liability, implementing Executive Order 14281 and following the Justice Department's change to its own Title VI regulations effective December 10, 2025. The department the passage names did the thing the passage asks for, by the regulation it asks for. The fit breaks down on the rest of the ask: this is a rule about what the regulations make unlawful, not the joint enforcement guidance from the department and the Justice Department that the passage calls for, so it does not say which complaints will or will not be investigated. Agriculture, Homeland Security, Transportation, Labor, Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration made the same change to their own Title VI rules.
In plain English
A rule of July 24, 2026 changes the school agency's civil rights rules to drop disparate impact claims. The agency the passage names acted, by the route it named. But the passage asked for joint guidance with the justice side. This rule says what is unlawful, not which claims get looked into.
The document says “must”Who acts: Department of EducationHow: regulationp. 331 in the PDF
What the document says
“The new Administration must take immediate steps to rescind the new requirements and lessen the federal restrictions on charter schools.”
The chapter lists the Charter School Grant Program priorities among five primary regulatory targets for the next Administration, alongside rules on data collection, Title IX and special education.
What the document actually says
“The new Administration must take immediate steps to rescind the new requirements and lessen the federal restrictions on charter schools.”
That sentence, in plain words
Cancel these new rules at once. Loosen the federal limits on charter schools.
What this is about
Charter schools are public schools run outside the usual system. New rules made it harder to get grants. The book says those rules should go.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed rescinds the Charter School Program grant priorities or loosens federal requirements on charter schools. The nearest candidate is a law revising the federal charter of the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association, which shares only the word charter and has nothing to do with schools. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: Department of EducationHow: regulationp. 337 in the PDF
What the document says
“The Secretary should phase out all existing IDR plans by making new loans (including consolidation loans) ineligible”
The chapter proposes a single replacement plan with an income exemption equal to the poverty line and payments of 10 percent of income above it. It says that if new legislation is possible there should be no loan forgiveness at all, but that without it existing law would require forgiving any remaining balance after 25 years.
What the document actually says
“The Secretary should phase out all existing IDR plans by making new loans (including consolidation loans) ineligible”
That sentence, in plain words
Close the current payment plans to new loans. Let them run out.
What this is about
Some plans set payments by what a borrower earns. The book says these should be closed to new loans. One new plan would replace them.
Section 82001 does what the proposal asks and by the means it names. For loans made on or after July 1, 2026 the Secretary may offer only a standard plan and the new Repayment Assistance Plan, and may not offer, carry out or change any other plan for such a loan. A consolidation loan offered on or after that date may be repaid only under those two. The income contingent repayment authority in section 455(e) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is repealed, and every borrower repaying under an income contingent plan must move to another plan before July 1, 2028. Three things differ. It was done by statute rather than by the Secretary, as the chapter proposed. The replacement is not the chapter's design: payments run on a band from $120 a year at incomes of $10,000 or less up to 10 percent of adjusted gross income above $100,000, rather than 10 percent of income above the poverty line, and the balance is canceled after 360 payments, where the chapter would prefer no forgiveness at all. And income based repayment under section 493C survives, rewritten at 15 percent of income above 150 percent of the poverty line, so not every income driven plan is gone.
In plain English
The 2025 law ends most income based repayment plans for new student loans. From July 1, 2026 only a standard plan and a new aid plan may be offered. Old plans must be left by July 1, 2028. But Congress did this, not the Secretary, and one income based plan lives on.
The document says “should”Who acts: CongressHow: legislationp. 326 in the PDF
What the document says
“Most IDEA funding should be converted into a no-strings formula block grant targeted at students with disabilities”
The chapter proposes distributing the money directly to local education agencies through the Administration for Children and Families at Health and Human Services, and moving the department's disability discrimination enforcement work to the Justice Department.
What the document actually says
“Most IDEA funding should be converted into a no-strings formula block grant targeted at students with disabilities”
That sentence, in plain words
Most of this money should go out as a block grant. It should carry no strings.
What this is about
Federal money helps schools teach children with disabilities. The book says it should go straight to school districts. Another department would send it.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Executive Order 14191, signed January 29, 2025, directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue guidance on whether and how states receiving block grants for families and children, including the Child Care and Development Block Grant, can use them to expand educational choice. It shares the words block grant and Health and Human Services with the proposal but concerns child care money and school choice. Nothing indexed converts IDEA special education funding into a formula block grant, routes it through the Administration for Children and Families, or moves the Education Department's disability discrimination enforcement to the Justice Department. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: PresidentHow: executive orderp. 337 in the PDF
What the document says
“The next Administration should prohibit the USDA or any other federal agency from withholding services”
The full passage covers agencies withholding services from federal or state agencies, including schools, that choose not to replace sex with sexual orientation and gender identity in their administration of Title IX. It follows the chapter's request that school meal program rules be reviewed.
What the document actually says
“The next Administration should prohibit the USDA or any other federal agency from withholding services”
That sentence, in plain words
No agency should be able to cut off services over this.
What this is about
Some agencies asked schools to change how they read the word sex. Schools that refused risked losing help. The book says that should not be allowed.
Executive Order 14168 removes the federal premise the chapter is objecting to. Every agency must enforce laws governing sex based rights, protections, opportunities and accommodations to protect men and women as biologically distinct sexes, must give the terms sex, male and female the order's meanings when interpreting statutes, regulations and guidance, and the Attorney General is directed to correct the application of Bostock v. Clayton County to sex based distinctions in agency activities, with Title IX named. A school that keeps a biological definition of sex in administering Title IX is no longer at odds with the federal position. It is not the prohibition the chapter asks for. No provision bars an agency from withholding services over the definition of sex, the Department of Agriculture and the school meal programs are not mentioned, and the conditioning of federal money on a definition of sex continues in the other direction, since Executive Order 14201 directs agencies to review grants to educational programs and rescind funding where they do not comply with its sex based policy.
In plain English
The order tells every agency to treat men and women as two distinct sexes. A school that keeps that meaning no longer clashes with the federal rule. But no clause bars an agency from cutting off services over it. Farm aid and school meals are not named. And another order still ties school grants to its own sex rule.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
Executive Order 14190 treats access to school records as a parental right to be enforced. Its section 3(a)(ii) requires the Secretary of Education, with the Secretaries of Defense and Health and Human Services and in consultation with the Attorney General, to deliver a plan for protecting parental rights under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and section 3(b)(iv)(A) requires an analysis of each agency's process for preventing or rescinding federal funds used to interfere with a parent's federal statutory right to information about school curriculum, records, physical examinations and surveys under that Act or the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment. What the chapter asks for is different in kind: a statement by the Secretary making clear that the Act allows parents full access to their children's educational records. The order produces a strategy for the President rather than guidance to schools, and it reaches only the policies and conduct implicated by that order's own subject.
In plain English
The order calls for a plan to guard the rights of parents over school records. It also asks which funds could be pulled from schools that block them. The chapter wanted a plain statement to schools about the law. The order writes a plan for the President instead.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
Lindsey M. Burke, “Department of Education,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves (The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 319-362. https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
This page
“Department of Education,” Project 2025, chapter 11. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/project-2025/chapter-11/ (retrieved October 7, 2026).
Cite the document when the claim is about what the document says. Cite this page when the indexing, the wording or the record of what has happened is what is being relied on.
What This Page Covers, and What It Leaves Out
The chapter's central proposal to eliminate the department, its plan for where each office and program should go, its regulatory targets, and its proposals on student loans, civil rights enforcement and parental rights.
The chapter's office-by-office disposition of every program, which runs to many separate items, and its extended argument about higher education accreditation and workforce data.
The chapter's central proposal requires an act of Congress, which it says plainly. Many of its other proposals are conditional on that act, and are recorded here as they are stated rather than as steps that could be taken alone.
