Even though it was hardly mentioned in the campaigns that ended last Tuesday, public education was on the ballot. It lost. With the Republicans in complete control in Washington and Concord, community-based public schools serving all children may disappear.
In Washington, the Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. With the full support of the legislature and the sense that he has a mandate, President-Elect Trump has an opportunity to keep the campaign promises he made relative to education. His most widely publicized pledge, the elimination of the Department of Education (DOE), seems unlikely to happen given the slim GOP majority in the House and the requirement that a 60-vote majority is needed in the Senate to eliminate an existing department.
However, a MAGA-minded secretary of Education who embraces Trump’s perspective on public schools could implement several changes that would have a huge impact on public education in three ways.
First, the secretary could rescind all existing directives and regulations dealing with race and gender equity, LBGQT+ rights, and DEI programs. This would end the DOE’s emphasis on equity and non-discrimination.
Second, the secretary could issue new directives that encourage prayer in school, encourage states to adopt laws that end teacher tenure, and encourage state boards of education to adopt hiring standards requiring all public school teachers and administrators to attain a certificate demonstrating that they “embrace patriotic values and support the American Way of Life.” Such directives, combined with the passage of state legislation eliminating tenure would make it possible for local school boards to remove “woke” teachers and administrators and eliminate courses that introduce students to “divisive concepts” that make some of them uncomfortable.
Finally, and most crucially, a MAGA-minded secretary of Education could recommend that all federal funds for education, including Title One, special education, Head Start and discretionary grants be bundled and provided to states in the form of a block grant. This would save money by eliminating DOE bureaucrats who enforce regulations associated with these funds and give the states the authority to use these funds more flexibly.
In this paradigm, where the DOE downshifts the responsibility for disbursing millions of dollars of federal funds and the oversight of public schools to the states, New Hampshire’s election results are very consequential. As in the national election, education was not a focal point in New Hampshire’s gubernatorial election. Both candidates promised to control costs and offered platitudes about the vital role of public schools. The one clear difference that emerged during the gubernatorial campaign was whether Frank Edelblut should be retained as commissioner of Education, a decision that will become especially crucial as the state absorbs more responsibility and authority for spending.
With Ayotte as governor, it seems likely that Edelblut will continue to head New Hampshire schools. With a solid Republican majority in both the House and Senate and Ayotte’s backing, it is possible that New Hampshire could fund public schools with a voucher system based on “parental choice.” In such a voucher system, parents of school-aged children would receive vouchers for each of their children that could be used to:
■Cover the cost for public schools in their community.
■Help cover the costs of tuition to other public schools that are willing to accept them.
■Fully or partially cover tuition costs to unregulated private and/or religiously affiliated schools.
■Pay for the computer technology and internet services needed to enroll their child in online courses,
■Reimburse themselves or a tutor for homeschooling.
The groundwork for such a statewide plan is already in place in the form of the Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs). These lightly regulated $4,600 vouchers can be used for most of the items outlined above. As currently devised, EFAs siphon funds away from the Education Trust Fund that underwrites public schools, a funding model that is complicated and controversial. But by giving parents a voucher for each of their children no matter where they are enrolled, the New Hampshire Legislature could eliminate the headaches of debating the EFAs on an annual basis. And here’s another bonus: by offering all parents $6,000 vouchers — an amount based on the current $4,100 per pupil funding level in the Education Trust Fund plus the approximate $1,900 per student that could come from the DOE block grant based on current funding levels — the Republican lawmakers could argue they are providing adequate funds in accordance with the state Constitution.
With Edelblut and Ayotte’s endorsement and support, New Hampshire legislators could also pass legislation that eliminates teacher tenure and pass any legislation necessary to enshrine the education goals set forth in the Republican platform and Project 2025.
In this brave new voucher world, local school boards would still have an important role to play. They would need to raise the local funds in excess of the $6,000 per pupil they receive from the state for students who enroll in their schools and they would need to make certain the funds they receive in the form of vouchers are applied in accordance with any regulations the State Department of Education develops relative to special education.
And presumably, they would oversee the implementation of directives from Edelblut’s office, covering such subjects as the teaching of “divisive topics,” limitations on the use of some reading materials, and, possibly, the tenure status of every teacher and administrator.
I trust that these are the changes voters in New Hampshire hoped for when they cast their ballots in November. If not, I encourage everyone who values community-based public schools to monitor the bills under consideration in Concord and keep in mind that any decisions made in the next two years can be reversed in November 2026.
Wayne Gersen is a retired public school administrator. He lives in Etna.