logo
Trump Fired Education Experts, Including Me, From White House Board

Trump Fired Education Experts, Including Me, From White House Board

A federal judge has blocked the Trump Administration's attempts to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education. Lawsuits have been filed against the Administration for slashing the staff and budget of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the federal education department's research arm. Massive cancelations of education-related research grants also are being contested in the courts.
Given all this, I fully anticipated that the Trump Administration would eventually get around to firing the National Board for Education Sciences (NBES). It finally happened four months into President Donald Trump's second term when he removed 13 Biden appointees from the National Board for Education Sciences on May 23.
'On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as a member of the National Board for Education Sciences is terminated, effective immediately,' the email read. 'Thank you for your service.'
As just one of the Americans who received this two-sentence message, I wonder if the sender or anyone else in the Trump Administration even knows who we are or what our service entailed.
President Joe Biden appointed 13 of us to this bipartisan White House Board in October 2022. We were selected because of our deep expertise on education research, evaluation, and development. Members included three past presidents of the American Educational Research Association, National Academy of Education inductees (including the Academy's current president who chaired NBES), a dean of two academic schools at a Historically Black University, and a mayor who worked for two decades as a teacher and school administrator and served five terms in the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
We committed to spending four years in the unpaid role because we all want the best for our democracy, we value the production and use of research, and we understand how high-quality studies and evidence-informed tools can improve educational opportunities, experiences, and outcomes for all students. Nothing about what we were asked to do qualifies as any version of wokeness or extremism. We approached our work as experts, not as politically-polarizing activists who somehow sought to advance anti-American agendas.
The voting NBES members met with and served alongside nine ex-officio members: Director of IES, Director of the National Science Foundation, Director of the Census, Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and commissioners of the four National Education Centers. It was a brilliant group of people who were united by our deep appreciation for rigorous, useful research.
During the second year of George W. Bush's presidency, Congress established NBES as part of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. We were responsible for advising the IES Director on policies and procedures, collaboratively establishing priorities for the Institute's roughly $900 million annual budget, soliciting and providing input from educators and researchers, and strengthening peer review for grant-funded research projects, plus several other responsibilities related to scientific inquiry and innovation.
The IES website specifies another role for NBES: 'Advise the Director on opportunities for the participation in, and the advancement of, women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in education research, statistics, and evaluation activities of the Institute.'
Without knowing or even asking what this entailed, it is possible that the Trump Administration presumed this to be a hotbed of DEI activities that privileged wokeness over merit and somehow discriminated against white men who applied for IES research grants. I never participated in nor witnessed this. There is no evidence of such wrongdoing.
Being invited by a U.S. president to serve on a White House board was a significant honor; I will forever appreciate the faith that the Biden-Harris Administration placed in me as a citizen and scholar. I do not wear termination by the Trump Administration from my position as a badge of honor. It is disgraceful.
Again, I anticipated that the Trump Administration would terminate my position prior to the conclusion of my four-year term. And I also anticipate that eliminating the federal education department, defunding IES, and ousting its law-abiding NBES partners will weaken the production and quality of education-focused studies and evaluation activities.
Consequently, students with disabilities will be even more underserved. Inequities between rich and poor, as well as white and racially diverse learners will widen. Solutions to antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and sexism in schools will be stifled. Also, new educational disparities will emerge but will not be systematically tracked, communicated, studied, and addressed. Congress and educational leaders will have even less access to trustworthy, high-quality research on what works, what undermines excellence and innovation, and where the U.S. is falling short in fulfilling its educational promises to students and taxpaying families.
Terminating NBES members is yet another example of the Trump Administration's attack on research, researchers, and research universities. Yanking hundreds of millions in federal research grants from Harvard and Columbia, two of the world's highest-impact producers of science and innovation, is indeed an assault on research itself. These actions are anti-American, as they will surely place our nation further behind others that pursue solutions to educational inequities, climate change, disease and health disparities, poverty, and other vexing problems.
I accepted Biden's invitation to serve on NBES because I wanted better for our country and the people educated in its schools, colleges, and universities. I also said yes because I value research. Inasmuch as I despise our undeserved and unjustified dismissal, I have greater grief for IES leaders and staff who lost their paid full-time jobs— its national statistics unit reportedly has just three remaining employees, down from around 100 before Trump began his second term.
These hardworking, law-abiding professionals are far more negatively affected by the Administration's actions than are other NBES members and me. We will be fine.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Bloomberg Daybreak: Trump-Musk Feud
Bloomberg Daybreak: Trump-Musk Feud

Bloomberg

time13 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Bloomberg Daybreak: Trump-Musk Feud

On today's podcast: 1) Elon Musk and President Donald Trump engage in a public dispute the traded personal barbs and weighed down Tesla stock and Musk's personal wealth. The dispute began over differences on the GOP tax legislation, with Musk opposing the bill and Trump accusing Musk of being motivated by self-interest. After Tesla shares tanked 14% and Musk's personal wealth dropped by $34 billion, Musk signaled a willingness to cool tensions with Trump, responding to a user's advice to "cool off and take a step back for a couple days" with "Good advice." 2) Tensions appear to be easing between the US and China. President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to further trade talks to resolve disputes over tariffs and rare earth minerals. The two leaders had a 90-minute call, during which Trump acknowledged that the trade relationship with China had gotten "a little off track" but said they are now "in very good shape" with a trade deal. 3) Investors brace for a critical May Jobs Report. Traders are awaiting the key monthly nonfarm payrolls report, which may reinforce expectations that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates at least twice this year.

We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is.
We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is.

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is.

Let's just get this out of the way: The birth rate is a red herring. It's been a common refrain that if the Trump administration and congressional leadership truly wanted to make it easier for families in America to grow and thrive, they would turn to policies like national paid leave, affordable child care, maternal health care and home and community-based services for our aging and disabled loved ones. They would be investing in early education and the caregiving workforce. They would be supporting commonsense accommodations like remote work. They would be growing social safety nets. But they've done none of that. Their response to child care is to send in grandma. They've said next to nothing about paid leave. What they apparently have suggested instead is both hilarious and dystopian. A medal for women with six or more children? Classes on your own menstrual cycle? Coupons for minivans? And instead of investing and building for the future, they're slashing and burning. From fertility and maternal health programs, to food and farm assistance, to Medicaid and Social Security, they're going after all the powerful things our country has built to sustain life. Elon Musk says the birth rate crisis is about the disappearance of civilization. I'd say he's already destroying its foundations. The real crisis is one of care. As baby boomers age, more and more of us are taking care of our parents and children all at the same time, with little help, and drowning financially and emotionally. No federal paid leave, in many counties without access to child care. The answer to the real crisis is not what we can gut and burn and take away from people, but what we can give them, the world we can create. My organization, Paid Leave for All, is asking people to envision their lives if they had the guarantee of paid family and medical leave ‒ if they knew no matter where they worked and the joy or loss they faced, they could maintain their life and their livelihood. Imagine the businesses and ventures that might be started, the families that could be sustained, the moments we wouldn't miss. Imagine the peace of mind, the paychecks kept, the lives saved. Opinion: Trump's $5,000 'baby bonus' isn't what new moms like me need What Musk, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and beyond are suggesting isn't about any of that ‒ it's not about affording working families the security and dignity of being able to take care of themselves and each other. It's simply code for hatred and bigotry, driven less by concern for families than by a desire to preserve a demographic majority. But the good news? They're still at odds with supermajorities of Americans. They're overplaying their hand, ignoring the desperate real needs of working families and missing a political opportunity. In April, House Speaker Mike Johnson went to great lengths to try to kill a bipartisan measure to simply allow new parents in Congress to vote by proxy ‒ a pro-family protocol that would cost nothing. A lot of people had never heard of it, but message testing found that when you told people even a little bit about it and Johnson's unprecedented moves to kill it, their support for the measure jumped up to 23 points. This was true across every demographic group tested, across gender, race, age and ideology. What's more, their support for broader federal policies like paid family and medical leave shot up as well. Your Turn: Are you planning to have children? Why or why not? Here's what USA TODAY readers told us. | Opinion Forum In polling done in battleground states just before the 2024 election, there was record-high support for paid leave across party lines and walks of life, however you sliced it. That included 90% of independents, 96% of suburban women and 97% of low turnout Democrats. Commentary and post-election analyses have pointed to the family policies like paid leave and affordable care that would have offered tangible improvements in people's daily lives and stress, and could have changed the political landscape and outcomes. 'We didn't deliver what people wanted ‒ help with child care, help with elder care, more security in their lives,' said Ron Klain, a former chief of staff for Joe Biden. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. And that's the task ahead ‒ not just to respond to dangerous and very real threats to our families and communities, but to also counter with a vision of how much better our lives could be, and a plan to achieve it. To outline the damage they're doing to people's wallets and freedoms, and opportunities, and then to contrast with the policies that enable us to hold onto jobs and care for our own families. The desire to succeed in life, to be able to afford one, to be able to support your loved ones, is universal. It's not a liberal fantasy, it's an idea of strength and dignity. Making more babies by threat, faux incentives or even force is not a goal or a solution. But the idea of supporting families and allowing all of us to live healthier and richer lives is one we should be restoring front and center, and a conversation we should be having. This is the project facing all of us who actually care about the survival of civilization. Dawn Huckelbridge is the founding director of Paid Leave for All. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Musk is wrong: Birth rate isn't the crisis. Child care is | Opinion

Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.

Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump just made healthcare more dangerous for pregnant women | Opinion

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store