Public industries in the U.S. are more politicized than in other developed nations. (The recent shooting of a healthcare CEO is a potent reminder of the dangers and frustrations of a predominantly private and for-profit healthcare system).
Public schools have not escaped politicization either. Recent disputes over book bans in K-12 schools and the widely misunderstood topic of ‘critical race theory,’ conspiracy theories about LGBTQIA+ topics in school discussions, and the policing and lack of protection of trans students in many states have contributed to making most, if not all, aspects of the public school system a part of the major party political platforms. With the nomination of Linda McMahon as Secretary of Education, more questions arise about the future of public schools.
Linda McMahon has already proved to have some controversial views on public education. A businesswoman, and former CEO of WWE, McMahon has been active in Trump’s political sphere since his first term, when she ran the Small Business Administration, a federal agency that guides and funds small businesses. According to the New York Times, she has been a part of Trump’s transition team to pick the cabinet in his new administration. She was also the head of a pro-Trump Super PAC called America First Action. PAC stands for political action committee, and these organizations are ways that candidates can get donations without being subject to federal regulation (as there are usually limits to the amount of money one person or entity can donate to a candidate). McMahon had a brief stint on the Connecticut State Board of Education in 2009, which is the entirety of her experience in the field: she lied about her degree to get the job, falsely claiming she had a bachelor’s in education. In reality, her bachelor’s was in French, with an additional bit of teaching training. She alleges that she genuinely believed her degree was in education because of this teaching experience. However, she still resigned from the board when this came to light after the Hartford Courant published an exposé.
McMahon has emphasized the importance of families making their own decisions about what schools are best for their children: i.e. schools outside of the public system like private, charter, and parochial schools. This might not seem unusual, although it is questionable for a person nominated to a public position to be advocating for private schools. Private schools are a relatively common part of the education system and often thought of as a better alternative to underfunded public schools. However, comparing the US to developed countries in Europe that have implemented more government regulation of private schools (because they rely on federal funding and cannot be for-profit) and therefore a more equitable public school system is enlightening. These changes were made because of the concerns about income inequality and general inequality that educational differences create. Compared to our allies, the US is behind in its efforts to equalize the education system and lessen the effects underfunded education has later in life, as it reinforces social and economic divides. If all students are in the public school system, richer families who would usually opt out of a public education put more money and energy into bettering the public schools their children attend. McMahon also supports increasing “parental rights” would also theoretically give parents more influence over what is being taught in schools.
The power of the federal Department of Education is not clear cut, and it is uncertain what exactly McMahon will do to the department to make it more ‘efficient,’ which Trump has expressed to be his goal. But her policy positions should be of interest to people in the public education system. Understanding McMahon’s positions is important to understanding the future of government entities, and we should all watch closely to see how the school system changes after January 20th. Her changes to the Department of Education should also prove insightful into Trump’s plans for the future of American government, from public service agencies to institutions like the FBI.