Linda McMahon and a New Era for the Department of Education
Linda McMahon's potential leadership at the Department of Education raises serious concerns about prioritizing corporate interests over student needs.
DAVID SHENG
Linda McMahon at the SBA Administrator Hearing, Flickr 2017
With a new president soon to take office in January, the American education sector faces a period of uncertainty and potential upheaval that may affect schools across the country. President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for Secretary of Education Linda McMahon could mean serious changes to the Department of Education structure and a reshaping of national educational policy.
The Department of Education has long been used as the primary vehicle for federal involvement in education. Crucially, the U.S. Constitution contains no mention of education, meaning that most of the authority to regulate schools is reserved for state governments, according to the Tenth Amendment. The Department of Education has been crucial in ensuring civil rights laws are upheld and supporting low-income or special education students through targeted funding. It spends $18.4 billion in grants to Title I schools and $18.4 billion for the IDEA program, which supports special education.
McMahon is best known for co-founding World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and her tenure as head of the Small Business Administration (SBA) during Trump’s first term. Raised in North Carolina, McMahon first entered the political arena when she unsuccessfully ran for U.S. Senate in Connecticut in 2010 and 2012.
Although many Democrats have expressed disapproval at her nomination, they are not altogether opposed to it either. McMahon is viewed by many as a pragmatic and constructive leader by both parties. She also received bipartisan approval for her handling of the SBA, supporting small businesses with critical funding during the pandemic.
However, critics have raised concerns about McMahon’s lack of substantive experience in education policy. Although McMahon did serve on the Board of Trustees at Sacred Heart University and as a member of Connecticut’s Board of Education for a short time, her qualifications pale in comparison to traditional expectations for the role. Such concerns may hurt McMahon's confirmation prospects, mirroring the challenges faced by Trump's previous Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos.
Opponents of the Department of Education view it to be ineffective, a waste of taxpayer money, and a symbol of government overreach. Jonathan Butcher from the conservative Heritage Foundation argues, “We have ample evidence that it is not serving its purpose,” believing that eliminating the department would be “consistent with both the interest in smaller government and the interest in doing what’s right for kids.”
Whether Trump and McMahon actually have the legal authority to dismantle the department is another matter. The power to abolish the Department of Education ultimately lies with Congress, and it remains to be seen where many Republican congresspeople stand on the issue. The problem is that the majority of Title I funding provided by the Department of Education actually goes to rural red states, meaning that many Republican congresspeople may resist proposals to ensure the interests of their state constituents. As a result, McMahon’s nomination could be key to Trump’s campaign. While they may not succeed in putting an end to the Department of Education outright, McMahon would be able to change its course in a direction that is aligned with her and the president-elect’s vision for the future of American education.
The potential changes raise critical questions about educational equity. While much of her policy agenda remains unclear, McMahon is seen—like Trump—as a staunch advocate for parental control in school choice, favoring charter schools and voucher programs over traditional public schools. To some, this policy shift could drive a wedge in the school-funding gap and perpetuate educational inequalities. For others, it’s a practical measure that eliminates another inefficient bureaucracy. Supporters argue for more local control, while critics worry about the impact on low-income and special education students. It is undeniable that many of the educational programs supported by the Department of Education may now be at risk, potentially affecting millions of students across the United States
The stakes for students, parents, and educators alike are now at a climax. A new presidency may usher in sweeping changes to the Department of Education and the country’s education system as a whole. Whether McMahon’s nomination means streamlining a bloated bureaucracy or a step backward in ensuring equity, the pursuit of quality education for all people and the closing of the education gap in America must remain a priority for policymakers.
Saphron Initiative staff and guest contributors often express their views in pieces on Edisco. These pieces do not constitute an organizational endorsement of the viewpoints within. Our goal is to encourage and uplift student voices and we respect diverse opinions. We encourage all readers to conduct further research and develop informed opinions on the issues discussed.
