Teacher Tea
Education at Risk: NEA's Critique of Linda McMahon's Nomination
In NEA Today’s “Top Three Reasons Linda McMahon Should Not Be Secretary of Education,” writer Amanda Litvinov critiques President Trump's nomination of Linda McMahon as Secretary of Education, arguing that she is unqualified and promotes policies that are harmful to public education.
Litvinov outlines three main areas of consideration. First, McMahon is a former CEO of the WWE and has no substantial experience in public education. Her brief and controversial tenure on the Connecticut Board of Education does little to assuage this concern, and her understanding of the needs of students and educators would therefore be limited primarily to indirect experiences and observations.
McMahon also advocates for expanding voucher programs, which could divert resources from public schools to private ones, or from schools in greatest need to those with more resources. Her agenda aligns with Project 2025, which includes dismantling the Department of Education. Project 2025 is a political initiative from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. In a nutshell: it is a plan that promotes conservative policies and provides detailed frameworks and personnel recommendations for a potential Trump administration. President Trump, however, has said that he has no connection to Project 2025 and does not make policy decisions based on its content.
Ultimately, McMahon is a significant Trump donor and supporter, and is likely to push his education policies. This includes scaling back Title IX protections and privatizing education.
According to Litvinov, educators and parents should oppose McMahon's nomination for these reasons, and because her influence would only serve to exacerbate current inequities in education. She also urges the Senate to reject her confirmation.
The Secretary of Education shapes national education policies that directly affect our classrooms and professional lives. The Secretary oversees federal funding and support for vulnerable populations, such as those with disabilities or in low-income areas. A leader who isn’t supportive of public education could strip critical resources and impose policies that dramatically alter the opportunities available to students. Both teachers and students certainly deserve a leader who champions their efforts to create supportive learning environments.
Supporters of McMahon’s nomination laud her background in business and her commitment to educational reform. As a former CEO, McMahon does have executive leadership experience, which could be valuable for managing the Department of Education. Many conservatives will also support her stance on school choice, including expanding voucher programs and promoting charter schools, which they believe can improve educational opportunities by offering alternatives to traditional public schools. McMahon’s alignment with President Trump’s broader agenda, such as limiting the role of the federal government in education, resonates with supporters who advocate for more localized control over schools.
But is being a business leader enough experience for the Department of Education? Leaders who are selected for their political positions, rather than their experience, risk turning public education into an extension of partisan politics. What a more conservative approach to federal education regulation means for students in the long run remains to be seen.