Social media lit up Tuesday evening with the news that President-elect Trump has tapped professional wrestling magnate and former Small Business Administration (SBA) administrator Linda McMahon to lead the U.S. Department of Education. McMahon currently chairs the America First Policy Institute, a nonprofit think tank founded to advance policies like parental rights along with more divisive education proposals. A former member of Connecticut’s state board of education, her installation would mark the department’s second consecutive leader with roots in the Nutmeg State, and the second billionaire GOP secretary in a row. While McMahon’s primary charge is to usher this forty-five-year-old agency out of existence, it’s unclear whether her boss is willing to expend any political capital to get Congress to go along. Instead, McMahon would do well to focus on academic achievement—something that was given remarkably short shrift by her predecessor.
Returning Uncle Sam’s focus to improving academics ought not be too much of a stretch, given what we know about the education secretary-designate. In the coming weeks, more will be learned about McMahon’s views on education, but school choice is unquestionably near or at the top of the list. Consider an op-ed she penned for the Huffington Post nearly a decade ago titled, “Today’s kids, tomorrow’s leaders.” In it, McMahon underscored the importance of high-quality charter schools in ensuring that all students are academically well-prepared:
I support charter schools because I have seen the great work they do, especially in disadvantaged urban areas where kids often have challenges far beyond a weekly spelling test. Charter schools have high standards. Students often outscore their peers in standardized tests. The secret: Teachers, kids, and parents are all involved, and ALL are held accountable. Charters are community-based public/private schools that receive part of their funding from the private sector. I don’t believe charter schools take anything away from traditional public schools; rather, I think they can be centers for innovation and models for best practices.
A few things to note on McMahon’s calling out of urban charter schools: (1) the research base behind them is almost universally positive and has grown considerably since she wrote that piece; (2) despite charter schools’ success in improving the lives of needy urban families, Democrats have largely turned their backs on them; (3) the big city swing to Trump may have occurred in part because of this betrayal by Democrats (Biden and Harris included) of low-income and minority children. Doubling down on charters and charter growth would be a shrewd policy play, as well as a politically astute one that could further cement the loyalty of the GOP’s newly won poor and working-class constituents.
But no matter what policy prescriptions come down from McMahon, her success will depend in large part on who she surrounds herself with at the department. Assuming the agency stays around, anyone heading it needs strong deputy secretaries, deputies to the deputy secretaries, associate deputy secretaries, and every other permutation that runs up and down the ladder. She shouldn’t hesitate—nor should the White House—in choosing some who didn’t necessarily support the GOP ticket. Andy Rotherham is right that “we’re all in this together” and that we need good people to step up to ensure the next four years are the best they can be for our children:
We face real challenges as a country, and specifically in education, and we need the best possible people in government to address them regardless of who is in charge. This doesn’t mean acquiescing to things you don’t agree with, but it does mean coming to the table.
The argument, “I want Trump to fail because I don’t like him,” doesn’t align with rhetoric like, “I care about improving education in this country” or “I put kids first.” If you disagree with Trump, then persuade and pivot to governmental politics from electoral politics. Don’t hope or root for the worst just to make a point. One makes you an advocate; the other makes you an asshole.
To be sure, the President-elect’s treatment of the Department of Education as a consolation prize for Secretary-designate McMahon (who wanted Commerce) doesn’t inspire confidence. But given the present state of affairs, this selection could have a silver lining. From FAFSA to fundamentals, the abject failure of the outgoing administration on education suggests that McMahon could be exactly what’s needed now in Washington. Not a veteran school administrator, but an outsider with managerial prowess and a knack for getting things done. As the former head of SBA, McMahon has more executive experience than the past two education secretaries combined. And she knows wrestling, too, which is definitely a plus when tangling with Congressmen, bureaucrats, even the White House staff. Let’s hope she can use that know-how to whip Uncle Sam into shape and help more of our nation’s students get back on track.
