Linda McMahon is bad news for US education system

President Elect Donald Trump has been busy crafting his cabinet and building his cacastocracy. The appointment of Matt Gaetz as Attorney General has caught a lot of people off guard, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s low hanging fruit. There is a more insidious appointment at foot that’s Linda McMahon, the co founder of World Wrestling Entertainment she previously led the Small Business Administration under Trump’s first term, and it looks like the 76 year old who has no experience in education has been tapped to lead the Department of Education this time around. We should be afraid, very afraid, while McMahon’s business acumen may have served well in her other roles, her project 2025 infused vision for the Department of Education is myopic and dangerous. McMahon’s priorities appear focused on reshaping the education system to better align with the needs of employers, emphasizing career and tech education over traditional academic pathways. She’s criticized higher education and suggested that short term credentialing and workforce training programs could better prepare students for immediate job placement. Now, while her emphasis on aligning education with workforce demands may seem pragmatic on the surface, it ignores the complex and multi faucet role that education plays in our society. This is a bigger issue that must receive attention. As the Secretary of Education McMahon will likely erode equity, stifle intellectual development and deepen divisions between economic and social classes. Historically, the American education system has served as both an engine of economic opportunity and a pillar of democracy. For instance, there was the Moral Act of 1862 which had established land grant colleges. That act was aimed at not just preparing students for jobs in agriculture and mechanics, but also to create a more informed and capable citizenry. Education was never solely about workforce readiness. It was about empowering individuals to participate in meaningful civic life. McMahon’s singular focus on career and technical education, while valuable in certain contexts, threatens to reduce education to a transactional relationship between students and their future employers, her game plan is to create obtuse workers, not informed citizens. Let’s be clear, aligning education with workforce needs is not not I say, inherently bad. Programs like apprenticeships and certifications can open doors for students who might otherwise be left behind in a traditional academic setting. But when this approach becomes the dominant model, it risks creating a two tiered education system. History offers a cautionary tale as to this type of dual system during the early 20th century, tracking systems in schools sorted students along racial and socio economic lines, largely into vocational or academic tracks. This not only perpetuated inequality, but also locked students out of opportunities to reach their full potential, albeit couched in modern rhetoric, while McMahon’s vision echoes this troubling history by prioritizing workforce training over broader intellectual growth. Perhaps most troubling is McMahon’s lack of attention to the role that public education plays as an equalizer. 19th Century Education reformer Horace Mann, he called public schools the great equalizer of the conditions of men. Now this is inspirational or aspirational, I should say, or maybe both, but it’s a goal we’re striving for. Public education has historically been one of the few institutions capable of leveling the playing field for children born into poverty or disadvantage. Redirecting public funds toward private and charter schools, as McMahon intends, threatens to further destabilize already underfunded public school systems. When Public Schools falter, it is the most vulnerable students, those without the means to opt out, who suffer the most. The potential consequences of McMahon’s efforts will extend beyond individual students to the fabric of society itself. A narrow workforce oriented education system may produce skilled workers, but it risks neglecting the cultivation of an informed citizenry. Said another way, we, the people, won’t be in an intellectual position to know we’re being hoodwinked by the wealthy, and that’s what McMahon has set up. Think of how we handled things during the Cold War, 1957, when the Soviets launched Sputnik Well, the US responded by investing in education, sciences, humanities, our government recognized that fostering innovation required more than job training. It demanded critical thinking, creativity, a broader understanding of the world around us.

Those investments pay dividends, not just in technological advancements, but also in intellectual enrichment. Compare that with McMahon’s vision, which prioritizes immediate economic outputs over long term societal gains. Education is not just a means to a paycheck, it’s the foundation of a functioning democracy and a thriving society. There are significant challenges facing education today, rising inequality, outdated infrastructure, underpaid teachers and so on. These challenges require leaders who value education as a public good, not as a subsidiary of the labor market. McMahon’s vision is not the bold reform education needs. It’s a regression to an era where opportunity was doled out sparingly to the detriment of the masses and the nation as a whole. We cannot afford to go back the.