Trump’s WWE Associate Has a Controversial Vision for American Schools

Donald Trump Cabinet selections: Linda McMahon’s Vision for the Department of Education.

As the political landscape shifts, we find ourselves asking what Trump’s second term will mean for our schools. With his recent announcement of Linda McMahon as his candidate for Secretary of Education, there are hints of continuity from his first term. Her focus on education is influenced by her background as head of the Small Business Administration and her advocacy for apprenticeships, aligning education with workforce development.

However, history tells us that returning to the educational framework of the Founding Fathers, as some of Trump’s supporters suggest, may lead us down a disastrous path. The reality of education in early America was chaotic and lacking. After the Revolutionary War and before the Civil War, local control over schools resulted in a system that inadequately served the population. Many children, particularly those of color, faced significant barriers to accessing education. Enslaved Black children were often forbidden from attending school, while free Black children struggled to find educational opportunities. In 1828, only 600 Black children were enrolled in New York City’s public schools despite a need for many more.

Horace Mann, a significant figure in the push for public education, highlighted a startling inequity in the schooling system. By the late 1830s, vast numbers of children in Massachusetts could not find schools, pausing their potential and limiting future opportunities. In rural areas like Georgia, the disparity was even worse, with thousands of white children lacking access to any form of public education. Such statistics reveal a system that failed to meet the educational needs of many young Americans.

Apprenticeships were abundant back then, but their outcomes varied dramatically based on socio-economic status. While some affluent families accessed structured training, many poor children became bound servants without meaningful educational prospects. Children were not just learners; they were workers, often engaged in labor well before formal schooling, which disrupted their academic growth. Even reforms pushed by figures like Mann did little to rectify the widespread neglect of child education during that time.

If confirmed, McMahon might emphasize a blend of workforce training and educational funding that echoes this earlier period in American history. Her organization promotes funding scholarships for both public and private education, a model that has sparked significant debate in various states. In Texas, for instance, recent proposals aimed at creating voucher programs faced backlash from conservative circles, highlighting fears of creating “education deserts” where public schools would suffer, impacting rural families who depend on these institutions.

The Texas voucher conflict underscores a crucial point: public schools are relied upon across the political spectrum. Our country learned vital lessons about education—namely that equitable funding and access are necessary for all students. Offering school choice without ensuring adequate private alternatives only perpetuates inequality. A McMahon-led Education Department risks sidelining these lessons, with potentially dire consequences for America’s youth and their future.

All indications suggest that prioritizing employer needs over educational objectives could lead to greater disparities, benefiting some while neglecting others. If history offers any guidance, it’s clear that we must tread carefully as we consider these changes in education policy. The ramifications of a McMahon-led educational approach could be significant, and not in a way that serves the greater good.

Stay informed with the latest updates and insights from the world of news and politics. Sign up for our newsletter for a daily digest of key issues and developments that may affect you. You can manage your preferences any time. Thank you for being part of our community.