Secretary of Education
As a public educator, I have grown weary of watching individuals with no background in education ascend to roles such as the United States Secretary of Education. The practice feels dismissive and diminishes the expertise required to lead our nation's schools. Appointing someone without classroom experience to shape national education policy disregards the complexity of teaching and the realities educators navigate each day. While these appointees often possess strong credentials in business or public service, they frequently misinterpret the fundamental principles that underpin effective education. They tend to approach schooling as a technical problem to be fixed, rather than a dynamic human endeavor that demands deep pedagogical understanding and emotional intelligence.
Those outside the profession may bring valuable insights, but leadership in education cannot succeed without grounding in the lived realities of classrooms. Teaching requires a highly specialized skill set. Leading the Department of Education demands an equally nuanced understanding of school systems, public policy, and the socioeconomic factors that influence learning outcomes. This knowledge is cultivated through years of professional preparation, ongoing development, and direct service to students. A classroom differs entirely from a corporate boardroom, and yet educational leadership roles continue to be filled by individuals unfamiliar with public education’s day-to-day challenges.
The Secretary of Education wields considerable influence over the structure and direction of American education. This role shapes federal education policy, directs funding decisions, and frames national conversations about equity, access, and reform. The Secretary does not operate behind the scenes. Their decisions reverberate across classrooms, colleges, and communities, with implications for millions of students and educators.
Consider what it would mean for someone like Linda McMahon to occupy this role. Her success in business and public service is well-documented, and she has led large organizations. However, these accomplishments do not necessarily translate to expertise in education. To evaluate her potential effectiveness, one must examine the demands of the position and the qualifications it requires.
The Secretary of Education earns a salary of $221,400, reflecting the importance and scope of the position. This compensation is commensurate with the responsibility to lead and manage federal education programs and to advocate for transformative policies at the highest levels of government. The real weight of the role lies in its impact, not in its remuneration. The Secretary’s decisions affect student access to resources, shape accountability systems, and determine the future of essential initiatives like Pell Grants, Title I funding, and student loan programs.
The person entrusted with this position should possess deep familiarity with public education. Ideally, they would have experience in the classroom, leadership roles within school districts, and a strong understanding of the challenges faced by Title I schools that serve low-income communities. These experiences provide critical insight into what works in education and what must be reformed. A leader grounded in public education brings the practical wisdom needed to implement policies that support effective teaching and learning.
In addition to educational expertise, political acumen is essential. The Secretary must work in close collaboration with the President, Congress, and state leaders. They must advocate for funding, negotiate legislation, and build coalitions to support students and educators. Without this political skill set, meaningful reform becomes difficult, if not impossible. Leadership in this role requires far more than good intentions. It demands knowledge of how educational systems operate and the experience to guide them forward.
This is where McMahon’s background prompts legitimate concerns. Her accomplishments in the private sector are not in question. However, leadership in education calls for more than administrative efficiency or corporate strategy. It requires a firsthand understanding of how policy decisions affect students, teachers, and families. The insights that come from having taught in a classroom, led a school, or worked in a district office are irreplaceable. These experiences inform compassionate, evidence-based policies that resonate with those who must implement them.
A Secretary of Education who has taught understands that success in schools is not measured by quarterly returns or market share. It is shaped by student growth, teacher collaboration, and equitable opportunities for all learners. Such a leader will prioritize long-term educational goals and focus on improving outcomes through sustained investment, rather than quick solutions. They are more likely to develop policies that address opportunity gaps, improve instructional quality, and respond to the real needs of schools.
Educators and school leaders are more inclined to trust someone who has lived their reality. That trust is essential to the success of any national education initiative. When teachers see that leadership respects their work and understands their challenges, they are more willing to collaborate and innovate. Trust fosters cooperation, and cooperation lays the foundation for effective, lasting reform.
The Secretary of Education performs a range of complex and dynamic tasks. They advise the President and Congress, oversee national programs, and shape public discourse on education. They advocate for students, promote new initiatives, and visit schools to understand what is happening on the ground. They work with superintendents, higher education leaders, and unions to ensure that policy remains connected to practice. Every decision they make has consequences for the lives of students and the work of educators.
This role demands someone who understands that education is not an abstract theory or a political talking point. It is a lived experience. It requires deep care, constant reflection, and a commitment to equity and excellence. The Secretary must bring wisdom gained through direct engagement with the public education system. That kind of wisdom is not found in spreadsheets or public relations memos. It is earned through years of hard work with students, families, and teachers.
McMahon’s background does not suggest this depth of educational experience. While her leadership in business may offer certain strengths, it does not prepare her to address the complexities of American education. A Secretary of Education must know what it means to manage a classroom, mentor a struggling student, or advocate for funding in a system with limited resources. These are not challenges that can be solved with market-driven approaches or executive efficiency alone.
The deeper concern here lies in the message such appointments send. When individuals with no background in education are elevated to its highest leadership positions, it communicates a devaluation of the profession. It implies that the expertise developed by educators over years of training and practice holds less weight than the accomplishments of outsiders. Educators are expected to accept policies crafted by those who have never stood in front of a classroom, and this expectation undermines the profession’s integrity.
If this country truly aims to improve its education system, it must entrust its leadership to those who understand it. Policymakers should listen to educators, respect their experience, and create space for their voices in national decision-making. We do not need to be fixed by outsiders. We need to be supported by individuals who recognize the value of our work and share our commitment to students.
Real progress in education begins when we center the lived knowledge of teachers and school leaders. We must stop recycling a failed pattern in which well-meaning but unqualified individuals impose solutions disconnected from the classroom. Education requires stewardship by those who understand its purpose, its challenges, and its power. Only then can we build a future that serves every student and honors every teacher.
