US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon plans to shutter the US Department of Education and is calling it the department’s “Final Mission.” This mission, per McMahon, will adhere to three convictions.
- Parents are the primary decision makers in their children’s education.
- Taxpayer-funded education should refocus on meaningful learning in math, reading, science, and history—not divisive DEI programs and gender ideology.
- Postsecondary education should be a path to a well-paying career aligned with workforce needs.1
I have so many thoughts.
The first is that generally, I agree. I say that with great hesitation, however, because I know how I understand the three convictions is likely not how she understands the convictions. Nor is how I would apply the three convictions how she would apply them. That is evident to me by the simple fact that, to me, applying these convictions would leave the US Department of Education not only intact, but also more robust. Enacting and maintaining these convictions for every learner in every family in the country requires great work of a large scope – the kind of scope that necessitates a US Department of Education.
1. “Parents are the primary decision makers in their children’s education.” I agree with that. Generally speaking, parents and guardians are the primary decision makers in their school-aged children’s lives. That doesn’t mean, however, that all parents and guardians are good decision makers. Nor do most parents and guardians have adequate information to make all educational decisions for their children. Hear me out. I’m not saying we should remove parents and guardians from their children’s education – not at all. Had someone tried to remove me from my children’s education, I would have unleashed an apocalyptic level of fury. What I am saying is that all parents and guardians haven’t dedicated their lives to the art and science of education, nor have they mastered the various subjects taught at school. Parents and guardians need support and help. It truly does take a village to raise a child. A community of input in educational decision making benefits our children, our communities, and our society. Parents and guardians have the final word on their children, but they don’t have the final word on all the children in their communities; nor are they the only voices that should be heard.
Parents and guardians being primary decision makers should not result in public funding for education being shuttled to private schools. It shouldn’t mean children with disabilities or from low income environments or who are unhoused or who don’t have parents or guardians or whose primary home language isn’t English no longer receive services vital to their educational access. It should not determine that only a male centric, white-washed curriculum be the version of education our children receive. Parents and guardians as primary decision makers should not embolden a return to de facto segregation.
2. “Taxpayer-funded education should refocus on meaningful learning in math, reading, science, and history—not divisive DEI programs and gender ideology.” I agree with this up to the dash. Generally speaking, education should focus on meaningful learning in important subjects, of which math, reading, science, and history are central. I’m not so sure how I feel about the word “refocus,” but other than that, the first part of the sentence is solid. If, as a society, we actually focused on “meaningful learning,” diversity, equity, and inclusion of people of various races, ethnicities, abilities, genders, languages, cultures, and on and on would be included in the lessons taught and the foundations represented. Because we ignore the historical fact that people who are not white, male, cisgender, and heterosexual have always participated in all fields, subjects, careers, and histories, we omit them in much of what we teach. Because we don’t include representation of people who don’t align with the aforementioned categories, we need DEI. The intent of DEI is not divisiveness. It becomes divisive when people’s perceptions do not align with the truths being shared.
“Meaningful learning in math, reading, science, and history” should include more than a brief mention of the same historical figures over and over. It should include more than a nod to the various months of the year earmarked for community representation. “Meaningful learning in math, reading, science, and history” should include all of the people who have made possible the math, reading, science, and history that we teach.
3. “Postsecondary education should be a path to a well-paying career aligned with workforce needs.” I agree, but postsecondary education should be so much more than merely an avenue toward employment. I definitely want everyone to be able to work in a well-paying career doing something they love and something that is meaningful to their community. I bristle a little, however, at the idea of aligning postsecondary education with “workforce needs.” I get it. We want people to be able to complete their postsecondary education and find a job that will use what they learned. But the needs of the workforce change rapidly, and in order to provide high-quality education, postsecondary institutions cannot and should not change per the whims of workforce needs.
Rather, let’s teach people how to discover their strengths, how to lean into those strengths, how to learn, how to innovate, how to create, how to research, how to make mental connections between disparate ideas, how to view themselves as part of a larger whole with rich histories to draw upon, how to care about the people around them and the planet they occupy, how to serve others, how to achieve mastery, how to think like a person in their field, and how to think divergently. When we equip learners in such a way, they will be prepared to enter careers and flexible enough to align with workforce needs. Plus they will have more empathy and connectedness to their communities, our society, and the world.
McMahon’s “Final Mission” seems positioned like the upcoming Mission: Impossible movie, Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning. I would like to see, instead, a move toward something more like a Star Trek movie with a “continuing mission . . . to boldly go where no one has gone before.” US education needs an overhaul, yes, but let’s do it together for the good of everyone.
- Linda McMahon. “Our Department’s Final Mission.” https://www.ed.gov/about/news/speech/secretary-mcmahon-our-departments-final-mission
↩︎