The secretary of education doesn’t have to be a public school teacher

During her time as Secretary of Education, there’s been no shortage of leftist frustration with Betsy DeVos. At the time of her appointment, there was much in the way of outcry over her lack of on-the-ground experience as an educator (and everything else, so the story went). Top-tier presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren recently declared a commitment to appoint a public school teacher as Secretary of Education.

Sure, Warren’s tweet has more than 17,000 likes and thousands of retweets. But that doesn’t mean she’s right.

The public education system has long been revered as a tenet of national life. Unfortunately, that has also brought with it a politicization of the public school system, fostering an increasingly polarized environment where alternative solutions such as homeschooling, charter schools, or private schools have become vilified by state school purists. At a Democratic forum on education in July, only one of the 10 attending candidates, Beto O’Rourke, spoke out in favor of non-profit charter schools, and was quickly booed in response. True to form, now-former candidate New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio took opposition a step further, claiming that support of charter schools should be grounds for disqualification for nominees, adding, “I hate the privatizers and I want to stop them.”

This attitude is the same one that lends itself to Warren-style assertions that only a public school teacher is qualified to run the Department of Education. It demonstrates a devotion not to the success of education itself, but to the idea that the only effective methods are those within the government’s immediate control, and that any alternative approach is one that doesn’t deserve equal recognition.

The notion that a cabinet member must have a direct link to the department they oversee isn’t compulsory across all positions. In fact, Congress mandates that the Secretary of Defense must be appointed “from civilian life” to prevent any conflict of interest that would give the military too much power. Similarly, the positions of Secretary of State, Energy, Labor, and Agriculture are often held by individuals whose professional knowledge stems from previous, separate professions. Doesn’t it seem that the candidate for any cabinet position should be chosen based on a total ability to succeed and perform the duties of the role effectively? The source of that ability, whether from direct experience in the field or from knowledge gained elsewhere, is really secondary.

It’s the philosophy we follow each time we elect a non-incumbent president. There has been no newly elected president familiar with every single aspect of government or presidential duties, nor one whose experience directly aligned with every projected responsibility. Instead, we believe in our chosen president’s ability to be an effective decision-maker and act in a number of capacities. The president is, for instance, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but first-hand military experience isn’t a requirement for election.

Presumably, Warren was referring to narrowing secretary candidates to traditional public school teachers, which would bar thousands of qualified and knowledgeable people from the post. Federal restrictions on curriculum, teaching methods, testing, and even homework often drive many excellent educators to seek alternative opportunities at charter, private, or parochial schools. Teachers in environments like Waldorf, Montessori, unschooling, or magnet schools have unique insight into alternative teaching methods that the traditional public school system has been quick to write off. It’s illogical to think that a teacher who has spent 20 years in a public school is somehow better equipped to evaluate the nation’s educational needs than one who has spent 20 years in a private setting.

The implied idea that there’s only one suitable teaching method robs the Department of Education of a potentially qualified leader who could provide students with new opportunities. Like any other field, there are many brilliant public school teachers worthy of praise. But there are also plenty of others who don’t deserve to be so readily praised by Democrats. Warren, for example, often cites her time as a public school teacher to demonstrate her empathy for student debt, yet she earned over $400,000 per year as a college professor, arguably contributing to the high cost of education she claims to fight. She was listed as one of Harvard University’s top earners, and nevertheless she’s hailed as a champion against the ever-rising costs of higher education.

For too long we’ve idolized a one-size-fits-all public education system. In our desire to force a government solution, we’ve been unwilling to reward those parents and teachers who are thinking outside the box. We have forgotten that the form of schooling is secondary to the ultimate goal of producing well-adjusted, educated citizens. While public education will always play a necessary role, it’s really just one option among many. It’s crucial that we adopt an openness to innovation, and that starts with applying that same openness when selecting our Secretary of Education. After all, increased innovation in education results in greater opportunity for students and more freedom of choice for their parents. It’ll never be a bad idea to appoint a Secretary of Education who thinks that, too.

Rachel Tripp is a Young Voices contributor from Washington, D.C.