@Ohiodad51 , I am saying that experience in an area is generally considered an asset in a chief executive, and the idea it isn’t is one I find preposterous.
The history of politics and patronage in our government does not change this fundamental fact.
Let’s demand at least as much experience from our governmental leaders as we do from the guy who comes to fix our plumbing.
“But the argument that there must not be any charter schools, or merit pay, or non unionized jobs because “it takes away from the mission of public education” is not getting anyone anywhere.”
Neither are charters, merit pay and non-unionized jobs. If De Vos was advocating something really different, I might listen. But she isn’t. She’s advocating something that doesn’t work either.
@postmodern, I am not talking about “experience” in an area. And like it or not, DeVos has “experience in an area”. She has been involved with the voucher movement for what, twenty years? What she doesn’t have is experience as a teacher, adminstrator or other employee of the public educational system. That is what the issue is. Again, if such lack of experience is disqualifying for SecEd, why is it not for other cabinet posts? What is special about SecEd?
On a larger note, a fundamental premise of our system is that we are not a government of “experts”, but rather a government of the citizenry. We have always operated thus, even though from time to time it bothers people who hold views different from the current administration. And while we admittedly trade a certain level of knowledge about the workings of the system by eschewing government by expert, we also protect against sclerosis. Certainly you would agree that a danger of only allowing teachers or administrators to serve as SecEd is that such a policy would significantly narrow the range of experiences and insight that could be brought to any given problem? Isn’t that exacty what we see in the NEA and the AFT now? More funding. No merit pay. No reductions in job protections. Money allocated to charters or directed by vouchers is “stolen” from the public schools. How long have we heard exactly those arguments? And to what good end?
I guess we have different definitions of “experience”.
And there is nothing different about SecEd, and I do not recall claiming there was.
@Ohiodad51 IMO, what is special about SecEd is that the position involves children specifically and solely. I suspect it is also because the position assumes the gatekeeper power over the universally held premise that education is the key for all children. So having someone seen as unqualified or without the generally accepted standard of experience is causing more “heat” than usual. I would also note that this argument isn’t only for SecEd but indeed other cabinet posts. I am having a very difficult time with Dr. Ben Carson being named SecHousing. I mean really?
So did mine. By far the best pre high school option was a charter. But it couldn’t keep the doors opened, so it closed down. Where I disagree with you is that this makes you, or me, “part of the problem”. I generally believe that the more choices available, the better off we are. The type of educational enviornment that suits my kid may not suit the kid down the street. The question is who gets to choose what options are available to which kids. That’s really the point. And I disagree that charters or vouchers somehow only benefit the privileged middle and upper middle class. I fit in to that category and we had a plethora of options for our kids and no access to vouchers, open enrollment schools and very, very few charters given the law in Ohio. But we were able to pay to send the kids to other, better schools. Lower middle class and true middle class people don’t always have that option. Certainly that option doesn’t exist for the poorest among us. And yet that is the population that most consistently and strongly supports vouchers and charter schools. You have to think there is a reason for that, right?
Maybe I am just too simple minded, but taking a real world example, some girls who happened to meet income and residency requirements were able to get vouchers to attend my daughter’s private (religous) school and escape the excrable inner city schools they would otherwise attend. That to me is good, even if it means that the local public school system “lost” the state funding dollars it would have had if those girls were forced to attend a crappy school. I’m for whatever helps a kid improve themselves. If that’s charters, OK. If it’s vouchers, fine. If it is a public magnet, great. The more the merrier.
@katliamom, maybe the difference between us is that I do not accept the answer that we should just keep doing what we are doing, and throwing ever increasing amounts of money into a broken system. As I said above, some schools of all types are working. Some are not. Try and make more of the former and less of the later.
@postmodern, I don’t get your point at all. Either DeVos is unqualified because she is not an educator, which I believe to be your premise (I assume that is what you meant by no “equivalent alternative”), or she is not. If the answer is she is unqualified, then by that logic anyone who serves in a cabinet post without direct experience in the industry at the core of that department is similarly unqualified. If that is not the case, then saying DeVos is unqualified is simply another way of saying I don’t like what she stands for.
@crimsonmom2019, I don’t know about SecEd being different because it is “for the children”. But I do think you are right that the argument is made for other Secretaries. My point, which I thought was fairly clear, is that we tend to see that argument made when the person asserting the premise doesn’t like the particular Secretary. Republicans bitched (although admittedly more mutedly) because Ash Carter had never served in uniform. Democrats ■■■■■ now because DeVos is not a professional educator. I would rather be honest about it and just admit that people oppose this or that cabinet appointment because they don’t like the ideas the person brings to the post, rather than arguing that he or she doesn’t know what they are doing because they don’t have a particular career merit badge.
As far as Ben Carson, I just think he really doesn’t want to serve in the government, lol. I have no idea why he took the job.
It sounds like you get my point exactly. Still not sure what was unclear about it.
Now that is a 100% grade-A strawman. Never said that. Please don’t ascribe positions to me I have not made.
Then what exactkly is your position? Is she unqualified because she is not an educator or not?
Are you serious? Or are you just poking the bear?
Our initial exchange:
What, exactly, is unclear about my position?
@Ohiodad51 I agree disagreement on position is A factor, but I also believe it is not the sole factor. I believe it is more of a percentage of a factor for some than others. I honestly believe in this case, it is not that she does not have a career merit badge but many believe she has a real lack of accepted level of knowledge for the position she holds. I happen to be one and I have no feelings one way or the other about school choice.
@Postmodern, speaking of poking the bear, I honestly have no idea what your position is, unless it is that DeVos is unqualified because she is not an educator. That seems to be the common meaning of the phrase “that argument makes immense sense to me”. If that is true, then I am asking if the rest of my statement you quoted also “makes immense sense” to you. I think I have asked that directly three or four times now. And you continue to refuse to answer, stating variations of “my position is clear”. Whatever.
@crimsonmom2019, I get that, and I think it is a perfectly valid point. Like I have said, my only criticism is to the idea that she is unqualified because she is not an educator. I don’t agree that being an educator should be a gateway requirement. Although one can also point out that the exerience argument is grounded in such a way that only “relevant” experience comes from being a part of the establishment, so it all gets kind of circular at the end.
Ohiodad, it certainly sounds like postmodern is of the opinion that the only good way to hire a cabinet secretary is to choose from the pool of individuals who would be regulated or governed directly by that secretary. Not a position with which I agree, but that is my reading of the posts.
I would agree that if you have a broken department, it makes little sense to have it led by someone who was part of the problem. Not really taking a position on this particular secretary, just a general observation.
Frankly, think the Department of Education is unconstitutional because there is no federal mandate for regulation of Education in the Constitution and those powers are thus given to the states. Give those dollars back to the states where they can be used in a way that benefits the citizens of the individual states. The best solution for Wyoming is not going to be the best solution for Mississippi or for New Hampshire. If we insist on having a Dept of Ed, it should be about 11 people who consolidate data from the states and function as a clearinghouse of ideas that states can incorporate or not as they see fit. Budget should be right about $1 Million or less.
But if the DOE doesn’t exist, then history has shown that some states will deprive some portion of their population their civil right to a free public education.
Not saying we should abolish the Dept of Education, but the above is one of the reasons we have a Dept of Justice. The Dept of Education should be about coordinating the effective and efficient schooling of the nation’s youth and I guess those of college age. The Sec Ed is not the Attorney General. I am very much a core mission guy.
Donating hundreds of millions of Daddy’s dollars is some kind of “involvement,” I guess. But not one that should qualify her for anything other than continuing to be a rich person hell bent on making life worse for poor people.
As for the incredibly tedious “does she have to be an educator”/“it’s not the same as surgeon/Def. Sec./sandwich artist” derail, well come on folks. Analogies aren’t perfect matches. If they were, they’d be equations.
@Ohiodad51 I would say this…it comes down to a lack of trust. There is, overall, not a sense of trust the black community has that a Dept of Justice would properly advocate on its behalf. It has seen in recent history and certainly past history that is really not all that long ago, an unwillingness to truly provide equal access. Now how we address the equal access is a whole other discussion not for this thread BUT I can understand the feeling. (To be clear, I know you did not advocate abolishing the Dept of Ed. I’m just giving my opinion of why I think your remedy would not work.)
The New York Times on Devos and her statement
@crimsonmom2019, maybe so. But whether people trust the Deptof Justice, or the Dept of Ed to advocate on behalf of a particular group I think has a lot more to do with politics than the particular Dept. I am sure many on the left were more comfortable with the Holder Dept of Justice than the current Dept of Ed for example.
As an aside, my daughter told me about another outrage today. Apparently, DeVos joked at CPAC that there is no such thing as a free lunch. This is now being taken as evidence that she intends to end free and reduced lunches in schools. It is a crazy world