She may be a very nice person, I’ve never met the woman. I will not pass personal judgment like that and frankly I don’t really care if our leaders are nice people or jerks as long as they champion and, hopefully, pass and enact policies which will be beneficial especially to the most vulnerable populations.
I will say that policies that she and her family and organizations have championed, both in terms of education and beyond, have greatly hurt the most vulnerable in Michigan (and beyond… I just directly see the Michigan effects) and have generally been done against the will of the people.
Hopefully not paywalled (I have a subscription, and still haven’t figured out how to tell whether something’s available to nonsubscribers or not), and I haven’t had a chance to read it beyond the ledes of each section yet, but notice of this Chronicle of Higher Education breaking-news report just came across my feed: [What Does Betsy DeVos Have in Mind for Higher Ed?](What Does Betsy DeVos Have in Mind for Higher Ed?)
That is in my opinion a very balanced view of her. Thanks for posting dfbdfb. The superintendent of Grand Rapids Public Schools, the district most often associated with the DeVos family supports her. The family has been very supportive of public education in their hometowns. I think it is a mistake to point at Detroit as an illustration of the failure of charter schools…Detroit’s problems are so systemic and bleak that education is just one piece of the problems in Detroit and to point at charter schools as an issue is a big over generalization. In my little town we had friends whose children stayed in our public school, friends whose kids went to charter schools, friends whose kids went to religious affiliated schools and friends whose kids left and went to prep schools. Choice is not necessarily in and of itself a negative and the ability for everyone regardless of income level to have choice is not necessarily a negative.
I just need to add because it’s driving me up the wall. The media seems to have no idea what to do with her last name.
DeVos, as pronounced by them, is pronounced Dee-Voss (rhymes with “moss” like on a tree). You can look up Dick Devos’ old campaign videos if you need to hear it. (Which is also how it’s burned into my brain.)
“She wants to turn all of public education into for-profit charter schools and destroy our public schools,” Hecker said… Hecker also worries DeVos would want to over-test children." Hecker is the President of the Michigan AFT:
“In Michigan, we know firsthand how disastrous DeVos’ ideology is” – Steven Cook, Michigan Education Association President.
In MIchigan, the state constitution forbids the use of pubic funds to pay for private schools. DeVos lobbied to change the constitution and lost.
By definition, for-profit schools are money-making operations first and foremost – a business opportunity for the oligarchs who invest in them. If Devos and allies are really interested in the public good, why don’t they limit their support to non-profit schools?
Public funds for religious schools would violate the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state.
While in theory educational policy is the dominion of the individual states, and the federal government has no constitutional authority to affect educational policy, in practice the last few administrations have been able to get around this principle by offering federal tax dollars to states in return for alignment with federal government dictates.
For example, in the case of Common Core, the Obama Administration was able to impose Common Core on states by making $4.5 billion dollars of stimulus money available ONLY to states that adopted Common Core standards and testing. The cash-strapped states were effectively blackmailed by the federal government into adopting a set of standards sight unseen.
Similarly, Trump has said he will use $20 billion of taxpayer dollars to pay for “school choice”. If approved by Congress, this could mean that states would have to accept school choice or lose their share of the $20 billion in federal tax dollars. It is ironic to call this “choice”, because taxpayers will not have any “choice” about whether to pay the taxes that fund the $20 billion, some of which will go to well-off people to send their kids to private schools, including for-profits. This will effectively transfer dollars from the pockets of the taxpayers )including the lower middle and middle class) to the pockets of the wealthy and super-wealthy.
The US constitution leaves educational policy to the states. Trump ran on a campaign promise to leave education to the states. He even said that he would close the Department of Education. The federal government should not use federal taxpayer dollars to support a particular and highly controversial educational agenda. The question of school choice and vouchers should be left to the states and not imposed by the federal government.
Here are the reactions to the DeVos nomination on Twitter by Sandra Stotsky, a member of the Common Core validation committee and one of the most authoritative critics of Common Core:
“The strategy by the pro-CC folks was to get a pro-charter person in, disguised as anti-CC. Gates won again.”
“National Senators need to ask her how she’d increase local control, in confirmation hearings.”
I think you need to look at the state of education in your own communities to form an opinion. And understand how it can differ in other places.
It’s no surprise NEA is alarmed. But just looking at my area, the union is strong, the quality of mass public education is not. Common Core has debatable results. The argument is typically, “Don’t take students away” and job security, as opposed to what kids need, generating the will and energy to make changes that improve outcomes for more students.
Charter schools in my state are public and offer kids a chance for a more custom experience.
Re privates, the issue would be how to distribute vouchers, avoid underwriting wealthier families, but give choice to those needing the financial support. Let’s not assume leaving kids in underperfoming schools is the only way. It isn’t working. Not for the brightest and not for those who struggle. If we want to give them a better chance, we do that.
Here, the private schools will give poorer families fin aid, often generous. But they have their own limits, operate close to the line. Vouchers for poorer familes could work for the kids and those better schools.
Ymmv, depending. Where I went to k-12, the default public schools are so much better.
I struggle mightily with school choice and vouchers for private - for profit charters and for religious institutions.
I am against the federal government over reaching in education which is a state responsibility.
It is beyond me that the person appointed to this role would have NO education training or experience.
This is another pay for play - social change angent who purchased influence – not a thing about making America Great Again.
IMHO a horrible appointment that will bring nothing but take so much.
I was addressing the charter school policy pushed by DeVos in Michigan, where 80% of charters are operated for profit. Since she has been nominated for Secretary of Education, we might expect that she will support a policy similar to the one she supported in Michigan, according to which tax dollars should be used for private, for-profit schools.
In the Michigan overall, performance levels in ELA and math went significantly DOWN for grades 3-8 from 2014 to 2105, suggesting that the for-profit charters are not working out so well. One poster said that Grand Rapids schools are doing well, but the Detroit ones not. This would be a good reason to avoid a federal policy imposed on all local school districts whether this policy is beneficial or no.
Whatever the merits or demerits of charter schools and/or vouchers, the Federal government should stay out of education and let these policy issues be decided at the local level.
I’m enjoying the discussion here- a great spectrum of viewpoints and experiences! I’d like to add that “state” and “local” control are not synonymous. In Oregon the divide between the few big districts (Portland, Beaverton and suburbs) and the rest of the state is a chasm in terms of public education needs. When the state acts, more often than not it shifts priorities and resources to rural areas by literally stealing tax dollars away from the metro area. I trust the federal government more than Salem in writing policy and subsidizing education that helps my district. Really no surprise given the blue/red divide seen in the presidential election, maybe.
The thing that concerns me about true local control is how easily school boards can be dominated by an entrenched superintendent or a small number of directors pushing an extremist or self-serving agenda with no checks on their power grabs. That situation isn’t cured just because families have “choice”, and actually can exacerbate school districts becoming fiefdoms.
Worth remembering: Any effects of national school choice policies are going to differ from place to place because of the local (whether state or more localized than that) legal environment. For example, vouchers were struck down a few years back in Alaska, because Alaska’s state constitution explicitly disallows direct or indirect transfers of public funds to religious institutions; in Florida, however, the state constitution only disallows direct transfers of funds, and so therefore its pass-through voucher program passes muster.
“The thing that concerns me about true local control is how easily school boards can be dominated by an entrenched superintendent or a small number of directors pushing an extremist or self-serving agenda with no checks on their power grabs. That situation isn’t cured just because families have “choice”, and actually can exacerbate school districts becoming fiefdoms.”
@Oregon2016 – that’s a great point. I’ve seen it happen, in fact, at a huge school district in the suburbs of Denver where parents, politicians and educators waged agonizing political battles against “a small number of directors pushing an extremist or self-serving agenda.” It was ugly. It was expensive. It drove everyone nuts. And it only hurt school kids.
Charters in PA have served their for-profit purpose – making their owners rich, largely rejecting special needs students, avoiding most strictures imposed on public schools and doing it all with very little accountability or oversight to the state or local boards who are basically required to funnel taxpayer monies to the charter. The per student payout might be $4K, but the charter is under no obligation to show how they spend it, or even under any obligation to spend it all. So, they spend $2K per student and pocket the rest. Districts all over the state are failing from the drain of money to charters. It’s privatizing a public service. It’s monetizing education. People like DeVos believe since they went to school once, they know everything they need to know, which is very much akin to saying I’ve been to the doctor, so let me diagnose you. Her kids also did not attend publics. She spent more than $200 million investing in faith-based education replacments. So yes, I think she is in the catbird seat for change, if only because the last of teachers fighting privatization will be overwhelmed and leave.
Public education is the oldest promise of the USA. A community says it is best for us all, to educate us all – rich, poor, able, struggling, troubled, dorky, etc. We promise to be here for the long haul. We promise that you are worth the investment. We promise to put our backs into it. But now, people want to slink off and create little bastions without the need to regulate or cooperate. God help our grandchildren.