Agreed.
And to me, the “easy” solution is to establish a commission of public health officials, women’s groups, college officials, and law profs/retired judges? (even many progressive HLS faculty members objected to the DC letter), and others? to address this issue and come up with recommendations thru the standard regulatory process. (btw: regulations are much harder to undo with a new Administration.)
I have another concern with her, she is a member of a fundamentalist Christian denomination that among other things believes Creationism is valid science. The DOE could potentially try and put the screws to school districts to teach “Creation science”, threatening aid if they didn’t give ‘equal weight’ to ‘alternative views’ in science, that worries me as much as some of the other things…worse, though precedent has been in the courts that creationism is not science, a reconstructed Scotus could rule that this is valid, and that is scary.
^^I think that’s alittle out there and highly unlikely that a single person would try to influence curriculum to that degree. I doubt she has any interest in something like that. It If anything schools across the country, save the religious affiliated K-12 schools have walked that separation of education and religion quite well through many decades of presidents and cabinets and departments of differing parties. Again, I’m just guessing and just my opinion, but conservative, yes… fundamentalist…I would say no.
I think this is highly unlikely as imposing creationism on the states would cause major 2018 push-back even from electoral groups in the current Republican base. In addition, a SCOTUS nomination needs 60 votes in the Senate to be confirmed. This means some Democrats would have to support it. This could be challenging for a super-extreme candidate.
And let’s face it Betsy DeVos is not an “extremist” so there’s probably no inclination to push or battle for that type of radical fundamentalism.
“Betsy DeVos is not an “extremist””
In terms of education policy? Who are the extremists in the field?
Everyone has their biases. I don’t think colleges should be using the civil “preponderance of the evidence” standard to make a determination of whether felony criminal conduct occurred. The rules also prevent cross-examinations of accusers and prevent the subpoena of relevant information. The net effect of the letters is the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent, which may be good or bad depending on your bias. At least we can agree some changes in Title IX enforcement are likely.
The loan program that will get a lot of fast attention. (I can’t wait for the articles in the NYT about lawyers and docs making high six figures about to have the balances on grad loans forgiven. Yeah, I get the math and that the forgiveness maybe mostly interest, but its the optics that won’t look good to the press, particualrly since headlines generally don’t leave room for nuance or math.)
@musicprnt I have to take issue with your statement “I have another concern with her, she is a member of a fundamentalist Christian denomination that among other things believes Creationism is valid science”
I have numerous serious problems with the selection of Betsy DeVos, but the above is not true. She is currently a member of a non-denominational church. She has deep ties to the Christian Reformed Church which is a denomination that does not fit neatly into a category of evangelical or mainstream. What no one with knowledge of it would call it is fundamentalist. The Christian Reformed Church does not have an official policy on evolution. Within the denomination you will find a range of beliefs from 7 day creation to God started it all with a big bang. Evolution is taught as fact at the church related college DeVos graduated from.
If you care to explore this particular rabbit hole further check out the article below.
For purposes of clarity here is what the Office of Civil Rights currently says about cross-examination of witnesses:
And regarding the parties cross-examining each other:
I disagree completely. This is a highly religious country and a VERY large % don’t “believe” in evolution. The largest single group of people ( >40%) believe that god created humans in their present form and evolution doesn’t exist. A smaller group “believe” in evolution without god and even smaller % believe that evolution exists but it’s guided by god.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
So… no. Creationism is still alive and well and not receiving the pushback it should.
While I recognize the variance within loose denominations like the “Christian Reformed Church”, one thing this article doesn’t mention is what her beliefs exactly are, they describe her as “of an intellectual tradition”, but what does that mean? In general, the Christian reformed churches from everything I can tell share a strong conservative bent, and if you look at her background, she went to private Christian schools that some sources claim taught Creationism as science, she grew up in basically a fundamentalist church (again, I will agree it is hard to tell, biased websites are on both sides of things), and one thing I do know is that she and her family have supported groups pushing to break the church state boundary, and I am not just talking school vouchers, on issues like school prayer, and groups she has financially supported (again, reputedly) support teaching creationism as science, this is about her husband but you wonder how much they differ on things:
https://mediamousearchive.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2006/09/23/devos-intelligent-design-shoul/
And their foundation has supported religious right groups, like the Thomas Moore Center, that defend the right of school districts to teach intelligent design as science aka creationism, so it isn’t a leap to wonder what her personal beliefs are…and even if she thinks evolution is real, given the nature of what her husband has said, and what they support, would she be likely to not support teaching “intelligent design” in schools as science?
@romanigypsyeyes :
I have seen polls that indicate something like 60% of Americans don’t think evolution is settled science or is a ‘belief’. I think, though, that if you looked closely at that, you would find a significant percentage who believe in evolution, but don’t believe in random evolution through natural selection where random mutations allow one organism to survive better and so forth. I know people who believe evolution is true, but don’t believe in random evolution (for example, they argue, not illogically, that if you look at the history of life on earth, events like the asteroid that caused the formation of the moon (and our liquid iron core with its magnetic fields) that hit earth (which if it didn’t happen, life would not have come about due to radiation preventing life), or the asteroid that took out the dinosaurs finally, or even something like the Golden ratio that if it wasn’t the basis for things, would mean life is impossible and argue that is God’s hand or whatnot…but anyway, they would be in the mix of ‘nonbelievers’ depending on how the polls are done.
Would there be pushback? Yeah, but likely it would be from the so called Blue States who are unlikely to ever want to teach intelligent design as science, but the red states? Given that these tend to be the most religious conservative states in the country, I doubt they would push back, the teachers likely wouldn’t be happy but the school boards? Anyone remember when Kansas statewide banned the teaching of evolution?
Can anyone name the past three Education Secretaries?
@musicprnt I’ve seen similar polls but have also seen analysis that suggests that most Americans don’t even know what evolution is. Some literally believe it means their great-grandparents were apes.
And incidentally, believing in God isn’t incompatible with believing in evolution. The Catholic Church accepts evolution and evolution is taught as part of science classes at Catholic universities.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx has Gallup polls on evolution and creation.
@exlibris:
I didn’t say that believing in God meant you couldn’t believe in evolution, the anti evolution attitude comes along with biblical fundamentalism that basically views Genesis as literal truth. The Catholic Church accepts evolution (interestingly, their original issue with it wasn’t biological evolution, their fear was the concept of "social darwinism’ that sadly exists to this day, that somehow someone who is well off or has achieved is an example of ‘survival of the fittest’, and they had reason for their concerns, many of the robber barons used Darwin to justify themselves as ‘superior’ human beings),and that ranges the gamut from very conservative to very liberal. The conflict isn’t with God, it is with fundamentalism that reads the bible literally for the most part. There are those, too, who believe evolution is going on, but who don’t believe it is all the result of random mutations (the basic principle of natural selection), but rather that for example, the evolution of human intelligence and such was caused by a ‘hidden hand’ (which I have no problem with, as long as they don’t claim that as science, nothing wrong with it IMO, I could make a pretty strong argument for that position without obviously proving anything). The problem is not believing in God, the problem is in the mindset of the fundamentalists who read the bible literally and want that ‘fact’ to supercede anything that challenges that.
The problem with Devos is that she is a fundamentalist, and that is a problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/opinion/betsy-devos-and-gods-plan-for-schools.html?src=me talks about the views of groups she supports, and it is chilling, they see vouchers as a way to break the public schools (since of course they teach godless secularism, of which science is a big part), that they see, to quote good ole Jerry Falwell, where schools are the provinces of churches, not the government. Obviously, given that the federal government represents only about 9% of spending she directly couldn’t do this, but the federal government could change funding formulas, for example, and give federal aid to states with the stipulation it be used for vouchers, they also could change federal rules and penalize states that don’t allow vouchers.
One of the successes of the public schools has been and should be that religion does not have a say there, that it teaches and exists as a place where any and all beliefs are respected, but is not allowed to control or dominate what is taught, if there is one thing that history has taught it is that religious control of vital institutions like schools leads to stagnation and oppression (and before someone goes on about the parochial schools and religious private schools that are considered to be excellent schools, keep in mind that is because they have competition from secular private schools and public schools; in countries where religious schools dominate, where there isn’t widespread public education, the quality of those schools for the most part is mediocre). My biggest objection to the voucher program is that the one she and others have proposed don’t require standards, if kids in failing schools are given vouchers, they should be tied to SLA’s in terms of what we expect them to learn, and if they don’t do any better with vouchers at other schools (which was the outcome with voucher programs that have been tried, including in Michigan), then the program should be stopped.
Hmmmm … I don’t recall any voucher programs in Michigan. I was involved in the fight against a voucher proposal a number of years ago, and the voucher program never happened. MI does have charter schools, but that is different than vouchers.
@kelsmom:
I think I confused Michigan with Indiana,I did some quick research and attempts to pass via ballot initiative a voucher program failed (needless to say, the DeVos were big supporters of the voucher initiative), Indiana does have such a program from what I read. I do know that voucher programs in places like Milwaukee and in Charleston (which were privately funded, to allow kids to go go parochial schools who were in failing public schools) did not work as planned, the outcomes for the kids who moved was pretty much indistinguishable from those who stayed in the public schools.
In some ways, voucher programs for low income kids to escape failing schools to me represent more of the 1950’s myth, the heyday of Catholic parochial schools was during that decade (today the number of kids going to Catholic parochial schools is about a 5th of those who attended in the 1950’s), and people assume that the schools today will do the same thing for the kids. Standard parochial schools would likely be doable for a poor family with a voucher (which generally range from about 4k-7k a year, depending on where someone is), because those schools are subsidized by the church. In terms of other kinds of private schools, it is highly unlikely it would help poor kids get into them, given that in most places private schools like that, religious or secular, are usually many times what the voucher gives, 20k is a typical tuition for a private school these days.
I also question whether the voucher program is to help kids in failing schools, or if the real goal is to make it a subsidy for better off parents who want to send their kids to private schools, especially the kids from evangelical families that want their kids going to ‘their’ schools, I have a big problem with that. If people want to send their kids to private schools they have every right to do so, but I don’t think it should be paid for by the public dime either. My son went to private schools, but I sacrificed to pay the tuition, and I still was paying property taxes on my house that mostly go to the schools, so I am not talking as an outsider looking in. I didn’t think the public schools would do my son well, but I also didn’t think it was right to deny other kids the money I pay towards taxes, any more than I think it right where religious groups take over a town government and slash public school spending because their kids don’t use the public schools, the public schools are a common basis of society and it is to everyone’s benefit to have them there and hopefully be good as well. I don’t think vouchers will solve the problems with failing public schools, I do think that in terms of the schools there are major reforms that are needed, I think schools being off in the summer is an anachronism that hurts poor kids a lot more than the well off, I think there needs to be a better aproach to aduction then the rigid and formulaic way it has been done and continues to be done, but paying people in a sense to take kids out of the public schools isn’t the answer, the claim that vouchers will solve the problem only does so IMO from the viewpoint of those who want the public schools to disappear, and a lot of them are people who see public schools as Godless atheists destroying traditional values. I have no love for the teacher’s unions particularly or the teaching college theorists for that matter, but I also think that the public schools were the bulwark of why the US became what it did.
re: student loan interest rates
Out of curiosity, I just checked with my bank, one of the largest and most competitive in the country. They do offer private student loans. Current rates for a fixed-rate undergraduate loan range from 5.94% APR to 10.92% APR, depending on the borrower’s creditworthiness. The lower rate reflects a “relationship discount” available only to borrowers with co-signers who already have substantial relationships (i.e., other accounts and/or investments) with the bank.
Federal direct student loans for undergraduates are presently at 3.76% APR.
If the private market could successfully beat the federal rate, why isn’t it doing so already? My bank has a history of competing pretty much anywhere there’s money to be made.
My guess is they really don’t want much of this business because the loans are unsecured and have a high default rate. They may be offering student loans only as a courtesy to those of their existing customers who prefer to do all their banking under one roof, even if it means paying a higher interest rate. It was a different story when private student loans were federally insured so that, as someone said, the profits were private but the risks were socialized. Many banks were happy to stick their snout into that trough.
@musicprnt - awesome posts. Yr killing it.