Betsy DeVos and the now-Institutionalized Assault on Education

Processing, Analyzing and Responding to what the new Education Secretary Represents

betsy_devos-tif
Betsy DeVos

Remember this day. On Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2017, Betsy DeVos was confirmed as Education Secretary of the United States of America, by the slimmest of margins and the bitterest of battles, which finally had to be settled by a historic tie-breaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence.

Because Republican Senators let money come before people, they took a hammer and drove a nail firmly into the coffin of American education. There are those who will say this may be a battle loss, but a strategic win for progressives — the need to have the Vice President cast the deciding vote will mean it’s tricky to push big reforms when you had absolutely no majority consensus on your methods or qualifications to do so — and that may be so, but everything we’ve witnessed up until now indicates a contrary point. Senate offices were pounded by phone calls this week by constituents absolutely freaking out over the voucher advocate’s potential to become Education Secretary. Two Republican Senators jumped ship. Others spoke out against her policy ideals — like Jerry Moran of Kansas — but did absolutely nothing to stop her.

Even without a majority support, once you’re in power, you can do a surprising amount of damage, even in the short term. Bureaucracy is there to make it harder, to pull back on the brakes like a terrified Student Driving Instructor watching his student pump the gas, but this whole administration has shown a remarkable disregard for following anything like traditional bureaucracy.

But let’s pull back and look at that bureaucracy a moment, shall we?

What IS the Secretary of Education?

The Department of Education has one stated goal: to endure education in the United States is of a good quality and fairly accessible by everyone. To that end, according to learn.org, the department tends to focus on “creating policies about financial aid and distributing financial aid, collecting data on education in the U.S., bringing attention to key education issues and preventing discrimination.”

The Secretary of Education is in charge of those efforts. She sets their course and relays them to the president. She will oversee educational reform and determine the best techniques for advancing them — much as previous secretaries pivoted to the problematic “Common Core” structure. In practice, the department handles a lot of research and sets the basic educational momentum for the country.

For that reason, nominees tend to, at the least, have a history in education.

From Michigan to the Heartland of America

Betsy DeVos, let us be clear, does not have a background in education. Her supporters say this makes her an outsider like “the Don,” a reformer with big ideas and the momentum — or more importantly cash — to see them done.

The cash, at least, she has put to the good use of her influence. Personally worth about $5.1 billion according to Forbes, sitting Republican senators have received around $115,000 from the heiress herself, and around $950,000 from the entire DeVos family since 1980. Furthermore, as reported by MLive, “Betsy DeVos has detailed her $5.3 million in political donations over the last five years as part of the vetting process for the U.S. Education Secretary post,” and in a back and forth with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), she admitted it was possible her family at large had donated collectively around $200 million to Republican election efforts. Such donations were enhanced by the fact that in the last two election cycles alone, her family donated $8.3 million to super PACs devoted to assuring Republican dominance.

Despite that, even Sens. Susan Collins (R-Me.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) voted against the woman, based on the volume of opposition her nomination elicited from constituents and what they saw as limited qualifications for the job, along with the fact that she does not support public education.

Neither DeVos nor any of her children ever attended, worked in, or were sent to public schools. DeVos herself has no government experience outside of lobbying, which she has always extensively pushed to grant conservative religious schools vouchers for access to public funds with no strings attached. Similar facts saw her husband, Dick DeVos, run and get stomped in the midst of the 2006 race for governor of Michigan.

In her own hearing, she proved a complete lack of preparedness for the role she now will attempt to fill. She dodged every question she could, danced around the idea of standing up for students with disabilities, and while she seems to have a vague notion of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s existence, she was utterly confused in regards to it, seemingly mixing it up with state efforts. She had no idea what the concept of proficiency versus growth entailed — a core tenet of modern education efforts. She would not commit to enforcing sexual assault prevention and protection on college campuses because she called them, “premature.”

She has said in the past, when addressing Christian schools’ reliance on vouchers, that “Our desire is to confront the culture in ways that will continue to advance God’s kingdom.” Her family has notably supported conversion therapy for LGBTQ people over the years, backed anti-same sex marriage efforts, and her own husband, during the previously mentioned governor run, advocated for “the ideas of intelligent design that many scientists are now suggesting is a very viable alternative theory” in science curricula.

Our nation recognized very early on that public education was necessary for democracy or republics to thrive, but all Betsy DeVos has ever wished to do is divert taxpayer dollars to private, religious and for-profit schools with no oversight. She has always wanted them to gain the benefits without dealing with the costs. She calls it “choices and options,” and “innovation,” but in practice demonstrates the exact opposite.

Here, in Michigan, DeVos is a former Republican Party chairwoman and former chair of the pro-school-choice advocacy group American Federation for Children. She very much helped to spread charter schools throughout the state, and the results were this: “most of which have recorded student test scores in reading and math below the state average.” Innovation, indeed. She believes in choices but has never cared much for quality.

One need look no further than Detroit to see that — a city Republicans have always lauded as a prime example of Democrat failures. Thanks to DeVos, however, the city is littered with choices for schools. An excellent article by Stephen Henderson of the Detroit Free Press examined the results of that choice including this sobering analysis: “failure is rewarded with opportunities for expansion and “choice” means the opposite for tens of thousands of children.”

But so long as there is profit, that is all that has ever mattered to the DeVos family.

So-called “School Choice” as the Death of Education

800px-charles_schumer_official_portrait
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer

Desperate to hold Trump’s nominee at bay, Democrats in the Senate held an all night session protesting her nomination leading up to Tuesday’s vote. At the same time, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer hit out at all those who would eventually vote for her.

“The president’s decision to ask Betsy DeVos to run the Department of Education should offend every single American man, woman, and child who has benefitted from the public education system in this country,” Schumer said in a statement.

The United Federation of Teachers called DeVos a “danger to special education.”

Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said her confirmation would threaten the very “existence of public education.”

Why?

I’ll be the first to admit there are some quality Charter School options out in the world. Yet, there are also quality Public School options. In the course of my own lifetime, I’ve seen behind the walls of both public and private institutions, and benefited from each. Yet when it comes down to it, the supposed medical balm of school choice for schools is, in truth, a poison for the entire public education system. Options, as I said before, often come at the expense of quality.

Charter schools could indeed be a force to nod about — if they also allowed accountability of their programs. They do not. They want the carrot — taxpayer funds provided to the public school system — without having to deal with the stick portion of the equation — accountability for how they use them and examination of what they teach. You simply can’t have it both ways, but DeVos has always advocated for it. She pushes a system that says: instead of helping underperforming schools, those who have the means should get out and leave the rest to rot.

Everyone wants what is best for their children. They fight tooth and nail to give them, in some cases, what they never had, and in others, to guarantee simply that they are ready to meet the world. Yet the question that DeVos represents is if you care enough to look beyond your own interests or care only for yourself — regardless of the consequences. Because there are always consequences. And when public institutions are broken down to benefit a few, more and more of those few always feel the squeeze with time. The few become fewer, and tighter entrenched. The many lament more and more. The separation, and the problem, grows.

The question is: does America wish to inflict such things on generations to come, locking the nation into a downward intellect spiral? Senators have already voted yes. There’s no changing that now. At this point, it’s on the hands of the people to punish them for it, and fight back against a broken system that has gone to benefit private agendas over public good.

“Democrats are trying to humiliate and embarrass some of these nominees,” White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway has told Fox News.

The fact is: candidates like Betsy DeVos embarrass themselves. On the practical end, though, humiliation is no longer enough. Humiliation only hurts those it’s directed at; it doesn’t save those who will suffer their wrath, or still be forced to endure their policies snark did little to block. Quality education and no less than the future of a nation depend on something more.

Pundits have gotten one thing right so far: it really is time to put what is best for children above all else.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Betsy DeVos and the now-Institutionalized Assault on Education

  1. Chris – DeVos’s predecessor — Arne Duncan — attended private schools in Chicago, his wife worked for a private school, and he sent his children there (and now again, since he’s returned to Chicago). It’s the same private school President Obama sent his daughters to when he was in Chicago, and the same one Mayor Rahm Emmanuel sends his children to now. I don’t see how that is wrong for DeVos but OK for Duncan.

    Of more concern is this: the $7 billion initiative that President Obama and Duncan led for public schools, building on a program started by President Bush, turns out to have had zero impact. Nothing. Nada. And the report was done by Duncan’s education department.

    1. Thanks for the interest, Glynn.

      The difference, however, is that while these people went to private schools (and in our previous Education Secretaries’ cases, had experience IN education afterwards–which DeVos does not), when they got into power over schools at large, they did not come at the issue with the mindset of destroying the public school system. They recognized the major issues in the system, they had their own personal preferences, but they did not attempt to solve the problem by and large by shelling out public cash to private institutions with no oversight, as DeVos has proposed to do. They did do it to some extent, and I didn’t like it then and I don’t like it now–Charter Schools do absolutely nothing for an already broken system. Arne and King were both Charter School encouragers, if not private school supporters (DeVos is–so she essentially takes it a step further). I’m not. I make no statements of support for Common Core, No Child Left Behind or Arne Duncan’s school improvement plans. You’re absolutely right, the fact that, as the report I assume you’re referencing noted, that such efforts “had no significant impacts on math or reading test scores, high school graduation, or college enrollment,” is reprehensible. Not nearly the results anyone would have wanted. Teachers organizations likewise blasted the effort. The money would have been better spent improving community schools alongside career and technical education programs.

      But to say A didn’t work so let’s simply yank public funds and further cripple public education to fund plan B, to benefit institutions that are private gainers, with agendas unchecked by governmental or public regulation is not a logical counterpoint. If throwing money blindly at the problem didn’t work, taking more money away isn’t the answer. You look at what didn’t work, you reform the system. You don’t burn it all down and hand unregulated cash to people that may have no interest in education at all. Hell, that was part of the problem with Duncan’s efforts: “The U.S. Department of Education did not track how the money was spent, other than to note which of the four strategies schools chose,” as the Washington Post noted back in 2015.

      I’m against schools being run like a business. America’s education system has tanked for years when put up against global competition, and DeVos’s efforts threaten to increase that gap.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s