3 Things Betsy DeVos Wants To Change In Your Schools

3 Things Betsy DeVos Wants To Change In Your Schools

What he calls as a disaster, she labels "a federalized boondoggle."​

Trump's nominee for secretary of education is Betsy DeVos, a billionaire heiress who has been a staunch advocate for private charter schools, online schools and taxpayer funded vouchers for other private and religious schools of choice ― primarily Christian schools in order to "advance God's Kingdom."

DeVos's Senate confirmation hearing held early January raised questions about her questionable financial integrity and lack of experience. Despite both Republican and Democrat parties' unease with the nominee's dodgy answers, as of January 31, the Senate committee vote neatly split along party lines 12-11, with "all 12 of the committee's Republicans voting to approve her."

Since the hearing, DeVos pressed three of her goals forward towards the improvement of the American K-12 education system.

1. She will continue to advocate voucher programs, but at what cost?

A voucher program "allows parents to use public funds to pay for some or all of their child’s private school tuition," and it is usually established and distributed by state governments. While they sound like golden eggs of opportunity falling into our lap, voucher programs are often criticized for sacrificing the goose that laid the golden eggs because they drain resources from public schools to fund private institutions.

DeVos has promoted this program on a state-by-state basis for years, like in 2000, when she and her husband "formed a political action committee to support pro-voucher candidates nationally" a successful play to showcase support for equal opportunity, but unfortunately, that is when the stage curtains are drawn. Since 1993, DeVos and her husband flexed their monetary influence to "protect charters from additional regulation." Just this past year when Michigan lawmakers debated oversight measures for Detroit charter schools, "members of the DeVos family poured $1.45 million into legislators’ campaign coffers — an average of $25,000 a day for seven weeks. Oversight was not included in the final legislation."

The DeVos family's blatant coercion is why around 80 percent of Michigan charter schools are controlled and run by for-profit private companies. Of these charter schools, 52 percent have not significantly improved in reading scores compared to the scores of traditional public school.

And when it comes to math, Standford's 2013 Charter School Performance in Michigan report notes, "about 84 percent of charters have achievement results below the 50th percentile of the state... More than half of Michigan charters have positive growth and achievement below the 50th percentile in the state..."

2. She will not hold all schools (public, private or charter) to the same standards of accountability.

When there is a 51 percent national average of low-income students attending public schools, it is imperative that all schools be held to same standard of accountability across the board to insure equal standards education of a practical quality to everyone.

But when DeVos was asked if she would insure the equal standard of accountability as secretary of education, her answer was no.

Below is the Washington Post transcript of that questioning, and here is a clip of that senate committee exchange.

Kaine: “If confirmed will you insist upon equal accountability in any K-12 school or educational program that receives taxpayer funding whether public, public charter or private?”
DeVos: “I support accountability.”
Kaine: “Equal accountability?”
DeVos: “I support accountability.”
Kaine: “Is that a yes or a no?”
DeVos: “I support accountability.”
Kaine: “Do you not want to answer my question?”
DeVos: “I support accountability.”
Kaine: “Let me ask you this. I think all schools that receive taxpayer funding should be equally accountable. Do you agree?”
DeVos: “Well they don’t, they are not today.”
Kaine: “Well, I think they should. Do you agree with me?
DeVos: “Well no . . . ”
Kaine, interrupting her, said: “You don’t agree with me.”

And he moved on to another topic.

For the secretary of education nominee to not understand that equal accountability standards across all schools is a federal standard that we the American people pay for, expect and deserve is astonishing. Another blow came when that DeVos stated that taxpayer and federal funded schools meeting Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements is "a matter best left to the states" despite the fact it's an already enforced federal law protecting the educational rights of disabled kids.

So when she was asked her views regarding school assessments measuring proficiency or measuring growth, at that point it was not longer surprising to find that DeVos did not know the difference between proficiency and growth.

3. She may "revise" Common Core standards.

What is a surprise is that DeVos has a slightly different take Common Core standards than Trump. What he calls as a disaster, she labels as "a federalized boondoggle."

And that may be all she ever says about it. Although they can't scrap the Common Core, DeVos and Trump's transition team may revise some here and there and then stick a brand new label on it for no apparent reason other than to gather public support (and possibly for self satisfaction — bonus points if it uses Trump's name).

It is not clear how DeVos expects to take this role on when many argue she is entirely unqualified, but there's not much question as to why she was nominated to begin with. After all, the DeVos family donated nearly $200 million to the Republican party, with Betsy and her husband Dick personally donating $47 million since 2000. So it's understandable why DeVos said, "We expect a return on our investment."

Congratulations, DeVos. Looks like you got it.

Cover Image Credit: Cagle

Popular Right Now

The Dangers Of Ideology And The Importance Of Free Speech & Debate

Universities are currently policing thought, indoctrinating students into a radical egalitarian ideology, and crushing dissenting opinion.

It’s truly amazing to consider how quickly the culture on college campuses has changed over the last several years. Once staunch defenders of speech and academic freedom, modern universities are quickly turning into ideological echo chambers, indoctrinating students into a radical left-wing egalitarian worldview, while crushing dissenting opinion.

The disturbingly Orwellian trend to quell free expression on campuses can best be illustrated by an event that unfolded last year at James Madison University’s freshman orientation, when “student leaders” distributed a list of 35 things that incoming students should avoid saying, including phrases such as “you have a pretty face,” “love the sinner, hate the sin,” “we’re all part of the human race,” “I treat all people the same,” “people just need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps,” among other expressions.

You might find yourself laughing this off as nonsense, an isolated set of events perpetuated by a select group of fringe radicals. Unfortunately, I can assure you that this is not an isolated incident. In addition to the slew of protests that erupted at universities last year in response to conservative speakers being invited to campus, these kinds of events are indicative of a larger, and more pernicious attempt by the radical left to control the linguistic territory.

At universities across America, the campus left now demands that people accept certain preconditions for discussion. Not the kind of reasonable preconditions such as “treat people with respect,” or “don’t resort to personal attacks.” Rather, It is demanded that you accept a neo-Marxian worldview, rooted in the notion that the world is nothing more than a power struggle between two groups of people: those who oppress and those who are oppressed. They demand that people accept notions like white-male privilege as axiomatic – not to be debated – and force people to acknowledge how they've been privileged by the current socio-economic structure.

Refusing to accept these presuppositions not only bars someone from participating in the discussion. To challenge an idea, such as white privilege, is to reject the fact that racism and bigotry exist in our society. To challenge the notion that being white necessarily means you must be more privileged than a person of color is akin to blasphemy. To push against the idea that certain classes of people in America are ‘victims of systemic oppression’ is to deny the humanity and individual experiences of people of color, women, and other minority groups.

The campus left emphatically espouse the notion that “the personal is political.” Thus they believe, unequivocally, that the primary responsibility of the University should be to ensure students from “diverse cultural backgrounds” feel safe – and by safe they mean “not having their identities challenged;” and by identities they are referring to their belief systems – the lens by which they perceive the word.

From the perspective of a radical leftist, to participate in debate is not seen as merely engaging in criticism of some abstract idea. To challenge an idea is to challenge someone’s identity, and to challenge someone’s identity is to debate their humanity.

And that is one of the axiomatic rules of the campus Left – you cannot debate someone’s humanity.

Indeed, with more than a fifth of college undergrads now believing its okay to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive or hurtful statement,” the future of the First Amendment itself is currently uncertain.

What exactly is so dangerous about this movement?

For starters, the freedom of speech has wrongly been construed as just another value that we in the West hold in high regard. But it is more than a Right that we share as citizens of this nation. It is, ultimately, the mechanism by which keep our psyches and societies functioning.

See, most people just aren’t that good at thinking. I don't mean this as a sleight against anyone, but we’re all insufficient and we have limited awareness of most things because we just can’t know everything. We rely on communication with one another to facilitate the process of learning about things outside our realm of knowledge. Often we have to, first, stumble around like the blithering idiots we are, espousing our biased beliefs in a public forum, and subjecting our ideas to criticism before we can properly orient our thoughts.

When the open exchange of ideas is allowed, you get the opportunity for multiple people to put forward their biased oversimplifications and engage in debate that raises the resolution of the particular question and answer at hand. Ideas are hit with hammers, combed for contradictions, inadequacies and even falsehoods. On an individual level, this kind of scrutiny sharpens the schema you use to navigate the world because other people can tell you things you can’t know by yourself.

Maybe it’s an opinion espoused, or a behavior that manifests itself, or a misconception you hold- in any event, subjecting your beliefs to criticism is, in the short term sometimes painful because we often learn things about the world and ourselves that are uncomfortable; but, in the long term, it is the only way method we have for moving closer towards something that more closely resembles truth – and if not anything true, at least something less wrong. As a result, the lens by which you look at the world becomes clearer.

Further, it is also through a collective process of dialectic that we identify problems in our societies, formulate solutions, and come to some sort of consensus.

Thus the right to say what you believe should not just considered as "just another value." It's a conical value, without which all the other values we hold dear, that people have fought so hard, in such an unlikely manner, to preserve and produce all disappear.

Without it, there can be no progress. Without it, individuals abdicate their responsibility to engage in the sacred process of discovery and renewal. Without it, we can’t think. Without it, there can be no truth. Without it, there can be nothing but nihilistic psychopathology. The end result is a populist that is not only afraid to say what they think, but that doesn't even know what they think because they haven’t been allowed to stumble around in the dark to find some tiny fragment of light.

Therefore, when we consider placing restrictions on the freedom of speech we must do so with the most extreme caution. By setting ridiculous preconditions for discussion, the campus left not only makes the process by which we solve the problems with our society more difficult, but also, if taken to its extreme, it can lead to totalitarianism.

In the wake of dozens of campus protests last year, universities are now in a position where they have to choose between two incompatible values: truth or social justice. The former will lead us to a greater understanding, while the latter can only divide.

Cover Image Credit: Teen Vogue

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Being An English Speaker Is A Privileged Status

Multi-lingual is the way to go

English is not the official language of the United States of America. But even if it was, a country apparently founded on the idea of valuing every citizen as a free individual could do a much better job welcoming people who do not speak English.

While it is natural that one language became the most common, and that this has simplified many processes, this same simplification is not afforded to those who do not speak the language.

Language barriers can reduce one’s job opportunities, meaning that even if one has degrees and plenty of experience, many jobs are simply not available. Many employers are unfortunately unaccepting of those who do not speak English fluently, and some even discriminate against those who do not natively speak English.

Education becomes extremely complex for non-English-speakers. On the student side, while many schools offer English as a Second Language programs, which is wonderful, it should be acknowledged that these students face more work and less support than students who are native English speakers. To add to this, if parents do not speak English, communication from the school or with teachers becomes harder to access.

One of the greatest privileges of English speakers lies in healthcare. They can be sure that they will find a doctor who speaks their language and can clearly explain their medical situation in that language. The same goes for psychologists, social workers, and others in the health professions.

This becomes especially complicated for those who speak languages that are not commonly studied.

A friend of mine who teaches was mentioning recently that while there are many students and families in her district who speak Arabic, there are so few people working in psychology, social work, or other support services who speak the language that for the district to access them is not only difficult but expensive.

This too often means that schools fail to offer students and parents speaking these less-commonly studied languages sufficient aid.

So what is the answer? To adopt English as an official language would be so wrong in our country full of diverse and wonderful languages, backgrounds, and cultures. Instead of attempting to make English more and more widespread, we should focus our efforts on ensuring that people in this country who do not speak English can receive all of the same support as those who do speak English.

Some of this lies in ensuring that systems and institutions offer resources in several languages and that employers will not discriminate against those who are not native English speakers.

Much of the solution, however, is on us, especially if we are students entering a people-oriented profession. In fact, in all professions, becoming multi-lingual does not merely open doors for us but creates a society where more people have access to the services they need.

Cover Image Credit: Maialisa

Related Content

Facebook Comments