After watching Betsy DeVos’s Senate confirmation hearings, most of us wondered about her qualifications to be Secretary of Education. She didn’t know much about federal law or policy or programs.
Michael Klonsky sums up her resume here.
Simply put, she and her family were major donors to the Republican party and to the Trump campaign. More than that, the DeVos family are the royalty of rightwing evangelicals.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
An observation by John Morrow begs the following question:
Should Progressives Help Secretary DeVos?
February 14, 2017 John Merrow Uncategorized
These are difficult times for fence-sitters and for those who take a stand. For example, the leaders of IBM and Tesla are taking a lot of flak because they continue to serve on President Trump’s Economic Advisory Council. Why serve? Because, as one said, it’s better to be on the inside where he might be able to be a voice of moderation. And poor Uber: its founder didn’t resign quickly enough for some former Uber fans, who are now using Lyft or Juno instead, while others Uber users are boycotting precisely because he did jump ship.
Anheuser-Busch is being both praised and pilloried for a Super Bowl commercial that celebrated the immigration stories of its two founders. It’s widely reported that many businesses have set up ‘war rooms’ to work out how to deal with an unpredictable President.
What about education, where the controversial Betsy DeVos is now serving as Secretary after a grueling confirmation process that required a tie-breaking vote by the Vice President, a first in our nation’s history? Even with questioning severely limited by Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R, TE), the hearing revealed how little she understands public education, while her own track record in Michigan demonstrates her commitment to vouchers, for-profit and virtual charter schools, and minimal accountability.
However, she is our Secretary of Education. As such, should progressives offer to work for her and with her, to help her understand the historic purposes and accomplishments of public schools? She’s a smart woman, and perhaps she’d appreciate assistance from people whose sense of history and familiarity with Washington could help improve all public education.
Last week a college friend (with whom I have never discussed politics) wrote and urged me to offer my services to Secretary DeVos. He had read my recent blog, the one in which I said that she was ‘stunningly unqualified’ to serve, and he used that as his jumping off point.
Here’s part of what he wrote: I have been thinking that you might be one of those best positioned to help her. We all (including Mrs. DeVos) are aware of the criticisms that have been leveled against her about lacking experience in public education. There’s little to debate here; facts are facts. However, I don’t recall even her harshest critics accusing her of being dumb or not wanting to do the best job possible as secretary of education.
What do you bring to the table that she could benefit from? The knowledge you have gained from approximately 50 years of experience – everything from teaching in a public school classroom to interviewing top educators and teachers’ union leaders to analyzing the positives and negatives in U.S. education and commenting on your conclusions. You (and knowledgeable people like you who can be both critical and fair) are exactly who Mrs. DeVos needs to help her do her job.
When I responded skeptically, he wrote back, saying in part: Abraham Lincoln, arguably our nation’s greatest president, purposely sought advice from those who had previously vehemently disagreed with him.(Don’t get me wrong; I’m not equating Betsy DeVos to Abraham Lincoln. My point is that former adversaries can provide valuable advice and guidance.) I don’t buy that, by working with DeVos to improve the quality of education in our country so that more students are better prepared to handle their futures, you would become a hypocrite, become a sellout, or “lose credibility.” Far from it, you would gain credibility by turning criticism into positive action.
My friend’s argument, at base, is that Betsy DeVos is America’s Secretary of Education, and that, as Americans, we ought to be working in whatever ways we can to improve public education. If Secretary DeVos hears only from privatizers, what chance does progressive education have? I and others like me might be able to get a seat at the table, where we could argue for fewer tests, more social and emotional learning, more project-based learning, and so on.
So here’s the question: Am I selling my friend short by dismissing the notion of volunteering to be of whatever assistance I could? Should we be making calls, sending resumés, offering our services, and knocking on doors in Washington in order to get close to Secretary DeVos?
Just by chance, I had lunch recently with a veteran Democrat, someone who’d been high up in Secretary Riley’s Education Department during the eight years of the Clinton Administration and who had been an off-and-0n, informal advisor to Secretary Arne Duncan during the Obama Administration. I asked about serving in the Trump Administration, working for Betsy DeVos. The response was immediate…and surprising.
“I’d do it,” my friend said, “But only if the position was important enough to guarantee having the Secretary’s attention, and only if it paid well. Position and power are what matter.”
What about volunteering, which is what my college friend had urged me to do?
“Not on your life!” My friend went on: Volunteers are usually window-dressing. No power and influence, and their names are likely to be used to justify, or to create the appearance of support for, policies that progressives might find anathema. There’s no upside to volunteering to help an Administration whose ideas are fundamentally opposed to yours, my friend said.
So I am not offering my services to Secretary DeVos, and I don’t think any progressives should. If she asks for your help, think long and hard before agreeing.
But then, what is the best way for us to improve public education, if it’s not by advising the Secretary? I think the role of educational progressives is to watch carefully and to speak up loud and clear when (if) the Secretary proposes actions that go against basic principles.
It’s also the duty of progressives to be for certain principles and policies: financial transparency in all dealings, especially charter schools; accountability for all schools (which Ms DeVos declined to support in response to Senator Murphy’s (D, CT) questioning; civil rights protections, and enforcement of IDEA, Title IX and other federal laws.
My own commitment is two-fold: to educational opportunities for all our children, and to public education as the essential glue of our democracy.
Your thoughts?
LikeLike
Arne Duncan and John King were smart men. It didn’t stop them from undermining public education. Even if we believe DeVos is smart, she does not respond to evidence. She is a biased fanatic on a mission from God to take public money and give it to religious schools, Look at Michigan. The best way to find out what someone will do is to look at what they have done. How can you argue with a fanatic? I wonder if we can turn her? It’s highly unlikely.
LikeLike
Devo’s appointment offends me. As far as I am concerned she purchased her cabinet position. Period. I feel sorry for all the government fools that supported her; they have proven to us that they do not value education.
As an education advocate, I too have reflected on the work I do and how I will respond if called upon to implement one of her bad decisions. It will be difficult to coexist with someone who is less qualified than the pre-service student teachers I supervise.
It is my belief that we must do right by our students and protect their rights to a quality education.
We must advocate for accountability of our state representatives who have decided to appoint an individual who clearly knows nothing about the practices of pubic education.
Every day Devos’s errors is a letter to my Senator that supported her.
I will work hard to remind him what he did to the students in our state. Every day right up to election day 2018, I will hold him accountable for his unethical decision.
In the meantime, I will work hard to protect our schools and our teachers; I will work hard to protect the rights of our students with disabilities. I will encourage others to build Safe Space Ally spaces for our LBGTQ students.
I will not allow government fools to lead without debate. I will work hard to remind these individuals who they represent.
LikeLike
Two words that sound alike but are spell differently are called “Homophones”. Like for example ‘week and weak’. That’s my past in the city of Hialeah Education Academic chasing my son and Dawghter !
LikeLike
Some good news–an attempt to voucher-ize Illinois was killed in committee (in the House)! And, believe me, we, in ILL-Annoy, need all the good news we can get. A parent opt-out bill just failed & an education bill which tacked on an amendment to withhold $9,000 reimbursement for special education personnel passed through a first hearing (because there were no Witness Slips! And the reason for that was that the hearing was not posted–oops!).
Forego federal oversight (such as IDEA), & leave education decisions to the states?
Not here, in the state of chaos (2 years w/o a state budget).
LikeLike
I read a lot of ed reformers because I have a son in public schools and I like to know what the plans are.
They’re currently struggling with what to offer students outside of urban areas because all they have to offer is “choice” and “choice” won’t work in huge swathes of the country.
The work-around they came up with is to increase funding for transportation- presumably so students can get to the preferred private schools and redeem their voucher.
This is exactly the opposite of what rural districts are doing. We consolidated schools onto one “campus” because we were spending huge amounts of money on transportation with schools at 5 locations and they aren’t learning anything when they’re sitting on a bus. We were able to put the money we saved into the actual schools.
Increasing transportation funding is a horrible idea. The more money they spend busing students from home to school(s) the less we can plow into the schools.
I think it’s an example of how the dogmatic insistence on “choice” trumps common sense. It doesn’t make any sense to take 20 students out of 2000 and bus them to a private school. It will harm every student in the district- not to mention the logistical nightmare since schools have different start times and students have after-school activities and we pay for their transportation to those too.
http://educationnext.org/who-could-benefit-from-school-choice-mapping-access-public-private-schools/
LikeLike
It’s a smart, responsible move on the part of rural schools to consolidate. Reasonable decisions like these are made when the local community decides what is best for their schools. They are free from corporate interference.
LikeLike
Consolidation in rural districts has often been devastating to small towns in which the school was the center of social life and participatory democracy. It has also led to larger schools, student anonymity, longer, more dangerous bus rides (some times as much as 2 hours/day on the bus), inability of many parents to be involved in their child’s schools, limitations on after-school activities and many more negatives.
LikeLike
mklonsky– So, your solution is…?
LikeLike
They also contribute to “The 74”, Campbell Brown’s Charter-apologist “news” outlet which also owns LA School Report (Jamie Alter Lynton’s old rag).
https://www.the74million.org/page/supporters
LikeLike
Ah, the folks who wouldn’t let me into their NH education “summit”!
LikeLike
Deconsolidate…
http://www.daily yonder.com/good-consolidation-and-other-myths/2011/03/23/3239/
LikeLike
DIANE: I wasn’t sure where to put this, but it’s an article in “The Conversation” about DeVos and public and charter schools in RURAL COMMUNITIES. “The Unique Case for Charter Schools in Rural Communities.” See links below:
TO ARTICLE: https://theconversation.com/the-unique-case-for-rural-charter-schools-72049?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20April%204%202017%20-%2071285379&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20April%204%202017%20-%2071285379+CID_f7d46426afb02d9aa9463085a7ac0c0f&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=the%20unique%20case%20of%20rural%20charter%20schools
To “The Conversation” newsletter: http://www.theconversation.com
LikeLike
CBK,
Rural legislators tend to oppose charter schools because they harm public schools. They don’t need competition.
LikeLike
Diane: This was more of an FYI post. I thought some of Betsy Devos’ double-speak came through loud and clear; and that the writer didn’t give it the critique it needed.
LikeLike