Nancy Bailey: Betsy DeVos is a Hypocrite

September 24, 2019 //

Nancy Bailey calls out Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos for talking about “education freedom” at the same time that she is doing everything within her power to snuff it out.

Betsy DeVos’s Education Freedom: It’s Anything But

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Education Industry, Education Reform, For-Profit, Hypocrisy, Privatization, Vouchers

28 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

Chiara says:

September 24, 2019 at 9:09 am

The plan is to fund all schools with low-value vouchers. That’s the inevitable end result of “ed reform”, because the “movement” doesn’t make any sense without that funding mechanism.

What’s remarkable to me is how quickly the entire echo chamber got on board. There’s no dissent or criticism of DeVos at all. Public school students are just being quietly thrown under the bus in exchange for more funding and cheerleading of charters and vouchers. It’s as if public school students don’t exist.

Reply
Chiara says:

September 24, 2019 at 9:15 am

I think eventually one has to ask if 17 and 18 year olds should consider the US Department of Education a credible source of information on student loans.

If they’re hiring industry representatives the “advice” is self-interested and potentially damaging to students, who are unsophisticated borrowers.

I wonder if one could set up some kind of volunteer corps to give them reliable, prudent advice on borrowing. They desperately need help with it and all of these adults seem to be captured. Should the imprint of the US Department of Education impart credibility at this point? Given the revolving door between industry insiders and the government?

These borrowers are VERY young and they are taking on a lot of debt. They won’t be able to navigate past these sharks alone.

Reply
Chiara says:

September 24, 2019 at 9:31 am

Ed reformers are holding another convention to give one another awards:

https://pie-network.org/article/2019-network-mvp/

Not a single person who advocates on behalf of students in public schools. Our students simply don’t exist. Which would be fine! They’re permitted to advocate on behalf of charters and vouchers.

But what does it mean for public school students when the entire government is captured by this charter and voucher cheerleading squad?

Students in public schools should have advocates in government, just like charter and voucher students do. I fail to understand why that’s not permitted. Our schools are unfashionable? Okay. Now what does that mean for the 50 million children who attend them? Good or bad for them? Probably not good!

Reply
LeftCoastTeacher says:

September 24, 2019 at 9:36 am

Mrs. DeVos, since vouchers do not cover all the expenses of private schools, how does taking away the public option in education equate to giving people the freedom to choose from more options?
“Um, grizzlies?”

Reply
- William says:
  
  September 24, 2019 at 10:41 am
  
  I do not get your question. At the university level, BEOGs do not cover all of the costs of attending an expensive private college. Yet, our nation continues to provide families with BEOGs.
  
  No one is asserting that vouchers will meet the costs of expensive private prep schools.
  
  And school choice does not take away the public option. In states with school choice, like Indiana, public schools continue to function. Only about 3% of Indiana families have chosen to accept vouchers, to meet the costs of their children’s education.
  
  Reply
  - dienne77 says:
    
    September 24, 2019 at 10:59 am
    
    “I do not get your question.”
    
    Then either you’re playing dumb or you haven’t been around here very long. These issues have been discussed at significant length around here. Charters have a deleterious effect on public schools because you can’t fund two (or more) separate systems for the same costs as one system, and it’s invariably the public system that gets shafted. I’d be careful arguing that point as there are many very well informed people around here who won’t fall for snow jobs.
    
    As for vouchers covering the cost of private schools, how can you talk about giving poor kids the same opportunities as rich kids if vouchers don’t cover the costs? If you’re serious about choice, why shouldn’t poor kids have the same choices – Exeter, Lab School, Lake Side, etc. – as the rich?
  - dianeravitch says:
    
    September 24, 2019 at 12:17 pm
    
    Well said, Dienne. I made the same point on Twitter recently—that proponents of vouchers are not serious about giving poor kids “the same opportunities” as rich kids, since vouchers never cover the cost of elite schools (and elite schools that cost $50,000 a year don’t have space and don’t want voucher kids anyway). The voucher chorus shrieked that I endorsed vouchers but none of them called for spending $50,000 a year on vouchers and on public schools.
  - ciedie aech says:
    
    September 24, 2019 at 1:17 pm
    
    an essential point
  - William says:
    
    September 24, 2019 at 11:29 am
    
    Our society does not spend equivalent amounts in public schools, for the wealthy and the poor. Public schools in wealthy areas, with a solid tax base, can spend lavishly. Public schools in economically depressed areas, with a weak tax base, do not spend the same amount on public education as the wealthy areas.
    
    It is truly a “tale of two cities”. You can read more about it, in the classic book “Savage Inequalities” by Jonathan Kozol.
    
    NO one asserting that school vouchers must be so generous, that they will meet the costs of exclusive private schools. NO one is asserting that BEOGs must be so generous, that they will meet the costs of a private school like Middlebury . see
    
    https://www.middlebury.edu/college/admissions/affordability
    
    I am NOT talking about giving poor families and wealthy families, the “same opportunities”,
    
    As long as our nation continues to finance public schools with property taxes, the savage inequality will persist.
    
    As an alternative to school vouchers, we should be spending MORE for the public schools in the inner cities, than in the wealthy areas. We should be spending MORE on school nutrition, counseling, tutoring, etc.
    
    It isn’t going to happen.
  - dienne77 says:
    
    September 24, 2019 at 11:48 am
    
    “Our society does not spend equivalent amounts in public schools, for the wealthy and the poor.”
    
    No argument there, but how is that situation helped by creating charters in poor areas that drain already limited funds from public schools, while not also creating charters in rich areas? Or by granting vouchers which also drain money from the public school system?
    
    “NO one asserting that school vouchers must be so generous, that they will meet the costs of exclusive private schools.”
    
    Oh, but they are, at least indirectly. The standard refrain when someone opposes school choice is to ask, “Don’t you think poor kids deserve the same opportunities as rich kids?” If poor kids shouldn’t be confined by their ZIP code, why should they be confined by their family income at all? It’s basically the underlying idea of vouchers – to “save” poor kids from “failing” schools. What “choice” is it if vouchers only allow them to “escape” to other failing schools?
  - dianeravitch says:
    
    September 24, 2019 at 12:23 pm
    
    William,
    
    BEOGS do not drain resources from public universities.
    
    Charters and vouchers draw their resources from a limited pot of money meant for public schools and for public schools only. As private choices are subsidized with public money, public schools must lay off teachers, increase class sizes, and cut programs. Even small choice programs have negative effects. The 85-90% suffer so that the 3% can use public money to pay for religious school.
    
    That’s not good public policy.
    
    Have you read Gordon Lafer’s study of the financial impact of charters on three public school districts in California?
    
    Google it. It is called “The Breaking Point.” Some districts are teetering near bankruptcy because of the fiscal strain of “choice.”
  - Linda says:
    
    September 24, 2019 at 4:57 pm
    
    The Koch network says voters won’t fund inner city schools with the same amount as other schools. William could vote for Bernie and take a leap of faith that there are people with better angels on their shoulders than the people he associates with.
  - Linda says:
    
    September 24, 2019 at 7:16 pm
    
    Presumably, William would work as easily for the gun lobby as the profiteers scheming to eliminate Main Street schools and local community control.
    If his family has any pride in him, it is misplaced.
  - LeftCoastTeacher says:
    
    September 24, 2019 at 8:59 pm
    
    William’s quizzical response to my question was the same as my hypothetical response from Betsy DeV: “Um, grizzlies?” Did not grasp the circumstances.
  - William says:
    
    September 25, 2019 at 8:48 am
    
    For the record: I support public schools, and public education. I do not support “equality of funding”, I support higher spending for additional programs in economically depressed areas.
    
    And I support solid, “common-sense” firearms legislation: Background checks, “red-flag” laws to keep weapons away from mentally-ill people, etc.
- nancyebailey says:
  
  September 28, 2019 at 9:55 am
  
  Private school administrators are also intent on marketing their schools as successful. My understanding is that most of them will not keep students who have serious learning disabilities. If students are not doing well they are shown the door.
  
  Reply
dienne77 says:

September 24, 2019 at 9:43 am

Hypocrisy is the right-wing gospel. “States rights” means unless a state wants to do something like ban slavery. “Religious freedom” means the freedom to practice right-wing conservative Xtianity. “Educational freedom” means the freedom to give up the choice of a good, local public school. “Personal responsibility” means those damn poor people are responsible for all the crap in the world and they should own it, damn it.

It’s all about power. Whoever has it deserves it and more. If you don’t have power it’s because God didn’t grant it to you because you’re not worthy and the sooner you accept your place the happier we’ll all be.

Reply
- dianeravitch says:
  
  September 24, 2019 at 12:28 pm
  
  Trump recently showed that states’ rights does not include the right to set higher standards for fuel consumption than the feds set.
  
  Reply
- Linda says:
  
  September 24, 2019 at 5:00 pm
  
  The principle of “states rights” is only for states owned by ALEC.
  ALEC is the Koch’s “freedom and liberty” for oligarchs.
  
  Reply
retired teacher says:

September 24, 2019 at 9:55 am

To right wing libertarians the word “freedom” is the most overworked term in the English language. To them “freedom” equals zero regulations except when they want to restrict a woman’s right to decide what to do with her own body. Then, these “freedom” lovers feel that they should have the right to force women to have a child. Of course, they fail to see the hypocrisy in this.

Education “freedom” is a way to create separate and unequal schools for various types of students. Quality of schools is not considered as long as right wing zealots can move students out of public schools. “Choice” is supposed to equal freedom. However, the choice is often a fake one when it is often the schools that do the choosing. “Choice” makes it easier for school to discriminate against students of color, ELLs and special education students.

To DeVos freedom gives her the green light to exploit poor students by loaning them money for education at a high interest rate. She makes money when students go into debt. That is her version of “freedom.” However, it equals a loss of economic freedom to students that are saddled with debt for decades.

The hypocrisy of freedom is pervasive. In an attempt to woo the right wing, Trump will make a speech at the UN on religious freedom. He will give a “freedom” performance to pander to his base, and there will not be one ounce of authenticity to it.

Reply
- dianeravitch says:
  
  September 24, 2019 at 12:26 pm
  
  Thanks for a good comment on the hypocrisy surrounding the rightwing use of the word “freedom.” The same might be said of the word “choice.” They are all in favor of “choice” outside the public schools but fiercely opposed to a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body.
  
  Reply
- Roy Turrentine says:
  
  September 24, 2019 at 12:51 pm
  
  Are we stumping our toe upon the fact that freedom for one person may imply restriction to another?
  
  A teacher is paid by tax dollars. The amount of my income and the subsequent ability it gives me to go see the Nashville Ballet production of Romeo and Juliette (it was fantastic!) comes at the expense of many people who are required to pay almost 10% on almost everything they buy. The thing that gives me the freedom to enjoy life comes at the restriction placed on consumers by a tax system. In a similar way, I do not have the freedom to fly, because airline tickets are out of my league.
  
  Since economics is one reflection of how we relate to each other, questions of freedom are related to things like income level and tax structure. I think this is complex.
  
  Where school is concerned, the competition provided for the public school systems by good private schools is often healthy, so long as the private school does not suck money directly out of the public system. It is bad enough that there is an indirect effect of tamping down public support for higher taxes when some of the parents choose private schools. We do not need to add to that problem by spending public money on private schools.
  
  If we wish to establish public experimental schools not restricted by certain aspects of the average school, we could establish guidelines that would allow this without watching the system degenerate into corruption the way we see in so many places documented almost daily on this website. The line should be drawn at the point where there is no public oversight. Since charters are without public oversight, they are across the line.
  
  Reply
nancyebailey says:

September 24, 2019 at 5:53 pm

Thanks, Diane!

Reply
LeftCoastTeacher says:

September 24, 2019 at 9:03 pm

How about listening to a classic.

Reply
- nancyebailey says:
  
  September 24, 2019 at 10:37 pm
  
  Thanks LeftCoastTeacher! Forgot about that one.
  
  Reply
democracy says:

September 25, 2019 at 5:02 am

Oh, she’s a hypocrite alright.

But she’s SO much more. So is Trump. And Pence. And the bulk of the Republican party.

Reply
- Linda says:
  
  September 25, 2019 at 8:39 am
  
  It’s not happenstance that a coalition of prosperity Catholics and evangelicals elected Trump, that Bill Gates is achieving his education corporatization through Catholic schools (a church he participates in with his family), that Koch/Gates-linked think tanks praise Catholic schools, that Rebekah and Robert Mercer fund the right wing Catholic, Steve Bannon, that Catholic Governors Brownback and Dewine received Koch money (the two governors have an average 6.5 kids each, that evangelical Gov. Bevin with 8 kids (4 adopted) gets Koch money, that thousands of Catholic CEO’s and their wives were brought together in the Legatus organization by Tim Busch and Ave Maria’s Tom Monaghan, that the Koch’s funded the political activities of founder of the religious right, who also founded ALEC. …
  
  Reply
drext727 says:

September 25, 2019 at 9:21 am

Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.

Reply