The Sage Publication is the student news site of Sage Creek High School in Carlsbad, CA

The Sage

The Sage Publication is the student news site of Sage Creek High School in Carlsbad, CA

The Sage

The Sage Publication is the student news site of Sage Creek High School in Carlsbad, CA

The Sage

American Schools are in Trouble

Betsy Devos Confirmation will be Detrimental to Public Schools
Betsy+Devos+answers+questions+during+senate+confirmation+hearing.
Photo taken from Getty Images. Photo by Chip Somodevilla.
Betsy Devos answers questions during senate confirmation hearing.

The new Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, is not qualified enough, knowledgeable enough, or empathetic enough to hold the position of Secretary of Education, nor does she advocate for policies that will be in the best interest of the students of the United States.

On Tuesday, Donald Trump’s secretary of education nominee Betsy DeVos was confirmed by the Senate in a 51-50 vote, with the tie-breaking vote cast by Vice President Mike Pence. DeVos will now assume her position as the Secretary of Education.

But what does that really mean in the broad scope of our country?

To begin generally, the Secretary of Education is the chief operating officer of the Department of Education. That is, he or she makes the executive decisions for the department, which oversees all of the public schools from pre-k to graduate school. This means that the Secretary of Education is largely responsible for administering federal funding to public schools, collecting educational data, enforcing federal law in schools, and, in recent decades, setting standards.

If we acknowledge that education is possibly the most important tool in the free world, the gravity of the post of United States Secretary of Education becomes clear. This is not a job that is to be taken lightly, and it is not a job that anyone can do.

Consider the past Secretaries of Education. The list is not abundantly long, but it is full of former attorney generals, university presidents, career politicians, and educators. For reference, among the least experienced Secretaries of Education was the executive director of the National Endowment of the Humanities prior to his appointment as Secretary of Education.

Photo Taken from Warren.senate.gov.
American public education will likely suffer under DeVos as SecEd.

That brings us to DeVos. DeVos has never been a principal, a dean, a school president, a superintendent, a teacher, or even a secretary. Nor has she ever been a politician or civil servant. Instead, DeVos is a very wealthy advocate for school choice programs. As she has personally admitted, much of her influence comes from the millions of dollars that she has given to various school choice groups. Despite her expansive pocketbooks, DeVos is by no means an educational professional; for all intents and purposes, she is little more than an educational enthusiast. Her qualifications for the position of Secretary of Education are, at best, minimal.

To me, DeVos’ lack of experience is rather concerning. In her hearing before the senate, DeVos displayed ignorance of federal laws and practices, and she seldom responded to challenging questions with a substantial answer. There should be no question to whether or not the Secretary of Education knows the laws that he or she is required to enforce. If DeVos does not know federal law, what abundance of other more menial things is she entirely ignorant of?

Of course, some may praise her outsider status to the Department of Education. It may be argued that someone who is on the receiving end of the policies instituted by the Department of Education (the average citizen, for example) may be able to empathize with fellow citizens and subsequently institute policies that help the average American. DeVos is not that person.

According to her statements in her senate hearing, DeVos has never attended a public school, sent her children to public school, taken out a student loan, or applied for a Pell Grant. Thus, she has no empathy for the average citizen who, like over 90 percent of students, has made use of the educational services provided by federal and state governments.

Considering her own personal educational record and that DeVos has called public education a “dead end,” I believe it is reasonable to say that DeVos is not particularly fond of public education. With that in mind, it raises the question: What might someone who effectively advocates against public education do as the leader of our public education system?

Looking at DeVos’ past statements, donations, and actions, we can glean from them a general idea. A somewhat radical idea would be the privatization of the United States education system. This would obviously be catastrophic for the state of education in the U.S., so I will assume that DeVos will not go so far as complete privatization. It appears likely, though, that DeVos will take steps in that direction.

Most of DeVos’ experience in the mere idea of education comes from her long-time advocacy for voucher programs and charter schools. Both vouchers and charter schools are, to DeVos, a means to inject competition into the education system, and neither are in the best interest of the American public student.

DeVos’ first advocating passion, school vouchers are essentially scholarships given by the government to a qualifying student for the intention of attending private school. The federal government does not have a voucher program, but 13 states and the District of Columbia institute one. In short, a voucher is money that goes from the government to private schools. Scholarships in themselves don’t sound like an issue, but consider where that scholarship money could be going.

Instead of the government spending money on private schools, as a voucher system effectively does, it would likely be in the better interest of students if that money was invested in public school systems. It is clear that schools that receive less funding perform worse than schools that receive more funding. Given that over 90 percent of students make use of public schools, would it not be in the best interest of the entire student population of the United States to give schools as much funding as possible? Even more worrying, DeVos appears to be in support of voucher programs at least in part due to her own religious convictions. In a 2001 speech, DeVos said that her advocacy for voucher programs was part of an effort to “advance God’s Kingdom.” For religious advocates, this would probably be welcome, but it also would be blatantly unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Similarly, DeVos’ advocacy of charter schools, if applied to the position of Secretary of Education, would be detrimental to the United States public school system. Charter schools are essentially public schools that are established by private institutions, namely corporations. Because they are public institutions, they receive federal and state funding and are not allowed to charge tuition. However, unlike traditional public schools, they are allowed greater flexibility in determining their curriculum and not subject to the same regulations from state and federal agencies.

Charter advocates frequently tout that charter schools are held to higher standards than traditional public schools, but according to a Department of Education study, charter schools are less likely to meet state performance standards than traditional schools, and sanctions are very rarely imposed on failing schools. Like traditional public schools, charter schools require government funding to function. That means that the amount of funding given to public schools (again, in which the vast majority of students are enrolled) is decreased with the proliferation of charter schools. Once again, as has been shown abundantly well, the less funding a school receives, the lower it performs.

DeVos has no relevant experience, no qualifications, and her advocacy for charter schools and voucher programs will hurt the public school system. The worse our schools do, the worse our students do, and the success of our students determines the success of our country. Why, then, do we have reason to be optimistic about Devos’ impact on the United States?

Further Reading:

Lemon v. Kurtzman Case Summary

Journalist Resource Data Analysis

The Effect of Budget Referenda on Student Performance

“A sobering look at what Betsy DeVos did to education in Michigan — and what she might do as secretary of education”

“Betsy DeVos’ Graduation Rate Mistake”

“Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program”

View Comments (8)

Comments (8)

The Sage intends for this area to be used to foster healthy, thought-provoking discussion. Comments are expected to adhere to our standards and to be respectful and constructive. As such, we do not permit the use of profanity, foul language, personal attacks, or the use of language that might be interpreted as libelous. Comments are reviewed and must be approved by a moderator to ensure that they meet these standards. The Sage does not allow anonymous comments, and The Sage requires a valid email address. The email address will not be displayed but will be used to confirm your comments.
All The Sage Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • T

    Terrance WilkinsonFeb 17, 2017 at 5:38 pm

    “DeVos displayed ignorance of federal laws and practices, and she seldom responded to challenging questions with a substantial answer.” You linked no evidence and failed to address this at all. WHAT did De Vos fail to recognize? Which part(s) of the hearing are you referencing.

    Also, “Instead of the government spending money on private schools, as a voucher system effectively does, it would likely be in the better interest of students if that money was invested in public school systems.” What do you have against private institutions and why? Claiming the “best interest” of Americans isn’t right. Just because a larger majority of students go to public schools doesn’t mean that private institutions don’t deserve federal aid/money. A majority of Americans voted for Clinton, but look who we have.

    Families that spend their hard-earned money and have more financial flexibility than others shouldn’t be punished with a less established, funded school. That’s very idiotic to be touting. Concerning your “2001 speech” anaylsis, the Establishment clause prohibits special attention/ favoring activities within the school systems involving religion. No one religion can be placed over another and no religious group can have special treatment over, non-religious ones. What about DeVos’ quote is unconstitutional. She didn’t specify that she favors voucher over public. Some private institutions are religious and that’s a reason why millions of families send their children there. DeVos has a right to ensure that private institutions (religious or not) have funding to help their students.

    Reply
    • A

      Arman OmmidFeb 22, 2017 at 2:31 pm

      >”Just because a larger majority of students go to public schools doesn’t mean that private institutions don’t deserve federal aid/money.”

      You’re right. Rather, private institutions, by definition, don’t deserve federal aid/money. Private schools exist for profit… why should the government aid them? It’s interfering with the free market unnecessarily.

      >”A majority of Americans voted for Clinton, but look who we have.”

      Total nonsequitor

      >”Families that spend their hard-earned money and have more financial flexibility than others shouldn’t be punished with a less established, funded school.”

      There is a standard to public education. No one is being punished.

      >”That’s very idiotic to be touting.”

      That’s not very nice.

      >”What about DeVos’ quote is unconstitutional?”

      Full Devos Quote: “There are not enough philanthropic dollars in America to fund what is currently the need in education… Our desire is to confront the culture in ways that will continue to advance God’s kingdom.”
      Aka: there isn’t enough charity to fund what we want, so we have to exploit politics to “advance God’s kingdom.”

      >”She didn’t specify that she favors voucher over public.”

      Except that she’s overtly undermining public education in favor of private. Taxes going to those rather than public ones.

      >”DeVos has a right to ensure that private institutions (religious or not) have funding to help their students.”

      Nope. In no way does any private business have that right. You are deeply mistaken.

      I hope that answers some of your concerns.

      Reply
  • M

    Mr. CordellFeb 15, 2017 at 8:44 pm

    Well written Beau. – Mr. Cordell

    Reply
  • A

    Arman OmmidFeb 14, 2017 at 2:30 pm

    Full Devos Quote:
    “There are not enough philanthropic dollars in America to fund what is currently the need in education… Our desire is to confront the culture in ways that will continue to advance God’s kingdom.”

    There is perhaps nothing more corrosive of modern education than such an effort. Education should be directed by objective observations; not by the fantastic, esoteric, and supernatural claims that spout from perhaps the most fallible species on the planet: human beings.

    And now our taxes should go to this nonsense? It’s insane to think “advancing God’s kingdom” through politics is still relevant in the 21st century. Haven’t we already abandoned this effort? Or did we forget the reasons why our founding fathers swiftly severed religion from our politics?

    Reply
  • D

    Darius RahmanianFeb 14, 2017 at 10:21 am

    Good article Beau. Beau’s in the house

    Reply
  • E

    Evan FriedmanFeb 11, 2017 at 10:44 am

    My genius project was supposed to be on the school voucher system . I was censored and not allowed to to present on an issue that, if implemented , could fundamentally change our nation for the better.
    Here’s why.

    Miton Friedman , Nobel prize winning economist and the author of free choice and the ” school voucher system” ,in an interview given to CNBC , stated:

    “The elementary and secondary school system is the single most socialist industry ….it is centralized and the control comes from the center and …….it has largely been taken over by teacher unions. I do not blame them, but they are interested in the welfare of their members……… and the result is that they have introduced a degree of rigidity which makes it impossible to reform the public school system …. Reform has to come from competition from the outside and the only way you can get competition is to make it possible for parents ….to choose.”

    It is the opinion today of some high ranking and knowledgeable people in Sacramento, who I have met and spoken to , that legislation will be introduced this year on the ” school voucher system”.

    I commend our President for making what today seems like a tough and painful choice, but sometimes change is good. With change comes opportunity and free choice creates competition which is what our capitalist system is based on.
    After all, why did it take so long , 4 years , for those in authority, to finally offer Sage Creek students an opportunity at taking a computer science class. Why was it such a struggle? I presented you ( the administration and Board) a signed petition by half the student body at Sage Creek 3 years ago asking for a computer science program. The answer is simple. ” competition forces change”. There is no incentive to change if there is no competition.

    Reply
  • Z

    Zach TCB LiebermanFeb 11, 2017 at 8:35 am

    What schools should be teaching kids is:
    How to invest and when to start investing (like now)
    Start saving now
    The importance of compounding interest
    you all can be millionaires or close to in 25 years by investing $2,000 a year
    how to read a financial statement
    how to read a profit and loss statement
    how to save money
    The importance of charity and giving back
    This should be general ed classes.
    I hope they are doing this

    Reply
  • N

    Natelina BlakeFeb 9, 2017 at 8:10 pm

    This is such an important topic and your article is worded so well Beau!

    Reply