 |
| Betsy DeVos |
When Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump’s nominee for Education Secretary appeared before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, on Tuesday her appearance was more a victory for partisanship, and a boost for those advocating school choice, using vouchers, than a significant part of the vetting process. Like many features of the now familiar Republican playbook, privatization, ranks high, and the selection of DeVos represents a strong move in that direction
For the 59-year-old Michigan philanthropist, the role of school vouchers seems to represent the road not taken, in a decades old battle. And, by all accounts she has earnestly, some might say desperately, sought this, and made it her main endeavor; and who by all accounts, in her native Michigan, proved to be a thorn in the side of then Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, who championed for the preservation of neighborhood schools, over the zealots of charter schools.
With her vast wealth and influence, and marriage to Richard DeVos, the heir to the Amway Corporation fortune, and as the sister of Blackwater founder Erik Prince, she is not without the financial muscle to try and have things her way, or that of the far right wing of American politics.
She also comes with a familial commitment to donating to conservative, some might say reactionary, organizations. As Mother Jones magazine reported: “The Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation gave $275,000 to Focus on the Family from 1999 to 2001 but hasn’t donated since; it gave an additional $35,760 to the group’s Michigan and D.C. affiliates from 2001 to 2010. The Prince Foundation donated $5.2 million to Focus on the Family and $275,000 to its Michigan affiliate from 2001 to 2014.”
The foundation also gave “$6.1 million to the Family Research Council, which has fought against same-sex marriage and anti-bullying programs — and is listed as an “anti-LGBT hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The FRC used to be a division of Focus on the Family before it became an independent nonprofit, with Dobson serving on its board, in 1992.”
DeVos faced a lot of questions regarding these donations, by Democratic senators, in an attempt to determine how much they would affect her performance as secretary of education, should she be confirmed. But, they lacked those documents (some say the hearing was rushed through by supporters) from the Office of Government Ethics who could make determinations where potential conflicts of interest might lie.
She was well prepared to answer these questions, however, but fudged when asked by Sen. Margaret Hassan about associations with her mother's foundational efforts to champion ultra conservative causes, and claimed, “she has nothing to do with the contributions made by her mother’s foundation, the Prince Foundation (formerly known as the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation). DeVos said that her immediate family — presumably meaning her husband and children — had nothing to do with the financing of anti-gay causes and groups and that she has never supported “conversion therapy” for gay people.”
DeVos claimed that she was not on the board of her mother’s foundation when these donations were made. Yet reporter Jeremy Scahill did some investigation, upon hearing this and said, “When I heard that, I pulled up the 990 tax documents of the Prince Foundation, which I investigated for my book “Blackwater.” Betsy DeVos was clearly listed as a vice president of the foundation’s board, along with her brother Erik, for many years, at least until 2014. DeVos was a vice president during the precise period Hassan was referring to. I then began a tweet storm about this lie.”
Despite this evidence, she claimed, disingenuously, “That was a clerical error. I can assure you I have never made decisions on my mother’s behalf on her foundation’s board.” Hearing that I I could not help feeling that maybe pigs could really fly..
By all accounts, her finances and donations aside, she was far less informed, on education issues, than many would have expected, even from someone who is not, nor has been, a professional educator. She stumbled on a question from Sen. Patty Murray regarding the federal statute for disabled students, and hit the wall when Sen. Al Franken asked about baseline measurements for the success of all schools, and attempted to regain from her fumble with an incoherent line regarding the measurement of school success.
For LGBT students she again, seemed to not understand the difference between equality and conversion therapy - now banned in several states, most recently in Illinois.But, all this aside, what is alarming is that a nominee for a cabinet level position,, has become emblematic of a political movement that wants to use publicly funded vouchers for private and charter schools. A move, as critics note, with the the eventual diminishment, some might even say disembowelment, of free public education, a hallmark of what has made the United States great, and what immigrants sought almost immediately upon their arrival.
It’s important to note that by the the middle of the 20th century public education had evolved from the early part of the century, where education was completed, for men, with eighth grade as the end point; till the 1940s and 50s when high school education had increased the average age of completion, and correspondingly an increase in social capital.
The politicization of schools is nothing new these last two decades but has taken on an urgency for many from the statehouse to the courthouse, and everything in between. DeVos’ organization, the American Federation for Children, published a recent poll, that it publicized as news, but even a casual inspection, showed that it was not an independent poll, but one of their own, moving into the area of fake news.
"Parents no longer believe that a one-size-fits-all model of learning meets the needs of every child," she said. "And they know other options exist, whether magnet, virtual, charter, home, faith-based or any other combination,” DeVos noted as part of her three hour testimony.
As National Public Radio noted in their coverage: “The problem, say DeVos' critics, is her faith in the free market, and that she thinks parents should be able to use public-school dollars to pay for alternatives outside the system.” They quoted the following exchange, albeit humorous, in one manner.
Murray: "Can you commit to us tonight that you will not work to privatize public schools or cut a single penny from public education?"
DeVos: "Senator, thanks for that question. I look forward, if confirmed, to working with you to talk about how we address the needs of all parents and all students. And we acknowledge today that not all schools are working for the students that are assigned to them. And I'm hopeful that we can work together to find common ground and ways that we can solve those issues and empower parents to make choices on behalf of their children that are right for them."
Murray: "I take that as not being willing to commit to not privatizing public schools or cutting money from education."
DeVos: "I guess I wouldn't characterize it in that way."
Murray: "Well," she said, laughing, "okay."
As the Dems raised substantial objections, and questioned her on some basic issues in modern public education, she stumbled even further. As CNN reported, “During a question and answer with Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, DeVos declined to answer whether she believed in applying the same standards to public, charter and private schools.”
"I support accountability," DeVos said four times. When asked directly if she was declined to answer the question, DeVos simply said: "I support accountability."
DeVos who is a member of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, a church that believes that homosexuality is "a condition of disordered sexuality that reflects the brokenness of our sinful world.” With such ultra-conservative views on human sexuality, it’s hard to see how she would be able to support protections for legal remedies to protect those students, especially anti-bullying laws, and the above conversion therapy bans..
In a response to a question by Sen. Al Franken whether she still believed in conversion therapy she said, that she “believes in equality,” despite her role as vice-president on her mother’s board, that gave money in support of it.
She has support from the chair, Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander, who hamstrung the Democrats by limiting questions to only five minutes, an effort some said was to avoid scrutiny, a move that anyone could see was purely a partisan block.
He asked DeVos if, as secretary, she would try to push them [vouchers] onto states despite their loss in the most recent bipartisan education law.. Her answer:? "No. I would hope I could convince you all of the merit of that in maybe some future legislation, but certainly not any kind of mandate from within the department." This coy exchange between she and Alexander raises all sorts of red flags for the future.
Another supporter is Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut who said, since she is not part of the education establishment that makes her an ideal candidate: "Honestly, I believe that today that's one of the most important qualifications you could have for this job," he said.
Vouchers in and of themselves, over the last twenty-five years have shown far less than they promised both in test scores, where neighborhood scores far exceed those of charters and choice. In fact, "There's a common pattern," says Douglas Harris, a professor of economics at Tulane University who has long studied charters and choice in Louisiana and nationally. On Michigan's experiments, (80% of their schools are charters) he says, DeVos has advocated for ideas that have a poor record. "The best case scenario is that they don't work. And the worst case scenario is they're actually worse than the alternatives."
As he told NPR in December, “Detroit, where many charters have greatly under-performed. As an economist, Harris says he generally thinks choice and free markets are good things. But he says DeVos' advocacy record shows she prefers an unbridled approach to choice, with limited or no oversight. He calls such an approach a triumph "of ideology over evidence."
“On vouchers, Harris points to the data: A large study his research center conducted shows that students who got vouchers in Louisiana's statewide program saw their test scores drop 8 to 16 percentile points. Michigan doesn't have vouchers – despite efforts by DeVos to create them.”
In some cities charters and vouchers have shown some success but with regulation; which Michigan does not have, unlike Boston and New York.
Chicago’s teachers union president Karen Lewis is against DeVos as a nominee, and most teachers unions bemoan the loss of money to traditional schools that vouchers and charters can do; and this drain further erodes their efforts, and the schools themselves.
Some of these efforts have been in the form of Social Impact Bonds, a relatively new form of privatization, where big banks fund education and in turn get up to “double the money that the service costs to run. This is a shake-down scheme that is parading as ‘innovation’, ‘ethical investment’ and ‘accountability’. Rahm Emanuel has been an early adopter in Chicago.” notes Saltman.
Finally, with regard to test scores, local columnist Ben Joravsky wrote in 2013: “There are 541 elementary schools in Chicago. Based on the composite ISAT scores for 2011—the last full set available—none of the top ten are charters. None of the top 20, 30, or 40 either.”
University of Massachusetts professor Ken Saltman says that the push towards charters results in “rich investors and businessmen skimming resources out of the schools”, as De Vos and her family have done. But, he also points out that it is not vouchers alone, but also for-profit schools to scholarship tax credits that are the problem. The results are “educational inequality benefitting the rich and punishing everyone else.”
No comments:
Post a Comment