Does anyone outside of Trump’s inner circle, including VP Mike Pence, and 50 or 52 Senate Republicans think Betsy DeVos is well-suited to be the nation’s new federal education czar?
The Orange County (California) Register does, which probably brought it a deluge of hate mail from all those California voters who gave Hillary Clinton most of her popular vote advantage — 2.3 million of the 3 million total.
The OC Register said: “America’s education system is broken and in need of a sharp change in course or, better yet, significant disruption. And Betsy DeVos, untethered by special interests or the education establishment, is best positioned to deliver.”
Benchmarks for improvement, the California newspaper mentioned:
— Students come first. Isn’t this what we all have heard, in good faith, from educators since Hector was a pup?
— One-size-fits-all models for education do not work. More semantics than reality. Coordination and continuity are necessary; we can’t make arrangements to meet specific needs of every child, and must take costs into consideration — a cold, hard fact.
— No special interests — especially unions — should hold special influence on the direction of public education. Definition here is important. Special interest groups, such as PTOs and consortiums, that lobby for important and helpful progressive change are a distinct advantage. Unions can run to the extreme, but we’d like to think most want to make sure workers — teachers in this case — get a fair shake, and also stand up for kids.
— Good teachers should be rewarded. Programs are in place in some local schools and elsewhere to do exactly that. We’ve carried water for merit pay, although we understand it must be devised in a manner that is fair and not undermined by vindictiveness.
— Current status of public education in the U.S. disproportionately hurts poor children and minority kids. Perhaps the best observation. Even so, it is a fool’s errand to think vouchers and charter schools are going to make a difference of consequence. The better way to attack the problem is at its social and economic roots, and find a way to meaningfully engage parents.
— Our education system is outdated and in dire need of modernization. This resonates well with Iola-area folks. We’re all aware that a school bond issue, proposed to replace aging schools, failed. We now are looking at substantial costs to refit and upgrade what we have. Will a bond issue for that work find legs? Citizens are the ones who have to make a difference here, not a rich GOP patron sitting in an ivory tower in Washington, D.C.
IN ITS conclusion, the editorial said: “Much as Apple positively disrupted mobile technology space or Uber disrupted the taxi cartels or Amazon disrupted, well, everything, America’s public education needs disruption. Let’s all root for DeVos to deliver it.”
“Harumph,” as Daddy Warbucks might have said: Success in education is determined by the financial bottom line; it’s not a factory.
We agree change is needed in education, but not in a confrontational manner.
Look at the impact technology has had in local schools. Interactive learnning has been important, not only in creating more interest among students who are tech savvy from toddler time, but also in providing more opportunities for students to explore in-depth more than just the three Rs. Tasks that once took hours — try to find out how many legs a Hottentot has without the internet — now may be completed in minutes, even seconds. That’s certainly a departure from 1950 or even 1990. And begs for more innovative means to teach kids.
However, we think “disruption of education” is far too ominous a proposal, one that would be steeped in controversy.
Change should come about in measured doses, so that it may be absorbed by students, teachers and administrators and is conducive to finding success at each reordering or alteration.
That is why we find DeVos’s confirmation troubling.
From all indications the new ed secretary wants to bring about change by pouring money into vouchers — to give parents “a choice” — and charter schools, which by their very nature are an alternative to public schools that uses public assets to achieve privatization.
Would kids trapped in an environment of poverty and social dishevelment fare better if vouchers became available so they could attend schools where graduation rates were not dismal and just going each day wasn’t an ordeal?
Not likely. Nor would they be attracted to charter schools, where specialty education is the norm.
Perhaps DeVos can find a way to make inroads, but it won’t be through vouchers and charter schools, or the wholesale disruption of what’s in place today.
— Bob Johnson
