Betsy Devos

[SamSpade]

Could someone - succinctly - explain to me why Betsy Devos would be so bad as Education Secretary?

Now truth be told - I've never believed we needed a cabinet level position or even HAVE a Department of Education.
I didn't look this up, but if memory serves, Education and Energy were created under Carter - so it's not like we've had it forever (unless you're a millennial, in which case EVERYTHING before they were born is ancient history).

But the biggest objection I've seen is vouchers for private schools - SPECIFICALLY for children in poverty.
The BIGGEST argument I've seen for THAT is, where's the money coming from, which I find amusing, because when Democrats want a program, where the money comes from is never an issue, since they tend to reason that if something is vital, it doesn't matter).

So let me ask it this way - how will her appointment make education WORSE for children? Since - ultimately - that IS the purpose of having education in this country and not as an issue for teachers and such.

 

[philibusters]

Honestly I don't think the Democrats have great arguments against her.

She is going against the education establishment (teacher unions) in supporting charter schools and vouchers so they will be against her.

Other than that, I don't see any huge glaring issues. Lets be honest, she was serviceable during her confirmation hearings and nothing more as she appeared to be confused on what certain education laws were. However, that is because she is not an Education insider. Within a handful of months of taking the job, her knowledge of those areas would be very good.

Ultimately Trump took a bit of a risk with her because she is been a successful person who has pursued Education reform as an interest, she is not a professional so to speak. The good news then is she is not trapped in the establishment mindset, the bad news is you don't quite know what you are getting and her knowledge of some stuff (that I believe you could learn quickly) is not as good as somebody with more experience. The Democrats main argument against her is she lacks experience and she only got the position because she is one of the biggest Republican donors (her husband is the heir to Amway fortune).

 

[vraiblonde]

Honestly I don't think the Democrats have great arguments against her.

I don't think they have a great argument against anything. At least not so far.

When I first heard Betsy DeVos, I reacted to the Amway connection. Then I read up on her a bit and saw that she's actually a terrific pick. To answer Sam's question, what is so bad about her? She's a Republican, Jim, AND the evil SatanHitlerStalinVader nominated her.

 

[Larry Gude]

Could someone - succinctly - explain to me why Betsy Devos would be so bad as Education Secretary?

Now truth be told - I've never believed we needed a cabinet level position or even HAVE a Department of Education.
I didn't look this up, but if memory serves, Education and Energy were created under Carter - so it's not like we've had it forever (unless you're a millennial, in which case EVERYTHING before they were born is ancient history).

But the biggest objection I've seen is vouchers for private schools - SPECIFICALLY for children in poverty.
The BIGGEST argument I've seen for THAT is, where's the money coming from, which I find amusing, because when Democrats want a program, where the money comes from is never an issue, since they tend to reason that if something is vital, it doesn't matter).

So let me ask it this way - how will her appointment make education WORSE for children? Since - ultimately - that IS the purpose of having education in this country and not as an issue for teachers and such.

This is pretty simple stuff. If she succeeds in creating more 'voucher' programs, more school choice, more kids whose parents care will get out of the public schools leaving behind a higher percentage of parents who don't wanna be, or can't be, more involved as well as the higher concentration of kids of parents who don't wanna be or can't be more involved. The net problems of the public schools goes up and thus the net misery of the...children left behind.

The SIMPLEST argument there is to make is this; the average spent per kid, nationwide, is about $12,000 or so. Assuming a class size of 25, a conservative number, that's $300,000 per class per year. Average teacher salary is about $45,000 or, about 1/6th or 17% or so. obvious, there is over head beyond that as well as building costs, utilities, insurance, materials, etc but from a labor component, teachers are well down the scale.

McDonald's is something like 30-35%
Mowing grass is about 40-50%
A truck driver is about 33%

Average price of private high school nationwide?

$10,000


If you were handed $10k for school, would you choose public and owe them $2k or spend it at a private school?

 

[GURPS]

But the biggest objection I've seen is vouchers for private schools - SPECIFICALLY for children in poverty.

Charter Schools do not hire UNION Teachers :shrug: ...
seriously it pulls children from public schools and we cannot have that or home schooling - that is admitting there is a problem with the public school system

then the Administrators / Teachers [Teachers UNIONS] having a harder time justifying MORE money for their already failed programs ....

 

[GURPS]

Average teacher salary is about $45,000 or, about 1/6th or 17% or so. obvious ....

it is a hell of a lot higher in SOLID blue states [that have given sweet heat deals to UNIONS for decades] like Cali and NY 65k or higher .... IIRC NJ is almost 80k

 

[tommyjo]

This is pretty simple stuff. If she succeeds in creating more 'voucher' programs, more school choice, more kids whose parents care will get out of the public schools leaving behind a higher percentage of parents who don't wanna be, or can't be, more involved as well as the higher concentration of kids of parents who don't wanna be or can't be more involved. The net problems of the public schools goes up and thus the net misery of the...children left behind.

The SIMPLEST argument there is to make is this; the average spent per kid, nationwide, is about $12,000 or so. Assuming a class size of 25, a conservative number, that's $300,000 per class per year. Average teacher salary is about $45,000 or, about 1/6th or 17% or so. obvious, there is over head beyond that as well as building costs, utilities, insurance, materials, etc but from a labor component, teachers are well down the scale.

McDonald's is something like 30-35%
Mowing grass is about 40-50%
A truck driver is about 33%

Average price of private high school nationwide?

$10,000


If you were handed $10k for school, would you choose public and owe them $2k or spend it at a private school?

Not a very intelligent answer.

Suppose you follow your point and folks move their kids out of public and into private schools in significant numbers. Cost per child at public goes up...not down. Pressure on private schools to compete with each other goes up...not down. Corporate mentality takes over as does the pressure to increase profits and reduce services (that is the easiest way to increase profit).

Your "pretty simple stuff" isn't simple at all. Nor is it all about unions as that idiot GURPS claims (wrongly as usual).

This is not a comment about public vs private or the inadequacy of Ms. Devos...it is only about the typical short sighted nature of the commentary on here.

If the problems this country faces were so easy to solve, they would be solved already. Although maybe not...we have too large a portion of our electorate who are uneducated and unwilling to learn about most anything...this site serves as a wonderful example.

 

[Larry Gude]

Not a very intelligent answer.

Suppose you follow your point and folks move their kids out of public and into private schools in significant numbers. Cost per child at public goes up...not down. Pressure on private schools to compete with each other goes up...not down. Corporate mentality takes over as does the pressure to increase profits and reduce services (that is the easiest way to increase profit).

Your "pretty simple stuff" isn't simple at all. Nor is it all about unions as that idiot GURPS claims (wrongly as usual).

This is not a comment about public vs private or the inadequacy of Ms. Devos...it is only about the typical short sighted nature of the commentary on here.

If the problems this country faces were so easy to solve, they would be solved already. Although maybe not...we have too large a portion of our electorate who are uneducated and unwilling to learn about most anything...this site serves as a wonderful example.

Ah, yes! That's what any successful model would do; less customers? Rise prices!

Competition in the private sector? Corporate mentality take over? Yup. Then what? Costs go...up....or down? Here, a freebie I leanrted in public school; down. Then, MORE kids abandon the loving embrace of the public housing mentality of bad public schools and...what, they raise their prices even more? Compete back? Improve? Get bought out? Sold off? Or, I know!!! Just keep doing the same thing and hope for different, ideally better, results!!!!

This IS a comment on public v. private BECAUSE the public model is a national embarrassment in MANY jurisdiction BECAUSE they have NO competition. Where is their motivation to do better? Demand of the kids? Watch spending? Answer? Another freebie. They #### their members, as I illustrated, and the fat at the top grows and grows.

So, no, it's not simple when your insisting on the very reasons for failure as MUST haves in any solution.

There can be NO argument that some of our public schools are awful. When Obama came to office, the Post, local section ONLY of course, ran a series on local parents in DC hoping and praying he would not kill the DC voucher program and that they could get their kids out the ONLY way they could; vouchers. So, what does Mr. Hope and Change do? Virtually first thing, KILLS the voucher program expansion.

Now, if you wanna think, wanna help the kids, you're gonna have to take the best of both worlds and come up with a better answer than the status quo. In the process, you help teachers and take away from the bloated admin costs.

Or not.

 

[Larry Gude]

it is a hell of a lot higher in SOLID blue states [that have given sweet heat deals to UNIONS for decades] like Cali and NY 65k or higher .... IIRC NJ is almost 80k

Note use of the word 'average'. It's a good place, the best place, to start.

 

[vraiblonde]

If the problems this country faces were so easy to solve, they would be solved already.

The problems in this country ARE easy to solve, depending on what you consider "solved". Will it ever be that every single child is eager to learn and has the capability to perform at "grade level"? Of course not. There ARE going to be children left behind - it's just the way it is. Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome.

Our problems with education are that we have allowed the minority - those kids whose parents don't give a damn, therefore the kid doesn't give a damn - to be catered to at the expense of the majority. We have also allowed teachers unions to run our schools, and we allow teachers to use their bully pulpit to proselytize instead of teach. Inner city schools are warehouses instead of institutions of learning.

It's pretty simple to fix all those things.

The real problem is people like you who don't really care about children or their education; what you really care about are politics and harmful social experiments that do not take individuality into consideration. THAT is why you don't see how simple the solution really is.

 

[Larry Gude]

If the problems this country faces were so easy to solve, they would be solved already. .

Did I say 'easy' or simple? Two very different things.

 

[SamSpade]

As I alluded before - the objections to it have zero to do with whether or not kids get a better education. It's just a shell game with numbers.
The buzz is about teachers and jobs and unions - but no one objects to the clear fact that a poor child stuck in a lousy public school ACTUALLY has a chance at a better education.

NO ONE makes the argument that kids will be worse off. They know that ain't true.

I know some years ago a few *states* did something like this - gave vouchers to parents for private schools but retained the same cost per pupil for public schools.
Subtract one less kid you're paying 12k for, pay someone 10k for it. The state comes out ahead OR - they can afford better education for the remaining students.

The parents assume some of the costs the public school would take - I know, I went to both growing up. With limited budgets - depending on the school - some costs are cut.
In parochial schools some costs are actually helped by having the kids wear uniforms and some programs the school doesn't maintain. Moreover, since my school was Catholic, we shared
bus routes with other Catholic schools to cut costs.

I do know ONE objection is - the state is basically giving money to a school that is religious. We DID go to Mass and we DID have religion classes. We DID have prayer and we did have a chapel (in high school).
We WERE taught by nuns and priests. THAT is an objection I can understand. But the bottom line SHOULD be - do the kids get a better education?

 

[Merlin99]

The problems in this country ARE easy to solve, depending on what you consider "solved". Will it ever be that every single child is eager to learn and has the capability to perform at "grade level"? Of course not. There ARE going to be children left behind - it's just the way it is. Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome.

Our problems with education are that we have allowed the minority - those kids whose parents don't give a damn, therefore the kid doesn't give a damn - to be catered to at the expense of the majority. We have also allowed teachers unions to run our schools, and we allow teachers to use their bully pulpit to proselytize instead of teach. Inner city schools are warehouses instead of institutions of learning.

It's pretty simple to fix all those things.

The real problem is people like you who don't really care about children or their education; what you really care about are politics and harmful social experiments that do not take individuality into consideration. THAT is why you don't see how simple the solution really is.

And every election cycle there's a teacher running for school board on that very issue, school boards need teachers because they're the only ones that know what the issues are. Little do they realize that they're a good portion of the issue.

 

[Kev_Russell]

I've no idea if she will be any good or not, but the quote attributed to her that she wants to use schools to "build God's kingdom" should cause rational people to wonder if she's fit for anything but a straight jacket and foam padded room.

 

[glhs837]

Depends on what she means by Gods Kingdom, I suppose. A place where people regardless of anything other than their actions are accepted as part of society? Not all religious people are bad or intolerant.

 

[Merlin99]

Depends on what she means by Gods Kingdom, I suppose. A place where people regardless of anything other than their actions are accepted as part of society? Not all religious people are bad or intolerant.

The quote doesn't really read like that, read it yourself and draw your conclusion.

However, in a 2001 interview for The Gathering, a group focused on advancing Christian faith through philanthropy, she and her husband offered a rare public glimpse of their views. Asked whether Christian schools should continue to rely on philanthropic dollars—rather than pushing for taxpayer money through vouchers—Betsy DeVos replied, "There are not enough philanthropic dollars in America to fund what is currently the need in education…[versus] what is currently being spent every year on education in this country…Our desire is to confront the culture in ways that will continue to advance God's kingdom."

 

[vraiblonde]

I've no idea if she will be any good or not, but the quote attributed to her that she wants to use schools to "build God's kingdom" should cause rational people to wonder if she's fit for anything but a straight jacket and foam padded room.

Well, no. It pisses me off that you made me look, but here's the original piece Mother Jones did that spawned all the copycat fretters:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...-schools-vouchers-charter-education-secretary

Although they try halfheartendly to paint her fairly basic Christian values as scary and weird, it's mainly in the subheadline they chose - the story itself is fair and even somewhat complimentary, and this here atheist came away unimpressed with her level of zealotry. I know a number of people personally who could put her under the table in terms of holy rolling - and that is based on how uber left Mother Jones painted her, so imagine how mainstream she must be really.

So here we go again, you progbots just reading the headlines and not reading the, you know, story. Too many words?

 

[Hijinx]

Well, no. It pisses me off that you made me look, but here's the original piece Mother Jones did that spawned all the copycat fretters:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...-schools-vouchers-charter-education-secretary

Although they try halfheartendly to paint her fairly basic Christian values as scary and weird, it's mainly in the subheadline they chose - the story itself is fair and even somewhat complimentary, and this here atheist came away unimpressed with her level of zealotry. I know a number of people personally who could put her under the table in terms of holy rolling - and that is based on how uber left Mother Jones painted her, so imagine how mainstream she must be really.

So here we go again, you progbots just reading the headlines and not reading the, you know, story. Too many words?

What is really frightening to me is that once Christian ideals were considered a good thing.
Now if you are Christian it's like something we need to spit at.

This is what years with atheists, no prayer in schools and the teaching of liberal professors has wrought.

 

[vraiblonde]

What is really frightening to me is that once Christian ideals were considered a good thing.

To be fair, hard line Christians did some of that to themselves. When you start trying to make laws that force everyone adhere to your Biblical beliefs, you've gone too far and need to re-read your Constitution. Which is not to say that activist groups like the ACLU aren't WAY overcorrecting, because certainly they are.

 

[SamSpade]

To be fair, hard line Christians did some of that to themselves. When you start trying to make laws that force everyone adhere to your Biblical beliefs, you've gone too far and need to re-read your Constitution. Which is not to say that activist groups like the ACLU aren't WAY overcorrecting, because certainly they are.

I do also think the media does it as well. And I mean, movie and television media. It is a rare thing that a character will appear as a devout Christian - and doesn't turn out to be the pedophile or murderer or psychotic killer. Wife and I will be watching a show and they will be talking to the priest or pastor and we look at each other and groan - because we NOW know who the bad guy is. The main character will be clearly religious - but - they will be portrayed as seriously weird and out of touch with everyone else in the show.

I am sure you've seen this with characters portrayed as right wing - they are almost always portrayed as seriously flawed (the one exception that comes to mind is the character Gary Cole - one of my favorite actors - played in "The Good Wife" where he was a gun enthusiast and an expert on the subject. He was portrayed fairly).

I attribute this largely to some of the same things we find in any portrayal of a stereotype - the writer doesn't really know anyone of that background very well. The religious characters will appear very knowledgeable on religion or the Bible, but their explanations of simple religious principles show that the writer never made it past third grade Sunday school class.