So Rob Portman voted to confirm Betsy DeVos

[BmorePat87]

(02-08-2017, 06:41 PM)Beaker Wrote: As a teacher, I don't care much for Devos or her ideas. But I am not too worried about her. I think she will have very little to no impact at the K-12 level. Where she could cause a problem is at the college level where the DOE makes decisions about funding.

I'm not worried about my state. We don't suck at education like her home state does. However, as a Special Educator, I have to be a bit concerned with her apparent lack of understand of federal laws that protect our disabled students and her commitment to enforce these laws in states that do not want to comply. 

Also I question her commitment to supporting high quality standards, something states with bad schools often do not want unless there's money involved. 

[BmorePat87]

(02-09-2017, 10:38 AM)McC Wrote: Still waiting on that list of qualifications.  Lots of sound, no fury whatsoever.  Typical.

(02-09-2017, 10:41 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Looking at the duties of the department and the past secretaries, a candidate should have one or more of the following:

-Experience running a school system or university.
-Executive experience overseeing education
-Experience enforcing education laws
-Experience drafting and passing education policy at the federal level
-Experience overseeing billion dollar or more loan programs


And just so we're clear, the Federation for Children is just a school choice lobbying group. So her experience, as many have repeated, is that she has spent money to convince lawmakers that public schools do not work, despite having no experience attending, working in, or running a public school.

If I was born into money and then married into more money and decided to spend my money telling politicians that national parks suck, despite having never visited one or worked at one, does that make me qualified to be Secretary of the Interior? Maybe if I was well educated and was an American citizen. 

I got you.

[BoomerFan]

DeVos Backlash Sees Parents Threatening to Homeschool Kids

Among the initial opposition to Betsy DeVos' confirmation this week as education secretary were calls on social media by parents, including liberals, to start homeschooling their children.

That reaction to DeVos — a billionaire school-choice advocate who has never worked, attended or sent her kids to a public school — reflects how polarizing her nomination was.

It also comes layered with paradox.

That's because DeVos, whom the Senate confirmed Tuesday to head the Education Department, is herself a big proponent of homeschooling.

In a 2013 interview with Philanthropy magazine, DeVos, who has invested in private and charter schools and is an advocate for their expansion, said homeschooling was "another perfectly valid educational option."

"DeVos would love nothing better than for parents to decide to spend their money on private Christian schools ... or to homeschool them using Christian curriculums," said Milton Gaither, an education professor at Messiah College in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, who researches the homeschool movement and wrote a book about it.

Asked whether it seemed ironic that some liberals were now talking about homeschooling, Gaither said no: In a sense, those potential converts would mark a return to the fold of left-wing parents who gave helped give birth to the movement in the early 1970s.

Well that's kind of win-win I guess. DeVos and conservatives get what they want, liberal parents get what they want. The only people who lose are those who are working parents who are too poor and lack the time to homeschool their kids. Those folks might be stuck sending their kids to poorly funded schools that teach the Earth is 6000 years old.

[*bfine32*]

(02-09-2017, 10:41 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Looking at the duties of the department and the past secretaries, a candidate should have one or more of the following:

-Experience running a school system or university.
-Executive experience overseeing education
-Experience enforcing education laws
-Experience drafting and passing education policy at the federal level
-Experience overseeing billion dollar or more loan programs

...and how has that paid off over the last couple decades? You are saying the qualifications should be similar to those that have failed.

[BmorePat87]

(02-09-2017, 02:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and how has that paid off over the last couple decades? You are saying the qualifications should be similar to those that have failed.

Higher graduation rate

More kids taking advanced courses

More going to college

Higher standards in 40+ states than ever before.


But, can we discuss the qualifications I outlined instead of trying to turn this into "how good are schools?". I was under the impression that this was a discussion about what makes one qualified to be Secretary of Education and does Betsy DeVos meet those qualifications.

[BoomerFan]

(02-09-2017, 02:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and how has that paid off over the last couple decades? You are saying the qualifications should be similar to those that have failed.

That is a similar argument to I found out my doctor lost a patient to cancer recently. Since he hasn't been able to cure cancer, I've decided to let homeless dude on the sidewalk be my physician. 

[Benton]

(02-09-2017, 01:47 PM)BoomerFan Wrote: DeVos Backlash Sees Parents Threatening to Homeschool Kids
 

Well that's kind of win-win I guess. DeVos and conservatives get what they want, liberal parents get what they want. The only people who lose are those who are working parents who are too poor and lack the time to homeschool their kids. Those folks might be stuck sending their kids to poorly funded schools that teach the Earth is 6000 years old.

So... a large chunk of the people paying for and utilizing public schools.

(02-09-2017, 02:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and how has that paid off over the last couple decades? You are saying the qualifications should be similar to those that have failed.

I know that's the popular narrative, but probably want to walk that one back. Our schools are more successful now than any time since we started public schools in the US. 

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/02/12/us-high-school-graduation-rate-hits-all-time-high
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/10/17/498246451/the-high-school-graduation-reaches-a-record-high-again

Quote:Estimates vary depending on the method used, but generally speaking, the graduation rate didn't exceed 50 percent of the population until 1940. It peaked at the end of the 1960s, but continued to undulate, hitting the doldrums between 1995 and 1999. Historically, racial and ethnic minorities trailed behind.

As  Pat mentioned, access to college has grown, and along with it so have options like dual credit. Some kids are going to college with their first two years out of the way because high schools can offer that. Provided they have the resources.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-08-2017, 10:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How unexpected: Links to opinion articles that point to a few of his business failures in the past 50 years. These things work for liberals because as a whole they have very little business acumen. They just read these things with out taking in the whole of a business that is worth up to 10 billion dollars and say "see he is bad at business".

Trollin so hard

[xxlt]

(02-07-2017, 09:51 PM)BoomerFan Wrote: Thoughts? I've heard she was like his 4th largest donor during his last campaign for re-election. Between personal and SuperPac donations, Portman's campaign got something like $58,500 from DeVos. Of course, he likely still would have voted for her. Personally, even if you are religious I think this should concern most people, especially if you have kids.

What more do you need to know about Portman? Your post is spot on. He is morally bankrupt. His vote is for sale. And, even if you don't buy it, he will vote for an incompetent person who is a threat to the children of America because, well, he's a Republican and not a man of principle. But, in this case, he didn't just prove he doesn't care about the people of Ohio, he proved he got paid to throw them under the school bus. 

But, (and this is not directed at BoomerFan) if you're a good Republican, he's got your vote next time around because, well, America! 

[*bfine32*]

(02-09-2017, 02:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Higher graduation rate

More kids taking advanced courses

More going to college

Higher standards in 40+ states than ever before.

Benton Wrote:I know that's the popular narrative, but probably want to walk that one back. Our schools are more successful now than any time since we started public schools in the US.

Of course we can make stats reflect whatever we desire. I can point to how much we spend on average per student based on the rest of the world and the bang we are getting for our buck. If the two of you want to say the education system has been overall sucessful and the best way to determine who should head the program is to compare his or her resume to his or her predesessors; that's your opinion and who am I to say it is wrong.

I could raise the High School graduation rate, increase our performance results on internal tests, and get more kids enrolled in college overnight; however, this does nothing if the rest of the world is getting smarter around us.

(02-09-2017, 02:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: But, can we discuss the qualifications I outlined instead of trying to turn this into "how good are schools?". I was under the impression that this was a discussion about what makes one qualified to be Secretary of Education and does Betsy DeVos meet those qualifications.

That's a list of qualifications for sure; however, to be qualified she must be nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. As to your list: parallels can be drawn to anyone with a business background equivalent to DeVos’. Throwing the word education into each sentence; doesn't really change much. For instance; what is the difference between enforcing laws and enforcing education laws? Nothing; it’s just a “trick” we use in business if you what to narrow your hiring scope.

Devos has been lauded for her fight to improve education; especially for the less privileged. I remember when Ben Carson wasn’t qualified because he believed man was created.


So the point is: what makes one an expert at determining the qualifications of a Presidential Cabinent member; especially a department that could benefit from a change agent?

[*bfine32*]

(02-09-2017, 03:54 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Trollin so hard

Would you care to expound?

[*Nately120*]

(02-08-2017, 10:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How unexpected: Links to opinion articles that point to a few of his business failures in the past 50 years. These things work for liberals because as a whole they have very little business acumen. They just read these things with out taking in the whole of a business that is worth up to 10 billion dollars and say "see he is bad at business".

Even if Trump is a rousing success his form of business may not be applicable to the country as a whole, 99.99999% of the population, or the overall concept of government itself.  I just don't think Trump would be where he is today he grew up with a father who gave him nothing but black eyes rather than small loans of a million bucks, is all.

I could be super wrong, but it seems like the key component to his success is being born into an obscenely rich family and that might not be applicable in this office. Again, I voted for Johnson who built his own fortune. For some reason the party of "handup not handout" just can't stop mocking the self-made types (be they non-Republican politicians or Hollywood liberal types) and keeps electing the born-super-rich elite. Amazin'.

[BmorePat87]

(02-09-2017, 05:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course we can make stats reflect whatever we desire. I can point to how much we spend on average per student based on the rest of the world and the bang we are getting for our buck. If the two of you want to say the education system has been overall sucessful and the best way to determine who should head the program is to compare his or her resume to his or her predesessors; that's your opinion and who am I to say it is wrong.

I could raise the High School graduation rate, increase our performance results on internal tests, and get more kids enrolled in college overnight; however, this does nothing if the rest of the world is getting smarter around us.

I disagree. We have never had the top schools in the history of ranking countries, but that hasn't stopped us from being the dominate political and economic force in the world. 



We do not need to be number one and it does not matter if we still aren't, as long as we are improving ourselves from where we were before. Would it be awesome if we were doing this and saving money? Absolutely. Are our schools still increasingly successful? Yes. Ultimately the biggest thing that needs to be fixed is poverty. We know that having the largest share of children in poverty of all advanced nations is one of the factors dragging us down. 

http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/09/my-view-rhee-is-wrong-and-misinformed/

We're also not likely to save money by switching to charter schools. I mention this since DeVos' big thing is charter schools fix the "dead end" public schools. Charter school advocates may argue we will spend less. Their opponents argue we will spend more. Massachusetts found out that they spend about the same.

http://www.wbur.org/edify/2016/09/28/charter-district-spending-report

Quote:That's a list of qualifications for sure; however, to be qualified she must be nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. As to your list: parallels can be drawn to anyone with a business background equivalent to DeVos’. Throwing the word education into each sentence; doesn't really change much. For instance; what is the difference between enforcing laws and enforcing education laws? Nothing; it’s just a “trick” we use in business if you what to narrow your hiring scope.

I would argue that understanding what those specific laws are and the complexity of them is quite important, especially when the nominee didn't understand arguably one of the most important education laws in US history. Let me go back real quick and also say that I'd advise you against using semantics. Your response to repeated requests for qualifications shouldn't be "well technically there are no qualifications". We should at least all be honest with each other and acknowledge that we understand that every single role has qualifications that go beyond "this person has a pulse". No one here would even attempt to defend my qualifications for being Secretary of State if the President were to nominate me. 

Quote:Devos has been lauded for her fight to improve education; especially for the less privileged. I remember when Ben Carson wasn’t qualified because he believed man was created. 


So the point is: what makes one an expert at determining the qualifications of a Presidential Cabinent member; especially a department that could benefit from a change agent?

Whether or not her spending money to convince politicians to pass laws that ultimately have not resulted in the best results is really "fighting to improve education" aside, I will argue that we can determine the qualification by doing what I said in my response to you: looking at what the department does and what the former secretaries of that department had done prior to becoming secretaries. 

If you prefer the narrative that our education is getting worse, I can see why someone with no experience doing any of the duties of the Dept of Edu at the local, state, or national level may seem like a good candidate. To you, these former heads of universities and school districts, governors, heads of major humanities endowments, top government attorneys, and major policy makers must seem like failures, so I guess I can understand that. As someone who works in education, I see the success now and compare it to where we were 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago and realize that we must be doing something right. I appreciate the fact that I was able to receive special education services for my speech issues, that I qualified for free meals, that my k-12 education was free, rigorous, and well funded, and that the government made college accessible with grants. I am thankful the Department of Education made that possible. (Shout out to the USDA for the meal program and for the fact that they also bring meals to kids during the summer for those that can walk to the school and come get it).

[*Nately120*]

(02-09-2017, 05:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I disagree. We have never had the top schools in the history of ranking countries, but that hasn't stopped us from being the dominate political and economic force in the world. 

Amusingly, I used to work for a well-regarded PhD program in economics and more than 0 of the students in that program wouldn't be let into this country in the first place if Trump and his supporters got their way. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-09-2017, 05:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I disagree. We have never had the top schools in the history of ranking countries, but that hasn't stopped us from being the dominate political and economic force in the world. 



We do not need to be number one and it does not matter if we still aren't, as long as we are improving ourselves from where we were before. Would it be awesome if we were doing this and saving money? Absolutely. Are our schools still increasingly successful? Yes. Ultimately the biggest thing that needs to be fixed is poverty. We know that having the largest share of children in poverty of all advanced nations is one of the factors dragging us down. 

http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/09/my-view-rhee-is-wrong-and-misinformed/

We're also not likely to save money by switching to charter schools. I mention this since DeVos' big thing is charter schools fix the "dead end" public schools. Charter school advocates may argue we will spend less. Their opponents argue we will spend more. Massachusetts found out that they spend about the same.

http://www.wbur.org/edify/2016/09/28/charter-district-spending-report





I would argue that understanding what those specific laws are and the complexity of them is quite important, especially when the nominee didn't understand arguably one of the most important education laws in US history. Let me go back real quick and also say that I'd advise you against using semantics. Your response to repeated requests for qualifications shouldn't be "well technically there are no qualifications". We should at least all be honest with each other and acknowledge that we understand that every single role has qualifications that go beyond "this person has a pulse". No one here would even attempt to defend my qualifications for being Secretary of State if the President were to nominate me. 






Whether or not her spending money to convince politicians to pass laws that ultimately have not resulted in the best results is really "fighting to improve education" aside, I will argue that we can determine the qualification by doing what I said in my response to you: looking at what the department does and what the former secretaries of that department had done prior to becoming secretaries. 

If you prefer the narrative that our education is getting worse, I can see why someone with no experience doing any of the duties of the Dept of Edu at the local, state, or national level may seem like a good candidate. To you, these former heads of universities and school districts, governors, heads of major humanities endowments, top government attorneys, and major policy makers must seem like failures, so I guess I can understand that. As someone who works in education, I see the success now and compare it to where we were 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago and realize that we must be doing something right. I appreciate the fact that I was able to receive special education services for my speech issues, that I qualified for free meals, that my k-12 education was free, rigorous, and well funded, and that the government made college accessible with grants. I am thankful the Department of Education made that possible. (Shout out to the USDA for the meal program and for the fact that they also bring meals to kids during the summer for those that can walk to the school and come get it).

As I said: You are happy with the status quo and the best way to keep it is to hire those with similar experiences (qualifications). I on the other hand have no problem seeing what a change agent can do as long as he or she is qualified (legally) to fulfill the position. Especially given our current global bang for the buck. I have seen first hand the benefits that change and diversity have brought to an organization; I doubt the Education game is much different. This lady; as the last 100 before her, is going to be invisible for the next 4-8; it's just something else for congress and society to be divisive about.  


Edit: I fully realize there have not been 100 Secretaries of Education. Used to illustrate a point. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-09-2017, 05:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Even if Trump is a rousing success his form of business may not be applicable to the country as a whole, 99.99999% of the population, or the overall concept of government itself.  I just don't think Trump would be where he is today he grew up with a father who gave him nothing but black eyes rather than small loans of a million bucks, is all.

I could be super wrong, but it seems like the key component to his success is being born into an obscenely rich family and that might not be applicable in this office.  Again, I voted for Johnson who built his own fortune.  For some reason the party of "handup not handout" just can't stop mocking the self-made types (be they non-Republican politicians or Hollywood liberal types) and keeps electing the born-super-rich elite.  Amazin'.

Hell, we could all be "super wrong". I'm just giving it a chance; if it doesn't work America will respond. 

[Benton]

(02-09-2017, 05:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course we can make stats reflect whatever we desire.


 

Not exactly. You can omit stats — and facts — to take a position. But there's not two sets of reality, where facts mean one thing here, and another thing there. Stats are stats, and we're graduating more people, our graduation rates are higher, our college participation is higher, more kids are entering college prepared for classes.

Now, why we're doing better, that's subjective. My opinion and yours may vary... but if your starting point is 'schools are doing worse because Betsy said so' then I'm guessing the 'why' is going to be irrelevant to the discussion as it's an erroneous origin.

Quote: I can point to how much we spend on average per student based on the rest of the world and the bang we are getting for our buck. If the two of you want to say the education system has been overall sucessful and the best way to determine who should head the program is to compare his or her resume to his or her predesessors; that's your opinion and who am I to say it is wrong.

I could raise the High School graduation rate, increase our performance results on internal tests, and get more kids enrolled in college overnight; however, this does nothing if the rest of the world is getting smarter around us.

I'm not following, I guess. I went to public school, so bear with me there. I would say that improving graduation rates, performance and college readiness is a step toward us getting smarter. I don't see how having fewer graduates, lower test scores and fewer continuing to post secondary is going to make us more competitive globally.

[*bfine32*]

(02-09-2017, 07:09 PM)Benton Wrote: Not exactly. You can omit stats — and facts — to take a position. But there's not two sets of reality, where facts mean one thing here, and another thing there. Stats are stats, and we're graduating more people, our graduation rates are higher, our college participation is higher, more kids are entering college prepared for classes.

Now, why we're doing better, that's subjective. My opinion and yours may vary... but if your starting point is 'schools are doing worse because Betsy said so' then I'm guessing the 'why' is going to be irrelevant to the discussion as it's an erroneous origin.



I'm not following, I guess. I went to public school, so bear with me there. I would say that improving graduation rates, performance and college readiness is a step toward us getting smarter. I don't see how having fewer graduates, lower test scores and fewer continuing to post secondary is going to make us more competitive globally.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/12/03/248329823/u-s-high-school-students-slide-in-math-reading-science

We are slipping globally. Now why we're doing worse, that's  subjective. My opinion and yours may vary... but if your starting point is we are doing better globally because more folks are going to college then I'm guessing the 'why' is going to be irrelevant to the discussion as it's an erroneous origin.

You can omit stats — and facts — to take a position. But there's not two sets of reality, where facts mean one thing here, and another thing there. Stats are stats, and we're slipping globally.

The home schooled kid always graduates top of his class

[Benton]

(02-09-2017, 06:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said: You are happy with the status quo and the best way to keep it is to hire those with similar experiences (qualifications). I on the other hand have no problem seeing what a change agent can do as long as he or she is qualified (legally) to fulfill the position. Especially given our current global bang for the buck. I have seen first hand the benefits that change and diversity have brought to an organization; I doubt the Education game is much different. This lady; as the last 100 before her, is going to be invisible for the next 4-8; it's just something else for congress and society to be divisive about.  


Edit: I fully realize there have not been 100 Secretaries of Education. Used to illustrate a point. 

I guess here's my issue, and why I shake my head when someone says "education got worser, we need an outsider to shake it up."

At the federal level, the Dept. of Ed. was largely just an information facilitator between states for a century. They didn't have any budget, they didn't have any authority, they couldn't issue any mandates. They were mostly there to facilitate conversation between states. And, personally, I see some benefits if they were relegated back to that.

It wasn't till the late 70s when they were elevated to current status, and expanded over the years to have some authority and some budget. And during that time, education metrics have improved. According to stats — not opinions — since they got elevated, we've started graduating more people, testing better, sending more kids to college. So, while I like the idea of less centralization, I have to admit it has worked in education to produce smarter kids. And most of that has been under the guidance of education experts... not billionaires who make money off student loans.

Anecdotal, but using my own house as an example. I didn't start algebra till high school. My son started in fifth grade, 21 years after I graduated school. My daughter (eight years younger than her brother) started it earlier this year in third grade. I was talking to her teacher about it and the school is asking her to work with second grade teachers to start algebra in that level next year. She said they hope to start first graders figuring out 'what is N' by 2020.

[*bfine32*]

(02-09-2017, 07:24 PM)Benton Wrote: I guess here's my issue, and why I shake my head when someone says "education got worser, we need an outsider to shake it up."

Condescension noted. 


As to the rest: As I said the Home Schooled always graduates at the top of their class. If our education improves nationally, but we continue to slip globally; are we "improving"?