So Rob Portman voted to confirm Betsy DeVos

[*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.