Since her appointment as Education Secretary in 2017, Betsy DeVos has steadfastly preserved a willful ignorance about the needs of students and the mission of public schools. She does not seem to recognize that her stakeholders include poor, minority, and non-English speaking students as well as students with physical, cognitive, and emotional disabilities. It is the mission of public schools to educate and nurture these students and all students so that they realize their personal potential and become informed citizens in a democracy.
Her determination not to understand either students or schools is demonstrated by two dominant themes that appear in her public statements. The first is what DeVos calls “school choice” but which is actually a tactic to privatize public education. The second is the elimination of academic and social supports for students in a thinly veiled movement toward social Darwinism. The implications of both these priorities are counterproductive and dangerous.
Take the Money and Leave. Based on belief, not evidence, the Secretary wants a large increase in funding for charter schools. Leaving aside the human cost, charter schools lead to the ineffective use of resources. Since charter schools are public schools, the incoming students carry with them the state per pupil expenditure (PPE), the amount allocated by the state for their education and some portion of the local PPE. The schools these students leave will end up with fewer students, but many of the same costs, ranging from teacher salaries to utilities.
Charter schools don’t fulfill DeVos’ desire to privatize public education, so she champions opportunities for students to attend private schools, including religious schools, through scholarships that are a spin-off of school vouchers. In their first iteration, the proposed vouchers were federally funded and crossed the line between church and state. Now, a middleman allows private and corporate donors to contribute to non-profit organizations, which then direct the money toward education scholarships to private schools. The donors receive a federal tax credit, so government funds are still involved, but are no longer conspicuous.
Since elementary and middle school students don’t ordinarily make their own decisions, their families must learn about and go through the process of applying to charter schools or private schools. A key assumption underlying the entire school choice endeavor is that families living in poverty or who are non-English speaking are sufficiently knowledgeable, interested, and motivated to undertake the charter or private school application process.
Moving Toward Social Darwinism. In the nineteenth century, Darwin’s theory of natural selection was used to justify a belief in the natural superiority of the ruling class. Although DeVos would not use the phrase publicly, her actions speak loudly.
For example, absent from the administration’s 2020 budget proposal were grants under Title IV that may be used for anti-bullying campaigns and students’ mental health needs. Also absent were art education and academic enrichment opportunities for low income students. The budget, in fact, showed a marked disinterest in meeting the needs and nurturing the abilities of individual students. DeVos wnats to leave them on their own to face the bullies, overcome mental and emotional challenges and find a way to cultivate their talents.
A destructive aspect of the DeVos budget was the proposed defunding of before and after school programs. The typical school schedule presumes a traditional family structure in which moms are home to see their children off to school in the morning and greet them when they arrive home after school. When parents work at jobs that start earlier and end later than schools and when they cannot afford child care, older siblings or neighbors, no matter how unwilling or unsuitable, may become responsible for the safety of young children before and after school.
Before and after school programs provide a safe and supervised place for students to spend time but they offer much more than that. Some focus on academic achievement; others are oriented toward enrichment and recreation. These programs meet academic and social needs that would be eliminated if Ms DeVos gets her way.
DeVos’ Defense of Her Approach. In a Salt Lake City speech (May 9, 2017) DeVos said, “…(I)t’s time for us to break out of the confines of the federal government’s arcane approach to education... Because Washington has been in the driver’s seat for over 50 years with very little to show for its efforts.” In fact, the federal government contribution is far from arcane, which means secret or mysterious, and includes many programs that aid our most vulnerable students. Also, the federal government has never been in the driver’s seat of education. It is a state and locally controlled endeavor and has been before and after the somewhat arcane 50-year period DeVos defined.
Her verdict that Washington has “very little to show for its efforts” has no foundation in fact and reflects an attitude rampant in this administration that they don’t need evidence for conclusions like “impact,” or “effects.” They expect people to believe it is so because they say it is so.
In the same Salt Lake City speech, DeVos advised people to look at education options as they look at cellular service providers. It might be wiser to look at the DeVos education priorities as Flint, Michigan consumers look at their drinking water.