Betsy Devos was confirmed in a vote requiring, for the first time for a cabinet nominee, the vote of the Vice President. The level of obstruction to Trump's cabinet nominees is unprecedented, but Devos has generated more heat than any other. This has centered around three things- performance, competence and racial bias.
The performance of Devos' charter schools has been attacked as execrable, among the very lowest performing schools in Michigan. This is true. However, Devos' organization runs schools mainly in Detroit, Grand Rapids and Flint. These are all areas with horrible public school systems and terrible results. Detroit alone has 47 of the 120 lowest rated school districts in the whole state of Michigan. The NYT and other outlets pointed out that DeVos' schools rank in the 2-3rd percentile in Michigan, a horrible result. The Public Schools there, however, are in the 1st percentile. The actual report cited by the NYT is here-
Underlying the rancor is the reality that our political parties have two fundamentally different views of American Society and Law. One believes diversity is a strength, the other that everyone must assimilate to be an American. One believes the Constitution is a malleable document, the other that its principles are unchangeable except by amendment. One believes in equality of outcome as the only measure of equality, the other in equality of opportunity, with outcome based on what you do with your chances. One believes central mandated solutions are best to end and prevent wrong thinking and acting, and the other that state, local and personal factors should predominate. The latter views won the election, and the losers cannot seem to accept this or respond except by vehement and sometimes violent resistance that plays as denial.
I think we have entered a period of social conflict equaled only in the late 1960s and late 1850s. One led to social change, the other to civil war. I'm betting on social change, a move away from the centralized values that have controlled media and much of government for 40 years. Betsy Devos is one piece in this move.
Ted
The performance of Devos' charter schools has been attacked as execrable, among the very lowest performing schools in Michigan. This is true. However, Devos' organization runs schools mainly in Detroit, Grand Rapids and Flint. These are all areas with horrible public school systems and terrible results. Detroit alone has 47 of the 120 lowest rated school districts in the whole state of Michigan. The NYT and other outlets pointed out that DeVos' schools rank in the 2-3rd percentile in Michigan, a horrible result. The Public Schools there, however, are in the 1st percentile. The actual report cited by the NYT is here-
The charter schools consistently outperformed the public schools, with gains in reading, math, state percentile rank and median performance. All the results are bad, yes, but much better than what preceded them. No mainstsream source reported either the data or the comparison.
With regard to cost, I could not tease out specific data with regard to Detroit's public vs charter schools. However, overall charter schools achieve equal or superior results with lower costs-
David Arsen and Yongmei Ni, "Is Administration Leaner in Charter Schools? Resource Allocation in Charter and Traditional Public Schools," Education Policy Analysis Archives 20, no. 31 (2012): 1–24. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/
Charter schools, while funded via tax money, do have an application process. This of course allows them to exclude some pupils, as space is limited, with an obvious potential effect on results. The New York City Catholic schools boasted of their far lower costs per pupil, and were attacked for their selective admissions. Their administration responded by accepting anyone who applied, including all students eligible for public education. They maintained their superior results. The data is in a book called 'The Bell Curve', a fascinating and upsetting book I expected to hate, and did not, from 1994.
Devos' competence has been questioned because of some of her answers during her hearings. Among the juicy quotes are that guns are needed in schools to defend against grizzly bears, and that she knew nothing of the IDEA act, guaranteeing equal education and access to disabled students (just in passing, this worked brilliantly in Farragut, where our children went to school. Our daughter, a very strong reader, was paired with a disabled student, helping that child to read and greatly advancing her as well). The grizzly quote was grossly out of context, as noted in The Federalist. Devos used the grizzly issue as an example of the extreme diversity of schools, and the difficulty/futility of using a federal mandate for all. She certainly fumbled the IDEA question, but the thrust of her answer is one no Democrat wants to hear- Federal rules (as opposed to law) apply only if you take federal money. While this gives insight into her view of federal oversight of schools, it was an awkward but not grossly wrong answer.
Racial bias has been alleged, quite articulately at CNN. This is a false and very misleading argument. As noted below, race here is a surrogate for poverty and other things affecting school performance. Unless you wish to articulate that simply being black makes you worse in school, or that neighborhoods divide by race solely for racial reasons, race has nothing to do with school performance. Charter schools are not an extension of the racially motivated private academies of the South, they are the provision of a choice for families. There is nothing racist about that. The argument makes a false comparison.
Devos' competence has been questioned because of some of her answers during her hearings. Among the juicy quotes are that guns are needed in schools to defend against grizzly bears, and that she knew nothing of the IDEA act, guaranteeing equal education and access to disabled students (just in passing, this worked brilliantly in Farragut, where our children went to school. Our daughter, a very strong reader, was paired with a disabled student, helping that child to read and greatly advancing her as well). The grizzly quote was grossly out of context, as noted in The Federalist. Devos used the grizzly issue as an example of the extreme diversity of schools, and the difficulty/futility of using a federal mandate for all. She certainly fumbled the IDEA question, but the thrust of her answer is one no Democrat wants to hear- Federal rules (as opposed to law) apply only if you take federal money. While this gives insight into her view of federal oversight of schools, it was an awkward but not grossly wrong answer.
Racial bias has been alleged, quite articulately at CNN. This is a false and very misleading argument. As noted below, race here is a surrogate for poverty and other things affecting school performance. Unless you wish to articulate that simply being black makes you worse in school, or that neighborhoods divide by race solely for racial reasons, race has nothing to do with school performance. Charter schools are not an extension of the racially motivated private academies of the South, they are the provision of a choice for families. There is nothing racist about that. The argument makes a false comparison.
As I see it, the biggest differences in these educational alternatives are not the students, or the money. It is the much tighter enforcement of discipline and freedom from union hiring and benefit rules. I was privately educated, and we chose to educate our children publicly, albeit at a school (Farragut) commended at the state and national level. Farragut highlights another difference that extends beyond funding.
It is true that Farragut is an affluent suburban town in Knox County. It has every AP program ever heard of, the best drama program in the state, the state champion football team, baseball team and one of the finest choral programs. Farragut also accepts all AP students from Knox schools without their own AP programs, principally the inner city schools without sufficient AP students to justify a separate course.
These students come to Farragut and enter the AP classes. Within 6-8 weeks, almost all fail. They do not have the study habits of students coming from homes filled with books and an expectation of study before play. The home stability and higher expectations of affluent communities plays a non-trivial part, not discounting the increased monies usually available. Tax revenue thus serves as a surrogate measurement for intellectual achievement and expectations, and home stability.
It seems to me students are held back as much by their familial and community dysfunctions as they are by funding. Our society has used substantial amounts of money to try and improve results, without effect. I do not see that further attempts will succeed any better. Perhaps it is time to either admit the low educability of broken neighborhoods and families, or try a different approach. This is exactly what Trump suggested to inner-city voters on campaign. Devos fulfills that promise. She is clearly a threat to the status quo, and may fail, but we can hardly assert the present is cause for celebration. If she fails she will resign.
All the furor over these items is futile. Devos is Education Secretary, but the rage is not just a rhetorical impression. Nate Silver, a favorite source of data and opinion, has terrific material on the unprecedented level of opposition Trump is getting. It has been steadily worse for presidents of both parties since 1977, but Trump nominees are getting a level of opposition never previously seen. Claiming this is because they are unqualified looks false to me. Their only disqualification is they come from a man with whom the other party disagrees.
Underlying the rancor is the reality that our political parties have two fundamentally different views of American Society and Law. One believes diversity is a strength, the other that everyone must assimilate to be an American. One believes the Constitution is a malleable document, the other that its principles are unchangeable except by amendment. One believes in equality of outcome as the only measure of equality, the other in equality of opportunity, with outcome based on what you do with your chances. One believes central mandated solutions are best to end and prevent wrong thinking and acting, and the other that state, local and personal factors should predominate. The latter views won the election, and the losers cannot seem to accept this or respond except by vehement and sometimes violent resistance that plays as denial.
I think we have entered a period of social conflict equaled only in the late 1960s and late 1850s. One led to social change, the other to civil war. I'm betting on social change, a move away from the centralized values that have controlled media and much of government for 40 years. Betsy Devos is one piece in this move.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment