

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

While DeVos may be far to the right of the bipartisan vision of corporate education reform, the path towards privatization has already been paved. (Photo: Getty)
In the much-written-about 60 Minutes interview of U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos by CBS reporter Lesley Stahl there was a telling exchange when Stahl queried DeVos on whether she had visited any "bad schools." DeVos replied, "I have not intentionally visited schools that are underperforming." But DeVos has visited an underperforming school--only she called it a "a shining example."
The school, which will be closed at the end of the school year due to poor academic performance, was the Excel Academy Public Charter School, an all-girls charter in Washington, D.C. First Lady Melania Trump and Queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan accompanied DeVos on the visit in 2016. Trump called the charter school "an exceptional example."
The school was in trouble with the District's charter school oversight board when DeVos and company visited. Less than nine months later, the board voted unanimously to close the school, with the board chair saying, "The trend for student performance over the past several years has been negative, despite any benefits that may have occurred."
D.C. is chock full of charter schools, and DeVos, a big advocate for charters, could have cherry picked a better performing one. Obviously, she didn't know about the school's academic performance then, and doesn't know about it now. I would also contend she doesn't care.
Excel Academy impressed DeVos not because of what it does but because of what it is (or was). When DeVos says "options," what she really means is "alternatives" to public schools which she has ridiculed as a "dead end."
Many critics of DeVos understand her animosity toward public education, and accordingly challenge her grasp of facts, question her leadership abilities, lampoon her gaffes, and take issue with her education agenda.
The problem is, DeVos does not have an education agenda. She has a political agenda.
DeVos praised Florida in the 60 Minutes interview, saying the state has "a lot of choice" and "traditional public schools ... get better, as well." But while it's true Florida has lots of charter schools and numerous voucher programs that let parents get taxpayer money to send their children to private schools, public schools have not gotten significantly better because of this competition.
Florida's performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress--a longtime respected periodic assessment of schools--is mixed. On the most recent NAEP, Florida fourth graders were somewhat above national average in reading and math, and 8th graders were about average in reading and somewhat below average in math. States with lots of charter schools and voucher programs, like Louisiana and Nevada, score at the bottom on NAEP, while top performers, such as Massachusetts and Vermont, are much more restrictive of education options other than public schools.
"A 2009 study from the Rand Corp. found little evidence that the presence of charter schools affects the achievement scores of students in nearby traditional public schools either positively or negatively," writes Philip Bump for The Washington Post. "A number of studies since have found similarly murky results."
But the reality is Betsy DeVos doesn't much care about what any studies "show" about the results of charters and vouchers.
For her, and other school choice advocates, what they call "parent choice" matters more than any measures of performance. (There's the current inconvenience of having to justify funding of the school choice enterprise with taxpayer money. But they'll figure out a way around that.)
When DeVos said to Stahl, "It all comes down to individual kids," what she really means is that there is no place in her worldview for the communal enterprise we know as public education. The sooner her critics get this, the better able they'll be to convey the real danger she represents to the nation.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
In the much-written-about 60 Minutes interview of U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos by CBS reporter Lesley Stahl there was a telling exchange when Stahl queried DeVos on whether she had visited any "bad schools." DeVos replied, "I have not intentionally visited schools that are underperforming." But DeVos has visited an underperforming school--only she called it a "a shining example."
The school, which will be closed at the end of the school year due to poor academic performance, was the Excel Academy Public Charter School, an all-girls charter in Washington, D.C. First Lady Melania Trump and Queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan accompanied DeVos on the visit in 2016. Trump called the charter school "an exceptional example."
The school was in trouble with the District's charter school oversight board when DeVos and company visited. Less than nine months later, the board voted unanimously to close the school, with the board chair saying, "The trend for student performance over the past several years has been negative, despite any benefits that may have occurred."
D.C. is chock full of charter schools, and DeVos, a big advocate for charters, could have cherry picked a better performing one. Obviously, she didn't know about the school's academic performance then, and doesn't know about it now. I would also contend she doesn't care.
Excel Academy impressed DeVos not because of what it does but because of what it is (or was). When DeVos says "options," what she really means is "alternatives" to public schools which she has ridiculed as a "dead end."
Many critics of DeVos understand her animosity toward public education, and accordingly challenge her grasp of facts, question her leadership abilities, lampoon her gaffes, and take issue with her education agenda.
The problem is, DeVos does not have an education agenda. She has a political agenda.
DeVos praised Florida in the 60 Minutes interview, saying the state has "a lot of choice" and "traditional public schools ... get better, as well." But while it's true Florida has lots of charter schools and numerous voucher programs that let parents get taxpayer money to send their children to private schools, public schools have not gotten significantly better because of this competition.
Florida's performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress--a longtime respected periodic assessment of schools--is mixed. On the most recent NAEP, Florida fourth graders were somewhat above national average in reading and math, and 8th graders were about average in reading and somewhat below average in math. States with lots of charter schools and voucher programs, like Louisiana and Nevada, score at the bottom on NAEP, while top performers, such as Massachusetts and Vermont, are much more restrictive of education options other than public schools.
"A 2009 study from the Rand Corp. found little evidence that the presence of charter schools affects the achievement scores of students in nearby traditional public schools either positively or negatively," writes Philip Bump for The Washington Post. "A number of studies since have found similarly murky results."
But the reality is Betsy DeVos doesn't much care about what any studies "show" about the results of charters and vouchers.
For her, and other school choice advocates, what they call "parent choice" matters more than any measures of performance. (There's the current inconvenience of having to justify funding of the school choice enterprise with taxpayer money. But they'll figure out a way around that.)
When DeVos said to Stahl, "It all comes down to individual kids," what she really means is that there is no place in her worldview for the communal enterprise we know as public education. The sooner her critics get this, the better able they'll be to convey the real danger she represents to the nation.
In the much-written-about 60 Minutes interview of U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos by CBS reporter Lesley Stahl there was a telling exchange when Stahl queried DeVos on whether she had visited any "bad schools." DeVos replied, "I have not intentionally visited schools that are underperforming." But DeVos has visited an underperforming school--only she called it a "a shining example."
The school, which will be closed at the end of the school year due to poor academic performance, was the Excel Academy Public Charter School, an all-girls charter in Washington, D.C. First Lady Melania Trump and Queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan accompanied DeVos on the visit in 2016. Trump called the charter school "an exceptional example."
The school was in trouble with the District's charter school oversight board when DeVos and company visited. Less than nine months later, the board voted unanimously to close the school, with the board chair saying, "The trend for student performance over the past several years has been negative, despite any benefits that may have occurred."
D.C. is chock full of charter schools, and DeVos, a big advocate for charters, could have cherry picked a better performing one. Obviously, she didn't know about the school's academic performance then, and doesn't know about it now. I would also contend she doesn't care.
Excel Academy impressed DeVos not because of what it does but because of what it is (or was). When DeVos says "options," what she really means is "alternatives" to public schools which she has ridiculed as a "dead end."
Many critics of DeVos understand her animosity toward public education, and accordingly challenge her grasp of facts, question her leadership abilities, lampoon her gaffes, and take issue with her education agenda.
The problem is, DeVos does not have an education agenda. She has a political agenda.
DeVos praised Florida in the 60 Minutes interview, saying the state has "a lot of choice" and "traditional public schools ... get better, as well." But while it's true Florida has lots of charter schools and numerous voucher programs that let parents get taxpayer money to send their children to private schools, public schools have not gotten significantly better because of this competition.
Florida's performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress--a longtime respected periodic assessment of schools--is mixed. On the most recent NAEP, Florida fourth graders were somewhat above national average in reading and math, and 8th graders were about average in reading and somewhat below average in math. States with lots of charter schools and voucher programs, like Louisiana and Nevada, score at the bottom on NAEP, while top performers, such as Massachusetts and Vermont, are much more restrictive of education options other than public schools.
"A 2009 study from the Rand Corp. found little evidence that the presence of charter schools affects the achievement scores of students in nearby traditional public schools either positively or negatively," writes Philip Bump for The Washington Post. "A number of studies since have found similarly murky results."
But the reality is Betsy DeVos doesn't much care about what any studies "show" about the results of charters and vouchers.
For her, and other school choice advocates, what they call "parent choice" matters more than any measures of performance. (There's the current inconvenience of having to justify funding of the school choice enterprise with taxpayer money. But they'll figure out a way around that.)
When DeVos said to Stahl, "It all comes down to individual kids," what she really means is that there is no place in her worldview for the communal enterprise we know as public education. The sooner her critics get this, the better able they'll be to convey the real danger she represents to the nation.