 |
| Secretary of Education designate, Betsy DeVoss |
If one follows the media coverage of Secretary of Education
designate, Elisabeth ‘Betsy’ DeVos, one would think that that she is an ignorant
uncaring racist out to destroy public school education as we know it –
leaving countless numbers of inner city children to the streets and a life of crime.
The truth however lies
elsewhere. Let us examine what’s really bothering Democrats and why she is so
strongly supported by Republicans. And while were at it, let us examine the educational system itself as it stands now.
First let us admit that the fact that she is both a
billionaire and a Republican does not help her with Democrats in their current
incarnation as liberals. Of the type that always support the underdog outside of any
context. This is true with Palestinians and it is true about inner city youth.
In both cases they see only the down-trodden and blame it on the ruling class (read - Republicans) that cares only about itself.
The mainstream media is cut from the same liberal cloth and
has no compunction in painting DeVos as ignorant by blowing some of her
comments at senate hearings way out of proportion. That along with the anti
Trump feelings of half the country feeds that negative image to a willing
audience whose actual knowledge of education makes DeVos look like an expert.
The protests are huge. And opposition by the Democratic minority in the senate
is fierce.
Senate confirmation hearings have resulted in 2 Republican defections:
Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. They have joined
Democrats in opposition to her. Their claim is that DeVos’s ignorance of
education disqualifies her from the position. But the truth is that Democrats
side with the very powerful teachers unions across the country that fear their
member teachers losing their jobs. Why? Mrs. DeVos will no doubt try to implement what they see as a cataclysmic change to the system!
Of course Democrats never mention the influence of teachers
unions in their opposition. But they do use their arguments that the kind of
changes Mrs. DeVoss advocates would destroy public education as we know it. (And
many teachers’ jobs right along with it.)
So what is it exactly that all this opposition is really
about? Two words: school choice. (It’s interesting that the only time liberal
Democrats are pro choice is for abortion on demand… not for educating their
children. But I digress.)
Mrs. DeVos is a strong advocate of a voucher system replacing
the current one requiring - in most cases - parents sending their children
to local neighborhood public schools. Instead the Department of Education would distribute vouchers
to parents. Those vouchers will be the equivalent of money which can only be used
to towards educating their children. They can take those vouchers and choose
any school they wish provided minimal educational standards are met.
I really do not understand the opposition to this in a
Democracy. Every parent should have the right to educate their children as they
see fit. If a country believes it is in its best interest to have an educated
public - thereby providing free education to its young… what better way to do that
than by allowing parents to choose the education that best suits their needs –
as long educational standards are met?
Will this take money out of the system as it stands now?
This is exactly what the opposition is about. They say that the inner city
schools will suffer. Vouchers will take money out of the inner city schools and diverted
to the better schools chosen by parents.
That may be true. But that is a good thing. There is a
reason those inner city schools will suffer. In many cases they deserve it! Parents
that care about their children want to them to attend schools that successfully
teach their students. Many of these inner city schools do not do that. In some
cases they are schools in name only – siphoning government funds so that
teachers can continue to have jobs. Many children that live in those
neighborhoods and attend those schools end up being functionally illiterate.
Not because the parents want it that way. But because of a
culture that has evolved not seeing much value in a typical education. A lot of young people there see a life of
crime being far more profitable that any education they might receive in a
public school. It is a self perpetuating system that continues to exist
courtesy of a government controlled by Democrats for the past 8 years. They want
to maintain the status quo and kept
pouring money down that black hole in the hope that eventually things
will improve.
Now there are some inner city schools that are the exception..
Their record with respect to educating their students have seen remarkable
improvement. But I submit that those schools will be the among those that inner
city parents who care about the quality of their children’s education will
choose via their vouchers. The bottom line is that the schools that don’t
produce – will indeed close. As they should.
What about us? …those of us that want our children to get a
good education in a religious environment? In a country where separation of
church and state is a sacred principle, how can we use vouchers to pay for a
religious education?
That is one of the arguments made by opponents of vouchers. In
my view and those that support a voucher system to replace the current one do
not see that as a valid argument. It will not violate church state restrictions
if vouchers are used to pay only for teaching subjects that are free of any religious
content.
One may argue that it is impossible for religion to be kept
entirely out of the classroom in a religious school. But I doubt that even
public schools can live up to such a high degree of secular purity. Do they not
require the pledge of allegiance which contains a reference to God? Is that not
an insertion of religion into the public schools?
I can state with complete certainly that the secular
subjects I studied in the day school and Yeshiva high school had no religious
content at all. Many of my teachers were not even Jewish, let alone Orthodox.
It is no small coincidence that Mrs. DeVos was chosen by an
administration, whose Vice President is Mike Pence. He was the governor of
Indiana who presided over a very successful
voucher program. One that my own daughter takes advantage of as an Indiana
resident. Her tuition bill was significantly reduced from what she paid living Illinois. Day School and Yeshiva tuitions in Illinois are
backbreaking for the vast majority of parents who are squeezed by tuition committees
for every nickel they can get! This is true for every school - from Modern Orthodox
to Charedi.
I doubt there is a parent in any of these schools that would
oppose a national voucher program that would relieve them of some of that burden
the way it has for my daughter. Which is exactly what Mrs. DeVoss advocates.
And exactly why she is opposed by liberal Democrats and 2 liberal Republicans.
It is for that reason that I voice my strong support for her
nomination as Secretary of Education. Don’t let the distorted media coverage of
Mrs. DeVoss fool you. She is not the Christian missionary the Reform Movement
says she is. Nor is she is as ignorant as she is being painted - despite some
mistaken comments she made during her senate hearings.
She has been deeply involved with education in Michigan for
quite some time now. As a devout Christian she understands the value of a
religious education. And has worked with some Orthodox Jewish advocacy groups
to lobby Washington in favor of school
choice.
The current state of public education in this country in the
inner city is nothing to brag about. The system needs a major overhaul. Some examples: Inner city education needs to
be redefined to include more vocational training. Unproductive schools need to close.
Let teachers that can’t or don’t teach lose their jobs. Let us stop pouring
money into the black hole of public education as it now stands. Let the parents
decide what schools their children attend. This way everybody wins except for those
that don’t deserve it.
