What policy does she support that republicans would agree is bad for the country?
I don’t think she is much less qualified than William Bennett or Lamar Alexander. At least she has a background in education.
The biggest problem most people have with her is that she wants to privatize the public school system. But that’s not something that Republicans have a problem with is it?
Bullshit. She has a background in political donations with education as her pet cause. She absolutely has no background in education. None. No degree in education, no experience in education as an educator or administrator, no books published on education reform, not even one day spent attending a public school.
How do you figure she has a background in education? Because she donated millions to politicians in an attempt to “reform” it and get richer off of it?
Mostly because I’ve painted myself into a position of needing to sit here at this desk for several hours a day.
Sometimes octopus puts forward reasoned ideas and debate points, but of late he’s been pretty much just “rub the libruls face in it and drink their tears”, which is boring. doorhinge is stupid enough to think he is winning the debates that he is in.
In any case, I encounter people like this in real life too, and do not have time to engage their stupidity there, so it is cathartic of sorts to engage it here.
No, she wants to gut the public school system.
There are many on the right that do not think that public schools should even exist. That if you want an education, you should be born into a family that can afford to send you to private school. She represents this view.
I do think that most republicans are not that extreme, and while they may not favor the school system exactly as is, are not looking to completely gut or remove it as she is.
BTW, what is her background in education? I seem to have misplaced her resume. Do you think you could do me a favor, and find anything in her experience that even remotely relates to running the dept of education?
I’m not questioning her policies. Let’s take it for granted that I disagree with the politics of all Trump’s appointees. I accept that now the Republicans are in charge they’re going to start dismantling our civilization, and there’s not a whole hell of a lot I can do about it.
What I question in the specific case of DeVos is her competence, her background, her intelligence, and her experience: She’s a stupid, incompetent person who bought her way into a cabinet position without any qualifications at all.
I’m surprised Republicans aren’t outraged. This isn’t (or shouldn’t be) about politics. This is about asking the leader of the country to appoint minimally competent people to cabinet positions. I would think requiring competence is a requirement that cuts across political lines, and I’m surprised there are people who think it doesn’t.
Based on voting records, something like 63 million people voted for Trump. Most of those people would be better qualified to run the department of education than DeVos, and apparently they would agree with Trump’s politics. Why didn’t he pick one of them? Why pick the worst possible candidate?
It has been my experience in businesses that the guy who is promoted over those more qualified depends up his underlings to run the department while he amuses himself with his cell phone.
I re-watched Idiocracy last night, and let me tell you, it scared me more this time that the first.
The US under President Camacho is exactly the result of putting someone like DeVos in charge of education. And Trump actually is worse than Camacho. I can’t believe that it took only 10 years rather than 500.
There’s also the gross conflict of interest problem with her education-business connections, but that’s sort of SOP for Schmuck l’Orange’s people.
A "background in education’ seems very very vague to me. Please explain how DeVos is the best possible choice for this particular position, out of other Republicans, and **specifically **what skills she will bring to the table to ensure that education of the children of the nation will be improved during her tenure.
Speciifics. Not just “oh, she has a background in education”
I’d love to hear an answer to that, as well.
FWIW, here is our (AZ) esteemed (cough) Senator Flake’s press release:
Betsy DeVos has been an advocate for #SchoolChoice and believes that every child should have the opportunity to receive a quality education, regardless of their zip code.
I was pleased to vote for her confirmation as Secretary of Education, and I look forward to working with her to roll back the federal government’s reach into education and allow states and localities to determine what’s best for their students.
So apparently, the pesky Federal Government poking its nose into local schools is the problem. Though I can’t see how that gives every child a “quality education” if some local yayhoos think young earth creationism is the only thing they are going to teach.
Could you tell me what her " background in education" actually is?
It seems more than one person thinks your claim of “background in education” is bullshit, Damuri. Care to explain that one?
The new Department of Education Shield
https://scontent.fbed1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16602869_1820189998222982_4382499670287759982_n.jpg?oh=c6303279a4515916f880abaefe782dad&oe=59044EB2
She’s already making changes.
Does that mean not spending federal money on education in Mississippi and West Virginia?
Because she is an advocate for school choice, particularly vouchers. School choice and vouchers are good policy, and should be implemented to the degree possible.
Obviously it isn’t going to be possible to convince liberals that these are good policies, since they aren’t listening, and stand to lose support and funding from teachers’ unions, but that isn’t necessary. As pointed out, the Senate is not in liberal hands, so the fact that liberals are wrong on education policy is irrelevant.
In your opinion, they are not wrong? Yes, they are, and fortunately liberal mistakes are being overruled in this case.
Plus what was touched on earlier in the thread. Liberals feel (probably rightly) that school choice and vouchers threaten their stranglehold on public education in the US, and politicians always scream bloody murder when they don’t get to spend money and issue edits. It was mentioned above that liberals believe that education indoctrinates students into liberal positions. Leave aside if that is true or not - liberals believe it is true, and that is enough to threaten their supposed lock on the future.
Is DeVos the best possible candidate for the position? Not in your opinion, certainly. Your opinion is wrong, and fortunately the GOP has the votes to overrule your opinion, and the opinion of other liberals.
I would say “deal with it”, but Democrats deal with things like this by pitching hissy fits, and they are doing that anyway.
DeVos was the most vulnerable of the Trump nominees, and she got confirmed. Democratic obstructionism has failed. This bodes well for the other nominees, especially Gorsuch, whose confirmation is more important, and whose influence (it is hoped) will have an even better effect on the Supreme Court and therefore on the country.
Although you are correct - watching the meltdowns is entertaining. So by all means, carry on.
Regards,
Shodan
Speaking as a Brit, I find the issue of her competence in the field puzzling. We don’t expect ministers to be experts in their fields; we do expect them to quickly command their briefs. They’re managers and executives; the civil servants are the experts.
And I recall vouchers being very popular in the mid 90s when they were introduced for primary schools. IIRC Labour stopped them when they came to power in 1997.
You made it look like I said that. That’s Flake.
And probably yes.
There are plenty of conservatives who are pro-vouchers. Trump is, and could have appointed someone with that credential who actually had experience with academics. But he picked her, in particular, not for her advocacy, but for her payments.
Ah, same old Shodan. Petty and more interested in pissing off liberals than anything of substance.
Why are they good policy?
Do you believe that they actually create better outcomes for the students in the community?
It’s not going to be possible to convince liberals to stop believing in evolution either, no matter how you insist on teaching creationism to students.
It was mentioned above that facts and critical thinking “indoctrinate” people into liberal positions.
Ignorance and lack of self reflection lead to conservative positions.
So, yes, gutting education will hurt liberals, but it will hurt the country more.
If by meltdown, you mean pointing out the fatal flaws in your plans, then go ahead and continue to watch as we continue to criticize your ignorant actions.
At some point, when these ignorant actions that you so love start to effect you, and you come around to the other side of things, and realize that maybe we should not have installed a govt that has only the desire to take what they can from it for their own pockets and to just trash the rest, we will still be here. Even though you admit to relishing the frustration of those trying to put out the fires while your buddies are running around dousing everything in gasoline, doesn’t mean that we will treat you the way that you are treating everyone who does not agree with you.
There may be some who do not accept your conversion, but many of us on the left will welcome you once you repent of your support for the destruction of our education, infrastructure, and economy.
What percentage of education secretaries to date do you think have degrees in education? Most do not.
How many do you think have had experience as an educator or administrator? Most have not.
How many do you think have published books on education? Almost none.
She would not be the first education secretary who hasn’t attended public school (see Arne Duncan).
She is decidedly more acquainted with education issues (particularly issues surrounding school choice) than most other education secretaries.
“DeVos has been an advocate of the Detroit charter school system[6][7] and she is a member of the board of the Foundation for Excellence in Education. She has served as chairwoman of the board of Alliance for School Choice and Acton Institute and heads the All Children Matter PAC.”
So yes, she has been involved in he education policy debate for a while at least with respect to school choice.
Now compare that to William Bennett or Lamar Alexander (two other Republican Education Secretaries who had almost no nexus with education at all).
Compare her involvement in education issues wit Richard Riley, the secretary under Clinton.
The main reason she is controversial is because she has a strong opinion about school choice. If she was just a donor who wanted a title, she would probably sail through without much hulabaloo. She is not objectionable because she is much less qualified than her predecessors, she is objectionable because she wants to privatize the public school system. Something that Republicans like.