Sure. A minority of people appointed to the position had no apparent educational background, per a quick glance at Wikipedia. She joins those illustrious ranks.
However, your implication was that most that held the position had no experience in education. I dispute that implication.
You are correct in that it is her policies that I am concerned about.
And it is her policies that are informed by her ignorance of the department that she will be taking over.
The only things in your list are being on think tanks. These were not actually positions of any sort of actual power over policy, other than recommendations and propaganda. (Not that she hasn’t done a considerable amount of damage to michigan and especially detroit’s schools with her advocacy, but that was all without an actual position) It’s not like her job in any of those think tanks was to actually run a school system.
And she has enough “experience” that, while it does not actually do her any good, it does tell us where her priorities are, and those priorities are not serving the public with access to high quality education.
Tell ya what, there are a million places you could educate yourself about this woman, but I think that this probably is the most informative collation of her history and views, and the wake of destruction she has left behind.
Is it the job of the Secretary of Education to “run a school system” in any way?
It seems that a lot of people misunderstand what the Secretary of Education does. I am quite happy that the education in the US is mostly controlled at the state level.
Dept. of Education, according to Business Insider, “collects data and does research on student outcomes and success, providing national figures that allow for comparison among states”, provides about 8% of the schools districts’ budget through various programs, and “handles matters related to discrimination in schools and colleges”. It also administers some financial aid programs, but that’s not what you’re worried about, right?
So - what exactly are you hysterical about? What horrible damage can DeVos cause because she has never been a teacher herself? She is not directly involved in the data collection - the professionals do that. Federal laws and Congress determine where the federal 8% of the districts’ budgets go…
It is the smallest federal department that, if it disappeared, wouldn’t be missed that much. Why the Chicken Little imitation from Democrats?
You fucking imbecile, I told you specifically why I opposed DeVos. Now you want to read my mind and claim I’m really opposing her for a different, secret, reason that only you can divine. You fail mind reading as badly as you fail reading (maybe vouchers would have helped?)
Like I’m so terrified of opposing her policies on this board that I have to oppose her for different, secret reasons? And that claim makes sense to you? Put some thought into your posts, you fucking half-wit.
She wants to bring religion to the schools (not specifically Christianity but who are we kidding…of course it will be almost all Christian schools). You cannot do that with state run schools because of that pesky separation of church and state thing in the constitution.
Look, of course I oppose her because her policies are insane theocratic policies. Of course.
I also oppose her because of the not-even-trying-to-hide-it corruption, in which senators she’s funded don’t recuse themselves from voting on her. This is a ridiculous way to run a democracy: if you’ve contributed to someone’s campaign, they shouldn’t be casting votes on appointing you to office. Of course.
But I also oppose her for a third reason: she’s completely unqualified to the position. She has no experience running a large organization; she has no experience in public schools; she has no experience navigating federal bureaucracies, except inasmuch as she purchases influence in them.
On the first issue, I expect disagreement with terrible fuckin theocrats. On the second issue, I expect disagreement with people who don’t mind a paid-for government. But on the third issue, we ought to be able to agree.
Richard Riley, Lamar Alexander, William Bennett, and Shirley Hufstedler do not have a background in education. So 4 of the 10 previous secretaries had Background in education. Less experience and qualification than DeVos. Her advoicacy was significant. Its not like she just posted shit on her facebook page. She was one of the most prominent voices and supporters for school choice on the right.
Clearly, this unique reaction to DeVos is not the result of something unique about her lack of qualifications. The outrage is not the result of he unique status as an unqualified secretary of education. All of the outrage is because she is a strong proponent of school choice and the teachers unions really hate her.
I think she will be a horrible secretary of education but I don’t think it is unreasonable for a Republican to support her.
Thanks I already know ho bad she well be. I’m not a fan of hers but all this complaining about her qualifications is really misplaced. She is at least as qualified as several previous secretaries. What I don’t like about her is her policy stances but these are not reasons why Republicans would turn on heir own president’s nominee to vote against her.
How qualified in Ben Carson to run HUD?
How qualified is Rick Perry to run the Department of Energy?
Lack of previous experience in the subject matter has never been a disqualifying factor. I just don’t think its fair to say that Republicans are putting party before country by going along with Trump on this one.