Betsy DeVos on 60 minutes (claims, TV, against, business)

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

I presented two plans with known proven results. Both can be used simultaneously.

Cite the source.

[southbound_295]

Originally Posted by rmm0484

Normally, the staff would pick up the slack and prep the Principal for these type of interviews, but the staff seem to be not in the picture in this case.

What surprises me about some of Trump's appointees (and Trump himself) is that they do not exhibit any real signs of being educated. Since Ms. DeVos and Trump are both from very privileged backgrounds, I assumed that they would have had top-notch educations, and to conduct themselves accordingly. I assumed that the sons and daughters of the hyper-rich were also part of a rarefied, educated elite. I subscribed to the "richer must be smarter" mythology.

Trump went to Wharton, a top business school, but does not speak like an MBA, and Ms DeVos appears to "wing it" quite a bit, without resorting to facts and figures. She did go to Calvin College, a small college in Grand Rapids, Michigan. My guess is that she has led a sheltered, coddled life, as has Trump.

Trump's Wharton bs was negated by U of P. Wharton is part of U of P. They released a statement that while attending the University of Pennsylvania he took some courses at Wharton. He was not matriculating at Wharton when he did that.

[rmm0484]

Originally Posted by southbound_295

Trump's Wharton bs was negated by U of P. Wharton is part of U of P. They released a statement that while attending the University of Pennsylvania he took some courses at Wharton. He was not matriculating at Wharton when he did that.

Thanks for clarifying that...

[southbound_295]

Originally Posted by rmm0484

Thanks for clarifying that...

You're welcome.

For whatever it's worth, when we lived in Grand Rapids, Calvin College was not the school of choice for our Christian Reform neighbors. They all had aspirations of their kids going to Hope College, in Holland.

[lhpartridge]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

How do you know? Because they SAY so? Have you actually looked at the stats?

Let me share a little history with you... I'll share an experience I had in an upper-middle class Chicago suburb with supposedly "one of the best school districts in the state." It's a lengthy read, but worth it...

People tend to vastly overestimate the quality of their own neighborhood's and their kids' schools.

A lot of people think that their public schools are excellent, and a lot of school districts LOVE to foster and encourage that perception, even when it's not true.

I spent the better part of a year in the not too distant past educating my local community and our school district on the fact that one cannot make that assumption.

I lived in a town in which the percentage of college graduates is quite high. Consequently, the income levels and housing prices are also quite high. Our town's public high school brags that 94% of their graduates continue on to college. Sounds good so far, right?

Well... a newspaper publisher local to a different suburban area than the one in which I live threw a monkey wrench into that idyllic blissfully unaware mindset when they got ahold of ACT's College Readiness Benchmarks and compared suburban Chicago public school district students' ACT scores with ACT's own College/Work Readiness Benchmarks.

(In Illinois, all 11th grade students take the ACT as part of the required NCLB testing, which is a GOOD thing as that way the state CANNOT misrepresent the quality of our public high schools by making the state test easier or instituting lower passing scores as explained here: Lake Wobegon, U.S.A. -- where all the children are above average)

What that data showed was that while our local public high school loved to brag that 94% of their graduates continued on to college, only 29% of them were adequately prepared to take first year college-level courses according to the ACT Benchmarks. Furthermore, that 29% figure was significantly below that of comparable area communities and even that of communities in which housing prices were significantly lower.

I brought the data to our community's attention by publicly speaking out at school committee and board meetings which are covered by local suburban press.

The stunner: NO ONE in the community had EVER looked at that data even though it is easily accessible from ACT. Not school admin. Not the school board. Not students' parents. No one.

Naturally all the usual stages followed... shock, anger, resistance, and finally... grudging acceptance. The school admin and school board would have done nothing about it. Parents and community members shocked and angered at learning the truth have put pressure on the school to make improvements. School admin and the school board have subsequently been analyzing the situation and are making extremely slow progress in improving academic outcomes. Our high school's ACT College/Work Readiness percentage is better but not anywhere near where it should be given the aspirations of our graduating students.

For those interested in exactly what the ACT College/Work Readiness Benchmark scores are (they're SURPRISINGLY low, hovering close to the national average scores ):
http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/benchmarks.pdf

Now, compare those low benchmark score minimums to the percentage of Chicago suburban school districts (some quite wealthy) that have prepared their students well enough to meet all 4 benchmark minimums (last column in chart):
https://prev.dailyherald.com/packages/2007/schoollfinance/chapter10.htm

Without that nationally-normed ACT standardized testing benchmark, there would be NO way to convince parents and the community that their local school district was a joke and needed to make SIGNIFICANT changes in both curriculum and pedagogy.

Lesson learned... DON'T automatically assume a school district's "excellent" reputation is deserved, or that higher-priced homes equals better public schools.

Here is a point on which we can both agree. Most communities are happy with their local schools which aren't quite as good as they are perceived to be.

I, too, tried to make a difference in my town's schools, back when my children were enrolled. The establishment was firmly in favor of keeping high standards for all students, but firmly against ensuring that each child's needs were being met, namely the profoundly gifted. I was asked not to return after attending purportedly open meetings sponsored by the school district. I'm glad to hear that your efforts met with more results than mine.

Personally, I would prefer a school funding model that was not based on local property taxes, but likely we would not agree with that. I don't support relating the schooling of children based on what their parents can afford. I see children as citizens who deserve the best our country can give them to help our nation once the children become of age. I think you may disagree with that as well.

[glamatomic]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

I don't have an argument. I made suggestions on how to improve the US K-12 education system, based on the suggested methods' already proven success.

Yet surely you see how your suggestion of more children relying on donors to attend private schools is flawed. This could never happen en masse and is therefore not a solution.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

That's why every student should get a school voucher equivalent to what their school district spends per student per year. Let their families send them to schools where they'll actually learn, for a change.

You've seen the NAEP results. US public schools are doing a horrible job educating our kids. Everyone knows it. The OECD knows it. Look at the info I just posted on the OECD's PIAAC international comparison.

If anyone has kids in the public school system, supplement. A LOT.

You keep repeating this last line and it is getting old. You don't get your point across in a message board context by just copying and pasting.

I do not disagree with you that in the international scheme of things, K-12 schools perform poorly. I do agree that something has to be done but I'm not convinced that privatizing is the way to go.

And yes, I've seen the NAEP results and I've also read the study that found no substantial difference in 3 of the 4 areas compared when adjusted for socioeconomic factors.

So, hypothetically, if all of our public school kids went private (I realize this is an unrealistic notion), scores in every area except for 8th Grade Reading would be the same or worse than what we have with our public system.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

You have to break out the "private schools" group. Secular private schools have no benefit. Religious order (Jesuit, etc.) schools DO achieve better results, even when adjusted for socioeconomic level.

Not entirely true. If you read the full NAEP report, the schools that performed the worst (worse than public schools) were Conservative Christian private schools. Catholic, Lutheran and Secular performed about the same.

Jesuit schools only make up about 25% of the 1200 Catholic High Schools in the U.S.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

There are no "flaws or overgeneralizations." Students who get to choose their schools learn better, be that a selective enrollment public school or a parochial Religious Order private school.

US public education is a disaster. As if the NAEP results weren't bad enough, we have the OECD's abysmal PIAAC international comparison results, even among the top 10% and those with advanced college degrees.

To begin with, while early studies on choice/voucher programs in some states showed positive results, the long term studies in multiple states have shown no significant improvement for students partaking in choice/voucher programs as opposed to public schools. I would be happy to provide you with links to numerous studies corroborating the lack of success.

As for your second paragraph, you're getting repetitive. Please refer to my response to your second quote within this post.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

I presented two plans with known proven results. Both can be used simultaneously.

See above. Choice/voucher programs have not been successful across the board.

And I ask again, are you advocating for a plan similar to the German system of education?

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

THAT'S the problem. Without flexible education funding that includes vouchers, the vast majority of students in public schools will be severely under-educated. We have both the NAEP and OECD testing results which prove exactly that.

And I have to say it yet again, when you adjust for socioeconomic level there isn't a massive difference between public and private.

The students who don't learn in public schools now are unlikely to perform a whole lot better in a private school.

Students generally perform better in private schools because they're already from an affluent, privileged background.

Just because little Jimmy is no longer going to his local, failing public school, and is going to a private Catholic school with the voucher program, does not negate the fact that his home doesn't have heat, that his mom gets beat up by her boyfriend every night, or that dinner is soup made on ketchup packets in hot water.

Private schools, or rather, School choice, is not the panacea for our public education problems which are created by and large by a society that has become increasingly divided by race, religion and economic standing.

A positive example of what can be achieved in troubled public schools, if the right leadership is in place, is what occurred under the leadership of the previous superintendent, Tiffany Anderson, in the Jennings, MO school district. I would rather some of her ideas be implemented throughout problematic school districts than voucher programs.

[glamatomic]

Originally Posted by lhpartridge

Personally, I would prefer a school funding model that was not based on local property taxes, but likely we would not agree with that. I don't support relating the schooling of children based on what their parents can afford. I see children as citizens who deserve the best our country can give them to help our nation once the children become of age. I think you may disagree with that as well.

I absolutely agree with you. I believe funding should be at a state level. In my metro area (St. Louis), the wealthy school districts have significantly higher per child expenditure than that of failing school districts. It's sad, and it's not fair.

[moneill]

Discretionary spending at schools make a huge difference and without fail, schools in upper middle class areas get more of that.

They get it from connections in the business/corporate world. They get it from parents who know how to get grants, petition for extra funds, and do some killer fund raising.

Combine that with extra volunteers... (I was a permanent fixture in my son's Grade 1 class. It enabled the teacher to have very aggressive and advanced study groups in some cases).

That kind of financial and volunteer support can make a big difference.

[banjomike]

DeVos was amazingly unprepared for her interview.
I've seen a lot of nervous people interviewed on 60 Minutes, but few have been so dumbstruck they couldn't give a coherent answer to the questions.

Trump doesn't like it when he thinks his people make him look bad on TV. I suspect Betsy may soon return to her comfortable oblivion as a private citizen very soon. She's been a complete screw-up since the first, but now season one of the Apprentice is over.

Like it or not, we are all players in season two.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Magritte25

There are no flaws? So you think this plan is without fail?

It IS going to fail for those who don't bother to choose. The important point is that, metaphorically speaking, you don't let everyone die just because you can't save them all. You help the ones who are making an effort to help themselves.

FYI:

"Pro-voucher voters among racial minorities overwhelmingly support Barack Obama, but they are baffled by the Democratic nominee's opposition to vouchers. They also say they are frustrated that Democratic leaders appear to be more concerned about keeping the peace with teachers unions --which adamantly oppose vouchers-- than about finding alternatives that could advance desperately needed education reforms for minority students.

...Public opinion polls also show solid support for school vouchers among minority parents. Sixty-five percent of adult African-Americans and 63 percent of adult Hispanics favor the use of vouchers, according to a national survey conducted earlier this year under the auspices of the journal Education Next and the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University. In the survey, more than half of minority adults gave higher marks to their local police than their public schools."There is no doubt that on this issue, ...Obama has it wrong," Martin wrote."

https://web.archive.org/web/20140404..._questione.php

Which begs the questions... Why are Democrats so vehemently opposed to school vouchers? Let families CHOOSE a better school for their kids. And why are minorities in the US so OK with their kids being trapped in horribly mismanaged public schools that they keep voting Dem, en masse? You saw the NAEP results b y racial/ethnic groups that I posted. Minorities voting Dem is pure self-sabotage for themselves and their children's futures. /SMH