Sen Al Franken destroys Betsy Devos on key education issues

I was a little ashamed watching someone who has been picked to represent the United States as the next Sec of Education stumble and bumble around basic questions concerning education. I mean, is she at least partially qualified for this important position. Good God!

She either didn't know or didn't understand the basic concept between proficiency and growth. Her numbers on student debt growth apparently was inaccurate and her ties to her family's belief and support of conversion therapy is a little disturbing, to say the least.

a reply to: Jaellma

Drain the Swamp of Public Education!

*Betsy gives a parent of a fourth grader a 'voucher' for $4,000 and says "you now have access to any school you want!" Yay!
Just remember the tuition is $10,000, and sadly there will be no busses, so you'll need to provide your own transportation".

"And Thank you for voting to Drain the Swamp! Have a nice day!"

a reply to: Jaellma

I've got to admit that, as a lay person, I don't understand the debate between "proficiency and growth" either, but I'm not asking to run the D of ED as its Secretary

But, I do understand that, when Tim Kaine questioned her about equal access for children with disabilities to all school granted federal funds, she didn't want to answer the question. Seems like she wanted private/charter schools to be aable to pick and choose who they want to teach, and send their rejects back to the public school system.

a reply to: Jaellma

She doesn't understand the IDEA act, either, or how it is Federal Law. (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)

It is highly concerning, to say the least. She thinks (and stated repeatedly) that STATES should have the ability to enact what they see fit for the disabled.

She is concerned about "grizzlies?" and needs guns to defend against them? Well perhaps she meant the Sarah Palin kind - the Grizzly Mama's who are going to come for her hide when their kid's education is screwed...

I too think she is the wrong person for this position. But, this is the purpose of these confirmation hearings, right? To find out if a particular person that is recommended for the position will actually have experience and be able to fulfill the requirements of that position. In this case, I do not see a good match.

I think she should be rejected and another appointee recommended.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Jaellma

I've got to admit that, as a lay person, I don't understand the debate between "proficiency and growth" either, but I'm not asking to run the D of ED as its Secretary

But, I do understand that, when Tim Kaine questioned her about equal access for children with disabilities to all school granted federal funds, she didn't want to answer the question. Seems like she wanted private/charter schools to be aable to pick and choose who they want to teach, and send their rejects back to the public schoold system.

Really? It is becoming more apparent she doesn't know much about anything at all. She is just a privileged (I hate that word), rich chick who got in by association. She was also roasted by the relentless Elizabeth Warren on the same issues but was more exposed on her ignorance of handling educational loans, grants, etc. She really has no clue on these issues.

a reply to: windword

"Proficiency" is a fixed standard. Does Johnny meet the Federal Fixed Standard Proficiency for Reading?

"Growth" is about a child's ability to improve over time, or whether they are falling behind or remaining stagnant.

Personally, I think the debate is silly as BOTH aspects should be considered and given weight as to a person's success.

Anyway... If it's a major debate in Education, it is something Devos should have made herself familiar with. She is being tested, and questioned, as to her fitness for employment. She is vastly under qualified.

I suppose it is all in what you hear, when you listen to this video.

Here is what I heard:

1) Franken cut her off in mid-answer, when she said that students progress (grow) into proficiency levels...and she was not given the opportunity to actually discuss the proficiency versus growth debate. He cut her off, disparaged her, and then went on to another question.

2) He claimed a number for Student Loan growth, and she claimed another much higher number. Frankin did not present any basis of calculation for his number, or allow her to explain how she had arrived at hers. He simply stated (as if his number should be taken as gospel) that she needs to get her numbers straight. Who was right on this one...don't know?

3) Franken stated that her family foundation had given a large sum of money to an organization that believes in conversion therapy. She clearly replied that she does not believe in conversion therapy, and asked him to please not tag her with donations made by other members of her family. So what is "disturbing" to you about this, in terms of her nomination to this post?

Public education in the USA is so broken. The rest of the world outpaces us at every level and for less money. Inner city schools more closely resemble a prison/daycare than a learning institution.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Public education in the USA is so broken. The rest of the world outpaces us at every level and for less money. Inner city schools more closely resemble a prison/daycare than a learning institution.

Exactly. I think schools have steadily gone downhill ever since the federal government decided to get involved in education. Or at least that is what I have seen in my lifetime in my state.

I'm about ready to pull my child out and homeschool him myself.

Until I had a child in school, I thought public schools in my area were just fine and I also believed a college education is important. But now? I'm ready to pull him out of public schools and I'm so relieved that he doesn't want to go to college; he wants to attend blacksmithing school and gunsmithing school.

The educational terrain in this country is changing, for better or for worse; I think it's going to be up to the parents to ensure their children's education in the very-near future. The government just keeps making it worse.

The kindest thing this woman could do is get the position, then dismantle the entire DOE and put public education back under control of the individual states.

JMHO...

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Public education in the USA is so broken. The rest of the world outpaces us at every level and for less money. Inner city schools more closely resemble a prison/daycare than a learning institution.

The US is third in education behind the UK and Canada. Cal Tech and MIT are in the top 3 universities in the world and kids use iPads in many schools to educate themselves. Many many areas are very well funded. I went to great schools as a kid. I think a lot of people here did. The inner cities are bad, but America is not defined by the worst of our components.

Looks like she might actually be able to make some progress on the inner city school system problems.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Public education in the USA is so broken. The rest of the world outpaces us at every level and for less money. Inner city schools more closely resemble a prison/daycare than a learning institution.

Public education is broken because schools reflect the communities in which they serve. In many other countries, they don't even try to educate everyone because they have accepted it is futile. However, in America, we try to give everyone access to an education whether they take advantage of it or not.

Public schools work in areas where you have involved families. For example, in most middle and upper class areas, the schools are high achieving because the students are already expected to be high achieving. However, in poor areas, you have huge percentages of the student bodies coming from broken homes, etc. As such, the schools fair poorly because they are trying to educate the worst students.

This is why school choice and charter schools are so important. It allows parents who give a damn about their kids' education to send their kids to better schools.

I grew up in an area where we had a god-awful high school. Fortunately, my parents were able to take advantage of a school desegregation program where I got bussed to a top high school on the other side of town. This was life changing for my education. I would have been stuck in a gang-infested juvie detention center my neighborhood called a high school.

Liberals love public schools because most liberals live in areas with good public schools or they can afford to send their kids to private schools. However, they rather kiss the ass of the teacher's unions than give that choice to people who aren't fortunate or wealthy enough to live in a good school district.

a reply to: Jaellma

Destroyed? Really??? That's funny. These sorts of titles -- "So-an-so destroys Whosamacallit" or "pwns" or whatever -- are so very amusing to me... Just reflects the echo chamber folks who write these titles live in. He didn't destroy her in any way, shape or form. He didn't even destroy her chances for confirmation. He destroyed nothing.

Sen Franken asked her a very vague and broad question, then interrupted her when he didn't like her answer to claim that she didn't know what she was talking about...

And then -- this was solid gold! -- Sen Franken went on to whine about the senate rules that he didn't know about after how many years in the senate? (That would be since 2009 -- going on eight years). The same rules that had been applied in every confirmation hearing under Obama -- in other words, the same rules as during Franken's entire tenure in the senate!!! (Pot meet kettle -- hahaha!)

Me thinks Senator Franken only embarrassed himself.

And for what it's worth, the whole proficiency vs growth argument is stupid on every level. One can grow without reaching proficiency, but one cannot reach proficiency without growth. It's not an either/or situation. It is absolutely impossible to even measure growth if proficiency is not first and simultaneously measured.

a reply to: Jaellma

She's not at all qualified for the position. She only got the job because of Pay To Play. You know, the very same thing Trump and his supporters would accuse Clinton of. Conservative hypocrisy strikes again and again. Corruption is totally okay as long as it's their team doing it.

They make me sick.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Looks like she might actually be able to make some progress on the inner city school system problems.

How so? Warren repeatedly asked her to commit to Not cutting the public education budget, and it seems that's what she's after, so she danced around the question until Warren said she take it as a "no".

I agree it frivolous to throw money at something that isn't working, but how do you think she will help inner-city schools?
Budget cuts may mean fewer teachers.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: xuenchen
Looks like she might actually be able to make some progress on the inner city school system problems.

How so? Warren repeatedly asked her to commit to Not cutting the public education budget, and it seems that's what she's after, so she danced around the question until Warren said she take it as a "no".

I agree it frivolous to throw money at something that isn't working, but how do you think she will help inner-city schools?
Budget cuts may mean fewer teachers.

Money is hardly the issue with inner city schools. The DOE was founded in 1979 and no one would argue that kids are better educated today than prior to then. This department spends $77 billion a year and yet a sizable portion of high school graduates are still functionally illiterate. We need to stop throwing good money after bad.

If we gave that money to each parent to supplment thier child's education we'd be better off instead of paying for this massive circle jerk bureaucracy.

Again, liberals care about the appearance of doing something, not actual results. Kids can't read and write, but liberals still pat themselves on the back for pissing away $77 billion a year in tax payer money.

a reply to: Edumakated

I agree.
Test scores are reflective of the locals in the area.
It is well known blacks and hispanics score lower, not going to go into why
It is also known whites are shrinking as a percent of population in young age groups.

White american test scores are equal to their german counterparts when comparing PISA scores. Makes sense as white americans are majority germanic peoples.

Really simple reason why test scores are not moving nationally.

While I don't agree with all of Trump's picks this is the only one that I feel should be 100% not confirmed. During this hearing she clearly demonstrated that she has no idea what she's talking and that even she thinks her ideas are idiotic. Just look at the way she tried to avoid Kaine's questions. Michigan's schools suffered under her and the rest of the country will follow if she is confirmed.

a reply to: windword

I've got to admit that, as a lay person, I don't understand the debate between "proficiency and growth" either, but I'm not asking to run the D of ED as its Secretary

It's a good question.

The way I understand it, is that "Proficiency" is a somewhat arbitrary standard calculating where a student *should* be based on their grade level. It is typically where someone thinks the average should be for that grade level. It's usually based on test scores given to all students over time, but it doesn't have to be. In actuality, it is whatever the person in charge says it is.

Therefore teaching to a "proficiency" standard tells the teacher to focus on the average or middle, as that is that is how they (the teachers) are going to be measured. It ignores the brightest students since they are already above the proficiency level and there is no incentive or directive to continue to teach/challenge those students so that they then can continue to grow educationally.

It also ignores those below the proficiency standard if the teacher determines that he/she will not be able to help those children reach the proficiency standard in that school year. In other words, any efforts made to help that child grow educationally, even if it won't get them to the proficiency standard *yet*, are wasted efforts in terms of the teacher focusing on his/her classes proficiency.

Teaching for growth is much easier to understand - it is exactly what it sounds like. Teachers are focused on and measured by how much "each" student grows educationally as measured by standardized tests (usually given the prior year to each student). In a growth standard each teacher is rewarded for the growth of each student and therefore no student's needs are ignored - bottom, middle or top tier.

If someone knows more than me about this topic and I've misstated or am incorrect in the above, please feel free to point it out.

I'm just an informed layperson regarding the field of education. I am by no means an expert.