Mara Casey Tieken: DeVos would likely doom rural schools (Gazette) - See more at: http://www.wvgazet
- Thread starter moe
- Start date
I have no idea what affect DeVos policies and practices would have on WV schools. I'm not an education professional. I don't know what percentage of WV's school funding comes from federal sources therefore I don't know how much fed funding could be withheld from WV schools and how that would affect schools in our poorest counties. If the state has to kick in more money to keep certain schools open due to a reduction in federal education money then that would not be a good thing for a state that is about to make some draconian cuts to the state budget due to a shortfall in state revenues. I read the article and wondered if the author could be right about her assertions. I've seen portions of DeVos's confirmation hearings and have read some about her. I don't think that she's a good choice for this position.
Left - right....polarization we have is the problem. Tenure is absolutely devastating to teacher effectiveness, and unions are just more of a problem now (served a purpose once for sure).
You sound like a Republican and quote the same type of ideas that the left would push back on like crazy.
Dems need the teachers union vote. It's crazy how far we've gotten away from making schools efficient. Good teachers get beat up, larger class sizes more special needs, and bad teachers get away with it. The incentive is to be mediocre really.
The absolute hysteria on the left is so comical. Charter schools have to make money to survive. Can they in rural areas, perhaps some, but not most. More importantly, if the rural school is not performing such that parents want to sent their kids elsewhere, they should have that choice. It his their child, after all.
Libs love choice except for anything outside the abortion clinic. Then they want the government to decide for us. Competition is a great thing. It improves quality of service and typically lowers costs. We have massively failing schools across this country beholding to teachers unions. Why should the unions thrive and the kids suffer?
If a school performs, they will stay in business. If they don't, parents should have the choice to get their kids a good, quality education. We all know that global competition is getting more significant, why handcuff ourselves in this battle?
How many schools do you want to have operating (that do not cost more than working class / middle class families can afford) in a certain district? Are buses going to pick kids up 40 miles away from the school now? Two family income parents are going to commute their kids an hour in the morning before work are they? The logistics of school choice are not as clear cut as competition in business. Community is important, ESP in schools. I want my district to excel, I want my kids (and my neighbors kids) to get quality education within the district that we live. Charters redraw those lines, it can be good but it can also be bad. The change over on a massive scale would be incredibly difficult. Charter options here and there, sure....I welcome that competition as a teacher....but it's already there (and growing). Let's just focus on fixing public schools and how they are structured. Maybe having someone who knows something about them, is a good start.
You are right, qualifications are overrated. From what I read, she's getting approved so I guess we'll find out.
Then why did they promise financial support to these two Republican Senators if they voted againt DeVos?
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/01/republicans-voting-against-devos-are-backed-by-teachers-unions/
Agreed. Let's just find what works. More innovation. Reward excellence. Remove arbitrary control that obstructs Teacher independence and protects incompetence. Let the Teachers do what they know how to do. Pay good Teachers more. It's really about "control" rather than improving the Teacher's ability to help those kids learn & succeed.
Insist on more Parental and Teacher control, let them find what works best for them. If it's Public education...great. If competition proves something works better? Go for it!
Trust the people ie: Teachers, Parents, and local administrators. They can figure it out. We don't need a "Department of Education" to make schools work. We need more schools that work!
Say what my Nazi friend? I guess you didn't see any of her confirmation hearings. A state BOE wouldn't have hired her based on her lack of overall knowledge regarding those that she will be overseeing.
Qualified meaning knowledgeable about the agency/issues that she will oversee. I don't care about race, age or gender.
http://www.vox.com/2017/1/17/14304692/devos-confirmation-hearing-education
Using publicly funded vouchers for private schools when there are already public schools and private schools is about as progressive idea as there is. Unfortunately it's been hijacked by American "conservatives", largely because it supports their religious constituents.
I think what's being missed in the Left's hysteria over DeVos is what they misunderstand about her objective. It's not to protect the Department of Education, or any local Education bureaucracy, or Teacher's Unions, or Tenured Teachers.
It's about improving Education and educational opportunities for kids, especially financially underprivileged kids.
So through competition which we know works in the private sector, she wants to introduce market demand for quality education.
If Public schools can compete, they'll still be around. Of course more Private schools will now also be able to enter the marketplace and offer their prescriptions. Parents will get to choose, and Teachers will get to choose which schools are doing the best job. The money will flow to the successful schools, just as it flows in the private sector to quality products and services.
We're simply ending Government's monopoly over Education because it is failing too many kids. She's there to expand that competitive marketplace, which Public schools will still be allowed and encouraged to compete in.
If they can compete, they will survive. If they continue their overall poor performance, they will be replaced by better choices for Parents, Teachers, and students.
It's about improving Education and educational opportunities for kids, especially financially underprivileged kids.
So through competition which we know works in the private sector, she wants to introduce market demand for quality education.
If Public schools can compete, they'll still be around. Of course more Private schools will now also be able to enter the marketplace and offer their prescriptions. Parents will get to choose, and Teachers will get to choose which schools are doing the best job. The money will flow to the successful schools, just as it flows in the private sector to quality products and services.
We're simply ending Government's monopoly over Education because it is failing too many kids. She's there to expand that competitive marketplace, which Public schools will still be allowed and encouraged to compete in.
If they can compete, they will survive. If they continue their overall poor performance, they will be replaced by better choices for Parents, Teachers, and students.
Click it but there are other links out there that show her stumbling, bumbling confirmation responses.
If asking her basic questions about the agency is to "destroy her" then I'm sure they accept those charges.
Have Government run schools been "hijacked" by Leftist secularism? So ANY Religious instruction is allowed in keeping with our pluralistic society which allows Freedom of Religion or free Religious expression?
Or is only Religious instruction excluded from Public schools?
I'll take a leader that has worked their way up through the ranks over anyone else any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Her qualifications = she donated $2 M to the GOP and she was a PTA volunteer.
She plagiarized her written responses to the questions asked by the committee. When asked about guns in schools, she said they should be allowed because in Montana they may have to shoot a grizzly bear.
She is as qualified to head the Dep of Ed as Rick Perry is as qualified to head the DoE, when he didn't realize the DoE was over nuclear energy and he couldn't even remember the name of the agency when he tried to say he wanted to eliminate them during a debate. [laughing] You can't make this **** up. Republicans prove they are the dumber political party every single day.
Yippeee!
So you didn't vote or support Obama then? He went from community organizer to a few years in the Senate to the Presidency...are you going to tell me he was ready for that type of ascension?
Poor idiot didn't even realize when he typed out that tripe that it was going to get tossed back like that.
Honestly, anyone that voted for Obama in 08 and supported him to the level Country did should be disqualified from any discussion on this.
Well I'll be damned. I didn't realize he was the very first president of the Untied States to "only be a US Senator".
And again, this isn't about Obama.
LOL US Senator for a whopping 3 years...of which at least one was probably spent campaigning.
Were your prerequisites for Obama as strenuous? What are his credentials "working up through the ranks" as you described?
I don't like the idea of using public money to fund private choice convenience Abortions. If folks want to kill their own offspring, they should find the means to do so themselves. We should use Public money to help care for the lucky little unwanted Babies who are allowed to live...like finding loving Foster care for them.