Betsy DeVos has been named by The Donald to be the next Secretary of Education (she won't actually be the Nominee until Trump is sworn in and nominates her).
Her main claim to fame in education has been her strong support for Charter Schools.
Charter Schools may be defined slightly differently from one state to another, but basically they are "one-off" schools that are formed by either school districts or the states based on an educational proposal submitted by a group of advocates. Charter Schools are different from "regular" public schools, in that they are formed with a specific educational concept in mind. It may be a focus on a particular subject or group of subjects, it may focus on an underserved part of the population, or an innovative teaching/learning paradigm.
But they ARE public schools, basically funded by the taxpayers. General observations about charter schools are nonsense, because each one is different. Some are very successful and some are...not. Generally, the charter school has its "charter"' reviewed from time to time, and if they don't accomplish what they purportedly were going to accomplish, they lose their charter and the students are back in the "normal" schools.
Conservatives generally support the concept of charter schools because they provide a "choice" for parents and kids who are otherwise forced to attend a school which is either sub-standard or doesn't meet their particular needs. Leftists ABHOR charter schools for one reason, and one reason only: They are usually taught by non-union teachers. They bring up loads of specious arguments against them, mainly focusing on the funds lost to the "normal" schools because they go to fund the charter schools.
In short, the Left takes it as a matter of dogma that what is bad for the teachers' unions is bad for public education. But this is provably false. Teachers unions have done more to harm EDUCATION in the United States than any other influence or group, real or imagined. By making the teaching "profession" nothing more than a union job, where the best are paid the same as the worst and it's impossible to fire anyone, the teachers' unions have made mediocrity in the classroom not only acceptable, but inevitable.
So when you hear these Leftists howling at DeVos' confirmation hearings in February that she is "Anti-public education," keep in mind that she is very much FOR high-quality public education, but does not make the Leftist mistake of equating happy teachers' unions with high-quality public education.
Her main claim to fame in education has been her strong support for Charter Schools.
Charter Schools may be defined slightly differently from one state to another, but basically they are "one-off" schools that are formed by either school districts or the states based on an educational proposal submitted by a group of advocates. Charter Schools are different from "regular" public schools, in that they are formed with a specific educational concept in mind. It may be a focus on a particular subject or group of subjects, it may focus on an underserved part of the population, or an innovative teaching/learning paradigm.
But they ARE public schools, basically funded by the taxpayers. General observations about charter schools are nonsense, because each one is different. Some are very successful and some are...not. Generally, the charter school has its "charter"' reviewed from time to time, and if they don't accomplish what they purportedly were going to accomplish, they lose their charter and the students are back in the "normal" schools.
Conservatives generally support the concept of charter schools because they provide a "choice" for parents and kids who are otherwise forced to attend a school which is either sub-standard or doesn't meet their particular needs. Leftists ABHOR charter schools for one reason, and one reason only: They are usually taught by non-union teachers. They bring up loads of specious arguments against them, mainly focusing on the funds lost to the "normal" schools because they go to fund the charter schools.
In short, the Left takes it as a matter of dogma that what is bad for the teachers' unions is bad for public education. But this is provably false. Teachers unions have done more to harm EDUCATION in the United States than any other influence or group, real or imagined. By making the teaching "profession" nothing more than a union job, where the best are paid the same as the worst and it's impossible to fire anyone, the teachers' unions have made mediocrity in the classroom not only acceptable, but inevitable.
So when you hear these Leftists howling at DeVos' confirmation hearings in February that she is "Anti-public education," keep in mind that she is very much FOR high-quality public education, but does not make the Leftist mistake of equating happy teachers' unions with high-quality public education.
