Secretary of Education nominee Betsy DeVos and Detroit's schools

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip...Maybe I am misinterpreting your statement, but it sure sounds like a dogmatic mindset against public schools [[monopoly educational options), and dogmatic support for continued expansion of charter schools [[even though they haven't resulted in improved outcomes).

If charters haven't made things better, how can you say that "Charters seem like the right vehicle to 'strive for best outcomes'. Otherwise, it seems like we're striving for the status-quo." That sure sounds like a dogmatic approach...

Yes, I have a dogmatic belief that only by experimentation can you get results. I believe that monopolies are harmful. Be they corporation, union, or educational. I believe it with religious fervor. I find arguments against competition to be mostly self-serving. I dogmatically distrust self-serving arguments that somehow, the status quo needs protection.

As to De Vos, Trump is certainly unconventional. So little surprise he's nominating someone who is unconventional in education circles. We'll see how it goes. Maybe she'll shake a few things up -- and that might be good.

[erikd]

Yes, I have a dogmatic belief that only by experimentation can you get results. I believe that monopolies are harmful. Be they corporation, union, or educational. I believe it with religious fervor. I find arguments against competition to be mostly self-serving. I dogmatically distrust self-serving arguments that somehow, the status quo needs protection.

As to De Vos, Trump is certainly unconventional. So little surprise he's nominating someone who is unconventional in education circles. We'll see how it goes. Maybe she'll shake a few things up -- and that might be good.

I don't have a disagreement with your viewpoints on experiments, distrust of monopolies, or dislike of maintaining the status quo.

I think that we are not too much unalike in our views on this. I was a big supporter of the movement to experiment with privatization of schools, expand charters, etc. I thought that privatization might be able to overcome some of the challenges and struggles faced by underperforming public schools.

Unfortunately, the shift to private/charter schools hasn't resulted in any widespread or significant improvement, so I have tempered my support for continued expansion of this experiment, in favor of looking at the successes and failures that we have seen so far, and then adjusting the strategy.

It seems that this is where we differ and disagree... I supported the charter/privatization experiment, but it hasn't worked, so I do not support continued expansion of this failed experiment as-is.

I do support attempts to learn from and replicate the successful charter schools, but I'm not interested in blowing up public schools in favor of charter schools when there is no evidence that it will improve outcomes.

I support charter schools and privatization when it actually leads to better outcomes. I don't support it when it's only based on a dogmatic belief that privatization is always better than public services.

[hathorlive]

I think since her primary goal has been to make charters immune from statistical analysis [[aka grading it on performance) we can safely say her goal is not to improve education but to protect the cash cow that issues charters and makes money running schools.

Good charters with student achievement should be kept. Charters that cherry pick students and get the same or worse results as DPS should be closed.

She can't say "let's not judge these schools" and turn around and say she wants better results for students.

[Wesley Mouch]

I don't have a disagreement with your viewpoints on experiments, distrust of monopolies, or dislike of maintaining the status quo.

I think that we are not too much unalike in our views on this. I was a big supporter of the movement to experiment with privatization of schools, expand charters, etc. I thought that privatization might be able to overcome some of the challenges and struggles faced by underperforming public schools.

Unfortunately, the shift to private/charter schools hasn't resulted in any widespread or significant improvement, so I have tempered my support for continued expansion of this experiment, in favor of looking at the successes and failures that we have seen so far, and then adjusting the strategy.

It seems that this is where we differ and disagree... I supported the charter/privatization experiment, but it hasn't worked, so I do not support continued expansion of this failed experiment as-is.

I do support attempts to learn from and replicate the successful charter schools, but I'm not interested in blowing up public schools in favor of charter schools when there is no evidence that it will improve outcomes.

I support charter schools and privatization when it actually leads to better outcomes. I don't support it when it's only based on a dogmatic belief that privatization is always better than public services.

We don't seem very far apart -- I agree.

Where we do disagree is on where to go from here.

Ms. DeVos may not be the best answer. But its also clear to me that the past isn't the place to look for the future. I also distrust much of the negative press on DeVos -- since both sides here are selecting quotations and beating up their opponents.

Let me address one statement of yours:

so I do not support continued expansion of this failed experiment as-is.

I can respect your position, but I suggest that increasing requirements is precisely the step that will ensure conformance -- rather than innovation.

Look for example at the class-size war. Unions love this war, as it is a pretty direct proxy for teacher employment. So they push class-size requirements into collective bargaining. This means its very expensive for a district to get maximum class sizes increased.

But suppose a charter were to experiment, and try making reading classes very small, but history classes very large. It might not affect teacher employment overall, but it would violate the class-size rule. A charter might be able to experiment.

Sometimes experiments fail. And sometimes they succeed. Your approach leans towards discouraging experimentation because you see that experimentation to-date hasn't delivered results.

Maybe the results are there, but just not measured. I'll be we agree that measurement of student success is hard.

[ABetterDetroit]

Looks like at least a couple Republicans are taking a closer look at the current state of education in Detroit schools public and private and are having a little trouble saying "let's roll this out nation wide." Don't blame them, it's a little difficult to spin as "it's working, she's a genius."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politi...nee/index.html

[Wesley Mouch]

Looks like at least a couple Republicans are taking a closer look at the current state of education in Detroit schools public and private and are having a little trouble saying "let's roll this out nation wide." Don't blame them, it's a little difficult to spin as "it's working, she's a genius."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politi...nee/index.html

I expect leaders to 'take a closer look' and 'public and private' education in Detroit. The whole point of charters is to encourage 'public and private' reassessments of results, and to adjust methods, if you believe as I do that the 'public' system wasn't up to the task of advocating for different approaches.

The argument against charters [[which I read here between the lines, paranoid as I am) is that they haven't cured the patient. The better argument is whether charters are providing more diversity in educational methods so we can see what works, and what doesn't.

[Bham1982]

Yes, I have a dogmatic belief that only by experimentation can you get results. I believe that monopolies are harmful. Be they corporation, union, or educational. I believe it with religious fervor. I find arguments against competition to be mostly self-serving. I dogmatically distrust self-serving arguments that somehow, the status quo needs protection.

Charters don't really introduce "competition". They're for-profit entities that generally leech upon the weakest school districts, driving overall performance lower and wasting public resources [[because taxpayers are now paying for a half-empty traditional district and the upstart for profit district). They're more like a tumor than an apples-to-apples competitor.

And there would be no education "monopolies" in Michigan even if there were no charters. Parents can send their kids to any district in the state. There's massive choice, already. If you want charters too, fine, but regulate them and only allow nonprofits so taxpayers aren't paying for sleazy out-of-state operators making millions off our kids while paying teachers 25k and forcing the taxpayers to make up the difference.

And the ultimate question is this: have charters in MI resulted in better outcomes? The answer is an unequivocal no. Charters do worse than publics, and overall state peformance has plummeted since DeVos started buying off the legislature and removing charters from oversight.

The fact that our Trumpenfuhrer decided to appoint the leading advocate for perhaps the most failed statewide charter system in the U.S. is an extremely bad sign. MI is the national poster child for how not to implement charters. We're a national joke.