Tag Archives: Department of Education

In case you weren’t paying attention, something really big happened in the education world two days ago. Betsy DeVos, President-elect Trump’s pick for secretary of education, had her confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The hearing was actually supposed to happen earlier this month, but it was delayed “to accommodate the Senate schedule.” In other words, politics happened. But Republican leadership stuck to its word about not allowing Democratic complaints over ethics paperwork to prevent the confirmation process from moving forward, and so DeVos’s hearing went ahead. You can watch the full hearing here if you are so inclined. I’m still waiting for a credible transcript to be released. In the meantime, I’d like to talk a little about the slanted coverage of the hearing I’ve seen. I don’t know if you’ve ever watched a confirmation hearing before, but I have. They tend to amount to a whole lot of rhetorical jousting by senators looking to score points against their rivals’ picks, various attempts to force nominees to make (often absurd) commitments, and a cat-like ability to avoid answering trap questions on the part of the nominees themselves. They usually get partisan—and ugly—fast. […]

Something happened last night. I was already in bed, of course, but I could hear strange shouting downstairs. I couldn’t quite make it out, but it sounded like someone saying, “Wisconsin?! What?!” This morning I found my dad still awake, sitting in an arm chair with bleary eyes and a strange expression that I’m not sure I’ve seen on his face before. It was weird. It was really, really weird. I am, of course, referring to Donald Trump’s utterly astonishing victory over Hillary Clinton in last night’s presidential election. He deserves a hearty congratulation for defying the political odds and, in the end, pulling off exactly the kind of map-changing, crushing victory he said he’d accomplish. Truthfully, I never thought I would write the words “President-elect Trump.” But here we are.

A month ago, I put on my policy explorer cap and attended a Colorado State Board of Education meeting. At that meeting, a panel of CDE employees presented a whole bunch of information on testing in Colorado. More specifically, they went into some depth on the various aspects of local control as they relate to PARCC testing in the state. At the time, the panel was waiting for a response from the mothership (also known as the U.S. Department of Education) on a few of their stickier questions. Well, that response has finally been beamed back. Notably, the sci-fi analogy doesn’t seem so farfetched when one looks at DOE’s response document—it actually feels like reading a document written in an alien language. Fortunately, Chalkbeat has provided a helpful summary for those who, like me, find legalese to be far more terrifying than extraterrestrials. After deciphering DOE’s hieroglyphics, the document has some disappointing—albeit unsurprising—answers to the panel’s questions. In brief, Colorado doesn’t have much wiggle room when it comes to testing this year.

The federal government’s “magical money tree” can make untold billions of dollars out of thin air to spend on a wide array of pork projects and various government programs. But what will the money earmarked for education do to promote lasting and effective reform to help student success? Plenty of lip service has been given to this notion. Don’t worry. You aren’t alone in having good reason to be very skeptical of the “stimulus” leading to real education reform. Months ago, when the stimulus was first passed, my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow made the observation: While unconditionally dumping more funds into schools may help to guarantee jobs, it won’t help the ones who need it the most. We’re all in good company now. In the first edition of “Education Stimulus Watch” (PDF) released this week, American Enterprise Institute adjunct fellow Andy Smarick makes a strong case for the unprecedented federal spending package to produce little or no positive results:

I don’t know about you, but some parents give their kids money for getting certain grades on a report card. Not mine (at least they tell me they’re not going to), but that’s a different story. If Colorado were getting money based on how well it treated charter schools, how would it do? The Center for Education Reform‘s new report Accountability Lies at the Heart of Charter School Success says Colorado’s charter school law merits a B. Only eight states do better. Further, though our state’s charters receive significantly less funding than their other public school counterparts, their overall performance is commendable: In 2007, 74 percent of charters made federal accountability targets of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) while only 59 percent of conventional public schools did the same. Charter middle schools in Colorado are making the grade as well. In 2006, 55 percent of middle school charters were rated excellent or high by the state Department of Education, compared with 41 percent of conventional public middle schools.

My tummy feels sick today — not because of something I ate, or any bug or anything. But because of the news that Congress’s latest spending binge includes a provision to take away school choice from some of the neediest kids in the nation’s capital. Watch the video from Voices of School Choice. These kids can tell you why it’s important for President Obama to stop what Congress is trying to do (H/T Matt Ladner): I’ll let the Wall Street Journal sum up with its excellent editorial today: On Tuesday, Mr. Obama spoke of the “historic investment in education” in the stimulus bill, which included a staggering, few-strings-attached $140 billion to the Department of Education over two years. But he also noted that “our schools don’t just need more resources; they need more reform,” and he expressed support for charter schools and other policies that “open doors of opportunity for our children.” If he means what he says, Mr. Obama won’t let his fellow Democrats consign 1,700 more poor kids to failing schools he’d never dream of letting his own daughters attend. Please do your part in asking the President to save the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. (And hope that […]

My parents say I’ve still got a lot to learn about civics and government, but it seems to me that the people running for President like to talk a lot more about education than they can actually do to help fix education. A major reason Presidential candidates talk about education as much as they do is all the money and political clout of the National Education Association (NEA) teachers union. As NEA has done every time, the union recently endorsed the Democratic candidate for President. Last week, Barack Obama gave an official acceptance speech to NEA’s big annual meeting via satellite. Obama said a lot of things the union delegates wanted to hear, but at one point he was loudly booed: Why? He suggested changing the way most teachers are paid, including more money given out based on performance. He also spoke highly of charter schools. Not too surprising, NEA officials edited out Barack Obama’s comments about merit pay and charter schools. Wow, this union really goes out of its way to block sensible reforms that benefit students, parents, and professional teachers! When you think about it, maybe it would be better if the Presidential candidates didn’t talk so much […]