ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

John Stossel: Hating DeVos

| Friday, May 11, 2018, 8:57 p.m.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos speaks during a discussion with first lady Melania Trump and students regarding the issues they are facing in the Blue Room of the White House in Washington, Monday, April 9, 2018. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos speaks during a discussion with first lady Melania Trump and students regarding the issues they are facing in the Blue Room of the White House in Washington, Monday, April 9, 2018. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

People hate Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

When she spoke at the Kennedy School of Government, students held up signs calling her a “white supremacist.” When she tried to visit a school, activists physically blocked her way.

The haters claim DeVos knows little about education, only got her job because she gave money to Republican politicians and hates free public education.

Of course, education isn't really “free.” Taxpayers spend $634 billion a year on it. It's laughable that activists claim conservatives “cut” education spending. Funds per student tripled over the past several decades, while test scores stayed flat.

Some of that failure is because of what DeVos really opposes: government's education bureaucracy.

The department she inherited is a good example of that. K-12 schools are controlled and funded locally, but taxpayers are forced to ship education money to Washington, D.C., where bureaucrats there grab some, and then ship the rest back — with strings attached.

President Reagan tried to get rid of the Department of Education. He failed. Since then, it's only grown. It now spends $193.1 billion a year.

DeVos proposed a mere $9 billion in cuts. But nothing goes away in Washington, no matter how wasteful. The Republican Congress ignored her proposed cuts and increased her budget by $2 billion.

DeVos, like some other agency heads appointed by President Trump, resists expanding the federal bureaucracy. People hate her for that, and for being rich.

Her father built a company that became worth more than a billion dollars. Then she married into the Amway marketing fortune. Walter Shaub, former head of the Office of Government Ethics, told CNN, “DeVos's primary expertise seems to be in being a rich person.”

I asked DeVos about the charge that she “bought her position.”

“Yes, I have been a contributor,” she said. “I've also been an activist. I think it's important for people to engage in things that they believe in. But that's not the point. The point is for 30 years I have been working on behalf of families that have not had opportunity.”

She benefited from the free market. Now she wants to bring those benefits to students who've been badly treated by government-run schools.

She donated to charter and private schools and served on the boards of groups that promote education choice. None of that counts as expertise, says the education establishment.

“What she has done is actually made schooling worse in Michigan,” ranted teachers union boss Randi Weingarten on MSNBC. “Eighty percent of the charter schools in Detroit are failing.”

Some Detroit schools are doing badly, acknowledges DeVos, but charter students do “demonstrably better than the students in traditional public schools.”

She's right. A Stanford study found that kids at Detroit charter schools get months of additional learning every year compared to their public school peers. Choice did help.

Parents in the rest of the country deserve that opportunity, too.

“We need to do something different,” says DeVos. “This country is on a trajectory to failure, ultimately, if we do not turn around how we educate kids.”

John Stossel is author of “No They Can't! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me