One tiebreaking vote by the vice president.
On that slender a margin, Betsy DeVos—the billionaire philanthropist, GOP mega-donor, and school choice advocate who has no direct experience in public schools—was confirmed as Secretary of Education following a 50-50 split vote in the U.S. Senate.
High drama preceded the floor vote when two republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, broke ranks and declared they would not vote to confirm DeVos, citing high constituent opposition.
Their announcement touched off a massive last-ditch effort to produce one more scale-tipping defection, but to no avail despite an historic overload of the congressional phone system. Not even an all-night rally organized by congressional democrats on the eve of the vote was able to break the stalemate.
Relevant experience
DeVos’s lack of public school experience cut both ways during the battle over her confirmation. Former Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman, who introduced her at the start of the Senate HELP Committee hearing, extolled it as an asset because “the nation needed a disruptor to fix its ailing schools.”
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) expanded upon this theme as the floor vote neared, noting that DeVos is an outsider, not just “another education bureaucrat who knows all the acronyms.” To him, what opponents of DeVos really want is “to keep power over public education right here inside the beltway.”
Nevertheless, the limitations of such a credential became apparent during her hearing. DeVos stumbled when Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) asked if all schools receiving taxpayer funding should be required to meet the requirements of IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), first replying that the matter was better left to the states, and then acknowledging that she may have confused the law.
When asked by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) for her view on using tests to measure whether students are making progress, as opposed to focusing on whether students meet proficiency standards, DeVos suggested that advancements should be the measure, leading Franken to reply that growth is not proficiency and to express surprise that she didn’t seem to know the issue.
Conflict of interest
DeVos underwent an extensive review by the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) for conflict of interest issues, an effort that delayed the final vote until the OGE report was available to each member of the senate committee. In the end she agreed to divest from 102 companies and investment funds.
Committee democrats asked that the floor vote on DeVos be delayed to allow for additional inquiries on potential conflicts based on the OGE report, a request denied by the chair, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who noted that DeVos had already provided answers to 837 written questions from the senators.
Ironically, those answers gave rise to a side controversy as some appeared to have been lifted from older documents prepared by staff in the Justice and Education departments.
School choice and public education
Central to DeVos’s perspective on improving education is the conviction that school choice, including charter, magnet, and private options, must be available to parents of children whose learning needs are not met by the local public school.
“If confirmed, I will be a strong advocate for great public schools,” she explained in her opening statement to the committee, but added that if a school is troubled, unsafe, or not a good fit for a child, parents should have the right to “a high quality alternative.”
Sen. Murray (D-WA) challenged DeVos on this point, asking if she would commit not “to privatize public schools or cut a single penny for public education.” The nominee countered that she would work to address the needs of all parents and students while empowering parents to make choices on behalf of their children. It was a pivotal exchange that marked a clear divide.
Charter schools proved to be another flare-up issue. DeVos has successfully advocated for charter school options in her home state of Michigan. However, the performance of Michigan charter schools has been a matter of continuing controversy. Critics have zeroed in on the accountability of these institutions, which they claim is minimal at best.
DeVos rejects any such characterization, calling it “false news.” She maintains that these schools remain accountable to their oversight bodies, and that 122 of these schools have been closed in Michigan since the state first authorized them.
Civil rights groups, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association seized on DeVos’s school choice views to mount a major publicity effort to block her confirmation due to concerns that choice continues inequity between minority and white students. Meanwhile, 18 republican state governors circulated a letter supporting her for the same reason.
The challenges ahead
Since DeVos was first nominated, an intense debate has been ignited on education policy. A vision predicated on the strength of existing models is now confronted by one that draws its power from taking a different tack.
The assumption that vital progress has been made and is best preserved by current approaches now faces the charge that those approaches have outlived their time and become obstacles to achieving the student learning breakthroughs most sought after.
As if these deepening rifts were not daunting enough, the discourse needed to bridge them is vexed by presumptions of exclusive legitimacy and assertions of settled fact that all but preclude the finding of common ground. References to what is “mainstream” and what is “troubling” have become a reflexive frame. All is counterpoint, and the result is paralysis.
Much of the current impasse centers on the respective roles of the federal and state governments. For many, Washington is the only real guardian and guarantor of equal educational opportunity. For others, Washington has become an overbearing national school board whose funding-tied regulatory reach too often puts undue burdens on local officials and classroom teachers.
At this turning point, critical questions seek urgent resolution. What should be considered indispensable in public education, and what can fairly be put in play? Which existing regulatory mandates ought to be preserved, and where should new options be tried instead? What is the appropriate educational use of taxpayer dollars? Right now a workable consensus appears almost out of reach.
Amidst the ferment, literacy professionals continue to grapple day in and day out with instructional realities that lie beyond political paradigms and school system structures. To succeed in this time of upheaval, teachers and school administrators need to hold fast to research-informed approaches to literacy education. With that fealty, forward progress can always be made.
Dan Mangan is the Director of Public Affairs at the International Literacy Association.
