Betsy DeVos. She bought her way into becoming the head of the Dept of Education. Not sure why she would a want a job she’s not even remotely qualified for if she can afford to NOT take it. I mean, sure, we’ve all applied for a job we had NO BUSINESS asking about, but we also (1) weren’t submitting to be the head of anything, most likely, and (2) could not afford to NOT apply (read: broke).
So did she buy her job so she could basically get paid to hang out with her friends? It seems to me if you can buy your way into the head of governmental agency, you can probably hang out with them for free. Plus, government jobs don’t pay that well, in comparison to her independent wealth.
I have read she was hired for the same reason all of Dump’s cronies were hired: to dismantle her department. I’m already insanely angry that the special education part of the department website has gone AWOL so at first blush one would think dismantling the Department of Education would be a no-brainer bad idea… right?
Maybe. Let’s back up for a minute. After all, before the Dump debacle began many of my Loyal Angry Followers and Fellow Angry Persons were throwing up our hands in disgust, wringing our hands in dismay, and pulling out our hair in disbelief at the current state of the broken systems. The best solution, we conjectured at that time, was to start over. But how? It seemed not only impossible but insane. To tear down the entire government and start again… would require a revolution of colonial proportions, wouldn’t it?
Careful what you wish for, I suppose. The biggest hiccup I see from here is that when Dump screws up, he files for protection under bankruptcy. That’s not a viable option to the government. But let’s work through our hypothesis-turned-potential-reality.
Some argue that dismantling the Dept of Ed gives a free-for-all states rights bonanza on education, with zero accountability or guidelines. I can see that. I will likely never forget the story I heard a long time ago about the valedictorian of a high school attending college when she had never seen, let alone used, a microscope before. While she had earned the highest grades in her high school, they were shoddy by comparison to others. Think about a major in, oh let’s just say English Literature (cough, cough). If I had gotten it at Oxford or Harvard, or any other of the Ivy Leagues, I could probably land a fantastic job at a publishing house as an editor. But, if I got it at the local university, even with my various academic scholarships, no one outside the city is going to care. At all. Even a little. So who is to blame for this uneven approach to education and is it even a reality with the internet allowing nearly anyone to find any thing about almost anything in history at any time?
Seems like a lot of schools now give their kids laptops and internet access. It would appear, on the surface, poor grades are somewhat of a choice if you’re given access to a world of information and choose to not to use it. Further, if you know what school you want to get into and what their entrance requirements are, then you know what you need to do. Some people don’t want or need higher education per se, but perhaps just vocational training. Some don’t even need or want that.
That said, not every state can afford to educate their children the same way, and none spend the same amount of money per student. So even if the Dept of Ed is dismantled and its “fight to the death” in each state for education, it’s still going likely to be horribly mismatched in terms of funding.
I still think, in my humble opinion, a bare minimum standard should be maintained by the Dept of Ed, lest some greedy people decided to divert education funding further to other projects that they deem worthy. But what do I know?