devos talks

Here’s what Betsy DeVos had to say in Denver about DACA, student loans and opting out of state tests

PHOTO: Nic Garcia
U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos takes her seat at the Firefly Autism center in Denver.

U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s first multi-state school tour of her tenure took her Wednesday to a private Denver autism center, where she encouraged schools and parents to work together to better educate students with special needs.

After delivering remarks, DeVos took questions from reporters on issues ranging from President Donald Trump’s decision to end protections for young undocumented immigrants to her decision to reconsider guidance to colleges on sexual assault.

Chalkbeat also asked about the U.S. education department’s pushback on the state’s testing opt-out policy.

Below is a lightly edited transcript of the question-and-answer session:

Fox 31: Denver Public Schools has invited you to visit its schools after you criticized them for a lack of choice options in a speech several months ago. Why not visit Denver Public Schools while you’re here? And what would you like to see them do to meet your full approval?

It’s a privilege to be here in Denver. And I expect I will be returning to Denver in the not-too-distant future.

We have started a tour, the “Rethink Schools” tour, in Casper, Wyo., yesterday, where I did visit the Woods Learning Center — a public school in Casper. It was a great visit. It was really meant to highlight innovative ways schools are meeting their students’ needs. It was a school that has been teacher-led for 25 years with personalized learning programs for each of their students. We’re going on from here to Omaha, to Missouri, to Kansas City — both Kansas City, Kan., and Kansas City, Mo., Gary, Ind., and ending in Indianapolis.

We have a whole variety of schools we’re visiting over these four days. The purpose of our tour is really meant to highlight all the many different innovative ways schools are approaching meeting the needs of their kids.

Chalkbeat: You’re an adamant supporter of school choice, of parent choice. So is our State Board of Education. They have championed a policy of not holding schools accountable when parents opt out their students from state tests. But your department has pushed back on that policy, saying it does not comply with federal law. How would you like to see this disagreement resolved?

I’m looking forward to reading all the plans from 30-some states that are due next week, and I’m looking forward to seeing all the innovative ways states are going to address the needs of students in their states.

(Editor’s note: Colorado previously submitted its plan and is rewriting some sections based on the federal education department’s feedback.)

And everywhere I go, I encourage states and local communities — I think decisions are made best at the local source, and local location. And that comes right down to school buildings. I refer back to the one I visited yesterday where the teachers initiated, 25 years ago, a very different approach. And they are empowered to meet the needs of their students there directly. I think a lot more schools can take a lesson from what they’re doing in addressing the needs of their students in really unique ways.

Chalkbeat: In your speech yesterday, you called for far more individualization in education. Is there a place for the traditional school in the United States, or are you thinking they should be completely abolished?

Personalizing a child’s education is a direction many schools are looking to go. There have been lots of pilot programs and efforts around personalized learning. I think schools really need to take a close look at this: to keep students engaged, to make them look forward to their learning. And instead of continuing in a model that was started a century and a half ago, where it was based on time in seats, let’s reverse that and base it on what students are learning and allow them to move at their pace and as quickly as they can.

AP: Is your department issuing any guidance to colleges or universities on what to do with DACA students?

That issue is very much in the forefront. It’s really on Congress’s plate right now. I’ve said this on several occasions before: We’re a nation of laws. We’re also a very compassionate people. And as President Obama said when this was initially implemented, it was a temporary solution. Congress really needs to address this issue. And I believe they will do so. These students are here pursuing their learning and we owe it to them to make sure they know their future is clarified and defined.

AP: Your department is rewriting student loan forgiveness rules. Has the White House contacted you, or weighed in at all on that process?

This is an ongoing process. We have a new federal student aid director who is getting after a lot of issues that really are important to students — not only current students, but past students, as well. Our goal is to simplify both the application process and also the payment process. Repayment plans have been multiple, confusing — and we need to make sure that we put the students first. And students then become the customers in satisfying the repayment of student loans, that we are putting the customer first, and making sure we’re taking care of them from a customer service perspective that hasn’t been done in a really coherent way.

AP: Has there been any consultation with the White House on this? Have they reached out?

We work closely with the White House on every issue with which we’re involved.

Chalkbeat: Coming back to the Endrew F. court case, the Supreme Court stopped short of dictating what a higher standard looked like. Where is your department on issuing any sort of new guidance around that to public schools?

The department wants to be a resource to parents who are looking for further information and clarification. Obviously, the Supreme Court decision is very complicated. And there are a lot of issues in there, and a lot of terminology parents might have questions on. We set up an email address, [email protected], for any parent to contact us directly with questions. We want to be there to not provide guidance but support for and technical support for any of the issues they’re dealing with.

Chalkbeat: What do you want teachers across the country who work day in and day out with students with special needs in public schools to know about your position on the court case and what your department is doing to support them as well?

Teachers are critical in this whole subject and this whole area. Equally important are the parents. And the parents really know their child best. And they know what’s best for their child. And so it’s my encouragement that schools and parents work together to really address the needs of their kids. I think that we have a very clear mandate under federal law to do right by all students that are served, and particularly those who are navigating with disabilities. We can help flourish and help them be everything they are meant to be.

CPR: I’ve been looking into innovation a lot this past month. The truly innovative teachers tell me they need an administration that encourages risk-taking and failure. Principals often are consumed with test scores, and so it’s not happening on that level. For teachers who aren’t innovating, they say it’s the evaluation system. What are your thoughts on that?

I think there are a lot of ways over the last number of decades that we have stifled change and innovation in education. You couldn’t be more right in that the risk-adverse nature (exists).

I’d argue because of a top down approach, both at the federal level and at the state level as well. I think teachers need to be empowered much more. They are most close to their students. And good teachers are going to be able to get the best out of their students.

But if they’re not empowered to do that, it really does put a wet blanket over everything. So I think that change needs to come systemically. And it does need to be oriented around trying new things and engaging students in ways they haven’t been before. There are way too many students who by grades four, five or six are mentally checked out because their curiosity has died because they’ve been in a system that is much more regimented than it is creative and innovative.

We need to be helping them learn critical thinking skills, communication skills, to foster their creativity and to learn how to collaborate. That’s how we work in adult life and that’s how children need to be able to learn through their formative years.

Fox 31: On Title IX, what would you say to survivors who are worried that you want to dismantle everything that has happened during the last few years?

We are focused on doing what’s right for all students: survivors and everyone involved in the horrible case of sexual assaults. And we’re committed to doing what is right for all students.

Fact check

To back up claim that schools must change, DeVos cites made-up statistic about the future of work

PHOTO: Gabriel Scarlett/The Denver Post

In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos made a remarkable claim: “Children starting kindergarten this year face a prospect of having 65 percent of the jobs they will ultimately fill not yet having been created.”

This statistic bolsters DeVos’s view that schools need to radically change to accommodate a rapidly evolving economy.

But there’s a problem: that number appears to have no basis in fact.

A version of the 65 percent claim has been percolating for some time, across the world. After a number of British politicians repeated some iteration of the statistic, the BBC investigated its source.

That report found the claim gained popularity in a 2011 book by Cathy Davidson, a CUNY professor; this in turn was cited by a New York Times article. But attempts to track that claim back to an actual study have failed, which Davidson herself now concedes, saying she no longer uses the figure.

Others making the claim offer an even flimsier citation. For instance, a report released by the World Economic Forum says, “By one popular estimate, 65% of children entering primary school today will ultimately end up working in completely new job types,” and simply cites a series of popular YouTube videos (which doesn’t even appear to make that precise claim).

Some even say the number is higher: A Huffington Post headline said that “85% Of Jobs That Will Exist In 2030 Haven’t Been Invented Yet.” The piece links to a report by Dell, which bases the claim on “experts” at a workshop organized by a group called Institute for the Future.

In short, no one has pointed to any credible research that lands on the 65 percent figure. When asked for a source for DeVos’s statistic, a spokesperson for the Department of Education said the 65 percent figure “might be an underestimation,” pointing to the Dell report, which offers no specific sourcing.

Of course, making predictions about the future of work is inherently tricky. But a recent report by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated areas where the most new jobs would be created between 2016 and 2026. The positions included software application developers but also personal care aides, nurses, fast food workers, home health aides, waiters, and janitors — and though that’s less than 10 years in the future, these are mostly jobs that have been around for some time.

Sweeping, unsourced claims like this about the future economy are not uncommon — and seem to be a driving force behind some policymakers’ approach to education. The fact that DeVos’s go-to number isn’t backed up by evidence raises questions about the foundation of her view that schools need dramatic overhaul.

After citing the 65 percent figure, DeVos continued, saying, “You have to think differently about what the role of education and preparation is.”

study up

Trump education nominee pleads ignorance about high-profile voucher studies showing negative results

At his confirmation hearing, Mick Zais, the nominee to be second-in-command at the Department of Education, said that he was not aware of high-profile studies showing that school vouchers can hurt student achievement.

It was a remarkable acknowledgement by Zais, who said he supports vouchers and would report to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, whose signature issue has been expanding publicly funded private school choice programs.

The issue was raised by Minnesota Sen. Al Franken, who asked whether Zais, who was previously the South Carolina schools chief, was “aware of the research on the impact of vouchers on student achievement.”

He replied: “To the best of my knowledge, whenever we give parents an opportunity to choose a school that’s a good fit for their child the result is improved outcomes.”

Franken responded, “No, that’s not true. The academic outcomes for students who used vouchers to attend private school are actually quite abysmal.”

Franken proceeded to mention recent studies from Louisiana, Indiana, Ohio, and Washington, DC that showed declines in test scores after students move to private schools with a voucher.

Zais responded: “Senator, I was unaware of those studies that you cited.”

Franken then asked if Zais’s initial response expressing confidence in school choice was anecdotal, and Zais said that it was.

What’s surprising about Zais’s response is that these studies were not just published in dusty academic journals, but received substantial media attention, including in the New York Times and Washington Post (and Chalkbeat). They’ve also sparked significant debate, including among voucher supporters, who have argued against judging voucher programs based on short-term test scores.

Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that the research confusion was a bipartisan affair at Wednesday’s confirmation hearing.

Although Franken, who referred to a New York Times article on voucher research in his question, was broadly accurate in his description of the recent studies, he said that a DC voucher study showed “significantly lower math and reading scores”; in fact, the results were only statistically significant in math, not reading.

Franken also did not mention evidence that the initial negative effects abated in later years in Indiana and for some students in Louisiana, or discuss recent research linking Florida’s voucher-style tax credit program to higher student graduation rates.

In a separate exchange, Washington Sen. Patty Murray grilled Jim Blew — the administration’s nominee for assistant secretary for planning, evaluation, and policy development — on the performance of Michigan’s charter schools. Murray said that DeVos was “one of the architects of Detroit’s charter school system,” describing the results as “disastrous for children.”

Blew disputed this: “The characterization of the charter school sector in Detroit as being a disaster seems unfair. The most reliable studies are saying, indeed, the charter school students outperform the district students.”

Murray responded: “Actually, Michigan’s achievement rates have plummeted for all kids. In addition, charter schools in Michigan are performing worse than traditional public schools.”

(Murray may be referring to an Education Trust analysis showing that Michigan ranking on NAEP exams have fallen relative to other states. The study can’t show why, or whether school choice policies are the culprit, as some have claimed.)

Blew answered: “The most reliable studies do show that the charter school students in Detroit outperform their peers in the district schools.”

Murray: “I would like to see that because that’s not the data that we have.”

Blew: “I will be happy to get if for you; it’s done by the Stanford CREDO operation.”

Murray: “I’m not aware of that organization.”

CREDO, a Stanford-based research institution, has conducted among the most widely publicized — and sometimes disputed — studies of charter schools. The group’s research on Detroit does show that the city’s charter students were outperforming similar students in district schools, though the city’s students are among the lowest-performing in the country on national tests.