Williams: It’s Not What Trump’s Education Department Will Do That Should Worry Critics; It’s What It Won’t Do
There has been a lot of public concern surrounding Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, with many speculating about the potential harm she may cause to public schools. When she was nominated, people wondered if she would fulfill President Trump’s promise to convert federal funding for high-poverty schools into a voucher system. Liberals became even more concerned when they saw Trump’s proposed budget, which indicated significant cuts to teacher training in favor of school choice. In a recent talk, DeVos hinted that her department might encourage states to expand school choice.
Many people are worried about DeVos and see her as a threat to public education, especially in the Trump era where suspicious facts and seemingly unconnected events often lead to conspiracy theories. However, most of this concern is misguided. DeVos’s ability to advance her agenda is limited due to the restrictions Congress put on the Department of Education at the end of the Obama administration. Additionally, the general public’s lack of interest in education as a political issue will also hinder DeVos’s ability to make significant changes. While Americans may express concern about public education, they generally have confidence in their own schools. Therefore, any major changes to the education system would be met with more risks than rewards.
Critics who expect DeVos to be an active advocate for major change in education will likely be disappointed. Her "sins" against public education are more likely to be a result of inaction rather than deliberate action.
To understand the difference between deliberate action and inaction, imagine you have a set of fragile wine glasses that are valuable to you. Despite their fragility, you decide to put them in the dishwasher after a rowdy party. The next morning, you discover that the glasses are broken, and your relationship with your partner is damaged. This is a sin of deliberate action, where you knew the consequences but did it anyway.
In contrast, sins of inaction are harder to recognize. Imagine that after the party, you neglect to clean up the mess and instead go to bed. The next morning, you wake up to find the mess still there, along with some unwelcome guests in the kitchen. This is a sin of inaction, where you didn’t do anything wrong, but you missed an opportunity to do something right.
When it comes to DeVos, critics should spend less time worrying about whether she is trying to promote a religious agenda and focus more on the things she is neglecting to do. In an interview after her confirmation, DeVos expressed skepticism about the federal government’s role in overseeing public education. She acknowledged the need for government involvement in the past when there were segregated schools and limited opportunities for girls, but she couldn’t think of any current issues that required attention from her department.
This perspective is either cynical or naive. Those who work in education know that school segregation is still a problem today and that states often misuse federal education funding. That’s why DeVos’s potential deliberate actions should be less concerning than they currently are. If she follows Trump’s budget plan and tries to eliminate major sources of federal funding, it will create even more problems for an administration that already faces numerous challenges.
This is the area where critics of DeVos should focus their attention. It is true that sins of omission are not always easily visible. It is not as simple to determine that the Department of Education failed to take action as it is to loudly express anger when it does. Will people across the nation be outraged if the department neglects to investigate claims of English-language learners being denied access to education in places like Arizona, Cincinnati, or Charleston? Will anyone complain if the department permits states to relax oversight and accountability for persistently failing schools?
Furthermore, it is more challenging to stir up controversy regarding DeVos’s inaction on civil rights or federal accountability because any criticism would require presenting a convincing alternative course of action that she should have taken. For instance, if DeVos advocated for a national transgender bathroom policy, there would likely be a strong backlash. However, if her department fails to address current and future transgender civil rights complaints, it will be difficult to generate opposition against her.
So, is Secretary DeVos going to "destroy public education"? It appears that she is dedicated to a sustained campaign against it: DeVos regularly belittles the performance of public schools. She disparaged teachers at a middle school in Washington, D.C. during her visit, labeling them as passive and in "receive mode." In her speech at Brookings, she expressed her belief that it would be challenging for U.S. public education to deteriorate any further.
However, the real harm is much more likely to stem from what DeVos fails to do.
Author
