Well, you didn’t ask me, but I’ll answer anyway.
So, are you saying that previous people who held the position were just as under qualified or are you just saying that they had some of the same views and agendas as DeVos and did a horrible job?
They had the same views and agendas as DeVos. So, that takes the “she’s going to destroy public education” objection off the table.
However, to me, the question of “is DeVos qualified” is not as easy to answer as you think it is. If you read in detail on what she’s done, she knows the *business* and *politics* of education as well as anyone. But, they didn’t ask her about those in the hearings. What they asked her (outside of Lizzie Warren’s unhinged questions about had she ever run a bank or not) was about pedagogy, and that’s not what she knows, having never been a teacher. It’s also a reversal from prior Sect of Ed’s, who were almost always picked from the ranks of School Superintendants who had prior experience as a teacher and a principal.
If it seems odd to you that somebody could be suited for the Sect Ed job without ever having seen the inside of a classroom, consider the fact that the CEO’s of major hospitals are almost never M.D.’s.
They’ve always been there and they’ve always spoken up. It’s just that now they can be heard much more easily.
True. And what social media is teaching us — — and rapidly — is that although everyone now has a voice and a platform, not everyone has something constructive to contribute to the conversation. The entire DeVos dustup illustrates that, and is the point to Mr. Payne’s article — — all these people who knew nothing about education and its stresses over the years were expressing strong opinions — — but had they had any knowledge of the situation, they’d know that Obama had the same agenda as DeVos.