Does this sound familiar? Betsy DeVos went to Capitol Hill to testify before U.S. lawmakers. She didn’t answer a lot of direct questions and engaged in some contentious debates with some members.
That happened in January when she went before the Senate education committee for her confirmation hearing, during which she said schools needed guns to protect against grizzly bears. This time, the education secretary didn’t talk about guns, but she did say that states should have the right to decide whether private schools that accept publicly funded voucher students should be allowed to discriminate against students for whatever reason they want.
DeVos testified before the House subcommittee on labor, health and human services, education and related agencies about the Trump administration’s 2018 budget proposal, which would cut $10.6 billion — or more than 13 percent — from education programs and re-invest $1.4 billion of the savings into promoting school choice.
Both DeVos and President Trump have said expanding alternatives to traditional public schools are their top priority, and during tough questioning from some committee members, DeVos doubled down on that as well as on giving states and local communities flexibility to do what they want with their education programs. It is worth noting, however, that she said recently that people who don’t agree with expanding school choice are “flat Earthers,” people who refuse to face the facts.
Most of the contentious conversation was between DeVos and Democratic members, but even the Republican chairman of the subcommittee, Tom Cole of Oklahoma, took gentle issue with her about cuts in a favored program of his, and another Republican questioned her about her claim that she was following congressional intent.
Here are five rather startling things she said — or wouldn’t say:
1. States should have the flexibility to decide whether private schools that accept students with publicly funded vouchers can discriminate against any student for any reason.
Rep. Katherine M. Clark (D-Mass.) said that one private school in Indiana that is a voucher school says it may deny admission to students who are LGBT or who come from a family where there is “homosexual or bisexual activity.” She asked DeVos whether she would tell the state of Indiana that it could not discriminate in that way if it were to accept federal funding through a new school choice program. Clark further asked what DeVos would say if a voucher school were not accepting African American students and the state “said it was okay.”
To Clark’s question about whether she would step in, DeVos responded: “Well again, the Office of Civil Rights and our Title IX protections are broadly applicable across the board, but when it comes to parents making choices on behalf of their students …”
Clark interrupted and said, “This isn’t about parents making choices, this is about the use of federal dollars. Is there any situation? Would you say to Indiana, that school cannot discriminate against LGBT students if you want to receive federal dollars? Or would you say the state has the flexibility?”
DeVos said: “I believe states should continue to have flexibility in putting together programs …”
Clark interrupted, saying: “So if I understand your testimony — I want to make sure I get this right. There is no situation of discrimination or exclusion that if a state approved it for its voucher program that you would step in and say that’s not how we are going to use our federal dollars?”
DeVos said she didn’t want to answer a hypothetical question. Clark said it wasn’t hypothetical, and asked if she saw any circumstance that the federal government would tell a state that it could not allow a private voucher school to discriminate against students.
At that point time expired, but DeVos was allowed to respond.
DeVos: “I go back to the bottom line — is we believe parents are the best equipped to make choices for their children’s schooling and education decisions, and too many children are trapped in schools that don’t work for them. We have to do something different. We have to do something different than continuing a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach. And that is the focus. And states and local communities are best equipped to make these decisions.”
Clark: “I am shocked that you cannot come up with one example of discrimination that you would stand up for students.”
The chairman of the subcommittee said she wasn’t required to answer. She didn’t and the discussion moved on.
2. States should have the flexibility to decide whether students with disabilities who are using publicly funded vouchers to pay for private-school tuition should still be protected under the IDEA federal law.
Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), who is the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, discussed the federal Individual With Disabilities in Education Act, which provides federal protections for students with disabilities.
Lowey noted that in voucher and voucher-like programs in which public money is used to pay for private school tuition and educational expenses, families are often required to sign away their IDEA protections, including due process when a school fails to meet a child’s needs. Lowey asked DeVos if she thought that was fair.
DeVos responded that it should be up to the states to decide how to run their own programs, and then she referred to a tax credit program in Florida, where tens of thousands of students with disabilities attend private school with public money. Florida is one of those states that requires voucher recipients to give up their IDEA rights.
“Each state deals with this issue in their own manner,” she said.
3. High-poverty school districts get more funding than low-poverty schools.
The reason the federal government has a funding program that is meant to bolster high-poverty schools — called Title I — is because state and local school funding in the United States mainly favors wealthier areas. Title I, however, does not equalize the playing field, and the Trump administration’s budget is proposing using $1 billion in Title I funds for a school choice “portability” program, meaning there would be less money for traditional public schools. Congress rejected such a program during conversations in 2015 about the federal K-12 law Every Student Succeeds Act, which replaced No Child Left Behind.
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.) noted that the proposed education budget’s Title I plan would reduce funding to high-poverty schools, according to numerous experts, and she asked DeVos whether she believes that high-poverty school districts should get “more funding resources” than schools with lower levels of poverty.
DeVos said, “Yes, I think the reality is that they do receive higher levels of funding.”
Later, Roybal-Allard asked her more specifically about federal funds: “Just to be clear … you do agree that high-poverty schools should receive more federal resources than lower levels of poverty schools? Was that your testimony?”
Devos responded: “Yes, I think that this is the case.”
Roybal-Allard said, “They don’t,” and continued to press DeVos.
In her first answer, the secretary said she believed high-poverty school districts do get more funding than wealthier districts, which is most often not true. In the second response, she said she believes high-poverty school districts get more federal funding than wealthier districts. That is not always true.
4. The administration is not shifting money for public schools in the budget in order to fund school choice experiments.
It is. If there are cuts to public schools, and there is new money going to school choice, that can’t mean anything else.
5. DeVos wouldn’t say whether private and religious schools that accept students paying with public funds should be accredited or held accountable in the same way that traditional public schools are.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) discussed a private school that took public dollars even though it said students could learn how to read by simply putting a hand on a book. He asked her if she was “going to have accountability standards” in any new school choice program.
Her response: States should decide “what kind of flexibility they are going to allow.”
As noted earlier, Democrats gave her the toughest questions, but some Republicans didn’t give her a total pass. Committee Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.) asked her about proposed cuts to a college preparation program called TRIO, of which he said he is a “big fan.” Cole said it has produced 5 million college graduates and he has seen the impact in his district. He then asked her about the administration’s proposed cuts.
She said that the parts the administration seeks to eliminate are “outside of the original intent of the TRIO programs.”
Later, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) asked her: “If we fund those programs would they then be within congressional intent?”
She responded: “If that’s how you define it, I guess they would be.”
(Clarification: Making it clear that high-poverty school districts most often do not get more funding than wealthier districts.)
Here is her opening testimony as provided by the Education Department:
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member DeLauro and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2018.
I look forward to talking about how we can work together to improve educational opportunities and outcomes for all students while also refocusing the Federal role in education.
OUR MISSION TO HELP STUDENTS SUCCEED
While today’s hearing is meant to focus on the numbers and mechanics of the budget, I hope we’ll all remember our goal and our purpose: how to best serve America’s students.
Allow me to share just one example:
I recently met a young man — Michael — whose story truly spoke to me. Michael grew up in East Hartford, Connecticut, in a low-income neighborhood. He was an average student throughout elementary and middle school, but that all changed when he reached the district high school.
Michael described a school where students were the real ones in charge of the class, and they would make it impossible for the teacher to teach.
He was constantly bullied, to the point he was afraid to even go to the school’s bathroom, and this constant fear made him hate school. He described the school he was assigned to as, and I quote, “nothing more than adult day care … a dangerous daycare.”
But even though he was failing his classes, the school simply passed him along from year-to-year, giving him D’s and sending the not-so-subtle message that they didn’t think Michael would amount to much.
Michael got a diploma, but not an education.
Michael followed the path he thought he was destined for, working in a low-skill, low-wage job. But with the encouragement of his wife, Michael took a course at the local community college to see what was possible for him. He found an environment that was invested in his success, and much to his surprise, Michael earned an A. He thought it was a fluke. So he took more classes, and lo and behold, he earned more A’s. He’s now in the school’s honors program with the goal of working as an emergency room nurse.
His success is America’s success. Access to a quality education is the path to the American dream.
So I ask you to keep Michael, and countless other students like him, in mind as we go about our shared work to support America’s students. No student should feel they attend a “dangerous daycare.” No child’s dreams should be limited by the quality, or lack thereof, of the education they receive.
INVESTING IN PROGRAMS THAT WORK
This budget lays out a series of proposals and priorities that work toward ensuring every student has an equal opportunity to receive a great education. It focuses on returning decision-making power and flexibility to the states, where it belongs, and giving parents more control over their child’s education.
Parents deserve that right, and frankly, that right has been denied for too long. We cannot allow any parent to feel their child is trapped in a school that isn’t meeting his or her unique needs.
The budget also reflects a series of tough choices. If taxpayer money were limitless, we wouldn’t need a budget at all. But by its very definition, a budget reflects the difficult decisions of how best to appropriate the limited taxpayer dollars we have. This budget does so by putting an emphasis on the programs that are proven to help students, while taking a hard look at programs that are well-intended but simply haven’t yielded meaningful results.
This is why the President’s fiscal year 2018 budget would reduce overall funding for Department programs by $9 billion, or 13 percent. I’ve seen the headlines, and I understand those figures may sound alarming for some; however, this budget refocuses the Department on supporting States and school districts in their efforts to provide high-quality education to all our students. At the same time, the budget simplifies funding for college, while continuing to help make a higher education more accessible to all.
FIVE PRINCIPLES GUIDING THE BUDGET REQUEST
I’d like to outline the principles that guided our decision-making.
First, our request would devote significant resources toward giving every student an equal opportunity for a great education. It emphasizes giving parents more power and students more opportunities.
Second, the Administration’s request recognizes the importance of maintaining strong support for public schools through longstanding State formula grant programs focused on meeting the educational needs of the nation’s most vulnerable students, including poor and minority students and students with disabilities.
Third, our request maintains funding for key competitive grant programs that support innovation and build evidence of what works in education. This also means strong support for the research and data collection activities of the Department.
Fourth, our request reduces the complexity of funding for college while prioritizing efforts to help make a college education accessible for low-income students. As Congress prepares to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, I look forward to working with you to address student debt and higher education costs while accelerating and improving student completion rates through such efforts as Year-Round Pell, and reducing the complexity of student financial aid.
And fifth, consistent with our commitment to improve the efficiency of the Federal government, our request would eliminate or phase-out 22 programs that are duplicative, ineffective, or are better supported through State, local or philanthropic efforts. Six additional programs were already eliminated in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. All told, taxpayers will save $5.8 billion.
EMPOWERING PARENTS AND STATES, HELPING STUDENTS
In total, the President’s budget fulfills his promise to devolve power from the Federal government and place it in the hands of parents and families. It refocuses the Department on supporting States in their efforts to provide a high-quality education to all of our students.
Research shows that increasing education options can have positive effects on students generally, and an even greater impact on poor and minority students. If we truly want to provide better education to underserved communities, then we must start with giving parents and students the power to select high-quality schools that meet their needs.
I want to unleash a new era of creativity and ingenuity in the education space. My hope is that — working in concert with each of you — we can make education in America the envy of the rest of the world.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share the Administration’s vision for improving education across the country. I look forward to respond to any questions you may have.