Truth in American Education

Fighting to stop the Common Core State Standards, their Assessments and Student Data Mining.

  • Home
  • About Us
    • TAE Advocates
    • Network Participants
    • Related Websites
  • Common Core State Standards
    • National Education Standards
    • Gates Foundation & NCEE Influence
    • State Costs for Adopting and Implementing the Common Core State Standards
    • National Curriculum
    • Common Core State Standards Content
      • Standard Algorithms in the Common Core State Standards
    • Myths Versus Facts
    • States Fighting Back Map
    • Closing the Door on Innovation
    • CCSSI Development Teams
  • Common Core Assessments
    • Opt Out Info
  • Race To The Top
    • District-Level Race to the Top–Race to the Top IV
  • Resources
    • Legislative Bills Against CCSS
    • Pioneer Institute White Papers
    • Model Resolutions
    • Parents’ & Educators’ Executive Order
    • CC = Conditions + Coercion + Conflict of Interest
  • Audio & Video
  • Privacy Issues and State Longitudinal Data Systems
    • Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems
  • ESEA/NCLB
    • Statements and Proposed Plans
    • Every Child Achieves Act July 2015
    • Student Success Act
    • Every Child Ready for College or Career Act
    • No Child Left Behind Waivers
    • ESEA Blueprint, Briefing Book, and Position Paper
  • Home School/Private School
  • Action Center
    • Parent and Community Action Plan
    • Stop CCSSI ToolKit
    • Sign Up or Contact TAE

Betsy DeVos Now Criticized for Giving Too Much Flexibility to States

November 29, 2017 By Shane Vander Hart

U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos can’t make anyone happy. I’ve highlighted how the U.S. Department of Education was criticized (rightly) for being nitpicky toward state accountability plans.

Now the Senate HELP Committee Ranking Member, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), accused her of approving plans that flaunt federal law.

Education Week reports:

Addressing Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., the committee chairman, Murray said, “If the department is today ignoring the agreement we made in the law and just choosing to implement whatever it feels like—which I believe they are in their approval of state plans so far—then this committee needs to hear from the secretary directly about how she intends to follow the laws that Congress agrees to.”

This isn’t a brand-new criticism from Murray, but rather a somewhat fleshed-out version of a previous complaint.

In a confirmation hearing for several Education Department nominees earlier this month, Murray made a general allusion to this concern. On Tuesday, Murray was a little more specific in her concerns about ESSA plans and how the law handles school improvement. But she didn’t single out the state or states she was worried about.

First, these remarks by Murray demonstrate that ESSA never gave true local control back to states. How stringently the law is enforced will depend on the administration. It is clear Murray expected there to be clear boundaries for states to stay within. Again, I say, that’s not local control

Secondly, if Murray has a concern, she should spell it out. Name names. It’s difficult to address or refute a challenge that is hopelessly vague. If she is going to make comments like these, she needs to bring up specifics – specific plans and the particular text in the law that plan violates.

Third, the only way for Congress to avoid political games like these is to repeal ESSA and genuinely devolve control of education policymaking back to the states. While states have to continue to ask “Mother, may I?” with the U.S. Department of Education they do not have control.

Filed Under: Elementary and Secondary Education Act Tagged With: Betsy DeVos, Every Student Succeeds Act, Lamar Alexander, Patty Murray, Senate HELP Committee

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Phone
  • Twitter

States Fighting Back

https://app.box.com/s/10nl1409mkaf00zzzuyf

CCSS Opt-Out Form

  • Click here to download the CCSS Opt-Out Form

Campbell’s Law

"The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor."

- Donald Campbell

Copyright © 2021 Truth in American Education · Developed & Hosted by 4:15 Communications, LLC.