The Politics Behind the Education Secretary Vote

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government reviews the politics of the vote to approve the new Secretary of Education

The Democrats’ chances in the 2018 election were almost extinguished yesterday due to their attempt to prevent the nomination of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education.

Oddly enough, it was only the tie-breaking vote by Republican Vice President Mike Pence, which insured the success of President Trump’s nominee, that shielded Democrats from the wrath of parents who have rebelled against attempts to block reform of America’s failing public school system.

DeVos is a staunch advocate of vouchers and charter schools. That enraged the leadership of teachers’ unions, who used their powerful influence within the Democrat Party to mount a drive to stop her approval.

Her home state of Michigan has had charter schools since 1993. According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, there 307 charter schools in Michigan.

Devos has also been an advocate for more state and local, rather than federal, control of schools. A support letter signed by twenty governors stated:

“As governors, we know the conditions placed on local schools by the federal government. While state and local governments bear the chief responsibility for funding our K-12 systems, we take issue with many of the mandates imposed on states. That is why we strongly support Betsy DeVos, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of education. Betsy DeVos will fight to streamline the federal education bureaucracy, return authority back to states and local school boards, and ensure that more dollars are reaching the classroom. Betsy DeVos also is a passionate supporter of increasing parental engagement in their children’s education and of harnessing the power of competition to drive improvement in all K-12 schools, whether they be public, private or virtual.”

DeVos was also heavily involved in the passage of a Right to Work bill in Michigan, which won her the opposition of unions throughout the nation.
This feature of the generic drugs makes these products http://www.slovak-republic.org/author/admin/ tadalafil for sale cheap really coveted items. As Kamagra Polo inhibits PDE5, it effectively allows cGMP to work properly towards healthy erections.Can anyone take Kamagra Polo?If you are considering to buy Kamagra Polo with discount in a round shape practiced erectile dysfunction calming medicine, which has to be practiced with empty stomach to after a light meal Advised to soft cialis mastercard take it 30-60 minutes prior to the activity so as to allow proper. generic cialis pills Many past customers say a few of these drug suppliers haven’t been authenticated or certified by the US FDA. Not only does the Fellowship Church have various community based and international humanitarian projects levitra professional samples running currently, but also various outreach programs that are overseen by Pastor Ed Young himself.
The problem for Democrats is that Charter schools and school vouchers are very popular in the U.S., and that popularity extends also to core elements of Democrat Party support.

A survey by Public Charters.org reports that:

“Survey results…showed that…parents across the country (78 percent) favor allowing parents to choose their child’s public school, regardless of where they live. Support is even higher among African-American parents (82 percent), Hispanic parents (84 percent), and low-income parents (86 percent). ‘Parents across the nation are telling us that they want to be able to choose the best public school for their child, and the results from this survey reinforce the demand for more high-quality charter schools,’ said Nina Rees, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. ‘Today, nearly 3 million students are enrolled in about 7,000 charter schools, but there are still numerous students on wait lists. These results should make it clear to our nation’s leaders that they need to make charter school access a priority.’

“Nationwide, support for public school choice among parents outweighs opposition by an almost five-to-one margin (78 percent to 17 percent). Opposition to charter schools, specifically, remains at only 16 percent. “

A Boston Herald report captured the sentiment of many inner city minorities, who are angered at the role of white liberals in opposing school choice. “You are hurting our children — not yours. Do you actually care what happens to little black and brown children? No, you don’t’ said Dawn Foye, a Roxbury mother who sends her son to Kipp Academy in Mattapan.

“Harvard and MIT researchers have issued a number of reports analyzing charter schools in Boston. The most comprehensive report is Kane, Let the Numbers Have Their Say (2016). It covers every issue and concludes: ‘… many charter schools in Boston and other urban areas in Massachusetts are generating gains in achievement that are large enough to close achievement gaps by race and income over time. It is an historic achievement, and it’s no wonder that thousands of students in Boston and other low-income urban centers in the state would prefer such schools over their district schools.’”

The Report concludes tomorrow

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.