In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On January 19 2017 04:46 Mohdoo wrote: Are any republicans around here skeptical of Devos? She seems blatantly and hugely inexperienced. I am assuming there are plenty of republicans that support many of the same things while also being people who are at least involved in this type of thing.
Danglars might know the most, but he's gone for a few months.
Howevet from what I've read and seen most of this is partisan or ideological gnashing of teeth. These hearings are useless anyways. Don't make waves and coast by. I've seen no evidence of any competency issue and I'm not going to trust NPR snippets to find out.
Her answers aren't partisan, and the questions aren't biased either. Here's the perfect example... that she has absolutely no idea that a huge issue in education (and assessment of learning) is related to the Proficiency vs. Growth argument.
Question is asked around 1:30.
What's partisan about that? She doesn't know the difference between educational proficiency and educational growth, and it's not like liberals prefer one while conservatives prefer the other o.O Al Franken is spot on about how important this is in education.
DPB's horror is par the course in this thread so I can't say more :p
What's that mean
I was talking about the questions from Senators are usually partisan and often irrelevent.
From the clip I saw her speaking for all of 20 seconds, which is why I give very little weight to these things.
And that last comment is a remark on the fact that often times when you come into this thread you talk as if the worst thing in the world has just happened
Now full disclosure, I don't have 3.5 hours to watch even one hearing, normally if there is a competency issue it will be pointed out by more than just a political or ideological contigent. Though that's obviously just a general rule.
The questions in her hearing were neither partisan nor irrelevant... especially not irrelevant! They were all directly related to education and schooling, and none of the questions were unjustified. If they were partisan, then one would expect her to call out the slant of the question or correct the questioner or something else. All she was was evasive.
They were fair questions, and quite frankly some of them were softballs. For example, Franken's question that I posted for you was an easy question; in fact, Franken's introduction to the question already gave DeVos the ideal answer and justification. All she had to do was repeat what he said- that growth is a better measure of learning than proficiency, because growth looks at a single student and compares where he started with where he ended, which is a fairer assessment of the student's education than ignoring his starting point and just measuring whether or not he knows *everything* that's expected at grade level compared to everyone else. Franken literally told her this, and she was still a deer in the headlights. Or hell, even if she said "proficiency" and tried to make an argument based off educational research, that would be acceptable. But she dodged the question hard. It's not even merely disagreeing with her perspective on the educational issue; it's that she has no perspective whatsoever because she hasn't even heard of these things.
As for my posting, sorry if I occasionally go into sky-is-falling mode, but as someone who's spent his entire life in the American education system either as a student or as a teacher/ professor, this really hits close to home for me. Education is my vocation, and Trump and DeVos will be undermining American education. It wasn't ideal before, but now we're going to be going in an even worse direction.
Vice President-elect Mike Pence took the liberty on CNN Wednesday of clarifying what Donald Trump really meant when he said in a Washington Post interview that he wanted to see "insurance for everybody."
"I think it means making insurance affordable for everyone, but also allowing for the kinds of reforms in Medicaid on a state-by-state basis that will ensure -- that will make sure that we have health care coverage for the most vulnerable in our society," Pence said, according to a report from CNN.
Pence's clarification came after Trump's comments startled some Capitol Hill Republicans who feared Trump was making promises that the party could not deliver on in a replacement plan.
During the CNN interview, Pence also clarified that the Trump administration was still working on a replacement to the Affordable Care Act, but that it would be done soon.
"We're getting very close. We expect to have that plan come forward in the early days of the administration," Pence told CNN.
When it comes to a replacement to Obamacare, there is not yet a consensus among Republicans on how to proceed. There are several plans floating around, including House Speaker Paul Ryan's Better Way and Trump Health and Human Services pick Tom Price's proposal, but Pence's comments suggest the Trump administration has its own ideas of how to replace Obamacare.
On January 19 2017 04:46 Mohdoo wrote: Are any republicans around here skeptical of Devos? She seems blatantly and hugely inexperienced. I am assuming there are plenty of republicans that support many of the same things while also being people who are at least involved in this type of thing.
Danglars might know the most, but he's gone for a few months.
Howevet from what I've read and seen most of this is partisan or ideological gnashing of teeth. These hearings are useless anyways. Don't make waves and coast by. I've seen no evidence of any competency issue and I'm not going to trust NPR snippets to find out.
Her answers aren't partisan, and the questions aren't biased either. Here's the perfect example... that she has absolutely no idea that a huge issue in education (and assessment of learning) is related to the Proficiency vs. Growth argument.
What's partisan about that? She doesn't know the difference between educational proficiency and educational growth, and it's not like liberals prefer one while conservatives prefer the other o.O Al Franken is spot on about how important this is in education.
DPB's horror is par the course in this thread so I can't say more :p
What's that mean
I was talking about the questions from Senators are usually partisan and often irrelevent.
From the clip I saw her speaking for all of 20 seconds, which is why I give very little weight to these things.
And that last comment is a remark on the fact that often times when you come into this thread you talk as if the worst thing in the world has just happened
Now full disclosure, I don't have 3.5 hours to watch even one hearing, normally if there is a competency issue it will be pointed out by more than just a political or ideological contigent. Though that's obviously just a general rule.
While I disagree with the EPA appointee on a lot of things, he gave valid answers and put up defenses of some of his more controversial past actions. I would rather it was someone else, but I think he's about as good as any republican would nominate for the issue.
The education secretary appointee's answers were flat out awful regardless of partisan bias. She didn't sound like she even knew why she was there. One could suspect Trump to be purposefully trolling the GOP by only appointing a clear idiot who agrees with certain goals, but that seems... weird. The more likely explanation is poor vetting (really, 13 years on resume was a clerical error?)
the GOP pretty much hates most people in the education industry because they tend to be pro teacher which means pro union. they want change and Trump through out somebody on a platform of change that republicans like (school choice and vouchers for private school.) unfortunately it seems nobody bothered to see if she understand what the the secretary of education does and its responsibilities. I could have answered the growth versus proficiency question. (admittedly both my teachers are educational administrators but it's pretty straightforward.)
Secretary nominees become confirmed by just a simple majority of the Senate, right? And the Republicans control the Senate by a few seats, so unless some Republicans flip (which I suppose might happen if Trump's nominees aren't as like-minded in their conservative positions as the Republicans hoped), they'll pass through without worrying about the Democrats?
yeah i mean its not like any of these people won't be confirmed. this is just an opportunity for democrats to make it as publicly known as possible who these people actually are.
Going from a nuclear physicist to rick perry etc. lmao.
I'm gonna wait and see if the unfit are confirmed before over complaining. until then I'll only complain some. Looking up the history a bit, nominees are very rarely rejected; somewhat more often that, thoug hstill pretty rare is nominees withdrawing from consideration (I'm guessing often cuz something came up that would've prevented them from getting confirmed, so they bow out)
Does anyone actually think that Rick Perry or Betsy DeVos are good secretary nominees in terms of their competence/ expertise towards their roles? I understand that Trump picked politically like-minded individuals, but I'm talking about in terms of credentials, where they could actually run the department successfully thanks to their knowledge?
I'm asking because I find it unsettling to give these people a pass on the fact that they're morons and completely unqualified just because Trump hired them as part of "the [politics] game" that's played in Washington.
I wonder if the cabinet process should include better mechanisms for selecting for quality; have there been serious issues in the past with unqualified people being put forth? or is it mostly just this time around?
I assume unqualified people happen with sad regularity but unless they replace the entire management there should be enough experiences people inside the departments to ensure things don't get screwed up to badly.
On January 19 2017 09:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Does anyone actually think that Rick Perry or Betsy DeVos are good secretary nominees in terms of their competence/ expertise towards their roles? I understand that Trump picked politically like-minded individuals, but I'm talking about in terms of credentials, where they could actually run the department successfully thanks to their knowledge?
I'm asking because I find it unsettling to give these people a pass on the fact that they're morons and completely unqualified just because Trump hired them as part of "the [politics] game" that's played in Washington.
Rick Perry isn't an awful pick. He has administrative experience at a high level in a state that has a lot of energy related commerce. Not sure what it is with Texas electing terrible public speakers as governors, but outside of that field there's been no clear signs that he's a complete moron (and even if he were, it's not strictly disqualifying). He'll likely do an average or somewhat below average job at the Senate hearing, but certainly well enough to pass muster. I'm not saying he's the best pick possible, but there's actually an argument to be made for picking him at the position.
Betsy DeVos' performance on the other hand was so embarassing that I won't be entirely surprised if she withdraws her name from consideration.
On January 19 2017 04:46 Mohdoo wrote: Are any republicans around here skeptical of Devos? She seems blatantly and hugely inexperienced. I am assuming there are plenty of republicans that support many of the same things while also being people who are at least involved in this type of thing.
Danglars might know the most, but he's gone for a few months.
Howevet from what I've read and seen most of this is partisan or ideological gnashing of teeth. These hearings are useless anyways. Don't make waves and coast by. I've seen no evidence of any competency issue and I'm not going to trust NPR snippets to find out.
Her answers aren't partisan, and the questions aren't biased either. Here's the perfect example... that she has absolutely no idea that a huge issue in education (and assessment of learning) is related to the Proficiency vs. Growth argument.
What's partisan about that? She doesn't know the difference between educational proficiency and educational growth, and it's not like liberals prefer one while conservatives prefer the other o.O Al Franken is spot on about how important this is in education.
DPB's horror is par the course in this thread so I can't say more :p
What's that mean
I was talking about the questions from Senators are usually partisan and often irrelevent.
From the clip I saw her speaking for all of 20 seconds, which is why I give very little weight to these things.
And that last comment is a remark on the fact that often times when you come into this thread you talk as if the worst thing in the world has just happened
Now full disclosure, I don't have 3.5 hours to watch even one hearing, normally if there is a competency issue it will be pointed out by more than just a political or ideological contigent. Though that's obviously just a general rule.
There's practically no one that isn't ideologically to the right/involved in privatizing schools that thinks she's remotely competent in the subject matter.
She has never worked in a school in any capacity, and does not hold a degree in education (nor did she or her children ever attend a public school) and you're still not sure whether she should be SoEd?
On January 19 2017 04:46 Mohdoo wrote: Are any republicans around here skeptical of Devos? She seems blatantly and hugely inexperienced. I am assuming there are plenty of republicans that support many of the same things while also being people who are at least involved in this type of thing.
Danglars might know the most, but he's gone for a few months.
Howevet from what I've read and seen most of this is partisan or ideological gnashing of teeth. These hearings are useless anyways. Don't make waves and coast by. I've seen no evidence of any competency issue and I'm not going to trust NPR snippets to find out.
Her answers aren't partisan, and the questions aren't biased either. Here's the perfect example... that she has absolutely no idea that a huge issue in education (and assessment of learning) is related to the Proficiency vs. Growth argument.
What's partisan about that? She doesn't know the difference between educational proficiency and educational growth, and it's not like liberals prefer one while conservatives prefer the other o.O Al Franken is spot on about how important this is in education.
DPB's horror is par the course in this thread so I can't say more :p
What's that mean
I was talking about the questions from Senators are usually partisan and often irrelevent.
From the clip I saw her speaking for all of 20 seconds, which is why I give very little weight to these things.
And that last comment is a remark on the fact that often times when you come into this thread you talk as if the worst thing in the world has just happened
Now full disclosure, I don't have 3.5 hours to watch even one hearing, normally if there is a competency issue it will be pointed out by more than just a political or ideological contigent. Though that's obviously just a general rule.
"Blatant incompetence can't be exposed in 20 seconds"
(it can)
"Conservative news would point out incompetence in Trump's cabinet"
(it wouldn't)
"Anything from the media or this thread questioning Trump's competence is just hysteria"
(try thinking critically about individual issues)
1. Rarely. 2. Conservative media =/= GOP shill media/politicians. 3. Not something I said, try again. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.
On January 19 2017 04:46 Mohdoo wrote: Are any republicans around here skeptical of Devos? She seems blatantly and hugely inexperienced. I am assuming there are plenty of republicans that support many of the same things while also being people who are at least involved in this type of thing.
Danglars might know the most, but he's gone for a few months.
Howevet from what I've read and seen most of this is partisan or ideological gnashing of teeth. These hearings are useless anyways. Don't make waves and coast by. I've seen no evidence of any competency issue and I'm not going to trust NPR snippets to find out.
Her answers aren't partisan, and the questions aren't biased either. Here's the perfect example... that she has absolutely no idea that a huge issue in education (and assessment of learning) is related to the Proficiency vs. Growth argument.
What's partisan about that? She doesn't know the difference between educational proficiency and educational growth, and it's not like liberals prefer one while conservatives prefer the other o.O Al Franken is spot on about how important this is in education.
DPB's horror is par the course in this thread so I can't say more :p
What's that mean
I was talking about the questions from Senators are usually partisan and often irrelevent.
From the clip I saw her speaking for all of 20 seconds, which is why I give very little weight to these things.
And that last comment is a remark on the fact that often times when you come into this thread you talk as if the worst thing in the world has just happened
Now full disclosure, I don't have 3.5 hours to watch even one hearing, normally if there is a competency issue it will be pointed out by more than just a political or ideological contigent. Though that's obviously just a general rule.
The questions in her hearing were neither partisan nor irrelevant... especially not irrelevant! They were all directly related to education and schooling, and none of the questions were unjustified. If they were partisan, then one would expect her to call out the slant of the question or correct the questioner or something else. All she was was evasive.
They were fair questions, and quite frankly some of them were softballs. For example, Franken's question that I posted for you was an easy question; in fact, Franken's introduction to the question already gave DeVos the ideal answer and justification. All she had to do was repeat what he said- that growth is a better measure of learning than proficiency, because growth looks at a single student and compares where he started with where he ended, which is a fairer assessment of the student's education than ignoring his starting point and just measuring whether or not he knows *everything* that's expected at grade level compared to everyone else. Franken literally told her this, and she was still a deer in the headlights. Or hell, even if she said "proficiency" and tried to make an argument based off educational research, that would be acceptable. But she dodged the question hard. It's not even merely disagreeing with her perspective on the educational issue; it's that she has no perspective whatsoever because she hasn't even heard of these things.
As for my posting, sorry if I occasionally go into sky-is-falling mode, but as someone who's spent his entire life in the American education system either as a student or as a teacher/ professor, this really hits close to home for me. Education is my vocation, and Trump and DeVos will be undermining American education. It wasn't ideal before, but now we're going to be going in an even worse direction.
I didn't watch, but I presume she was less evasive when being asked by Republicans. I stand by the claim that snippets are not enough. I have no particular care for this woman either way, but I do notice where criticism comes from (and where it doesn't). She didn't even dodge the question, she didn't get to answer once it was clarified. Franken went into standard hearing lecture mode. She may be incompetent, but I have seen no evidence either way thus far.
You act apocalyptic on more than just education news my friend, lol. Most of the time it's just fun to watch
I guess we will just have to see, I'm open to that.
EPT
