Speaker 1: Up next, The Truth with Lisa Booth. Part of the
Speaker 1: game which teachers unions care about their pocketbooks, politicians care
Speaker 1: about their agendas. But who's looking out for the best
Speaker 1: interests of you know, the students. Too few people in
Speaker 1: positions of power seem to be asking that question. So
Speaker 1: today I found out why this is the Truth with
Speaker 1: Lisa Booth. Welcome back to the Truth with Lisa Booth.
Speaker 1: I've got an amazing show for you guys. This week.
Speaker 1: My guest has taken on the teachers unions, which of
Speaker 1: course meant that she was one of the most attacked
Speaker 1: members of President Trump's cabinet. She is former Secretary of
Speaker 1: Education Betsy Divas, who worked for the Trump administration from
Speaker 1: two thousand seventeen to January of this year. Secretary Divas
Speaker 1: has been deeply involved in education policy for decades, working
Speaker 1: tirelessly as a passionate advocate of school choice. As she
Speaker 1: described in two thousand thirteen interview, quote, what we're trying
Speaker 1: to do is tear down the mindset that assigns students
Speaker 1: to a school based solely on the zip code of
Speaker 1: their families home. We advocate instead for as much freedom
Speaker 1: as possible. Secretary Divace is the former chair of both
Speaker 1: the American Federation for Children and also the Philanthropy Roundtable
Speaker 1: Board of Directors. She also served on a number of
Speaker 1: other local and national boards, including Art Prize, the American
Speaker 1: Enterprise Institute, the Foundation for Excellence and Education, and Divoce
Speaker 1: Institute for Arts Management at the University of Maryland. She
Speaker 1: also served as the chair of the Michigan Republican Party
Speaker 1: from nineteen ninety six to two thousand and from two
Speaker 1: thousand three to two thousand five. I want to bring
Speaker 1: on Secretary Divorce to have a wide ranging and in
Speaker 1: depth conversation about the state of America's education system today,
Speaker 1: especially as her schools continue to face unprecedented challenges during COVID,
Speaker 1: school choice, Title nine reforms, teachers unions, and even critical
Speaker 1: race theory. I promise we're going to cover it all today,
Speaker 1: and with that, I want to welcome to the show
Speaker 1: the former Secretary of Education, Betsy Divas. I'm so excited
Speaker 1: to have this conversation because a lot of you know, conservatives,
Speaker 1: we talk about things like school choice, but sometimes there's
Speaker 1: a lot of nuance into in it, and so I
Speaker 1: really just want to break it all down with you.
Speaker 1: But before we get started on that, this is really
Speaker 1: even before you served as Secretary of Education. This has
Speaker 1: really been a passion of yours. You've served on boards,
Speaker 1: You've invested a lot of money, a lot of time
Speaker 1: on this issue. Why why does school choice means so
Speaker 1: much to you? Well, Lasi, you're right. I mean, for
Speaker 1: more than three decades, I've been working on and advocating
Speaker 1: for families, for parents to have the ability to make
Speaker 1: decisions and control where their kids and how their kids
Speaker 1: go to school and learn. And um. It started frankly,
Speaker 1: when my oldest son, who just turned thirty nine, was
Speaker 1: starting kindergarten, and I began to get involved at a
Speaker 1: a small urban Christian school in my hometown of Grand Rapids.
Speaker 1: The more I volunteered, the more I realized there were
Speaker 1: families there that loved having their kids there, but many
Speaker 1: families who wish they could have their kids there. For
Speaker 1: probably know, probably ten to twenty as many families tend
Speaker 1: to tend to twenty times more families that would have
Speaker 1: loved to have their children in that kind of a
Speaker 1: school but simply can't afford it. Couldn't afford it. And
Speaker 1: so what began as a volunteer activity. Soon um really
Speaker 1: grew into an issue of fairness and justice from my perspective,
Speaker 1: and having been involved in a lot of partisan politics
Speaker 1: at the same time, I realized ultimately that the only
Speaker 1: way to bring these kinds of opportunities to families was
Speaker 1: really to change public policy, and you had to do
Speaker 1: that with a political element involved. Well. And that's why
Speaker 1: I've never understood about some of the attacks against you
Speaker 1: from the left, because look, you're you're wealthy. That's great,
Speaker 1: i I'm working on it. You know, there's nothing wrong
Speaker 1: with being wealthy in America. But if you're wealthy, you
Speaker 1: can you can you have school choice, right, You have
Speaker 1: the opportunity to to send your kids to private schools.
Speaker 1: You have the opportunity to move to a better zip codes,
Speaker 1: your kid is in a better school district, and to
Speaker 1: get a better education. It's really the fight for the
Speaker 1: people who don't have those same resources, who don't have
Speaker 1: that same income level. That's why I've really never understood
Speaker 1: those attacks against you, because it's not for wealthy individuals.
Speaker 1: This is a fight for people who can't afford the
Speaker 1: same access who deserve it. No, that's exactly right, And
Speaker 1: you know the media has been complicit in obfus skating
Speaker 1: the issue for many, many years because the politicians who
Speaker 1: sit and and are loyal to the teachers union, um,
Speaker 1: you know, they're the ones that also have made choices themselves.
Speaker 1: And they're total hypocrites when it comes to denying families
Speaker 1: who they profess to want to help. Um, they're just
Speaker 1: total hypocrites when they're sending their children to private schools,
Speaker 1: whether they're faith based or otherwise. And uh, and denying
Speaker 1: that same opportunity to families that can't afford to to
Speaker 1: write the tuition checks. Well, and and so before we
Speaker 1: get in, I do want to talk to you about
Speaker 1: the teachers unions and really dig in to that a
Speaker 1: little bit further. But so my understanding is when you
Speaker 1: look at school choice more broadly, it falls under two buckets.
Speaker 1: You have private school choice and then you have public
Speaker 1: school choice. Can you kind of break down those two
Speaker 1: buckets for the people listening? Sure, So a lot of
Speaker 1: people get really confused when we talk about school choice,
Speaker 1: and some of them think that school choice simply means
Speaker 1: charter schools or the ability to go to a charter school.
Speaker 1: Let's be really really clear. Charter schools are public schools
Speaker 1: that are funded with public money's public tax dollars and UM.
Speaker 1: The difference for charter schools is that they are independently
Speaker 1: operated from others in their you know, in their region
Speaker 1: or in their district or their system. And UH that
Speaker 1: is that has been a real storn in the eyes
Speaker 1: of those who want to protect the system and to
Speaker 1: keep all of the power and control and resources for themselves.
Speaker 1: So the teachers unions have continued to fight against charters
Speaker 1: because it represents a lack of ability for them to
Speaker 1: control the other part of school choice. There are many
Speaker 1: different mechanisms for it. But when public funds, when tax
Speaker 1: payer funds flow to UH private schools, whether they're faith
Speaker 1: based schools or virtual schools, or whether they're buying a
Speaker 1: course from a university or UM you know, some other
Speaker 1: mechanism that can be done through UH a tax credit
Speaker 1: at a state level. It could be done through a
Speaker 1: direct vulture amount. It can be done through an education
Speaker 1: savings accounts where money's are are attributed or you know,
Speaker 1: given to a family to then buy different education resources
Speaker 1: and customize education. UH. There's there's different mechanisms to choose
Speaker 1: non public or private providers of education as well, and
Speaker 1: it's been I think it's been really difficult for a
Speaker 1: lot of people to envision what this could look like
Speaker 1: for themselves or that you know, their children or grandchildren
Speaker 1: until really recently, in this last year, when school shut down,
Speaker 1: many didn't reopen, and families began looking for alternative ways
Speaker 1: for their child learn to continue learning. And suddenly I
Speaker 1: think many eyes that you know, many parents eyes have
Speaker 1: been opened across the country around what what school choice
Speaker 1: could mean or could be for their children. And we've seen,
Speaker 1: you know, states take additional actions. I believe it's West
Speaker 1: Virginia and Kentucky. You know, they've signed a new new
Speaker 1: school choice expansions this year. How much more, you know,
Speaker 1: how many more states or what kind of engagement do
Speaker 1: you think we're going to see from parents who quite frankly,
Speaker 1: are just fed up with schools being closed and feeling
Speaker 1: like their kids aren't getting educated yet. You know, a
Speaker 1: lot of these public schools have surpluses or have certainly
Speaker 1: have enough money to open well exactly. And one of
Speaker 1: the things that I have been very proud of what
Speaker 1: what our team did while we were at the Department
Speaker 1: of Education was to really bring the whole issue and
Speaker 1: notion of school choice to the foreground. We really live
Speaker 1: prairie fire under the notion of money following the student
Speaker 1: instead of money going to a building or a system.
Speaker 1: And when the shutdowns occurred last spring, um, you know,
Speaker 1: we are now in a place where many states are
Speaker 1: considering legislation to either expand programs that they already have
Speaker 1: or in many cases, states are introducing programs where they
Speaker 1: haven't even thought of entertaining them before. And you mentioned
Speaker 1: West Virginia. They just passed what is nearly a universal
Speaker 1: for for every student in West Virginia, the possibility to
Speaker 1: access one of these education savings accounts, So students there
Speaker 1: could buy tutoring services or they could buy classes online
Speaker 1: for um, you know, if their school is open and
Speaker 1: they're attending but their school doesn't offer something they want,
Speaker 1: or if their school isn't open and isn't doing, um
Speaker 1: what it is there to do, the parents can take
Speaker 1: that education savings account and take and put their children
Speaker 1: in a school that is going to meet their needs.
Speaker 1: So West Virginia just you know, came along and joined
Speaker 1: the crowd on on school choice. Kentucky very recently as well. UM,
Speaker 1: and this is another really interesting phenomenon because the governor
Speaker 1: there um the legislature passed the tax credit legislation to
Speaker 1: establish a tax credit. The governor vetoed it in spite
Speaker 1: of the fact that he himself sends his own children
Speaker 1: to a private school and h then then then the
Speaker 1: legislature overrode his depo to establish the program. So it's uh,
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's a win for the kids in Kentucky, UM,
Speaker 1: Florida and Arizona and Indiana are considering historic expansions of
Speaker 1: programs that they've had. South Dakota has expanded their tax
Speaker 1: credit program. Oklahoma just pass legislation to have money followed
Speaker 1: the students within any public school system while between systems.
Speaker 1: So the whole issue of empowering families to make these
Speaker 1: choices has really caught fire. And um the shutdowns from
Speaker 1: the pandemic and the ways that the teachers unions have
Speaker 1: responded or not responded have really precipitated a lot of
Speaker 1: this move and frankly continue to to build the uh,
Speaker 1: the resolve of families to do what they need to
Speaker 1: do for their kids. Well, and it seems to be
Speaker 1: the case, I believe did you say it was the
Speaker 1: governor's child goes to private school, Governor Bushier's children go
Speaker 1: to private school. Well, and that seems to be the
Speaker 1: case with so many of these politicians. I mean, I
Speaker 1: remember Governor Newsome got flat because he was sending his
Speaker 1: kids back to private school and Sacramento and public schools
Speaker 1: were shut down, so those students weren't afforded the same opportunity.
Speaker 1: Or there was a union leader in Berkeley, California opposing
Speaker 1: opening schools. However he was sending his kid to a
Speaker 1: private school. So why do so many of these politicians,
Speaker 1: primarily on the left, they want that great education for
Speaker 1: their kids, but they're denying it for other children. Well,
Speaker 1: I think too many of them are frankly totally beholden
Speaker 1: to the teachers union because the perception, at least I
Speaker 1: think what they believe is that you can't cross the
Speaker 1: teachers Union or you're going to get punished in your
Speaker 1: next primary or your next you know, your next race
Speaker 1: for for reelection and um. And this is the This
Speaker 1: is simply untenable and and tragic for millions of kids
Speaker 1: across the country who for months have been either denied
Speaker 1: a full on robots education or you know, or been
Speaker 1: treated to something that is so meager and so inadequate
Speaker 1: that the implications are going to be felt for decades,
Speaker 1: if not their entire lifetime. And so um. I think again,
Speaker 1: the demand is continuing to grow, and I firmly believe
Speaker 1: that more and more politicians are going to realize they
Speaker 1: cannot be on the wrong side of this issue any longer.
Speaker 1: But you've got people like the president of the American
Speaker 1: Federation of Teachers, Randy Weygardan, who recently said an interview, Look,
Speaker 1: kids are resilient and they will recover. Is that true. Well,
Speaker 1: we don't have h we don't have any good measures
Speaker 1: of how much is going to be lost, particularly on
Speaker 1: the part of the kids who are the most vulnerable.
Speaker 1: I mean, the kids whose families have been able to
Speaker 1: figure out an alternative or go and pay for an alternative.
Speaker 1: Those kids are ultimately probably going to be okay. But
Speaker 1: it's just heartbreaking to hear some of the stories of
Speaker 1: kids who's uh, you know, who are who are attempting
Speaker 1: to sit in front of a computer screen for an
Speaker 1: hour or maybe two a day, for whom it simply
Speaker 1: doesn't work and uh and and for whom the instruction
Speaker 1: is a fraction of what they would get if they
Speaker 1: were actually in class in person and not having that
Speaker 1: one on one or that direct human contact. We don't
Speaker 1: know what the long term implications are going to be,
Speaker 1: but we know from the short term that it's going
Speaker 1: to be devastating for millions of kids. And I think
Speaker 1: about the story I heard of a young man, an
Speaker 1: athlete in New Mexico who um, you know, home in
Speaker 1: isolation for months on end, who kept, you know, wanting
Speaker 1: to be back in school, wanting to play on his
Speaker 1: sporting teams or his his sports teams, and um and
Speaker 1: who ultimately, uh took his life because he had he
Speaker 1: ultimately ran out of hope. And there's more than one
Speaker 1: story like that, and it's just simply tragic. And uh,
Speaker 1: the longer that the teachers unions continued to put up roadblocks,
Speaker 1: the more tragic stories we're going to hear like that
Speaker 1: young man. Well, and I saw one children's hospital out
Speaker 1: of San Francisco said that they had they had seen
Speaker 1: a sixty six percent increase in the number of suicide
Speaker 1: suicidal children and the emergency room. So certainly when you
Speaker 1: hear statistics like that, and the story that you just mentioned.
Speaker 1: You know, it's it's really sad, and it really gets
Speaker 1: to the question of why some of these schools haven't
Speaker 1: been reopened. There's this study that was done by I
Speaker 1: hope I'm not butchering their names, mccrey, D'Angelis and UH
Speaker 1: Christo's macreadys, and essentially the research found that UH schools
Speaker 1: closures had more to do with union influence rather than
Speaker 1: sientific concerns about COVID. And they actually looked at twelve
Speaker 1: thousand school districts nationwide in their research. So why are
Speaker 1: these teachers unions so opposed to reopening? Well, I see,
Speaker 1: I think they they saw and see an opportunity to
Speaker 1: get more control, more resources. And I go back to
Speaker 1: last spring, when it was clear from all of the
Speaker 1: data that was coming in really around the world. You know,
Speaker 1: European children went back to school already last spring, and
Speaker 1: when President Trump and I began calling for schools to reopen, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, you would have thought, um that we were
Speaker 1: asking for an impossibility based on what we were experiencing.
Speaker 1: But the reality was that kids were safely going back
Speaker 1: to school all over the world and it was nothing
Speaker 1: but the union in in you know, in transigence and
Speaker 1: frankly flexing muscle and power and uh and and control
Speaker 1: to ultimately deny the most vulnerable kids, uh their opportunity
Speaker 1: to continue to learn. And they're doing it yet today.
Speaker 1: I mean the fact that teachers in Fairfax County, right
Speaker 1: outside of d c UM, you know, kept moving the
Speaker 1: goal has kept moving the goalposts. Well, we have to
Speaker 1: wait until the teachers are vaccinated. While now the teachers
Speaker 1: are vaccinated, and now it's something else not opening in
Speaker 1: person again. Uh. You know the schools in California where
Speaker 1: more than a fifth of the teachers have said they
Speaker 1: don't intend to return to school as required this month. Uh.
Speaker 1: It is in primarily in these large urban districts where
Speaker 1: the teachers unions are the most powerful, and we're frankly
Speaker 1: where the kids are most in need of being in school,
Speaker 1: in in class a hundred percent of the time, where
Speaker 1: they're the ones who are getting hurt in the process.
Speaker 1: And and frankly, they're the ones that I have continued
Speaker 1: to fight for for more than thirty five years. Now, Well,
Speaker 1: you're right, because that that's what's sad about this because
Speaker 1: a lot of families with wealth, you know, they're creating
Speaker 1: pod type education for their kids. They're right, they're pulling
Speaker 1: their kids at a public school sending them to private schools.
Speaker 1: They have options, and you know, sadly, it's a lot
Speaker 1: of families that don't have that same income level who
Speaker 1: don't have those options. So, you know a lot of
Speaker 1: kids are falling behind who just don't have that education
Speaker 1: or don't have that financial income, uh to to to
Speaker 1: get the right kind of education right now. Exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think it was in Tennessee that recently did a
Speaker 1: study and they estimated that outboards with learning loss and
Speaker 1: reading and math um for kids who haven't been in school. Uh. Well,
Speaker 1: you you know, you can't expect that kids are going
Speaker 1: to regain that learning loss by going back to the
Speaker 1: same situation, the same type of classrooms, the same uh
Speaker 1: you know, the same construct that they left before. There
Speaker 1: are ways for them to make up learning losses, but
Speaker 1: it's not going to be returning to the same system
Speaker 1: and in the same way of doing things, because they've
Speaker 1: demonstrated time and time again they cannot get it done.
Speaker 1: So teachers unions obviously have a stranglehold over the left
Speaker 1: and liberal politicians. You know how exactly do they work.
Speaker 1: How do they obtain that kind of power. Well, they've
Speaker 1: they've been very strategic about it. And remember the Department
Speaker 1: of Education was stood up in ninety nine at the
Speaker 1: end of the President Carter's term UM as a payoff
Speaker 1: to the teachers union and by uh, you know, establishing
Speaker 1: the federal Department of Education the ability to try to
Speaker 1: centralize and control education even though states ultimately have have
Speaker 1: that right and have that power on the state by
Speaker 1: state basis. UM, they have continued to solidify and and
Speaker 1: uh and you know, and gather that control um administration
Speaker 1: after administration. We saw it during the Obama administration. I'm
Speaker 1: fearful about what the Widen administration is going to do. UM.
Speaker 1: We're seeing them, you know, grant waivers to state UM
Speaker 1: to basically uh skirts their accountability requirements. My own home
Speaker 1: state of Michigan, they have they've given Michigan waiver authority
Speaker 1: to not identify the lowest five per cent of school
Speaker 1: schools as a you know, on a performance metric. And
Speaker 1: and they're holding back billions of dollars from the the
Speaker 1: CARES and and American Recovery Acts in order to control
Speaker 1: what happens at the state and local level from Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. And so they continued, UM, they continued, you know,
Speaker 1: gathering of powers and focus of power at the federal level,
Speaker 1: UM at the extent of state and local districts is
Speaker 1: uh I think points to their their long term strategy
Speaker 1: and has continued to pay offs and and frankly, in
Speaker 1: too many cases, federally elected Republicans have been UM either
Speaker 1: asleep or complicit in in helping to solidify that power.
Speaker 1: And I think parents, I know parents are are having
Speaker 1: their eyes opened, and they're awakening to the fact that
Speaker 1: they have got to reclaim and reassert that control and
Speaker 1: that ability to decide their kids futures and their education.
Speaker 1: You know, many of them sitting behind their kids watching
Speaker 1: what they've been learning remotely, UM, They're they're aware what
Speaker 1: their kids are or aren't learning. Many of them are
Speaker 1: concerned about the content and the quality of what they're learning.
Speaker 1: So I think, I think again, this the whole uh
Speaker 1: COVID issue has really helped to UM point out why
Speaker 1: a nationalized school system does not work and why we
Speaker 1: have to do a tremendous pivot from where we've been
Speaker 1: and really put power back into the hands of families
Speaker 1: and have funds follow the students to the the education
Speaker 1: location of their choice. Well, and it's a political winner too.
Speaker 1: I mean you look at polling. The majority of Americans
Speaker 1: support school choice, independence democrats, majority of minority parents support
Speaker 1: school choice. So it is a political winner. And I
Speaker 1: think at the heart even some on the left support
Speaker 1: I mean you look at someone like Senator Corey Booker.
Speaker 1: He used to be a big pronent proponent of school choice.
Speaker 1: He went to an event you held in Michigan debating
Speaker 1: in favor of school choice. He has served on pro
Speaker 1: voucher boards with you, He has backed vouchers charter schools.
Speaker 1: But then he gave a dramatic speech in two seventeen
Speaker 1: actually opposing your nomination. Why did he do such a
Speaker 1: flip flop on such an important issue because he fancied
Speaker 1: himself president and he didn't want to get on the
Speaker 1: wrong side of the teacher union. I mean, that's the
Speaker 1: bottom line, and that's sad because it's the you know,
Speaker 1: the kids who inevitably lose in the end, and that's
Speaker 1: what that's what really bothers me about why Republicans and
Speaker 1: why we just I mean, this should be this is
Speaker 1: you know, a civil rights movement and a sense a
Speaker 1: human rights issue in the sense of why should kids
Speaker 1: why should there zip code determine the kind of education
Speaker 1: to get? We know, education is so important on what
Speaker 1: kind of person you're going to be in the future,
Speaker 1: the opportunities that are you can be presented you in
Speaker 1: the future, and it's it's disturbing that there's not more support.
Speaker 1: I mean this, I mean this should be the fight. Yes,
Speaker 1: absolutely agreed, And I think, um, I think one of
Speaker 1: the challenges for some Republicans, and it's I think it's
Speaker 1: particularly those that represent rural areas, is they don't really
Speaker 1: see what's in it for their constituents because they don't
Speaker 1: see a you know, second school being built next to
Speaker 1: that little rural you k through twelve school there aren't
Speaker 1: enough kids perhaps or whatever. And I challenge them and say,
Speaker 1: that isn't the extent of what school choice looks like.
Speaker 1: School choice looks like a lot of different forms. If
Speaker 1: there's a handful of kids in that small rural school
Speaker 1: who learn differently, there's no reason that with school choice
Speaker 1: they couldn't take the funds meant for them and have
Speaker 1: informed a separate, little micro school that might exist right
Speaker 1: within that same school building, or a student in uh,
Speaker 1: you know, their junior or senior year to making a
Speaker 1: class online from a provider, a high quality provider anywhere
Speaker 1: in the world, but buying that because they've made the
Speaker 1: choice to do that. There's no limit to the creativity
Speaker 1: that can be exercised when you empower families to make
Speaker 1: those choices and to express the needs for their kids,
Speaker 1: um to become everything they're meant to be. What it
Speaker 1: really just comes down to freedom and opportunity, which are
Speaker 1: two things Republicans purport to be for. So you know,
Speaker 1: I it should be the fight and we've seen to.
Speaker 1: I mean even if you look at Governor Ron de Santis,
Speaker 1: I mean there is research and evidence pointing back to
Speaker 1: the two eighteen gubnatorial race that that is important why
Speaker 1: he won the race against Andrew Gillum, which was his
Speaker 1: support for school choice. Absolutely. Yeah, that margin in that
Speaker 1: race was very small. It was between fifty and sixty
Speaker 1: thousand votes, I believe, and um, you look at the
Speaker 1: data behind it and double the number of black females
Speaker 1: voted for or double the percentage of black females voted
Speaker 1: for Rhonda Santis as one would have expected or quote
Speaker 1: should have and um, I guarantee they were worried about
Speaker 1: not having the opportunity to choose their kids schools and
Speaker 1: not be able to participate in the school choice program
Speaker 1: because Gillum said he was going to eliminate it, or
Speaker 1: they had kids in the program and they wanted to
Speaker 1: make sure that they could continue. But it was definitely
Speaker 1: a factor. They're huge factor. And what kind of research,
Speaker 1: you know, what's the best way If someone says, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, look, school choice isn't better for a child's education,
Speaker 1: what's your retort, what's your response to a statement like that. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, you know, it's the parents decision, what
Speaker 1: you know, how, how and what is best for their kids.
Speaker 1: They're the ones who love their kids the most, who
Speaker 1: are closest to them, who know them the best. And
Speaker 1: it really really angers me when I hear people it's
Speaker 1: usually it's usually the um you know, the liberal elite,
Speaker 1: who say, well, you know, there's there's parents who can't
Speaker 1: possibly figure this out for them, for them, you know,
Speaker 1: for their children. That is so offensive. It is just
Speaker 1: unbelievable that they could even utter those words. I have
Speaker 1: met parents after parents after parent who is longing to
Speaker 1: have their children get a different education, a better education,
Speaker 1: go to a safer school, go to a more nurturing school,
Speaker 1: whatever the case. Maybe parents know what's best for their
Speaker 1: kids and they should be able to decide that they
Speaker 1: should not have the government and liberal elite telling them
Speaker 1: what to do, when to do it, and where to go.
Speaker 1: But it seems like it's really driven by you know,
Speaker 1: rich white liberals who send their kids to private, fancy schools,
Speaker 1: but yet don't want the rest of the country to
Speaker 1: have the same opportunities. From from my vantage point, it seems.
Speaker 1: But you know that the heart is is actually yeah,
Speaker 1: and is at the heart you know, it's ridiculous to
Speaker 1: think parents can't make the best decisions for their own
Speaker 1: kids here, but you know, I want to get it.
Speaker 1: You had mentioned earlier about just some of the things
Speaker 1: that you know, as parents are sort of watching on
Speaker 1: the zoom calls and paying more you know, more involved
Speaker 1: really in the curriculum and what their children are being
Speaker 1: taught now that their home, that they're seeing it in
Speaker 1: action in person. Uh, and you know that is concerning
Speaker 1: you look at things like the Oregon Department of Education
Speaker 1: last February where's encouraging teachers to register for training that
Speaker 1: argues that math is racist. Uh that you know, somehow
Speaker 1: the focus of finding the right answer or being required
Speaker 1: to show your work is somehow you know, racism. But
Speaker 1: I mean, isn't that racist though the premise that minority
Speaker 1: kids cannot find the right answer? Absolutely it is. And
Speaker 1: I mean we've seen example after example after example of
Speaker 1: the the interductor, i mean, the the fourth seeding of
Speaker 1: curriculum that is so counterproductive and so anathetical to everything
Speaker 1: that we you know, we believe should be a part
Speaker 1: of a robust and healthy, um, you know, experience for
Speaker 1: kids in their education. And and again I think this
Speaker 1: is uh, this has been a real awakening for a
Speaker 1: lot of families across the country to see what's actually
Speaker 1: going on and um and to hear firsthand. I mean,
Speaker 1: when when UH folks first went virtual and remote, we
Speaker 1: heard several examples of districts that we're trying to get
Speaker 1: parents signing a statement saying they weren't going to observe
Speaker 1: their children's classroom, or they weren't going to eavesdrop, or
Speaker 1: they weren't going to listen to what their children were
Speaker 1: being taught. I mean, unbelievable examples of overreach and UM
Speaker 1: and and you know, control on part of a system
Speaker 1: that again is there existing really for itself, not for
Speaker 1: the kids. I heard an anecdote, not a little story
Speaker 1: the other day of UM, you know, anonymous comments being
Speaker 1: fed to a school leader about how they've navigated through
Speaker 1: And this was I think a school that was in
Speaker 1: person for most of the time. UM. But you know,
Speaker 1: there was a comment that there was too much focus
Speaker 1: on the kids. Now, what is education for if not
Speaker 1: to focus on the kids? Another example of just the
Speaker 1: total um mismatch between what the system is oriented to
Speaker 1: do and what kids need. But do you think that's
Speaker 1: part of why democrats want the law on our public
Speaker 1: schools and the education system so that they can essentially
Speaker 1: indoctrinate kids. I think that's UH, that's definitely the agenda
Speaker 1: of many within the system. I don't for a minute
Speaker 1: think that many that a lot of the teachers UM
Speaker 1: subscribe or ascribed to that, but I think that that
Speaker 1: is that is definitely part of the agenda of many
Speaker 1: within the system. UH. And I want to make sure
Speaker 1: that we we really UM distinguish between teachers and UH.
Speaker 1: And then the teachers that are really advocates for uh,
Speaker 1: the teachers union and and holding control over the whole system.
Speaker 1: And you know, I think about a couple of round
Speaker 1: tables I had um while at the Department of Education
Speaker 1: with teachers who had been teachers of the Year and
Speaker 1: their state or their district, and you know it had
Speaker 1: their their year of what I called their victory lap
Speaker 1: around the state and then had come back to the
Speaker 1: classroom and shortly after that had decided to quit teaching.
Speaker 1: I wanted to understand why they wanted to quit teaching,
Speaker 1: and so I listened to them and almost to a person,
Speaker 1: and it was something like, you know, you've had your
Speaker 1: chance that you know, that's same, You've taken your victory lap.
Speaker 1: Now you just need to get back into your classroom
Speaker 1: and you know, basically be quiet, don't ask questions, and
Speaker 1: go back to what you were doing before. Now, these
Speaker 1: individuals clearly had something to offer to others, perhaps with
Speaker 1: their peers perhaps too um you know, new teachers coming in,
Speaker 1: but they were not utilized, They were not tapped and
Speaker 1: encouraged to do anything like that. In fact, they were
Speaker 1: they were peer pressured to basically get back and in
Speaker 1: many cases just resume mediocrity with, you know, in the
Speaker 1: milieu of whatever school they happened to be in. And that,
Speaker 1: to me is just another symptom of what is wrong
Speaker 1: with a system that is essentially a monopoly. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: monopolies should be broken up. And I'm glad you. I'm
Speaker 1: glad you made that differentiating point because you're right and
Speaker 1: delineating between are a lot of good teachers who really
Speaker 1: want to serve the needs of kids, who want to
Speaker 1: do right, who are working hard, who probably don't get
Speaker 1: paid enough. And then you know, you do you have
Speaker 1: these proponents of the teachers unions, have these people that
Speaker 1: just want to control power, want to control what they're
Speaker 1: teaching kids. But so what do those good teachers do then,
Speaker 1: you know, what what do they do to push back,
Speaker 1: to fight back to you know, to try to fight
Speaker 1: for these kids when you know they're up against you know,
Speaker 1: these monsters of the teachers unions? Well, I think I
Speaker 1: think for many of them, if not most of them,
Speaker 1: they finally give up. Uh why do good teachers leave
Speaker 1: and quit teaching when they're really good at what they do,
Speaker 1: they're effective, But if they aren't able themselves to be
Speaker 1: ultimately fulfilled, to continue to grow in their profession, to
Speaker 1: have opportunities to train and mentor and um, you know,
Speaker 1: take on more responsibilities within their building or within their
Speaker 1: you know, their community, UM ultimately lay what incentive is
Speaker 1: there for them to continue when there is the kind
Speaker 1: of peer pressure that I I hear firsthand from teachers
Speaker 1: that have you know, that loved to teach but have
Speaker 1: left because they have just felt so beaten down. And
Speaker 1: you know, that to me is the again one of
Speaker 1: the big travesties of a government controlled, um nationalized school
Speaker 1: system totally. I and I don't blame them. I mean,
Speaker 1: looking at some of this you know, whistleblower documents and
Speaker 1: and these things from you know, critical race theory. I mean,
Speaker 1: Christopher Ruffo has done a great job about bringing a
Speaker 1: lot of this stuff to the public. But he was
Speaker 1: taking a look at some documents out of Buffalo public
Speaker 1: schools and they teach about thirty four thousand students, New
Speaker 1: york second largest sitting there teaching that all white people
Speaker 1: perpetuate systemic racism, forcing kindergarteners to compare their skin color
Speaker 1: and watch a video of dead black children warning them
Speaker 1: that ray about ray says police in state sanctioned violence.
Speaker 1: So what is the long term impact on these children
Speaker 1: to be taught stuff like that in kindergarten? Yeah, I know,
Speaker 1: it's just it is UM really concerning and um again,
Speaker 1: Until we allow for families to ultimately take control of
Speaker 1: how and where their kids are educated, UM, we're going
Speaker 1: to hear more and more of these uh awful examples
Speaker 1: of a really taking um innocent children and uh and
Speaker 1: filling them full with an agenda that is anathetical to America.
Speaker 1: The biggest thing we can do for equality in the
Speaker 1: country is to allow each parents to determine what kind
Speaker 1: of education their child gets and make sure that every child,
Speaker 1: regardless of sink, skin color, regardless of sex, is allowed
Speaker 1: to get a great education. But I would have switch
Speaker 1: gears a little bit and talk about your work on
Speaker 1: you know, Title nine. You rewrote rules for how colleges
Speaker 1: and universities handle allegations of sexual assault on campus. You know,
Speaker 1: really reigned in a system that was stacked against the
Speaker 1: people who were accused. Uh. You know why were those
Speaker 1: reforms needed? Well, they were absolutely necessary because of what
Speaker 1: the Obama Biden administration did, UM in response to what
Speaker 1: was a legitimate concern about how institutions should handle handle
Speaker 1: incidents of sexual misconduct on campus. You know, let's be
Speaker 1: very clear there there there were issues UM, and they
Speaker 1: you know, that was an issue, an elephant in the rown,
Speaker 1: so to speak. But what they did by issuing a
Speaker 1: deer colleige letder which did not have the force of law,
Speaker 1: but they treated it as though it did UM, which
Speaker 1: essentially took away the rights of UH in many cases
Speaker 1: the rights of those UH, the ones who were being
Speaker 1: complained against. UM. It was set up a very unfair
Speaker 1: and um, unreliable and unbalanced approach that resulted in hundreds
Speaker 1: of cases being filed in courts where the survivor then
Speaker 1: or the you know, the complainant had to go through
Speaker 1: and be re traumatized because the process was so broken.
Speaker 1: So what we undertook was a willmaking process and two
Speaker 1: and a half years to do it, very thorough, very complete.
Speaker 1: That resulted in a very reliable, fair and balanced framework
Speaker 1: for institutions to use and for students to be able
Speaker 1: to rely on. And UM, you know, the criticisms about it,
Speaker 1: I just challenge anyone who is reflexively critical to sit
Speaker 1: down and read the regulation and and tell me, what
Speaker 1: requirements there they find unreasonable? There, they won't find them really,
Speaker 1: I mean maybe small quibbles here and there on minor points,
Speaker 1: But the reality is it is a very fair and
Speaker 1: balanced rule that ensures do process protections and puts the
Speaker 1: survivor really in the driver's seat on how a complaint
Speaker 1: is ultimately UH handled and what process they want to
Speaker 1: take with the complaints. Well, it's also it's ridiculous because
Speaker 1: just because you want do process rights for the accused
Speaker 1: does not mean that you don't also want the accuser
Speaker 1: if the you know, the allegations are valid, you want
Speaker 1: that to be adjudicated. You want that process to play out.
Speaker 1: So it's like it can't it's not an either or,
Speaker 1: it's a both. You wanted a process that is set
Speaker 1: up for due process to allow the accuse to get
Speaker 1: a fair hearing, and if you you also want the
Speaker 1: potential victim UH to also have a you know, system
Speaker 1: and a process to go through so that the person
Speaker 1: who you know committed the acts ends up punished. So
Speaker 1: it's like it doesn't have to be in either or scenario.
Speaker 1: But that's really the way that the left sort of
Speaker 1: frames the debate. Why is that well, simply because they
Speaker 1: didn't like what we did. And um, again the reflective
Speaker 1: reaction on the part of the advocacy groups that have
Speaker 1: been stood up for survivors quote unquote have decided they
Speaker 1: don't like they don't like the provisions. But what it
Speaker 1: I mean, it actually strengthens provisions survivors and protections, and
Speaker 1: it really it puts them in the driver's seat if
Speaker 1: they decide they only want to have supportive measures like um,
Speaker 1: you know, changing dorm rooms or changing classes or uh,
Speaker 1: you know, a restricting access to you know, the the individual.
Speaker 1: But on the part of the one they were complaining
Speaker 1: supportive measures but not take a formal complaint through they
Speaker 1: have that right to do so. The Obama Biden letter
Speaker 1: did not allow them to do that. And I heard
Speaker 1: many cases where um, these students found themselves in proceedings
Speaker 1: that they didn't want to be in and didn't didn't
Speaker 1: agree with, and yet they were they were powerless to
Speaker 1: do anything about it. We also defined, uh, what you know,
Speaker 1: spexual harassment is and put a clear definition, a reliable
Speaker 1: definition around it. We protect we give in the in
Speaker 1: the rule protections for online behaviors, for stalking, for date
Speaker 1: rate and really again expanded and clearly articulated, UM, strengthened
Speaker 1: protections for survivors and at the same time ensure due
Speaker 1: process protections for those who are accused. So what's your
Speaker 1: message then, to the Biden administration, UM, that's looking to
Speaker 1: roll back those rules. I think they do so at
Speaker 1: their own peril. UM. You know, there there's again. I
Speaker 1: I challenge anyone who reflectively reflectively has criticized it to
Speaker 1: sit down and tell the world what they disagree with. UM.
Speaker 1: Are they going to deny those who are accused due process? Right?
Speaker 1: I think not. I mean, the courts have continued to
Speaker 1: opine that do process protections are fundamental? UM. So I
Speaker 1: you know, I think that the thought of undoing what
Speaker 1: we have done is U is simply untenable. And I'm
Speaker 1: I'm hopeful that ultimately the Biden administration concludes that they
Speaker 1: had best uh respect what the extensive work that's been done.
Speaker 1: You know, we had over a hundred and forty thousand
Speaker 1: public comments to which we had to respond and did respond. Uh.
Speaker 1: This was a very thorough, very balanced, and very fair
Speaker 1: approach that gives a reliable framework for all involved. And
Speaker 1: I'm very proud of the work that we did, the
Speaker 1: team that that did all of the heavy lifting to UM,
Speaker 1: you know, two and a half years to do all
Speaker 1: of the right things to ensure we ended up at
Speaker 1: a in a place and with a rule that is
Speaker 1: is one that can be respected and relied upon. And lastly,
Speaker 1: before before we go, you talked a lot about reimagining
Speaker 1: education and education freedom during your tenure. What would the
Speaker 1: ideal future look like for K through twelve system? Well,
Speaker 1: the the ideal future is that every family ultimately is
Speaker 1: empowered with the resources that are already spent on them
Speaker 1: in the public system, and that essentially that money attaches
Speaker 1: to that child back I like to picture the backpack
Speaker 1: with the you know, the money in the backpack following
Speaker 1: that child to wherever they go to get their education,
Speaker 1: and that will create a plethora of new approaches, new
Speaker 1: innovative solutions to how kids learn in their K K
Speaker 1: through twelve years. You know, the American K twelve system
Speaker 1: is the most oxified UM system of we We've seen
Speaker 1: massive changes in every other part of our society, and
Speaker 1: yet when it comes to education, a fundamental part of
Speaker 1: growing up and becoming an adult and a contributing UM.
Speaker 1: You know, citizen, we we are. We're stuck in a
Speaker 1: system that is more than a century, almost a century
Speaker 1: and a half old, and it's time that we change.
Speaker 1: And it's time that that families reassert their control and
Speaker 1: their right to make those decisions, and that then the
Speaker 1: creativity of the American people is unleashed to create all
Speaker 1: kinds of solutions that are going to be exciting and
Speaker 1: uh and and really you know, um totally change the
Speaker 1: future for kids and their experience and uh and ultimate
Speaker 1: late for our our society and our economy because we're
Speaker 1: gonna have a lot more creative entrepreneurs um, you know,
Speaker 1: doing things they wouldn't have ever had the opportunity to do.
Speaker 1: Secretary Betsy Devas, you are a wealth of information. This
Speaker 1: is a fascinating conversation and I appreciate your fight for
Speaker 1: our children. It's been a lifeeslong work for you and
Speaker 1: we appreciate the work you're doing and bringing this information
Speaker 1: to light. Thank you so much for joining us today.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Lisa, appreciate it would have been Secretary
Speaker 1: Divance again for a great interview. And if you enjoyed
Speaker 1: today show, please leave us a review and rate us
Speaker 1: five stars on Apple Podcasts. You can also find me
Speaker 1: on Twitter and Instagram at at Lisa Rebooth. Special thanks
Speaker 1: to our team producer John Cassio, writer Aaron Clegan, researcher
Speaker 1: Margaret Smith, and executive producers Debbie Myers and speaker new Genkridge,
Speaker 1: all part of the Gingridge three sixty network and team