•  
  •  
 

Abstract

In February 2017, for the first time since the presidency of George H. W. Bush, the Vice President had to cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate (Reilly, 2017). The issue that caused such division in the Senate was the confirmation of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. Voted as the least liked member of Trump’s cabinet, Secretary DeVos continues to generate controversy (Reilly, 2017). From the time that President Trump announced his nomination of Betsy DeVos, DeVos’s educational beliefs have created controversies. One of her controversial stances is that school choice should be increased through voucher programs. Voucher programs allow parents to send their students to private schools using government money. Often, vouchers are only offered to families from low incomes. DeVos claims that the test scores of the United States have continued to be average compared to other countries. To fix this, parents must have the ability to choose a school that serves their children most effectively. However, some parents cannot choose because of socioeconomic status and need a voucher to have that choice (Stahl, 2018). However, others point out that schools are not improving, especially in Michigan, where DeVos’s ideas have begun to take root (Stahl, 2018). In short, DeVos argues that vouchers will increase students’ performance in comparison with other countries; others say that vouchers are not working in Michigan. These are arguments about practical results. However, the underlying arguments for and against vouchers are not about the pros and cons but the purpose of education. If educators continue to argue about statistics and theories without examining the underlying philosophies, they will continue to argue past each other. Arguments for and against vouchers are rooted in the purpose of school defined by three different philosophies: neoliberalism, communitarianism, and liberalism.

Download

Share

COinS