Over the years, I have been writing about misconceptions regarding the schooling process. The purpose of these posts is to explain why I disagree with various comments that I have heard people make about schooling. These are meant as personal thoughts rather than conclusive proof, and I will admit that I'm not always the best at explaining my thoughts. Regardless, I have decided that I should be willing to share these posts when I encounter someone online who makes an argument that I have already discussed.
A lot of anti-educational activists love pointing out that an influential voice for school choice, Betsy DeVos, is a billionaire. They insist that billionaires are undermining "public education," so we must reject their narrative. There are so many problems with this seemingly simple argument that I'm not sure where to begin.
Wealth is not a personality trait. Establishing that someone is a billionaire is insufficient to diminish that person’s views. For the most part, that's the only negative being aimed at DeVos as a person.
What if wealth could be classified as a definitive negative? Good people can have negative traits, and bad people can have positive traits. Establishing wealth doesn't say anything about someone's views on education.
For the most part, people aren't even trying to connect the wealth of Betsy DeVos to her educational views. The only attempt I have seen was that her wealthy lifestyle can't exist in a society with strong government-controlled schools. What do you think we have now? We are living in the most heavily schooled era in the history of humanity, and most children are trapped under government control. It's absurd to think that an existing lifestyle can't possibly exist in the society that we are already in.
Another issue is that there is no effort being made whatsoever to establish what billionaires think about education. Most billionaires don't even discuss the issue. I haven't tried to establish the views of every single individual in this demographic, but I think it's safe to say that there are billionaires who oppose school choice. In fact, there's a good chance that most billionaires prefer to trap children in government-controlled schools. Considering the narrative, I shouldn't have to prove which side is the majority. The arguments against choice haven't gone beyond the fact that billionaires supporting school choice exist.
I should also look at the opposite side of this argument. Billionaires make up a small minority of school choice advocates. Should disadvantaged families be deprived of a voice just because a billionaire has a similar viewpoint? I definitely disagree with that point.
I could tap into my own life to explain this. I grew up in government-controlled schools that were definitively anti-educational. My views were based off of personal experiences in the system, not influence from billionaires. Personally, I don't know any billionaires. On top of that, I developed my educational beliefs long before I heard of Betsy DeVos. Billionaires have nothing to do with anything I have shared.
This argument about billionaires gets messier. The presidents of the NEA and AFT, Becky Pringle and Randi Weingarten, make around half a million dollars per year. Since their wealth doesn't come from a single year of their lives, I think it's safe to call them millionaires. They may not be as rich as DeVos, but there's a key difference that I can't overlook. While DeVos is sacrificing wealth to promote her views, the wealth of Pringle and Weingarten are dependent on the narrative they are pushing.
Since they brought up the issue of money, let me ask a question. Whose messaging is more likely to be skewed by wealth, a billionaire who is willing to sacrifice wealth or a millionaire whose wealth is dependent on the narrative being promoted? If those are my choices, I will actually side with the billionaire.
A lot of these arguments about billionaires come from people who want us to listen to Pringle and Weingarten. In fact, I have seen Weingarten push this narrative herself. If Weingarten really wants us to view wealth as a corrupting influence, then why would I trust her? Her wealth is dependent on her skewed portrayals of education.
No comments:
Post a Comment