This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
I read Mitt Romney's op-ed, "DeVos is a smart choice for education" (Jan. 10), but I had a hard time taking it seriously. Romney's main argument seems to be that Betsy DeVos is qualified to be secretary of education due to her "absence of financial bias," unlike public school teachers, who are presumably in it for the money at a whopping starting salary of $35,000 a year in Utah. Seriously, Mitt?
To Romney and his fellow Republicans, who, like DeVos, have advocated for diverting public funds to private schools, I would ask the following:
Public schools are required by law to admit all students, including those with physical disabilities, learning disabilities and behavioral problems; immigrants and English language learners; and students from minority groups and poverty-level families. Private schools are under no such legal requirements, and some charter schools find creative ways of skirting the requirements. Students from these groups often can't gain admission to private or charter schools, and their parents couldn't afford tuition or the cost of transportation even with a voucher.
Furthermore, many students have parents who are absent from their lives or who are completely disinterested in their children's schooling and would never dream of applying for a voucher. The overwhelming majority of these students attend traditional public schools.
Mitt, do you even care one whit about these kids? If so, how to you propose to educate them after you've defunded the only schools that will even attempt to teach them?
Over the years I've posed this question to many voucher advocates like DeVos, and I have yet to receive a straight answer. I suspect Romney doesn't have one either.
Blair Bateman
Provo