Breaking Fake News Update (v13)

Fake News Broke on August 21, 2025!

This one flew out of the fake news studio after FOTUS declared that we need to focus on the best of our history and our greatness (see BNFU v8 for background), instead of on bad things. 

Linda McMahon, who's had some experience wrestling with tough situations, jumped up to lead the charge, and was able to incorporate private schools and AOne - two of her favorite things - into the mix.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is how a good Cabinet Secretary does things.

As always, we'll continue sharing fake news as it breaks. 

Sunday School 7/12/20

What's better than spending time in the Sunday School classrooms with the Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos?

First up, her interview with Dana Bash on CNN's State of the Union,which was a head-shaking session to be sure. Bash tried her best to get answers to real questions, and DeVos provided fortune cookie phrases over and over and over. Here are some examples.

On whether DeVos can assure everyone that schools can reopen safely and protect teachers and students from getting the coronavirus. (The emphasis is mine; you'll understand why as we move along.)

Well, the key is that kids have to get back to school. And we know there are going to be hot spots. And those need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. But the rule should be that kids go back to school this fall. They have been missing months of learning. Many of them are going to be so far behind, difficult to catch up. And we know that this is a matter of their health in a multitude of factors or multitude of dimensions. We know that their emotional well- being, their mental well-being. And particularly for kids from low-income and vulnerable populations, this is devastating to be out of school and not learning for months on end.

On having to ask the question again to try and get an answer.

...And, again, there's -- there is no -- nothing in the data that would suggest that kids being back in school is -- is dangerous to them. And, in fact, it's -- it's more a matter of their health and well-being that they be back in school. And we have seen this in countries, other countries in Europe and elsewhere in the world, where students have gone back to school and have done so very successfully. That should be the goal.

On there being proof that kids can spread the virus and even the CDC guidelines reflect that

So, it really is a matter of paying attention to good hygiene, following the guidelines around making sure we're washing hands, wearing masks when appropriate, staying apart at a bit of a distance socially, and doing the things that are common sense approaches to ensuring that kids can go back to the classroom and can go back to learning.

(We have a president who can't even commit to wearing a mask but we're gonna have first graders do that?)

On whether she is "compelling schools to reopen regardless of what's happening"

No, what we're saying is that kids need to be back in school, and that school leaders across the country need to be making plans to do just that. There's going to be the exception to the rule, but the rule should be that kids go back to school this fall. And where there are little flare-ups or hot spots, that can be dealt with on a school-by-school or a case-by-case basis. And there's a -- there ample opportunity to have kids in school... But the -- the goal needs to be that kids are learning full-time again this fall.

On whether there is a plan from the Department of Education (DoE) to get kids in school, learning, safely

Far too many kids didn't have any kind of a learning experience. Going into the fall, we need to ensure -- education leaders need to ensure that kids are going to be able to be learning full-time, no matter how that looks. If they're in an area with high incidents of virus, then they need to be learning remotely full-time.

On whether the federal government (DoE  and CDC) is on the same page as far as recommendations for reopening

It's very much on the same page. Kids -- kids need to get back to school. They need to get back in the classroom. Families need for kids to get back in the classroom. And it can be done safely. There are guidelines that are very clear and also -- and also -- also very acknowledging that situations are going to be different. But the rule has got to be that kids go to learning full-time.

On how to get this all figured out 

...many schools... have been working hard to put together their plans for moving ahead. And we want to see every school district, every state doing the same thing... to say not what we can't do, but what we're going to do and what we can do. We're -- we're a country of action. We're a country of doers... We have education leaders who can work hard and figure this out.

On what constitutes a good plan

...It's a -- it's a wide variety of approaches to -- but with the expectation that, if you have to move to a remote instruction situation, that you have full-time learning going on for all students at all times ... four days a week, either four days a week online and the fifth day not...or two days a week in person. These are not valid options and choices for families. And it's not full-time instruction."

We want kids to get back to school. We want them to be learning full-time, full-time...not just a part-time, not just an episodic situation. But kids have got to be learning full-time...and have the expectation that the next school year is going to give them at least a school year's worth of learning, if not more because so many of them fell behind.

On how DeVos can't have it both ways - say it's a local decision and at the same time say that schools must reopen and that CDC recommendations need to be followed. 

I am urging all schools to be re -- to open and to be providing their students a full-time education. We all acknowledge that that could and may well look different in a certain area that has a flare-up of the virus. But the -- but the go-to should be that schools are opening and fully functional and operational and giving parents and families the flexibility that's necessary, so if there is a situation where a child is a vulnerable... is a -- has a vulnerable underlying condition, that the parents could have a choice to be able to -- to educate their children...

On whether a school can revert to remote learning if there are virus flareups:

I think the go-to needs to be kids in school, in person, in the classroom, because we know, for most kids, that's the best environment for them... If -- if there's a -- if there is a short-term flare-up for a few days, that's a different situation than planning for an entire school year in anticipation of something that hasn't happened. That's a very different thing... Kids have got to be back in school. They've got to be back in -- in the classroom. And working families have to have their children in school and knowing that they're continuing to advance in their learning.

On the estimated nearly 1.5 million teachers who are high risk due to age or underlying medical conditions and whether they should go in or stay home if they are uncomfortable. being in the classroom

Well, first of all...I feel for a teacher that has a vulnerability or an underlying condition and know that this is...concerning...there are ways for those teachers to be able to continue to do what they do. And every district, every state has the real opportunity to work with and figure out the best scenario for those teachers. Maybe younger teachers are in the classroom, and an older teacher... But it -- again, that's the exception, not the rule. The rule needs to be, schools need to get open. Kids need to go back to school. They need to be learning. Teachers want to be there. They want to be in the classroom with their kids.

On how it helps withholding funding during a pandemic:

There's no -- no desire to take money away. In fact, we want to see schools open and have been committed to ensuring the resources are there to do that...The -- the reality is, we are committed to ensuring all students and all schools have the resources necessarily for kids to be able to continue learning. And where schools don't follow through on that, parents should have the opportunity and the option to find a school that is going to open and is going to serve their children.

Say that last part again?

We are committed to ensuring students are in school and learning. And parents need to have...the flexibility and the resources to be able to take their kids to a school that...If their school refuses to open or doesn't serve their students.

BINGO - there it is. Take the money out of public schools and send it to private schools, religious schools, for-profit schools. That's been her goal all along.

On Fox News Sunday, it was much the same, including many of the same questions and pat answers, so I'll only focus where Chris Wallace pushed on specific issues. 

On what we know about how children spread the virus: 

Well, that is something that is obviously continuing to be looked at and studied, and there's -- again, a lot of data that suggests that kids are not spreaders. But the point is that kids have got to get back to school and we can do that safely. And every community, every school, can look at what their actual physical circumstances are and figure out ways to do this safely. We're doing it in many other areas of life. If we can get back in other areas of life, we certainly need to get back to schools. Kids cannot afford -- to not continue learning. Our nation can't afford to have kids not learning and preparing for the future.  Because it's our future. 

On what authority are Devos and Trump going to unilaterally cut off funding, and whether it makes more sense to increase funding, not cut it:

Look, American investment in education is a promise to students and their families. If schools aren't going to reopen and not fulfill that promise, they shouldn't get the funds, and give it to the families to decide to go to a school that is going to meet that promise. 

On the fact that, while DeVos supports vouchers, she has to work through Congress to make that kind of change: 

Well, we're looking at all the options because it's a promise to the American people, to students and their families, and we want to make sure that promise is followed through on.

And speaking of following through on stuff, wear your mask. Keep a safe social distance. Wash your hands. And while you're doing that, try and picture a room full of four, five, and six year olds, or a school hallway full of four-, five- and six-year olds, trying to do all of those things.

And then, call or text or DM a teacher you know, and let them know how much you appreciate what they do. If you don't know a teacher, call your local school district, talk to an administrator, and tell them how much you appreciate what they do. You'll feel better, and so will the person on the other end. 

Just don't tell them Betsy DeVos sent you.

See you around the virtual campus.

Quick Takes (v39): Help for Student Loans

Quick Takes

We're a few days away from the next Democratic debate, where (I hope) we'll learn more about what the candidates want to do, and how they want to do it.

At least a few of them have come out with plans for free college and/or to wipe out existing student debt; both of those ideas have strong support from some quarters, and equally strong disapproval from others.

On the plus side? Moves such as free college 'level the playing field' for people who cannot afford to go to college, or who cannot get a well-paying job that will allow them any kind of  chance to pay off the loans they took out to go to college. And that's an American Dream killer, right?

On the other side of the equation is the thinking that the government is not responsible for this, these are handouts not hands up, and for every story the candidates tell of someone who comes out of college with six-figure debt, there are an equal number of stories of people who had the debt, worked hard, and paid it off.  Such is the conundrum we face, on this policy and on pretty much everything else.

But are there things we can do to help that are less drastic than "free college" and "no more student loan debt" that might be amenable to folks on both sides?  A bipartisan handful of Representatives - Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Paul Mitchell (R-MI) Seth Moulton (D-MA) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) - think there is. They've come together to submit the Streamlining Income-driven, Manageable Payments on Loans for Education (SIMPLE) Act, which is designed to keep loan holders from default. Take a look at the bill's summary:

The SIMPLE Act protects some of the most vulnerable student loan borrowers—those who can’t afford full loan payments, those who are in immediate danger of default, those who have previously defaulted on their debt, and those who are totally and permanently disabled—from the severe consequences of default. The bill uses information already on file at the U.S. Treasury to connect borrowers automatically with existing protections, including affordable monthly loan payments. The legislation also automates the annual process for updating income information while enrolled in these plans, ensuring that borrowers continue to make affordable payments.

The data are stark. The bill notes that more then 8 million are in default, and the number continues to grow; more than a million people default on student loans each year, including a subset that has defaulted more than once. And, small balance loan holders are more likely to default than those holding six-figure balances - but the ones with six-figure balances are the ones we hear about all the time.

The consequences are also stark: the obvious hits on credit reports, which have all kinds of ramifications for people that can have a huge impact on their daily lives, as well as on their ability to pay back their loans; wage garnishment, withholding of tax refunds, and more.

So, what does the bill propose?