Thanks to Republican efforts to rush the confirmation of Betsy DeVos, President Donald Trump's nominee for the U.S. secretary of education, far too little is known about her understanding of education law and policy, financial interests or agenda for the nation's public schools. Unlike most previous education secretaries, DeVos has no record of commitment to public education as an educator, administrator or elected official.

Because of her sparse record and the lack of time provided for questioning in her confirmation hearing, senators from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions submitted more than 1,000 official written questions, desperate to better understand her intentions for the position. DeVos' answers were alarming.

DeVos cherry-picked the questions to which she responded, blatantly ignored entire portions of questions and copied the same answers across different questions. She dodged questions by using the phrases "I look forward to working with you" and "I will review all current rules/regulations" 155 and 97 times, respectively. Sadly, the questions that DeVos did answer solidify that she poses a real threat to students nationwide. Her lack of knowledge of basic education policies and unwillingness to commit to key tenets of current law that promote equity should disqualify her from serving as secretary of education.

DeVos lacks an understanding of the functions and role of the U.S. Department of Education. The U.S. Department of Education exists to interpret and implement federal education policies; hold states, districts and institutions accountable to federal requirements and for student outcomes; and distribute funding for federal programs. DeVos does not seem to appreciate the importance and enormity of these responsibilities.

When asked how she would interpret or implement federal law, her answer to almost every question included some version of "I will work with states and local districts." Responsibility for most education issues – such as curriculum, staffing, scheduling and more – does rest with states and districts. But compliance with federal law is clearly the responsibility of the department. This response and approach will not promote clarity and equity for all schools and students. Congress grants the department the authority to implement the law; states look to the department to clarify the intent of the law; and students and families look to the department for protections that will supersede any one state.

Take the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. DeVos refused to commit to enforce accountability provisions in both the regulations and the statutory language. This enforcement is not a matter of states' rights; it's a matter of fulfilling the duties bestowed upon the department by Congress.

It appears that DeVos either doesn't understand the role of the department or plans to neglect her responsibilities as its leader, which should worry the many parents and students who live in states that have a history of providing students with a subpar education and trying to cover it up with low standards and accountability requirements.

DeVos dismisses the needs of low-income students. The largest stream of federal funding for K-12 education is the Title I program, which provides money to supplement state and local funding. When asked, DeVos would not commit to maintaining Title I funding for low-income students as it currently stands.

Cartoons on President Donald Trump View All 939 Images

DeVos also demonstrated a lack of understanding of the sacrifices some parents must make to ensure their students can attend even a free public school. She cavalierly dismissed one of the largest problems with vouchers and one of the main reasons they simply don't work for most low-income students when she said, "Just as the Pell Grant is not always enough to pay for the cost of tuition and fees at many institutions of higher education, vouchers in the K-12 arena sometimes fall short." Advocating for a program that most low-income students can't access because it would still leave private K-12 schools unaffordable, while decimating funding for students' only other option, is simply unacceptable.

DeVos demonstrates no knowledge of or appreciation for the laws that protect students with disabilities. During her confirmation hearing, DeVos did not know that the Individuals with Education Act – a critical civil rights law and the second largest K-12 program the department oversees – was a federal law. It appears DeVos has not adequately brushed up on her knowledge since then.

Her written answers show that she doesn't understand the basic premise of the law. DeVos used the fact that districts sometimes place students with disabilities in a setting different from their neighborhood school as a justification that private schools participating in voucher programs should be able to refuse to serve students with disabilities. DeVos said that since any given public school may refer a child to another school, a private school accepting public dollars should be allowed to do the same.

This shows a blatant misunderstanding of the act. Students with disabilities are guaranteed the right to a "free and appropriate public education" in the "least restrictive environment." A group, including educators, administrators and the child's parent, collaboratively decide the best placement for the child. The district ensures that every child is offered a placement specific to their disability. No public district refuses to serve a child, no matter the severity of the disability.

In addition, DeVos continued to show no concern for the unique needs of children and young adults with disabilities. For example, she refused to commit to promote competitive, integrative employment for all individuals with disabilities and said she would not defend the Obama administration's policy to make it easier for students who are permanently disabled and in default to discharge their student loans.

DeVos is unwilling to commit to defending policies that will promote inclusion and acceptance of all students. During the 2016 campaign, a Trump surrogate called the Office for Civil Rights at the Education Department "self-perpetuating absolute nonsense." It stands to reason, then, that DeVos was questioned extensively about her intentions for the office, and for promoting and defending civil rights more generally. Unfortunately, DeVos' answers showed no appreciation for the office's important role and no intent to protect the rights and dignity of students across the country. Most of her written answers were little more than stock language about her plans to review regulations and enforce existing statutes – never mind that such enforcement can look vastly different based on who is interpreting the law.

DeVos refused to commit to enforce civil rights protections and guidance that include reducing educational disparities on the basis of race, sex, and disability and reducing the use of exclusionary discipline practices such as out of school suspensions and expulsions; maintaining the office's role in responding to sexual assault; and responding to reports of discrimination against students based on sexual orientation or gender identity, just to name a few. Since enforcement of statutes can vary so widely, there is no way to know if she plans to stand up for the kids who most need advocates.

DeVos refuses to clarify her financial interests that may conflict with her responsibilities as secretary. DeVos dodged direct questions about her financial holdings in her written responses, failing to reveal the true nature of many of the investments she will maintain while overseeing the Department of Education. Despite her vast wealth and complex and varied financial holdings, the Senate committee made an exception for her that was not made for any other Trump nominee: to hold her hearing before the results of her financial disclosure paperwork were made public.

As a result, senators did not get a chance to ask her questions for the record about her financial holdings, including her investments in a large for-profit university slated to go public in the coming months from which she was not asked to divest, a company that refinances federal student loans into private student loans and dubious "brain training" company Neurocore (from which she will not be required to divest).

DeVos indicated very clearly in her responses to senators' questions that she expects her extended family will continue to make donations to candidates, PACs or political action committees, political parties and other partisan organizations. This is concerning because these donations may affect elected leaders' decisions about whether to challenge her education proposals, regardless of their merit.