In case you have any doubt, I have given up on both political parties when it comes to the present corporate assault on public education.
Arne Duncan could be Secretary of Education for either Obama or Romney. He cheerleads for rightwing governors like Bobby Jindal and hails privatizers like Jeb Bush. On education, the two parties are interchangeable.
Frankly, the public education system was better off when George W. Bush was president because Democrats fought him. Under Obama, Democrats fall in line behind the bipartisan (Republican) agenda. No one in D.C. fights the privatization and data gathering and standardization movement. No one stands up and says bluntly that Race to the Top is a failed extension of Bush’s failed No Child Left Behind. No one says that Congress and the administration have overreached for the past dozen years and are hurting children.
The hope for the future is a grassroots movement so vocal and so numerous that the national and state leaders cannot ignore us.
The election of Bill de Blasio in New York City suggests that the change is beginning. The voters in New York turned against the demonizing of teachers and the closing of public schools.
The movement is building against the corporate takeover of public education.
By 2016, we hope to have at least one candidate in either party who speaks out for American kids, for a stable public education system, for equitable funding, for student privacy, and for a dramatic reduction in high-stakes testing, which should never have been a federal role or mandate.
Who will stand up for better education? Who will stop the war on the profession of education? Who will save our kids from the corporate predators?
Here’s one possible face off: Hillary vs. Elizabeth Warren.
Maybe others will emerge. Who is most likely to resist the lure of Wall Street campaign cash?
What do you think?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I have long since given up on both parties, lumping them together as the Democrapublicans. I now vote third party.
What 3rd party?
It depends on the election and who is running. I am not loyal to any one party.
The key is that I will no longer vote Democrapublican.
How soon we forget. The vote to pass No Child Left Behind which punished school districts who did not make Adequate Yearly Progress actually had more Democrats vote for it than Republicans. Now tell me again why you think the punishments in NCLB passed on a bi-partisan basis are better than the waivers we have now, and why you think it was better under Bush than Obama? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of the waivers either, as I have written before, but they are better than the actual NCLB. http://systemschangeconsulting.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/the-great-dysfunction-or-lessons-in-how-not-to-govern/
Beat me to the punch SCC. The dems lead by T. Kennedy were behind NCLB also.
Who voted for it isn’t the issue. The issue became a lack of funding to ensure success in areas of need. Once again the have nots were screwed and people like Ted Kennedy later regretted support.
Excellent point. Teddy was on board with it, and niece Caroline is very good pals with Joel Klein and Bloomberg.
If you were a teacher you would know that one is as bad as the other, at least in Virginia.
Diane said the problem was created and maintained by both parties. Your response mismatch’s Diane’s message in her post.
mismatch’s -> mismatches
This is what Diane said, “Frankly, the public education system was better off when George W. Bush was president because Democrats fought him.” They did not fight him on NCLB. They gladly joined him. That’s why I made my accurate comment.
I think the reason they were behind it isthat they did not want Reoublicans to get credit for something good in education on the off chance it was a good thing. They didn’t think it through AND/OR they liked the sound of strict accountability like signing up for new work out regimen at New Years.
Every few months or so I pose the question: what if it had not been signed into law? Would we be wiping our brows in relief when we realized how dumb it would have been?
(Nobody ever takes the bait on this question, btw. But I think speculating on what might have or could have been helps give us focus going forward. Particularly when we don’t like where we are).
That is a very good question. What many people forget is that NCLB and now all its waivers are really just how the federal government chooses to fund public schools through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). What they also forget is that though the ESEA is an important part of the funding of public education, it is a relatively small minority, paled in comparison by state and local funding, wherein lies all the funding disparity.
So, to your question about what if NCLB hadn’t been signed into law, if that also means no federal funding to public schools because that’s what the NCLB/ESEA does in large part, all schools would have suffered from a lack of funding, and that funding is disproportionately critical to schools where poverty is high.
If you assume funding would have continued as before, you have to ask the next question, was ESEA policy helping improve the state of education in America prior to NCLB? I would suggest that it was not, which is why it was so easy to convince Democrats to jump on board.
And I can’t help but wonder if the point of convincing Dems to jump on board was intentional manipulation (with the intent of weakening public schools so Charters could be a tempting alternative) or did NCLB creators really think it might help things? Did it really seem like a good idea to all involved, or was it like the movie Truman where the wedding scene shows the bride crossing her fingers because Truman was an unknowing actor in someone else’s movie? Was Teddy Kennedy being played? And thus, all of us who use, support and value public education that truly values children as members of society?
I will need to do some reading on ESEA efforts/guidelines/mandates/parameters up to that point. Thank you for focusing my question a bit.
First of all, while the Democrats fought GW Bush on some things, they caved on the biggest thing of all, No Child Left Behind, which set the stage for all we are seeing unfold now.
Is it fair to associate Hillary with the people that her husband keeps company with? He has centered his work in philanthropy, which means he spends a great deal of time wooing billionaires, such as Eli Broad, who has donated significant amounts of money to Clinton’s global initiative. These relationships are likely to be instrumental in raising money for her campaign, which will no doubt be even more expensive than the last one.
Can Warren stay independent? She has a chance, but it will take a lot of grassroots support. At least she is not loved by the financiers.
Hilary has joined her husband’s “philanthropy” and she and Chelsea are now running it. She’s cleaned out some of the more problematic people in that organization to help her get all candidate-ready.
I personally think Warren is too inexperienced to be Prez. She also talks a good game in front of cameras on a few issues but has taken few votes that show who she really is. Many issues and her positions on them are unknown to us and I do not think she is necessarily progressive on them. Like Hilary, she was once a Republican. The acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree.
As for de Blasio, the Working Families Party had more to do with getting de Blasio elected than the Dems. I believe they’re active in only a few states. But I want to find out more about them and see what I can do with them in Los Angeles.
“. . . they caved on the biggest thing of all. . .”
No, the biggest thing they caved on was the immoral invasion of Iraq because those magical mushroom clouds that were going to start appearing everywhere from the WMD’s, only hundreds of thousands dead, broken vets at home, etc. . . .
And they still give C. Rice a microphone and camara lens so she can pontificate on how much we are threatened by such disgustingly bad public schools that are bound to ruin Amerika.
I think we’d have a shot with Elizabeth Warren. She is truly progressive (I think). I am afraid Hillary would provide the final nail in the coffin of public education. I was a fool to vote for Obama, but I hope I won’t be fooled again. Who were the Bill Clinton people who surrounded and influenced Obama? For a start, Rahm Emmanuel and Larry Summers. I think they influenced his choice of Arne Duncan for Sect’y of Ed. I believe Hillary has ties to the hedge fund folks who are the problem, not the solution. And I am so afraid that Hillary will be the next president…
I agree. The next Margaret Thatcher, American style.
Hill is not so different than Bill. Hill and Bill are worth more than 80 million dollars mostly earned from his speeches, which cost about $100,00o a pop.
Anyone feel his pain?
Hill and Bill are centrists-to-neo-liberals. . . .
Warren has a good track record, and hopefully, she will keep it and not allow herself to become corrupt.
I would go with Warren. Let’s see who Bernie Sanders endorses.
Another example: Democrat Quinn in Illinois picking Paul Vallas for his running mate. We need a third party.
That would be the Paul Vallas who paid in-state tuition for a “course” at the University of Connecticut so he could keep his job as superintendent of schools in Bridgeport.
There are special exceptions in CT for FOS, friends of Stefan.
The Clintons are squarely in the ed deform camp. Hillary Clinton sat on Walmart’s board. TFA got a huge push under Clinton. The Clinton administration pushed for a national curriculum back in the day, along with tests connected to it (though the Black Helicopter crowd would have never allowed this to come to pass in the 90’s.)
I think Hillary Clinton will not run for president given her age and her health. She does not look well these days (for that matter, neither does Bill) and my gut tells me she will decide in the end not to run again.
But if she does run, she will not carry the public education banner. She will promote the corporate education reform agenda the way her husband did as president.
LINKS: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/testing/testing.htm
Warren seems like a true progressive; on the side of the people.
I don’t vote for the main parties, but would certainly vote for her over Hillary.
I prefer Elizabeth Warren. I also like Bernie Sanders. I am an Independent. They have their hearts with the common good, with humanity, with equality. They aren’t perfect but better than the rest. Of course, Bernie talks forever.
I like Warren far better than anyone else on the national stage. Too much money in politics. Corporations control both parties
Does Warren even want to run for the presidency? The money needed to run for president is mind boggling and there would be very powerful groups and billionaires who would throw tons of money to her potential opponents (Democratic and Republicanish). I would vote for her but she doesn’t stand a chance in a country that has been brain washed to think that anyone to the left of Rand Paul is a commie, socialist, Marxist Leninist tree hugger.
You forgot pinko faggot!
People need to wake up, smell the coffee, avoid the tea, read both/all sides, follow the path of donors, look at similarities happening nationwide, think for themselves, stop being lemmings, and stop reading end of world novels passed off as prophecy. The cognitive dissonance in this country is frightening!
“The cognitive dissonance in this country is frightening!”
I might substitute ignorance for cognitive dissonance. Maybe the public schools are truly failing if people don’t understand just how little information they are allowed to read, see, hear on the fawning corporate controlled supposedly main stream media.
I gave up on both political parties in November 2012. Romney was never going to get my vote and Obama didn’t deserve it after RTTT. I’ll vote third-party from now on.
Elizabeth Warren understands that charter schools should be held to the same standards as other public schools:
The problem is, unless there’s one heckuva grassroots movement to get a third party elected, it really doesn’t matter who gets what party nomination or which party wins. I really like Elizabeth Warren so far, but the only way she’s going to be allowed to get on the Democratic ticket (assuming she even wants to) is if she bows to the corporate paymasters. She may very well say all the right things while campaigning and fool us all just like Obama did, but I don’t think I could believe her.
Under no circumstances will I vote for Hillary.
During her last campaign, Hillary’s education platform was to end NCLB and to make college more affordable. Since then she hasn’t said or done anything to oppose NCLB 2.0 (Race to the Top), and college is more expensive than ever.
Under no circumstances will I vote for Hillary, either.
Yeah, that’s what sucks the most, either going with a blank slate that may bend to campaign realities, or going with a seasoned political pro that has flopped many times to get ahead, even if she truly doesn’t believe in rheeform.
I’d love a third party right now.
The person who is going to get us out of all this muck and mire may not yet have been revealed. It’s a long way to 2016. Think Rabbit & Hare. The race is not always to the swift.
In Warren’s 2003 book, The Two Income Trap, “Warren and co-author Amelia Warren Tyagi cite the traditional public schools system, in which children are assigned to a school based on their residence, as a key source of economic pressure for families with children. Warren and Tyagi call for system-wide reforms to break the link between where a child lives and where they go to school, and specifically make the case for a fully-funded voucher program that would enable children to attend any public school.”
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/01/26/elizabeth-warrens-quiet-support-for-public-school-vouchers
She may not be our savior
Thanks for the reality check.
Just checked out the us news article. Thanks Wendy
OMG. I’m glad I reviewed this thread more carefully and caught this. Thanks for the info. So much for Warren.
Geeze. OK, there is ONE national politician I can think of who has stood up against the privatization of public education (and ALEC), Congressman Mark Pocan of Wisconsin. He was a member of the WI statehouse and is new to DC though.
Any others folks can think of?
No Billaries for me. Vote 3rd party. The DEMs and REPs both don’t represent me.
Secretary Clinton has some work to do. I remember watch a young Arkansas governor on Donahue eloquently articulating the necessity of high stakes testing in the wake of Nation at Risk. He was no friend of public ed. She needs to do more than using the word ‘progressive’. She needs to promote progressive ed policies and aggressively refute the baseless claims of the deformers.
The Tea Party started out as grassroots but is now “big money” with common people thinking it represents them. People have got to stop putting these social issues in the forefront. But, let;s face it, corporations are pulling our strings. They have been brainwashing people since the Reagan administration. Probably before that. How do we undo that. Even the working class thinks unions are bad for them. I personally know that without the unions, my dad, a factory worker, would have never become a part of the middle class.
How do we even get a grassroots groundswell started for public schools and other areas??
“The Tea Party started out as grassroots. . . ”
NO, it was started by operatives of the Koch brothers. True astroturf. Might have found it in the Astrodome when it opened (along with some of the J Birch beliefs from that era.)
Very true
Howard Dean??
…or Dennis Kucinich?
Howard Dean’s son owns a chain of charters in Philly
IMNSHO, America is not electing another president by the name of Bush, Clinton, or Obama. So, Hillary, Jeb, and other up and coming legacies should save their energy for other pursuits..
Valarie Strauss posted that De blasio is considering a BROADIE to be his Education Commissioner! Andres Alonso!
Could education be sold out again? Is this like Obama running with Darlimg-Hammond and then pick the dunce?
Beware NYC.
Don’t believe everything you hear. Wait for facts.
Time will tell.
It seems I was misinformed, my apologies to Dr. Alonso, my slanderous remark that he “is a BROADIE” was incorrect.
I regret putting such dishonor on you.
I haven’t yet seen the obvious choice listed here: Diane Ravitch for President in 2016!
(If not Diane, then Valerie Strauss.)
Maybe we’re going after the wrong thing. Maybe the system is so broken that we need to work on fixing the system. No matter their good intentions, the system ruins them. (I’m reading “This Town” by Liebovich and it’s telling.
Instead maybe we need to fight the big money in politics through groups like https://www.facebook.com/WolfPAChq
https://www.facebook.com/Move2Amend
TuTucker, the only way to beat them is to win at the polls. You came so close in Douglas County. Next time, you will win if you out-organize them.
I really don’t appreciate it that those who don’t even utilize public education get to call the shots. It angers me.
Elizabeth doesn’t appear to have sold out yet–k
Sent from my iPad
The name of Hillary’s early childhood campaign “Too Young to Fail” is telling. While the push for universal preschool is admirable it is concerning that many of the most vocal advocates are corporations, chambers of commerce and philanthropists. Instead of pushing for the expansion of pre-K through public schools, they are pushing public funding of private early childhood centers.
Today, in a comment on his blog, John Merrow advocated to Arne Duncan that funding be transferred from 12th grade to PreK: http://takingnote.learningmatters.tv/?p=6647
This is very alarming to me for many reasons. The majority of preschoolers are served in private centers today, many of which have multiple funding streams, including some form of public funds, such as subsidized child care. Since PreK is already privatized, neoliberals from both parties are not likely to want to open up PreK classes in public schools.
As with charters, I believe that Universal PreK will be THE new opportunity for corporations and entrepreneurs to get their hands on major public funds. (Those programs are still considered to be private and their teachers are typically non-union and grossly underpaid –minimum wage or slightly above.)
I have very serious concerns about ECE programs competing for funds, the push towards academics in Preschool and the elimination of play, as well as standardized testing of our youngest children:
Programs in states that won the Race to the Top –Early Learning Challenge, as well as Head Start (where they are required to test kids as young as 3 years old) must now compete for funds and all programs have to be graded.
Due to the pushed down curriculum mandated by Common Core in primary education, especially in Kindergarten, we are already seeing academics being pushed into PreK and play eliminated. I believe there is significant evidence indicating that preschool programs will be awarded funds based on academic achievement, too, i.e., test scores.
If you think that federal mandates have made our schools deleterious to the optimal development of children now, with the narrowed curriculum, constant test prep, testing and stress, then please do something about it. Don’t wait to see what happens when all of that is inflicted on babies in Universal PreK.
Jill Stein, Green Party.
I would like to see someone like Robert Reich in a position of significance in the next administration. As for president, before I would mention Hillary, I would have to know her clear stand on public education – this would be a deal or deal-breaker for any of the candidates. I sure hope the teacher unions are a lot harder on the candidates this upcoming election.
Being an optimist, I do think that elections will not be won by billionaire purse strings in 2016. Americans are fed up with being “fed lies” through outrageously expensive PR campaigns orchestrated by PAC groups supporting big business interests. Politicians are not for sale nor should democracy!
I wish there were no political ads that were against anyone, just ads explaining what the person is going to do. No lies. No barking cretins. No misleading claims. Rules. It has become sickening, esp with the money poured into the campaigns. I want ads that detail specific plans by each candidate, not accusations and sheer garbage about opponents.
As to Hillary Clinton–I would urge that people read Carl Bernstein’s 2007 book, “A Woman in Charge.” As to education, one will find pertinent passages insofar as when she was First Lady of Arkansas, & her onus on the Arkansas teachers. You ALL should know this—the insistence that Arkansas teachers be tested in order to “reform” education? The point, here (& you all will have to read this for yourselves) is that it was Hillary–& not Bill–who insisted that there must be a villain in all this, & that/those villain(s) were to be the Arkansas teachers! Again, you will have to read this for yourselves–the book is 638 pages (approx. 50, though, are devoted to bibliography and index), bug you will be able to find the chapter(s) in which the incidents are cited easily.
So–read this, then make up your minds. Me? I wholeheartedly endorse Elizabeth Warren, although I also like Bernie Sanders (Vermont! Named the Best Education State in the Nation, & there are legislative reasons for that!) and Alan Grayson (FL).
They are REAL, BLUE, PROGRESSIVE Democrats.
If not those three, I have to agree w/wksocmom up there–vote Jill Stein, Green Party.
Obama had served only one term as Illinois’ junior senator before he was elected president and Warren will have the same experience by 2016. She does not have the corporate baggage that Obama came with though.
Warren is the ONLY mainstream party candidate who would get my vote for president (and Independent Bernie Sanders).
Hillary is a neo-liberal through and through, and her husband is responsible for turning the Democratic party hard right, with his “New Democrats.” He’s also culpable for NAFTA and the outsourcing of US jobs. Remember their Arkansas roots and the fact that Hillary served on the Walton’s board. Need I say more?
Forget about Robert Reich. Unfortunately, he supports Obama’s education programs.
Forget what I said about Warren. I have since discovered that Wendy Lecker was kind enough to point out that Warren supports VOUCHERS: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/01/26/elizabeth-warrens-quiet-support-for-public-school-vouchers
Same here. I reread the section and caught that post by Wendy Lecker. I threw up in my mouth a little. However, there’s an apologist side of me that believes she’s reasonable enough to be persuaded once someone presents her the facts about vouchers, charters, current administration actions, etc.. Remember that Ms. Ravitch was once for privatization before coming to, and maybe Ms. Warren might too. She (Warren) wrote about vouchers in 2003 in her book “The Two Income Trap”. That was a long time ago. Her campaign site is irritatingly vague on education. Perhaps we should buy her a copy of Reign of Error, try to develop a rapport and really persuade her?
Side thought: I was on Open Secrets, looking at some of Ms. Warren’s donors, especially the law firms, and i can’t say I like some of those firms. Maybe I’m crazy, but there’s something off putting about receiving a donation from one firm that offers union avoidance services yet getting another that is more labor friendly (Ropes & Grey and Thornton & Naumes respectively, mind you my research is really cursory. Take with grain of salt).
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00033492&type=I&newmem=N
I thought Diane previously supported charters but not vouchers. You make a good point about the timeline and possibility of Warren changing though. I’ve written to her about supporting public education and received no response.
I’m for Elizabeth Warren. I’m not sure how much input she has in public education right now. But, if she’s astute enough to get tough on Wall Streetization of public education, she might be able to garner emotional support from parents and teachers. But, I don’t know if she has an audacity to challenge Arne Duncan and pro-reform and Wall-Street leaning Democrats for doing so.
Bush, Clinton nor Christie will be getting my vote. Maybe Warren, maybe Sanders or maybe a really good third party if one runs,.
Until Citizens United is overturned and elections are publicly funded, I am convinced there truly is no choice from the two major parties on the policy issues that matter to us like ending charters, teachers’ union bashing, gun control, climate change, Fracking, or militarization. Each question is controlled by corporate money which owns every candidate in both major parties. Read Bernie Sanders in this month’s Progressive Magazine where he sums up the problem with this anecdote: in the Oval Office after Obama’ s first election Bernie advised Obama to be an FDR, not a Bill Clinton. Five years later we know Obama’s choice, and I think we know why he opted to side with the 1% – they own him and the Dems as much as they own the Rs.
Jill Stein or Mark Naison for President.
The answer is neither.
I am still crossing my fingers that de Blasio won’t do a flip flop the way Obama did. Look at what happened in DC. The man that ran Rhee out of town hires her deputy to further destroy public ed. I am sick of being duped. And even if a Democrat came out and said they were for privatization, Randi and Dennis would still endorse them. DNC Chair Wasserman has said she likes Rhee. Rhee has an open door to the Democratic and Republican conventions.
I like Warren in terms of the economy. Keep in mind it was Bill Clinton who didn’t support her when the Repubs tried to kick her out of town. Then Obama did not give her the job she deserved because the Repubs were still upset with her.
If you Google “Maxed Out” you will find a documentary which she appeared in. I admired her more after seeing how badly the bankers treated her in the movie. And the funny thing, she was right in the end. I would say, “Who’s laughing now?” But with so many of Wall Street scammers not receiving any or very little punishment, I would say they are the ones still laughing.
I agree with the writer. Education policy under both democrats and republicans is the same. Democrats seem to be even more extreme that republicans, if that is possible. I arrived at this conclusion when Obama appointed Duncan. Just look at his record in Chicago. In NY state Cuomo bought into the phony reform movement. The country needs a viable third party that works for the people instead of the corporate interest. Under the present two party system there are only cosmetic differences between the parties. The people need to reclaim our government from the corporate friendly politicians. We need more people advocates like Bernie Sanders that work for the people that elected him.
Read on twitter: Possible D challenger for Hillary Clinton? Not Elizabeth Warren – she’s urged Clinton to run.
We just covered education reform yesterday with http://muncievoice.com/9327/education-reform-needs-a-paradigm-shift/, and also posted Warren v Clinton article. Clinton would have to abandon Wall Street for me to support her. If she could do that, I’d like to see a Clinton/Warren ticket with an emphasis that our VP takes a more active role in policy versus a figure head in reserve. Daniel Pink has the science behind and Finland has the model which show the science is effective and outperforms the USA across the board.
We should be empowering teachers, not demonizing them. Give the teachers more power to teach and discipline students. They have been trained, so let them do their job. Get out of their way.
But let me say this loud and clear, you cannot address education without insuring our young people have adequate food and shelter. In our community, 75% of the urban school population receives free or reduced lunches. We need to stop the war on teachers, and start a war on poverty.
Obama’s inaction on Wall Street crimes and embrace of conservative, corporate led education reform are just two of the reasons the business owned wing of the Democrat Party will hopefully be kicked out of the driver’s seat in the next presidential election.
However, even with the best president possible, that won’t do much for us if he has the same kind of Congress. Progressive Democrats need to target the most corporate compliant Democrats in primaries and send them back to their real careers as as lobbyists and corporate executives.
Oh wow what a choice – I hope neither! Hillary is a big proponent of the Global/Sustainable Development movement. And Elizabeth Warren is one of the co-sponsors of S.B. 1094 which is the reauthorization of the ESEA that includes among other things, education from birth, longer school hours, longer school year, making a National Curriculum official and legal, a plan for what they call “21st Century Community Learning Centers”, and more guidelines than ever for qualifying for funding. These two as our choices, I find this a nightmare.
Let’s be real. I think Elizabeth Warren is a great senator, very happy that she was elected. There is no chance, however, that she will run for President against Hillary Clinton. If she did, there is zero chance that she would be the nominee.
If Hillary Clinton runs (it sure looks like that now), she will be the Democratic nominee, and most likely the next president. (My guess for Repub nominee-no time to explain why now is…..gasp…Ted Cruz!) Hillary Clinton will be a shoo-in for the dems though.
I remember in the dem primaries in 2008, Hillary said some good things about education, dismantling NCLB, less teaching to the test, etc. Of course saying and doing are two very different things for a politician.
Rather than worrying which candidate to support, we should be talking to Hillary (anyone who can get through to her), educating her about what is going on, so she can learn how bad the deform agenda is. (The fact is, most politicians know hardly anything about education, so too quick to fall for nice-sounding buzz words, etc.
It is good the Warren supports vouchers. It’s the only thing that she champions that I agree with. I don’t understand why you are against vouchers. The way schools are run in the U.S. reminds me of the old USSR. It is amazing how people who are typically pro-choice with respect to “reproductive rights”, marriage, etc. don’t extend these same kinds of feelings for education. The only way you can say that vouchers will kill “public” education is if you think that public education can’t survive without people being forced to use it. It makes no sense to view it any other way. Do you think that everyone will automatically go to private schools (parochial or otherwise)? That doesn’t make ANY sense…there aren’t enough private schools to accommodate everyone…and I think that the money would then be allocated more reasonably. Schools with bad teachers or administrators would go the way of food eateries with horrible food or service. They’ll close…and good schools will be filled to the brim with students and resources.
Sorry, Raf, I met with Senator Elizabeth Warren a few weeks ago, and she assured me that she does not support vouchers. She told me she is a proud product of public education.
Too bad! I’m the proud product of a Catholic school education that my black/hispanic working class parents had to scrimp and save to put me and my three brothers through because of the public school system that urban kids like us would be otherwise forced to go to. This was NYC public schools and I remember during that time (1960s) a Ravitch was in a position of power (union I think). So my parents worked really hard and their tax dollars were sacrificed to the teacher’s union on the altar of public education with ZERO concern as to how kids like us in the South Bronx were being served. P.S. 48 or St. Athanasius. James Monroe H.S. or Cardinal Spellman. That was the “choice” my parents had. Pay for lackluster public schools through your taxes and pay again to get a decent education for your kids. Personally, I believe teachers should get paid salaries commensurate with their results. I would be willing to pay teachers $100K a year…IF that would result in youngsters who could compete on the world stage. Doctors with poor patient outcomes don’t last very long, stockbrokers with poor outcomes lose clients, lawyer with poor outcomes lose clients…teachers with poor outcomes..blame the President, the Republicans, the weather…anything but themselves. I have yet to hear a teacher…or their union say that they have done anything wrong. Excuses are like….everyone has one. Unfortunately, what I keep seeing is poor, urban kids still keep getting the short end of the stick…when good alternatives are available…and they’re usually walking down the street in plaid uniforms or white shirts and ties.