Democrats for Education Reform--the voice of hedge fund managers who meddle in education despite their lack of any knowledge or experience–issued a statement congratulating Bernie Sanders for coming out in support of “public charter schools.”
Senator Sanders was interviewed on a radio talk show. He was asked about whether he supported vouchers and charters. He said he supports public education and opposes funding private schools. The host asked whether he supports “public charter schools,” and he answered “yes.”
You have to wonder whether Bernie understands that privately managed charters, which operate with no transparency or public accountability, and without democratic governance, call themselves “public charter schools.” In some states, charter legislation calls them “public charter schools,” even if they operate for profit.
Even though Bernie is a member of the Senate committee that oversees education, he doesn’t seem to be well informed about what charters are. He doesn’t realize that he just signed on to the favorite “reform” of ALEC, every Republican candidate, the Walton family, and every red-state governor (plus Cuomo of New York and Malloy of Connecticut), as well as Wall Street.
I wonder if Bernie knows that at least 90% of “public charter schools” are non-union, which is why Republicans and oligarchs love them.
Strange bedfellows indeed.
DFER said:
“MARCH 1ST, 2016
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DFER STATEMENT ON BERNIE SANDERS’ MOST RECENT STATEMENT ON CHARTER SCHOOLS
Shavar Jeffries Welcomes Senator Sanders’ Flip to “Yes” on Public Charters
“Yesterday, on the Tom Joyner Morning Show, Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders flip-flopped on his prior position and clearly declared his support for public charter schools. In response, DFER President Shavar Jeffries released the following statement:
“We welcome Senator Sanders’ recognition that public charter schools can and do provide essential educational options for students, many of whom do not have other high-quality public options available. Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders have now both changed their rhetoric in this campaign and joined President Obama in acknowledging that allowing students and families a choice empowers them to find the best opportunity that meets their unique needs. Flatly opposing high-performing public charters would send hundreds of thousands of students back into failing schools and prevent those public charters from helping to lift neighborhood schools by offering new — and proven — ways of educating our children that put results ahead of bureaucracy.”
Sanders Flips on Opposition to Charters
Senator Sanders at Newmarket, NH Town Hall on January 3rd:
“I’m not in favor of privately-run charter schools. If we are going to have a strong democracy and be competitive globally, we need the best educated people in the world. And I believe in public education. I went to public schools my whole life. I think rather than give tax breaks to billionaires, I think we invest in teachers and we invest in public education.”
Sanders Flops Back in Favor of Charters
Diane Ravitch's blog 
It’s disappointing how corporate education reform really hasn’t come up on the Democratic side this cycle, even after the tumultuous Arne Duncan years.
They never bring it up in the debates — the corporate media is all about the conventional reform train. That’s the problem — if we added some political consequences, Bernie would have to focus more on reform, and I think his socialist tendencies would mean he would side with a democratic vision for education.
“— the Corporate LAME STREAM Media is all about the conventional reform train.”
There, corrected,
Editor
That’s right. And look at how clever DFER is. They send out a statement immediately after any candidate says anything close to their agenda. That’s how they get this into the public discussion. Meanwhile, our side points fingers at each other for criticizing one candidate over the other. Come on.
the charters have done an unbelievable job of making sure the media does not inform the public about what they are, and what the automatic impact is.
Wish you had added that Hillary has been pro charters all along…and that she supports the hedge funders who promote them as good investment opportunities.
Seems unfair to lay this at Bernie’s feet at this moment when he is doing so well as a candidate.
Ellen, it makes me rethink my whole orientation on this blog and that of Diane’s and people at NPE.
I am not saying that Diane should suppress factual reporting; but connecting dots and reading between the lines, how many pieces on Hillary’s inclination (and Bill’s) toward charters has she put out?
Something really does not add up here, or maybe I am paranoid?
This is making me crazy. I refuse to believe that Diane et al are anything but pro-public education, but it makes no sense that she publishes this and does not reveal what the Clinton’s track record is with regard to reform.
I refuse to believe that Diane just loves Hillary and Hillary only because she is a woman. Feminism is an important thing, but not the only issue at play here. Diane is a true intellect and would only want the best for public education. And still, the incongruency in this article is gas lighting me personally.
I give up . . . . Well, when it comes to this at least.
Maybe Bernie is THAT ignorant, or maybe . . . . I refuse to consider otherwise.
I am supporting Bernie because he is the only real deal. Not perfect. No one is, but he is pure compared to all others . . . .
Robert, I previously posted about Hillary making a mild criticism of charters and then her education adviser taking back her criticism.
I am not supporting either of them. Neither has said much about schools. https://dianeravitch.net/2015/11/19/hillary-aide-insists-that-hillary-does-support-charters-if-they-are-equitable/
” it makes me rethink my whole orientation on this blog and that of Diane’s and people at NPE.”
Robert, thanks for typing up exactly what I’ve been thinking.
I certainly respect Diane, NPE, and others. But the issue of who is a better candidate — for public education and democracy — is absolutely clear at this point.
This candidate also needs as much positive support as possible, not negative SPECULATION.
I believe many will lose trust in those who do not discover and commit to the right choice at this point in history.
I listened to the interview live on my way to school. The question was worded and I quote: “Senator Sanders 90% of African Americans support Charters and Vouchers do you also support them”? Bernie seemed uncomfortable with the question and answered that he supported only those Charters that were Public which told me right away that he does not have an understanding of Charters in general. I also have to agree with Robert that there seems to be a pro Hillary vibe on this blog who by the way is by far the worse candidate in the entire race including the Republicans.
Diane, I will defend to my death your support of whatever candidate you want. No one should dictate anything to anyone!!! You have every right and prerogative to wait and watch or feel neutral.
Thank you for putting out this article.
I will bravely and even immodestly venture to say that a YUGE majority of Ravitch readers and NPE contributers are pro-Sanders. It’s par for the course . .
For those of us who have lived, breathed, and eaten roles as public school teachers and administrators under NCLB and RttT AND horrific, corrupt union leadership within larger unions and their executives, we do not want nor can fathom someone as Neoliberal and Wall Street addicted as Hillary . . . .
Bit you should – and I know you will – advocate the way you want. I just want to distinguish the purpose of this article, your right to view any candidate in any light, and the needs and views of your readership. Distinguishing these components of our movement empowers everyone. . . . . .
Your readers are very intelligent, just like you. As a literacy teacher, examining autor’s tone – both those who post and those who host – is one of the joys and empowerments of being an excellent reader . . . . As are making inferences and synthesizing and applying new knowledge after a good read.
Thank you for empowering everyone here! I am sincerely grateful for this article. My Bern just got happily hotter.
Robert, I have a lot of respect for you. But when people assume that the reason a woman is supporting Hillary Clinton is “feminism,” it stinks of male chauvinism.
I have a very positive view of this blog, its author, and all the supporters of public education who comment on this blog. Like Robert, Ellen, and others, I have a very negative view of anyone who has ever supported privatization and so-called accountability without recanting her sins. And like many, I am disillusioned by those I respect quietly supporting an establishment candidate I fear. So, here’s an allegory for DFER and Sanders: If Eli Broad said something nice about me, it would only make me distrust Eli Broad even more.
“Robert, I have a lot of respect for you. But when people assume that the reason a woman is supporting Hillary Clinton is “feminism,” it stinks of male chauvinism.”
Whom here did Robert specifically assume that about? Nobody.
And yet it is true that some people do support Hillary because she is a woman. If you ask Hillary supporters why they support her, you will occasionally — not always, OF COURSE — get this answer straight from their own mouths.
Some people voted for Obama because he was black. Some people will vote for Hillary because she is Hillary Clinton and a woman. It’s not racist or sexist to point that out. It is a real reason people have.
Robert said he refused to believe that is Diane’s reason. I agree with his logic and hopefulness there. I cannot believe Diane, Carol Burris, Karen Lewis, etc have not sided with Bernie because they simply want a woman. It would be inconsistent with their history and core values.
The question remains why they have not made the right choice.
Do they have the RIGHT to remain neutral in this MAJORLY IMPORTANT MOMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY, JUSTICE, AND DEMOCRACY? Absolutely.
Does that make their choice THE RIGHT ONE? I believe not.
I share Robert’s cognitive dissonance on this issue.
“It’s not racist or sexist to point that out. It is a real reason people have.”
This, of course, is not necessarily a simple issue, but saying “I vote for her because she is a woman” is sexist and “I vote for him because he is black” is racist.
In case you don’t agree, compare the above statements with
“I vote for her because he is a man” is sexist and “I vote for him because he is white” is racist.
Karen Wolf,
I too respect you. I feel not at all defensive about your statement, but I would like to offer further clarification to you personally and others on this blog.
My contention was that many African Americans voted for Obama because he was black – as one important factor, certainly not the only one. Many women, according to a plethora of articles and op-eds, currently have their eye on Hillary because she is a woman and she represents their gender. She represents equal opportunity and feminine power. She represents a gender that, in my opinion, is vastly underrepresented in or the Senate and Congress, in the film industry when it comes to directors, producers, and older woman being portrayed, in CEOs of companies, and in other vital fields. Of course, gender and ethnicity are not the only factors, but they are vast and effective selling points, and why should they not be? It’s just that they cannot be nor should they be the ONLY selling points.
Margaret Thatcher was a horrible, horrible person, and I don’t miss her. She was Ronald Reagan in a skirt. But I do admire that fact that she stood up to the old boys’s network in Parliament and showed them who was boss. Too bad she destroyed millions of working class Britons’ lives in the process. I am GLAD she is not on earth any more!!!
I have never voted GOP, and I voted for Obama once. Even though I will put him down in my book as one of the worst and most disingenuous politicians this country ever had, I am still proud that he is half black and that we had a man of color in the White House. However, I only wish it had been the RIGHT black man. The same applies to Hillary. I think it is critical that we have a woman president, but too bad this one who is running has really bad politics and values. She’s just not the RIGHT woman. But she’s a woman nonetheless.
I really don’t think that makes me racist or sexist. Once upon a time, 50% of the American economy was based on slavery, and the fact that we have Obama in office shows a dramatic and symbolic change of tides, and rightfully so, I would opine. Not so long ago, American woman were considered chattel in the marriage to a man, and they had considerably few rights. A poor, unmarried woman was ostracized in young America and Edwardian England. At one point, woman here and in England were not permitted to vote.
So, Karen, no, I am not a chauvinist, but I believe in egalitarianism, and if that makes me chauvinistic or racist in your eyes, then let me be guilty.
I sound like a Calvin Klein ad . . . .
Little girls would take delight in having a woman president, as would little boys, I think it shows that both genders are important, the ying and yang of this world. It would also be a good role model for little girls to see a female president.
But, as Martin Luther King once summed it up sagaciously, “One day the only color that will matter is green because whoever achieves power will be subject to temptation to care only about money and not their fellow man!”
Add to Dr King’s speech “gender”, which probably was not as much the mindset in his epoch.
The bottom line is that egalitarianism is indispensable for a democracy, and in that same breath, so are one’s politics, no?
Robert,
If it helps, I have never voted for a candidate because of gender or race.
Ed Detective,
I don’t disagree with you.
Diane,
I did not think you did, and it is not for me to tell you or anyone who to think or vote. Nor, of course, do you strike me as a single issue voter.
Cx:
” . . . how to think or vote . . . . “
I hope Sanders’ statements bring the topic into the next forum or debate and finally forces both candidates to differentiate between their opposition to privatizing social security and the VA while cheering on the profits made on the backs of our children and teachers.
That is a great way of framing this. Just imagine if the radio host had said “You oppose privatizing social security and VA services. Do you support privatizing public education through charter schools?”
Or “A California state audit showed the largest nonprofit charter chain in the country could not account for 69% of its financial transactions. Do you think charter schools have enough oversight?”
Or “We saw in a California state audit, that the nation’s largest charter chain was self-dealing–giving public dollars intended for schools to companies their board members and staff might have profited from? How would you prevent that kind of corruption?”
We should all
We should all be asking the candidates these questions.
Tom Joyner, Roland Martin, Al Sharpton. Huh.
http://www.eurweb.com/2016/02/bernie-sanders-shows-up-to-talk-politicsissues-on-the-tom-joyner-morning-show/
I doubt Bernie is well informed about charter schools although that is no excuse. Vermont does not have them.
Credit goes directly to the AFT website in reporting out on Bernie’s platform on education:
Candidate questionnaire: Bernie Sanders
Today, almost 50 million students attend our nation’s public schools. Along with their parents, communities, teachers, paraprofessionals and other school employees, these students have been forced to live under test—and-punish policies that include sanctions and school closings, high-stakes assessments, and federalized teacher evaluations that are counterproductive and have taken the joy out of teaching and learning.
Q. What is your view of the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (also
known as the No Child Left Behind Act)? What changes, if any, would you make to the law, and
why? Please include positions on:
• The federal government’s role in ensuring equity and access to resources for all children;
• The role of standards, assessments and accountability in public education;
• Ensuring that all students have access to a broad curriculum that includes art and music,
as well as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM);
• Professional development for school staff; and
• Community schools.
BS: I voted against No Child Left Behind in 2001, and continue to oppose the bill’s reliance on high-stakes standardized testing to direct draconian interventions. In my view, No Child Left Behind ignores several important factors in a student’s academic performance, specifically the impact of poverty, access to adequate health care, mental health, nutrition, and a wide variety of supports that children in poverty should have access to. By placing so much emphasis on standardized testing, No Child Left Behind ignores many of the skills and qualities that are vitally important in our 21st century economy, like problem solving, critical thinking, and teamwork, in favor of test preparation that provides no benefit to students after they leave school.
In my home state of Vermont, almost every school is identified as “failing” under the requirements of No Child Left Behind, despite the fact that we have one of the highest graduation rates in the country, and students from Vermont continually score among the highest in the country on annual NAEP assessments.
As a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, I have worked to reform No Child Left Behind. My top priorities during the most recent iteration of the bill have been:
• Reducing the high-stakes nature of standardized tests by basing accountability on multiple measures of a school’s effectiveness.
• Including a pilot program that allows states to implement innovative systems of assessment that do not rely on standardized tests. Instead, new innovative assessments will empower educators by providing actionable information during the school year that can inform instructional practice.
• Maintaining federal support for afterschool programs provided through the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program.
• The inclusion of wrap-around support services like health, mental health, nutrition and family supports.
I believe guaranteeing resource equity is a core tenet of the federal government’s role in education policy, and if elected, I will work reduce the resource disparities that currently exist between schools in wealthy and low-income areas.
In addition, I strongly support increased emphasis on a well-rounded curriculum. No Child Left Behind’s narrow focus on math and literacy has deprived children, especially low-income children, from critical opportunities in the arts, music, physical education, civics and STEM fields.
I also believe that not enough emphasis has been placed on effective professional development for educators and school leaders. Districts and schools must provide more time and support for educators to pursue highly effective professional development. We should be encouraging innovation in professional development, and ensuring that teachers will be able to incorporate professional development into their classroom practice. Finally, we must provide the resources necessary to provide effective professional development for all teachers, and have consistently supported efforts to increase Title II funding.
Q. Do you support any of the current reauthorization proposals under consideration in the 114th
Congress?
BS: I believe the Alexander-Murray compromise on No Child Left Behind reauthorization represents a step in the right direction, and voted for the bill in Committee. While this legislation could go much further to provide adequate resources to our lowest-income students, I believe it is an important step forward. I strongly oppose the Student Success Act because it would gut the core provisions of federal law that direct education funding toward the low-income students who need it most.
Q. What role do you think the federal government can play in providing access to early childhood education? What specific policy proposals would your administration pursue?
BS: Every child in the United States should have access to high quality early childhood education programs, and that the federal government has a critical role to play. If elected, I would pursue a federal program to guarantee access for every child, and ensure early-childhood educators receive compensation that is commensurate with elementary school teachers.
Q. What are your views on private school vouchers, tuition tax credits, and charter school accountability and transparency?
BS: I am strongly opposed to any voucher system that would re-direct public education dollars to private schools, including through the use of tax credits. In addition, I believe charter schools should be held to the same standards of transparency as public schools, and that these standards should also apply to the non-profit and for-profit entities that organize charter schools.
Q. Escalating tuition and fees are leading to a growing number of students leaving college with overwhelming debt from student loans. This burden of rising costs and rising debt makes access to higher education increasingly difficult for many students and their families. What is the role of the federal government in ensuring that higher education is affordable and accessible?
BS: Skyrocketing college tuition has left college out of reach for hundreds of thousands of students, and left millions more deeply in debt. In an increasingly global economy, I believe it is unfair and bad economic policy to force our young people to compete with workers from other countries who can pursue a higher education at little or no cost. This is why I introduced the College for All Act which would create a federal-state partnership to eliminate undergraduate tuition at public colleges and universities. In addition, this legislation would slash student loan interest rates, and allow borrowers to refinance their loans. If elected, I would continue my work to eliminate tuition at public colleges and to alleviate the burden of student debt.
Q. There has been a nationwide pattern of disinvestment in public higher education such that per-student funding dropped 26.1 percent between 1990 and 2010. What would your administration do to remedy this?
BS: State disinvestment has unquestionably been a prime driver of skyrocketing tuition costs. I strongly support the creation of a federal-state partnership that will incentivize states to re-invest in their public higher education systems.
Q. Career and technical education programs help ensure that postsecondary credentials and skills are accessible to all—a necessity in today’s economy. In your view, what is the role of the federal government in supporting high-quality CTE programs?
BS: Career and Technical Education programs are vital pathways to middle-class, family-supporting jobs. I believe it is in our national and economic interest to ensure quality CTE programs are available to every American, and effectively aligned with the needs of the 21st century workforce. Accordingly, I strongly support fully-funding the Perkins CTE program. In addition, if elected, I would work to revolutionize our nation’s approach to workforce development and technical education to build effective, attainable pathways for young people to pursue middle class careers.
Q. What is the federal government’s role in requiring appropriate transparency and accountability of for-profit institutions?
BS: In my view, for-profit colleges and career programs have perpetrated a massive fraud at the expense of American taxpayers, and hundreds of thousands of students who are now saddled with worthless degrees and massive amounts of student debt. As the gatekeeper to financial aid programs, the federal government must be far more vigilant, and do a much more effective job in protecting students and taxpayers from low-quality and fraudulent programs. I support efforts to implement gainful employment regulations, and regulations requiring that no institution receives more than 85% of its revenue from federal sources. In addition, I support efforts to increase transparency in the sector, so students and policymakers have a clearer understanding of institutions’ activities and quality.
Q. What are your views of the Affordable Care Act? What changes would you make, if any, to the ACA, including the excise tax on high-cost plans and the provisions on shared responsibility for employers?
BS: I start my approach to healthcare from a very basic point: healthcare should be a right and not a privilege. Our healthcare system is broken, and the Affordable Care Act was an important first step. It has done a lot of good things that have improved the health and economic security of millions of Americans, including closing the prescription drug “donut hole” for seniors, allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans, and preventing insurance companies from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions. But the ACA was not perfect, and there are some improvements we can make. Although millions more Americans have insurance now, the ACA will still leave some 30 million Americans without health coverage. Families will still face plans that have high deductibles and copays, or do not cover the medications or doctors they need.
Beyond those larger improvements, any specific changes to the ACA must be done thoughtfully and with a few key principles in mind–namely, the impact any changes will have on the rest of the healthcare system. Changes to the employer shared responsibility provision should not be done in a way that leads to higher premiums for employees or reduced revenues for the government. As for the excise tax on high-cost health plans, it is important to preserve the savings Congress intended from that provision, but I want to be certain that workers who have traded lower wages for better benefits over the years are not penalized.
Q. Do you support initiatives designed to move health insurance coverage away from an employer-based model? If so, what would you propose as an alternative to the current system for covering working adults?
BS: As I said above, the Affordable Care Act was a good first step towards fixing our broken healthcare system–but it also heavily relies on continuing the employer-based model of health coverage. There is no reason employers should be in the insurance business, unless they actually happen to run an insurance company! I believe the best strategy is to move to universal coverage under a Medicare-for-all single payer system. Your health coverage and your level of benefits should not depend on your employer.
Q. Many licensed healthcare professionals, particularly RNs, are leaving hospital service because of difficult working conditions, including excessive and unsafe workloads, understaffing and mandatory overtime. What would you do to address these problems and to improve recruitment and retention of nurses and other healthcare professionals?
BS: I believe that health care is a right, not a privilege and every American should have access to the health care services they need, regardless of their income. I also believe improved access to primary care will keep people healthier and reduce reliance on emergency rooms as a first site of care. These changes in our health care system will improve the lives of patients but also of health care providers, including RNs working in hospitals, who are often the ones who bear the brunt of our flawed system. Until these types of changes can be made, we need to protect this critical workforce by ensuring they have the equipment and resources they need to provide world class health care without risking personal injury. I have long supported programs and policies, including the National Health Service Corps, designed to encourage caring and dedicated individuals to go into the health care field and serve in areas of greatest need.
Q. Merger and acquisition activity continues to consolidate the U.S. healthcare system into the hands of a few corporations, many of which are for-profit. What would you do to ensure competition in the healthcare industry is fair and protects the American consumer?
BS: Consolidation and concentration of power is occurring throughout every sector of our economy and it must stop. We must not allow a few companies and a few families to control every industry in this country. This is a problem in the health care industry where only a select number companies control the system and focus more on their shareholders’ profits than the health of their customers. For example, prescription medications in this country are not only made by a limited number of companies but are distributed by only a few companies with the ability to set prices however they want and can limit the supply however they choose. America desperately needs a reinvigorated anti-trust system aimed at dismantling the growing concentration in many sectors of our economy.
Q. What would you do to ensure that communities have access to public health services?
BS: Access to public health services has been a substantial focus of my time in Congress. As Chairman of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee in the Senate I worked tirelessly to make sure that every eligible veteran in this country had access to high-quality, timely care through the VA. And as Chairman of the Health Education Labor and Pension’s subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging I led the efforts to reauthorize the Older Americans Act, which helps guarantee access to critical health programs for seniors throughout the country and fought hard to extend funding for three key public service programs: Federally Qualified Health Centers, Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education, and the National Health Service Corps. I am a huge supporter of community health centers as I believe they help all Americans, regardless of income, access the preventive care that keeps them healthy and well. I would like to expand these centers, making sure even more Americans can benefit. I have also fought hard to include dental care in more public health programs so more Americans aren’t forced to ignore dangerous, even life-threatening oral health problems because they don’t have coverage.
Q. What are your priorities for revitalizing the economy, strengthening the middle class, creating jobs and ensuring fair taxation? How would your plan help restore funding for education, healthcare, transportation, public safety and many other services provided to our citizens?
BS:. Creating Millions of jobs. If we are truly serious about reversing the decline of the middle class and putting millions of people back to work, we need a major federal jobs program. The most effective way to do that is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. That’s why I’ve introduced legislation which would invest $1 trillion over 5 years to modernize our country’s physical infrastructure. My bill would create and maintain at least 13 million good-paying jobs, while making our country more productive, efficient and safe.
Raising Wages and Benefits. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage. The minimum wage must become a living wage — which means raising it to $15 an hour over the next few years. My goal is to ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty. We must also bring about pay equity. It’s unconscionable for women to earn 78 cents on the dollar compared to men who perform the same work. Overtime protections must be strengthened for millions of workers. It is absurd that “supervisors” earning $25,000 a year — and who may in fact supervise no one — are currently forced to work 50 or 60 hours a week with no overtime pay. We also need paid sick leave and vacation time for all.
Progressive Taxation. In order to reverse the massive transfer of wealth and income from the middle class to the very rich we’ve seen in recent years, we need real tax reform which makes wealthy individuals and profitable corporations begin to pay their fair share of taxes. It is fiscally irresponsible for the U.S. Treasury to lose about $100 billion a year because corporations and the rich stash their profits in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other tax havens. I have introduced legislation which would end this legalized tax fraud.
College for All. The United States must join Germany and many other countries in understanding that investing in our young people’s education is investing in the future of our nation. I have introduced legislation to make tuition in public colleges and universities free, as well as substantially lower interest rates on student loans.
– See more at: http://www.aft.org/election2016/candidate-questionnaire-bernie-sanders#sthash.BMtRWLna.dpuf
How ignorant these positions are. Bernie Sanders would have the federal government insinuated into every facet of life. In his time of power, that might seem great. However, others will take power, and the framework for using the federal government to destroy ALL public education will be handed to that person on a silver platter. Senator Sanders sees NO limit to what good government can do for the people. That same power will be turned against the people. Our founding fathers were brilliant. Sanders is an old fool.
“Senator Sanders sees NO limit to what good government can do for the people.”
Fl Teacher, you clearly have NO idea what you are talking about. Spend more time looking into and listening to a candidate before claiming something so outrageous.
So no one is skeptical as to what Sanders actually said, in what context? Was he asked, “Do you support privately-run charter schools?” It doesn’t seem so. He was asked a different question about “public charter schools.” How can anyone seriously suggest that supporting the latter in general is support for the any of the former in particular?
I have had experience with a publicly run charter with no private management company, a public board that meets. . . publicly, public funds, public accountability, open admissions by lottery if more applications than seats are submitted, etc. Chartered by the community college that hosts it and through which the students earn dual enrollment credit. I could go on, but I think the point is made: this isn’t the sort of place that the Evil Moscowitzes of this country set up, run, support, abuse. I support such schools. I would have sent my son there if it had been logistically possible and not hesitated. Who wouldn’t want their kid to have a shot at getting up to two years’ college credit free while completing high school?
So if Sanders is asked about supporting “public charter schools” and says, “yes,” there’s no automatic contradiction, no sell-out, no jumping into bed with the private charter chains, or anything of the kind.
Of course, the bastards who represent such places are going to try to use his comment to support ALL the charters. That doesn’t mean he does. And I’m more than a little aggravated that anyone here would jump to the very conclusion these amoral creeps are trying to play you into, particularly without looking more deeply into the situation.
Bernie Sanders isn’t stupid. And his record suggests that he doesn’t flip-flop. That’s Hillary’s long suit.
Yes, Michael; you’re right!
“context”
You said the magic word, Michael. The media in particular is good at taking things out of context, and reporting something in a way that suits their own agenda.
Yes, Michael, I agree. The “Public Charter Schools” that exist in my area are managed by our public school districts. Everything is transparent. And some of them actually are the biggest Opt-Out schools in the area.
It would be helpful if there were more research on these types of real public charters. The ones that don’t teach to the test and who’s parents refuse the tests.
Bernie has his own ideology that is blind to the needs of single schools and dedicated teachers challenged by environments of poverty and unemployment. Will his free tuition to public colleges destroy independent non-profit colleges and unemploy thousands?
DFER is certainly meddlesome, and just as their name is confounding, so too may be this statement. My guess is it’s intended to send more voters into noeliberal Clinton’s column.
I agree, Christine.
Hate to say it, but it sounds like this group would be best off with Trump as far as education goes. Obama has been a disaster for education as will Hillary Clinton I presume. “Race to the top” – ridiculous. Know: I am not for Trump.
I loved reading this: http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/26131-valdemar-w-setzer-on-the-obsolescence-of-education Get rid of tech in lower grades!!!
I read the link.
“Furthermore, what is important in education are not the details, which are asked in tests, but a general maturation, the acquisition of social, artistic and intellectual abilities, and these cannot be graded. ”
Sadly, the CORE seeks to score children on their social, emotional and artistic abilities as well. Its all included in the student surveys, buried in the core texts and included in the so-called research where teachers are being paid on the side to report on children. Not to mention the reporting kids are told to do on each other. All part of the longitudinal records.
Part of me is conflicted. On one hand I think this is setup, DFER really wants to destroy Sanders reputation at such a pivotal moment in order to seal it for Clinton, because they know that if Bernie wins, and if *some* of his agenda gets implemented, charter schools will become useless. DFER knows they’re toxic, so an endorsement should scatter his base, sinking him back to “some indie from VT” (or potentially a VP).
On the other hand, Sanders is knowledgeable about education. If flop is true, this really douses my Bern.
you know, DFER didn’t endorse Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, but he won — And he’s all about charter schools and other edu-grafts. Perhaps DFER wins no matter what in this election too.
Last week, there were also articles that Bernie agreed with the Koch Brothers. Clearly a claimed association with a toxic group.
I just watched an old YouTube of Podesta, one of Hillary’s campaign folks, explaining comman ground he and many democrats share with Jeb Bush about Charter schools, teacher evaluation, etc., This youtube caused me, as a Democrat great concern- especially given her close ties with Rahm Emanuel. I think it is intentional that candidates are not addressing K12. This way the public is not made aware about how much is at stake- that we could very well lose our public schools. I worry that there strategy is to Give just enough support to the teachers so they think your with them, then once your elected keep pursuing charter expansion gradually. The parable of the boiled frog. By the time the public realizes what is happening, it is done.
I am concerned, however, that Bernie is not informing potential voters about the potential loss of our public schools. I do not buy that these folks do not understand about the wide spread efforts to dismantle our public schools.
I agree that this “news” about Sanders looks like a page from the same playbook as the Koch remarks Clinton made in the last debate.
DFER didn’t endorse Sanders as their candidate, did they?
Nothing is about to douse my Bern, particularly not after seeing him speak in Ann Arbor last Monday and then sitting through the returns in Michigan Tuesday night. Don’t allow yourselves to be manipulated by this bullshyte. There is no way on earth that DFER wants Sanders in the White House. But they’ll try to quote out of context if it will get a few Sanders supporters who aren’t focused on education policy to think he backs charter chains. It’s the chains that are the danger and that the deformers are all about.
You’re righ about that!
Clinton said in Michigan something like “every child deserves a good teacher and a good school regardless of zip code”. If ever there was a more “reform” spoon fed line I don’t know what it would be. Privatizers fist-bumped, charter heads knodded, bankers started preinvstment planning with pension dollars. My latest union mag has all my leaders in a happy rally pose with pro-Clinton t-shirts and I don’t see how we can morally support that campaign. I’m not talking Benghazi, I mean the “Hey, hey…I’m progressive too you know.I just won’t be releasing any speeches to show how banks paid hundreds of thousands for me to wag my finger and warn them.” Clinton, at this point, appears the greater danger and is not, in my eyes, trustworthy. She will think to say what she needs to, while Bernie says what he thinks without wondering if he should. Happy lost an hour of sleep day, all.
Agree!!
I don’t care if Bernie Sanders buys a ring and proposes marriage to Eva Moskowitz. I still will vote for him over Hilary Clinton. I’m tired of Clinton supporters trying to convince me that she cares more about unionized teachers and public education than Bernie. She doesn’t. I am so tired of it that I will actually vote for Trump if Bernie is not the nominee .There is no way in hell I will ever vote for Hilary Clinton. The fact that Randi Weingarten endorsed her is the only reason I need to vote the other way. I am a disillusioned and disgusted AFT member and registered democrat.
I agree with your outrage,but be careful waht you wish for, because Trump is no bargain by any means.
Jane, I am with you and support your perspective 100%. Bern all the way.
Adherence to the ed reform agenda on charters and vouchers has become a litmus test- no deviation or discussion allowed.
The remarkable thing to me as a public school parent is how they never ask candidates anything about public schools. Their entire focus is charters and vouchers. Public schools are only mentioned when they’re used as unfavorable comparisons to charter schools. Once candidates check the “charter and voucher” box demand, ed reformers are done. Objective met.
It’s a real indication of the exclusive focus of this “movement” and how it’s an echo chamber- they’re having a “debate” on public education where public schools are barely mentioned. That’s nuts, right? Yet that’s how it is within ed reform circles. There’s simply no interest in public schools, which would be okay if all of them were employed in private charter lobbying groups but they’re not- they dominate government.
No one in an ed reform org will ask this because it isn’t exclusively about charters and vouchers, but the way to find out how the candidates will be different on PUBLIC schools from Bush and Obama is to ask them that question.
“Concerning PUBLIC schools- how will your administration differ from Presidents Bush and Obama and the last 16 years?”
We only hear about charters and vouchers because that’s the exclusive focus of ed reform. If no one ever asks the question about public schools we can’t blame them if they don’t answer it. Ed reformers have successfully made this about a litmus test on charters and vouchers. It doesn’t have to be that way. Because that’s their exclusive focus doesn’t mean it’s the exclusive focus of the public. Most children attend public schools.
Agree. “Concerning PUBLIC schools- how will your administration differ from Presidents Bush and Obama and the last 16 years?”
This needs to be asked, discussed and debated. So how do we make this happen? Mass emails to candidates, Tweets???
You have to define public as schools within a community that are under public governance by the public school system. Otherwise responders to your question have waffle room since the term “public schools” has been co-opted. Hillary’s words are carefully crafted to allow her that wiggle room. Bernie doesn’t seem to understand that he sounds like he is employing wordsmithing. The only reason I am convinced that he is not in favor of charter schools is that Vermont has none. I really don’t think he realizes fully that everyone does not hear what he thinks he is saying. We have to continuously remind people that we do not confer public status on entities because they receive tax monies.
Vermont has a voucher-like program that allows students in towns with no high school to attend a public or independent school, paid for with public dollars. The program was created in 1869.
http://www.vtindependentschools.org/tuition-vouchers.html
Which only makes sense in a rural state that cannot afford schools in every town. Vouchers are not handed out willy nilly and are not applied to fly by night operations that call themselves schools. They are so all children have access to free, public education and so that districts who are receiving these students are receiving the tax dollars for the education the students’ own towns cannot provide. To compare anything that Vermont is doing to what is going on in other areas of the country is comparing apples to fruit cake.
Vermont is a special case:
“Many smaller Vermont towns do not operate a local high school and some towns do not operate a local elementary or middle school. Students in these towns are eligible to choose from among public or non-religious independent schools in other towns (even outside of the state or nation).”
Nation = Canada.
I don’t think that either Hillary or Bernie are big supporters of K-12 public education. I already voted for Bernie in the primary. I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is in the general election.
I’m appalled by the comments here by people who claim they will vote for Trump over Hillary if Bernie is not the nominee on the Democratic side.
So, an obvious racist with dictatorial tendencies is better than Hillary Clinton? Huh? I don’t get it.
This kind of thinking reminds me of those people who claimed that Gore and Bush weren’t different, so they voted for Nader. After Bush’s disastrous presidency, including the United States authorizing the torture of prisoners of war, I don’t hear too many people claim that Gore would have been just as bad as Bush.
(I voted for Gore. I also remember liberal friends telling me that George W. Bush would be just like his father, George H. W. Bush. I told them he wouldn’t be like is father. I told them he would be much worse.)
We’ve already heard Trump claim that we need to torture more and kill the families of terrorists. Trump wants to order our soldiers to intentionally kill children. Trump wants our soldiers to shoot 3-year old children in the head. Please think about that.
Bush and Cheney started us down a very dark path. Trump would complete the journey.
“This kind of thinking reminds me of those people who claimed that Gore and Bush weren’t different, so they voted for Nader.”
Now that’s a new twist on the “Nader voters were bastards who gave the election to Georgie the Least” meme.
First over 200,000 of registered democraps voted for Bush in Florida in 2000. Less than 1% of those votes would have won it for Gore. Wah, wah!
I voted for Nader because he and the Greens have the ideas/policies that I most agree with. And no, it’s not a wasted vote. Vote third party, Vote Jill Stein. The object for the Green Party is to continue to get access to state ballots. The dims and rethugs have made it almost impossible for a third or fourth party to get on the ballot and until we stand up against those monied interests and actually vote for what you believe to be the right policies and not the lesser of two evils we stand no chance. Vote third party.
Clinton did give a single specific BTW. In the Flint debate she said she would send “teams” into Detroit for some kind of emergency rescue of their schools. No one followed up because it wasn’t about charters and vouchers, so no one cared, but that is what she said.
Because that’s what Detroit schools need, right? Another poorly-planned, gimmicky “emergency” effort dominated by short-timers and out of towners to turn the schools upside down again, for what has to be the 5th time in 20 years. The details may be different but the approach is identical to Bush and Obama.
Market-based ed reform is a way of thinking. It’s an approach, and it’s grounded in private sector ideas. I would argue it’s grounded in BAD and mostly discredited private sector ideas from the 1990’s- it’s not even good as a private sector plan- but that doesn’t matter. They’re not going to change anything until they change the way they think. As long as they approach schools like a business we’ll get the same wine in different bottles.
Yeah, those “teams” sent into struggling businesses were essentially there to salvage the parts that were marketable and sell them off. After they were done, the only ones to have anything to show for their efforts were the high muckety mucks who brought them in and the team that cleaned house. Most workers who lost their jobs got little to nothing. I see some uncomfortable parallels with what hedge fund charter supporters are good for.
In Newark, they are giving away twelve public school buildings. “To the victor, go the spoils.”
There is something that I find hopeful in the current political debate as a sign we may eventually get a real debate on ed reform- trade.
Both Parties have taken an identical approach to trade for the last 30 years. You couldn’t even question a trade deal or policy. It was lock-step. Trade deals were sold as miraculous and great before they were even negotiated. Representatives in Congress were promoting them before they had even READ them. Half the time I don’t think they read the final deal given how shocked and dismayed they were when there were negative consequences.
We’re having a trade debate. The first real one in my adult life.
It’s a dumb debate- Trump doesn’t know what he’s talking about and Sanders gives no specifics, but the public finally insisted on a trade debate that DC didn’t want to have, and they got one 🙂
Eventually the public will insist in a real debate on privatization of public schools. It’s inevitable and all the lobbying groups in the world won’t be able to shut it down.
I don’t know if you-all saw this but Sanders went after Rahm Emanuel for his management of Chicago, and, wonder of wonders, actually mentioned public schools:
This may be a first for this campaign “season”- a candidate for President mentions the forbidden subject of how ed reformers manage the public schools that actually exist! 🙂
The statement by DFER is a political smear designed to take votes from Bernie Sanders and give them to Hillary Clinton. Just last month, Shavier Jeffries, the organization’s executive director, wrote in the New York Daily News how much he disliked Sander’s charter school position but loved Clinton’s. See: https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/charter-school-champion-hates-bernie-sanders-prefers-hillary-clinton/
Bernie’s answer DOES show that he is not up to speed on charters, but he has criticized them much more than he’s said anything positive. He needs to be educated on the issue. He needs us. Frankly, I’m more worried about Clinton who said remarked about charters not accepting the most difficult students and then was silenced by her wealthy donors. Eli Broad threatened to turn off the money faucet until her deform-loving campaign manager John Podesta assured him that Hillary supports charters.
Moreover, Sanders just released a campaign a featuring our own Chicago superstar Asean talking about how terrible it is for public school budgets to be drained by charters.
The statement by DFER changes nothing. It’s a political hit job based on a one-time dumb statement.
“Bernie’s answer DOES show that he is not up to speed on charters,”
No, no it doesn’t.
While it is possible he is “not up to speed on charters,” you cannot rightfully draw that conclusion from this short excerpt that has been taken out of context and broadcasted by spin doctors.
This is a political smear by DFER. An off-handed “yes” in an interview is not a policy declaration.
What about Hillary’s triangulation and pandering to teachers unions on charter schools during this campaign, after decades of cheerleading for charters?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-charter-schools-education-215661
Bernie has been calling out Rahm for his treatment of Chicago schools, where is the DFER (or Diane’s) statement on that?
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/sweet-interview-bernie-sanders-says-rahms-been-terrible-mayor/
Sorry Diane, I couldn’t respect you or your work more, but I am very disappointed that you are not standing up for Bernie in this Democratic primary. The same big money interests who push for disastrous school reforms are the ones who have funded Hillary’s super PACs, paid her and Bill over $120 million in speaking fees (their main source of income/wealth since Bill left office), and given huge quid pro quo donations to the Clinton Foundation. If you want money out of politics and policymaking, Bernie Sanders is the clear and vitally important choice in this primary.
At this point no one will read what I write
but
will voice an opinion anyway.
Charters, as they were meant to be run in the beginning could be good for education. Could it possibly be that this is the kind to which Bernie was alluding?
On rare occasions charters have been beneficial to a small group of people.
In the long run they are deleterious of course
because
they are not being run the way they were supposed to be run in the beginning.
Dr. Ravitch, if memory is correct, supported that concept years ago.
It is NOT what has happened.
but
again, without taking things at face value
might it be worthwhile to delve a bit more deeply into what Bernie was saying in regards to charters?
Gordon, I always read what you write.
I read what you write.
So do I, Gordon.
I wish everyone
INCLUDING MYSELF
had READ through what
Robert Rendo, NBCT
posted.
THAT was factual.
THANK YOU FOR THAT POSTING. It should answer a lot of questions concerning Bernie’s views on education.
I apologize for not having done so before posting my above statements.
Bernie is for equitable funding, and against standardized high stakes testing. The diminishment of testing would change the dynamic between charters and public schools because neither one would be labeled a failure or success by this narrow, data driven measure.
It’s impossible for any one to honestly make the argument that public schools in low income areas are actually failing, until these schools are funded and resourced. (Smaller class sizes, surround social services and supports, fleshed out enrichment programs and etc.) Success defined by test scores allows us to pretend that teachers are to blame. As Diane and most readers of this blog know, the challenges with educating people living in poverty can’t be reduced to a score on a standardized test, but involves much, much more.
Bernie may not be against charter schools, but does this mean he believes they should replace public schools? Does he believe that low test scores means bad teachers in failing schools? The problem with charters is that they are seen as the solution to a wrongly defined problem. Most of what I have heard and read about Bernie suggests that he has correctly defined the problem: inequitable funding, inequitable distribution of wealth in the US, and the shrinking middle class, are undermining many democratic social institutions; including education.
Jonathan,
It would help if Bernie and Hillary each gave a speech on K-12 education and explained what they hope to do if elected.
We are all reading tea leaves until they do.
“It’s impossible for any one to honestly make the argument that public schools in low income areas are actually failing, until these schools are funded and resourced.”
Even then how we define success, even without a heavy reliance on test scores, is going to impact schools. We have to look at schools on an individual basis and honestly examine the challenges they face. Community schools seem to be the best chance we have of meeting the needs of every child although that should be viewed as an ideal rather than a target to be measured.
I agree with you that Bernie has defined the overall challenges we have to navigate.
Sanders’ Senate record is hardly tea leaves.
And if it is tea leaves, Abigail, I am more than happy to put all my leaves into a cup of Bernie.
Diane,
The silence, amongst the candidates, on the subject of education is deafening, and puzzling.
Is it because the AFT endorsed Hillary so early?
I don’t think it’s because the subject is too polarizing.
Could it be that school reform supporters are organized and aggressive? When Hillary merely indicated some skepticism regarding charters, pushback was quick and firm. When De Blasio pushed back against charters after taking office, the response was also prompt and aggressive.
Opposing school reform has become like kicking a hornets nest. The best thing to do politically when near the subject, is to quietly walk around it, or risk getting stung.
Sanders does not support the DFER/ Wall Street view of for-profit privatized charters like Hillary does. Clever of DFER to throw shade at Sanders though. Wouldn’t surprise me if DFER was prompted to do so by the Clinton machine. Is Ravitch supporting HRC for education?
No politician will be perfectly informed on all issues. The better question is which candidate will listen to and learn from people in the trenches.
Maybe one of the leading figures of public education should write a summary letter to each candidate about the issues surrounding charter schools, and see how they react.
The letter could include links to details, proofs of claims so that staff members of the candidates could do some investigation.
Is the very idea of charter schools bad?
Bernie needs to repudiate DFER, just in the way he stated he didn’t want to be endorsed by Rahm Emanuel !!!!
And, btw, yes, I’ve been trying to do my part in educating Bernie on the disastrous “bait and switch” into the charter-chain land we now occupy…..in fairness, Bernie does say that charters should be held to the same standards as public schools — but, it doesn’t make sense to operate identical but somehow different public schools, and this surely cannot be done without increasing resources provided, not easy to do when we’re already short….
Not sure if there are other avenues, but you can email our Bernie at help@BernieSanders.com.
Let’s all work to make these crooked charter operators “feel the bern” right in their overstuffed-with-taxpayer-money wallets….
Bernie did well in denouncing Emmanuel and his closing of schools-Hillary did great in the Flint debate refusing to go after teachers and understanding the need to get rid of the emergency manager. Hillary has more knowledge about schools-if she follows through with being pro teacher she could be better for education
I just want to say that I think Diane has been pretty evenhanded with both Bernie and Hillary. And she’s 100% right that we’re reading tea leaves about both of them. We need a major policy speech from both of them. Please, people, don’t take your frustrations with the candidates out on Diane. She is a treasure.
I recently sent this message to U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders:
My comment is about charter schools and a recent statement in which it has been reported that you support them as “public charter schools.” I am an on-going donor to your campaign and am working tirelessly to persuade my teaching collegues and fellow union brothers and sisters in the public school system to join in the political revolution. I am calling on you, dear Mr. Sanders, our next president, to please clarify that we/you DO NOT SUPPORT CHARTER SCHOOLS, PERIOD. As in “NO to fracking,” period. As education progressive Diane Ravitch says, “There is nothing about “public charter schools” that is public other than the money they get from government, like Lockheed Martin or Boeing or other contractors.” Think “Boeing Bank.” Charter school movement is a union busting, private for-profit enterprise that diverts funds from poor students, and cherry picks who can attend. There is no evidence that they provide improvment and much evidence of waste and fraud. Please respond asap in public: I’ll be looking for this in tonight’s town hall. (Please address education issues tonight and going forward, including K-12, not just pre-school and higher education.). Keep up the good work. I’m feelin’ the Bern!
Thank-you, Katherine. You have presented the case clearly for not supporting charters! Hope it makes it to Bernie!
I hope he sees and responds to it.
Here is the message I posted on Bernie Sanders’ Facebook wall: My comment is about charter schools and a recent statement in which it has been reported that you support them as “public charter schools.” I am an on-going donor to your campaign and am working tirelessly to persuade my teaching colleagues and fellow union brothers and sisters in the public school system to join in the political revolution. I am calling on you, dear Mr. Sanders, our next president, to please clarify that we/you DO NOT SUPPORT CHARTER SCHOOLS, PERIOD. As in “NO to fracking,” period. As education progressive Diane Ravitch says, “There is nothing about “public charter schools” that is public other than the money they get from government, like Lockheed Martin or Boeing or other contractors.” Think “Boeing Bank.” Charter school movement is a union busting, private for-profit enterprise that diverts funds from poor students, and cherry picks who can attend. There is no evidence that they provide improvement and much evidence of waste and fraud. Please respond asap in public: I’ll be looking for this in tonight’s town hall. (Please address education issues tonight and going forward, including K-12, not just pre-school and higher education.). Keep up the good work. I’m feelin’ the Bern! Katherine DayElementary Public School EducatorBilingual (Spanish/English)San Francisco, CA
I want to thank Rahm Emanuel for not endorsing me. I don’t want the endorsement of a mayor shutting down schools and firing teachers.
For those who don’t know, that is a quote from Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders is exactly what Karen Lewis says she believes in. One must wonder, then, why there has been no endorsement.
Not necessarily a contradiction. Local public school boards operate charters in several places in Indiana: Evansville-Vanderburgh Community Schools has 2, Lafayette School Corporation has 1, Daleville Community Schools has 1 from a quick glance at authorizers on Ballotpedia.
It’s nice someone finally asked Bernie an education question, but yes, he contradicted himself which suggests he doesn’t know that charters purposely call themselves “public charters” to deceive people. I know of no publicly-run charter schools. The whole idea of charters is that they are privately run.
Bernie said before he opposed privately-run charters. So this answer implies Bernie is thinking there are two types of charters. If anyone know of a distinction, please share it.
Much bigger than this, however is Hillary’s ties to the charter movement, getting NO attention. Hillary’s campaign chair John Podesta is a notorious money funneler, taking billionaire bucks to install pro-reform Republicans and Democrats into positions of power for years.
Hillary said straight faced last Weds night that she would end the revolving door, yet Podesta is the poster child for hiring government officials to lobby for privatization, successfully pushing RTTT onto the states. He founded CAP, a pro-testing propaganda mill employing ex-administration officials. He ran a SuperPAC to bundle corporate cash and his brother runs a lobbying group that just last week got a $900k contract to do PR for Iraq(!).
Beyond Podesta, there is also Ann O’Leary, another CAP fellow who is Hillary’s closest campaign advisor on education today, but who helped usher in NCLB in 2001 as a former Clinton administration official.
I hope that the voters can learn that Hillary has the architects of NCLB and RTTT working in her campaign, awash in Gates, Walton and Broad cash and not talking about K-12 despite a decade of pushing high stakes tests, federal control, Common Core, charters and the total hamburgerization of schoolchildren.
To whom it may agree with me, Jan Meyers and Robert Rendo:
I would like copy and agree with what Jan expresses as follows:
[start paragraph]
Jane Myers
March 13, 2016 at 8:15 am
I don’t care if Bernie Sanders buys a ring and proposes marriage to Eva Moskowitz. I still will vote for him over Hilary Clinton. I’m tired of Clinton supporters trying to convince me that she cares more about unionized teachers and public education than Bernie. She doesn’t. I am so tired of it that I will actually vote for Trump if Bernie is not the nominee .There is no way in hell I will ever vote for Hilary Clinton. The fact that Randi Weingarten endorsed her is the only reason I need to vote the other way. I am a disillusioned and disgusted AFT member and registered democrat.
[end paragraph]
It is ONLY assumption that invisible power (=charter network power) controls American PS fate.
IF and ONLY IF all teachers unite and vote for Senator Bernie because his background shows Americans his true love, support and care for the transparency in American Public Education. This unity in all teachers from Public Education will solidify American educators’ will in supporting, strengthening, preserving Public Education Policy = democratic system at all cost. Back2basic
To whoever criticizes Dr. Ravitch:
Please watch movie “Side Effect” in order to have a bit of understanding of the reality regarding bad power that can do to people’s reputation.
Dr. Ravitch is very clear about her support for Public Education and Democratic Presidential Candidates. Please respect individual choice without asking his or her declaration in supporting a particular candidate. That is quite a contradiction to democratic belief. Back2basic
Bernie explained during the question from a charter school TFA teacher that he supports only truly public charter schools like magnet schools that are part of the public eye school system and those that are not privately owned. He said he supports local schools. He said he supports public educational experimental schools but does not support diverting funds to privately owned charters paid with public education funds. He seemed very clear to me. Maybe refined his position baca use of some of the folks on this link requesting he think deeper or clearify his actual position more directly. The Ohio governor has enacted 33 or so ALEC policies from what I read. Charter schools are high on the ALEC wish list. For Bernie to directly take a pro-public school /anti- public funded private charter stand in that area means to me he is serious.