Yesterday I responded to an article in The Atlantic claiming that Michelle Rhee was actually a “lefty” and was “taking over” the Democratic party.
I responded to the article.
Others have said that the writer, Molly Ball, was sending out an automated reply, but I got something slightly different.
What she says here is that she doesn’t understand why a Democrat would not support for-profit charter schools; or work closely with Governor Chris Christie to strip teachers of tenure and seniority; or work with Governor Rick Scott to promote privatization of public schools; or work with Governor Mitch Daniels to push vouchers through the legislature; or accept an award from the rightwing American Federation for Children in company with Governor Scott Walker.
What she says is that there is no difference between Democrats and Mitt Romney on education.
I hope that President Obama makes clear what the differences are.
Here is our exchange:
Hi Diane, thanks for the feedback. My intent with the story was not to mediate yet another round of the education-reform debate, but to illustrate the political inroads Rhee and her ideas have made, while noting, as you do, that they remain quite controversial. To answer your rhetorical questions, I don't see why a Democrat can't do any of those things. Best, Molly ________________________________________ From: Diane Ravitch [gardend@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 6:05 PM To: Ball, Molly Subject: From Diane Ravitch re Rhee Would a Democrat work to promote a for-profit chain? Would a Democrat work with Republican governors Rick Scott, Chris Christie, and Mitch Daniels? What part of Rhee's agenda differs from that of the most rightwing Republicans? What Democrat would have accepted an honor from the far-right voucher-loving organization American Federation for Children, which simultaneously honored Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker? Nothing that Rhee advocates has ever succeeded. Neither charters nor vouchers nor merit pay nor evaluating teachers by test scores has any evidence of improving education. Diane Ravitch
Diane – your response poached a sampling of the StudentsFirst agenda. Your final line brings up issues that Democrats and Republicans alike are interested in. I say this not as a supporter of Michelle Rhee (neither here nor there), but as a proud Democrat.
I believe charters can help communities explore the best way to educate their kids (and so can public schools – why not both?)
I believe that test scores should play some role in teacher AND principal evaluations, but that we also test too much and often test the wrong things. But we need to have a frank discussion about it.
And I believe that teachers deserve to get paid more, but we’ll only get there by accepting not all teachers are equally good, intentions aside. We should promote a system that supports developing teachers while championing high performers (see here for my recommendations in more detail: http://bit.ly/QdHvBP).
Bottom line: I don’t agree with all of Rhee’s policies, and certainly don’t always agree with the way she approaches getting them, but your overly simplistic casting of anyone who supports some of those measures and is willing to talk to others who do as right wing conservatives simply isn’t fair or true.
“…there is no difference between Democrats and Mitt Romney on education.”
That is precisely why this lifelong Democrat will not be voting for Obama again. Democrats are indistinguishable on education, except for vounchers, and I don’t like having a choice between GOP and GOP Light. Public education is too important to be giving it away to corporate profiteers.
Jill Stein is looking good to me. I think the Green party platform on education is right on target:
http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2012/social-justice.php#education
There are so many disillusioned Democrats, this just might be the right time for a viable third party to find success.
The latest iteration of RTTT for districts shows some hope for progressive educators: it emphasizes personal learning plans instead of standardized tests and gives additional points for applicants who demonstrate links between community agencies and schools…
Personal learning plans is the new pseudonym for computer computer based instruction.
I’m afraid I must agree with Ms. Ball. Nothing President Obama has done has persuaded me otherwise. Unless he does so soon, I’ll be joining your other commenter in voting for Dr. Jill Stein. I’m fairly certain this particular doctor believes in science, something I like to see in a President.
Molly’s young, Still an ingenue.
I gave up on the Atlantic years ago when I could no longer stand Megan McArdle’s and Jame Fallows’s pro-globalization, pro-neoclassical economics stories. The problem with the Atlantic is that they are progressive in the sense of the movement after its betrayal by Walter Lippmann, et al., in the First World War, i.e., the protectors of the 1% who pretend to seek social justice, who threw the real reformers like Jane Addams and Randolph Bourne under the bus. Too many Obama supports haven’t yet clued in to this history, which explains much about his decisions and attitudes.
DR. Jill sounds good to me also. Thanks for bringing it up 🙂
Ball must not be aware of the conversation between Bill Moyers and Bernie Sanders of a few days ago about what’s happened to the Democratic Party.
http://billmoyers.com/segment/bernie-sanders-on-the-independent-in-politics/
Sanders explains: “So what you are looking at is a nation with a grotesquely unequal distribution of wealth and income, tremendous economic power on Wall Street, and now added to all of that is you have the big money interests, the billionaires and corporations now buying elections. This scares me very much. And I fear very much that if we don’t turn this around, Bill, we’re heading toward an oligarchic form of society.”
What Sanders did not touch on is how the billionaires and multimillionaires of both parties not only buy elections but use their foundations to control U.S. public education policy.
More and more everyday people are disgusted with the takeover of this country by the super-rich and realize that the Democratic Party, which traditionally served their interests, has apparently been replaced by a Big-Money Democratic Party that has interests more closely aligned with those of the Big-Money Republican Party. The narrow gap in ideology between these two Big-Money fraternal twins explains why Michelle Rhee, spokesmodel for corporate ed reform, calls herself a Democrat but happily, and very naturally, swings both ways.
Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, and this former Republican staffer view what’s happened in a similar way. Ball should at least read down to paragraph seven.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revolt-of-the-rich/
Sharon touches on what Molly Ball missed entirely. Michelle Rhee is not making inroads herself, she’s just one of the willing, mercenary faces of the big money interests that are really pushing these policies and pulling the political strings.
All the cognoscenti have decided for deform and are bought by the big money. What they have decided for education is that the big money needs that profit pool and the “policy makers” are only too happy to arrange profits for them. They profit too, with money and power. It’s a strategy they will apply in the future to any public service and it doesn’t matter that the research tells us it is not better or cheaper (witness the private contractors’ work in the US military).
Funny. Molly Ball’s response was exactly the same one she sent to me.