Steven Singer is first out of the box with a review of the Democratic Presidential debate of last night.
President Obama set the tone for the evening (so far as education is concerned) by praising his administration for having reformed the nation’s schools.
It didn’t get any better.
The CNN anchors did not ask a single question about education.
Admittedly both Hillary Clinton and Sanders briefly brought it up when asked about other things.
Clinton said we need universal pre-kindergarten and good schools. However, she neglected to say what those good schools would look like.
It’s almost like saying nothing at all. EVERYONE wants good schools – Even dunderheads like Chris Christie, Jeb Bush and Donald Trump! But their ideas of good schools differ greatly from that of most parents, teachers and students. McCharter schools for the poor and Cadillac campuses for the rich isn’t exactly what real progressives have in mind.
And universal pre-k? Great! But that’s kind of the flavor of the month. Who really disagrees that we should help toddlers prepare for school? It’s like asking, “Who wants ice cream?” in a room full of little kids on a hot day. EVERYONE wants ice cream – even the kids who are lactose intolerant!
Sanders took a second in a diatribe about social services to mention the need to fund schools. However, he didn’t say a thing about equity or if that funding would have strings attached. President Obama talked about funding schools, too, when he was running for president in 2008. Once he got into office those education dollars came at the cost of accepting untested and developmentally inappropriate Common Core State Standards. And equity meant closing poor schools to save them.
Singer wondered whether education was off the table because the two big teachers’ unions had already endorsed Hillary Clinton.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to run roughshod over teachers concerns. For 7 years education professionals from all walks of life have complained about the administration’s failing school policies and its buffoonish education secretary Arne Duncan. But now that Duncan is leaving, the President replaces him with John King – ex-New York State Commissioner of Education who enraged parents so much he was run out of the state on a rail.
The media just doesn’t care about public education. Nine times out of ten if they even print a story about schools, it’s a puff piece spin doctoring a school reform policy that isn’t working, never has been working and is – in fact – making things much worse for our nation’s students. Otherwise it’s an expose of how teachers can’t make these horrendous policies work so its their fault and don’t even glance at the ballooning child poverty rate – that’s completely irrelevant to the issue of all these lazy teachers who can’t be fired because we’d have to prove they’re bad first.
And what of the candidates? Do they care about public education?
The Democrats say they do and then zip their lips. They might make positive noises about preschool or universities – especially when it comes to funding. But they have next to nothing to say about K-12 schools. When the issue comes up, they deflect to toddlers or the college campus.
Well, no point whining. Parents and educators have to speak out at candidate forums, flood the newspapers with letters to the editor, tweet their views. Don’t be silent.
The work you do is great, Diane, for education. But, you know, there’s too much to do for anyone who has access to channels you do to be single issue; Tie Citizens United money and Climate Change into Education issues, to help push what you want by forging coalition. In saying this, I’m trying to help you bring attention to education.
Dorothy, I agree that Citizens United has played a large role in the attack on public education by unleashing the billionaires to ravage the public sector. However, the worst of them —Gates, Walton, and Broad–do it through their foundations and are not enabled by Citizens United, which takes the limits off campaign contributions.
If Unions want education to be an issue talked about during campaigning for the nomination then THEY NEED TO HOLD OFF ON ENDORSING A CANDIDATE and state so publicly. When we hear your views.. we will decide if we want to endorse a candidate!!! They certainly should have learned this in the last election. So why did they not? The fact that endorsements come out so early (certainly not supported by my fellow teachers I work with) it becomes suspect. Are union leaders wishing to capitalize on Clinton support for their own gains but perhaps less openly than the former disgraced Chicago superintendent/ceo? Sure seems so! Perhaps a good job down the line or whatever from the Clinton camp? Is this much different than the recent Chicago fiasco where the former “CEO/Superintendant used her position of power for personal gain? Every teacher who pays union dues has been robbed of a voice! And so it stands, the CNN moderator could certainly “wonder whether education was off the table because the two big teachers’ unions had already endorsed Hillary Clinton…” Why would Clinton bring education up when she has “gotten the endorsement she needed” already? Sanders needed to address this issue – sadly he said nothing!
The problem is that the unions – at least the leadership of the two national unions – don’t want to talk about education any more than the politicians do because they’re bought and paid for by the same people who have bought the Dems. At last April’s NPE conference Diane asked both Lily and Randi point blank if they would agree to stop accepting money from Gates, Broad, Walton, etc. and they both said yes. Wasn’t more than a month before that promise was revealed to be a lie.
Even at the state level, I notice Democrats will only talk about education in terms of attacking what the right has done or is doing. The charter issue is like an infected foot that will, as with Bob Marley, eventually lead to death unless we start talking about it. I’ve been hounding state people to get this discussion going, even if only in terms of revenue and spending. Siphoning money away from public schools to go to charters is just as bad as cutting a budget. But Democrats won’t talk about charters. . . because as you point out with unions, they are guilty.
When I was campaigning in 2014 we started off as an education campaign. I discovered that you could get pretty far with the charter discussion by first listing the merits, but by then stating that by lifting caps we have created a bad situation. Simply from an investment standpoint, charters are a gamble. 50/50 odds, in terms of how most businesses fair. Most businesses fail. Therefore, it stands to reason that most charters will fail. And yet we take money away from public schools for that bet.
The subject of charters makes people get their claws out. You have to begin the conversation by pointing out the good intentions, etc. and THEN you point out that they are an infection, now. . .costing us the health of our public schools and therefore the health of our country, in terms of schools providing the civic duty.
The question where I am hung up right now, in terms of a “comeback” or retort or thoughtful answer is: yes, most businesses fail but public schools can fail to. OK, right out of the gate I know that’s not apples to apples. Still working on framing that with a thoughtful answer.
Seriously, we have to have these discussions. Furthermore, the right WILL hang charters on the left when they finally surface as problematic in the rhetoric. I think Democrats would be better off being pro-active on that subject.
cx: can fail too. explanation: that’s the answer I have gotten from some hedge fund folks who cannot quite bring themselves to admit that charters are hurting things
“Furthermore, the right WILL hang charters on the left when they finally surface as problematic in the rhetoric. I think Democrats would be better off being pro-active on that subject.”
That is a very good point. Wish the Dems could see it.
Exactly right. artseagal!
Two reasons for educations’s absence in the Dem debates:
1) Its not as central of an issue as we in the education world think. I know that sounds abhorrent, but the fact is is that it’s a second tier issue (usually third tier). No matter how much we see it as central and ALOT of other folks rhetoric places it as central, its just not.
2) The Democratic party at this late state of the game, is reformish as a rule. It didnt come up because its pretty much fairly settled–Obama, Clinton, legions of Dem governors…..all reform-minded.
So yeah, it’s just not that central.
If education is such a bottom of the barrel, unimportant issue, why did Bush 43 make No Child Left Behind such a centerpiece of his domestic platform?
I disagree strongly that education is a “second or third tier” issue. It’s extremely important in its own right to current and potential parents of school-age kids – a huge percentage of the population. It’s also crucial because of how it relates to the neoliberal agenda, which even those who don’t have kids should be deeply concerned about.
The reason education isn’t being talked about isn’t because it’s unimportant, it’s precisely because of how important it is. But the Dems know their positions – the agenda of the billionaires they really serve – are deeply unpopular with the voting population, so they have to try to skate by with platitudes about “good schools” and “universal pre-k”.
I wasn’t saying I thought it was second tier. I was saying that to the political class….the Democratic Party….it’s second tier and fairly settled in favor of the reformers.
Obviously I recognize it as a central issue. But I don’t count…the people who may become president and those around Them and those that set the agenda….to them its obviously second tier…..and fairly settled….otherwise we’d have heard more about it.
I think Democrats are definitely hiding from the subject.
A VERY important issue that everyone agreed NOT to talk about.
Reblogged this on Network Schools – Wayne Gersen and commented:
This was my only bone to pick with the debate… and it may be that the recent shootings pushed guns to the forefront and schools to the back… kind of like what has happened with school budgets where spending on “safety concerns” has led to billions invested in “good guys with guns”, surveillance cameras, and internet filters that enable school officials to read emails sent by students.
Well, I think Republicans bring up K-12 education because they’re (supposedly) drawing a distinction from Democrats. Democrats don’t bring it up because there isn’t a real difference. The truth is there is absolutely no difference between Jeb Bush and John Kasich and President Obama on K-12 schools. What can Hillary Clinton say? More funding than Republicans? The vast majority of public school funding is state and local.
We already know Democrats enthusiastically support standardized testing- it’s the only thing they fight for in Congress re: public schools. Both Parties also enthusiastically support federal funding for new charter schools.
There’s no debate because there’s literally “no debate” 🙂
I think you have revealed the reason. Republicans are suspicious of education. Democrats are dismissive. Education is a difficult, complex issue that cannot be fully debated in a sound bite. It is far easier to blame teachers and disparage those suburban moms than to discuss the effects of poverty, crime, drugs, and declining jobs. But that points to education as the nexus of these societal issues, particularly for the future. Education is far too strategic and most of America is focused on the near term.
I listened to a forum the other day, three former Treasury Secretaries, two Democrats and one Republican- Clinton, Bush, Obama. It was quite good- the Facebook CEO was the moderator and she asked very good questions. They don’t know what to do about wage stagnation and income inequality. Good questions, no real answers. I don’t think there’s any political will to do anything about wages or income inequality.
They focus on public schools as the driver or drag on the economy in DC because they don’t have anything else they’re willing to offer “on the economy”.
Without middle class demand, which has been crushed by concentration of wealth, there are no economic answers.
I listened to the Senate debate “on public schools” and Democrats weren’t really drawing a distinction with Republicans “on public schools”. They were arguing the broader tenets of federalism- the federal role in public schools. Ultimately they’re arguing which level of government should properly put in Bush-Obama ed reform- the federal government or the states. That’s a process distinction, not a policy distinction.
As a practical matter, Democrats probably want to retain the federal role because they control so few states. Republicans don’t need as strong a federal role as they did under Bush because Republicans controlled fewer states under Bush, and they have trouble winning the Presidency. It’s a POWER struggle but I don’t think there’s a lot of difference on POLICY. It’s actually one of the things I dislike most about ed reform. I don’t think the universal agreement is healthy- nothing really gets debated and there’s little or no oversight. They’re always crowing about how ed reform is “bipartisan” but one of the good things about political factions is the opposition forces a debate. If there’s universal agreement we make BIG mistakes instead of smaller ones. Dissenters aren’t some bump in the road to be rolled over- they’re essential.
Testing is a good example. There was no real debate on testing until there was real opposition. It went ludicrously, ridiculously, towards more and more testing because no one was opposing or questioning it. The opposition to testing forced a debate. My state had no intention of reviewing the length of Common Core tests until parents and teachers complained. It simply wouldn’t have happened.
I agree with almost everything NYSTEACHER said (except we really have no idea if Clinton is for reform). Those of us obsessed with education have no idea how low education ranks with the public, with politicians and with the media. Historically, newly elected or low ranking officials would get assigned to education committees leaving the more powerful committees to the more powerful members. New interest in education has been from those who seek to profit from it. Some of our best legislative representatives are so unengaged in the nitty gritty of public education that they have been hoodwinked into NCLB and RttT by the profiteers.
As you, Diane, have said many times, what they have in money we have in votes. We are many. But how are we using our power in numbers?
The people who are in the best position to make public education a campaign issue are the union leaders who have the ear of Hillary Clinton. Yet, instead of seizing on the opportunity that presents, many of the education activists I know and love have spent the last three months crying foul because their leaders have close relationships with Hillary! Imagine that. The frontrunner to lead the free world will listen to the teachers union leaders and all you hear from education activists is how the game is rigged.
I have begun to wonder, now that the timing of ESEA reauthorization is overlapping with the presidential election season, if it would be better for the reauthorization to slow down to force the presidential candidates to take a stand on it. If it passes now, they can ignore the issue throughout their whole campaign.
I have to disagree with the commenter who s aid education is not an important issue.
It perhaps is not being treated as an important issue, but it is, and it always has been. At least then someone wants to make a point.
Remember A Nation at Risk, which warned that “a rising tide of mediocrity” threatened American economic competitiveness and national security? What about No Child Left Behind? Race to the Top? How about Common Core, which, before it was scrubbed from its website, claimed the restoration of American economic competitiveness as its rationale?
American public education IS important, but not for the “competitiveness” reason (which can easily be disproved). It’s important for its historic mission of developing and promoting democratic citizenship.
Horace Mann viewed public education as “the balance-wheel of the social machinery” in a democratic society. University of Chicago social scientist Earl Johnson wrote that “the supreme end of education in a democracy is the making of the democratic character.” Gordon Hullfish and Philip Smith considered the development of critical intelligence –– “reflective reconstruction of knowledge, insights and values” –– essential to the maintenance of a democratic society. There’s a reason that Fox and the right-wing media do all they can to undermine those goals.
John Dewey subscribed to the belief that “the democracy which proclaims equality of opportunity as its ideal requires an education in which learning and social application, ideas and practice…are united from the beginning and for all.” But which presidential wannabe really believes that? [Hint: one of them is closest to it.]
In the debate last night, Bernie Sanders mentioned Denmark. But what about Finland, at least when it comes to public schooling? Finland’s reforms are based on Dewey, and the citizenship purpose of public schooling is taken seriously. The goal of education reform is equity, with all of the attendant policy programs aligned. Education is seen “as an instrument to even out social inequality.”
That is simply not the case in the United States, where the rich have gotten richer (with public subsidies), poverty has increased (especially child poverty), the middle class has been squeezed, and income stratification leads the developed world. The result is that “causal sequences of risk that contribute to demographic differences in educational achievement and physical well-being threaten our country’s democratic ideals by undermining the national credo of equal opportunity.”
Much of that was discussed in the Democratic debate, but absent education. Anderson Cooper was praised for his “rigorous” questioning. But he failed to tie education into the entire mix, and public schooling is really the glue that holds it all together. But this is nothing new.
Reporting on public education has been truly abysmal. The Washington Post –– with Jay Mathews pimping incessantly for the College Board and Jo-Ann Armao pumping out factually-challenged editorials –– is a prime example. It’s very sad, because the Post’s founder Eugene Meyer, established a set of principles to guide journalists:
1. “The first mission of a newspaper is to tell the truth as nearly as the truth can be ascertained.”
2. “The newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it, concerning the important affairs of America and the world.”
3. “The newspaper’s duty is to its readers and to the public at large, and not to the private interests of its owners.”
Boy, how things have changed. And not for the better. Think about it. We talk about charters, and vouchers, and data packages, and testing, and “college and career readiness,” and this policy or that. But who – exactly – is discussing democratic citizenship as the crucial role of public education? Certainly not our educational “leaders.” They’ve been – well – mostly pathetic.
Public education is vitally important to the values and principles on which our nation is based. It is – as Horace Mann said – “…our only political safety.”
Politicians and “pundits” and the public should damn well be talking about it.
“…commenter who said…”
“…at least WHEN someone wants to make a point…”
guess I should proofread more carefully.
This.
Genesis 3:10
😉
I;m also glad Democrats didn’t agree to go to Campbell Brown’s forum. I’m tired of ed reform “movement” members defining the terms of the debate, and that’s what they do. I’m not interested in a laser-like focus on teachers unions and charter schools. I know that’s what the “movement” believes are the most important issues. I haven’t seen a shred of evidence that the public also believes those are the most important issues. It’s bad enough that my state lawmakers spend 90% on their time on “choice” under an ed reform governor. I refuse to go along with this “movement” capturing the entire national discussion and turning it to their own ends. It isn’t a real debate. They frame and define all the terms and priorities. The last time I saw polling it indicated public school parents are most concerned with funding, yet it’s crickets on funding among ed reformers. I’m just not buying that their chosen issues reflect “the public”.
One would think an early endorsement from the AFT and the NEA would produce at least a mention of public schools and their teachers. Weingarten’s live tweets from the debate added salt to the already festering wounds caused by the early endorsement. At one point I had to cerrect her when she tweeted that HRC was the only one who mentioned public schools. We went through this nonsense during the last Presidential race. Education takes a back seat because of the donor money pouring into the race.
its time to hit the streets… and get media attention.. A million teacher march
A Million Teacher March would be magnificent.
Those endorsements got them absolutely NOWHERE.
Wise Up AFT & NEA because it sure looks like you are complicit in a set-up and sell off of public school teachers.
“Sell off of teachers..” and taxpayers, public school students, democracy, and future economic growth, tied to educational advancement.
We need to grab the headlines
The only way to get their attention, ratto, there would have to be either mass action–like strikes across the country–or targeted actions, like the Newark Students Union, who occupied Cami Anderson’s office, only 8 students, and they made international headlines.
We seriously need to pick a date and, not to go all Nike, but just do it.
Diane, what about a letter from NPE to the Sanders campaign, backed and signed by a hundred activist/educator groups? Then, everyone spam the letter on social media until it is acknowledged.
Diane I sincerely appeal to you to pick up the phone and try and cpnvonce Lily and Randi to proceed as you suggest.
“Naked Reality”
The Emperor has nakedness
To education fires
A focus on his fake ed mess
Is not what he desires
nice one, SomeDAM Poet
My state lawmakers just finished a year working on “charter reform”. You know what they’re moving to next? Charter funding. It is absolutely amazing to me that the only time we get a “debate” on public school funding is when charter promoters demand one. Public schools supporters and parents and teachers were completely ignored on funding until “the movement” people who run this state decided charters needed more funding.
It isn’t even true that a focus on charters means they’re focusing on low income kids. 50% of the charters in this state are located in areas that aren’t low income. It has little or nothing to do with low income kids- it’s about opening and supporting charter schools.
Maybe it’s good we have no debate on ed reform, that it’s universally agreed upon, because they’ll never discuss public schools anyway. You literally can’t pay lawmakers in this state to focus on public schools, and we ARE paying them.
Last night’s silence was golden. Wherever there is silence, there lies gold.
Adding, the silence was deafening.
I think education questions were avoided because it is a hot button issue that is very polarizing. On one end of the spectrum are the true believers and hedge funders and on the other end are people like us and unions. I don’t know how they decide what questions are asked, but for the candidates, no matter what stand they take, they risk alienating a significant number of voters and donors. I am sure the charter forces prefer to keep the issue under wraps. It is easier for them to invade a school district by buying the governor and a few key legislators than to step out into the sunlight of public opinion and democracy where they would have to subject their investment to a public vote. Most of the charters prefer to manipulate behind the scenes. It is only when a public demonstration gets too big to ignore that there is any media coverage. CNN, by the way, is owned by Turner Broadcasting, and I suspect they elected to ignore education.
You hit on something that is being widely overlooked. The PUBLIC is not well-educated on “education.” That means it would be risky at this point to go into detailed policies on public ed. Bernie is controversial enough as it is. Why bring even more controversy at this point? Even if he knew public ed was nearly as oligarchical as our political process, I don’t think he could come out and say that right now, because a lot of people would be like… what?? Are you crazy?
Bernie Sanders is more “socialist” than he lets on. His policies are “social democratic,” but his idol is someone like Eugene V Debs, who was just about as “socialist” as you can get. Does he come out and say that? No, and it’s on purpose. It’s because the American people, frankly, do not understand socialism. It’s because he is as practical as he is idealistic. Bernie is a political genius, and I would not underestimate his tact. He has said many intelligent things about public education already, in small forums… that he has not said on the big stage or to the media.
And of course the fact retired teacher pointed out, that CNN is big-money-friendly, and would not be a likely suspect to host an expose of “education reform” on national TV…
I think it’s because teachers are not active like the nurses. I am a retired teacher and don’t believe teachers speak out and get involved.
Of course, the candidates should recognize the importance of education, but they respond to the loudest voices.
Teachers have limited first amendment rights. Free speech limits are in place that make speaking out a risk.
The truth is that neither one has a clue about education beyond media talking points.
Perhaps it is best that they didn’t discuss education…..yet. CNN wasn’t prepared to go there, so patience is rewarded……It would be good if educators could let Clinton and Sanders know where we stand on corporate reform and “educate” them on the essential need for supporting Public Schools.
There’s reason to think they are practicing deafness.
Thanks for picking up my article, Diane. It’s so disheartening to devote your life to young people and have their cause entirely ignored. My daughter is only in first grade. What will be left for her by the time she gets into middle school and high school? I know I’m not the only one who feels a fierce urgency to stop what’s being done to our children. But on the national scene this struggle is all but invisible. I just hope education comes up at the next Democratic debate. Maybe I was expecting too much of my political party. The whole thing just has me feeling so let down by people who are supposed to have my back.
“Failing schools” is inaccurate and imprecise
We have allowed politicians, corporations, the media, and our selves to think that the problem with kids and education is “failing schools.” Now these same people are calling the problem “failing teachers.” Is this really the problem? Is this accurate and precise? No, but it does further some people’s own agenda (look for the money trail).
The problem with educating young people in today’s American culture is POVERTY. I do mean classic economic poverty and the unequal distribution of the country’s wealth … but I also mean a few other kinds of poverty. I believe that we have a poverty in parenting and I also believe that we have another more subtle, more dangerous poverty — a poverty in taking responsibility. If you think right now that I’m talking about someone else, I’m not — I’m talking to you (and me). I mean all of us, we are not taking responsibility for this problem. It probably costs too much and would take a lot of effort.
Educating our youth is all of our responsibility, we have to holds ourselves to the highest standards, we have to work as hard as we can to be good examples for the children. We have to teach our kids that education is important, that they owe it to themselves to be well educated. More importantly, we need to teach kids that they owe the people around them — their community — to work as hard as they can. “Ask not what your country can do for you, etc. etc.” It is also all of our responsibility to pay enough in taxes to support that education. You can’t stop paying your school taxes when your kids graduate. Don’t you want your neighbors kids to be educated enough to be able to be your doctor, policeman, and pharmacist as you grow old?
Can we change the conversation so that it is more realistic to the problem? Can we quit blaming schools/teachers and start addressing the real problem?! A little accuracy and precision could help us move toward answering the problem. Let’s stop wasting time and start doing the right work — let’s address all forms of poverty.
Thank you. The craziest part of the current “reform” movement is magical thinking. I.E., the belief that “high expectations” will turn every student into a top-tier student. The nutty idea that “schools are failing” and must be replaced by “high-quality seats,” as if new chairs make you smart. Anyone who thinks poverty is just “an excuse” has never been a teacher or experienced poverty. The world looks different from the executive suites on the 50th floor.
Bernie missed the chance to inform the public, and to assure teachers that HE IS ON THE SAME PAGE.The media has hidden this issue and offered the oligarchs spin about ‘reform!’
Bernie said not a word, NOT ONE WORD about public schools , where the destruction means the real end to income equality– the education of America’s kids during the ages when the brain acquires the skills & knowledge that offers the ONLY road to college and ALL opportunity, like EMPLOYMENT. It is TOO late to worry about free college when kids read on a second grade level in the 12th grade. Social promotionis the rule!
Rome is burning around Bernie, and BTW, this is OFFENSIVE to millions of teachers who know what is happening, that this testing mania and the evaluationof teachers is the BOMB that is calling causing the systematic & catastrophic failure of THE INSTITUTION of public education that common folk call ‘schools!’ Bernie is missing the chance to get their votes. HILLARY THINKS SHE HAS TEACHERS SOWED UP, with Randi at her side.
I am getting very discouraged when nothing gets through the wall of silence!
As Lenny Isenberg says http://www.perdaily.com/2015/10/charting-a-course-away-from-charters.html
” I don’t much like this reality, given the power arrayed against me, I have no desire to waste the waning years of my life by expending my rapidly diminishing energy in fighting a monster that I can only beat in fairy tales.”
Is our Constitution becoming a ‘fairy tale?
After all, look at how the NRA has recast the second amendment, to convince our ignorant people that they need to arm themselves ignored to defend themselves– which ignores the truth from The Preamble to the Constitution, which says clearly that the government’s duty” to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare!”
(i.e.police, militia, army not kindergarten teachers with guns provide our defense, has done so for a long time).
Koch and friends will re-write our history if the public schools do down.
I have had enough f betrayal!
It’s the public SCHOOLS, FOLKS….
It’s the public SCHOOLS, Bernie!
Wake up!
Wake up, yes. Panic, please no.
To all conscientious voters and educators:
It is important to acknowledge:
1) “”the short term gain for the long term pain”” = manipulation of sound bite = good to ears of GULLIBLE people.
versus
2) “”the short term pain for the long term gain”” = put emotion away, and scrutinize the principle behind each Presidential Candidate’s lifelong activities and credentials.
It is natural for all human beings to hold back what they work hard for many generations. = CONSERVATIVE ideology
versus
It is humanity for all human beings to care and to alleviate the sufferance of the unfortunate = CIVILITY ideology.
In conclusion, “”to err is human, to forgive divine””, so that voters and educators should be opened mind to find the best Presidential Candidate who is willing to work DILIGENTLY with Dr. Ravitch. This website with 23 million viewers will serve as the power of number in term of votes which represent for THE democratic will in educated and conscientious voters. Back2basic
” so that voters and educators should be opened mind to find the best Presidential Candidate who is willing to work DILIGENTLY with Dr. Ravitch.”
If it’s not clear by this point which candidate this would be, let’s at least figure out who would NOT EVER do what you just said. Cough, cough… everyone except Sanders.
If we aren’t certain about Sanders, we can rest assured that noone else will fill this demand. In other words, if there’s a 50% chance Sanders won’t come out against corporate education reform, there’s a 99% chance the other candidates will not.
I hope that in our disappointment we do not lose sight of the big picture.