Steve Singer, a teacher-blogger in Pennsylvania, is willing to give Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt. She doesn’t want to close half the schools in the nation. She mis-spoke.
But what does trouble him is that she made an off-hand comment about closing schools as a fix for low performance. This is a standard corporate reform strategy that destabilizes communities without helping children.
What did Hillary mean? Only she can answer. It is time for her to devote a speech to explaining where she stands on K-12 education. Will she stand up against for-profit charter schools? Will she propose legislation to require financial transparency and accountability for charter operators? Will she speak out against failed virtual charters? Will she propose programs that address poverty? Will she oppose vouchers, whether they are called opportunity scholarships, tax credits, or education savings accounts? Will she fight for collective bargaining rights in states where they are under attack? Will she support teacher professionalism?
Only Hillary can answer these questions. We know where she stands on pre-K and higher education. It is time for her to tell the nation her views on the K-12 issues that concern parents and educators. Not as off-hand remarks, but with care and forethought.
A site to discuss better education for all
13 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
Diane Ravitch's Blog by Diane Ravitch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at dianeravitch.net.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Tough spot for Clinton. Follow the winds of discontent among a growing number of Americans (voters) or follow the money.
Who’s financing Hillary’s campaign? Which corporate donors will expect payback in the way of education dollars? That will tell the story. Is Eli Broad on that list?
As a matter of fact, yes. Eli Broad is on it. Mercedes Schneider quotes the wall Street Journal:
““There are a lot of deep-pocketed donors who are concerned, and they’re going to hang onto their checkbooks until there is more clarity,” said Whitney Tilson, managing partner of Kase Capital, who has given more than $150,000 to Democrats in recent years. He hasn’t donated any money to Mrs. Clinton or the super PAC supporting her this year “primarily because of this issue.”
“Another major Democratic donor, Eli Broad, refused requests for contributions from another friendly super PAC, and only changed his mind after personal reassurances from former President Bill Clinton and campaign chairman John Podesta that Mrs. Clinton will support charter schools.”
https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/hillary-clinton-still-on-the-hook/
Talk is cheap, especially with politicians. It is better to look at Hillary’s past actions and campaign contributions than wait for her to pander to you. If Hillary came out and said “I won’t close any schools, and promise to support teachers, and see that poverty needs to be addressed” — would that make her the right choice?
I continue to believe that those who take HIllary’s words at face value (and on the other hand, don’t take Bernie’s words at face value) have not made enough effort to learn about the candidates. In the realm of integrity and honesty, they are virtually opposite…
“We know where she stands” is different than “We know what she has said”. Like our union leadership has-playing it cautious and safe.Here in NY, the latest NYSUT magazine proudly takes credit for the legislative backpedaling that was hard won by parents, students, and boots on the ground professionals. “Your union called, and you answered!”, should truthfully be “Your union waited until it was politically safe, and now we’re here!”. The reason Sanders has found some traction and a following is that he is consistent, honest and straightforward about what and who he is fighting for. The reason the profession is fighting back from a respect deficit is because our union leadership has not done this effectively. The reason Hillary is no help to us at this point is that she may not have honesty and consistency in her toolbox.
I’ll defend Clinton on this one. I think what she said was clearly part of a longer discussion and does not mean she intends or hopes to close 50% of schools.
I don’t know what she’ll do on public schools but predicting anything based on this one sentence seems to me to be an overreaction.
This is also just my opinion, but I sometimes think the attention given to the federal approach to public schools is (somewhat) misguided. Since public schools really are mostly governed at the state and local level is seems to me that should be the logical focus. Part of the reason Arne Duncan was able to push through so many (national) ed reform ideas and policies was he became the focus, which provided political cover to state and local lawmakers. I think we saw this with both testing and the Common Core. When those policies became unpopular or controversial (some) state lawmakers blamed Duncan, thereby avoiding accountability for decisions they made.
One of two things are true- either state lawmakers don’t understand the policy and priorities of the national ed reform “movement” that they are writing into state law or they do understand and are going along willingly. Either way state lawmakers are accountable for state laws and state policies, not the executive branch of the federal government.
If public schools have lost funding under ed reform governance at the state level (and they have, and that was the context of Clinton’s remarks) the responsibility for that should stay primarily with the state politicians who cut the funding.
Chris Christie told teachers that their pensions were safe, and then went after them as soon as he became governor. I don’t trust any politician at this point on what they say about education. Follow the money and you will find both Republicans and Democrats have been bought.
Exactly! As to her statement, Freudian slip perhaps?
Come on, People. Hillary Clinton does not plan to close half the public schools in the country. I know she said something stupid, but give the woman a break. Getting hysterical over a faux pas helps no one and actually obscures the real issue – which is that Clinton may believe that you can fix schools by closing them. THAT is a real problem. We don’t need another neoliberal in the White House continuing the corporate education reform policies of Bush and Obama.
Thanks so much, Diane, for writing about my article. You are so right. Clinton needs to clarify her comments. She should give a major policy speech on education before the Iowa primary. I really appreciate the vigilance of the education community to keep Clinton honest on this point, but we have to also treat the candidate fairly and not jump on obvious gaffes.
How many do you think she plans to close, Steven? She and her team are taking over “the lowest 10%” right now in Massachusetts. Is your cut point 20%? Many Boston schools have already been closed in addition to the mandated take overs.
Lawrence and Holyoke have been taken over by her for-profit corporate backers on #Teachstrong. AFT and NEA board members supported that legislation, and now you support them.
For a while, this will get you rewarded and advance your career, but the slimy slope turns downward pretty quickly. Words can not describe the contempt in which fighting teachers hold it.
The fact is, none of the candidates have said anything meaningful about K-12 education. Bernie Sanders, with his grassroots populism, is the candidate most poised to say what needs to be said about public education. Even he has been silent about it though.
No, Josh Bernie speaks often in defense of public education, but there is a squad of Clinton backers all over the media denying it.
Here he is at the MTA bargaining Summit on October 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yUN4yNfi38
He is much more willing to speak about public education in small forums when he is asked direct questions on the topic. Good quotes from that video:
“We will find a secretary of education who is much more interested in the whole child than teaching to tests.”
“You are looking at someone who has perhaps the best pro-union voting record in Congress” (paraphrased)