In recent weeks, hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into a race in Massachusetts for a State Senate seat.
The incumbent Pat Jehlen opposes Question 2, the measure on the state ballot in November to increase charter schools by 12 a year forever.
Her opponent, Leland Cheung, supports Question 2.
Jehlen was supported by the Massachusetts Teachers Association. Cheung was financed by the hedge fund managers’ group Democrats for Education Reform (DFER).
Jehlen debated a representative of DFER, instead of debating Cheung.
Jehlen won overwhelmingly, by a vote of more than 13,000 to less than 4,000.
Some think this race presages the vote in November, in which pro-charter groups are prepared to spend millions of dollars to promote Question 2.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Welcome, privatization profiteers to the actual 21st century! Hello.
We won!
And the mainstream media will report that the thuggish teachers’ unions spent a fortune for this victory, when the truth is that out of state millionaires/billionaires sent megabucks to try to buy the election of Cheung, handily outspending the union. Hopefully, the voters, who seem smart, will vote down Question 2.
You’re right. Just like the NYT, fails to report that Gates’ philanthropic investments have links to his own enrichment. Just like, media’s black-out of the question about how Gates and Buffett remain in the same positions on the richest men lists, while boasting about giving away their fortunes in their lifetimes.
Go, Pat!
Terrific! No DFER 4 me.
Cheuing is just another puppet.
I first misread the title: can’t “DFER opponent” also mean the person who opposes DFER?
They didn’t put charter schools in the mailer:
“Also, that DFER’s signature issue —charter schools! charter schools! charter schools!—gets nary a mention in the mailer, which strikes one as, well, odd. ”
If privatizing public schools is so hugely popular, why don’t they run on it?
http://edushyster.com/the-shill-y-season/?utm_content=buffereb5cc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffe
Looks like ed reform found their candidate:
“Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump Thursday afternoon gave his first major policy address on education, calling for a $20 billion federal school choice program for children who live in poverty.
“Not only would this empower families but it would create a massive education market that is competitive and produces better outcomes, and I mean far better outcomes,” Trump said at a charter school in Cleveland. ”
He’s from NY so he probably doesn’t know this, but the charter school he promoted as superior to public schools isn’t superior to public schools and Cleveland already has an “education marketplace” identical to what he described.
So, to wrap up,there is no part of what he said or (apparently) believes that is true.
I’d also like to point out that Trump gave an “education” speech that omits public schools- 93% of students in this state attend public schools.
I know DC is ga-ga over charters and vouchers but omitting 93% of students in your “education plan” is wacky. Do they ignore public schools because so few of them attended one?
https://www.the74million.org/article/trump-goes-all-in-on-school-choice-in-first-major-education-policy-speech
Here’s a typical selection when you read on the ed reform side. It’s a piece about “education”. You won’t find a single mention of public schools:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/09/06/we-need-more-charter-schools-but-the-debate-cant-end-there/?utm_term=.6684affefc93
Do they not mention public schools because they hope to replace them and this is just a winding down period while we transition to fully privatized?
What other explanation could be there be? It’s a “public education” movement that consistently omits any benefit for public schools. That can’t be just an echo chamber effect- there has to be some reason for this.
Chiara, now that you read the Finn-Manno-Wright piece the other day, you know that the goal is to replace public schools and elected school boards with an all-choice system that does not include public schools.
Arne Duncan writes an essay on “public education” where public schools are mentioned once, only in passing and only in comparison to charter schools:
https://www.the74million.org/article/arne-duncan-what-impresses-me-most-about-the-first-25-years-of-public-charter-schools
The US Department of Education. Omits public schools. Total capture.
Hip, hip horray!!!!
This is fantastic news!
It’s pretty amazing to find myself cheering from California about a Massachusetts state legislator. Such is the community of eduction advocates you have created, Diane. Pretty cool.
Pat’s fabulous win is a victory for all but only in her district. We can’t relax. There’s a whole big state out there that is yet to hear our side of the story. Fill school parking lots with Vote No on 2 bumper stickers and get on those phones.
Thanks, Diane for spreading the word!
“We are many. There is power in our numbers. Together we will save our schools”
I live in Cambridge and Leland Cheung lives in my neighborhood and is a popular city councillor, so I was worried. I couldn’t vote for Jehlen because she’s not in my district and ward, but am so happy to hear she won. There’s been a lot of dismay here on all the outside funds coming from out of state to try to buy a local election and it seems that by running against Jehlen and accepting money from DFER, Cheung has ruined his reputation in the city. Jehlen has been very vocal against standardized testing as well as charter schools and has a lot of support. She’s come to our local Cambridge citizens for public schools events and spoken out about the absurdity of the state accountability measures based on testing and the equally absurd charter cap formulas that determine which cities get charters. The democratic primary here generally has really low turnout bc most candidates run unopposed, so there was a big push in the last couple of weeks to get out the vote. Very, very happy.
Next battle here is over prop 2. There’s a long list of school committees and towns that have passed resolutions against this measure including Boston. (list here:http://www.massteacher.org/issues_and_action/charter_schools.aspx)
It’s hard to say how much the upcoming charter school ballot question was a factor – Pat Jehlen has been a well known progressive politician for many years – but she didn’t just beat Cheung, she TROUNCED him 77% to 23%.
Sally,
It was seen by us outsiders as a referendum on charters because her opponent Leland Cheung was financed by DFER (Democrats for Education Reform), the New York City-based organization of hedge fund managers who like to portray themselves as advocates for civil rights but whose sole goal is privatization via charters.
It is fortunate that the Massachusetts’ voters have critical thinking skills. They weren’t fooled by the hype and spin.
Diane,
I understand how this looks to outsiders and am all too aware of DFER’s deceptive tactics. I HOPE that Cheung’s position on charters given the upcoming ballot question was a factor. But it is hard to determine what caused his defeat when the turnout was less than 10% – only the diehards voted, like myself, who rushed home from a vacation to cast my vote for Pat Jehlen – and Jehlen is well-established and popular.
On the other hand, as Sarah5565 notes, progressive anti-Prop 2 Mike Connolly beat long-time conservative Democrat incumbent Tim Toomey so maybe the election was a positive bellwether on Prop 2.
Sally
Sally,
Hard work by parents and members of the community can defeat even DFER. So, work hard to defeat Prop 2 in Nov
Interestingly, in this election incumbent Tim Toomey was defeated by Connolly and Toomey voted NO on the city council resolution on the charter cap (Cheung did not vote) and was the only Councillor to vote against the city resolution on pausing PARCC.
http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/news/20160908/connolly-wins-big-victory-over-toomey-jehlen-secures-seat-against-cheung
Mercedes Schneider has unmasked a few more of Question 2’s funders: