Rosann Tung is a parent in the Boston Public Schools and is director of research and policy at the Annenberg Institute for School Reform. In this article, she connects the meaning of the successful campaign to block the expansion of charter schools in Massachusetts and the present moment, where public schools across the nation are under threat. The parent-teacher victory over the out-of-state billionaires was a resounding affirmation of public support for public schools. Please open the article to see the links to sources. Tung’s article is a good reminder of the importance of joining with allies in your district, town, city, or state. Every region has an organization that is supporting public education and opposing privatization. For help in finding your allies, contact the Network for Public Education.
Tung writes:
On November 8, Massachusetts voters decided to keep the charter school cap by voting “no” on Ballot Question 2, with only 16 (mostly wealthy) towns out of 351 voting “yes.” School committees in over 200 districts passed resolutions against Question 2, because communities want local control over their schools and understand that the charter industry forces them to run two parallel school systems, one of which is not fully accountable to the community.
The ballot proposal would have allowed up to twelve new Commonwealth charter schools each year indefinitely. In addition, the proposal would have removed limits on the amount of money that districts can be required to pass through to charter schools, enabling situations in which charter school growth could eventually cause the collapse of urban public school districts due to loss of revenue. Raising the charter cap would have bled our districts of resources necessary for early education, engaging course offerings, and professional development, and crippled the system’s ability to improve public, accountable schools for all students.
Not all charter schools exacerbate inequities, but lifting the charter cap would have allowed the creation of more charters that do widen the opportunity gap for students historically marginalized by unequal systems – especially schools that are run by for-profit corporations or charter management chains, that lack transparency and accountability in their governance, or that follow practices such as inequitable enrollment, punitive discipline policies, or excessive focus on raising standardized test scores. Choosing to keep the charter school cap was a win for equity in our state’s public school system.
Given the election of Donald Trump as our next president, we need to use this win to continue the strong advocacy for equitable and accountable public schools that the No on Question 2 supporters organized. During the fight for Question 2, charter proponents raised over $26 million to support their cause, primarily from “dark money,” out-of-state, and corporate donors. The aims of these donors are aligned with those of our president-elect; Trump promises to further privatize public schools and reduce government’s role in public education. While Trump’s education platform lacks specifics and details, we know that he has promised to divert $20 billion from school districts and perhaps even eliminate the federal Department of Education.
Building on the grassroots victory over Massachusetts Question 2, we need to ensure that his administration’s policies do not succeed in: dismantling federal oversight for students’ rights to quality education; further privatizing public education through private and parochial school vouchers and the expansion of charter school chains dominated by large corporate interests; and traumatizing students of color and immigrant students through a culture of intolerance and government-sanctioned racism and xenophobia.
Given Trump’s nomination of Betsy DeVos, a pro-voucher billionaire, as Secretary of Education, the Trump administration will likely allocate Title I dollars to “school choice,” which includes a voucher program for students to attend private and parochial schools and the creation of more charter and magnet schools. This “portability” could reverse what 62 percent of Massachusetts residents just voted for – keeping funds in traditional public schools. Trump’s approach to improving schools through a market-based, competitive approach will reduce the ability of public schools and systems to improve due to funding and resource shortfalls. And it will widen the opportunity gap, since a disproportionate number of Massachusetts’ charter schools have zero tolerance discipline policies and disproportionately low enrollment of English language learners.
In the aftermath of Trump’s election, many educators have led emotional classroom discussions to help students process their reactions, which include sadness, fear, rage, and uncertainty. Students who are Muslim, LGBTQ, immigrant, undocumented, Latino, female, and/or of color describe anxiety over their civil rights and their futures in this country. Superintendents in urban districts around the country have tried to reassure students and families with public letters and offers of support and counseling. Now more than ever, under a Trump administration, we must provide civic education that promotes critical consciousness, teaches about structural inequality, and empowers students to voice their concerns, organize, and advocate for humane and equitable policies.
In the next four years, with Trump as president and with a Republican Congress, we must continue to demand inclusive, transparent, and accountable public schools that serve each community’s distinct needs and desires, rather than quasi-public, unaccountable charter schools and private schools. We must ensure that our public schools create greater opportunity for all of our students, especially those most marginalized by our inequitable systems.

Betsy Devos will not last the term people you can bank on it. The uprising of the people will no doubt signal to Trump that Devos is a fraud with NO education experience what so ever and the mess she has made of the Michigan school system is so so sad. Devos is a debutante who married a billionaire who started the Amway shitty products scheme. Devos wants to turn public education into the same scheme as Amway! However, she will not last the term and you can bank on it.
LikeLike
It’s like an alternate universe, ed reform, where public schools don’t exist.
Here’s another piece quoting ed reformers on Trump/DeVos.
http://www.csmonitor.com/EqualEd/2016/1207/What-might-school-choice-look-like-under-Trump?cmpid=gigya-tw
No mention of public schools- 50 million kids, millions of people who work for public schools, tens of thousands of schools now operating within communities- simply not considered or valued at all.
What happened in Massachusetts isn’t that surprising, really. Ed reformers rejected public schools and since public schools serve the vast majority of kids the public then rejected ed reform. Ed reformers are all but irrelevant to public schools now, other than testing.
LikeLike
Ed reform is choice and accountability. As a practical matter what that ends up meaning is that as far as PUBLIC schools ed reform = testing:
“John King @JohnKingatED 17h17 hours ago
Together we can strike right balance for better, fairer & fewer assessments. Smarter assessments can make us all smarter. ”
Why would public school parents back this? All it offers to public schools is testing.
Trump just takes that one step further. Now it’s 100% charters and vouchers!
How did they end up here? How did “public education” groups manage to omit public schools? 🙂
LikeLike
“Smarter” tests don’t make anyone smarter. This is absurd.
LikeLike
“Smarter assessments can make us all smarter.”
How does an assessment get smarter? Does it study more?
LikeLike
In our current climate teachers should forge alliances with like minded groups from social justice and parent groups. These two groups are excellent allies for supporters of strong public schools. United we stand; divided we fall.
LikeLike
“In the next four years, with Trump as president and with a Republican Congress …”
But in two years, we the voters, who vote, will have an opportunity to take away Trump’s GOP Koch Tea Party majority in the Congress.
Will the Democrats offers us candidates we will want to vote for or will they continue to offer us more neo-liberal corporate owned minions?
LikeLike
RELATED: here is a cross-post from the National Literacy Association of a reflection on “Literacy as the Cornerstone of Democracy.”
QUOTE
Colleagues, This story/opinion piece today in a Western Massachusetts newspaper, the Berkshire Eagle, may be of interest. http://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/literacy-is-a-cornerstone-of-our-democracy,491490. It’s a reminder that newspapers and libraries are natural stakeholders in literacy. There have been many examples over the years of their support for, and partnering with, adult literacy programs and coalitions.
Now would be a good time to be sure they are included in adult basic skills advocacy activities. As the author rightly argues literacy and, I might add, especially media literacy, is a cornerstone of our democracy. David/djrosen123@gmail.com
RESPONSE QUOTE
Hello David: Lots can be said about the relationship between democracy and literacy; and though I am probably preaching to the choir here, it bears repeating that, basic to that relationship is the following on what “literacy as cornerstone to democracy” concretely means:
A democracy is a form of government where power (crasis) is in “the people” (demos).
Our government, expressly, is NOT centered in a king or in bloodlines, or a dictator; but rather in written documents: our Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and a set of laws passed down and continually perfected as history will allow (“In order to form a more perfect union.”)
The argument for literacy, then, as you say, being the cornerstone of democracy goes like this:
If power is in The People, then The People need to understand their own Constitution and laws that give fundamental order to our lives in order to embrace for ourselves, tend to, and execute that power well.
But the Constitution and laws were written by literate people (our founders) and are embodied in documents written and endorsed by others, and passed down to us for our consideration.
It follows: it is The People’s responsibility to both become literate and to institute and foster literacy in everyone, every group, and every association, who constitute “The People,” again, in order that all are able to read and understand, to choose again, to tend to, and to execute the Constitution and laws that we embrace and pass down as our governing documents.
Further, in order to do so, The People need to be able to question and communicate not only through speech (the freedoms of speech and assembly), but also through writing and reading (the Press or, as you say: “newspapers and libraries are natural stakeholders in literacy”–and the Press is the only business that’s overtly endorsed in the Constitution/Bill of Rights) and to keep the history of our democracy for our children, and so that others who come after us are well-equipped to do the same, if they choose to do so.
Literacy, then, is a cornerstone of democracy.
It cannot be otherwise, when you think about it, because the alternative is, without literacy connected to a written Constitution of/for/by the people: either a kingship or dictatorship where laws are arbitrarily changeable and come from personal edict of the king or dictator and, thus, can be as changeable as the personality of the person who holds that position. In such situations, literacy of “the people” becomes, if not anathema to the Powers That Be, at least superfluous to the now-arbitrary ordering of our lives.
There is much more to it, of course; but that’s the central “cornerstone” argument. Today, I need not tell you, I think, just how important “adult education” and its basic literacy really is to our democracy.
END QUOTE
LikeLike