Archives for the month of: April, 2017

In Chile, solar power is the wave of the future.

“On the solar farms of the Atacama Desert, the workers dress like astronauts. They wear bodysuits and wraparound sunglasses, with thick canvas headscarves to shield them from the radiation.

“The sun is so intense and the air so dry that seemingly nothing survives. Across vast, rocky wastes blanched of color, there are no cactuses or other visible signs of life. It’s Mars, with better cellphone reception.

“It is also the world’s best place to produce solar energy, with the most potent sun power on the planet.

“So powerful, in fact, that something extraordinary happened last year when the Chilean government invited utility companies to bid on public contracts. Solar producers dominated the auction, offering to supply electricity at about half the cost of coal-fired plants.

“It wasn’t because of a government subsidy for alternative energy. In Chile and a growing list of nations, the price of solar energy has fallen so much that it is increasingly beating out conventional sources of power. Industry experts and government regulators hail this moment as a turning point in the history of human electricity-making.

“This is the beginning of a trend that will only accelerate,” said Chilean Energy Minister Andrés Rebolledo. “We’re talking about an infinite fuel source.”

“President Trump ordered U.S. regulators this week to reverse Obama-era policies aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions, and he has promised to “bring back” the U.S. coal industry. But construction of coal-fired power plants dropped 62 percent over the past year worldwide, according to a survey by the Sierra Club and other activist groups. In China last year, the number of new permits for coal-fired plants fell by 85 percent.

“More worldwide generating capacity is now being added from clean sources than coal and natural gas combined, according to a December report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which closely tracks investment in renewables.

“An investor in Chile wanting to build a hydroelectric dam or coal-fired plant potentially faces years of costly political battles and fierce resistance from nearby communities. In contrast, a solar company can lay out acres of automated sun-tracking panels across an isolated stretch of desert and have them firing quiet, clean electricity in less than a year, with no worries about fluctuating fuel prices or droughts. The sunlight is free and shows up for work on time, every morning.

“Long dependent on energy imports, Chilean officials now envision their country turning into a “solar Saudi Arabia.” Chile’s solar energy production has increased sixfold since 2014, and last year it was the top-scoring clean-energy producer in the Americas, and second in the world to China, according to the Bloomberg rankings. (China is the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases but also the leading investor in renewable energy.)

“Driving the global shift to cheap sun power is a dramatic decline in the cost of the photovoltaic (PV) panels that can be used to create giant desert solar farms or rooftop home installations. China produces more than two-thirds of the world’s PV panels, and their price has fallen more than 80 percent since 2008.”

Meanwhile, Trump is heading in the opposite direction, trying to fulfill his promise to revive the coal industry. He has ceded world leadership in developing renewable energy to China as he seeks to bring back the polluted world of a century ago.

If there is one issue where the WSJ is fanatical, it is school choice. It published an editorial this morning (behind a pay wall) declaring that all the recent negative studies of the effects of vouchers must be wrong, because the Milton Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice says so, and whatever the Friedman Foundation says on the subject of vouchers must be right. Right?

Wrong! The Friedman Foundation lobbies and advocates for vouchers. They are not an unbiased source.

Sara Stevenson, librarian at O. Henry Middle School in Austin, Texas, rides herd on the WSJ editorials and once again corrects them. She is on the honor roll of this blog for her determination and fearlessness as an advocate for a better education for all.

She writes:

“It’s no surprise that the Wall Street Journal accuses progressives of cherry-picking negative data about the effectiveness of private school vouchers. On the other hand, I can turn around and accuse the editorial board of doing the same thing with its positive data. Your bias is so transparent when you quote aggregated data by the Friedman Foundation, failing to report its full name: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, as in Milton Friedman, the father of school choice.

“Here is some additional data to the “cherry-picked” studies you attempt to refute in your editorial. You get objectivity points for admitting that the voucher experiment in Louisiana, the largest to date, is a failure.

“Please consider these. Full disclosure: I do not work for a think tank nor am I a lobbyist. I am a public middle school librarian who taught for ten years in a Catholic high school.

“According to a Brookings Institute Report by Mark Dynarski in May 2016, both Louisiana and Indiana students who received private school vouchers scored lower on reading and math tests compared to similar students who remained in public schools. As Mr. Dynarski wrote:

“In education as in medicine, ‘first, do no harm’ is a powerful guiding principle. A case to use taxpayer funds to send children of low-income parents to private schools is based on an expectation that the outcome will be positive. These recent findings point in the other direction.”

“Let’s look at some longer-term studies. In 1989, Milwaukee began its Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. That’s over 25 years ago. According to a Public Policy Report, in the years 2012 – 2014, students in Milwaukee public schools were more proficient than their private school choice counterparts in statewide reading and math tests at every grade level (3 – 10).

“Even the DC Opportunity Scholarship program shows no benefits in math, after three years, between students who applied and were selected for a voucher and those who applied and instead continued at public schools.

“Instead of pushing “market choices,” which means winners and losers, let’s work towards a quality education for every child.

Sara Stevenson
Austin, Texas”

Vanity Fair tells the inside story of the Steele dossier, the one that was taken seriously by the FBI and CIA and shared with the President and the President-Elect.

Drip, drip, drip.

Legislators in California have filed four bills that would hold charter schools to the same standards as public schools.

http://www.utla.net/news/new-legislative-push-charter-school-accountability

Expect powerful resistance from the California Charter School Association, which prefers no regulations at all, no accountability, total freedom to choose their students, to exclude the ones they don’t want, and to use public money with minimal or no public oversight.

The decision to rein in these private ventures rests with Governor Jerry Brown, who has protected the charter industry in the past, even vetoing a bill to prohibit for-profit charter vultures. Of course, as mayor of Oakland, he started two charters.

Gary Rubinstein has a somewhat startling habit of insisting on accuracy. He gets very annoyed when educators or pseudo-educators make claims that are false or only half-true or embellishments. I have worked with him on several occasions to track down the facts about “miracle schools” that turned out to be schools with high attrition rates or some other explanation of a dramatic spike in test scores or graduation rates.

In this post, he examines a claim made in an article by Louisiana Superintendent John White and Massachusetts Commissioner Mitchell Chester. Both of them are members of Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change, which is a strong indication that they are wedded to test scores and school choice.

Chester comes from a state that has historically been the highest-performing in the nation.

What bothers Rubinstein is that White uses the article to claim some sort of Louisiana “miracle” on his watch, and he cites NAEP scores. That sets off alarm bells for Rubinstein.

This is White’s claim:

In Louisiana, radical change means that 128,000 fewer students attend schools rated D or F than did in 2011. That’s had a powerful impact on the historically disadvantaged children too often consigned to failing schools, vaulting the performance of African-American fourth graders into the middle of the pack on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2015. In 2009, for example, black fourth graders ranked 43rd and 41st in the nation for proficiency in reading and math, respectively. Those rankings jumped to 20th and 23rd in 2015.

Rubinstein writes:

As far as the 128,000 fewer students attending schools rated D or F, since they are the ones who assign those ratings and since the criteria for getting a D or F has changed over the years, I don’t take that one too seriously.

But I was interested in ‘fact checking’ that NAEP statistic since that was one I hadn’t heard of before. I knew that Louisiana as a whole had very low NAEP scores and they were not improving very much over the years the way, for example Tennessee and Washington D.C. have, otherwise we’d be hearing about Louisiana NAEP much more.

White says that black fourth graders ranked 43rd in reading and 41st in math in 2009 and now rank 20th and 23rd. So I went to the National Center for Education Statistics website and dug into the data.

Since NAEP isn’t just for 4th graders, the first thing I checked was what their current ranking was for black 8th graders and saw that for 8th grade math they actually dropped from 39th to 44th between 2009 and 2015. For 8th grade reading they dropped from to 43rd to 45th between 2009 and 2015. So it is obvious why they don’t mention their 8th grade change in rankings.

I also checked how they have done in math for all 4th graders regardless of race. I found that in 2009 they were 48th while in 2015 they were not much better, at 44th. In reading they went from second to last in 2009 to 8th to last in 2015. A jump, but not the sort of thing that John White would ever use to prove his point about his knowledge of improving schools.

But he went on to inquire about the statistical significance of the fourth grade gains.

What he learned will surprise you.

Arizona Republicans are renewing a drive to expand that state voucher program, despite a recent state audit reporting misspent funds and despite a survey showing that most voucher students are leaving high-performing schools in wealthy districts. In last year’s legislative races, Betsy DeVos’s lobbying group spent heavily to elect pro-voucher candidates, more than any other independent political organization.

“Republican lawmakers are renewing their efforts to expand a program that allows parents to use public money to pay the educational expenses of children who attend private schools or are homeschooled.

“The push to expand Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program comes in the wake of a state audit that found officials had identified that more than $102,000 in ESA funds were misspent during a six-month period, from August 2015 to January 2016, in addition to other improper purchases, as well as spotty oversight.

“The examples cited by auditors include parents who kept the state’s money after enrolling their children in public school, parents who bought items that are not allowed under the program, such as snow globes and sock monkeys, and parents who didn’t submit required expense reports to the Arizona Department of Education…

“Empowerment Scholarship Accounts allow parents to take money that would otherwise go directly to their local public school, and put it toward private-school tuition, homeschooling, tutoring, therapy, and other education-related expenses. Critics of the program say it siphons money away from public district schools, and over time, could substantially erode school funding.

“Senate Bill 1281, sponsored by Smith, requires the Department of Education to contract with an outside firm to help administer the ESA program, and makes various changes to the program. Read the bill summary here.
Senate Bill 1431, sponsored by Lesko, would make all Arizona students eligible for the ESA program by the 2020-2021 school year. Read the bill as introduced here.

“The Legislature created the program in 2011, limiting it to disabled children. Since then, lawmakers have expanded the program to children in failing schools, children living on tribal lands, siblings of children who have participated in the ESA program, and others. There are currently about 3,200 children in the program in 2017, said Ross Begnoche, the Department of Education’s chief financial officer. The program is currently capped at about 5,000 students. The budget is about $40 million this year.

“Under legislation introduced by Republican Sen. Debbie Lesko, of Peoria, all students would qualify for the ESA program by the 2020-2021 school year.

“Senate Bill 1431 proposes phasing in eligibility, starting in the 2017-2018 school year with students in kindergarten, first grade, sixth grade and ninth grade. Within four years, all students would qualify. A separate bill, Senate Bill 1281, by Republican Sen. Steve Smith, would require the Department of Education to contract with a private firm to manage ESA accounts and require random, quarterly and annual audits of the program….

“Last year, she also sponsored legislation to allow all 1.1 million public schoolchildren to qualify for the ESA program by 2020. That expansion effort came as Gov. Doug Ducey was campaigning for a ballot initiative to put more money into public schools — a message seemingly at odds with legislation that would divert taxpayer money away from public schools. The bill died after an Arizona Republic investigation showed most children using the program were leaving high-performing public schools in wealthy districts.

“Some supportive lawmakers say an ESA expansion could have more momentum this year, given President Donald Trump’s nomination of school-choice advocate and billionaire Betsy DeVos for U.S. secretary of Education. A non-profit she chaired until recently, American Federation for Children, spent nearly $218,000 during the primary for legislative races last year, the most of any independent expenditure committee seeking to influence the outcome of such races.

“The group advocates for school-choice measures across the country and at the Arizona Capitol, where those efforts have included pressing for ESA expansion. On Monday, the group touted Lesko’s legislation, saying it would mean “no Arizona child will be trapped in a school that isn’t working for them.”

Arizona has the best legislature that DeVos money could buy.

At a recent meeting at the Heritage Foundation, conservatives warned that federal control of school choice would be very dangerous.

“A panel of education policy experts agree the Trump administration appears to be moving toward some form of federal management of school choice, but warns that attempts to influence school choice policy from Washington, D.C. could undermine the president’s stated goals of returning education decisions back to the states and local governments.
The panel convened at the Heritage Foundation in the wake of Trump’s statement during his address to Congress that education is “the civil rights issue of our time.” The school choice theme that Trump has adopted since the tail end of his presidential campaign has been largely directed at minority children who are stuck in failing public schools and whose parents or guardians may not have the financial means to transfer them to a private or religious school.

“Trump’s choice for U.S. Education Secretary – Betsy DeVos – worked in her home state of Michigan primarily on school choice and school voucher programs, which allow families to use taxpayer funds for tuition at private and religious schools.

“On the campaign trail, the president proposed block granting $20 billion to families for school choice, and in his recently released budget, he proposed an additional $1.4 billion be spent on school choice programs in 2018.

“Trump also urged Congress to design legislation that funds school choice for low-income families. One such bill, H.R. 610, introduced by Iowa Rep. Steve King (R), has been vehemently opposed by homeschooling families across the country because of concerns the legislation will result in regulation of homeschooling nationwide.

“The panel, led by American Enterprise Institute education fellow Gerard Robinson, discussed ideas on how the federal government might attempt to actually implement school choice policy, whether through financial mechanisms such as school vouchers, education savings accounts, or tax credit scholarships, in which organizations obtain tax credits for donating scholarship funds to individual students or groups of students.

“When I hear folks talking about getting Washington involved in tuition tax credits for scholarship-granting organizations, and I hear the proposals that are being broadly floated, it makes me extraordinarily nervous,” said American Enterprise Institute education policy director Frederick (Rick) Hess. “It takes me very much back to 2000, and the 24-page document that the Bushes drafted that was the original No Child Left Behind.”

“Hess also pointed out the tremendous effects a federal tax credit scholarship program could have on the demands for private schools in the education market.

“If we get into Washington doing scholarship-granting organization tax credits…this is going to have enormous effects on private schools, because it’s going to distort the marketplace,” he said. “They’re going to need to be eligible for these funds.”

“Hess also explained the potential “strings” attached to federal taxpayer dollars as they go to private and religious schools, especially those that are strapped for cash and are willing to go to great lengths to obtain the funding. He warns that a future, more liberal Congress and administration would likely attach greater regulations to those schools.

“When you get a Democratic administration, an Elizabeth Warren administration, and they decide that eligible schools … need to have anti-bullying programs and other accommodations?” he said. “We will very quickly wind up and wonder, ‘What the hell were we thinking, inviting Washington into these decisions?’”

Hmmmm.

The Los Angeles Times is publishing a series of editorials about Donald Trump. This is the first. It was published yesterday.


It was no secret during the campaign that Donald Trump was a narcissist and a demagogue who used fear and dishonesty to appeal to the worst in American voters. The Times called him unprepared and unsuited for the job he was seeking, and said his election would be a “catastrophe.”

Still, nothing prepared us for the magnitude of this train wreck. Like millions of other Americans, we clung to a slim hope that the new president would turn out to be all noise and bluster, or that the people around him in the White House would act as a check on his worst instincts, or that he would be sobered and transformed by the awesome responsibilities of office.

Instead, seventy-some days in — and with about 1,400 to go before his term is completed — it is increasingly clear that those hopes were misplaced.

In a matter of weeks, President Trump has taken dozens of real-life steps that, if they are not reversed, will rip families apart, foul rivers and pollute the air, intensify the calamitous effects of climate change and profoundly weaken the system of American public education for all.

His attempt to de-insure millions of people who had finally received healthcare coverage and, along the way, enact a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich has been put on hold for the moment. But he is proceeding with his efforts to defang the government’s regulatory agencies and bloat the Pentagon’s budget even as he supposedly retreats from the global stage.

It is impossible to know where his presidency will lead or how much damage he will do to our nation.

These are immensely dangerous developments which threaten to weaken this country’s moral standing in the world, imperil the planet and reverse years of slow but steady gains by marginalized or impoverished Americans. But, chilling as they are, these radically wrongheaded policy choices are not, in fact, the most frightening aspect of the Trump presidency.

What is most worrisome about Trump is Trump himself. He is a man so unpredictable, so reckless, so petulant, so full of blind self-regard, so untethered to reality that it is impossible to know where his presidency will lead or how much damage he will do to our nation. His obsession with his own fame, wealth and success, his determination to vanquish enemies real and imagined, his craving for adulation — these traits were, of course, at the very heart of his scorched-earth outsider campaign; indeed, some of them helped get him elected. But in a real presidency in which he wields unimaginable power, they are nothing short of disastrous.

Although his policies are, for the most part, variations on classic Republican positions (many of which would have been undertaken by a President Ted Cruz or a President Marco Rubio), they become far more dangerous in the hands of this imprudent and erratic man. Many Republicans, for instance, support tighter border security and a tougher response to illegal immigration, but Trump’s cockamamie border wall, his impracticable campaign promise to deport all 11 million people living in the country illegally and his blithe disregard for the effect of such proposals on the U.S. relationship with Mexico turn a very bad policy into an appalling one.

In the days ahead, The Times editorial board will look more closely at the new president, with a special attention to three troubling traits:

1. Trump’s shocking lack of respect for those fundamental rules and institutions on which our government is based. Since Jan. 20, he has repeatedly disparaged and challenged those entities that have threatened his agenda, stoking public distrust of essential institutions in a way that undermines faith in American democracy. He has questioned the qualifications of judges and the integrity of their decisions, rather than acknowledging that even the president must submit to the rule of law. He has clashed with his own intelligence agencies, demeaned government workers and questioned the credibility of the electoral system and the Federal Reserve. He has lashed out at journalists, declaring them “enemies of the people,” rather than defending the importance of a critical, independent free press. His contempt for the rule of law and the norms of government are palpable.

2. His utter lack of regard for truth. Whether it is the easily disprovable boasts about the size of his inauguration crowd or his unsubstantiated assertion that Barack Obama bugged Trump Tower, the new president regularly muddies the waters of fact and fiction. It’s difficult to know whether he actually can’t distinguish the real from the unreal — or whether he intentionally conflates the two to befuddle voters, deflect criticism and undermine the very idea of objective truth. Whatever the explanation, he is encouraging Americans to reject facts, to disrespect science, documents, nonpartisanship and the mainstream media — and instead to simply take positions on the basis of ideology and preconceived notions. This is a recipe for a divided country in which differences grow deeper and rational compromise becomes impossible.

3. His scary willingness to repeat alt-right conspiracy theories, racist memes and crackpot, out-of-the-mainstream ideas. Again, it is not clear whether he believes them or merely uses them. But to cling to disproven “alternative” facts; to retweet racists; to make unverifiable or false statements about rigged elections and fraudulent voters; to buy into discredited conspiracy theories first floated on fringe websites and in supermarket tabloids — these are all of a piece with the Barack Obama birther claptrap that Trump was peddling years ago and which brought him to political prominence. It is deeply alarming that a president would lend the credibility of his office to ideas that have been rightly rejected by politicians from both major political parties.

Where will this end? Will Trump moderate his crazier campaign positions as time passes? Or will he provoke confrontation with Iran, North Korea or China, or disobey a judge’s order or order a soldier to violate the Constitution? Or, alternately, will the system itself — the Constitution, the courts, the permanent bureaucracy, the Congress, the Democrats, the marchers in the streets — protect us from him as he alienates more and more allies at home and abroad, steps on his own message and creates chaos at the expense of his ability to accomplish his goals? Already, Trump’s job approval rating has been hovering in the mid-30s, according to Gallup, a shockingly low level of support for a new president. And that was before his former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, offered to cooperate last week with congressional investigators looking into the connection between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

Those who oppose the new president’s reckless and heartless agenda must make their voices heard.

On Inauguration Day, we wrote on this page that it was not yet time to declare a state of “wholesale panic” or to call for blanket “non-cooperation” with the Trump administration. Despite plenty of dispiriting signals, that is still our view. The role of the rational opposition is to stand up for the rule of law, the electoral process, the peaceful transfer of power and the role of institutions; we should not underestimate the resiliency of a system in which laws are greater than individuals and voters are as powerful as presidents. This nation survived Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon. It survived slavery. It survived devastating wars. Most likely, it will survive again.

But if it is to do so, those who oppose the new president’s reckless and heartless agenda must make their voices heard. Protesters must raise their banners. Voters must turn out for elections. Members of Congress — including and especially Republicans — must find the political courage to stand up to Trump. Courts must safeguard the Constitution. State legislators must pass laws to protect their citizens and their policies from federal meddling. All of us who are in the business of holding leaders accountable must redouble our efforts to defend the truth from his cynical assaults.

The United States is not a perfect country, and it has a great distance to go before it fully achieves its goals of liberty and equality. But preserving what works and defending the rules and values on which democracy depends are a shared responsibility. Everybody has a role to play in this drama.

After I posted the story about the forthcoming PBS Series called School Inc., which promotes privatization, reflecting the views of the privatization movement, I shared the story with investigative journalist David Sirota. He recalled the time that his journalism compelled PBS to return millions of dollars to billionaire financier John Arnold for a program he funded about “the pension crisis.” Arnold has a passion for eliminating pensions for public employees.

He also pointed out a story about Bill Gates’ generous support for PBS programs like The Teaching Channel and for programs advocating for the Common Core.

Now, we understand that PBS and its affiliates need to raise money, but the public expects that whatever they feature will be fair and balanced, not an advertorial.

And we certainly don’t expect PBS to align its programming with the whims of rich individuals who seek to undermine and/or privatize and/or control public education.

I would certainly be shocked to see a program on PBS funded by billionaire Robert Mercer on why the nation does not need public television. Yet PBS has shockingly committed to airing a four-part series attacking public schools and praising the virtues of privatization.

When does the public interest get equal time?

Please call 703-739-5000 to register your protest.

Be sure to ask when they will give equal time to expose the corporate attack on our public schools.

David Kirp, professor of public policy at Berkeley, often contributes articles to the New York Times about successful public schools and districts.

His latest is a terrific article that you will enjoy about an innovative public school district in Oklahoma.

At the Union Public Schools district in the eastern part of Tulsa, Okla., “more than a third of the students are Latino, many of them English language learners, and 70 percent receive free or reduced-price lunch. From kindergarten through high school, they get a state-of-the-art education in science, technology, engineering and math, the STEM subjects. When they’re in high school, these students will design web pages and mobile apps, as well as tackle cybersecurity and artificial intelligence projects. And STEM-for-all is only one of the eye-opening opportunities in this district of around 16,000 students.

“Betsy DeVos, book your plane ticket now.

“Ms. DeVos, the new secretary of education, dismisses public schools as too slow-moving and difficult to reform. She’s calling for the expansion of supposedly nimbler charters and vouchers that enable parents to send their children to private or parochial schools. But Union shows what can be achieved when a public school system takes the time to invest in a culture of high expectations, recruit top-flight professionals and develop ties between schools and the community….

“This individual attention has paid off, as Union has defied the demographic odds. In 2016, the district had a high school graduation rate of 89 percent — 15 percentage points more than in 2007, when the community was wealthier, and 7 percentage points higher than the national average.

“The school district also realized, as Ms. Burden put it, that “focusing entirely on academics wasn’t enough, especially for poor kids.” Beginning in 2004, Union started revamping its schools into what are generally known as community schools. These schools open early, so parents can drop off their kids on their way to work, and stay open late and during summers. They offer students the cornucopia of activities — art, music, science, sports, tutoring — that middle-class families routinely provide. They operate as neighborhood hubs, providing families with access to a health care clinic in the school or nearby; connecting parents to job-training opportunities; delivering clothing, food, furniture and bikes; and enabling teenage mothers to graduate by offering day care for their infants…

“Superintendents and school boards often lust after the quick fix. The average urban school chief lasts around three years, and there’s no shortage of shamans promising to “disrupt” the status quo.

“The truth is that school systems improve not through flash and dazzle but by linking talented teachers, a challenging curriculum and engaged students. This is Union’s not-so-secret sauce: Start out with an academically solid foundation, then look for ways to keep getting better.

“Union’s model begins with high-quality prekindergarten, which enrolls almost 80 percent of the 4-year-olds in the district. And it ends at the high school, which combines a collegiate atmosphere — lecture halls, student lounges and a cafeteria with nine food stations that dish up meals like fish tacos and pasta puttanesca — with the one-on-one attention that characterizes the district.

“Counselors work with the same students throughout high school, and because they know their students well, they can guide them through their next steps. For many, going to community college can be a leap into anonymity, and they flounder — the three-year graduation rate at Tulsa Community College, typical of most urban community colleges, is a miserable 14 percent. But Union’s college-in-high-school initiative enables students to start earning community college credits before they graduate, giving them a leg up.

“The evidence-based pregnancy-prevention program doesn’t lecture adolescents about chastity. Instead, by demonstrating that they have a real shot at success, it enables them to envision a future in which teenage pregnancy has no part….

“Under the radar, from Union City, N.J., and Montgomery County, Md., to Long Beach and Gardena, Calif., school systems with sizable numbers of students from poor families are doing great work. These ordinary districts took the time they needed to lay the groundwork for extraordinary results.

“Will Ms. DeVos and her education department appreciate the value of investing in high-quality public education and spread the word about school systems like Union? Or will the choice-and-vouchers ideology upstage the evidence?”