Anthony Cody writes here about the political power of teachers and how it should be used.
Cody reports on a discussion between Barbara Madeloni of the Massachusetts Teachers Association and Eric Heins of the California Teachers Association at the Network for Public Education Conference last week in Oakland.
Barbara Madeloni believes in the importance of building a movement. It was that movement, working closely with parents that defeated a referendum to expand charter schools in the state last fall.
In California, the powerful California Teachers Association just gave its endorsement for governor to Gavin Newsom, even though he refused to take a position as between the charter lobby and public schools and couldn’t say whether he was for or against teachers.
This is what Newsom said some weeks earlier, in a public appearance:
“I’m not interested in the stale and raging debate about which side, which camp you’re on – are you with the charter people, are you anti-charter, are you with the teachers, are you anti-teacher. I’ve been hearing that damn debate for ten damn years. With all due respect, I got four kids. I have an eight year old, second grade. I have a five, three and a one year old. I’m not gonna wait around until they’ve all graduated to resolve whether Eli Broad was right or whether or not the CTA was wrong. I’m not interested in that debate. I’m interested in shaping a different conversation around a 21st century education system that brings people together, that could shape public opinion, not just here in the state, but could shape an agenda more broadly across the country, particularly in a time of Betsy DeVos and Donald Trump. We need that kind of leadership.”
With views like these, will Newsom remember that he was endorsed by the CTA? Will he care? Is he unsure whether he is for or against teachers? How can anyone who cares about education be against teachers? How can they be bored and indifferent to galloping privatization? It is views like these that laid the groundwork for Betsy DeVos.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I don’t know- the “stale debate” thing is so often used to shut down debate.
I would have an easier time believing ed reformers are “agnostic” if they occasionally did something to benefit or support existing public schools. They truly have a terrible track record as far as PUBLIC SCHOOLS in Ohio. They’ve gotten their whole wish list as far as vouchers and charters but there hasn’t been a lick of benefit to the 93% of kids in public schools. If you removed ed reform “choice” initiatives from my state legislature you would be left with a list of unfunded and ever-changing mandates for public schools
It has been ALL downside here for the 93%. Huge success for “ed reform” though.
LikeLike
Maybe the debate IS tired. Maybe the debate should be between the kind of charter schools Albert Shanker originally envisioned (see here: https://www.aft.org/ae/winter2014-2015/kahlenberg_potter) and the kind of privatized charters and vouchers sought by the “reformers” and /or the fundamentalists like Betsy DeVos. One thing seems clear to me: backing the likes of Newsom, Cuomo, and any neoliberal candidate seems like a de facto endorsement of the privatization of public services.
LikeLike
The CTA’s move is cynical and calculated. They think he will win, and want to be on board as early supporters to stay on his favorable side. They ignore two other candidates. Delaine Easton, former State Superintendent of Schools, is definitely pro-teacher, but has little chance of gaining much traction. John Chiang, who has held a number of elected offices, has proved himself to be honest and hard-working, standing up to the Governator, when he tried to unilaterally cut state workers’ pay during the recession. I’ve been wondering about where he stands on ed issues because I like him better than Newsome.
LikeLike
Cynical and calculated. Good words for this.
LikeLike
Cynical and calculated, yes, but also stupid and almost criminally self-destructive.
By endorsing Newsom – a neoliberal poster child who is certain to screw teachers over – the union just squandered whatever leverage it might have had to extract some promises or concessions from the candidates.
Look for more charter metastasis, more looting, more impunity in the Golden State. It might have happened anyway, but the CEA just guaranteed it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…a neolibearal poster child who is certain to screw teachers over” says it all while describing “Democrat” after “Democrat”
LikeLike
Well, yes, exactly what happened after Obama was elected (both times). Exactly what would have happened with Hillary. But at least we would have had a “seat at the table”!
LikeLike
A seat at the table”
We need a seat at the table
To get a better deal!
We’re already at the table
Because we are the meal!
LikeLike
We need to be able to distinguish between Democrats who are reformers and those who are not.
Making statements like “there is no difference between Andrew Cuomo and Tim Kaine” or “let’s NOT vote for Northam because I know this DFER candidate is really progressive so we need to vote for him instead” or “I’m reading that de Blasio might really be one of those complicit Democrats that secretly are planning to destroy public education and every other progressive idea so let’s pass that rumor along everywhere and repeat it non-stop to help defeat him” does a lot of harm to those who would try to support public education.
And we need to ask where our progressive “leaders” are on this? If Bernie isn’t using his bully pulpit to fight for the progressive public school supporting candidates, then maybe someone should tell him that would be a good idea since the teachers’ union has apparently no interest in doing so themselves.
LikeLike
Anthony makes some good points here. It’s obvious that when individuals or organizations endorse candidates about whom little is known on the issues important to them, they do so with the hope and expectation that they will have some influence over the candidate when he or she gets elected. We experienced that most painfully during the tenure of the Obama administration. Would sitting out and making one’s reservations clear to the public damage future relationships or influence? I think the record clearly demonstrates a clear no. Whether one is effective or not by withholding an endorsement, at least they can keep their self-respect and principles intact.
LikeLike
That’s right, Obama taught us a painful lesson. Endorsing the neoliberal empowers the right wing.
LikeLike
“I take no side”
I take no side
In this debate
Instead I hide
Behind the gate
To take one side
Will lose me bucks
And other side
Will lose me votes
The better path
Is centrified
Avoids the wrath
Of either side
LikeLike
It’s a tough question. For instance, in NY who do you vote for? Andrew Cuomo? Andrew Cuomo’s Republican opponent?
LikeLike
Nothing’s going to change until people stop phrasing those types of questions as either/or. But I guess not enough people are hurting badly enough to develop a “none of the above” choice.
LikeLike
Given that you were promoting the idea of voting “none of the above” because your spidey sense told you that Bill de Blasio was a corrupt sell-out of public schools, maybe what we should be thinking about is how can we educate uninformed voters prone to believing whatever reinforces their world view that all Dems are corrupt instead of distinguishing between the corrupt and non corrupt ones.
I voted against Andrew Cuomo. I voted for Bill de Blasio. I voted for Hillary Clinton. I supported Northam’s candidacy over the DFER endorsed “progressive” running against him. If we want to effect change, we need to stop listening to propaganda and think for ourselves.
Nothing’s going to change unless the progressives with a bully pulpit, like Bernie Sanders, wholeheartedly embrace public schools and fight for them. The way Bill de Blasio and Tim Kaine did.
LikeLike
“I voted against Andrew Cuomo.”
Wow. I’m impressed. Who did you vote for? So are you saying there are alternatives after all?
LikeLike
I too voted against him,4 times. The most important votes I cast against him were in the primaries. That way I worked to select the most progressive candidate for the general election.
I’ve never voted for Cuomo in the general either. My loyalty to the Democratic Party is over come by my dislike of the venal Cuomo. He is as corrupt a politician as I’ve ever seen, and while I’d not vote for his Republic opponant, I can’t imagine voting for him for any office he might run for.
I see myself as far more liberal than most Democrats, but I will never change my registration because I want to change the Party from within. I doubt that New York’s minor parties will ever elect a large number of candidates, so I go with the party most likely to elect progressive candidates.
I routinely will vote on the Working Families line if they have cross endorsed the Democrat. And I vote for Greens frequently, although their policy of never cross-endorsing candidates will forever doom them to minor status and spoilers, IMO.
This system works for me, and I admit it has inconsistencies and potential conflicts with some of my other values. I deal with them as they come, as best as I’m able.
But Cuomo is and always will be a snake.
LikeLike
I voted for Zephyr Teachout in the primary.
It’s been a while but I may have abstained in the general if she wasn’t on the ballot.
But I voted against Cuomo because I had personally witnessed his actual votes and actions as governor. And he has continued to act in a truly corrupt fashion when it comes to pleasing his billionaire charter school supporters.
Right now Cuomo is intentionally attacking de Blasio to try to undermine him before the election. He’d rather have a Republican and the millions the billionaires lavish on him than a Democrat who is progressive.
But dienne77, I absolutely did not see that kind of corruption from Hillary and I begged you many times to reconsider your attacks. She deserved a chance, especially when the other option was Trump. If she had won and governed like Andrew Cuomo — which I believe would have been completely contrary to her nature — I would have been right with you fighting against her. The innuendoes that she was secretly planning to govern like Cuomo were based in nothing but innuendo. I opposed Cuomo because of his actions – not because of innuendo about what he secretly was planning to do as soon as he got more power.
LikeLike
dienne77, despite our disagreements, I respect you and I am going to ask a huge favor of you. To spend 3 minutes of your time and watch what Hillary Clinton says about public schools on this link:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?400357-1/hillary-clinton-town-hall-meeting-orangeburg-south-carolina&live&start=2238
Cue up to 36:13 for the question and her answer goes through 39:19.
Don’t read the transcript. Listen to her answer the question. Listen to how she talks about this as if she actually cares.
It’s 3 minutes of your time. Maybe you shouldn’t because it will probably depress the heck out of you that we could have had someone who actually CARED about public education in the White House.
If you can watch that and claim that she is a con woman who is just trying to make a sale then we will never agree.
But FYI – the interviewer, Roland Martin is VERY pro-charter. He is about as much of a sell-out as you can get. And she’s not letting him get his talking points in.
Speaking the truth. This is what Bernie and Warren and every progressive Democrat out there should be saying. The problem is that I doubt they will mean it.
And it is impossible to watch this video, in my opinion, without being convinced that Hillary Clinton meant it.
Three minutes of your time, dienne77. Please watch.
From 36:13 to 39:19
LikeLike
Newsom is probably much better than John Cox, the self made millionaire, that the Republicans are running in California. I have seen Newsom on a few talk shows, He seems very well informed and articulate. With regard to his views on education, Newsom is doing the same neoliberal tap dance that Obama and Clinton did before him. He does not want to alienate the billionaires from Silicon Valley and hedge fund managers that fund his campaign. Newson is by far the better choice, but he is the lesser of two evils.
LikeLike
The “lesser of two evils” still nets one evil.
LikeLike
I’ll have to remember that one! You Missouri folk do get to the point on occasion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Except Hillary Clinton did not do that tap dance. It’s just that the alt right propaganda convinced Bernie voters that she had.
LikeLike
John Chiang, the CA state treasurer, is a far better friend to public education that Gavin Newsom. The primary has not yet occurred. If CTA waited or endorsed Chiang, it would have exercised movement voice. Why endorse Newsom now? ESP when he doesn’t know if he is for or against teachers.
LikeLike
California is such a heavily Democratic state that the Democratic nomination, while perhaps not tantamount to election, provides a huge advantage to the nominee. That just compounds the folly of the CEA’s premature endorsement.
LikeLike
Folly? Why not corruption?
The union used all of its power to give an early endorsement to Newsom. Either it did it because it is corrupt through and through or California teachers love the idea of education reform and support it wholeheartedly.
Which one is correct? I don’t live in California so I don’t know.
LikeLike
I was trying to be charitable to the CTA, NYCpsp, but fair enough. I suppose we do need to ask, where does the folly end and the corruption begin?
LikeLike
“A real Newsom”
It really is a nuisance
When pols will not commit
And hem and haw like Newsom
And simply won’t admit
LikeLike
That statement by Gavin Newsom is full of mealy mouth mushy pablum. It makes me think he will be a terrible candidate for anyone who believes in public schools.
Here is what Newsom could have said:
“Charter schools can have a purpose, but there are good charter schools and there are bad charter schools. Just like there are good public schools and there are bad public schools. But the original idea was to learn what worked and then apply them in the public schools. Here is a couple of problems. Most charter schools don’t take the hardest to teach kids. Or if they do, they don’t keep them. And so the public schools are often in a no-win situation because they do, thankfully, take everybody. And then they don’t get the resources and help and support that they need to be able to take care of every child’s education. So I want parents to be able to exercise choice within the public school system. Not outside of it. But within it because I am still a firm believer that the public school system is one of the real pillars of our democracy. And it is a path for opportunity. But I am also fully aware that there are a lot of substandard public schools. But part of the reason for that is that policymakers and local politicians will not fund schools in poor areas that take care of poor children to the level that they need to do. And you could get me going on this because the corridor of shame right here in California, you can see schools that are literally falling apart. I have seen the terrible physical conditions. It is an outrage. To send any child to a school that you wouldn’t send your own child to. And so we have a lot of work to do to make sure that public schools serve people, but that doesn’t mean we don’t also provide options within the system so that parents can find what they think might work best for their kid.”
I know the difference between a politician who recognizes and understands the issues — even if I don’t entirely agree with them 100% — and one who like Gavin Newsom spouts comments that show me he either doesn’t care or is on the side of the reformers but wants to pretend he isn’t.
When I hear another candidate saying something like the statement above — even if they support charters — I know they aren’t interested in being PR mouthpieces for the rich reform movement. That’s why I support Bill de Blasio and Tim Kaine and Northam. We have plenty of complicit Democrats when it comes to education “reform” and we don’t need more. We need to stop enabling them because they claim the progressive mantle while refusing to fight for one of the most progressive issues — good public schools. Without those, the rest of the progressive agenda is unlikely to happen.
LikeLike
Newsom is California’s answer to Booker’s New Jersey. They are cast from the same corporatist mold. Both are smart and good looking, which sadly means they will get a lot of low information voters.
LikeLike
CTA cast its lot with the wrong candidate.
LikeLike
I think HRC would have been good for education. I loved Obama, but he was a disappointment to me in that department–his Race to the Top was pretty much out of the Dubya playbook. I am disappointed in my CTA for endorsing Newsom. He is a typical neoliberal, enchanted with Silicon Valley. He has never indicated much interest in the schools.
LikeLike
Cindy,
You are right.
LikeLike
I also believe Clinton would have been better for education than Obama. When she was a senator from New York, she always supported public schools and never bashed them.
LikeLike
If you want to be depressed at how huge a loss for public schools Clinton’s defeat was, spend 3 minutes of your time watching this:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?400357-1/hillary-clinton-town-hall-meeting-orangeburg-south-carolina&live&start=2238
Cue up to 36:13 through 39:19. Watch until the end – until there is a new question. Because every time you think Hillary has finished her passionate defense of public schools she goes on to make an even BETTER defense of public schools! She absolutely gets it in a way that you rarely hear from Democrats other than de Blasio and Kaine. But Hillary is so much smarter and explains it so clearly.
It’s not rabidly “anti-charter” but it’s a primer for Democrats in how to address and place charters where they belong. And despite my distrust of charters these days, I understand exactly what she is saying and think it is supportable and thoughtful.
It’s utterly depressing to me she didn’t win and people who passionately support public education were fooled into pushing the nasty negative memes against her.
LikeLike
^^also, the man interviewing her, Roland Martin, is a huge shill for charters and privatization. She didn’t let him get away with the talking points that the reformers always get away with.
Maybe we need Hillary fighting for public schools. Although there is so much knee jerk hatred of her from progressives that they would rather lose than listen to her make their case better than anyone I have heard in public office.
LikeLike
I left AAUW because they were supporting Common Core. I wrote to the leaders and stated my case and wasn’t satisfied with their answer. My friend’s son is running for office (Max Rose congress Staten Island) and he is open to l learning about the issues of public education from educators!
LikeLike