Jeff Bryant sees the Virginia election, as do I, as an affirmation of a progressive approach to education.
Education is an important issue to parents everywhere and is the biggest item in state budgets. Taxpayers want to know that their money is well spent.
Northam ran against the DeVos privatization policy. But he also ran against Obama’s policies of charter schools and high-stakes Testing.
He points the way to victory for Democrats in other state races.
Support a strong and much improved public school system that seeks to meet the needs of all children.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
So hope he is able to follow through!
DeVos’ policies are Obama’s policies. The high stakes testing is a means to privatization (and, as a handy bonus, a way to transfer lots of public money into the hands of private testing and tech companies).
Actually, it started with George W. and has continued.
Northam won by supporting public education, and he understands its community value. He knows that public schools are “institutions that bolster their property values and anchor their neighborhoods.” Public schools offer stability and democracy in action. Sending local tax dollars to corporations does little for a community. It is, in fact, a disinvestment in one’s own community, not a wise investment. Why would a community want to harm its own public institution to enrich a corporation outside the community? It does not make economic or social sense?
I find it intensely frustrating when newsanchors/journalists/pundits ignore the absolute importance of this election being tied to PARENTS; yes teachers and teachers’ unions were involved, but to bypass the role of unhappy parents misses a crucial nationwide anger.
Bryant quotes misinformation about Perriello, which I have corrected earlier, but the misinformation keeps perpetuating. He actually had a more negative position on charters than Northam. Diane here was convinced of guilt by association, since he for one year was head of the Center for American Progress, which supported Obama’s positions, including his bad ones on education. But when I looked he did nothing to support Obama’s education positions during his time in this position.
I did phone banking and canvassing for Northam, and stood out in the bone-chilling rain to pass out sample ballots. And I am over the moon with joy at his victory. But there is no reason to spread misinformation about Perriello, who I hope will have a bright future as a progressive leader.
William,
I hope that Perrier has a bright future in Democratic po,itics.
I still believe that Northam’s record on education was better than Tom’s.
Maybe TOM has seen the light now that DeVos is the nation’s leading charter champion.
As I said before, during the primary Perriello was more anti-charter than Northam. He has no need to change again. Here he is in a primary debate with Northam:
“The performance of charter schools has simply not exceeded performance within the system, despite years of investments. There have also been many legitimate concerns raised in how these have proceeded. … We need to recruit and retain good teachers, which is why I’m the only candidate who has put revenues on the table to improve teacher pay, increase counselors in schools and add universal pre-K. Early-childhood development is a far more effective investment in quality outcomes. We are also expanding options to restore career and technical training programs in high schools, and I’m the only candidate to provide two years of apprenticeship programs, trade school or community college education.
“The evidence does, however, show one clear trend, which is that schools in areas of concentrated poverty are far more likely to be underperforming. Instead of blaming the teachers and principals, we should ask why we have not done more to reduce poverty.”
Perriello during the primaries sounded a lot like, um, Diane Ravitch.
link here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/two-democratic-hopefuls-for-va-governor-on-schools-metro-and-the-minimum-wage/2017/06/04/5aea5776-47c6-11e7-bcde-624ad94170ab_story.html?utm_term=.ef60d609a50e
William,
Please read Jeff Bryant’s comment. Anyone who was DFER’s Reformer of the Month has a lot of ‘splaining to do
““The performance of charter schools has simply not exceeded performance within the system…”
That’s what reformers say when they try to get rid of mom and pop charters and replace them with those “high performing” charter networks that get rid of all the low performing students.
Not one word by Perriello about why charters are wrong. It’s all about “performance” which is exactly what Arne Duncan believes as he adored those “high performing” charters that “exceeded performance within the system”
There is a reason that Arne Duncan’s organization made a big donation to Perriello. And anyone who believes that it’s because Arne Duncan just embraced his progressive economic plan is not looking at the facts.
William, my source on Perriello’s education policy is knowledgeable and trusted. Her first citation is from May 11 in which she compares Northam’s well-documented track record for supporting public schools to what she had learned, thus far, about Perriello: “The only inkling I have of Tom Perriello’s position on public education and education policy is his affiliation with Democrats for Education Reform: He was their Reformer of the Month in June 2010.” The Perriello quote you cite, from a debate that occurred some time after my source’s observations, seems to indicate, as you’ve argued, that Perriello may have had a change of heart regarding charters. Nevertheless, my source writes her piece that posted just after the primary: “When it came to public education, Northam had a record of supporting public schools and public school advocates came out in force to support him. He had the endorsement from the VEA … Perriello had, well, relationships with the neo-liberal, market-based reformers that the Obama administration, including Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, favored and that have been known to ally themselves with the Virginia GOP on state-level education reform matters … Perriello co-sponsored charter school legislation while he was in Congress, and was named “Reformer of the Month” in 2010 by DFER … This connection may have turned off a lot of Democratic primary voters who ended up voting against Perriello.” This suggests that if Perriello did indeed have a change of heart on charters, it may have been too little, too late to make a difference.
Jeff Bryant
“He was their Reformer of the Month in June 2010”
Yet Northam voted for Bush 43 twice . Exactly what did he find appealing about shrub . Was it the War ? Was it attempting to privatize Social Security?. His education policy ? .
My source Northam .
Yet he will probably do just fine. Does not mean he was the best choice . But a better choice than Trump light, Gillespie .
Joel Herman,
You are right, Northam was much more conservative on OTHER issues.
But why are you and other progressives denying the reality? Northam is much better than Perriello on PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Northam is much better than Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on public schools. Kaine and McAuliffe were much stronger supporters of that American ideal known as public education than any progressive leaders I can think of. (Big Bird excepted, but he’s not really a “leader” – if he was people wouldn’t try so hard to make him look like a fool.)
Do you know why? Because right now the main people standing up for public schools are those moderate democrats and NOT the progressives. And that is truly sad.
Nothing shows this more than Bernie Sanders sitting next to Andrew Cuomo to praise him for enacting his college plan while Bernie couldn’t bear to do the same for the Virginia Democrat strongly supporting public education in a tight race with a Trump-lite racist. That’s where Bernie had to draw the line.
Joel, do you think if Northam had embraced Bernie’s “college for all” plan like Andrew Cuomo while working hard to privatize public K-12 education, would Bernie had endorsed him?
My ideal candidate is a progressive who strongly supports public education. I’m still waiting for one to appear.
And it says something very sad about the progressive movement that I am stuck supporting more conservative Democrats because they are the only ones really standing up against the reformers.
If you have any pull, get those progressives to start sounding more like Democrats when they talk about public education.
Joel, your source is not reliable, as during the campaign, Perriello was in fact more anti-charter. I cited these facts to her, but to me she was unresponsive. You can see the dialogue here: https://dianeravitch.net/2017/05/16/rachel-levy-why-i-support-ralph-northam-for-governor-of-virginia/
The complicating factor here is politicians changing their minds. Northam voted twice for George W. Bush, who endorsed charters. Perriello in 2008 supported them in congress, going along with Obama. Both changed, but Perriello more, as you’ll see from my links.
So to me talking about past associations is beside the point, because both changed. Your account and Rachel Levy’s in my view are misleading about Perriello.
I voted for Perriello in the primaries as the more progressive candidate, including in his greater opposition to charter schools. I did so with some hesitation, as I thought maybe the more middle-of-the-road Northam had a better shot at winning. I worked hard for Northam, and am delighted that he won.
I thought Perriello did a fantastic job for Northam and I commend him for fighting hard against the awful Gillespie.
But Perriello’s answers and the donations he received this campaign by the donors who believe in one issue only – education reform – makes me question whether his views are more similar to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren than to Tim Kaine and McAuliffe on public education.
The progressives should have gotten their act together on public education long before now. In fact, their candidates could have made a strong case in primaries across the country by contrasting their real support for public education with other Democrats “maybe charters aren’t so bad as long as we support the ‘good’ ones” pro-reform positions.
Is free college for the middle class really more important than keeping K-12 public education from being privatized? I’m not sure it is, perhaps because I see far fewer than expected families benefitting from “free college” versus how many are harmed when the K-12 public education system is undermined in the name of “reform”.
NYC public school parent
Actually I think Bernie’s ringing endorsement of the Cuomo tuition plan was quite “huuuuuuugely ” premature .
It is a free tuition plan that basically locks out the middle class in down state NY . I defy you to find many Long Island ,Westchester or even Putnam ‘homeowners’ with college age children who would meet the income caps in the program . It basically extends current subsidies a little bit. Nothing wrong with that .
It will be another one of those means tested programs that Republicans will attack as welfare as they dismantle it. Especially after this civil war the Republican party is declaring with Tax reform .
One that is designed to get states like NY to join the race to the bottom. A race that can best be achieved by eliminating Unions thus bringing wage costs down for states and cities. By privatizing schools
I went to a free University the City University of NY . Free not means tested, available to all who qualified for acceptance. And later available to all who graduated a city High School ,through the Community College path. So perhaps we agree for different reasons .
I do not know how to frame the issue as to why progressives did not slam Obama on Ed reform early on . Try this one . Go to the left wing publications Alternet , Truthout , Truthdig even Moyers …. …. Where did they tend to fall . Go further left to the Socialist Workers Party tell me their stand on ed reform. I think progressives are trapped by the political constraints of the party they are members of. A party that is barely recognizable from 3 decades ago. . They challenged Obama on many issues perhaps they failed to challenge him on education .
Yes Warren did once call for vouchers . She was also a Republican in the mid 90s . Now she is public enemy # 1 to the GOP . Do you know anyone else who once was a reformer?
William Berkson
I think you meant Jeff
We are in total agreement .
Joel,
I nearly included a much less intelligent version of your comments about the NY State “free college tuition” program. And for exactly the reasons you mentioned — I heard for myself many parents talking about how their high school senior couldn’t benefit and they were middle class.
My larger point isn’t that a program like that is bad but that it’s not nearly as important — in my opinion — as strongly fighting the billionaire movement to stop the undermining of public education through charters.
I do not care one bit whether Warren or Sanders supported charters or vouchers in the past. I care about what they are supporting NOW!
And if you think they are strong supporters of public schools, then you aren’t paying attention. They use the same tired rhetoric of reformers even when they support the mildest of pro-public education policies.
They have offered NO direct criticisms of DFER and charters. They have NOT brought the issue to the forefront by supporting the NAACP moratorium on charters. Instead, they use the same language that reformers do as if we can somehow identify good “public” charters and support them.
I have posted this many times and I will continue to do so. This is Hillary Clinton with a Liz Warren/Bernie Sanders type of “education reformers” who tries to frame the entire debate on charters and K-12 education in the language and framing that DFER wants.
And watch Hillary Clinton NOT fall for that framing.
The progressives need to stop using the DFER framing and start understand what the real issues in K-12 public education is. There is no excuse. Not one. And I don’t understand why other progressives bend over backward to enable it instead of calling out what is so wrong about it.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?400357-1/hillary-clinton-town-hall-meeting-orangeburg-south-carolina
Watch from 36:10 to 39:19. Every progressive should watch this to learn how to ignore the framing that the DFER interviewer was demanding.
Three minutes that might help progressives on this issue.
Great link, nypsp. I didn’t realize how well HRC gets it.
Thanks, bethree5!
She does seem to get it, doesn’t she? My dream is to have all the current Democrats and Progressives talking about public education in a similar way. I want them all to get it the way Clinton does (or even better than Clinton!). I just don’t understand why progressives who are so great on every other issue don’t seem to get public education and what the fight is all about. It’s so frustrating because they should be getting it! It isn’t that hard to understand.
see my comment below…
Anytime someone defeats the Trump agenda, defeats the Christofascists and demagogues ,defeats those that would destroy Public education and privatize it, I am happy . Score one for our team . The rejection of the Obama education agenda is a rejection of something that should never have been part of our team’s agenda and I doubt it ever was at the base.
But I am left to wonder what that election meant . I suspect what it meant in the House of Delegates. I am not certain what it meant at the head of the ticket and that is critical .Concerned not in the direction Northam will lead Virginia,he will do just fine. Critical in the direction that our team takes and what that means for future victories on a National level . I suspect we may not be getting the right message from the voters of Virginia or I better stop watching Morning Joe .
Morning Joe was a GOP Congressman. Don’t listen to his spin.
dianeravitch
I am well aware , spin being one of my pet peeves about the media. It is what the leadership reads into this that troubles me . I think this election brought out the anti Trump vote that stayed home last November . Younger and more progressive than we think. The center right Democrat at the head of the ticket got propelled over the top by a base that yearns for a more progressive party .
“It was indeed. Democrat Lee Carter, a red-haired, 30-year-old Marine veteran from Manassas, won a remarkable nine-point victory to oust Delegate Jackson Miller, a deep-pocketed Republican incumbent who serves as House Majority Whip. Carter ran openly as a socialist—he and his supporters crooned the union anthem “Solidarity Forever” after their victory—and he won with almost no institutional support from the state Democratic Party. ”
A transsexual defeated a republican .
How does those square with running center-est candidates. … ….
So my question is ; for years progressives have been told where else are you going to go . Obama/Cuomo/ Emanuel/ Booker /…….. told that to Americas educators as well . While the country turned deep Red. Yet every time ballot issues come up . Every poll that we see shows a far more progressive electorate on most issues .
There are two ways to interpret that vote . Either moderate Republican suburban women voted Democratic .Somehow they woke up to the fact that Trump was a narcissistic, unstable ,misogynist,demagogue . The morning Joe spin . Or the youth and minority vote woke up and poured out in an off year something they have never done. And did not do in sufficient numbers last year.
Just perhaps for the first time since McGovern , the party should tell the moderates where else are you going to go .
as usual how do those
Hillary Clinton won Virginia handily, so I’m not sure what your point it. Virginia voters had already rejected Trumpism. If anything, I was scared that after 10 months they would think it was okay and I am so glad they did not.
I do think running great progressive candidates down ticket got a lot of people out in a non-Presidential year and that is a good thing for us to copy elsewhere. Run a candidate in every small race.
Very interesting no one would ever call Obama out about his education policies. They especially hurt, not aided minority children.
Interesting but obvious. As Broad said: “With the election of Barack Obama, our stars have aligned.”
Really no one call him out . Or was it that those who called him out did not effect the coffers of the party
What do you mean by no one? In 2012 this blog organized a letter writing campaign that produced 400+ letters representing 4,000+ signatories. But as Joel points out, none of us were major donors, so I guess that means we count as “no one”.
I can’t help blaming Arne Duncan more than Obama. Was Arne Duncan taking marching orders from the President to give lots of money to privatizers and abandon oversight? Or was it Duncan who was providing Obama with a one-sided view of charters and all the miracles they accomplished?
That’s why anyone paying attention who saw Arne Duncan’s group give a huge last minute donation to Tom Perriello should know how close Virginia came to becoming just another DFER state like NY.
Anyone who believes that Arne Duncan was donating to Perriello because they just felt his progressive agenda was so important is truly deluding themselves about how pro-reform Perriello was.
That supposed “pro-public school” quote by Perriello was about as mealy mouth as they come — full of general platitudes.
If Perriello had come close to sounding like Hillary Clinton did when she talked about public education, I would have strongly supported him. He did not and never has.
This is how Democrats should be talking about public education when one of the DFER promoters is trying to get them to support their fake reform agenda:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?400357-1/hillary-clinton-town-hall-meeting-orangeburg-south-carolina
Watch from 36:10 to 39:19 to hear what it really sounds like when a Democrat believes in public education and isn’t spouting meaningless words of support because they don’t care enough about the issue to understand any of the criticisms.
Three terrific minutes of REAL support for public schools instead of pseudo support that we hear from DFER all the time.
All progressives should watch these 3 minutes and get their candidates to sound like this.
I watched the video of Hillary in South Carolina, and I thought her comments captured a good understanding of the current issues in education today. Too bad she didn’t win. Hillary was always supportive of public education when she was a senator in New York.
retired teacher,
Thank you so much for indulging me and watching those 3 minutes!
That is exactly my feelings about her comments. She captured a good understanding of the current issues.
It seems absurd to me that we can’t get any progressive leaders to demonstrate anything close to that kind of understanding. The things that I heard Hillary talk about in those 3 minutes should be what is talked about in public education – especially for progressives.
I especially loved that the pro-education reform interviewer tried hard to force the terms of the debate in pro-reform ways. And she didn’t let him get away with it. It would have been so very easy to agree with all his platitudes about wanting excellent schools for all. The same tired rhetoric we hear from progressives, moderates, conservatives and right wingers all the time.
And she didn’t let him get away with it.
The interviewer also a look of surprise on his face when she started to say positive things about public schools.
I loved that expression! And then he looks off camera obviously reacting to someone trying to get him to do something — maybe one of his education reformer buddies saying “please change the subject she’s not saying what we wanted her to say”. The interviewer makes a motion that looks like “calm down, it’s okay, I’m going to let her finish”. (I may be totally wrong about that read, but that’s what I like to think is happening.)
People did not have to be mean towards Obama, but what Jeff says is real. Don’t hold your breath for the most of the media to recognize it, much less point it out;
Diane, I can’t post any comments, your site keeps saying that I’ve already posted that comment. Is this on purpose, do you NOT want to hear from “everyone?”.
Thanks Diane!
I wasn’t JUST public education that helped Northam win, though it certainly was a part, and so were Virginia educators.
If you look at the single poll that Jeff Bryant cites, the Wason Center (CNU) poll that had Northam up 6 points in the final days of the campaign, K12 is the SINGLE issue most cited as important if voters are asked to pick only one, at 34 percent.
But overall, when asked to say how important each of several issues are, voters said:
• expanding Medicaid (39 percent)
• improving the economy, making it less dependent of federal dollars (36 percent)
• expanding and improving transportation (34 percent)
• improving the quality of K12 education (34 percent)
• cutting taxes (33 percent)
• addressing climate change (23 percent)
A SurveyMonkey poll by The Post just 2 weeks before the election asked voters which candidate they supported, and “What is the main reason you are voting for that candidate?”
The issue most cited was “platform and beliefs” and when asked WHICH particular policies they liked, Northam supporters cited health care and women’s rights. The SurveyMonkey poll found that “more than one-third of Northam supporters said their primary reason for backing him involves opposing President Trump.” Okay, there’s likely some residual anger about Betsy DeVos.
But, when you factor in all the other issues cited by voters in exit polls — Trump, guns, abortion, taxes, the economy, Confederate statues, racism — it’d be hard to say that the election was primarily about public schools. It wasn’t.
Now, is Northam better on public education than Gillespie. For sure. But look at his education ideas, and you see that he wants to invest more in STEM (sigh…), he seems to think that schools are for “college and careers (sigh…), and he believes in “a rigorous system that drives continuous improvement and holds schools and divisions accountable for student outcomes.” How is this so different from the same old-same old that currently exists?
Interestingly, college student testimonials for Northam cited his stands on immigration, health care, women’s issues, and civil liberties as prime reasons for supporting him.
Ralph Northam will be far better for the Commonwealth – and for public education – than Ed Gillespie. No question about it.
But here’s another interesting take on the election, and on Tom Periello — who challenged Northam for the Democratic nomination, and who periodically gets bashed on this blog — from Charlie Pierce at Esquire:
“If you’re looking for an unsung hero in Virginia, and if you’re looking for a role model who should embarrass all the squabbling Democrats who are still relitigating the dismal 2016 primary process, look to Tom Perriello, the former Democratic congressman who lost to Northam in the Democratic primary this year. Perriello suited up and worked tirelessly for the Democratic ticket up and down the ballot, including for the man who’d beaten him. Perriello’s performance not only piled him up serious cred within his party, it also should shame a lot of people in that party’s upper echelon.”
As Pierce appropriately noted, “diversity and inclusion had their revenge on Tuesday night, and if you happen to be a Republican congresscritter from a purpling suburban district, your next order of party business is to vote for a huge tax cut for the wealthiest among us at the expense of middle-class families. Good luck with that.”
Yep.
Pretty much agree and I have always found that polls only scratch the surface an issue . So on healthcare when we say it is an issue. How many would prefer single payer? How many would prefer Medicare for all, if single payer was framed that more familiar way? …. ….
Do you have a link to an exit poll used in the VA race that includes “support for public education” as a possible answer for a multiple choice question on voter priorities? None of the polls I’ve seen include education as a possible item to check. It’s hard for polls to accurately ascertain people’s issue priorities when big issues like education don’t appear in the poll.
Nice catch, Jeff Bryant!
There seems to be something wrong here. Why are so many so-called “progressives” insisting that public education isn’t that important to voters?
In that, they mirror exactly the belief of the leaders in the progressive movement who can’t be bothered to make K-12 public education and opposing all efforts to privatize it an important part of their agenda.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a strong progressive movement that was ALSO putting preserving PUBLIC K-12 education at the front of their agenda.
Why are so many progressives being advised on K-12 education policy by pro-reformers?
And why isn’t there any pressure by their supporters to get them to embrace public education wholeheartedly and throw out the pro-reformers on their staff who insist that giving huge amounts of public dollars to private entities to run charters is not anything to oppose strongly?
NYC public school parent
Perhaps we feel attacking oligarchy is far more important the battle over education reform . By doing so you win the war not just the battle.
The Ed reform movement would look quite different if the oligarchy and plutocracy from Gates to Walton was curbed . Me I would raise their taxes to 93% take their government protected monopolies away . And use the saving and revenues for many things including public schools .
Think I’ll be reborn in Denmark
then the
“Attacking oligarchy…” That is just rhetoric.
There is no reason that the people “attacking oligarchy’ can’t also be fighting FOR public schools.
Here is what you don’t realize: If those progressives “attacking oligarchy” were ALSO fighting for public schools against the forces of privatization, maybe they’d get a lot more support!
You might think you change people’s mind with alot of talk about “fighting oligarchy”. But the Trump election should have demonstrated that voters will embrace any oligarchy that appeals to the issues they find most important.
Turns out that public education IS important. Why don’t the progressives “attacking oligarchy” understand that?
@ Jeff….read my comment,,,,it’s accurate, and I cite the poll you reference in your post that Diane cited. Did you not even look at that poll, the Wason Center poll? I did. It says just what I said it does. Go check it.
@ NY Parent. What “nice catch?” I have not and did not insist that public education is not important. I said – and the polls seem to confirm it – that public education education was not what the Virginia election turned on….it was a multitude of things. Go back and re-read my comment.
By the way, if you’ve read my comments on this blog before – and you have – then you I am a staunch advocate of public education. I keep saying on this blog that it is a cornerstone of a democratic republic. And I keep arguing that its core function should be developing democratic citizenship. Not STEM. Not “college and careers.” Not Advanced Placement.
For you to suggest that I think public education is somehow unimportant is – at best – disingenuous.
@ democracy,
I apologize for writing a post that implied that you think public education is unimportant. That was not my intention but I realize that it came off that way and I am sorry.
I agree with your view of what public education should be about. But I am also sympathetic to public school parents who hear supporters say “its core function should be developing a democratic citizenship” and feel alienated. Parents feel the core function of public education should be offering their kids an education that will allow them to succeed! And I don’t think progressives will get a lot of votes trying to convince them that developing democratic citizenship is more important.
The thing is that the majority of the public LIKE their own public schools! They like that it is part of the community and they like that their kids are learning in them. I happen to love that community public schools also help develop democratic citizenship but I just don’t think that is a winning rhetorical argument. Maybe I am wrong.
So as long as the person saying it is a very strong supporter of public education, it doesn’t bother me if they talk about STEM or college and careers. Because we live in a democracy where there are lots of parents who care about having their kids ready for college. The irony is that those parents are often the ones who didn’t go to college themselves! They believe having their children have a chance at a good career is terrific.
And it is often the more well-off progressives who are able to dismiss the desire for STEM and “career readiness”.
To me, the bottom line is whether the people who talk about STEM or career readiness are strong believers in public schools or if they are using that rhetoric to bash them and undermine them. And in the case of Northam or Bill de Blasio, when that language comes from people who are walking the walk on public education, I am okay with it.
NYC public school parent
Please tell us where you think the ed reform movement would be with out the money behind it .
Remove
Gates / Broad / Walton/ Singer/ Zuckerberg /… ….
When Billionaires Become Educational Experts
“Venture philanthropists” push for the privatization of public education.
By Kevin K. Kumashiro
https://www.aaup.org/article/when-billionaires-become-educational-experts
An excellent piece . The root of the problem is not well meaning think tanks or more likely purchased researcher . The problem is the influence of money on the political process . .
Sorry, Joel, you are giving me a false choice. Why do I have to choose to support public education or choose to support getting money out of politics? Why aren’t those part of the same progressive agenda?
Why can’t I choose to support progressives who want to get money out of politics AND support public education?
I’m not buying it. I’m not making a choice. Anyone who calls himself a progressive should NOT be embracing DFER and charters.
What is so wrong with me asking progressive politicians to talk about public education the way Hillary Clinton did in the 3 minutes that she explained in clear terms why it is so important?
What is so wrong with me asking how am I supposed to trust their claims to being a progressive when they don’t seem to value public education very much and they are repeating the same tired talking points of the education reformers?
NY Parent,
I appreciate the apology.
But I disagree with you about most of the rest of your comment. If schools and teachers are focused on STEM, and Advanced Placement , and SAT and ACT scores, and LOTS of technology, then they are going to be much less likely to focus on democratic citizenship. Even when thy say the are lasered-down on “critical thinking.”
It’s like I’ve said before another way, educators who claim to be against the Common Core and all it represents, but who think SAT and ACT scores are important measures of student learning and who hop on the Advanced placement and STEM bandwagons, are simply endorsing corporate-style “reform” through the back and side doors rather than the front.
As I’ve said before, Ralph Northam is much better for public schools than the alternative. Democrats in the General Assembly are better for public education than Republicans.
But I’m not so sure that they can be called educational “progressives.”
democracy,
I believe there is a difference between being an “educational progressive” and having a progressive political view about public education in which you oppose privately run charters financed with public dollars that are beyond the control of the community.
You are correct that STEM, etc. and AP classes aren’t a hallmark of “progressive education.”
But public education – education is which a community establishes public schools over which they have direct oversight — should be a progressive political value.
The public schools that are established by the community may run the gamut from embracing a progressive to a mainstream philosophy.
In other words, I don’t think Northam is an educational progressive. And I believe there are private charter operators who believe in progressive education and market their charters that way to parents.
But I do think that Northam embraces the progressive political viewpoint that public schools should be public, and private charter school CEOs who market their “progressive” charter school are embracing the right wing political viewpoint that giving parents the “choice” among privately run charters or public is a good thing.
On a separate note – I also think this is a mischaracterization:
“educators who claim to be against the Common Core and all it represents, but who think SAT and ACT scores are important measures of student learning and who hop on the Advanced placement and STEM bandwagons, are simply endorsing corporate-style “reform” through the back and side doors rather than the front.”
I don’t know these educators of which you speak who think “SAT and ACT scores are important measures of student learning”.
But I do know thoughtful educators who believe that offering AP classes to advanced learners is not detrimental to democracy. And I know thoughtful educators who see the value of offering more STEM classes to students who are engaged in STEM subjects.
I happen to know many AP History and AP Government classes in which the students had important discussions about civil engagement and the nature of political discourse. And there are plenty of non-AP history classes with dull textbooks of facts.
Like you, I am also very wary of corporate style reform even if it comes in the side door. But you seem to be casting a very wide net here.
My belief is that if schools are community schools locally overseen, they can have AP and STEM classes and music and art and civil engagement. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.
^^”civic engagement
Obama simply didn’t value public education. I think he was privately educated and if he had his druthers everyone would get a hefty voucher and attend a private school.
I remember when he was asked if he supported vouchers. He said no, but the REASON was they “don’t work”. No defense of the concept of “public education”, no hesitancy about just pitching it in the trash- this is a HUGE departure from the last 100 years.
I think a lot of them don’t get it. That’s why they were shocked when all those people in Chicago were literally weeping at losing their schools. They are a group of people who DON’T VALUE the systems they run and are “reforming”.
One can go back and read older versions of the Ohio state constitution and the education piece is a whole set of ideas about communities and governance and common goals. To Obama that’s something that “doesn’t work” and can be discarded without a second thought.
They were also shocked when they unilaterally up-ended every public school in the country with Common Core and there was blowback. OF COURSE there was blowback!
People value these schools. That doesn’t mean they’re perfect but in order to RUN them you have to recognize the basic idea! Obama didn’t. Duncan didn’t. DeVos doesn’t. To them schools are service providers and that is how PRIVATE school people approach education. The schools here are quite literally the center of this town. There is NOTHING else everyone shares.
Thanks, Chiara.
I agree.
But the 3 non-progressive Democrat Governors in Virginia did recognize that basic idea!
Support for public education is neither conservative, moderate, or progressive. Supporting public education is like supporting Medicare — voters who self-identify from all political spectrums strongly support it.
Unfortunately, too many Democrats have decided public education isn’t an important issue and by being co-opted their enemies have been able to make the false case that Democrat = hates public education.
But that isn’t the case. There are still many Democrats from all stripes fighting for public education. And sadly, too many Democrats from progressive to conservatives who don’t seem to understand the real issues with charters.
I disagree, somewhat. Obama sent his daughters to an exclusive private school. He values school choice for his own family. He held up the Opportunity Scholarship program in WashDC, the only federally funded school choice program in the nation. He went back and forth on the program, but some money finally made it through.
see https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/27/white-house-wont-veto-dc-school-voucher-bill/
I disagree . I think Obama knew the complexities of every issue that came in front of him . He was many things , stupid he was not . These were political decisions based on the interest of the donor class .
Agreed, Joel
“a lot of them don’t get it”
But Obama is a Grand Master at 11 dimensional chess.
Apparently, public schools do not exist in the 11th dimension.
I think Diane is correct when she says that support for well-funded public – not charter or voucher – schools is a winning strategy for the Democrats.
One major reason why is that it conforms to what is/should be the overall winning strategy for them in general, which is programs that provide universal material benefits – education, health, housing, a jobs guarantee, etc. – for everyone. Not just for the poor, not for previously discriminated-against populations, not for the “underprivileged.” For everyone.
No means testing, no usury (which the government is currently practicing with student loans), no gold/silver/dreck health insurance with huge co-pays.
Workers and people who still suffer discrimination or its legacy would still benefit most from this, and like Social Security and Medicare, it’s politically viable and hard to eradicate once put in place
This is the strategy.
Michael Fiorillo
Bingo
Yes, Michael. I’d like to see this in the NY Times Letters to the Editor section.
“The winning strategy”
A democratic rule
Is not the major goal
Instead, the Wall Street tool
Is Democratic role
Succinctly written, with the hard edged elegance that we’ve come to expect from your pen, Poet. Bravo, good sir! Bravo!
The best and most productive conversations I’ve had with conservatives and Trump supporters (not necessarily one and the same) are the ones in which I cite Obama’s attack on public education. Any conversations that continue will include Bush’s “contributions”…but I don’t want to make it sound as though it’s the fault of the person I’m talking to and their ideals as a Republican, as a starting point.
It’s sad and unfortunate that one has to resort to a establishing a common enemy in order to establish a rapport, but there it is. I far prefer Barak Obama to Trump as our national leader, but I don’t look at his two administrations with rose colored glasses, either.
Lending credence to at least part of an adversary’s argument (or showing respect for that person’s intelligence in the first place) is a doorway to productive debate and a more open minded discussion, in my experience.
The best conversations I’ve had have eventually led to the role that Gates, Waltons, Broad, etc have had in education “reform”. The true common enemies.
“The best conversations I’ve had have eventually led to the role that Gates, Waltons, Broad, etc have had in education “reform”. The true common enemies.”
Using the “etc” leaves out two very important people:
Michael Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch.
Their importance comes from the large amount of influence that they have on our mainstream media. What the masses see and hear on a daily basis.
Mr. Murdoch; the great American patriot, looking out for our public interests:
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-09-04/news/mn-23112_1_rupert-murdoch
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m interested in an all-time poll for most damaging Ed Reformers. I really don’t want to forget the most destructive individuals. First names that come to my mind: Bill Gates, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Arne Duncan, and Michelle Rhee. Of course, there are many others. I have a special disfavor for Secretary Duncan because of his patina of above politics respectability.
Arne was asked about whether Obama opposed his actions or not. His response was that he was just doing what the President told him to do.
I met Arne in 2009 and he used exactly those words.
“I do what the President tells me to do.”
That’s a nice political cover for him, but he also said so many other things that showed what he really believed. Remember the suburban moms? Remember how Katrina was the best thing to ever happen to New Orleans education? There were others. Secretary Duncan wasn’t suffering from any conflicting emotions when he implemented Ed Reform policies. At least that’s how I see it.
No argument here, Ohio. He’s all in on the game.