TonyThurmond, elected as California’s State Superintendent of Public Instruction last fall, spoke out strongly on behalf of public schools at a recent public event. He also insisted that the state must fund its pension promises and invest more in education. Competition doesn’t work in education, he said.
The goal of education must be to help every student must develop his talents, not to spur competition that creates winners and losers.
”In a conversation with CALmatters’ education reporter Ricardo Cano at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club, Thurmond talked about how his mother, an immigrant from Panama, died when he was 6, leaving him to be raised by a cousin he never met. He says his family benefited from many government programs to get by, but that “a great public education” was the most vital.
“If it were not for the education, my cousin who took me in, countless mentors, I would easily have ended up in California state prison instead of serving as California’s superintendent of public instruction,” he said. “We owe this to all the students in our state.”
“That philosophy, he said, informs his fairly dim view of charter schools, which he characterized as benefiting certain students as the possible expense of others.
“I think there’s a role for all schools,” Thurmond said, including charters—publicly funded but privately managed schools that supporters say offer valuable educational alternatives to children, but which critics say undermine traditional public education. “But I do not believe that the state should ever open new schools without providing resources for those schools. I do not believe that education is an environment for competition.
“Here’s my concern: you cannot open charter schools and new schools to serve every single student in our state,” he continued. “If you take the competition approach, that means some students, a lot of students, will be left behind. And again, I don’t believe that that’s what our mission is. I believe that the promise that we make to each other in society is to provide opportunity to get an education, to live a better life, to be able to acquire what you want through your hard work for yourself and your family. So for me that means that competition is OK in some environments, but when it comes to education we’ve got a responsibility to make sure that every single student gets an education.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
As I have written here before, “Give me a public school graduate any day.”
Thanks, Diane.
I always read your blog.
I like what ST says generally; but where is “to become a good person/neighbor, and an aware citizen?” Did it get lost in becoming able to “get what you want”? CBK
I’m guessing that since he focused on the impact a public education had on him that he was more focused on the opportunities that he had because of it and the opportunities that students do not have today. If someone had asked him about the role of public education in preparing us to be good citizens in a democratic society, he might have had an answer that spoke to that point. Civics has been way down the list of wants for a long time. It is only with our recognition of the takeover of our government by moneyed interests and the advent of Trump that more people are paying attention.
speduktr Yes–I think many are presently suffering from that failure in education–a lack of civics and history (humanities in general) that many (not all) did not receive, not to mention the basics of a scientific education where knowledge has some relationship to evidence.
Also, I speak from personal experience here–it wasn’t until I went to college in my 30’s that I realized (with a crash of insights) why I never voted, or knew about, or cared about anything political–I didn’t get the background for understanding ANY of those things in my family’s economic poverty, in our lack of political discussions, or discussion at all, at home (my divorced mother of four learned a trade with adult education, but got no other kind of education), and my poor k-12 educational experience–I was a classic latchkey child.
In many of Trump’s personality-cult followers, I see myself . . . had I not gone to a good liberal arts college and become motivated by some excellent teachers and mentors to understand my political inheritance. Even as adults, we cannot understand the responsibilities of living in a democracy unless we can understand what it’s like NOT to live in one–aka other political systems, what rampant capitalism looks like; and how power works, either well or badly distorted–and in our case, how important to our very existence is the breakdown of the rule of law and the attack on our press. Don’t get me started . . . CBK
“Even as adults, we cannot understand the responsibilities of living in a democracy unless we can understand what it’s like NOT to live in one…”
That’s one reason why I think immigrants are/can be so valuable to our society. That idea suggests some really good role playing scenarios that could be used at the middle and high school level. I do remember those projects as being particularly powerful and memorable.
speduktr Yes, . . . I had a student in a fourth-grade class whose uncle was “disappeared” one night while they slept. He spoke movingly to the rest of the class about it. I doubted at the time that they’d ever forget it. CBK
speduktr: 2nd yr 7:21pm comment. Tho I was already a flaming lib [didn’t realize how flaming ’til we sibs went thro deceased Mom’s stuff & found a ltr I wrote her from college], the point was only truly driven home to me in orientation at the Mexican Sp-lang sch I attended in ’68. It was just a brief, passing statement on the order of: “do NOT violate driving or parking laws: you will be tossed in jail for an undetermined time, will not get a phone call, & we won’t know where you are.”
CBK: I am more in awe than ever of you, reading this background!
Interested that you speak to current lack of civics/ historical [humanities] & even sci background in today’s test-burdened K12… yet you presumably did K12 when curriculum was richer– nevertheless could not take it in until college more than a decade later. You seem to say that you could not connect those dots until mature due to lack of family culture/ background.
But that was my experience too, despite an intellectual Mom who tho conservative & pragmatic, prized independent thinking, and an extended clan which incessantly debated politics. For me, hisch & college & 20’s job were “inputs” to simmer & integrate. “Output”– incl connecting the dots between civics/ history & my life/ that of others– came in 30’s.
To what is probably your point: could I have connected the dots at 30 w/o the scaffolding of yrs of hisch hist/ sci? I was good at neither; my focus was lit/ langs/ comparative culture/ religion/ art. But I retained the bare bones of supporting fields [even Math! which I sucked at]. Need, curiosity & stubborn desire to expand knowledge eventually brought them to bear. Our brains are builders on past connections. Eliminating those scaffolds to future learning is a big risk & probably promotes ignorant attitudes.
bethree5 There is so much we don’t know about how we develop or what inspires the kinds of political
insights as the one’s we are talking about; but I think the term “democratic culture” covers a lot of ground there; and civic culture which, like being a “cradle Catholic,” has a way of forming us–creating our basic expectations of life–at the very core of our understanding; and where political-social culture is in a dynamic and creative (and/or destructive) relationship with developments in various family cultures. This kind of informal education is what a child brings to their first FORMAL education experience–it’s already there on the first day, and different for everyone concerned.
Also, we can go back to Aristotle for some guidance: who said that having good parents is not only an important aspect of education . . . its the most essential aspect of it. I have to say also that, personally, I think (as example of only one movie influence) the movie Superman didn’t “give” me anything; but it did INSPIRE and wake in me a heretofore latent sense of right and wrong.
Also, I think my liberal sensitivity was inspired in me when, at around 5 or 6, circa 1951, I watched the unedited trailers to cartoons in the movies, of children and others as they were experimented on by the Nazis in the concentration camps during WWII. I was horrified as only a child can be, and I never forgot it. Now, I wonder about what the children of our time are being exposed to and what it means to their own political and other futures, not to mention in school. But let’s have coffee sometime. . . . CBK
The CCSA wants to open a restaurant in your living room. They don’t want you to be able to say no. In California, they can do whatever they want in your living room, and make you pay to support them. It’s just not right. Tony Thurmond is correct to denounce the injustice. Enough is enough. No more compromising with the charter drain.
CHARTER DRAIN. That’s it.
Tony Thurmond’s position is righteous and just.
On the other side is the oligarchy which gains ground when professors and others publish their anti-union views disguised as objective scholarship.
The latter are recognized by their argument that posits just two sides in ed reform.
The self-appointed wealthy ed reformers (“132 large donors accounted for $1 out of $5 donated to local school boards” *) steering one side and, the labor collective steering the other side. The “scholars” fail to acknowledge Gates and Paul Allen’s $500,000 expenditure to defeat judges who rendered verdicts favorable to public schools. And, they
fail to acknowledge that the union members live in the communities affected and, they pay taxes for their local schools, unlike the richest 0.1% who live in remote wealthy communities.
Objective scholars don’t limit the argument to two sides. They include the interests of students and communities in preserving democracy.
Henig, Jacobsen and Reckhow, Washington Post, March 8.
Linda YES, the problem is, however, that the “disguised-as-scholarship” professors and other writers and speakers see the idea of “preserving democracy” or creating knowledgeable citizens, as leftist propaganda spouted by teachers and their unions.
For them “objective scholarship” is code for “the other side,” and “my way or the highway” . . . because there is nothing for them but polemics, winners and losers; and certainly no higher viewpoint that reaches for truly objective scholarship . . . that is, scholarship founded on what is intelligent and good for all concerned–including a democratic education that prepares students to make choices based on the fullness of knowledge of all relevant arguments, rather than on propaganda selected by some pseudo-elite, e.g., Gates or the Koch brothers. CBK
Perfectly stated, Catherine,
When anti-union professors are employed by public universities, it is a failure of their employers- the university boards.
In the private sector, an employee who undermines the organization’s mission is fired. The same should occur in the public sector.
The public university’s mission is the common good which is served by pubic schools, K-12 and higher ed and, through a strong middle class.
The new governor of Michigan should rid the state’s public universities of those faculty, administrators and board members who undermine the common good for the benefit of oligarchy.
“…see the idea of “preserving democracy” or creating knowledgeable citizens, as leftist propaganda spouted by teachers and their unions.”
How pathetic, yet rings true & thus reveals execrable morals. Those who paint themselves as conservatives want to impose their traditions by fiat at the expense of democracy. They are so far removed from the reality of the freedoms they enjoy as to risk totalitarianism/ loss of all freedom. Those who paint themselves as libertarians/ free-marketers embrace govt via capital clout, rich-poor dichotomy/ zero middle-class/ zero social mobility, which leads directly to totalitarianism [or revolution]: another group which exploits fragile freedoms for profit/ ideology.
In a recent interview Thurmond recalled one of his best experiences at Northeast High School in Philadelphia. He remembers that he struggled in math, but his professional teacher went the distance with him. Without this teacher’s support he may not be where he is today.
“I will always remember Mrs. Harrell, my high school math teacher in Philadelphia. I struggled in math. She put in extra time and never gave up on me, helping me be successful. I looked for her on social media but couldn’t find her. But I would love for her to know her investment in me paid off.”
This hardly sounds like the “factory model” of education that Cruella DeVos claims is how we educate students. Professional teachers and public education are a winning combination to build a better future for all. https://californiaeducator.org/2018/02/13/meet-tony-thurm
Thurmond can also thank the people of Pennsylvania for helping him get his undergraduate degree. Temple University started out as a private college and became affiliated with the commonwealth in the 1960s. When I attended in 1966, my tuition was about $900 a semester, but I got some type of GPA discount so I paid about $600 a semester and about $200 for books. Today the in-state tuition is $16,666 per year, and I am sure there are many for fees tacked on.
Regarding the cost of attending Temple… the lack of financial support from the state for the Commonwealth universities is down right criminal. A friend’s daughter graduated from Temple in January. He said the full-in cost as a residential student with in-state tuition was a little over $30k annually. The total cost is slightly higher than that at Penn State and Pitt. It’s bonkers how expensive it’s become to attend what are nominally state universities.
The richest 0.1% intentionally starved the common good so that they could implement disaster capitalism. Bill Gates’ Frontier Set gives money to universities in return for collaboration on curriculum and delivery. Two state higher ed systems are part of the program., The Chancellor of Pennsylvania’s state universities who was appointed this summer was formerly in management with the Gates Foundation.
PJL, same thing in NY & NJ. I recently compared the full package then (starting ’05, ’07, ’10) & now at the small colleges where my 3 studied Mus/ Mus tech. They are privates which keep tuition/ costs on par w/the state colleges. The figures are virtually the same as you’ve quoted: 40% increase in a dozen years. The inflation for ’07-’18 was 21%.
Good for him!
I don’t why we can have charter school advocates and private school voucher advocates but advocacy for public schools is forbidden.
Our kids deserve passionate, committed and effective advocates too. They certainly don’t have any in the federal government or a lot of state legislatures.
I think they’re afraid to support a public school or they’ll get shunned by the ed reform lobby. The Waltons aren’t paying any public school advocates, that’s for sure.
how many presidential candidates have done things comparable to what Kamala Harris did for Tony Thurmond? She did it in the face of powerful, wealthy interests. Many of the candidates will not want public education to be an issue that will upset possible republican and independent votes. It simply will not be important enough to fight really hard for. If you believe it is not possible….consider Obama, Bill Gates, and Arne Duncan.
It will be a challenge in the 2020 election to find a candidate willing to distance him or herself from the Bush-Obama legacy.
In the past several elections, K-12 public education has not been a primary issue. And this is a good thing. K-12 public education should be a state/municipal responsibility, to be closer to the people, and out of the claws of Washington bureaucrats.
Why in the (expletive) should a Washington bureaucrat, be dictating education policy to a school board in rural Idaho?
There is no reason to believe that public education policy will be anything close to a major issue in the 2020 election. The candidates are going to be addressing national defense, terrorism, the economy, health care, and issues that have national “traction”.
Education is currently dictated by the federal government. The only way to change bad policies is to change them in DC. States and districts can’t change federal policies.
Charles writes: “Why in the (expletive) should a Washington bureaucrat, be dictating education policy to a school board in rural Idaho?”
Excellent question. Briefly . . . because those Washington bureaucrats, insofar as they mediate National issues related to the basics of . . . umm . . . . wait for it . . . .the United States Constitution and the laws of the land that govern what is PUBLIC about us, . . . are responsible for the AT LEASTs that need to be mediated into PUBLIC schools in a democratic culture.
Of course there can be bad policy and laws; and as Diane says, responsible people can work to change them. But public schools fall under FEDERAL and STATE laws, which is exactly why charter and voucher “reformers” want to become “private”–to rid themselves of local, state and federal oversight–so they can do whatever the (expletive) they want.
It IS an excellent question. I’m just surprised you had to ask it; and wonder why it’s not a part of your background of learning history and civics. CBK
@Catherine: I have read the US constitution. I cannot undertake to lay my finger on ANY specific empowerment of the federal government to get involved in education in any way. The specific and enumerated powers of the (federal) government are clearly stated in Article I Section 8. I repeat, there is no federal responsibility for education in the US constitution.
Nearly every state has some sort of education role. Clearly, states and municipalities are much closer to the people, and are therefore much more responsive to the people.
Many people on the right and the left (including myself) favor abolishing the federal department of education, and removing any federal role in education, particularly at the K-12 level.
True, public schools fall under a blend of jurisdictions, federal , state, and local. Bad policies can be altered at any level, if the political will is there.
@Diane: I am little hesitant about your use of the word “dictated”. The people of our land, set up the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and the Education department split off from that. The people, through their elected representatives, empower the Dept of Education to make education policy, and also to fund these mandates.
(Call me naive, but i am not yet ready to call our nation a “dictatorship”).
Education policy was set by states and localities until passage of George W Bush’s No Child Behind Act in 2001.
A grave error that wasted billions and billions.
Charles Don’t you understand the foundational relationship between democracy and education? Specific reference to education need not exist in the Constitution (except for bean counters).
Like you and me, students, teachers, and schools, all, are not outside general federal laws or THAT CONSTITUTION. By foundational, I mean it’s already there–as the principles guiding the whole idea of democracy.
It doesn’t take a large leap to understand the basics: that DEMOCRACY means power in/of/by the people; and that such power cannot be well-developed or implemented (and democracy won’t last long, as we are presently seeing) without educational development of those same people. Remotely or proximately, WE are self-governing; We are constitutive of the federal and state governments in a democracy; and WE cannot be wise in that governing and keepers of the well-being (to fare well or welfare) of the people without open access to a broad range of educational/cultural activities<–especially today.
That’s why in the old South, for instance, slave-owners forbade slaves to read–they knew well the political implications of an educated slave. Propaganda and bean counting aside, do you understand that relationship? If you do, then you won’t want to make such inane statements about education not being mentioned in the Constitution. My better angels don’t allow me to air my further thoughts on your commentary. CBK
James Madison was AGAINST any federal role in education. See this from the “Federalist Papers” :
If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.
Madison was prescient. The feds have no place in education!
Dear Charles,
The Feds now control education across the U.S. It started with George W. Bush’s NCLB. The only way to regain state and local control is by starting in DC to unwind the damage.
Charles On parsing: and if that’s a direct quote from James Madison, it looks to me like he didn’t yet know the difference between funding public SECULAR education and funding religious education. Nor the difference between the need for roads and the need for education in people who vote or run for president in a democracy. CBK
Agreed! Close down the federal Dept of Education, turn all education policy (and funding) back over to the states.
This action was pushed by Pres Ronald Reagan!
People on the left and the right agree, that the feds have “mucked up” education!
Betsy DeVos doesn’t agree. If she did, she would ask Congress to abolish the department and her job.
Charles Yes, mucked up education . . . just look at Devos. But there’s the baby, and then there is the bathwater. Can you get it? CBK
Charles We’ve been parsing aspects of the Federalist Papers for years. That’s what “secular” means. Get with it. CBK
@Catherine: If you wish to remain silent, and not make any further comments, that is your right. You are underestimating my understanding. I know full well, the relationship between self-governance and education. (I read Thomas Jefferson, as well). That is part of the reason that I am opposed to making voting mandatory. Imagine what this country would be like, if voting was mandatory.
Some 2/3 of what the federal government does, is not specifically mentioned in the US Constitution. Everybody knows that. That does not make it right.
I also understand that the slave-owners deliberately kept their slaves from education and reading.
The point I am attempting make, is that education is NOT mentioned in the US constitution, and for good reason. Many (not all) people from all across the political spectrum, support ending (or at least reducing) the federal role in education, and possibly closing down the federal department of education.
It is not “inane” to state that education is not mentioned in the US constitution. It is an empirical fact, that more people should be aware of.
No, education is not mentioned in the Constitution. Neither is the FAA. Or national parks.
So what?
Charles Such comments are inane because the fact that education is not mentioned in the Constitution does not mean “noauthentic fed government interest.”
What you don’t seem to understand is this fact: If you understand the foundations of democracies, you also will understand that it’s exactly the opposite: education in a Constitutional Democracy is its Federal and State Governments’ most authentic interest . . . because, bean counters aside, democracies AS SUCH depend, for their very existence over the long term, on the education of those who people them. CBK
The feds have certain implied powers. Agreed that “national parks and the FAA” are not mentioned in the text of the constitution. But the feds have specific power to purchase land for public use. see
https://i2i.org/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-federal-land-ownership/
It is in the Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2).
The constitution empowers the feds to regulate interstate commerce. Although the constitution was written long before the invention of the airplane, the feds can regulate interstate air commerce. As far as that is concerned, Canada has privatized their air traffic control, and the USA is seriously considering this as well.
The words “Air Force” do not appear in the constitution, but the government can establish an air force, under the implied powers of the military.
We need to better fund education in California. We all agree on that. We also, however, need to better use the funding we have. Creating dual, competing systems is inefficient and ineffective. Annual testing on computers is a terrible waste of funds and is harmful to students and schools. And how much money do we throw down the data collection and management drain every year? How many expensive consultants have we hired to look at such meaningless data? How many iPads? The corporatization of California schools has sapped far too much from the classroom. It’s time to restore funding in more ways than one.
LCT: you just brilliantly summed up the problem. Wasteful duplication of services. Wasteful spending on consultants and useless programs. Computer testing that replaces human judgment. Diversion of funding from classrooms.
dianeravitch This exchange reminds me of a Chronicle Review article today (which I get online but don’t go behind the paywall for “premium” articles, which this one is). TITLE, fyi:
Assessment Is an Enormous Waste of Time, By Erik Gilbert
“The armies of consultants, software vendors, journals, foundations, institutes, and organizations are operating on a false premise.” CBK
Obama and Duncan bear part of the responsibility for what has become an indreasingly aggressive political movement to cripple public education, and they have a lot of money…..not enough to fund education the way it should be, but enough to stack the deck in favor of fighting that most dreaded force…..democratic control of public education.