Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education and a lifelong educator, has a message for Senator Elizabeth Warren:
There has been much discussion on this blog and elsewhere regarding Elizabeth Warren’s campaign’s choice of a former charter school teacher to introduce Ms. Warren in Oakland. She was a fellow at GO Oakland, an organization funded by billionaires such as the Walton Family, Arthur Rock and Michael Bloomberg–billionaires who are bound and determined to charterize American public schools. After leaving as a fellow, she continued her relationship by blogging for the organization in 2018, including in her blog links to get readers to sign up for GO emails.
Why does any of this matter?
It matters because when a presidential campaign asks someone to introduce their candidate. It is a carefully vetted and deliberate choice. It is naive to think the introducer is picked from the air in any competent campaign, and the Warren campaign is highly competent.
When Bernie Sanders issued his bold platform calling for a charter moratorium, Elizabeth Warren responded by saying that she too was against for-profit charter schools with no response on Sanders’ call for a moratorium.
Warren said she does not want to fund for -profits. Well, the only funding program she could influence as President, the Charter Schools Program, already does not.
No bold, progressive stand there.
What progressives need to hear from Elizabeth Warren is the answer to these two simple questions.
1. Do you support the NAACP’s charter moratorium?
2. Do you support funding the federal Charter Schools Program–which funds the expansion of non-profit charter schools?
Sanders has made his position clear. When we hear from Warren, it will no longer matter who introduces her..
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Thanks, Carol and Diane…will pass this on to all my lists.
In the few minutes since I got this from you, I posted it on FB and sent it to all my lists to pass along. You cannot imagine the hue and cry it is causing…I am getting a barrage of emails in response and with support for having Warren explain in detail what she truly believes re charter schools. Even heard from Ca State Central Committee member. Most who supported her say they will turn to Bernie is she does not support our public schools. Thanks again for this vital blog.
Elizabeth Warren is not at first place in the polls but her capacity for persuasive speech and meaningful ideas gives her the chance to move to a front position.
Reading this: ‘when a presidential campaign asks someone to introduce their candidate. It is a carefully vetted and deliberate choice.’ makes a strong point that her support may be tending towards privatizers; a pity, for she is a worthwhile person and candidate.
I will continue to keep abreast of any development that signals her position on the Public School System, hoping for the best. For those of us who believe in the public school system we keep on fighting.
I admire Elizabeth Warren. I am eager for her to state her views about privatization (including private charters, whether for-profit or nonprofit) and testing.
Yep, this is a deal-breaker for me. Sorry, but I have not taught for 35 years in public schools to have education policy directed by TFAers w/ 2 years of experience in a charter school. This is the very concept we career teachers are fighting.
TFAers with 2 years teaching experience and a suitcase full of TFA/deformer dogma
I suspect that Elizabeth Warren has been misled by her closest education advisors about charters. She hears only one side: ” Look at this great non-profit charter with so many low income students who are thriving” and “Look at this awful public school over here that those kids would be “trapped” in if it wasn’t for that charter”. Because the charter students Warren hears about are usually African-American and Latinx, she sees only the positive of how those students are faring.
But Sen. Warren should be looking at charters the way she looks at healthcare and banking.
Sen. Warren is too smart to make the embarrassingly ignorant assumption that as long as SOME students are thriving, that means that those charters are fine.
If this were a health insurance company saying that they wanted to take money from medicare to insure some senior citizens, I am pretty sure Sen. Warren would not be fooled if the health insurance company said “look at these 20 senior citizens we are insuring, they are so very healthy”.
Sen. Warren would never take those claims at face value. If she learned that this health insurance that supposedly kept seniors so healthy was losing extraordinarily high numbers of customers who happened to be less healthy, she would not simply dismiss that by saying she is certain that those seniors just preferred a health insurance company that made them less healthy after trying this one. Especially if there had been a myriad of complaints from patients who had serious illnesses about getting forced out from the health insurance company.
So why does Warren take the claims of charters at face value?
It’s time for Sen. Warren to start demonstrating the ability to analyze data and facts that she has shown on other issues.
It is beyond embarrassing for her that she still takes the word of her co-opted pro-charter advisors that these charters are working miracles when those “miracles” mysteriously ALWAYS come with high suspension rates for at-risk 5 and 6 year old children and high attrition rates and supposedly eager parents who mysteriously don’t enroll their child despite winning a coveted lottery seat.
Warren should be better than that. If she is too lazy to do her own homework on this issue, then she doesn’t deserve to be President.
(And I say that as someone who truly hopes that Bernie’s statement forces Warren to look at this issue more closely and stop being so gullible because overall I generally like Warren’s approach to governing.)
Many black and Latinx students are assigned to cheap, low performing charters, and the students get no choice at all. The charter rejected students that require the most attention and money sometimes end up in a public school with large classes and few services and resources due to charter drain. Does she think it is appropriate to have a tiered system for the presumed worthy and dilapidated buildings and large classes with few services for the “leftovers?” This is exactly what charter drain creates, more separate and unequal options and increased segregation.
“She was a fellow at GO Oakland, an organization funded by billionaires such as the Walton Family, Arthur Rock and Michael Bloomberg–billionaires who are bound and determined to charterize American public schools. ”
I’m amazed the ed reform funders can keep track of all these “local” organizations they fund. They all have different names. Exactly the same in every city and district, but different names 🙂
Sanders to me has the most coherent position. If you’re a supporter of charter schools I don’t know why it would matter if they were for-profit or non-profit. It doesn’t really mean anything. It’s the easiest thing in the world to set up a nonprofit entity to receive charter funding and then subcontract to for-profit entities that constitute 99% of what makes “the school”.
Now that all of the ed reform echo chamber have lockstep adopted private school vouchers, I don’t even know why they care about the distinction between “public” and “private”. They’ve erased that too. They talk about how charters accept all students- whether you believe that or not the private schools they’re supporting with vouchers certainly don’t accept all children, so there goes that principle, out the window.
Ed reform is incoherent. They make these distinctions that are contradicted by their own policy. The truth is they’re going to end up at a 100% voucher system, because that’s the only way their “movement” makes any sense. Many of them are already there.
A 100% voucher system, where families have more choices about their children’s education, and their futures, is coming. It is a matter of time. Both parties realize this.
Public schools used to be required to teach creationism. Public schools used to set up as “separate but equal” for white and “colored” children. We now look back on the past as an embarrassment.
We are going to look back on the government-monopoly school system, where children are assigned to a public school, as a similar embarrassment.
School choice, vouchers, charter schools, are the wave of the future.
Vouchers promote low quality education, inequality, and segregation.
Public money should never support religious or private schools.
I find it very strange how you yearn for the end of democracy, Chuck.
Dienne, could not have said it better myself.
BTW, Chuck, I think Peter Greene might have had you in mind when he wrote this:
“If finding an education that fits a student, including a variety of options so that the student can figure out what that best fit is, all under one roof so that families don’t have to start over at a whole new school every time they want a change– well, that’s a public school. As always, school choice is about school’s choice; not so much about students finding a school that fits their ideas about learning, as it is about private and charter schools finding the students who fit their ideas about teaching. It’s charter and private schools that offer one size meant to fit all.”
http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2019/06/talking-point-update-focus-on-fit.html
There is something that I wish someone would explain to me. There are many non-public colleges and universities around this nation. Many of them get more applicants than they have open slots. The colleges discriminate, by rejecting many applicants. (I myself, applied to MIT, and I was rejected). Private colleges are not required to accept all applicants.
I later applied to a government-supported public university. I was required to take the ACT, and score a minimum, prior to admittance. If I had not scored the minimum, I would have been rejected.
Why is it perfectly acceptable for private/religious colleges to determine who attends their college, and for a public university to determine who attends their university, but somehow it is terrible for a private K-12 school do to the same thing?
Why the double standard?
And why is it perfectly acceptable for a college student to get public money, in the form of BEOGs (and other financial support like ROTC scholarships), to attend a religiously-operated university? But somehow not acceptable to get “public money” to attend a religiously-supported K-12 school?
Why the double standard?
What is the system that gives poor kids $50,000 to attend the same private schools as rich kids?
Charles is just one of those people who believes that his taxes shouldn’t have to pay for anyone else’s children or healthcare or education, but he sure wants a nice life for himself. Hey Charles!….”Atlas Shrugged” and now there’s some room for you to crawl under that rock of Libertarianism along with all the other cock roaches of society.
I’m just glad Charles has stopped using so many commas.
Charles, the expression “double standard” means different standards are applied to different people/ groups in the same situation. K12 public schools and tertiary education are not the same situation. The most basic differences between them is that attendance is compulsory for K12, and funded by the public. Neither is true for tertiary education. The question about public scholarships for church-operated colleges pertains to the difference between educating children and adults (a 3rd distinction between the two situations).
Stop trying to conflate higher education with K-12 public education. No one is required to go to college. That is your own choice. K-12 is compulsory up to a certain age. The government has a stake in its population having some minimum standard of education which is provided by taxes for the public good. It is your choice to further your education beyond undergraduate, but no one is required to provide it for you. We are not talking about higher education. It has no bearing on this discussion.
speduktr, 🎯
Charles is correct that many non-public universities receive enormous support from public (government) sources. This support includes but is not limited to government scholarships, government-backed student loan programs, research grants, tax breaks such as exclusion of private college and university properties from property taxes and deductions for donations to private colleges and universities. Some so-called “public colleges and universities” actually receive a smaller percentage of their funding from government sources than do some “private colleges and universities.” Add up the value of all these government supports, and the distinction between public and private colleges and universities starts to become very fuzzy indeed. In fact, the term “private” in “private college/private university” should be put in quotation marks or followed by the notation [sic] to indicate that it’s not an accurate term.
Given the extraordinarily amount of public money spent on private [sic] colleges and universities, we really should be doing a better job than we are of holding them accountable. In recent decades, we have seen an explosion in these institutions of their administrative staffs and salaries at the same time that we’ve seen them rely on low-paid adjunct faculty and continue their policies of admissions, often legacy admissions, of the children of the wealthy and powerful. Does anyone really believe that IQ45 got into Wharton based on his outstanding academic achievements? Here, some compensation figures for presidents of private [sic] colleges from 2018:
Kenneth Starr, Baylor University: $4,946,996
Lee Bollinger, Columbia University, $3,927,961
Amy Gutmann, University of Pennsylvania, $3,211,681
Victor Boschini Jr, Texas Christian University, $2,864,303
Edward Guiliano, NY Institute of Technology at Old Westbury, $2,733,651
Nido Qubein, High Point University, $2,368,358
Stephen Ainlay, Union College, $2,289,549
Paula Wallace, Savannah College of Art and Design, $2,289,549
Pretty nice gigs, huh? Meanwhile, about 70 percent of college classes are now taught by adjunct faculty earning between $20,000 and $25,000 per year.
Is this the model that you want to hold up to us for K-12 schools, Charles? Really?
I also find it especially troubling that she obviously supports Teach For America since her advisor is a former corps member. From TFA spring most other corporate school reforms including usually support for charter schools.
Excellent write up here.
https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/
I’m sorry. This is to the specific post.
Running for Democratic president on the astroturf support of big money donating billionaires instead of the grassroots support of union members like teachers is the failed way of the past. It’s time for every Democratic candidate to start supporting public education instead of charters (and testing). It’s well past time.
Is there any evidence at all that Sen. Warren’s position on this has anything to do with wanting to please “big money donating billionaires” and not “grassroots support of union members”?
Warren likely has whatever position she has on public education (which she is now obligated to clarify) because she believes it is the best position to take. Any innuendo that her position is because of wanting support of big money donating billionaires should come with real evidence.
Bernie has been wrong on a variety of issues, but I have never assumed it was because he was the tool of big money donating billionaires — or in one case, the tool of billionaire racists. He just got some things wrong and later correcting himself because he finally educated himself.
Someone else did that, too. Diane Ravitch. And there was never a time when Diane Ravitch supported charters because she wanted to please billionaires. She supporting them because she thought they would do some good, and stopped supporting them when she learned they did not.
I agree it is well past time for every Democratic candidate to start supporting public education, but if someone starts doing it a month or two after Bernie starts doing it, that is just as legitimate as Bernie’s very late change in no longer supporting “public charters” and DFER candidates for governor.
The rush to condemn someone for a single wrong move before giving her a chance to respond is wrong. I fear a repeat of what we saw in 2016 — even if Warren offers a comprehensive position that is even far more pro-public education than Bernie’s we will hear the same doubters insisting that we shouldn’t trust her on this since someone pro-charter once introduced her at a rally.
I hope we do not hear innuendoes that this woman who has stood up to Wall Street and suffered far more attacks for it than Bernie did is actually just an untrustworthy tool of big money billionaires.
If Warren comes out in full support of public schools, consider me off her back.
If Warren comes out in full support of public schools, consider me off her back.
Everyone who supports public schools should continue to stay on Warren’s back on this issue.
But there is no reason to make dishonest slurs that imply Warren is trying to please “big money donating billionaires”.
Why is saying that necessary when it is clear that is not true? Bernie’s stance up to last month that was exactly like Warren’s is today was not about pleasing big money donating billionaires and I noticed you never made those kind of character attacks on Bernie when he was campaigning for DFER candidates to turn Virginia into a pro-charter state a short while ago. Warren wasn’t campaigning for DFER candidates like Bernie, was she?
Why would you even suggest such a thing about Warren when you never suggested it about Bernie?
Sherrod Brown’s education advisor is also a TFA alum with the requisite 2 years teaching. Always wondered why he never seemed too interested in public education and the fleecing that ECOT and others have done to Ohio taxpayers and public school families.
Sherrod Brown and TFA- explains the problem the 99% have in being heard by the Senate.
The Senator’s education advisor is Leah Hill, right?
Curious if Sherrod got brownie points from the tech industry for the appointment of Leah. She’s also his advisor for technology.
Did Leah Hill attend the private George Washington University
(2019 tuition – $55,230)?
Wouldn’t it be better if Sen. Brown selected a public university grad to advise him? Ohio’s median family income is about the cost of tuition at GWU for one year.
Room and board at GWU is $13,000.
👍👍
TFA is much worse than a temp agency providing “scabs” to replace regular teachers.
They are essentially a virus that has taken up residence within our body politic and is using that body to replicate and spread their DNA.
Great definition for TFA.
I’m certainly willing to give Warren the benefit of the doubt and hope that she may be amenable to outreach and that her position might evolve. However, I’ve been part of this blog ever since we tried to reach out and educate Obama on the assumption that his support for charters (etc.) was simple lack of awareness/understanding. I remember a coordinated campaign to deliver letters and signatures directly to Obama explaining the errors of his ways. And I remember how we were roundly rebuffed (or, rather, willfully ignored).
So how long do we give Warren to come around? What do we do if she doesn’t? Is there an “or else”, or do we just shrug and accept her anyway?
How long did we give Bernie? It was not very long ago — after Trump’s election — that Bernie was actively campaigning for a DFER Democrat who planned to turn Virginia into another charter-friendly state.
I think given that Bernie’s change of heart happened less than a month ago, Sen. Warren has some time to think about this and we should certainly all hold her feet to the fire.
You asked a question that I don’t understand:
“What do we do if she doesn’t? Is there an “or else”, or do we just shrug and accept her anyway?”
We don’t know enough about Elizabeth Warren’s position yet, but let’s assume that worst case she ends up with exactly the same position that Bernie Sanders had in the 2016 campaign and supports DFER and “good public charters”. It will be up to every person to decide how important public education is over other issues in the PRIMARY. For me, public education is among the most important issues and that’s why I’m leaning toward Bernie in the primary. But no one has to “shrug and accept” Elizabeth Warren if her education position isn’t to their liking.
I thought it was pretty clear that no one has to vote for Elizabeth Warren in the primary if they don’t like her position on public education, but I am certainly going to give her a chance to tell us what it is before I decide.
I do worry that your post is referring to if Sen. Warren wins the primary instead of Bernie despite the fact that some of us probably like Bernie’s position on public education better. And if the majority of voters in the primary prefer Sen. Warren I will be delighted to support her against Trump. Only someone who want a racist, xenophobic and dangerous right winger to win would refuse to vote for this remarkable woman because they disagreed with one of her policies positions when it is clear that almost all of her policy positions are excellent and progressive.
I don’t assume that my vote for Bernie is an endorsement of the single racist statement he made about white voters who refuse to vote for African-American candidates. I disagree with Bernie about that. I also disagreed with Bernie when he campaigned for a DFER Democrat to turn Virginia into a charter friendly state after the last two governors had stood strong against charter infiltration.
I don’t have to agree with every single stand that Bernie has in order to support him in the primary. I have to prefer his overall positions to the other candidates, which so far I do.
And I don’t have to agree with every stand that whoever wins the Democratic primary has in order to support them knowing that they are wildly preferable to a racist, xenophobic, totally corrupt President who is slowly destroying democratic norms that are necessary for our country to survive as a democracy.
Voting for a candidate has never been about “shrugging and accepting” every single stand they have. Are they the better candidate? That’s the only question.
If Bernie wins, there will be a lot of Democratic voters who preferred Warren’s stance on health insurance or Wall Street or voters who preferred Harris’ stance on some other issue. But they will be voting for Bernie unless deep down they are so angry they want Trump to win. And if they throw a temper tantrum and want Trump to win because they don’t like Bernie as much as they liked another candidate in the primary, then they would be just as wrong as Bernie voters who would refuse to vote for Warren if she happens to be the candidate who wins the primary.
And all of us who coalesce around whichever candidate happens to receive the most primary voters will not be “shrugging” and “just accepting” every single one of their positions, just like I assume we don’t just shrug and accept every one of the positions of the candidates we do support.
Just because I support Bernie in the primary because education is important to me does not mean that I would shrug and support every single issue he stands for because there are some positions that other candidates have that seem to be more thought out.
The issue is that the time is right. As an example, same sex marriage. When I started voting in 1988, same sex marriage was on pretty much no one’s radar. Even gay activists assumed it was impossible. By the 90s, the activists and the “fringe” groups started earnestly pushing for it. But the early 2000s it was something seriously discussed and debated in mainstream circles (and legalized in Massachusetts at the end of 2003), but still you couldn’t judge a candidate entirely on that issue. But by 2012 or so, its time had come. Any Democratic candidate who still opposed same sex marriage was someone I would write off completely – deal breaker. Democrats got the message, which is why same sex marriage is legal across the nation now.
We are – or, at least, I am – at that point with public education (and many other issues) now. Any candidate who still thinks any form of privatization is “liberal” or acceptable in any way is not a seriously progressive candidate. They are willfully choosing to put their head in the sand. They can no longer claim ignorance. They can’t pretend to believe that charter schools “rescue” kids from “failing” public schools. They can no longer play it “safe” and talk about the benefits of “public” charters. It’s time for them to take a stand and show us that they take democracy and the Commons seriously by opposing privatization in all forms. If not, sorry, deal breaker.
And I know you disagree with this, but if we’re not going to have a truly progressive leader, a fake progressive is worse than an openly raging right-winger. At least no one is expecting to be able to “educate” Trump or hoping that he might “come around”. People are doing what they need to do to oppose him.- things they wouldn’t be doing if a “progressive” [sic] like Obama or Hillary or Biden were in office. It’s time for Warren to decide if she’s another Obama or if she’s going to join Bernie in taking the right path.
Let’s see, we are about to have a rash of Supreme Court decisions that are 5-4 that almost certainly would have gone the other way if a Democrat had appointed 2 justices instead of Trump.
If you believe the country would be better off with Trump as President instead of Elizabeth Warren because she has the same position that Bernie had in 2016 instead of Bernie’s position in 2020, then that’s your own judgement but then you own Trump. And I’d say the same thing if someone refused to vote for Bernie because of his racist statement and claimed that Bernie’s racism was not preferable to Trump’s racism. If someone won’t vote for Bernie because they are taking a stand on racism and say the only way to make this country less racist is to keep Bernie from the Presidency and wait for a candidate who is really not racist, then they own Trump.
Same sex marriage happened because of the Supreme Court DESPITE Obama not having a good position on it. That’s because Obama and his predecessors appointed justices who did the right thing when the time was right. And, by the way, Obama changed his mind, just like Bernie has on many issues — most recently on charters.
” a fake progressive is worse than an openly raging right-winger.”
First of all, calling Elizabeth Warren a “fake” progressive isn’t having an honest discussion — it is basically repeating right wing troll talking points. There is nothing “fake” about Elizabeth Warren regardless of her position of charter schools. A candidate is allowed to have a different position on an issue without you being completely and utterly dishonest about their progressive credentials. Was Bernie a “fake progressive” until a few weeks ago?
You have every right to tell African-Americans and Muslims and immigrants and those who care about consumer issues and regulating Wall Street and protecting Social Security and Medicare and not having an even more far-right Supreme Court that you are taking some sort of progressive stance because Elizabeth Warren just isn’t meeting your new criteria on public education.
To me, your position reflects the privilege of being white, non-Muslim, and having enough resources to pay for private school.
And to me, it sounds like you are looking for a reason not to vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is and I suspect you will find one even if the candidate is Bernie. I don’t really care if you choose not to vote for Elizabeth Warren if she were to win the primary and once again help elect Trump. But I do care if you mischaracterize her as a fake progressive because that kind of language is simply repeating the lies of the right wing propaganda and it should be called out.
I absolutely support your right to refuse to vote for anyone but Bernie — I just don’t support lies like “Warren is a fake progressive” and “Warren is no better than Trump” which would be the only rationale for refusing to vote for her if she was the nominee because in a democracy, the majority of voters get to decide.
Diane Ravitch called out Warren on her position on charters which is absolutely appropriate for you to do. But using language like “fake progressive” is just repeating dishonest right wing propaganda and I don’t understand why you would do that unless you are really a troll.
No candidate is going to be perfect, including Bernie. I hope no voters who love the country embrace the message that they should all pick their favorite primary candidate and refuse to vote for any other candidate in the general if their candidate doesn’t win the primary.
Just because a politician has the wrong opinion on some issues does not make that politician a “fake progressive”. Bernie was not a “fake progressive” when he campaigned for a DFER Democrat and he was not a “fake progressive” a few months ago when he still supported “good public charters”. Bernie wasn’t a “fake progressive” when he insisted that it wasn’t racist for a white person to refuse to vote for an African-American candidate.
I can’t imagine why you would post something as dishonest as implying that if Elizabeth Warren keeps the same position that Bernie had when he tried so hard to turn Virginia into a DFER-run state, that makes her a “fake progressive”.
It means she is wrong on this issue just like Bernie is wrong on some issues and they both are right on a slew of issues that are very progressive.
dienne77 says:
” if we’re not going to have a truly progressive leader, a fake progressive is worse than an openly raging right-winger.”
The Supreme Court is about to hand down a slew of 5-4 decisions that are going to be truly awful for the progressive movement.
The only “fake progressives” are those who insist that the far right wing Supreme Court is a small price to pay to prevent
“fake progressive” Elizabeth Warren from becoming President instead of Trump.
Diane and Carol, maybe readers need some background on how ed reformers have prepared for this moment years (decades?) earlier by creating TFA “fellowships”, “scholarships” and “internships” in order to plant their indoctrinees in crucial positions such as “education advisor” to US Senators.
I read years ago about their program to pay the full salary of TFA teachers with 1-2 years of actual classroom experience to leave the classroom and instead intern in Congress for a year.
Thanks to the “revolving door” of powerful TFA alums, TFA has great leverage in placing their emissaries directly into positions where they can affect policy decisions as opposed to fetching coffee, and for some politicians, the avalanche of campaign payola probably helped as well, although I’d hope not in Warren’s case.
Mercedes wrote a little about Warren’s aide, but there is an army of “Grimer Wormtongues” out there doing the bidding of ed reformers in the halls of power. I remember contacting elected officials only to be handed off to aides and hitting dead ends, going online and discovering they are TFA.
So how awkward must it be for Warren now to have headlines raging about her silence on charters and her aide become part of the very public story? Oh to be a fly on the wall!
Do you know the names of the staff who are part of the Gates-funded (Aspen) Senior Congressional Education Staff Network, an organization created as a “safe space” for policy development?
Is there a master list of former TFA’ers who are serving as legislative aides?
If so, is Leah Hill, aide to Ohio Democratic Senator, Sherrod Brown, on the list with Sen. Warren’s advisor?
The President who is elected in 2020 needs to conduct information sessions or ethics training for the Federal Reserve. Last week, in a 60 Minutes interview, the Fed Chair identified two threats to economic expansion and neither was concentrated wealth. The Fed Chair deliberately lied by omission, his comments were edited or, he is so cloistered in experience that he doesn’t know median family income is less than $60,000, medical costs average $28,000 and, workers are sliding backwards in purchasing power.
This appears to be a reckless slander.
For some reason women who stand in the way of Bernie’s ambitions
tend to attract such attacks.
What’s your excuse for publishing it?
You seem to be more in need of making an explanation
than is Elizabeth Warren.
https://lithub.com/rebecca-solnit-how-internet-insinuation-becomes-campaign-fact/
There was no slander. The teacher in question worked at a non-union charter school for five years. She was a policy fellow for GO public, a charter promoting organization. She was then at the Walton-Gates-Bloomberg funded SURGE institute.
Click to access Sonya-Mehta-Bio.pdf
https://www.surgeinstitute.org/donor-listing/
Solnit owes me an apology.
Mark A.R. Kleiman, please read the last line of the post above:
“When we hear from Warren, it will no longer matter who introduces her..”
Sen. Warren should simply clarify her position on charters immediately. That’s an easy fix unless she is unwilling to criticize the non-profit charters who specializing in excluding students but insist that they welcome all students.
I read Rebecca Solnit’s article and she seems to be fairly ignorant about education reform issues as you also seem to be. Solnit writes:
“In my own dreams of educational reform, there’s a curriculum focused on how to research anything and check everything, how to understand what is and isn’t substantiated by the facts, when you do and don’t have the evidence to draw a conclusion, and how to live with the uncertainty and mystery that abound in all of us”.
In fact, education reform thrives on people supporting it who don’t know anything about checking facts, researching, and statistics. They fall for ridiculously flawed studies that would never hold up under real peer review.
I have read some of your work, and you generally don’t fall for those kinds of flawed studies. Unfortunately, those of us who support public education — and by that I mean public schools, not “public charters” — have seen many people who do.
I don’t know if Elizabeth Warren is one of those people falling for the propaganda, but she should be clarifying her position here.
I believe if Warren does her own research, and realizes that using public money and giving it to private operators who have no oversight by the community who is forced to financially support their charters, she would recognize the problems with all charters and support the NAACP’s moratorium.
But until Warren clarifies her position, it is absolutely correct to criticize it.
I don’t believe in making unwarranted character attacks on Warren and there are many good things about her. But she may be wrong on charters and she should clarify her position so voters know if she is wrong on this issue or right.
And these kinds of posts are the way to get politicians to let voters know exactly where they stand instead of having to interpret the signals they give because they don’t want to take a strong position either way.
First, slander is spoken, so I think you mean libel.
Second, for something to be libel, it must be untrue and it must damage the person’s reputation.
What is untrue about what Diane has written about Mehta?
If Mehta believes being associated with charter schools has somehow damaged her reputation, then perhaps she should not have worked as a charter school teacher and have served as a Fellow in a charter supporting organization.
That may indeed have damaged her reputation (probably did), but it’s not untrue.
So she was probably damaged by a true statement, but she was not libeled.
Finally, the statement that Solnit is clueless about this issue is also not untrue (as demonstrated by her piece) so not libel.
Diane Ravitch has been VERY clear about her position with regard to the candidacy of Senator Warren. Here is what she said earlier on this very page:
“I admire Elizabeth Warren. I am eager for her to state her views about privatization (including private charters, whether for-profit or nonprofit) and testing.”
I am a HUGE fan of Senator Warren and think that she would be an outstanding president of the United States. It would not surprise me at all if Dr. Ravitch feels the same way. However, she wants Senator Warren to take a clear, unequivocal position in support of public schools and in opposition to siphoning off public-school funds to support charters. I agree with this position whole-heartedly, and I am a Warren supporter. I would LOVE to see a Sanders/Warren 2020 ticket and a call in their platform for a moratorium on charter expansion and clear rules for preventing the graft and fraud that has been so rife in charter operations.
Mark,
I’m puzzled. In general terms, If people are proud to be part of TFA, why are they leaving it off their bio’s? If they get financing from John Arnold, why are they so reluctant to identify it? If they are “fellows” of Gates-funded ed organizations or, one of his Impatient Optimists, why are they selective in using the “honor” as a credential?
In contrast, Diane Ravitch’s team shouts it out from the highest rafters.
It’s wild to see such an explosive pile-on in response to this tenuous speculation. Would it kill you to ask the Warren campaign about it before going off? She’s pro union and has promised to put a public school teacher in her cabinet if elected. I think she deserves at least a chance to speak for herself before all this vitriol is poured on her.
We are eager for Senator Warren to announce her position re charters (not just “for-profit”) and TFA.
Does she support the NAACP-Black Lives Matter call for a moratorium on new charters?
I hope so!
It’s obvious that this post came from a place of deep dislike of Sen. Warren and desire to do her campaign as much damage as possible; otherwise the query could have been made privately.
The question is why?
Mr. Kleinman,
I have no dislike for Senator Warren. I attended a private party for her a few months ago in Manhattan. I have contributed to her campaign, along with a few others. I count myself an admirer.
I would like to know her views on charters, testing, and TFA.
Mr. Kleinman, I think you have confused the word dislike for disappointment. I don’t think anyone commenting on this blog dislikes Senator Warren, but it was such a surprise (and disappointment) that she “seems to be” cozying up to the people who are responsible for the mess that public education has become. We all want Senator Warren to publicly state her views on public education and Charter Schools….. the same as Bernie Sanders has done. That’s all anyone is asking of her.
If anyone did Senator Warren’s campaign damage it was the person within Senator Warren’s campaign who chose Mehta to introduce Warren.
That is where Senator Warren should look to remedy the situation.
Senator Warren has a damaging “agent” within her midst and until she deals with that, I suspect the “agent” is going to continue to cause her problems.
She might want to nip it (him or her) in the bud.
Who does she consider a public school teacher? A TFA intern at a nonprofit charter? We don’t know, and that is important even though she is pro-union. She, herself, apparently spent her short public school teaching stint on emergency credentials. Being in a union is great, but that doesn’t negate the need for professional training.
tHANKS SO MUCH FOR THIS!! wARREN just has too much baggage to be viable; despite her espousing and articulating a good many correct stances, she was a previous conservative and if she were to run against Trump, she owuld be made mincemeat of by his continually calling her Pochahantas–I hope you will cointnue to post about what the response of her campaign is and THANKS SO MUCH again for uncovering this and publicizing it–I live in CA , though in LA, and heard nothing til a frined sent me your artilce
It infuriates me to hear our racist president use this term. Here, a poem I wrote on the subject:
To the Honorable Elizabeth A. Warren
You are what you pretend to be,
so be careful what you pretend to be.
–Kurt Vonnegut
It was a story
passed down in her family,
how many years ago
some opposed the marriage
of their son to the woman
who was part Indian,
and the story resonated with her,
became part of her identity,
something of which she was
justly proud,
this defiance of injustice
and bloody clannishness.
This too, is a heritage,
more real,
than any imagined
bloodline.
We are not just flesh.
We are also
the stories we tell ourselves
about ourselves,
what we chose to remember,
some of it, even, true,
for memory, EVERY time,
is a reconstruction,
a confabulation,
a just-so story.
“Find yourself,”
the hippies used to say,
as though you were a lost sock
waiting to be found.
“You are not a lost sock,”
I say to people:
The self is self-created.
Authenticity is truth
to what you would be:
The Gods themselves
are dreams of what we could be
if we were true enough
to our vision
of what we might be.
Shame upon any
who would reject
on so shallow a basis
as imagined “race”
one who would call him
brother.
If it weren’t for the racism, the Pocahontas thing would be funny given Trump’s claims that his father was born in Germany.
Trump used to claim that he was Swedish. He denied his German heritage.
Ha! Yes! I had forgotten that. All part of his neo-Nazi “good genes” bit.
Just to clarify what I meant by that: IQ45 has long espoused a theory that he and his family have been so successful because they have such “great genes.” He calls this his “racehorse theory” of “winners and losers.” And so, it is not surprising that he would become the owner of a beauty pageant, which treats women as objects to be judged and ranked according to their physical features. Swedish, German, whatever–Trump obviously believes that Northern European and white = superior. It’s no accident that he is a big hero to the skinhead neo-Nazi types.
“In the U.S. population, about 14.5% of all men are six feet or over. Among CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, that number is 58%.” –The Economic Times
When will people in the U.S. grow up and stop looking for their leaders to be Daddy?
I’m sick of women in politics being attacked for what they wear and for having shrill voices and “being emotional” and other such utter nonsense. My take: men have pretty much FUBAR’d government for millennia now. It’s time to give women a crack at it. They can’t do any worse. Increasingly, I think, young people aren’t seeing gender in their political choices. That’s a very good thing.
So Sanders fans are willing
to go all-in on Donald Trump’s racism?
Good to know.
Mark,
I am not a “fan” of any candidate. As I have stated repeatedly, I will support any Democratic who is running against Trump. I believe that is true for almost every reader of this blog.
I was reacting to “ruth”‘s adoption of Trump’s Pocahontas smear.
Is that a comment that really belongs on this site?
If your intention was to clarify Warren’s position on charters,
why not write her directly and privately,
rather than starting out with a public accusation
that has already gone viral
and can’t be recalled no matter what position she takes?
Dunno about you, but that’s the way I treat enemies, not potential allies.
Elizabeth Warren has shown herself very capable of answering tough questions. She has done so on numerous occasions. Your attack on this blog does her no favors. Diane is quite liberal in what she allows to be posted as you can see since she has allowed you to post. Rather than attacking, why not tell us why you think we should support Warren’s education policies. Keep in mind that we define public schools as those that are under democratic governance of the communities they serve tasked with the job of educating all children within their communities.
So Sanders fans are willing
to go all-in on Donald Trump’s racism?
That is one of the most bizarre statements I’ve ever read. OBVIOUSLY not. Why would you even say such a thing, Mr. Kleiman? I, for one, would LOVE to see a Warren/Sanders or Sanders/Warren ticket in 2020 and would enthusiastically support either.
Go away. If you are truly a Warren supporter, you are doing her no favor.
Happy to go away if my views conflict with the locally enforced groupthink.
As it happens, I’m an admirer of Warren but not, or not yet, an active supporter. (I’m still hoping for Stacey Abrams to enter the race.) I’m merely an opponent of heresy-hunting and demands for recantation on fairly obscure ideological points. If Warren agrees with what Diane Ravitch used to think about charters rather than what she thinks now, that a deal-breaker for me.
Mark,
ruth is a troll. What does that troll have to do with what Diane Ravitch posted?
Why should anyone have to write “privately” to Sen. Warren. Warren is a very capable woman who can speak for herself and clarify her position.
I wonder if you are actually a fan of the ed reform movement and that’s why you are completely mischaracterizing what Diane Ravitch is saying.
There is no need for your kind of dishonesty on here. And calling “ruth” a “Sanders fan” is giving a troll credibility. “ruth” should be ignored and you should continue to respond to what Diane Ravitch herself posted — which you now seem unable to criticize — instead of looking for some low hanging fruit to attack like “ruth”. (You’ll notice that many people already called that out).
Simple question: why isn’t Sen. Warren simply clarifying her position on charters? If she believes in them, she should say so and she can lose the support not of teachers but of parents who care about what charters are doing to the public schools in America with their blatant dishonesty.
Mark,
Sen. Warren either agrees with the NAACP, ACLU, BLM and SPLC, in their rejection of Georgia Gov.Talmadge’s vision for privatized public education or, she doesn’t.
Since she stood with Mass. teachers in opposing Issue 2, I conclude she is knowledgeable and, is reluctant to clarify her position for national dissemination. The question is why?
Mark A. R Kleiman,
There is no “groupthink” here. I fear you are guilty of that yourself — you read Rebecca Solnit’s article and a post by an obvious troll and you decided to condemn Diane Ravitch for something she didn’t even do.
An apology would be in order. You took a single post by a troll and made an insulting claim of “group think”. Which you should be especially ashamed of given the number of people here who called out that post by “ruth” and did not let it stand.
You got it wrong because you jumped to make conclusions despite all the many times Diane Ravitch talked about her admiration for Warren but her concern about Warren’s position on charters.
You posted: “I’m merely an opponent of heresy-hunting and demands for recantation on fairly obscure ideological points.”
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Diane Ravitch never asked Warren to “recant” so why lie about that? She wants Warren to clarify her position because there is no “obscure ideological point” involved. The issue is support for charter schools and not trying to fudge the issue by supporting “public schools” but including non-profit charters run by private entities in that definition of “public school”.
Whoa! This post is not an attack on Warren. It is an expression from educators that Warren make her views clear on charters. Many of us are quite impressed by her stances in other areas in which she is more knowledgeable.
Stop giving the Pocahontas story new life. I, too, have a family story of native American ancestry. I am proud of it although it is possibly apocryphal, contrary to Warren’s story. I am sure many others have similar stories. If you have read anywhere near a full account of the whole affair, you would not be repeating it.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
FYI, I suspect “ruth” is a right wing troll pretending to support Bernie while attacking Warren. You can always tell a right wing troll by the many intentional misleading comments (or lies) in their posts:
“she was a previous conservative” (troll tip: always try to mischaracterize a democrat as untrustworthy with innuendo implying that nothing she says about being progressive can be believed as she is really a (insert whatever you think will help sway your target voter — in this case “conservative” but also “corrupt” “dishonest” “liar” also works)
“she would be made mincemeat of by his continually calling her Pochahantas” (troll tip: always allude to a nasty attack that right winger make and repeat that nasty attack while pretending it isn’t you who believes it )