Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education, watched the Senate confirmation hearings of Miguel Cardona for Secretary of Education. She was delighted to hear his responses on issues that matter to friends of the public schools.
She wrote for this blog:
On February 3, I tuned in and listened to Dr. Miguel Cardona’s confirmation hearing for Secretary of Education. I was anxious to hear his response to questions about school choice, integration, equity, testing, and schools’ reopening.
I was curious to see if Dr. Cardona would, like his three predecessors, Duncan, King, and De Vos, carry the banner for charter schools and seek to expand the Federal Charter Schools Program. Was he someone who believed that setting schools in the arena to compete benefits students? Does he prefer the private governance of schools?
The first question on school choice was asked by Republican Tim Scott of South Carolina, who voiced his support for all manner of school choice.
Cardona had a practiced response. He did not mention vouchers. He gave the nod to charters saying that some are excellent, which is true. But then the incoming Secretary signaled where he would put his time and treasure.
“Most parents want to send their children to their neighborhood school. It is important to support all schools, including the neighborhood schools that are usually the first choice for families in that community.”
That statement gives me hope. Cardona did not fall into the trap of using the term “traditional public schools,” a term coined by the charter community.
“Traditional public schools” is and was always meant to be a disparaging term. Cardona’s innovative elementary school was not “traditional.” The high school I led that had an enriched, challenging curriculum for all where support and racial integration of classrooms and activities were the highest priority was not “traditional.”
Cardona deliberately chose the term–“neighborhood” to describe public schools. Unlike his predecessors he did not use “traditional” to distinguish them from charters. And he stated that they are, as our friends at Journey for Justice remind us, “usually the first choice for families in that community.”
If the listener did not understand what he meant by “neighborhood schools,” he clarified the term later.
He used the term “public,” then corrects himself, saying that charters are public schools (they are legally defined as such in his state). He then talks about the need to support neighborhood schools. He says, “Our neighborhood schools need to be schools where we want to send our children, and he calls neighborhood schools “the bedrock of our country.” Wow.
No person who has spent their life in public schools, especially in leadership, is universally liked. Miguel Cardona has his critics. But as I listened to Miguel Cardona, I was filled with hope. He is devoid of Duncan’s folksy goofiness, the arrogance of King, and the burning hatred of all things public of De Vos.
Miguel Cardona is a public school guy. He chose to spend his life walking among children in public school halls. He knows the road he is traveling, and the stars that guide his way will not be charter schools, vouchers, or billionaire reformers.
Let’s hope
Actions speak louder than words. If Dr. Cardona supports neighborhood schools, then he should eliminate the federal slush fund that incentivizes the proliferation of unaccountable charter schools at the expense of community neighborhood schools. Likewise, he should cut the tax credits and incentives that encourage wealthy individuals to create private charter schools that harm neighborhood schools. Since there is zero evidence that charters offer a superior education, why has the federal government been supporting programs that undermine neighborhood schools? If wealthy individuals want to create new schools for needy students, they should have pay them instead forcing the public to pay for unaccountable private charter schools without any input from a public vote? The current way in which most new private charters are authorized is almost always by politicians imposing a top down decision without public input.
I agree with Bob … “Let’s hope.”
The change on the US Department of Ed social media accounts is interesting. Gone are the marketing and promotion of charter and private schools and public school bashing, replaced by straight information from the various federal agencies and entities- studies, stats, etc.
It’s like reading an actual, unbiased federal agency instead of a wholly owned subsidiary of the Walton, Broad and Gates Foundations.
Chiara, the change in the US ED website from propaganda for privatization to straightforward information is a welcome change!
Diane and Chiara: “It’s like reading an actual, unbiased federal agency instead of a wholly owned subsidiary of the Walton, Broad and Gates Foundations.”
In my view, unless the powers-that-be understand FULLY the intention of (what I would call) bad actors in the privatization movement, and of the dangers of over-privatization itself as a sustained structural attack on the whole idea of democracy, they will not be able to keep the whole thing strong. The reformers will distract, gild, and increment public education to death. CBK
The “reformers” are inserting themselves into appointments as “deputy assistant secretaries” even before their boss (the Assustant Secretary) has been named. One from New York advocates for high-stakes testing; two others come right from the Gates Foundation.
Diane Yes . . . reformer foxes in the public-education chicken-house. He has to be REALLY conscious and incisive in his thinking about the difference between public and private, . . . enough to recognize, from the get-go, reformers’ slippery-slimy distortion of common language, their contempt for public schools, and the “come hither my pretty” meaning of their offers of help and ideas about “educational resources.” CBK
OTOH, [re: he must do this & should be incisive on that etc]– let’s watch and wait. I dug into everything I could find on him in his CT career. There’s a lot to be said for someone who mm-hms & nods to the ed-reformers, but puts all his focus & weight into the “neighborhood” schools, ironing out issues through constant kibbitzing with all their stakeholders, diverting $ toward teacher support and poorest schools’ needs, & doing end-runs around the worst aspects of fed/state-imposed accountability systems. Makes me think he can hold his own over any foxes that sneak into the dept.
I saw just a small chunk of his testimony today & was pleased to hear his vision for post-covid ed: a strong statement for public schools as neighborhood hubs of social wrap-around services.
I won’t get this but I wish the US Department of Education would just do one or two or three large infrastructure type projects for public education, with an (obvious) focus on the most underserved students. Start and finish one or two or three and do them really well.
No one in the public asked them to “reinvent education”. They’re bad at it. What about just assisting public schools with some basic needs, nationally? That seems sensible and doable, right?
Too boring, perhaps. Not “disruptive” enough.
Anyway. It IS nice to no longer be paying thousands of federal employees for their work bashing and denigrating public schools. Not sure THAT was a good public investment. Seems like the private sector funds plenty of public school bashing. I don’t know why the public would be funding the same people and entities.
its sad that our bar for acceptability has to be lowered to supporting neighborhood public schools. our new secretary should have been an opponent of standardized testing and a thoughtful critic of common core.
I wonder what his reaction was to Diane’s Washington Post statement on standardized testing?
If he’s thoughtful and reflective, he may well now be an opponent of standardized testing and a critic of common core.
I don’t know if he read it.
I can appreciate the tone of Ms. Burris on the terminology used Mr. Cardona at his recent hearings. BUT, in communities such as Oakland (CA) where the neighborhood schools – ie the original public schools – have been closed (by reformists Board of Ed), and replaced with charter schools in the same buildings, poorly run, excluding and sifting through populations and raking money over fist from various reformist groups, and PPP. His message is diluted in this context, because there is no other truly public choice in their neighborhood except for charter schools. So, to be fair, I’m encouraged by the choice of language, but I’m also very cautious.
Let’s hope he is and only time will tell.
The proof will be in the pudding and it has just been placed in the oven.
Carol: “Cardona did not fall into the trap of using the term “traditional public schools,” a term coined by the charter community.”
Good deal! Because…
Moreover, speaking of Atlanta public schools as “traditional schools,” as does the Superintendent, disparages Atlanta public schools and so encourages the public and others to think of public schools as being outmoded and dated and less worthy and less desirable than charter schools and partner schools marketed to the public as “schools of innovation” only because such schools are owned and/or operated by private businesses.
This from my https://mailchi.mp/a8ba9d637b50/three-basic-types-of-school-in-atlanta-public-schools-and-chuck-yeager
Ed Johnson AND Bob Shepherd It seems that, to reformers, everything is code for some nefarious other thing. Like Trump, they have a penchant for hijacking concepts used by more straightforward (not double-speaking) legislators, administrators, and teachers. for instance, a parent might think. What possibly could be wrong with “traditional schools”? And like Trump, reformers can be completely logical, but also completely unattached to reality, . . .
For instance, “traditional” and “socialist.” Their high-jacking of such terms comes with a new conversational requirement: to be sure speakers define what WE/THEY mean by those terms. CBK
Thank you Carol for being an attentive and well-informed listener and summarizing your impressions for NPE.