In what has to be the worst, most unbalanced article about education in all of 2023, Politico urged Democrats to act like Republicans and promote school choice.
Politico’s education writer, Juan Perez Jr., interviewed Democrats who are well known as advocates for charter schools as proof that Democrats must support choice policies.
He begins:
MINNEAPOLIS — President Joe Biden’s education chief believes public schools are facing a “make or break moment.” The rescue plan coming from some Democrats, however, rings of policies that have already landed wins for conservatives.
Political skirmishes over classrooms have left Democrats underwater, or dead even, with Republicans among voters in a clutch of battleground states. And as they worried their party has not honed a strategy to reverse declining test scores, enrollment and trust in public schools, liberals watched Republican governors sign historic private school choice laws this year.
The GOP wins and a generational crisis in schooling has convinced some Democrats that the Biden administration needs to promote a liberal version of public school choice in the 2024 campaign, or risk losing votes.
“We’ve lost our advantage on education because I think that we’ve failed to fully acknowledge that choice resonates deeply with families and with voters,” said Jorge Elorza, the CEO of Democrats for Education Reform and its affiliate Education Reform Now think tank.
Please open the link. It doesn’t get any better. Not only does he quote DFER, the hedge managers group that does not support public schools, he also quotes Kerri Rodrigues of the “National Parents Union,” funded by the billionaire Waltons as a leader of the 2016 failed campaign to increase charters in Massachusetts.
Not exactly typical Democrats. More like charter advocates.
I sent Mr. Perez the following email:
Dear Mr. Perez,
I am writing to express my strong disagreement with your article today about Democrats and schools. Democrats will not improve their popularity by acting more like Republicans.
Republicans are on a mission to transfer public funds to nonpublic schools. Whenever vouchers have been put to a state referendum, they are defeated by large margins, as they were in Florida, Arizona, and Utah. The Republicans leaders of those states ignored the will of the voters and authorized vouchers.
In every state with vouchers, 70-80% are claimed by students who never attended public schools. Vouchers are a giveaway to families who already put their kids in private and religious schools.
Nearly 90% of the parents in this country send their children to public schools.
The most recent Gallup Poll showed that the overwhelming majority of parents are happy with their public schools.
For decades, Republicans have promoted school choice by attacking public schools.
The way forward for the Democratic Party is not to embrace GOP policies but to support the adequate and equitable funding of public schools and to stand against the privatization of public schools.
Volumes of research show that charter schools on average do no better than public schools, even though they admit whom they want and oust whoever has low scores or is disruptive. The Network for Public Education, in which I am involved, reports frequently on the high rates of closings by charter schools, as well as the scandals that occur almost daily due to embezzlement and other financial misdeeds.
Voucher students do not take state tests. Their schools are not accountable. Their teachers need not be certified. They may discriminate against students and families on grounds of religion, LGBT, or any other reason. They are not required to accept students with disabilities. Students who leave public schools for voucher schools typically fall behind their public school peers, and many drop out and return to public school.
Why in the world should Democrats support schools that are free to discriminate, free to hire uncertified and unqualified staff, managed by for-profit entities, and are not as successful as public schools?
That is bad political advice, which you got by interviewing people whose organizations advocate for charter schools (DFER and the so-called “National Parents Union”). The only pro-public school voices in your article were Randi Weingarten and Miguel Cardona, a union leader and the Secretary of Education.
Why didn’t you interview parents engaged in the fight to keep public education public? They are in every state, fighting billionaire-funded organizations like DFER and Moms for Liberty.
Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education, could introduce you to them. Why don’t you come to our 10th annual national conference, which will be held at the Capitol Hilton in DC on October 28-29. You would meet parents from every state who are working to preserve their public schools and keep them safe from entrepreneurs, grifters, corporate chains, and religious interests.
Diane Ravitch
You too can write him at jperez@politico.com.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Here’s something I can attest to. Check out this article in the San Jose Mercury News. The only way I kept art (and other essentials) going for my kids is paying for it myself and perfecting the art of “dumpster diving.”
Teachers in TN could rarely put together one lesson without mastering the art of dumpster diving and trash picking.
Who needs enemies when supposed friends-Perez, Cardona, Weingarten, do the dirty work for the edudeformers.
Is Politico writer Perez a “supposed friend”?
His article did seem quite naive, but all the quotes by Cardona and Weingarten seemed fine to me. (I am not a teacher, so I could be missing something.
Cardona in the article:
“If you erase the Department of Education or you fund private schools, what are you doing for the students that are in the local neighborhood school? I have yet to see a plan,” Cardona told POLITICO of conservative proposals while touring schools across the Midwest and Great Plains. “We have a plan.”
Yet despite the mileage the secretary is putting into classroom visits and urging party faithful to “get back on offense,” Cardona’s facing ALLIES who are clamoring for a more sweeping reinvention of public education and a more forceful response to schoolhouse culture wars.”
(I capitalized “allies” because in the next sentence Perez tries to tie Cardona and Keri Rodrigues as if they are “allies” when they are clearly not when it comes to school choice, and Perez quotes Keri being quite condescending to Cardona in a truly offensive way — she sounded more like a “frenemy” than an ally.)
More Cardona: “We shouldn’t be promoting private schools because our neighborhood schools are not making the grade,” Cardona said as he rolled from an exurban Minnesota technical college toward a city dual-language elementary school. “We should make sure we’re working to support our neighborhood schools to make the grade.”
And after education reform stenographer Perez presents privatization and vouchers as if they are wildly popular all over America, he then goes to quote Weingarten:
“After all, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said in an interview, an idea like building a massive regional career tech education center would require new inter-district student transfer policies.
“We should be engaged in a robust discussion about how we give kids those kinds of choices within a public system,” Weingarten said. Yet old debates are hard to quell, including unions’ differences with Democrats who want school models to embrace market-based principles.
“The obeisance to competition and to markets doesn’t work when you are talking about educating all children,” Weingarten said.”
But one thing is for sure — the support for charters doesn’t fall neatly into a progressive/conservative divide. Keri Rodrigues posted a photo on her twitter feed “Happy birthday to our friend, @AyannaPressley
— who also happens to be our Congresswoman. We love you. ❤️”
Ayanna Pressley is a progressive member of the squad.
And Pressley cares about public schools and education. So the issue of “friends” and “frenemies” and “enemies” is complicated, and needs a champion like AOC or Bernie who could explain it in a way that would help the public and reporters understand.
The reporter pitted faux parents/Democrats (on the billionaire dole) vs. publicly paid defenders of public schools. Not equivalent. And Cardona accepts the deformer claim about “failing” public schools, instead of talking about failing charters and voucher schools.
I think it is pretty clear that someone encouraged him to write that story and then fed him sources. Weak reporting. This is his email jperez@politico.com and his handle on twitter is @PerezJr and I would copy @politco.
“encouraged him” meaning “paid him”?
Thanks for that information!
I was curious which specialty news/spin/promotion/ideological, etc. outlets pick up articles by Perez. I stopped the process quickly because I Immediately found that The Catholic School Playbook posted one of his stories. The Playbook is funded by the Ortner Family Foundation.
The editor of the Catholic School Playbook site, Kimberly Begg, appeared in a Young America’s Foundation (Republican)You Tube video a couple of years ago. She was introduced in the segment by YAF’s Claire Henshaw, a grad of the conservative Franciscan University.
Ms. Begg is general counsel for the Ortner Family Foundation whose mission is, “to serve the Catholic Church.” The Foundation’s site posted a Pope’s quote, “Man cannot be fully understood without Christ.”
Given Trump’s latest attack against members in a non-Christian religious sect, one that he identified, are any alarm bells going off? Interestingly, the Republican candidate in the lead for Presidential nominee can criticize liberals in a non-Christian religious sect but, society can’t criticize conservatives in a sect that is Catholic. In the latter case, the criticism is described as anti-Catholic.
Btw- Trump gained the votes of 3% more White Catholics in 2020 than he had in 2016.
Did the raw number of people identifying as Catholic remain the same 2020 cf 2016?
Let me ask you a question, book lady.
Which of the following two views serve the purpose of defending public education better?
A person who reports evidence e.g. Akron Beacon Journal, “Whose choice? How school choice began in Ohio,” citations about the initiation and passage of school choice legislation in Florida and Indiana , the credentials of Catholic conference executives that include former employment with the Koch network and EdChoice, the research paper, “The new official contents of sex education in Mexico: laicism in the crosshairs”, Notre Dame’s professor who is the most influential scholar in advancing religious charter schools, etc. or, a commenter who nitpicks about absolute numbers?
If the point you are making is that there is minimal reason to be concerned about the exertion of right wing political power by the American Catholic Church, Pope Frances disagrees.
Permit me one follow-up question.
If your preference is a continued blackout of info. about the evident role that right wing Catholics have had in school choice then, kudos to you and to those who agree with you on your huge success.
DFER’s fingerprints are all over this story. Politico doesn’t actually report news. They are mouthpieces for insiders in DC attempting to shape public opinion.
Whenever Politico writes an article on “what Democrats should do…” I wonder who is floating this idea? And who is this message intended to reach?
Jcgrim: good points!
Since the advent of the Democratic Leadership Council and the presidency of Bill Clinton, leading Democrats have been pandering to conservative ideas in the vain hope of winning over folks in the “middle” who in the wake of civil rights legislation and the antiwar movement abandoned Democrats. Simultaneously, Democrats abandoned fighting for the needs and security of working people. Republicans made major investments in shifting public thinking toward a your’re on your own society. Dems acquiesced. Now Republicans dominate local, state, and national policy. Dem support for charter schools, testing, etc. is just one example. It’s a losing strategy for people and elections.
Just because voters cannot make up their minds between left and right (that is, they are confused), doesn’t mean politicians should be allowed to confuse the public.
No, politicians are the ones to show crystal clear ideas. Promoting privatization of public benefits or service belies a person who is confused about basic principles; these people cannot tell right from wrong.
Thank you for your work on behalf of public education and thanks to Carol Burris and NPE for their research and its dissemination. DFER has always represented the interests of its corporate funders. DFER would like nothing better than more unbridled choice as it would promote more corporate backed privatization. The states cited in the Politico article that have adopted vouchers, Arkansas, Iowa, Ohio and Florida, are no models of democratic education. They represent more reckless right wing privatization which continues to fail to deliver on its promises. With their relentless attacks on public education, all they have managed to accomplish is massive disruption with few success stories. They have caused more damage by diverting funds from the public schools that serve all students. We will never improve public schools by diverting funding to other unproven, private options whose main goal is profit. We will only continue to enhance segregation and widen the gap between the affluent and the poor.
Most public schools offer far more choice than a typical ‘one-size-fits-all’ charter or voucher school. As Sec. Cardona points out, many public systems already offer students options within the public system through magnet schools and the cooperative pooling of resources to offer advanced technological schools. Private schools cannot and will not cooperate to offer such programs to students. They only want to compete with another in the ‘marketplace.’ These magnet and consortium schools like all public schools offer students civil rights protections, and the teachers are certified and qualified to do their jobs, unlike many of those working in charter and voucher schools. To more forward in education in this country, we must reaffirm our commitment to quality public education.
It seems the Waltons have PR money to burn. Here’s a link to a “news”report that is a barely disguised opinion that charter schools will solve all of the problems in Massachusetts. It’s enraging in its falsities.
NAEP “proficient” as a proxy for academic performance by a school district.
Anecdote as data.
Reformsters: Paul Reville; MassINC; Jamie Gass; Pioneer Boston; Paul Toner, turncoat term-limited former president of the Massachusetts Teacher Association; Mary Tamer, head of DFER MA, appointed after dark money failed to secure her a seat on Boston’s City Council; CREDO.
Villains: The MTA, their president and vice president, (Actual quote: The spasm of disgust at Page’s Marxist diatribe…), past president Barbara Madeloni, the entirety of the Boston Public Schools.
The provocation? The recently approved ballot question for voters called the Thrive Act, ( https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3162 ) which would remove the requirement of a passing score on the MCAS in order to receive a high school diploma, end state takeovers and establish a commission to create an authentic system for assessment and accountability.
https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2023/09/06/teachers-unions-massachusetts/
On the newsstands, the cover headline is still worse: Are Teachers Unions Crushing Students?
(I’m not sure this photo will post properly.)
Screen Shot 2023-09-13 at 11.55.21 AM
Christine, good news about the THRIVE act.
Yes, it is! Many of the same coalitions which were successful in getting the millionaires tax – Fair Share Act – passed are also active in passing this.
Diane,
An absolutely brilliant letter. I hope Mr. Perez takes you up on the invitation – it could help him become really better at his job.
Thank, Don. He responded by thanking me for my letter. I hope that in the future he has a better understanding of the players and their funders.
Awesome, Diane!
So DFER is trying to tell California Governor Newsom to be like Florida Governor DeSantis. That’s just downright pathetic.
Oops, I forgot to mention that DFER is a bunch of frickin racists.
Sent an email. Thanks for the heads up, Diane. I expect much more than this from Politico.
The top two positions at Politico are held by Yale grads. The bio of one of them identifies K-12 at a private school costing $30-$40K a year. Perez wants his boss to get tax money for that private school if the boss’ kids gain entry through legacy admission?
Is Perez cut from the same cloth as Clarence Thomas who plots to pull up the ladder of success he climbed? Perez attended a public university. He’s smart enough to extrapolate from K-12 policy to higher education. I seriously doubt he is unaware that a major think tank proposed that public money intended for public universities be shared with private universities (btw- a major beneficiary would be Catholic universities). Can we assume in his advocacy for privatization that Perez rejects for others, the opportunity taxpayers sacrificed to give him- a place at a quality non-legacy admission school?
Diane’s letter is superb, both forceful and statesman-like.
Just as a qualifying note- is there a reason to assume that Perez is moved by evidence and/or commitment to democracy? If his motivation isn’t transparent, what might it be?