Archives for category: Education Reform

Please read this editorial, written by Kevin McDermott of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columnists/mcdermott-on-eve-of-midterms-trump-and-the-gop-have/article_d12a2f48-da76-5e6d-8cfa-54705e41f6e8.html


“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it.”

— George Orwell, “1984”

Leslie Stahl, the “60 Minutes” correspondent, said earlier this year that in 2016, she asked then-presidential candidate Donald Trump why he incessantly attacks the press. His response, she said, was: “‘I do it to discredit you all and demean you all, so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you.’” Which is about as credibly Trumpian an anecdote as you’ll ever hear.

Trump’s strategy from the start has been to obfuscate reality on issues big, small and even tiny. (Remember his insistent lies about the size of his inauguration audience?) With this counterfactual sabotage, he reduces the very concept of objective reality to just another opinion, so he can shout it down.

That’s why, in Tuesday’s midterm election, the various ballot choices facing American voters won’t just be about this candidate versus that one. On issues ranging from the economy to health care to immigration to our own recent political history, it will be about what Trump’s own counselor Kellyanne Conway dubbed “alternative facts,” versus … well, the real ones.

In Orwell’s “1984,” the point of making people believe meaningless little lies — like two plus two equaling five — was to prime them for the bigger lies that were necessary for the “Party” to hold power. The goal, Orwell wrote, was to deny “the very existence of external reality,” so reality would become whatever they say it is.

Our political life has been imitating art on that front lately. Reminding ourselves of simple facts is an important touchstone to reality. So let’s do that:

• There is no 10 percent middle class tax cut that Trump is planning to imminently pass. His own party doesn’t even know what he’s talking about. He’s just making that up.

• The president cannot repeal the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship by just signing a decree like some petulant boy-king. The Constitution doesn’t work that way.

• The big scary “caravan” that Trump and his Ministry of Propaganda — also known as Fox News — say is threatening to flood over America’s southern border like invading Huns is, in fact, a shrinking group of desperately impoverished families stumbling along at a rate that won’t put them at our border for weeks, if at all. There is no leprosy; there are no Muslim-terrorist infiltrators. These are election-driven lies, on a foundation of bigotry.

• The Republican Party has spent the past decade trying to yank insurance coverage for pre-existing medical conditions away from millions of Americans. Contrary to their desperate pre-election claims, they aren’t now suddenly trying to protect that coverage. All indications are that they’re still planning to yank it away from millions of Americans if they’re re-elected.

• The economy wasn’t failing when Trump took office; he and the Republican Congress didn’t “turn it around.” The economy was, in fact, failing when Barack Obama took office eight years earlier, and he did turn it around. Trump inherited a growing economy that has continued to grow on his watch. Every time he describes this continuation as a U-turn, he’s lying.

• Trump — who has implored voters to view the midterms as a referendum on him — received approximately 2.8 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton in 2016. By a margin comparable to the population of Chicago, Americans wanted a different president. Two years later, polls show a majority still does.

• Trump’s self-serving delusions notwithstanding, “voter fraud” played no role whatsoever in his loss of the 2016 popular vote. Similarly, the new Voter ID law that threatens to cause such confusion among Missouri voters on Tuesday was unnecessary from any standpoint but a cynical partisan one. The entire “voter fraud” issue is a GOP concoction.

If Republicans lose ground Tuesday, it will be because Americans voted in numbers sufficient to overcome gerrymandering and voter suppression, and not because of some scheme involving brown-skinned people and “voter fraud.”

The chance that Trump would graciously accept such a loss is virtually nil. This is a man who felt compelled to lie about the results of even an election that he won. Americans need to be prepared for the real possibility that a sitting president will attempt to delegitimize or even nullify the results of valid elections all over the country.

The chance that our current Congress would prevent such an egregious abuse of power is, again, virtually nil. Congressional Republicans long ago made clear they’re willing to let this president run roughshod over our core institutions, our political norms and the Constitution itself in exchange for tax cuts and judges. Only an overwhelming repudiation of Trumpism at the polls will stop it.

And one more thing:

• Two plus two equals four.

Vote Tuesday.

Kevin McDermott is a member of the Post-Dispatch Editorial Board.

During this past two decades of “reform,” there has been a concerted effort to minimize or eliminate democratic control of public schools. Egged on by No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, states and districts initiated state takeovers of entire school districts, which typically failed, and mayoral control, which substituted the singular judgment of the mayor for elected school boards. John Chubb and Terry Moe wrote a book in 1990, “Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools,” in which they argued that school choice was a panacea, and that democracy was the most essential obstacle to achieving that nirvana.

In this article, posted at Valerie Strauss’s “Answer Sheet,” Carol Burris and I argue that governance matters, and that democratic governance is a fundamental tenet of public education.

We have learned from the repeated errors of state takeovers and mayoral control, as well as charter school failures and voucher scams, that democratic accountability is essential to public education. The schools belong to the public, and they must not be handed off to grifters, celebrities, religious groups, or corporate charter chains.

Governance matters.

This is our article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/11/04/why-it-matters-who-governs-americas-public-schools/

Susan Edelman of the New York Post reports that the NYC DOE is under investigation by federal and state officials for giving personal information about students to a marketing firm hired by charter schools.

https://nypost.com/2018/11/04/department-of-education-probed-for-pitching-charters-to-public-school-kids/

Wait! What about the long waiting lists?!

She writes:

“The city Department of Education reduces its enrollment by giving student names and addresses to a private vendor that produces mass mailings to help charter schools woo families.

“The longtime marketing practice has now come under investigation by state and federal officials after a Manhattan mom complained it violates student privacy rights.

“Each year my family receives a large number of pamphlets and flyers from charter schools, promoting and marketing their schools and urging me to apply, ” Johanna Garcia wrote to state and US officials.

“While Garcia has three kids in public schools, flyers have targeted her daughter who qualified for a gifted and talented program, she wrote, but not two other children with special needs.

“The DOE says it gives only student names, grade levels and addresses to Vanguard Direct, a bulk-mailing company, and forbids the company to share the data with anyone else.

“Charter schools — which are privately run but get taxpayer funds based on enrollment — hire Vanguard to send out hundreds of thousands of marketing materials aimed at recruiting kids.

“Major customers include charter chains Success Academy, Uncommon, KIPP, and Achievement First, said DOE spokesman Douglas Cohen. The DOE receives no payment from Vanguard, he said.

“In response to Garcia’s complaint, the New York state and US education departments said they are probing whether the marketing deal violates FERPA — a federal law which requires schools to get parent permission before releasing student information, except in limited cases.

“But Leonie Haimson, co-chair of the national Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, said the reasoning makes no sense: “School districts lose funding and space when students enroll in charters. Why would the DOE use its own employees for that purpose?”

“Garcia agreed. “Vanguard makes money. Charter schools make money. All on the backs of regular public-school students.”

“The practice began more than a decade ago under ex-Mayor Mike Bloomberg, when Success Academy CEO Eva Moskowitz said she needed the DOE data to market her charter schools. It has continued despite Mayor de Blasio’s less-friendly relationship with charters.

“Chancellor Richard Carranza told a town hall meeting in Harlem last week that DOE schools should better market themselves to stem the rise of charter schools, Patch.com reported.

“But charter schools say they rely on the mailings to fill seats.”

This story in the New York Times by veteran education writer Dana Goldstein describes the peculiar situation in Arizona, where everyone claims to support public education even if they don’t.

Even Governor Doug Ducey, the nemesis of public schools, is boasting about his thin education record.


PHOENIX — Campaign signs are clustered on street corners and highway ramps across this low-slung, sun-baked city, proclaiming “#YesforEd” and “Protect Public Education.” In TV commercials, the Republican governor promises to “put more money in the classroom, not bureaucracy.” “Our schools are falling apart,” his Democratic challenger counters.

Six months after tens of thousands of red-clad teachers swarmed the Arizona Capitol in a weeklong walkout, demanding higher pay and more funding for schools, education is a dominant issue in the state’s elections next month.

The teachers’ protest movement, which calls itself #RedforEd, has transformed the political battleground. The movement remains so popular in Arizona that candidates and causes across the ideological spectrum are competing to identify with it — including conservatives who, in years past, might have been more likely to criticize teachers or unions than associate with activist educators.

That has left some Democrats — teachers’ traditional allies — scrambling to differentiate themselves.

It is a pattern that has played out in several states where teachers have walked off the job this year, including Oklahoma, West Virginia and Kentucky. The teachers’ movement has energized Democrats in red states, with record numbers of educators running for office. But it may have had an even greater impact on Republican politics. In primaries, it has picked off Republican legislators who opposed funding for teachers and schools. And it has convinced conservative leaders that voters, particularly suburban parents, are looking for full-throated support, and open pocketbooks, for public education.

In Arizona, which has some of the lowest school funding in the nation, nowhere are these issues more prominent than in the governor’s race. Both candidates have claimed the mantle of education champion.

“I’m the one who’s been on the side of the teacher,” Gov. Doug Ducey, the Republican incumbent, said in an interview at his campaign headquarters last week.

Before his state’s teachers threatened to walk out, Mr. Ducey had offered them a 1 percent raise. But under pressure from the #RedforEd movement, he eventually proposed and signed a bill promising a 20 percent pay hike by 2020.

Teachers have already seen some of that money in their paychecks. And even before the walkout, Mr. Ducey had signed several other bills that provided new money for schools. Still, overall education funding, adjusted for inflation, remains significantly below the pre-recession levels of a decade ago. Parents and teachers say they can see the difference through aging textbooks, staff shortages and fewer electives and field trips.

The governor, the former chief executive of the ice cream franchise Cold Stone Creamery, argues that a growing economy will ensure that schools funding and teacher pay will continue to rise. He also says that if re-elected, he will seek to cut taxes — a pledge that leaves some educators skeptical they will see all the funding they have been promised.

Mr. Ducey’s challenger, David Garcia, a professor of education at Arizona State University, has a radically different vision.

Mr. Garcia strongly supported the walkout and a ballot initiative effort that grew out of it, called InvestinEd, which would have funded schools by raising income taxes on individuals and households earning more than $250,000. The State Supreme Court struck InvestinEd from the ballot in August, citing technical questions about the proposal’s wording.

Mr. Garcia says that if he is elected, he will push to close corporate tax loopholes, end tax credits for private school tuition and revisit the effort to raise taxes on the wealthy, perhaps through a new ballot initiative.

Those are fighting words in a state where libertarianism runs deep, and where a decades-long tradition of cutting taxes has maintained some of the lowest corporate and personal income taxes in the nation. (Arizona relies in part on sales taxes for funding schools.)

But Mr. Garcia is betting that concern about public education among women, younger voters and Latinos — including many who are newly registered, or do not typically turn out for midterm elections — can carry him. He says those voters are not being reached by pollsters, who have him trailing Mr. Ducey….

Mr. Garcia is an unusual candidate in Arizona. He is an Army veteran with a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago and an expert on the huge troves of data that have transformed education research over the past two decades.

He used some of that data to create the state’s first school rating and accountability systems when he worked for the state Education Department in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In that role, he sometimes butted heads with teachers’ union leaders, who at the time were skeptical of using student data to judge schools, he said.

Nevertheless, the state’s largest teachers’ union, the Arizona Education Association, has enthusiastically endorsed him this year.

Mr. Garcia sometimes sounds more like Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont than the centrist Democrats more typical in Arizona, like Kyrsten Sinema, the Senate candidate, who has not endorsed him.

NPE Action has endorsed Garcia over Ducey, because Ducey is a pro-voucher libertarian who has done his best to 7ndermine public education. We have qualms about his infatuation with data and his admiration for charter schools, but support him because of his opposition to vouchers, his determination to fund public schools, and his commitment to clean up Arizona’s charter swamp of self-dealing and corruption.

Deborah Meier commented that Trump doesn’t like losers. Winners don’t get caught. So, she suggested, he cannot like Jesus Christ, who got caught and gave up his life for others.

Our blog poet writes:

Jesus Christ was a loser

Jesus Christ was a loser
Winners don’t get caught
Should have been an abuser
That’s what Pontius taught

Jeff Bryant describes the brave teachers who decided to fight the Koch brothers’ plan to introduce universal vouchers in Arizona.

The rightwing strategy has been to take a bite, then another bite, than another bite, until every student is eligible for a voucher.

The teachers fought to get a referendum on the ballot on November 6. The Koch brothers sent their legal team to defeat the referendum and keep it off the ballot.

The teachers fought for a referendum called #InvestinED, to create a dedicated funding source for public schools. That referendum was knocked off the ballot for narrow technical reasons.

The schools in Arizona are underfunded. The vast majority of students attend public schools. The Koch brothers believe that no one should pay taxes, especially not billionaires like them.

VOTE NO ON PROP 305 to defeat vouchers.

Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) is an organization of faux Democrats. Some are Democrats, some are Republicans, all of them give generously to undermine public schools and the teaching profession.

D.C. parent blogger Valerie Jablow gives an overview of how DFER in pouring obscene sums of money into education races in D.C.

DFER was denounced formally by the Democratic party conventions in Colorado and California; both called on DFER to stop corrupting the term “Democrat” by using it in their title, since they are a front for Wall Street and corporate America.

She writes:

How much money have you–as a parent, teacher, or student in DC’s publicly funded schools–given to political causes around public education in 2018: $5? $50? $500? $5000?

How much money did your spouse/parents/children/relatives give?

How much money did any union at your public school give?

It is not easy to know all these answers–but chances are good the total is less than $522,393.74.

That amount–$522,393.74–is what I calculated was given between January 1, 2018 and October 26 to the independent expenditure committee (IEC) of the DC chapter of the education advocacy organization Democrats for Education Reform (DFER). If you add in what was given to DFER DC’s political action committee (PAC) in the same time–about $7,400–you get almost $530,000 donated in just 10 months in the name of education reform in DC. Most of those 2018 donors appear to be outside DC.

Some familiar names appear, like the Waltons (of course) and Reed Hastings’ wife, who lives in California. The Waltons were the single biggest funder of charter schools in D.C. The Waltons own Walmart, which does not pay its workers a living wage. I seriously doubt that they are Democrats.

After listing the donors and recipients of DFER money (which does not add up to over $500,000), Jablow writes:

If wealthy people giving to a cause to tilt public education away from the public seems deeply undemocratic, it’s helpful to recall two recent, undemocratic, actions in our public schools:

–No DC citizen voted to have charter schools in our city. While many DC families are happy with their charter school(s) and appreciate the horizons these schools have opened, it is well worth recalling that we did not get charter schools because of popular will or votes. We got them because Congress–a body in which no DC citizen has representation equal to that of the rest of the country–said we had to. (And charmingly decreed that we had to pay for them, too.)

–No unelected DC citizen voted for mayoral control of DCPS. (In fact, there were only 9 people in the entire world who voted for mayoral control of DCPS. They were all members of the city council.)

Through this lens, one could construe DFER DC’s 2018 wealth gathering and deployment not merely as success, but custom!

Too bad for taxpayers and democracy.

John Thompson, retired teacher and historian in Oklahoma, shares his thoughts about the Network for Public Education Conference in Indianapolis. He begins by trying to wrap his brain around my provocative claim that “We are winning.” After I received his post, I explained to him that everything the Reformers have tried has failed. Every promise they have made has been broken. They have run American education for a decade or a generation, depending on when you start counting, and they have nothing to show for it. I contend there is no “reform movement.” There is instead a significant number of incredibly rich men and women playing with the lives of others. The Billionaire Boys Club, plus Alice Walton, Laurene Powell Jobs, and a few other women. This is no social movement. A genuine movement has grassroots. The Reformers have none; they have only paid staff. If the money dried up, the “reform movement” would disappear. It has no troops. None. Genuine movements are built by dedicated, passionate volunteers. That’s what we have.

Thompson writes:


The Network for Public Education’s fifth annual conference was awesome. It will take me awhile to wrestle with the information about the “David versus Goliath” battle which is leading to the defeat of corporate school reform. But I will start by thinking through the lessons learned from retired PBS education reporter John Merrow and Jim Harvey, who was a senior staff member of the National Commission on Excellence in Education and the principle author of “A Nation at Risk.” Harvey is now executive director of the National Superintendents Roundtable.

Merrow explained that charters are producing “a scandal a day.” Using the type of turn of a phrase for which he is well known, Merrow said that charters have had “too much attention but not enough scrutiny.” He says that some mom and pop charters are excellent, but online charters should be outlawed. Then he punched holes in the charter-advocates’ claim that rigorous accountability systems could minimize the downsides of charters.

Merrow says that one reason why it isn’t really possible to scrutinize the costs of charters is that there is no longer a real difference between for-profit and nonprofit charters. Choice has created a system of “buyer beware.”

Harvey added that journalists have been accused of cherry-picking charter scandal reports but “there are so many cherries.” Then he recounted inside stories on the writing of the infamous “A Nation at Risk” and how the report was “hijacked,” as he provided insights into how corporate school reform spun out of control.

As Harvey and Merrow discussed, before the report it was difficult to get the press to focus on the classroom. Conflicts over busing to desegregate schools would get the public’s attention, but Harvey didn’t think that “A Nation at Risk” would attract much of an audience. He thought that the key sentence in the opening paragraph hit a balance. The sentence began with the statement that the American people “can take justifiable pride in what our schools and colleges have historically accomplished and contributed to the United States and the well-being of its people,” and the paragraph concluded with, “What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur–others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments. “

Had it not been for manipulations of the report by those who were driven by a political agenda, the words in the middle could have been read as intended. Harvey wrote, “The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.”

Harvey didn’t write the extreme statement that followed. In fact, he had edited out the sentence, “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.”

Clearly the report became part of an attack on public education. In contrast to the social science which preceded it, and the research that experts like Harvey embraced, the campaign kicked off by “A Nation at Risk” blamed schools, not overall changes in society that resulted in some lowered test scores. NAEP scores were also misrepresented by categories,like “proficiency,” which facilitated falsehoods such as the idea that tests showed that 60 percent of students were below grade level.

President Ronald Reagan announced the report along with the false statement that “A Nation at Risk” included a call for prayer in the schools, school vouchers, and the abolition of the Department of Education. Then, as Reagan ran for reelection in 1984, it was clear that the report was being used demonize not just teachers but government itself.

And that leads to the emergence of venture philanthropy in the 1990s. As Merrow recalled, during and before the 1980s, donors such as Ford and Annenberg foundations tinkered around the edges in seeking answers to complex conundrums. They offered money without micromanaging school improvement. Since then, technocratic school reform was driven, in large part, by the Billionaires Boys’ Club. It “weaponized” testing in an assault on public schools.

Harvey attributed that unfortunate transition, in significant part, to the realization that education is a $750 billion industry with profits to be made. It attracted 25-year-olds who knew nothing about education, and soon they were running policy.

Had corporate reformers taken the time to scrutinize the evidence, they would have had to confront the research which existed before and after “A Nation at Risk,” and that its author respected. As Harvey and David Berliner have written, an evidenced-informed investigation would have considered “the 80 percent of their waking hours that students spend outside the school walls.” Had they looked at evidence, edu-philanthropists should have understood the need to “provide adequate health care for children and a living wage for working parents, along with affordable day-care.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/04/26/the-landmark-a-nation-at-risk-called-for-education-reform-35-years-ago-heres-how-it-was-bungled/?utm_term=.a3382caf8d2c

Whether we are talking about the obsession with test and punish micromanaging or the faith in charters, corporate reformers failed to consider the complexities of the school systems they sought to transform. But, they did their homework in terms of public relations. In addition to demonizing teachers, public schools, and other public sectors, corporate reformers stole the language of dedicated educators and civil rights. They’ve presented their teacher-bashing and privatization campaigns as a “civil rights” movement.

Educators must reclaim our language, and craft messages for a new, constructive, holistic campaign to improve schools. One step toward new conversations requires us to learn from the past. John Merrow and Jim Harvey are remarkable sources of institutional history and the wisdom required for the type of discussions that are necessary.

Will big money buy the position of State Superintendent of Public Instruction in California? Will false ads carry Marshall Tuck to victory?

The ACLU OF Northern California condemned the Marshall Tuck campaign for mailers falsely asserting that it had “sued Tony Thurmond.” It had not, and the ACLU demanded that the campaign withdraw the ad and offer an apology to Thurmond. Tuck refused.

Tuck is running a campaign based on lies. His character has been revealed. Will the public catch on in time to stop him? Or will the public believe Tuck’s scurrilous attack ads? It is possible. Tuck has an astonishing amount of money to spend. But should California’s schools be overseen by a person of such low ethics and character.

A thought for Marshall Tuck (written by sportswriter Grantland Rice):

“For when the One Great Scorer comes to write against your name,
He writes—not that you won or lost,
But how you played the game.”

Is Marshall Tuck and his billionaire backers so desperate to win that they will say or do anything? Apparently so.


See letter from ACLU to EdVoice here:

Here is a report on the ads, with links to the ads.

The dispute over negative ads has escalated, with the Thurmond campaign seeking to have an independent committee take off the air an ad that falsely claims Thurmond was reprimanded by the Obama administration.

The campaign for schools chief has attracted at least $43 million worth of contributions, most of which have gone to independent expenditure committees supporting Tuck and Thurmond.

Tuck’s backers are far outpacing Thurmond’s in fundraising: Two committees supporting Tuck have taken in $24.1 million as of Monday, while a committee supporting Thurmond has received $11.5 million. Independent expenditure committees can take donations of unlimited size but are barred from coordinating with campaigns.

The Tuck campaign had raised $4.2 million in direct contributions, compared to $2.8 million for Thurmond, as of Sept. 22, the most recent filing deadline.

The contributions have come largely from advocates of charter school expansion who back Tuck and labor groups who support Thurmond.

With two weeks to go in the race, and as some Californians are submitting early ballots for the Nov. 6 election, Tuck and Thurmond backers are spending millions of dollars on television, radio and mail advertisements. Campaign finance records show the committees supporting Tuck spent $8.1 million on television advertising alone as of the most recent campaign finance filing deadline on Sept. 22, while a committee backing Thurmond spent $4.4 million. Those totals are likely to increase substantially before Election Day.

Some of that spending has gone toward negative ads, leading Tuck and Thurmond to spar over new television commercials that criticize their records.

One recent ad from an independent expenditure committee supporting Tuck blamed Thurmond for problems in West Contra Costa Unified, the East Bay school district where Thurmond was a school board member from 2008 to 2012.

Another ad, produced by the Thurmond campaign, sought to tie Tuck to the education agenda of President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

Is it inaccurate to tie Tuck’s pro-charter history to Betsy DeVos. She supports charter schools. Tuck supports charter schools. No smear there. It’s a fact: Marshall Tuck supports school choice, like Betsy DeVos.

The anti-Thurmond ad was funded by an independent expenditure committee supporting Tuck established by EdVoice. EdVoice officials did not return multiple messages seeking comment on their ad.

“Before he was running for state superintendent, politician Tony Thurmond was responsible for a school district with widespread budget problems,” the ad states, referring to West Contra Costa Unified.

Text on the screen directly ties district problems to Thurmond. “Tony Thurmond: School Board Member”; “Tony Thurmond: Sued by the ACLU”; “Tony Thurmond: Reprimanded by the Obama Administration”; “Tony Thurmond: Failed Kids”; “Tony Thurmond: Wrong for State Superintendent.”

The voice over adds details about the district: “Ranked last in the state for failing to serve students of color. Sued for leaving at-risk students in rotting trailers with mushrooms growing in the floors. Reprimanded by the Obama Administration for failing to address widespread sexual harassment and assault in district schools. Tony Thurmond failed the students he was supposed to help. California deserves better.”

The ad does not mention that Thurmond was one of five West Contra Costa Unified board members.

The claim that Thurmond was reprimanded by the Obama administration is false. The letter from the Obama-era Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights criticizing West Contra Costa Unified’s handling of sexual harassment never mentions Thurmond or the district’s board. The letter was issued in 2013, after Thurmond left the board, though it does state the department’s investigation began during his term in 2010.

“I was never reprimanded by Obama, and I wasn’t even on the board when the letter was sent by the Department of Education,” Thurmond said. He added that the claim prompted his campaign to send a cease and desist order to the committee that produced the ad.

The ad’s statement that Thurmond was sued over school facilities is technically accurate, in that he was named as a defendant board member in an American Civil Liberties Union’s lawsuit against West Contra Costa Unified. However, the lawsuit named every member of the school board, along with the district, its superintendent and its associate superintendent. The district’s daily management falls to its administration, not the elected board members.

The ad mirrors criticism of Thurmond’s time in West Contra Costa in an opinion column published in the San Francisco Chronicle last month by Bill Evers, a hardcore Republican and a Tuck supporter. Evers is a research fellow at Stanford University’s conservative Hoover Institution. Evers was also a member of Trump’s education transition team. Evers is not a neutral observer. He is a rock-ribbed Republican who worked in George W. Bush’s Education Department as Assistant Secretary of Education. He was a senior advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, after the Iraq War. His endorsement serves to reinforce the fact that Tuck has a conservative agenda that is aligned with the Republican Party.

Basic fact: Tony Thurmond was endorsed by the Democratic Party. Marshall Tuck was booed at the Democratic State Convention. Tony Thurmond has run an honorable campaign. Marshall Tuck has not.

The state chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, as well as Christine Pelosi, the chairwoman of the California Democratic Party’s Women’s Caucus, have also denounced the ad. While the Tuck campaign is prohibited by law from coordinating with the independent expenditure committee that produced the ad, Thurmond’s campaign has called for Tuck to disavow it.

Tuck told EdSource he would not disavow the ad. It accurately described problems in West Contra Costa Unified during Thurmond’s term, Tuck said, and “the board should be held accountable for that.” But, he also stressed that the ad was outside of his control.

Andrew Blumenfeld, Tuck’s campaign manager, also defended the ad.

“Assembly member Thurmond uses his time on the school board as evidence of his ability to serve as state superintendent,” Blumenfeld said. “I think it’s well within bounds to question what was the quality of his leadership when he was on the school board.”

The California publication EdSource predicts that the race is on track to cost $50 million, with Tuck having a 2-1 advantage over Thurmond.

“The largest donors to EdVoice for the Kids PAC, which managed independent campaign committees for Tuck and other activities, are real estate developer Bill Bloomfield, $5.3 million; Doris Fisher, co-founder of the Gap clothing company, $3.1 million and venture capitalist Arthur Rock, $3 million.”

Tuck has been endorsed by Meg Whitman, chair of the board of Teach for America, by billionaire Michael Bloomberg of New York, by Christopher Cerf, who was appointed to be state commissioner in New Jersey by Republican Governor Chris Christie.

See info here:

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1243091&session=2017
Edvoice for the Kids PAC

Contributors here: http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1243091&session=2017&view=received

Contributions made (mostly to Tuck campaign) http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1243091&session=2017&view=contributions

See attached; expenditures of $4.9M since 09/17/2018 to two separate subcommittees

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1243091&session=2017&view=expenditures

If you live in New Hampshire, please support public education by voting for Molly Kelly for Governor.

Chris Sununu is a clone of Betsy DeVos. Maybe they were separated at birth.

He wants to finance charter schools and vouchers, at the e Penske of your public schools.

Sununu appointed a home-schooling businessman to Commissioner of Education.

He has supported ALEC model legislation to introduce vouchers.

He signed a bill to take away the voting rights of out-of-state college students.

Teacher-voters need to turn out in force to flip the legislature and vote Kelly into office.

It can be a new day in New Hampshire, but only if you VOTE.