Credit: MaxxFordham / Flickr
By Jim Miller
One would think that in the midst of the Trump era, with so many threats not just to essential government policies and programs but to democracy itself, Democrats would have a pretty clear idea of who their enemy is.
A reasonable observer might also conclude that the Democratic Party in California which has, in many ways, been the vanguard of resistance nationwide would be laser-focused on not only maintaining the blue wall but on working to oust California Republicans from the House of Representatives.
Clearly, it would also seem to make sense that with Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education and the National Republican Party dead set on undermining public education in the service of moneyed interests, that Democrats would be rigorously defending it. And at a time when the Supreme Court will soon rule against public sector unions, one of the core constituencies of the Democratic Party’s base, that Democrats would have the backs of their longtime allies.
You might think that Democrats know that the rightwing forces that are attacking public sector unions are doing so because they see that assault as part of a long-term strategy to cut off a vital funding stream to the Democrats and win not this or that short-term political battle, but the long war, hence gutting the ability of progressives to win elections, hold power, and enact policy.
And one might also optimistically hope that some of the more politically astute in Democratic circles would be smart enough to understand the history of the rightwing assault on public education and education unions and realize that vouchers and the “school choice” movement being pushed by Betsy DeVos and the Charter School lobby originated in the South by segregationists bent on holding the line against integration and the government’s ability to force locals schools to use public resources equally so that black students, as well as white students, could receive a quality public education.
You could, perhaps too optimistically, wish, that because of that history that savvy Democrats would be cautious about using the tools favored by the right to dismantle public education and attack unions in the service of a charter school agenda funded by billionaires but sold with civil rights rhetoric. How ironic it would be to see prominent Democrats doing the bidding of the Right, attacking their own party’s base, and forcing unions to divert resources away from supporting Democrats to engaging in a civil war inside the Democratic party over public education.
We couldn’t possibly be this self-destructive right? Not here in super blue California. Well, dear reader, alas it is true. All the early signs point to the fact that rather than a unifying battle against the forces of the Right, several key statewide Democratic figures have chosen to make attacking teachers and supporting their billionaire-funded enemies a central part of their 2018 agenda.
Depressingly, in the Governor’s race, Antonio Villaraigosa is staking out a spot to the right of his fellow Democrats by attacking teacher tenure, hoping that if he makes the run-off, he will win not by inspiring the base but by earning enough Republican votes to defeat his more liberal opponent.
It is also clear that local Democrats, like Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, have chosen to declare war on teachers’ unions by supporting the second run of Marshall Tuck, darling of the corporate education reformers rather than Tony Thurmond, the African American Assemblyman with deep roots in his working-class East Bay community and a deep commitment to quality public education for all in the Superintendent of Public Instruction race. These Democrats along with too many others who are taking big money from the Charter Schools Association seem be more interested in splitting the Democratic base than in defending the integrity of American public education at the very moment it is under grave assault from the Trump administration.
If more Democrats follow suit, it will make for an ugly 2018 in California with resources being diverted away from a unified struggle against the right to a rear-guard action against foxes seeking to run the henhouse. It is my hope that many more Democrats will see the folly in this course of action, and we won’t be debating the stale and deeply false “teachers versus students” argument when progressives should be robustly defending public education and the public sector against those who mean us all real ill.
Jim Miller
Latest posts by Jim Miller (see all)
- The San Diego Free Press Was a Gift - December 10, 2018
- Democracy Unchained: How to Win the Future - December 3, 2018
- Oligarchy Sucks: Billionaires Are Undermining Our Democracy and Killing the Planet - November 26, 2018
I think the logic of your argument is not well reasoned. Democrats don’t want to wage war on public education or teachers unions. The problem is that public schools and teachers are failing children of color. Go to any public elementary school in a high crime/high poverty neighborhood and the majority of children in the classroom will be children of color. Go to any public elementary school in a low crime/low poverty neighborhood and the majority of the children are white. Look at the quality of those schools and you’ll find the quality of education is not the same. Ryan Smith, executive director of The Education Trust-West recently put out a report that says that in every county in California the majority of Latino students are not proficient in math or English language arts – see: https://west.edtrust.org/resource/the-majority-report/. In the report Mr. Smith goes on to say, “So the question is what does that mean for our K-12 education system. I think of it like this: If we saw the type of challenges for white students that we see for Latino students, we know that the government and others would declare a state of emergency. Latinos have more political power than ever before, but students seem to be lagging behind in every indicator.” Sobering.
Mayor Villaraigosa and Assembly member Weber are the canaries in the “education” coal mine. We can either ignore their concerns or attack them. But their concerns are not going away, and should not. And yes if that means the Democratic party has a civil war to ensure that children of color –who are 1 of 3 school age children today in CA– get a proper and effective education, so be it. The future of the Dem party is women, people of color, and the LGBT and this coalition wants and needs an effective public school system. Instead what they are hearing from limousine liberals and the special interests they operate and support is more excuses!
Finally, your criticism of Mayor Villaraigosa and Assembly member Weber needs to be addressed. Education, for people of color is the only way they can advance in a society that is still racists and deeply fearful of their skin color. Your misguided belief that these two leaders are declaring war on public education and teachers makes absolutely no sense. What you are implying is that these two politicians are in effect, pulling up the ladder of prosperity for people of color – quite a bold statement to make. I suggest you reach out to Assembly member Weber and hear her story and how interweaved it is with education. I think the perspective will help you understand what you really should be fighting for.
You’re not addressing Jim Miller’s actual argument here, nor adequately discussing the history he cites of the “school choice” movement and why it’s problematic that some Democrats of late have been going after public school teachers and their unions while throwing in with the Charter School industry. The larger point of the column is that public education, which serves over 85% of children in this country, is imperiled by rightwing forces that seek to underfund, privatize, and eliminate it. There is a huge problem when Democrats, who should be working to shore up this institution, instead end up undermining it. In my view, we should be doing everything we can to address the problems you outline by making sure schools are adequately and equitably funded so that all students can be properly served. I say this as a public community college teacher whose predominant population is students of color from low-income communities and as the parent of a public school middle schooler in a Title I school that’s losing funding because of the unregulated growth of charter schools. I’ve also written two recent articles on the state of public education and the charterization movement here in the SD Free Press (https://sandiegofreepress.org/2017/06/end-of-public-education-as-we-know-it-part-one/ and https://sandiegofreepress.org/2017/07/are-we-witnessing-the-end-of-public-education-as-we-know-it-part-two/). As Miller’s partner (full disclosure), I also know that he is well aware of Dr. Weber’s story and highly respects her work. But both of us, on the issue of charter schools, public teachers, and our unions, have had a great deal of concern with how Weber, Villaraigosa, and a host of other Democratic law makers have seemingly abandoned public schools and the public sector at a time when we can least afford it.
For a devastating portrait of where the “school choice,” vouchers, and charter school movement is coming from, read Diane Ravitch’s new review of two important books that trace the rise of the libertarian right and the impacts on the public sector: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/12/07/big-money-rules/ Arguments about the saving public schools via charterization are playing right into the hands of those who want to eliminate the public sector altogether.
As an educator and writer I found Jim’s argument lacked depth and insight. Its less to do about a war against charter schools which comprise 5% of all the elementary, middle, and high schools in the country; then it is the fact that in 100% of all the county’s in California, Latino students are not proficient in math or English language art. Progressives, that are concerned about public education in California need to have answers to that. And fast.
You are critiquing Jim Miller’s article for not being the one you want to see written. His focus is on the larger picture of how the Dems’ attacks on public education and unions help the rightwing assault on the public sector. Absolutely progressives need to be–and are–concerned about the unacceptable achievement gaps. And there’s been a lot of work within educational circles desperately trying to address them. But that’s not what this column set out to discuss. If you look at the link to the Ravitch review that I posted above, you’ll see what Jim’s concerns are: the elimination of the public sector in favor of a privatized, individualized dystopia. And he’s calling out to Dems to be clear and mindful of what these forces represent. So someone like Tuck, a former charter chain operator and recipient of billionaire donations, should be a concern to people who are worried about the impacts of such donations on our public institutions.
Ah, I see. He’s not interested in education. His concern is union’s specifically public sector union’s. The union movement has not adapted well to the changes in the economy. SEIU has attempted to navigate those changes – organizing the growing service sector, but for the most part labor’s strategy has been to engage in political elections up and down the ticket. The problem with this strategy is it’s made union’s less interested in reform and more addicted on placing bets on the roulette table of election politics. Instead of helping solve problems that your base struggles with–like an education system incapable of educating children of color, your focus is self serving – teacher unions. This naked self-interest isn’t helping you with the public.
Nowhere does Jim say he’s not interested in education or students. It shows a distinct lack of civility and/or willingness to have a discussion when you make those kinds of assumptions.
It seems to me as an editor, based on the metaphorical elbows Mr’s Smith manages to weave into comments (on other stories, also) that the real interest here is trolling.
So I have a piece of advice: behave or be gone.
as a writer and editor, and former teacher,i find your inattention to spelling and punctuation detracts from your posts.
“the Trump era, with so many threats … to democracy itself…”
get overblown much, Jim?
i assure you democracy WILL survive, yes, even Trump; even deVoss.
Follow the money.
On a related note: I’m concerned that Democrats on the San Diego City council are poised to approve Short Term Vacation Rental (STVR) policy without researching how removing more single family homes from coastal neighborhoods will impact our already weakened public schools in many of these communities.
Declining enrollments often trigger cutbacks of services and reduce the quality of instruction. In the few schools that offer pre-schools, declining enrollment can lead to loss of these programs, forcing parents to travel longer distances for that service.
Over time, all this can lead to school closures, followed by the sales of school property for more density/development in older neighborhoods.
See: Mission Bay Elementary School, and Stevenson Elementary in Clairemont, now the site of new homes now selling for upwards of $700K.
Before that happens, quality of instruction at the shrinking school declines, as fewer parents are available to assist teachers, volunteer at events, etc. And once a school closes, they spend more time driving children to other locations and/or students spend more time on busses.
Also, these STVRs also make it less likely for San Diego to conform with the 2014 Regional Housing Needs Assessments goals. And they make it more difficult to achieve the Climate Action Plan greenhouse gas reduction goals, as more students are forced to travel longer distances to attend school via private cars and/or school busses.
I’ve provide additional details at the OB Rag: https://obrag.org/2017/11/lori-saldana-loss-of-housing-due-to-airbnb-leads-to-declining-school-enrollments-and-subsidies/