Although you wouldn't know it from reading the national press and following the blogosphere, education is a critically important issue in Tuesday's midterm election. Unfortunately, it's important for reasons other than what it should be, as a referendum against the awful school reform policies inherited from George Bush and fortified by Arne Duncan.
Instead of mistaken reform policies, the overall foundational narrative for education among the candidates' competing debates is the impact of the financial crisis on school funding. And while there are many insipid perspectives on education that both Democratic and Republican candidates generally share - that our system of public education is "broken," teachers need to be held more accountable for test scores, charter schools will lead the way to dynamic new education practices that can be scaled up across the country, etc. - there are very clear and obvious themes that differentiate Dems from Repubs and gives good reason to vote Democratic if you care about public schools.
First off, one of the most divisive issues in the election is the worthiness of the stimulus funds provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that were injected into the economy by the Obama administration after the financial crisis hit. Quoted in this article from Education Week, Joel Packer, the executive director of the Committee for Education Funding points out "there's no question that for education, [cuts and layoffs] would have been demonstrably worse without the stimulus." Republicans - even those who hypocritically accepted the funds - are generally critical of ARRA while Democratic candidates generally speak positively of the legislation even though, as Packer says, "generally, the stimulus has become a negative brand."
Beyond the issue of stimulus funds, though, the differences between the education policies and provisions of Democratic and Republican candidates become more diverse but significant, nevertheless. Scanning across a map of the 2010 election relevant to education, on a race-by-race basis at the state level there are races in particular that have significant impact on the direction of education policy. For instance, Democratic candidates in many of these races - such as the gubernatorial races in Iowa and Texas - are pushing for increased attention and funding of early childhood education, which would be a huge improvement in the well being of children and families in those sates.
On the federal level, the overriding edu-issue at stake in the upcoming election is the role of the federal government in public schools. As Paul Rosenberg wrote about in this diary earlier this week on Open Left, "the spread of anti-federalist ideology in the realm of education" is a commonly alarming theme among the majority of Republican candidates, and many of these extremist candidates want to shut down the Department of Education altogether and abandon critically important federal policies such as ESEA.
While I'm no big fan of many of the interventions - such as Race to the Top and i3 competitive grants - being pushed by the Obama administration, the federal government has been responsible for many of the historic landmarks that have made education in this country more accessible and equal for minorities and the less-well-off. Preserving the federal government's role in education is a priority that every progressive should feel motivated to fight for, even if the policies of the current administration are out of whack.
Now, I wouldn't be upset to see a new Republican majority in Congress cease funding for Race to the Top, as some have predicted. But as Diane Ravitch explains, a Republican majority would also likely reinforce many of the really bad elements of the education reform movement:
"There will be more votes for the Billionaire Boys Club, who hope to take charge in city after city with noblesse oblige policies. There will be more support for naming and shaming teachers by publishing test scores, even though this approach produces high error rates and demoralizes teachers. There will be increased support for policies that ignore poverty while blaming teachers for low scores. And even greater demands to rely on testing of basic skills as the best and only way to measure quality."
I'm not being naïve at all about the Obama administration's agenda. Regardles of the the outcome of the election, he all too clearly revealed his plans for education in this comment he made in a conversation with progressive bloggers earlier this week:
"Look, the -- I'm a pretty stubborn guy when it comes to, on the one hand, trying to get cooperation. I don't give up just because I didn't get cooperation on this issue; I'll try the next issue. If the Republicans don't agree with me on fiscal policy, maybe they'll agree with me on infrastructure. If they don't agree with me on infrastructure, I'll try to see if they agree with me on education."
In other words, Obama will quite likely keep education policy as a compromise crutch he can haul out to show-off his "bipartisanship" to the media. But his alone is not reason enough to abandon the Democratic party, in my mind.
Most of the wailing, weeping, and gnashing of teeth for an alternative to the duplicity of the Obama administration and the tepid politics of the Democratic party in general are not compelling enough in my mind to persuade progressives to sit this election out or vote Libertarian (the only viable third party in my state). If you happen to like a single one of your local leaders or favor a candidate who is trying to unseat a Republican office holder at the local level, that is reason enough to vote Democratic despite what you think about Obama. Holding high your displeasure with Obama at the expense of a local office holder or challenger who, in some respects, matters more to your immediate needs would be more than irrational. It's stupid.
This Week's Duncehat Award: Andrew Rotherham
Writing in Time magazine, edu-corpratist Andrew Rotherham shares his profound insights on how political leadership should respond to the resegregation of American public schools. His advice? Give up.
"No one in the mainstream of the education debate wants segregated schools. But while such schools are not an immutable condition, they are an unfortunate fact of life today. That's why so many in the reform community see issues such as improving teacher effectiveness, providing a better curriculum, and expanding high-performing charter schools into underserved communities as more impactful and immediate steps than grand schemes to change housing policy or school district boundaries. And, of course, there are plenty of schools that demonstrate that high poverty rates and low achievement are not inexorably linked. These reformers, myself included, are not opposed to efforts to create more economically integrated schools. We're just keenly attuned to the practical constraints."
This "the poor will always be with us" attitude is pure hogwash.
Based on an analysis of NAEP data, minority students made tremendous strides in achievement when school desegregations were at their height in the 1970s. True, the gap in achievement remained. But it is in the last few years, as resegregation and poverty have surged, that gains among minority students have diminished.
Writing in Educational Leadership Jonathan Kozol sums up pretty well what Rotherham's callous indifference amounts to:
"People who devote their lives to tinkering with clever ways to close the race gap by 'demanding more' of children and their principals and teachers within segregated settings are, knowingly or not, upholding the same failed and tainted promises given to people in the United States more than a century ago by Plessy v. Ferguson. They are ripping to shreds the legacy of Brown and Dr. King. Only those oblivious to history would dare deceive us in this shameful manner."
Weekly Mulch: Fighting the Joe Millers of the World
by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger
Joe Miller, Sarah Palin's choice candidate for one of Alaska's Senate seats, does not believe in climate change. That didn't bother Alaska voters: this week, Miller bested Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the state's Republican primary. If that weren't worrisome enough, it also emerged that the fossil fuel industry spent eight times more than environmental groups on lobbying in 2009, the year the House passed the climate change bill. It's been a bad year already for environmental causes, and as the November election edges closer, progressives might want to start working overtime to regain momentum on climate and energy issues.
More than a month has passed, actually now it has been two. In the third week of June, I heard the song in my head for the first time. With each day that passes the volume increases. Friends, family, and familiars were privy to what has been a curiosity for me. Still haunted by what I know needs to be shared farther and wider, today I tell you my tale. The story begins with two Florida Democrats. Each aspires to fill the one open United States Senate seat. The date; June 22, 2010. I was amongst those invited to attend the initial Meek Greene debate.. The place? The Palm Beach Post headquarters. The time? Midday. The reality realized and the reason my mind marinated in the melody titled It's About Time. Today, Democrats, Progressives are not as they were.
(We don't have to accept the failed top-down party leadership on any front, in any way. This is an important example. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Turns out if you do youth outreach in an election you have higher youth turnout.
If you read my take on the returns from the Massachusetts special election for the US Senate race then you know that Mass had some issues with reaching out to young voters. There was some confusion about who was going to do it.. or if it was going to happen... Someone even suggested the youth outreach was "well the President came..."
In the great state of Oregon we have a fantastic organization who has worked for years to get young voters to the polls, but also be engaged during years in between. The Oregon Bus Project worked the hell out of this special election and the results were noticeable.
In Massachusetts they had a turnout of 15% of 18-29 year olds for the special election. In the Oregon's special election about 24% turnout of youth voters (preliminary estimates from CIRCLE)
Caitlin Baggott from the Bus says that this is due to a few particularly important factors:
A year-round and multi-year strategy,
Populist messaging and policy development,
Budget (actually spending money on youth outreach
And finally, which I'll expand on, a focus on field and youth turnout
When it comes to a meaningful field outreach campaign Caitlin points to two major elements
A strong field campaign matched with a strong media campaign. Oregon Student Association, the Bus Project, and the coordinated campaign registered 30,000 voters--primarily on campuses and youth-dense parts of Portland and Eugene. The campaign led a huge GOTV field program to knock on 300,000 doors. We all phonebanked the hell out of our lists. (The Bus got a "thank you" message today from a voter who decided to vote after getting 15 phone calls from us.)
We expected it to be better than VA and MA. We're hoping that the lesson for all of us in 2010 is that young people will vote if we (1) Re-Register them, and (2) invest in youth-oriented GOTV. OSA and the Bus executed a huge youth-focused voter registration program in Oregon, and the Bus did youth-focused mail, earned and paid media, and phonebanks. (Trick or Vote for the fall!)
So here's the thing. Do the outreach. Do it because it builds the party long term, but do it because, I don't care what state you're in... it will make a difference and it could make the difference enough to win your election.
What happens when you combine a Democratic fundraiser in North San Diego County, a homophobic right-wing neighbor disturbing the peace, and the San Diego County Sheriffs? Apparently, one BIG, nasty mess! Here's the original TPM story:
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that a fundraiser for Francine Busby, who previously ran for the deeply-Republican Fiftieth District and came close to winning in the 2006 special election and subsequent regular election, was raided by sheriffs after an unnamed neighbor made a noise complaint. Busby now calls it a "phony" noise complaint, and the article says that multiple neighbors said there was no great noise at all.
Here's the twist: The fundraiser was hosted by a lesbian couple, and shortly before the sheriffs came a particular neighbor had shouted anti-gay slurs at the assembled crowd. "It was a quiet home reception, disrupted by a vulgar person shouting obscenities from behind the bushes," Busby says.
As one neighbor told the paper: "We didn't hear anything until the sheriff came, with eight patrol cars and a helicopter."
And yes, the new developments are becoming more sordid by the minute. Details after the flip...
Am on his donor list, having contributed a couple of times - plus I saw and heard him in person at the National Constitution Center when he was on the stage for a panel discussion with Richard Ben Veniste. That would have been in the summer of 2005.
How does Open Left feel about his record? The summary on GovTrack.us shows titles of the bills he's sponsored and they seem forward-looking to me. I realize he's been on lists to urge him to take a progressive stand, but I neglected to bookmark those pages.
Patrick's fundrasing total for 2007-2008 was nearly $4 million, which he pretty well spent on that campaign. Here in Illinois' 10th CD, the incumbent raised $5.45 million to retain his seat. We really need nationwide public financing for our elections. Here's the last line of the most recent e-mail:
Thanks to you, we won a tough fight last year. We defeated a strong challenger, but it took every resource we had. The opposition knows this. That's why the dirty tricks have started early. Please, contribute $25, $50, or even $100 today, and help me show the far-right that we'll continue to stand tall, no matter how low they stoop.
(Originally from my updates at OC Progressive and cross-posted at C4O Democrats)
I had so many questions before last weekend. And honestly, I still don't know exactly what lies ahead. However, I had many of my questions answered as I saw a glimpse of hope rising after the storm.
And yes, believe it or not, my questions were answered in Fresno!
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.
Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next senator from Minnesota. (Former senator Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)
"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."
He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."
Overall, I'm happy. I mean, why shouldn't I be when we will be assured of 60 Senate votes once Al Franken is seated in Minnesota? Still, I have a few reservations.
Freshman Republican backbencher Richard "Bank Run" Burr has been a mostly silent Senator since he first won his seat back in 2004. However, in the last several weeks, he's gained notoriety for two big political blunders. First, he inexplicably blocked the appointment of Iraq veteran, double-amputee, veterans' advocate Tammy Duckworth to a position in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Then, he relayed the story of how, with the fiscal crisis about to hit hard last Fall, his weak-kneed response was to have his wife take out as much cash from their neighborhood bank as ATMs would allow. Not exactly the steady hand North Carolinians (or anyone) want managing our nation's fiscal affairs.
While "Bank Run" Burr was doing all he could to keep his low approval ratings low, polls were coming out showing Democratic state Attorney General Roy Cooper leading Burr in hypothetical match-ups (Public Policy Polling in December, Civitas in March, Public Policy Polling in April). Attorney General Cooper indicated that he was interested in a 2010 Senate bid; and, WaPo's Chris Cillizza even reported that he had heard that AG Cooper would decide on a Senate bid "by the end of the month." The end of the month is now less than two weeks away.
So we have favorable polls, a public indication of interest, and a report that a decision would be forthcoming in the next two weeks. And today we have, what I think is, the tipping point.
An E-newsletter from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) called The Rant arrived in my inbox this morning with the subject line "Polling in NC." The focus was, as noted, heavily on Burr's moronic "Bank Run" story and on the new Public Policy Polling poll showing Burr still trailing Attorney General Cooper. Below is a screen cap:
In addition to the E-newsletter, there was the induction of Burr in to the DSCC's Hall of Shame, as well as the announcement of a new DSCC web page: http://www.dscc.org/RunOnTheBanks - which, of course, highlights "Bank Run" Burr's reckless economic "solution" and unveils a new web video highlighting recent media footage criticizing Burr's actions, at right.
So not only do we have favorable polls, a public indication of interest, and a report that a decision would be forthcoming in the next two weeks - but we also have the DSCC putting a great deal of focus on Richard Burr and hyping the poll results of Attorney General Cooper, whose decision, again, will come in the next two weeks. Given how shrewd the DSCC is about candidate recruiting and outreach, I don't think they would put this degree of focus on NC-Sen, hyping the Burr-Cooper polls in particular, unless they knew that a positive decision would be announced in the next two weeks.
In short, I'm speculating that North Carolina's Democratic Attorney General Roy Cooper will announce that he will be a candidate for Senate against freshman Republican backbencher Richard "Bank Run" Burr in 2010 and that the announcement will come before the end of April. An announcement would be a massive recruiting success for the DSCC and immediately give NC-Sen "toss-up" status, making the race one of the highest-profile Senate match-ups in the country.
In a story released today by The News & Observer, North Carolina's Democratic state Attorney General Roy Cooper indicated that he may decide on whether or not to run for Senate in 2010 IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS!
If you so see fit, PLEASE call Roy Cooper's campaign office at 919-832-4312 (you'll probably get voice mail) and leave a simple message encouraging Roy Cooper to run for Senate in 2010. Explain that North Carolina and all of America would benefit by having his common sense voice replace Richard Burr's obstructionist voice.
Every word of encouragement he receives makes him more likely to run -- and, if he runs, we can replace Republican backbencher Richard Burr with a strong Democrat like Roy Cooper!
Roll Call has a new article online focusing on Republican attempts to win in 2010 the Senate seat held by Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln for the last ten years. The content of the article is a clear statement on how Senate Republicans' only weapon besides obstruction-by-filibuster is toothless bullying.
The article begins by telegraphing how Republicans will attack Senator Lincoln over the course of the 2010 cycle:
This cycle, the NRSC has stepped into the Arkansas race early, attempting to soften Lincoln's poll numbers with attacks on her support for the stimulus legislation and for sending "mixed signals" when it comes to the Employee Free Choice Act, according to an NRSC press release. And when Lincoln announced late last month that Vice President Joseph Biden would join her at her 2010 campaign kickoff this weekend, the NRSC was quick to blast the two-term Senator for being out of touch with voters back home.
"Senator Lincoln's support for runaway Washington spending and her refusal to take a position on 'card check' despite representing a right to work state, are among a few of the important issues we are bringing to the attention of her constituents," NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh said on Monday.
Let's take a look at the foolishness contained in this passage:
