Hillary Clinton recently made a factual remark about charter schools that is causing some controversy. This is from Politico:
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sounded less like a decades-long supporter of charter schools over the weekend and more like a teachers union president when she argued that most of these schools "don't take the hardest-to-teach kids, or, if they do, they don't keep them."
The right wing press is all over the comment with the Wall Street Journal and New York Post blasting Clinton. The American Federation of Teachers backed Clinton for president early on. AFT President Randi Weingarten is now defending Hillary's statement. Here is what Randi said:
"Hillary Clinton looks at the evidence. That's what she did here, " Weingarten told POLITICO. She called out that many charters don't take the hardest-to-teach kids or don't keep those with academic or behavioral issues."
Later, the Politico piece quotes the President of the National Education Association who is also supporting Hillary.
It all sounds good, right?
Well, maybe not as the Politico article goes on by outlining Hillary's long time advocacy for charter schools. Her campaign is then quoted as saying that Hillary has "been a strong supporter of both public charter schools and an unflinching advocate for traditional public schools."
Can you have it both ways? Deciphering Hillary's real education positions, and Randi's sometimes for that matter, looks like a difficult task.
Some of you think it's all about what the donors want and this is just a bone thrown to the Democratic Party public school base. I get that cynicism but perhaps there's something more here.