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.
5 comments:
I dont often agree with Hillary but this rings true. In my building most kids who move to charters are the well-behaved, hard working types. They for whatever reason appear to be cherry-picked. The few times that a behavior issue type student was accepted to a charter they were returned to us. We of course have no choice but to re admit.
Her campaign calls them "public charter schools," a talking point of the so-called reformers.
That's all you need to know.
http://b-loedscene.blogspot.com/2015/11/weingarten-eskelson-garcia-fiddle-with.html?_sm_au_=iVVMZPRTPQtrW8Lr
I'm not optimistic. This comment is a nod to the obvious. And, the cherry picking is not a fact which bothers anyone very broadly. Parents in charters are glad their kids don't have to go to school with the kids who behave poorly. So. . . There you have it. People don't give a **** what happens to the system as a whole, as long as someone else's kid has it worse than their own, they are fine. HRC can make this comment and yet do nothing about it. Which is what will happen.
Anyone entwined with Weingarten does not have my vote. Beware of a dog bearing a bone.
Abigail Shure
Post a Comment