I couldn't help but reflect that the forum got jettisoned to a Saturday morning. You know, shoving it into a corner so it doesn't get in the way of the more serious stuff. But, as usual, the unions took what they could get, what with their numbers sadly whittled down though successfully treading water for now. The educators in attendance, some of whom had come from a considerable distance, also didn't need to ask anyone for a day off.
The following analysis comes with a definitive bias (as if you didn't know). Full reveal: I am a retired member of the NEA. I was once a member of its top governing body, the Executive Committee, that former status being a large reason why I hung in there for five hours of this (and if you didn't, well, you couldn't be blamed). I am going to vote for whatever Democrat emerges out of this battle for the nomination, in no small part because Betsy DuVos, like 45, is an existential threat to public education and must be shown the door ASAP. She is a one-person wrecking ball for public education and a leading advocate of privatization and thieving charters, which have abandoned their former not-unfriendly, experimental approach and now undermine the system, drain it of its funding, and help deepen its drawbacks, quite on purpose despite same-old-thing disingenuous language attempting to divert attention from its sinister effects. 45 was the first person to directly refer negatively to public education in his inaugural address, and Betsy DuVos is the monster he directed to ruin it.
Enough now. Here's what I think of who showed up--those that did not themselves being noticeable with their absence: (Note, please, that I'm writing about these folks in the chronological order of their appearances, not in terms of who I'm supporting and how much. That's for later.
Quite honestly, I'm still not sure who I'm backing, partly because things are still pretty fluid and since William McRaven isn't running--my endorsement being made way-way long ago and before I knew he was a cancer survivor, which may or may not have affected anything. But I still think he'd be best.)
Bracketing the event with commentary were:
Quite honestly, I'm still not sure who I'm backing, partly because things are still pretty fluid and since William McRaven isn't running--my endorsement being made way-way long ago and before I knew he was a cancer survivor, which may or may not have affected anything. But I still think he'd be best.)
Bracketing the event with commentary were:
- Hosts Ali Velshi of MSNBC and
- Rehema Ellis, national education correspondent for NBC News;
- Lily Eskelsen Garcia, NEA president;
- Randi Weingarten, AFT president; and
- Presidents of Pittsburgh NEA and AFT locals.
Now for the candidates, who came out with brief comments of their own, followed by questions from Velshi and Ellis and then pre-arranged questions from union or social activist members:
Michael Bennet--You could tell his enthusiasm (and, perhaps, his desperation; he isn't exactly knocking it out of the park poll-wise) in his voice and body language. Bennet is a former school superintendent and has the most on-the-ground, direct knowledge. He speaks the language of the profession and nobody needed to prep him with any cliches. He might have impressed more if he hadn't worn the albatross of Denver across his neck, though, for there's where he directed one of the first major merit pay programs--which not only didn't work, but fomented a later teachers' strike (which he didn't address, to his detriment; they keep forgetting what we know). He kept saying how much more money they paid teachers in Denver, but that was under that plan, which utilized the increasingly bogus strategy of partly judging teachers by test scores, then paying some a greater raise than others.
All the research the NEA has done on that topic demonstrates the futility of it. It was ignored. Suspicious of NEA's bias, districts did it anyhow. Bennet is likable and the way he stood up to the weasely Ted Cruz on the Senate floor a while back was bracing; if you're in a political battle, Michael Bennet would be great to have in your corner. He won't get the nomination, but as a campaigner, a Veep slot shouldn't be out of the question.
Tom Steyer--The little billionaire that could. He also has great enthusiasm for public schools, and it seems very genuine. He 'gets it' on the tragedy of excessive testing. I like him a lot and love his social awareness background, but it's very much out of his realm to consider being president. He should be kept in the loop for something important for which to be selected--Council of Economic Advisors, maybe, or Secretary of Education or HUD. His heart's where it should be, and you can't fault him for seeing the existential threat of 45 way out in front of others. It's a good place to start.
Amy Klobuchar--Sold herself and her public education background as well if not better than everyone else. Sold her candidacy the way she's been doing it elsewhere on the road: eschewing Medicare for All (smart) and stressing that we're going to need cooperation from somebody on the other side if we're going to recover from this sinking ship. She's a non-educator with educators in her family who was convincing to educators that she'd be thinking about them.
Don't sleep on her candidacy; as others like Kamala Harris fall away, she may sweep up the leftovers and create an afterthought-type surge. She keeps insisting, though, that the Democrats have to not only win, but win by a lot; that's too much to ask. The nomination might be too far to reach, but a Veep slot might just be the thing for her.
Pete Buttigieg--You have to admire his mind; like Obama's, it's a steel trap. He remembers everything and remembers how to say it. He has this endearing, Midwestern niceness about him (like Klobuchar) that forms an earnestness that's easy to take. He also has a husband (the topic on which the country doesn't really have to deal with, yet) who's a classroom teacher, so he gets a chance to speak to intraclassroom items that even someone like Bennet misses. That connection is not a minor one.
This was an opportunity for him to try to cozy up to minority members, who within the unions comprise a significant political force, and he did so by highlighting how he feels about buttressing Title I (give young teachers a chance to have their college loans forgiven by teaching for seven years in a Title I school, and triple the funding for it beyond that, and get some badly needed funding to Historical Black Colleges and Universities.). But he, too, has had a dalliance with charters, and that, too, went unaddressed. He isn't too young to be president, he's too poorly connected to the big picture, having been merely a mayor of a town much the size of Green Bay. Yet, he's earned a spot within the national picture--where, it isn't clear yet.
Elizabeth Warren--It seemed odd that her interview was the place where Ellis decided to drill down on charter schools, noting where plenty of minority parents have decided to enroll their children in them. It forced Warren to delineate, carefully, between for-profit charters and non--except Ellis wouldn't let her off the hook, citing the nation's report card. All great, but where was Ellis beforehand, when she could have done that to the other candidates? Warren deftly fended off what sounded (at least by tone; it's clearly been bugging Ellis) like a defense posing as an attack by continuing to stress that, with her two-cent tax on the very, very wealthy, she'd be bringing a bunch of money to the table in terms of quadrupling Title I funding (which sounded like she was raising Buttigieg's bet at that poker table: Triple? Hell, I'll quadruple), and fully funding IDEA (which, if I had a dime for every time I'd heard that one through the decades, I could have retired at 55), close to her heart because she'd started her journey as a special education teacher of kindergarteners (and I believed her when she said she still thinks about those kids; there isn't a teacher who doesn't). It kind of left charters as something of a white (sorry) elephant, neither bad nor good, which can neither disappear (way too many now) nor be expanded (see above).
At any rate: Madam I-have-a-plan-for-that came off as forthright, determined, and dogged. She's either becoming president, going back to the Senate where she can bug Republicans (not a bad thought), or a federal judge or Attorney General. No Veeping for her. Would seem like a demotion.
Bernie Sanders--This was probably the most far-ranging, both in form (he nervously paced and stood up to answer questions and the moderators followed suit) and in content. He made sure to thank teachers for their actual campaign support--he noted that in sheer numbers, they led in terms of donations; something that the unions' leadership has probably already noted--and made sure to put out a $60,000 minimum salary for teachers and tripling Title I funding in his introductory remarks. Ellis challenged him to declare how many black children had attended the schools he attended; he said that only one did where he went to elementary school. (To me, that's something of an a-ha question that he can't help, and doesn't and can't necessarily determine how empathetic he is to children of color.) He was the first one to actually bring 45's name into the conversation, the first one to use the phrase "teaching to the test" upon discussion of his 'no' vote on No Child Left Behind, and added "and lunch and dinner as well" to the idea of making sure all schoolchildren had their breakfast. But he also riffed on the ease with which he preferred unions to be formed, the right to strike, and the disgust with which he holds right-to-work; he echoed Warren's support of collective bargaining. He managed to throw in his favorite word--"revolution" into a discussion of educational philosophy, based on Ellis' statement that only 14% of U.S. kids could distinguish between fact and opinion (a classroom crisis if I've ever heard one). But there were also questions from the crowd on the school-to-prison pipeline and school safety, which he fielded deftly.
Bernie's the most quixotic answer to the pestilence of 45, but Medicare for All might get him beat. It's going to be very, very interesting to see how his candidacy plays out at the NEA-RA this year--whether the NEA "owes" it to him for recommendation, the way it did after Obama-v-Clinton in '08, when the state affiliate presidents were badly split (at least, it appeared so on the conference call) the same way the Democrats were, and then jumped way out in front in '16 to kind of apologize and endorse her months before it did in any past campaign. Things looked so much different at that moment, though, so I think NEA could be forgiven; it was mimicking not only other unions but the whole country's attitude of let's-get-this-over-with-because-of-course-she'll-win. Not quite, and now we have Betsy DuVos besides.
Joe Biden--He was late to the gathering; much of the crowd had dispersed by then. His approach is deeply personal. Listening carefully, you can tell why people noted early on in the debates his propensity to cut himself off during answers: He's not wimpy, he's a gentleman and dissemblingly polite and considerate, almost to a fault. Some would say so, and hesitate to endorse him with debating the obnoxiously insulting 45 a distinct possibility. "Am I supposed to say something here?" were his first words on stage; it was as if he'd appeared all of a sudden without being briefed, which indeed might have been, since he'd been to the Texas border earlier that day and encountered rough weather en route to Pittsburgh. (Very noticeably, Randi Weingarten, AFT president, was sitting right next to his wife, Jill, a community college teacher, and he directly addressed Weingarten at one point in one of his answers.)
Biden addressed familiar themes--Title I multiples of funding (3), IDEA, teaching to the test, early pre-K (At age 3? A little much there. But the research has been clear; pre-K pays off)--but what one couldn't ignore was the quiet tone that the rest of the candidates didn't have. Maybe he was tired. It was undoubtedly a long day, but then, presidents (except the one we have who doesn't care) tend to have lots of long days, and it was in a way important to see Biden at the end of one. He almost knew that Ellis would be asking him about desegregating schools the same way that Kamala Harris did, but his answer was pretty much the same as the one he tried to get in edgewise back then, adding how economic issues, too, contributed to the 'new' segregation evident today.
He also stood, but didn't prowl the stage like Sanders did. He spoke far more in terms of what teachers were capable of doing with respect to kids. He spoke to the group as people who happen to be educators, rather than the other way around. As a politician, there's something about him that none of the rest really have, something he's never lost in all his campaigns--a talent for making people think he's only talking to them. It has a calming effect, which may be the single thing he has going for himself most of all--and which might just carry him through to the nomination. That, and the obvious experience he's had with Obama. Can't discount that.
Michael Bennet--You could tell his enthusiasm (and, perhaps, his desperation; he isn't exactly knocking it out of the park poll-wise) in his voice and body language. Bennet is a former school superintendent and has the most on-the-ground, direct knowledge. He speaks the language of the profession and nobody needed to prep him with any cliches. He might have impressed more if he hadn't worn the albatross of Denver across his neck, though, for there's where he directed one of the first major merit pay programs--which not only didn't work, but fomented a later teachers' strike (which he didn't address, to his detriment; they keep forgetting what we know). He kept saying how much more money they paid teachers in Denver, but that was under that plan, which utilized the increasingly bogus strategy of partly judging teachers by test scores, then paying some a greater raise than others.
All the research the NEA has done on that topic demonstrates the futility of it. It was ignored. Suspicious of NEA's bias, districts did it anyhow. Bennet is likable and the way he stood up to the weasely Ted Cruz on the Senate floor a while back was bracing; if you're in a political battle, Michael Bennet would be great to have in your corner. He won't get the nomination, but as a campaigner, a Veep slot shouldn't be out of the question.
Tom Steyer--The little billionaire that could. He also has great enthusiasm for public schools, and it seems very genuine. He 'gets it' on the tragedy of excessive testing. I like him a lot and love his social awareness background, but it's very much out of his realm to consider being president. He should be kept in the loop for something important for which to be selected--Council of Economic Advisors, maybe, or Secretary of Education or HUD. His heart's where it should be, and you can't fault him for seeing the existential threat of 45 way out in front of others. It's a good place to start.
Amy Klobuchar--Sold herself and her public education background as well if not better than everyone else. Sold her candidacy the way she's been doing it elsewhere on the road: eschewing Medicare for All (smart) and stressing that we're going to need cooperation from somebody on the other side if we're going to recover from this sinking ship. She's a non-educator with educators in her family who was convincing to educators that she'd be thinking about them.
Don't sleep on her candidacy; as others like Kamala Harris fall away, she may sweep up the leftovers and create an afterthought-type surge. She keeps insisting, though, that the Democrats have to not only win, but win by a lot; that's too much to ask. The nomination might be too far to reach, but a Veep slot might just be the thing for her.
Pete Buttigieg--You have to admire his mind; like Obama's, it's a steel trap. He remembers everything and remembers how to say it. He has this endearing, Midwestern niceness about him (like Klobuchar) that forms an earnestness that's easy to take. He also has a husband (the topic on which the country doesn't really have to deal with, yet) who's a classroom teacher, so he gets a chance to speak to intraclassroom items that even someone like Bennet misses. That connection is not a minor one.
This was an opportunity for him to try to cozy up to minority members, who within the unions comprise a significant political force, and he did so by highlighting how he feels about buttressing Title I (give young teachers a chance to have their college loans forgiven by teaching for seven years in a Title I school, and triple the funding for it beyond that, and get some badly needed funding to Historical Black Colleges and Universities.). But he, too, has had a dalliance with charters, and that, too, went unaddressed. He isn't too young to be president, he's too poorly connected to the big picture, having been merely a mayor of a town much the size of Green Bay. Yet, he's earned a spot within the national picture--where, it isn't clear yet.
Elizabeth Warren--It seemed odd that her interview was the place where Ellis decided to drill down on charter schools, noting where plenty of minority parents have decided to enroll their children in them. It forced Warren to delineate, carefully, between for-profit charters and non--except Ellis wouldn't let her off the hook, citing the nation's report card. All great, but where was Ellis beforehand, when she could have done that to the other candidates? Warren deftly fended off what sounded (at least by tone; it's clearly been bugging Ellis) like a defense posing as an attack by continuing to stress that, with her two-cent tax on the very, very wealthy, she'd be bringing a bunch of money to the table in terms of quadrupling Title I funding (which sounded like she was raising Buttigieg's bet at that poker table: Triple? Hell, I'll quadruple), and fully funding IDEA (which, if I had a dime for every time I'd heard that one through the decades, I could have retired at 55), close to her heart because she'd started her journey as a special education teacher of kindergarteners (and I believed her when she said she still thinks about those kids; there isn't a teacher who doesn't). It kind of left charters as something of a white (sorry) elephant, neither bad nor good, which can neither disappear (way too many now) nor be expanded (see above).
At any rate: Madam I-have-a-plan-for-that came off as forthright, determined, and dogged. She's either becoming president, going back to the Senate where she can bug Republicans (not a bad thought), or a federal judge or Attorney General. No Veeping for her. Would seem like a demotion.
Bernie Sanders--This was probably the most far-ranging, both in form (he nervously paced and stood up to answer questions and the moderators followed suit) and in content. He made sure to thank teachers for their actual campaign support--he noted that in sheer numbers, they led in terms of donations; something that the unions' leadership has probably already noted--and made sure to put out a $60,000 minimum salary for teachers and tripling Title I funding in his introductory remarks. Ellis challenged him to declare how many black children had attended the schools he attended; he said that only one did where he went to elementary school. (To me, that's something of an a-ha question that he can't help, and doesn't and can't necessarily determine how empathetic he is to children of color.) He was the first one to actually bring 45's name into the conversation, the first one to use the phrase "teaching to the test" upon discussion of his 'no' vote on No Child Left Behind, and added "and lunch and dinner as well" to the idea of making sure all schoolchildren had their breakfast. But he also riffed on the ease with which he preferred unions to be formed, the right to strike, and the disgust with which he holds right-to-work; he echoed Warren's support of collective bargaining. He managed to throw in his favorite word--"revolution" into a discussion of educational philosophy, based on Ellis' statement that only 14% of U.S. kids could distinguish between fact and opinion (a classroom crisis if I've ever heard one). But there were also questions from the crowd on the school-to-prison pipeline and school safety, which he fielded deftly.
Bernie's the most quixotic answer to the pestilence of 45, but Medicare for All might get him beat. It's going to be very, very interesting to see how his candidacy plays out at the NEA-RA this year--whether the NEA "owes" it to him for recommendation, the way it did after Obama-v-Clinton in '08, when the state affiliate presidents were badly split (at least, it appeared so on the conference call) the same way the Democrats were, and then jumped way out in front in '16 to kind of apologize and endorse her months before it did in any past campaign. Things looked so much different at that moment, though, so I think NEA could be forgiven; it was mimicking not only other unions but the whole country's attitude of let's-get-this-over-with-because-of-course-she'll-win. Not quite, and now we have Betsy DuVos besides.
Joe Biden--He was late to the gathering; much of the crowd had dispersed by then. His approach is deeply personal. Listening carefully, you can tell why people noted early on in the debates his propensity to cut himself off during answers: He's not wimpy, he's a gentleman and dissemblingly polite and considerate, almost to a fault. Some would say so, and hesitate to endorse him with debating the obnoxiously insulting 45 a distinct possibility. "Am I supposed to say something here?" were his first words on stage; it was as if he'd appeared all of a sudden without being briefed, which indeed might have been, since he'd been to the Texas border earlier that day and encountered rough weather en route to Pittsburgh. (Very noticeably, Randi Weingarten, AFT president, was sitting right next to his wife, Jill, a community college teacher, and he directly addressed Weingarten at one point in one of his answers.)
Biden addressed familiar themes--Title I multiples of funding (3), IDEA, teaching to the test, early pre-K (At age 3? A little much there. But the research has been clear; pre-K pays off)--but what one couldn't ignore was the quiet tone that the rest of the candidates didn't have. Maybe he was tired. It was undoubtedly a long day, but then, presidents (except the one we have who doesn't care) tend to have lots of long days, and it was in a way important to see Biden at the end of one. He almost knew that Ellis would be asking him about desegregating schools the same way that Kamala Harris did, but his answer was pretty much the same as the one he tried to get in edgewise back then, adding how economic issues, too, contributed to the 'new' segregation evident today.
He also stood, but didn't prowl the stage like Sanders did. He spoke far more in terms of what teachers were capable of doing with respect to kids. He spoke to the group as people who happen to be educators, rather than the other way around. As a politician, there's something about him that none of the rest really have, something he's never lost in all his campaigns--a talent for making people think he's only talking to them. It has a calming effect, which may be the single thing he has going for himself most of all--and which might just carry him through to the nomination. That, and the obvious experience he's had with Obama. Can't discount that.
If you'd like to watch yourself--it's over five hours, but of course you can fast-forward through breaks--just put MSNBC Education Forum 2020 in your browser. Of course I'm happy that MSNBC went to the trouble of actually giving educators a chance to weigh in on the candidates. That goes without saying.
What will NEA and/or AFT's endorsements mean? Not as much as they used to. Yet, so many crucial states are still close and I don't see how that's going to change, impeachment results notwithstanding. Educators could still make that 1% difference in enough states to swing the persnickety Electoral College one way or another. There were some good ideas tossed out there; I just hope they don't get left behind, even in victory.
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment