A WOW from @HillaryClinton on Charter Schools

Hillary Clinton blew me away today. Honestly, I had been personally trending towards Bernie Sanders. I even tagged along last night to #FeelTheBern at a Las Vegas campaign rally. However, I was disappointed again that that Bernie said nothing about education besides that he will press for free college— which I do realize is a big deal considering the mountains of debt many students these days are facing (See my family’s story in the post Lily’s Blackboard: Dimming the American Dream with Debt).

But still nothing on K-12. In The Progressive Magazine I expressed my dismay that the Democratic candidates completely ignored K-12 education in their first debate in Las Vegas (See Education needs to be on the agenda at the Iowa Debate). The Republicans are up next on the debate circuit. I have accepted an outside assignment to cover education in the Republican debate tomorrow, so look out for that piece on Thursday.

So back to being blown away… In early October I Tweeted a question… I longingly hoped Hillary would leave behind top-down, private control reforms and instead move to a new community-based reform agenda.

Even earlier, in September, I had a gut feeling that Hillary might trend away from private control reformers.

I got skewered by my Twitter followers.


Well, today the Washington Post Answer sheet excerpted comments from Roland Martin’s recent conversation with Hillary Clinton— charters and vouchers came up in the conversation.

Here is the conversation excerpted by the Answer Sheet:

CLINTON: I have for many years now, about 30 years, supported the idea of charter schools, but not as a substitute for the public schools, but as a supplement for the public schools. And what I have worked on through my work with the Children’s Defense Fund and my work on education in Arkansas and through my time as first lady and senator  is to continue to say charter schools can have a purpose, but you know there are good charter schools and there are bad charter schools, just like there are good public schools and bad public schools.

MARTIN: So let’s get rid of all the bad….

CLINTON: But the original idea, Roland, behind charter schools was to learn what worked and then apply them in the public schools. And here’s a couple of problems. Most charter schools — I don’t want to say every one — but most charter schools, they don’t take the hardest-to-teach kids, or, if they do, they don’t keep them. And so the public schools are often in a no-win situation, because they do, thankfully, take everybody, and then they don’t get the resources or the help and support that they need to be able to take care of every child’s education.

So I want parents to be able to exercise choice within the public school system — not outside of it — but within it because I am still a firm believer that the public school system is one of the real pillars of our democracy and it is a path for opportunity.

But I am also fully aware that there are a  lot of substandard public schools. But part of the reason for that is that policymakers and local politicians will not fund schools in poor areas that take care of poor children to the level that they need to be. And you can get me going on this…. I mean, the corridor of shame right here in South Carolina, you get on there and you can see schools that are literally falling apart. I’ve been in some of those schools. I have seen the terrible physical conditions. That is an outrage. It is a rebuke to who we are as Americans to send any child to a school that you wouldn’t send your own child to.

And so we’ve got a lot of work to do to make sure that public schools serve people, but that doesn’t mean we don’t also provide options within the system so that parents can find what they think might work best for their kid.

So it appears that Hillary is cognizant of the critiques of private control of public dollars via charters that were pressed by both Bush and Obama. (See all of Cloaking Inequity’s posts on charters here.)

I realize many thought we were going down an enlightened road with Obama in 2008 (I even served on the Obama campaign’s national education policy committee) only to have the rug pulled out from under us with the appointment of Arne Duncan (See A Top Ten of @ArneDuncan Inanity: Obama’s Basketball Buddy Drops Ball on Ed). But I also realize that the Republicans I will be watching tomorrow in the debate are whole hog top-down, private control and privatization education “reform” proponents (What happened to local control?).

So just WOW Hillary. It’s a start. I’d like to hear more about high-stakes testing, Common Core, teacher evaluation, the school-to-prison pipeline, multiple measure accountability etc (See also Top 10 Education Questions for 2016 Presidential Candidates) But, Hillary has me hopeful today.

What’s your next move Bernie Sanders?

Please Facebook Like, Tweet, etc below and/or reblog to share this discussion with others.

Want to know about Cloaking Inequity’s freshly pressed conversations about educational policy? Click the “Follow blog by email” button on the home page.

Twitter: @ProfessorJVH

Click here for Vitae.


  • Pingback: Hillary Clinton and the School Accountability “Conversation” | Daniel Katz, Ph.D.

  • Pingback: Will @HillaryClinton go all in with us or Wall Street? | Cloaking Inequity

  • Pingback: Drinking Charter Kool-Aid?: Here is Evidence | Cloaking Inequity

  • In her statement, all I can see is her talking about “choice”. That is double speak for charter schools. She’s bashing public schools. Is there something I’m missing here? What is the WOW based on? Hillary DECLINED to answer 4 out of 10 questions of the AFT questionairre. She is for testing and charter schools. She is for privitazation if it means more money for her backers. We need to fight for public education for all students and dignity for teachers. Hilllary does not agree. –Sandy, public school teacher for 30 yrs


  • Lily and Randi forced a premature endorsement down the throats of their 4 mil members months ago without demanding any forthright policy plan from Hillary for stopping the ugly private war on public education–nothing from H then on privatization, standardized testing, VAM, billionaire takeover of local board elections, etc. With the immense asset of endorsement forced on us by the two teacher union chiefs, why did it take Hillary so many months to say something about k-12? This single interview was in a minor media platform, while Hillary refused to say anything about k-12 in the two major Dem debates and in her many, many stump speeches in the campaign. She is a long-time friend of Eli Broad and very close to the tech billionaires embedded inside the Dem Party, while her son-in-law is a banker at Goldman-Sachs. This single utterance is small potatoes given the years of assault on our public school kids, teachers, and districts.


  • Julian: Hillary will be the candidate. thus her answer v. significant btw, the whole free college thing is in my mind a cover for all online education and the end of fulltime jobs for instructors.


  • Hi Julian,
    I respect your opinion about HRC but when we vote for POTUS we vote for their whole team, not just the person. Clinton’s advisers and funders are from the Rahm/DFER wing of the Democratic Party. They’ve been plotting her messaging for some time and in particular, education messaging at a quaint gathering at Martha’s Vinyard:
    Eli Broad was a sponsor & Rahm was one of the organizers.
    Here are a few of the topics they covered:

    Meeting Voters Where They Are: How to Tell the Pro-Reform Story Successfully
    K-12 Higher Education Loop: Opportunities for Innovation and Accountability
    Doubling Down on Success or Losing It All: What’s At Stake in 2016
    How We Win: Strategies and Tactics to Combat an Organized and Vocal Opposition
    What’s Next in the Edu Political Funding World?

    There is NOTHING about Public funding for education.
    I don’t care what HRC says. She & her team are neoliberal privatizers. Bernie’s deep understanding of the corruption behind public-private partnerships is enough to convince me to vote for him. He would be far more willing to take on the financial industry, Wall St, the Broadies (etc).


  • Frankly, I’ve been expecting a choice between (D) more of the same accountability/charterizing and (R) dissolution of mandatory public education under to cloak of education state’s rights. You’re raising the possibility that HRC is more hip to the argument that charters privatize. Still haven’t heard anything on drivers of characterizing–anti-democratic attacks on unions, assumptions that testing is the fundamental measure of educational benefit. Also heard nothing yet about the elephant in the room, school segregation. Having been in the ed policy group for Obama, do you know who is advising HRC? That could be a helpful way to see where she’s headed.


  • Julian,

    Excerpt from an article about $70 million taxpayers dollars being spent to construct and widen roads to a new 2,000 acre development to include a charter school NOT an ISD!

    “He’s going to have an IDEA school out there. I don’t know how you feel about IDEA schools, but he’s going to have an IDEA school out there, a campus, probably a high school from Edinburg; ultimately a Texas A&M campus; so you’ve got pretty good advantage of developing out there.”

    Link to the whole story: http://theadvancenewsjournal.com/news/will-tres-lagos-pay

    Rosalie Weisfeld 956.793.5814 Rosalieweisfeld@gmail.com Sent from my iPhone



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s