Ed Reform Was Supposed To Crush Unions

Every once in a while I stumble on an old article from back in the days when some reformsters would just say certain parts out loud instead of trying to be subtle or dog whistly.

Take this piece from April of 2014 by Terry M. Moe. It's an excerpt from his book What Lies Ahead for America's Children and Their Schools, and it's really, really clear what this Hoover Institute Fellow has in mind. Here's the subheading that pops up if you share a link to the article:

Real change won't come until we strip teachers unions of their power.

This frickin' guy

The arguments are familiar: Collective bargaining has forced schools to use inefficient organization. They block change in order to protect their vested interests (not, of course, because they are educational professionals who have some thoughts about what actually works in a classroom).

Moe talks about the "two great education reform movements" by which he means accountability and school choice. Choice progress has been slow, and Moe is very disappointed in accountability because even though students are taking the test, teachers aren't being fired or having their pay adjusted based on test results.

But Moe sees reason for hope, reason to believe that reformsters are going to turn it around thanks to two sets of factors.

One he calls endogenous change. These are politics within the education system, and he points to conservative gains in 2010 that helped lead to states gutting collective bargaining. It is hard to overstate just how positively Moe views any damage inflicted on teachers and their unions. He also points to the rise of reformy groups within the Democratic Party, like DFER and the network of activists rooted in TFA and Barrack Obama and Arne Duncan (who are "clearly in the reform wing of the party). These folks, he notes, are actually "serious about improving the nation's schools" and so think that unions must be made part of the solution. Yes, he missed a lot back then, from imagining that DFER includes actual democrats to the fact that union desire to collaborate with reformists spurred a noisy member pushback.  At any rate, he doesn't see these endogenous changes as sufficient to "bring about major change."

It propels the education system in the right direction. But it is inherently limited, because it does little to reduce the power of the teachers unions—and they will continue to use their power to prevent the schools from being effectively organized.

So what are the changes that can bust union power? Exogenous changes, originating from outside the education system-- specifically, those emerging from "the worldwide revolution in information technology."

Online curriculum can be created and customized. Give instant feedback and assessment. Allow students to learn at a personalized pace while giving access at any time or any place. Is Moe excited about these things because he thinks they'll make education better? Not exactly:

By strategically substituting technology (which is cheap) for labor (which is expensive), moreover, schools can be far more cost-effective than they are now—which is crucial in a future of tight budgets.

Teaching staffs will be reduced and dispersed (because they can teach from anywhere). This will undermine the union membership, money and power. Woohoo!

Do we have to wait for this "tsunami" to come and wash those damn teachers away/ Well, Moe had some thoughts about things that could be done to hasten that joyous day. He wants researchers to dig up some information. Does collective bargaining increase the costs of public education? Are unions swinging board elections? How do unions use their power to block ed reform? Do right to work states successfully weaken the unions? Is the rising Democratic reformy tide yield real results? How have the unions dealt with ed tech-- do they control it, defeat it, or "support" it (scare quotes are his, because, you know, any teacher support for ed tech must be fake).

Now, five years later, some other questions occur, like how does the attempt to crush teachers and their unions result in an inability to find enough teachers who will take your crappy job at crappy pay? And how disappointed are you that a Trump administration sucked all the air out of the faux democrat support for reformy ideas? Do you think wealthy parents are really excited about having their children taught by computer screen?

It is striking the degree to which this article completely bypasses the question of whether his dreamed-of reforms will actually help students. "We've got to bust those damned unions" is the main focus, and the most desired outcome of everything from accountability to his nascent vision of personalized learning.

So who is this guy? Terry Moe is a Stanford professor and a Hoover Institution education task force guy. His degrees are in economics and political science. He has also been a fellow at the Brookings Institute, and Fordham Institute gave him an award for excellence in 2005. In 2011 he had published a book along much the same themes outlined above, and it was praised by Joel Klein and former DC Chancellor, She Who Will Not Be Named.

But perhaps his most telling work isn't about education at all-- consider his 2016 book Relic, which argues that the Constitution needs to be rewritten in order to push Congress aside so that a President has far more power and freedom to govern as he will. So, you know, more like a king. Or, in keeping with the corporate school of ed reform, more like a powerful visionary CEO.

You may be asking-- with Donald Trump as President, does Moe still think the President needs more power? The answer is yes. The argument is that Trump is awful, but he was elected because government has been sucky, which is Congress's fault, and if the President had more power, government would work better, and we wouldn't get a Trump in the White House. So there's that.

But we're digressing from the main feature here, which was our little trip back to 2014, when a reformster might just come out and say, "We need more Democrat reformsters and ed tech and personalized learning and students taught via computer because it will help us destroy the teachers union as a political force and so we can remake schools according to our amateur hour vision without anyone getting in our way. It's a nightmare vision of ed reform, but at least it's honest.

ICYMI: What A Miserable Sunday Edition (8/4)

This has not been a great week in the US, but here we are again. Read some pieces about education if you can; otherwise, just go curl up with loved ones.

Testing Craze Is Fading in U.S. Schools. Good. Here’s What’s Next.

At Bloomberg, Andrea Gabor takes a look at testing and what may come after.

Why Do White Reformers Keep Making This Obvious Mistake?

I Love You But You're Going To Hell adds some historical perspective to the issue. As is often the case with education reform ideas, we have been here before.

When Do Not-for-profit and For-profit Mean the Same Thing?

Mitchell Robinson on Eclectablog takes a look at how easily Michigan profiteers skirt the laws forbidding for-profit charter schools.

Top 7 Ways Technology Stifles Student Learning in My Classroom

At his blog, Steven Singer enumerates the problems of classroom tech.

Fake Play and Its Dangerous Alignment to Standards and Data

Nancy Bailey talks about the most critical of issues-- play and the littles.

China has started a grand experiment in AI education. It could reshape how the world learns.

MIT Tech Review looks at one more scary thing the Chinese are up to. If you want to be further alarmed by the company profiled here, I've written about them before-- here and here.

Charter operator: Viral graduation speeches were acts of ‘dishonesty and deceit,’ could cost students their diplomas

Chalkbeat looks at a charter school having trouble with that pesky old First Amendment

For-profit colleges — but not their student 'customers' — have a friend in Betsy DeVos  

Even at The Hill, they've noticed where Betsy DeVos's loyalties lie.

Segregation: Who's The Worst?

A new study of segregation in charter schools has been released. Authored by Julian Vasquez Heilig, T. Jameson Brewer, and Yohuru Williams, "Choice without inclusion?: Comparing the intensity of racial segregation in charters and public schools at the local, state and national levels" concludes that "national, state, and local data indicate that the charter industry has a segregation problem in the US and it is not simply explained away by locality or demography."

In other words, despite charters periodically being labeled the "civil rights issue" of our day, they are failing to reverse segregation in US schools. Public schools have less of a segregation problem than charter schools.

But let's be honest. Having less of a segregation problem than charter schools, like being more civil than Donald Trump, is not a brag-worthy high-bar-clearing achievement.

Even in a post Brown v. Board world, public schools have found ways to maintain plenty of segregation. Some examples are particularly egregious, like the Pinellas County schools of Florida. As laid out in painful detail by the Tampa Bay Times, the district first systematically moved most of its poor, minority students into five previously-average schools. Then they systematically starved those schools of resources, turning them into "failure factories."

School district lines are sometimes drawn carefully to isolate wealthy, white districts from Those People's Children. Adam Harris, in a recent Atlantic article, profiled the Waterbury School District, a district that is systematically "walled off" from surrounding districts that are whiter and better funded. Put that together with years of white flight, and you get a segregated set of districts. And if the feds stop paying close attention-- well, here's a study from Stanford that followed districts under desegregation orders and what happened when the orders were lifted. Segregation increased.

In a sort of counter-report to the Vasquez-Heilig-Brewer-Williams report, the entirely reform EdBuild has a report showing almost a thousand borders between school districts where one side is considerably wealthier and whiter than the other. I've also looked at another of EdBuild's reports showing 128 communities trying to secede from their district since 2000, with 74 succeeding. A local peculiarity in Maine inflated those numbers a bit, but honestly, the uninflated numbers are nothing to brag about. I don't trust EdBuild's motives-- but their basic information

And that's just segregation between and within schools. A 2014 piece from The Atlantic lays out how segregation can occur within a school--by simply keeping poor, minority students out of the higher tracks for classes.

There is plenty of room for discussion and argument, and measuring segregation can yield some conflicting results depending on which yardstick you use. But there is no yardstick that let's us as a country say, "Oh, well, we've totally eradicated that problem now."

EdBuild's chief Rebecca Sibelia points to the case Milliken v. Bradley, a 45-year-old lawsuit charging Detroit with racist policies:

The plaintiffs argued that school policies reinforced racist housing practices that had trapped black families inside the city. It was a story playing out across the United States.

"The story was the story of American apartheid," says Michelle Adams, a professor at Cardozo School of Law in New York City. She's writing a book on Milliken and says federal redlining of neighborhoods and race-based restrictions on house sales, known as covenants, had made it nearly impossible for black families to move to the suburbs.

"Over and over and over again, the plaintiffs used this phrase, 'contained.' "

Tie school districts geographically, and then restrict where Black folks can live, and you get segregated schools. But the justices decided in a 5-4 ruling that echoes many rulings since, that since the school district lines weren't drawn with the intent to segregate, it didn't matter that those lines followed housing lines that were drawn with intent to segregate.

And with that, Brown v. Board lost half its teeth and white flight was given a supreme stamp of approval. And public education settled into its own version of school district gerrymandering.

Yes, I know what reformsters are getting at-- if public school systems are unwilling to redraw district lines, well, then, a system of charters that could simply disregard district lines should be able to cross those lines and desegregate education.

The problem with that argument is laid out simply enough in studies like the one we started this post with-- charters have had a couple of decades to show how they can be engines of desegregation, and they haven't done it. Instead, somehow, they've done worse. Could be that they've generally targeted poor minority communities as their market and occasionally marketed charters for the white flight crowd. Could be that desegregation was never really on their To Do list. Or it could be something else.

But look-- I'm not one to stand up in defense of charters or any of the reformy groups pushing them, but public education is not in a position to say, "Yeah, charters dropped this ball, but don't worry-- we've got it under control." Because they don't.

I will give the ed reform movement some of the blame. The continued framing of education as a commodity and parents as the only customers in a scarcity market can only lead to people scrambling after what they believe is a limited resource in a zero-sum game-- and in any such scrambling, the wealthy will probably win.

But ed reform didn't create segregation. Didn't improve the situation, but didn't create it.

The problems of segregation are not simply that we get apartheid, with people growing up in their own isolated cultural silos. The problem-- perhaps even the bigger problem-- is that, as in Pinellas County, segregating the students is a tool for segregating resources. If I don't want my tax dollars to go to educate Those Peoples' Children, then collecting all of Those Peoples' Children in one school makes that denial of resources much easier to pull off.

I don't have a solution for fixing the real problem here, which is racism, prejudice, bias. You can set up any kind of school system you like, and as long as many white folks are inclined to keep their kids away from Those Peoples' Children, you'll get segregated schools. Collect enough people who want segregation, and, as in this NYC school, you get it.

At a minimum, our priority should be the resources. Segregate or don't segregate, but as a state, put an end to districts that can afford wildly different amounts of per-pupil spending. Wealthy families will always find a way to get their children something extra, but we should be making sure that every school district has enough. No, having the money follow the child does not accomplish this, any more than Daylight Savings Time creates more hours of sunlight in the day.

US education has a racism problem because the US has a racism problem. Thirty years ago you might have convinced me that a school choice system that allowed families to ignore school district boundaries might be a help. But we've tried it, and we now know that it makes things worse rather than better. It exacerbates segregation as well as leaving those students who are still in public schools with even fewer resources. We need a new answer. School choice isn't it.

Should A Teacher Be Secretary of Education

This is part of the value of having a clown car full of candidates for a Presidential primary: the contest becomes a primary of ideas, and certain notions gain traction by spreading across the field of candidates. Not that gaining traction means those ideas will ultimately prevail (a widespread notion among the 2016 GOP field was that Donald Trump was unfit to be President), but it's still an intriguing process.

If I were Ed Secretary, I could stand up all day to talk to people

One up-and-coming education policy idea that was first proposed by Elizabeth Warren, but has now garnered wider candidate support, is the notion that a teacher should be the next secretary of education. At last count, four major candidates were supporting some version of the idea. It's an arresting and appealing idea. Betsy DeVos is widely seen as a controversial opponent of public education, and in many education circles, predecessors like Arne Duncan were not much loved, either. Many teachers feel that the folks in D.C. just don't get it, so the idea of someone from the trenches who would, presumably, get it--well, it's an attractive idea. Now we have to ask--is it a good idea?

The devil, as always, is in the details. The idea has been expressed variously as appointing an educator, a public school teacher, or "someone who comes from public schools." That may seem pretty straightforward. It isn't. "Educator" is a loose umbrella term to cover anyone who has held an education-adjacent job: teacher, administrator, education advocacy group member, school bus driver, education-specializing lawyer, or real estate salesman who once opened a charter school. "Public school" is not a clear term, because charter advocates assert that charter schools (privately owned and operated schools fed with public tax dollars) are public schools. Even "teacher" has become a fuzzy term. Teach For America has created a small army of "former teachers" who have only two years of actual classroom experience. Critics have directed lots of attention at TFA's program that claims to prepare college grads for a classroom in just five weeks. Less attention has been paid to how TFA produces "education policy experts" who have only two years of classroom experience. Those TFA grads have moved into a variety of powerful positions, from leaders of large city school systems to heads of entire state public education systems to founders and heads of their own charter schools. And while some TFA grads have emerged from the program as solid career supporters of public education, some remain aligned with the kind of corporate education reform that is unsupportive of public education.

In short, the candidates could appoint someone like controversial former D.C. Chancellor Michelle Rhee and honor the letter of their pledge. But it would not much alter the trajectory set for the department by past secretaries.

In the original Forbes post, I overlooked one important point-- while we associate the USED with K-12 education, they also mess with higher ed a lot, and in particular, the financial side thereof. There is a great deal of college loan baloney to deal with which may legitimately stretch, challenge, or just plain fall outside of a public school teacher's skill set. Of course, a USED secretary could go the "hiring a qualified person to handle that" route. That would be refreshing.

So assuming that the newly appointed secretary was an actual working public school classroom teacher, would that be a good idea?

A classroom teacher would face some significant hurdles. Betsy DeVos lacks experience in running a large, complicated organization, nor has she shown a great deal of aptitude in dealing with members of Congress. A teacher secretary would face similar challenges. Field expertise is not enough; anyone in that job will need either prior understanding or a crash course in how to actually get things done in D.C. Wags will suggest that herding a room of unruly children through math lessons involves a similar skill set, and there's some merit to that. Teachers manage, organize, and lead every day. But it also seems a legitimate concern that a classroom teacher transplanted to D.C. bureaucracy would have a great deal to learn about effectively navigating the halls of power. But similar transitions have been made. Jerry Oleksiak is a thirty-two-year classroom veteran who is now serving as Pennsylvania's secretary of labor and industry. We often assume that lawyers and businessmen can, of course, "do government." Why not teachers?

What most appeals about the idea is the notion of someone in D.C. positioned to say, "Here's how that policy looks in a real classroom, and here's why it's a lousy idea." It's not just that a teacher would have power, but that a teacher would actually be listened to. But that, too, is a devilish detail. A cabinet office does not come with a guarantee of access to a Presidential ear.

Selecting a classroom teacher does not guarantee a particular point of view. Among the millions of classroom veterans, one finds a variety of viewpoints (one in three National Education Association members voted for Donald Trump). It's worth remembering that although previous secretaries include a school administrator and a college professor, the one secretary who taught in a public high school was Rod Paige, who presided over the "Texas Miracle" that turned out to be a mirage, and who once called the NEA a terrorist organization. Coming from a public school background is no guarantee that someone is a public school supporter.

What could be the best feature of a teacher secretary would be a willingness to listen to other teachers. What has been consistently frustrating about education reform policies coming out of D.C. has been how little policymakers have consulted with actual experts who work in the field. Even when teachers have been involved, they have been carefully vetted and selected to be in tune with administration ideas. The best the next secretary could do, regardless of where she comes from, would be to assemble a broad-based panel of actual public school teachers, consult them regularly, and listen to them. In a world in which real live teachers had better access to those in power than lobbyists do, we could spend less time worrying about what the secretary of education used to do for a living.

Originally (mostly) posted at Forbes

Eight Weeks of Summer: Moving Forward

This post is week 8 of 8 in the 8 Weeks of Summer Blog Challenge for educators.

I've been doing the eight week challenge because why not? This is the final prompt, and like any good exercise, it calls for some reflection. Here's prompt #8:

What will you keep from the #8WeekofSummer Blog Challenge moving forward?

I've been trying to answer these from the perspective of my previous non-retired teaching self, but this is a tough one to twist around that way. But let's give it a shot.

I always carried things forward from my summer growth projects, but never as much as I meant to.

One of the benefits of summer vacations for teachers is that it gives you the breathing space you need to reflect on practices. During the school year, virtually all time is caught up in the dailiness of it, and no matter how much you want to carry over your new deep philosophical insights, it only takes a week or two to go from "What's a good pedagogical approach to including more reflection on the idealism of Romantic authors" to "I think if I hurry, I can get my copying done in that five minute break before third period. Also, I think I've figured out where to move those three guys on the seventh period seating chart so that they'll stop having fart contests." Starting the year can move you quickly from envisioning a moving, breathing image of the cosmos to simply feeling like you're trapped in a game of Space Invaders.

The things that always ended up being useful were the things that I fully learned. Not ideas that I carried around separately, still shiny from just having the wrapper pulled off, but things that were fully integrated into the grubby scuffed cabinet of Things I Know.

My own big cabinet has been getting a steady reorganization, as I integrate everything I ever learned about teaching into a different sort of context. I still think about teaching and, obviously, write about it, but without having to leap entirely into the dailiness of it (though I am, in fact, still married to a teacher).

Integrating matters to me because I see every Thing as part of the Big Thing. I'm not a believer that there's any part of human experience, no portion of our existence in the world, that is somehow disconnected and separate from all the rest of it. Life, the universe and everything is one gigantic elephant, and we are all blindly fumbling away at a toe, a leg, part of the tail, but everything is part of that same gigantic beast.

So for me, understanding something is about figuring out its connections to everything else. Also, nothing can be safely ignored because it just doesn't have anything to do with the rest of existence. It's all connected.

This was always hugely useful in the classroom. Analogies were my bread and butter, explaining one concept in terms of something closer to my students' home. And it helped me say "yes" to plenty of things.

I don't imagine that any of us had our world's completely rocked by the Eight Weeks challenge, but any exercise that gives you a chance to put some things together, to open up your brain and poke around a little-- those are always worthwhile.

So moving forward always meant folding together the Grand Ideas I had developed over the summer with the actual students and classes that I was facing in the fall. Little chats over the summer are fun, but figuring out how they connect to the actual work is important work all on its own.

Why Charter Schools Must Waste Money

Back in March, the Network for Public Education, a public education advocacy group, released a study showing that the Department of Education has spent over a billion dollars on charter school waste and fraud. Education Next, a publication that advocates for charter schools, offered a reply to that report. The rebuttal to the rebuttal just appeared in the Washington Post, but there is one portion of the Education Next piece that deserves a closer look.

Charter schools should be held accountable for performance, which requires closing them when they don’t meet standards. Even with the best plans and under the ideal circumstances, opening a charter school is difficult. Charter Schools Program funding is intended to serve as seed capital to encourage innovation, and some experiments will fail. That is expected.

This is part of the premise of corporate education reform--that schools should open and close and rise and fall just like a car dealership or a food truck. For these fans of choice, having schools closed down is a sign that the system is working, not a sign of failure.

There are several problems with this feature.

One is the disruption for students. Being booted out of your school (especially if it happens suddenly, unexpectedly, and in the middle of the school year) is not like discovering that your favorite taco truck isn't at the corner today. Families have to find a new school. Students are wrenched out of familiar surroundings with familiar teachers and school friends. Being the new kid in school is socially isolating. Learning to live by a whole new set of rules is troubling. For a child, having a school close is not some sort of bloodless market adjustment; it's a disruptive and disorienting experience.

Another problem is the sheer waste of taxpayer dollars. In most states, a charter/choice system already rests on a financial fiction--that we can somehow run multiple school systems for the same money that was previously set aside to run just one system. What business has ever said, "Because we need to tighten our belts here at WidgetCorps, our next move will be to open more facilities." Choice depends on the Daylight Savings Time theory of financial resources--if we just shuffle them, maybe somehow there will be more of them.

But as the Education Next piece states, it's worse than that. The premise is not just that we can run multiple systems with the taxpayer money used to run one; additionally, we assume that we are going to take some of the money and just throw it away. The NPE report found that not only do some charter schools close soon after opening but that some charter schools never even open in the first place.

Imagine if a public school district proposed a tax increase and when the taxpayers asked what the money would be used for, the district said, "We plan to lose all of it. That's just part of our process."

One of the critical differences between charter schools and public schools is that charters can walk away, at any time. Education Next focuses on charters that fail and are shut down by their authorizers. They don't say anything about the many charters that shut down for business reasons. A public school must honor the community's commitment to provide a decent education for every student. Do public schools always meet that commitment well? No, but they don't get the option of saying, "Well, it's too hard, and we can't make any money doing it, so we're just going to quit. See ya!"

Public schools and charter schools both experience failure. But a critical difference is that for public schools, failure is a bug, a problem to be fixed. As Education Next argues, for charter schools, failure is a feature, and wasting taxpayer money is just part of the plan.

Originally posted at Forbes

Mayor Pete Doesn't Get It (And If He Does, That's Even Worse)

In 2016, Hillary Clinton staked out what was supposed to be the safe territory on the charter school issue-- to be against for-profit charters, but in favor of non-profits. That qualified as enough of a break with the corporate Democrat orthodoxy that DFER felt the need to reassure wealthy donors that the Clinton's could be counted on to betray unions.

But a position that depends on distinguishing non-profits from for-profits at best shows some cynical poli-gamesmanship, and at worst reveals a lack of understanding of the issues. In 2016, a candidate might be excused for ignorance, but there's been plenty of education on the subject since, and no excuses left for candidates.

That's why it's a bit discouraging to find high-profile candidates like Mayor Pete Buttigieg resorting to this dodge.

The signs up until this point have not been good. Buttigieg has some time with McKinsey on his resume, and that consulting giant … well...McKinsey is one of the biggest management consulting firms in the world, and long intertwined with the education reform movement; Sir Michael Barber was a partner there before he went to run Pearson, and David Coleman worked as a consultant at McKinsey before he spearheaded the Common Core. McKinsey has also plucked some employees from the world of Eli Broad-- a McKinsey manager was in the first class of the Broad Academy. McKinsey actually pre-dated Broad in the practice of embedding their own people in the Los Angeles school district. They're fans of data-driven analytics baloney, and they are generally a good example of what Anand Giridharadas is talking about in Winner Take All-- the ways rich folks try to fix problems without actually inconveniencing themselves while still managing to profit from the "solution."

Reed "Elected School Boards Should Be Abolished" Hastings held a great fund raiser for Mayor Pete. And as she reported this morning (take a second to read this-- I'll wait), when Diane Ravitch reached sat down with the campaign to try to share a more balanced view of ed reform, she found herself facing a bunch of folks who came up through the corporate reform movement and who think that charter schools are just fine, thank you very much.

Buttigieg is one of the Democratic hopefuls who does not identify education as an issue on his website, nor does it crop up under other issues such as his Douglass Plan for investment and empowerment of Black America.

Buttigieg has said he opposes vouchers. He might also mentioned the use of public tax dollars for private schools that discriminate in ways that would be unlawful in a public school (Rebecca Klein at HuffPost correctly notes that the Indiana Catholic high school that Buttigieg graduated would not hire him today because he's gay). But he focused on economic reasons:

Unfortunately, these voucher programs tend to come at the expense of quality public education. They take dollars out of our public schools at the time when we know the schools don’t have enough resources going into them to begin with.

But the big disconnect here is that this exact reason applies to charter schools, whether they are for-profit or non-profit.

After all, at this point for-profit charter schools are legal almost nowhere in the country (that "only for-profits are bad" talking point has been useful at many levels of politics). But what is still legal in most states is having your non-profit charter school operated by a for-profit charter management organization. If you imagine that by only supporting non-profit charters you are somehow preventing the spectacle of corporate owners trying to make more money by short-changing students, you have a fertile imagination. The shell and shadow companies are where the real money is made, including the profits from renting the real estate and providing services like cleaning and cafeteria.

That non-profit charter, feeding all its incoming public tax dollars to private for-profit companies, is still governed by a simple principle-- every additional dollar spent on the students is one dollar less to go into a company bank account.

And even if the non-profit is good and pure and truly non-profit at every level, you have not changed the fact that it is draining resources from the public school where the majority of students study. You are still working from the same flawed premise-- that you can somehow run multiple school systems for the same money that, by Buttigieg's own admission, wasn't enough in the first place.

The Buttigieg campaign seems unlikely to improve in this area. They told Ravitch that they plan to reach out to John King, Jim Shelton and Randi Weingarten, and, well... King, you will recall succeeded Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education. He founded the no-excuses Roxbury Prep, which the Buttigieg campaign thinks is an awesome school. In New York he was Commissioner of Education and pushed the crap out of Common Core and testing, and got so much push back at public meetings that he stopped attending until his bosses made him. Shelton had a leadership role at the Gates Foundation, worked for Arne Duncan in charge of innovation grants for Race to the Top, then ran the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

In other words, Buttigieg would likely be a repeat of the Bush-Obama education program. He's said some salty things about Betsy DeVos, but beyond his dislike of vouchers, it's not clear just how different his education policy would be from hers.

It would be interesting to see what, exactly, his campaign believes is the critical difference between a school accepting a voucher and a non-profit charter school. Because depending on the state you're in, there's not a large enough space between the two to drive a bicycle, let alone a campaign van.

As I've said before, I don't expect to like the Democratic candidate for 2020, and I doubt that my distaste will affect my vote in the general election. But I still have to point out corporate reform baloney when I see it sliced, and it appears that the Buttigieg campaign is slicing it up nice and thick. There are several reasons to like Mayor Pete, but it doesn't look like education policy will be one of them.