Let’s be blunt: If the Democratic Party was a place where people felt like they could talk openly about finding new ways to solve old K-12 education problems, I wouldn’t be posting on this blog and you wouldn’t be reading it.
We all know what happens in certain quarters of the party when you even suggest there is a problem in public education. You get those funny looks. You’re accused of being against the men and women who work in schools. You’re a privatizing profiteer who supports risky schemes blah, blah, blah. Most of the time enough noise gets created that you don’t even get to talk about what the education system is doing (or not doing, as is often the case) for the children of other working men and women or for the public at large, the future of the democracy, etc.
It doesn’t happen as much as it used to, but we all know that it happens.
It usually plays out below the radar screen. The party leaders say they support you but there have been, ahem, complaints from some special interests about your positions. Just don’t talk about things like charter schools and you’ll be fine. Don’t rock the boat and you have a home and a career in the Democratic Party.
It seldom gets put in writing. But this time it did.
The story that is playing out in Columbus, Ohio, is a reminder of just how far our party has wandered from its role of sticking up for the little guy. Here’s the basic storyline: The Franklin County Democrats, which had previously endorsed Stephanie Groce (a popular public school parent) for the Columbus School Board voted this week to withdraw its support just a few weeks before the election, in part because of her support for a KIPP charter school that will open in Columbus in 2008.
Here’s how William Anthony Jr., chair of the county party, put it in a letter:
While I am respectful of your views, I have had a number of individuals and committee members relate to me that they have grave concerns about your views on charter schools, privitization of school services and unions. They feel your views are not consistent with many of the Party’s core values…
Here is what I know about Stephanie Groce: She has been somewhat controversial since she was appointed to the board a few years ago. She was quoted in the press once wondering what kind of business would pay its employees more if it continued to lose customers to new competitors, as the Columbus schools were losing to charter schools. She was a strong supporter of the movement to bring the popular KIPP program to Columbus. She has favored the idea of improving school cafeteria services and reducing the costs of those services. (That was where the privitization charge comes from.) Several friends I called (who admittedly share my world view) who have worked with her in Columbus spoke about her pragmatism and her willingness to call things as she sees them.
Here is what the Columbus Dispatch wrote about Stephanie Groce:
Of all appointees to the board in recent memory, Stephanie Groce has been among the most impressive. In her two years of service, she has quickly gained a reputation for integrity, for her mastery of complex issues and for questioning the administration when necessary.
Her expertise in quantitative research is invaluable in allowing her to independently interpret the cascade of data that school-board members are expected to digest.
Is she a perfect candidate? I don’t know. She voted in the Republican primary in 2000 – something which can cause understandable problems for a Democratic Party Club. That alone could have been a reason for the Franklin County Dems to avoid endorsing Groce in this race. But it wasn’t at all the reason for the sudden switch, as the party leadership admits. (If the Franklin County Dems had their act together they would have made this the public reason for withdrawing support, while privately beating her up on the KIPP stuff.)
From what I know about the situation, Groce has a good following with parents in the district (her peeps) and with some teachers who appreciated her willingness to challenge district management when things don’t add up. In short, she’s one of those school board members who keeps things interesting.
Losing the party endorsement means she’s got to hustle a bit in the next few weeks to raise money to keep her seat. I’m going to send my check.
NOTE: Some of my friends in the blogosphere will no doubt note that Ohio is a particular mess in terms of both its history with bad charter schools and some of the nasty political battles that have been fought by an often mean-spirited Ohio GOP. I get that, I really do. But this genuinely seems like one of those times when our willingness as a party to completely cave to special interests will mean the loss of a good, results-oriented public servant who is looking out for the interests of children, families, and taxpayers. We’re supposed to be better than that. The KIPP project in Columbus has involved some serious movers and shakers, and great pains have been taken to make sure quality is infused throughout. At some point, shouldn’t we be the party that supports quality in education?