My good friend, Diane Ravitch, has been one of the strongest critics of this administration on educational policy. Early in its first year, she trained her sharp wit upon the Secretary of Education, describing Arne Duncan as Margaret Spellings (Bush Secretary of Education) in drag.
She has been a constant critic of Race to the Top and the Blue Print on education.
Those who attended my educational panel at Netroots Nation in Providence heard how pointed some of her criticisms can be, and she has served as a key person in organizing opposition to the educational policies of this administration.
Thus her piece Why I will vote for President Obama should carry special weight for any educators - or supporters of public education - who have their doubts about this administration's educational policies and are thinking either of voting for any other candidate, or not voting at all.
As Diane notes in her 2nd paragraph, after she rightly criticized both major party candidates on education,
But as bad as the Obama education policies are, they are tolerable in comparison to what Mitt Romney plans. Romney claims credit for the academic successes of Massachusetts, but he had nothing to do with the gains in that state, which were enacted 10 years before he became governor. The Massachusetts education reforms doubled the budget for public schools, increased spending on early childhood education, and raised standards for new teachers, but Romney intends to do none of that if elected President.
Before I continue with Diane's remarks, follow the link. What changed MA's educational policy were the actions of his Republican predecessor, Bill Weld, a truly moderate Republican governor. And remember that during the primaries Romney described himself as a "severely conservative" governor. His claims of bipartisanship are bunk - he vetoed 800 bills, more than 700 of those vetoes were overridden, dozens upon dozens unanimously.
But this is about education, so below the fold I will return to Diane's remarks. Or if you want, you can simply read - and pass on - what she offered at CNN.Com.
Let me quote Diane's entire third paragraph, because it does hit most of the points:
If elected president, Romney will curtail spending on everything except privatization of public education. He will lower standards for entering the teaching profession. His policies will devastate our public schools and dismantle the education profession. He supports charters and vouchers and welcomes the takeover of public schools by for-profit entrepreneurs. Unlike the Massachusetts reforms that he wrongly takes credit for, he offers not a single idea to improve public education. Romney nowhere acknowledges that free public education is a public responsibility and an essential institution in a democratic society.
If you were to look as I write this at the top of the Recommended list, you will see two diaries written in response to Ann Romney's truly obnoxious hit remark on public schools in
the current issue of Good Housekeeping- not that Ann Romney herself has any real experience of public schools either as a student or a parent.
If you have not done so, it will be worth your while to read both Dear Mrs. Romney, SHUT THE HELL UP and Ann Romney: "Throw out" the American public education system.
The Romneys have little real concern for the real issues of public education. For example, Ravitch points out that there is nothing in Romney's policy that does anything to address the fact that approximately one quarter of our school children live in poverty. She notes that the Republican Party whose standard-bearer Romney is radically anti-government (except I might note when it either benefits the very rich or imposes its social views upon the rest of us), and writes
The party seems determined to roll back the social policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society and to bring our society back to the 1920s. We know what followed the free-market exhilaration of the 1920s.
Ravitch goes through other issues - the Supreme Court, economic policies that benefit only the rich, and so on.
Here i might note that Diane Ravitch has always been a champion of both public education and of teachers' unions. She was never a Republican: when she served in the administration of the first President Bush she was a registered Democrat and is now independent. She is totally opposed to the corporatizing of pubic functions in America, especially the schools.
As an historian and as an acute observer not only of America, but of other societies (which she examines to see how they approach educational policy), she reminds us that most of the truly healthy societies make real efforts to reduce income inequality and poverty and to protect the environment - by implication reminding us that a Romney administration would not only do none of these, but in fact exacerbate all three issues.
Then she concludes, in my opinion, with a powerful statement:
I cannot support a candidate who promises to shred the safety net for our most vulnerable citizens. I cannot support a candidate who wants to reward those who are richest and to deny government support to those who need help to survive. I do not want to turn the clock back almost a century.
That is why I will vote to re-elect President Obama.
Read the words of Diane Ravitch.
If you have relatives or acquaintances who are reluctant to support Obama's reelection because of his educational policies, send them Diane's piece. IF she can support Obama, so can they.