Williams: The Closer Charter Fans Are To The Classroom, The Higher Their Trump Anxiety

Williams: The Closer Charter Fans Are to the Classroom, the Higher Their Trump Anxiety

Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to attend the National Charter Schools Conference at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in D.C. It was a vibrant and diverse gathering of education leaders from all over the country, engaging in discussions on various aspects of charter school education including instruction, staffing, and financing. Attendees were excited to be in the nation’s capital and eager to learn more about how federal priorities could impact the charter school movement.

However, one thing stood out to me. I noticed that those attendees who were directly involved with children and schools seemed to be more skeptical of President Trump, with only a few exceptions. Teachers, principals, and charter school operators were generally pessimistic about the current administration, particularly regarding the president’s proposed budget. On the other hand, the conference’s experts, consultants, and advocates were more open-minded about Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who gave a speech at the conference.

This stark contrast in perspectives could potentially be a troubling sign for the future of the charter school movement.

The reality is that American education politics over the past two decades have been incredibly complex. Despite the growing polarization in politics, education has remained a cross-partisan issue. We have seen unlikely alliances between arch-conservatives like former senator Rick Santorum and liberal groups like the National Education Association. Even the late senator Ted Kennedy was able to collaborate with former president George W. Bush to create and pass the No Child Left Behind Act.

Why is this the case? One major reason is that education does not carry as much weight as other political issues for most voters, especially at the national level. This allows policymakers to have more freedom to take different positions on education matters. For example, a congresswoman or presidential candidate may align with the Republican base on issues like immigration, foreign policy, and taxes, but have the ability to build a unique coalition when it comes to schools.

Unfortunately, many education reformers have failed to recognize the advantages of operating outside the intense political battles seen in other areas. It feels unjust that education, which is crucial for our present and future community and prosperity, holds less significance for the average U.S. voter compared to debates about building a wall on the southern border. We need to find a way to prioritize children, teachers, and schools in American politics.

So far, no effective solution has been found.

People who previously had no interest in education policy suddenly have strong opinions on DeVos’s policy ideas. The unconventional actions of President Trump may have unintentionally placed education in the spotlight. Through her confirmation process and subsequent missteps, Secretary DeVos has become one of the most recognizable figures in the administration. She has prompted Americans, who previously gave little thought to education policy, to consider the privatization of the public education system. Even those who had no knowledge of education figures like Arne Duncan now hold strong opinions on DeVos’s proposals.

Education is now a hot topic in our national conversation. Unfortunately, it is Trump and DeVos who are leading this debate.

DeVos’s primary focus appears to be on expanding school choice policies. While she also seems committed to reducing the federal government’s involvement in protecting the civil rights of underserved students, among other Republican projects, her true passion lies in creating more private alternatives to public schools. Every major speech she delivers reinforces this position or distorts other education issues to fit that narrative.

However, the "school choice as a cure-all" approach has little evidence to support its merits. Voucher programs have not consistently shown better outcomes for the students they serve. States with loosely regulated charter school sectors, especially those with a substantial number of online charter schools, have also seen limited success.

The division at the conference highlights a concerning trend for charter schools in general. DeVos’s support for school choice without evidence of its effectiveness signifies a significant shift. If she becomes the primary spokesperson for education reformers, it could significantly narrow the coalition.

As I cautioned earlier this year, consider this scenario: the Trump administration proceeds with its plans to deport millions of undocumented immigrants and restrict entry for Muslims. At the same time, the Department of Education announces a federal grants competition offering billions of dollars to states that expand their charter school sectors. Progressive education reformers, wanting to provide more high-quality school options for these children, might be tempted to support such a proposal. However, engaging with this would also normalize the damaging impact of Trump’s immigration policies on U.S. politics, governance, and civil society. Civil rights organizations sympathetic to education reform would be understandably confused, as they denounce Trump’s radical immigration policies while assisting his administration’s work on education.

Regrettably, we are currently experiencing something akin to this hypothetical situation. By reducing education reform to a singular movement focused solely on expanding school choice, the Trump administration is straining the existing education reform alliance.

If you are deeply involved in charter school policies, you may be pleased with the administration’s plan to increase federal funding for charter schools. Your interest in charters might stem from theoretical reasons that align with your political beliefs, rather than firsthand experience in schools facing numerous structural inequities.

You might support charters because they are a successful example of school choice and see their success as a reason to be optimistic about vouchers. However, this theoretical interest might cause you to overlook the practical threats that voucher programs can pose to charter operators. The private competition for public funds strains districts and public charter school budgets. Your primary opponents have typically been ideological foes such as unions and districts. While you may feel uneasy about Trump and/or DeVos, you may set aside some of that concern in your eagerness to win longstanding battles against these opponents.

However, if you work directly with students and school budgets, you are more likely to be skeptical of rhetoric targeting immigrant children and students of color. You are also more likely to feel the impact of Trump’s proposed weak education budget. If you are on the front lines of education reform, you are acutely aware of the challenges that low-income students face. You cannot dismiss attacks on these families’ work ethic or patriotism.

Throughout the conference, charter school educators expressed worry about the Trump administration’s approach to immigration, their support for school choice, and other related issues. Supporters of charter schools who do not work directly in schools or classrooms tried to convince these educators to ignore these broader concerns and focus solely on "what’s right for kids."

Without considering the context, this sentiment seems reasonable. However, "what’s right for kids" goes beyond using high-quality charter schools to justify the expansion of school vouchers. In an environment of political uncertainty, high child poverty rates, widespread deportations, and increasing xenophobia, a reform movement centered solely around school choice is not enough to address the needs of students.