A big frustration with education policy is that it can feel so far removed from the real work of schooling. Why is that? What can we do about it? This all seems well worth digging into, especially in 2025, and I can’t think of anybody better to dig with than Andy Rotherham, the author of the Eduwonk blog, big-time education consultant, member of Virginia’s board of education, and former special assistant for education to President Bill Clinton. Starting today, Andy and I will occasionally try to make sense of the twists and turns of education politics and policy. Today, we tackle reflexive partisanship and why it matters for schools. (Given how rapidly things are changing at the federal level, some of the issues discussed in this conversation have shifted.)
—Rick
Rick: We’re a couple weeks into Trump 2.0, and the reaction to his education agenda once again feels like it’s less about the specifics than how one feels about Trump. Andy, you’ve long argued that schools are suffering from reflexive partisanship. I like the way you’ve framed this. You’re not issuing a vacuous plea to “set aside our differences.” Instead, you’ve noted that many advocates and educators will hold one view on Tuesday—and then abandon it on Wednesday just because of who agrees with them, and they’re worried about being part of the “wrong” side. You’ve a ton of experience in education politics. You’ve worked on education in the White House for a Democratic president and been appointed to the Virginia board of education by both Democratic and Republican governors. I’m curious what you think is driving this “cut-off-my-nose-to-spite-my-face” impulse.
Andy: Hey Rick, thanks for having me. Important questions. I think the general problem is you have politics, policy, and practice. Politicians care most about politics and getting reelected. Educators care most about practice. Wonks, for their part, care about policy. Those things can all co-exist, but in the past 15 years or so, especially post-2017, politics has crowded out everything else. You saw some of that under George W. Bush when you’d ask people what they didn’t like about No Child Left Behind, and you’d get an answer about the Iraq War. But it’s all a lot worse now and carries real reputational and professional risks, so a lot of people—and a lot of education leaders—are not operating from first principles; they’re operating based on how they think the political winds are blowing and what those winds might mean for their funding, popularity, or even getting invited to coveted events and experiences. That’s all bad enough. But politicians also interpret that as a sign that you’re not a reliable ally, so it weakens your influence.
This trend where many people don’t stand for much other than partisanship is a big one. For example, in Virginia, we’re launching an accountability system that is basically the Education Trust playbook—because Virginia has never really had an accountability system and especially not one that effectively measures the performance of all students, which I would argue is a civil rights issue. The lack of an accountability system also meant that we can’t direct resources to the schools that need them, and since we’re out of compliance with the federal requirements for accountability, we have to send money back to Washington we could be using for school improvement. This should appeal to Democrats worried about equity. And still, too many progressive advocates are nowhere to be found because they’re scared to be tied in any way to the governor, Glenn Youngkin, and the Democrats are fighting the accountability system. That’s an old story and just politics, which is fine if you’re in the politics business. But don’t pretend to be in the education business and spare us the bull about your commitments to equity or anti-racism or whatever.
Rick: One of the things that plays out here is the relationship of principle and politics. With President Donald Trump’s executive orders, for instance, I was bombarded with a wave of press releases denouncing what he was doing on immigration or DEI. I’ll just stipulate that the reactions, pro or con, are rooted in deeply held principles. But as principles turn into policy, things get complicated. While I supported much of what Trump proposed, there were elements that I found troubling—like the attack on birthright citizenship or the move to rescind the protected status of schools when it comes to immigration enforcement. If the critiques of Trump’s actions had started by acknowledging why we need to tighten border security or get serious about deporting violent criminals who are here illegally, I might have found the appeals compelling, but they didn’t do that. The appeals seemed to have been crafted primarily as performance pieces intended for a friendly audience.
Now, I suspect that those producing these statements would insist they had no choice, that principle compelled them to give no quarter. But I don’t get the principle of turning a blind eye to the illegal presence of violent criminals. I mean, I think Democratic Senator John Fetterman got it just right, when he noted, “If you’re here illegally and you’re committing crimes, I don’t know why anybody thinks that it’s controversial that they all need to go.” Unless advocates are willing to address these practical dimensions, their frantic broadsides are going to amount to little more than an exercise in political side-taking. But they act as if refusing to draw sensible distinctions is actually noble and admirable. And that makes it much harder to discuss how to get serious about immigration while minimizing adverse impacts on children and schools. Am I off-base here? How do we get to a place where those in these debates, left or right, feel so little inclination to acknowledge important distinctions?
Andy: Are they first principles, though? Certainly in some cases, but it’s hard to miss that people who couldn’t be bothered to say anything about an Obama or Biden immigration policy suddenly have a lot to say when Trump adopts much the same policy. More generally, there is what’s actually happening and the public narrative. Anyone who has worked in government knows that there is always a gap. Things are usually more complicated than they seem at first glance. If we start seeing immigration raids in schools, that is going to be an enormous problem in my view, but we haven’t seen anything like that, we may not see anything like that, and there is fierce disagreement within the administration and enforcement community about that approach as well as cautions in the guidance document itself. But that kind of debate is not the click-fueled narrative many people respond to. With Trump, that gap between what’s actually happening and what’s being said is exceptionally wide and cloudy, because of his conduct and also his most strident critics.
What’s important is cutting through the noise to get high-quality information, which is really hard in this media environment, particularly if you consider social media. Some of Trump’s executive orders are performative, some are routine, some enjoy bipartisan support, and some are consequential. Distinctions, nuance, and context are all really important to the actual work we do in this sector—governing, teaching, and making policy. I wrote about this a couple of years ago when it was clear that some people were deliberately obscuring definitions. Conservative activists were calling everything they opposed around curriculum “critical race theory” because that brand was damaging, and progressive activists were denying that anything like CRT was being taught even as it was painfully obvious it was. It’s toxic, but fundamentally, that’s modern politics.
What is striking to me is how many people say they privately agree or disagree with something but won’t say so publicly because they’re scared. This is a “both sides” problem in different ways—people are saying and supporting things they don’t really agree with because they are more worried about staying in-group with their peers more than they are about good policy or truth.
And then there is just rank partisanship. They’re not doing distinctions and nuance; they’re doing politics. There are also Republicans who agreed with Biden on things, and Democrats who see elements of what Trump is doing that they like. We used to have a lot more room for that. Fetterman is being treated like a freak for saying he’ll work with Trump where he can. That used to be common, and it’s really the only way the government can function short of total political war. Whatever you think of these executive orders—I don’t like some of them at all—the precedent that is being set for enormous policy pivots on “Day One” is a bigger problem. That is something we’re going to regret and would make the founders gag.
Rick: You make a bunch of great points. Yeah, Fetterman would’ve had a lot of company in the Senate a couple of decades ago—when it wasn’t hard to find a range of conservative Democrats or liberal Republicans. And this growing phenomenon of government-by-executive-order is no way to run a free country. We could go on. But I want to give you the last word here. You’ve spent a lot of years in and around schools and education, trying to work across divides. So, any advice on what educators or education leaders can do to combat or steer clear of this reflexive polarization?
Andy: Right. Remember, after Bush v. Gore in 2000, Democrats were furious, but they still went to Texas to meet with Bush and find common ground where it existed. Throughout the No Child Left Behind debate, there was no daylight between Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy and Bush on the core policy; the flashpoint was funding. That’s also a good example of what we discussed earlier—the difference between what’s happening and the narrative. My advice is pretty straightforward:
First, find high-quality information and primary sources. Just because people on social media are spun up doesn’t mean you should be, too. In Trump’s first term, people spent a lot of energy upset about policies that were, in actuality, just a continuation of Obama policies. Don’t let activists and conflict entrepreneurs live in your head rent-free. Save your energy for what really matters to you and make sure you are operating on good information. In Virginia, activists got people worked up about the inclusion of English-language learners in the new accountability system. Well-intentioned teachers came to Richmond to protest, but no one had told them how far from legal compliance and best practice Virginia was on policy for ELL inclusion and that experts and credible policy organizations supported the change. Do your homework and don’t trust activists to do it for you.
Second, assume there is more going on than you see at first glance. Most issues are complicated and involve real trade-offs. If you can’t articulate a strong case for and against whatever it is you’re outraged about, you probably don’t fully understand the issue.
Third, buckle up. This is going to be a disorienting administration. The same president who nominated Penny Schwinn—who is well-regarded by Democrats and Republicans alike and is a champion for improving schools—as deputy secretary of education is also trying to end birthright citizenship and pardoned people who attacked law enforcement on January 6. It’s messy, situational, and will be high variance in its results just as Trump’s first term was.
Finally, no faction, party, or group enjoys a monopoly on truth, good intentions, or rightness. Being tribal can be easier and, for many people, more pleasurable, but it’s a lousy way to get closer to accuracy and truth. And that, after all, is what we should be doing in education.
2025-02-04 11:00:00
Source link
