SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
charter schools
Democrats Rebuked for Backing GOP War on Public Schools, Trump Voucher Expansion
"Don't let the far right's demonization of public education fool you," said one commentator. "People support their local public schools."
Aug 06, 2025
Evidence is mounting across the United States that school vouchers are harming public schools—and numerous studies have shown they largely do not benefit students academically as proponents have long claimed—leaving education advocates to wonder why the issue of so-called "school choice" is a fault line within the Democratic Party.
The Trump administration's recent cave on K-12 public education funding, more than $6 billion of which President Donald Trump was pressured to release after temporarily freezing it, showed that "public schools are a winning issue, everywhere," wrote commentator David Pepper at his Substack blog, Pepperspectives last week.
Yet when Education Week asked the governors of all 50 states and Washington, D.C. whether they would opt in to the nation's first federal school voucher program that was passed last month as part of Trump's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, only one Democratic governor—Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico—clearly stated she would not take part in the $26 billion program, which allows taxpayers to claim a 100% tax credit for up to $1,700 in donations to scholarships to private schools, and allow lower-income families to receive scholarship funds.
Lujan Grisham expressed concerns about the lack of accountability measures for private schools that would be funded with tax dollars, a loss of funding and enrollment for public schools, and the possibility of private schools discriminating against children with special needs.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker also expressed doubt that his state would participate, saying "it doesn't seem fair" to support a program that "is taking away money from people who can't afford to go to a private school, who would like to go to a public school."
But several other Democratic governors didn't respond to Education Week's query, and others who have been supportive of school vouchers in the past, including Colorado Gov. Jared Polis and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, said they were "reviewing" the program, which does not go into effect until 2027.
"Governor Polis is still reviewing the details of this legislation, but is excited by the possibility of unlocking new federal tax credits for donations to help low-income kids achieve," said Polis' office.
The survey of governors was taken as two reports in The New York Times and The Washington Post detailed the damage school vouchers have already done to public school districts.
As the Times reported Wednesday, a decline in the number of babies being born in the U.S. and the rise of the "school choice" movement, particularly in Republican-controlled states, have led public schools in cities including Orlando, Florida; Newark, New Jersey; and Memphis, Tennessee to confront their emerging enrollment crisis by hiring consultants to help combat right-wing claims that children will suffer if they attend public schools.
Although Florida is one of a few states that has a growing instead of shrinking population of children, its public school systems are facing "significant declines," reported the Times, with more than 400,000 children in the state using the Florida school voucher system, called the universal education savings account—the largest voucher program in the United States.
In Orange County, where Orlando is located, the school-age population has grown by 5% since 2020—but the school district is expecting a 25% decline in kindergarten enrollment this year—and a potential loss of $28 million in federal funding, since schools are funded according to the number of students they enroll.
In Arizona, the Post reported, nearly 89,000 students receive vouchers the state government calls Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, while 62,000 receive taxpayer-supported scholarships for private schools through another voucher program and more than 232,000 students attend charter schools, which are publicly funded but independently run.
The state's embrace of the "school choice" movement left just 75% of Arizona children attending public schools in 2021, according to the Post, and school districts are responding by closing schools. Roosevelt Elementary School District in the Phoenix area will operate just 13 schools this year—a third less than last school year.
"You're taking the same size pie and cutting it into more pieces," Rick Brammer, a consultant who analyzes school enrollment, told the Post. "As we've created and funded alternatives, we've just emptied out school after school from the districts."
Instead of adopting an anti-voucher, vehemently pro-public school stance as a signature issue, the Democratic Party is split on the issue, with a number of Democratic governors backing charter schools and vouchers and some veterans of the Obama administration, including former Education Secretary Arne Duncan, backing a group called Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), which has advocated for states to embrace the federal voucher program in Trump's domestic policy agenda.
As the Times reported Monday, DFER's chief executive, former Democratic Providence, Rhode Island Mayor Jorge Elorza, traveled to a Democratic Governors Association in Madison, Wisconsin this past weekend with the goal of convincing governors who are still "reviewing" the federal voucher program, as many told Education Week, to opt in.
"This is literally free money that is broadly supported by the majority of voters who have steadily drifted away from the party," Elorza told the Times, referring to Black and Latino voters, who some polls have shown believe public schools are failing children. "It just makes sense."
Other Democratic strategists who have previously been involved with DFER have shifted their focus to growing charter school networks in southern states.
Former Georgia state lawmaker Alisha Thomas Searcy, who co-founded the Center for Strong Public Schools Action, which is pushing the charter school effort, told Chalkbeat Tennessee on Monday that the group will not embrace vouchers.
"I want to be clear about what sets us apart," Searcy told the outlet. "It's our commitment to public education. It is foundational for us, and it's nonnegotiable. We're committed to remaining focused on strengthening public schools, not creating pathways that take away from them."
Public education advocates have warned charter schools, like vouchers, drain funding from public schools with less oversight, and research has shown mixed results in terms of academic improvements.
Many Democratic lawmakers, said Tennessee state Rep. Gloria Johnson (D-90), "have an education plan, it’s fully funding public education so every child has a well-resourced classroom, providing wraparound services so families have needed resources, smaller class size, and teacher autonomy."
Jennifer Berkshire, host of the education-focused podcast "Have You Heard," noted that popular Democratic politicians including Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper have been vehement critics of school vouchers and defenders of robust funding for public education.
"And yet there is intense pressure to get Democrats to embrace vouchers in order to 'stay relevant,'" said Berkshire last week.
Vouchers were resoundingly defeated in a number of states last November—including those that votes for Trump.
A ballot initiative in Kentucky that would have sent public money to private schools was defeated by a 30-point margin, and in Nebraska, nearly every county voted to repeal an existing voucher program. Colorado voters, despite their Democratic governor's support for school vouchers, voted against adding a "right to school choice" to the state constitution.
Considering the broad public disapproval of school privatization, Pepper offered advice to Democrats last week.
"Don't let the far right's demonization of public education fool you," he wrote. "People support their local public schools. Whether it's an attack from Washington, an attack from your statehouse, some new privatization scheme, a billionaire-backed referendum or a candidate who is all-in on attacking public schools—oppose them fiercely and call them out bluntly. Go on offense for public schools, and against efforts to attack public schools."
Keep ReadingShow Less
SCOTUS’ Next Move: Taxpayer-Funded Religious Schools?
A landmark case could force taxpayers to fund religious charter schools.
Apr 02, 2025
On April 30, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case that could fundamentally reshape public education: Oklahoma’s controversial approval of the nation’s first religious charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School. The case forces a critical question to the forefront—should taxpayers be compelled to finance religious schools while having no authority to regulate them?
The court’s decision could continue a pattern of rulings that have chipped away at the traditional separation between church and state, transforming the landscape of public education and public funding. If the justices side with St. Isidore, the ruling could mark a turning point in American schooling—one that may erode public accountability, alter funding priorities, and blur the constitutional boundaries that have long defined the relationship between religion and government.
This case builds on a series of decisions from the Roberts Court that have steadily eroded the wall between church and state. In Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, the court allowed public funds to be used for secular purposes by religious institutions. Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue expanded this principle, ruling that states cannot exclude religious schools from publicly funded programs. And in Carson v. Makin, the court went further, mandating that state voucher programs include religious schools, arguing that exclusion constitutes discrimination against religion.
As the justices deliberate, they would do well to consider not just the legal arguments, but also the practical and moral consequences of their decision.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority in Carson, stated, “[i]n particular, we have repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.” On its face, this reasoning frames the issue as one of fairness—ensuring religious entities are not treated unequally. But the deeper implications of this logic are far more radical.
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned in her dissent, this interpretation fundamentally redefines the Free Exercise Clause, equating a government’s refusal to fund religious institutions with unconstitutional religious discrimination. Justice Stephen Breyer took this concern a step further, pointing to the court’s own precedent to highlight the dangerous trajectory of its rulings:
We have previously found, as the majority points out, that “a neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause.” We have thus concluded that a State may, consistent with the Establishment Clause, provide funding to religious schools through a general public funding program if the “government aid… reach[es] religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of… individual [aid] recipients.”
Breyer then underscored the significance of this distinction:
But the key word is “may.” We have never previously held what the court holds today, namely, that a State must (not may) use state funds to pay for religious education as part of a tuition program designed to ensure the provision of free statewide public school education.
Finally, he distilled the implications into a warning: “What happens once ‘may’ becomes ‘must’?”
That shift—from allowance to obligation—could force states not only to permit religious education in publicly funded programs, but to actively finance it, eroding any semblance of neutrality between public and religious schooling. This transformation threatens to unravel the Establishment Clause’s core protection: that government does not privilege or compel religious exercise.
Now, the Oklahoma case brings Breyer’s warning into sharp focus. The petitioners are asking the court to declare that charter schools are not state actors—meaning they would be free from public accountability and regulations, including those related to discrimination or special education. At the same time, they argue that public funds must be made available to religious charters. The implications of such a ruling could reverberate across the country, reshaping education in profound and troubling ways.
The May-to-Must Transformation and Its Far-Reaching Consequences
If the Court sides with St. Isidore, the ripple effects could be seismic, triggering a wave of religious charter school applications and fundamentally altering the landscape of public education. Here’s how:
- A Surge in Religious Charter Schools
Religious institutions, particularly those struggling to sustain traditional parochial schools, would have a financial lifeline. Charter subsidies, which often surpass voucher amounts, would incentivize religious organizations to enter the charter school market. For years, leaders in some religious communities have sought public funding to buoy their schools, and a decision in favor of St. Isidore could provide the legal green light. The result? A proliferation of religious charters, funded by taxpayers but largely free from public oversight.
- Erosion of Protections for Students with Disabilities
The implications for students with disabilities are especially concerning. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s implementing regulations, a student with disabilities who is “placed in or referred to a private school or facility by a public agency…[h]as all of the rights of a child with a disability who is served by a public agency.” Yet, a ruling in favor of St. Isidore risks undermining these guarantees by creating a loophole for private religious charters to skirt IDEA’s requirements.
This concern is not just theoretical. As I’ve argued elsewhere, the hybrid nature of charter schools already complicates questions of accountability and state action, particularly when it comes to safeguarding student rights. Allowing religious charters to operate free from IDEA’s obligations would further erode the fragile legal protections students with disabilities rely on—protections that are already too often disregarded in practice.
- Undermining Public Health and Safety Policies
The pandemic underscored the challenges of balancing public health mandates with constitutional protections for religious freedom. In 2020, a federal judge in Kentucky struck down the state’s attempt to close religious schools during a Covid-19 spike, even as public and secular private schools complied. Extending public funding to religious charters could further erode the state’s ability to enforce neutral regulations, from health measures to curriculum standards. Such decisions privilege religious institutions over secular ones, creating a patchwork of inconsistent rules that could undermine public safety and equity.
Toward Transparency and Accountability
Can these challenges be mitigated? Some experts argue for stricter regulations to preserve the public nature of charter schools. Bruce Baker, a professor of education finance, suggests limiting charter authorization to government agencies and requiring boards and employees to be public officials. Such reforms could ensure that charters remain accountable to taxpayers and subject to the same constitutional constraints as public schools.
Other scholars, like Preston Green and Suzanne Eckes, propose requiring religious charters to forgo certain exemptions if they wish to receive public funding. Specifically, they recommend restructuring charter school boards as government-created and controlled entities to ensure they are unequivocally recognized as state actors subject to constitutional obligations. For example, this would require religious charters to comply fully with anti-discrimination laws and other public mandates, maintaining the balance between religious freedom and public accountability.
The Larger Threat to Public Education
Even with these potential safeguards, the broader implications are sobering. If the court rules in favor of religious charters, states will face difficult choices: increase taxes to fund an expanding universe of religious and secular schools, divert money away from public schools, or create new bureaucracies to regulate religious institutions. Taxpayers could find themselves funding schools tied to a bewildering array of faiths, from mainstream denominations to fringe sects.
As the justices deliberate, they would do well to consider not just the legal arguments, but also the practical and moral consequences of their decision. What happens to a society when its public institutions are splintered along religious lines? And what happens to the students and families who depend on those institutions for equity, opportunity, and inclusion?
The answers to these questions will shape the future of American education—and the values we choose to uphold.
Keep ReadingShow Less
State-Level GOP Attacks on Public Schools Decried as 'Part of a National Playbook'
The latest Republican efforts include an Indiana bill to dissolve entire school districts where over half the students are enrolled in private or charter schools.
Jan 12, 2025
Critics are sounding the alarm on a fresh wave of attacks on public schools by Republican state lawmakers, calling their efforts part of a broader agenda to privatize public education.
Indiana's H.B. 1136—introduced by Reps. Jake Teshka (R-7), Jeffrey Thompson (R-28), and Timothy O'Brien (R-78)—would dissolve public school districts in which more than 50% of students attend private or charter schools based on fall 2024 averages. All remaining public schools in affected districts would be converted to charter schools, which are privately owned and operated but taxpayer-funded.
According to Capital B Gary, "The bill's provisions are estimated to dissolve five school corporations statewide, including Indianapolis Public Schools, Tri-Township Consolidated School Corporation in LaPorte County, Union School Corporation southeast of Muncie, and Cannelton City Schools near the Kentucky border in Perry County."
Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) condemned the proposal,
saying it "strongly opposes House Bill 1136 or any bill this legislative session that threatens local authority and community control of public schools."
Anyone who believes that the Right only wants to bring "choice" and is not about destroying public schools, read this. (and please don't tell me that a charter school is a public school) www.chalkbeat.org/indiana/2025...
[image or embed]
— CarolCorbettBurris (@carolburris.bsky.social) January 8, 2025 at 5:16 AM
"H.B. 1136 proposes dissolving five school corporations, including IPS, by converting schools to charter status and eliminating local school boards," the district continued. "This harmful legislation would strip communities of their voice, destabilize our financial foundations, and further jeopardize the education of approximately 42,000 students."
IPS asserted: "H.B. 1136 threatens to cause massive disruption to our public school system, diverting attention and resources away from the vital education and support our students need to succeed. This legislation is not student-focused and fails to reflect the community's input on how they envision their public schools thriving."
"Instead of fostering growth and innovation, H.B. 1136 risks dismantling the very foundation that supports student success and community collaboration," the district added.
"H.B. 1136 threatens to cause massive disruption to our public school system."
The Indiana Democratic Partysaid on social media in response to the bill: "The GOP supermajority is continuing their attacks on local public schools. This time, they're threatening to dissolve dozens of schools across the state into charters, leaving around a million Hoosiers without a traditional public school option."
"For years, many public schools have struggled with funds being diverted to charter schools with no accountability," the party added in a separate post. "Our public schools are the backbone of communities across the state, and we must protect them. More charter schools means less oversight for taxpayers."
Indiana state Sen. Andrea Hunley (D-46), a former IPS teacher and principal, told Capital B Gary: "My children have been attending IPS schools for 11 years. And I am so concerned about the fact that in this place where the majority likes to say that they want choice for families, that they would be threatening to take away choice from a family like mine right here in the middle of our city."
"We've got to make sure that we stop this before it goes any further," she added.
Indiana state Sen. Fady Qaddoura (D-30), who also represents Indianapolis, told WXIN last week, "I think this bill has a racial component by advancing discriminatory policies that are targeting the two largest minority communities in the state of Indiana."
"In my view," he added, "this piece of legislation had nothing to do with choice and has everything to do to continue to dismantle public education as we know it today in Indiana."
It's not just Indiana. Attacks on public education are afoot in states across the nation, including neighboring Ohio and Kentucky.
At the national level, progressives are warning that the imminent Republican trifecta—with GOP control of both chambers of Congress and, later this month, the White House—likely portends a massive attack on public education that could include ending the Department of Education, as advised in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led blueprint for a far-right overhaul of the federal government.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Expansion at Any Cost Is the Only Thing the Charter School Industry Knows
And the destruction of public education remains the goal.
Sep 17, 2023
When an Oklahoma state school board approved what would become the nation’s first taxpayer-funded religious charter school, opponents of the proposal called it “deeply un-American” and “a flagrant violation of long-standing constitutional law.” An Oklahoma parents group and a handful of state and national civil organizations filed a pair of lawsuits to block the new school. Creating a taxpayer-funded religious school “turns on its head the concept that charter schools were supposed to be public schools,” American Federation of Teacher president Randi Weingarten argued.
Indeed, they were supposed to be public schools. But anyone who has been watching the devolution of charter schools could see this coming from a mile away.
The magical transformation of what should be a public school to a taxpayer-funded private school is not a trick confined to Oklahoma.
Charter schools, which were originally proposed to be district-run, innovative public schools, have since morphed into national charter school chains, Christian nationalist schools, and facades for for-profit corporations.
From charter schools in churches with websites displaying crosses to “faith-friendly” charters, the charter industry has been flirting with religiosity for years. Under former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, the federal Charter School Programs were given the green light to award grants to religious organizations that own or operate charter schools.
The magical transformation of what should be a public school to a taxpayer-funded private school is not a trick confined to Oklahoma, nor does the hocus-pocus turn solely on the question of religion.
During the 2021-2022 school year, 20 percent of all charter school students were enrolled in a school run by a for-profit company. This allowed these companies to evade laws and regulations by using a nonprofit school as a facade. And it is but a small hop over a line drawn in the sand to move from the federal government funding a religious organization to run charters, to funding charters that provide religious instruction in classrooms. It only takes a strong breeze, and the sand lines disappear altogether.
The magical transformation of what should be a public school to a taxpayer-funded private school is not a trick confined to Oklahoma, nor does the hocus-pocus turn solely on the question of religion.
Even as quasi-religious and perhaps overtly religious charter schools are on the rise, there is another effort intent on blurring the line between public and private.
A recent bill passed in North Carolina, a state in which a large proportion of charters run by for-profits, dismisses other features that determine whether or not charter schools, in fact, deserve the title “public.”
Charter schools are supposed to be “free and open to all” without discrimination or favor. But HB 219, passed by a Republican supermajority legislature over the veto of Democrat Governor Roy Cooper, allows charter schools to charge tuition and grant enrollment privileges to certain students. With the bill’s passage, North Carolina’s under-enrolled charter schools can now enlist both foreign and out-of-state students on a tuition basis. How will under-enrollment be defined?
Since the bill also allows nearly uncontrolled expansion of existing charter schools, finding space for tuition-paying students will not be difficult. Who will pay the tuition bill—the state, the foreign nation, or the family? North Carolina left that question unaddressed, but the likely outcome will be families, which favors the wealthy.
Not only does North Carolina challenge the definition of a charter school as a free school, but it also flaunts the idea that charters are open to all. The new law erodes equal access to charter schools in the state by giving enrollment privileges to special groups, allowing charter schools to shape their student bodies.
This is an extension of what already exists. North Carolina already gave enrollment priority to selected students—beyond what is offered in most other states. Enrollment preferences were already allowed for siblings of present and former students, children or grandchildren of board members and employees of the school (and for the for-profit or nonprofit management company that runs it), and students who attended another charter school.
To these already privileged sub-groups, the state has added foreign exchange tuition-paying students who need not even enter the lottery, children of members of the armed services, and students of private pre-schools selected by the charter.
In a state known for its white-flight charters, high-tuition or religious preschools are likely to enter these “enrollment articulation agreements” that grant their students access privileges.
In 2021, the Network for Public Education was joined by more than sixty civil rights and education advocacy organizations in filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education. We argued that the distribution of the state’s grants of the Federal Charter School Programs to schools that overall were disproportionately whiter and wealthier than the districts in which they were located. There is no doubt that the new laws will only make such disparities worse.
Ironically, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, a trade and lobbying organization that adamantly claims that charter schools are free and open to all, not only applauded the passage of HB 219 but gave the bill’s sponsor, Republican state Representative Tricia Cotham a hero award.
That alone is enough to tell us where the industry is going—charter expansion at any cost. It is also why those who care about public education should look beyond the question of religious charter schools to the other features that make schools truly public—features that are slowly being whittled away.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Faith Leaders, Parents, and Public Education Advocates Sue Over First US Religious Charter School
"Governmental sanctioning of a religious charter school drives a stake in the heart of religious liberty and seeks to eviscerate the fundamental precept of the separation of church and state," said the head of a plaintiff group.
Jul 31, 2023
A nonprofit that supports public education and nine Oklahoma residents on Monday filed a lawsuit to stop the state from sponsoring and funding the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, the first religious charter school in the United States.
A legal challenge has been
brewing since the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved the online institution in a 3-2 vote last month. St. Isidore, a "collaborative effort between the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa" intended to provide "a quality Catholic education" to children statewide, is set to open for the 2024-25 academic year.
"Religious liberty allows us to worship according to our faith. But forcing Oklahomans to fund religious teachings with their tax dollars is not religious freedom. It is state-sponsored religion, which violates the Oklahoma Constitution and the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act," said Misty Bradley, chair of the Oklahoma Parent Legislative Action Committee (OKPLAC), in a statement.
"Governmental sanctioning of a religious charter school drives a stake in the heart of religious liberty and seeks to eviscerate the fundamental precept of the separation of church and state," added Bradley, whose group has joined faith leaders, parents, and public education advocates in challenging the Oklahoma board's recent approval of St. Isidore.
The plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), Education Law Center, and Freedom From Religion Foundation, who are assisted by Oklahoma-based counsel Odom & Sparks PLLC and J. Douglas Mann.
As Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver, respectively the director and a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, explained in a Monday blog post:
Oklahoma's public school system includes both brick-and-mortar and virtual charter schools. State statutory provisions and the state constitution require these schools and all other public schools to remain open to all students—regardless of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, religion, LGBTQ status, disability, or any other characteristic—and to teach a nonreligious curriculum. St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School will do neither...
In its application, St. Isidore asserts that it... will participate "in the evangelizing mission of the church." To that end, the school's application makes clear that it will discriminate in admissions and student discipline, as necessary to satisfy the Catholic Church's religious beliefs. This means that students could be denied admission or punished based on their religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other failures to comply with Catholic doctrine. St. Isidore even refused to certify that it will not discriminate against students with disabilities if accommodating a student would violate Catholic beliefs. The school also plans to discriminate in employment.
"I am invested in secular public schools because I believe in the Oklahoma Constitution and a founding principle of our nation: Religious freedom can only be preserved if the state does not establish or support any religion," said plaintiff Leslie Briggs.
Briggs is the legal director of Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, and she and her wife have a child who will soon enter public schools. She added that "I also find state-sanctioned discrimination abhorrent and refuse to accept my tax dollars being used to promote discrimination against children and families that look like mine."
Other plaintiffs include a mother of two children on the autism spectrum, a parent of a public school student with disabilities, and a reverend who is also the great-grandson of a former Chilocco Indian Agricultural School resident.
Plaintiff Brenda Lené, founder and operator of the Facebook group "Oklahoma Education Needs/Donations" and parent of a child in public school, warned that "giving public tax dollars to a school like St. Isidore not only opens the door to discrimination, but it also takes even more funding from our secular public schools and teachers, which will have a disastrous effect on the already underfunded public education system and create more financial inequality."
St. Isidore is expected to cost taxpayers more than $26 million over its first five years of operation, according to The Oklahoman.
The newspaper noted conflicting comments from a representative for local Catholic leaders and the Republican state attorney general:
"News of a suit from AU comes as no surprise since they have indicated early in this process their intentions to litigate," said Brett Farley, a lobbyist representing the diocese and archdiocese. "We remain confident that the Oklahoma court will ultimately agree with the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in favor of religious liberty."
The nation's high court recently ruled private schools could receive public funds from school voucher programs and government grants. Attorney General Gentner Drummond, disagreeing with his predecessor John O'Connor, argued these cases have "little precedential value" to charter school law and no legal history exists to prove charter schools are private.
Drummond had called out the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board after the June vote, declaring that "the approval of any publicly funded religious school is contrary to Oklahoma law and not in the best interest of taxpayers."
"It's extremely disappointing that board members violated their oath in order to fund religious schools with our tax dollars. In doing so, these members have exposed themselves and the State to potential legal action that could be costly," he said.
The Oklahoman reported that after a 3-1 vote last week, the conservative Christian law firm Alliance Defending Freedom will represent the board in the case, as Drummond has withdrawn his office's legal services for matters related to St. Isidore.
Though filed in state court—specifically, in the District Court of Oklahoma County—the case is expected to draw attention from across the country. It comes after the U.S. Supreme Court last month declined to hear a challenge to a federal appeals court ruling that charter schools receiving public funds, like traditional public schools, must abide by the national Constitution and law.
"A school that claims to be simultaneously public and religious would be a sea change for American democracy," AU president and CEO Rachel Laser said Monday. "It's hard to think of a clearer violation of the religious freedom of Oklahoma taxpayers and public school families than the state establishing a public school that is run as a religious school."
"We're witnessing a full-on assault on church-state separation and public education—and religious public charter schools are the next frontier," Laser stressed. "America needs a national recommitment to church-state separation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
More Accountabilty for Cyber Charter Schools Is Good—Abolishing Them Would Be Even Better
Legislation in Pennsylvania aims to make cyber charter schools more transparent, but evidence shows that these institutions just aren't very good at educating students.
Jul 15, 2023
Pennsylvania pays more than $1 billion every year for its 14 cyber charter schools.
And overpays them by more than $450 million each year.
Now – after half a decade of legislative shenanigans – a new bill actually has the possibility of being passed to hold these types of schools accountable.
Last week House Bill 1422 passed by a vote of 122-81, with all Democrats voting for it, joined by 20 Republicans. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro would likely sign the legislation if it comes to his desk.
So now it goes to its biggest hurdle – the Republican-controlled Senate.
The state GOP has held up every cyber charter reform measure since the previous Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf suggested it. However, now that Democrats hold a slim majority in the House, Republicans can no longer stymie it completely.
One of the largest problems centers on the cost of doing business. Cyber charter schools educate students online via computer. So why do local public schools have to pay cyber charters the same money as brick and mortar schools to educate students living in their boundaries? Cyber charters don’t have nearly the brick and mortar – no athletic fields, busing, etc. And the physical structures they do have are much smaller. The result is underfunded public schools and cyber charters bursting with cash.
That means higher public school taxes for you and me while cyber charters spend money like it’s going out of style.
The new measure would stop that by telling public schools exactly how much they must pay cyber charters – $8,000 per student not receiving special education services. Most schools currently spend approximately $10,000.
In addition, cyber charter schools would no longer be given more funding for special education students than authentic public schools. Tuition for special education students would be aligned with the system used for authentic public school districts. These measures, alone, are expected to result in about $456 million in savings.
But that’s not all!
The legislation also seeks additional transparency, eliminating conflicts of interest and requiring cyber charters to comply with the state’s ethics and open records law as authentic public schools are already required to do. It would ban enrollment incentives, restrict advertising and event sponsorships.
Gov. Wolf’s original proposal went even further. He had asked the General Assembly to place a moratorium on new cyber charter schools and cap enrollment in low-performing charter schools until they improve. None of that appears in the current legislation.
The bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. Joe Ciresi, D-Montgomery, said the goal was not to close cyber charter programs, but to stop overfunding them. He said:
“We’re looking to put money back into the public schools and also leave the choice that’s there. We should have choice in this state. We’re asking that it’s a fair playing field.”
A lot of the prohibitions in the new legislation seem to have been inspired by real practices by current cyber charter schools like Commonwealth Charter Academy (CCA), the largest school of this type in the state.
For example, CCA spent approximately $19 million on marketing over a two-year period, including a float featuring Jerold the Bookworm for a Thanksgiving Parade.
The proposed law would prohibit all public schools from paying to sponsor public events such as parades and professional sporting events. Moreover, it would require all public schools who advertise to state that the cost of tuition and other costs are covered by taxpayer dollars.
CCA also uses tax dollars to provide $200 for monthly field trips that can be of debatable educational value. They’ve gone to petting zoos, laser tag, bowling and kayaking. A parent of a CCA student even bragged on Facebook about using these funds for Dave and Busters Arcade, a Motley Crue concert, Eagles tickets, and family vacations to Universal Studios and Disney, according to Education Voters of Pa.
The new bill would prohibit cyber charter schools from paying or reimbursing parents/guardians from educational or field trips as well as offering any cash, gifts or other incentives for enrolling or considering enrolling in a cyber charter school.
It would also force these types of schools to be more financially accountable by requiring them to approve an annual budget by June 30th each year, and make the budget available, as well as imposing fund balance limits so they couldn’t horde taxpayer money – all things already required of authentic public schools.
Charter schools – institutions that are publicly financed but often privately run and not subject to the same rules and regulations as authentic public schools – are still controversial despite the first charter school law being passed in 1991 and having spread through at least 45 states. However, only 27 states also allow CYBER charters like this – schools that teach mostly (or entirely) distance learning through the Internet.
Nationwide, Pennsylvania and Ohio have the largest cyber charter enrollment. In 2020-21, the Keystone State enrolled 61,000 students in cyber charters – and roughly 21,000 attend CCA.
A 2022 report by Children First found that of the states with cyber charters, Pennsylvania spends the most but has the “weakest systems to ensure students and taxpayers are getting their money’s worth.” Moreover, of the roughly $1 billion state taxpayers spend on these schools, several reports suggest that the money comes from the poorest districts, where cyber student academic performance is much lower than at neighboring authentic public schools. These are the students most in need of help.
Many provisions in the proposed bill read like such common sense initiatives, it’s chilling that they aren’t already in place.
The bill would require cyber charter schools to verify the residency of enrolling students, report the number of newly enrolled students and how many of those students have been identified as needing special education. Since cyber charter teachers meet with students online, they would need to visibly see and communicate with enrolled students at least once per week to verify the student’s well-being.
There are also many rules about how a cyber charter school can be governed. You could not have a school director from another school district or a trustee from another charter school serving on the board of the cyber charter school. Boards would require a quorum and a majority vote to take action. They would have to comply with the Sunshine Law, Right-to-Know Law, and the Ethics Act. Cyber charter school boards would need to have at least seven non-related members, at least one of whom must be a parent/guardian of an enrolled student.
But let’s not forget the many ways this new law would make cyber charters more transparent. Cyber charter schools could not lease a facility from a foundation or management company – unfortunately a common practice that allows the school to bill the public for a service to itself multiple times. Any conflicts of interest between the cyber charter school and a foundation or management company would need to be disclosed. Cyber charters would not be allowed to have administrators and their family members serving on the board of a charter school foundation that supports the charter school. No charter school trustee could be employed by the cyber charter school, a foundation that supports the school, or a management company that serves the school. The state Department of Education would need to have access to the records and facilities of any foundation and/or management companies associated with the school. Foundations associated with these schools would need to make budgets, tax returns and audits available.
The overwhelming majority of these regulations simply hold cyber charter schools to the same standard we already use for authentic public schools.
However, what often gets left unsaid is how terribly students do academically at cyber charters – something completely left out of this proposed legislation.
Study after study consistently shows that cyber charters are much less effective than traditional public schools – heck! They’re even less effective than brick and mortar charter schools!
A nationwide study by Stanford University found that cyber charters provide 180 days less of math instruction and 72 days less of reading instruction than traditional public schools.
Keep in mind that there are only 180 days in an average school year. So cyber charters provide less math instruction than not going to school at all.
The same study found that 88 percent of cyber charter schools have weaker academic growth than similar brick and mortar schools.
Student-to-teacher ratios average about 30:1 in online charters, compared to 20:1 for brick and mortar charters and 17:1 for traditional public schools.
Researchers concluded that these schools have an “overwhelming negative impact” on students.
And these results were duplicated almost exactly by subsequent studies from Penn State University in 2016 (enrolling a student in a Pennsylvania cyber charter school is equal to “roughly 90 fewer days of learning in reading and nearly 180 fewer days of learning in math”) and the National Education Policy Center in 2017 (cyber charters “performed significantly worse than feeder schools in both reading and math”).
The legislation being considered here does the important work of holding cyber charters financially accountable. However, there still remains the very real question of whether this type of educational institution is viable under normal circumstances.
It will be interesting to see if Republicans find even accountability a prospect worthy of a vote in the state Senate. Lobbyists for charter school networks like K12 Inc. and Connections Education have spent billions of dollars against something like this ever happening.
I guess we’ll soon see who the Commonwealth GOP really listens to – voters or corporate interests.
Keep ReadingShow Less
SCOTUS Lets Stand Decision Ensuring 'Publicly Funded Charter Schools Are Not Above the Law'
"Girls at public charter schools have the same constitutional rights as their peers at other public schools—including the freedom to wear pants," said the ACLU Women's Rights Project director.
Jun 26, 2023
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to an appeals court ruling that charter schools receiving public funds—like traditional public schools—must abide by the country's Constitution and federal law.
In the initial case, parents and students at Charter Day School in North Carolina—represented by the national and state ACLU along with the law firm Ellis & Winters LLP—fought against a dress code requiring girls to wear skirts, jumpers, or skorts and boys to wear pants or shorts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit last year found that such schools are "state actors" in terms of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
"Nothing in the equal protection clause prevents public schools from teaching universal values of respect and kindness. But those
values are never advanced by the discriminatory treatment of girls in a public school," wrote Judge Barbara Keenan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. "Here, the skirts requirement blatantly perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes as part of the public education provided to North Carolina's young residents."
Celebrating that decision last year, Bonnie Peltier, the mother of a former student involved in the case, said that "I'm glad the girls at Charter Day School will now be able to learn, move, and play on equal terms as the boys in school... In 2022, girls shouldn't have to decide between wearing something that makes them uncomfortable or missing classroom instruction time."
Lawyers for the school had asked the Supreme Court to review the case, arguing that the appeals court decision would hinder the ability of charter schools to make independent choices.
The lower court "unleashed" "numerous harms to charter school innovation and even farther-reaching evils," they said. Reversing the decision would "safeguard educational choice in states that do not impose constitutional requirements on charters."
Additionally, as Politico pointed out, "religious liberty groups, some school choice organizations, plus 10 attorneys general in Republican-led states had asked the justices to intervene" in response to the appellate court's ruling.
At least four of the Supreme Court's nine justices would have needed to support taking Charter Day School v. Peltier for the challenge to be heard. There were no noted dissents and the high court did not explain its reasoning, which is standard for such denials.
"North Carolina has chosen to meet its constitutional duty to provide a sound basic education to all kids by creating a public school system that includes publicly funded charter schools," said Kristi Graunke, legal director of the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation, in a statement Monday. "The court's decision ensures publicly funded charter schools are not above the law."
Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU Women's Rights Project, declared that "today's announcement is a victory for the thousands of students who attend public charter schools in North Carolina and for the 3.6 million students like them nationwide."
"Girls at public charter schools have the same constitutional rights as their peers at other public schools—including the freedom to wear pants," she added. "We will continue to fight for all girls to learn in safe and equal schools."
Along with its constitutional conclusions, the 4th Circuit last year found that Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs that receive federal funding, applies to dress codes, and asked a district court to determine if the school in this case—now renamed under the banner of Classical Charter Schools of America—violated that U.S. law.
The ACLU explained that "the Supreme Court's announcement today that it will not hear the appeal paves the way for the Title IX case to proceed in the district court."
As Politico noted:
Yet the legal fight has now extended beyond dress codes to entangle public religious charter schools and constitutional limits between church and state, after Oklahoma authorities' landmark decision this month to approve a public and directly taxpayer-funded Catholic school that teaches religious principles like a private institution.
Litigation over the Oklahoma decision is expected and could someday reach the high court.
"We, Americans United, and our partners are planning legal action to stop this unconstitutional plan," the ACLU said of the Oklahoma decision earlier this month. "Our public schools must be free from religious indoctrination and open to all students."
Keep ReadingShow Less
School Vouchers Are Sucking Vital Revenue Out of State Public Education Budgets
State lawmakers must not continue this horrific draining of taxpayer resources that does the opposite of helping students.
Jun 13, 2023
In the past few months, state lawmakers have expanded and created a record number of school voucher programs with little to no limits on eligibility. This will deplete available state revenues for public education and other critical services and do little to expand opportunity for students.
Regardless of whether school vouchers directly or indirectly divert funding from public schools to private education, state K-12 funding formulas depend on some metric of student count to allocate per-pupil funding. Some school districts can absorb some of the cuts with layoffs and reduced spending on textbooks and supplies. But fixed expenses such as air conditioning, school buses, and building maintenance can lead to funding shortfalls and layoffs.
In early 2023, these states created or expanded their school voucher policies:
- Nebraska passed the state’s first voucher program, a K-12 tuition tax credit initially capped at $25 million annually, though the cap could rise to $100 million a year depending on demand for tax credits. Individuals and businesses can donate up to half of their taxes owed (with a maximum of $100,000); donations are funneled to scholarship granting organizations (SGOs), which pay private school tuition and other eligible expenses on behalf of students and their families. The tax credits reduce tax liability and thus, decrease the state revenues available for investments in public services, including public schools. Public school advocates are planning to challenge the bill on the 2024 ballot.
- Arkansas’ LEARNS Act created, among other harmful policies for public education and teachers, an education savings account (ESA) program, which will phase in universal eligibility by the 2025-2026 school year and provide state-funded vouchers for families to use toward private school tuition and several other allowable expenses (like homeschooling, exam fees, and tutoring).
- Florida broadened eligibility requirements to make its existing ESA program available to all students (rather than only students with disabilities or those from low-income families), with an estimated cost of $4 billion in the first year of implementation.
- Iowa created an ESA that is initially targeted to families with lower incomes. But it will expand over time to include all students by the 2025-2026 school year and cost over $340 million per year when fully in effect.
- South Carolina expanded the state ESA, lifting household income eligibility to 400 percent of the federal poverty level beginning in 2026-2027, but placing a 15,000-student cap on the program.
- Utah created an ESA starting in the 2024-2025 school year that is available to all students but gives priority to students based on their household’s income.
Other states should not follow the paths of these states. For one, school vouchers primarily benefit wealthier students, families, and businesses. States with existing voucher programs — Arizona, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin — have reported that most families who benefitted were already covering the costs of private schools and homeschooling prior to the voucher becoming available.
Wealthy people and companies also benefit when vouchers take the newer form of K-12 tuition tax credits. People and companies who donate to SGOs are allowed to opt out of paying tax to fund public needs and instead fund tuition scholarships at private K-12 schools. This tax incentive can provide state credits — up to 100 percent of the donation — to families with incomes over $200,000 and even allows businesses to profit from claiming federal expense deductions and avoiding capital gains tax.
Vouchers can also increase the likelihood that students experience discrimination and harm. Private schools are not required to offer the same federal civil rights protections for students as public schools. In fact, many voucher bills explicitly require families to waive students’ protections and rights under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for educational services that students with disabilities may need to learn.
Further, vouchers do not necessarily expand opportunities for students with the greatest needs. Students from families with low incomes often face barriers to navigating the voucher application and private school admission processes. Smaller, rural areas often rely on their local public schools as community hubs and primary sources of employment. Private schools can more easily push students out without recourse based on how they style their hair, what they wear, test scores, and subjective disciplinary action.
Voucher costs often grow beyond what is projected and thus, reduce overall revenues for other state spending. A recent study of school voucher programs in seven states shows how state voucher spending from 2008 to 2019 increased by hundreds of millions of dollars annually, while K-12 spending for public education declined despite public school enrollment increases. Arizona became the first state to implement a universal voucher program in 2022, and as of mid-March 2023, the ESA program is expected to cost the state at least $345 million more than initial projections for the first year. New Hampshire’s voucher program was estimated to cost $130,000 in 2021 and it now costs $14.7 million. And a few private schools in Iowa are already raising tuition only a few months after the new voucher program passed in January of this year.
Some state lawmakers understood the great cost at the expense of public services and stopped multiple school voucher bills this year. For example, 16 House Republicans broke with their party to defeat Georgia’s universal voucher proposal in the final hours of session. And Idaho Senate Republicans raised concerns about the long-term cost of a universal ESA bill, which also applied to subsequent voucher bills.
As some states continue to debate school vouchers during legislative sessions, state lawmakers should understand that their actions now and in the future will have large fiscal and harmful consequences for public education and student opportunities.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups Challenge 'Unconstitutional' Religious Charter School in Oklahoma
"It's hard to think of a clearer violation of the religious freedom of Oklahoma taxpayers and public-school families than the state establishing the nation's first religious public charter school," said one group within minutes of a state board approving the school's application.
Jun 06, 2023
Within minutes of a state charter school board in Oklahoma approving a plan on Monday to open what would be the first religious charter school in the United States, advocates for the nation's bedrock laws separating church and state announced plans to file a legal challenge against the proposal.
Allowing the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and Diocese of Tulsa to open a taxpayer-funded virtual charter school in which religious education would be a key part of the curriculum would mark "a sea change for American democracy," said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Going against the advice of its own legal counsel and disregarding extensive testimony and legal analysis from Americans United regarding why the creation of the school would violate the U.S. Constitution, the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board voted 3-2 to allow the religious groups to open St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School.
The school would be entirely government-funded, but like other charter schools—which have been criticized by public education advocates—it would be independently managed, in this case by the Catholic archdiocese and diocese.
"It's hard to think of a clearer violation of the religious freedom of Oklahoma taxpayers and public-school families than the state establishing the nation's first religious public charter school," said Laser. "No public school family should fear that their child will be required by charter schools to take theology classes or be expelled for failing to conform to religious doctrines. And the government should never force anyone to fund religious education."
"In a country built on the principle of separation of church and state, public schools must never be allowed to become Sunday schools," she added.
The ACLU said it would join Americans United in challenging the plan.
Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt applauded the decision of the board—which is made up of his appointees—but state Attorney General Gentner Drummond, also a Republican, said it was "extremely disappointing that board members violated their oath in order to fund religious schools with our tax dollars."
The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down two rulings in recent years signaling that its right-wing majority could rule in favor of the religious charter school if a case reaches the high court. Last year the court ruled 6-3 that the state of Maine was not permitted to exclude religious schools from a state tuition program, and in 2020 it ruled 5-4 that states must allow private schools to participate in state scholarships.
"Not long ago, this would have been [dead on arrival]" at the Supreme Court, said Los Angeles Times legal affairs columnist Harry Litman. "But they're banking on the Supreme Court to break down the wall between church and state."
The Oklahoma Rural Schools Coalition called the board's decision "a loss for American values, the rule of law, and our Oklahoma Constitution."
"Three unelected voices in the state of Oklahoma have put the separation of church and state in peril for the entire nation," said the group. "Oklahoma's public schools are among the lowest funded in the nation. We cannot afford to divert dollars to unconstitutional religious schools. Public education dollars must be protected for accountable public schools that welcome and serve all students."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Billionaire Spent Over $1 Million Trying to Defeat Public School Champion in Philly Mayoral Race
Helen Gym's campaign manager has said charter school advocate Jeffrey Yass is "bankrolling a false smear campaign against the only candidate in the race with a real vision to invest in Philly's public schools."
May 16, 2023
Jeffrey Yass—Pennsylvania's richest man, a registered libertarian, and a charter school advocate—has given over $1 million to a group trying to convince Philadelphians not to vote for progressive mayoral candidate Helen Gym, a former teacher and public school supporter, in Tuesday's Democratic primary.
Gym is one of nine candidates appearing on the Democratic ballot, though based on polling she is considered a top contender alongside two fellow former Philadelphia City Council members—Allan Domb and Cherelle Parker—as well as Jeff Brown, a supermarket chain founder, and Rebecca Rhynhart, Philly's ex-comptroller.
Brendan McPhillips, Gym's campaign manager, said in a statement to The Philadelphia Inquirer earlier this month that the billionaire is "bankrolling a false smear campaign against the only candidate in the race with a real vision to invest in Philly's public schools."
"This is how billionaires keep their own taxes low while killing public education funding."
Gym co-founded the citywide group Parents United for Public Education in 2006 and her campaign website details her plans for Philadelphia schools, pledging that "as mayor, Helen will lead an education-first agenda that recognizes the future of our city relies on the health and well-being of our young people."
The Inquirer reported that Yass—who has primarily funded Pennsylvania Republicans but also given money to groups backing Democrats who support expanding charter schools—couldn't be reached for comment, but Coalition for Safety and Equitable Growth treasurer Mo Rushdy said the super PAC's donors believe "our next mayor needs to have a commonsense approach to solving the problems facing Philadelphia" and "Helen Gym is the wrong person to confront these challenges."
Inquirer columnist Will Bunch wrote Sunday that "Yass doesn't really explain his donations—perhaps because this billionaire makes so many of them—but you don't need Sherlock Holmes or even Inspector Clouseau to get to the bottom of this political caper. Yass—at least in terms of dollars invested—is Pennsylvania's biggest advocate for charter schools or tax-funded vouchers to encourage parents to reject traditional public schools."
Bunch continued:
It's not that the $1.1 million is a lot of dough—it is for you and me but not so much for Yass. He reportedly has a net worth of $28.5 billion, and is said to have spent at least $18 million on politics ahead of last year's primary, some on the Pennsylvania governor's race but a lot on candidates, both Republican and Democrat, who support what he calls "school choice." (The anti-Gym PAC has other backers including Josh Kopelman, The Inquirer's board chairman, who gave $50,000.) But why is Yass so committed to his vision of an America where mostly nonunionized charter schools or religious schools thrive while what his crowd insists on calling "government schools" wither?
It matters because Yass and his giant wad of cash are just one major point of attack on what's becoming an all-out assault on U.S. public schools in the 2020s—one that combines billionaires like Yass and their free market voodoo economics with the uglier, in-the-trenches culture wars of doctrinaire conservatives convinced that "woke," pink-haired teachers are indoctrinating kids about race or LGBTQ rights.
On Tuesday in Pennsylvania, voters will be making choices about the future of public schools not just in Philadelphia—where several buildings are closed due to asbestos, amid a broader crisis of disrepair—but in school board elections in smaller communities like Kutztown, torn asunder by campaigns to ban books from Gender Queer to Two Degrees, or Central Bucks, riven by months of conflict over issues such as LGBTQ-friendly books or stickers. It's part of a national climate in which school board meetings resemble hockey games, while teachers are increasingly demoralized.
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten shared Bunch's column on social media and joined unionized Philly educators and Gym for a Monday night campaign event.
"It’s been a decadeslong journey to get here. Standing alongside educators again and again to stop school closures, end a state takeover, and demand fair funding," Gym tweeted of the event. "Now it's time to finish the job we started all those years ago. We will fulfill the promise of our public schools."
Although her campaign follows recent progressive mayoral victories is Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles, "Gym is loath to discuss the national implications of her race," CNN reported Monday. She told the network that "I'm running for office to change the way people actually live in this city," pushing for change "that has to be felt by the people themselves, not by an ideology, not by a quote-unquote abstract movement."
However, progressives across the country have their eyes on Gym. The American Prospect managing editor Ryan Cooper wrote last week that "if she can pull out a victory, it could provide a lesson for how progressives can win in crime-wracked big cities."
In a Sunday viewpoint for In These Times, David I. Backer, an associate professor of education policy at West Chester University in Pennsylvania, highlighted how Gym's "unbelievably long list of her accomplishments" as a city council member shows what she could do as mayor.
"Helen really represents the coming of age of the progressive movement," Our Revolution executive director Joseph Geevarghese told CNN. "She emerged as a community activist and organizer, she then sought political power, sought to bring movement politics into the political realm… Helen's trajectory reflects the trajectory of the progressive movement."
Our Revolution is among dozens of progressive advocacy groups, unions, and politicians who have endorsed Gym—including Boston Mayor Michelle Wu and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson along with U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez rallied with Gym at Franklin Music Hall in Philadelphia over the weekend.
"They've got money, but we've got the people," Ocasio-Cortez reportedly told the crowd. "I always say to my team back home, progressives win in a street fight, and that's what we've got here in Philly today, a street fight. We need to be knocking on every door, texting all our friends. We talk about youth organizing up, which means people need to call their tías, their tíos, their uncles, their cousins, todo, everybody."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy