logo
Opinion - Stop loving public education like a five-year-old loves their mommy

Opinion - Stop loving public education like a five-year-old loves their mommy

Yahoo17-05-2025

Let's be honest: America needs to grow up when it comes to how we talk about public education.
Too often — especially among Democrats — public education is loved the way a five-year-old loves their mommy: emotionally, unconditionally and without question. But love without accountability isn't justice — it's delusion. And our children are the ones paying the price.
At the National Parents Union, we love public education too. But we love it enough to fight for its transformation. We're not here to protect systems — we're here to protect children. And right now, our public education system is failing millions of them.
Reading scores are dismal. Students with disabilities are being warehoused instead of served. Families are being pushed out of decision-making. And while we're stuck defending outdated structures, political leaders are playing small — more interested in slogans than solutions.
Now we're watching Democrats fight it out between two camps: the 'abundance' crowd, led by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, and the 'anti-oligarchy' tour featuring Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). And as someone who listens to parents every single day, let me be real with you: neither message is hitting the mark where it matters most.
'Abundance' sounds like a TED Talk from someone who's never had to ration their child's asthma medication. And it's tone deaf to the fact that right now we have a problem of too many underenrolled schools across the U.S.
'Anti-oligarchy' sounds like a graduate school seminar when families are just trying to afford groceries and keep the lights on.
American families don't care what your brand of progressivism is called. They care if they can find a job that pays enough to cover rent. They care if they can get their kids into a decent school without having to move away to find one. They want their kids to be safe. They care if there's a doctor who takes their insurance, and if they'll be able to retire with dignity.
This isn't rocket science. It's kitchen table politics. And if Democrats want to stop hemorrhaging support among working-class families, younger voters and communities of color, they need to go back to being the party that fights for the average American.
That means leading with our shared values, not white papers. Talking with people — not at them. Understanding the fear, anxiety and anger that is driving society in this moment instead of dismissing it. Listening to what keeps families up at night, and building a vision that meets them where they are.
And it also means getting serious about education — starting with rejecting the nonsense that's crept into the conversation.
It's painful to watch Democrats setting themselves up for another round of pain and defeat because they are so completely tone-deaf to the majority of the American public on the issue of public school options.
Let me say this clearly: you cannot be 'for equity,' 'for accountability,' 'for civil rights,' and also be for vouchers. You can't chase a bag of unregulated magic beans in one breath and claim to care about data and outcomes in the next.
The research is clear: Vouchers fail to improve student achievement, especially for the most vulnerable kids. They divert public money into private institutions that can pick and choose which students they serve. They strip away accountability, offering little transparency and no guarantees. What's worse, vouchers erode public trust and weaken the foundation of public education while offering no scalable solution.
And while Republicans champion this destruction, let's talk about the hypocrisy.
Republicans are actively defunding the research infrastructure and discretionary grants that supported many of their own favored reforms — like charter school expansion and early literacy programs. They're burning down the very innovation system that made their ideas possible. This isn't about improving education — it's about dismantling it.
But to watch Democrats continue the same tired, disconnected song and dance about public school options and charter schools — something that has overwhelming, bipartisan support — with 80 percent of American families being in support — I mean, you're just asking to continue losing elections.
Americans want results. We want the basics done right. And we want leaders with the courage to stop playing political games and start telling the truth:
We need literacy and high expectations for every child. We need federal leadership that ensures equity is more than a buzzword. And we need authentic, lived experience at the center of policy.
So here's my message to policymakers: Start listening to the people who have been failed the longest. And start fighting for the kind of public education that is excellent, equitable and accountable.
At the National Parents Union, we know what's at stake. We organize across lines — political, racial, economic — because every family deserves a fair shot at the American Dream. But we're also watching closely. Because while Democrats argue over branding and Republicans try to burn it all down, families are hanging on by a thread.
We don't need another white paper. We need a movement — one that's noisy, passionate, unapologetically people-powered and laser-focused on what really matters.
Keri Rodrigues is president of the National Parents Union.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

A Trump family project spurs resignations and a criminal charge in Serbia
A Trump family project spurs resignations and a criminal charge in Serbia

Boston Globe

time14 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

A Trump family project spurs resignations and a criminal charge in Serbia

Advertisement In November, one week after Trump won reelection, the Serbian government greased the skids by declaring that the site — a bombed-out building that serves as an icon to Serbians' suffering during a 1999 conflict — was no longer considered a culturally protected asset. That paved the way for the Trump family project. Dozens of architects and cultural historians at the state-run Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments cried foul, accusing the government of violating the law. Several days after the government's decision, they fired off a letter saying the property's status as an 'immovable cultural property' could be revoked only if a team of the institute's experts approved it. And they hadn't. 'From the beginning, we knew it was a political decision,' said Estela Radonjic Zivkov, the institute's former deputy director. She said she was pressured by state intelligence officers not to challenge the government on this case, a clear sign of Serbian leaders' intense interest in the project. She did so anyway. Advertisement Now, seven months later, the Trump family project has become both a Serbian scandal and a glaring example of just how far a foreign government was willing to go to further the financial interests of Trump's family. And it underscores recurring concerns that the family's business dealings have become harder to separate from Trump's official decisions. Serbian college students who have been leading mass protests against Aleksandar Vucic, the country's strongman president, have seized on the development as an example of what they see as their government's corrupt ways. In late March, thousands demonstrated at the site. Last month, they and other critics celebrated a surprise victory. Serbia's organized crime prosecutor charged Goran Vasic, Zivkov's boss and the director of the cultural institute, with abuse of power. The prosecutor's office said Vasic had admitted falsifying a document to justify stripping the site of its protected status. No one knows how far the inquiry will go. But one question that has been publicly raised is whether Sinisa Mali, Serbia's powerful finance minister, pressured cultural heritage officials to either back the project or resign. Mali has ties to the White House through Richard Grenell, a longtime Trump ally and the current envoy for special missions. Mali has declined to comment on the project, citing the continuing investigation. Affinity Partners, Kushner's company, says the deal is under review. Vucic has minimized the criminal inquiry, saying that 'there was not any kind of forgery.' Advertisement Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, has said that 'everything President Trump does is to benefit the American people.' Vucic's office did not respond to a request for comment, but the Serbian leader said last year that he 'died laughing' at the notion that 'I used this for political influence on Trump.' As far back as 2013, Donald Trump was eyeballing the Belgrade site for a hotel. The idea arose again in his first term as president. Grenell, who then was Trump's troubleshooter for the fractious relationship between Serbia and Kosovo, encouraged Serbian leaders to consider redeveloping the site with American investment. After Trump lost reelection in 2020, Grenell urged Kushner to take up the project and served as an early intermediary. Grenell met with the Serbian president in 2022 and 2023 and posted images of himself on social media with Mali in 2021. Grenell could not be reached for comment. By May 2024, the Serbian government struck a deal with a company affiliated with Kushner. It agreed to give the developers a 99-year, no-cost lease that could be converted to ownership, also free of charge, according to a draft agreement reviewed by The New York Times. In return for contributing the land, the Serbian government will receive 22 percent of the development's profits, according to people familiar with the deal. There was a hitch: The Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments wasn't going along. Dubravka Djukanovic, an architect and college professor who led the institute, was opposed to changing the site's protected status. In an interview, she said the complex, which was designed by a renowned Serbian modernist architect, should instead be restored and put to public use. Advertisement Last June, she said, she was summoned to a meeting with Mali. Olivera Vuckovic, director of a parallel city institute, was also summoned, according to a person familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of job repercussions. Mali had a blunt message, that person said: Get behind the project or resign. Djukanovic said she swiftly resigned because of the meeting with Mali, but she declined to give further details because of the investigation. Vuckovic could not be reached for comment. The issue simmered for another six months, until after Trump won reelection. On Nov. 14, the Serbian government announced it had revoked the site's protected status. At the cultural institute, Zivkov, then the deputy director, said the staff immediately got to work on a letter saying that the government had 'grossly violated the Law on Cultural Heritage.' If the government trampled its own law in this case, the letter said, 'any cultural property that inconveniences an investor or poses a political or other obstacle may be erased in the same way.' It is unclear whether it was the letter from the institute's staff that prompted the criminal investigation. The institute's director was temporarily detained for questioning, then charged with abuse of power in mid-May. He has not yet appeared in court. Ian Brekke, the top lawyer for Affinity Partners, flew to Belgrade right after that news broke, according to a person familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe confidential business matters. Serbian officials told him the controversy boiled down to a simple administrative error, the person said, but Kushner's team is still assessing the situation. Advertisement This article originally appeared in .

Mark Green to resign from House after final vote on ‘big, beautiful bill'
Mark Green to resign from House after final vote on ‘big, beautiful bill'

The Hill

time16 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Mark Green to resign from House after final vote on ‘big, beautiful bill'

Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) on Monday said he plans to resign from Congress after the House holds a final vote on the party's 'big, beautiful bill,' giving up his seat as well as his leadership post on the House Homeland Security Committee. Green said he has already lined up a job outside of Congress. 'It is with a heavy heart that I announce my retirement from Congress. Recently, I was offered an opportunity in the private sector that was too exciting to pass up. As a result, today I notified the Speaker and the House of Representatives that I will resign from Congress as soon as the House votes once again on the reconciliation package,' Green said in a statement. 'Though I planned to retire at the end of the previous Congress, I stayed to ensure that President Trump's border security measures and priorities make it through Congress. By overseeing the border security portion of the reconciliation package, I have done that. After that, I will retire, and there will be a special election to replace me.' His decision to stay until the House gives the GOP's tax cuts and spending package a final stamp of approval is a relief for Republican leadership, who are contending with a razor-thin majority and passed the same bill by a single vote last month. Senate Republicans are planning to make a host of changes to the legislation and the House is expected to hold a vote this summer on approving the revised bill. It's the second time Green has said he plans to resign. Green said in February 2024 that he planned to resign from Congress, but he ultimately reversed course and kept his seat, saying he decided to seek reelection after encouragement from the public and President Trump. Green's resignation will leave the House with 219 Republicans and 212 Democrats, meaning the GOP can only afford to lose three votes and still pass party-line legislation, assuming all members are president — the same dynamic that currently stands. Green's departure will open up a sought-after chairmanship on a panel that reviews much of Trump's signature immigration policies. Under former President Biden, Green was a vocal critic of the administration, holding numerous hearings focused on fentanyl deaths and bringing in parents who had lost children in deaths they deemed connected to immigration or the border. Under Trump, the committee has held hearing focused on Biden-era immigration policies as well as budget issues as the White House pushes to vastly expand deportation operations. Green, a physician, is also a veteran, and served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was given the gavel after just two terms in Congress, and will leave during his fourth term.

Attorneys get more time to argue over contested copper mine on land sacred to Apaches
Attorneys get more time to argue over contested copper mine on land sacred to Apaches

The Hill

time19 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Attorneys get more time to argue over contested copper mine on land sacred to Apaches

A U.S. district judge in Arizona has opened the door for the next round of legal wrangling as environmentalists and some Native Americas seek to stop the federal government from transferring land in Arizona for a massive copper mining project. Judge Dominic Lanza in a ruling issued Monday denied motions that sought to halt the transfer pending the outcome of the case. However, he did preclude the U.S. Forest Service from proceeding with the land exchange until 60 days after the agency issues a required environmental review. Lanza said that would give the parties more time to analyze the environmental report and file amended complaints. He said granting a preliminary injunction now would be premature since the review will differ in some ways from the one that spurred the legal challenge four years ago. 'It is unfortunate that the result of this order will be to force the parties to engage in another stressful, abbreviated round of briefing and litigation activity' when the new review is issued, he said, acknowledging the unusual circumstances. Attorneys for the federal government and the mining company agreed during a recent hearing to the 60-day delay. That time frame also is specified in the legislation that Congress passed and then-President Barack Obama signed in 2014 authorizing the exchange. The group Apache Stronghold, the San Carlos Apache Tribe and others welcomed more time to fight for Oak Flat, an area they consider as holy. 'In this critical moment, we call on the Trump administration and Congress to halt the transfer to a Chinese-owned mine, and honor what is sacred,' said Wendsler Nosie Sr., leader of Apache Stronghold. 'As we continue to fight in court, know this: Nothing will turn us away from defending the spiritual essence of our people, the lifeblood that connects us to the creator and this land.' A statement from Resolution Cooper said the ruling is consistent with prior decisions and gives the parties time to review the final environmental impact statement that will be issued later this month. 'We are confident the project satisfies all applicable legal requirements,' said Resolution president and general manager Vicky Peacey. She added that years of consultation with tribes and communities resulted in changes to the mining plan to reduce potential effects. The fight over Oak Flat dates back about 20 years, when legislation proposing the land exchange was first introduced. It failed repeatedly in Congress before being included in a must-pass national defense spending bill in 2014. San Carlos Apache Chairman Terry Rambler said Monday that the bill was not in the best interest of the American people, Arizona or his tribe. He said concerns persist about the mine's use of groundwater and the pending obliteration of the culturally significant site. Apache Stronghold and the tribe sued the U.S. government in 2021 to protect the place tribal members call Chi'chil Bildagoteel, which is dotted with ancient oak groves and traditional plants the Apaches consider essential to their religion. The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected an appeal by the Apache group, letting lower court rulings stand. The project has support in nearby Superior and other traditional mining towns in the area. The company — a subsidiary of international mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP — estimates the mine will generate $1 billion a year for Arizona's economy and create thousands of jobs.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store