You read it here first.
As the current legislative session began, the first post noting the risk to Senator Finegold’s aspirations due to his passion for the charter school industry appeared on BMG. On January 22, 2013 I noted:
Barry Finegold once had congressional ambitions. They are now history, because the state senator has taken the lead for school privatization. Finegold, along with State Representative Russell Holmes, (D-Boston) sponsored a bill to lift all caps in what the charter school lobbyists describe as the 30 lowest performing districts in the state.
Senator Finegold joined Representative Holmes to file a package of bills that contained the legislative wish list of the charter school industry. When the charter bills bogged down in the education committee, House Chair Representative Alice Peisch resurrected the bill by reintroducing it and having it shipped off to the House Ways and Means Committee. Worcester School Committee member Tracy O’Connell Novick called it the zombie charter school bill, and it breezed through the house (114-35). In a dramatic roll-call vote last July, the bill experienced its second and final death when the Senate voted 30-9 to reject the bill.
The charter school industry wasn’t happy with the result, and let it be known that it was intent on bypassing the legislature by taking the lifting of the charter school cap directly to the voters. On July 30, the State House News Service reported:
It’s more than two years away, but charter-school advocates are already eyeing the 2016 ballot after the state Senate dealt a blow earlier this summer to the movement to expand enrollment in charter schools in Massachusetts.
Reacting to that defeat, and assessing their chances of changing the dynamics in the Legislature, the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association has begun reaching out to supporters in the business and education communities, as well as potential donors, to line up the backing necessary to mount a ballot campaign.
“We are taking a very hard look at it,” said Marc Kenen, executive director of the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association. “We’ll do some extensive polling in August and do a detailed assessment, but we’ve gotten a lot of support from potential donors and supporters in Massachusetts and across the country since the Senate vote, which I think surprised a lot of people outside the Statehouse circles.”
If all goes according to plan, Kenen said, the MCPSA could form an official ballot committee later this year to begin raising the substantial financial resources he expects will be necessary to prevail with voters.
“We anticipate it being a pretty expensive effort,” he said.
If Tuesday’s primary is an indicator, the charter school industry may want to rethink that ballot question. Many folks have observed that Senator Finegold’s deep ties to the charter school industry hindered his campaign for treasurer, and it may have been the difference between victory and defeat. The evidence is much more clear in Malden, where the Democratic primary for the 33rd Middlesex district was a contest between an ardent charter school supporter versus a former school committee member who supports reforming charter school funding and governance. City Councilor Neil Kinnon, the chair of the board of trustees of the Mystic Valley Charter School, was defeated by City Councillor Steve Ultrino, a former school committee member and secretary-treasurer of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees. The results:
Kinnon 1448
Ultrino 2254
Malden has long been ground zero in the battle over charter school funding and governance, and the two candidates were clearly identified with their positions on the issues. The charter school arguments did not resonate with the knowledgable voters of Malden.
Meanwhile, back in the Merrimack Valley, the winner of the Democratic primary for Finegold’s senate seat is Barbara L’Italien, a member of the Andover School Committee and former State Representative. If L’Italien wins the November election, her track record as a house member suggests her approach on the charter issue will be different than Finegold’s. As a representative, she filed legislation that would give cities and towns a role in approving charter schools, and she voted for a three year moratorium on new charter schools in 2003.
Barry Finegold is now out of the Senate. Neil Kinnon won’t be in the House. At this point, Charles Duane Baker, Jr. will be the biggest supporter of charter schools on the November ballot. If Baker is elected, he will be able to stock the state education bureaucracy with charter school advocates in the same way Baker and his Pioneer Institute allies used their appointed positions to aggressively expand privatization of our public schools.
Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz said in March that, “I’ve offered multiple proposals for balanced compromises. These proposals have been met with consistent ‘no’s’ from the charter advocate community, with no counter proposals that bring us toward a compromise.” The charter school industry doesn’t compromise. They push for more and more, they push for wins. They work very hard at lobbying, and legislators can expect to be swamped by emails from charter school parents whenever a charter school bill is on the docket. They are capable and willing to raise large amounts of money, and will throw everything they have into a campaign. They are a tenacious, well funded team.
However, they couldn’t get two of their own past the 2014 Democratic primary. Public opinion appears to be shifting, as well as the prevailing viewpoint in the Massachusetts Senate. The charter industry’s best hope for turning the tide would seem to require a sharp shift from a 2016 ballot question to the governor’s race.
Charles Duane Baker, Jr. will be able to count on all the money and energy the charter school industry can throw behind them. However, the full support of the charter school industry can be a double edged sword, with voters increasingly viewing growing charter school spending as a drain on local public schools. Just ask Barry Finegold and Neil Kinnon.
striker57 says
has been publicly opposed to charter schools and raising the cap since her run for LG in 2006. She repeated that opposition in this campaign and staged an upset of Finegold in the Treasurer’s primary (the last poll I saw had Finegold up by 5 points and touting his newspaper endorsements).
Christopher says
…that charters were much talked about in, or very relevant to, the Treasurer’s race. When I asked him about it he said in his would-be role as chair of the School Building Authority he would be very much in favor of getting public schools to where they need to be. As my Senator for a while I also know he was helpful to public ed, the two not necessarily being mutually exclusive. As the Senator representing Lawrence, a city that needs all the options it can get, I am understanding of his willingness to include charters in his thinking.
Pablo says
… but from my little corner of the world, activists and Democratic State Convention delegates knew of Finegold’s role as the lead legislative sponsor for the charter school industry, and they didn’t like it. It cost him dearly in my progressive corner of the world, where delegates were split between Conroy and Goldberg.
merrimackguy says
For all of the Treasurer’s race “undecided” was very much in the lead and given the lack of knowledge about the candidates I wouldn’t be surprised if “I just guessed” was the most common reason.
The idea that any more that a few super interested people would connect Finegold to charters is a stretch.
What Finegold is known for, and is very good at, is raising money. Charter proponents have money, and Finegold probably wanted and got it.
Just seconding Christopher’s point, without charters in Lawrence you would lose a piece of the population there that you want to keep. Everyone I know with kids in Lawrence charters loves them.
Note that Finegold is not overly popular. When he ran in 2010 he would have lost without Lawrence. Even in this race he got only 61% in Andover.
Christopher says
…at least judging by lawn signs, though I have not seen numbers. Dracut is in Finegold’s district so that concerned me.
To be clear, I am personally opposed to charters, but I’m not a single-issue voter, especially when that issue seems to have little to do with the office one is seeking.
sabutai says
Though I’m glad Finegold won’t have a public office from which to give money to private companies, I don’t think charters did him in. I don’t even think it was indirect — sure, it was one reason the MTA recommended Deb Goldberg, but that was the only statewide candidate recommended by MTA that won.
I really want to believe that something was at play on Primary Day other than women won. But I don’t think too many votes were cast against charters.
Trickle up says
I did read it here first.
But I’m not convinced it was much of a factor for this race. Why do you think it was?
fenway49 says
There was little to distinguish these candidates based on their messaging and stated platforms, but word went out among delegates and activists that, if you’re concerned about charter schools, Finegold’s not your guy. I think that had an affect on his early support (or lack thereof – he was last at the convention) and might have helped propel Goldberg into a frontrunner’s spot.
I’m not sure of it, though, since she won a pretty solid victory across the state. Finegold did well in the areas where he’s known, Conroy took his own district and environs, and some Berkshire hill towns. Goldberg won a sizeable majority of towns across the state, and most of those towns were not close. Having more cash to spend probably made a bigger difference.
BTW, Christopher: Finegold beat Goldberg 66-23 in Dracut.
ryepower12 says
While this may not have been a defining issue for the race, it does at least show that the charter proponents couldn’t propel their biggest supporter to a statewide victory – and may not have even tried. That is telling for a ‘movement’ that likes to sell itself as an incredibly powerful political force. To quote Yoda, ‘if so powerful you are, why run away?’
To those who don’t find charters relevant to the office, remember that the state treasurer’s office is responsible for dishing out hundreds of millions of dollars in state aid for new public schools, including in districts that have charters. Having a huge chatter proponent in that position could be relevant (and problematic) in a number of ways.
Christopher says
I’m not sure if there is discretion on the part of the MSBA to give money to charter schools, but when I asked Barry about this early in the race, which I did largely prompted by discussion on BMG, he said that he was absolutely committed to getting necessary funds to traditional public schools.
ryepower12 says
but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any number of ways that putting someone with huge ties to charters in that position could be problematic and possibly even allow for shenanigans.
Mark L. Bail says
of us educators: Charlie Baker gets in and installs an even more pro-charter regime than we have now.
abs0628 says
Just wanted to chime in re: the Malden angle and the 33rd Middlesex State Rep race…
While it is true that Neil Kinnon is very much identified with the Mystic Valley Charter School, which is quite controversial in Malden especially among Dem primary voters, charters were not especially central to the primary campaign for State Rep. Kinnon was largely silent on the issue, as was the Ultrino campaign (for which I am field director). But we definitely heard a lot about the issue as we door knocked, especially in Kinnon’s ward, because Kinnon made a point to lobby MVCS parents personally for their votes, and he also used MVCS resources (students, furniture, etc) for his campaign.
Based on what we heard at the doors, many parents of MVCS students are not blind to problems at the school and Kinnon’s ethical lapses vis a vis MVCS. And many charter school parents made it clear to us that don’t want to see the public schools hurt at the expense of MVCS. So there was lots of room for us to win votes there. And more generally we certainly talked a lot about education and public schools as we campaigned, given Steve’s record of being a lifelong educator and champion for the public schools who has been endorsed by the Malden Education Assoc, MTA, and BTU 66.
Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), a charter school advocacy group, surprisingly spent very little on Kinnon’s behalf. They only sent one mailer for him. In contrast, DFER sent out several mailers on behalf of Chris Fallon, who is retiring from the 33rd Middlesex seat, when he ran for State Senate against now State Senator Jason Lewis.
Finally, just FYI, Steve Ultrino has an opponent in the general election — Malden City Councillor John Matheson, who’s running as an Independent — and we’re not taking him lightly. So please spread the word that we will need volunteers & donations over the next two months to bring this home on November 4: http://www.ultrinoforrep.com/
ryepower12 says
on charters?
It would essentially keep the cap, but allow some expansion if the charters prove they have equal or better levels of attrition and graduation rates, as well as test scores.
uffishthought says
That it actually did affect the outcome of the finegold race? Just “someone I was talking to said”?
It seems like his support just boiled down to geography. http://www.wbur.org/2014/09/09/map-primary-results
If gateway cities support lifting the cap 3 to 1 and A majority of Bostonians do as well, and if the charter cap debate had any impact at all on this election, then shouldn’t it hold that he would do better in areas that wanted to lift the cap? If so, then why does that not pan out on the map posted above?
“If you want to convince me of something, show me numbers!”