Kumar Appaiah
Will Pennsylvania Democrats double down on education and help usher in a "blue wave"?
Education has grabbed the spotlight in a number of races in this year’s midterm elections, especially in red states that experienced mass teacher walkouts this spring.
But what about in Pennsylvania, a state that didn’t experience a teacher walkout but is nevertheless critical to whether Democrats receive a “Blue Wave” in November?
Now, maybe your state doesn’t have other education issues to consider (ha!) but in Pennsylvania, we have some of the worst school funding problems in the country, with only some 35 percent, on average, coming from the state. That means that each school district depends largely on local property taxes to fund the schools. And that means we have huge gaps between rich districts and poor ones. Politicians have ignored this issue for years; if education is really going to be a campaign issue in Pennsylvania, this is a place I’d expect them to start. If politicians really wanted to lean in to education, they could bring up charters and cyber-charters and how they drain local school funds.
So I decided to use these issues as barometers to measure if education really factors into Democrats’ strategy in Pennsylvania.
I decided to measure if education really factors into Democrats’ strategy in Pennsylvania.
In his race for the U.S .Senate, Democratic incumbent Bob Casey is playing it safe. “Bob is committed to making sure every student, at every age, has access to a safe, quality education that will set them up for successful careers,” he states on his campaign website.
The idea of education as simply vocational prep is not a great one, but at least he said something. Casey’s opponent has nothing to say about education in a platform that is mostly “Bob Casey is a doodyhead.”
Governor Tom Wolf has tried to start the conversation about education funding in his first term, and that has actually been a major issue in his fight to stay in office. Wolf’s opponent is Scott Wagner, who threatened to stomp him in the face with golf cleats. This pretty much captures Wagner’s approach to other things Wagner doesn’t like, such as unions and public schools.
We get eighteen House members in Pennsylvania, all of whom can choose between silence on education, the safe boilerplate of “more support for early childhood education and post-high school education,” or actual ideas about improving education and how to pay for it.
Six Democratic candidates for House seats took the hard pass.
Most of the rest opted for safe boilerplate, like Denny Wolff, candidate for the PA-9 seat, who went with, “education is important.” Some are counting on endorsements. Madeline Dean (PA-4) for example, has endorsements from President Obama and former governor Ed Rendell. Although Rendell is not not much of an endorsement if you want the education vote—he was an excellent lesson in how Democrats can be rough on public schools , and deserves partial blame for the $1 billion cut to education funding in Pennsylvania.
Ron DiNicola (PA-16) is in an unexpected dead heat with incumbent Mike Kelly, who believes in the deep state and once compared the EPA to terrorists. DiNicola is getting the support of the teachers’ union, even if his education plank is flat and dull.
Just a few House candidates offer specific solutions to the crisis in education funding. Incumbent Dwight Evans (PA-2) is a fan of community schools, while Susan Wild (PA-7) has the winning quote: “The myth that school choice will be the tide that lifts all boats is much like the myth that tax cuts for the wealthy will trickle down to the middle and lower class…Keep public tax dollars in public school.”
In the national races, most are not taking a strong or daring stance on education.
So in the national races, most are not taking a strong or daring stance on education. Is the picture different when we shift our gaze to the state races (there are over 225 of them—with 50 state senate and 203 state house seats, Pennsylvania has the largest full-time legislature in the country, and 225 of those seats are in play every two years).
In the twenty-five state senate races, some candidates say nothing about education at all, and a larger number say nothing of consequence or just bust out the boilerplate. A few call for “more funding,” but say nothing about specific issues. And Katie Muth (PA Senate- 44) calls for “rejuvenating” the public school system, whatever that means.
But at least ten candidates address Pennsylvania’s school funding issues directly. Some team that up with taxpayer relief, the Great White Whale of Pennsylvania politics. Art Haywood (PA Senate- 4) actually calls for funding to be put into programs for the communities that surround the poorest schools. William Troutman (PA Senate- 36) is the only candidate to also call for more accountability for charters and cyber charters.
In Pennsylvania House races, most candidates have at least something to say about education. Emily Skopov, who is running against the House majority leader in D-28, calls for charter accountability. Many others oppose vouchers, and most have education at the top of their list of priorities.
Nobody seems willing to call out DeVos, and almost nobody mentions the forces behind privatization and the attacks on public schools, the teachers, and their unions.
Nobody seems willing to call out DeVos, though, and almost nobody mentions the forces behind privatization and the attacks on public schools, the teachers, and their unions. Still, Lisa Boeving-Learned (PA House - 8) calls to guard against for-profit corporations in education, and Clare Dooley calls for tax dollars not to be siphoned off by cyber charters.
The only candidate to really take a stand is Jason Ruff (PA House- 183), who runs a diner in Slatington and serves on the Slatington borough council. He addresses the gross underfunding of Pennsylvania schools, saying: “Schools are under attack from conservative lawmakers and an network of millionaire-funded interest groups that are pushing tuition voucher programs that have drained more than $500 million from our schools.”
In the end, very few Pennsylvania candidates are really breaking new ground and leaning into education issues. A significant number of candidates do go beyond the classic “education is good” rhetoric, but almost nobody is talking about charters, cyber charters, merit pay, or teacher and school evaluations, which are now tied to a test that is no-stakes for students.
If a progressive education agenda is to take root in Pennsylvania, there’s still a lot more gardening to do.