Jorge Elorza — former mayor of Providence, now CEO of Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) — joins Jed Wallace and Andy Rotherham for a frank conversation about the federal scholarship tax credit, the Democratic Party’s education problem, and what a reset actually requires.

They dig into how the new federal tax credit program actually works (and why Jorge and Arne Duncan called it a “no-brainer”), why more than thirty U.S. senators from the Dem Party are now trying to sunset the entire thing, and what that fight reveals about a Democratic brand that’s gotten badly out of step with the voters it claims to represent. Along the way: Providence’s 2.4% math proficiency, Detroit’s 80% of fourth-graders below basic, Rahm Emanuel’s urgency, Mikey Sherrill’s budget address, fake charter laws and fake science of reading bills, and why Jorge thinks the ideological map of the future isn’t left-vs-right — it’s liberalism vs. illiberalism.

In this episode:

• Jorge’s journey from barely graduating high school to Providence mayor to DFER CEO
• What changed his mind about ed reform while in office — and his final press conference call to charterize the district
• Rhode Island’s most WonkyFolk fun fact: the Senate President is (or was) also the teachers union president
• How the federal scholarship tax credit actually works — and why it’s not a voucher program
• Why Jorge thinks governors have every reason to opt in, and what Jared Polis is modeling in Colorado
• The 30-senator push to sunset the program — and what it says about Democrats’ education reflexes
• Why “money follows the child” is a distinctly progressive idea, not a conservative one
• The generational change Democrats need — and why Pelosi/Schumer aren’t built for it
• Rahm Emanuel’s urgency, Mikey Sherrill’s budget address, and what real leadership on education sounds like
• Fake charter laws, fake science of reading bills, and the sector’s unwillingness to call balls and strikes
• Liberalism vs. illiberalism as the real ideological divide of the future
• Where DFER is headed: from a chapter/legislative model to executive/gubernatorial engagement

Show Notes & Resources:

• Democrats for Education Reform (DFER)
• Jorge Elorza & Arne Duncan — Washington Post op-ed on the federal tax credit
• Senator Mark Kelly — effort to sunset the federal scholarship tax credit
• Governor Jared Polis (CO) — opting Colorado into the program
• Matt Yglesias — Slow Boring
• Ezra Klein & Derek Thompson — Abundance

Guest: Jorge Elorza — CEO, Democrats for Education Reform (DFER); former Mayor of Providence, RI

Hosts: Jed Wallace (CharterFolk) and Andy Rotherham (Co-Founder & Senior Partner, Bellwether)

Watch the full video on YouTube.

Andy Rotherham 0:01

Hey, Jed.

Jed Wallace 0:02

Hey, Andy. How you doing?

Andy Rotherham 0:04

I'm good. How are you?

Jed Wallace 0:06

We must have a special occasion in front of us here. Both of us are in collared shirts. I don't think that's happened since like early in the decade. I know. It's wild. And I'm in the middle of a really busy week. So like, you know. It's something that I was able to put myself together. Maybe that explains it. You have other people that you need to be presentable for. No, it was for you. And Jorge. Who we should introduce in a second. Is putting us both to shame. He always. He's one of these people who's always super dapper. I just thought it was, hey. We have to refer to someone as Mr. Mayor. And that just led us to both put our collars on. And then Jorge, not only in collars. But a suit too. So thanks for sharpening us up around here, Jorge. Oh, absolutely. For you guys. It's terrific to have you here, Jorge. Thank you so much for joining us. And I've wanted to talk to you for a long time. And as it so happens. We're having a lot of people in the ed reform world write about what we should be doing with Democrats right now. And to be able to turn to you and to get your views on this at this moment is terrific. So thank you so much for joining us. It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you for having me. Andy. Do you want to take care of housekeeping before we go here?

Andy Rotherham 1:22

Oh, yeah. Sorry. Yeah. And then we'll jump right into the first question. So this is a podcast, WonkyFolk. I'm Andy Rotherham. And my co-host is Jed Wallace. And you can find us wherever you find your podcasts. So Apple, Spotify, all that. If you subscribe, you can. That helps us and so we appreciate it you also get notified when new content comes out and you can also find us on youtube i'm not quite sure why people want to watch my hunches they probably just listen to in the background but some people seem to want to watch so you can see the video. There we're joined. We got. Jorge today to talk about a number of things. Including obviously the education tax credit. That's going to be coming online soon. But like. Before we get to any of that, Jorge. Just tell us a little bit about yourself. Your backstory. I think like a lot of people in ed reform. You first popped on the radar when you were mayor of Providence, but obviously. You know, you had a life before that. So talk. Talk about sort of how you got to being mayor of Providence, how you got to. Leading DFER. In your own backstory. Yeah, thank you.

Jorge Elorza 2:29

Thank you, Andy. Yes. So I'll chat a little bit about what brings me here. I'll try not to drag on too long. But, you know. I have to say that I was never one of those people that said that. You know. One day I'm going to be mayor or I'm going to be an elected official. You know. I was born for this kind of. You know. That was one day I'm going to be on. I visit schools. We hear that a lot. Yeah. So, you know, the truth is that, like. I specifically swore off ever going into politics. I wanted nothing to do with it. And the only reason why I jumped into the race was because I wanted to transform the schools in Providence. That, you know, that was my thing, right? From the moment I was born. What I can remember from my parents is education. My mom has a fourth grade education. My father has a third grade education. They were immigrants to this country. Right? The classic improbable immigrant story. And I've always found it so fascinating that even though they didn't have the formal education. Somehow they knew that an education was a ticket to a better life. And so And I would love to say that I was that kid that always listened to mom and always did the right thing. But I was a total dunce in high school. I even got arrested when I was like. Seventeen or eighteen. Which is still so embarrassing. And my life, frankly. Was going in the wrong direction. And it was really my high school graduation that changed everything. I barely graduated. I found out I was graduating just like a week before graduation day. And so there I am during my graduation ceremony, everyone is there celebrating. And I'm thinking to myself, like. What a waste of an opportunity I've made of this. My parents had sacrificed so much so that my sister and I could have a better life. And here I am barely skating by. And that was a critical moment in my life. That was the moment where I said. All right. I'm going to get serious about school and education. I enrolled at community college maybe the week after. And for the first time, you know. Applied myself and tried my best. And that changed the entire course of my life. And so, you know. I went off to law school. I practiced for a couple of years. I was a law professor for ten years. So that's like primarily what I did before I was mayor. But what made me step down from my position was that education was still really important to me. And I ran for mayor because I wanted to transform schools.

Andy Rotherham 5:19

Tell us about being mayor. Talk about that period and what you accomplished. What you left on the table that you were unable to get to during your time. And then sort of how that led you to where you are now at DFER.

Jorge Elorza 5:33

Yeah. So, you know. I didn't come into office waving the ed reform flag. To be honest with both of you. I didn't even know what ed reform exactly was. And the truth is, when I thought about. You know. Transforming education in the city. My focus was the schools where ninety percent of the kids studied. And so, you know. I got elected and I got to work on that right away. And let's just say that I received an education on the policy and politics of education. You know, I totally believe that. You know. I would bring all the all the parties. All the stakeholders to the table. Including the teachers unions. They would see that what I was trying to do was, you know. What was right for kids and they would meet me halfway. Truth is that went nowhere. And, you know. I love this line that goes. If you really want to understand how a system works, try changing it. And I tried changing it and boy. Did I understand. Come to understand all of the different actors. All of the different interests. All of the different pressures. And so it's through my experience and through the understanding of the system that I've developed over time that my views evolved. And so in spite of investing more money into education. In spite of letting it be known throughout my administration that it was a priority of mine and that I was looking for results. Year after year. I didn't see much of anything changing. And that's when I became much more open to alternatives. And eventually I came to fully embrace alternatives. So while I didn't come in. As I said. Waving the ed reform flag and being the big pro charter school guy. By the time I left office. The last press conference that I had in the mayor's office I invited two former mayors and the incoming mayor, the mayor-elect. And during that press conference. I specifically said that the city should consider charterizing the entire district. And you know our goal should simply be what is delivering for kids what is working let's scale it what isn't working let's allow it to fade. And I came to fully embrace alternatives first in public school choice and then that led me to embracing private school choice as well. I came to see this as. Not an ideological conversation. It's simply about what works and what gets it done for kids. And that's what I believe that we should all be for. So that's how my views evolved on that over time. Jorge. I'd love to go deeper on Rhode Island and Providence. If we do. We may consume the entire hour.

Jed Wallace 8:27

What I love about my work is just being able to go deeper in different places and the things that pop out. Like if I'm not wrong, in Rhode Island. The president of the Senate, the pro tem. Is also the president of the teachers union. Is that correct? Simultaneously. That is correct. It's these kinds of things that I just feel like our world doesn't notice. We have to listen. Just let's leave that there. I hope we have another. Cut out the middleman. That's the kind of efficiency people are

Andy Rotherham 8:58

going for. It's just great. Let me just say. So the former president of the Teachers Union is now the Senate president. Whether she's serving in both capacities. I actually can't say for sure. But she was definitely the union president and now she is the Senate president. I'll check facts, and if I'm wrong. We'll put it in the notes. I remember a friend of mine, Steve Smith. He was president of the Teachers Union. And he was in the state legislature. Interestingly. The experience has sort of radicalized him. And he's somewhat outspoken on aspects of reform now. So he became extremely frustrated with the lack of progress on really improving the schools. That's the trajectory of Villaraigosa in California too, right deeply working with CTA in the legislature and sees the problems and you know courageously evolved so but let's i also really

Jed Wallace 9:58

want to hear jorge about some of your your ideas at a national scales of your observations what's going on across the country so i'd like to like just turn to what's you know what a Perhaps your most read piece. There are a lot of pieces that have been read. But when you and Arne Duncan wrote together at the Washington Post. I know a lot of our world really focused on that. And the two of you called this new federal voucher program. Tax credit program, a quote, no brainer. And now we're seeing that Senator Kelly and more than thirty senators in the United States Senate are working together to sunset the entire thing. So that just striking disconnect between you and Arne identifying this program as a no brainer and what would seem to be the mainstream phalanx of politics. Most powerful dems in the country going at a completely different direction is just so striking so first of all for our listeners and viewers who might not be on top of the detail please you know just walk through what the federal tax credit program is and then what yours and Arnie's position is on it and then what you think the significance of it is that we have 30 U.S. Senators from the Dem Party now going in exactly the opposite direction Yeah. There's so much to dive into and unpack there. So let me start off with just explaining how the new law works. So it's a one-to-one tax credit for up to seventeen hundred dollars and it's a federal tax credit.

So from the perspective of the state and then from the perspective of the individual. So part of this law requires that for residents of a state to qualify for the tax credit or for kids in that state to benefit from the tax credit. The governor needs to opt in. And so we've been very focused on our Democratic governors going to opt into this new program. And the case that we've been making to governors is pretty straightforward. If you don't opt in. That means the first seventeen hundred dollars of every single taxpayer's federal taxes will leave your state and it's going to leave your state and go to the US Treasury in the form of their federal taxes. And by opting in. You give your state the opportunity to recoup as much of these resources as possible. And these dollars, they add up very. Very quickly. So. At minimum, we're talking about roughly. I'd say about. Eighty billion dollars that would leave states and go to the federal government if governors do not opt in. So when we say that it's a no-brainer. That should be the beginning and the end of it. You can send your money to Washington. To the black hole. Which is the Federal Treasury General Fund. Or you could try to keep it within the state. So anyways. That's from the perspective of the state. From the perspective of the taxpayer. We have a decision. Let's say our governor. Let's say our state opts into the program. So for all of us who have at least seventeen hundred dollars in federal taxes. We can we have a decision to make. We can send the money to Washington in the form of our taxes. Or we can redirect those seventeen hundred dollars to a scholarship granting organization in our community that we believe is doing cool work. I think that as awareness is raised and more people know about this. More and more Americans are gonna say. I'm keeping my money here in my community as opposed to sending it to Washington. And all of us as taxpayers. We decide which SGOs. Which scholarship granting organizations to send it to. And what's so interesting is that the range of uses that the scholarship granting organizations can put these dollars to is pretty broad. So a lot of people refer to this as a voucher program. This is not a voucher program. One of the uses is definitely scholarships for private schools. I think one of those people was just called the voucher program about two minutes ago. Andy. You never point out my errors like that.

One of those people might be sitting right here. Don't be a slacker. Come on. Okay. Keep going, Jorge. Keep going. Jed, I got your back.

Wallace corrected. Jed, I got your back. And so that means there's a broader range of uses. And so this isn't just for private schools. This is for public school students as well. And the range of uses includes tutoring. Transportation, computers, internet. And also services for students with special needs. These are all priorities that Democratic governors and Democratic states have identified themselves. And we can put these dollars to use for our kids. So that's the that's the general you know. That's generally how the program how the program works and why we think and why we think it's a no brainer. Let's keep the money in our states and let's put the money to use on education as opposed to sending it to the black hole, which is the federal treasury. But we should note, Jorge. Do you have concerns? The regulations are not done. So we should note that. We haven't seen the Treasury Department working on the regulations for this program. Do you have concern that the vision you've laid out. That it's going to be able to be used widely and used for public school activities as well as private school activities, so it'll be more universal?

Do you have concerns the Treasury may walk that back in the regulations. That the administration may want to try to regulate in a more narrow way?

You're right, Andy. That we're still waiting on rules and hopefully we'll have some at least preliminary guidance by late June. Early July. And we can't say anything with absolute certainty until then. But I think that we could say with a fair bit of certainty that's how the program is gonna work. So all of the indications that we've gotten either from Treasury or from leading Republican policymakers is that that's the general structure of how the program will work. What I think we'll get greater clarity on through the regs. Are questions such as how are national SGOs going to be treated? And how does this relate to. Do you have to have a physical presence in one state versus the other? You know. It's like a lot of important details. But in terms of like the broad structure of this. I think that is pretty clear. You know. Particularly the range of eligible uses. That is written into statute. So I think that would be incredibly difficult for Republicans to take out. But if I can go down this track just a little bit more. There has been concern from blue state policymakers that public school students will not benefit. And I think this is informed just by more general skepticism and more general fear. But I also think it's also a product of not fully understanding what's happening with ed reform on the right. And so this concept of education freedom is a relatively new concept that has taken off. This is since, after the pandemic. And in states that are passing these universal ESAs. It's interesting that these universal ESAs are not just for private school tuition. They're also for the same or similar range of uses that are allowed under the federal scholarship tax credit program. And so it should not surprise us that tutoring for public school students. For example. Is allowable under the federal scholarship tax credit program. This is very much in keeping with the direction and with the vision that ed reformers on the center right have been developing for several years now. So I think we can say with a decent amount of certainty that's how the program is going to work. And in terms of additional sort of restrictions that Treasury is going to put on, I mean, let's not forget. This is a Donald Trump Treasury. I don't think that they're. This is gonna be the Wild West. And a lot of people respond to the Wild West reference to just being very concerned about how this can go off the rails. But that's where I believe that the approach that Governor Jared Polis has taken is so important. He's the Democratic governor of Colorado. Right, who opted in. And I'm paraphrasing here. But his message was. The only thing that's limiting us is our creativity and our imagination on how we'll put these dollars to use for our kids. And it's that kind of mindset that I think is really needed on our side. To see this not as a threat. But actually as a way to advance our own priorities?

Well. If there's any description of public education status quo as we know it. It would be lacking imagination. So I imagine what's going to happen here is that many of these school districts and states are going to have to see it first. They're probably going to just whiff on the first year. And then they're going to see how large this program is. And they're going to see how resources are going to a bunch of other places. Many of the school districts are going to be in this situation of financial crisis. And it'll probably be year two or year three when people come to their senses. But it won't be because they imagined it from the very beginning. It's just that they'll see it and. And evolve in that direction generally but look we could go here forever and and we will come back you know andy i saw Shaka Mitchell you know at the same gathering he's more than happy when the regs come out to go into the details here yeah we'll do more on these

But let's not just, Jorge, what's your number how many states do you think we'll be in by say the end of twenty seven we'll be participating like what's your what's your guess by the end of twenty seven or by the end of twenty six You can do either. I was thinking the end of twenty seven. Because I think some states may come in later. There's some pushing and shoving. But either one's fine. So I'm really bullish on this.

I think that by the end of twenty twenty seven. One hundred percent by the end of twenty twenty six. By the end of twenty six. Close to one hundred percent. And remember that. There's a provision in the law that allows for new governors in the first year. So twenty seven to opt in and it applies and it would apply for that same year, twenty seven. And so, you know, you have, you know. Governor and in Minnesota and the governor in Wisconsin, you know. Taking very strong positions against it. You know. Those states are also having gubernatorial elections. There's going to be new people coming in. And those new governors are going to have the chance to opt their states in twenty seven as well. And how big do you think it will be by like the end of like twenty twenty seven? How much revenue do you think this thing will be generating? Yeah, it's hard to say. It's possible that. We dive in and we figure out that raising the money is a lot harder than we all thought. It could be that there's some unexpected ways that are developed that eliminate or reduce the friction so that it's easy to make the contributions and a lot more people participate. So it's really hard to say. And I think that everyone who's really deep into this will all speak with a certain level of humility in that we don't know what's actually going to gain traction and what isn't. But we have to try a number of different approaches. But this is my current thinking on the question of how big it could be. If this program is able to develop deep roots over these first couple of years and if it doesn't disappear. Say after two years. Let's say Democrats have the federal trifecta, let's say it doesn't disappear. I think that this program has the potential to be the new way that the or the new way that the that the federal government primarily does education funding. And education and education policy. Because what I think will happen is that as blue state policymakers come to see how these new funding tools can be put to use to advance our own priorities. I think we're going to like them. And it'll start to generate some ideas in our minds of other ways that they can be used to, again. Advance our priorities and to support our kids. So I have no doubt that, you know. This program will need to evolve over time. So we have, we have to. We have to take what we have and do our best to make it work. But if it sticks. It's going to be amended. It's going to be evolved over. It's going. It's going to evolve over time. And if indeed, you know, we come to. You know. We come to provide both more resources for education writ large. But for public schools and public school students in particular. And then also create or bake in more flexibility into the way that we fund K-12 education so that parents have more say and allows for innovative new programs and innovative new models to emerge. I think it's going to be really attractive to Democrats. And I think both parties would have an interest. And evolving it to make it work even more. Let's stay on the political thing. Before we do. That was a good politician's answer.

I'm going to ask a question a different way. Over-under on twenty-eight billion by the end of twenty-seven. Would you take the over on that number. The size of it. Or would you take the under? By the end of twenty-seven. I'll take the under. The under, you know. So you think it's going to grow slower. Okay. It would still be. Even if it comes in like in the twenties, it'll be the largest. I think one thing. Some people listening to this might be like, why are these guys focused on this? It's so small. Like realistically. This will be the largest federal education program in a relatively short period of time. Would you agree with that?

Oh yeah. And I mean, and it has, I mean. It has the potential to be massive. Massive. So let me. Again, this is all speculative. No one knows exactly what direction this can go in. So right now it's a tax credit and it requires, you know. Us to make our contribution. And then when we file our taxes. You know, you know. File for file for the credit. You know. If this really takes hold and it's amended over time. You know. I could I can see a world where instead of requiring the contribution and then the tax credit on the back end, perhaps it's done automatically. Right. And the first seventeen hundred dollars of every American tax payments go into some kind of escrow account. And, you know, and that gets dispersed. You know. By some formula or on some on some other way. Again, that is all just very speculative. But there really is no limit to how this program can grow over time. So, Jorge. How do you reconcile your bullishness for the program and your partnership with Arne in writing about this with this latest development that we have all these senators? I would say, actually. That the emergence of this at a national level probably puts more pressure on Dem governors to not join and probably suppresses the number of states. But how do you explain your positioning on this representing a Democrat orientation and that new initiative coming out of Senator Kelly? Yeah, you know. I think the conversation on K-12 policy is so fascinating. Not only for education policy. But for Democratic politics writ large. And what I mean by that is that. You know. You think of all of the ways that. You know. Democrat the Democratic brand has been has been spoiled. And I think that, you know. K-12 education policy is exhibit A of everything that has gone wrong with Democrats. So everything from being defenders of institutions as opposed to the people those institutions are supposed to serve. From listening to big donors and powerful stakeholders as opposed to staying in touch. Having our fingers on the pulse of the broader community, you know. Drawing like these lines in sand. Like these purity tests. Instead of building a bigger tent. You know. You could tell all those stories about the Democratic Party through education. And I think that's what's happening here as well. I've written another and I've written that. I don't think that what's needed with Democrats is a shift in a rebrand or even a shift in policies. It's really a shift in mindset, right? The mindset that gives birth to those policies. And what I mean by that is. We've come to reflexively. Almost instinctively come to defend the status quo. And there is this insistence on defining public education as a specific or particular set of institutions that I think is unwarranted. We should be for whatever moves the needle and whatever is helping kids thrive. But on the left. We've developed this mindset that it has to be through these particular schools. Mind you. Schools that look like nineteenth-century factories, right. That aren't built for meeting the diverse needs of kids. They're built for top-down bureaucratic control. It's just weird that we insist so much on that being the only way and that we should educate children. But education can look very differently. And I think that education in the future needs to look differently. But we're just still stuck on that mindset. And so I think that brings us to this effort to repeal the federal scholarship tax credit program. Mind you. Public school students throughout the country stand to benefit from this program. The money is all additive. But that doesn't seem to matter. The fact that public schools are going to benefit. What seems to matter is that this crosses some ideological purity line test that it also happens to support and help kids in private schools. That's a line that Democrats. We should never cross, the mindset goes. And the problem is not that this makes more money available for kids. It's that it doesn't have that money flow through the existing public district schools. And so it's really that mindset that needs to change, that needs to shift. Because that's what's leading to decisions like this we oppose a program that substantively and policy-wide is going to help public school kids so in a matter of policy we should be for it but it's also extraordinarily popular we've done polls throughout the country other folks have as well right this is literally an eighty twenty issue that Democrats would be wise to be on the right side of Being opposed to this is not just bad policy. But it's questionable politics as well. But the argument is, Jorge, responding. The argument is that by focusing on non-public schools. It's going to make the challenges the public schools face even more acute. And that's the argument you're going to hear from a lot of people is that why are we. If there is new money available in any form. It should be going to the schools that are struggling like the way you just described. How do you respond to that critique? Yeah. So several things there. So remember, this money is all additive. Right? This is only gonna bring more money to traditional public schools. It doesn't impact state education dollars one single cent other than adding to it. The other thing that I use as a starting place for so much of this work Jed. You were asking about Providence earlier. Today in Providence. Only two point four percent of high school seniors at traditional schools can do math at grade level. So that's where we're starting from. Let me throw out one other data point that just boggles my mind. Today in Detroit. Eighty percent of fourth graders are reading below basic. Now, folks. Your audience knows what that means. Right? There's above proficiency. There's proficiency. Basic is bad, but we're talking about. Eighty percent are below basic. So I start off with a belief that there is a massive crisis that currently exists. It's hard to do worse than two point four percent. Those eighty percent of fourth graders in Detroit. They urgently need something new and something different. And the idea that we're somehow going to address the situation in Providence or Detroit or Chicago or Baltimore or name whichever urban city or urban community throughout the country simply with more money. Right. The same argument that we've been using for decades and that somehow, right. This time it's going to be different. That somehow miraculously a little bit more money now to the existing systems is gonna lead to the dramatic transformation that we've always wanted. That's a hard sell. I just don't buy it. At a certain point, you know. We just need a different approach. And I think the evidence for us needing to take a different approach is compelling. I think it's overwhelming. But old habits die hard. We've been so locked into feeding the existing system for such a long time that it's hard to see outside of it. In fact. I think it's fair to say that for the past decade. The only conversation on the left on K-12 education has been, you know. How do we improve the existing system without a consideration of whether the existing system is actually working or not and whether it needs to be changed? And so, you know. I'm really excited about a number of things that I see out there, you know. The Mississippi miracle and what they're doing around science of reading. You know, I think that's all brilliant. And I also believe that, you know. In this moment. We need to have a serious conversation about, you know. How do we change our existing systems to. You know, lean into, you know. The ingenuity and the creativity. The entrepreneurship of educators that could lead to breakthroughs that we just haven't had. That we just haven't had in K-12 education.

So you've described this. That's compelling. And you've described this as, look. This is a way for Democrats to improve their brand. I've heard you describe as an off ramp for the Democrats' current political problems around education. But what about if people say everything you're saying. Like this actually doesn't differentiate Democrats at all. It actually blurs because it's just it's a different version of what the Republicans have been talking about for a long time. And so it actually it sort of blurs the brand rather than creates a unique Democratic brand on this issue. Yeah. So I'll tell you.

my broader dream and my broader goal is in the same way that fifteen, twenty years ago. There was a bipartisan consensus around accountability and standards. You know. I would love to see a future where there's a bipartisan consensus around the money following the child. And even if we're there. There's still a whole lot that we can disagree over. That we can disagree on with the other side. But I've been trying to make the case that this idea where the money follows the child, this is not a conservative idea. It's a distinctly progressive one. In fact. I can't think of a more progressive idea than empowering families with greater choices. Empowering educators to be entrepreneurs. Bottom-up innovation rather than top-down control. I think it's distinctly a progressive idea. Now. There will still be questions as to what level of public accountability. What level of guardrails. How do we ensure that the people that most need it are able to access these new options and choices. There's still really important questions to be resolved that I'm sure there'll be ideological disagreements over. But I do believe that the most progressive position in education is empowering families. To have greater agency over their kids' education. And that means allowing the money to follow the child.

So help us understand the Democratic mindset. You've been saying that we need a shift in mindset right now. And I like your sense of optimism about how things could get better. I really don't see any changes in the Democratic mainstream politics. Democratic mainstream candidates. If we look at who's running for governor in twenty six. I really can't find an ed reformer. There's Bennet in Colorado. He signed the letter that Senator Kennedy or Senator Kelly was advancing about the scholarship program. But he's an ed reformer. But really not very many others. And so it seems to me as though this line in the sand stuff. My own sense on this is that in two thousand seventeen. When the NEA for the first time in twenty one years created a new charter school policy. They basically said to the Roy Romers and the Obamas and the Jerry Browns of the world. The days of being partially with us and then against us on charter schools are behind you. If you want our support. You have to be one hundred percent with us. Gavin Newsom was the first person who had the gauntlet thrown down at him. He collapsed. Biden collapsed thereafter. The 2020 presidential primary was a disaster. All these candidates paraded in front of the NEA. Who all said that they would kowtow to that new line in the sand that has been drawn. Help us understand what is the Democratic mindset amid this line drawing that's clearly coming from perhaps the well. Not perhaps. Certainly the most important or one of the most important constituencies you know in the Democratic Party the employees that work within these school districts yeah this is this is how i this is how i think of it so you know i look at the change that the Republican Party has under has undergone over the past fifteen years and it is remarkable it is almost night and day the party that they used to be and the party that they are now and you know that change It's been chaotic, it's been corrupt.

and it's been dangerous. But I think about the change that the Democratic Party needs to undergo. And I see it as being on a similar scale as to what Republicans have undergone over the past fifteen years. Sometimes I get frustrated when folks say. You know. It's been it's been twelve months or it's been sixteen months and Democrats still haven't figured it out. You know. This is not something that gets resolved in a year. This is over a series of elections where. You know, the party brand. The party vision gets sorted out. So over the next ten years. The next fifteen years. I think there's significant change that is required of Democrats. Now, with that said. I also agree with your premise that when you look around. You know. The candidates and the voices that are emerging, you know. They're not necessarily the voices or. Well, the voices of change. And that's because I do believe that the folks. Certainly the leadership in the Democratic Party doesn't have it in them, right? The scale of change that's required is not within their capacity. So the Nancy Pelosi's. The Chuck Schumer's. The folks who have come up through the system, succeeded in the system, and now are leaders in the system. I don't think they have it within them. Right? Because it's at a worldview level that the party needs to change. To bring about this change. And so what makes me hopeful and optimistic is a new generation of Democrats stepping up. I think there is very clearly a generational change that needs to happen. Folks that don't come with the same assumptions and have a different outlook. On these issues than the existing leaders do. So it is a process and it's going to be a long-term process. But what I am convinced of is that we are living through a remarkable moment in history. One of these transition moments where there's a clear before and an after. We are living through it right now. And it's in these moments that Institutions that are not meeting the needs of the public. They get tested and they're pushed to either evolve or they get replaced. And if there's one institution that is not meeting the needs of the people it's supposed to serve and that is feeling the strain, it's K-12 education. And so during this moment of profound social, economic, technological change. I think that we as a party need to be having an expansive conversation at a systems level. You know, what kind of education system. You know. Would we design if we were designing it from scratch? And, you know, that's certainly, you know. Juxtapose that with the very narrow bounds of the conversation that we've been having in K-12, you know. For the past for the past ten years. I think that the public wants change. I think that's pretty clear. I think that the public wants something different as opposed to better management of existing systems. And as a party. It's going to take a series of elections. But this new vision will come. If nothing else. Through just the demand from the public. Until we get a Democratic Party that you know, finds out, you know. Or figures out what it stands for and what its new vision is. We're just going to see, you know. The pendulum swinging wildly and faster between Republicans and Democrats. Once again. With both parties unable to establish a permanent or sticking majority. So that's how I think of that. It's not going to happen overnight. It's going to take some time.

Isn't the more core problem, though. Like I agree with you. We're at a time of change. Democrats, you said it's worldview. I think it's like in part Democrats just represent the producer interests in education. They you know. And you see that in higher ed. You see that in K-12. And that's a tough place to be in a real populist moment and i mean you're talking about money following kids in a more student-centered system and if you represent the producers of this product historically that's just that's just a hard pivot to make yeah the other thing that i think change has going for it is that there's a political imperative that just hasn't existed in a very long time. Thinking with just our political hat on. I can totally see a political alliance if it's paying political dividends. But the Democrats political alliance with teachers unions. It's either not paying any dividends at all. Or the dividends that it is paying are just minimal.

So we've done a lot of work on this with our public polling. Depending on which poll you look at and how you ask the question. Democrats used to be the undisputed party of education. Whereas today we're underwater on this issue. And while teachers unions still have a lot of advantages. Their money and their organization. If the political alliance is no longer paying political dividends as a party we really got to ask ourselves like what is the point of this so as we as we rethink the kind of education system that we want to have we also have to rethink who are we who are we working for and you know what's this all for and if politically it behooves us to align ourselves more with with the needs of families than with the needs of, you know. A powerful stakeholder, then having. You know. That political imperative is a strong push. Well, I don't know it wouldn't. It always has been for a while. I don't know how it wouldn't. In American politics. It always behooves you to, I mean. First of all, just like in politics. It behooves you to go with where the numbers are.

You need more votes. It's like the classic sports thing. Who do you think is going to win? It'll be the team that puts the most points up. So there's that. But there's also like there's just many more of the consumers and they are super they are super frustrated. I mean. That was like that was part of Al Gore's political problem. And you want the people when you when you're the people against the powerful. Right. But we don't realize you actually are the powerful. Right. Like on certain issues and education was one of them. It creates an it creates an incoherence. I think like it's just it's just more fundamental than like you have to choose to be with the consumers. If you want to win over time. There's more of them. Their power may be more diffuse and less organized. But it's there and it's going to show up at the ballot box. I think we saw the Democrats saw that very acutely in twenty four. But, you know. You saw that you saw that in Virginia in twenty one. I think there's plenty of examples of the risk there.

Let me let me take it. Go ahead. Sorry. I was I was just Andy. I agree. I agree fully. And I will add that Republicans. They know that they're on to something. With respect to their education vision.

I think it started with Youngkin. People say it started with DeSantis. But parental rights. That morphed into parental choice. And they're going to continue pressing this issue. Choice is popular because, of course. It is. And so they know they're onto something. DeSantis overplayed his hand in a bunch of ways because there's sort of no limiting principle on his style of politics. But I was struck how it just didn't

permeate how much of what he was doing enjoyed majority support. Often majority support among Democrats pretty consistently. Then he took it, like I said. There's no limiting principle. He took it too far. But a lot of that stuff in the early days was much more popular, I think. Than people thought. Realize i think the same thing is true with the choice stuff i'm struck still people don't realize just how popular it is and particularly popular among key Democratic constituencies African Americans, Hispanic Americans and so yes the the politics there i think i think there's a bunch of politicians who have who have sort of Practice that I feel like it's one of the only ones that are really the Republicans are out of position on a bunch of things the Democrats have been kind of unable to exploit it because their own Problems like education is one of the only ones I think where they have an argument that sort of that sort of works for them Yeah, you know, I think, you know. In this time of transition. I'm not sure the old ideological map is a reliable guide anymore. You know, Republicans, you know. Free market, you know. Principles helps to explain why they favor more of a market in education. Whereas the left's trust for government helps explain where we land on education policy.

But that left-right divide. Market versus government. Even that we can't trust is going to continue. In fact. I think that the ideological divide of the future is going to be between the forces of liberalism and the forces that oppose it. Illiberalism, authoritarianism. Cultural nationalism. And it's really interesting. If it's liberalism versus illiberalism. A plural education system actually aligns with the liberal aspect of it. And the more sort of control oriented authoritarian, you know. Aligns with the with the illiberal. Again. I think that the old ideological map. You know. Isn't a reliable guide in the future. Well, I think you're right.

It's like a late-nineteenth century. And I completely agree with you. And I think the problem is you can find illiberalism all around. And people tend to only see it on the other side. And there's too much of it all around. What do you think about, like, so, like. Someone who obviously sees this. Who knows that it's early days. That they'll get traction, Rahm Emanuel. Former mayor of Chicago. So a mayor like yourself. Member of Congress, chief of staff. For President Obama. White House aide for President Clinton. He's out there. He's speaking truth to power. The Democrats need to change their ways. On education as part of sort of. You know. Getting over that sort of normalcy threshold with voters to be competitive. How do you see that? Like he's, I think he's like, if. Senator Kelly is going to stake out the sort of anti-reform ground like his his opposite right now seems to be Rahm staking out a very strong reform position. How do you how do you see that playing out in the sort of battle for Democratic hearts and minds? Yeah. So two things come to mind. The first is, you know. I love what Rahm Emanuel is doing. And he is as sharp a political mind as it gets. He sees how we've fallen short in a number of areas and how education tells that story so neatly, so cleanly. What I love that he is doing is speaking with a sense of urgency.

You know, folks, I mentioned Providence. I mentioned Detroit. How did we allow this? You know, forget, like. Why are we not talking about this? Why is this not the only thing that we're talking about? This is outrageous. It is indefensible. And I think... Can I pause you there. Though? Because I think part of the problem is because we only talk about Detroit and Providence, and the average person's like. Oh, yeah, okay. Those are going to be basket cases. I think, like, we don't talk about, like. Virginia. Sixty percent of African-American kids below basic on NAEP, which is, you know. Crisis levels.

But we don't talk about that. Everyone thinks Virginia, Massachusetts. Those states are doing fine. Because we're better than Providence and Detroit. And people still say they think they're dunking on Mississippi when Mississippi is actually outpacing Virginia for minority kids. So I think part of the problem is we don't talk about this. And to his credit. I think Rahm is trying to talk about this in more of a net. This is not just a problem in these other places. This is a problem where you live as well. Yeah. Yeah, fair enough. There's a crisis across the board.

And so I love that he's raising awareness and bringing attention to this. The second thing that I'll say is that. And this isn't about Rahm. It's about all of us. I think that in politics. This is gonna sound crazy to say. But I think we focus too much on policy. And I'll tell you what I mean. I had this experience after I left. That is a strange thing to say during the Trump administration. So I do. I really do. How are we how are we focusing too

much on policy right now? So I had this I had this experience after I left office. I was walking through a park back in Providence. And I ran into a woman. A friend that I knew from politics. We stopped and talked for a little bit. We were talking in Spanish.

She asked me what I was doing. I explained to her I'm running this organization, DFER. I could tell she really wasn't understanding it, but we had a really. Really nice conversation. And then we're saying goodbye. And she tells me. I don't know what you're doing now. But whatever it is you're doing. I support it because I know you're doing it for all of us. And that really sticks with me. And I think about my time as mayor. The average person. They don't follow the back and forth and who's doing what and which policies. At the end of the day. What they know is whether you were fighting for them or whether you weren't. Right. Were you just sort of like following the political wind? See, you know, what you know. What track or what position would suit your personal interests as opposed to, you know. Really fighting for the community? And that's the point that I'm making, that, you know. Sometimes we focus too much on policy when people just want to know that this person is going to have my back. And back to Rahm. I think that's what he's doing so successfully. He's identifying an issue that in such a clear way. Democrats have not had the public's back. And he's letting folks know that I'm a fighter. And if I'm in office. I'm going to fight for you. And at the end of it. It's just that sense of urgency. It's that attitude and approach to the work. That voters respond to. And that's part of what I like so much about what Rahm is doing. Well, I hear you. And I think policy actually matters. And I keep looking for Rahm to mention

the word charter or choice. Anywhere he goes, he won't. And so he talks a lot about Mississippi and science of reading and presents himself as just courageous on these issues. But Gavin Newsom runs a science of reading bill, which is just an utterly. It's a nothing burger bill. But he's going to be able to be in that same spot too because it doesn't really. You can compromise it enough that it doesn't really threaten any. Any status quo interest. So let me, let me be the most.

I think that's like incumbent on like our funders in the sector and others to be like the California science of reading bill is. Is not a science of reading bill in a meaningful sense. And people need to say that and not be so tribal that like. You want to make sure that like Gavin gets to have his science of reading bill too and say, no. That's not the same as what the most effective states are. Have done. Same thing like you have a charter laws. Right. It's like we have a charter law and I guess kind of a fake charter law.

It's not you don't really have charters like I think it's incumbent on this sector to, if you want these things to work. To have some sense of fidelity to them and say when, you know. Stuff's like the fake version. Otherwise you do. It blurs everything up and then people say, nothing works, you know, this is all. And so I feel like. And I feel like that's a place like our funders need to step up and support more work. Leaders in the sector do when it's uncomfortable. You may like Gavin. You may want him to be president. Think he'd be a great president. But like that doesn't make his science of reading bill real. And people need i think like that's

what i think part of what is holding us back is that sort of unwillingness just to call some balls and strikes and it holds us back substantively and holds us back politically So let me just finish the cynicism here. Which is, I think, and Jorge, correct me. I mean, just. You're more optimistic than me, you know. And I'm a recovering Dem myself here and am a proud decline to state these days. Just because I find both sides just so intolerable. But my shorthand is that after the presidential election in twenty four. People like Klein and Thompson were like. Hey. There are some things that we need to do differently on policy. They come up with these abundance ideas.

et cetera, et cetera. They gutlessly leave education out of their abundance writing altogether. Which I will never understand. But it was presumed that there would be a upcoming race that would be close enough that these kinds of policy positions would matter. I think what's happening now as we get further along and people see Trump's popularity just plummeting and things seem to be trending well for Dems. I think the calculus now is the Dems know that their policies on education are a drag on their popularity. But it's a tax they're willing to pay because they see the scope of their impending victory to be so large they don't need to pivot off of it. So what is the message to share with Dems that shorthand is wrong? That if they stay in this position of defending the status quo as it is. It can actually be used against them to such an extent that it might upset an otherwise great presidential election that they're all anticipating come twenty twenty eight.

Yeah, I mean, I have two thoughts that. Honestly. They go in totally opposite directions. So the first is short-term thinking versus long-term thinking. Look. There's a chance that the Trump administration is just so utterly dysfunctional as it was the first time that Democrats sweep back into power. And that's a very real possibility. And it also raises a really deep concern that I have. They can make their way back into power at a federal level without any of the essential changes that I believe are necessary. And so what will likely happen is we'll be in power for probably two years. Four years. There'll be another swing and we will just keep going back and forth until we sort out many of the challenges on our side. So it might be a good short-term strategy. I'm not sure it serves our long-term interest. So that's one. The second piece that I'm thinking of is. Look. I get that education is never going to be the most salient issue in any race. The economy now, inflation. You know. Those are always going to be, you know. The top, the top issues. But Matt Yglesias recently made like a really. What I found like a really insightful point. You know. You don't have to run on issues to. Nonetheless indicate that this is going to be a pri a priority for you. So, you know. I'm thinking specifically about, you know. The number of folks that are running for governor, but in particular. I'm thinking of Mikey Sherrill in New Jersey. And I'll tell you this. I spent the past ten years of my life every single day around elected officials, and I am not easily impressed. Mikey Sherrill is the real deal. I've just been so impressed throughout. And education wasn't the biggest issue in her campaign. But. But she's a natural leader. Folks in New Jersey. They have a lot to be proud of. I guess, with their public schools. But she's not resting on her laurels. I was really encouraged by her including a poignant part of her budget address on education. She specifically point, instead of saying. We've got the greatest schools, et cetera. She specifically pointed out how New Jersey schools are not getting it done for a significant number of kids. And then she went a step further and she said. Every one of you in this room know what I'm talking about. Sort of like ominously pointing out, like. You know, let's not lie to ourselves. Folks. We have a lot of work to do. You know. You don't have to lead on education. Right? Truth is that no one gets voted out of office for terrible schools. That's the unfortunate part of like. You know. The political incentives don't align. But when you have leaders that are looking to make the most out of their short time in office, you know. That's when you can catalyze change. And, you know, I mentioned Sherrill. But I certainly anticipate. Hope and anticipate that there's going to be a crop of new governors come the end of this year that are going to want to lead in the same way. Well. I knew I would have like two hours of stuff I would want to talk with you about.

We're already over an hour. Andy, I'll leave the last question to you. This has been a fascinating conversation. Jorge. Thank you. Thank you so much. Look forward to staying in contact. The evolution of or the non-evolution of Democrat thinking on education issues is something I'm going to want to keep picking your brain about. But Andy, any last question you have? Yeah, I mean, Jorge. My ask is just to be broad, like. What are the other directions for DFER? So obviously the tax credit. You've staked out some real territory. Brought Arne on as an advisor. And he's been pretty outspoken on the need for Dems to get their act together. So you guys are definitely leaning into

the DFER and engaging in that argument. Like, what other issues beyond this? Like. What do you see DFER doing coming through this midterm cycle and then into the big presidential contest after twenty twenty six? Yeah. So, you know. For folks in the sector that, you know. Know DFER and the work that the work that we've done, you know. We've undergone a lot of changes. And I think that so let me explain those. And I think it helps explain the work

that we're doing. We used to operate under primarily under a chapter model and under the under the chapter model. The chapter model was based on this premise that, you know. There are executives. There are governors that want to move work forward. And we came in. We built relationships in the legislature and we were the political muscle that helped get policies over the finish line. But what happened over the past ten years is that Democrats just stopped talking about K-12 education. And we didn't have those governors that were actually looking to get things done. There weren't policies to be moved forward. And so we've taken a step back as opposed to being so focused on legislative work Our entire focus has been on executive work. Our theory is that governors. Executives generally. But governors are the most important policymakers in this space. They can single-handedly catalyze change. But no one was reaching out to them to shape their views on education policy as opposed to the teachers unions. And so what we've done is we've been hard at work in all of the gubernatorial primaries throughout the country. Building relationships. And that's exactly what we found. That there's a new generation of Dems. They're stepping up to run for governor. They want to lead on education. But they literally don't know what to do. Right? And there's no reason that they wouldn't know what to do because there's been no national guidance. There's been no national vision. And so we're helping to fill that in. Every state is different. So. It all began with a deep dive into the state of affairs in that particular state. And there are a number of policies that we're really excited about. So we always advocate for charter schools. High performing charter schools. I'm really excited about the bottom up innovation around micro schools. I'm really interested in helping governors and states figure out how do you deal with declining enrollment. These half empty buildings? How do you see that as an opportunity? How do you build in accountability mechanisms in the way that we're seeing in Southern states? So there's all of that gets built into the relationships and the advice that we provide to governors. Now. The reality is that on the thought leadership work. There's a lot of interest in broadening the conversation, speaking about choice. So when folks hear about DFER. That's primarily what they're hearing. But the flagship part of our work is the work that we're doing to shape the thinking of gubernatorial candidates and would-be governors. And that covers a much broader range of education policies.

Well, thank you, Jorge. Okay. Thank you, guys. Yeah, I wish you well. Anybody that can nudge this Democratic

Party to common sense as quickly as possible. But even chipping it away at it over time, super important work. So great to have you doing it and great to have you here for Observations for WonkyFolk. We know what a busy schedule to have you all over the place. So thank you for taking time out and joining us. We really appreciate it.

My pleasure. My pleasure. Thank you for having me.