“Here’s a lesson plan for my party: Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama won because they had the guts to challenge party orthodoxy on behalf of the American people. Democrats like Harris — along with every nominee since Walter Mondale who lost in the general election — ran as avatars of party orthodoxy and offshored education policymaking to Weingarten and the teachers unions. You do the math.”

That’s Ben Austin this past June, a self-described “big-government liberal,” bemoaning the failure of the Democratic Party to “break up with [American Federation of Teachers president] Randi Weingarten” and articulate an education platform that appeals to voters turned off by our public education malaise. As such, Sherrill has an easy opportunity to differentiate herself from Phil Murphy especially when, as New Jersey Democratic strategist Mo Butler says, “the eyes of the nation will be on us” during this gubernatorial season.

Sherrill has yet to do cut the cord with Murphy.  Instead, she is boasting of her close ties to AFT (not to mention the just-in endorsement from NJEA) and saying little about how she would improve school quality, despite new Rutgers polling showing only 47% of NJ residents are satisfied with the performance of our public schools, and “there has been a double-digit decline in satisfaction on this issue.”  At best, her current education platform is frivolous and anodyne, lacking any substance while seasoned with dollops of progressive talking points.

Matthew Yglesias comments on her platform, “If a candidate asked me for a bunch of K-12 education ideas that make sense on the merits but won’t provoke any clashes with unions or the progressive education establishment, this list is basically what I’d give them.”

Given the current vibe on public education in NJ, it’s pretty clear Sherrill  needs to differentiate herself from Phil Murphy and eschew vacuous pronouncements that will do nothing to improve student learning. Sherrill can do this— and stay true to her brand of brave Navy pilot— by explicitly supporting NJ public charter schools where most students achieve higher rates of  literacy and math proficiency than students in traditional schools. (Data point: In Newark district schools, 32% of students can read on grade level and 16% can do math on grade level. At North Star Academy, one of the high-performing charters in the city, 66% of students read at grade level and 48% do math on grade level.) 

What would be the benefits of this strategy?

• Sherrill would cleanly cut the cord with Murphy, who — despite ardent protests– denied the vast majority of charter school expansions, including those proposed by schools in cities like Newark and Trenton where parents are desperate for better public education options.
• It would put her in the company of highly-regarded Democratic leaders like Obama and Clinton who put children’s educational needs before teacher union fidelity (unlike Kamala Harris) and were fierce supporters of public alternatives, especially in school districts where students are underserved. 
• She would heighten her appeal to Black and Brown families where she is currently underwater (despite Newark Mayor Ras Baraka’s endorsement). Remember, in the June primary, she got only 16% of the Black vote. Recent polling shows that Black and Hispanic families strongly support charter schools.
• She could start leading the Democratic Party out of its trap of deferring to elite progressive activists and shed some political baggage. Is she serious about improving our public education? Why not make charter school expansion one element of a portfolio of ideas, like being honest with parents about student achievement and holding school districts to higher standards?

Sherrill already has NJEA’s endorsement and its piggy bank. Throwing shade on Jack Ciattarelli’s allegiance to Trump will only get her so far. What would it look like if, on her campaign webpage for running mate Dale Caldwell, she was clear about his long leadership in the public charter school sector instead of ignoring this important facet of his biography? What if she gave herself some breathing room to challenge the Democratic Party’s soporific stance on education (more money! Fewer guardrails!) and boldly take a step toward the center, where most Democrats live? 

Sure, that would mean giving the back of the hand to NJEA honchos who disdain the schools where many low-income families prefer to send their children. But we just had a teachable moment in June when NJEA president Sean Spiller burnt through over $40 million in teacher dues in the primary and lost. The lesson here is it is safe to break up with teacher union leaders and challenge party orthodoxy on behalf of New Jersey students. That would be a win-win for Sherrill and the families she says she wants to serve.