Matthew Yglesias, in a column today on his substack Slow Boring, looks at the Democratic candidates for New Jersey governor and addresses the question some of us in the NJ edu-bubble have been asking ourselves: In a crowded primary field of six candidates, why are they all forgoing the obvious opportunity to differentiate themselves on education, especially given the chutzpah of the teachers union campaigning for their president Sean Spiller, who is in the midst of his own “weird ego trip”?

To Yglesias, a heterodox, prodigious author of multiple books on everything from foreign policy to housing (and one of the smartest education commentators), this is a further sign of the way the national Democrats have ceded advantages to Republicans on an issue they used to own.

Let’s look at the highlights of his piece, which I recommend reading in full. 

The NJ gubernatorial election is far more interesting than the only other 2025 race in Virginia where Democrat Abigail Spanberger, “a sensible moderate Democrat,” has this in the bag.

But in NJ, Democrats “face meaningful political headwinds.” This has nothing to do with the quality of the candidates, whom he calls “an embarrassment of riches,” but with the “genuinely odd” reluctance of, well, all of them, to “smartly differentiate themselves on education.”

“Democrats often seem reluctant to propose ideas that teachers’ unions don’t like, because they want their support (or at least non-hostility) in a primary. But I’m pretty sure the NJEA is going to back Spiller no matter what Sherrill or Gottheimer or Fulop say, so why not be bolder?”

Yglesias then relates this failure to take advantage of an obvious opportunity to what he calls “one of the most underrated developments in recent political history,” which is that Democrats have given up their historical issue advantage on education, even though voters rate it more important than climate change, healthcare, abortion, and childcare. Meanwhile, the GOP has gained more traction with voters on the economy and immigration.

Why are Dems so silent on ways to improve K-12 education? Sure, the pandemic school closures in blue states backfired but that is no reason to give up on pursuing popular items like how poor kids are doing in school or standing up to attempts to lower standards and accountability.  Former presidents Obama (and Bush W., for that matter) made these the centerpiece of their education platforms and won. Then we (yes, I’m a lifelong Democrat) “wildly overpromised on education as a tool for achieving social equality, which unfortunately led the party to completely walk away from the question of how poor kids are doing in school,” even though we all know school quality matters and, since Bush’s No Child Left Behind and Obama’s Race to the Top were rendered toothless, poor kids have fallen further behind and wealthier kids’ performance is flat.

Then there’s this: no Democrat has to give up his or her party registration if they focus on a few items that voters support and Yglesias calls “pretty obvious ways to make things better. He suggests these three: 

• Make sure advanced coursework is fair with universal testing and default enrollment, but don’t eliminate it in a misguided push for equality.
• Reform teacher compensation: Raise entry-level pay, reduce regulatory barriers to entry, stop giving raises for low-value credentials, start giving raises to above-average teachers (and even bigger raises to above-average teachers who are willing to work in tough schools), and reduce job security for the weakest performers.
• Allow (indeed, encourage) the most effective charter schools to expand, while shutting down the least-effective ones.

While Yglesias doesn’t consider all the candidates, he looks at the three front-runners:

Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop: His education platform seems very focused on school segregation. But, says Yglesias, “an expert panel is going to tell him what he already knows, namely that school segregation is largely downstream of housing market dynamics.” (Duh.) And, “Democrats in particular often seem more comfortable zoning low-income families out of whole communities than they do guaranteeing that schools will have reasonable discipline policies, ability-appropriate math coursework, and best practices in literacy instruction. New Jersey needs better housing policy, but to get there, state officials need to take these questions of functioning public services seriously.”

U.S. Representative Mikie Sherrill: She talks a lot about the benefits of high-dosage tutoring, mental health supports, and school meals.  None of these items would provoke pushback from NJEA and the progressive brigade so she’s safe from their wrath, if that’s her goal. Here’s Yglesias:

“But thinking about it seriously, if we’re talking about learning loss (and we should be), shouldn’t we be talking about the old education reform standbys of standards and accountability? High-dosage tutoring is a good idea, but it’s weird to put all the responsibilities for improving outcomes on tutors rather than everything else that happens in school buildings. More mental health inputs sounds like a good idea, but are we going to measure the outputs? We know that across the board in education, more inputs usually help. But just adding inputs is no substitute for measuring outcomes.”

U.S. Representative Josh Gottheimer: His education platform is cut wasteful school spending so we can cut taxes, summarizes Yglesias. But “he can’t do that without taking on some entrenched interests” and he never mentions unions. Instead, “Gottheimer doesn’t call out any specific education changes or cross any union red lines.”

(Yglesias doesn’t mention current Gov. Phil Murphy, who caved to NJEA at every opportunity. Note to candidates: 2017 was a long time ago.)

When did we become so meek? Why have we forgotten that meaningful efforts to improve education are important to voters? Why don’t we seize on plummeting proficiency rates to argue that Bush/Obama-style accountability is essential to helping all kids learn? Isn’t it common sense that if we’re spending money on something we should measure outcomes? Writes Yglesias, “the sense that it’s cool to occasionally be at odds with teachers’ unions has definitely vanished.”

Yglesias concludes,

“The New Jersey gubernatorial primary…seems like a situation where there is an objective incentive for someone to take some positions fearlessly, without regard for union politics.

And, again, to end where I began, the head of the teachers’ union is literally a candidate in the race. If the union is already committed to beating you, why not try to reap the upside by showing some refreshing boldness and independence of thought?

So why aren’t they showing this?”