By Anthony Cody.

With her ill-informed remarks on school closures, Hillary Clinton set off a bit of a firestorm among education activists. Her full remarks have been posted by Valerie Strauss, so there is no question what she said, and as Peter Greene points out, context does not help much. She clearly thinks that if she is elected it will be her responsibility to enact policies that close low performing schools, much as her predecessors, Presidents Obama and Bush did.

There are few things more dear to corporate reformers than the idea that schools with low test scores should be closed. There are several reasons for this. On the ideological front, the possibility of closure (and the threat of displacement and unemployment for the teachers and administrators that work there) is seen as an essential element of accountability. One of the indictments “accountability hawks” level at public schools is that while failing businesses must go bankrupt and close their doors, “failing schools” can continue to function unless the rules force them to close. According to this way of thinking, people are not properly motivated without the threat of unemployment hanging over their heads.

The other big reason school closures are so precious to corporate reformers is that the chief vehicle for privatizing public schools has become charter schools. Closing down schools with low test scores gives the state the power to forcibly shift students from public schools into semi-private charter schools.

So far in all the explanations of what Clinton meant to say I have yet to hear anyone suggest that school closures will no longer be a major vehicle for reform.

Julian Vasquez Heilig optimistically views this as an opportunity to educate Clinton about the issues, and that is a worthwhile endeavor. But he also makes clear the dilemma candidate Clinton faces. The deep pocket donors she depends on for support will not open their wallets very far if they see her drift away from their core interests, and make no mistake, school closures and support for charter schools are absolutely non-negotiable for these masters of “disruptive change.”

The research on school closures does not support the policy as a means of improving the education of the students attending these schools. The Journey for Justice has put together a compelling lesson that the Clinton campaign should take to heart. They write:

For decades, schools that serve African American and Latino students have been denied their fair share of education resources.  Without libraries, without a full range of college, career and enrichment course offerings, without counselors or supported teachers, students in our urban districts have had little to no opportunity to meet their full potential.  Now, corporate education reformers are destroying our public schools altogether, closing them, turning them over to private management, firing our teachers and squeezing education budgets in the name of “reform.”  This assault on public education is happening almost exclusively in communities of color. It must stop.

Closures, charters, firing teachers and other “dramatic interventions” haven’t worked in the past, and they aren’t working now.

The Journey for Justice goes on to offer a powerful alternative framework that calls for the local community to be involved in rebuilding and strengthening local public schools. I wrote in 2012 of my own experiences in Oakland working to sustain and support schools, rather than subject them to disruption and closures.

Those speaking on behalf of candidate Clinton have suggested that she favors policies that support rather than punish local schools. If this is to be believed, she should state clearly that she intends to abandon school closures as a vehicle for school improvement.

We learned the hard way with President Obama that vague promises become meaningless once a candidate is elected. The education electorate could be a major force in this election. Candidate Clinton has won the endorsement of the teacher unions, but that will not translate into enthusiastic support unless she is a clear ally in the fight to preserve public education from the corporate onslaught.

The Bernie Sanders campaign now has an issue presented to them on a silver platter. School closures are immensely unpopular in communities where Sanders needs support. He need not attack Hillary Clinton to offer a clear policy contrast on this issue. In May I offered this advice to Senator Sanders:

School closures are devastating to communities, and have been focused in African American and Latino neighborhoods. This results in community decay and spurs gentrification. Research shows federal efforts to “turn around” high poverty schools have not succeeded. This policy should be halted, and schools in these communities should be supported with wraparound social services to directly address poverty, not destroyed.

Both candidates should take heed and learn about this issue. Any candidate that takes a clear stand against school closures will get a very positive response.

What do you think about this?