Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani has said he opposes mayoral accountability, calling it undemocratic. But real democracy in a city of 9 million people and a school system serving 1 million students isn’t about diffusing power: It’s about making responsibility clear. Democracy depends on knowing exactly who is in charge and giving stakeholders the ability to demand results.

Under the current system, parents and voters have a direct line to leadership. They can advocate to the person responsible for the system. And if that leader fails their children, they can vote them out. That’s democracy in action: clear, direct and fair.

New Yorkers must not forget the chaos that mayoral control replaced. Before 2002, New York City’s schools were governed by 32 local boards that often worked at cross purposes and sometimes in open conflict. Decisions about budgets, staffing and curriculum were fragmented and inconsistent from one district to the next.

Some boards were run by dedicated community members, but too many were dominated by political operatives. Nepotism and corruption were rampant. Jobs went to friends and relatives instead of qualified educators, and investigations uncovered board members steering contracts to allies or hiring individuals with criminal records to work in schools. 

Millions of dollars meant for classrooms vanished into a cloud of bureaucracy and self-dealing. Parents were left powerless. When a school failed, they didn’t know whom to call: the local board, the superintendent, the central office or City Hall? No one was clearly responsible, so everyone passed the buck. Student performance stagnated, and inequities deepened. Children in wealthier neighborhoods got attention, while kids in lower-income communities were left behind. 

That system was nothing like a democracy — it was dysfunction junction.

Mayoral accountability changed that. It created a single, unified chain of command: one person with the authority to make decisions, drive reform and be held responsible for outcomes. This clarity made major progress possible. Under mayoral accountability, the city’s graduation rate rose from 46% to over 81%, while the share of graduates earning Advanced Regents diplomas increased by more than 20%. SAT participation nearly doubled, and pre-kindergarten enrollment skyrocketed from fewer than 14,000 to over 64,000 children. Even overcrowding declined, with fewer schools exceeding capacity at every level. 

These gains didn’t happen by accident; they happened because a single accountable leader could coordinate agencies, funding and policy to get results for students.

Critics claim that mayoral control concentrates too much power in one office. In truth, it concentrates responsibility — and that is the foundation of public trust. A system serving a million students with diverse needs cannot govern its schools by committee. It requires decisive leadership that is ultimately answerable to voters.

That doesn’t mean the system is perfect. It must become more transparent, more responsive and more inclusive of parent and community voices. But strengthening transparency is not the same as dismantling the structure that makes improvement possible.

Ironically, without mayoral accountability, even Mayor-elect Mamdani’s own priorities, from expanding equitable access to early childhood education to addressing systemic inequality, would be undermined. Without clear authority to align city agencies and resources, those goals risk becoming aspirational rather than achievable.

Mayoral accountability is not the enemy of democracy. It is the mechanism that makes democracy effective. Parents deserve a system where they know who to challenge, who to advocate to, and who to hold responsible for results.

As City Hall and Albany debate the future of this system, one message should be clear: New York cannot afford to go backward. Dismantling mayoral accountability would not restore democracy, it would simply revive dysfunction. New York City’s students deserve a school system that is transparent, coordinated and accountable. The next chapter of educational progress depends on leadership that embraces those principles, not abandons them.

With an open mind and a broad vision, Mayor-elect Mamdani has an opportunity to build on what works, fix what doesn’t, and continue moving our schools forward. The future of 1 million children — and the faith of millions of parents — depends on it.

Therefore, the response begins at City Hall.   

Education leaders and equity advocates reject the idea that standing up for students and protecting funding are mutually exclusive. Both can and must be pursued. Every child in New York City deserves to feel safe, seen and supported in school. The new administration should be guided by that commitment. 

EdTrust-New York has expressed to work closely with the Mamdani administration to fulfill the long-standing promise of free, universal child care for children age two and under, as well as full access to Pre-K and 3-K. Families across the city still pay up to $26,000 annually for child care, and too many remain on waitlists.

Meeting this demand requires sustainable funding, additional child care sites, a well-paid workforce and full-day programs in neighborhoods where families live. Such investments would give all children a strong start. 

New York City must also confront the alarming reality that nearly half of fourth graders score below basic proficiency in reading, with even worse outcomes for Black and Latinx students. While initiatives like NYC Reads and NYC Solves mark progress, they need ongoing support and expansion.

EdTrust-New York encourages the Mamdani administration to continue expanding multilingual materials, provide interventions for English learners and students with disabilities, and ensure that all educators receive training in the science of reading. At the same time, the city should work toward developing a comprehensive adolescent literacy plan to support middle and high school students.

Mamdani’s leadership should reflect a deep commitment to a curriculum that honors the identities and experiences of all students. Fully implementing culturally responsive education means expanding Black, Native American, AAPI and Latin studies, as well as giving educators the training and tools needed to teach the curricula. The city’s schools also need greater investment in collective care teams, educators, counselors, nurses and social workers who can provide the academic and emotional support students need.

Segregation continues to divide New York City students by race and class. The incoming administration has an opportunity to take meaningful steps toward integration by encouraging all districts to create integration plans, using admissions models such as lottery. The city also needs to recruit and retain more educators of color and publicly report school integration data to track progress. 

The Mamdani administration should also protect and support immigrant students and multilingual learners, who face growing threats from federal policies and systemic barriers. Schools can strengthen scaffolds in literacy and math, expand bilingual curricula  and provide mental health services for students facing trauma.

In addition, older immigrant students should have access to the full high school experience, not just for language acquisition or diploma-completion programs. Higher education partners can also play a vital role also by expanding financial aid and creating safe, supportive pathways for undocumented students to attend and graduate from college. 

Improving school climate is another key priority, particularly the need to shift from exclusion and punishment to belonging and support. With more than a third of students chronically absent — especially Black, Latino, and those from low-income backgrounds — and many affected by punitive discipline, the city can invest in restorative justice and mental health programs.

That should include funding restorative initiatives in all schools, training educators in healing-centered approaches and increasing weighted funding for the most-affected student groups. 

Under mayoral control, New York City has achieved important system-wide progress, such as the expansion of universal pre-K and the launch of NYC Reads. Mamdani should maintain this structure but ensure stronger accountability and input from parents and students. He can build on this success by ensuring that parents, students and caregivers, who should be granted voting power on Community Education Councils, have meaningful influence over district policy decisions. 

Finally, the Mamdani administration should expand access to college and career pathways. Too few students can enroll in college in high school programs that boost college success. Let’s expand these programs citywide, closing access gaps and strengthening support in college. That should include proven initiatives like CUNY’s ASAP and ACE, which help students persist and graduate despite financial emergencies. 

As Mayor-elect Mamdani prepares to lead the nation’s largest school system, he inherits both profound challenges and enormous opportunities. This moment offers a shared chance to build a public education system that not only aspires to equity but truly delivers on that promise. 

In word and action, the 2024 election cycle has shown that child care may be closer to an open window than our bitterly divided politics would suggest possible — if the parties are willing to accept that they now broadly agree on child care more than they disagree.

This convergence has been brewing for some time, and it represents a meaningful shift. For decades following President Richard Nixon’s of the Comprehensive Child Development Act, which would have established a nationally-funded, locally-run network of child care programs, most Republicans wanted little to do with broad-based child care reform. In his 2009 book “The Tragedy of Child Care in America,” eminent child care expert Edward Zigler that since Nixon’s veto, “a powerful social conservative movement has thwarted efforts by child advocates to create a [federally-supported] system of child care.” Instead, child care has been lumped into welfare policy, an area with low levels of government support where benefits are typically limited to low-income families.

Yet child care has been a growing pain point, even in red states, with increasingly obvious impacts on families and economies making it more difficult for Republican legislators to ignore. And , according to Moriah Balingit, early education reporter at The Associated Press, who reported in February that, “In 2021, Congress passed $24 billion of pandemic aid for child care businesses, an unprecedented federal investment. Now, as that aid dries up, Republican state lawmakers across the country are embracing plans to support child care — and even making it central to their policy agendas.”

This shift reached a new zenith during the , when Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance said that when it comes to child care shortages, “look, we’re going to have to spend more money.” (In fact, JD Vance and Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz agreed several times during the debate’s child care section.)

At the congressional level, we have seen Republican leaders accept certain premises that would have been unthinkable 30 years ago. In 2022, Republican Sens. Tim Scott and Richard Burr to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act that would have made child care free for all families making less than 75% of their State Median Income (SMI) and cost no more than 7% of income for families making under 150% of SMI. The legislation drew Republican co-sponsors. Similarly, this August, Republican Senator Deb Fischer of a reauthorization bill that allows states to apply to expand eligibility to serve more working families using subsidy funds, while boosting per-child reimbursement rates up to the true cost of quality. 

On the Democratic side, there has been substantial movement to better include family, friends & neighbor caregivers (FFNs) — who collectively — and even stay-at-home parents. For instance, Rep. Ro Khanna recently that would, among other things, create a robust payment system for FFNs and offer stay-at-home parents a $300 per month stipend until their child turns 3 years old. (Full disclosure: I advised Khanna’s office during the bill’s development).

It is important not to oversell the case. There are still enormous unresolved policy questions 

related to the streams in Kingdon’s framework, particularly around funding levels. The bills introduced by Sens. Scott, Burr and Fischer contain no mandatory appropriations, making them essentially unfunded mandates that would go through a torturous appropriations process every year. For example, expanding eligibility to serve more families across a broader range of income levels does little good if child care subsidy applications are frozen due to underfunding, as they are in . 

Some Republicans, such as Wisconsin and South Dakota , continue to question whether there is any role for the government in child care funding. And there remains as well as drastically different visions for an ideal system (and the price tag that comes along with each one). It’s important to be clear-eyed: A divided government is highly unlikely to bring massive transformation.

Yet all that being true, 2024 has brought an opportunity to move the goalposts and spike the football. It would be a sign of enormous progress if both sides can agree upon certain principles — that governmental child care supports should no longer be considered only properly targeted toward low-income families, but instead seen as a need for families across a wide income range; that programs should be reimbursed at the true cost of quality so they can pay their staff well and run a strong operation; that parents should have access to inclusive child care options including FFNs.

There has been forward movement recently. In January, a bipartisan group of family policy experts convened by the Convergence Collaborative on Supports for Working Families, a project run by , released a echoing many of these principles. Such agreement, of course, still leaves important unresolved arguments about funding levels and technical policy design, and the contours of those discussions will naturally be shaped by the election outcomes. But in any upcoming political configuration, child care as an issue isn’t going anywhere. The real question will be, can the parties stop sniping at each other long enough to realize the first steps toward a bipartisan solution may be closer than anyone realizes?

In , voters will decide whether to preserve or overturn 2023 legislation that created a private school scholarship program. Initiatives in and , if approved, could pave the way for lawmakers to create vouchers or education savings accounts in the future.

Despite past defeats, “school choice is continuing to gain support across the country with every demographic,” said Ben DeGrow, a senior policy director at ExcelinEd, which supports the expansion of private school choice. “We’re only likely to see more states add programs by the end of the decade.”

Over the past two years, several GOP governors and lawmakers have been able to push through education savings accounts, which allow families to use state funds for private school tuition, homeschooling or a combination of programs. Nearly 600,000 students in eight states were enrolled in universal ESA programs in 2023-24, according to , a think tank at Georgetown University. In 2022, only Arizona had a universal program that served about . But it’s unclear if that momentum will continue at the polls in the face of opponents who argue such programs hurt public schools.

11 measures in 9 states

The questions on school choice are among 11 education-related initiatives on the ballot in nine states this November. Other measures likely to drive voters to the polls include a union-led Massachusetts proposal to relax high school graduation requirements and a asking whether school board elections should be officially partisan. A few measures would impact school funding, including a that would provide $8.5 billion to modernize outdated K-12 schools.

But with enrollment in district schools continuing to  decline, the questions about public funds for private schools have attracted the most attention. 

While Colorado offers charter schools, there are few school choice options in Nebraska and Kentucky. Votes in favor of choice in those states would “represent a significant step forward for families in terms of educational opportunity,” DeGrow said.

But all three states have large rural areas, where resistance to vouchers has traditionally . In states like Texas, Republican lawmakers from rural communities have been the fiercest opponents. Some worry ESAs would prompt more families to choose homeschooling and private schools, forcing public schools to close or consolidate. Others argue such programs don’t benefit families in rural areas because there aren’t enough private schools. 

The question is “whether rural voters themselves can be convinced to support vouchers,” said Kevin Welner, director of the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado Boulder.  

Well-funded conservative organizations, like in Colorado and the in Nebraska, have tried to make the case that voters need to pass school choice to keep up with neighboring states offering more education options for families.

While have mobilized against private school choice, “I expect that the money battle will be lopsidedly pro-voucher,” Welner said. “It will be interesting to see how much of an effect that money has in shifting popular opinion.”

In Kentucky, Amendment 2 wouldn’t automatically result in a school voucher program, but  asks voters if they want public funds to pay for education outside of what the law calls a “system of common schools.”

Until now, Kentucky courts have had the final say over whether the state joins the 29 others with at least one school choice program. In 2022, the said a 2021 law creating tax credits for “education opportunity accounts” violated the state constitution. A yes vote on the ballot measure would give the Republican-dominated legislature a “safe, legal path” to pass a school choice program, DeGrow said. 

Supporters like Republican Rep. Jared Bauman say it’s time for the state to catch up with neighbors like Indiana and Ohio that offer parents some form of school choice. But , including Democratic , warn that a voucher plan could cost the state as much as $1.19 billion if it reached a scale similar to that of Florida’s universal program. 

The “common schools” wording of the constitution has also held up efforts to fund charters. Kentucky has had a since 2022, but in December a state court it unconstitutional. 

In Nebraska, where lawmakers passed a $10 million private school scholarship program last year, Support Our Schools Nebraska, a union-led advocacy group, gathered enough signatures this summer to put a veto referendum on the ballot. 

Like public school supporters in other states, opponents argue that such programs are a drain on state budgets and mostly serve families who already pay for private school instead of the neediest students. But Republican state Sen. Lou Ann Linehan, who sponsored the school choice legislation, that students shouldn’t have to attend schools that are failing or can’t meet their needs.  

Finally, in Colorado, a ballot question asks voters if they support adding language to the state constitution that would guarantee children a right to the full array of school choice options — traditional district schools, charters, private schools, open enrollment and homeschooling. 

Some the measure could invite more government oversight into homeschooling, while Welner predicted it would prompt legal challenges “because it’s so vague and yet touches on so many issues.” 

Bond issues, graduation requirements 

Beyond debates over school choice, several other ballot measures affect both education policy and funding. Here is a brief rundown:

Arkansas 

Since 2009, the Arkansas Scholarship Lottery has provided over 720,000 college scholarships, totaling $1.2 billion. But students attending vocational and technical schools haven’t been eligible for the awards. The legislature placed on the ballot that would change that. 

California

Almost 40% of California’s public schools fail to meet basic facility standards, according to a from the Public Policy Institute of California. Students often attend schools with unsafe conditions, like gas leaks, faulty electrical systems or structural damage. asks voters to approve a $10 billion bond issue that would provide $8.5 billion for new construction and renovations at district schools, charters and career and technical centers. Local districts would have to provide matching funds. 

After voters rejected a $15 billion bond in 2020, repair projects have piled up, but in addition to renovating schools, districts would also be able to use the funds for . Teachers often can’t afford to live in high-priced parts of the state, like Los Angeles, San Diego and the Bay Area, which creates recruitment and retention challenges for districts in those metro areas. 

An anti-tax organization, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association that  the measure doesn’t make sense at a time when the state is losing enrollment and would likely lead to higher property taxes. 

But Public Advocates, which focuses on the needs of low-income students, is for a different reason. They say the measure should include a sliding scale that allots poorer districts a greater share of the funds. 

Colorado

A proposed on firearms and ammunition would take effect April 1, 2025 and raise roughly $39 million a year. Most of the revenue would fund services for victims of gun violence, but $1 million would go into a school security program for violence prevention in schools as well as staff training and facility upgrades to improve safety. Another $3 million would expand access to youth behavioral health programs. 

Rep. Monica Duran, a Democrat who sponsored legislation to get the measure on the ballot, says the tax doesn’t infringe on gun owners’ Second Amendment rights. But gun lobbyists argue that gun and ammunition purchases are already subject to an 11% federal tax. 

Florida 

School board races have become increasingly partisan, especially since the pandemic, when issues like mask mandates and disputes over curriculum split communities in half. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis further politicized school board races in 2022 when he endorsed a slate of 30 candidates, 25 of whom won that year in the general election.

Amendment 1, which the legislature placed on the ballot last year, would officially change the Florida constitution to end nonpartisan races and require candidates to state their political party. 

Sixty percent of voters would need to approve the measure for it to pass. If they do, the new provision would apply to elections in 2026. Opponents of the idea argue that education issues have grown overly divisive and that partisan races would who aren’t registered party members. Proponents say the requirement would increase transparency. 

One former Polk County school board member thinks there won’t be enough support for the measure to reach the 60% threshold. 

“I think voters here are actually very tired of the school drama,” said Billy Townsend. “While they tend to vote GOP in state offices, [voters] also tend to prefer non-partisan offices locally. I would bet it falls short of 50%.” 

Massachusetts

Decisions over academic expectations are generally left up to state and local school boards. But in Massachusetts, voters will whether high school students should still have to pass state exams in English, math and science to graduate.

The , the state’s largest teachers union, led the effort to get the referendum on the ballot. The union argues that teachers spend too much class time preparing students for the tests and that the requirement hasn’t achieved the results testing proponents want. Under their alternative, students would have to master state standards to graduate.

Opponents, however, say scrapping the requirement would ultimately hurt students and leave them for college and careers. They’ve launched a $250,000 to convince voters to reject the measure. 

New Mexico

New Mexico voters have a strong track record of for capital improvement projects on education facilities. Since 1995, they’ve approved that have been on the ballot. This year, they’ll vote on a that would fund, among other items, furniture, equipment and materials at school libraries, as well as early childhood education centers at both the state school for the blind and the school for the deaf.

Utah

Utah voters will decide on two school funding measures, both placed on the ballot by the legislature. The asks voters to remove a state constitutional requirement that all revenue from income taxes and intangible property, like capital gains and royalty payments, be spent on education, children and people with disabilities.  If the measure passes, the law would only say that the state must provide a “framework” for funding schools.

The state teachers union was initially neutral on the change, but now opposes it. Lawmakers say revenue is up and this change would make budgeting easier.

The measure asks voters to increase from 4% to 5% the cap on investment earnings the state can transfer from the State School Fund to education. Local of parents and educators decide how to spend the funds for purchases like library books or an extra teaching assistant position. Last year, the state distributed over $100 million from the fund.

The Child Tax Credit isn’t a subject you’d expect to receive much attention in the middle of a heated presidential campaign.

Somewhat technocratic in nature, invisible to a large share of the electorate, the benefit was established in 1997 to provide relief to parents while their kids were young. Its reach is impressive, granting to roughly 40 million American households, but it’s hardly the kind of policy that grows in prominence in the months before Election Day.

If that’s true, however, no one told Washington.

Both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have declared their intentions to expand the credit if elected. Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance has openly mused about lifting its value , a commitment that would cost trillions over the next decade. And the U.S. House of Representatives a much more modest extension on a bipartisan basis in January, only to see its progress halted by Republicans in the Senate. 

At the heart of the issue are debates reaching back to the credit’s origins about who should be its primary beneficiaries: middle-class households or those with little or no income. 

Progressives have long sought to use the CTC as a weapon against inequality; their efforts culminated in 2021 with a temporary expansion that massively cut child poverty for a year, then expired to the disappointment of activists. But conservatives, both in , have feared that increasing the credit’s size and decoupling it from work requirements could transform it into a cash welfare program of the kind nearly 30 years ago. 

Both parties’ long-standing positions are headed toward a harsh deadline, however. Next year, a host of provisions from Trump’s signature 2017 tax cut will expire, among them a measure that boosted the Child Tax Credit from $1,000 to its present $2,000. Already weakened by inflation, the benefit would be cut in half if nothing is done. With 2025 coming into ever-sharper focus, Republicans and Democrats have both put forward ideas to stabilize the CTC — the only question is whether either party will hold enough power to enact its vision.

Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat advocating for a more powerful CTC, said in a statement to The 74 that he was glad to hear of Harris’s recent proposal .

“For six shining months in 2021, we finally treated children in poverty like they were our children, not someone else’s,” Bennett said. “I think that should be our model going into 2025.”

But Robert Greenstein, president emeritus of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a veteran of past poverty debates, said he believed that the most probable outcome of this year’s elections would be a divided federal government, likely necessitating a bipartisan consensus on the credit’s future. 

The Senate’s to act on legislation already passed in the House suggested that any move to alter or expand it would have to be tied to other tax cuts favored by the GOP, he added.

“They didn’t want to have this negotiated on its own,” Greenstein said. “They want it as part of the negotiations for the extension of the 2017 tax bill, which will occur next year.”

A debate on entitlement

From relatively small beginnings, the Child Tax Credit has grown significantly more generous over time. It was worth just $400 per child in 1997, increasing to $500 the next year. That number leapt to $1,000 per child in the 2001 Bush tax cuts, then to $2,000 in 2017’s Trump-led law. 

The CTC has simultaneously become accessible to many more people. Initially conceived as a “non-refundable” credit (i.e., one that could only be claimed by people who paid a certain amount of federal taxes) it later became “partially refundable,” such that lower-earning families could collect a portion of it. After 2021, they could receive a credit equal to 15 percent of their earnings over $10,000, a threshold that was lowered successively to $3,000, and finally to $2,500 in 2017. 

Although many of those changes occurred under Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Trump, conservatives remained leery of backing their way into a new, welfare-like “child allowance.”

“For most of the ’90s and 2000s, you had Democrats who preferred a fully refundable tax credit where what you got didn’t depend on having taxable income,” said Scott Winship, a researcher on family policy for the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “Republicans were more focused on giving middle-class families a tax cut and having an earnings requirement.” 

But after their victory in the 2020 elections, Democrats acted almost immediately to transform the CTC into ,supercharging its annual value to $3,600 for children under six and $3,000 for those aged six to 17 and allowing the poorest households to receive its full amount.

The expansion only ran through the end of the year, but many within the Democratic Party have for restoring it, pointing to a national child poverty rate from 9.7 percent in 2020 to 5.2 percent in 2021. While only a few years have passed since the policy was enacted, indicates that the jumbo-sized CTC allowed poor families to spend more in ways that are likely helpful to child development. Its effects were especially large in high-poverty states in the Midwest and Sun Belt, found. 

Yet some of the big-ticket bids to transform the program into a much larger entitlement strike some observers as unworkable. In a recent interview, Vance said he would favor a $5,000 credit per child, which the nonprofit estimated as much as $300 billion annually. Greenstein dismissed the notion as “wildly expensive.” — particularly given that the Ohio senator specified that all American families, including both the poor and the ultra-rich, should be considered eligible recipients.

“Somehow I find it hard to imagine that we’ll have a tax bill next year with a net cost of $3 or $4 trillion over 10 years,” he said. “Somewhere along the line, fiscal concerns will limit the magnitude.” 

A ‘no-brainer’?

Any further developments on the Child Tax Credit will hinge on the outcome of the upcoming elections.

Trump his running mate’s proposal, noting that it was during his administration that the CTC grew to its current size. Meanwhile, in her first major address on policy, Harris counter-offered of her own, with parents of newborns receiving $6,000. 

Notably, a bipartisan bill to expand the credit already made it through the House of Representatives this year, . Co-sponsored by the Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the legislation would significantly lower the income threshold to receive the CTC’s full value, above the poverty line. 

Despite its towering margin in the House, as being far less effective than the 2021 expansion by Democratic Rep. Rose DeLauro, a longtime advocate of making the credit more generous. Winship and his colleagues at AEI, on the other hand, argued that the expansion could disincentivize low-income parents from , or even .

Winship said he was “a little nervous” that weakening employment requirements could hurt families’ chances of escaping poverty — in the same way, he argued, as the less conditional cash welfare programs of the 1970s and ‘80s did.

“Those programs have work disincentives for the parents, but they also have savings disincentives, marriage disincentives, disincentives for parents against investing in their skills,” he said. “Those are the sorts of behaviors that promote upward mobility, and we worry that you’re not actually doing kids a favor in the long run by giving their parents cash without conditions.”

But Keri Rodrigues, the head of the , said the Republicans failed American children when they blocked the deal from passage in the Senate. Rodrigues of her organization, which advocates for families and schools, to gather support for the compromise legislation. They saw some success — three Republicans voted in favor, including conservative Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley — but returned home discouraged in the face of a GOP-led filibuster.

Rodrigues called the CTC expansion a “no-brainer,” adding that families already squeezed by inflation couldn’t afford to see the benefit fade as well.

“It transcends geography, demographics, political party,” she said. “This is something everyone agrees needs to happen.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story misidentified the affiliation of Keri Rodrigues.

On an evening that had already seen appearances by Bill Clinton, Oprah and a lengthy speakers’ list of Democratic Party officeholders, Walz was preceded in Chicago by 15 former members of the Mankato West High School Scarlets, the football team to a Minnesota state title in 1999. Wider and grayer than in their playing days, the two lines of jersey-clad supporters walked onstage to the strains of the Mankato West fight song.

The miniature pep rally was another biographical touch in the Democrats’ efforts to introduce the electorate to Walz, an obscure figure outside of party circles just a few weeks ago. The campaign has leaned heavily on the governor’s years of experience as a teacher and coach, including numerous testimonials from former pupils and . If elected, he would become the first vice president in over 60 years to have previously worked as a K–12 teacher.

In a 16-minute address, Walz credited his students with inspiring him to make his first run for Congress in 2006, a longshot bid that saw him unseat a six-term incumbent. 

“There I was, a 40-something high school teacher with little kids, zero political experience and no money, running in a deep-red district,” he remembered. “But you know what? Never underestimate a public-school teacher.”

Yet, like most of the convention thus far, the speech ran short on details related to education policy. Walz made little mention of his six-year governing record in Minnesota, where he signed sweeping school funding legislation in 2023 but also for the length of pandemic-related school closures. While delivering a passing shot at Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance for attending Yale Law School, he didn’t refer to the wave of laws passed in red states that allow public funding to flow to private school tuition. 

Instead, in keeping with attacks launched by speakers through the first three days of the convention, Walz jabbed at Republicans for seeking to review and remove controversial materials from school libraries. As governor, he signed laws both to provide universal school lunches to students and based on ideology — a combination he trumpeted with one of the night’s biggest applause lines.

“While other states were banning books from their schools, we were banishing hunger from ours,” he said to cheers.

Echoing the Democrats’ longstanding commitments to gun safety legislation, Walz further pledged to fight for children’s “freedom to go to school without being shot dead in the hall.” Despite his respect for the Second Amendment as a hunter and Army National Guard veteran, he added, “our first responsibility is to keep our kids safe.”

With audience members waving signs reading “Coach Walz,” the nominee brought the remarks to a close by returning to the theme of teamwork and the beginnings of his leadership on the gridiron.

“It’s the fourth quarter. We’re down a field goal, but we’re on offense and we’ve got the ball. We’re driving down the field. And boy, do we have the right team.”

The summit will be held at a downtown Marriott from June 29 through July 2, despite from LGBTQ rights advocates and others who object to the group’s stance on social and education issues. 

The American Historical Association sent to the Museum of the American Revolution on June 26, urging its president to reconsider the decision to let Moms for Liberty hold a portion of the summit there.

“Moms for Liberty is an organization that has vigorously advocated censorship and harassment of history teachers, banning history books from libraries and classrooms, and legislation that renders it impossible for historians to teach with professional integrity without risking job loss and other penalties,” the letter read.

Neither Moms for Liberty nor the Museum of the American Revolution responded to a request for comment about the letter. 

The summit is a must for Republican leaders, a reflection of the organization’s influence. Some high-profile speakers, including DeSantis, are returning for a second round: The governor spoke at last summer’s event alongside Sen. Rick Scott of Florida and former secretary of housing and urban development Ben Carson. 

This year’s event has proven an even bigger draw for conservative politicians and their followers. Moms for Liberty co-founder Tiffany Justice said the 650-ticket summit has already sold out. 

The vocal, right-wing parent organization was formed in Florida in 2021 by school board members Tina Descovich and Justice and by , who is married to the of the Florida Republican Party. 

Moms for Liberty members originally targeted COVID protocols but have since focused on critical race theory, diversity and inclusion, social-emotional learning and LGBTQ issues, among other topics. The group claims 285 chapters and 120,000 members across 44 states.

The organization gained national recognition after members disrupted school board meetings across the country, with of those who oppose their views. Local chapters have mounted highly successful efforts targeting materials related to racism, slavery and gender. 

Moms for Liberty was recently labeled an by the Southern Poverty Law Center. 

Justice called the characterization shocking and absurd. 

“I think they’ve really shot themselves in the foot,” she said. 

Her group’s mission is to empower parents and support their fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children, she said. 

“That includes their education, their medical care and their morality and their religion,” she told The 74. “And it seems like we’re in a tug-of-war with the federal government in our nation’s schools.”

President Joe Biden also was invited to the summit, but his office did not respond, Justice said. The Biden campaign did not answer emails requesting comment.

Moms for Liberty has endorsed across the nation, many of whom have gone on to win. 

Despite its ability to attract high-profile politicians and zealous parent advocates, some experts question whether education will be a key issue in the 2024 presidential race.

Jeffrey Henig, professor of political science and education at Columbia University’s Teachers College, said he thinks it will likely take a backseat. 

“Education is one of those issues that is tempting politically because it gets a fervent response for a subset of voters, particularly parents,” he said. “And that can be attractive because it lets you mobilize people who don’t always like to turn out — or are on the fence. But … it can backfire.”

School politics, he said, “can take sharp twists and turns” that leave politicians exposed.

“Today’s cheers for a strong stand against so-called ‘smut’ in texts can morph into indignation at book banning and perceived attacks on treasured schools and teachers,” he said. 

Frederick M. Hess, senior fellow and director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said politicians once used education to appeal to voters in the middle. Now, he said, they use it to court their base. 

“If Trump is the nominee and you don’t like him, it’s not likely that his stance on Title IX or school choice will change that,” he said. “And if you’re concerned about Biden, wokeness or federal spending, it’s tough to imagine that a proposal for universal pre-K or student loan forgiveness is going to win you over.”

Michael J. Petrilli, president of the , a research fellow at Stanford University’s and executive editor of , said that if Trump gets the nomination, his views on education or other issues won’t really matter. Nothing will distract from the candidate himself, he said. 

The embattled former president, whose divisive rhetoric has continued well beyond his time in office, is facing a host of legal troubles, including a recent indictment over alleged . 

“If Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, the election will be about Donald Trump,” Petrilli said. “End of sentence. Policy issues will play an exceedingly minor role.”

But if another candidate wins the party’s nomination, Petrilli said, he or she might use the issue of school choice to entice working-class Hispanic and Black voters.

“And it might work,” he said. 

DeSantis has banned classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity . His Parental Rights in Education Act — often called the Don’t Say Gay Bill — has been replicated .

Haley, a former , has referred to transgender girls participating in girls’ sports as “the women’s issue of our time” on the campaign trail. Placing herself to the right of DeSantis, she has said his legislation isn’t stringent enough. 

Henig said the Florida governor’s overall stance is too extreme to succeed with a national electorate.

“Americans still have a lot of trust and allegiance to their local school communities,” he said, adding that Democrats might frame DeSantis’s efforts as an attack on teachers.