Mike Petrilli challenges a pervasive narrative of despair in blue-state education, arguing that reform isn't dead—it's just evolving into a different, harder-to-see shape. While the conventional wisdom suggests Democratic leadership is hopelessly captured by teachers' unions, Petrilli synthesizes a counter-argument: the alliance is fraying, the political framing is wrong, and the real work is happening in the regulatory weeds rather than the legislative spotlight. For busy leaders watching student outcomes stagnate despite record funding, this piece offers a crucial pivot from cynicism to strategic nuance.
The Fraying Alliance
Petrilli begins by dismantling the idea that unions are a monolithic wall against progress. He highlights a shift where the sheer volume of funding is no longer enough to keep the coalition intact. "With lots of cash in the mix, both were happy. But more money is going to be hard to come by going forward and that alliance starts to fray," he writes, quoting Marguerite Roza. This observation is vital because it moves the conversation from ideological deadlock to resource scarcity. When budgets tighten, the union's desire to protect legacy costs will inevitably clash with a Democratic leadership desperate to show results on failing test scores.
The evidence for this wedge is already visible in state capitals. Petrilli points to Oregon's Governor Kotek, who stated, "I don't believe in writing a blank check," citing a "disconnect between spending and results." Similarly, Washington's state superintendent is pivoting toward math scores after years of dismissal. This suggests that the political calculus is changing; voters and leaders are no longer willing to accept high spending as a proxy for high quality. Critics might argue that unions still hold immense procedural power to stall specific initiatives, but Petrilli's point is that the incentive structure for elected Democrats is finally aligning with reformers.
The disconnect between spending and results has emerged as a hot topic in Salem this legislative season.
Reframing the Progressive Argument
Perhaps the most compelling section of the piece is the call to stop apologizing for reform. Petrilli, citing Conor Williams, argues that the movement has been too timid, trying to appeal to the center-right when it should be owning a progressive identity. "A reform movement that targets the essential inequity of neighborhood schools and gerrymandered school districts and unfair K–12 funding systems has political legs," Williams writes. This is a sharp critique of the last decade of education policy, which often framed school choice and accountability as moderate compromises rather than tools for racial and economic justice.
Petrilli reminds us that this isn't a new idea, but a return to roots. He notes that "NCLB's progressive leaders, as we all know, were Ted Kennedy and George Miller, guys whose careers get filed in the 'Liberal Lions' section of the political library." By invoking the No Child Left Behind Act, the piece anchors current debates in a historical context where liberals were the primary drivers of accountability. The argument here is that the current stagnation is a failure of rhetoric, not a failure of policy. If reformers can frame school zoning and funding inequities as environmental justice issues, they can mobilize a base that currently feels alienated by the movement.
The Quiet Work of Regulation
While legislative battles make headlines, Petrilli suggests the most effective reforms in blue states are happening through state education agencies (SEAs). He highlights Heather Peske's experience in Massachusetts, where significant gains were made not through new laws, but through regulatory authority. "We got a lot done in Massachusetts through regulation and by being smart about how we used our authority at the SEA," Peske writes, listing everything from curriculum reform to educator licensure changes.
This section is a crucial reality check for those waiting for a legislative miracle. It suggests that the path forward for blue-state reformers is to empower career bureaucrats and agency heads who are somewhat insulated from the immediate political pressure of union elections. However, Petrilli himself notes a significant caveat: much of this progress in Massachusetts occurred under a Republican governor, Charlie Baker, who was "not beholden to the teachers unions." This raises a difficult question for the future: can these regulatory gains be sustained under Democratic leadership that is more politically vulnerable to union pressure?
The Red State Distraction
Finally, Petrilli refuses to let the conversation devolve into a simple "red states bad, blue states good" binary. He channels Morgan Polikoff to argue that the situation in Republican-led states is often chaotic and counterproductive. "I'll take your Mississippi/Louisiana and counter with Oklahoma, where the reform agenda involved watching p&rn on the job and trying to buy Donald Trump bibles for every classroom," Polikoff writes. While the specific reference to the former president is used here to illustrate the absurdity of culture-war distractions, the broader point is that bad policy is bipartisan.
The piece acknowledges that while red states are often mired in "culture-war nonsense" that demoralizes educators, blue states are guilty of "gutting testing and accountability" and lowering standards in the name of equity. "The truth is there are bad ideas left, right, and center in education right now," Petrilli concludes. This balanced view prevents the reader from falling into the trap of thinking one party has a monopoly on competence. It suggests that the path forward requires a rejection of ideology in favor of evidence, regardless of the political label attached to the policy.
The truth is there are bad ideas left, right, and center in education right now.
Bottom Line
Mike Petrilli's strongest contribution is his insistence that blue-state reform is not dead, but merely obscured by a failure of political framing and a reliance on legislative wins that are no longer possible. The piece's biggest vulnerability is its optimism regarding the ability of Democratic leaders to break from unions without a Republican governor to provide political cover. The reader should watch for whether state education agencies can truly drive reform in the absence of legislative support, or if the union alliance will simply tighten its grip once the federal funding boom ends.