As a matter of perspective, I used to joke that ‘everyone considers themselves an expert on public education because each person was once a student.  Now that joke has a cruel and frightening twist.  We apparently now have someone who is considered an expert for the opposite reason.  
Short detour: In June, we discussed home-schooling topics for some time.  I believe our discussions could be summarized thusly:  Home-schooling is neither bad nor good, in and of itself.  Home schooling and public schooling can each do some things the other cannot, but the choice for either should be well-informed. 
I hope that’s fair, because I’d like to take the same balanced position with charter schools, without having to take three columns to do it.  Specifically: Charter Schools are neither bad nor good by themselves.  Charter schools and public schools each have strengths and weaknesses.  (Note: Whether or not charter schools should use public funding – through vouchers or other means – is an important-but-separate discussion more related to politics than education.)  
To be automatically opposed to either charter schools or public schools (or home schools!) without doing one’s homework is risky at best. Yet we are perilously close to having that happen on a national level.   
Consider for the moment a person who has – apparently – A) never been a student in public education, or put any of her children in public schools, and B) never been a teacher or school board member, or had any contact with the workings of public schools. 
Such a person exists and has now been nominated for Secretary of Education.    
To add to this mix, this person, along with her husband, have also C) spent large sums of their personal wealth fighting public schools in general, and D) simultaneously and mysteriously (with more of their money) fighting all efforts at regulation and accountability for those charter schools they have helped create.  They seem to oppose public schools on principle, while opposing accountability for charter schools. 
Regardless of your political leanings, and regardless of your opinions of and preferences for public, home, and/or charter schools (or even the vouchers question), are these the kind of narrow views (and actions) we want in the person who leads the Department of Education? 
Do not take my word for these facts – I urge you to ‘fact check’ and do your own homework. Form your own opinions.   (For my source[s] on this column, feel free to contact me.) 
At the risk of being redundant, I am neither a fan nor foe of charter schools, per se.  I see possible strengths in the concept of charter schools, as well as the ideas of home schooling, for those who choose them.  But that’s not the point.  The Secretary of Education has to be able to facilitate and promote the best levels of education for ALL our nation’s children, regardless of the vehicle. After all, education for all is a cornerstone of our democracy, set firmly in place by our founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson.  
This is not about politics. What would exacerbate this situation even more is let it get (or stay?) mired in politics, as opposed to education.  Democrats should not oppose this nomination for the sake of politics alone.  Republicans should not favor this nomination for the sake of politics alone. Everyone who is interested in education should oppose this nomination for the sake of education alone.