Bonamici vs. Dr. Kahl: Socialism, the DSA and the Choice Facing Oregon’s 1st District

Education: Measure Skills, Not Just Diplomas

The education choice also connects to this article’s broader socialism debate. A systems-first approach points to funding, programs and credentials. A results-first approach asks whether students learned the core skills the system promised to teach.

On July 14, 2021, Oregon Senate Bill 744 took effect. It temporarily suspended the requirement that students demonstrate proficiency in Essential Skills as a condition of receiving a high school diploma. The diploma skills were reading and comprehending text, writing clearly and accurately, and applying mathematics. The original suspension covered the 2021–22 through 2023–24 school years.

On October 19, 2023, the Oregon State Board of Education extended the suspension through the 2027–28 school year.

Oregon did not eliminate academic standards, required course credits or testing. The state’s official Essential Skills explanation says statewide summative tests, local performance assessments, course credits and personalized-learning requirements remain. What changed was the separate requirement to demonstrate Essential Skills proficiency as a condition of receiving a diploma.

That distinction matters when a rising graduation rate is presented as evidence that education is improving. A higher rate tells us more students are receiving diplomas. By itself, it does not tell us whether students are becoming stronger readers, writers or mathematicians.

This is where criticism of a socialism-style, institution-first approach becomes practical: protecting a system is not the same as proving that the system is producing results for students.

What were students actually scoring during the suspension?

Oregon continued testing students while the Essential Skills graduation requirement was suspended. The state’s 2023–24 assessment files and four-year graduation data provide another way to judge the results. Here is the 2023–24 snapshot for four large districts serving Oregon’s 1st Congressional District:

For the socialism question, these results matter because public investment should be tied to public evidence of learning.

The goal should not simply be getting more students across the graduation stage. It should be getting more students there prepared for college, skilled trades, military service, employment and adulthood.

A credible critique of socialism asks institutions to earn public confidence through results, not demand confidence because a program exists.

The 83% graduation rate needs context

Oregon’s rising graduation rate is good news. But while the separate Essential Skills graduation requirement was suspended, state testing continued to show substantial numbers of students not meeting grade-level expectations in reading and mathematics.

That does not establish that suspending Essential Skills caused Oregon’s low academic performance. It does establish that an 83% graduation rate cannot, by itself, show that Oregon’s academic performance improved at the same pace.

If Oregon’s leaders celebrate graduation gains, voters should also see what is happening in reading, writing and mathematics.

In the socialism debate, celebrating one favorable number while ignoring weaker measures would be accountability in name only.

The ESSA compromise: give states control, then measure the results

This history matters when considering the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, or ESSA.

Bonamici was appointed as one of the House conferees who negotiated the final House-Senate package. ESSA passed with overwhelming bipartisan support—359–64 in the House and 85–12 in the Senate—but that vote represented a compromise between different approaches to federal education policy.

ESSA was not socialism; its bipartisan design is useful here because it separated federal transparency rules from many state and local operating decisions.

Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the Republican Senate sponsor and a principal architect of ESSA, wanted to reverse years of growing federal involvement. Alexander and other Republican supporters argued for returning substantial authority to states, school districts, teachers and communities while preserving transparent academic measurements.

Federal law continued to require statewide assessments, disaggregated public report cards and statewide accountability systems. ESSA gave states and districts considerably more discretion to choose standards, design those systems and select evidence-based school-improvement strategies within federal guardrails.

That balance matters in the socialism debate. Transparency and civil-rights guardrails do not require Washington to prescribe every classroom solution.

Alexander described the philosophy this way: “the path to higher standards, better teaching and real accountability will be through states, communities and classrooms and not Washington, D.C.”

The socialism contrast is therefore about where power sits after the public can see the results.

Republican supporters did not argue for ending academic measurement. Their case was that Washington should stop dictating many solutions while still requiring results to remain visible. That created a straightforward accountability test: give states more freedom, measure what happens, publish the results and let families and voters judge.

Oregon has now had years to operate under that framework. The question is no longer hypothetical: What do Oregon’s results show?

Poor results do not prove socialism caused them. They do challenge any government-first argument that treats additional programs or spending as sufficient evidence of success.

Where Suzanne Bonamici’s record matters

Bonamici did not enact Oregon’s Essential Skills suspension, and a member of Congress does not control decisions made in Salem or individual school districts. Her relevance is different: education is one of her signature priorities, and she helped negotiate the federal law that gave states greater flexibility while preserving public reporting.

The argument against socialism here is not guilt by association. It is a demand that long-serving leaders connect policy choices to measurable outcomes.

In the 2011–12 school year, when Bonamici entered Congress, Oregon’s four-year cohort graduation rate was 68.4%. Fourteen years later, the Class of 2025 rate was approximately 83%. That is a major improvement in graduation.

But did Oregon achieve a comparable improvement in reading and mathematics? On the Nation’s Report Card, Oregon’s grade 4 and grade 8 reading and math scores in 2011 were generally closer to the national public-school averages than they were in 2024. COVID-19 caused major learning losses nationwide, so that comparison does not establish that Bonamici, ESSA or one Oregon policy caused the decline. It does make the outcome a fair subject for accountability.

Nothing in these data proves socialism caused Oregon’s academic problems; the figures test whether government-first remedies delivered what their advocates promised.

ESSA gave Oregon flexibility. The results give voters accountability.

One central idea behind the Republican side of the ESSA compromise was that states should have greater freedom to operate their education systems while remaining accountable through transparent measurements.

Oregon received that flexibility. Oregon made its decisions. Now voters can examine the results.

Socialism should not be judged by the size of a program’s budget, but by whether central control improves the outcome.

This does not require blaming Washington for every poor test score or blaming Bonamici for every decision made in Salem. It makes the accountability question simpler: What did Oregon do with the flexibility it was given, and did those decisions produce better academic outcomes?

During the suspension of Oregon’s separate Essential Skills graduation requirement, the graduation rate continued climbing while substantial percentages of students did not meet grade-level expectations in reading and mathematics. Those facts deserve to be considered together.

If graduation improves while proficiency remains weak, policymakers should explain why. If policies are working, the measurements should eventually show that success. If they are not, public reporting gives parents and voters the information needed to demand something different.

Judge education policy by results

COVID-19 must be considered when evaluating Oregon’s recent performance. No single politician, law or policy explains every change in student achievement. But 14 years is long enough to examine a record.

Bonamici has supported federal education legislation, funding and reforms and identifies education as one of her central priorities. Oregon has simultaneously exercised substantial authority over its own education system. Voters can therefore ask: What measurable improvement in student academic achievement followed?

A criticism of socialism becomes credible when it applies the same results standard to every party and every program.

The same standard should apply regardless of party. Spending and programs are inputs. Graduation is an important outcome. Reading, writing and mathematics proficiency help show whether students are mastering core academic skills.

Dr. Kahl’s alternative: results, choice and accountability

Dr. Barbara Kahl’s education approach starts from a different principle: give families greater educational choice while demanding measurable results for students and taxpayers.

That is a direct alternative to a socialism systems-first model: public institutions can remain options, but families should not be trapped when those options do not meet a child’s needs.

Kahl’s break from socialism is meaningful only if her alternatives include enforceable academic standards, transparent costs and protections for every eligible student.

Dr. Kahl supports federal policies that would give families more control over eligible education funds and expand access to public-school alternatives, career and technical programs, approved private-school options, home education, tutoring and qualifying therapy services. The goal is to stop assuming the same system will work equally well for every child.

To turn that principle into legislation, Kahl should specify which federal funds would be eligible, how students with disabilities would be protected, what academic measurements would apply, what the plan would cost and how providers and taxpayer dollars would be audited. Those details matter.

So does the principle behind the proposal: a diploma should represent an education, and education policy should ultimately be judged by what students actually learn.

Oregon should celebrate every student who graduates. But in Hillsboro, Beaverton, Forest Grove, Tigard-Tualatin and communities across Oregon’s 1st District, families deserve to know not only how many students graduate, but whether students are mastering reading, writing and mathematics along the way.

ESSA preserved the measurements needed to answer that question. Congress gave states considerably more control. Oregon exercised that control. Now voters get to judge the results.

After 14 years of Bonamici representing Oregon’s 1st Congressional District, the question should not simply be whether Oregon graduates more students. It should be whether Oregon students are better prepared academically than they were when she entered Congress.

If academic achievement has not improved alongside graduation, then an 83% graduation rate should not end the education debate.

For voters concerned about socialism, education offers a concrete test: judge institutions by the skills students gain, preserve family choices and change course when public results remain weak.

Data note: District percentages are rounded to the nearest whole point from Oregon Department of Education’s 2023–24 assessment and cohort files. The statewide 83.0% rate refers to the 2024–25 Class of 2025.