Over the past few days, the school reform movement (especially school choice and Parent Power activists) have had plenty to say about the revelation that Diane Ravitch acolyte Leonie Haimson was exercising school choice privately even as she opposes choice publicly– especially for poor and minority families. Certainly Haimson deserves all the scorn she has garnered as do her fellow traditionalists for defending her. [They also found themselves apologizing for once for the racial slurs uttered by one of their own during a protest in front of the U.S. Department of Education’s headquarters.]
But let’s remember this: Haimson has little in the way of influence outside of Ravitch and her fellow traditionalists; ultimately, challenging her intellectual dishonesty and her hypocrisy doesn’t do much to advance choice for our children. On the other hand, challenging politicians who cravenly bend to the will of traditionalists (especially affiliates of the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, along with traditional districts) most certainly does. And the past few days have proven that the movement has a lot of challenging to do.
This past Thursday in Austin, Texas, legislators in the Lone Star State’s lower house passed an amendment to a budget bill attempting to end efforts by state Sen. Dan Patrick to launch a school voucher program. The amendment, which would not allow the state education department to fund either vouchers or tax credit programs, was passed overwhelmingly, with 103 legislators (including 43 of the Republicans who make up the majority in the state House of Representatives) essentially declaring that they had no interest in helping poor and minority kids escape failing schools. While the amendment may end up being scrapped in conference committee, the very fact that Republicans were as willing as Democrats to oppose choice should discomfort conservative reformers and the rest of the movement alike.
In Nashville, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam’s proposed school voucher program may end up being scotched altogether after he asked for the proposal to be withdrawn. Why? One reason lies with Haslam’s own unwillingness to allow his fellow Republicans in the state senate to broadly expand the modest school choice bill (which in its current form, only allows for kids on free- and reduced-price lunch programs to leave the Volunteer State’s worst schools). But Haslam’s move is likely not just about being unwilling to go big or go home. Some Republicans (and likely, movement conservatives as well) fear the possibility of subsidizing Muslim parochial schools they oppose. One can imagine that Haslam, who faces a re-election bid next year, doesn’t want to face a primary challenge from those more-interested in indulging their religious bigotry than in helping all kids succeed.
Then there is news this week out of California that state education officials are dropping their defense against a lawsuit filed against it six years ago by NEA and AFT affiliates, along with the state school boards association, after the state allowed charter school outfit Aspire to open six schools throughout the state. The unions and the school boards didn’t oppose Aspire’s expansion because it was a low-quality operator; in fact, it is globally recognized as being better than most traditional districts in the nation as a whole. But the traditionalists, annoyed that Aspire bypassed traditional district oversight (which is essentially akin to letting McDonald’s decide whether a Wendy’s can open next door to one of its restaurants), fought furiously against allowing a high-quality operator provide schools fit for kids in communities such as the state capital of Sacramento where traditional districts are essentially condemning their futures. And they were aided by elected judges — and, at the end, by a state board chosen by Gov. Jerry Brown that should have fought a little harder in the courtroom.
Certainly this isn’t the only time this year when legislation geared toward helping kids and families gain access to high-quality education have been kiboshed by politicians, more-concerned with remaining servile to teachers’ unions and school districts in their back yards. There was the proposed Parent Trigger law in Georgia that was withdrawn late last month (after having passed the Peach State’s lower house with strong support) after two key legislators, Senate Education and Youth Committee Chairman Lindsey Tippins and powerful suburban Atlanta senator Fran Millar, voiced their opposition to the plan. Meanwhile in Mississippi, a proposal to allow charter schools to opened in any part of the state without districts having veto power over them — and allowed kids anywhere in the state to attend charters anywhere regardless of district boundaries, was significantly weakened amid opposition from Republicans in the state’s lower house; if not for the efforts of Gov. Phil Bryant, Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves, and state Sen. Gray Tollison, no measure would have been enacted at all.
None of this should be surprising. School reformers have succeeded in expanding choice and Parent Power over the past four years — including the launch and expansion of voucher and voucher-like tax credit plans in more than 15 states, the opening of 1,089 new charter schools, and the passage of Parent Trigger laws in seven states. Yet even with that growth, four out of every five children and their families cannot avail themselves of any choice at all. Certainly traditionalist opposition to choice is part of the problem. But the fact that many legislators are unwilling to stand up to NEA and AFT affiliates, as well as to traditional districts is the bigger problem. But it shouldn’t be shocking. After all, politicians understand votes and they understand money. The NEA and AFT bring both, pouring more than $369 million into state and local campaigns between 2000 and 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. The fact that districts are are often the biggest employers in their communities in Southern and even Rust Belt States, as well as have been the place from which state legislators have gotten their start in politics, means that many politicians are far less interested in embracing any sort of systemic reform.
Yet reformers can overcome those challenges. This starts by becoming more politically-savvy, embracing the political game, warts and all. While It means embracing the tools of digital advocacy. It also means strong campaigning that continually hits those who oppose reform hard and deep. Certainly if they win, they may hold a grudge. But they will also learn to bend toward reform because smart politicians run scared. They know that the next time, they may actually lose office and they are as interested in placating those who can hurt them as much as they will bow to their allies. It means embracing the tools of digital advocacy. It also means strong campaigning that continually hits those who oppose reform hard and deep. Certainly if they win, they may hold a grudge. But they will also learn to bend toward reform because smart politicians run scared. They know that the next time, they may actually lose office and they are as interested in placating those who can hurt them as much as they will bow to their allies.
It also includes working the grassroots, especially the 51 million single parents, grandparents and immigrant families ready to embrace reform. As Future is Now Schools founder Steve Barr points out, these families also have reasons to distrust those coming in from the outside. Reformers must leave the Beltway and work on the ground in neighborhoods in order to advance reforms. This means listening and constantly engaging these families every day over time. It also means working with grassroots activists and churches, the touchstones for many of these families.
It also means embracing the school reform movement’s roots as a bipartisan movement. As seen in both Republican strongholds such as Texas as well as in Democrat-dominated states such as California, reformers on both sides of the aisle cannot count on their fellow travelers in both parties to support expanding choice. This means abandoning these party-only efforts and embracing the single-issue voter approach that was crafted by the legendary Wayne Wheeler, who understood that having allies was more important than backing particular parties. It also means being willing to primary those in your party if they refuse to back reforms – and be willing to back those in the opposing party if they are your allies when it comes to transforming American public education.
Finally, it means constantly articulating why expanding choice and Parent Power is so important: Because it is absolutely immoral and intolerable to keep families from exercising their God-given right and obligation to provide their kids with the high-quality education they need to succeed in adulthood. Because allowing families to choose to escape failure and transform failing schools in their communities is critical to transforming super-clusters of failures in urban, suburban, and rural communities for all children, no matter who they are or where they live. And because everyone benefits — including the nation as a whole — when high-quality opportunities are provided to every child.
It will take strong political and moral activism to provide all families with high-quality education. And that means focusing on the political leaders who stand in the way — and holding them accountable for their political, intellectual and moral failures.