One of the more-fascinating themes in education reform over the past two years has been the successful efforts by the Obama administration and reform-minded governors in states such as New Jersey to allow the expansion of public charter schools. But debates raging in Massachusetts and New Jersey brings up one of the most-important reasons why charters have struggled so long to expand their reach and move beyond the big cities into suburbia: The artificial barriers — including school funding systems — that allow traditional districts and affiliates of the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers to keep charters a rarity in the ‘burbs.

In the Bay State, traditional school districts and the AFT’s Massachusetts affiliate are lobbying for passage of a bill that would no longer allow the state to have sole approval over the opening of charters. Instead, authorizing would be done at the local level by the very school boards who also run the traditional school districts with which charters compete. From where traditional districts sit, the fact that the state dares to actually allow families to have any form of choice means that the schools are not “accountable” to districts and thus “undemocratic”. Even though the districts rarely consider the concerns of parents, they have made this a matter of democracy. Declared Brendan Walsh, a Salem, Mass., school board member: ““Are you going to support government by the elected representatives of the voice of the people?”

Meanwhile in the Garden State, legislators have spent the past couple of months considering Assembly Bill 3582, which would require the charter schools to be approved by voters in the neighborhoods that the schools would serve. If the bill is passed (and supporters of the bill can override the likely veto from Gov. Chris Christie), it won’t actually do much to stop the opening of charters in big cities such as Newark (where families have been voting for charters with their feet for some time). But it will likely keep charters from opening in New Jersey’s tony suburbs, which have long opposed any kind of school reform. As one would expect, suburban districts back the plan. But so does groups such as the NEA’s New Jersey affiliate, and the Education Law Center (for whom charters are a threat to both their influence over school funding through the four-decade-old Abbott lawsuits, and their longstanding view that more funding for traditional districts is the only way to ensure that poor and minority children get high-quality education).

As with anything regarding school choice, the issue for suburban districts — and their supporters among NEA and AFT affiliates — has almost nothing to do”democracy” or with local control. Given that states in general account for 48 percent of all school funding (in Massachusetts and New Jersey, it is more like 40 percent), they can shape what public education can look like; since taxpayers from around all states have to fund what happens in each school district, their concerns outstrip those at the local level. As the U.S. Supreme Court made clear a century ago in the Hunter v. Pittsburgh ruling, school districts and other local governments are arms of state governments and thus, have no ability for independent action outside of what state governments decide. Federal education policy has also made that clear; the No Child Left Behind Act actually recognized that reality by requiring states to set proficiency standards, meet Adequate Yearly Progress accountability rules, turn around laggard districts and schools, and expand opportunities for kids to get a high-quality education.

The real issue for suburban districts and their allies is that charters are competition (or as much competition as allowable in American public education) for students and the tax dollars that are collected for each one of them.

Even as big-city districts have been forced to deal with charters , state laws have allowed suburban districts to avoid having them in their back yards. In Missouri, for example, charters can only be opened in St. Louis and Kansas City, allowing suburbia to avoid them; in Tennessee, charters are only allowed to be opened in districts where there are 14,000 or more kids receiving free- and reduced-cost lunch. The fact that in many states, charters have to be authorized by local districts means that those who run them can easily limit their competition by making it harder for national operators such as KIPP and local groups of parents to open charters that serve their kids. This is one reason why there are almost no charter schools in the Virginia and Maryland suburbs surrounding Washington, D.C. — and only one is opening in the area (located in tony Montgomery County, Md.), two decades after both states allowed for them to come into existence.

But thanks to the federal Race to the Top initiative, and the efforts of reform-minded governors and legislators, caps on the growth of charters have either been lifted or eliminated altogether. As a result, there are new opportunities for charters to spring up in suburbia. Also driving the interest: Families in those communities who are dissatisfied with the quality of instruction and curricula in their burgs. Middle-class black, Latino and immigrant families, who moved to suburbia in the hopes that their kids could attend high-quality schools, have learned painfully that this isn’t always going to happen. Suburban white families with kids suffering from autism and other disabilities have also found out that traditional districts are hardly responsive to their concerns; other families, who have found that they are spending money on tutoring that actually does what districts are supposed to do, want alternatives other than homeschooling (which they may not have the capacity to do on their own) or spending out-of-pocket dollars on private schools.

This hits upon another reality: Suburban districts can no longer hold themselves up as paragons of high-quality. No Child’s accountability provisions have exposed the reality that many of these districts serve kids from poor and minority households as abysmally as their urban counterparts, while offering mediocrity to kids from white middle-class backgrounds. As shown by the George W. Bush Institute’s Global Report Card, few suburban districts make the grade compared to schools in countries such as Singapore. For example, only 30 percent of students in Fairfax County, Va., would outperform kids from Singapore, and only 41 percent would do better than kids from Canada (a nation that is almost as diverse as the United States); a mere 31 percent of students in Montgomery County would outperform Singapore’s students, and just four-out-of-ten would beat out their peers in Canada.

Faced with such threats, suburban districts and teachers’ unions are using any means available to keep charters out of suburbia. In the case of Massachusetts and New Jersey, it’s the matter of the state actually controlling the process of approving charters. The districts rile up families satisfied with what they offer by arguing that their schools will be starved of local dollars that go to charter schools unaccountable to local regulation. They always fail to mention that charters are actually subject to much-stricter levels of accountability — in fact, must prove themselves worthy to state taxpayers up to the risk of being shuttered if they fail to improve student achievement and manage money properly. But given that just 13 percent of Americans can accurately describe a charter school — and the willingness of charter school foes to play fast and loose with the facts — it becomes easy for suburban districts to work state legislators who worry about keeping their constituents satisfied. This is especially true of Democrat legislators, who also think they still need support from NEA and AFT locals — even though moves made over the past year have proven that the two unions are no longer all that influential.

For the charter schools movement — and school reformers in general — the battles in both states are reminders that they must step up their political savvy, especially in a time in which the No Child Left Behind Act may soon no longer be around for reform-minded governors to use as weapons in pushing for systemic reform. This means stepping up lobbying, advocacy, and media activity — including explaining to suburban parents (especially those satisfied with traditional schools) how their families will benefit from expanded school choice. School reform philanthropies should also move down to the grassroots level and help families in those communities start their own charters; doing so will also show to families what charters can look like, fostering new supporters.

Charter school operators also need to find ways to include families within the governance of the schools they run. This, by the way, is a major issue even for parents in urban communities who are generally satisfied with charters. It will take more than just creating parent-controlled advisory boards. Charter school operators need to figure out how to take the saving grace of the otherwise-woeful special education ghetto — the ability of parents to develop individual learning plans — and apply it to their own operations.

But the most-important step must come from states themselves — and the school reform movement must press for this: Overhauling how states fund American public education in the first  place.

Considering that most states are already bearing much of the tab for schools (and that they actually control those systems in the first place), it would make sense for states to replace local property tax funding with state dollars. This would allow for the expansion of all forms of choice by turning the dollars into vouchers that follow every child to whatever school, public, private or parochial, they so choose. And it stop districts from arguing that reforms will cost them in terms of local tax dollars as their justification (as well as spur adequacy and equity in education).

But because states have not moved in this direction — and reform-minded governors have not argued for this step — what happens is stalemate. Districts can justify opposition to charters and all choice — as well as perpetuate the myth of local control — because they   are still dependent on local property tax dollars. At the same time, the districts can engage in hypocrisy by continuing zoned school policies that further restrict choice, and continue to provide their students with mediocre (and in the case of their poor and minority students, abysmal) instruction and curricula.

As a result, only a fifth of the nation’s children and their families can actually take advantage of some form of school choice. That’s shameful. Asking families to put up with mediocrity (or failure) and endanger the futures of their children is absolutely objectionable. Every child, no matter who they are or where they live, should be able to attend schools that can help them succeed in school and in life, and meet their needs, whatever they are.

Massachusetts and New Jersey could easily short-circuit these efforts against charter school expansion by taking over full funding of public education.It’s difficult to argue against local control when the states only provide, respectively, 39 percent and 41 percent of  funding for their public school systems. Same is true for other states. It is easier to push for (and sustain) reform when districts can no longer use local taxation as a means to keep in place a status quo that does little for children.

As far as education traditionalists are concerned, families are to be barely seen — and never heard. For them, the very idea of families taking their rightful roles as lead decision-makers in education is absolutely unacceptable. After all, how dare mothers and fathers actually demand the ability to choose high-quality schools, overhaul failure mills and factories of mediocrity, and hold teachers, principals and superintendents accountable for improving student achievement? Such ideas, an anathema since the days of Horace Mann, cannot possibly be tolerated even if education traditionalists continue to embrace practices that fail the children in their care.

Such sentiments have become especially prevalent in the past couple of months as education traditionalists have been forced to deal with the nation’s growing Parent Power movement. With 13 states having either launching and expanding school voucher plans, and 19 states partly lifting or abolishing arbitrary limits on the growth of charter schools, families have more opportunities to escape schools that poorly serve their children. The passage of Parent Trigger laws in California, Texas and Connecticut have also given parents more influence in actually forcing the overhaul of failure factories and removing those schools from the control of districts that have long fostered educational neglect and malpractice. And with Michigan’s state senate moving yesterday to pass a proposal to abolish its restrictions on charter school expansion — and Gov. Rick Snyder’s effort to expand public school choice and allow kids to attend any school throughout the Wolverine State — Parent Power and school choice are becoming more prominent than ever.

But as Dropout Nation noted in August after revealing the American Federation of Teachers’ presentation on how its Connecticut affiliate weakened the state’s Parent Trigger law, any expansion of Parent Power is considered a threat — especially if it solely gives families full control instead of the “collaborative” (or, as your editor likes to call it, protect teachers’ union and status quo influence) model they prefer. And their allies are more than willing to argue against choice and Parent Power on their behalf.

Once-respectable New York University education historian Diane Ravitch complained earlier this month that Parent Trigger laws are merely “a stealth assault on public education” that goes against the role of schools as “a public trust” that “doesn’t belong to the students who are currently enrolled in it or their parents.” Then there is San Francisco State University professor Mark Phillips, who declares on Valerie Strauss’ blog that Parent Trigger laws are “foolish and potentially destructive” to education. Why? Because, as far as he is concerned, the laws (and school choice in general) gives power to ” to individuals who have neither the expertise nor the knowledge base needed to make the right decisions.” Such sentiments extend to school choice as well.

It’s all so sweet for Ravitch, Phillips and others to talk about education as some form of “public trust” when it suits their interests. Unfortunately, families have no reason to continue to place their trust in schools that, despite claims by those who run them that they are experts, have continually failed their children. Especially when they treat families as afterthoughts and nuisances unworthy of their consideration.

As Peter McDermott and Julia Johnson Rothenberg of the Sage Colleges have noted in their research on school engagement, urban and low-income parents often perceive schools to be unwelcoming and interactions with teachers to be “painful encounters.” Certainly some of this has to do with the negative experiences these parents have had with schools — especially those failure mills that they once attended and to which their children now go. But it is also about the fact that there are many teachers who look at parents — especially those from poor and minority backgrounds — with condescension and disdain.

The reality is that we have far too many teachers who look down on poor urban parents who may not be capable of helping their kids because of their own learning issues; who are hostile to those families who want to take an active role in shaping the education their kids receive in school; and would rather keep those families servile. And it’s not just these teachers: As revealed in survey of Houston principals conducted by the New Teacher Project, administrators who felt they didn’t have time to handle teacher evaluations and serve as instructional leaders wanted to spend less time working with parents. As Dr. Steve Perry noted in his book, Push Has Come to Shove, the way schools deal with parents of all backgrounds (especially poor families) is particularly disdainful; from inconveniently-scheduled parent-teacher conferences, to the lack of meaningful communication about student progress until it is far too late to help kids succeed, traditional districts offer little to parents. It is ridiculous to ask families in these failure mills to “trust” schools that have failed children for decades.

The beauty of vouchers, charter schools and Parent Trigger laws is that these tools not only allows families to actually help their kids succeed in school and in life, they also spur parents to be fully engaged in education and learn more about how their kids can get a high-quality education. As James Guthrie of the George W. Bush Institute has pointed out, the only real way that families can really be engaged in schools is if they actually have the ability to actually shape the education their kids receive. They also become the kind of unabashed school reformers and impromptu leaders we need to overhaul American public education.

Certainly these families need tools in order to make smart decisions; this is why robust school data systems that inform parents about the performance of schools — along with the kind of school accountability and reporting of data on student achievement fostered by the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act a decade ago. But parents are capable of making smart decisions when they have the power to do so. And they can actually spur reform — and challenge the status quo — both by demanding better for their kids and escaping schools that are unworthy of their families and communities.

But the need for Parent Power isn’t just limited to urban dropout factories. The penchant for many teachers and administrators to treat families as nuisances and afterthoughts is as strong in suburbia — where parents supposedly have the clout to force change — as it is in big-city districts. Washington Post columnist Jay Mathews made that clear earlier this month when he wrote about the fracas between parents at Leesburg Elementary School in Virginia’s Loudoun County and the school’s principal. When parents demanded that the school provide better accounting of funds raised by families through its parents-teachers organization, communicate more-effectively with them, and offer more details on how the school was helping kids improve their achievement (and meet Virginia’s state standards), the principal, Clarke Magruder, didn’t exactly pay them any mind. The Loudoun County district itself proved far more-interested in defending Magruder’s record than being responsive to these families.

These are just the suburban families from white middle class backgrounds. For black, Asian and Latino families, especially those from poor backgrounds and others entering the middle class for the first time, they are finding out that suburban schools can be just as abysmal as the urban dropout factories they fled, and that the racial divides can be just as deep. Their kids are often afterthoughts in instruction and curricula.  As University of Michigan Associate Professor Karyn Lacy noted in Blue-Chip Black, her sociological study of middle-class black families in the area surrounding the nation’s capital, black families living in Fairfax County found themselves battling teachers and guidance counselors who wanted to relegate children to academic tracks that keep them from getting high-paying white- and blue-collar jobs. They are often not informed about their options for preparing their kids for success in school and in life, including opportunities to take Advanced Placement courses or participate in the growing number of dual-credit programs that allow them to take community college courses that they can use for getting ready for the rigors of higher education.

For these families, the need for options that better-suit their educational goals is one that most traditional districts cannot (and often, will not) meet. Allowing for those families to participate fully in structuring education for their children — or leave for charters and private schools that will allow them to do so — is as important for them as it is for their counterparts in urban communities. More importantly, expanding Parent Power and choice also helps suburban families fully understand the depths of the nation’s education crisis. An increasing number of suburban families already understand that education is critical to helping their kids remain in the middle class — and yet, the schools their kids attend offer instruction and curricula that lag behind Singapore, Canada and other nations. But other families won’t acknowledge this reality until there are high-quality alternatives to the laggard schools in their communities. Once those families see better, they can also demand better, breaking ranks with education traditionalists who see them as little more than foot soldiers for preserving their privileges.

But it isn’t enough to just expand choice and Parent Power. School reformers should actually work in urban communities with grassroots outfits to create family information centers and online tools that provide families with clear, understandable information on school options so they can make smart decisions. This must also happen in suburbia. Particularly with Parent Trigger laws, the information that families will need to undertake overhauls is also important. Connecticut and Texas should follow California’s example and build out a Web site that can helps parents know all that they need in order to be successful in improving schools.

Meanwhile the need to develop new models that expand Parent Power is critical. Abandoning the traditional district model along the lines of the Hollywood Model of Education would bring school governance down to the building. This includes creating school boards of directors with parents in majority control; principals would then report directly to families and serve them accordingly. The advent of digital learning options can also expand Parent Power by allowing families to develop DIY schools for their kids.

When parents have power, they can change American public education for the better. So we must continue expanding choice, Parent Trigger laws and other tools that help them build cultures of genius that nurture the kids that they love.