This upper echelon of the establishment is represented at the national level by the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). In 1994, state boards paid anywhere from $9,000 to $22,000 to belong to NASBE. Superintendents paid from $14,000 to $32,000 to belong to CCSSO (in both cases money comes out of taxpayer funds distributed by the state legislature). Chiefs and state board members also are heavily represented on the boards of national policy and advocacy groups, from the National Education Goals Panel and the National Assessment of Educational Progress to the Chamber of Commerce's Center for Workforce Preparation.

        In states that elect their boards, reformers have an opportunity to influence who gets elected, through campaign support and votes, and can always get involved by proposing, or becoming, candidates themselves. Boards that are appointed by their governor can sometimes be filled by committed individuals who want to play a prominent role in a state's reform efforts. Some states have strong superintendents whose election was to a large degree the handiwork of determined reformers.

        You can also help your community understand the issues better by holding open meetings at which candidates or sitting commissioners and state board members can address the community. By providing such a forum, you make the candidates or officials aware that you are watching their efforts. (See "Chapter 14: Approaching Officials about Education Reform" for ideas on interviewing potential or present education officials on their positions.)

        Parent-teacher associations (PTA) or organizations (PTO) were created to involve parents in individual schools, and get them working closely with teachers. Founded in 1897, the National PTA includes over 27,000 local units with projects focusing on parental communication skills, drug prevention and both parental and student involvement. There was a time when the PTA was as wholesome as Mom and apple pie; the school bake sale funded much needed library books; and parents' input generally had a positive impact on the school's governance. How the times have changed! The national, state and large-district affiliates are now powerful allies of the teachers unions. The PTA has lost much of the "P" and is often dominated by people who already are part of the education establishment. Says the former head of the Pennsylvania PTA, "decisions are being made daily that affect [parents] but do not necessarily have their interests in mind." The problem is that the PTA spends more time as a cheerleader, rather than a worker to change misguided policies.

        PTAs influence and build public support for state and local education policy decisions; the National PTA is a strong backer of federal legislation that heaps more mandates on public schools. Like the unions, they have ready access to the grass roots, and enjoy the benefits of a national network of associations. PTAs can be powerful groups because they are perceived as non-partisan and apolitical. And yes, some parents are able to join very strong PTAs that are productive and helpful to the schools. Even when this is the case, the PTA should not be misconstrued as an organization interested in changing the status quo. Unfortunately, it should no longer be equated with Mom and apple pie.

        The National PTA is one of the largest volunteer education associations in the United States. It is comprised of nearly 7 million members and its headquarters is Chicago, Illinois. The association has two national conventions for members and one national legislative conference for its leaders every year. State affiliates hold a yearly convention, while local units use a variety of schedules. Home and School Associations that operate on a local or school basis are not part of such a state and national network.

What You Can Do:

        Parents have no one national group to whom they can turn for guidance through this maze or partnership in reforming the schools. There are local civic groups, church groups, community associations and the like that may offer information, guidance and resources, but these groups, themselves, often turn to the PTA when they have concerns about education. Popular magazines or guidebooks refer parents to PTAs as a natural place to be involved.

        Until the PTA is redefined to be responsive to parental interests, it will stay focused on protecting a failing system. Those frustrated by this are joining new or different groups such as taxpayer groups and non-establishment parent networks that are springing up in a number of states. Parents hold the key — not only to their child's success in school and in life — but to bring thoughtful change and grass roots guidance to their community and their state. Parents should never take their membership in any organization for granted, and one parent alone DOES have the power to make reform a reality. More about how later, in Section III: Working For Reform.

        Civil liberties and child advocacy groups are very active and influential in formulating school policy. While the public tends to think of these groups as champions of the underprivileged, they often defend the status quo. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union successfully defended a child's right to carry a weapon in Chicago, claiming it was a cultural icon. It also defended a student's right to wear clothing or hairstyles that school authorities judged disruptive and counterproductive to an atmosphere of learning. As a result, people continue to get hurt by a system the ACLU seeks to protect. These advocacy groups are often party to suits that oppose school choice, school finance reforms and any budget cuts.

        Recently, these well-intentioned groups have been concerned with issues surrounding integration. Since the passage of Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, many have focused on busing to ensure equality in education. The evidence often suggests, however, that forced integration has not lead to higher minority test scores, but actually to the resegregation of minorities. Voluntary magnet schools and school-within-school programs that have relied on parental choice have yielded far greater success for disadvantaged children. The ACLU, with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, are staunch opponents of school choice programs that help poor children attend private schools. There are still many people who believe these groups are helping and accurately representing the underprivileged. But, advocating for the right to wear clothing considered unacceptable by a particular community or using "free speech" rulings as a justification for offensive language and behavior, hardly helps those educators trying to make the schools work.

        Testing is an issue that has drawn groups like the NAACP into the education reform discussion. For instance, the NAACP joined the Office of Civil Rights in its Ohio complaints. In 1994, Ohio introduced minimum standards tests for graduating high school seniors, set at a level of ninth grade proficiency. Of Cleveland's twelfth graders (only a third of the original ninth grade class), only 60% passed all four parts of the test — 76% of the white students; 60% of the African-American students. Despite the state superintendent's statement that test results correlated most strongly with school attendance, rather than race, the local NAACP president declared, "We are prepared to take whatever steps necessary, up to and including a lawsuit, to halt the administration both locally and statewide of this test to public school students on the basis that it violates their 14th Amendment Rights to Equal Protection of the Law."

        The NAACP president vowed to use all methods necessary, "in the streets and in the court," including campaigning against any school tax increases, if the tests results were used to prevent minorities from graduating. Despite the fact that evidence shows people do better in school when there are high standards holding them accountable, the NAACP filed suit to get the test barred from use by the schools. The net effect of such actions too often is a lowering of standards and more court-ordered desegregation maneuvers, rather than working to improve the academic performance of minorities and paving the way for better schools in every neighborhood.

        The NAACP, ACLU, People for the American Way, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and the Urban League are among those who are often positioned against reform. Individual chapter members, however, may be more sympathetic.

        There may be ground for agreement on some issues with advocacy groups, although traditionally they side with the establishment. But, just because they say they're for the underdog doesn't mean they are on your side. Make sure that members of your coalition know where these groups stand on the issues.

        The action on education reform is clearly in the states — you will find the most significant efforts in state capitals. Many governors and state legislatures now understand the urgency for reform and have united to push effective measures. They have put the establishment on notice to shape up; their agendas include expanding opportunities for families and schools and eliminating burdensome and outmoded state laws.

        State legislators rely heavily on national legislators' groups and each other for guidance. Many are members of one of two organizations, the National Council for State Legislatures and the American Legislative Exchange Council, which exist to provide information and influence policy decisions. The NCSL signs up entire legislatures as members, while ALEC's members are individuals, who typically believe in limited government and local autonomy. NCSL provides regional and national forums for legislators, with a host of services including information seminars for various federal acts and topical speakers on select issues. These activities can have more direct influence on the outcome of legislation than most other factors. Both groups have positive dimensions, but NCSL is more comfortable with the education establishment, and their policy recommendations reflect that agenda.

        Each year hundreds of new bills are introduced to create new programs, expand old ones and blindly infuse more money into education. Many that pass will have little beneficial effect on the schools. And, rarely do bills pass that get rid of programs which have outlived their usefulness. Most new laws have little effect on the quality of schools or the level of services provided, instead they impose more rules and mandates on how schools operate. Often, newly allocated money is eaten up by administrative bureaucracy and regulatory compliance before it ever gets to the classroom. Even the best of intentions do not get close to delivering better schools. There are some exceptions — those that focus strictly on cutting red tape. Charter laws, for example, provide relief from many regulatory burdens. Many states also allow waivers from rules upon request, but only a fraction of administrators care to endure what is a bureaucratic process in and of itself.

        Educational flexibility is a key to good schools and needs to be addressed by the states. Schools need to be free to do their jobs. The problem is that the current bureaucracy was put in place by organizations whose very livelihood depends on keeping up that bureaucracy. Even if a state's governor with great support tries to cut back regulation, the blob continues to fight against such efforts to free the schools. For example, the California legislature actually released schools from bilingual education requirements recently, in an attempt to allow for some flexibility. The state's Department of Education, however, quickly wrote additional regulations destroying virtually all of the new flexibility for the program.

        Some governors and education leaders want to change the way in which education is bought and paid for in the state, and they have championed reforms that address these issues head on. Yet, even well-intentioned lawmakers still become sidetracked by spending questions. The first issue is not to make sure more money gets spent, but to ensure that money is spent efficiently, on education rather than bureaucracy. The second is to hold schools accountable for our hard-earned tax dollars.

        In addition to ALEC and NCSL, the Colorado-based Education Commission of the States (ECS) and the National Governors Association (NGA) in Washington, D.C., also play a direct role in influencing the work of the states. Individual states dues to belong to NCSL in 1994 ranged from $62,000 to $325,000; the NGA dues ranged from $35,000 to $163,000; and ECS dues ranged from $35,000 to $105,000. As an individual member organization, ALEC charges $25 to state legislators and $5,000 and up for private sector members.

        State reform requires state legislation. Legislation requires support by legislators. People elect legislators. Sound simple? Despite this simple formula, citizens question their power to make a difference. In fact, state legislators are often persuaded on an issue by as few as twenty phone calls on the subject. There will always be those legislators who are immovable, but that is only because most lawmakers see the same groups day in and day out, lobbying for their own narrow interests.