CER Op-Ed
by Jeanne Allen, President
The Center for Education Reform
February, 1996
In response to the NEA's criticism of The Center for Education Reform (EDUCATION WEEK Letters, January 31, 1996) I would like to express my resentment over the suggestion that I, and thousands of other charter school proponents across the country, are pursuing an "agenda" to erode public education.
Frankly, I've grown weary of the rhetoric and innuendo that paints education reformers as anti-public schools, and now, as anti-American. To explain: In a December 6, 1995 Education Week article, I said the NEA, and unions in general, have consistently worked, and are working, to water-down charter school laws in state after state. That's true, and if you don't believe me, ask any of the charter proponents or state legislators who have gone head-to-head with the unions over charter laws (call and I'll give you some names).
On January 31, 1996 The NEA responded by saying that I and other charter proponents "would use the charter movement to pave the way for vouchers," and are those "who really have a watering-down agenda -- one that would erode the very principles [that have made] public education the foundation on which our great democracy has been built."
So now we're subverting democracy? What will the NEA say next, that Congress needs to reconvene the House Un-American Activities Committee, or that charter proponents be hanged for treason?
Although I've come to expect the sneering resistance of the NEA (and the other usual suspects) when it comes to advocating honest reform instead of the establishment's incremental tinkering, this latest attack-by-innuendo is a little too much. Not just because it smears the good names of so many people who are truly committed to giving children a better education, but because of the damage it does to the charter school movement.
First of all, proponents of strong charter schools are not working to "pave the way for vouchers," and the NEA knows it. In fact, the efforts of many charter school advocates are directed toward preserving public school systems so that there might not be a need for vouchers. They see charter schools as a huge leap forward in giving public school systems options for providing children with a variety of valuable alternatives, and for providing teachers with equally valuable opportunities for creative and effective teaching. (To know that, one need only poll such a diverse group of individuals as Minnesota's Ted Kolderie, Michigan's Tom Watkins, and California's Gary Hart -- all of whom, by the way, agree that the NEA is watering-down good charter laws).
As for an example of what the NEA sees as a solid charter model and what I, and many others, call a diluted effort, look at Arkansas where you can only start a charter if: you are an existing public school, the teachers union approves the proposal, and the school remains a part of the district's bargaining unit.
Is this really what parents and communities are looking for in the charter movement? No new schools, no new ideas not endorsed by the union, no latitude in hiring, no latitude in fairly compensating teachers.
Charters are intended to be unique and innovative. Strong charter bills, which are generally opposed by the NEA and other unions, allow that. Weak charter bills, which are embraced by the unions, don't.
I don't begrudge the NEA its interest in the charter school movement. I'm sure the association senses the winds of change and realizes they are far behind in their efforts to respond to the wants and needs of parents and children. But the NEA's Charter Schools Initiative is part of the charter movement in name only and no amount of innuendo or name-calling directed at those who are working for strong charter schools will change that.
###
Jeanne Allen is President of The Center for Education Reform, a non-profit, national advocacy group working to improve the nation's schools. For more information about this or other education reform issues, please call (202) 822-9000 or (800) 521-2118, or send e-mail to cer@edreform.com.