CER Op-Ed
by Jeanne Allen, President
The Center for Education Reform
May, 1996
On April 16, NEA President Keith Geiger, saying "The world has changed," announced a $1.5 million effort to create five charter schools in five U.S. cities. The next day, an editorial cartoon in the Arizona Republic depicted a wolf, identified as the "status quo," wearing an ill-fitting sheep skin identified as the "NEA's Charter Schools." (To further drive home the point, the sheep skin was also sporting an "I Love Reform" button.)
Such is the skepticism of education reformers. Is the establishment being saintly or cynical? Have they truly embraced the concept of charter schools or, after years of being against us, and losing ground in the debate, have they simply found it necessary to appear to be with us?
It's a fair question, albeit an unfortunate one. Because while it would be nice to welcome them into the fold of reform, you have to wonder about such a sudden conversion, and worry about whether the NEA's effort is a gift horse, or a Trojan horse.
The gift-horse scenario would have the NEA supporting charter schools in their truest sense: schools that are autonomous, flexible, innovative and easily started because they are free from collective bargaining and various regulatory constraints; established via, what education reformers call, "strong" charter laws. In contrast, the Trojan-horse scenario would have the NEA supporting schools that are called charters but which, because they face so many constraints under "weak" charter laws, are, by design, nearly-indistinguishable from regular schools.
Arizona, Michigan, California and about nine other states have strong (to varying degrees) charter laws: broad sponsorship provisions; automatic regulatory exemptions; fiscal and legal autonomy; no, or very high, limits on the number of charters allowed; no, or relaxed, collective bargaining constraints. In these states charter schools are flourishing. In fact, of the 271 charter schools currently in operation, 257 -- 95 percent -- are in six of the strong-law states (in the remaining strong-charter states the laws are too new for schools to have been established).
Kansas, Alaska, Arkansas and about six other states have weak laws which, essentially, provide for none of the things listed above. In these states charter schools are either floundering or non-existent. Here a grand total of 14 charters are operating.
So which charter concept does the establishment hold up as a model? Arkansas, where you can only start a charter if you are an existing public school, the teachers unions approves the proposal and the school remains a part of the district's collective bargaining unit. A state whose "charter" law is so effective, that exactly no charter schools have opened.
Yet, does the NEA's big announcement signal a change of heart? Geiger certainly used all the right words in his news release: "one size does not fit all...," "public schools [currently] often don't allow for flexibility...," charters offer "a unique opportunity to remake schools to respond to the diverse learning needs of students..." and the freedom "to take the bureaucratic handcuffs off." That's not just language with a familiar ring to it, it's a verbatim recitation of what school reformers have been saying for years ( and which, by the way, earned them the establishment's sneering insults of being "anti-public education." )
To be completely fair, perhaps establishment members have seen the light. But to be completely practical, I fear they haven't, and if they haven't, it poses a great danger to the future of charters as one of our best hopes for substantive education reform. Because if this is a game of capture the flag, and the NEA hoists the charter banner just so it can appear "reform-minded," then charter schools -- in theory and in practice -- run the risk of becoming nothing more than public schools in, well, sheep's clothing.
For my money, the NEA has it backwards. Instead of opening charter schools it can call its own, why doesn't it launch a campaign to assist states in adopting or revising charter laws that will allow local citizens to open schools that they can call their own? Or at least call off the dogs that are unleashed every time a strong charter bill appears in a state legislature.
The NEA, in concert with its state and local chapters and various associations, are notorious for running strong legislation to ground, mauling it, then proudly waving the lifeless, empty carcass as a victory for (to quote the Druid chant of the educrats everywhere) "the democratic principles that are public education."
The establishment denies it, but witness Arkansas, or what's happening in Ohio, where charter bills have been reduced to meaningless mush thanks to union rending. In only one case -- New Jersey -- did the NEA or its state affiliate sign on to a reasonably strong law. And that was only because they knew they were beaten. The Governor and the legislature were committed to a strong charter law with or without union support. So the NJEA got what few concessions it could (such as retention of collective bargaining for existing public schools that convert to charters) and took the prudent public relations position of supporting what was going to become law whether they liked it or not.
So what is there to say that this isn't simply another, grander, more sophisticated, public relations ploy by the education establishment? Unfortunately, nothing.
They still argue that businesses, which hold some of the best opportunities for expanding charter school efforts, have no place in helping to educate children. They will, of course, wax patriotic about the need for corporate involvement in education and gladly take no-strings-attached contributions, donations, and subsidies from corporations. But let a for-profit business actually try to run a school and, again, the dogs are unleashed. The AFT even has "Ten Warning Signs of Privatization" it distributes to its troops. (Warning sign number 3: Beware if "Administrators conduct performance audits, efficiency or cost comparison studies of school or government services." Oh the horrors!)
Here, again, if the NEA means what it says about charters, then shouldn't they sit down with the private firms that are running schools to find out how we can all work together?
There has never been a time when schools needed businesses more, or when in-the-trenches educators were more open to innovations to meld the best of business with the best of education. Teachers are anxious for efficient methods of achieving bottom-line academic results and administrators are anxious to bring corporate efficiencies to the running of their schools.
For these forward-thinkers, sound business principles can work, will work and are desperately needed. They know there are better ways of doing things: that teacher tenure should be replaced with performance contracts; that the big-four are not the only purveyors of instructional materials; that there are benefits to be gained from single-teacher contracting for a variety of disciplines; and that there is a growing number of reputable firms to assist them in all aspects of operation, including helping to create great new schools from scratch.
Granted, these reformers are mere Davids, being hectored by the status quo Goliaths for turning to free-market principles. But that is why no business leader should give up on them, because they will only get to where they are going with the consistent support -- and pressure -- from those men and women of business who can help them meet the true bottom-line goal of their profession: to educate children.
So where does all of this leave the NEA's charter school program?
Even though such words as "profit" and "competition" bring on fits of apoplexy among the establishment, perhaps a dose of charter-school capitalism will do them some good and help their schools thrive. With parental choice guiding the proliferation of charters, the education mandarins might begin to recognize that supply and demand should be cherished, not scorned, and that free-market flexibility makes for the kind of educational flexibility that has attracted more than 60,000 students to 271 non-NEA charter school in ten states.
Still, I'm not optimistic. As I told a reporter who asked if I thought the NEA had finally come around on charters, my answer is "No." What I think the NEA is trying to do is show that they're hip, cool, and with-it. A wardrobe adjustment, if you will -- a hurriedly raised hemline so they don't look quite so out-of-touch with today's styles. But one pinned-up skirt does not constitute a fashion statement, especially when the closet is still full of the same old frumpy, frocks. And no matter how good they think look in their stylish little skirt, frankly, they don't have the legs for it.
###
Jeanne Allen is author of THE SCHOOL REFORM HANDBOOK: How to Improve Your Schools, and president of The Center for Education Reform in Washington, DC, a national non-profit advocacy group providing support and guidance to thousands of individuals and communities nationwide who are working to bring fundamental reforms to their schools. For more information, please call (202) 822-9000 or (800) 521-2118, or send e-mail to cer@edreform.com.