Sign Up For Our Newsletter

What do Provence Rosés, oyster farms, and the book, The Giver have in common? Besides being the subject of my Saturday morning reading in the Wall Street Journal, it would appear nothing. But as I stewed on the back and forth of popular and well regarded reformers over the last few days on the subject of whether Michigan charter schools are succeeding, and then, having arrived at the National Charter Schools Conference and heard more banter about alleged problems in charter schools based on reading newspapers rather than detailed knowledge, the connection between great wines, saving the oysters and a provocative book hit me: Most of us really do believe we are experts after reading second, third and fifth hand reports!

I could easily walk away from a blissful hour of reading the newspaper and claim expertise on how the perfect Rosé wine is built. I could also wax eloquently about the stupidity behind the government’s attack on an oyster farmer in Marin County, CA. I actually know a bit about oyster farms — my husband is a boater and I ran for office in a state where similar issues have been on the table. In fact, I feel empowered with this experience and now having read this one article, feel qualified enough to declare that the Obama administration is violating the farmer’s constitutional rights. Finally, I could believe that reading an article about The Giver, the book that controversially ignited a debate over what constitutes the good life, gives me enough authority to talk about the author’s conclusions that I don’t even have to read the book to sound halfway intelligent.

Indeed, I can be as limited and as narrow in my review of issues as some of our colleagues are when it comes to the very complicated, detailed and intensive study of education policy.

But I choose not to, because I don’t believe that passing judgment on issues that I have not studied in-depth is either useful or just.

Not so with my colleagues in education reform, who often read newspaper articles as empirical objectivity, like this past week when some attacked the Michigan charter school sector based on a series of news articles from the Detroit Free Press, hardly a bastion of objective expertise in education policy, and a group that has for two decades ignored journalistic integrity with biased and distorted coverage of charter school results.

In Friday June 27th’s Twittersphere a battle erupted over Michigan, after my colleague Kara Kerwin tweeted out CER’s press release to tell the story the Detroit Free Press refused to tell based on decades of expertise and analyses in the state. No sooner had that been tweeted, StudentsFirst’s Eric Lerum began boasting of his organization’s “F” ranking of Michigan based on the group’s two-year involvement in the state. Kerwin took him to task for his characterization, resulting in a series of tweets attempting to misconstrue her comments to suggest that CER stands for anti-quality. To the contrary, CER’s moniker since 1993 has been the pursuit of educational excellence.

Meanwhile that same day, in an article by longtime, education establishment journalist and reform naysayer, John Merrow (who generally condemns capitalism while hanging out in NYC’s Upper West Side’s swankiest places), wrote that the charter school movement is in the hands of groups like CER which according to him, adheres to free market principles, and nothing more. Never mind that free markets have nothing to do with CER’s mission (which I founded, so I sort of know) or that its Board’s diversity in politics, business and education is grander than the leadership behind most groups. Apparently, the notion that some bad schools produce bad results allows lots of people to make statements about the relative value of an entire state’s environment and about all of the individual actors in it as if they’ve actually engaged directly with them.

Like the producers of a great Rosé, or the oyster farm cultivator, or even the author of a great book, I’m a little defensive about the work I helped create. So forgive me if I have an attitude about the stupid things people say and do when it comes to education reform. For example, I can’t imagine why Greg Richmond of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA), would agree to be interviewed by a guy who has spent a lifetime defending the BLOB and attacking charters, and not only support his characterization of CER but question its influence within the charter sphere:

“The CER is much less influential than it used to be. After two decades of experience, few people in the charter movement believe that choice and deregulation are guaranteed to produce results…”

What makes a person influential? It’s not being quoted in a 3rd or 5th source-removed article by a reporter who is not an expert in an issue area – and rarely has the time to be so. Influence comes from being an expert. Expertise comes from studying policy, seeing how policy works firsthand, visiting and knowing people who live it, assessing their experiences, and reading countless reports pro and con on a regular and ongoing basis, and checking and rechecking one’s understanding regularly. Experts are influential, and an organization is only influential when its people are experts.

The Center for Education Reform’s influence derives from its people, who are experts. These include staff, who even when new are expected to become experts quickly, but its Board and most importantly, its “constituents.” Organizations like the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) influence by convening and assembling influential people and staff at all levels, amass expertise and seek to purposefully influence the state of the charter movement loudly and strongly with those myriad voices. Others exert influence by relationships. Influence is a commodity – if you have it, you can make change. NAPCS has it, KIPP has it, TFA has it, and CER has it.

The author of the article on fine Rosés is no expert. She told a story, limited by the facts she could muster or provide in a relatively short time and limited by her experiences. Has she ever had an Italian Rosé or talked to the vintners there who could show her a more refined process than any she’d seen in Provence? Probably no more than StudentsFirst’s Lerum has been to all the charter regions of Michigan, “tasted” their fruits, analyzed their data and talked to their creators! Yet both are having an influence on their chosen subject because they have a platform. Yet not all influence is positive. Just watch The West Wing.

Having a positive, lasting influence requires expertise, data, and a long view. CER has not only influenced a generation of thoughtful reforms but the dozens of organizations that have started as a result of its fight to put these reforms on the map! A great guy by every other measure, Richmond’s organization has influenced the creation of a highly bureaucratic and overly process-driven charter movement, putting state education departments and state-run commissions in the hands of people who never were and never will be education reform fans – and who believe that they, because of their positions, not the parents and the teachers closest to our kids are most qualified and best suited – with good information, transparency and high, clear standards – to make decisions and govern our schools.

That was the charter promise. Charter schools promised that they would do education better, with more focus on students, empowering parents to be part of the schooling process, and providing the conditions for real people – teachers and local leaders – to chart the course that they believe best emulates success for their students. It was thoughtful, hard work, and has been the single biggest factor in why this nation has spawned a generation of people who no longer take education for granted, and who saved it from the clutches of labor-focused, top-down, parent-hostile systems that once dominated the nation.

Today, even AFT president Randi Weingarten has to start her sentences with “we like choice…” even if it’s always followed by a “but…” Today, the national news leaders and the financially influential found and fund new school efforts. Today, Democrats and Republicans join hands in many (not all) aspects governing charter schools, a fact that CER prides itself on having nurtured years before a Democrat would publicly admit their support for alternative school options.

Though robust, well liked, and very mainstream, charter schools face enormous obstacles. Today the charter movement is facing headwinds from friends, along with air attacks from enemies. Some friends are more concerned with popularity than purpose. They fear negative headlines and quickly work to separate themselves from anything they fear might make them look like they are on the fringe. Just because a media outlet puts out an eight page spread masked as an exposé, doesn’t mean it’s accurate or that anyone whose kids are in charters really care what the media says.

This is just a fraction of the trouble that the charter sector faces as it convenes today in Las Vegas for the 14th annual National Charter Schools Conference, produced by NAPCS, whose leadership under Nina Rees is exceptional. Indeed though many will find much to celebrate this week, the very foundation of the charter schooling idea is threatened by a hodgepodge of advocates and opposition, and it’s no longer clear to most participants who is a qualified expert and who is not. It’s easier to embrace hollow statements about liking quality without actually doing the work necessary to get there or understanding the facts and being able to define success by the data you read not the newspapers you consume. Whether you will be in Vegas this week or are following from afar, please ask yourself why you are in this, what your role is, and whether you can “be inspired” by an “intentional” well-built Rosé rather than drink the Kool-Aid of misinformation about what is otherwise the greatest contributor to students’ educational success in more than a generation.

Amid the meandering paragraphs and lamentations about how the charter school movement has lost its way, The Center for Education Reform is trying to pinpoint where exactly John Merrow’s blog post went off the rails, and where it ended up.

It might’ve been when he said, “every Tom, Dick and Harry” have been able to open a charter school under a university authorizer.

Central Michigan University, one of the finest charter authorizing models in the country, has received 259 applications for charter schools in the past decade alone, with 22 (8 percent) of those actually becoming operational. So maybe Tom was able to run a charter school, but Dick and Harry weren’t.

But that can’t be right; there were six whole paragraphs before reaching that claim.

Unfortunately, it turns out this post was doomed from the outset, tanked by a weird analogy comparing nondescript signs for charter schools and restaurants.

This led to Merrow giving credence to Greg Richmond’s labeling of CER as the “leading voice of this free market philosophy” surrounding choice and charters.

Merrow and Richmond might be surprised in finding out that the CER offices do not have shrines dedicated to the likes of Friedrich Hayek and Adam Smith, and the organization as a whole does not have a strict ideological adherence to what Richmond calls a, “free market philosophy.”

Shockingly, Kara Kerwin does not wishfully ask every morning how to make the world a little more laissez-faire.

What CER does focus on is sound policy and Parent Power, knowing that quality charter proliferation can only go so far without strong charter laws on the books. This accounts for the 335 additional charter school campuses created in states graded “A” or “B” on the 2014 Charter School Law Rankings & Scorecard.

After two decades, charter schools continue to be “pockets of innovation,” (to use Merrow’s term) and can continue to be with the proper safeguards in place.

Accepting the premise that charters and the students they serve are set up to fail borrows talking points from the opposition, undermining the ability to create more educational options that parents so desperately need.