CER Press Release
Washington, D.C.
July 10, 2013
Jeanne Allen, founder and president, The Center for Education Reform, who has been instrumental in the original passage – and subsequent adjustments to – charter school laws in states across the country over the past 20 years, today issued the following statement regarding North Carolina (NC) SB 337, which was approved by the NC House of Representatives last evening, and awaits final passage in the NC State Senate:
“NC SB 337 is at risk of becoming a step backward for the national charter school movement, which prides itself on creating more choices for students and parents. While the bill contains many positive provisions, it also contains unfortunate language forbidding the University of North Carolina (UNC) System from being a charter school ‘authorizer.’
Our experience at The Center for Education Reform (CER) is that states with strong, multiple chartering authorities, including universities and/or their systems have usually proven to be exceptional authorizers, combining the infrastructure of existing higher education institutions (financial, legal, human resources, educational, etc.), a very high degree of public and legislative scrutiny, and a compelling interest in decreasing the exorbitant costs of remedial education while improving the pipeline for their students.
It’s no wonder then, that the states which lead the national rankings for having successful charters have independent, multiple authorizers, almost all with universities as part of their portfolio. For example:
· The State University of New York has authorized 117 schools across the state from Buffalo to Long Island. SUNY-authorized charter schools are the highest quality ones in the state, and now serve over 35,000 New York students.
· Any public university in Michigan may authorize charter schools. Eleven major universities are now responsible for authorizing the majority of the state’s nearly 350 charter schools, including one university that authorized 59 charter schools serving more than 30,000 students.
· Indiana followed Michigan’s model and authorized public universities in its state charter law, and since then Ball State University has authorized nearly half of the state’s 78 schools.
Although the UNC System has not yet stepped-up to the charter-school plate, to close the door to that option now – per the current strike-out provision in SB 337 – would send the message that North Carolina doesn’t even want the opportunity to join these states as national reform leaders. Simply leaving the provisions currently in law that allow UNC contingent institutions to be charter school authorizers, if they so choose, is far more promising for North Carolina to become a leader in creating as many pathways as possible for parents to have access to better educational opportunities for their children.”
The Birthplace of Freedom
We say it over and over again, see it in writing, hear it in the words of politicians and patriots, read it in the tens of thousands of documents that make up our libraries, and are spread down through the electronic world.
It means a lot to most of us, despite maybe not appreciating fully the depth of the statement that the US is “The Birthplace of Freedom.”
I owe several great professors in college a debt for teaching me what it means in a way that I’d never really fully understood. While I had every reason to understand, being the daughter of a very proud “new” American who had come over on the boat from Italy, it turns out I knew very little about the purpose and struggle that really ensued back in the 1700s when the people who came to America to claim property for their King soon recognized that a new culture of life was possible by starting from scratch.
In his book “America the Beautiful“, Dr. Ben Carson writes of this struggle and how those who dare to challenge the kind of governmental intrusion that the first patriots fought are dismissed as radical or fringe. It turns out he says, that the criticism of people who push back on conventional politicians these days sounds a lot like what the how the British elite considered our nation’s founders, too.
“In the days of the old Tea Party, the British government and American Loyalists attempted to establish and maintain control of the colonies. When the Patriots first began to resist such efforts, those in power tended to deny that there was any real resistance from anyone except extremist, fringe individuals… Unfortunately for those in control, ignoring the movement did nothing to lesson its intensity and, in fact, gave it time to grow even more powerful. “
The agitators of the 1770s are like the grassroots of today. Thomas Paine was not extraordinary; he was actually a self-described failure. But in his new start in America, he went on to give a voice to extraordinary thoughts and distributed Common Sense to nearly a third of all people living in the colonies, and it accelerated the thirst for independence. Such “radicals” today are calling for the right to other freedoms – like in education – and are dismissed as fringe, or anti-American, like their forefathers were dismissed as anti-British.
By reading the works of and about those dead, white men emerges a theme that continues through today, especially among people of color, who are represented in education reform circles by such notable and accomplished leaders as DC’s Kent Amos, Milwaukee’s Howard Fuller and Louisiana’s Ken Campbell to name but a few (a comprehensive list would produce thousands). They demand power and freedom for communities that are historically oppressed and currently the most hurt by bad schools. They demand freedom for families from oppressive educational environments and challenge the status quo and the government rules that consequently give life to mediocrity and failed policies. Recently the NEA’s leadership led their annual conventional attendees to “Raise your hand if you’re tired of others thinking they know what’s best for our students. It is time to reclaim our profession, our schools, and public education,” declared Pringle. “It is time, NEA, to storm the castle.” “Our students” suggests that they, not parents, are in charge of the kids. Such unions work hard to keep the agitators out of their business and to convince others that empowering parents with the freedom in education to determine the best education for their child is an un-American ideal. Yet our reform agitators persist.
Like our founding fathers, there are some reformers today in education who are more interested in getting along with the proverbial “King”. They lead discussions about compromise and upon receiving promises from the authorities that they will respect what we do, they give great license to governments to involve themselves in parent and education affairs even as they are voicing support for dismantling such government controls. It reminds me of the namesake of my alma mater, John Dickinson, who was one of the last hold outs to sign the Declaration of Independence, more concerned that by upsetting the King there would be no future for America. “He hoped that an appeal to reason might remind the King of that contractual obligation to his American subjects and thereby restore good relations. Only when King George publicly sided with his ministers and ordered a Royal army to New York did Dickinson consider the social contract dissolved. Although he refused to sign the Declaration, Dickinson was among the first to don uniform to defend the new nation.”
It sounds all too familiar to what we see today. When those who work to advance freedom for parents in by enacting strong charter school laws, opportunity scholarships, teacher performance laws and clear measurement and evaluation, they are often met by resistance or calls for acquiescence by members of their own “flock” who want us to appeal to the reason of our opponents, or government officials who have a vested interest in the status quo.
It’s time for a history lesson. We must delve deeply into our nation’s founding and read intensively the documents that help us understand our rich foundation of agitation and revolution, that which is done in the name of principal and about which freedom is the central theme. Perhaps had my high school imparted such detailed instruction, I and my fellow students and the educators who taught us along the way might not be among the majority who turn a blind eye to the cause of educational freedom for parents. Imagine if all schools instilled in our students a deep and abiding knowledge of the Birthplace of Freedom! The results would likely be extraordinary, starting with an increase in the kind of paltry knowledge our students demonstrate in history with each national assessment. They might also not just have knowledge but demonstrate its use in public policy battles, resulting in laws that respect the fights we once waged for this freedom. And it might also make people recognize that agitators and revolutionaries for freedom today are not the fringe but the very fabric of our democracy.
On this Fourth of July, 2013, 237 years after our founding, let’s restore the language and learning around our Birthplace of Freedom, to the benefit of today’s children; tomorrow’s leaders.