Aren’t monopolies illegal? Last I checked they’re an unscrupulous entity that stifles innovation and creates a race to the bottom in productivity for the benefit of a few. Yet for decades, the education systems in many of our most prominent cities have had - and many like Seattle still have - one district acting as a monopoly. And for some strange reason, the Democratic Party tolerates this. The same party that has fought tooth and nail to protect the rights of the common man against the interests of the juggernauts of corporate America has conveniently overlooked the most threatening monopoly of them all. And it is this monopoly that is causing the most substantial damage, slighting the opportunities of our country’s most sacred prize – our students.
It is time to reframe the education conversation. For too long, the Democrats have resisted charter schools, siding with teachers unions and dismissing any progressive change in education as “pro-business.” Frankly, as a Democrat, I’m frustrated by this. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yet, when pro-charter Democrats respond to criticisms from those who resist charters, we continue sticking to talking points that inevitably open the door to criticism. There is, however, a way to put opponents of charters on the defensive and make them truly uncomfortable simultaneously. Reformers just have to do one thing – utilize the forbidden word, monopoly.
Why that particular word? Because the word monopoly makes Democrats cringe. The idea of one is anti-democratic, and the possibility of one existing in public education shifts pressure back on those who support a one-district system. The strategy? Remind anti-reform Democrats that when they fight against charters, they are fighting for monopolies. Avoid claiming that charters are the solution. Assert that pro-reform Democrats don’t think charter schools are the end-all, be-all, nor do they think that all charters are successful, but when they work in tandem with the public system, they provide a healthy level of competition to increase student achievement.
If we begin framing the conversation in this way, we begin winning the hearts and minds of those not heavily engaged in this debate but who abhor monopolies– the ones who may have voted down the Seattle referendum in 2004* if they had been presented the debate through this lens.
*In 2004, the Washington State legislature passed a law to allow charter schools. Opposition groups, particularly the teachers union, put forth a referendum to disallow the law from going into effect. Through the dissemination of misinformation, the referendum was passed by Washington State voters. Charter schools are still not permitted in Washington State, one of only ten states that still don’t allow them.
No comments:
Post a Comment