In the October 16 Gadfly, I cited a "sage observer" of the school choice scene who suggested that grassroots activism and the large sums being spent thereon are not actually influencing votes in the halls of Congress or state legislatures and that all this money and energy might better be deployed to elect different candidates rather than struggling to change minds of those already elected. (See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/index.cfm#1494). I invited comments and dissents, and many flooded in. Here is a representative sampling, with names omitted to protect the cautious:
D.C. Organization Head:
One problem (and our major complaint throughout) - there has been absolutely NO GRASSROOTS EFFORT WHATSOEVER, save a few parents here and there in D.C. going to the Hill. The big money has been spent on ads, not personal grassroots attention. Throughout this effort, the people spending other people's money have focused on big heavy top roots, not grassroots. Sad. That's our continual problem. No one seems to understand the value of the little people anymore.
D.C. Observer:
I can think of one [vote that was influenced]: Harold Ford voted for the DC program after being anti-school choice. He was lobbied by X and Y and parents. Ford went to private schools as a child and was willing to admit it was helpful. His union backers are no doubt very displeased.
D.C. Parent Activist:
Today someone told me that we put up a good grassroots fight here in D.C. Yes, we did. For me it was an incredible experience watching low-income mothers become strong advocates for change. They were empowered and they'll never be the same. That is what this country is all about: citizens standing up and fighting for what they believe. I believe that their strength and steadfastness has made a big difference in what has happened here in the District. I truly believe that had it not been for their passion and willingness to put themselves on the front line, the D.C. legislation would not have even gotten as far as it has. Whatever happens (and we don't know) has changed these families forever. I know that they will NOT give up on being a part of an effort to bring about change in the educational system (AND anything else they want for themselves and their families) for our children. No one can tell me that they didn't make a difference and that they didn't make this a truly courageous effort. Electing folks who support choice is an interesting thought, but we know that won't be enough. We have seen that we need citizens to take a stand on things they believe in and fight with passion and energy.
Another Parent Activist:
No one will ever convince me that our parents are not making a difference. I know they are and if the bottom line is at the polls, then they'll take their stand there as well!
Think Tanker:
Your sage observer is far too impatient. To be effective, grass-roots organizations need the power to inflict pain on elected officials at the ballot box. Those D.C. parents who have labored tirelessly for the voucher bill will never have the opportunity to vote Congressional "bums" out, and the "bums" know it. PACs are a part of the political equation, sure, but his/her advice ("take all the money and use it to elect legislators") is shortsighted at best. Do the teachers' unions rely on PACs alone? Without a well-oiled network of grass-roots foot soldiers, would the NEA be able to keep its bought politicians in line? I don't think so.
The millions spent on grassroots advocacy haven't been wasted. They've changed the education landscape and brought school choice into the mainstream of ideas. Grassroots school choice organizations are in their infancy. They will crawl and walk before they build a team and conquer. In time they will conquer if they aren't killed in their cradles.
Veteran Teacher:
Whatever the effect on already elected politicians, the war of ideas matters in terms of influencing the behavior of would-be elected officials. Who can doubt, for example, that the Washington Post's recent turn-about on school choice does not matter? The Christian Science Monitor's? Twenty-five years ago the Wall Street Journal's? (I remember when the Journal opposed tuition tax credits.) Conversions like these, small and large, are going on all the time affecting the behavior of officials yet to be elected if not those already in office. It is, however, very difficult to precisely gauge the effect of any single campaign in the "war of ideas." Over the last 25 years, I've had countless exchanges with columnists, letters in papers, etc. I suspect some of these had the effect of nudging a paper, a columnist, etc. in the direction of school choice. But I don't have "hard data," just the sense that the idea of school choice is taken much more seriously than 20 years ago despite the continued ferocious opposition of the unions. I look at it as a "dam bursting" kind of phenomenon. When the pressure gets to be too great, things could happen very fast. Which is why every school choice struggle - recent examples being the 15 charter schools in Detroit and the D.C. choice bill - is a life-or-death struggle for the Democratic Party and the unions.
State-based Advocate:
The public persuasion/education efforts must also continue. Without the public being persuaded, politicians won't feel comfortable supporting school choice. When I started in the school choice movement six years ago, our local newspaper did a poll that showed the majority of state residents did not support school choice, certainly not the kind that includes private, sectarian schools. We knew we had to flip those poll numbers before we could seriously interest politicians in helping us. And we did. In 1999, a radio station poll showed that the numbers had flipped: the majority of residents now supported the most expansive forms of choice. Other statewide polls echo those findings. We've also persuaded some key media voices.
Now that we have the public on our side, our job is to persuade policy makers. And here is where I have come to share your conclusion: we have changed all the legislative minds that we can. Now it's time to change the bodies, i.e. to elect new people.
Last year, we formed a PAC. We got started late so all we did was endorse statewide candidates and some legislative ones. We would like to make a greater effort in the coming election year. But money is a serious problem. We are fortunate to have a philanthropist in the state who backs our efforts. But we need to widen our donor base if we're going to be effective. And when you live in a state where many major donors prefer another brand of politics, that's like slogging up hill through mud. With the wind in your face.
D.C. Association Chief:
Good lobbying is almost never built on efforts to change the minds of legislators; good
lobbying is built on either catching legislators before they have an opinion (which is almost never) or getting like-minded legislators to do what they might have done anyway if they had only thought of it. Changing minds on the Hill is almost always a waste of time. Now, changing the actual legislators is another matter. . . .
Checker:
It's evident - and no surprise - that people who have plunged themselves into grassroots activism feel passionately about the value and impact of their efforts. Yet I sense that such efforts may do more good for the activists themselves (empowerment, sense of personal efficacy, justifying their organizations, etc.) than for roll call votes on Capitol Hill and in statehouses. What if all those energies (and money) went into election campaigns instead, or in addition? Another sage observer explained the other day that Wisconsin legislators who vote for vouchers and charters for Milwaukee kids aren't themselves from Milwaukee, while those who do come from Milwaukee generally toe the teachers' union line. This creates an inherently unstable situation.
Yet another keen analyst explained to me that it's hard for inner-city residents to vote for Republicans who may be "with them" on school choice but oppose sundry other policies and programs that also matter to such voters. That's an important insight. Surely it means that the choice movement must identify and elect more Democrats who take the parents' side on education issues. That, however, means mustering a war chest of money, shoe leather, call centers, and get-out-the-vote efforts that rival those of the unions. A formidable challenge.
