Working Together for Better Education

A critical part of education advocacy is the building of alliances and coalitions. Education policy is an enormous issue with a great deal of political inertia, and advocates across the country have seen the benefits of working together with partner organizations in order to attack reform issues from many angles. Two separate sessions at the National Access Network’s Seventh Annual Quality Education Conference, held June 7-8, 2007, addressed this issue.

Building Coalitions in California

In Seeking Better Schools: Three California Coalitions, a panel of experts discussed the dynamics involved in education advocacy coalitions. John Affeldt, Managing Attorney for Public Advocates Inc. (CA), noted that a tension exists between litigation and other reform strategies and that the long-term process of education reform requires more than litigation. A multi-pronged strategy, involving grassroots organizing, public engagement, policy advocacy, strategic litigation, research, media advocacy, and communications is necessary to effect reform, he said, citing New York’s Campaign for Fiscal Equity as a model for this approach. According to Mr. Affeldt, it is necessary for lawyers to keep litigation as participatory as possible by coupling it with public organizing, though this process faces obstacles in issues of privilege, the existence of an “inner circle” in litigation, and the often slow timeline of litigation.

Mr. Affeldt also talked about the tension between advocates and organizers, saying that the former move fast and are more concerned with the end than the means, while the latter move more slowly and seek to empower their coalitions, a little less concerned with individual victories. In order to work together, it is necessary to develop a vision that involves short- and long-term goals.

Carmen Iñiguez, Statewide Campaign Director for Californians for Justice (CFJ), spoke about her coalition’s opposition to California’s high school exit exams. In 2002, CFJ began a campaign against the exams, which they argued were punishing students who had not had an opportunity to learn the material being tested. CFJ brought together research, litigation, policy, and advocacy groups, some of which were grassroots organizations. The grassroots component ensured that decisions reflected the experiences of students and their families and that the pace of change was appropriate for them. CFJ commenced its campaign by targeting the state board of education, attempting to get it to vote against the exit exam.

CFJ organized “Summer Jam to Stop the Exit Scam,” a protest at the state board of education which was the culmination of a long campaign that included town hall meetings, a bus tour, and phone jams created by students using cell phones. Ms. Iñiguez emphasized that CFJ was not opposed to assessments, but only to denying diplomas to students who did not have a meaningful educational opportunity. The next campaign upon which CFJ is ready to embark is college access; their goal is to have 100 percent of students graduate from high school and to shift students’ thinking from “Will I go to college?” to “Which college will I attend?”

Ms. Iñiguez also discussed the need for strategic alliances to be proactive about their campaigns; rather than being reactive, these alliances should agree on a common vision and act on it. Grassroots groups, according to Ms. Iñiguez, should not be treated as tokens for particular communities but as partners in the advocacy effort – people on the ground to carry through on a coalition’s achievements.

Professor Jeannie Oakes, of the Institute for Democracy, Education and Access (IDEA) at the UCLA School of Education, talked about the role of scholars in education advocacy. According to Professor Oakes, while academics can be supportive of advocates, they must also maintain their independence, and she offered examples. IDEA, she explained, provides research on demand and access to academic research for education advocates. It produces and presents policy-related research that is accessible to the public and to legislators; she showed some examples, which are available at the IDEA website.

Professor Oakes also described the Education Justice Collaborative, which consists of 35 diverse groups, including public interest lawyers, policy advocacy groups, progressive teacher groups, grassroots groups, and researchers. The Collaborative is based on a shared commitment to a fully resourced, equitable system of public education, but it is not a “campaign,” in the traditional sense. Rather, it is a forum for research, communications, capacity building, education, and exchange.

Ms. Iñiguez noted, in the discussion following the presentations, that building and maintaining coalitions such as the ones described by the panelists can be a challenge. All of the participating organizations must feel that they have something to gain from the collaboration, and it takes time to build and maintain such a coalition.

Reform From Three Angles

Despite it being a Friday afternoon, people packed the room for the session Linking Litigation, Learning, and Political Action, in which panelists described how the fight for quality education is not just in litigation and advocacy, but also in strong political action. Beth Sullivan, Executive Director of the League of Education Voters of America, started the discussion. She leads NY EdPAC, a political action committee (PAC) in New York whose mission is to hold elected officials accountable on education issues.

Sullivan noted that in the New York campaign for quality education, there were important and effective concurrent efforts in litigation, advocacy, and political action. In New York, the three pieces of this triad were, respectively, the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, the Alliance for Quality Education, and NY EdPAC. While CFE brought the lawsuit and AQE organized grassroots support, NY EdPAC tackled the politics, targeting specific state Senate races in order to achieve a more favorable legislature. Without a political action arm, Sullivan said, you’re missing a major piece of the puzzle.

Lisa Macfarlane, President of the League of Education Voters of Washington State, described a similar collaboration in Washington. The efforts in Washington were the coordinated efforts of a non-partisan 501(c)(3) organization, a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, and a 527 political lobbying organization. The first was a research and policy analysis group, the second worked on advocacy, tackling issues at the state and local level, and the third, similar to New York, was a political action committee. The collaboration of these three branches of advocacy was instrumental in advancing school funding reforms in Washington.

Finally, Marc Egan, Director of Federal Affairs for the National School Boards Association, looked at political action from the other side, reporting on right-wing political action groups. The issue of school vouchers, in particular, he said, is a good political wedge issue, and the right has exploited this in their political action. Opponents of public school funding have their own collaborative network, between (1) think tanks, (2) partisan researchers, (3) small but developing grassroots efforts, and (4) extremely wealthy backers. The think tanks – such as the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, and others – are central in the conservative “echo chamber” where ideas such as vouchers get bounced around, getting academic support from “researchers” (Egan used the quotation marks himself) such as Paul Peterson at the Harvard Program for Education Policy and Governance. Behind the push for vouchers, Egan explained, were also a few wealthy donors – such as the Walton, Scaife, and Bradley Foundations and the DeVos family. In addition, Egan noted, the right is activately cultivating a real grassroots push for vouchers.

Egan explained the fascinating history of All Children Matter, a PAC funded by the DeVos family. After devastating defeats in voucher ballot initiatives in 2000, the right shifted its strategy to electing pro-voucher candidates to state legislatures. The DeVos family founded All Children Matter (ACM), an “astroturf” (fake grassroots) organization that has gained a presence in 14 states. ACM spends millions of dollars each election cycle to elect pro-voucher candidates, and often makes no mention of vouchers at all in its campaigns, instead using media advertisements and direct mailing to attack and smear opposing candidates. While they have been successful in getting many candidates elected (such as their 20-4 record in Virginia in 2003, after spending $300,000 – an “unprecedented” amount for an out-of-state group), they have not yet had the legislative successes they have hoped for.

The audience was gripped by the presentations in this session, with participants afterwards discussing how to get funding, debating how to build up grassroots support, and asking the panelists how to get positive media coverage.